I was kind of serious.
Art isn’t necessarily rebellious, art is much more a reflection of life, but I don’t want to get into an argument on what is and isn’t art, that would be pointless. The only definition I can really think that encompasses everything that art is is, “art is subjective.”
It could expand even beyond the art community to other academics, historians, etc., where I argue it becomes more interesting in looking back specifically to film, but I have to say it may be a mistake to equate liberalism with communism from the start of the question.
This, Col.Dax is one of the most important questions ever asked on this forum. The question is one of perception first and foremost.
But before anything further is said, we’ve got to start making some clear distinctions— for example, between Marxism as political philosophy and Communism as flawed and corrupted political system. Eisenstein, for example, lived and breathed Marxist approaches to semiotics and dialectics, but was forced to work under a Communist system that actually failed to uphold the values he proposed so passionately, and ultimately suffocated him. He gets no ‘free pass’ in my book. He gets credit for being overtly political and fighting for a value system.
On the same basis, we have to make distinctions between intent, content, execution, means of production in each and every case when discussing political bias in films.
>>art is much more a reflection of life<<
It would be unutterably boring if it were…
Well, Eisenstein’s anti-Capitalist propaganda in Potemkin and Strike is ok by me- i see this as a positive of overthrowing inequality and oppression of the poor rather than a horrible motive. Even if it was endorsed by a perverted mass murderer, and decent values and idealism became twisted by those in power. Of course Stalin made life hard for him when he was not too pleased with Ivan 2 (and not exactly easy before then), and film-makers were made to toe the line. I think it depends on the underlying values- fascism endorses hatred, left wing attitudes i see as in opposition to this. Unfortunately scum rises to the top, and idealism is turned to oppression by bastards. That is not liberalism. It can be called state capitalism. And some individuals who would dislike the idea of mass murder, tyranny and violence can misguidedly support those very things. Godard should have known better than endorse Maoism.
I don’t know for sure about the prevailing politics on sites like this for film lovers who take an interest in various countries, but i would say having wide horizons, appreciating other cultures should- i hope!- be some sort of indicator of more open rather than xenophobic, closed and unquestioning minds. The media in general and filmgoers as a whole i would say are far from left-wing, the bias is overwhelmingly in support of the rich and powerful and their propaganda that is now so deeply embedded as not to be widely noticed.
I don’t know if anyone is giving the content of Eisenstein’s propaganda a pass, as such. With Eisenstein I always get the feeling that the style is so magnificent that you kind of don’t mind the overt propaganda going on. And with Eisenstein, I think the content can even be defended a bit: he didn’t know where it was all going to lead, did he? It isn’t like the real stupidity of I AM CUBA, all the cheap cliches being used just fall really flat, with Castro being positioned as Moscow’s puppet.
Griffith’s BIRTH is just indefensible, really.
I’m not sure there’s much of an answer to your question. Can anyone say for sure whether some “Film Community” really has much of a liberal bias as such? I remember when Tom Cruise sued somebody for claiming they’d had gay sex with him, Cruise’s rationale was that his reputation as an action hero could be damaged if people thought he was gay, and I remember thinking Way To Go, Cruise, at least we know who your audience is: Homophobes. Kind of nice to know who MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE 2 was made for.
double post, oops.
Yes there is so much nasty trash in Hollywood with baddy Arabs, racist stereotypes, imperialist heroes, vigilanteism glorified, a simple idiotic approach to good and evil and what constitutes terrorism….
i should add that if i’d picked up this site being loaded with reactionary vibes i wouldn’t have hung round very long
Like I said, Harry, I’m not going to get into an argument over what art is, but I respectfully disagree with you.
Let’s not talk about Hollywood, shall we. I think the less said about Tom Cruise the better.
Another example; Reds losing to Chariots of Fire. A film about a communist protagonist…no way that was going to win even though it should have.
There is a small group Clooney, Penn, Robbins, Sarandon etc who have big liberal voices. But when it comes down to it Hollywood is not really that liberal.
Dax, why exclude Hollywood? Maybe you should define exactly which “film community” you are talking about. Are Hollywood filmmakers not a part of the “film community”?
Well, since the film community can’t enact legislation, enforce laws, or in any way regulate public services, I don’t really see how it matters even if there were one.
Agreed, it’s the strength of the right-wing propaganda that convinces many of Hollywood being liberal, whereas in fact challenging liberals are noticeable as exceptions, then picked out as if the rule.
Alright let’s refine it then.
On this site, I’ve noticed left-leaning, progressive viewpoints being more prevalent than right-wing, conservative viewpoints. Agree/disagree? Why?
That’s as refined as I can make it, and I think more to the heart of my original post.
