Movies

How Hollywood lost the culture war

BBG News

As a dedicated movie buff, I’d say one of the sharpest jokes that graced American TV screens within the last decade was subtly crafted thusly:

“I’m not a doctor, but I play one on TV.” This classic line, while seemingly innocent, cleverly pokes fun at the common misconception that actors are experts in their on-screen roles. It’s a witty commentary on the boundary between reality and fiction, delivered with just the right amount of humor and self-awareness.

Attorney Diane Lockhart, a prominent figure from “The Good Fight,” wakes up one day to discover that Hillary Clinton, instead of Donald Trump, has been elected President in 2016. Overwhelmed by the positive development, Diane shares her feelings about the previous administration with her colleagues at their Black-owned Chicago law firm, likening it to a distressing nightmare: “He labeled Nazis as ‘very good people.’ He ran a Senate campaign for a known child molester. He separated children from their families and put them in detention centers … And there was an increase in antisemitism and racism.

Wait, partner Liz Reddick (Audra McDonald) interrupts, “Where were the Obamas during all this?”

After a brief pause, Diane confidently states a significant piece of information: “They had a comprehensive agreement with Netflix.

Debuting in April 2020, “The Gang Deals With Alternate Reality” presents Robert and Michelle King’s legal comedy at its wittiest and most biting – with the sharpest jabs aimed squarely at the Democratic Party and the wealthy donors who support it. Diane is shocked to find out that the #MeToo movement never occurred, as she watches Harvey Weinstein, shielded by his wealth and a circle of politically cautious operatives, receive an award from Women for Change, a group advocating for change.

In simpler terms, “The Good Fight” and its predecessor “The Good Wife” don’t aim to create a conspiracy about liberal Hollywood elites being predators, like Pizzagate. Instead, they explore the ethical and intellectual contortions of influential figures on the center-left, such as lawyers, producers, tech innovators, consultants, and so forth. This is because the show assumes that selfishness, corruption, vanity, and emptiness within the right are commonplace and absurd. On the other hand, “The Gang Deals With Alternate Reality” satirizes the inability of a significant American political party and its cultural allies to imagine an attractive vision for progressive America, let alone make it happen. In Diane’s dream, the Democrats’ goals don’t extend beyond putting Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill.

In the aftermath of an election filled with numerous celebrity endorsements, speeches, concerts, fundraisers; coconut memes, camo hats, and fan cams; late-night TV appearances, daytime talk shows, and “Saturday Night Live” skits, Vice President Kamala Harris and her running mate Governor Tim Walz found themselves in a similar position as Joe Biden’s former running mate, Clinton and Senator Tim Kaine, eight years ago. The sharp criticisms from the TV series “The Good Fight” appear to be spot on.

In simpler terms, Hollywood, often seen as a public relations arm for the Democratic Party, has started to echo and strengthen some of its political partner’s less desirable traits. Instead of being proactive in delivering what Americans want, they seem to be chasing an idealized, focus-group-approved middle ground in culture, which leaves them with a shallow representation of both the progressive future and their own industry. This can be compared to the idea that America is already excellent as it stands.

This lack of creativity evokes a similar feeling to me, as it’s reminiscent of the widely-shared scene from “The Holdovers,” where cafeteria manager Mary Lamb (Da’Vine Joy Randolph) scolds classics instructor Paul Hunham (Paul Giamatti), much like we might criticize the ill-fated alliance that led to a second Trump.

“You can’t even dream a whole dream, can you?”

I. Going high

In 2018, Barack and Michelle Obama launched their production company, Higher Ground. This venture, focusing on shaping culture, represented not only a clever strategic move but also a natural extension for them after their presidency.

In a significant shift from traditional Democratic fundraising strategies, high-profile figures such as influential executives, celebrities, and agents have always played crucial roles. However, the partnership between Netflix and the Obamas marked a fresh approach by formalizing this relationship. The Obama couple, known for their eloquence and ability to charm audiences from addressing the Muppets to delivering keynote speeches at the DNC, proved to be exceptional ambassadors. In the footsteps of the Obamas, other liberal figures like Hillary and Chelsea Clinton (HiddenLight) and the Duke and Duchess of Sussex (Archewell) joined this trend, pledging to captivate viewers through compelling storytelling.

