I’ve been reading the Inkwell, the IWF’s (Independent Women’s Forum) new weblog, faithfully. So far it seems to be a cookie-cutter Republican blog; “the party line, the whole party line, and nothing but the party line.” Despite the connection with the IWF, the Inkwell doesn’t seem especially focused on women or on (anti-) feminism.
One thing about the Inkwell is unexpected: the writers seem obsessed with Tony Kushner, gleefully reporting “low” ratings for Angels in America over and over, and expressing hopes that Kushner’s new musical (Caroline, or Change) will be a flop.
Does anyone else find this strikingly petty? There are many artists and novelists whose politics are too right-wing for my tastes, but I don’t sit around saying “boy, that Sarah Michelle Geller is a Republican – I sure hope her next movie flops miserably!” That would be ridiculous.
By the way, The Inkwell used a biased standard in declaring Angels a flop: they compare it to stuff like a CBS Christmas special and Fox’s The Simple Life. But that’s meaningless: aside from the fact that serious drama isn’t expected to match the ratings of fluff like The Simple Life, there’s also the obvious fact that many fewer households receive HBO than receive CBS and FOX.
The actual measure of success is: How did Angels do compared to other made-for-cable movies? According to the December 11 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:
That’s not even including HBO’s broadcasting of the same material in six one-hour segments. Overall, HBO estimates that 7.8 million viewers watched Angels in its first week (New York Times, 12/22/03), putting Angels miles ahead of any comparable made-for-cable movie in 2003.
So, unsurprisingly, the IWF folks are once again “factually disabled.” But that’s beside the point – to sit around wishing failure on an artist because you don’t like their politics is ugly, and would be ugly even if they had gotten their facts straight..
“but I don’t sit around saying ‘boy, that Sarah Michelle Geller is a Republican – I sure hope her next movie flops miserably!’ That would be ridiculous.”
Now I feel ridiculous. I want Mel Gibson’s next movie to bomb after reading his horrible, buried interviews filled with misogyny and anti-semitism. Then again, I never claimed to be an organization above pettiness.
Yeah, but Mel Gibson’s next movie is *about* his beliefs. I think that makes a difference.
Am I the only person who hates it when attack blogs don’t have comments?
I hate it when any blog doesn’t have comments!
Back on topic: it’s not like other rethug apologists ever let facts get in the way of their opinions or assertions. So I guess it’s not too surprising in this case, either.
dch wrote: Yeah, but Mel Gibson’s next movie is *about* his beliefs. I think that makes a difference.
Well, you could certainly make a parallel argument, that Kushner’s plays are about his beliefs. On the other hand, they wish his stuff failure even when the belief in question is uncontroversial – Caroline, or Change is, as I’ve heard it described, basically a musical in favor of racial harmony.
As for Gibson’s movie, I think it sounds kind of interesting. Regardless of his beliefs, doing a movie entirely in Arabaic is taking quite a chance, and on that level it would be kinda cool if it were a success. If the movie flops, it won’t be a repudiation of Gibson’s beliefs… it’ll just be another case of Americans being unwilling to watch foreign-language movies.
“doing a movie entirely in Arabaic is taking quite a chance.”
It certainly would be! Even doing one in Aramaic is taking a chance, and it has some speakers yet. Aside from that quintessentially snarky comment from me, you speak the truth in your post, kimo sabe.
I’ve decided that Gibson and Ahnold never get another dime from me that I can help, but I haven’t really thought about their stuff flopping. On reflection, I’d welcome that.
Oops. :-p
As I understand it, though, Gibson’s movie is in Aramaic and Latin, which is horribly historically inaccurate.
Honestly, I don’t really feel one way or another about the movie, yet. I don’t care if it flops and still am not likely to see it if it takes off. Although I’ve got to admit, apprently making up a quote from the Pope deserves an award for sheer hubris.
The fascinating thing about Mel Gibson’s new film is that he orginally planned to do it without subtitles! If Aramaic and Latin were widely spoken, I could understand doing it without subtitles – and, to be fair, it is such a well-known story that it may not be too hard to follow the action without knowing the languages – but even so, the fact that nobody even told him that the lack of subtitles was a pretty stupid idea speaks volumes about the way that film stars are surrounded by yes-people whose soul job is to stroke their egos.
As for the film itself, I don’t give a toss about it one way or the other. (Though it would have been fascinating to see exactly how successful it would have been if they’d stuck to the non-subtitles plan.) Frankly, I think the idea that you have to agree with somebody’s political beliefs before you can be entertained by their work is pretty darn stupid. I really don’t care about Clint Eastwood or Ah-nuld being Republicans – all I care about is that their films entertain me.
That should be ‘sole job’. My proofreading isn’t great today, sorry.
I like soul job. Mary-Jane, I take it you’re English.
