Who Says Hollywood is Liberal?
I found this list of films that allegedly have conservative philosophies or agendas behind them quite interesting.
Some of the choices are quite obvious, others not so much. Ask yourself what films, if any, are missing. Be sure and scroll down and see the also ran list at the bottom.
Posted on February 20, 2009, in Celebrities and tagged By Brian G.. Bookmark the permalink. 38 Comments.
I think this list has a bias toward Whit Stillman films. All of the are listed.
When people say that Hollywood is liberal, I don’t think they mean (or have ever meant) that you couldn’t find 25 movies over the last 25 years which can be loosely tied to conservative themes. I can’t believe the left out Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Also, No Country For Old Men.
I found this aspect of the look at Brazil interesting:
Terrorist bombings, national-security scares, universal police surveillance, bureaucratic arrogance, a callous elite, perversion of science, and government use of torture evoke the worst aspects of the modern megastate.
I’d like the right more if it had actually fought against such things during the last several years.
Also, I find the inclusion of Team American: World Police to be very odd. Is the bar for conservative films so low that simply mocking everyone gets you into the club?
Brazil as a “conservative movie” is hilarious. As Terry Gilliam put it:
Hollywood is as liberal as you think it is and worse.
Juno is conservative? Because she didn’t get an abortion?
Other bloggers noted that it was interesting that no movie from before 1984 was on that list…
I don’t think the selectors of this list have an understanding of what it means to be “conservative” frankly.
I just happen to be watching The Final Countdown right now, and I think I would certainly put that as a “conservative” film, the way it glorifies military power. But it happens to be made before 1984…
Other bloggers noted that it was interesting that no movie from before 1984 was on that list
That’s about the silliest critique yet. It indicates those bloggers aren’t too bright.
It’s the top 25 from the last 25 years. That’s about all there is to it. If there was anything before 1983, it would be the top 30 from the last 30 or the top 50 from the last 50, or whatever. If they were trying to do some sort of weird conservative era thingy, it seems like 1980 would be the year to go back to, not 1984.
Also, the list merely says the movies “resonate with conservatives in a particular way” – not that these movies are conservative in some ultimate, ontological sense.
But hey – what’s politics without straw men and badly misinformed criticims?
And what’s a blog comment without some misspellings? “Criticisms” not “criticims” (whatever those are).
Hollywood–liberal all the way. And yet they pump out their liberal shhhhhmack for what?
Money.
Straw men? The piece doesn’t “merely” say “the movies ‘resonate with conservatives in a particular way,”‘ it calls the movies “conservative” at least three times, beginning with the title: “The Best Conservative Movies.”
Ivan,
the writer noted at the end what makes these films “conservative.”
How does “Metropolitan” (number three on that list) fit in with this category? From the review, it seems more a critique of ultra elite lifestyle than a compelling message about those topics.
And number 10, Ghostbusters… the reason they like it is because it is anti-EPA! I mean, seriously.
And Lord of the Rings? Yes, Tolkein was a deeply conservative man… in England. Far different than the conservatism of America. Tolkein hated the modernization of our industry and what it did to the natural world. That doesn’t sound like a very “conservative” ideal. I’m just saying, the selection of these films shows me that conservatives don’t even know what they stand for. This is based solely on an attempt to collect 25 movies that they think describes conservatism today, or what “resonates” with conservatives today. I think conservatism today is more “anti” this or that than “pro” this or that. You don’t have to be conservative in order to be “pro-family.” You don’t have to be conservative in order to be “patriotic.” You don’t have to be conservative in order to be pro-freedom. You don’t have to be conservative in order to be pro-tradition. But, based on how conservatives have attempted to portray themselves by this list, you do have to be conservative to be anti-liberal.
kuri, et al.: perhaps you should learn to read. I’ll directly quote the list (as I did before):
later:
Hmmm.
Like I said. What’s politics without straw men and misinformed criticisms?
The list is far from perfect, but it also seems unlikely they meant it to be some definitive, ultimate list for the ages. It also doesn’t claim to represent any one view of conservatism (so the claim that because Tolkien wasn’t an American conservative is absurd). Some items on the list are more libertarian than conservative. It reads to me more like a bit of a lark on NRO’s part.
I think some people here are letting their hatred (or intense dislike of) conservatives get in the way of their analysis.
Ivan,
They could have simply made a list of their favorite movies. But they had to title them “Conservative” movies, and that implies that they believe these films “resonate” with conservatism, which is really odd, for the multitude of reasons I, and many others have stated. William Buckley may really have loved The Lives of Others. That’s great and all. But what does that have to do with conservatism? Nothing really. NRO likes to push people’s buttons. They do so with this list. Some people push back. If they can’t handle that, they shouldn’t make such silly lists.
Ivan,
They don’t claim that the artists involved are conservative. They do claim that the movies are conservative. They say “conservative movie/s” at least three times. If that claim is inconsistent with some of the movies selected (and it is), that’s the fault of the writer, not of the reader.
They could have called their list “Movies Conservatives Like,” and that would have been accurate enough. But they chose to call it “Conservative Movies,” and that’s downright silly.
If they can’t handle that
I think they can handle it.
Proof once again that all you have to do is mention a word like “conservative” and Dan will leap out of the woodwork and froth at the mouth.
I’m not trolling, MCQ. I comment here frequently on the various topics. And my comments are topical.
I didn’t think Dan’s comments were particularly mouth-frothing, for what it’s worth. Maybe that’s because I essentially agree with what he said.
I’m not familiar with the website that posted the list so I don’t know their angle, but I will say that anyone classifying Brazil as a “conservative” film is either deeply stupid or else trying to push buttons via some bizarre form of semantic oneupsmanship.
