
Hollywood’s Great Leap Backward on Free Expression - jseliger
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/hollywoods-great-leap-backward-free-expression/598045
======
coldtea
> _Why isn’t there a similar outcry about China’s mounting attack on the film
> industry, not just in Hong Kong but also in the United States? Over the
> years, the U.S. government has often praised and defended Hollywood films as
> a key component of American soft power—that is, as a story-telling medium
> that can, without engaging in blatant propaganda, convey American ideals,
> including free expression itself, to foreign populations around the world.
> But Hollywood has long since abandoned that role. Indeed, not since the end
> of World War II have the studios cooperated with Washington in furthering
> the nation’s ideals. Instead, the relationship today is purely commercial—on
> both sides. For example, Hollywood frequently enlists Washington’s help in
> fighting piracy and gaining access to foreign markets. But even while
> providing that help, Washington refrains from asking Hollywood to temper its
> more negative portrayals of American life, politics, and global intentions.
> (The exception is the Department of Defense, which insists on approving the
> script of every film produced with its assistance.)_

Well, cry me a river.

For one, it's funny how the author mentions the "Department of Defense" as
some small exception, whereas it's where the most blatant propaganda happens
(in war and spy related blockbusters, touching foreign policy, US wars and
meddling, the enemies du jour, etc).

Second, Washington doesn't have to temper with Hollywood's "more negative
portrayals of American life, politics, and global intentions", because they
are either "art house" films which few globally see and care about, or major
films, which play into the national narratives and more often than not have
"just some rotten apples/feel good" endings by design.

Third, the author seems fine to regard films "as a key component of American
soft power" but is enraged if they wont be anymore (and cries about foreign
influence preventing that)? How about films just being films/art, and not
"soft power"?

~~~
jumelles
The fact that the government doesn’t get to step in and insist on sanitized
portrayals of American life is a huge part of why Hollywood has the soft power
it does. Even the ratings system is technically opt-in and was set up by the
studios to avoid a government ratings agency. (The MPAA has plenty of problems
to be sure, but these days films can just be released unrated anyway.)

~~~
coldtea
> _The fact that the government doesn’t get to step in and insist on sanitized
> portrayals of American life is a huge part of why Hollywood has the soft
> power it does._

Well, as a European cinephile, I find the portrayals of American life in most
Hollywood films (even the 'gritty' ones) so soapy and sanitized, that the
government doesn't need to bother.

The last decades Hollywood movies with any real bite (the way, e.g. Dog Day
Afternoon once had) are few and far between.

I'd say the "soft power" is more due to Hollywood being a kind of McDonalds
for movie-goers, and the bigger budgets allowing no continued competition on
this front from other parts of the world (whereas a European cop flick or
western could compete visually with the average Hollywood one up until around
the mid-late 70s).

------
anon1m0us
I think it is important to recognize the bias in this article. It isn't until
the end, that The Atlantic says, "This article is part of “The Speech Wars,” a
project supported by the Charles Koch Foundation, the Reporters Committee for
the Freedom of the Press, and the Fetzer Institute."

A quick search for Koch's influence on free speech will add light to their
motivations. Here's a recent one: [https://www.thenation.com/article/portland-
speech-milo-antif...](https://www.thenation.com/article/portland-speech-milo-
antifa-koch/)

~~~
antonvs
I don't really follow US media much. Is The Atlantic known to be a right-wing
outlet?

~~~
anon1m0us
I never considered them as such. I had previously put their writing in the
same realm as The New Yorker or Harpers, maybe not quite that good. McCleans
or der Speigel from other regions.

------
softpowerthrow
Meh. Despite what the article bemoans, DoD and CIA is still and will still be
heavily involved in crafting "soft propaganda" narratives through Hollywood
film.

Recent examples include "The Interview", in which State Department and CIA
operatives made the film portray an assassination of Kim Jong Un and
coordinate its dispersal in North Korea, and Zero Dark Thirty in which a story
about indepedent actors in Libya protesting America's overthrow of its
government by attacking its embassies and CIA annex on 9/11 became a "hero and
rescue story".

