According to The Hollywood Reporter, this year’s Oscar ceremony promises to be a celebration of all things liberal:

Hollywood has always worn its liberal politics on its sleeve, from 1976’s “All the President’s Men” and 1979’s “Norma Rae” to 2002’s “Bowling for Columbine.” With Tuesday’s crop of Oscar contenders, though, politics have never been more front and center.

“What all these films have in common is they’re about the human condition,” said Oscar-nominated “Crash” co-writer Bobby Moresco. “The pendulum has swung back to movies about politics. People want films that have something to say; they’re tired of fluff.”

The films got made because several powerful filmmakers and stars were able to push their passionate points of view onto the big screen, regardless of the commerciality of their cinematic purpose. With “Munich,” Steven Spielberg finally realized his commitment to tell the story of Israel’s ruthless response to the Palestinian murders of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics. Spielberg’s agenda — oft-stated — was to open a dialogue so that both sides can find common ground.

Yes, this year saw the release of many blatantly political movies which championed the liberal politics of Hollywood. Is it a coincidence, I wonder, that this year was also one of the least successful both in terms of viewership and box office receipts?

“These movies are asking sensitive questions about racial intolerance and Middle East politics,” said Spielberg. “It’s been an amazing year, very much like 1968, ‘69 and ‘70, when you suddenly see all of these political movies coming out at the same time, out of the watershed of politics. Some of it is due to our own insecurity about the voices representing us in government right now. We feel like our government has set us adrift, and we’re trying to make our voices heard. We’re telling them to be worried about these things.”

There you have it — liberals have lost political power so now 2005 is just like 1969 (you know, Vietnam) so Hollywood has to make movies about how horrible the Bush Administration is. Problem is, between skyrocketing ticket prices and the dearth of creativity in Hollywood these days, their “message” is falling on fewer and fewer ears.

So, given that movie studios are notorious for being driven by profit, how did these lackluster movies get approved? You guessed it, the makers of the films went outside the studios for funding:

It’s unlikely that, left to its own devices, Warner Bros. Pictures would have given the go-ahead to “Good Night, and Good Luck,” a slice of ’50s journalism; the complex oil expose “Syriana”; or the feminist labor drama “North Country.” What made the difference was financial backing from former eBay president Jeff Skoll’s avowedly activist Participant Prods. The fledgling production and funding company’s early success is a “testament to a certain portion of the critical audience looking for things more challenging and different,” Skoll said. “Maybe we have helped to encourage that. That’s why we exist: to help some of these projects get made, reach audiences and make a difference in the world.”

It also helped that movie star George Clooney was willing to co-write, direct and star in “Good Night,” the story of Edward R. Murrow’s fight against anti-Communist crusader Joseph McCarthy, for a mere $7.5 million. Clooney actually offered to put up his $7 million home as collateral for the Warner Independent Pictures release.

So, the basic formula here is: Liberal people + liberal ideas + liberal politics = dreadful box office receipts.

Movies with liberal themes, ideas, and politics have been successful in the past, so you can’t apply the above formula across the board to all movies ever made. However, one thing which has changed recently has been the arrival of alternative news sources other than the traditional liberal NY Times, LA Times, ABC, NBC, and CBS. Talk radio, the Internet, and the Fox News Channel have given people a choice when it comes to the information they are receiving. Whereas before people only got one viewpoint presented by all the news organizations, now they have sometimes conflicting viewpoints from which to form their opinions and beliefs. It seems that the public is no longer satisfied with being fed the liberal talking points on a nightly basis by the mass media, and the public’s choices are starting to reflect that.

What remains to be seen is how the world — and the bits of red state America between the coasts — will respond to what is sure to be one of the bluest Oscar casts in recent memory, especially with wise-cracking New York liberal Jon Stewart as host.

“I don’t think this collection of films represent everything,” Spielberg said. “We’re not delivering a shared point of view. These movies are all so different from each other. We all look at a movie through a prism of everything our parents and teachers taught us and what our children are telling us. You can’t make a movie expecting everyone will have the same reaction. Ten people seeing ‘Munich’ will come out with 10 different points of view. It was always that way, sitting around the Passover table talking about the Middle East.”

“These films aren’t liberal films,” said Haggis. “Since when is freedom of speech and the independence of the fourth estate a liberal issue? All these films are truly American. They’re not taking one stand or another. They’re asking questions, not painting billboards.”

Spielberg and Haggis miss the point entirely; we’re not talking about the public’s point of view, we’re talking about the director’s and producer’s point of view. In that sense, all of this year’s Oscar contenders are very liberal pieces of work. This doesn’t make them bad films or make them bad producers or directors, but it does make you wonder why they are loath to admit to their bias.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, February 1st, 2006 at 12:08 pm by Nick, and is filed under Culture War, Entertainment, Political Correctness, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.