Cathy Seipp has another of her fine columns in NRO today – Segregated Screenwriters – in which she is again on the money about the entertainment industry and the City of Angels. [Is that because she cites you?-ed. Why else?] But seeereeuzly folks, Cathy cited me for predicting something that is very conventional wisdom (VCW) these days – that screenwriter Paul Haggis is headed for his second Oscar for writing a movie that is fundamentally meretricious – Crash. And here’s an admission: I voted for him. Why? Well, despite the author’s fake values and absurd vision of Los Angeles, he didn’t have much competition and I had to vote for something. (I had omitted too many categories on my Oscar ballot already.) Besides, the dude writes extremely well – excellent dialogue and well-wrought, often moving, characters.
But let me add my voice to Cathy’s and Matt Welch’s that I am offended by the film’s (self-regarding and convenient) view of LA as a maelstrom of racism. Yes, sure, there are plenty of racists here like everywhere else on the planet, but actually, compared to most places I’ve visited (and since travel is my drug of choice, I’ve been to over 60 countries) LA is a virtual paragon of multi-culturalism. Compared to Paris, it’s paradise. But screenwriters like Haggis persist in a Westside vision of their city that is essentially a fantasy built on their needs (to feel superior and good while being rich and famous). They should get out more. Koreatown is a lot more fun and interesting than Brentwood or Beverly Hills (and the food’s better).
Haggis gives away his own LA-myopia in one telling detail of Crash. Much of the plot revolves around an Iranian family being mistaken for Arab because there are no Iranians hereabouts. Wrong way around, fella. This is Tehrangeles with the second greatest Iranian population on Earth (after the capital city of Iran). There are over a half million Persians in LA county. The Arab population is miniscule by comparison. But from Brentwood, I guess it’s all the same.
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
23 Comments
1. AlanC:Roger, I was listening to the radio on my way to work this morning and the host was talking about the Oscars (strange topic for Boston Sports radio, but there it is).
One thing that was pointed out was that there were A) a virtual unanimity of the movies that are anti-American or at least anti-Western culture, and B) doing lousy box office.
Do you think that it would be possible today to produce a movie that was A) good (in an Oscar sense) and B) good box office at the same time?
I figure that anything that was supportive of America at war in the old fashioned sense is totally off the table….but there has to be something that would not offend middle America and still be a significantly good movie, doesn’t there?
Mar 3, 2006 - 8:44 am 2. MrBuddwing:I have to wonder, though, how many Angelenos (or Americans, for that matter) are aware that Iranians aren’t Arabs, but Persians, and whether it matters to them.
Mar 3, 2006 - 10:18 am 3. Percy Dovetonsils:Jeez, Roger, I knew that L.A. has a large Iranian expatriate population, and I live in Chicago. (And yes, I also knew that Iranians aren’t Arabs, and also that there’s not a ton of affection between the two.)
However, because I live in the Midwest, and am definitely not an enlightened liberal, I would be considered an uneducated hillbilly by the likes of Haggis. Makes you wonder who’s the provincial.
Mar 3, 2006 - 11:30 am 4. Gabriel Malor:AlanC,
Lord of the Rings: Return of the King won in 2003.
Gladiator won in 2000.
Titanic (God help us) won in 1997.
Braveheart in 1995.
All did very well at the box office. And they were obviously “Oscar material.”
Mar 3, 2006 - 11:32 am 5. beautifulatrocities:As Ann Coulter says of Good Night & Good News, Hollywood pats itself on the back for making films that would have been ‘brave’ 40 years ago. But they wouldn’t dare make a movie about Islamonutters (or even mention Theo van Gogh at the Oscar snoozefest)
Mar 3, 2006 - 12:25 pm 6. BigFire:If Haggis want to see large Iranian community, he really should come out to the Valley.
Mar 3, 2006 - 1:18 pm 7. D Anghelone:I thought the movie a takedown of people usually treated as being above the racial/ethnic fray.
Mar 3, 2006 - 1:25 pm 8. Ray Zacek:As much as I have come to dislike Ms. Coulter I have to agree with her that Good Night and Good Luck is truly the Best Picture of 1956. There’s nothing courageous in pounding another nail into Joe McCarthy’s coffin. Similarly, in another time, Clooney’s Syriana would be in the running for a Lenin Peace Prize.
