"Filmmakers Are Braver in Bush's Second Term"

Tools    





28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
*imdb.com*

Spielberg: "Filmmakers Are Braver in Bush's Second Term"

Steven Spielberg believes politically charged movies have become Increasingly popular during George W. Bush's presidency, because film-makers are keen to distance themselves from his policies. The director is currently courting controversy with his Oscar-nominated film Munich - which focuses on the aftermath of terrorist action at the 1972 Olympic Games - and feels the Republican administration is not representing his interests. He says, "Maybe I shouldn't get into this. I just feel that filmmakers are much more proactive since the second Bush administration. I think that everybody is trying to declare their independence and state their case for the things that we believe in. No one is really representing us, so we're now representing our own feelings, and we're trying to strike back."

~~~~~~~

Isnt this the same hypocrite who edited the hell outta the E.T. rerelease after the aftermath of 9/11?

Thoughts on the quote? Agree, Disagree?
__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews



there's a frog in my snake oil
How did he re-edit ET with respect to 9-11? Haven't seen the newer cut, but i don't exactly remember any terrorism parallels.

---

As for the 'braver in the 2nd term' thing, hell, even the Republicans are being 'braver' on that front (McCain is my hero, yaaay )

As much as i hate it when stars stick their noses inadvisadly into politics, i'm kinda hopeful that Clooney's latest films have plowed some fertile ground. More-so than the usual arty politics-lashing fodder anyhow.

There are definitely some genuine issues out there that everyone was too cowed to touch earlier on (for fear of being painted unpatriotic, or disrespectful of 9-11 victims/families etc). Things relating to political use of the 9-11 aftermath will undoubtably get worked over more and more. And as for Iraq... well, the Bushies were always relying on the fact that furor after the facts can't change anything anyway

The mistakes the Bush-ites have made deserve to be displayed. Whether anyone'll do them 'justice', and turn what we learn from them to good ends, is the biggest question. It's always intriguing to see these little dramas played out tho, either way
__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here



I am having a nervous breakdance
As Golgot has allready been going into, I think perhaps it's not just filmmakers becoming more and more "brave" along with the development of Bush's politics during his second term. It has probably also a lot to do with the fact that we travel a longer and longer distance from the date 9/11 2001, and that goes for more things than just filmmaking of course.
__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but
now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.



28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
Originally Posted by Golgot
How did he re-edit ET with respect to 9-11? Haven't seen the newer cut, but i don't exactly remember any terrorism parallels.
It was so stupid, he digitally removed the shotguns that the FBI or CIA were holding before ET and elliot begin to fly. He replaced them with walkie talkies.

Among other things.



The Fat of the Mailbox
Originally Posted by TheUsualSuspect
It was so stupid, he digitally removed the shotguns that the FBI or CIA were holding before ET and elliot begin to fly. He replaced them with walkie talkies.

Among other things.
There is no reason to change something in the past in hopes to give a sense of security to the present.

As far as these films are concerned; Film making is now something that more and more people can do. It's not just for the Hollywood 'elites' anymore. That combined with the face that the Bush era is creating a lot of material to fertilize the breeding ground of political movies.

However it is a problem when these films are one-sided. Propaganda is propaganda.



Most films take a couple of years or more to go from development to release. The window between when Bush went off the deep end and the end of his first term was pretty narrow. Most of the stuff coming out now has been in the works for a few years.



Movie Forums Member
That is really true. I never thought of it like that.



FrodoKilledDonnie's Avatar
Registered User
I hate politically charged films. I really hate when people try to force their personal beliefs on the public. Basically, I hate politics.



Originally Posted by FrodoKilledDonnie
I hate politically charged films. I really hate when people try to force their personal beliefs on the public. Basically, I hate politics.
I really don't have a problem with so-called "political" films some of my favorites fall into that category. The thing is the viewer has to be informed and able to tell facts from conjecture or even outright lies. If the film is fictional or a fictional account of "true" events the viewer should already be taking it with the proper dose of sodium chloride, and if its a documentary most likely already know where the filmmaker stands.

I like films that challenge me, provoke me. Films that make me see things differently or challenge my assumptions, make me think, now that’s what art is supposed to do.

