Customer Reviews

Hollywood Vs America: Popular Culture and the War on Traditional Values

5 star:		(16)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(10)

 

 

I imagine the reviews of this book will be split two ways: On one side, they'll say Medved is just another member of the Religious Right trying to make everyone conform to a boring religious regime.

On the other side, people will say it's a well-deserved attack on the entertainment industry at large. It is neither. Medved points out that no one movie, no one song title, no one T.V. show should be cancelled, censored, etc.

What Medved does is point out the self-destructive trends of the entertainment industry elite to flood the market with material of little worth in the name of profits or a cause. In the former, he proves that movies have been steadily repulsing more and more of the public, and decreasing the chances of bringing in families, where the real money is. In the latter matter, he shows beyond a doubt that a very narrow viewpoint is being portrayed in hollywood, to the nearly complete exclusion of all other views. A move detrimental to Americans AND the entertainment industry.

Anyone who wants to get an idea of where the entertainment industry has been, and is taking American viewers, should read this book.

Few people discuss the excellent documentation and cold, hard statistics Medved supplies - perhaps because they are irrefutable. And also because it's easier to make subtle charges of racism and bigotry. One reviewer even claimed Medved wants a world where everyone is white and Christian - Medved is Jewish and discusses his religion at length in the book!!! But then, you'd have to actually READ the book to know that...

Medved shows beyond the shadow of a doubt that Hollywood is more interested in what it thinks of itself than in anything else - true art or even money.

Strange that many of the same movie buffs who decry the dumbing-down of film within the past 15 years suddenly rush to defend Hollywood (even the trash!) in order to avoid agreeing with Medved.

An excellent book - an excellent tool for analyzing American culture.

Well known movie critic resigns from doing so, because of his strong conviction that Hollywood is unwilling to be responsible cultural contributor.

Leaning even more to the dangerous trends Medved exposes in this book in 1992, Hollywood does not feel any responsibility to nation's moral troubles, only freedoms which they certainly are given under our laws.

It's only entertainment? Of the foulest, sickest kind. History will concur with Medved that this increasingly slippery slope has led all other leading civilizations to decay, disease and collapse. Can we be of such historic stuff?

Medved provides convincing evidence in this, and most disturbing is Hollywood's seeming "don't care" attitude.

Suffice recent stars stance on Iraq as infuriating most of country's citizens.

More like Medved and this reviewer, should boycott most of Hollywood. Wake up America, thanks Mike for this helpful classic work.

Having done my own research on film content, which just happened to include a survey of 1991 releases (which constitute many of the examples used in this book), it was perhaps inevitable that I would eventually read this book.

As a social scientist, I noted numerous parts of the book that contained inaccuracies, exaggerations, and reasoning that was far from air-tight. However, at the same time, I was impressed that, although these elements could (and should) be tightened and corrected, I find most of Medved's arguments to be laudable and generally defensible. Certainly there are many persons who should read this book and evaluate their media consumption habits!

Some of the biggest shortcomings of the book include:

1. Frequent presumptions that general box-office patterns are to be attributed primarily to specific elements of film content (even though other parts of the book are more careful and sophisticated about such things), [**NOTE** new passage added a month after original review: ] I had originally posted a 4 star rating, but then discovered evidence that flatly contradicts one of Medved's claims!!! The nature of this error was so serious that I then lowered my rating from 4 stars down to 3 stars. The flaw is Medved's claim that box office dropped dramatically between 1965 and 1966, due to the new permissiveness that was allowed in film with the Valenti-revisions of the the production code and the addition of the SMA ("suggested for mature audience") label. Having looked at the box office figures, I now see no basis whatsoever for Medved's claim! There was a decline, yes, just as there had been and would continue to be for many years before and afterward. There is no way to attribute one year out of that to a shift in the production code, as Medved does. Therefore, this must be considered another case where his claims are exaggerated and overstated, despite my aesthetic and moral basis for agreeing with many of his arguments, and my general support for the kind of criticism that Medved attempts (and the industry's need to consider it). [end of added passage]

2. Poor proofreading, some errors, and a number of passages that are exaggerated. (The proofreading suggests that the book used an early word processor to produce, the errors that I caught are generally minor and don't tend to negate the points he's trying to make, the exaggerations tend to occur when Medved is clearly exhibiting an emotional involvement in the topic.)

These are perhaps regrettable weaknesses, but can be overlooked.

