PoliWood

"Make Believe" is what our world has come to, according to the intelligent voice of Barry Levinson.

One criticism of an external review was that POLIWOOD is meandering; indeed, there is no neat beginning, middle and end. But that's all right, as we are partaking in what Levinson has cleverly termed a "film essay," and strict organization is not essential, as long as the bits and pieces offer substantive value, adding up to a thought-provoking whole. Another complained that there is nothing, really, that we haven't heard before. Yet what is more important is whether the points being made are substantial, and whether they deserve to be made again, to a complacent and largely unaware public.

In other words, we basically are all aware that we are living in a relatively phony world, where extremist fringe groups dominate politics, with the money/zeal to effectively manipulate the public. The movie helps us to infer that perhaps we are living at a time when these forces have become more powerful than ever before. Of course, life is going to go on, we are all too weak or busy to do anything about the way we're led on a leash, but it is of extreme importance to be reminded of this truth.

Levinson tells us of a 1959 TV Guide article written by John F. Kennedy that spoke of the truths we know so well today, regarding, basically, the powerful hold of the televised media. We are reminded, for example, that the photogenic Kennedy won his TV debate with Nixon, while Nixon won with the non-visual radio medium. The GOP recognized the attractive telegenic qualities of Ronald Reagan, when Reagan gave a speech during Goldwater's 1964 presidential bid, and soon after, it was probably no coincidence that Reagan was elected as governor of California, paving the way to a political journey destined to reach the top. The message: the competence and talent of the candidate began to take second place to the person's superficial qualities. We are told that physically and sometimes personality-challenged past leaders, such as Presidents John Adams, Taft and FDR, very likely could not have survived in today's political climate, where (my example) an Arnold Schwarzenegger can get elected for all the wrong reasons.

One of the more thought-provoking facts pointed out was that television stations were once required by the FCC to provide public service programming, in exchange for the privilege of controlling valuable public airwaves and the opportunity to turn great profit. This was back in the days when the news meant something, a "public service," and a credible fourth wall that kept the corruption of government in check. With the help of deregulation, where giant conglomerates have gobbled up diverse news sources (resulting in mainstream media colluding with the controlling corporate world), we know we live in far different times now, very detrimental to our democratic process, where the bottom line has taken on critical importance, and the necessity to profit has taken precedence over the fact-supplying duty of journalism. Thus, the line between news and entertainment has blurred, irrelevant celebrities appear regularly on news shows, and in order to generate greater profit, news shows focus on conflict (e.g., liberal vs. conservative spokespeople in debates), thus adding to the impossibly polarized and often uncivilized status we are seeing today.

The role of celebrities in news-making is also explored, something I found of interest, because we all share, to some extent, a general contempt for, say, a not-necessarily-very-intellectual actor, who pretends to carry political influence largely on the basis of fame. In fact, we see the anger of the average citizen, when paired off with celebrities in the film's finale. POLIWOOD does not openly endorse the role of the celebrity, but recognizes the inevitable role that celebrity now carries in the political process. I enjoyed seeing celebrities in a behind-the-scenes sort of way, acting like everyday people, sometimes making sense, sometimes not.

What I liked about the film was that even though the participants largely represented the Hollywood left (which is my assumption, given the presence of obvious candidates such as Susan Sarandon; yet there were other famous faces, such as Robert Davi, whose political orientation isn't familiar. They belong to a group called the Creative Coalition, which stresses that they are a "non-partisan" organization), the point of the film is not to take sides, but to reinforce what has become the disturbing and unreal "reality show" aspect of our political times. This is a concept that everyone should be concerned about, regardless of political leanings. In fact, what the film is warning against is how the media has become so much more effective in manipulating minds -- that is, the kind of mentality expressed by a fellow POLIWOOD commentator, "Styopa," in his lash-out essay entitled "Self-justification hits the big screen" (offering the first comment here; I am the fourth), where Styopa gives the impression of being so conditioned by the media of the right, he immediately sees POLIWOOD as liberal propaganda. It's rather ironic, because the entire point of the film is the sad and harmful state that we have evolved into as a society, and not an endorsement for any political view.

In fact, a profound moment of the film was one exposing liberal hypocrisy. The late actor, Ron Silver, identified as the founder of the Creative Coalition, opined that too many liberals have become alarmingly intolerant, with some closing the book on further discussion, announcing that their minds have been made up, and that nothing can dissuade them. Therein lies the damaging societal gridlock, and only by examining what irresponsible forces have shaped us to such extremes can we hope to return to constructiveness and normalcy. This may be an unrealistic hope, as the controlling forces have become too powerful, but if we are not aware of these forces, choosing instead to mindlessly surrender to whatever we are being spoon-fed, then the situation will become truly impossible.

Hollywood and the entertainment industry in general for that matter, has more than its share of vacuous people...BUT, there are many intelligent and thoughtful people there. I'd like to think the latter vastly outnumbers the former.

Barry Levinson does a nice job in "Poliwood" by showcasing some very popular 'celebrities' who also happen to be very passionate and credible in their concerns about political issues. When did actors cease to be 'real Americans' as asserted by Rudy Giuliani?

Thanks, Barry. The rest of us who call ourselves actors appreciate seeing our profession represented as more than just a bunch of overindulged airheads.

"A little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical." Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787 One documentary film serves to highlight Tinsel town's liberal artists and celebrities as they exercise their political voice and power. Poliwood, directed by Barry Levinson and co-produced by actor Tim Daly, of the progressive Creative Coalition, criss-crosses America during the 2008 presidential campaign. Interviewing Hollywood liberals and mainstream media moguls, Daly hopes the production will underscore the main goal of the Coalition, "bringing issues to the table for national discussion".