Lots of leaked documents (SONY hacks, Wikileaks) contain modern (after WWII)
discussions between US Gov and Hollywood execs about "crafting narratives" to
help with US power projection and propaganda efforts. Always communicated as
"lucrative partnerships" of course, because that's a mover for Hollywood
execs.

------
theNJR
Previously
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19166794](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19166794)

------
RickJWagner
Hollywood has a long history of antagonism towards free speech. Anyone who
disagrees with the power brokers is liable to find themselves out of work.

Historical link below. For modern iterations, read what Tim Allen has to say.
For even better material look at what Debra Messing has been saying recently.

Hollywood is decidedly anti-free speech.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist)

~~~
blaser-waffle
This is because they are Pro-Money. The government (DoD, CIA, whatever) is a
threat / stakeholder in that discussion, and they have to appease them in
order to Get The Money.

But at the end of the day they're not doing it because they like the DoD,
they're doing it for $$$.

------
mmsimanga
The government of South Africa will not allow the Dalai Lama to visit South
Africa. This has been on going for years.

[https://mg.co.za/article/2014-09-05-china-thanks-sa-for-
corr...](https://mg.co.za/article/2014-09-05-china-thanks-sa-for-correct-
position-on-dalai-lama)

~~~
anon1m0us
This is non-sequitur at best. Americans aren't allowed to visit Cuba either.
This has been going on for years and has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

~~~
mmsimanga
It is a form of censorship. I didn't say Americans not being allowed to visit
Cuba is right either. The question is always when will it actually affect your
life. Having lived most of my life under and African dictator I can tell you
that they never say anything "wrong". They defend the peace by jailing
opposition leaders wanting to hold rallies. Keeping out pesky Western
journalists is cloaked as exercising the rights of Africans to self regulate.
Everything non-sequitur at best.

~~~
anon1m0us
It's not censorship. Censorship would be South Africa removing writings of the
Lama from libraries. South Africans still have access to his message, which,
according to Penn & Teller is _bullshit_.

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
>These two films are also quite explicitly anti-American, which should be a
clue to Hollywood veterans that their interests as Americans are not well
aligned with those of Beijing.

I am not sure Hollywood veterans really care about their interests as
Americans.

------
deogeo
I've always found Hollywood to be ideologically mostly one-note, and a very
disproportionate representation of US culture, as informed by its owners [1].
It was no bastion of free expression, even before China's influence.

[1] [https://jasonbayz.wordpress.com/2015/07/02/demographics-
of-t...](https://jasonbayz.wordpress.com/2015/07/02/demographics-of-the-
american-media-elite/)

~~~
slg
I imagine this comment was not intended to be openly anti-semitic, but it
certainly reads that way. It comes off as the old "Jews control Hollywood and
use it to spread their ideological propaganda" conspiracy theory. I would
suggest you expand and clarify your point to avoid this hopefully accidental
implication.

~~~
zozbot234
Huh, I think the blogpost parent links to at the time I'm writing this[1] is
quite consistent with your reading. It's certainly hard to describe _that_
implication as accidental. Quite sad!

[1] ("Demographics of the American Media Elite"; mentions "Jews" in the very
first line of post content!)

~~~
deogeo
I encourage you to correct any inaccuracies you find in the linked post.

Edit: I very deliberately linked to a _specific_ post, and do not endorse, nor
did I even bother to read, the site as a whole. If the best retort you can
muster is attacks against the author, then may I assume that you dislike the
author, but agree with the facts presented in that specific post?

