• More Proof Hollywood Doesn’t Get It

    by  • January 21, 2014 • Movies, Television • 6 Comments

    Top Hollywood boss Harvey Weinstein is promoting his new TV series, one which he claims middle Americans will love…because it’s set in a trailer park.Duck Dynasty

    Longtime Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein is infamous for bullying the Motion Picture Association of America into giving his f-bomb slathered movies a PG-13 rating, and for his history of anti-Catholic bigotry in a long string of movies he helped produce — Priest (1994), The Butcher Boy (1997), Dogma (1999), The Magdalene Sisters (2002), 40 Days and 40 Nights (2002), and Philomena (2013).

    And now, Weinstein has declared that his new TV program will be every bit as much of a hit with middle America as Duck Dynasty. The name of that new show?

    “Trailer Park.”

    Of course.

    As has been pointed out previously, many average Americans loved Duck Dynasty because of the sincerity of its characters. Eccentric, the Robertson family definitely is; yet they’re also genuine, firm in their faith, and loyal to their family.

    By contrast, Trailer Park is a cynical exercise in exploitation. As is typical of the Hollywood crowd, it is clear Weinstein saw Duck Dynasty’s ratings and said, “Those dumb hicks in flyover land sure like shows about rednecks. Well, I’LL give ‘em rednecks like they’ve never seen!”

    In the news article announcing Trailer Park, it was obvious that the sincerity and genuine quirkiness of the Robertson family was completely lost on Weinstein, who views the program solely through the lens of how much money it can make him.

    Do these sound like the words of a producer with genuine affection for his show’s subject, and an interest in what motivates his audience to watch?

    “I think given the time it could be in the Duck Dynasty range. A couple seasons more of people talking about it, I really think it has that kind of potential…We really want to get to the numbers that really warrant a spinoff show.”

    Duck Dynasty is successful, so a Hollywood boss looks for a way to rip it off; but the imitation will contain none of the sincerity of the original. Just as we predicted.

    Weinstein believes that Trailer Park will be a runaway hit. Why? Because it will be filmed in Los Angeles. In Weinstein’s mind (and that of most of Hollywood’s so-called “creative” elite), EVERY American is secretly jealous of their betters who live in Los Angeles. Because everyone knows that the media elite living in El Lay are oh, so much more “sophisticated” than those morons in middle America. Weinstein admits as much when he sneers of his show, “I think a more sophisticated audience appreciated the comedy of it all.”

    In short: the millions of average Americans who enjoyed Duck Dynasty‘s quirky humor and genuine, sincere faith-and-family emphasis? Dumb rubes. Hollywood types who enjoy laughing at such people? “More sophisticated.”

    Weinstein’s new show, and his attitude toward it, reveal the absolute, unmitigated arrogance of the self-proclaimed Hollywood elite. This is how those in Hollywood see the world: there are the unsophisticated, sub-literate idiots who populate most of America; and then there are the enlightened elite, people exactly like Harvey Weinstein, who make millions of dollars off movies loaded with non-stop f-bombs, explicit sex, and ultra-graphic violence (while condemning duck hunters and other Americans for owning guns). Then the members of this enlightened elite demonstrate their “tolerance” and commitment to “diversity” by making TV programs that mock and trash everyone who is different from them.

    How “sophisticated.”

    Share

    About

    Christopher Gildemeister is the PTC’s Head of Research Operations. He began as an Entertainment Analyst at the PTC in 2005. From 2007-2016, he was Senior Writer/Editor, responsible for communicating the PTC’s message to the public through newsletters, columns, and the PTC Watchdog blog. Dr. Gildemeister holds a Ph.D. from The Catholic University of America.

    6 Responses to More Proof Hollywood Doesn’t Get It

    1. Mike
      January 21, 2014 at 6:09 pm

      ” infamous for bullying the Motion Picture Association of America into giving his f-bomb slathered movies a PG-13 rating”

      Laying on the dramatic rhetoric a little thick there, eh? Merriam-Webster defines “slather” as “a great quantity”. Use of the word in Philomena and Bully could hardly be called “slathered”. The Wolf of Wall Street maybe, but give me a break.

      Interesting side note, the new season of Duck Dynasty has had it’s viewer ratings plunge compared to the previous season.

      • Christopher Gildemeister
        January 22, 2014 at 9:06 am

        “The Wolf of Wall Street MAYBE”?!