Mar 3, 2006 - 2:06 pm 9. AlanC:Thank you Mr. Malor.
Now could I impose on you for the loan of some memory cells since I’ve obviously lost some (he said sheepishly).
Mar 3, 2006 - 2:06 pm 10. beautifulatrocities:Best Picture of 1956
LOL!
Mar 3, 2006 - 2:58 pm 11. XWL:As someone born and raised in Santa Monica on the Westside, I would say that most everyone readily knows the difference between Persians and Arabs (most people from Iran I’ve known prefer to be called Persians, and are as likely to be Jewish or Christian as they are to be Muslim).
But if you really want to upset them, confusing a Persian with an Arab is only mildly irritating while they will find being confused for a Mexican truly infuriating.
Also on a different tangent of this comment thread look at the films nominated for Best Picture of 1956
Friendly Persuasion
Giant
The King and I
The Ten Commandments
with the winner being. . .
Around the World in Eighty Days
Times have changed a bit, I’d say.
Mar 3, 2006 - 3:29 pm 12. Kevin Peters:Mrbudwig:
saddam’s father wrote a book called God’s three mistakes, Mosquitos, Jews, Persians. People in Southern California, because of the huge Persian population, have a good idea about the diference. I was talking about the war with a Turkish ex-pat and I thought his opposition was because of solidarity with his Muslim brothers. But as the discussion went along he told me “You can’t trust the Arabs of the Middle east, they will stab you in the back.” His opposition was because he views himself as an American and he thinks that our involvenment in that area will cause us grief, not because he thinks we are out to put the Muslim nations under our thumb.I imagine that the Middle eastern view of their Ottoman budies to be complex also. People on the right and left need to understand the complex intra-Muslim relationships in that region.
Mar 3, 2006 - 3:51 pm 13. Andrew Levy:Crash????? Say it ain’t so, Roger! The only thing worse than the film’s direction is the screenplay. It was truly among the worst films of the year, in my opinion.
Match Point, on the other hand, had a very taut screenplay. Even Syriana, for all its many faults, was at least over the top fun in the vein of JFK. But Crash???? The only award this piece of crap should be up for is Best Mutual Masturbation by a Cast and Crew. Or maybe Worst Magnolia Ripoff Ever.
OK, I’ll be quiet now. The doctors say I shouldn’t get too excited. (:
Mar 3, 2006 - 6:19 pm 14. Orson2:Gotta diasagree with you, Andrew. Syriana was a slow, dull, yawn-fest dressed up as IMPORTANT.
Take its thesis of the CIA toppling a ME government, which it hasn’t done since Iran in the 50s! Now is that credible? How about destabilizing a US government (ala Plame)? Now that this humongous, overfed bureacracy could do!
By contrast Crash at least had the benefit of sharp wicked dialog and interesting characters who – HELLO! Hollywood – actually developed. I too found the vision of LA quite unbelievable, save for cop problems. But where else would it have to be set to make it more credible? Racism is getting harder to come by. (Yawn.)
I guess the best lesson about Hollywood is that the best films, or a least plots, have already been made like “Pride and Prejudice.”
My other favorites? “Batman Begins,” “Hostage,” and “Mr and Mrs Smith”. But a lousy film year in all, and even worse Oscar show coming. I’ll go out to catch something on Sunday night – may be Kong?
Mar 3, 2006 - 7:24 pm 15. Raging_Toroid:The Manchurian Candidate harshly lampooned McCarthy. The character in the film(clearly modeled on him), in addition to being a drunken buffoon, was also an unwitting stooge for communist agents.
That movie came out in 1962. Mr. Clooney is a mere 43 years late.
Mar 3, 2006 - 7:42 pm 16. Andrew Levy:Orson:
My take on Syriana was that, like Oliver Stone’s films, it was so much fun BECAUSE it took itself so seriously, and yet was patently ridiculous. Plus, I personally was never bored while watching it: in fact, absurd politics aside, I thought it was a really entertaining film.
On the other hand, Crashturbation (I just made that up: whaddaya think??) did nothing but make me snort with derision. (Luckily, I was watching at home.)
