
Not what you remember
There’s a moment in Netflix’s The Mist that I think summarizes the rot at the core of modern American TV and cinema. The main characters are Eve and Kevin Copeland, a preposterously young couple with a teenage child, who seem like a nice enough couple though they are struggling with the conflict between Eve and her daughter. At one point near the beginning of the series Kevin’s brother visits them, and we discover something about Eve. It turns out Eve used to be a slut – the town bike, as it were – and Kevin’s rough older brother was a member of the group that she used to hang with. Nothing is made clear, but it is implied pretty strongly that she has slept with Kevin’s older brother. After the brother leaves Eve is unsettled, and so when Eve and Kevin are having sex she demands that he fucks her as roughly as he can. This is funny because the sex they’re having before then is super gentle, and his “hard” fucking is pretty average, but we’re meant to believe that he’s being super rough. Anyway when it’s done there is an air of dissatisfaction, and he asks her “what was that about”, and she does that stupid thing that girls in American movies do where she’s obviously upset about something but pretends everything’s okay.
The upshot of this scene is very clear: that women who sleep around a lot are bad people with problems; that these problems never really go away; that women who like being fucked hard must be sluts with problems; and that to want to be fucked hard is bad.
The executive producer of The Mist was Harvey Weinstein. It doesn’t come as a surprise to me that a TV show produced by a serial rapist and sexual harasser would have a scene that carefully boils down every misogynist idea about women who enjoy sexual freedom into a mess of accusations, but some people seem to be surprised that the kind of movie world that could produce this scene would be occupied by people like Harvey Weinstein. At the time that his predations became public knowledge and the #metoo movement started there was a general upsurge of shock at both the banality of predatory behavior in Hollywood, and the extent to which that predatory behavior was enabled and supported by so many people. For people on the right this manifested as a kind of jaded relief, a sense of “oh look these liberal Hollywood types don’t believe in any of this equality stuff, it’s just a pose they adopt to appear cool to each other.” For the rest of us, and especially for mainstream media critics, there was an atmosphere of surprise at how “liberal” Hollywood was actually a nasty network of sexual predators and bullies, its supposedly famous values of liberal tolerance and equality betrayed by its own members.
I wasn’t surprised by any of this, because I’ve never seen Hollywood as “Liberal”, and I’ve always thought a lot of its politics was pretty dire, most especially its sexual politics.
We see the same thing in the reactions to fan disappointment over the Last Jedi. I have read many articles now in Vox, the Guardian and the Washington Post about how this reaction is partly due to fanboys being disappointed in the “diversity” on display in the movie (i.e. there are two female leaders and a couple of non-white characters), and the idea that this focus on diversity distracted from the production values of the movie (or something – I can’t quite figure out how these points are supposed to link together). This has been a controversy since The Force Awakens and Rogue One, both of which featured strong female leads, and we also saw it with the Ghostbusters remake and the latest Mad Max. I think these debates, rather than being a sign of how “liberal” Hollywood is, are really a sign of how incredibly conservative it is and has been. Consider movies and tv shows like Ghost in the Shell, Gunnm, Neon Genesis Evangelion, Appleseed, Bubblegum Crisis, and pretty much any early work from Studio Ghibli. These are all movies from the 1980s and 1990s in Japan, and female leads were a routine part of that world. Nobody questioned whether Major Kusanagi, Alita, Nausicaa or Deunan had a right to be where they were, and nobody thought diversity killed those movies – female leads in Japanese sci fi and fantasy are a pretty standard part of the picture (and this isn’t limited to anime – consider Library Wars, the recent excellent live action Gintama, or Attack on Titan as examples of live action movies with important female characters in main parts). But in America in 2017 the decision to cast a single woman in a lead role, or to have a team of women doing a job, is controversial and a sign of political correctness gone mad. If Hollywood is being castigated for finally doing something Japan was doing in the 1980s, I think we can say it’s not very forward thinking.
Hollywood’s diversity problem is not the only example of its persistent inability to be anything except thoroughly reactionary. Here are some others.
- The lesbian always dies: It’s pretty reliable that if there is a lesbian character in a major movie or drama, she’s either a fucked up person or she dies, or both. Usually she’s in a couple and the other one survives to suffer the grief, but one has to die. This fate also often befalls the fat chick, or the gay dude (it will probably not come as a surprise that the “gay” dude in the Mist is a psychopath, or that I guessed this in the first episode simply because of his implied sexuality)
- Black dudes are always a stereotype: The dragon in Mulan, the black dude who briefly surfaced in Angel, almost every character Eddie Murphy has ever played … they’re almost always a stereotype, either a gangster or a magical negro. Despite the fact that a sizable proportion of American people are black, and they have been clamouring for better representation forever, it is impossible for an American movie maker to portray one in a sensitive way, except perhaps in a character piece about slavery or oppression
- Sluts are always bad: If you are a woman who has lots of sex for fun, you are either psychopathic or severely emotionally damaged. Eventually you’ll grow out of it but you’ll never forget it
- The goth secretly wants to be normal: See for example the horrible betrayal at the end of The Breakfast Club, which is a model for how alternative sub-cultures are treated in Hollywood
- All women come by being fucked: And it would be completely impossible to show a woman getting licked. True love means that two people can come together and instantly have perfect sex just by fucking, and no man wants to lick a woman, and no woman cares to be; though women love to suck dick, usually on their knees. This is particularly infuriating because there’s a whole branch of American feminist criticism of porn that says it’s an unrealistic depiction of sex, but at least in porn the women actually get licked and the men actually enjoy doing it! It’s also really frustrating in Sex and the City, which is supposed to be about how the main female characters are completely empowered, but every sex scene I saw in the one episode I watched was them selflessly sucking cock
- America’s latest geopolitical concern is your enemy: Something really jarring in Blade Runner 2049 was the casual insertion of Russian into everyday scenes. There was no Russian in the original, and no hint that Russia was relevant. Why? Because now Russia is a big geopolitical issue for America. It’s not only pathetically insecure, and it doesn’t just make every movie dated, but it also shows really obviously that Hollywood serves primarily to manufacture propaganda for the US as a whole, not to tell interesting independent stories. You can see this in so many action movies, that the enemy du jour is simply whoever happens to be in the American political consciousness at the time. Pathetic.
- They cannot cover Global Warming: In Blade Runner 2049 it was snowing in Los Angeles. How can it be snowing in California in 2049? We know that is not going to happen! In almost every movie set in the near future in America, global warming is not depicted – it doesn’t form the theme of the movie but it doesn’t figure in the backdrop either. Florida is unchanging despite global warming, and if the weather enters into it it will be weird but it won’t be warmer. This wasn’t always the case – Soylent Green is set in a warmer world – but it is now. Hollywood will not touch the political realities of the future or of America now, only the fantasies Americans have about themselves. America produces a bunch of disaster movies every year, and none of them ever cover anything caused by global warming. Of course global warming is politically controversial in America (and only in America) – so Hollywood simply won’t touch it.
- Guns are wonderful: Every American movie with even a hint of action has a gun fetish. There is a very simple truism of previews at movies in Japan: If it’s a live action Japanese movie, someone in the preview cries; if it’s a live action American movie that isn’t a rom-com or a human drama, everyone pulls a gun. This wasn’t always the case – watch old episodes of Knight Rider (haha) or CHIPS (hahaha) and you won’t see anyone – even the cops! – wield a gun. But now guns are fetishized. Top tip for people considering whether this is good or bad: guns are not cool, and you can enjoy action without them. See e.g. anything made in the UK, and Jackie Chan.
- Violence against women is casual, brutal, and full frontal: There are so many crime movies on American TV, and in so many of them women get treated horribly. There is even a very long-running show about a team of cops that only deal with sex crimes (featuring Ice T as a cop, haha show us your principles Ice T!). And in recent movies especially killing women in horrible ways that are shown fully for our viewing pleasure is a real thing. If you look back at the original Blade Runner, for example, the sex scene between Deckard and Rachel is very very rapey, and it really didn’t have to be. This kind of thing is a feature of Hollywood movies
- The criminal is often a woman: In a lot of the crime shows the murderer often turns out to be a woman, which is likely way above the actual probability that a murderer would be a woman (they’re almost always men). I think this happens because the directors want a twist, and the obvious twist in a crime show is that the killer wasn’t the dude you thought he was. But it’s interesting that when violence against women is too excessive the film makers will argue they’re being honest; but when they could be honest about how almost all murderers and sex criminals are men, they suddenly plead fantasy. It’s as if every single aspect of the film making process is set up to make women look bad!