        If you’re unsure whether 500+ f-bombs constitutes a “slather”, then its no wonder you think the other examples “hardly” qualify.

        The fact of the matter is, the MPAA supposedly only allows one f-word in a PG-13 film (despite the fact that Joan Graves, the MPAA’s ratings system boss, herself states that parents don’t want ANY f-words in PG-13 films). Thus, anything over one is, in fact, a “great quantity” — and a violation of the MPAA’s own rules.

        Interesting side note: the blog post wasn’t actually about movie ratings or Duck Dynasty. Oh well.

        • Mike
          January 23, 2014 at 2:20 am

          That 1 per movie rule is only a recent development dating to when the MPAA started spelling out the rules for each rating in writing. There are plenty of examples of PG-13 movies with 2 or 3 uses of the word in it.

          The Wolf of Wall Street may have been a bit of an extreme example but it was the first thing that came to mind. Maybe a better example is a typical Judd Apatow movie, which is par for the course of an R rated movie for the last decade or so at about 50 to 100 uses of the word. Even compared to movies like that 2 (in the case of Philomena) or 5 (in the case of Bully) is hardly “slathered” in any sense of the word, save for someone that is trying to be overly dramatic to create a sense of outrage among their readers.

          Oh, and the whole reason I mentioned Duck Dynasty’s ratings drop is because you held it up as a wholesome show that “average Americans”, whatever that is supposed to mean, love. Well maybe not. Just a few weeks after the patriarch of the show gives his no-holds-barred opinions on social matters of the day the shows ratings plunge. Maybe those types of views are, in fact, not the views of the average American and they voted with their remote control.

          • Christopher Gildemeister
            January 23, 2014 at 10:42 am

            Interesting that you repeatedly accuse me of being “overly dramatic” for saying “slather,” but you just dismiss your use of Wolf of Wall Street as “maybe” being “a bit” of an extreme example of a movie having too much language.

            As far as the movie ratings go, the points are:

            1) the MPAA’s own ratings boss, Joan Graves ADMITS parents don’t want even one f-word in PG-13 movies;
            2) the MPAA allows one anyway;
            3) the rule for rating movies — whenever and however developed — is “one f-word per PG-13 movie.” Yet, the MPAA refuses to follow its own rules.
            4) Harvey Weinstein has consistently crossed the line, deliberately attempting to erode the system. If Philomena had 2 f-words, it could just as easily had one or none. Same with The King’s Speech.

            There’s nothing so crucial about profanity that it MUST be used, especially in a fictional or semi-fictional story. For the last 80 years, films have managed to tell powerful, dramatic, and realistic stories without people hurling f-bombs. (Would it have been an improvement if Humphrey Bogart had said, “S***! Of all the f****** gin joints in all the f****** towns in all the f****** world, that g***amn motherf****** b**** walks into mine”?)

            As for the documentary Bully, Weinstein made a big deal about how “important” it was for a young audience to see the realistic details. But rating the movie “R” would NOT have meant kids couldn’t see it; it simply would’ve meant they’d have to be accompanied by a parent or teacher. If you’re showing a documentary about bullying, wouldn’t you WANT parents and teachers to see it with their kids? And how many teens would choose to go see a serious documentary about bullying on their own anyway? It’s clear that using the f-word, breaking the rules, and yes, bullying the MPAA, was what was really important to Weinstein.

            Either the “one f-bomb” policy is a rule, or it isn’t. If it is, the MPAA should follow it. If it isn’t, then the MPAA should be honest enough to tell the public, “We don’t care how much profanity is in movies. We’ll give a PG-13 to anyone who asks.”

            As for Duck Dynasty, I was speaking more of the genuine loving-family aspects seen on the TV show, not the manufactured controversy over an interview in a magazine that had nothing to do with what viewers saw on-screen. But, you could be right about the show’s decline in popularity. Let’s see if Weinstein’s insincere, phony, shallow, and exploitative Trailer Park becomes the blockbuster hit with Americans that he is convinced it will.

    2. grabl
      January 31, 2014 at 9:00 am

      I’d watch a Christopher Gildemeister-written TV show. I expect it would be rapid-fire, cynical, conservative-leaning farce

      • Christopher Gildemeister
        January 31, 2014 at 9:05 am

        Thank you.

        I think. :-)

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *