Practically all Hollywood films are leftist but why? (2249 views, 169 replies)

If you look up Terminator and Terminator 2, I wrote commentaries.

dosmovies.com/watch_movie/Terminator_The....
dosmovies.com/watch_movie/Terminator_2_J....

In them I propose that these are not just action films, but meaningful films using the medium of mass appeal films, so they make money, are Art, and are layered with meaning and philosophical.

They also are actually lessons in how to write and direct a practical film if you meditate upon Cameron's goals.

Most consider Cameron the most arrogant auteur in Hollywood. But in reality, he's one of the most successful, has a respectible body of work, and makes meaningful films. He sort of has a right...not to suffer fools like critics who are clueless.

So why are leftists putting subversive messages in Hollywood films? They are not always self-evident. Why would extreme leftists, who have little in common with average people either socially, politically, economically, or philosophically...try to "create a reality" that does not actually exist?
...
And then consider if Art can remold the world. If enough artists can either overtly persuade by direct communication, and can subvert by hidden messages in film (or music or television or theatre), then can a thousand artists and crew change billions of regular folks?

Do they have the right to make propaganda?

ideologicalart.com/defining-prop...
In debate, one must define terms clearly so all who participate understand the meaning of terms and can guess at the meaning of assertions. I propose that the link above clearly explains "propaganda" and is useful generally as a frame of reference particularly relevant to Art and specifcally in film.
Read moreLess

If you elect to downvote, don't be a coward. I think those folks presume the term "leftist" is a perjorative. It is not.

If one is called a rightist, that also is not a perjorative, neither is a centrist.

Risk engaging in the dialectic. Otherwise it's nah nah na nah na in the schoolyard.

It might have to do with Hollywood being in a blue state.

Well it is far more than that.

Take the French. They are so worried about losing their culture to Hollweird that at least for a long time, any script using English was fined.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toubon_L...

In other words they did not want Hollyweird to infect their own cinema, but instead to stand alone, and have their artists make subversive art to depict a prescriptive reality instead of a descriptive reality.

Prescriptive : this is the way we think as artists think "reality" should be.

Descriptive: this is reality and it often is cold even making claims of pointless and the lack of meaning ie nihilism.

All these things would come in Humanities courses in general and in film studies specifically.

Then the arguments include does that power in media pollute and dillute art, politics, spirituality, etc in any country that receives it?

This is specifically why Communist countries have denounced Hollyweird, but yet Hollyweird is increasingly Marxist with agitprop, then China invests in Hollywood! What cognative dissonance.
...
That is why North Korea actually puts people in prison camps if they have Bibles or even just watch South Korean tv shows that are very tame. It also affects Iranian media and Hollyweird is dennounced there too. They are worried that what exists in one nation spreads to override or erase or diminsh their own genuime culture that is highly descriptive in art forms.

[Editted with links and for clarity and horrendous typos, grammar, you know the drill.]
Read moreLess

Liberal, progressive, etc. people tend to be more creative and attracted to the arts. It's always been that way.

You're attributing a conscious will behind a vastly diverse and independent group of people. There's no "collusion" to impose a leftist agenda on society. It's just writers telling stories from their perspective, as writers have always done. It just happens that the people who are really good at telling these stories, writers, directors, etc. have a more liberal outlook on life.

Why aren't there more conservative movie and tv writers and producers? Because most conservatives aren't attracted to the arts as much. It's that simple.

That would be like saying, "women are emotional and naturally nuturing. They should therefore be RNs but may be problematic as physicians and surgeons.

Your'e going to have to do better than saying "not true" to rebut me. That's just lazy.

Marxist eh? Might as well claim space aliens as far as I'm concerned. Both ideas are ludicrous.

There is dozens of movies that defend the Marxist in Hollywood and the evil attempts ( so-called "witchhunts") to remove them... I just once want to see an honest film that depicts just how the elite commies ran out good writers and never let them work in town. They forced out anyone that wasn't a left wing nut, yet it is always depicted as they were the victims. Trumbo gets rave reviews, yet it totally leaves out the side of just how mean the movie industry was to those that didn't push at least a hard left opinion. Nothing is said about those families that didn't get on board with the left wing and were ran out of Tinsel Town. Ran out and not even allowed to shadow write in the background. Yeah, I shed little tears for those exposed for what they were.