- Workplace sexual harassment: This is especially common (though not limited to) TV shows, where women in the workplace routinely get subjected to comments about their gender and their sexuality, jokes about dating co-workers, and suggestive comments about what they should be doing. The really disturbing thing about this is that the jokes are not presented as transgressive, or risque – they’re just facts of the workplace. Is this what it’s like to work as a woman in America? Or is Hollywood just trying to remind women they shouldn’t really be there?
- Everyone’s home is perfect: Even people on minimum wage have perfect houses. While you, you peon, live in shit. Do you feel like a loser now?
- Whitewashing: Do I even need to say anything on this topic?
This isn’t even the whole of it. But when you put all of these things together what you are really seeing when you watch material from Hollywood is often an intense barrage of reactionary ideas, combined with a wilful resistance to some of the core challenges facing modern society, and a stubborn refusal to look at the ways that the world has changed. For example, Hollywood in general absolutely will not allow any ideas from pornography into its sex scenes. Sex scenes in major movies in Hollywood have not changed since Sarah Connor and Kyle Rees came together in sudden intense love in Terminator (though that scene was way more consensual than some others I guess). Thirty years later and still it is simply impossible for Hollywood to update its love scenes. We all know that everyone’s watching porn, but nobody in Hollywood will admit to the fact that sex is about more than dicks in cunts. This is just one example of the many ways in which this image factory is still stuck in the 1850s.
We in the rest of the world put up with this, and of course we watch our own cinema which has its own problems and its own reactionary issues, its own humour and its own misogyny, so it’s not like anyone is perfect. But the difference is that nobody in Australia wastes time claiming Australia’s movie scene is relentlessly liberal, then feigns shock when it turns out that the dudes making all these rapey creepy shows were actually sexual harassers. It’s a uniquely American problem that everyone thinks Hollywood is liberal, when it’s really really not.
So don’t be surprised when the people who make this destructive shit turn out to be destructive shits; and don’t buy into all this hype about representation and diversity. Hollywood is not your liberal friend, and because Hollywood is not liberal and not feminist and not interested in equality at all, it has attracted power hungry shits like the Weinsteins. That doesn’t mean we have to credit this industry with being a force for good, even as we pay to watch what it produces. It produces images of America for America, and I really hope America is not as conservative and reactionary as the images it produces, but one thing you can be certain of is that those images are not intended to support any radical ideals – quite the opposite.
Hollywood is not your liberal friend.
December 23, 2017 at 4:03 pm
Well, it’s liberal in the US sense – it does not make moves in support of slavery (any more) and women are allowed out of the home. Interesting moves are made elsewhere – these ar imperial moves, self-absorbed and unreflective.yoffee myths
December 23, 2017 at 4:55 pm
Haha yes by the rapidly plummetting low bar of modern US politics it’s got something, I suppose. Also I wonder if you look back whether the values of Hollywood have turned rightward along with the politics of the country – I do get that feeling, but I wouldn’t have a clue how to analyze such a trend.
December 29, 2017 at 8:53 pm
“the values of Hollywood have turned rightward along with the politics of the country”
What time frame was you considering this “rightward” turn of US politics? You do recall that this is a country that had racial segregation during living memory, right?
Can I propose that instead, much of the world has shifted a long way and that Hollywood has failed to keep up with this awakening to the fact that bad things are bad? US politics has largely managed to maintain willful blindness too.
December 29, 2017 at 10:02 pm
This could be just an old man talking, but the reason I think Hollywood has turned rightward is that in the 70s and 80s it was more … open. For just two small examples that deal directly with two of my points, the movie Soylent Green is set in a dystopian future where the world has gone into ecological collapse. Everywhere is constantly hot and the main character is always sweating, it’s not stated openly anywhere but it’s clear that this is a future in which global warming is happening. Soylent Green was made in the 1970s, when global warming was just starting to enter public consciousness – so in the 1970s Hollywood was willing to include global warming in its future visions, but won’t now. Another example is the (godawful) TV show CHIPS, about Californian traffic cops on motorbikes. I think they’re meant to be macho but they look super camp[1], but a really striking thing about this TV show (and also Knight Rider) is that no one has guns and the cops never have to use guns. Sometime between 1980 and now guns became a normal part of Hollywood screen culture, and they never used to be. These are examples of Hollywood not just failing to keep up with the rest of the world, but actively turning away from it into America’s weird “right” wing bubble[2].
