Does Hollywood Create Culture or Culture Create Hollywood?
Here is a simple question:
Does Hollywood create our culture, our culture create Hollywood, or both? And to what extent and in what ways?
Does Hollywood create our culture, our culture create Hollywood, or both? And to what extent and in what ways?
posted by Anonymous at 1:53 PM
6 Comments:
Here's a quick shot at it over the shoulder:
My instinctive reaction is to say that an artist's role is to criticize society and pull it in the direction he/she wants society to go to. This is one of the ways in which society manages to progress: art has had a significant role in abolishing slavery and improving women's rights. If you look at it today, a film like Brokeback Mountain did a lot to improve the gay community’s acceptance/integration with mainstream society.
However, most of what Hollywood does is not art; it's more of a money making exercise. Instead of being progressive, Hollywood is reactionary, creating stuff they suspect to work given historical experience in order to ensure a secure income.
Since Jaws and Star Wars, very little innovation came out of Hollywood.
Good question.
I think both. There are definitely movies that have been groundbreaking and new enough to really have an effect on our society. (I'll defer to Your Racist Friend for specific examples.) However, most movies, I feel, tend to follow the trend of the times. "What are they showing in movies nowadays?" they ask, and pepper their films with what will sell. There are also specific messages that change with time, with different generations: "proper marriage roles" and "sexual freedom" have been proper topics covered in the past, depending on the time frame.
Basically, movies are like people, because they are created by people. Some are visionaries that push us into the next decade or shape our values or make a statement, people that fill our history books. Then there are some that just try to imitate what has been done to "fit in" or to "get in on the deal."
Super question, Hession. And solid response, Moshe.
I'll respond as well, but I'll take the flip side of Moshe's argument. Moshe's right that art's role is to criticize society and pull it the way the artist wants it to go. And I agree with him as well that a lot of what comes out of Hollywood can barely be called "art"; it's really more of a product, packaged and offered up to moviegoers.
But even these "products" have an effect on culture. The creators of these "products," rather than trying to change society, will often just attempt to show society the way it is. But when I say "the way it is," that really means the way the filmmakers see it. And every human being comes has a certain set of experience which shape their impression of how society is. Thus, the movies that come out are never a perfect reflection of what society is, but rather society as viewed through the filmmaker's lens.
But millions of people see these movies, and as a result they shape each viewer's lens on society. In other words, if you didn't know anyone who had a pet tiger, but every movie you ever saw had a character with a pet tiger, you might come to assume that it's rather common to keep tigers as pets.
This is just a long-winded way to answer the question of whether Hollywood creates culture or culture creates Hollywood. Really, I could summarize my position in a single word: both.
Disclaimer: I didn't see WLC's post before I started writing mine, so any similarities between our positions is purely accidental.
I agree, JPH. And if you look at it from a power struggle point of view (ala, say, Marx), it's the Hollywood people trying to establish themselves as the elite, status wise: the people we all look up to. And then there is an entire industry that tells us about every move these people make and what they buy so we can be more like them.
As sad as it may sound, most of us do tend to go for that...
Great question. I think it really cuts both ways. There are plenty of movies which seem to be calculated attempts at making lots and lots of money. After all, profits need to be turned to justify the producer's investment. On the other hand, there are loads of movies which didn't make a lot of money, or bombed, and and considered classics now (It's a Wonderful Life, Fight Club, Requiem for A Dream, Citizen Kane, A Clockwork Orange, Serenity). But there are plenty of movies that are "artisitically correct", and have made lots of money. I think this is easier to do with adaptations. Batman Begins, Superman Returns, The LOTR Trilogy, etc. But it often boils down to the individual creative forces behind the film. And for the most part, Hollywood is insanely out of touch with what America wants/will like. If they weren't, there would never be sleeper hits, because their finger would be on the pulse. FOX got gunshy and drastically reduced the number of theaters Borat opened in, but it went on to demolish the competition in that first week.
Post a Comment
<< Home