3. Some errors of reasoning can be found in various parts of the book, but again, while these are regrettable in that they will cause some readers to be unconvinced, Medved's failure to make all his arguments logically air-tight doesn't mean that most of the core ideas he relates are unsound. On the contrary, having come to his book years after doing my own research and arrived at *some* very similar conclusions, I know where he's coming from and the kinds of patterns and relationships he's trying to describe, in language that is accessible and convincing to general readers.

Now, for some of the positive features of the book:

1. Medved succeeds in refuting the claim that Hollywood product is simply "giving the public what it wants and demands."

2. Medved succeeds in pointing to some of the patterns in which questionable content has come to pervade most mass media products, even when unnecessary for the effectiveness of the work and when it offends some or most of its potential audience.

3. Medved demonstrates an understanding of some of the debates in aesthetics and criticism, and does a very good job questioning the nature of contemporary criticism, and pointing to some ways in which it (and film critics) falls short and risks becoming totally irrelevant.

4. Medved's exploration of the motivations underlying contemporary standards for film production, film criticisms, and industry awards is probably one of the better ones that has appeared in a widely-available forum in recent years.

5. Medved's introduction and conclusion sections should probably be required reading for anyone who wishes to judge the nature of this book. He is careful to draw a distinction between judgements about artistic merits and a moral evaluation of film content. He also tends to avoid simplistic fallacies that so often pervade this sort of writing, and he also concisely addresses the topic of film censorship that is frequently brought in to cloud the issue of film content. His discussion at no time can be simplified to the advocacy of censorship (as all industry defenders and apologists keep trying to do) and he insightfully cuts through many of the fallacies used by industry apologists in their public statements on these issues.

6. Medved's understanding of the harmful effects of violent (and immoral) media is adequate, and I was impressed that he actually hired a consultant to interpret data at at least one point during the writing of the book, rather than claim expertise of his own in data analysis. I believe that Medved did as capable a job as he could, but he is no social scientist. The results, however, hold up surprisingly well to scrutiny, despite various fallacies that creep into some of his more elaborate efforts to explore and evaluate patterns and trends.

7. Medved's suggestions for filmmakers are good ones! He describes well such issues as the different perceptions of critics when compared to general audiences, includes useful information to suggest differences between the artistic/industry communities and the broader public at large, examines various motivations (historical, political, artistic/personal etc.) that shape film products in ways that are often unappreciated by industry outsiders.

All in all, this book was surprisingly good. It isn't flawless, and there are times when Medved's emotions are not held completely in check, but he usually manages to avoid the sorts of errors that are otherwise pervasive about this sort of subject, and even when he makes mistakes in reasoning and in reporting the data/observations about the media, these mistakes fortunately tend not to contradict the merit of most of his arguments. While most popular authors on this subject may may one or more bold claims and then run with them, Medved is fortunately much more careful. Therefore, when he does stumble, not much of the load he was carrying gets spilled. Unfortunately, the current edition has a Rush Limbaugh blurb on its front cover. This should be removed, even though Medved is apparently not a conservative commentator, because Medved is also correct when he states in this book that the issue of media content is not simply a conservative/liberal political issue. It instead concerns anyone who has a sense of ethics that shouldn't be needlessly contradicted by questionable filmmaking choices and the sort poor aesthetic standards that are common today.

I came to a bookstore shortly after this book was released with $25 in my wallet, which was intended for another book. I flipped through "Hollywood vs. America" and not only couldn't I put it down, I decided that I owed it to Medved to buy the book at full list price, before it went on sale. Finally, someone with some clout was saying what I had been saying for years about show business and the people in charge.

A previous reviewer faulted Medved for detailing a laundry list of vomit and urination scenes, but this is exactly what is necessary to illustrate how far "entertainment" has fallen. True humor and plot development is abandoned in favor of "realistic" special effects gore, more F-words, and bodily function gags.

Especially important is his illustration of the way showbiz takes great pains to prop up evil religious straw-men/women for the purpose of demonizing traditional religion per se. He also shows how "dramatic license" is used to distort the lives of actual religious figures so that their faith is unrecognizable. Medved wrote this seven years before NBC's outrageously inaccurate and blasphemous "Noah's Ark."

If you are a moviegoer, read this book. Peek into the slaughterhouse and see what's in the sausage they feed you.

If you've wondered why in the world so many anti-American, anti-family, anti-religion movies manage to earn Oscars, this book is for you.

