Rightist political pundits couldn’t help but turn the sad-sack Oscars into further proof of Hollywood’s Jewry-run commie-pinko liberalism (said with the deepest of sarcasm). The following excerpts are from Fox News Sunday, 2/27, courtesy of the beautiful and talented Liz.
WALLACE: Charles, what do the movies that got made this past year and the movies that may or may not be honored tonight, what do they tell us about Hollywood values?
KRAUTHAMMER: Well, generally speaking, you win in Hollywood if you have the most progressive or left-wing theme. I mean, you know, historically you get a Gandhi or a movie about AIDS or — all of those are sort of locks on winning.
Nonviolent protest and humanitarianism is left-wing? This guy isn’t a conservative: he’s just an ass. Read on.
KRAUTHAMMER: This year what’s really interesting is what’s left out. “Fahrenheit 9/11” speaks to Hollywood, but it’s completely left out of the honors. I think it’s because the president won re-election.
Or because Moore purposely violated the rules for eligibility by putting it on broadcast TV less than 9 months after its theatre release. Did Krauthammer even read a briefing before coming on?
KRAUTHAMMER: “The Passion of the Christ,” which speaks to an entirely different constituency, is left out, because I think Hollywood lives on a different planet.
Or because it wasn’t a very good movie. It was sensationalist and revisionist. Just because a sizeable group of Christians relate to it doesn’t imbue it with great social or artistic import. If Mel Gibson had made a movie that conceptualized Christ as a saviour and social revolutionary not a punching bag, that didn’t milk its constituent fans for all their prepackaged empathy… but that’s another blog entirely.
I think this guy is an unfair reflection on conservatives. He’s some sort of twisted ivory-tower ideologue, embodying the sort of wicked sentiment that possessed Kim Hume (FNC managing editor Brit Hume’s wife) to say that the mainstream media is “all mushy, like AIDS.” Why do “left wing” movies garner most of the awards? Maybe because they speak to the human condition? Krauthammer says that a movie promoting abstinence wouldn’t get considered. Why don’t moralist movies get considered? Because nobody wants to have a film tell them “Don’t do that.”
But how many movies promote the idea of a woman who decides to “keep the baby”? How many movies promote monogamy, as opposed to promiscuous, unprotected sex with multiple partners? The fact the of matter is, movies aren’t didactic the way Krauthammer perhaps wants them to be. They’re reflecting of the currents of society. The very fact that such films promote controversy within and without is telling of our culture’s division. That many movies tend to favor so-called “leftist” ideology probably has more to do with the social liberalism of writers and artists in general than some mass conspiracy of the effete Hollywood elite trying to influence policy.
I suppose it’s silly of me to find anything on FNC indicative of a larger trend, but I’m fearful that such an idea is more cogent than I give it credit for.