Ace of Spades HQ

« SWPeter Pan Seeks SWTinkerbell | Main | Senate Committee to Explore Porn Addiction »

November 15, 2004

Hollywood Hates You

Dawn Eden, Petite Powerhouse, has the story:

"The Hollywood community is incredibly distraught about the election results," said Vanessa Taylor, co-creator and co-executive producer of the WB's "Jack & Bobby."
"I'd say we're in a state of shocked disappointment."

One bit about Dawn's story that especially interests me is the shock that creative types feel when they learn they may have to shape their product to appeal to an audience. They seem to have this notion that an artist should be utterly free to "explore" whatever he likes, the audience be damned.

That is the singlemost stupid bit of solipsism I've ever heard in my life. Of course an artist needs to be mindful of his audience; if there's no audience, there's no artist. I was arguing about this on my thread at The Perfect World; someone (trying to be nice and helpful) suggested that I shouldn't restrain myself on this blog at all, but that I should write wholly to please myself. And that the audience would then follow.

Well, maybe, maybe not. Certainly one can't write as a completely different person and expect to be interesting or engaging or draw in many readers. But anyone determined to write solely to satisfy his own Muses will probably end up doing just that.

I'm not an artist, but an artist IS the audience, ultimately. At least if one wants to attract and maintain an audience.

The fiction that artist-types, or even lowly bloggers, should be/are uncompromisingly brave figures exploring their inner demons without any consideration of reward or popularity is, well, flat-out dopey.

James Spader was asked by Charlie Rose why he had decided to do the film Secretary (very good film, by the way, although the sexual nature of the material may put some off, but it's actually got an awful lot of heart and tenderness for an S&M/spank fetish movie). He became one of my favorite people in Hollywood when he said, "Well, I got this script, and then I realized that I was behind on my mortgage payments, so I agreed to do it." It's so refreshing that an actor just admits the obvious: "It's a job, Charlie. I need bread like anyone."

Mickey Spillaine was similarly honest at a writer's panel. They panel had been asked "Why do you choose to start writing a book?," and the typical crap about "needing to open a vein and get beart's blood on paper" was bandied about. Near the end of this nonsense, Spillaine asked, "Isn't anyone going to mention money? I usually start writing when I'm down to my last grand in the bank."

Again: It's the truth. Shouldn't our self-styled truth-tellers sort of want to tell the truth from time to time?

Andrew "No Offense Taken" Sullivan has frequently complained that he's losing audience due to his brave stance on FMA and his endorsement of John Kerry. I don't get that-- does Sullivan imagine his readership owes him loyalty? I guess a readership ought to have some small amount of loyalty, to the extent it ought to be willing to forgive, say, a momentary lapse in taste or judgment; if I wrote something especially cruel or nasty or obscene, I'd hope that most readers would forgive me, if I deleted it and then apologized swiftly enough.

But beyond that-- there is no loyalty to any writer or anyone in Hollywood, certainly. People read a particular blog or author, or see a particular movie, because they want to. If they like you, they keep coming back. If they don't, they don't. And they shouldn't. Making movies, writing books, and making dumb comments on a blog isn't a charitable enterprise like the Red Cross.

If I began just spouting racial epithets and hardcore pornography, who the hell would stick around? (Well, Fat Kid would stick around for the porn, I imagine.) Who would argue that I had some untrammelled right to "expore" my newfound passion for amateur videos and racism?

No one would argue that.

And yet there are many in Hollywood who insist on something quite like that. They belive there is a special category of humanity called "Artiste," and that these Artistes are unlike any other sort of person, in that they need to exercise no self-restraint or simple common sense in their dealings with others or the public generally. They ought to be immune to any ill-will or simple indifference from the audience; such ill-will or indifference constitutes an "chill wind" of suppresson of the Rights of the Artiste.

Get over yourselves. You've never behaved as if you owed us anything for the millions we put into your pockets. Do you really think we owe you permanent million-dollar salaries, just because we've humored you thusfar?

posted by Ace at 05:43 PM

Comments

I've boycotted hwood for years. Even their thriller/action/CGG blockbusters are thinly veiled political propaganda. Why pay to see/hear The blob's alter ego's denigrate the Republican party?

BTW: She get's it.

Posted by: Ron Deaton on November 15, 2004 05:56 PM

Never you fear, Ace, I got your back. No matter what. You want to start going on about how much you love you some hairy man ass, I'll be right here. You want to spend a year telegraphing that you really think all Republicans are crazy redneck bigots and endorsing the opposition, I'll be your loyal readership.

