double.
There are definite examples of film having a conservative slant – see Eisenstein or DW Griffith – but many of those films often serve to strengthen institutions instead of question them and occupy a minority, while it seems a larger number of films – at least ones that are widely celebrated – question those institutions.
Also, I think the liberal bias within the film communtiy – as in historians, critics, scholars, etc. – is a product of the majority of the community having liberal ideologies. Look to many critics’ articles and you will detect a large amount that are liberally biased.
However, the studio system itself is largely conservative, there are standards and norms that are maintained for an extended period of time to which films are measured against.
I guess it depends on how you are defining liberalism/conservatism since ideologies change over time and the widely accepted status quo of yesteryear is seen as passe today.
Well art and cinema is an ever evolving thing, it’s always changing and the conservative feeling is usually one rooted in tradition. So this film community may be leaning to the left, because art has always seemed to lean to the left.
Something that clouds the water is that reasonable people who’ve suffered under either Capitalism or Communism may then make common cause with that system’s enemy; my enemy’s enemy is my friend, even if the underlying values or ideals aren’t necessarily shared. Well, it happens all the time with imperialism; Saddam Hussein the good guy to be armed v Iran, then the monster to be crushed, ditto the Taliban v the Soviets, then the number 1 enemy and evil oppressors of women. That isn’t to say Tarr makes cause with Capitalism (or endorses its worst aspects) but i was thinking anyway of problems faced by Eastern European film-makers in the Communist bloc, and people like Lech Walesa and working trade unionists being supported by Maggie Thatcher.
I absolutely disagree with HHH over dominance of socialistic views in the arts and cinema. Just looking to see what was on the main TV channels here, Reservoir Dogs and Die Hard, and the programme The Apprentice. And then there’s Sky, owned by Rupert Murdoch. World cinema has been all but banished. The BBC news has become more insular, Hollywood and with it American viewpoints- hardly socialist- rules the world, as does commercialism. TV and cinema are the opium of the people, and in the current economic crisis there will be plenty of escapist entertainment rather than politically challenging films as the norm.
HHH is right, the communists dominate the media companies. Them and the Freemasons. Yep.
JPBelmondo, the film critics we might like and read are surely not indicative of the norm. Most of the British newspapers are right-wing and their film critics accordingly. Even the Newsnight Review programme on the BBC which is relatively high-brow in its coverage of the arts, hardly ever deals with “foreign language” films. The flagship popular Film programme has dumbed down with an entertainer rather than film expert presenter, and Cannes coverage has ignored even winning foreign language films. That is indicative of insularity and commercialism winning out. American politics are further to the right than most, so what is considered leftist or socialist in the US would seem relatively mild and unchallenging in a lot of other countries, even ones which voted for their mainstream right-wing party into govt. Since Thatcher, Britain moved clearly to the right, and “New Labour” ditched socialism for the free market entirely. News coverage and what is seen as balanced reflects that shift. That Anglo-Saxon model is of course now in trouble, but in the UK with its first past the post elections, the only alternative possible govt is the Conservative party.
Thanks Col. Dax for broaching this topic -
I agree completely with Justin re The Searchers: it’s like the nut I just can’t crack. Its technical virtues are unimpeachable; but Jeffrey Hunter is godawful (he’s got that beautiful actorly face, like Stephen Boyd or something; but like Boyd he’s plain bad), and the scowling & bronzed-up Henry Brandon (né Heinrich von Kleinbach!) as Chief Scar is a bit silly. It’s very hard, I think, to draw out a coherent argument regarding, say, racism, or white settler/Native American relations, from this film—though I totally understand that many film theorists and critics have attempted to do just that.
