Directors Roundtable

Well, seems as though its been a while since I was able to post. Been sick as a dog, one heck of a cold. Sorry for the delay though, since there's been so much going on.

First, I would just love to comment on a director's rountable I read the other day on MSNBC.COM. It really was quite funny. Among others we got to witnsess the incredible arrogance and stupifying out-of-touchness of George Clooney, Ang Lee, Paul Haggis and Steven Spielberg. Wow, is about all I can say.

I know that movies are entertainment and I also understand that by injecting politics into these posts that I risk alienating people who would rather enjoy than debate. But it simply isn't honest debate to discount the very thing that the writers and directors insist has influenced them. They speak of their political views and the views they tried to inject into their films as often as possible, so to discuss a movie and ignore the things that influenced it would be an incomplete discussion at best.

This roundtable discussion was one of the most pompous self agrandizing displays I hae ever witnessed. It was condescending, insulting and maddening.

George Clooney, for example, declared that we, the public, needed reviewers. Without them, he said, people would not know what to think of a movie until they're told what it;s about. What a revelation! Clooney is so much more intelligent than his audience that they actually need to be spoon fed the plot and the moral of the story, else they just wouldn't get it. That was revealing wasn't it? He also declares to be so gifted an actor that he knows just when to ignore the director! In fact, directors who insist on what Clooney deems too many takes are not film makers at all, rather they're "film collectors." This pompous windbag manages to insult both movie makers and movie goers in one page! Hats off to George. As a special aside he's not at all fond of Rex Reed for portraying him as the hack that he is. Boo hoo.

Paul Haggis offers us his socielogical take on race relations when he informs us his movie was neccessary because race relations in LA have changed since the Rodney King riots, they, "...gotten worse." Well, no doubt based on extensive sociological research Mr. Haggis' opinions don't ring home as fact. Of course, once a reviewer has explained them to me I might feel differently.

And ah, Mr. Spielberg, so convinced that his opionion mirrors Americas that he's not even willing to consider that people might disagree. He tells us that George Bush has been good for movie making because people aren't being represented in the White House, that film makers have found ways to express their sentiments and represent them. That'd odd, I thought people had voted for Bush? Apparently George Bush won election in some War of the Worlds type scenario. Thank goodness Spielberg made a film called Munich and gave voice to the cowawrdly terrorists to represent the people. After all, his views are so mainstream and compassion for terrorists runs high in middle America. This is the very definition of out-of-touch my friends. So wrong on so many things yet so arrogant as to believe his opinions are appluaded everywhere, but only by other true "intellectuals." Mr. Spielberg goes on to opine that the whole "neo-conservative" movement has been good for film. They just love the prefix "neo" because it is so closely related to neo-nazi and all Republicans are, you knop, nazis. Such a dumbed down intellectual accusation that it's just insulting.

Perhaps the most creatively full of shit is Ang Lee. Mr. Lee, when asked by the interviewer if he is surprised by the lack of protests from the religous right over Brokeback Mountain, charges, "I didn't expect them to be so silent in order to avoid inadvertently publisizing the film."

Ah, now there's a creative argument for his gay cowboy romance. If you protest to the content, you're a homophobic bigot. If you are indifferent to it you're part of a national conspiracy to ignore it and hope it goes away. So then, the only true and proper response to his film is to praise it. Luckily most critics and every dimwit associated with the Academy has played along with this scenario. What a nice intellectual corner to paint people into Mr. Lee. Agree with me or else be labeled. Again, not a very intelligent position but at least creative.

So long as these people insist on making their bizarre political causes an integral mixture of their art, then we are forced to consider their agendas when speaking of the films. It's not as though we want every movie we see to be a political hotbed, but, with arrogant and ludicrous statements like these, Hollywood forced your hand. Ant reviewer that loves to spout on about socioeconomic influence and racial influence and on and on, but refuses to acklnowledge agenda building as a film makers goal is simply a fraud. Their reviews nothing more than a freshmans term paper. Look at their comments, what they hoped to accomplish, they're unmatched arrogance, and then review their films.

I can see by the way Walk the Line and Cinderella Man were snubbed that it's not really ever going to happen. Until it does though, the Academy and most reviewers have no relevance at all.