—
fn1: This is another weird and interesting thing about American culture: the way that American cultural properties like traffic cops and pro footballers are presented as, and obviously intended to be viewed as, macho, but are actually high camp. Why can’t American cultural engineers see the difference between macho and camp? See also: all of WWE.
fn2: I put “right” in quotes here specifically to satisfy you.
February 1, 2018 at 2:07 am
Another interesting article – I’d love to see a detailed review of BR 2049 by you, just to check I’m not completely nuts, considering some of the problems I had with it. WWE and other macho sports like NFL seem incredibly camp to me if you compare it with British rugby (fat ugly blokes stamp on each others’ faces in the mud and chase an oblong ball till someone collapses over a line). I’m not so sure that American pop-culture is unconsciously camp all the time – I’m pretty sure Freddy Mercury knew he was being camp while crowds of mullet clad, flannel shirt wearing rock fans pumped their fists at him unironically. And I’m pretty sure everyone knows why Stewie from family guy like musical theatre so much. And I’m sure there’s lots of gay producers in Hollywood that have Trump-supporting fanbases.
The point about everyone’s perfect home – which they have all the time in the world to fuck around in because they’re rarely at work – this is infuriating and shows the total lack of interest in character development. The violence against women thing I’m not so sure about – it depends how mainstream you’re talking – it seems to be the case that almost all guys can handle themselves in these films and therefore have some unrealistic scrap with the other male character, after which they dust themselves off and put a plaster on their gun-wound, where as if a woman gets beaten, it will be without much resistance and probably to her death. There’s the whole serial killer genre, which takes it’s female victims from real case stats – but then the vast majority of fatal violence is not by serial killers, it’s by career criminals and random disputes – so that just seems to be a denial of America’s social problems (perhaps Hollywood’s guilty conscience and desire to find a villain to blame). The OTT machine gun violence is just a bi-product of computer games and I’m surprised you haven’t mentioned the massive popularity of games-consoles and tournaments. The same problem occurs in Korean films to a lesser extent. If you complain about gun violence to younger generations, they just think you’re spoiling their fun.
I would agree with the idea that most lesbian characters are usually there for either titillation or to be the tough prison ‘dike’-cum-sociopath. In terms of sex scenes, it depends which part of Hollywood you’re talking about. David Lynch’s sex scenes tend to be quite sensual, kind of cerebral and weird (in a good way) and that’s had an effect on other more mainstream people. Then there’s the new media channels like Netflix – I recall an opening scene of ‘Sense8’ (which has quite a big viewership) where a central character finishes off giving oral to her girl friend then proceeds to fuck her with a purple strap-on, fairly convincingly. You may be a bit behind the times with what you’re watching there. And pleading for Hollywood to take more influences from the world of pornography seems an odd piece of logic. They already are heavily influenced by that and vice versa in the way they portray women’s bodies and particularly men’s bodies I find e.g. you can’t be a leading man now unless you wax and go to the gym twice a day. I also find the huge amount of ‘wink wink’ porno jokes in Hollywood movies to be utterly banal and the lowest form of humour. The common thrusting-muscle type sex scenes are very porno and seem to be everywhere, all be it, they don’t show much detail and tend to be brief (because they want the widest possible coverage and they don’t want to overlap with pornographic content, since that is available elsewhere, sometimes from the same parent company). LA’s suburbs are also the home of porn (AVN etc) and many of the technical staff that work in TV start out there. I see Hollywood films as being like the trailer, and what many people watch on their rudetube is the main event: Saving Rihanna’s Privates starring Tom Spanks. That’s a principle reason why mainstream Hollywood is so unremittingly shit with the exception of break-though independent productions like ‘Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri ‘, which has plenty of cops not firing their guns, realistic non-fatal violence, good acting, a convicing and funny black police captain and an eccentric, non-sexualised female middle-aged lead. While also not being shit.
