The Hollywood Mythspiracy

This is a guest-post.  One of our underused media assets is Hollywood.  I asked my brother Nick, who co-wrote 'Fun with Dick and Jane', to chime in. I just saw it, and it's a very good smart film with a strongly liberal narrative.

Firstly, let's get the important stuff out of the way.  I'm Matt's brother, and I wrote "Fun with Dick and Jane."  It's very funny and you should all see it.  I guarantee you'll enjoy it.  I've written bad movies -- this isn't one of them.  Go to moviefone now!  Buy tickets! Tell your friends!  OK.  Now that I've plugged my movie, onto political discourse.

While the conservatives may have cornered the market on cable news and AM stations, the Limbaugh conspiracy theory really is true -- liberal Jews run Hollywood.  Conservatives have to search far and wide to find sympathetic talent (ie. why is Ron Silver on the road to becoming an ambassador?  That's not even B-list talent.)

It's depressing, but unsurprising, that in terms of things political, us Liberal Hollywood Jews (LHJs) have such a limited sway over how the country thinks on important issues.  That's where the Limbaugh conspiracy breaks down.  Hollywood may be liberal, but in the end, does anyone care what Warren Beaty thinks?  Of course not.  Nor should they. He's an old, rich, horny fool.  I might think he's a good actor, but I roll my eyes when he protests the Governator.

"Fun with Dick and Jane" (which, again, you should all see) has a relatively overt liberal message.  However, that message has received none, or very little, mention in the press.  Creatively, I discovered something interesting.  At the beginning of the process, I was incredibly excited to fill the film with political message (like in Hal Ashby's Shampoo).  However, every Gore-Lieberman poster (the movie takes places in 2000) and Bush reference takes one out of the movie, distracts from the laughs.  Movies are supposed to be entertaining.  Anything that distracts from entertainment feels preachy and extraneous.

In the end, there is no intersection between Hollywood and the Democratic Party (or none that I have noticed besides that of fundraising).  This is a missed opportunity of gargantuan proportions.  There are hundreds of writers and actors and directors who are angry and who want to do something besides give money.  We are expert message machines offering our (generally overpriced) services for free and the Democratic Party does not use us.  We create villains and good guys, we write America's jokes, we create the narrative of America, the lines that are repeated by boys and girls, men and women, over lunch and the water cooler and we have been left completely un-consulted.

Why didn't Michael Bay direct an awesome action adventure ad where John Kerry singlehandedly blows up the terrorist insurgency with a solemn nod of his granite-chiseled chin?  Why weren't the writers of SNL and the Daily Show brought in to create hilarious, ruthless anti-Bush spots that would have been forwarded all around the internet?  Why wasn't James Brooks hired to create a touching, pull-the-heartstrings Kerry-Edwards-cares-about-the-voter commercial? This schlock works -- remember that 9/11 Bush ad where he's holding the crying girl?  With the Hollywood talent the Democratic party has at its disposal, we could have blown that spot out of the water, made it look like a mediocre episode of Touched by an Angel next to our sinking of the Titanic.   I don't care if you think "I am king of the world" is a cheesy line -- it made people cry.  Nothing Kerry said made people cry.   Except perhaps accidentally, out of boredom or pain.

During the 2004 election, Kerry's people had a brief meeting with the top writing talent in Hollywood and asked for jokes and message ideas.  Unsurprisingly, his campaign used none of it.  When the Democratic Party was thinking of their new slogan (A Better Choice, is that even it?  I can't remember, that's how good it is), why didn't they call us?  The Democratic Party has a lock on the hearts and minds of Hollywood and Hollywood has a deep understanding of how to create message -- so why not start using us?



Display:


Forgive me but... (3.00 / 1)

"We are expert message machines offering our (generally overpriced) services for free and the Democratic Party does not use us.  We create villains and good guys, we write America's jokes, we create the narrative of America, the lines that are repeated by boys and girls, men and women, over lunch and the water cooler and we have been left completely un-consulted."

Is that why attendance is down? Is that why blockbuster after stupid blockbuster has underperformed this year? The message I get from the Hollywood message machine is condescending and self-important.

Perhaps this is a product of the PR firms and executives and you mean something else. I know that script-writers can have their work altered beyond recognition by the time it gets to the screen.

If so, I apologize.

Also let me add that I intend to see Dick and Jane, but why couldn't the studio have found someone BESIDES Tea Leoni? Blech! Even Jenna Elfman would be better.

by MNPundit on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 11:10:21 AM EST

Re: Forgive me but... (none / 0)

Hence the Warren Beaty point.  Of course there's enormous arrogance from Hollywood, and there's also tremendous talent that shapes the narrative of the country.  It's powerful.
by Matt Stoller on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 11:13:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Beatty point reminds me of... (none / 0)

Don Henley. Freaking hypocrite goes and performs like a prostitute for that defense contractor's daughter's batmitzvah.
by Pravin on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 01:31:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Beatty point reminds me of... (none / 0)

Don Henley also gave millions of dollars to keep the last bit of wilderness in Portland Oregon free from condos. So he's not all bad.
by peacemonger on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 02:41:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Beatty point reminds me of... (none / 0)

Good to know.
So indirectly the defense contractor's money helps Beatty makes such donations. In a way, it's good to see some of the blood money being used for things right wingers can't stand.
by Pravin on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 03:08:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Forgive me but... (3.00 / 0)

I think that he makes many valid points.  Yes, the dollars are down for Hollywood, but it still represents a tremendous talent pool.  Is it the final answer to all of our problems?  Probably not, but it certainly does not hurt to consult with "experts" of any kind.  The republican noise machine has made PR an "art" of sorts.  Why can't we fight back in kind, but with Holloywood?
Mark
by Mark J. Bowers on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 11:18:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Daily Show (3.00 / 0)

The least those overpaid hacks in Shrum and Co. could have done was pay the Daily Show for one of their Cheney lying montages and just aired them as is if they were too lazy to come up with their own ideas.
by Pravin on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 01:29:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Daily Show (3.00 / 1)

TDS consistently does a better job of advancing Democratic messages than The Democratic Party.  This is because of bad spokepeople in the party on TV, mostly.

When "King Kong" has its pressers and talk show circuit runs, do they send out the personality-free Key Grip to go on Letterman?  Does the dorky Sound Editor get to sit in a hotel and give interviews?

Fuck no they don't.

by Sam Loomis on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 02:27:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Daily Show (none / 0)

I want to agree with you that "TDS consistently does a better job of advancing Democratic messages than The Democratic Party," but the more I watch it the more I see TDS writers resorting to the same cliches of Democrats as spineless and without a plan, and of Dean a nut.