Beg for money, and I'll, umm, well, I'll be here!

Just don't kill the sandwich. That happens - we're done.

Posted by: blaster on November 15, 2004 06:32 PM

"racial epithets and hardcore pornography"

YEAH!

But seriously. I used to try to avoid the hardcore idiots like Sean Penn and crew. Unfortunately, I've come to the realization that they're all idiots.

Cameron Diaz. Forget the "don't vote if you want *edited for content* forcible sex to be legal" crap. Justin Timberlake? Come on, Cam.

Posted by: jb on November 15, 2004 06:34 PM

So what's wrong with the porn?

Posted by: SGT Dan on November 15, 2004 07:48 PM

Frankly, Ace, I think you purged your fickle and sensitive readers with that Miami Vice fiasco. It was like a blogging Kristallnacht.

Posted by: Alex on November 15, 2004 08:54 PM

Well thought out Acey. Little bit of deja-vu hearing those thoughts.

(whiny voice)...But I'm an artist, I shouldn't have to "charge" people for admission to see my work and compromise my freedom of expression...

Ahem, here's the deal Haight-Ashbury:

If no one pays to hear/see/experience...then your art is worth shit (except to you).

If you want to make a living off your "art" -- then you better appeal to the masses.

Sorry this ain't the Age of Enlightenment (with free gov't handouts to the Arts) that you dream of...so, so, very very sorry.

Posted by: sonofnixon on November 15, 2004 08:57 PM

Son of Nixon, I'd prefer we went back to the Renaissance method of patronage. It would make me giggle to think of a starving sensitive artist type being forced to paint murals of the Millenium Falcon and lightsaber duels for a Star Wars obsessed silcon baron's mansion.

Posted by: Alex on November 15, 2004 09:43 PM

This is all the same crap that has gotten the Left into trouble today. Apparently, the entirety of the “creative class” was off righteously pissing on crucifixes or something during economics class.

The immediate cry now is “censorship,” with no regard to the interest of the audience. “The freedom of speech,” the argument goes, “is the freedom to be heard.”

How ridiculous. If that were truly the case, then I could go down to the street corner and begin proselytizing, and I could force people to come listen to me. That’s the Left’s mentality: my work is above having to actually stand on its own merits; you must enjoy my work, or you’re ignorant, or worse, you’re denying me my right to be heard (usually punctuated with “racist,” “homophobe,” or “chauvinist”). The First Amendment, after all, was put there to protect unpopular speech.

You’ll notice, though, that the same standard is never applied to speech of which they do not approve. While I certainly don’t condone their actions nor their ideology, you just don’t seem to see the ACLU rushing to the aid of the KKK if they are denied a parade permit, do you?

Is it any wonder why they are not making any converts?

Posted by: Adam Wood on November 15, 2004 10:09 PM

One bit about Dawn's story that especially interests me is the shock that creative types feel when they learn they may have to shape their product to appeal to an audience.

Ace, you don't know how funny that statement is. I've been watching Ms. Taylor's work ("Jack and Bobby"), and while (in retrospect) it clearly is written by a liberal, it's also clearly written by a liberal who's figured out where at least 51% of the country is on a lot of issues. The main character, Bobby McCallister, is a less-than-archconservative minister who becomes the Republican Governor of Missouri and eventually President of the United States in 2041.

While I held out hope until now that it was being written by South Park Republicans with a vicious sense of humor, the only other alternative is the truth: it's written by a liberal who moderates her views and even makes fun of herself. I'm sure she's not doing it for her art, so she must be doing it for the money.

Posted by: The Black Republican on November 15, 2004 10:20 PM

Actually the ACLU has sued on behalf of the KKK in the past. They even got a Jewish lawyer to represent them in a case against Pittsburgh. It happened in 1997. I haven't heard of any ACLU actions for Christian groups though. Apparently it's all criminals and terrorist groups for them.

Andrew Sulivan would really lose some traffic if right wing bloggers would stop linking to his website.

Posted by: michael dennis on November 15, 2004 10:21 PM

Ace,

Not to fuel your hopes of all that "mad money" waiting to be had, or the interviews with Paula Zahn, but you are on to something, and it has to do with blogs.

The adherents to fetishistic Cult of Celebrity are not only the unwashed masses, but the celebrities themselves, including but not limited to those who are actually responsible for producing the material used by said celebrities.

