OPINION:
With great emotion the president of the Academy of Motion Pictures said at the Oscar awards ceremony, that this industry holds a variety of different views. She noted we are unafraid to tackle unpopular and controversial topics. Surely these are comments widely embraced in this audience of self-reverential acolytes.
Yet the speeches delivered by award recipients reveal a different reality, one that most people understand even if Hollywood doesn’t. The Academy shares, reiterates and promotes a liberal orthodoxy. Consider the speeches.
Actress Patricia Arquette spoke of equal pay for women, a common refrain that overlooks the fact equal pay provisions are written into law. She did get an applause line and I guess that’s what counts.
The composer of the song “Glory” raps about Ferguson with the meme “raise your hands” even though this fictional account is now ingrained in the culture.
Singer John Legend indicated with great emotion that blacks are oppressed through disproportionate incarceration and stifling voting opportunity. Of course, Mr. Legend did not mention the disproportionate crime in the black community or the fact that black voter participation was higher than white voting in the last presidential election.
A screenwriter once again spoke of the cultural trope that homosexuals face discrimination when many of the honorees and the host himself share this orientation.
Hollywood likes to think of itself as “edgy,” as the cultural vanguard and open to many viewpoints. In reality it only takes the “safe” path. If those in the industry were really open there are a host of forbidden topics that might be considered in film.
Is it possible to make a film about the life of the Prophet Mohammed in which he is described as a pedophile and war monger? Could Hollywood make a film with an unequivocal pro-life conclusion? How about a movie describing the antics of hucksters like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson? President Obama should be a candidate for a “bio-pic.” But will that film ever get made? How about a movie that describes the way “social justice” is employed to evoke guilt – even when this justice is a reflection of a political agenda?
The list of no-nos is long. Most significantly, they will not even be discussed. Hollywood is like the American university, a selective and biased interpreter of the past and the present. On one level, you might say, “who cares.” Alas, the one billion people who watched this boring and thoroughly tedious event may care. Hollywood has the ability to affect attitudes and that is why the adherence to its left wing orthodoxy has relevance.
Architects of films claims they give audiences what they want. What is ignored, of course, is that they also influence the attitudes of the audience. It works both ways. If Hollywood were really open, it wouldn’t make any difference. But that hasn’t been the case in many years. There is a consistent desire to shame and persuade. Every leading man and woman have a cause whether it be the environment or homosexual marriage. While these people are entitled to a point of view, they are not entitled to impose it on the public.
In days gone by actors like Jimmy Stewart and Irene Dunne were stalwart Republicans, but you wouldn’t know that from watching their films. Today film making is regarded as a political act, a condition that has altered the viewing experience.
Hollywood leaders may think they are fair minded, but those of us who watched the Awards ceremony and see the films know that the orthodoxy is well ensconced in movie culture.
Herbert London is the president of The London Center for Policy Research.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.