It wasn’t clear what specific actions we were being motivated towards, other than turning on Netflix or Apple TV+, which was a warning sign early on that this new breed of Hollywood influencer might not be willing to take risks by supplying studios with content. As time went on, the projects produced through these partnerships, such as “American Factory,” “Crip Camp,” and “Zurawski v Texas,” were often ideological in nature but accompanied by forgettable interviews with celebrities, protective biographies of the famous, scripted projects with only a loose connection to their producers’ public personas, and works like Higher Ground’s “Bodkin” that left people wondering what murder mysteries had to do with the Obamas.

In contrast to favorable documentaries about public figures like Nancy Pelosi, Stacey Abrams, and Adam Kinzinger, or heated late-night shows hosted by John Oliver and Seth Meyers, content produced by these partnerships generally slipped under the radar in today’s media landscape. This content, at times, seemed as fleeting and awkward as texts from Hillary, “Joe-bi Wan Kenobi,” or bags emblazoned with “Notorious R.B.G.” However, in a time of deep disillusionment with American institutions and their leaders, the phrase “When they go low, we go high” fell short of expressing the widespread frustration and anger. Instead, celebrity-driven political culture in the post-Obama era seemed more focused on demonstrating progressive values through performance rather than achieving tangible policy results. The hodgepodge of streaming titles, media appearances, corporate statements, and #resistance memes that made up this culture struggled to be taken seriously as a genuine solution to the nation’s problems.

It seems that despite a public preference for keeping celebrities out of politics, they still elected another celebrity back into the White House. This might be due to the fact that this individual represents the same party as notable figures like President Ronald Reagan, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Senator Fred Thompson, and Representative Sonny Bono. The issue isn’t just any affiliation with Hollywood that voters disapprove of, but rather the particular message and medium of the Democratic establishment.

Despite the Democrats crafting a polished convention with celebrity appearances and TV hosts as emcees, Republicans and their associates have developed a self-reliant media and entertainment network that thrives on dismissing “mainstream” media, even though many of its talents were once part of or aiming for show business. This network is established on the foundation of conservative newspapers, magazines, blogs, talk radio shows, Facebook groups, and so forth. In essence, it’s a parallel world to Hollywood, but more agile – think of it as a more nimble competitor to Wario from the world of video games. It encompasses not only Fox News but also Fox Nation and DailyWire+, X and Truth Social, “The Joe Rogan Experience” and Angel Studios, along with an entire cosmos of individual influencers.

During approximately the same span of time, major Hollywood studios rushed to construct, fill with content, and promote streaming services aiming to challenge Netflix, unknowingly undermining a profitable business strategy. However, they soon realized that younger generations, including millennials and Gen Z, were increasingly turning away from traditional films and TV shows towards video games, Twitch broadcasts, YouTube guides, and short, vertical videos on platforms such as Instagram and TikTok instead.

It’s not surprising that the influence of Hollywood and the Democratic Party hasn’t been as effective with voters, given how quickly Americans are adapting to new ways of consuming information. Many potential voters in conservative districts might have appreciated a conversation between Julia Roberts and George Clooney about the secret ballot, but unfortunately, they may not have been reached since those spots were aimed at audiences who were least likely to be watching. Additionally, those concerned about issues such as Gaza, inflation, climate change, or the housing crisis didn’t find a compelling argument for the Democratic platform, instead receiving a musical tribute from “The West Wing” cast or Harrison Ford repeating the same slogan used in 2016.

The issue with using development deals, inspirational slogans, and celebrities as political tools is that Republicans and their media partners often control the cultural narrative, exploiting emotions or stirring up debates to achieve their goals. Ironically, Democrats who have influence within Hollywood could not guarantee distribution for award-winning documentaries like “No Other Land” and “Union,” which focus on Israeli-Palestinian issues and labor movements. Instead of taking action to bring about change, they’ve embraced a mild, uncontroversial form of liberalism that may seem empty or powerless to those not already supportive. The 2016 election served as a reminder: when engaging in cultural conflicts, singing a “Fight Song” won’t be enough to secure victory.

II. Going ‘woke’

As a movie critic, I can’t help but reflect on the recent trends in Hollywood, which some have suggested should reconsider their stance on certain issues post-election. However, it seems that this shift towards more conservative themes had already begun brewing.

Prior to the high-profile visits to Mar-a-Lago or inauguration fund donations, whispers among industry insiders grew louder that Hollywood had perhaps gone too far in its advocacy for diversity, equity, and inclusion – a sentiment that seemed to reach a crescendo following the 2020 death of George Floyd. This perceived overshoot was seen as ripe for a corrective course.

