Medved tries to spin Valenti; PLUS: The sad tale of Michael Medved.
In case you haven't heard, MPAA boss Jack Valenti is stepping down. For Movie Geeks, this news has been greeted with mostly positive reaction: Film fandom has a generally sour view of the MPAA, seeing in it (not incorrectly, I think) the pure synthesis of what is wrong with American film content-control versus the more "open" censor policies in Europe and much of Asia.
Culture Warriors of the political "Right," though, are seeing this as a chance to use a brief opening as a chance to snag some upper-hand control and actually INCREASE film censorship. Think it can't happen? I direct you to the current state of Mr. Howard Stern, who has found the full-force of a right-wing controlled FCC that has used the American public's ridiculously overblown reaction to the Janet Jackson incident leveled at him with the goal of silencing him forever.
Michael Medved, the film critic most beloved by the Religious Right, here puts the far-right spin on Valenti's tenure in an April 6th Wall Street Journal editorial:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110004914
Medved here is laying out the Religious Right's "new" angle on the Culture Wars: Instead of trying to appeal to the Industry's "better angels" to stop making violent or sexually explicit films because "morals were more important than greedy profit," now they're appealing directly TO the greedy profit. The new-and-ready memo from the Fundamentalist Right to Hollywood is: "Traditionalism sells, just check out Mel Gibson's returns on that Jesus flick!"
Medved and his ilk are trying to re-write the history of modern Hollywood: In their new version of events, it wasn't the rise of television or foreign competition that lowered ticket sales, it was Hollywood's "abandonment of traditional American values" (read: "openess to new ideas as opposed to blind obedience to the will of the so-called majority") that did it. Frankly, I happen to believe that Mike is full of it on this one and, whats more, I think he KNOWS it.
Medved hinges his argument here on the concept that the MPAA ratings system that governs film content is somehow a Babylonian bastion of extreme-permissiveness. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with underground film, independent film, foreign films, etc. can tell you that that is complete and utter CRAP. Compared to what is permitted in general-release entertainment in much or Europe or what is being made on the no-holds-barred underground circuit, the restrictions of the MPAA are almost medieval in their relative puritanism. Most of you reading this are informed enough to know that.
And so is Medved.
Michael Medved is not a stupid man. In fact, he's highly intelligent and a very well-read student of the cinema. If he really thinks that the MPAA counts as an out-of-control haven for ammoral permissivity, he is either delusional or he's dishonest. I think he's being disingenuous here, propping up a basically bogus myth of a conspiratorial permissive Boogeyman because it aids the long-term goals of the political forces with whom he has long-allied himself with.
The "Hollywood and the MPAA are too liberal" routine he's revising here isn't meant to play to culture-saavy folks with an eye to all facets of film international or otherwise: This is meant to frighten the "heartland of America" crowd into fearing that their precious tykes might see something approaching kinda-sexual or kinda-violent (unless the violence is being perpetrated against Jim Caveziel in a Jesus costume, of course, THEN it's okay) and that newer, harsher leadership is needed to protect them from the Liberal Hollywood conspiracy to corrupt children's minds.
THE SAD TALE OF MICHAEL MEDVED.
Medved is the ultimate fallen angel of Movie Geekdom: He is, I believe, the most potent and sad story of a genuinely important fandom icon who has, for whatever reason, transformed himself willingly into one of the ultimate enemies of all film fandom, Geek or otherwise.
Medved and his brother first appeared on the scene as the authors of a truly wonderful book detailing the "50 Worst Movies Ever Made." In celebrating the awfulness of bad cinema, The Medveds almost single-handedly invented and codified the pop-culture concept of watching bad movies for kicks. Without this book, I believe, we would not have had Joe Bob Briggs, Mystery Science Theater 3000, etc. A HUGE and important piece of modern Movie Geekdom can trace it's philosophical origins to Medved and his book.
Then something happened.
Medved's initial book was basically free of political content. It would be the last. Medved's subsequent work in book, radio and television-based film criticism has all had a political bent: He became THE film critic of the Religious Right, and in his current incarnation he has seemingly bled himself of any ability to regard a film in terms other than political. He sees sinister messages in every film he doesn't like, and often assaults film for their message or the politics of the filmmaker rather than the craft.
He has suported film censorship and wrote a whole book, "Hollywood vs. America," of conspiracy theories about how the movie biz is trying to "destroy traditional values." In doing so, I believe, he has sold out film artists and film fandom by supporting those who would deny filmmakers the right to tell stories or show images that do not conform to the fundamentalist Religious Right view of the world.
I'm certainly not suggesting that film criticism from the political right is unwelcome, on the contrary I love to hear film reviews and opinions from ALL sides. But Medved goes the further step, allying himself with the Falwells and the Ashcrofts who seek to re-impose puritan censorship on film-as-art, and in doing so I believe that he has sold-out ALL film fans and filmmakers; left, right and in between.
And it is sad, because he WAS a good critic... and he could have been great. I feel sorry for him.
|