So do you have a problem with there being more left-leaning, progressive viewpoints than right-wing conservative viewpoints?
Well, perhaps that’s cos internationally minded liberal cinephiles will tend to gravitate to the minority of sites like this one that aren’t overloaded with the usual commercial and Hollywood products amd interests. “Foreign film” sites i’ve spent time on over the years have been noticeably less reactionary and right-wing than most
""Let’s not talk about Hollywood, shall we. I think the less said about Tom Cruise the better.""
Not that is an easy position. So lets not talk about communism either, then
I don’t know if anyone is being condemned if we still rent their movies, and the choice to see them is never entirely based on political content. Speaking for myself, it’s curiosity about the message and the ways that it was presented – the artistry in the rhetoric. The art, in cases where the director is so damn good that it’s worth looking at decades later, trumps the underlying politics. It doesn’t diminish or counteract them, but it alters the conversation. At least for me.
Maybe the reason it seems as though the film community is more left-leaning is that to enjoy films like Godard, Eisenstein, and Reinfeinstahl one must think outside the box in a way. What I mean is that most people can go to the theater and watch the latest Michael Bay action extravaganza and feel satisfied. However, those of us who enjoy cinema tend to enjoy films with more complexity. Thus it is like we are experiencing the film from a different viewpoint than the populous. I hope I made the point I am trying to make.
Roscoe – Not really, but I think it’s something worthy of discussion (definitely better than more Benjamin Button threads).
Fransisco – Well, almost everything that comes out of Hollywood seems manufactured, and hollow. I don’t think it needs to be discussed because the political content in Hollywood productions is overly simplistic, and I’d rather have a deeper conversation than that. But I’m not going to stop anybody from doing it. If you want to talk about Sean Penn feel free, if you don’t want to talk about Communism feel free not to.
Dax, okay. Just wasn’t sure where you were coming from.
For the most part, Hollywood combines a healthy, liberal outlook on social issues with a fiscal conservatism in regard to their own self-preservation.
For whatever reason, the creative and production side of the film industry tends to attract more liberals than conservatives and this outlook naturally comes through in the themes presented on screen.
However, Hollywood is also a business and, for the sake of box office, the smart producers do not lose site of the fact that they want to appeal to the largest audience possible. What makes it to the multiplex is sometimes a compromise between a liberal leaning themes and the desire to appeal to both liberals and conservatives- the mainstream audience.
Hollywood is Ford. Hollywood is Hawks. And Hitchcock. Hollywood is Fincher and Scorcese.
Hollywood is the forefront of the Gobal media machine.
How could we avoid talking about Hollywood while talking about film?
Fransisco – you’re right. I was overly vague. Modern Hollywood has an extremely simplistic view of political concepts, and normally it’s so obvious what we are being told that I think those films are not worthy of discussion. However, if we were to discuss the undelying political message of The Searchers I would love it, I think there is a deep reservoir there.
I find it hypocritical – considering the dominance of socialistic views in the arts and cinema – that the same people espousing these views are making their living taking advantage of capitalism and individualist concepts.
So which underlying political message of THE SEARCHERS were you thinking of?
the answer to your quesion Col. Dax is maybe.
glad i could help.
Bela Tarr is a serious artist who is also extremely anti-communist. And he lived in a communist satellite.
In one sense the film is as racist as most Westerns are towards Native Americans, but in another there is a very interesting dynamic between Wayne, and Hunter’s characters. The growth of the relationship is never overdone, and never feels preachy, but I think Ford is making a statement about racists, and the nature of racism (one must also consider the political environment of the mid-fifties (Mississippi bus boycotts, Brown v Board of Ed. and all)) that can be seen as both condemning, and sympathetic. I’m sure there are people that know much more about it than I do, and can explain it better than I can, but that’s why I started this thread.
Col. Dax
I should preface this by saying I’m about as liberal as they come.
Filmmakers like Godard, and Eisenstein both dabbled in communism (one by force, one by choice), and Riefenstahl, and Griffith both made “almost” fascist films (there’s no almost for Riefenstahl, maybe Griffith was just ignorant, but support of the KKK is tantamount to support of fascism). The film community, though, seems to give a pass to Eisenstein’s propaganda, and Godard’s dabbling, but condemn Riefenstahl, and Griffith.
No one can deny that communism has killed as many people (if not more) than fascism. So why are filmmakers that espouse communist, and extreme left leaning viewpoints given this pass, while fascist, and extreme right wing filmmakers are condemned outright? Of course this is not just something prevalent in the film community alone, this discussion could easily be expanded to the entire art community, but since this is a film site…
This is also not definitive, I have seen liberal filmmakers criticized on this site, but as a general rule I do see somewhat of a bias. Feel free to poke holes in my argument, as I’m sure there are many.