Oh and the ET thing, Gertie (Drew Barrymore) also said something about another character being a terrorist if I remember correctly. That line was omitted after 9/11 I think I have an old videotape of ET if I have time Ill review the changes.



I am having a nervous breakdance
Originally Posted by FrodoKilledDonnie
I hate politically charged films. I really hate when people try to force their personal beliefs on the public. Basically, I hate politics.
He he...

The thing with "politically charged" films is that they at least are open about being political. When you are watching the average Hollywood production you are being fed with tons of ideology. And you gladly swallows it because of its seductive and tasty package. You hate politics, but politics, thanks to your naivety, love you.



Originally Posted by Piddzilla
He he...

The thing with "politically charged" films is that they at least are open about being political. When you are watching the average Hollywood production you are being fed with tons of ideology. And you gladly swallows it because of its seductive and tasty package. You hate politics, but politics, thanks to your naivety, love you.
I agree completely. Political films can be argued on their merits...unfortunately, however, many fictional films have thinly-veiled agendas (if they're veiled at all), and it's often impossible to genuinely rebut them, if only because everyone thinks of them as harmless fiction. For that reason, I prefer politically-minded films to be as straightforward and open as possible, so that the ability to discuss (and perhaps debunk) them isn't hampered by where they sit on the video store shelf.



A system of cells interlinked
Originally Posted by FrodoKilledDonnie
I hate politically charged films. I really hate when people try to force their personal beliefs on the public. Basically, I hate politics.
Forced? Ah, you must have been a victim of the Ludivico Treatment featured in A Clockwork Orange. Your eyes pinned open, strapped to a chair, drugs in your system...

Horseapples! People are EXPESSING their personal beliefs TO the public, no one is forced to watch or to agree with them. This is a free country, remember? People can express whatever they want to express, if you don't like it, don't watch it! Get on up out of your seat and step on out of the theater...

Oh, and before you try to spam me for trying to surpress YOUR opinion, I didn't do anything of the kind, I am just telling you I think it stinks.

__________________
“It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.” ― Thomas Sowell



I am Jack's sense of overused quote
Originally Posted by Sedai
Forced? Ah, you must have been a victim of the Ludivico Treatment featured in A Clockwork Orange. Your eyes pinned open, strapped to a chair, drugs in your system...

Horseapples! People are EXPESSING their personal beliefs TO the public, no one is forced to watch or to agree with them. This is a free country, remember? People can express whatever they want to express, if you don't like it, don't watch it! Get on up out of your seat and step on out of the theater...

Oh, and before you try to spam me for trying to surpress YOUR opinion, I didn't do anything of the kind, I am just telling you I think it stinks.

I think I just fell in love with you a little bit.

However, I think Speilberg is correct. Filamkers have been braver. That is mainly because the country has turned more anti-Bush. Couple with the success of Goodnight and Goodluck and you realize filmakers are no longer afraid to put out a (more obviously) political film. With assurances their movies will not flop, the filmakers are more likely to make these movies.
__________________
"What might have been and what has been
Point to one end, which is always present." - T.S. Eliot



Originally Posted by Sedai
Forced? Ah, you must have been a victim of the Ludivico Treatment featured in A Clockwork Orange. Your eyes pinned open, strapped to a chair, drugs in your system...

Horseapples! People are EXPESSING their personal beliefs TO the public, no one is forced to watch or to agree with them. This is a free country, remember? People can express whatever they want to express, if you don't like it, don't watch it! Get on up out of your seat and step on out of the theater...

Oh, and before you try to spam me for trying to surpress YOUR opinion, I didn't do anything of the kind, I am just telling you I think it stinks.

Excellent post!

I agree that it is largely the province of conspiracy theorizers, this thing they call the "Manchurian" effect. I don't know where the individual posters political compass falls (mine is certainly to the left-Libertarian-anarchist position) but filmmakers largely wear their beliefs on their sleeves. I don't think the artist’s responsibility is to plainly say anything, if they do (of if it perceived so) more often than not the product is dreck anyway. As a matter of fact I think the whole notion of Artist’s having any responsibility at all is bull****.

