Let me just start right now by saying I don’t like Tucker Carlson; he’s obnoxious, he’s intellectually dishonest and his fashion sense is questionable. Tonight he was talking about the movie Brokeback Mountain. Maybe it’s my Toronto roots speaking here, but I just don’t see where the controversy stems from in this movie. People like Tucker claim that Brokeback is the product of a liberal Hollywood agenda, hence the controversy. Mr. Tucker, was it also a liberal Hollywood agenda that inspired Mel Gibson to make The Passion of the Christ? I didn’t understand the controversy then, and I don’t understand it now, even though we’re on the other side of the ideological fence.
I think The Situation Room guest put it right when she said that “Hollywood’s true agenda is money.” If people are producing movies that are gay-friendly, anti-war or pro-environment, it is because Hollywood’s directors, producers and writers ally themselves with the values that are behind such movies, likewise with reference to movies about the crucifixion of Jesus. The content of a movie speaks to the interests and ideologies of its creators, and shouldn’t be mistaken as an attempt to bring non-believers into alignment with the philosophy of the creators. If I’m interested in sex, then I’ll probably write poems about sex, make songs about sex and make movies about sex, not because I want to proselytize, but because that’s where my interests lay (hypothetically speaking, of course.) The art you make reflects your passions.
Tucker claims that Hollywood has an agenda while hosting his conservative show dedicated to the propagation of conservative values. A little hypocritical isn’t it, Mr. Carlson? If you’re so unhappy with the so-called liberal agenda of Hollywood, then take your conservative friends and start making some movies yourself.
To be fair, it’s not just Tucker who attacked the alleged liberal agenda of Ang Lee’s movie, but let’s face it: the man wears a bowtie.
Oh Mr. Tucker— he’s like your retarded cousin you see at Thanksgiving (that’s on behalf of all of Canada).
5 Comments:
You have a retarded cousin?
Yeah that guy is such a poindexter. I hate how stupid people attack the arts.
"Oh a man shot a dog in this movie... what sort of message does that send to the children?!" Surely they will all grow up to hunt dog... and the most deadly game of all... humans.
Stupid people are all about rights, and then they completely disregard freedom of speech just because they disagree with what's being said... they are the only ones with rights, everyone else is irrelevant.
I remember people protesting Dogma (Kevin Smith's fine film) without even having seen it.
"Gasp, this film deals with religious beliefs that probably aren't exactly the same as my own!!! This man is trying to corrupt the entire world! Time to protest and hurt my cause even more by creating controversy and getting the movie all over the news, enticing people to watch the film to see what all the fuss is about."
People are stupid! And sure, I may be off on some tangent, ranting away, but people anger me... because they're just so stupid.
Zok
No, you're right: people who surround a film with controversy, help it perform much better than it ever would have without it, thus enabling the very cause they're trying to stop. We saw that very example with "The Passion of the Christ." Mel was laughing all the way to the bank, for sure.
Your second point is also valid: Tucker admitted that he had never (nor would ever) see "Brokeback." How can you possibly comment on something you haven't seen? That's why it behooves Tucker to see "Brokeback," it behooves angry Jews to see "The Passion of the Christ," and it behooves angry conservatives to read the Qu'ran; know what it is you're protesting before you make an ass of yourself. I'm not saying everyone is making an ass out of themselves, but you have to know all sides before you can choose one, right?
The retarded cousin comment was actually a comment Tucker made about Canada. Man, if I ever run into that guy in a dark alley...
Myke, I don't think using "Passion" as an example serves your argument well. Remember, Mel couldn't get anybody in Hollywood to distribute it, so he took the leap and did it himself through his own distribution company.
On the whole I think your arguments are sound. I just don't think the "Passion" movie should be classified as "Hollywood" (for what it's worth).
That's exactly my point, Mr. Lar. I rhetorically (and somewhat sarcastically) asked, "was it also a liberal Hollywood agenda that inspired Mel Gibson to make The Passion of the Christ?" I specifically chose this film because it comes from the right side of the fence, and yet it was equally attacked by the public. But I'm too tired to effectively argue anything right now. Peace out.
Post a Comment
<< Home