The Two Most Feared Men In Hollywood

Mel Gibson and Michael Moore have become the two most feared men in Hollywood. Both have managed to make huge sums of money from personal projects and both have been snubbed by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Moore and Gibson may be victims of a very old rule with a new twist. If you want to stay out of trouble, avoid controversy. When it comes to film projects in modern day Hollywood, never make a film about religion or politics unless its a religion approved by Hollywood for scorn or a satire of politics.

It may be all about money in Tinsel Town, but I guess even huge stacks of greenbacks cant compete with political correctness. I doubt that Mel Gibson expected the firestorm of controversy that his film, The Passion Of The Christ, would ignite. Some in the film industry were calli ng the storyline anti-Jewish before anyone had even seen the movie and spoke of it causing an anticipated string of hate crimes. More moderate voices worried that revisiting the death of Jesus in such a dramatic way might instigate Religious intolerance against Jews.

Its was fascinating to watch Hollywood Movers and Shakers attack Gibsons film. These are supposed to be seasoned professionals who know all the rules of successful film production and promotion. If so, they forgot the most important marketing rule of all. If you really want people to see a film, just tell them that they shouldnt! Thats exactly what happened. People turned out in record numbers to see a film that wasnt even in English. Mel wasnt the only filmmaker to benefit from reverse political correctness.

Michael Moore is called a documentary filmmaker, but most of his work to date is anything but a balanced view of any subject he has taken on. His films contain glaring errors, staged scenes that altered reality and reflect his left wing political view. None of that seems to matter to his fans, followers or those who pay to see his movies. His latest film, Fahrenheit 911, was a box office triumph that attracted people from all sides of the political spectrum. Moore seems to have benefited from Hollywoods lack of enthusiasm towards his projects and publicity generated by Conservative radio talk show hosts.

Moore is a master of being the underdog. He makes his films look like basement projects that one wants to fund and complains about a conspiracy among Hollywood Studios to keep his films out of public view. In reality, Moore is an excellent filmmaker and creative genius who fashioned a genre of films that attract people who love modern reality shows and contests even before there were any. Like Survivor and American Idol, a Moore film gives us reality without being totally real. We see what he wants us to and no more. Its that fact that may have kept him from getting an Oscar Nomination this time around.

Just after Michael Moore won the Best Documentary Oscar for his film, Bowling for Columbine, there was a huge cry of FOUL! Conservatives and others were angered by anti-war, anti-Bush comments made by Moore during his acceptance speech and vowed to lobby the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences for a revocation of his Oscar. That was no surprise, but it did catch everyone off guard when the mainstream news media who are normally sympathetic to left leaning Hollywood types starting taking a closer look at Bowling for Columbine.

The terms used by the mainstream news media to describe the problems found in Bowling for Columbine were gentle, but to the point. According to them, Moore had practiced some creative editing to make scenes appear to flow evenly when, in fact, some comments were purposely presented out of context.

Although Moore never even came close to having his Award revoked, the folks behind the Oscars took note of several things. Television ratings for the 2003 Oscars were disappointing as many Conservatives opted to tune out as a result of having so many Liberal and anti-war celebrities shoved at them as Presenters. Then theres the controversial filmmaker himself.

Despite the Oscar nod, Moore is anything but a beloved figure in Hollywood. Studios have real concerns about his spin on the truth. Satire is one thing, but the deliberate alteration of facts to sway an audience is another. Although spoken highly of by the most Liberal of celebrities, other big time stars have distanced themselves from Michael. Clint Eastwood recently said that he would shoot Moore if the filmmaker came to his home to ambush him the way Michael did Charlton Heston in Bowling for Columbine.

Hollywood likes money, but it hates controversy. The longer a film star or filmmaker stirs the pot of media controversy, the less likely they are to be welcomed by their Tinsel Town neighb ors or the film industry itself. Michael Moore and Mel Gibson have become victims of their own success. The same controversies that have made their films a success, makes them persona non grata when it comes to Oscar.

