Harvey Weinstein

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Is Hollywood afraid to be 'woke'? That's a question with moral and religious implications

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
Is Hollywood afraid to be 'woke'? That's a question with moral and religious implications

It’s one of the most famous quotes ever about the realities of working in Hollywood. That quote: “If you want to send a message, try Western Union.”

Of course, the Tinseltown giant who said that was Frank “It’s a Wonderful Life” Capra, a hero of ordinary people in the heartland. So what would he know about working with the woke powers that be on the left coast, these days?

I bring this up because of a fascinating New York Times lament that ran the other day with this headline: “After #MeToo Reckoning, a Fear Hollywood Is Regressing.” Apparently, progressives in Hollywood are very, very upset with the American people — think heartland folks, again — about some nasty recent returns in ratings and at the box office. Some “message” flicks are bombing.

Here’s the thesis statement: “The takeaway, at least to some agents and studio executives: We tried — these ‘woke’ projects don’t work.”

What does religion have to do with this? Very little, according to the Times (but we will get to that).

It’s clear that, to the team that produced this Times sermon, Middle America simply does not share the concerns of woke artists about systematic racism, sexual abuse and the whole diversity project in general.

Now, you can forget that “Black Panther” juggernaut in multiplexes nationwide, including red zip codes. Stunning, well-crafted Black superhero tales don’t count. Americans just aren’t lining up to watch the morality tales that Hollywood wants them to embrace. But what’s interesting — at least to me — is the degree to which the movies and big-ticket streamed TV series at the heart of this debate often contain content about religious and moral issues that, yes, are LINKED to diversity issues.

In other words, is this a new news story or the latest chapter in an old story about Hollywood’s struggles to understand the more religious and culturally conservative half of the American marketplace?

Let’s start where the Times has chosen to start — with Hollywood’s efforts to clean up its act in the wake of the Harvey Weinstein scandal, etc. Here’s the thesis about the #MeToo aftermath:

The movement led to increased diversity and representation in the entertainment industry, but now there is worry that executives have turned their attention elsewhere.

What happened?


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , ,

Calling BS on NC-17

, , , , , , , ,

The Ringer has published an odd report by Keith Phipps that traces the doomed path of the NC-
17 rating in a time when streaming TV has eclipsed the importance of films. Its headline is an
engaging two-sentence summary: “Thirty Years Ago, Hollywood Won the Battle Against the X
Rating. But It Lost the War.”

Phipps devotes nearly 2,600 words to this topic.

You just know that simple-minded religious people play a major role in this drama. His one reference to cultural conservatives (“a religious right eager to protest whatever they [sic] felt to be an affront to their values”) is as predictable as a media release from Americans United. He adds this:

“They didn’t lack targets and, in fairness, those targets felt closer at hand thanks to neighborhood video stores with curtained ‘adults only’ sections and scandalous music videos just a click away on cable.”

That’s as far as the fairness extends, though. This isn’t hard-news journalism, of course. Still, it would have been nice — interesting even — to see some serious discussions of the views of people on both sides of this issue. Diversity is often interesting.

Phipps makes no effort to demonstrate such eagerness or easily affronted values, but simply notes
these factors as though they were universally established realities.

But here comes an informative turn, as Phipps presents a few examples of films that were
harmed by the dreaded adjective controversial:

Though ultimately more talked about than seen, Jean-Luc Godard’s 1985 film Hail Mary — featuring a modern day retelling of the nativity story — earned protests and the condemnation of Pope John Paul II. But that was a mere prelude to what greeted Martin
Scorsese’s The Last Temptation of Christ in 1988. …


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , ,

Sex crimes and sins in the past: Pay attention to Bill Clinton's skilled use of the faith card

, , , , , , , , ,

Long ago, I was a strong supporter of Gov. Bill Clinton of Arkansas, in part because of his early willingness -- as a Bible Belt Democrat -- to seek compromises on government policies linked to abortion. I was even more hopeful about the future of a young politico from Tennessee, Sen. Al Gore, whose pro-life voting record came in at 80-plus percent.

Yes, there was a time when both men were, in the context of the Democratic Party, clearly to the right of center on moral and cultural issues. They weren't "blue dog" Democrats, but they were close.

Things changed.

Now Bill Clinton is creeping back into the news during America's tsunami of headlines -- justified, methinks -- about sexual harassment and worse in Hollywood, inside the DC Beltway and elsewhere. On the cultural and political left, those who are concerned about the Harvey Weinsteins of this world, as well as accusations against one Roy Moore of Alabama, are being asked if they are rethinking their views on former President Clinton. As in this New York Times headline: " 'What About Bill?’ Sexual Misconduct Debate Revives Questions About Clinton."

This is an important story (ditto for this strong online essay at The Atlantic by the always readable Caitlin Flanagan). But as you read it, please see if you sense -- as I do -- the presence of a "religion ghost" (to use the GetReligion term).

You see, Clinton never really repented of his sins -- in legal and political terms. He outlasted his critics, on that front, and survived. Instead, as a progressive Baptist, he did his repenting in religious language that connected with Americans, but had little practical impact. I think that's a crucial element of the story of his survival.

Here is the overture of the New York Times piece:

WASHINGTON -- Another woman went on national television this week to press her case of sexual assault by a powerful figure. But the accused was not Roy S. Moore or Harvey Weinstein or Donald J. Trump. It was Bill Clinton.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , ,

That mainstream press anti-Catholic 'Philomena' pileup

, , , ,

In the “now I’ve seen everything” category, let’s welcome self-described atheist film critic Kyle Smith of the New York Post, now excoriated for defending the Roman Catholic Church, specifically its Irish branch, against “Philomena,” an apparently smarmy new film that applies 21st century scruples to 1952 Ireland.


Please respect our Commenting Policy