I'd argue that TDS sticks it to Bush as well as anyone does these days, but they are more than willing to dump on Democrats for laughs.

TDS is a good thing, but they will resort to Republican talking points to fill air time.

I think your later point, that Dems need to learn from Hollywood how to promote themselves, is a better idea than learning how to do it from the Republicans.

This administration sucks.
by thief on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 02:54:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you (3.00 / 1)

Well, I think they advance our cause in subtle ways, not overt.  And i'm glad they bag on Dems sometimes.  When they do, it's usually needed.

But I can't tell you how many time I have read through a few informative blogs like ThinkProgress or this one, and then I turn on TDS and they are spewing a lot of the same under-the-radar info I just read that day.  And then I flip on CNN, MSNBC and see our elected officials totally clueless and unable to retort well, when if they had only done their homework they could do SO much better at fighting back.

I think that's what I meant to write.

As far as learning from Hollywood, my post below sums it up well.  Last weekend, Hollywood made my wife get very emotional and cry by showing her a fake monkey made from computers.  Now, if they can do that to one woman, they should be able to make a drip like Kerry or Bayh into a rock star.

btw, I read last fall that Bayh had actually hired some Hollywood speech coaches to buff up his public speaking.  Good for him, if true.

by Sam Loomis on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 03:04:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

plus (none / 0)

first and foremost, they are comedians.  they gotta get a laugh.  and dean as a nut, while not true, always gets a laugh.

tds does more to advance truth in media than anyone else, so i happily let the punchlines that don't adhere to progressive talking points slide, just as long as they get a laugh.

remember, as soon as they stop getting laughs, they are off the air.

"blogtopia - yes, i coined that phrase!"
by skippy on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 08:53:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you (none / 0)

They did try with Kerry.  They failed.
by howardpark on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 11:19:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Forgive me but... (3.00 / 0)

The Dems will not be overtly associated -- or even indirectly, if it can be "directly" traced back -- with the "Liberal Hollywood Elites" because republicans have made the Hollywood Liberal caricature toxic.  I can see the FauxNews segments now... and O'Liley drooling over his talking points and shit crazy commentary about any consultations between Dems and some sort of Hollywood PR workshop.

If Hollywood writes want to help Dems they are free to do so, just contact the DNC, DCCC or DSC as individuals with any advise.  Of course, the difficulty lies in finding someone within the DNC, etc, with the guts an imagination to put that message to work.

Vox Mia -- Adding My Voice to the Chorus
by bedobe on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 02:24:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This Is LUDICROUS! (none / 0)

The GOP is going to attack us as the party of Hollywood elites no matter what we do. We may as well make the most of it. They don't need any reality-based hook for their smear campaigns.  We all know this very well by now.  

Acting all fraidy cat just gives unwarranted credibility to their stupid smear tactics.

by Paul Rosenberg on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 03:05:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This Is LUDICROUS! (none / 0)

So, we're in agreement -- that's my point, that the GOP and their surrogates will attack the Dems: 1) No matter what, 2) Will resort to their tired talking points re: "Hollywood Elites," 3) The MSM will serve as an echo chamber.  But this is all obvious, and that wasn't my point.  My point was that the real challenge would be to find someone in the leadership of the Democratic party would say, Fuck it! And creatively use the message crafting resources that are available in Hollywood and elsewhere.  But, lemme say it again, the real challenge is not what the GOP et al would do, the real challenge is finding the fortitude to go at them with all we got.
Vox Mia -- Adding My Voice to the Chorus
by bedobe on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 03:26:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sorry (none / 0)

I didn't get that from reading your post the first time. I do now.
by Paul Rosenberg on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 04:10:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sorry (none / 0)

PS.  To add to my point, as others are noting and as it's increasingly clear, re: using all resources available (in Hollywood and elsewhere (ie. MoveOn, Blogsphere, Peace activists, etc.)): what we have here is a battle between establishment insiders and the rest of us, outsiders.  An insider has to be flipped and then realize that the resonant messages are already out there.  Those messages can be found all over the blogsphere, in grassroots get-togethers all over the country and in the vocabulary of leading activists.  Those messages, of course, need to be distilled and collected into something that resembles a national platform, but the real question is, Will establishment insiders be brave enough to let go of control just enough to let some of the outsiders in?

At the moment I personally don't see any incentive for the insiders to let the outsiders in... outsiders just don't have enough clout at the moment, and the insiders are still figuring out the best way to use us (mainly as ATM machines, I fear).

Vox Mia -- Adding My Voice to the Chorus
by bedobe on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 05:04:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This Is Why It's Got To Be Such Bloody Combat (none / 0)

It's not that we want to do it, but the establishment is just not going to yield us anything.

We're going to have to defeat some of their candidates, before this is over.  They won't even start to take us seriously until we do.

This is not to say, however, that everyone in DC is "the establishment." John Conyers is certainly not, for example. Nor is Dennis Kucinich.  More generally, the Congressional Black Caucus and the Progressive Caucus are generally our allies in this.

by Paul Rosenberg on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 05:12:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Outsiders vs. Insiders (none / 0)

You bring up a great point with the insiders outsiders thing. So does thief, when he says that we shouldn't just assume that what works for neo-cons is a good idea for us.

  1. NeoCons want the world to be run by a cabal of super rich, super powerful theocrats whose whose rigid but brittle control hinges on the stasis of the status quo -- and that's how they run their party.

  2. A Liberal/Progressive worldview has no loyalty to the status quo so long as a better option exists. This is the essence of free-market economy, of efficiency, productivity, of fairness and all that good stuff. This is how the grassroots, the netroots, and progressives approach politics and ideas, sink or swim.

So given our party's unloyalty, or rather, non-loyalty towards the national status quo, why in the hell do the D-trip and the DLC (to name only 2) care so much about status quo and central authority within the party?

P.S. If this means there's a schism on the left by 2008, bring it on. I'm not a friend of the status quo and I'm not afraid of a war of ideas. Plus my side will win.

P.P.S. I would also like to take a few pages to agree with the vast majority of the other stuff in this thread, but I won't.

Progress is Personal | Connie Brennan | My opinions are mine alone
by msnook on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 07:08:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Forgive me but... (none / 0)

I guess the Clinton's very public association with the Thomasons was so obvious that the right never noticed.
by tib on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 05:34:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Forgive me but... (none / 0)

What do you dislike about Leoni so much?  I wouldn't call her a great actress, but she's pleasing to the eye.