Levinson's Poliwood ambitiously interweaves several issues that that he sees as important in Hollywood: How television has changed the nature of politics, the development of politicians as "actors" in shaping public opinion, and the increasing political polarization of America.

Instead, Poliwood serves to expose the hypersensitivity of today's liberal Hollywood creative community – which is understandable - given their experiences at the hands of conservative Hollywood during the Communist Inquistion of the 1950s. If the shift sometimes appears unfair, it may depend on who's looking through the lens of history.

It probably comes as no shock that most artists are a pretty unconventional crew. This is due in part to their creative nature and because the very act of creating art itself needs a rather imaginative soil to grow and thrive. So, it's a safe bet that most Hollywood artists are liberal in their thinking and hence, in their politics.

Levinson chose the 1959 Kennedy-Nixon presidential campaign to make his point that: "Television is a medium that lends itself to manipulation, exploitation, and gimmicks. Political campaigns can actually be taken over by the public relation experts who tell the candidate not only how to use television, but what to say, what to stand for, and what kind of person to be." The movie focuses on some of the Creative Coalition's more visible members – Tim Daly, Susan Sarandon, Anne Hathaway – as they attend both the Democratic and Republican Conventions during the summer of 2008. Levinison's camera catches their roller-coaster emotions, from breathless and teary-eyed enthusiasm during the DNC's homage to candidate Barrack Obama, to their petulant "do-we-have-to-go?" resignation at the RNC.

One revealing scene occurs during an "open dialog session", facilitated by conservative pollster and communications consultant, Frank Luntz, during the Republican National Convention. He was asked (presumably by the CC) to moderate a discussion between Creative Coalition members and RNC campaigners. Levinson's camera pans the CC membership, all well-known actors, as the conservative campaigners voiced their concerns on the negative stereotyping that liberal Hollywood practices. Many in the CC entourage became visibly angry, defensive, and hostile. It was left to the more seasoned veteran liberals – Susan Sarandon, Tim Daly, and Ellyn Burstyn – to paint a pretty picture and sooth the hurt feelings all around.

Even the founder of the Coalition, the late Ron Silver, laments before the camera about the current polarization of the country, which is now coming from the left-wing faction. He saw a real danger in the "intolerance on the left", because they "are unwilling to hear arguments they don't agree with." Along the way, Poliwood is successful in interweaving television's complicity as a propaganda tool with the political processes of Washington. However, the scenes of Hollywood activists displaying their different shades of bias – however humanitarian - make a stronger statement about history repeating itself.

The horrible picture quality of the footage from newscasts and movies was a big turn off. Even the clip of 'Wag the Dog' which was Levinson's own movie was presented in sub-hi-def quality image in 4:3 format. It looks like all of the other footage was highly compressed and pulled from YouTube then zoomed in to full size.

The original footage of course looked fine. Not a whole lot of new or shocking themes in the movie. This would be a good primer for someone who didn't know about the Nixon/Kennedy debates or that news was driven by ratings, but not sure who that person would be. The parts of the movie that worked the best were the actors telling their personal stories.

Well, the Hollywood circle-jerk is now complete. We started with simple political movies, presenting an inherent dogma and begged questions as part of a Leftish worldview. Then we had Michael Moore, whose biased 'documentaries' (actually, cleverly contrived mosaics of out-of-context quotes, syllogisms, and cuts misrepresenting reality) would have inspired Leni Riefenstahl to tears. Then, An Inconvenient Truth, the sad story of a self-inflating concept by a desperately out-of-touch self-inflated politician who urgently needs to become relevant again - a purely political propaganda film whose synchronization with the sophomoric Hollywood worldview could be tallied by the free-flowing ejaculation as Mr Gore was handed an Academy Award for what was little more than the gussied-up rehash of the long-since-irrelevant ecological message of the 1970's: Humans BAD! Now, Mr Levinson has reached over to complete the chain, yanking Hollywood furiously to priaptic relevance as he actually made a film about how Hollywood 'activists' can participate and advance the political discussion without looking like fools. Short answer: this film proves that, at least for this bunch, they can't. Nothing is more persuasive than objectivity, which is why this group is utterly UNpersuasive. My impression is that Hollywood is so full of yes-men that these folks haven't been contradicted in years, at least not by anyone that they respect (of course, as professional narcissists, that's a pretty tall order). Barry's assembled a panel of interviewees (oh, and a token conservative, can't forget the little head-fake toward 'inclusiveness') natters on about relevance and meaning without seriously recognizing that they're all just preaching to each other. Like a sad evangelist standing on a soapbox and preaching to his wife and 18 children while everyone else walks past, Hollywood 'activists' are so convinced of their certainty, so certain of their relevance, that they don't notice that nobody is listening. Sure, the politicians are listening folks, but that's because you offer two things that politicians (the only thing as narcissistic as yourselves, by the way) need to live: money, and media time. Here's a hint: the next time a politician expresses their appreciation for your support, do a reality check. Tell them that you can't give them any money, and you refuse to PUBLICLY endorse them, but they have your full moral support. Oh, they'll shake your hand and tell you how much they appreciate it deeply, but see if they'll take the time to chat with you 'next time they're in town'. To paraphrase Homer Simpson..."Barry, just because I understand, doesn't mean I care." If he could tear himself from the cocoon of self-justification and bear to have his ideas contradicted by normal people, perhaps next time Mr Levinson could make a movie about the absurd concept of people who professionally pretend to play other people, misreading the attention that comes with celebrity as the regard that comes with respect.

But then again, that's pretty unlikely.