Also, the idea of Japan being the bastion of a forward thinking portrayal of women is a bit odd – they have plenty of problems too, just different problems. The last time I flicked through the adult manga section of my local bookshop, there was a lot of drawings of little girls with high stockings pulling weird facial expressions and super-hero type costumes that seem to focus on doll shaped bodies and the crotch area. The same style is common in many Japanese films. You can always find exceptions, but you can find exceptions in America too.
I think perhaps, if you don’t mind me saying, the fact that internet allows you to explore whatever you like does not mean the internet is inherently open minded about sex or that just because pornography is diversifying that objectification (of men and women) has suddenly become liberal. People are projecting very illiberal ideas onto one another. It would also be massively inaccurate, from a sociological perspective, to assume that everyone who is promiscuous just likes sex, end of story. Promiscuity is often linked with social problems. Take for example the much publicised recent suicide of a well known ‘performer’ – while so called liberals were quick jump to the defense of the girl for being ‘liberated’ and claiming there was no relationship between the manner of her death and her job, the facts suggest otherwise. There is a large correlation between people that are that promiscuous and sexual problems as a teenager, such as starting too early (in this case she claimed she was raped by her grandfather as a child). It’s not the majority of performers who have those sorts of child abuse problems, but there is a significant minority and the others typically have some other problems in their relationships as teenagers or money/family problems. So introducing the idea that there might be some relationship between your sexual habits and psychological problems, is not an unreasonable topic to cover in a story – you don’t have to turn into a feverish Freudian obsessive just to show a troubled character. The problem with any story relating to sex is, people typically want to justify whatever they are doing and don’t want to hear any other idea. So the family man wants to see the missionary position with one woman. The single guys wants to see variety and weird shit. The teenage girl wants to see Robert Paterson being an emo vampire. Middle aged women want to see a younger version of themselves being pretend-‘naughty’ with Jamie Dornan. Lesbians want half the cast to be lesbian even if only 2% of the population is lesbian. None of these are reality, so they can’t really be classed as forward thinking.
As much as BR 2049 had it’s problems, I don’t think failing to portray global warming was one of them. Warming does not currently have any easy to predictable effects on the overall climate other than more flooding in Bangladesh and more desert in Central Africa, and it’s also really slow. So BR 2049 could actually be correct in showing coastal areas as storm-battered cities protected behind giant walls – notice that the sea level hadn’t risen by an unrealistic amount but rather the walls were there to prevent hurricane damage – something they could probably do with in Galveston or New Orleans now due to increased cyclone intensity in recent years. Whats more, there is an expansion of desert shown in the area East of LA which KD6-3.7 flies over on his trip to Las Vegas.There was no heavy rain shown in the waste dump near San Diego. They were also dealing with nuclear fall-out, as explained by the backstreet chemical analyst guy. If you consider the effect on Hadley cells, Ferrel cells and Polar cells and consider that the albedo of Earth’s surface has changed – the atmosphere appears to be flooded with mist, pollution or volcanic fall-out – it’s possible that you might get occasional snow storms at lower latitudes than today. Los Angeles is at the same latitude as northern Pakistan and Tibet – where it snows every year. Of the various things I might criticise about Villneuve’s take on BR, the environment is not one of them – it was actually quite a bold decision to show some complexity in the portrayal of environmental problems as opposed to nonsense like Geostorm. I did enjoy Soylent Green, but it’s not the only approach to environmental disaster. And many British TV shows that cover the topic have a horribly preachy way of addressing it which actually aids the opposing argument. This is a general problem with modern sci-fi – a lack of science.
I think a lot of the problems that you identify are not down to Hollywood being illiberal, but down to Hollywood being utterly ruthless in the way it tries to cater to people’s banal fantasies about being gun-toting heroes, or muscle bound military adventurers, or wand waving mentalists, or the perfect mother, or get-rich quick gamblers, or royalty from another galaxy, or whatever. In a strange way, there’s nothing more liberal than selling people whatever they want. Hollywood has whatever agenda people want it to have. The days of politicised, usually Jewish, studio execs conversing with Hitchcock and Douglas Sirk about messages in films are long gone. I think it was Werner Herzog who said that realism is simply a tool, a filmic technique (not necessarily a representation of reality), which you can use responsibly with integrity, or which you can use selectively to fit some predefined fantasy which you want to explore for your own egotistical reasons, in order to make it more convincing (paraphrasing). Would Hollywood films suddenly become ‘forward thinking’ if they were populated by Grace Jones fisting George Clooney in drag while listening to drum and bass and talking Chinese in a legalised brothel on Mars? That isn’t liberal, it’s just pushing buttons and pretending to be interesting or futuristic. The word ‘liberal’ has been rendered meaningless in America and Hollywood must be the evil enemy because it’s the ‘establishment’ – it can’t just be that’s it’s full of talentless hacks attracted by the big lights – that would be too simple.