Hollywood receipts are down quite substantially this year, but there are multiple reasons for that (not just the the product itself).  Considering all the technological and cultural change the movie industry has weathered over the past 100 years, I think they'll find a way to get over this bump in the road.

by Double B on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 11:45:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Forgive me but... (3.00 / 5)

Stoller's brother: "Hi, I see you're at war and you're losing badly, and it occured to me that we've got warehouses of rifles sitting around. Would you like some?"

MNPundit: "How dare you offer, and oh yeah, I hate your tie."

This administration sucks.
by thief on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 12:08:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Forgive me but... (none / 0)

Hollywood plays another, more important and deeper political role: Hollywood is a tremendously powerful piece of the "liberal culture" which makes conservatives so apoplectic.  This culture is more powerful than politics, as arch-conservative Paul Weyrich writes.  It is the reason why, despite conservative control of all three branches of government, that gay rights have advanced, not retreated, in the past four years, through depictions on TV of sympathetic gay characters and gay celebrities.  Entertainment creates a narrative that transforms the popular consciousness, whether depicting a stable middle-class black family (as The Cosby Show did), or greedy CEOs stealing from their employees (as Fun With Dick and Jane did).

If liberals in Hollywood want to make a difference in the political climate of this country, they should think about ways to create a progressive narrative like George Clooney has with Good Night and Good Luck and Syriana.  It's great that Hollywood promotes tolerance, even unintentionally, by including varying people, cultures, and practices in their sitcoms and movies (just look at all the sexual subcultures demystified by CSI), but they also reinforce many anti-progressive messages, like the solitary action hero who survives completely by his own means, or glamorizing a car-oriented culture of conspicuous consumption.  

How many movies reinforce the value of public education, a social safety net, or protections against multinational corporations using child labor in poor countries?  Not many, but if liberals in Hollywood can think of ways to integrate these and other progressive messages into the national narrative, they can do a lot of long-term good - far more than just filming a hard-hitting TV ad for John Kerry.

http://alpie.net/blog/bin/post.cgi?id=256

by dbalpert on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 09:23:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Forgive me but... (none / 0)

Hollywood's revenues are down because of too many retreads and tv remakes. 80s weren't the most original period, but the remakes weren't blatant. I can name a bunch of action franchises with new characters from the late 70s, 80s - Alien, Terminator, Die Hard, Lethal Weapon, Predator, Nightmare on Elm Street and one can go on. There are also many entertainment options available now.

What do we have now but sequels of those movies or remakes of tv shows from that era?

By the way, that reminds me of Shane Black. Nice to see him back in the biz.

by Pravin on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 01:24:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Forgive me but... (none / 0)

I take issue with your comment on "Tea Leoni" -- I simply love her (okay, love is too strong a word, but am definitely a fan).  I could do with  out Jim Carrey, though -- he's always the same character and, if anything, his presence in the movie is what will prevent me from paying $10+ a ticket to see the movie.
Vox Mia -- Adding My Voice to the Chorus
by bedobe on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 02:16:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Terrible taste (blech?!?) (none / 0)

What on earth is wrong with Tea Leoni? Funny in a smart way and tremendously cute--I predict that she and David Duchovney will have the best looking kids and the planet, and they probably won't be airheads either.

Oh, and as for Hollywood, the Dems funnily enough do listen and give them tons. Unfortunately, as your brother Matt notes, what the Dems give Hollywood is free rein to write our IP laws so as to strangle the public domain, which is not a good thing for anyone except for the ultra-wealthy big studio owners and investors.

So I suppose you're right that the Dems should at least get something back for this, although it would be even better if the Dems just tried to work out an IP policy that provided a better deal for small creators and for society as a whole.

by tameszu on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 03:15:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Forgive me but... (3.00 / 1)



Re: Tea Leoni, here's how my friends and I settle disagreements on whether we find a woman attractive:

Yeah, so, would you kick her out of bed?

Tactless, of course, but it settles any disagreements and smoothes things over rather quickly.

PS. Yeah, I know, this is not on topic and, certainly, not political.

PPS. I like her work, too -- she's a fine actress, as far as am concerned.


Vox Mia -- Adding My Voice to the Chorus
by bedobe on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 04:56:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Forgive me but... (none / 0)

Come on.
by Matt Stoller on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 05:34:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Forgive me but... (none / 0)

Feel free to delete if it "offends" anyone -- though I don't see why it should.
Vox Mia -- Adding My Voice to the Chorus
by bedobe on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 05:47:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Forgive me but... (none / 0)


(assumes voice of a convict in a theatre)

... dew NOT delete this image. DEW NOT DELETE THIS ... IMAGE!

by turnerbroadcasting on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 09:08:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Forgive me but... (none / 0)

creepy
Vox Mia -- Adding My Voice to the Chorus
by bedobe on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 09:32:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Forgive me but... (none / 0)

Just a man of constant sorrow..

by turnerbroadcasting on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 09:52:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Forgive me but... (3.00 / 0)

Though I know that's not her head on that body, I still rated it super.  I'm a man.  I'm weak.
by Sam Loomis on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 06:59:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Forgive me but... (3.00 / 1)

No worries -- am weak, too. Damn, being a man is not easy sometimes.

I do have one disagreement, though. That is her body... younger body, perhaps, but her body, see here.

Now, I'll grant you that there's some photoshop magic going on, and some posing technique going on (note the pointy toes to give the illusion of longer legs, yeah, am a photo hobbyist), but that is her.

Now, back to politics...

Dems should definitely exploit the talent pool in Hollywood and elsewhere.
Vox Mia -- Adding My Voice to the Chorus
by bedobe on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 07:11:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Forgive me but... (none / 0)

If I'm a typical movie goer, I'd guess attendance is down because taking my familiy to the movies will cost me $30 for tickets and popcorn and then I've got some dumb ass talking on his cell phone in front of me and some kid kicking the back of my seat and some idiot who brought their four year old to a violent R-Rated movie.

The talent is in Hollywood. If the Right wants to say Hollywood is backing the Democrats, we might as well actually LET the talent in Hollywood back the Dems. You can't argue that there is a concentration of creative and talented people that are not being used to their potential.

Witty comment goes here...
by michael in chicago on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 05:30:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Forgive me but... (none / 0)

Maybe attendance is down because in the Bush economy, people can't afford to go to the movies as much?
by Lucas O'Connor on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 07:39:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

They Don't Listen To Anyone Else, Why Should They (3.00 / 3)

Listen To You?

It's nothing personal, see. It's just that they know  how to lose elections. They've been doing it for years. They are experts at it. And you just write jokes and stuff.  They ignored you, just like they ignored Lakoff, just like they ignored everyone who urged Kerry to punch back hard against the Swift Boating--like he promised to. Like I said, it's nothing personal, see.

