Why didn't the Right try to even the chances in the Entertainment culture war a bit?

[KCfromNC]

This all reminds me of a game where you name a movie, and everyone else gives explanations as to why its liberal trash.

Quick: Star Wars.

Described well in the movie Clerks - celebrates the murder of some random blue collar construction by terrorists destroying the structure they're building. And worse - the terrorists are led by women.

 

[Larniavc]

Allowing extras to work for free and reducing movie copyringhts to 20 years woould mess with the ability of the current studio system to preach their values or qoute unqoute values.

I legit think it could lead to a more ideologicaly diverse entertainemnt landscape.

They had everything 2 years ago in terms of legilsative power.

The are loads of Christian movies being made everyday: they are conservative.

Granted the quality is really low and very few people watch them but they are there.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Breaking unions and shortening copyright hurts conservative workers and artists as much as it does liberal workers and artists.

I'm a content creator myself--you leave my copyrights alone.

Doing away with a union does not necessarily hurt workers. It all depends upon how responsible the union in question is in protecting their members rights as workers. Some unions do a wonderful job of that others do not. If the union is done away with at the grass level by those involved in working who decide they either do not want or need the union in question then I think it would be beneficial. Breaking a union by management is never a good thing. I do not know how any entertainment union does its job so I cannot speak to the unions in question in this situation but I just wanted to make the general distinction. I also think that copyright laws, though could be tweaked to make them better or perhaps made of shorter duration, need to remain in place. I would prefer a 50 year time frame after which the works became part of the public domain. As to hurting artists equally, that idea can be a bit deceptive as the great majority of artists are liberal so anything that harms artists will disproportionately harm liberals.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Or at least if they aren't, their values don't align with paleoconservativism or reactionary politics. I would venture to guess most are of that type.

Why does one call opposing the status quo reactionary? I understand why one calls opposing change to the status quo reactionary. How many years do policies have to be in place before wanting to discard old ideas that have not worked well is not called being reactionary? It would r seem to me that the original internet of the word was that a reactionary was a person that reacted negatively to a new idea being put in place and wished to revert to the status quo prior to that happening. labelling someone a reactionary for not wanting to cling to an old idea does not seem to fit the original intent behind the word. I suppose I am a reactionary when it comes to redefining words in ways that change their original meaning.

 

[grasping the after wind]

The are loads of Christian movies being made everyday: they are conservative.

Granted the quality is really low and very few people watch them but they are there.

How does one objectively judge the quality of a movie?

 

[FireDragon76]

Why does one call opposing the status quo reactionary? I understand why one calls opposing change to the status quo reactionary. How many years do policies have to be in place before wanting to discard old ideas that have not worked well is not called being reactionary? It would r seem to me that the original internet of the word was that a reactionary was a person that reacted negatively to a new idea being put in place and wished to revert to the status quo prior to that happening. labelling someone a reactionary for not wanting to cling to an old idea does not seem to fit the original intent behind the word. I suppose I am a reactionary when it comes to redefining words in ways that change their original meaning.

In my civics class, I learned that a reactionary was someone who was not merely conservative, but believed in radical social change to return to a mythologized past. Fascists are one type of reactionary.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Theater has always been edgy, going all the way back to Shakespeare and even earlier to Euripedes (I mean, he made a play about a guy that marries his own mother!). It's not the acting profession's job to uphold a particular cultural vision. In fact the only people who really talk like this historically are fascists who believe art should only further their national mythology.

Did you forget communists? Or are you just saying that all actual socialists can be considered to be fascists as there is no practical difference in how they govern.

 

[FenderTL5]

Doing away with a union does not necessarily hurt workers. It all depends upon how responsible the union in question is in protecting their members rights as workers...
...I do not know how any entertainment union does its job so I cannot speak to the unions in question in this situation but I just wanted to make the general distinction....

I'm not arguing against your point but it should be noted the OP was advocating that, "..extras to work for free..."
The union element is that even extras have wages protected by the union currently.
I know of no way to spin allowing big business to avoid wage laws and union contracts as being pro-worker.

 

[FireDragon76]

Did you forget communists? Or are you just saying that all actual socialists can be considered to be fascists as there is no practical difference in how they govern.

Fascism is an ideology of the right, communism is an ideology of the left. Both are authoritarian but they are very different otherwise.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Theater has always been edgy, going all the way back to Shakespeare and even earlier to Euripedes (I mean, he made a play about a guy that marries his own mother!).

Actually, it was Sophocles who wrote Oedipus Rex. </nitpick>

And the conservatives of Shakespeare's time hated the theater so much that they did successfully manage to shut them down in 1642.

It's not the acting profession's job to uphold a particular cultural vision. In fact the only people who really talk like this historically are fascists who believe art should only further their national mythology.

Sadly, I suspect that's the point. Art should reflect the culture's appetites, not dictate them. Not to say it doesn't ever happen the other way around, but not by government mandate.

