Sunday, January 29, 2006

Out of touch

Newsweek has an "Oscar Roundtable" discussion with Steven Spielberg, Ang Lee, George Clooney, Paul Haggis, and Bennett Miller. I was particularly amused by this:
SPIELBERG: I think we all have been given our marching orders ... Maybe I shouldn't get into this. [Pause] I just feel that filmmakers are much more proactive since the second Bush administration. I think that everybody is trying to declare their independence and state their case for the things that we believe in. No one is really representing us, so we're now representing our own feelings, and we're trying to strike back.

So Bush has been good for film?
SPIELBERG: I wouldn't just say Bush. The whole neo-conservative movement.

CLOONEY: Because it's polarizing. I'm not going to sit up and say, "This is how you should think." But let's at least acknowledge that there should be an open debate, and not be told that it's unpatriotic to ask questions. Steven, you're taking it from all sides right now.

The question of interest here is has George Bush been good for film. Spielberg and Clooney in particular think that yes, he has, because the 'unpopular' decisions of Bush & the neo-cons have pushed film makers to force through movies (see article) that make people think more. Okay, fine, that is their opinion. I'm curious what their definition of good is, though. If a 4 to 6 percent drop in attendance from 2004 is good, then yeah, I guess we all have to thank them for taking a stance against the evil Bush through their movies.

No comments: