For those of you who have been reading The Movie Blog for at least 2 years or more, you may remember that at one point I signed a small book deal with an even smaller publisher to write a book that I was calling “The Silver Screen From Where I’m Sitting”.
The book was supposed to just be a coffee table book about movies and the movie world where you could just pick it up and turn to any chapter and start reading. Each chapter was just it’s own isolated topic and thus the book didn’t have to be read in order.
Ok anyway… I got several months into the book, sent it off to the editor a couple of times along the way… but eventually I just got too busy. The book got delayed, and then last year I started work on my upcoming Documentary movie “Prince of Peace – God of War” and any time I had was just flushed away. The publisher was very nice to me and understood my situation and we just decided to cancel the book.
So now here we are, and I’ve got 7 chapters that I wrote just sitting here. That’s when I decided I might as well just release some of what I wrote for the doomed book here on The Movie Blog. So for the next week, I’ll be releasing a chapter a day here on the site (the ones that don’t suck too much anyway).
In part 4 I talk about Hollywood being hesitant to really tackle hard issues from any meaningful point of view, how we all jump to label other people who don’t share our own opinions on these types of topics and refuse any meaningful dialog and how story portray characters who make choices. I hope you like it, it’s my personal favorite chapter from the book.
If you missed the first 3 chapters you can see part 1 here, part 2 here and part 3 here. Otherwise, continue on reading…
Chapter 4
Touchy Subjects, Hollywood, and the Audience
Please Make More Controversial Movies… But Only Ones I Agree With
I remember a while back watching some entertainment show where a couple of pundits were lamenting the lack of directors today who show real “courage” in making films about a certain topic. I found it interesting that their definition of “courage” only applied to directors who would make a film about such a topic while reflecting the pundit’s own point of view. What hypocrisy. Then again, I’m guilty of it too… so are all of us.
It did get me thinking however about the broader topic of why so few major motion pictures ever deal with what could be called “touchy” subjects. Topics like homosexuality, abortion, euthanasia and others, which could be argued require a greater level of dialog and discussion, receive the proverbial silent treatment from Hollywood. Like the above mentioned pundits, we all have our own points of view on these topics and lament the lack of films portraying them positively.
So why is it that Hollywood stays away from these issues and others like them to any meaningful degree? Is it because they don’t like controversy? I doubt it. In Hollywood, controversy = publicity. And all publicity (well, unless you’re Pee-Wee Herman getting caught with your banana getting ripe in a porn theatre) is good publicity because it gets people talking about the movie. And when people talk about a movie, they’re more likely to say “Hey, let’s see that one.” when standing in line at the ticket office on Friday night.
Perhaps in looking for the reason more “touchy” subject films aren’t made, we should stop pointing the finger at the cowardly filmmakers, studios and directors. Maybe the real reason these sorts of films can’t get produced and thrive in our society is closer to home. In other words… maybe it’s our own damn fault.
The Biggest Question In Life: Was Alexander Gay?
I put up a post on The Movie Blog about a year ago concerning a story that said Warner Bros. executives decided to cut a gay sex scene from the film “Alexander”. In the post I mentioned that I thought it was probably the right decision from a business point of view. I still stand by that, and I think the majority of the comments made on the post and on other websites back that up.
Now, I need to be careful here. The reason I said I agreed with the decision to take the scene out (if indeed any such scene ever existed) was strictly because I believed (and still believe) that the majority of people do not want to watch a homosexual sex scene in a film they go to see. Is that a little hypocritical since most people have absolutely no problem watching a heterosexual sex scene in a movie (and as a matter of fact will sometimes only go to a flick promising such scenes)? Yes, it is. However, that isn’t the point I was trying to make.
Many commenters on the post tried to trap me into a debate about weather or not movie audiences SHOULD feel comfortable watching a homosexual sex scene. I personally never offered an opinion one way or another about weather audiences SHOULD or SHOULDN’T feel comfortable with it. I merely said (accurately I might add) that in general, audiences DON’T feel comfortable with it. And on that basis alone I agreed with WB’s reported cutting of the scene. Why?
Because it made sense from a business point of view. If people don’t want to watch something (homosexual scenes, surgeries on TV, snuff films, 70’s Disco music videos, break dancing or whatever), then they obviously won’t pay for a ticket to go watch it. Following that logic, if the majority of your potential market does not want to see a homosexual sex scene in a film… then it would be sheer lunacy to put one in when you’ve got hundred’s of millions of dollars invested in the project.
Don’t think for a moment that studio executives are trying to make moral decisions here. They’re not. Morality one way or another has nothing to do with it (nor should it). This is about business. The moment studio executives believe more people will pay to see their films containing gay sex in it… they’ll churn them out faster than you can say Scary Movie 5.
Now, on the issue of weather or not movie audiences SHOULD feel comfortable watching a gay sex scene is another animal all together. This is a discussion worth having. It’s something I think we should all talk about. It is a valid issue. But it had nothing to do with the immediate topic at hand. Shoulds and Shouldn’ts are all well and good, and are needed sometimes. But other times the questions a business person needs to deal with revolves around Do and Don’ts. This, I maintain, is what WB was faced with. IS the audience willing to watch a gay sex scene, or ISN’T it. The answer was “It isn’t”. That’s fair enough.