Now write a check and go away, so they can pay Bob Shrum another $10 million or so.

by Paul Rosenberg on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 11:20:19 AM EST

Oh, come on Paul (3.00 / 1)

What do we idiots on the blogs know? We need to get over our self importanct and listen to them. They are the experts who know what it takes to win elections. They know how the process works. We're just the local yocals who think our district is different and that we know sells and what doesn't in our neighborhoods. Silly local Democratic activists. Like this blog thing is ever going to catch on...
Witty comment goes here...
by michael in chicago on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 05:40:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Please don't suggest this again! (1.00 / 0)

For the love of God!

The Democratic Party "leadership" is already a rather brainless cat herd that drifts aimlessly toward the sound of moneyed interests.

Does it need help drifting toward Hollywood?  Hardly.

Worse, does anyone really understand that to run in America you have to run AGAINST something?

2006 and 2008 are going to be about running against Washington.  You can't do that and align yourself with Hollywood, otherwise you're merely running with a different establishment.

If you're sincere: get out of Hollywood.  Go independent.  Build your ideological war machine and recruit your fellow writers into an anti-Hoolywood bloc.

Americans will love you for it.  Why do you think big budget films always end up in this near-death scenario?

Then some indy study revives Hollywood, and pretty soon the stupid sequel train starts rolling again and Hollywood dies again.

Even the current big budget boom isn't Hollywood's making!  

It belongs to Peter Jackson and WETA Digital, based in New Zealand of all damned places!

If Hollywood types want to contribute, they need to follow Peter Jackson's lead: build your own corner of the industry, and then tell the money men they can either invest in you or miss the train.

Same goes for politics.  Which, on a good day, is what the various bloggers and grassroots folks are doing.

This age offers an amazing possibility that everyone is afraid to seize: the realignment of power across the board to a broader class of people closer to the ground level.

Seize it.  Make it happen.

Sure as hell don't wait for Hollywood.  And don't tell anyone until you've already pulled it off.

by jcjcjc on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 11:30:53 AM EST

This Is Idiotic! (3.00 / 1)

The argument here isn't for a public embrace of Hollywood. It's for the Democratic Party to actually utilize invaludable resources offered to it for free.  They take Hollywood's money, but turn up their noses at its unique strengths--pure, arrogant idiocy.

This has nothing to do with any of the other issues you've dragged into this comment. An independent political organization is no replacement for the Democratic Party itself getting a clue.  And it doesn't matter one whit to the average American whether "Hollywood" is in Hollywood, New Zealand or Mars.

p.s. Just to complete the list of disconnects in your comment, I should point out that "King Kong" is underforming, too.

by Paul Rosenberg on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 12:18:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Suit yourself (none / 0)

I have to admit that sometimes, I'm really impressed about the way the left part of the Democratic Party completely disregards the views of most Americans.

[ And it doesn't matter one whit to the average American whether "Hollywood" is in Hollywood, New Zealand or Mars.]

Wanna make a bet?

The average American views Hollywood as purveyors of elitist bullshit.  Come to think of it, they're right.

It helps no cause to start telegraphing messages through a discredited medium.

The Hollywood types were damned visible in 2004 as it was.  The last thing we need is MORE.

And it doesn't matter whether you make a "public embrace" of Hollywood.  It will play that way.

I just don't think it helps our cause.

Skip the Hollywood, and toss a few more dollars and ideas into taking a good message to the public the right way: on the ground.  The GOP gets it done with direct mail.  DFA did quite nicely with the internet and small donations.

Pushing a Hollywood line of attack reverses much of the progress we have made in the last few years.

by jcjcjc on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 01:30:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Total Red Herring (none / 0)

Obviously you have no objection to my argument, since you've ignored it totally.

The issue here is not embracing Hollywood. It's getting Hollywood talent to do effective marketing for the Democratic Party, instead of the gang of loser media consultants who couldn't win with Jesus Christ against Ghengis Kahn.

by Paul Rosenberg on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 01:48:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Suit yourself (3.00 / 2)

     Dude, the point wasn't about a "public embrace" of Hollywood. There was nothing in this diary about having more Hollywood types on podiums, no Barbra Streisands or Ben Affleck's stumping for candidates. His point was that there are writers and directors in the industry who are Democrats who would be willing to use their talents in creating a winnable PR strategy and we keep blowing them off. Asking for their money, but blowing them off. That's just stupid. Michael Deaver would've killed to have access to the talent pool we have, but never use because we're so goddamn beholden to the same political consultants that never do shit for us.
by Lokileague on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 02:28:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I Almost Forgot! (none / 0)

The average American views Hollywood as purveyors of elitist bullshit.  Come to think of it, they're right.
America's Top Model. Fear Factor. Cops. Married With Children.

Real elitist stuff!  No wonder advertisers never wasted any money on them.  Nobody watches that stuff.

by Paul Rosenberg on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 03:10:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Take a day trip (none / 0)

Go out into a few of the redder counties, and just ask that question: "Does Hollywood push elitist bullshit?"

If you really think making preachy shows and movies gets it done, you will be rudely surprised.

by jcjcjc on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 09:27:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Take a day trip (3.00 / 1)

Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't middle america the primary audience most of the time?
by Lucas O'Connor on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 10:21:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please don't suggest this again! (3.00 / 1)

The Republican party has used ad agencies for years to figure out how to target voters.  Big business has spent lots of money figuring this stuff out and they give it to the Republicans, who save them lots of money.  
Why should we turn our back on an industry that has figured out what average Americans want to hear?  Political Commercials are now, where movies were in the 1970s.  What if our 2006 DCCC commercials were the Godfather, instead of Rio Lobo (nothing personal John)?  
BlueNC - Progressive NC Politics
by Robert P on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 03:03:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

great post (3.00 / 3)

This post isn't talking about "aligning" with Hollywood, but rather USING the expertise of expert communicators.
The reason you haven't been used in the past is that the Democratic national campaigns are apparently weighted down with "communications consultants" and "public relations experts" and "campaign strategists" who haven't actually won a national election for the Democratic party for the last decade, and will not permit anyone else to win them either.
Better you should focus on individual Senate and House races around the country -- they aren't high profile enough to attract the national do-nothing consultants, and they will likely be grateful for your help -- MyDD knows the races that would need you.
by CathiefromCanada on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 12:02:22 PM EST

Re: great post (none / 0)

Exactly.  Thats the way that I saw it too.  In almost all respects it would be like hiring a PR firm!?!?!  
Mark
by Mark J. Bowers on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 12:26:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: great post (none / 0)