So far, the blogosphere has been immune to the cult, but this will of course change.

Once the blog host becomes larger, or more of an issue than the blog content, then the blog becomes irrelevant, pace Andrew Sullivan.

We know this to be true from our experience in other media, for example, Dan Rather. Yes, Mr. Rather is still a talking head, but 60 Minutes II is gone, and so too are the CBS Evening News ratings, with Mr. Rather not far from being gone as well.

What is temporarily ignored by these "artistes" is the role of the marketplace, that is until their show is canned or they can't get their scripts read.

Glenn Reynolds seems to be aware of the slippery slope of stardom, as does Charles Johnson, the guys at Powerline, etc.

And yes, Secretary was a brave and honest film about pain, suffering, isolation, the varieties of love and lovemaking. It also, I'm sure, paid the bills.

Posted by: MeTooThen on November 15, 2004 10:47 PM

Once the blog host becomes larger, or more of an issue than the blog content, then the blog becomes irrelevant, pace Andrew Sullivan.

That's exactly what I'm hoping for for myself.

Posted by: ace on November 16, 2004 12:02 AM

Amazon.com Widgets

Now Available!
The Deplorable Gourmet
A Horde-sourced Cookbook
[All profits go to charity]

Top Headlines

Oil prices plunge on bizarre realization that Eric Swalwell may actually be straight. A rapey molester, allegedly, but a straight one.

Artemis II Crew releases clearest images of the Far Side yet recorded

Classic Rock Mystery Click
This is super-obscure and I only barely remember it. Given that, I'll give you the hint that it's by the Red Rocker.
And I guess you think you've got it made
Oh, but then, you never were afraid
Of anything that you've left behind
Oh, but it's alright with me now
'Cause I'll get back up somehow
And with a little luck, yes, I'm bound to win
Now twenty people will tell me it's not obscure, it was huge in their hometown and played at their prom. That's how it usually goes. When I linked Donnie Iris's "Love is Like a Rock," everyone said they knew that one and that his other song (which I didn't know at all) Ah Leah! was huge in their area.

Sarah Longwell spotting

Tuq'r's makeover is 100!

Alfred Hitchcock learns to talk with TJM

Ryan Long goes to the No Kings rally to pick up young liberal hotties and is greatly disappointed in the quality of the mish
thanks to stevey

You know we "joke" about the GOPe just "conserving" leftist things?
David French just posted:

Populists ask what conservativism has ever conserved?
Well its about to conserve birthright citizenship!
Posted by: 18-1

I couldn't hate this queen of the cuck-chair more if it paid seven figures and came with a corner office.

TJM definitively ranks the films of John Boorman.

Kid punks CNN chump by speaking truth to retard

Podcast: CBD and Sefton talk birthright citizenship, the 14th Amendment and SCOTUS, no boots in Iran, Artemis II and refocusing NASA, the NBA's hatred of everything non-woke, and more!

In more marketing for Project Hail Mary, scientists say they've found the biosigns indicating life growing on an alien planet. It's not proof, just signatures of chemicals that are produced by biological metabolism, and it could be nothing, but scientists think it's a strong sign that this planet is inhabited by something.

In a paper published in the Astrophysical Journal Letters, a team of scientists announced the detection of dimethyl sulfide (along with a similar detection of dimethyl disulfide) in the atmosphere of an exoplanet called K2-18b. This is actually the second detection of dimethyl sulfide made on this planet, following a tentative detection in 2023.
Tons of chemicals are detected in the atmospheres of celestial objects every day. But dimethyl sulfide is different, because on Earth, it's only produced by living organisms.
"It is a shock to the system," Nikku Madhusudhan, first author on the paper, told the New York Times. "We spent an enormous amount of time just trying to get rid of the signal."

He means they tried to prove the signal was caused by things other than dimethyl sulfide but they could not.

Artemis moon shot a go, scheduled for 6:24 Eastern time tonight
Great marketing arranged by Amazon to promote Project Hail Mary. Okay not really but it does work out that way.

