Religion and Hollywood: No Common Ground?

A recent phone survey of 1,000 Americans conducted by the Anti-Defamation League found a noticeable discord between Hollywood and the religious views of Americans. The "American Attitudes on Religion, Moral Values and Hollywood" survey found that Americans generally believe Hollywood is out of touch with the morals of America. The survey focused on issues of censorship, moral values, lifestyles, and varied religions. The survey touched upon an important issue of relevance not only to those in the entertainment industry but also to all entertainment consumers. While exploring the blogosphere for reactions to this study, two blogs stood out as especially informative and stimulating responses to the findings. The first, Survey: Hollywood Out of Touch, written by Gregg Kilday of The Hollywood Reporter, succinctly presents highlights of the survey and also features quotes from the ADL national director. The second, Americans Feel Religious Views Attacked, written by Matthew Wagner of The Jerusalem Post offers a more in-depth look at the survey in relationship to previous studies on similar issues. While I have commented on both of these blogs, I have also included my responses below for convenience.

Comment:

"Survey: Hollywood Out Of Touch"

Thank you for an interesting and unique post on the discord between American morality and Hollywood. I thought you were especially successful in highlighting the most important findings and results. I also thought it was effective that you included quotes from Abraham H. Foxman, especially his statement that "the belief that religion is under attack underlies the drive to incorporate more religion into American public life. Disturbingly, 43% of Americans believe there is an organized campaign by Hollywood and the national media to weaken the influence of religious values in this country." While I disagree that there is intent to weaken morality, I do believe that there is blatant disregard for morality in most of Hollywood's productions today. It is through this disregard and the lack of incorporation of morality and religion that Americans' morals are unfairly neglected in entertainment. If 43 percent of the country believes that Hollywood is trying to minimize religion then almost half of the nation does not identify with the entertainment offered to them. This is either a failure on behalf of the entertainment industry to connect with its consumers or it is clear that moral issues don't produce great ratings. Even though more than half of the nation considers Hollywood immoral, these people are still tuning into watch "immoral" shows. Ultimately, what seems to be missing is a moral counterpart, another option. Additionally, I like how you incorporated the fact that 49 percent of Americans surveyed believe the United States is becoming "too tolerant in its acceptance of different ideas and lifestyles." This is a strong finding and I believe Hollywood may be responsible for presenting many of these alternate ideas and lifestyles. In a time when it is not uncommon for shows and movies to feature homosexual characters, graphic sexual scenes, extreme violence and other issues that were previously taboo in entertainment it is clear that sometimes the rest of the nation might not be as radical as Hollywood just yet. I would have liked it if you incorporated some more quotes from ADL leaders to discuss some of the specifics in their findings. Also, this post left me wondering what your own opinions on the survey are. I would have loved it if you had included some of your own perspective as someone extremely familiar with the workings of the entertainment industry. Do you think these findings are surprising at all? Do you think that Hollywood will ever offer moral alternatives to appease the more religious half of the nation?

Comment:

"Americans Feel Religious Views Attacked"

Thank you for a well-developed and informative post on the morality of Americans in relation to Hollywood. I enjoyed how you approached the recent survey from a variety of angles, including political, past, and Jewish. I think your post was especially effective in its use of results from past surveys, including your use of the information that since 2005, more people feel morality is under attack. Your use of previous study results was also extremely interesting when you referenced the first survey on Anti-Semitic attitudes that the ADL conducted in 1964. I was surprised to learn that in 1964 almost half of Americans believed Jews, compared with the 22 percent that felt that way today, ran Hollywood. I had never even been aware that there was a notion that one specific religion controlled Hollywood's productions and think that may be because my generation features only a small percentage of people that believe such an idea. You also brought an interesting fact to the forefront when you mentioned that 40 percent of Americans believe dangerous ideas should be kept from children but the same number believe censoring books is an old fashioned idea. This was obviously an inconsistency in the results, or the surveyed people didn't fully comprehend the definition of censorship to begin with. I wonder what you would account this discrepancy to? Even though I would have loved to know your opinion on the matter I thought it was important that you included Abraham H. Foxman's response to the findings with his statement that "it (approval of censorship) shows that in this age of pervasive media and the widening availability of the internet, many Americans still maintain a very parochial view toward the information age, and even believe in censorship to 'protect morality.' If anything, it points to the need for greater awareness of the fundamental role that the First Amendment has played in helping religious freedom in America to be sustained, and indeed, to flourish." This quotation clearly sums up an important part of the survey's findings and gives the religious sector of America, as well as the entertainment industry something to reconcile. Overall, I was very impressed with the background and supplemental information used in your reaction to the survey and felt the only thing missing was your own developed opinions to further the discussion of the relationship between morality and Hollywood.