I guess that last post wasn’t entirely fair. It does depend on how you define conservatism. As far as the modern US government goes, fiscal conservatism doesn’t seem to exist anymore, so definitions of conservative and liberal more or less focus on social issues. In that context, very few of the films on that list (especially Brazil) belong.
Dan, I know you comment here frequently, and you’re welcome to do so, obviously, but your comment #13 was a knee-jerk stereotypical liberal rant that was so predictable from you that it is comical.
I like when liberals tell conservatives that they don’t know what conservatism really is.
Okay, I’m bored with this conversation now.
I’d rather talk BSG anyway. How come no one’s over there, commenting?
I would comment, Ivan, but I haven’t yet seen the latest episode.
Seems like these days a lot of conservatives have forgotten what we are supposed to be about. Not that liberals know any better.
How about a Conservative listing what they think is a “Conservative” movie (or at least like) over the last 25 years? That would be far more true. As a person who loves movies, I’ll have to think about this.
Brazil resonates with the libertarian, small government conservatism. The dystopia of Brazil involves oppressive intrusion by a labyrinthine bureaucratic behemoth of a government. It’s the nightmare of small government conservatives. The fact that there aren’t very many libertarians or small government conservatives in office in the GOP right now doesn’t mean that that’s not part of conservative philosophy.
Conservatism has a major branding problem right now because people make a one-to-one association between conservatism and G.W. Bush. In truth, Bush and the current GOP aren’t real representative of many aspects and strains of conservatism. Many of the people who wrote the little blurbs on that list are writing from the point of view of conservatism that isn’t well represented on the political right at the moment.
It’s not just a George W. Bush association. It’s been awhile since there’s been a Republican president who adheres to the brand of conservatism you’re talking about, Tom. It’s hardly a stretch to venture that Gilliam was attacking then-president Reagan’s (the guy who’s made out to be the hero of small-government conservatives) style of governing when he made Brazil.
I have no idea what Gilliam intended, but Brazil does resonate with certain strains of conservative thought. That’s all I’m saying. And I agree that in many respects the office holders on the political right haven’t been consistently conservative in any meaningful way, except on social issues. The main reason being that most Americans want a nanny state.
Tom,
I guess the question now is whether you want a nanny state run by people that value civil rights or one run by people that claim to hate the nanny state and give lip service to civil rights.
Some thoughts. First I’m dubious of the list for a slew of reasons. Some are pretty silly. Onward though.
1. I think No Country for Old Men, while a great film, is more than a little nihilistic for it to be conservative. Conservatives like hope and optimism.
2. I actually love Team American: World Police and think it fits. It’s far more on the libertarian side of conservativism. It’s not just that it mocks everyone but how it mocks everyone. Still it was a genius movie and a great conservative criticism of the whole Iraq thing.
3. I can see Brazil as conservative. It’s George Bush I have trouble seeing as conservative… I recognize that there were a slew of fairly conservative styled films coming out in the 80′s that were purportedly railing against Reagan and Thatcher. It’s just that typically they had cast both figures into something rather unlike they really were. Just as conservatives are now trying to portray Obama as something he’s not. And while I’m no George Bush fan, liberals made him much more of a boogeyman than he actually was. (I keep laughing when Obama keeps some policy of Bush’s liberals hated)
4. I think Juno is really pushing it. But it’s more than she didn’t just get an abortion but why. Further how responsibility is portrayed. But I’d agree it’s borderline at best. (But this was actually discussed by liberals at the time it came out along with that other pregnant movie that came out the same time about the hottie and the dork where she gets pregnant – forget the name)
Contemporary conservatism, of the sort associated with National Review, is typically divided into three primary themes: Limited government, national security, and traditional morality. There is only so much that the government can do to promote traditional morality, so religious conservatives typically get the short shrift, so far as politics is concerned.
American conservatives share an enormous amount of ground with libertarians, and a Burkean distaste for radical social projects, so any movie that describes a dystopian or totalitarian society or government is going to resonate with them. And of course, there is usually no shortage of films that promote law and order and defense of home and country.
As far as G.W. Bush is concerned, he can generally only be considered a NR-style conservative on the grounds of defense of traditional morality, and in part on national security and foreign policy. Wilsonian, interventionist “make the world safe for democracy” style foreign policy is not very conservative. But of course his primary deviation from movement conservatism was his implicit support for an ever expanding federal government. No Child Left Behind, a major expansion of Medicare, and the like. On the whole, I would classify him as a right leaning moderate, much like Gerald Ford.
aRJ,
I guess it depends on which rights and whose rights you’re talking about. Both parties fall short in different ways.
I don’t want either of the options on offer.
Mark D,
I think you give GWB too much credit when you say he is a right leaning moderate. That implies that there was some consistent philosophy behind his decisions.
Tom,
Unfortunately the GOP has fallen spectacularly short of its supposed principles as of late. This isn’t just bad for the party, it is very bad for our country.
arJ, That is the problem with most moderates and “pragmatists”. It is hard to ever predict where they are going to split the difference between competing views.
The problem with the GOP over the past decade or so is that they have been trying to sustain a majority position by doing just that. It rarely works because you just make everyone angry. A few years in the wilderness is better than losing one’s bearings, I say.
A partial remedy that I would like to see is preference voting on a national basis, so one could vote for non-majority candidates and parties without throwing his or her vote away.
“A partial remedy that I would like to see is preference voting on a national basis, so one could vote for non-majority candidates and parties without throwing his or her vote away.”
Can you explain this a little more. I am curious.
Mark D,
I’m fully in favor of preference voting. I do think that it would lead to a seismic shift in our politics.