Why fight so hard to control the media... because it is a powerful one... Look at the propaganda wars for the heart of Americans when the darling of the communist had their Mother Russia to defend in WW2... all stops were pulled to influence Americans... ... The media had played their part in not telling the truth about the horrors of Russia, now it was Hollywood's turn.
Read moreLess

To be fair, Senator Joseph McCarthy was a notorious liar and scrutinized anyone who ever was friends with anyone who had attended a Communist meeting. That is guilt by association.

Technically there are laws about being a Communist to this day and restrictions...yet they are ignored even in immigration.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communis...
[The constitutionality has NEVER been determined by the US Supreme Court but bans the Communist party since Eisenhower]

That said, there is an intentional effort to promote civil unrest by such folks who praise extreme leftist ideas while simultaneously making millions as capitalists! That is deliciously hypocritical.

Then there is promoting violence by firearms in a film, then being outrageously pro-gun control! And meanwhile having armed bodyguards!

They want wealth and security in Hollywood and to tell the common People they cannot have wealth and security through firearms! How crazy.

They support Antifa which believes in the abolishment of money and private property, while making millions and owning mansions!
...
Who are the real facists? Who are the real enemies?
Read moreLess

Pretty much everyone in my family is slightly crazy and either a musician, visual artist, writer, designer, model, dancer, or actor. Also we have a few music ministers. We are evangelical Christians. We are all generally very liberal in our politics, but I like to cherry pick things, because one size does not fit all. Perhaps performing, writing, and creating for the entertainment of others is not something that people who are considered “right” are drawn to as much as those who are a little less conservative. And being conservative and being reserved are not bad things. My more reserved friends are not entertainers or particularly creative. I have a couple of friends like that and they’re probably the only sort of slightly “right wing” friends I have. In my family, we like to give and share, not only our jokes, stories, songs, and art, but also our food, money, prosperity, and friendship, and in my family, we believe that’s what Jesus did. I don’t care what an actor’s politics are; if they’re good and the movie is good, I’ll watch it. ... That includes James Woods. I pay no attention to his blathering tweets, but he usually does a fine job as an actor, so I’ll watch him. I think people need to let go of this issue of boycotting entertainers because the entertainer may have a political opinion. Who cares? Can they act? Will I be entertained? That’s all I care about.
Read moreLess

I try to watch a wide breadth of films and have done so over decades including foreign films. But in the last decade, fewer films attract me as the actors claim not to be bigoted, then act very bigoted, then are openly hostile to Christian white men.

I don't see how one can be an evangelical Christian and support abortion. I am an evangelical and an arch-Conservative.

But whatever I believe I don't insist others have to believe.

Some of the most vile bigotry for most of American history were due to Democrats. Open a history book. Why promote class envy? Democrats who would never restrict the 1st Amendment, then in history restricted the 2nd and usually for African Americans. How is that ethical?

100% of the time, I am Yeshua's side.

Here is what the Bible says. This is not gun control.
Proclaim this among the nations:
Prepare for war!
Rouse the warriors!
Let all the fighting men draw near and attack.
10 Beat your plowshares into swords
and your pruning hooks into spears.
Let the weakling say,
“I am strong!”
11 Come quickly, all you nations from every side,
and assemble there.
Bring down your warriors, Lord!
Joel 3

This amazes me. People get angry when you challenge their assertions. A Christian supposedly can provide a Biblical basis for their beliefs.

If you can't. What does that indicate?

If the opposite viewpoint is Biblical, then your assertion is out of synch with Biblical principles.

You cannot support the leftists if a Christian and they are promotion freedom of choice.

Marxism by defintion is antiChristian. Have you read Marx or not?
"The first requisite for the happiness of the people is the abolition of religion." – Karl Marx.

There is no point trying to have a discussion with someone who decides to change the topic mid-breath.

How does a ridiculous thread about a 'leftie' Hollywood become a rant about abortions and Jesus?

"Opinions are like arseholes - everybody has one"

I did NOT change the subject. I am retorting to what has been said.
12 She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life.

