When Hollywood Goes Bad

It is every film buff's dream to preview a theatrical release in a studio's private screening room, and last week I lived that dream. I was invited to Disney Studio's private screening room near Park Avenue to watch M. Night Shyamalans's "The Village."

The room was downright cozy, with stadium seating for about 40 lucky reviewers. I missed the buttered popcorn, but otherwise it was perfect. Thank you, Disney.

There was a slight delay, as several of the invited guests were late. As I waited, I was musing on the incredible power of this medium. I was also reminded of that old nursery rhyme of the girl with the curl in the middle of her forehead. Because when Hollywood is good, it is very, very good, but when it's bad, it's horrid - and, I might add, downright dangerous.

Surely no one can deny the impact of Steven Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan." It completely resurrected the long-overdue respect deserved by those who fought in World War II. Their sacrifices, as well as those of the greatest generation who maintained the homesteads, had the light of their efforts brilliantly illustrated by the director's genius.

Along with his other masterpiece, "Schindler's List," Mr. Spielberg demonstrated the power of film to transmit powerful ideas. This is the good Hollywood.

As for the bad, it's no surprise to any of my readers that I would lump "Fahrenheit 9/11" in that category. But I don't mean to castigate all political films that fall thematically left of center.

Rob Reiner admitted that he made the film "The American President" to re-elect President Clinton. Most Hollywood films on Washington, D.C., tend to demonize Republicans as grasping, greedy, and in the pockets of Big Business. I have no problem with the right of liberals to express their ideology whichever creative way they choose.

I will even go so far as to say that Michael Moore is a talented and clever filmmaker and should continue to make films in the genre he does best - fiction. What I find loathsome about his work, however, is that he employs cleverness and adeptness with the art of cut and paste to piece together deceitful diatribes. His mission is to profit as much as he can while perfecting his image as a blue-collar hero.

What makes this dangerous in these perilous times is that people do believe his half-truths and distortions because he presents his opinions in the form of a documentary. A documentary used to have some legitimacy, but in Mr. Moore's crafty hands it has become a tool of propaganda.

"Fahrenheit 9/11" manipulatively tugs at the heartstrings by showing the human costs of war. But how can you show the horror of September 11 without showing what caused it? He omits the planes crashing into the towers because reality is not what interests Mr. Moore. He shows pre-war Iraq as idyllic without showing any of the horrors of Saddam's regime, even though these are well documented in film.

His films have been increasingly narcissistic. In "Roger and Me," he held people up to ridicule but presented an ingratiating and sympathetic demeanor while interviewing them. The fact-fudging was kept to a minimum. In "Bowling for Columbine," he was rewarded for faking some parts, and he'll probably win an Oscar for "9/11" because the French loved it.

That most of Hollywood has embraced Michael Moore is no surprise when one considers it revered silent screen pioneer D.W. Griffith. For years, the Director's Guild of America considered the D.W. Griffith Award its most prestigious. That is, until it finally occurred to them in 1999 that Mr. Griffith had created one of the most racist films ever - "Birth of a Nation." This is another example of Bad Hollywood.

Many consider D.W. Griffith to be the father of film technique and some call him the man who invented Hollywood. Many cinema scholars excuse his racism and suggest we judge his work in the context of his time. The nation was racist in 1915 and therefore Griffith was showing the nation for what it was, they insist. Balderdash! This film was deadly.

"Birth of a Nation" was instrumental in the revival of the KKK, which had been non-existent since 1871.This film, aka "The Klansman," exalted the white-sheeted vigilantes as heroes, and we can thank Griffith for the subsequent lynchings and racial hatred that's plagued the nation ever since its debut.

But when it comes to idealizing Art for Art's sake, Hollywood has always had a moral compass at odds with the rest of America. Griffith and Mr. Moore are regarded as "artistes" and allowances are to be made for their petty flaws of, respectively, bigotry and mendacity.

As much as I love movies, it's getting harder and harder to stomach the blatant hypocrisy of those who make them. I listen to celebrities stumping for Senator Kerry chastising big corporations for sending jobs overseas and I wonder why films that are set in New York are filmed in Canada.

Fortunately, my rumination ceased and the curtain slid open and "The Village," which was filmed in Pennsylvania, began.

I give the film three stars.

I also have no idea who M. Night Shyamalan will vote for in November. How refreshing.