...rather than to entertain, you've arguably got TOO MUCH MONEY.
As the *Jewish* dramatist, Moss Hart said (although it has often been incorrectly attributed to Samuel Goldwyn): "If you have a message, call Western Union."
In other words, DON'T preach. ENTERTAIN!
I couldn't agree more!
shareBUMP.
Hollywood entertainment should offer an ESCAPE from our problems.
If you're more interested in preaching/bringing people down, go into human rights, social work, public law and politics. NOT entertainment. By going into entertainment, just to make people *miserable* you are a BAD PERSON, who is actually contributing to MENTAL ILLNESS and DEPRESSION. You are in fact, making the world a WORSE PLACE. You are thus NOT a HERO, and definitely NOT virtuous.
So you are suggesting that stories like To Kill a Mocking Bird, Good Will Hunting, Lord of the Flies, 1984, Catch-22, Grapes of Wrath, On the Waterfront, American History X, A Time to Kill, Do the Right Thing, and many, many others should have never been told?
shareA lot of those films, most of them adaptations of brilliant novels, *are* entertaining, but that wasn't necessarily my point.
I'm talking about people who go into the 'entertainment' sector, simply to preach, rather than, you know, to *entertain*, and people who preach, not through their art, but via soundbites.
It's elitist, something progressives like myself should be AGAINST, for 'celebs' to have more of a voice than NURSES, WAITRESSES, SOCIAL WORKERS, FACTORY WORKERS, AID WORKERS, PUBLIC LAWYERS and so on. WTF does a multi-millionaire actor or musician, especially one born into a rich family and/or a nepo baby, have to tell us about the REAL WORLD? They've never fucking lived in it. 😠👊🏿✊🏿
I used books because political messaging through art has been around a lot longer than just movies. There are a ton of paintings that are statements as well. Art is a way to express one's content or discontent with the world they live in. As for celebrities, not all of them are nepo babies, and a lot have struggled and lived in the real world and if they haven't, they may actually care about it.
I think it's fair to say that the attempts to right many of the wrongs of the past, there is some stifling of creativity at the moment, but I don't think that art should ever just be an escape. It absolutely can be a voice.
I like art that has something to say, as well ad challenging art, but, once again, I'm talking about artists who are primarily motivated by pissing people off.
Also, let's be honest; there's a big difference between a piece of agit prop theater (much of which I like) and a Star Wars or Mario film. Too many 'artists' are wasting their time making the latter (maybe cos that's the only work they can get the funding for), rather than make something truly original and inspiring. It's a lose-lose situation for everyone, because films that should be dedicated to entertainment end up alienating their core audiences, whilst we also lose out on more interesting and innovative cinema. I don't see how ANY PROGRESSIVE CINEPHILE (like MYSELF) can possibly justify such a sad dynamic.
And I'm sorry, but firstly, the entertainment industry is NOTORIOUSLY elitist. Every time a celeb says "I'm self-made" they're actually serving a RIGHT-WING agenda/narrative, that GASLIGHTS the hoi-polloi into believing that the 'world is fair' and that 'anyone can make it', which is not only an offensive RIGHT-WING lie, but also contributes to poor mental health, since 'failures' are forced to blame themselves, rather than unjust external factors, for their circumstances. Like I say, very VERY *UNWOKE* of these celebs. Consciously or not, *their* FALSE narrative is in the service of 'rags to riches' RIGHT-WING narratives. They are IN FACT, Tories and Republicans, however much some of them may protest otherwise. Let's PLEASE call them out as such.
And, secondly, even if someone has made it from nothing, the point is, as soon as they're earning six-figure salaries, they are NO LONGER in touch with the little people, and the poor of the world. Like George Michael said
"Nothing comes for nothing, baby
That fame and fortune's heaven sent
And who gives a fuck about your problems, darling
When you can pay the rent."
Disagree. Not all movies have to be entertaining. There’s nothing wrong with making a film with a message to make a point.
shareTrue. Schindler's List is one of my all-time favourite films, for example (although even that has a compelling narrative), and I like many documentaries, but if you're aim in making a film is 'let's piss people off', honestly, I think you're an asshole.
share
Nothing wrong with pissing people off. As long as you're pissing the right people off.
Nothing right about it either. I'd rather work with people towards a common goal instead of wasting resources beating each other up and essentially leaving us back at square one over and over again.
share
You remember that bit in the Blues Brothers? 'I hate Illinois Nazis'? Psst, it's OK to piss off Illinois Nazis.
It's a waste of effort but I don't expect much better out of most people anymore. Have a nice day.
shareMost people aren't Illinois Nazis.
In other words, estcst has a point.
No. Estcst doesn't have a point.
The principle is that it's OK to piss people off as long as they are the right people to piss off. I think most people would accept it is OK to upset Nazis. That 'most people are not (Illinois) Nazis' is immaterial to the fundamental premise of the argument. It doesn't logically follow.
My point is, that there are objectively a few people that we can all agree are assholes (i.e. Nazis), who deserve to be berated, but who the fuck makes you, or anyone else, an authority on who is and isn't right, and thus deserves to be brought down a peg? There's something fundamentally arrogant and self-regarding about such thinking. "I'm right. You're wrong. And I'm going to use my power to put you in your place," is quite frankly a shitty way of going about things. I find the older I get, the more tolerance I have for different POV, and the less tolerance I have for people who think their POV, *whatever* it may be, justifies violence/aggression/judgement. If we were all more civil to one another, and agreed to disagree, there would be much less nastiness. Then again, some people clearly thrive on hate, aggression, conflict and feeling sorry for themselves.
shareYou know, I think you are on to something. It seems that we find ourselves in a situation where if you disagree with someone on cultural issues, you are actually as bad as the Illinois Nazis.
This hyperpolarization is destroying us.
I think we can, or should, all agree that Nazis are the right people to piss off, but most people aren't Nazis, and Nazis aside, who gets to decide who the 'right people to piss off' are? It all seems rather self-righteous and assuming to me. Everyone thinks they're right, and no-one is willing to countenance the possibility that they're not.
sharewho gets to decide who the 'right people to piss off' are?
Uh-huh. In other words, the people in power. Three cheers for elitism and supremacy, then?
Personally, I'm more of a fan of democracy and plurality. 🤷♂️
No. The author(s). The author(s) of a creative work decide what the authorial viewpoint of the work is, including who they might choose to upset or annoy with it. Would have thought that was blindingly obvious.
The people with the power in this instance, are the audience. You live in a consumer-capitalist system. You get to choose what you do and do not watch.
I've no idea what 'elitism and supremacy' nor 'democracy and plurality' has to do with this dynamic.
Firstly, I'm a leftist, so references to the consumer-capitalist system doesn't really resonate with me.
Secondly, if the writers and creators represent a small and narrow way of thinking (i.e. group-think), not to mention a small cross-section of society, then it means that 'art' is naturally going to only reflect a limited POV, which in turn enhances the power the people pushing that limited POV possess.
This is particularly problematic with retcons, remakes and reboots, where artists who reflect a hip and contemporary way of thinking, will seek to shape and mould a particular franchise to their own POV, potentially contrary to what the original artist/creator intended.
Even if this is done in pursuit of a narrative/agenda I otherwise sympathise with, I find the whole process very sinister and oppressive, because, once again, it's forcing a narrow-POV on society, and even as a leftist, I'm very much in favour of plurality and diversity of opinion.
Fascists and *authoritarian* socialists might disagree (and I am a *libertarian* socialist, and yes, they DO exist, and are arguably MORE left-wing, and certainly more liberal, in all senses of the word, than the authoritarian variety of socialist).
Firstly, I'm a leftist, so references to the consumer-capitalist system doesn't really resonate with me
This is particularly problematic with retcons, remakes and reboots
I like arthouse films. When it comes to original ideas, I am open to whatever an artist feels fit to depict and argue (assuming their art has a particular message/agenda). But I also take exception to anyone who corrupts IPs and pre-existing works to forward their own agenda. If it's non-canonical, great. But if it's a deviation of the same continuity, I have an issue with that.
For example, I'm a big fan of the original Michael Keaton Batman films. At the time, we were told that the Schumacher films were direct sequels to those films, and as much as I found the transition between the two styles annoying and jarring at the time, I've had nearly three decades to accept that continuity. Now, I'm being told that the upcoming Flash film starring notorious woman-abuser and kidnapper, Ezra Miller (i.e. a complete POS, whatever *their* pronouns) is the true sequel to those beloved films, along with a limited run comic-book series that shares no aesthetic similarities with those earlier films, and in fact arguably contradict established canon.
I now know how the Star Wars fans feel. Don't mess with canon. Do your OWN THING!
Going back the best films/programs new how to entertain while at the same time gently making a point or showing guidance might be a better way of putting it. The best of both worlds.
You've always got time to make another one.
share