February 1, 2018 at 11:14 pm
Ross M, I put the bladerunner picture on this post because the level of violence against women in the new one disturbed me, and then I remembered that there is a creepy rapey scene in the original too.
For a lot of your comments here you’re falling into the pattern of defending these movies as if they are depicting reality – e.g. your comments on promiscuity. But these movies don’t exist to show us what is, they exist as propaganda. If a Russian or Chinese movie showed a classic male of their culture beating up bad guys in the service of the state, having all the women admire him and everyone lives in a wonderful home it would be dismissed as propaganda, not depiction, and whatever violence against women was portrayed would be seen as a normative statement of how Russian or Chinese society should be. Yet when Hollywood does it it’s an attempt to describe some real psychological theory? No, Hollywood movies are propaganda, and as you say, not propaganda aimed at getting a transgender president. It’s illiberal propaganda in service of a very reactionary social ideal.
February 7, 2018 at 9:00 am
The word propaganda seems to imply that there is a sort of regime, a leadership, in Hollywood which has a unified agenda to push a particular social ideal. I don’t see how that’s possible given that there are so many production companies with so many different ethical codes and so many directors, good and bad. Of course this was less so the case in 1982. This just seems like a blame those Hollywood bastards myth – and too be clear, there are plenty of those types of people, but I see them in many film industries – Bollywood is spectacularly sexist and glamourises violence, yet the Indian film industry grew out of the ‘socials’ (social realism) and harmless musicals. There are plenty of less violent, less misogynist American films out there if you look, especially with new companies like Netflix – unfortunately they tend not to get wide release and are not marketed as well as the latest Vin Diesel/Mark Walberg/Dwayne Johnson shit-fest. To be clear, I’m not trying to defend Hollywood – most of the films I watch are independent productions and European films and I can’t stand dumb action films. I’m simply observing that there is a degree of diversity in any movie industry, including America. I’ve seen plenty of American films that deal with violence in a nuanced way e.g. Winter’s Bone starring Jennifer Lawrence, or A Single Shot starring Sam Rockwell- and that goes right back to classic films like The Deerhunter (hardly obscure). I’ve seen big budget Chinese films that clearly are propaganda, usually to do with trying to link the current government with supposedly noble regimes from China’s ancient past, which does sometimes involve a sort of chivalry that could easily be seen as backwards and misleading propaganda (strange in a society where women are generally pretty equal). Gun violence and murder in South Korea is pretty low in most cities, yet watch a typical Korean hit and your ears will be ringing with gun-fire at the end – what benefit is that to the Korean government? Russian action films are often more Hollywood than Hollywood and may well be associated with some reactionary culture that’s come to the fore under Putin – which is why I stopped watching them. So the issue with propaganda infiltrating mainstream movie culture is fairly universal – the key word there being ‘infiltrate’ – but I’m not sure it comes from a particular establishment. For instance, if someone makes a Hollywood film that references real military incidents or hardware they have to liaise with a particular department in the pentagon that approves those parts of the script – extremely suspicious – but this is not strictly speaking necessary and some American films (like Syriana or Apocalypse Now) break with the government line. I’m not sure though, why should that spoil my enjoyment of David Lynch (which is clearly not trying to portray reality, but neither is it propaganda)?
I referenced Werner Herzog, a well known director in Europe and America who does portray a realistic version of psychological theories while also not shying away from difficult issues (My Son What Have Ye Done). Realism is just a tool used to imply reality, not a direct portrayal of reality (which would be documentary – which America produces in large volumes too). The popular American script writer David Simon embodies this ideal well with Treme or The Wire. There are American directors like Paul Thomas Anderson that manage to combine realism, psychology and fantasy into a beautiful synthesis – take for instance the movie ‘The Master’ starring Philip Seymour Hoffman and Joaquin Phoenix – is that ‘Hollywood’? There have been massively popular American films in recent times such as Gravity (2013) or The Martian (2015) which are contemporary and have very little or no sexism or violence.