 

[grasping the after wind]

In my civics class, I learned that a reactionary was someone who was not merely conservative, but believed in radical social change to return to a mythologized past. Fascists are one type of reactionary.

Fascists in general , by the definition you are using are not reactionary as though, they do believe in radical social change, they do not propose a return to a mythologized past. Do not confuse Hitler with all the other fascists. Hitler dreamed of a return to a mythological past and his followers were thus inclined to agree , but many fascists consider themselves the culmination of an evolutionary process who would call anyone that disagreed with their ideas reactionaries. I understand that the word is taught the way you have described, I just don't understand how that meaning makes logical sense when the meaning of reaction is taken into account. One can bow to what one sees as an authority figure or one can use one's reason to examine the issue. It would make sense to call someone a reactionary if someone is reacting to something that has occurred that one wants to undo because one was content with what one had before it occurred. To oppose that which has been in place for years before one was even born seems to me to be nowhere near reacting to something that has occurred and wants to undo because one preferred their situation prior to it occurring. To me, opposing the status quo, no matter what that status quo might be, ought not be considered a reactionary stance. Rather clinging to the status quo when that the status quo is overturned is what ought to constitute being a reactionary. Seems to me that the ideas that today are considered to be conservative ideas are not part of the status quo and therefore not reactionary.

 

[W2L]

Hollywood discriminates. It always has. In the past they made fun of minorities, and today they channel their hate against conservatives.

 

[TLK Valentine]

How does one objectively judge the quality of a movie?

One doesn't. But movies are judged subjectively in terms of quality.

Find the most insipid piece of celluloid garbage, and I'll find you someone who thinks it's genius... and vice versa, of course.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Fascism is an ideology of the right, communism is an ideology of the left. Both are authoritarian but they are very different otherwise.

Though I do not agree with the idea that one is a right wing and one a left wing ideoplogy as neither seems to fit that neatly into those particular boxes and I find the idea of right and left to be too simplistic and deceptive in describing an ideology, I will not quibble about it any further. Both are totalitarian ideologies. One is openly extremely nationalistic the other is extremely nationalistic in action but not in theory. Both deny individual rights in favor of collective rights. Both believe in the same social policies and government control of the economy. So if they are very different please be specific in detailing their how they differ in any significant way. Keep in mind that in practice both have been responsible for the murder of millions that they have decided to make scapegoats in order to demonize as a way to increase government control of dissent using envy and hate of those scapegoats to motivate their supporters.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I'm not arguing against your point but it should be noted the OP was advocating that, "..extras to work for free..."
The union element is that even extras have wages protected by the union currently.
I know of no way to spin allowing big business to avoid wage laws and union contracts as being pro-worker.

I saw that and found it to be a bit bizarre that anyone would advocate for that particular idea. Additionally, I would not be ok with anyone, not just big business but little business and non profit business and government and religious institutions to avoid wage laws and fulfillment of contracts.

 

[grasping the after wind]

One doesn't. But movies are judged subjectively in terms of quality.

Find the most insipid piece of celluloid garbage, and I'll find you someone who thinks it's genius... and vice versa, of course.

On that we agree. Still, I would like to know what the person I asked thought as by the tone of that person's post I inferred there was an objective standard that poster was referring to in order to pronounce judgement. And if there is an objective standard I am unaware of I would like to become familiar with it so I can better judge the quality of movies in the future rather than relying upon my own personal taste as I have done in the past.

 

[RDKirk]

Theater has always been edgy, going all the way back to Shakespeare and even earlier to Euripedes (I mean, he made a play about a guy that marries his own mother!). It's not the acting profession's job to uphold a particular cultural vision. In fact the only people who really talk like this historically are fascists who believe art should only further their national mythology.

That would be all totalitarian regimes, not just fascist ones.

 

[RDKirk]

I also think that copyright laws, though could be tweaked to make them better or perhaps made of shorter duration, need to remain in place. I would prefer a 50 year time frame after which the works became part of the public domain. As to hurting artists equally, that idea can be a bit deceptive as the great majority of artists are liberal so anything that harms artists will disproportionately harm liberals.

The main problem with copyright laws stems from the fact that corporations are considered persons...and that's a problem in many ways.

 

[FireDragon76]

That would be all totalitarian regimes, not just fascist ones.

That's true, though later Soviet cinema did produce some films that were more than propaganda. Andrei Tarkovsky's work, for instance, from that period isn't necessarily political in nature.

 

[TLK Valentine]

On that we agree. Still, I would like to know what the person I asked thought as by the tone of that person's post I inferred there was an objective standard that poster was referring to in order to pronounce judgement. And if there is an objective standard I am unaware of I would like to become familiar with it so I can better judge the quality of movies in the future rather than relying upon my own personal taste as I have done in the past.

The closest thing to any kind of an objective measurement would be box office receipts. More money = more success.

But that only quantifies financial success, not artistic quality... and there's certainly no accounting for taste.