Aaron Schneiderman wrote: Sally Struthers? LOL Isn'ty that seeking donations for charitable purposes. What celebrities attacked Bill Clinton? PLEASE you have to do better than that to make a relevant point.

Charlton Heston.  (Which by the way, I like Charlton Heston as an actor.  I enjoy almost all of his films and was delighted when he took a bit part in Brannagh's Hamlet; however, I despise the man.)

Also, thanks Gabe.  You highlighted what I actually wanted to say.

Also, just wanted to say, isn't this a free country where anyone can speak their minds about politics?  Should we persecute people because they do not believe in the policies of the president or any other elected official?  Is this not one of the guarantees of our Constitution?

Also, you cannot dismiss celebrities like Reagan and Schwartzenegger from using their status to speak out for the right just because they are in politics.  How else would they have gotten where they were without their celebrity status!?!

Gabe Powers wrote: I don't know if I'd count Reagan in that equation, he was never a popular (or good) actor.

Are you sure about the popular thing Gabe?  Granted, it was before my time, but I thought he was at least well known.

Thandie Newton. What's that about? I haven't seen Crash but she either got very good very fast (as an actress) since MI2 or I really missed a memo somewhere.

I am going to avoid going any farther down this political road. The fact is that Hollywood's political agenda has become blatantly "in-your-face." You people can do with your money what you want. I will try on a personal level to hurt them economically. Its the only thing those greedy b*****ds understand.

floyd dylan wrote: What is wrong with highlighting racism, and have a film that shows two homosexuals in a positive light.

There's no political agenda in either films other than, if you talk about the two Clooney movies, or Micheal Moore documentaries then it is fair to say that those movies have a political agenda.

There have been thousands of films have been made that have highlighted homosexuality and racism way way way before Brokeback and Crash.

So trying to hurt who ever it is you are trying to hurt economically means that you are willing to turn your back on certain issues or a persons sexual preference.

well if you don't want to see political films then DON'T see films AT ALL

Gabe Powers wrote: Who are you talking too? Did this end up in the wrong thread?

I was actually replying to Schneidermator's message.

Worst Nightmare wrote: Dare I say it but Anthony Anderson - a poor comic gone wrong....
He's great in The Shield though.
Anyways the actor I always avoid is Russell Crowe. I hate that fudger.

Aaron Schneiderman wrote: I am going to avoid going any farther down this political road. The fact is that Hollywood's political agenda has become blatantly "in-your-face." You people can do with your money what you want.

As for someone that works in Hollywood let me tell you theonly "Agenda" Hollywood has is to make money. If they can make money on a gay comboy movie THEY will make it!    If Hollywood can make money on a movie about the Klan that will make that!  There is no "Left wing agenda".  

I think that there can be an agenda, and that Aaron was never refering to the gay cowboy movie, or any particular movie at all, he was refering more to the actions of individual actors on their own time, actions which make him want to aviod those particular actor's films. You are correct that the vast majority of Hollywood types are in it for the money, but for the most part an artist's message can make it through. Sometimes films with a message can be madeby  a bigwig lefty like George Lucas who finances his own work, or they cost a small enough ammount that a studio is willing to take a chance on the off chance that they'll get some award nominations.

I don't agree with Aaron, and think that for the most part, an artists work speaks for itself, but a great many readers seem to be misunderstanding him, which is the kind of thing that leads to arguments rather than discussion. Aaron, thank you for avoiding the political track before it got out of hand.

I have watched enough television and film over the years and witnessed enough of the pablum being fed to us that I could produce quite a long list of films or television programs that generally paint liberals or democrats as benevolent leaders while the republicans are ignorant, scheming and venal individuals only looking for personal gain.  I could point to films like "The Contender" or television dramas like "The American President," or comedy shows like "Saturday Night Live" to easily make my point. There is so much I can document that sometimes you have to realize who your audience is and how fruitless the analysis would be. You are either a fool or incredibly naive to say there is no agenda.

Some people just can't see the forest for the trees.

Gabe, I am familiar with that short-lived series. If that wasn't transparent I don't what is... As far as Democrats being portrayed as womanizers, I would respectfully have to differ with you. The media have been apologists when it comes to the excellent adventures of of Bill (Clinton) & Ted (Kennedy) the philanderers. However, God forbid a Republican be caught doing anything less than honorable when it comes to matters of the a-hem, "heart." They are merely forced to resign.

Aaron Schneiderman wrote: and witnessed enough of the pablum being fed to us

Pablum.

I love Aaron. He always forces me to reach for the dictionary when I read his posts. It's good to expand the vocabulary.

Aaron Schneiderman wrote: Some people just can't see the forest for the trees.

I'd definitely put you in that group.

Adrian wrote: Aaron Schneiderman wrote: Some people just can't see the forest for the trees.

I'd definitely put you in that group.

I bet it took you all of 5 seconds to come up with that response. Thank you for continuing to make me look good. Brilliant!