The Hot Button by David Poland

Wednesday, 17 February 1999

RANTING & RAVING

The morality of Hollywood has been a hot topic in this slot over the years. (Jeez, it's getting to be "years.") With the close of the impeachment hearings, I have the sneaking suspicion that a nation tired of moralizing (on both sides), will be getting back to not thinking about it all so much. So, it's time for me to get in my last licks.
As long as I brought up the dreaded "I" word, let me start there. I really don't want to get into the issues of Clinton himself. But I think there is a reason that the media and the entertainment industry has gotten behind the guy so strongly. As people always say about male movie stars, the women want to have carnal knowledge of him and the men want to be him. I don't really have the insight to elaborate on why women are so attracted to a pale, pudgy, W.C. Fields-looking, married man. Maybe it has something to do with his control of The Button. But for guys, whom I know too damned well, they want the 21-year-old coming after them with "producerential" kneepads. They want to get away with every lie by sheer force of the willingness to tell it until hell freezes over. And they want the ultimate power. In Hollywood, that's the power to green light films. Clinton has the ultimate success by the standards of this group. And he's done it at a relatively young age. (One thing that Hollywood types would hate would be all the birthdate info floating around. And who can color their hair with impunity while being photographed every single day?)
So, what is the morality of the future? Beats me. The idea of an ongoing "holy war" against the Republicans for the next two years until the next national elections is a media pipe dream. I look for calm. I look for an exact return to the '50s when the "winning" Left complained that the Right was trying to impose on America. Not that anyone, left, right or center will stop having sex, in movies or anywhere else. But actual privacy may well come back into vogue. I don't think it's my imagination that Jennifer Love Hewitt is covering her bosom. Look at the newsstands. It just can't get any raunchier than this. Maybe U.S. News & World Report will do a Hooters cover, disguised as a business story, but they are about the only ones who haven't had the first pornographically exposed TV star, Pamela Anderson, flaunting the Dow Corningware on the cover.
Entertainment journalism may have to search out a new morality as well. Entertainment Weekly was rather brilliant in using their feature section to soothe and draw cover talent while stabbing them subtlety in the back in News & Notes each week. The knife never went too deep, but skin was cut. And as EW grew in stature, others followed the format. (Much as "mens" magazines followed Maxim's success, leading to that magazine's editor being hired away to Details a few weeks ago, a sure sign that the breast party could be coming to an end.) Now, EW has become so much the establishment that they are losing the cutting edge every week, much as Time Warner's People title went from irritating upstart to an imprint of relative legitimacy. I'd love to think that The Hot Button was the new cutting edge, but it isn't. I'm not really biased enough to gather that kind of consensus. And I don't really think that this column will be easy for others to duplicate. If I pride myself on honesty, trying to export "honesty" to the masses requires judgement. Too high a bar to reach for. So I don't really know where e-journalistic morality will come down next. I just know that change is in the air.
A great mark of morality for the future is the National Conference of Catholic Bishops Weekly Movie Review Website. Now, I'm no great moralist and I sure ain't Catholic (with due respect), but there is genius in this site. Because it isn't fire and brimstone. It's tough moral judgement done with honesty. If you are worrying about what your kids see, this is the place to be. This is where the MPAA should be. Heck, I'd even go for the dreaded "O" rating (Morally Offensive) over the NC-17 because at least the "O" is definitive. And though the bishops would probably have everyone skip these "O" films, I would not likely have a problem with the idea that these are films for adults, not kids, and that they should be just for adults. The problem with NC-17, as it was with "X" is that the MPAA has no method (apparently for legal reasons) of separating porno from, say Happiness. I don't want to see a 14-year-old sitting alone in Happiness. That would be wrong. But I don't want the market forces of the NC-17 to keep me from seeing it either.
Anyway, back to the bishops. Here are some examples from the latest weekly report, which unfortunately comes out after press time on Friday or I would happily add some of this stuff to weekend review. They really hit on what's really in these films. For instance, Payback is given the "O" for "excessive violence, exploitative sexual situations, drug abuse, intermittent profanity and much rough language." As Dennis Hopper said in True Romance, "if that's true, am I lying?" No. Then they get tough in their narrative review. "Payback is a mindless action movie featuring Mel Gibson as a mad-dog killer seeking revenge on those who hijacked his loot and left him for dead. The movie's sadistic violence is depicted in joking fashion intended to make the killer seem a supercool hero." Supercool!!! Bishops using "supercool!" I love that! These guys are supercool. And have you read any writing lately that was tighter? "Mindless action movie," BAM! No messing around.