13 She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands.

14 She is like the merchants' ships; she bringeth her food from afar.

15 She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens.

16 She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard.

17 She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms.

18 She perceiveth that her merchandise is good: her candle goeth not out by night.

19 She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff.

20 She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy.

21 She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet.

22 She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing is silk and purple.
...
23 Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land.

24 She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant.

25 Strength and honour are her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come.

26 She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness.

27 She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness.

28 Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her.

This is capitalism.
Read moreLess

This is Galatians chapter 6. It is capitalism And Christianity.
1 Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. 2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ. 3 For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself. 4 But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another. 5 For every man shall bear his own burden.
Galatians 6:1-5

Socialism violates this passage.

Marxism wishes for the abolition of religion, so immediately it violates the ENTIRE BIBLE.

Communism in general violates the passage.

This only one that fits Proverbs 31, which is the bedrock for all Christian ladies as the primer AND fits Galatians 6 is capitalism.

Immediately being a leftist and supporting socialized healthcare, gun control, abortion as a healthcare right, being anticapitalist...
...
...together violate every listed Biblical principle.

And I could go on and do this for ibstitutionalized bigotry which is a Democrat principle throughout history. That violates Galatians 3.

Democrats opposed women's sufferage. That violates Galatians 3.
Read moreLess

In debate, every assertion is scrutinized to see if it is an appeal to logic or ethics or emotion. Emotional appeals have almost zero persuasive weight. They do apply to aesthetics say judging film.

Each assertion is examined for logical flaws and measuring the evidence.

The second you invoke the Bible as an ethical framework, that is called ethos in philosophy.

Then if that is your metric, then Biblical passages are provided as evidence.

Clearly there is no Biblical support for leftist concepts so far like abortion, Marxism, socialism, gun control, mandated healthcare, etc.

What most of you did were one appeal to emotion over and over. When I pointed out your fallacious arguments, you made appeals to ridicule and ad hominem attacks.

Because positive/good vibes (leftists) is better than negative/bad vibes (rightist).

Hollywood is giving the majority what they want. A glut of superhero films, geared to the younger audience. The young have the numbers...the money...the buying power. So we are going to see films that reflect that. It's their world now. They are the future. They vote! If you are over 40...you are no longer part of the coveted "Target audience". You are now a GEEZER! LOL! The young tend to be Liberal. Throw in a bunch of new young writers and directors...and there ya go.

I'm pretty sure this thread has nothing to do with Movies, but is the author's attempt to push a socio-political narrative. I've seen a lot of psychobabble in my day, but this is some of the best. Lots of words, lots of ambiguous references cloaked in spiritual and ethical pronouncements, and certitude in things that most people would say are subjective, not factual. In other words, just an opinion.

This is why I avoid conversations about politics and religion

Wow, the last time I remember someone claiming to be Christian and a socialist it was Jim Jones, right before he murdered 1000 followers in the jungles of Guyana.

"God is Socialism, and I am Principle Socialism, and that's what makes me God." - Jim Jones

An honest title for this thread would have been "My Personal Theological Discourse", not the current thread title.

Incidentally, liberals are just more into the arts. It's as simple as that. Musicians, filmmakers, painters, novelists... mostly liberals.

Hollywood errs and tells the truth.

Network (1976)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQAzpV7G...

In filmmaking, a director makes artistic choices.

A film depicts reality. The same is true of theatre or television. Actors portray characters to populate a reality. These characters have "beliefs" and these define the characters "inner world". The characters have "attributes" ie they have gender, ethnicity, physicality. They have "history" ie past and present relationships with other characters and hope to gain history with new characters. They have "motivations" to do something, or prevent something.

The aggregate of these depict reality.

The costume designer finds clothing that is historically accurate that fits each character to make the actor more successful to suspend disbelief.

The set designer creates sets and props to suspend disbelief.

This is "world building" to depict a reality.

The director as an artist either uses uses prescriptive art ie this is my vision of how the world should be.

Or the director is descriptive ie this is how the world is and to best suspend disbelief I will make my depiction as close as possible.
...
This is Film studies 101. It is as basic as it gets.

Now aesthetically which is better? Which is easier to achieve suspension of disbelief?

As a director, I could populate a world with cows acting as architects but would anyone pay to see it or be able to suspend disbelief?

No. It would fail. Why would you do that?
Read moreLess