Anyway, my top 5, in no particular order, are:
The New World
Mar 3, 2006 - 9:29 pm 17. Steven E. Ehrbar:The 40-Year-Old Virgin
Match Point
Cache
The Lord of War
You know what a genuinely brave movie for Hollywood would be?
Title:
The Tragedy of Senator Joe O’Connor
Synopsis:
Mar 3, 2006 - 9:46 pm 18. syn:A brave Senator attempting to defend American democracy has his mission subverted by a Communist agent on his staff who feeds him wrong names. The coup de grace comes when respected newscaster Edward R. Martin (a coward afraid his affair with a fourteen-year-old girl will be exposed by Soviet agents, runining his career) savagely attacks him for his attempts to expose the Soviet mole who is personal secretary to the President. At the end of the movie, Senator O”Connor has returned in disgrace and alcoholism to his home town, while Miss Marie Kennedy leaks vital information from the President’s office resulting in the crushing of the 1956 Hungarian Uprising.
Hollywood’s useful idiots brave?
Only if they play, write and produce anything which supports the collective nanny state.
How is it possible for anyone to create art if they are taught that expression comes in the form of politically correct speech thought? Please…the only subject allowed in such a restricted society of inane artists is to create anything which ridicules the Christer (primarily the white male one)
The American public is Oprahfreyed by emotional blackmail into buying Hollywood’s garbage.
Roger, how can you still remain a member of such a hideous collective as oppressive Hollywood?
Stand up man and be brave.
Mar 4, 2006 - 4:16 am 19. Kevin Peters:Syn:
Mar 4, 2006 - 12:43 pm 20. KateC:Hollywood isn’t going away. Roger is being brave by staying in and trying to reform it. This will be a decades long process. Roger could have kept his mouth shut and pretended that there was no problem and gone along with the club and made more money to boot. If Roger quit the leftist agit-prop would not stop. Running away from a problem isn’t brave, it’s just easy. You can admire your purity and accomplish nothing. I have huge differences with Roger on social matters but we agree on secuity issues.And if Hollywood is ever going to change it will take the Simon’s and Silver’s of the world to step up and shout loudly, not quit or hide in the closet. And he is a small minority in his community and can’t clean out the rot by himself. But there are some that agree with him and if Roger doesn’t stay and fight they might not have the courage to do it on their own. Telling him to quit is a mistake. Down the road I will be on the other side of an issue and I am not looking forward to having to match wits with him. But the danger of Islamo fascism is so large that we can’t give up any corner of the American zeitgeist without a strong fight. We need someone on the inside of the Hollywood community to prick whatever humanity is left in that community into abandoning their corrupt dogma.
MrBudd–Most people in LA know Iranians aren’t Arab because most Iranians self-identify as “Persian” and also because of the local slang for huge new builds in BH–”Persian Palaces”. The LATimes even did a story on that term .
But Haggis just thinks that everyone who’s not him is ignorant.
How much do his $cientolgist views have to do with his paranoia?
Mar 4, 2006 - 1:03 pm 21. LesterFreed:These movies are a joke. Who even wants to see any of them? I got no interest in any of them.
Gay cowboys? Pass
Mar 4, 2006 - 1:39 pm 22. ISLAVISTAMOM:Truman Capote? Pass
Making Joe McCarthy the most evil man in the world? Pass
White man’s guilt in regards to racism? Pass
Spielbergs take no sides everyone wants peace thesis? Sucked.
With two family members in SAG, we’ve seen quite a few of the films. My pick for best actor was Capote’s Hoffman and I enjoyed the film, I vote for Capote over Crash and Brokeback. Crash acting was good but agree the screenplay weak and I don’t agree with the portrayal of LA, although I found it mildly amusing. I was surprised Cindarellaman did not get more accolades– perhaps Paul G. will get best supporting actor. I also thought Matchpoint was good and should beat out Squid and the Whale (saw that one too). King Kong should win best visual effects. These picks are without regard to my personal political views, etc…I agree that the awards should not be based on political agenda. Too bad if they are, as this will ultimately inure to the detriment of this industry in the USA.
Mar 4, 2006 - 10:41 pm 23. beautifulatrocities:Tyrannical political correctness still rules in academe & Hollywood, forcing writers like Haggis to seek moral weight for their work on safe turf (& then posture as brave truth tellers)
Mar 5, 2006 - 7:14 am