My Favorite Martian gets a PG from the MPAA, but an "A-III" (Adults) from the bishops for "slapstick violence, fleeting rear nudity, occasional sexual innuendo and toilet humor as well as a few instances of profanity." The PG may be slowly degrading at the MPAA, but not with the bishops. (I love writing that. They sound like a superhero organization.) From the review, "Heavy use of special effects makes the frantic proceedings wacky but not witty or worthwhile." We won't be seeing that quote pulled.
Blast From the Past, which features a slutty Alicia Silverstone character and an overtly gay best friend gets the same rating as My Favorite Martian, "A-III" for "mild sexual references, occasional profanity and an instance of rough language." Also "A-III" is Message in a Bottle for "a discreet bedroom scene, fleeting violence and occasional profanity." It sounds like the adult romance is the most innocent wide release of last weekend. And though I like the film, the bishops' tough take is so much cleaner than the comments of any major critic I've read, I have to applaud. "Message in a Bottle is a gauzy romance in which widowed North Carolina boat-builder Kevin Costner so loved his late wife, he's reluctant to take a chance on love again with Chicago single mom Robin Wright Penn. Despite pretty scenery and appealing performances, the slow, soppy proceedings furnish little insight on the story's themes of loss, hope and renewal." "Gauzy." "Slow and soppy." That's great writing. Wrong, in my opinion, but great.
Of course, if you want to know what the bishops are saying in Italy, you can go to their Website, with its marquee animation. But is the Italian mindset better than ours? I'm not sure that women really want to say that being pinched at random is a good thing, but there is something to the discretion of the Italian and other European cultures. Can adults be counted on to act like adults? Probably not. But we are going to have to learn sometime. Someone made a simple and rather startling point on one of these shows in the last few days. The democrats created the Independent Counsel statute. The democrats, with the feminist movement, created a sexual harassment law and lowered the bar to include any consensual sexual relationships by employees of the same company who work in jobs of inequitable power levels. That used to include one-tier differences, with CEO/intern relations not even discussible. And democrats elected a president who they knew to be sexually promiscuous. And now, they take no responsibility at all for this last wasted year of our nation's focus.
Responsibility. That's the key. Responsibility for breaking the law. Responsibility for being "out to get" someone. Neither stands alone. If e-journalists were held to the same demands as the talent they cover, coverage would be different, indeed. If theater owners were really held responsible for kids seeing R-rated movies, maybe they would stop the kids. And maybe the ratings could become legitimized again. And maybe we could have movies made for adults and movies made for kids and movies made for everyone and the bishops could shut down their Website. But responsibility belongs to all of us. The partisan Congress only reflects partisan America. It's easier to join the crowd than to take that individual responsibility. I'll take it if you'll take it.
THE CHAT: It's Sir Ian time! Tonight, live from London, live from Hollywood, live from Santa Clara, it's time to chat with The Man. He is a god and I am a monster, so check out his Website, for all the best news on Sir Ian. And come to Yahoo! Chat at 10:00 p.m. ET/7:00 p.m. PT/3:00 a.m. London time.
READER OF THE DAY: A Brand New Sam wrote: "Could you explain to me why She's All That is making so much money? I saw this movie and the best thing about the movie was the guy playing the DJ and the father (I love that 'Jeopardy' scene. It reminds me of my father who never gets one answer right.). Personally, I thought Pretty in Pink was about 10 times better. Is it those preteen girls who saw Titanic about 50 times? Well, I guess those preteen girls were about three years old when Pretty In Pink came out so it's all new and fresh to them. Damn, I'm getting old. The Brat Pack are all like 35 years old now. A recent Playmate of the Month was born in 1980. F---ing 1980!!! Tell me it gets better David."

E ME: It gets better. But maybe this is that return to the safety of Pretty in Pink and the John Hughes movies where the ending was always happy and adolescence wasn't so painful. Critics can scream all they want about Patch Adams, but people went and continue to go in droves. I hated the ads, too, but the core of this nation wanted the comfort of Robin Williams and that stupid red nose. (Again, I think the critical response to this film is way, way over the top.) What do you all think?

.