Rating: 
Summary: Uninformed. A book of generalizations for his cult.
Review: I've been confused by Michael Medved's position on film ever sinse he posed a question in the wall Street Journal asking "What happened to the missing moviegoers?". He was speaking about the end of the Production Code (censorship) in Hollywood, and how that coincided with a drop off in movie attendance.
Yes--movies seriously changed in the late 60s, as filmmakers were allowed to depict subject matter previously forbidden. I'm not sure what he is trying to prove here. Everyone stopped going to the movies because of this? So, it had nothing to do with attendance dropping since the mid-50s, with Vietnam, with the death of urban movie palaces and the total change of the movie going experience, the public's boredom with overblown "roadshow attractions" , with television?
No, actually, because in Mr. Medved's world you can trace anything and everything to a lack of morals.
He points out that the "Sound of Music" won best Picture in 1965, and then "Midnight Cowboy" (about a male hustler) won Best picture in 1969, thereby proving the decline and fall of western civilization.
So, I guess nevermind how many "family" movies of this time period ("Hello Dolly," "Doctor Dolittle", "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang," "Greatest Story Ever Told") were total and complete bombs at the box office.
He states that removal of the production code (remember, the decline and fall of western civilization) "hurt the bottom line." And apparently movies have just been utter "filth" ever since?
So, Christians would be hypocritical to own DVDs of the films that came out just after the removal of the Code, that could not have been made before it: "The Wild Bunch," "The Grauduate," "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf," "The Producers," "Rosemary's Baby," "Midnight Cowboy," "Bonnie and Clyde."
All of those movies did great at the box office, by the way.
So I'm lost as to how the removal of the Production Code wrecked "the bottom line" in Hollywood.
Oh yes, one other thing: Michael Medved did the glowing introduction to DeMille's "The Ten Commandments" at the Conservative Film Festival (or whatever its called) in 2004.
DeMille's 1932 film "The Sign of The Cross," jam-packed with violence, sexual perversion, [...]), helped contribute to the Catholic revolt against films, and the enforcement of the Code itself.
Some "scholar" you guys got here.
Rating: 
Summary: The movie industry's cultural influence: quo vadis?
Review: If you've wondered how in the world a movie like _American Beauty_ manages to cop 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.
Rating: 
Summary: Some good insights
Review: Medved has some good insights and some interesting things to say. Much of what he says seems quite sensible. I think he misses one important point: Hollywood's hatred of America is not as bad commercially as he suggests. It sells overseas. Other than that, he often sticks too much to generalities. He should have "named names".
Rating:
Summary: The kind of overwrought pablum conservatives love!!!
Review: Medved is perfectly in tune with the current batch of media naysayers who seem to think that Hollywood has to be our moral conservators. He tries to back of his points mainly by describing every negative example possible (many of which come from outside the Hollywood system, such as England, and are relatively obscure movies that few people see), but rarely provides positive examples. I saw Medved lecture at a University a few years ago, and he had difficulty maintaing his viewpoint while admitting the he loves the "Godfather" movies. Skip this book and turn on the 700 Club instead if you are insterested in this kind of skewed, ultra-conservative viewpoint.
Rating:
Summary: This just isn't very well written...
Review: Medved really dropped the ball on this one. I found his prose style to be bizarrely over- wrought, and his penchant for listing movies by urination scene or vomiting scenes seemed almost fetishistic. He attacks movies such as "The Little Mermaid" for being anti-family and seems to think that merely describing or depicting an act condones it...if that's true, then he of course approves of everything he disapproves of in this book. I'd pick up one of Ebert's movie guides instead--he seems to genuinely know what he's talking about.
Rating: 
Summary: Well worth a look
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Feces, Vomit, Rape, Anti-Americanism at a Theater Near You
Review: Michael Medved fillets and sticks a fork in the dirty old men of Hollywood. And that source of cultural pollution surely deserves it, as evidenced by the many movies and TV programs that Medved cites.
Radical left-wing preaching, shocking audiences for the sake of shocking audiences, bootlicking of liberal politicians, and skewering of conservatives, total disrespect for traditional religious values . . . it never ends.
These are goons playing with cameras and molesting the souls of young folk.
Other than Mel Gibson and a handful of others (who are already rich and don't have to worry anymore about radical left-wing blackballing), no one in that pitiful industry seems to have listened to Medved.