But I didn’t want to get stuck on Ford, don’t want to stray from the question of politics & cinema. Even if we suppose for argument’s sake that there hasn’t been a predominance of left/progressive filmmakers, the question is – are there examples of a “conservative” or even “right-wing” cinema, Riefenstahl aside? For the life of me, only John Milius (Red Dawn, Conan the Barbarian), and The Green Berets come to mind. Vigilante movies of the ‘70s are heavy on exploitative sex & violence and short on ideas—so I wouldn’t class e.g. Don Siegel or Michael Winner among right-wing filmmakers. Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ may well be the most commercially-successful “conservative” film ever made…
The Searchers: there is a commonly expressed view that this is not only ambiguous on racism but actually challenging of it. It’s true that Ford doesn’t gloss over the racist attitudes which Wayne stands for, and credit to him for honesty, but this is a film in which Scar is still the baddy (and isn’t he played by a white, not abnormal then), the Native Americans are still frightening (the atmosphere of fear early on is memorable), a Native American female is kicked downhill by our two heroes, and we are surely still expected to side with them and their search. This is John Wayne, and he is not so easily transformed into a despicable bigot; the majority of viewers will still will this American hero on in the quest. And “Let’s go home, Debbie” is a wonderful emotional moment of relief and release. It is still a film with a white viewpoint, where Wayne’s character may be criticised it also is shown to have much in common with savagery rather than white civilising values, hence he remains something of an outsider, torn between wilderness and homestead. I agree the film’s racial dynamics are interesting and mixed, but overall i have misgivings- and i’m all for honesty in portraying of what White America did in its conquest of the West. Just as i am over the terrible abuses and genocide by the British empire (Gandhi was a relatively liberal if not especially challenging film that won Oscar, whereas say On the Waterfront was an apology for McCarthyite naming)
I think fascism is something that is generally condemned by both Liberals and Conservatives. The only place it is openly accepted is by extremists. That’s probably why Griffith and Riefenstahl get more criticism than Godard or Eisenstein—-neither of whom were really Communists (especially Godard); they were Marxists.
That said, I think film critics are remarkably good at looking at Griffith as simply an excellent filmmaker, despite his morally reprehensible themes. Riefenstahl is a bit of a different story I suppose; it can be a little bit hard, even for me, to separate her talent as a filmmaker from her close association with Hitler.
Totalitarianistic methods are unrelated to the ideology that uses them to obtain/retain power so to say liberal=communism and right wing=fascism is wrong.
Both Stalin and Hitler used totalitarian methods. Communism is a theory that was never successfully put into practice and democracy is a practice that has never found a satisfactory theory.
Both Eisenstein and Reifenstahl cooperated with the political systems ruling their respective countries but fascism, (possibly) unlike communism, relies on a symbolic outsider as a weight to get rid of, a cancer to excise. You can be a communist and unreservedly love your fellow man but that doesn’t work if you are a fascist.
Very well said, Loki
@Rory
Not quite sure what you mean when you say Griffith was a fascist. Being racist isn’t the same as being fascist.
I think film in general is such an empathetic medium. As an audience you’re asked to feel for these characters, or at the very least pay attention to them. That may seem like a much more liberal thing to do than not, as conservatism is not known for its empathy…
Every time I see a list of top “conservative films,” I see a lot of negotiating and disregarding of elements of those films to fit them into a “conservative” box.
The act of filmmaking itself is one of collaboration and while there’s a clear leader generally, it’s very much a collective of people working towards the same goal.
How is conservatism not known for empathy?
You guys are using these terms either too broadly, too specifically, or when you mean something else entirely.
Why don’t we all agree on what we’re talking about when we say “liberal bias” or “conservative bias” before moving the discussion forward?
*A little volunteered copyediting on my part: totalitarian is already an adjective; you don’t need to add the suffix -istic. Nothing makes a discussion of politics more irritating than when those involved get into a measuring contest with their words (just look at Bill O’Reilly).
So, unless we want a flame war, let’s agree on what we’re talking about before people start swearing and throwing fits.
I agree with cahiers about empathy. The people drawn to character driven films, particularly foreign films tend to lean to the left. Artistic right brained people also tend to lean to the left and I think that’s a major reason Hollywood is overwhelmingly liberal. It’s the same reason comedy, literature and other creative mediums are dominated by liberals. I suspect this forum leans left also but I never really wanted to know. I’ll discuss politics anywhere else but I like the fact that I don’t know the personal ideologies of a lot of people here. I’d hate to view someone’s valid film opinions in a different light because I subconsciously framed them against personal views I found offensive.
@Jay
Not quite sure there is any empirical evidence linking artistic ability with political ideology.
I am almost sure that is anecdotal.
How else do you account for conservative-minded individuals like Edmund Burke, Wallace Stevens, and Henry Fonda (Fonda not being in the same class, obviously)?
Good call about not caring about each others political views.
Your question, Col Dax , concerns not communism or fascism but a liberal bias in the film community.
Yes there is one.
SO FUCK OFF!!!!!
Rich, I don’t know if there’s a good study on it but I think if you look at creative communities and creative people you know personally, it seems clear that liberal outnumber conservatives by a pretty wide margin. There are definite exceptions but sometimes you have to strive to find them. I’m not trying to blast conservatives by saying this but I struggle to find many genuinely funny people on the right. Fox News tried to do a right wing take off on the Daily Show once and it was unexplainably bad, kind of like American Carol. The explanation that makes the most sense to me is that comedians, filmmakers and artists need to push limits and attack taboos and conservatism is based on preserving tradition and social order.