Thank you to a friend from Canada for articulating THE problem with our party today - as a political consultant that none of you has ever heard of i can concur that the problem lies with the "experts" who are running campaign after campaign into the ground with only their bulging wallets to show for it at the end of the campaign. and trying to move in on their turf to get these top tier races is about as likely as moving in on Boss Tweed's turf.
i stay focused on state and local races because if we don't build a farm team and continue to build a farm team, the party will be have even less choices than we do right now for viable candidates for statewide and national office.
and since this post is dead on as to the deaf ear the "experts" have maybe that is the place for Hollywood to play. I can imagine the impact it could have on a state legislative race for example - and there are plenty of state legislatures in need of rescuing right now as the impotent state party structure has decimated so many state parties (florida immediately comes to mind!).
i for one would welcome the imput and would be happy to continue getting good Democrats elected at the lower levels even if my pockets don't bulge quite like the Shrum's of the world at the end of the day.
by mudslinger72 on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 04:35:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: great post (none / 0)

hey slinger, here in the deep south some of these yokels actually got paid to have people run on gay marriage.

they lined up their big fat pockets with republican cash, so that the democrats could get pigeonholed into the turtleneck liberal elite set, class warfare  rural vs. city -

Then they turned around and got paid again by the gay activists who thought they were doing everyone a big favor. There are still places in Atlanta where people think Gay marriage is a great issue to run on down here, its that bad.

At the polls, the vote was 86% against.  

by turnerbroadcasting on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 09:12:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: great post (none / 0)

Perhaps this is the perfect opportunity for the netroots and netroots candidates to differentiate themselves from the establishment candidates from the home office. If the DtreyC and the like don't want to take advantage, then certainly we can. If/when it works, who's got the upper hand in the party then?
by Lucas O'Connor on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 07:42:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Dick and Jane (1.00 / 0)

Your brother wrote that?  Can he offer any advice to an aspiring comedian?
The Kentucky Democrat
by kydem on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 12:09:38 PM EST

Be funny...in public...occasionally near a mic? (3.00 / 1)


This administration sucks.
by thief on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 12:12:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

thanks (none / 0)

I do stand-up, sketch, and improv.  I have a great movie idea.  Okay, quite a few.
The Kentucky Democrat
by kydem on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 03:16:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: thanks (none / 0)

Don't be afraid to make your own short movies.

Digital video can look really good and be somewhat affordable, especially if you have any Public Access resources handy.

Once you have something in the can, you're already tapped into a great place to cheaply advertise it: blogs.

Vlogs are also an promising place to show self-produced material.

This administration sucks.
by thief on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 03:30:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This is important (3.00 / 1)

For years, the Republicans have been nominating superficially likeable personalities and attacking the Dems on their character.  The typical Dem response is spout off a laundry list of issues in which the public is more in tune with the Dems than the Republicans, and attempt to innoculate themselves against charges of being too liberal.

This doesn't work.

The Dems need to learn that the voters elect people, not issues, and they are not necessarily concerned about where someone is on the political spectrum if they like that person and trust them to do the "right thing."  We need to nominate candidates who can talk to the public like they are real people, not professional politicians.

What Hollywood does best is create good feelings that connect characters to people.  I think there's reason to believe there is talent in the entertainment industry that can help Dems send the right message.  

by danielj on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 12:15:32 PM EST

Intersection of Hollyood and Politics (3.00 / 0)

Part of the problem, as I see it, is that Hollywood shouldn't sit around waiting for politicians to let them help.  Sure it would have been great if SNL writers had worked with Kerry to create a bunch of hilarious anti-Bush, viral films.  But why wait for Kerry to make the first move?  Why not just make a damn funny movie and release it on the web?

Similarly, making liberal (or just political) films shouldn't be about sticking campaign posters in the background of a scene.  It should be about making films that reflect political values.  In the 70's, Dirty Harry was a great Republican film character.  If you wanted to know what conservatives thought about the Warren Court, you could just go head down the the local movie theater.  You didn't need a poster of Ronald Reagan in the film for it to help Reagan at the polls in '80 and '84.

Kudos to George Clooney for making films like Syriana and Good Night, and Good Luck.  Movies that are not overtly preachy, but do raise important question.

While I would encourage all Democratic politicians to use the talent in Hollywood during campaign season, Hollywood should not wait dor the phone to ring.

by space on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 12:26:36 PM EST

Dems don't use Hollywood creative... (2.00 / 0)

talent because "media consultants" get paid to do the job badly. Hollywood is no help from their point of view; it is competition to guys who already have the monopoly. Most of those guys had one good idea once and went on to peddle it over and over, becoming less and less effectual. Think Bob Shrum.
Can It Happen Here?
by janinsanfran on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 12:54:09 PM EST

Bill Clinton (3.00 / 0)

Bill Clinton used his Arkansas Hollywood connection which produced his convention film, A Man from Hope, for him.  I think it was the couple who did Designing Women (Linda Bloodworth Thomason and Harry Thomason, IIRC).  That is about it.  Meanwhile, the Reps used lots of SoCal talent (usually the second string) in the Nixon and Reagan campaigns.  Hmm... Morning in America ... Bring Us Together ... The Silent Majority, etc.  Somebody crafted the Compassionate Conservative and time to end the partisanship in Washington shit that Shrub used so effectively, maybe it was politicos?
by David Kowalski on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 01:21:20 PM EST

Hollywood and Communications and Corporate behavio (2.00 / 0)

Someone in the comments above raised the question about Hollywood losing money. And what does this have to do with using the liberal voice in Hollywood to affect the tenor of political discussion and action in the US?

First of all, I don't know that I'd like to see the Democratic Party use any media quite the way that the right wing has done. Just look at the moral and intellectual corruption of our media as the product of the right wing message machine. Is that what you really want?

Second, why do the liberals in Hollywood - writers, etc., - have to serve the Democratic Party directly? It seems to me that their voice would be stronger by being independent and could bring changes about in the Democratic Party as a result of being independent.

Except for one thing: Hollywood isn't making money. People are not coming out to the theaters in the numbers you need to challenge the vast public's political and economic thinking.

I realize that I'm harking back many generations, but people used to go to the movies in droves and frequently. Why have they stopped?

We can point to the ease of television, and it's true, the convenience of tv being there with no more effort than pressing the on button and sifting through channels has a big influence on people's habits.

But it's more than just the convenience of tv, it's the entire corporate business model that Hollywood has fallen for hook, line, and sinker.

Going to the movies is expensive. When the ticket price didn't bring profits, what did the theaters do? They raised ticket prices. They charge an arm and a leg for refreshments. They limit the number of showings.