TJM talks John Boorman, director of Excalibur

Good rickroll

What? Skeleton of the most famous Musketeer, D'Artagnan, possibly discovered in Dutch church closet.
Dumas picked four names of real musketeers out of a history book, D'Artagnan, Athos, Aramis, and Porthos. So there was an actual D'Artagnan, though he made most of the story up. (Or, you know, all of it.)*

Charles de Batz de Castelmore, known as d'Artagnan, the famous musketeer of Kings Louis XIII and Louis XIV, spent his life in the service of the French crown.
The Gascon nobleman inspired Alexandre Dumas's hero in "The Three Musketeers" in the 19th century, a character now known worldwide thanks to the novel and numerous film adaptations.
D'Artagnan was killed during the siege of Maastricht in 1673, and there is a statue honoring the musketeer in the city. His final resting place has remained a mystery ever since.

A lot of Dumas's stories are based on bits of real history. The plot of the >Three Musketeers, about trying to recover lost diamonds from the queen's necklace, was cribbed from the then-almost-contemporaneous Affair of the Queen's Necklace. And the Man in the Iron Mask is based on real accounts of a prisoner forced to wear a mask (though I think it was a velvet mask).
* Oh, I should mention, Dumas says all this, about finding the names in an old book, in the prologue to his novel. But authors lie a lot. They frequently present fictions as based on historic fact. The twist is, he was actually telling the truth here. At least about these four musketeers having actually existed and served under Louis XIV.
Fun fact: You know the beginning of A Fistful of Dollars where the local gunslingers make fun of Clint Eastwood's donkey and Eastwood demands they apologize to the donkey? That's lifted from The Three Musketeers. Rochefort mocks D'Artagnan's old, brokedown farm horse and D'Artagnan is incensed.

A commenter asked which should be read first, The Hobbit of LOTR?
Easy, no question -- read The Hobbit first. It's actually the start of the story and comes first chronologically. It sets up some major characters and major pieces in play in LOTR.
Also, the Hobbit is Beginner-Friendly, which LOTR isn't. The Hobbit really is a delightful book, and a fast read. It's chatty, it's casual, it's exciting, and it's funny. In that dry cheeky British humor way. I love that the narrator is constantly making little asides and commentary, like he's just sitting next to you telling you this story as it occurs to him.
LOTR is a very long story. Fifteen hundred pages or so. The Hobbit is relatively short and very punchy and easy to read. If you don't like The Hobbit, you can skip out on LOTR. If you do like it, you'll be primed to read LOTR.
Oh, I should say: The Hobbit is written as if it's for children, but one of those smart children's stories that are also for adults. Don't worry, there's also real fighting and violence and horror in it, too.
LOTR is written for adults. (It's said that Tolkien wrote both for his children, but LOTR was written 17 years later, when his children were adults.) Some might not like The Hobbit due to its sometimes frivolous tone. Me, I love it. I find it constantly amusing. Both are really good but there is a starkly different tone to both. LOTR is epic, grand, and serious, about a world war, The Hobbit is light and breezy, and about a heist. Though a heist that culminates in a war for the spoils.

The Hobbit Challenge: Read two more chapters. I didn't have much time. Bilbo got the ring.
I noticed a continuity problem. Maybe. Now, as of the time of The Hobbit, it was unknown that this magic ring was in fact a Ring of Power, and it was doubly unknown that it was the Ring of Power, the Master Ring that controlled the others.
But the narrator -- who we will learn in LOTR was none of than Bilbo himself, who wrote the book as "There and Back Again" -- says this about Gollum's ring:
"But who knows how Gollum had come by that present [the Ring], ages ago in the old days when such rings were still at large in the world? Perhaps even the Master who ruled them could not have said."
In another passage, the ring is identified as a "ring of power."
I don't know, I always thought there was a distinction between mere magic rings and the Rings of Power created by Sauron. But this suggests that Bilbo knew this was a ring of power created by Sauron.
Now I don't remember when Bilbo wrote the Hobbit. In the movie, he shows Frodo the book in Rivendell, and I guess he wrote it after he left the Shire. I guess he might have added in the part about the ring being a ring of power created by "the Master" after Gandalf appraised him of his research into the ring.
I never noticed this before. I know Tolkien re-wrote this chapter while he was writing LOTR to make the ring important from the start. And also to make Gollum more sinister and evil, and also to remove the part where Gollum actually offers Bilbo the ring as a "present" -- Bilbo had already found it on his own, but Gollum was wiling to give it away, which obviously is not something the rewritten Gollum would ever do.
But I had no memory of the ring being suggested to be The Ring so early in the tale.

Finish the job, Mr. President!
Melanie Phillips lays out the case for the total destruction of the Iranian government and armed forces. [CBD]

TJM acts like he knows anything about John Wick and screenwriting. It's embarrassing, really.