Well, Jay, if you need to find conservative minded humorists, take any satirist.
Satire, with its basis in traditional moralizing, is undeniably conservative in nature.
Hmm, I don’t know if I agree with that. I tend to think of satire as a parody of traditional moralizing but it’s an interesting point. I’m going to mull over that one, Rich. I should hasten to add that when thinking solely of satire and particularly satirical columnists, conservatives do spring more easily to mind though they still seem to be outnumbered.
You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations. There are no peoples. There are no Russians. There are no Arabs. There are no third worlds. There is no West. There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast and immane, interwoven, interacting, multivariate, multinational dominion of dollars. Petro-dollars, electro-dollars, multi-dollars, reichmarks, rins, rubles, pounds, and shekels.
It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today. That is the atomic and subatomic and galactic structure of things today! And YOU have meddled with the primal forces of nature, and YOU WILL ATONE!
Am I getting through to you, Mr. Beale?
You get up on your little twenty-one inch screen and howl about America and democracy. There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and ITT and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide, and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today.
What do you think the Russians talk about in their councils of state — Karl Marx? They get out their linear programming charts, statistical decision theories, minimax solutions, and compute the price-cost probabilities of their transactions and investments, just like we do.
We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, Mr. Beale. The world is a college of corporations, inexorably determined by the immutable bylaws of business. The world is a business, Mr. Beale. It has been since man crawled out of the slime. And our children will live, Mr. Beale, to see that perfect world in which there’s no war or famine, oppression or brutality — one vast and ecumenical holding company, for whom all men will work to serve a common profit, in which all men will hold a share of stock, all necessities provided, all anxieties tranquilized, all boredom amused.
And I have chosen you, Mr. Beale, to preach this evangel."
These filmmakers are not leaders. Theyre just artists espousing a philosophy for the most part. These leaders communist leaders and Fascist leaders and capitalist leaders are interested in one thing and its not different political ideologies. its the almighty dollar!
Long Live Freedom of expression
@Rich. You’re right. I should have made a distinction.
there has always been a liberal bias in the arts. I’m a conservative, but it doesn’t really bother me. Its just the way it is.
I’d be willing to bet that there are plenty of conservative folks on this site that are laughing out loud at some of the comments made on this thread. I think it would be more productive to keep the discussion focused on the original topic or at least keep it in the same ballpark instead of spouting theories about who is more empathetic, creative or humorous based on personal experience. That type of conjecture adds nothing of value to the debate. Is there a liberal bias in the film community? Well, I don’t think that they make a big secret about it, so yes I believe that there is. So what?
I would like just one example of a major film production / tv series of the last twelve monthhs that expressed communist views in a positve light.
Maybe I missed it.
PS
Pro abotion, evolution or anti war dont count as communist only so dont bring those up. I’m talking serious communist take on issues.
The commies paid for Andrei Rublev. Imagine Tarkovsky trying to get that one made in Hollywood!
Int. Studio office. Day
-So it is about a monk…
-A monk!
-Yes. And he is an artist. And it is in black and white.
-Show this guy the door!
How many films (from Hollywood) have shown Nazi’s in a negative light? Literally hundreds, I’m sure you would agree. How many films (from Hollywood) have portrayed Stalin’s communism in a negative light? . . . . . . crickets chirping . . .
Seriously, have you ever wondered why that is?
I didn’t mean to pass judgement by suggesting liberals were more empathetic but just to explain why I think this bias seems to exist. I was expressing personal theories so to be more scientific about it, here are two studies that examine the connection between different sides of the brain and political leanings. The first one is an interesting case where a man’s brain was split, the hemispheres weren’t communicating and the left and right side had conflicting opinions of Nixon. The second examines the right brain liberal, left brain conservative connection in more depth. Please forgive if this is digressing from the topic but I get geeked on anything involving psychology so I’m providing it in case anyone else is interested.
http://neuropolitics.org/Conservative-Left-Brain-Liberal-Right-Brain.htm
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-politics10sep10,0,5982337.story?coll=la-home-center
“’How many films (from Hollywood) have portrayed Stalin’s communism in a negative light?”’ .
Hundreds or thousands. From The FBI Story to the lastest Indiana Jones flick all had the soviets as heavies..
Oh boy.
You missed the cold war alright!
Justin Vicari
Wayne relents at the very end, but you basically spend the whole movie with his rage, his intolerance. Alternately disgusted by and laughing at the backwards “savages.” It’s a very hard movie to watch, imo.