"liberal" Hollywood's portrayal of Bushco

[ProfessorPlum]

So, let's see. We've had "Primary Colors", where Bill Clinton was accused of the Arkansas-yokel-myth of committing statutory rape with an underaged black teenager. We've had "Black Hawk Down", where Clinton was portrayed as not giving a crap about the men put in harm's way in Somalia by Bush I. We've had "Wag the Dog", which even though it came out a year before the Lewinsky scandal broke and was said by the writers to be about Bush I and the Gulf War, was taken by the mainstream media to be about the cynical manipulations of Bill Clinton.

Will "liberal" Hollywood ever give us a movie about what we actually know about this cabal of thieves? Something where an evil and grasping vice president pulls the strings on a vicious, ignorant, and lazy chief executive, where lies are told to start wars and the military industrial/media complex rakes in piles of blood money? Where military people are treated as props or pawns, and the rule of law is thrown completely out of the window?

Even when Hollywood tries to show a true GOP character, like Bob Rumson in "The American President" or Bob Alexander in "Dave", they don't capture how truly malevolent these guys are.

Actually seeing a movie about what our thesis is about this White House is incredibly important. Many of us probably have the imagination to picture the kinds of manipulations and scenes happening to prolong the war, blackmail reporters, hide wrongdoing, and commit corruption. But until the vast majority of the citizens "see" that story with their own eyes, through a dramatic representation of it, they won't get it. They won't see how the story of the last six years actually makes sense if you just assume all of these idiots are working for their own gain against the good of the country.

Hollywood, it's time to actually earn your "liberal" libel.

[ChicagoRonin]

1. Not seeing the problem

"Liberal" Hollywood is basically a cheap label and says little about the intricate layers of the show business industry. While a large number of actors, writers and directors have Democratic or liberal/progressive leanings, the big movie companies are largely subsidiaries of big corporations (Sony, Viacom, Time/Warner, etc.); corporations whose owners and executives have more conservative leanings. However, those executives are always willing to let their own values slide if they think they can make a buck. Even Michael Moore has said the only reason he gets away with making the movies he does is because they make money (and given the lower costs for making a documentary versus a feature film, the profit margins are probably higher on average). The other option is for people on the creative side to do things under the radar, either by making low-budget independent projects or sneaking in their message in the guise of allegory or even fantasy (Example: "Robocop" functions perfectly well as a sci-fi action film for the general audience, but also is a pretty decent satire of 80's Reagan-era excess, corporate greed and class exploitation). Anyway, if you're hurting for some good films (new and old) that are critical of government, I'd recommend "Paths of Glory" by Stanley Kubrick, "Three Kings" by David O Russel, "Bulworth" by Warren Beatty and "Bob Roberts" by Tim Robbins for starters.

[ProfessorPlum]

2. Love all of those, but where are the movies since 2000?

And I agree the liberal label is one that is thrown out by the GOP for political purposes and doesn't reflect the actual situation.

The "problem" is that while we've had plenty of movies depicting right wing smears of Clinton, we haven't had even one that depicts the fact based reality of Cheneyco?

It makes you think that the GOP has been successful in working the refs in Hollywood as well.