Skip to main content

When it comes to politics, Washington can learn a lot from Hollywood.

The 85th Annual Academy Awards announced their nominees for Oscar Gold 
recently and it appears that the early winners are people who care 
about politics and political issues.

And even though some top political films didn't get nominated such as "The 
Bridge to Nowhere" - the true story of where Sarah Palin's career has gone
 since the 2008 Presidential Election...and "999: How Herman Cain's uncanny 
ability to remember the number 9 three consecutive times" almost turned an idea 
for a pizza promotion into a national movement.

"Lincoln", "Argo" and "Zero 
Dark Thirty", did make it to the final round of voting.

All three political films placed the heart of Washington decision making right on
 center stage, while political issue oriented films such as "Django Unchained",
"The Beasts of the Southern Wild", and "Les Miserables", brought to the forefront 
the man-made disaster of slavery, the harm that comes when a natural disaster 
threatens a local community, and the painful road of prison life and prostitution.

If only Washington knew how to communicate like a 2 hour movie and people turned
 out as enthusiastically to participate in the Political Process, as they do when they
 gather around their TVs on "Oscar Night".

Maybe the Washington power brokers need to learn a few pointers from the
 Hollywood elite on how to run a popular election instead of treating them as 
if they are a natural rival and in competition for our attention.

It is true that both have famous, wealthy and powerful people. The studios lobby 
for their respective nominees to win in the same manner that Exxon Mobile and
 the NRA run campaigns for their potential winners.

The People's Choice Awards, New York Film Critics and the Golden Globes are
 equivalent to the hard fought Primary Season that all politicians must go through.

And both get a huge TV audience on their special night and have fabulous parties
 after  that are covered by the likes of a Ryan Seacrest, Anderson Cooper and
 Joan Rivers.

So, why does one seem to give us disappointment every year...and the other gives 
us Hugh Jackman?!

Maybe because Hugh Jackman...looks like Hugh Jackman and our political leaders
 usually look like more like Henry Kissinger!

And when we get a good-looking Mitt Romney or a Rick Perry, they act as stiff and
 charismatic as a first time actor on the "Young and the Restless".

But maybe the real divide to overcome between the two coastal heavyweights is that
Washington doesn't know how to tell a good old fashioned story as only Hollywood can!
Washington doesn't understand how important it is for us to become emotionally attached to the lead characters -- we are always confused on who to root for and they always give us a compromise instead of a happy ending.

That could all change this year with the final arc of the Debt Ceiling story potentially
 stealing the spotlight from Hollywood during the exact same week the Academy Awards are airing.

If Hollywood doesn't come to the rescue and turn this into an award winning moment,
then maybe there is a conspiracy (you know how both Hollywood and Washington both
 like conspiracy theories) to keep the best Washington dramas far away from the Oscar
ceremonies...just so Hollywood can remain the Entertainment Capital of the World.

This year, "Lincoln" and Steven Spielberg seem to be the crowd favorite...but please watch with suspicion and skepticism and ask yourself why wasn't the politically charged "Occupy Wall Street" nominated- a financial thriller, whereby Alec Baldwin and Gerard Depardieu become the new "Odd Couple", as both move to Russia after Alec realizes that the interest rate on his Capital One Credit Card exceeded that of the new French income tax rate.

See you at the movies!

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  perhaps an explanation of the difference (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Hollywood movies are made by people who give a rip.

    Movie makers believe things can be better. Legislators and political parties put off making things better in order to keep the contributions coming in.

    •  Hollywood movies are made by people who (0+ / 0-)

      need to consistently make a profit or people stop financing their movies. It's a powerful incentive to make movies people will pay to watch.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 04:23:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  small note on Les Mis (0+ / 0-)

    Its q much deeper film with prostitution a very, very small part. The story focuses on the differences between justice and law, social inequality and poverty.  It deals with issues of class and culture.  At a time where French royalty were wealthy home owners and upper class while the bottom fell out.

    like the thesis. Just had to speak up for Les Mis concept. :)

    Gandhi's Seven Sins: Wealth without work; Pleasure without conscience; Knowledge without character; Commerce without morality; Science without humanity; Worship without sacrifice; Politics without principle

    by Chris Reeves on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 12:46:43 PM PST

    •  And along the way (in the book) (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Hugo calls Marx out on his prescription for solving what Hugo explicitly named as the "distribution problem". (They were in full accord about the evil of the inequality of society, differing only in their approaches to a solution.)

      That book is chock-full of surprising tidbits of information, some of them still interesting and relevant.

      If it's
      Not your body,
      Then it's
      Not your choice
      And it's
      None of your damn business!

      by TheOtherMaven on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 01:15:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Communicate like a 2 hour movie? No thanks. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jayden, slothlax
    If only Washington knew how to communicate like a 2 hour movie
    Here's how to communicate like a 2 hour movie.

    First, set aside at least 3-5 years and up to a quarter billion dollars to pull all the pieces together. Allow at least a year for the actual filming and post-production. Finally, release in theaters (you have cut a distribution deal with the money people, haven't you?) and hope that yours is one of the, oh charitably perhaps as many as 20% of movies that make a splash.

    Because even after all that time setting it up to be as compelling as possible (and Washington doesn't have the luxury of that kind of time, events move too fast) ... most movies don't make a splash.

    Most movies don't communicate, most don't make a difference, most are mediocre at best. So most are gone after a few weekends at the multiplex. Gone and forgotten. Don't know about you, but that's not the trajectory I want for my political persuasion vehicle.

    Oh, you meant the quality? the message? Hmmm, what percentage of movies are escapist dreck like The Twilight Saga, versus what percentage are Chasing Ice? And what kind do people rush to go see?

    Communicate like a movie? No thanks.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site