However, this idea is based on a comfortable illusion. Despite repeated promises to enhance diversity since at least 1999, when a coalition of monitoring groups threatened to boycott the broadcast networks due to the lack of ethnic diversity in their fall lineups, Hollywood has only made minimal strides towards inclusivity – far from a reversal of a revolution. The gender balance in speaking roles has barely shifted since 2007, and the representation of Latinos has even decreased as their population grows. Programs designed to nurture underrepresented groups have failed to alter the predominantly white and male composition of directors, screenwriters, and executives. Moreover, those in positions to instigate systemic change have been removed from their roles before they could implement significant changes. These circumstances are unfolding amidst an abundance of research demonstrating that diverse storytelling and diverse audiences are profitable, not merely virtuous gestures.

As a movie enthusiast, it’s disappointing to see Hollywood bow down to conservatives by retreating from progress they haven’t truly made, or imposing self-censorship just to avoid upsetting President Trump. This isn’t an intelligent response to consumer demand; it’s a surrender to the deep-rooted political polarization that seems to taint every facet of American culture.

For instance, how can they claim to support LGBTQ+ creators, viewers, and staff, yet establish profitable, multiyear deals with comedians who are openly transphobic? Or, why would they scrap a trans-themed storyline from a children’s show? How else can we explain such blatant hypocrisy?

Moreover, it’s baffling that they’d invest more money in reviving Brett Ratner and Melania Trump than what it costs to produce three Best Picture winners. These actions raise serious questions about the values Hollywood supposedly upholds.

Following a series of tough blows and prolonged downturns, it’s not unexpected that Hollywood is vulnerable to such pressures. The gap between the wealthy executives, top-tier producers, and famous actors, on one hand, and the struggling working class, on the other, is widening. The constant rhythm of stock sales, tax deductions, layoffs, and extravagant bonuses has made it increasingly challenging to distinguish these wealthy figures from tech magnates who have influence in our power structures or the powerful figures of the last Gilded Age. Today’s leaders in cultural industries seem to view films, TV shows, music albums, even books, as mere products on an automated production line, no different from rolls of fabric or bars of metal.

Opposed by a united bloc of evangelicals, neocons, wealthy elites, and MAGA Republicans who hold sway in the opposition camp, this deceitful approach has struggled to ignite passion for the Democratic Party or appreciation for its offerings. A system where the grassroots are diminished to the brink of leaving, the influential remain quiet out of fear, and the powerful have no qualms about abandoning both at the first hint of trouble is a system that appeals only to those well-versed in corporate takeovers. It serves as a stark warning that Hollywood’s assertions of representing the public were never rooted in ideological conviction or political unity. Instead, they were predictions based on trends, much like determining whether skinny or baggy jeans will be fashionable this season.

If I stand for everything without taking a clear stance on anything, it suggests that I actually stand for nothing at all. Now, if Hollywood continues to court the 49.9% who voted for Trump while alienating the 48.4% who voted for Harris, they might find themselves appealing to the vast segment of nonvoters. These individuals may have felt the 2024 campaign didn’t provide a clear enough choice.

The undecided voter could potentially become even more elusive, with the average Hollywood audience possibly joining their ranks. This scenario offers an opportunity for progressive viewers, who despite being often portrayed as dominant, have been taken for granted and asked to support without question for far too long.

Faithful consumers now have enough financial resources to expect improvements; spectators bear a greater part than ever before in the highs and lows of the industry. Television has transformed into an expensive, intricate assortment of streaming services that viewers must pay for just to be bombarded with ads. Movies in theaters are now considered luxury experiences, characterized by top-tier formats, comfortable seats, expanded snack options, and prices to match their exclusivity. And despite Hollywood’s claimed hesitance to involve itself in politics, it hasn’t hesitated to exert pressure on progressive values. Viewers are encouraged to complete series with diverse characters at a higher rate and purchase tickets to support groundbreaking milestones.

Just as persistent supporters of progressive ideals are repeatedly encouraged to donate, volunteer for canvassing and calling campaigns to boost voter turnout, these dedicated followers have certainly fulfilled their obligations. They may now anticipate that the industry, much like a political party, will honor its commitment as promised.

III. Going, going, gone

Last summer in 2022, upon request from a friend who enjoys the podcast, I went to witness a live recording of “Lovett or Leave It,” a talk show focusing on politics and culture, which is led by its host, Jon Lovett, a former speechwriter for President Obama.