I later received an email from the good folks at the Internet Movie Data Base tipping me to the fact that the Spin Doctors over at WB were backpedaling like crazy to get themselves out of the controversy by claiming they never “cut” and gay sex scenes from Alexander. You know what that means don’t you? It really means they stopped the scene before it was even filmed… which technically means they never “cut” or “deleted” it. Very slick. However, it raises the issue for me about how spineless and irrational Movie Executives… AND all of us are when it comes to the hot potato issues of our society at large
Maybe If We Didn’t Act Like Children
The problem on both fronts (as I see it) is that none of us want to enter into any sort of meaningful discussion on the issues. Instead of dialog, we tend to all sink to the level of hurling generalities and insults at each other. No one wants to look at these issues from the other sides point of view.
Take the Alexander issue for a moment… those who are “anti-gay” immediately started throwing terms like “gross” or “disgusting” or “perverted” around, never once taking into consideration the feelings of those on the other side of the fence, or the larger social spectrum when talking about it. The “pro-gay” side on the other hand immediately starts labeling people who don’t agree with them as homophobic or hate mongers. NO WONDER MOVIE EXECS DON’T WANT TO EXPLORE THESE ISSUES! We can’t even have an intelligent conversation about it… what big movie exec in the world would want to stick his / her neck out in that kind of hornet’s nest?
That all made me think about Abortion as well. Man are we dumb. I know a lot of people who are Pro-Life… and I know a lot of people who are Pro-Choice too. It strikes me that the true issue revolves around if you believe a fetus is a human being or not. I have yet to meet a Pro-Choice person who just wants to kill babies for their own convenience. To them it’s not taking a life, it’s just removing some tissue from their bodies BEFORE it becomes a person. If they’re right about that, then there’s nothing wrong with getting rid of it BEFORE if becomes a baby. And yet Pro-Lifers immediately start yelling and screaming insults at Pro-Choicers calling them “killers” and labeling them as people who would rather kill a child then put up with the inconvenience.
On the other hand, I have yet to meet a Pro-Lifer that just wants to oppress women or take away their freedoms. To them, the fetus IS already a baby. If they’re right, then destroying the fetus IS killing, so wouldn’t they be monsters for not wanting to stop the killing of babies? And yet Pro-Choicers immediately start yelling and screaming insults at Pro-Lifers calling them chauvinists or just wanting to oppress women and keep them in their place.
We are all so dumb. No wonder big movie execs don’t want to make an intelligent movie about hot topics when none of us seem to be able to act rationally when talking about them amongst ourselves. We’re all such children (me included).
Clint Eastwood Hates Cripples
Sometimes filmmakers are just plain idiots. But there are also times when far too much is demanded of them. Take Clint Eastwood for a moment. He goes and makes this amazing film (Million Dollar Baby) that he pours his heart and soul into. The film tells a really touching story about flawed characters in a flawed world.
WARNING… SPOILER IN THIS NEXT PARAGRAPH
At the end of the film, Clint’s character must make a horrible decision. His student, who has become like a daughter to him, has become paralyzed from the neck down and wants to end her life. In the end, Clint’s character agrees to assist her.
Now, keep in mind that this movie isn’t a propaganda film. It’s also not Clint Eastwood… it’s A CHARACTER CLINT IS PORTRAYING. The decision to end the girl’s life was NOT Clint’s decision. It was the decision made by the character. There was nothing saying if it was right or wrong. Nothing said he was doing what was good or bad. It was just a story, and in this particular story the character made a certain decision. Plain and simple.
However, I was watching the news the other day and there were a bunch of people protesting an event Clint Eastwood was attending. One of them held up a sign that said “Client Eastwood Hates Cripples”. I was stunned. It’s hard to accept that there are some people out there who are so stupid that they can’t make a distinction between what a character does in a story, and what the real life person does.
Stories are stories. There are good ones and there are bad ones. Some stories show characters doing things we would do ourselves. Others show characters doing things we don’t approve of. That’s all fair enough. But there are some people out there who think that only films that line up with their own personal points of view should get made… and that is just plain idiotic.
Personally, I’m against euthanasia. As a matter of fact I’m STRONGLY against it. But that’s me. That’s the opinion of John Campea. I don’t expect every single character on the silver screen to reflect my own thoughts or beliefs. That wouldn’t be real… that wouldn’t be life… it would just be propaganda.
I don’t go to a film to hear a lesson in morality. I don’t go just to hear my own point of view parroted back to me. I go to the movies to hear a story. A story about people and characters who come from different places and different philosophies and different environments. I’m curious to see what they would do, not tell me what I should do I their place. And in the end I can like or dislike what they chose to do, but it doesn’t effect my enjoyment of the story. Did the story draw me in? Did it make me think? Did I feel the pain of the characters and the difficulty they felt in facing the choices they had to make? These are the important questions.
To suggest Clint Eastwood hates paraplegics because of a choice made by one of the characters in his movie is like accusing Anthony Hopkins of being a cannibal because he portrayed Hannibal Lecter in Silence of the Lambs. Real people make good choices. Real people make bad choices. We expect no more and no less from anyone. Why is it some of us expect something different from characters in a movie?
So there you go. I think I’ve ticked off just about EVERYONE now. But I don’t care. We all need (me too) to start growing up and learn how to talk intelligently about this kind of stuff before we start demanding that movie makers take a stand and make movies that support our own points of view. Let’s start talking to each other instead of insulting each other for not agreeing with us.
And if you don’t agree with me, then you’re a Nazi!!! :)