~~~
slg
I spent a few minutes skimming some of the blog posts on the page you linked
and there are a few choice nuggets like this:

>For the last few years I’ve believed in, and written under my pseudonym
about, hard racial differences in intelligence. I was quite sure that most or
all of the gap between the measured IQ of Black and White Americans was
genetic in origin, everything I observed seemed consistent with that, and I
assumed it would eventually be proven scientifically.

and

>The American swing voter, overwhelming, sympathizes with Israel rather than
with the Palestinians. Yet, he also doesn’t like to hear about Israel. Why? He
knows why American politicians talk about Israel. Hearing about it reminds him
of his impotence in the face of the Jewish lobby he knows about but whose
existence he can’t even acknowledge. This is true whether his is a white
nationalist, an American nationalist, or simply a voter who asks “which
candidate cares about me?”

That is just old fashioned white supremacy and anti-semitism. If you don't
agree with those principles, I highly suggest linking to some other source. If
you do agree with them, I'll be polite and kindly ask that you don't spout
those ideologies on a site like HN.

~~~
deogeo
> That is just old fashioned white supremacy and anti-semitism.

I will concede the anti-semitism point. But the opinion on IQ is consistent
with mainstream psychology [1] - it is, to the best of our knowledge,
_accurate_. Of course you did not label the claim _false_ , merely 'white
supremacy'. Furthermore, the poster whatshisface made the claim that Jewish
people have higher average IQ [2]. Do you believe he, and Jordan Peterson (who
he sources for that claim), are Jewish supremacists for holding that position?

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ)

[2]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20978083](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20978083)

~~~
slg
I'm not going to debate the scientific justifications for white supremacy. You
have yet to even make a halfhearted denial of these bigoted ideologies and
therefore the benefit of the doubt that I had afforded you multiple times has
worn out.

~~~
deogeo
Labeling factual statements (well sourced, from mainstream publications) as
"justifications for white supremacy" is nothing but a convenient way to avoid
having to dispute them.

You accused me of white supremacy, of "spouting those ideologies", based only
on dislike for the _other_ writings of the author of the post I used as
source, which I explicitly did not endorse. This is a post whose accuracy no-
one has bothered to dispute. If defending the accuracy of my statements is
unacceptable, then what kind of debate did you have in mind?

Did you hope I would just fall to my knees and beg forgiveness?

> You have yet to even make a halfhearted denial of these bigoted ideologies

I edited my earlier post. In case you missed it: "I very deliberately linked
to a _specific_ post, and do not endorse, nor did I even bother to read, the
site as a whole." I consider this denouncement a charity - I do not owe it any
more than I would owe denouncing eugenics for invoking evolution, or owe
denouncing Soviet purges and the Holodomor for advocating for unions and
welfare. I will not ignore facts just because bigots repeat them.

~~~
slg
Your initial comment was just parroting the anti-semitic trope that the Jews
control the media and use it as propaganda. Your source for that claim was a
blog that you admit professes anti-semitic ideas. I didn't expect you to "fall
to [your] knees" but anyone who isn't anti-semitic would probably be
uncomfortable with how that looks and maybe try to explain how their comments
weren't anti-semitic. You didn't do that. Your only defense seems to be that
your and/or your sources apparent bigotry is based on facts. These is no way
to have a legitimately debate against bigoted ideas like that which is why I
am not trying to dispute whatever you are specifically citing.

~~~
deogeo
> I didn't expect you to "fall to [your] knees"

Your entire post is a long complaint that I did not display enough contrition
when citing uncomfortable facts. Not fringe facts - _mainstream media /science
acknowledged_ facts, that you refuse to engage with, and in the next breath
complain that

> These is no way to have a legitimately debate against bigoted ideas like
> that

Where your only evidence for my bigoted ideas is that I cite facts you are
sure only a bigot would cite. As a final note, ponder this: You accused me of
white supremacism based on my belief in the heritability of IQ. But both East-
Asians and Ashkenazi Jews score higher, on average, than whites. So shouldn't
you have accused me of being a Jewish and/or Asian supremacist?

~~~
slg
>Your entire post is a long complaint that I did not display enough contrition
when citing uncomfortable facts. Not fringe facts - mainstream media/science
acknowledged facts..

Your initial comment implied "Jews control the media and use it to push their
propaganda". Do you believe that is an uncomfortable fact backed up by the
mainstream media and science? I gave you the benefit of the doubt originally
and assumed that implication was accidentally. You have had multiple
opportunities to say that the implication was not intended and yet you seem to
be unwavering in support of that implication. My complaint is that you are
showing no contrition in stating this clearly anti-semitic idea.

~~~
dang
Please don't feed this sort of tedious ideological flamewar on HN. If a
comment is egregious, the guidelines ask you to flag it and move on.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

------
humble_engineer
Back in the 90's you used to see famous actors walking around with shirts that
said "Free Tibet", but you never see them anymore, could that be because China
is now heavily invested in Hollywood? Come to think of it I haven't seen a
single actor talk about Hong Kong.

~~~
coredog64
Brad Pitt was banned from China for nearly 20 years for the film “7 Years in
Tibet”. That wasn’t a career ending occurrence in the 90s, but I’d venture
that it would be today.

~~~
humble_engineer
And what is still happening in Tibet is sad, and the internet is full of angry
atheists who have somehow been taught Tibet was a theocracy where monks held
absolute authority and because religion is bad, China must be right.

~~~
RichardCA
It's a little bit more complicated than that.

[https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/china-
da...](https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/china-dalailama/)

------
tzs
> If _The Great Wall_ had turned out to be the massive hit everyone was
> expecting, this process might have continued. But _The Great Wall_ was not a
> hit. It was a massive flop—in China, America, and everywhere else.

OK, I don't go the the movies a lot [1] so am generally unaware of much of
what is in theaters, but I do watch a lot of TV live (as opposed to on DVR) on
channels that have ads and on which studios run lots of ads for the movies
that they expect to be big, so I'm usually aware of what is opening that the
studios are expecting to be big.

I don't recall ever hearing _anything_ about this movie before reading that
article. Was there something anemic about their advertising in the US? Or were
the ads just so forgettable that I did see them but completely ignored or
forgot them?

[1] My complete movie theater history for the last 20 years: American Beauty,
Gladiator, second two Matrix movies, the three Lord of the Rings movies, the
Star Wars prequel trilogy, Wild Wild West (by accident...was trying for Star
Wars and went into the wrong theater), How to Train Your Dragon 2, How to
Train Your Dragon 3: The Hidden World, and Avengers: Endgame.

~~~
anon1m0us
They probably didn't want to waste ad money on a movie they knew was gonna
flop. The money they expected to make with this wasn't from sales at the box
office, but rather from financial contributions from China.

Same thing happens in real estate. Americans work with Chinese investors on a
real estate deal. Buy lots of land. Promise to build lots of houses. Pay
themselves 6 or 7 figures per year to work on the project. Ultimately,
however, nothing sells. Few or no homes are built and the Chinese investors
are left with nothing, while the Americans putting the deal together are
millions richer for it.

------
doctorpangloss
It is rich of the Atlantic to advance a basically sinophobic point of view
sponsored by the Koch foundation.

However we should not feel schadenfreude or spite about the bankrupting of
American cultural industries, certainly when newsmagazines like the Atlantic
are suffering so much more than Hollywood, a growing enterprise. I don’t
necessarily believe that selling out your hard-earned editorial brand to a
conservative think tank is a much greater betrayal to Americans than removing
a flag on someone’s fucking jacket that you only heard about through Reddit
for a market you don’t even live in, because both are bad in their own way.
One is a complete disregard for the sanctity of your own work, and another is
shitting on a movie you’re not even going to watch.

~~~
addicted
I also like that the articles concern seems to be less that Hollywood is
losing its freedom to the Chinese and the fact that the US govt doesn’t exert
the same pressure on Hollywood (with the major caveat of the DoD, which sounds
like one of those “other than that, how was the play, Mrs Lincoln”
statements).