In simpler terms, “Lovett or Leave It,” which Jon Lovett hosts alongside his Crooked Media co-founders and former Obama associates, Jon Favreau and Tommy Vietor, has a laid-back, late-night TV feel. However, observing its audience, the followers of Crooked’s ideologies, made me uneasy. The question that surfaced was whether their goal was to establish a progressive utopia worldwide, or if they believed such an outcome could be accomplished without causing any disruptions in the peaceful atmosphere.

Reflecting upon a fateful summer night and the day following the election, I found myself recalling moments when President Biden appeared to be teetering on the brink of defeat after a less-than-stellar debate performance, and Vice President Harris conceding her loss. Now, looking back, it seems evident that the idealistic vision of “Lovett or Leave It,” the tactfully neutral content of Higher Ground’s streaming offerings on Netflix, and the fleeting amusement derived from childless cat memes all share a common thread – the waning relevance of liberal ideology.

The notion that its proponents are comfortable, elitist figures who excel only in symbolic triumph can no longer be attributed to manipulation by conservative media outlets. It’s past time for us to acknowledge that the participants in the culture war have contributed significantly to their own downfall.

the industry-created “cinematic universe” and other mass-produced “culture,” streaming entertainment designed for folding laundry, and various luxury content from media moguls to ranchers to reality TV stars. Even exceptions like shows such as “Severance,” “Squid Game,” “Andor,” “Dune,” which often reflect the flaws of our society without explicitly depicting them, can easily become self-congratulatory. For example, the musical “Wicked,” based on a book published during Bill Clinton’s first term, was quickly absorbed into a narrative that allowed Hollywood to embrace its supposedly radical message and possibly earn an Oscar for Best Picture as a way of expressing opposition to Trump.

The response isn’t a surge of overtly political movies; didacticism no longer decides elections or box office success. However, the closure of Participant Media and the struggles of Trump biopic “The Apprentice,” along with executive dreams of a politics-free entertainment industry, indicate a reluctance to cause controversy that fundamentally misconstrues our current state. In this era where risk — like Kendrick Lamar versus Drake, or Chappell Roan — pays off, it’s concerning that there were essential portrayals of civic life on screen last year. These films depicted citizens discussing their community’s future and protesting against tyranny; unfortunately, they all depicted societies overseas: “Evil Does Not Exist” (Japan), “Dahomey” (Benin), “The Seed of the Sacred Fig” (Iran), “I’m Still Here” (Brazil). During previous periods of authoritarianism, Hollywood responded forcefully with brave filmmaking that tackled the issue directly. This time around, it appears far more probable to look away.

Essentially, in today’s context, the entertainment industry and other significant, self-proclaimed liberal entities in American society have found themselves mirroring a scene from “The Good Fight,” where a character from Women Unite for Change challenges Diane’s initiative to spark #MeToo in an alternate reality. The question was, “If Hillary doesn’t win, Trump wins. Then what do we have?” Now, on the brink of Trump’s second term inauguration, with a strong conservative majority seated on the Supreme Court and Republicans holding sway over the House and Senate, the devastating effects of that line of thought are becoming apparent — alongside an immediate requirement to innovate and popularize a progressive solution addressing climate change, racism, foreign intervention, and the decline of the middle class. This solution must be convincing enough for voters, regardless if they identify with the Democratic Party or not.

Today’s celebrity involvement in politics, contrasting sharply with the bold activism displayed by figures like Harry Belafonte during the civil rights era or Jane Fonda against the Vietnam War, can be seen as the ultimate manifestation of the uncertainty that arose from Obama’s 2008 campaign slogan, “Hope,” if it didn’t clearly define its purpose. Essentially, what connects modern Hollywood’s political ties to the Democratic Party is their ambiguity – politics being reduced to a sanitized version, devoid of any potential controversy and thus power, similar to a carefully crafted corporate press release.

For numerous individuals, this culture has provided comfort during challenging times, be it the lethargic period known as “brat summer” or the tumultuous days of the 2020 election. The urge to connect, heal, find refuge or happiness is understandable. However, confining interactions exclusively to those who share similar beliefs and communicate in a special language, reminiscent of a religious gathering, may not lead to significant societal changes. In fact, such an approach could eventually mirror the conservative philosophy of prioritizing faith over actions: As followers of Jon Lovett might put it while sipping their ethically-sourced Crooked Media coffee, thoughts and prayers alone have never prevented a school shooting.

Read More

2025-01-19 14:34

Previous post Scream 7 adds Community star as Sidney’s husband
Next post Caroline Flack Friends vs Family: Bitter Feud Revealed in Upcoming Docuseries