When that didn't work, they started showing ads on screen. At first it was just a slide show of local businesses, but then they added corporate advertising of the kind you see on television.

Now,I don't know about you,but one of the reasons I used to go to the movies was to get away from tv commercials. I wasn't best pleased to be paying to see advertisements. So I limited my movie-going to once or twice a year and saw the movies I wanted on DVD.

Hollywood has become too corporate, and they follow the insane business behavior of corporations: "If a business action is not resulting in profits, we must not be doing anough of the action."

Therefore,they do more of the action instead of really taking a look at cause and effect.

So question 1 is: How can movie going be restored as a major American pasttime?

  • Maybe by going against corporate practice?
  • Show a movie as many times as possible rather than the faux "theater" scheduling that's done now.
  • Lower the prices - all of them.
  • Get rid of the advertisements.
  • Add short features to the show at no extra charge.
  • Stop catering to the awards and schedule the showing of good movies all year round.
  • I'm sure other people can add more ideas.

Unfortunately, the above scenario is not likely to happen. The financial infrastructure of the movie business has become too entrenched and the people who make their personal millions off the business are not going to go quietly.

The above statement counterweighs what my instinct tells me should be done: get rid of the stars, get rid of the agents, especially get rid of all the hangers-on. I'm certainly not for the financial exploitation of workers. Hardly! But what we have now is exploitation of another kind. In fact, that vaunted "free market economy" isn't working.

So what's a realistic answer? The recent grass roots showing of the movie about Walmart maybe a viable approach, but it can't always be that type of movie. There has to be a way to bypass the current business model to get inexpensive entertainment to the public.

Sorry for the rant, but this issue pushed a lot of my button.

by workingclassanna on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 01:25:08 PM EST

Re: Hollywood and Communications and Corporate beh (none / 0)

People are watching Hollywood's content, on DVD or in the theaters.
by Matt Stoller on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 01:33:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Fun with Dick and Jane SUCKS (none / 0)

I would just like to say that your movie sucks so quit trying to act like it's entertaining. It has a horrible 31% rating on the tomatometer here:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/fun_with_dick_and_jane/

That's 66 rotten reviews by real movie critics and only 33 positive ones. Your a douche for trying to get us to waste 8 bucks a pop on your movie that's not even an original concept. It's a fricking re-make of a 1977 flick of the same title starring Jane Fonda. Maybe Democrats don't want to use fools like you because you can't write anything fresh.

Your little plug failed to mention that the number of movie tickets sold this year will finish at the lowest level since 1997. The Hollywood liberals are the official party of no ideas, not the Democrats.

by news on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 03:26:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So, you're saying you didn't like the movie? (none / 0)

I'm not sure I'm clear where you're coming from.

Did you inhale any glue before writing this?

It can make people a little vague.

This administration sucks.
by thief on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 03:43:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So, you're saying you didn't like the movie? (none / 0)

WHOA HEY wait a minute here. I am a big time collector of movies, so let me be clear about Rotten Tomatoes, in defense of Stoller.

The tomato is good to read what critics are really thinking, for example Lars Von Trier's " DOGVILLE"
got a 69% and my uncle's film, "Blue Crush" only got a 54%.

Dogville is a fetid sprawling example of filmmaking. True collectors do NOT use the tomatometer to gauge whether a film is good.

In general, You should hunt down guys like Pete Travers, of Rolling Stone. He's usually able to find the good film. READ the comments.

by turnerbroadcasting on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 04:23:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

MoveOn ads were better (none / 0)

One problem: people like Bob Shrum in the party.
Democrats need to be recruiting fresh talent. My theory is they were afraid of what the "crossover" voter might think of attack ads. Well they forget unsubtle attack ads worked for the Bushies.

Why no one thought of countering the Kerry flip flop ads with a flip flop ad of Cheney's and Bush's words over the years is beyond me. I know I never saw one on TV even if one was made somewhere. Why no one in the Kerry campaign made an ad about the lack of enough money being spent on our soldiers despite lip service is mystifying.  

by Pravin on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 01:28:07 PM EST

Re: MoveOn ads were better (none / 0)

When you counter ads, ad money goes over the counter.
by turnerbroadcasting on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 04:20:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hollyweird (1.00 / 0)

Just what we need Hollyweird doing our ads. NOT!! Stick to doing what u do best movies.  Message isn't the D's problem at this time. The D's need a spine transplant.
by Blutodog on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 02:07:16 PM EST

Idiot! (none / 0)

First you use fucking rightwing language. Then you give us Booman's brain-dead false dichotomy.

Having a spine doesn't do a damn bit of good if you can't communicate it.

by Paul Rosenberg on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 02:19:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

false dichotomy (3.00 / 2)

You are right about a false dichotomy. However, having more of a spine would help Dems with or without any improvement in their message skills. Obviously, both would be preferable.
miasmo.com
by miasmo on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 03:11:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Amen To That! n/t (none / 0)


by Paul Rosenberg on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 03:54:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Amen To That! n/t (none / 0)

Doc Dean is doing a pretty good job with the new spinal transplant, he's going to need all the post-op he can get with Sen. Harry Reid.

Overall, Americans win, when senators speak truth to power. I can't think of anything more inspiring that seeing Mr. Smith go to washington again.

by turnerbroadcasting on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 04:19:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

two things (3.00 / 1)

offering our (generally overpriced) services for free

that's why they aren't being used. can't make a commission on free. (though low-profile races that can't afford media consultants would probably be more receptive to help, maybe?)

Why weren't the writers of SNL and the Daily Show brought in to create hilarious, ruthless anti-Bush spots that would have been forwarded all around the internet?

didn't Will Ferrell make a couple of anti Bush spots? i seem to recall at least one.

by tatere on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 02:07:46 PM EST

Thank you for posting this! (3.00 / 1)

What an excellent post and important topic!

Last weekend, my wife went to see a major product from Hollywood, and she left the theater feeling very, very sad and crying for a computer-generated monkey.  Now, I'm not a smart man, but I think you are on to something here.  If Hollywood can make me gasp in excitement over a fake monkey clobbering three imaginary Tyrannosaurus Rexes, then they should be able to take even a Herman-Munster looking guy like Kerry and make him seem like a valiant, fearless leader.

More posts by Hollywood Nick please.

by Sam Loomis on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 02:41:16 PM EST

Image is everything (none / 0)

Meanwhile, REPUBLICAN John McCain gets his life story made into a gauzy TV movie, he parties at Rock The Vote's anniversary, appears frequently on MTV during election seasons, and has been reported to be seeking to hire all of Bush/Cheney 04's media and PR masters to work on his campaign.

