Hollywood And Its Discontents
Call me an inexperienced youngin, but upon reading about a supposed deficit of heroism in Hollywood, skepticism was my first reaction. Though apparently all of these superhero films seem to do good in terms of sales regardless of how many people claim to be sick of them (Dark Knight FTW!), it seems that they're not about real heroism so much as about how removed from reality they are. I'm sure it should be obvious to the most casual of observers that superhero movies cannot portray anything real so much as offer a parable or lesson as the crude, coarse, modern equivalent of (insert classical genre format here). Were this the only point the author tried to make, the article could be written off as one of the less harmful pieces of trend journalism. Unfortunately, the issues of 'victim' and 'whistleblower' heroes are introduced and for me at least, the article went downhill from there."The point of all three of the kinds of hero in which Hollywood has specialized over the last 35 years has been to make sure that heroism can continue to exist only on a plane far removed from the daily lives of the audience."
To say it is far removed from the daily audience's lives is unnecessary at best and false at worst. If these kinds of heroism were that far removed from daily life, then I would not have read so many articles from journalist and non-journalist alike on things like: how Obama/McCain will fuck up the country if elected president, the importance of having some political representative fight against gay marriage/global warming/immigration/sexualization of children, or why it's important for victims of rape/child abuse/censorship to speak up and do something about it. Such heated subjects clearly invite victims and whistleblowers fighting the corrupt systems that make these things possible. Whatever historical context may have created these archetypes in current cinema and culture, to deny it has close connection to its audience's lives heavily suggests that pop culture should only focus on the stereotypical concerns of the middle class, which would make pop culture slightly less self-absorbed than it is now. Other than that, the denial is there to expose a blind spot that an author older and wiser than 25-year old me should not have.
One response to the article linked above does get some things right that the original missed. Once again though, it goes downhill when trying to explain the victim and whistle-blower hero as if it were confined solely to the concerns of Hollywood:
"If you're Stephen Gaghan, or Joss Whedon, or Alan Ball (AMERICAN BEAUTY) and you actually care that a studio exec was rude to you, or cheated you out of an extra million that was due you (leaving you only $8 million on the deal), and that forms your whole social environment, then yes, of course your view of heroes would be either nihilistic, middle-class society rejecting anti-heroes, or whistle-blowers who show "how corrupt the system is." Of course Hollywood is corrupt. But Hollywood is not America."
Wrong, due to the example I gave in the larger paragraph above. True, you may not want to think of someone who shares your politics is a 'victim' or 'whistle-blower', but when you see a pundit on TV or read one of their articles on a website acting as if society will turn unbearably more evil if their talking point is not heeded, they are trying to be that hero themselves or hoping someone else will fill the role. Just because such a person doesn't explicitly reject middle-class values (or properly embody them for that matter) doesn't make this problem all about Hollywood and the egomaniacs that exist there.
"...Which leaves the cartoon/superhero as the only venue for heroism, and that far removed from both ordinary society, but embodying the "Big Man" jerk-style personal behaviors that Hollywood writers and producers have adopted as the norm."
This is an even bigger blind spot than before, simply because pretending that the "Big Man" jerk is only adopted as the norm by Hollywood requires lots of concentration. I don't think I'd have nearly enough strength of mind to ignore the fact that there are more women attracted to jerks until it's time to play victim - while despising the weakness of guys that don't act big enough, or that presidental election coverage has repeatedly forgone focusing on the candidates' real views and plans to feverishly point out how 'unmanly' one's behaviors are. I know damned well that the American public likes its men to at least act big, if only to reassure them that large numbers of men won't undergo testicle shrinkage followed by a preference for some things 'girly'. Nevermind that somehow our ancestors and others around the world today somehow manage(d) to have bigger concerns than feeling a need to constantly reassure others that they're real men (is it that easy for some to forget?)...
One other problem that both of the authors miss is that to really drive their respective points home, all they had to do was invoke the dread specter of "Liberal Hollywood" and how it has ruined nearly everything. From there, it's only a hop, step, and a skip away to imply that if liberals and their problems were removed from Hollywood, it would once again be an arbiter of all that is right and moral. For that extra jolt of silliness, they could even explain why people should look to Hollywood of all places for examples of heroism rather than to non-fiction books and real people. It sure as hell would've made things more understandable than simply pointing the finger at Hollywood and blaming away.
Labels: article coverage, posted in windows
posted by el-chozo-loco @ 2:13 PM
0 comments
