Hollywood hates government

Someone took the time to track the nature of the bad guys in Hollywood action flicks from the 1980s to the present.  It won’t come as a surprise to any of you that she discovered that “the overall winner of the villain tally is American military/government/law enforcement.”  In the 1980s, Russians appeared, but not as often as our own people.  And since 2001, no Middle Easterners have appeared at all. Definitely check out her post, and then come back and talk to me.

The gal who wrote the post sees the statistics as signs that America has an innate distrust of government, which would seem to indicate a libertarian stance to Hollywood.  That’s hard to believe given Hollywood’s over-the-top Progressivism.  Of course, Hollywood could recognize that the audience for its action flicks is anti-Big Government, and could be giving the public what it wants, but I don’t think so.  I’m putting my own biases up front here, but the tone of Hollywood movies is such that I think the choice of enemies has more to do with an innate dislike of America itself, rather than a distrust of big government.

What say you?

(Hat tip:  Lulu)

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Libby

    Hollywood hates specific government entities: the military, police, CIA/FBI/NSA, Republican presidents and congressmen, conservative judges & prosecutors (always hypocrites).
    Rarely does Hollywood portray Democrat legislators or government entities such as educators, social services, EPA, etc. as the enemy. At worst, they’re bogged down by senseless bureaucracy, but definitely not evil.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    Hollywood is fine using government copyright enforcement laws.

  • jj

    I’m not that big on government myself… I’ll buy “innate distrust of government.”  Hell, Thomas Jefferson and Ronald Reagan both had an “innate distrust of government,” so I figure I’m in pretty good company.
    And, speaking of the police – right there on my television screen, literally as I write – there’s a high-speed chase filmed last night in The-Nuthouse-Known-As-California, and there you go!  Crash!  The chasee t-bones some perfectly innocent car minding it’s own business.  We have it all filmed by… a helicopter!  How about that, a helicopter was on the scene – a helicopter that could have quietly followed the bad guy home, and the cops could have nabbed him quietly at two in the morning, without endangering anybody else for two miles around.  But no!  When he zoomed away down the road, some inadequately equipped bullet-head felt his manhood was being challenged, so initiated the chase.  Hey!  Bullet-head who loves uniforms and creaky leather!  It’s only a dangerous high-speed chase if you’re ass enough to be chasing him!  (Ah, well… there’s a message that’ll never get through.)
    There are some “specific entities” I’m not that big on, either.  Heavily armed and dangerous civil servants who like to wear uniforms and assign themselves military ranks are among them.

  • http://poliwogspoliblog@blogspot.com poliwog

    I wonder, given the specific catogories cited, if it’s more a case of Hollywood hating authority figures than government in general.  As Ymarsakar, and yes Idid copy-and-paste his name since I’m always worried about mis-spelling it, noted Hollywood is just fine with government regulations that protect their profits. A real change of pace lately was Human Target where, even though the crooked sheriff was the villian, he was identified as being big on “green” initiatives and social justice which is certainly a reversal.

  • Tonestaple

    I don’t buy the libertarian explanation.  First, I have to echo what Ymar said:  any industry that came up with the DMCA is not at all libertarian.  Second, all but the most die-hard insaneos-are-us libertarians recognize the need for police and courts. 

    I don’t claim to recognize all of the movies listed, but it seems to me that low level police officers who still work in the field are seldom the bad guys; it’s always command level and bureaucrats, and anyone who can be considered conservative, as Libby said.  With respect to the categories used by the other writer, it seems more like she follows the New York Times than any libertarian agenda.  The New York Times does not suffer a middle-eastern terrorist to exist, and so neither does Hollywood.

  • http://poliwogspoliblog@blogspot.com poliwog

    Hey! My preview window that showed a paragraph break lied to me.  Also, lap cats are deleterious to already poor typing skills.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    Hollywood produces movies now a days based upon foreign theater sales, not expected US sales. Thus all the anti-war movies that bombed in the US, but is popular overseas.
    So of course  they wouldn’t put Arab terrorists in. How are they going to sell to Arab theaters?


    The post September 11th ‘enemies list’ in film. No surprises and no Muslims either. Take a gander  – no pie charts, but some very pithy and snarky comments.


  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    The computer gaming industry is libertarian. They have Arabic terrorists all the time. Although it’s just not all that often that you get a modern warfare simulation game out. Mostly it is fantasy, sci fi, or historical setting.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    Of course, the game advertisers and producers are corporate cogs. The farther you go down the production chain however, the more free flowing it gets. Especially the big companies are known for horrible DRM that doesn’t do jack to stop piracy or help the end user.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    Hollywood has little to no independent producers and directors. It’s because you get run out of town on a rail if you don’t say and do the appropriate PC things. There’s no room under the Hollywood monopoly for creative talent, libertarian or otherwise.