This REPUBLICAN knows the value that having a good image can bring, especially to mask the far-right votes and views he holds from all the nut-sucking liberals who just think this guy is the greatest thing since Lindsey Graham.

by Sam Loomis on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 02:48:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you for posting this! (none / 0)

Ya, but the GOP got the majority of Americans to vote for a wired chimp...
Witty comment goes here...
by michael in chicago on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 05:42:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How dare you disrespect the President??! (none / 0)

How DARE you suggest he was wired!  That's so Summer 04.
by Sam Loomis on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 06:47:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How about a JENNA BUSH PORNO (none / 0)

It will make more money than Fun With Dick and Jane.

First scene. Jenna Bush in the middle of a gangbang at a bar in NYC which is taped by some guy. She raises her butt to Da Butt dance.  Some christian right wingers complain to the Bushies that they don't care what Jenna does, but keep it quiet as they dont want to be exposed as hypocrites. Jerry Falwell jacking off to the Jenna gangbang tape which circulates. Meanwhile as the Bushies get rid of the complainers by patronizing them with false promises, they reminisce about their college days where Laura and George are having one hell of a sex and drugs party.

Clinton gets a hold of the tape and proceeds on a mission to seduce her. As Clinton shmoozes with Bush Sr., he steals quiet moments with Jenna at the family resort(which is the real reason he is being friendly with Bush Sr these days).  End of the movie has Bill pounding her from behind and all the right wingers heads explode in fury.

Epilogue: As pressure mounts on the Bush kids contributing to the military since their dad asks others to sacrifice for the war, the unemployed Jenna reluctantly volunteers as the older twin manages to find a teacher job and uses that as an excuse. Jenna then proceeds to get gangbanged by her unit in exchange for their agreement not to put her out in the field.

by Pravin on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 02:46:33 PM EST

Re: How about a JENNA BUSH PORNO (none / 0)

Ok, this is disgusting.
by turnerbroadcasting on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 04:20:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm Nick Stoller, the guy who wrote this (3.00 / 2)

Thanks for your comments.  You make a lot of good points.  

I just want to clarify one thing.  Whether it be through movie ticket sales, television, spin off products, or DVDs Hollywood makes a lot of money.  The entertainment we create is one of America's major exports.  The decline in movie theater ticket sales is related to a closing DVD window, the rise of home theater systems, and a whole host of other issues.  You might not like the crap we peddle, but a lot of people do.

We tell stories for a living.  I know a lot of my fellow writers and directors would like to donate our story-telling services (rather, or in addition to, our money) and have no outlet to do so.  That's the only point I'm making.

by nicks on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 03:20:48 PM EST

Hey Nick -- (3.00 / 4)

Thanks for posting this.  I've been frustrated with the Dem Party's malaise that's been dragging on for a decade (since the Repugs "Contract with America" and the ensuing majority of Congress).  We Dems are in the middle of a cultural shift, though, going through a lot of growing pains.  We are shedding what doesn't work and trying to acquire what does, but we're losing infrastructure as we do so.  The infrastructure that made this party work was based on backdoor deals between insiders as well as a lot of consultants; although some of this worked well, it's not a far cry from what the opposition has used to attain their majority status (as well as their current state of overwhelming corruption).  We are now in need of new thinking and new tools.

Here's where I think we're going and what I think we need for it (and I'm sure I'll catch flames for it, bear with the ensuing fall out - I'm trying to be constructive since you asked earnestly for a chance to be constructive).  Our entire society is moving towards a more direct representational democracy, founded in the immediacy and transparency that the internet and supporting technology offer.  We don't want backdoor deals any more; we want to operate in a democratic (little d) environment where everyone gets to have a vote and everyone can see what's happening.  Look at polling online and how bloggers/readers view its use; they are beginning to expect the same kind of immediacy and transparency from government (heck, look at how intimate and immediate the feedback is about movies in this thread...).  

We Dems are also many things coming together for the first time as we grow and change our culture.  We are fiscally responsible, socially progressive, environmentally conservative, globally and locally interdependent, community-minded and technologically friendly -- earlier iterations of Democrats weren't all these things at the same time.  We now have NO branding developed around this current generation or iteration, hence no message.

And this is where we need help, with brand development and with messaging.  Lakoff got us started on the road with an introduction to framing; this is the beginnings of building a brand.  But we need to flesh it out, and we need to do it in a way that's democratic (little d) and not Democratic (by which I mean old-school Dem).

How do we integrate what you and the rest of Hollywood has to offer?  I can tell you that more than ever before, we are working from the grassroots.  Take a look at the DNC's 50-State Plan; you'll see that we are consciously working on 10 votes here, 5 votes there, in each and every precinct, across every county and parish and state in the country.  I can tell you that the average person at grassroots level doesn't "get" marketing or branding or messaging; they recognize a good one just as they recognize and reward good programming, theater or movies, but they can't tell you what goes into making it.  It's kind of like teaching people who've only eaten the stuff how to make sausage...it's not pretty.  And yet this is absolutely essential to building the new infrastructure and the new majority; we have to teach folks at grassroots how to win school board seats and dogcatcher's office, how to support local city council incumbents and state office holders, teach them how to develop and use messaging that is authentic and local, to persuade their neighbors to vote Dem or Green or Independent, as long as they vote for a progressive who supports the same progressive values.

I can tell you the tools we have are tough to come by; DFA is booked up with field training through the next six months, for example, and I'm sure the DNC is too.  There are vast numbers of local activists who need training NOW, as soon as they can get it, with emphasis on messaging but with additional much-needed curriculum on developing media plans, candidate forums, fundraising, campaign financing, canvassing, more.

Here's what I'm wondering: can folks in Hollywood organize a 527 or a 501(c)3 that can rapidly create a training program that can be rolled out and delivered by CD or webcast or podcast to the field?  Can you create a co-op of willing folks who can help local organizations quickly respond to local issues with appropriate messaging and media plans?  Let's say a website was set up, where a community activist/organization could drop in, leave a specific request, and folks from Hollywood or the 527/501 would respond as convenient with suggestions or tools on how to do this or that messaging/ marketing/ branding/ story-telling thing?

