Vanya on 42nd Street. - movie reviews

National Review, Nov 21, 1994 by John Simon

`Im so glad you're one of us," she whispered conspiratorially. Her grip on my left triceps was much stronger than I would have expected from a short woman of maybe one hundred pounds and easily 65 years. "Will being here hurt your career?" It was a question I was asked repeatedly during the National Review Institute's Conservative Summit, held October 8-9 at the Century Plaza Hotel in Los Angeles.

My answer to her was, "No, of course not," but by the end of the weekend, I had begun to wonder whether I was, indeed, risking my professional life.

I thought about the Hollywood nights I'd spent at functions for trendy (mostly liberal) causes, when the questions from the press tended to be along the line of, "How's the show going?" and were did your wife get her outfit?" It was never suggested that career might be in jeopardy. And yet, at virtually every conservative and/or Republican event I have ever attended, most press queries dwelled on the possible risks to my future ability to earn an income in my chosen field.

Looking down at the lady still holding my arm, wondering whether I was "one of them," I found myself becoming uncomfortable with the thought. I've never been much of a joiner, and somehow I felt I would be sacrificing my individuality by admitting to being one of any group; so I just smiled weakly.

I know I was being unfair. After all, I am a familiar television face, a relatively rare commodity at any Hollywood gathering in whose title the word "conservative" appears. This particular gathering was all about "Hollywood and American Culture." Its sessions were on such subjects as "Can an Artist Be a Conservative Today.?" ("No," the head of a local theater group stated flatly. Tom Selleck, another member of the panel, winced at the certitude of the pronouncement) and Hollywood and the American Idea" (a contradiction in terms, it was decided).

Conventional wisdom outside the media metropolises holds that Hollywood is a swirling cesspool of discredited ultraliberal notions and social deviancies which are stuffed down the throats of the unsuspecting public by degenerate men and women trying to rip apart our social fabric and thrust their vile and twisted notions into view for the purpose of ... of ... Well, it's right there that the conventional wisdom begins to break down.

What is the purpose of this conspiracy? What are they after? What's the point of offending or ignoring vast portions of the television-watching and movie-going public? Before attempting to answer my own questions, I must expose two of Hollywood's secrets.

Secret Number One is that most of Hollywood is centrist-to-conservative. That is to say, a majority of the people who make up what is known as the Hollywood community" share most of the concerns and values held by people in Topeka and Sioux Falls, and Spokane and Clearwater.

Am I trying to argue that there is no liberal bias in the entertainment industry? No, not at all. In TV movies and theatrical movies, businessmen are still the villains, religion is portrayed derisively or not at all. Gays, lesbians, working women, and "people of color" are generally treated as sympathetic characters, often suffering the indignities heaped upon them by (yikes!) White Males. Condoms are mentioned more frequently than God (not counting expletives), and the pet theories of pop science are treated uncritically as facts.

So, again, why the portside tilt of programmers, who I maintain don't even believe in most of the bilge they pump out to the public? I think the answer lies less in a conspiracy than in cowardice.

And that takes us to Secret Number Two: In Hollywood, most executives, networks, and studios are scared to death of special-interest groups and the troubles they create. If the murderer of three people in an episode of a dramatic series is a psychopath who happens to be gay, network executives will have to bar the door against the firestorm of protest that will ensue. However, if the murderer is a CIA agent trying to cover up a secret government plan gone awry, who's going to protest? CIA agents? The government? No one will bother the network or, perhaps even more importantly, the sponsors. Ah, bliss!

Television and film executives love sharing off-the-record stories of one organization or another almost literally blackmailing a production into changing a theme or the way a character is portrayed. Many Hollywood budgets routinely include hush money to buy off protestors. That's why businessmen make such good bad guys. Angela Lansbury alone has tripped up dozens of them over the years on Murder, She Wrote. They're not a collectively organized, entrenched, politically powerful (as a whole), socially active interest group. In other words, it is less risky to offend the majority - meaning any large, amorphous group - than to offend a highly organized interest group, no matter how small.

The good news is that things are changing. The success of Forrest Gump and TV hits such as CBS's Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman have surprised network chiefs and studio heads and caused them to take notice: the politically neutral or even conservative film or series can make plenty of money. But the bad news I have for my political brethren is that I don't think a "conservative takeover" of Hollywood is coming, nor do I think it's desirable.