I think in order to really have a point, you’ll have to be more specific – are you talking about a particular size of release? Are you talking about the multiplexes? Do you have particular production or distribution companies in mind? Although many films do not reflect true human psychology well, I would like things to continue moving in that direction and for lesser known directors to be given more attention, but that requires public support and box office. I don’t see how pleading to Hollywood to be more liberal achieves anything, as with your plea for tobacco companies to be better corporate persons. Sadly, I think we often get the (shit) movies we deserve. I just don’t watch them – I look elsewhere, including the slightly less mainstream American stuff. Perhaps you should consider why only particular types of American films make it to Japan, rather than the much more nuanced stuff that I and many others watch.
P.S. I wrote a lengthy review of BR2049 and the character K choking Luv to death near the end was one of various things that ruined the film for me as well as the completely pointless scene where Wallace inexplicably cuts a woman’s womb open. And Villneuve is Canadian and used many Europeans on the production team. The original was a superior film and a classic. The fact that Deckard is somewhat of a shithead who takes his frustrations out on Rachel at one point only strengthens the disturbing quality of the film – you would have to be an idiot to see Deckard as the hero of the film. Interestingly, there is a longer deleted version of the sex scene between Rachel and Deckard where she asks for him to touch her then they gently move down to the floor kissing softly (definitely not rape), which is a slower sexier version. The only rapey bit of it is where he pushes her then tells her to repeat something, which given the situation they’re in, is hardly equivalent to a typical sexual assault – and she’s an adult replicant, who has never kissed a man, so she’s a very confused person. People seem to project their own anxieties on to the scene. This is the same director that gave us Ripley in Alien.
February 7, 2018 at 10:13 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIdlYzbugT8 – Here Sean Young explains that the scene was deliberately uncomfortable as this was appropriate for the characters – ‘it’s not a real love scene’.
April 18, 2018 at 6:12 am
Great article and a good take down on “liberal” Hollywood. You are especially right that Hollywood don’t handle sexual topics well.
Totally agree on Blade Runner and that sex scene being disturbing. You’ve also got a point with violence on women in these movies. The first Godfather movie has a deeply unsettling scene of violence towards a woman with how Connie gets beaten.
The Harvey Weinstien stuff should come as no surprise for people since Hollywood has a history with sexual predators. On top of that, they still give out awards to Woody Allen and A list talent still lines up to appear in his movies, as well as Roman Polanski.
What concerns me about Weinstein (and to another extent, also Kevin Spacey) is that I can see Hollywood giving him a big redemption tour down the road in several years. They’ve proven in the past that they don’t care about this stuff and when the time is right, he can shed some tears and claim he’s sorry and all will be forgiven.
Something else concerning them being “liberal” is how pro-war Hollywood is and has been for a long time. Movies like Zero Dark Thirty and American Sniper become huge box office hits and they have no problem handing out awards for these movies that glorify war. Back in the 80’s they were doing the same thing with movies like Rambo and Red Dawn.
Probably the biggest reveal to all of this was how Hollywood loved Donald Trump until a few years ago when he ran for president. He was always a smug rich asshole and they didn’t have a problem with him for decades until he ran for president. His history of racism went back decades and Hollywood didn’t care at all for the longest time. Recently they gave a rebooted show to Roseanne Barr after she came out as a hardcore conservative, spouting Pizzagate conspiracy theories on Twitter.
April 18, 2018 at 1:58 pm
It’s worth remembering that the original version of Rambo III ended with a dedication to the “brave mujahideen” fighting in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Of course back then the CIA was supporting them against Russia, so Hollywood supported them too; then after September 11th when the “brave mujahideen” flew planes into US towers, the movie was quietly changed to be dedicated to the people of Afhganistan. Not exactly a glorious episode in Hollywood’s independence from the government. It’s also noteworthy that almost every generation of Hollywood movies has a new stock enemy, and that stock enemy almost always is the same race or nationality as whatever country or cultural group the US government is worried about. The Star Wars prequels dwelt for a while on a suspiciously Asian mercantile collective that was obviously symbolic of US fears about losing the trade competition with China. Hollywood exists to sell US propaganda, not to tell honest stories. And US propaganda is only occasionally and by accident “liberal”.