Hollywood Tax Breaks: The Best Incentive to Keep Hollywood at Home?

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's recent call to "stop the bleeding" of California's economy includes the aim to keep Hollywood at home by "providing tax incentives to new film and television production located in California and production that has left the state, to return to the state." The last-ditch effort to keep the film industry within state bounds is part of Schwarzenegger's proposal to increase taxes by $4.4 billion. Though it is unlikely that State Legislature will receive the incentives with open arms, they are ultimately necessary in order to keep a huge part of California's economy, film and television production, alive and contributing. Without these proposed incentives, California becomes incredibly less desirable to production companies who are ultimately concerned with the bottom line costs. 

The reality is that the movie industry is finding better opportunities outside of California. Since 1997 there has been a forty percent decline in the number of film production days shot on location in Los Angeles. Unlike 40 other states, California does not offer a tax credit program to lure filmmakers to shoot their movies in the golden state. An industry turning point occurred when the show "Ugly Betty"recently left Los Angeles in favor for New York in order to "take advantage of the Albany-passed package of fat rebates." Jon Favreau, an actor-filmmaker and the director of Iron Man, is lobbying for the tax breaks and incentives to be passed. "When it's cheaper to film in Manhattan than it is here, it's pretty obvious it's reached a point where people who have resisted this should question some of their preconceptions," Favreau said. In an effort to show tangible support for the entertainment industry staying in California, Favreau has also worked to have Marvel Studios agree to buy a studio in the Los Angeles area and to make four films here through 2011 that have combined budgets of $600 million as long as significant tax incentives are put in place in California.

So what does California stand to lose if these incentives are not put in place? Millions of dollars that would greatly benefit everyone in show biz, but also in the state. When shows like "Ugly Betty" leave California they also ditch hundreds of local crew members and California loses major business. As blogger Nikki Finke said on her blog "Deadline Hollywood Daily," "that production,"Ugly Betty," bought lumber, paint wallpaper, cabinets, office products, fabric, film, backdrops, furniture...It used the services of dry cleaners, caterers, restaurants, security ... it paid for permits and use of property, police and fire department personnel, etc." It's not only the big wig moguls that are affected by a show's move; every step in the movie and television production process requires of dozens of people behind the scenes doing things that few people would even think of as relevant to the entertainment industry. To put it in more tangible terms, one figure cited that in three weeks of filming Memoirs of a Geisha, more than $4 million dollars were generated for California's Sacramento and El Dorado counties. These vendors and tradesmen are not in the highest tax bracket looking to hoard some more cash; they are small businesses making a living off of one of California's most historic and fascinating industries. Furthermore, California also stands to loose tradition if the film and television industries fully migrate elsewhere. As a state that is usable because of its huge variety of landscapes within hours of each other, California will always be a great spot for filmmaking... in the golden state, entertainment production is as much about landscape and convenience as it is about tradition and that sparkling California pizzazz.

Though California will always have a Hollywood history that no other state can compete with, history and pizzazz mean little when placed next to millions of dollars. And while other states are continuing to increase incentives California has remained stagnant. New York recently upped their showbiz tax credits on below the line expenses for qualified productions up to 30 percent (from 10 percent). Louisiana is also another state enjoying the millions of extra dollars that are dripping into its economy due to film production. It is obvious that production companies are headed to other states in order to save money and meanwhile the cost of living and pretty much the cost of existing in California continues to rise and rise. Land is more expensive, food is more expensive, services, and real estate all continue to climb. In wake of all these expenses it is obvious that something needs to be done in order to keep production in state. The only thing that truly benefits California more than other states is its convenience aspect. A huge number of producers, directors and actors live in the state and the cost of travel is therefore significantly less within California. This convenience is also an attractive feature to the actors and showbiz people that would rather not relocate for months at a time.

But convenience for movie stars is not enough to keep show biz in Hollywood. Without tax breaks and incentives production will continue to migrate, especially in the face of the rising price of living in California. Schwarzenegger's efforts may have come just a little too late and some accuse the actor-turned-politician of neglecting his own trade. As Finke said, "When he leaves office and if he tries to return to showbiz, he'll be seen as a latter day Nero for fiddling while Hollywood burned." Though Hollywood may not seem like a charity case that needs its costs cut, the entertainment industry's wide scope and importance in California's economy makes the tax breaks a pressing and important issue that needs to be addressed. Here is to hoping that Hollywood stays put at least long enough to see the Governator make another movie.