I especially love it when a film, Do the Right Thing for example, has no obvious political agenda, yet critics and pundits felt THEY should assign it one. If having two seemingly diametrically opposing quotes at the end of the film didn’t put too fine a point on that fact I don't know what possibly could. Yet instead of "getting it" the same critics (some self-professed college graduates) and pundits got all hot and bothered over one while ignoring the significance of the two standing side by side at a the end of the credits (or, in actuality, coming one after the other).

Basically if you are so stupid that you are brainwashed by a film...God help you. Oh wait.... where are those weapons anyway...???



Originally Posted by gohansrage
I think I just fell in love with you a little bit.
However, I think Speilberg is correct. Filamkers have been braver. That is mainly because the country has turned more anti-Bush. Couple with the success of Goodnight and Goodluck and you realize filmakers are no longer afraid to put out a (more obviously) political film. With assurances their movies will not flop, the filmakers are more likely to make these movies.
__________________


You know what though, I don't think its the filmmakers at all, its the studios who have not gotten braver but have seen the opportunity top cash in with an audience that is largely dissatisfied with the current state of the world. If the production costs are on the backs of the filmmakers not the studio, which is the case with most vanity projects or indy films, the studio has little to lose. No one is getting braver, and if and when there is a backlash to the backlash, watch how quickly “Liberal Hollywood” changes its stripes.

They have activated a demographic (mostly liberal I'll freely admit) that has in many cases stayed away from some of the mindless films made in the last 10 years or so. I don't agree that these films were "green lit" so long ago that their relevance is simply an accident, especially the smaller films (GNAGL, for example). They take considerably less time to prep than a special effects laden blockbuster and are very likely to have been made during the last 3 years. The backlash began when the shock and awe wore off.

But back to my point. Filmmakers, especially indy filmmakers, have always been brave. I can't see how devoting blood sweat tears and family, financial stability, hopes dreams and health for a vision however silly to the rest of us, cannot be considered brave. Studios are realizing that they can't sustain the blockbuster, not when fewer and fewer people are going to the movies. I feel for the artists in both filmmakers and musicians but there is precious little quality out there that I am willing to pay for. No wonder downloading is so prevalent.



Originally Posted by gohansrage
I think I just fell in love with you a little bit.

However, I think Speilberg is correct. Filamkers have been braver. That is mainly because the country has turned more anti-Bush. Couple with the success of Goodnight and Goodluck and you realize filmakers are no longer afraid to put out a (more obviously) political film. With assurances their movies will not flop, the filmakers are more likely to make these movies.
On the other hand, we've also had films like World Trade Center that are relentlessly pro-Bush in their orientation, and the 'political' films we have seen either went unwatched (Syriana), were aimed at an audience that was inevitably completely oblivious to their subtext (V For Vendetta), or weren't, in fact, politically controversial at all (seriously, other than Ann Coulter, who is still defending Joe McCarthy?).

And, let's not forget, the film that was far and away the most aggressively political and most successful polemic in recent memory was conceived, shot and released before the last election.



Originally Posted by Infinite Iteration
And, let's not forget, the film that was far and away the most aggressively political and most successful polemic in recent memory was conceived, shot and released before the last election.
From the filmmaker whom we dare not speak his name?



Originally Posted by Othelo
From the filmmaker whom we dare not speak his name?
From the fat socialist weasel, yes.



Originally Posted by Infinite Iteration
From the fat socialist weasel, yes.
Zing!!!

Socialist weasel, oh man.



I am Jack's sense of overused quote
Originally Posted by Othelo
__________________


You know what though, I don't think its the filmmakers at all, its the studios who have not gotten braver but have seen the opportunity top cash in with an audience that is largely dissatisfied with the current state of the world. If the production costs are on the backs of the filmmakers not the studio, which is the case with most vanity projects or indy films, the studio has little to lose. No one is getting braver, and if and when there is a backlash to the backlash, watch how quickly “Liberal Hollywood” changes its stripes.
I pretty much agree with this. Yet I feel many filmakers are just as guilty. The major directors will only test the waters as long as their audiences will stomach it. Indy filmakers are their own breed. They are brave simply by risking all on their films. (A point I agree with you on.)