I don’t care about those two being Republicans, or even about the Holocaust denial, in their kitchen, but I do care about them getting my dime for their future budgets. A Holocaust denier will have to rely on someone else’s dime.
NB obviously this is not the Gibson storyline in the US media. Like it was going to be.
While I tend to agree with Mary-Jane with regard to not letting an artist’s politics affect my view of his or her art, I also know that every dollar I spend to see Terminator 2 is a bit more money toward Arnold. I’ve noticed, though, that often-times people whose political views I disagree with will make movies I don’t enjoy. I don’t like, and never have liked, Dirty Harry, which stars the aforementioned Mr. Eastwood.
So far as The Passion goes, I didn’t want to see it in the first place. I don’t do movies based on Biblical history because I find that they usually offend me in some way or another. I might have considered seeing it if Gibson had stuck with his original plan to not have subtitles (which I thought was a fantastic idea, but I also like silent films) but I imagine that he gave in to studio demands the make the movie more accessable to the average movie-goer.
But here’s the real reason I won’t see it: it’s being released on February 25th, and any movie geek worth his or her salt knows that nothing but crap is released from January 15th to March 15th.
Ampersand:
“Well, you could certainly make a parallel argument, that Kushner’s plays are about his beliefs. On the other hand, they wish his stuff failure even when the belief in question is uncontroversial – Caroline, or Change is, as I’ve heard it described, basically a musical in favor of racial harmony.”
Which is probably a controversial idea with the likes of the IWF.
I’m surprised no one has mentioned what is possibly the most pressing reason that these folk wish Kushner’s play to fail: he’s gay, and very outspoken about it.
I only saw the first half of Angels in America but I was thouroughly impressed and hope they realse a DVD.
As for The Passion I’d have to be on some pretty strong drugs to volentarily watch an anti-semitic, hardline Vatican rpropaganda film desguised as “Entertainment.” I’ve said it from the beginning, this is Gibson using his name to produce a pet project that would otherwise never be made in Hollywood. The sad part is he’s succeading at producing what is little more than Fundamentalist Porn.
I wouldn’t say it’s entirely fair to say that The Passion is a “hard-line Vatican propaganda film.” As I referenced, the Vatican has issued no statements and made no comments about the film’s historical or spiritual accuracy.
Also, let’s bear in mind that Gibson’s father, and possibly Gibson himself although he’s not said one way or the other, belong to a radical sect of Catholicism that does not consider the current Pope to be valid and despises the current powers-that-be in the Vatican; therefore, it’s somewhat hard to think that Gibson is making propaganda for the Vatican if he doesn’t support the Vatican.
I should have clarified my statement by saying that both Gibspons are hardline V1 suporters opposed to all those “liberal” changes that V2 imposed.
Ahhhh, finally able to use a computer with a working keyboard. (Check my blog to see what I mean if you want) so I can respond to this post.
First on Angels in America: I think a big reason that IWF hates it, aside from Kushner being gay, and the fact that Angels is about gays living in New York as much as anything, is also the fact that Angels is highly, highly critical of Reagan and his policies, and let’s not forget where Louis implies that Reagan Jr. is gay. Iconoclasm, homosexuality, gay mormons, no wonder IWF hates this. In the meanwhile, Angels in America is one of the best pieces of work I’ve ever seen. I highly recommend it to anyone who’s not seen it yet. Al Pacino is sooo damn good as Roy Cohn.
As for politics and entertainment. To me, it doesn’t matter so much if politics are a driving force behind a movie, provided the movie is well-done. Which is why, for instance, I love Dirty Harry and hate – HATE – Chocolat, even though if you were to ask me, I’d consider the underlying politics of the former despicable and the latter pleasing. In fact, if a movie is too much about the message, then I’m more annoyed if I agree with the message than if I don’t. If I see a craptacular film saying abortion is murder, then I can at least feel superior to the filmmakers by disagreeing with them. But if it’s saying that a woman has a right to choose, then I go insane, and contemplate switching to pro-life to eliminate the horrible cognitive dissonance. (is this correct usage, I do not know)
And besides, it’s not a good idea to boycott someone’s films because you don’t like their politics. If you boycotted Clint Eastwood, you’d miss Mystic River which was one of the best films of the year, and could be considered the best if not for the fact that Return of the King was so packed with awesome. And as for Arnold, there’s nothing more fun than watching bad Arnold movies for the cheesy one liners. Like from Commando -“Hey Chloe, remember when I said I’d kill you last?” – “Yeah, you said you’d kill me last.” -“I lied!”
This is way off topic, but as far as Clint Eastwood films go, I love “Unforgiven”. I thought it was brilliant. And, despite it’s forays into mawkishness, I liked “A Perfect World”. Maybe because I got to see Kevin Costner as a criminal.
Pingback: NegroPleaseDotCom's peripheral vision