We could use this NOW; I've got 100 folks right now who could use training TODAY, are going to be on the phones 07-JAN talking with voters.  You may see a lot of naysaying here in this thread; they're thinking big picture, 50,000-foot-level stuff, as far as I can tell or they're thinking off-topic (about your movie versus what you have to offer).  Don't let it put you off.  I'm an American citizen who wants her country back; I'm betting you are, too, and that we can somehow work together to do it if we think of this like eating an elephant.  Right down here in the grassroots, one little bite at a time.

by RayneToday on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 04:40:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hey Nick -- (3.00 / 2)

Let's say a website was set up, where a community activist/organization could drop in, leave a specific request, and folks from Hollywood or the 527/501 would respond as convenient with suggestions or tools on how to do this or that messaging/ marketing/ branding/ story-telling thing?"

That seems like a very realistic and useful thing that I know I would be psyched to be involved in (given it's loose time constraints).  I'm pretty sure I could get some of my friends involved as well.

by nicks on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 04:57:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hey Nick -- (none / 0)

Please do. And thanks in advance. BTW, we could use you in IL-06...
Witty comment goes here...
by michael in chicago on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 05:46:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Food for thought (none / 0)

Nick -- I've already pointed these out offline to Rob Laurent/UpstartTV.com, but you might want to take a look at these.

Check out the Democracy for America website and the resources they currently have posted:

http://www.democracyforamerica.com/training.php

You can see they are booked up for 6 months and they're not going to have training available on line for some time; I think they will have it up before fall, but there's no guarantees.  We need materials NOW.

You can also find the materials they have in print on line:

http://www.dfalink.com/resources.php

It's a good start, but it's a bit formal for folks who've absolutely no experience in marketing or organizing.  Think about the average blue collar manufacturing worker who's been on the production line most of his life...not exactly the kind of person who's going to take to using these printed materials readily.  This person will rather have DVD or webcast.

This is where I see some folks with skills and resources in conveying messages and teaching organizing through entertainment media being able to make a real difference.  Feel free to pop me a reply if you have any questions, I'll keep my eyes peeled.

by RayneToday on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 12:30:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hey Nick -- (3.00 / 1)

RayneT, GREAT IDEA.
I just wanted to give support and ad an idea.
Instead of using DVD's, the content could easily be streamed directly from a webpage with supporting material (links, comments, etc.).  People would get their training on their time and participate in a conversation around it.
A person or group of people fresh off a good progressive campaign would be all fresh and ready to go for this.  What do you think?
by Rob Laurent on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 05:00:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Followup (3.00 / 1)

Realistically, we need multiple delivery formats.  A substantive majority of folks in this country still access the internet via dial-up -- and many of them are in fly-over country which is purple-to-red, the very location where we need to expend the effort.

Think, too, like older folks in these situations; they're more skeptical and also more technologically challenged.  Popping a DVD in their player might be easier for them.

Also need to consider venues.  As an example, we've temporarily arranged to borrow meeting space comfortable for 50 attendees at a location without internet or phoneline, has power and a television, can set up a laptop, but no projector.

But by all means, webcast is good, anything downloadable, too; will help enormously over what we have now.

And Nick, if you don't have to reinvent the wheel, don't, we can't spare the time; you might want to go right to ActBlue or DFA or MoveOn and see if there's a way to plug in stealthily.

by RayneToday on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 05:29:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

UpstartTV.com (none / 0)

Taking a peek at your venture, too, cool idea!  Would love to see this kind of outlet gather steam, replace traditional media outlets.  Emerging technology (Google "xG Technology", for example) will completely change accessibility of the internet as well as broadcasting; UpstartTV.com could take advantage of that coming wave.

Wonder whether you aren't already part of the way towards the vehicle that some folks need for organizing -- your post 14-NOV post, for example, http://www.upstarttv.com/story/2005/11/14/61031/961.  Tells me we're on the same wavelength.

Between you, Nick, and at least one other contact I've got, you might be able to get something going.   DFA also has materials published, furnished as resources on some of the topics you mentioned (ex. developing a media plan, launching a candidate forum); we need some way to put it all together into a single location with multiple delivery formats.  I also know DFA's been working on something called "Night School", but it's not far enough along yet and it might need help with distribution.

Maybe part of the problem is lack of a single, cohesive vehicle to organize and distribute products as well as identify and create materials that are missing from the mix...

by RayneToday on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 07:52:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: UpstartTV.com (none / 0)

RayneT,
I'm going to give this some thought tonight, send me an email and we can talk more and get this rolling.
upstarttv at gmail.com
by Rob Laurent on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 11:33:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

One more thing (none / 0)

Good gravy, how could I ever forget about the money???

We had to resort to a virtual coup d'etat in our local county party in order to see the books; we'd gotten pushback over funding for a new goal, lots of obstructions.  The goal was simple: open a permanent local party office to the tune of $150.00 a month for rent.

That's it, we're operating here in fly-over country on a frickin' shoestring, literally scrapping over a few measly bucks, eating our own young in the party because entrenched older members can't see the value in scraping up one hundred and fifty bucks a month for an office.  Meanwhile, the local Repugs own all the local businesses and are fielding wealthy attorneys and doctors for political office while we scrabble intra-party for chump change.  If you can put money together, it can make an enormous difference here out in the field.

I'm going to suggest that Hollywood folks seriously consider "adopting" local party and activist groups.  Find groups in a highly populated area that's on the verge of going red or blue, put some money and resources to them.

If you do this, don't get flashy.  Don't be obvious.  Be as subtle as possible about it, hence the 527/501; we're in guerrilla warfare here, fighting against an opposition who is closed-mouth and secretive about their proprietary methodology.  We should be, too; tipping our hand clues the opposition to counter-attack and lay even greater money down.  There are campaigns where we want them to expend their cash, ones where the terrain is quite red and we don't have much of a chance; this is where you can be overt, even use it as a testbed, try out some mega ad-buys in these the whole process...otherwise, be stealthy.  You know how that works in Hollywood, use it for us and with us.

by RayneToday on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 05:13:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Nail. Head. Whap! Whap! Whap! (3.00 / 1)

This is really where and how it all gets won, IMHO. Use the technology and the talent to train and empower grassroots activists.  The whole top-down, order-taking, money-raking model is sooo over.
by Paul Rosenberg on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 05:43:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Story-Telling Is SOOO Important! (3.00 / 2)

This is so central to the problems we're discussing, because the Democrats' main problem, it seems to me, lies with their fumbling of narrative.  

Lakoff has presented some very good ideas in terms of how to talk about issues. But this is something different, though related.  Story-telling is how most people understand most things.  And Democrats consistent fail to understand this, while folks in Hollywood can never forget it.  

Remember how Arianna Huffington wrote about Kerry's compelling narrative?  Remember how Kerry never came within that with a ten-foot pole?  That is so completely typical of what's wrong with the party. And because Kerry failed to craft his own compelling narrative, it was child's play for