In it, Michael Medved takes a long hard look at the stuff produced by the movie industry and shows that there's a pattern to it all.

It's not "greed" and "profit." Despite the attempts of numerous left-leaning folks to smear capitalism and the free market, it isn't "corporate greed" that drove the movies down into their current state. As Medved shows, lots of studios could have done much better at the box office if they had produced moral and uplifting films that respected (not "promoted," just "respected") the values held by the vast majority of Americans.

No, the movie industry is just out of touch with its market. And why? The culprit isn't "greed" but a false idealism.

What Medved shows in effect is that the moviemakers are playing to the chorus -- looking for accolades from their peers based on their alleged "artistic achievement." And that achievement is based on a view of "art" that most of us probably wouldn't find congenial.

Medved shows that there is an overarching pattern in what's been coming out of Hollywood for the last three of four decades. Its destructive "art" (with some exceptions that should have taught the industry something about its customers) tends deliberately to take traditional religion and morality as its intentional target, and regards the trashing of those values as a "success."

Disagree? Then let Medved convince you. Watch him summarize, e.g., Hollywood's recent portrayals of clergy and other religiously devoted people, and then ask yourself what would have happened if the movie industry had similarly targeted, say, gays and lesbians. If you give the obvious answer, then you'll know there's a powerful bias at work in the "entertainment" world.

Michael Medved's "Hollywood Vs. America" is an excellent observation of how out of touch Hollywood is with America and how they are influencing our youth.

Michael looks at many different aspects of Hollywood and the media but he really takes a good look at how they handle the subject of sex. He points out how Hollywood has made sex a requirement for any movie to be "romantic." Because of his observations on this subject, it has made me review some of the movies I consider "my favorites" and I've made a decision to not watch them or recommend them anymore.

While he makes his Judeo-Christian views apparent in many different parts of the book, he also uses a lot of common sense when addressing many of the issues. He points out that some of us can watch a movie and see people brutally murdered and we sit there with no reaction at all. I have caught myself becoming "numb" to a lot of the violence in movies. Sure, it isn't going to make me run out and commit these acts, but it has become commonplace to see heads explode or people dismembered that a lot of us are not even aware of how horrific these scenes are.

He also points out that less than 5% of movies in the past 15 years show religion in a positive way. I couldn't agree more. Recently, there have been movies (Return To Me, The Apostle, Signs) that show how a long-suffering faith in God can bring you through everything. Why is it that Hollywood can't see that a lot more than 5% of Americans have a religious faith and would like to see more of that in films? It is a shame.

This is an excellent commentary on today's time. It does tend to get a little repetitive and tedious toward the end but he does make excellent observations and leaves it up to you to decide.

This is an excellent book and presents a considerable body of evidence that proves Hollywood's obsession with exploiting sex and violence and other harmful trends. He convincingly refutes the standard Hollywood claim of "just making what people want". A fantastic book, give it to your most liberal friends.

Medved, does nothing else here other that at least raise some important questions. A fine writer, with an excellent command of the language, Medved confronts (at least in his thesis) Hollywood's blatant disregard for traditional American values.

Yes, Medved's thesis is simplistic and yes, he fails to consider the changing times which are indeed reflected in popular culture. And No, I as a reader certainly do not agree with all of Medved's points (Platoon is a far, far superior film to The Sands of Iwo Jima!). And I don't think everyone is supposed to agree with every point Medved desires to make. However, he does pose serious deconstructive questions that lend themselves well toward serious discourse and debate.

Popular Culture has now evolved to significance in our society, whether for well or ill, well beyond a relfective product. It does influence us as well. Medved is simply, in this book that's well worth a look, asking us to closely consider what that influence may be.

As studios and Hollywood producers continue to back projects that have appalling liberal bias, yet little-to-no chance of commercial success ("Cradle Will Rock" (1999), "Cider House Rules" (1999) are good examples), it is plain to see there is a larger force at work in American popular culture. Medved does a superb job of documenting the multitudinous examples of filmmakers pushing the envelope in terms of content. As a eager consumer of pop entertainment, it has made me rethink the images that I choose to grant entrance into my mind. I'm not surprised that some readers find this book overwrought or "Chicken Little". Oftentimes, the truth hurts. The simple truth proven here brilliantly, is that Hollywood has an agenda. They promote it with a force frightening. Sadly, traditional values are under attack, by those who think they "know better".