According to all accounts, Gibson has become a deeply Religious Catholic. Like any True Believer, he never set out to make a film that would stir the pot of hate against Jewish People. One gets the impression from watching the movie that Mel simply wanted to create a dramatic, but accurate portrayal of the crucifixion and events leading up to it. The same cannot be said of modern Hollywoods often brutal treatment of Catholicism, Protestant Christianity and Islam.

Catholics are almost always portrayed as guilt ridden people without any redeeming social values. Priests are always sch eming despots, child molesters, Mafia puppets or immoral Religious figures always looking up their female parishioners skirts. Protestant Christians have it no better on film. They are always axe murderers, psycho killers, child abductors or cult members. Followers of Islam have always been represented on film as terrorists or fanatically anti-Semitic radicals.

If one were to judge Hollywoods tolerance of religion by their films, the only acceptable faiths would be Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism. That opens a can of worms thats hard to swallow when you put it on a plate. No one would argue that Hollywood would not be Hollywood without the influence of prominent Jews. Many influential celebrities have chosen to follow Buddhism and Hinduism. What does all this mean? I guess that it means that Hollywood welcomes the Dalai Lama, but when it comes to Jesus theres just no room at the Inn.

Hollywood has become a center for political correctness. Anything that upsets the status quo is not welcome. Actors and others who lean toward Conservative politics are tolerated as long as they are profitable when it comes to box office receipts and dont make too much noise. Those with more Liberal ideas are welcomed with open arms as long as they produce and dont generate too many negative headlines. Everyone is supposed to know their place and stay there, but Gibson and Moore have changed all that.

Mel Gibson has shown Hollywood that movie goers can still respond well to films that feature classic stories and traditional Religious beliefs without going out and harming those who may think or behave differently. Michael Moore has taught the film industry that even a point of view as extreme as his can be a marketable product in an election year to people of all political persuasi ons.

The simple truth is that while Americans generally tend to dislike extremes, they want to hear both sides of a story. Christians can manage to see a film about Jesus without beating up Jews and Conservatives can watch a documentary that paints the President as a scheming political control freak without punching holes in the tires of their Liberal neighbors. If Americans can tolerate all points of view, why cant Hollywood?

No one expects Michael Moore to change his personal style. He will continue to say outrageous things and make outrageous films. While he may be good news at the box office, hell probably be bad news on the television screen when it comes to Oscar. The obvious answer to that problem is for the Academy Awards to feature more presenters from all sides of politics and just let them verbally slug it out. Americans love heated debates.

Instead of shunning films by people like Michael Moore when they seem to step over the line of objectivity, why not create a new category for them? Would something like Political Expression fit the bill? That would allow extreme film makers on all sides of politics possible access to an Oscar. As far as Mel and The Passion goes, I think Hollywood needs to start growing up again and get a philosophical skin that is a bit thicker and more well suited to the times in which we live.

Author's Email: bill knell@cox.net
Author's Website: http://www.billknell.com
Author's Phone: 480-632-7909

Terms To Use Article: Permission is granted to use this article for free online or in print. Please add a link to or print our url of http://www.billknell.com

Bio: A native New Yorker now living in Arizona, Bill Knell is a forty-something guy with a wealth of knowledge and experience. Bill has produced man y successful videos and hosted a top-rated cable TV show sponsored by Time/Life Books. He's written hundreds of articles on a wide variety of subjects and you've read about Bill in The New Yorker Magazine, The New York Times, Omni and hundreds of local, national and international publications worldwide. A popular Speaker, Bill Knell presents seminars on a number of topics that entertain, train and teach. Thousands of people have attended these programs and been left wanting more.

Author:: Bill Knell
Keywords:: Academy,Awards,Award,Oscar,Michael,Moore,Mel,Gobson,Liberal,Conservative,Religious,Jesus,Christ
Post by History of the Computer | Computer safety tips