Rating:
Summary: Naive, Simplistic Thesis
Review: Michael Medved first came to the attention of the American public with "The Golden Turkey Awards", a well-written and somewhat witty observation of some of the worst films ever produced in Hollywood. In "Hollywood in America", Medved decries this same industry for not putting out more films that fit within his rather narrow focus. As written, the book is rather naive and suggests that virtually every film that ever came out with a rating other than G is trash and not worth watching. This is not a pretty world in which we live, and to suggest that filmmakers should sugarcoat movies to present only sweetness and light is patently absurd. But this is exactly what Medved seems to be striving for. He has become a darling of the conservative right but in the process discarded semblance of credibility and integrity he may have had as an objective film reviewer. Nevertheless, we can take comfort in the fact that he hasn't become as insufferable and arrogant as Bill Bennett in his castigation of Hollywood and the film industry.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent Observation
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: says more (and worse) about the author than his subject
Review: Mr. Medved criticizes movies (most of which I've never heard of) for denigrating religion, yet he himself wastes no opportunity to denigrate any religion of the non-Judeo-Christian variety. It evidently doesn't occur to him that followers of "new age" and "pagan" religions might be just as sincere in their beliefs as he is in his, and I have got to say, in my personal experience, statistically speaking, there is a larger percentage of nice people in "new age"/"pagan" religions than there is in Judeo-Christianity. That's just from my experience, of course; no doubt Mr. Medved's had different ones. Mr. Medved criticizes films that depict "religious people" as close-minded and hostile, yet he seems unaware that in real life a great many "religious people" go out of their way to BE close-minded and hostile, himself, it would seem, included. Is he under the impression that there are no religious fundamentalists who think just like the ones in "The Handmaid's Tale" or even worse? That would sure be nice, but I'm afraid it isn't so. He takes a colleague's wish to avoid association with Jerry Falwell as some sort of knuckling under to "anti-religious" sentiment and apparently doesn't even consider the notion that Jerry Falwell might be a person that someone could justifiably want to avoid association with (Oddly enough, Mr. Falwell (who, last I heard, believes that the Antichrist is currently walking the earth as a male Jew, perhaps one like Mr. Medved himself), although mentioned, doesn't appear in the index. I'm not sure what that means.). He takes actresses to task for criticizing the female repression for which Christianity has, in fact, been responsible for, but he says nothing about the repression itself, which is infinitely more contemptible. Christians (or at least, people who identify themselves as such) have been responsible for a lot worse things than what Hollywood puts out, and for a lot, lot longer. I'm not under any illusion that all Christians are like that, but Mr. Medved seems to be under the illusion that NO Christians are like that, when in fact they're the most vocal faction of Christianity active in the US. Mr. Medved apparently imagines that he is speaking for some supposed "moral majority," yet many of the movies and tv shows and performers that he criticizes ("The Simpsons," for instance, which I myself rarely watch) happen to be very popular throughout the country. Shows don't get high ratings unless a lot of people are watching them---if "The Simpsons"'s ratings dropped sufficiently, the show would vanish, regardless of what "messages" the show's creators may or may not feel it's their duty to spread---so the very majority that Mr. Medved presumes to speak for is actually responsible for the success of the institutions he criticizes. Does anyone else see a contradiction here? I'm really amazed that the depiction of out-of-wedlock births could be perceived as so bad. Wouldn't the alternatives be (a) abortions or (b) loveless and dysfunctional marriages? If a woman doesn't want to marry a man who fathers her child, I don't see any advantage in her nevertheless doing so. Isn't it supposed to be a "good" thing for a woman to perceive motherhood as a desirable state? Apparently not if the woman doesn't want motherhood in exactly the same context that Mr. Medved thinks she should. Criticizing "The Little Mermaid" for suggesting that it might actually be acceptable or desirable for young people to find paths in life that don't conform to those of their parents? Is that a joke? Am I really to understand that Mr. Medved believes that the pursuit of love is wrong? Is that one of his "family values"? I also thought the occasional implication that, in Mr. Medved's mind, "overweight" automatically equals "bad" was a bit uncalled for. Oh, and heaven forbid that anyone have concepts of "patriotism" that go against Mr. Medved's. I'm sure he feels right at home in the current political environment, where it's somehow treasonous to suggest that maybe, just maybe, it's important to have a good reason to send American troops off to fight and kill and die. As for the notion of "Hollywood Vs. America" (by which Mr. Medved evidently means "Hollywood Vs. People Whose Ideas Conform with Those of Mr. Medved"), well, American religious figures have been condemning Hollywood since its beginnings, despite the fact that it was during that very "golden age" that so many of the films that Mr. Medved praises were made. If there's a war between Hollywood and Mr. Medved's "America," I have to ask, who fired the first shot? When you insult someone, you have no basis for indignation if they insult you right back. I don't presume to judge Mr. Medved's intentions, and his book was informative in some ways, but IMHO he only succeeded in making himself (and, by extension, those that he presumes to speak for) look worse than those that he criticizes. I judge films by what they they show me about themselves, I judge religions by what they show me about themselves, and I'll "judge" Mr. Medved by what he shows me about himself. What he's shown me isn't good. I don't believe I've been unduly hostile in this review, but if I have, I apologize.
|
