Hypocrite Hollywood

Written by Ryan AnthonycloseAuthor: Ryan Anthony Name: Ryan Anthony
Email: mica1884@gmail.com
Site:
About: 25 year old Tennessee resident and small government conservative. I first discovered my love of writing while working for a high school newspaper; that was eight years ago. Now I'm studying for an Associate's Degree in journalism. My favorite topics to cover for Parcbench include contact sports and television.See Authors Posts (34) on August 12, 2009

Hollywood’s movie industry ‑ accustomed to wallowing in the green ‑ has been facing all sorts of problems for the past few years, from piracy to declining ticket sales. I must admit I’m party to this in my own way: the last original movie I was planning to watch was the new “Terminator” flick. I didn’t make it, but not because of my usual excuse for turning down buttered popcorn.

Usually, I skip out on most big screen showings, unless their material interests me. And of course Hollywood, that mecca of pop culture, has of late been notorious for creating nothing of interest to the masses.

With this in mind, the motion picture movers‑and‑shakers have been futilely trying to spur box office draws via falling back on the 80s‑era strategy of churning out rehashes of this or that successful franchise to eliminate risk, or on the 90s‑era strategy of producing annoying socio‑political preach‑fests. In the middle of an economic wasteland as desolate as Christian Bale’s future stomping grounds of Los Angeles, Tinseltown could fast do without both for reasons which I’ll touch on, since I believe them to have been overlooked by too many people.

From at least 2006 onward, the majority of Hollywood has towed the anti‑business angle, routinely castigating profit‑makers; advocating higher taxes for the other guy; exhorting more socially conscious living ‑ all while earning boatloads of money and refusing to, as the saying goes, “do their part.”  It’s not only the actors doing this, but people who we don’t often think about ‑ scriptwriters and directors addicted to their own influence.

To further elaborate on that viewpoint, a scriptwriter who would only speak to me on condition of anonymity recently told me Jack Nicholson received eight million dollars for a three day movie walk‑on. When asked about the insanely huge sums of money made by Nicholson and other Hollywood A‑listers, his response was “We have allowed that to happen. Just like with athletes . . . ballplayers for the Chicago Cubs who earn 68 thousand dollars per game regardless of their performance.”

I don’t personally share his views on whether or not baseball players deserve what they earn. There are only a small pile of people capable of playing professional sports at any given time in this country, and a pitcher takes his well‑being into his hands with every fastball. One thing I will admit, though, is that there is a problem with the way Hollywood conducts business.  Rightly so, the blame lies at the feet of the movie‑going public; by extension, all of America. We went to movie theaters to see stars ply their trade, we got them accustomed to earning tens of millions of dollars per flick as box office draws, and we got them accustomed to standing on the soap box.

We are their red carpet Ritalin, ladies and gentlemen.

Actors and screenplay writers share one aspect of their existence with politicians: They work for America, we do not work for them. Maybe its time next year’s Academy Awards gathering found itself with abysmal television ratings and sporadically populated seating.  Maybe it’s high time no one bought a DVD, or went to see an over‑priced under‑rated drama flick on their day off from work.  The movie industry would fold in on itself and perhaps be forced to create material more in touch with mainstream Americans. Most importantly, and this may just be wishful thinking on my part, Hollywood filmmakers ‑ such as Rob Reiner, who last I knew was perfectly okay with everyone (other than himself) paying taxes out the nose ‑ will live by the same example they set for everyone else.

Indeed, the entire MPAA may need to get cracking on that very axiom. Subject of its own alleged monopolies, it has come under fire for what some perceive as its heavy‑handed approach toward intellectual piracy.  Having made nearly twice as many contributions to Democrats as Republicans last election cycle; boasting such names on its roster as:

Michael Lynton, Chairman of Sony Pictures Entertainment, contributor to pro‑tax anti‑corporate Democrats;

Ronald Meyer, Universal Studios business executive and contributor of hundreds of thousands of campaign dollars to pro‑tax leftist candidates over the years;

Edward Romano, Warner Brothers executive VP with recognized campaign contributions to Patrick Leahy and Dianne Feinstein, and others, the MPAA qualifies as left‑leaning by any standard, but unsuccessfully argued early this year for . . . of all things . . . a filmmaker tax break?

The California tax code already contains breaks for (among many other productions) low‑budget TV pilot production, relevant scripting for which will usually fetch established writers at least five hundred thousand dollars. With another hundred million dollars in breaks a year over the next five years, headed to areas such as the San Fernando Valley, and the door left open for further tax breaks through next year, the hypocrisy of their wish list is astonishing.

The official line is that it’s to save California from its current economic troubles. I could buy that strategy, if it didn’t boil down to two groups scratching each other’s backs.

Why can filmmakers not put the money required to produce these wastes of time, and the 200 percent cost increase required to market them, toward the homeless? Or, if the health insurance system is truly so bad, toward insurance for poor families?

Could such a thing even be done?

We can hope.

Of course, redistributionist mentalities wouldn’t be fair to anyone involved – whether businesses issuing retention bonuses to their most productive and senior officers, or Major League Baseball stars.  Any sort of charity would have to come out of the heart of the individual, neither forced by government mandate nor a Pavlovian reflex to yet another tax write‑off. But who knows what forms charity can take? Maybe Hollywood regulars can go about it another way: take an example from another film producer ‑ Brad Pitt ‑ and start adopting children.

Love him or hate him politically, its one thing to just rip a page out of the checkbook and call yourself an activist, but to fly halfway around the world and bring a baby back home constitutes a whole other meaning to putting your money where your mouth is.

As for the rest of the group, if they choose to continue in their current habit of living by class warfare, they should die by it as well.

Either Hollywood’s screenplay writing industry subjects itself to the same ideals it endorses (whether implicitly or explicitly) for everyone else, or it chooses to do the simple thing and be quiet.