'Saturday Night Live:' The New Presidential Platform?

After exploring Senator Barack Obama's decision to buy thirty minutes of primetime television on three major networks last week, this week I dove into the political world of television once again. This past Saturday Senator John McCain appeared on 'Saturday Night Live' with his wife Cindy McCain and Tina Fey as a Sarah Palin stand-in. The appearance, seen in the clip below, ignited a storm of debate on the purpose, appropriateness and benefit of the skit. Clearly, McCain needed some airtime of his own in the face of Obama's primetime domination and surely he didn't have to shell out the pretty penny (or 3 million dollars Obama spent) to get his coverage.

Also, with the huge success of Tina Fey's Sarah Palin impersonations it appeared that McCain decided to joke around with his biggest critics. I am sure that the McCain camp made this decision in order to inject a more youthful humor into the campaign but the success of this move is still debatable. In my exploration of the appearance I found two blogs that were extremely impressive and thorough. The first, Maureen Ryan's blog "The Watcher" presents an in-depth look at McCain's appearance and also features an actual transcript of the sketch as well as video highlights. Ryan, a Chicago Tribune contributor, offers the facts clearly, succinctly and fairly. Secondly, James Hibberd's blog "The Live Feed," features an overview of the skit as well as ratings and commentary. Hibberd, a reporter for "The Hollywood Reporter" offers keen insight and interesting information. In addition to commenting on each of these blogs I have included my responses below.

Comment:

"McCain Stops by Saturday Night Live"

Thank you for such an informative, thorough and entertaining post on McCain's "Saturday Night Live" appearance. I thought the entry was especially effective in highlighting the key quotes within the skit, especially in regards to the banter between McCain and Fey-as- Palin. You mentioned that Obama purchased airtime on "seven networks to show his half-hour infomercial," but I believe only NBC, CBS and Fox featured the ad at the cost of $1 million per network. I also appreciated your focus on Fey and Cindy McCain as hilarious side-kicks to McCain's performance. Furthermore, I enjoyed your incorporation of quotes from Ben Affleck, the host of the night's show. I thought your entry did a wonderful job of showing the overall political tone the show took on Saturday and your inclusion of quotes from Affleck and Baldwin were interesting additions that I found to be unique to your blog. Finally, I was impressed with your inclusion of NBC's press release as well as the actual transcript of the skit. I think these elements added a lot to the entry and informed the reader of every hilarious detail of the performance even if they weren't able to catch it on TV. What I felt was missing most from your post was your personal impression of the effectiveness of the skit. The entry left me with a lot of questions: how was the show received in terms of ratings?What did the Obama campaign have to say in response to the skit? Have polls showed an increase in McCain's popularity since the Saturday appearance? All of these components would have made for nice additions to your information and offered a broader view of the skit and its effects. Overall, I found your post to be full of interesting information and successful in determining the highlights of the skit. Your supplemental information also added to this impression and I look forward to continuing to reading your thoughts on political TV campaigning as well as other pertinent Entertainment News issues.

Comment:

"John McCain appears on 'Saturday Night Live'

Thank you for an engaging and informative entry on McCain's SNL appearance. I was really interested to read your opinions on the skit since I follow your blog and know you always have fresh and entertaining information. Primarily, I liked how you focused on the contrast between McCain and Obama. I thought it was definitely a highlight when McCain mentioned Obama's purchase of primetime air versus his appearance on the "QVC" and I am glad you included this in your entry. The quote really gives a context as to why McCain decided to be on SNL: he had to compete with Obama's primetime purchase somehow. I also really enjoyed how you noted that the skit could have been an Obama bashing act but instead only briefly touched on Obama. I agree with you in your assertion that "most of the material had McCain playing off his own image," but I wonder how effective you think this was? I would have enjoyed hearing more from you on what you believed the results of the appearance would be and why you believe McCain should or should not have appeared. Finally, I thought it was great that you featured the ratings from the episode. They put the success of the episode into context and I also thought it was incredibly interesting and pertinent that the episode was the "second-highest rated episode in more than a decade." It seems to me that even if he wasn't on primetime air, McCain succeeded in garnering attention just a few days before the election. Overall, your entry was lively and interesting and I look forward to following your posts in the future.