Just a short reply to some of the replies to my Oscar night post . . .
 
Whoever pointed out that I was perhaps a little too harsh on the film
clips of women in the movies was probably right . . .
 
Thank you, Roger Bullis, for your little Frank Capra anecdote.  I don't exactly
see what it should tell us about the Academy in general, but it adds to the
general impression I have of Capra (partially via _The Catastrophe of Success_,
the new rather critical biography but also from his own movies and writings) of
a rather narrow and nasty personality who somehow made movies that made
millions of people feel warm and uplifted.  Maybe he represents, in one person,
some kind of apotheosis of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences . ..
 
James Peterson questions the identification of "Hollywood" as a conservative
institution.  In a way he has a point.  "Hollywood" is a fairly loose category.
In the period on which I work (the 1930s and '40s) "Hollywood" included
actors (who ranged from the politically radical to the politically reactionary)
, screenwriters (a generally liberal/radical bunch, with a few rightwingers),
directors (again, a wide range of politics), producers (a few liberals like
Walter Wanger, but generally fairly conservative), and studio heads (very,
very conservative . . . but quite interested in currying favor with the
powers that be in Washington, who were, in the '30s, on the liberal end of
things).  Maybe the best thing to do is stop talking of "Hollywood" as if it
were one thing.  When we're discussing the Oscars, what most of us REALLY mean
is the Academy, which IS a fairly conservative institution, culturally and
politically.
 
FInally, a reply to Ernie Wyatt's comments on "p.c.", McCarthyism, and Gone
With the Wind.  First of all, whatever "p.c." is (and those who rail against
it seem much more convinced of its coherence than those of us who supposedly
believe in it), it is NOT McCarthyism.  People lost their careers in because
of McCarthyism in the 1950s.  People were called before Congress to testify,
or else.  People whose only crimes were having a certain set of political views
and expressing them by joining the CPUSA or even fellow-travelling
organizations were SENT TO JAIL for long periods of time.  Let us not forget
what McCarthyism was; it was not just a bunch of people stating (or even
shouting) their disapproval at certain opinions (which seems to be what the
down side of "p.c." is said to be).  Having gotten THAT thought off my chest,
let me turn to GWTW.  The objection to GWTW is NOT that it takes place in the
slave-holding South (as Ernie suggests that it is).  Rather, the film bothers
people because it consistantly portrays blacks who welcome the Union, their
freedom, and the chance of self-government as stupid dupes.  It portrays
Reconstruction as an evil act perpetrated against a noble and innocent South.
It suggests that "good" blacks loved their masters and enjoyed slavery.  NONE
of the above is historically accurate in any way, shape, or form.  GWTW is a
great piece of movie making.  It is a thrilling and exciting story told
cinematically in a stunning and moving way.  So, on the other hand, is
_Birth of a Nation_, a film which is even more openly and violently racist.
Such films pose a real problem for those of us who think that it IS
important to hold a film accountable for the political views it represents. The
answer is not (as the parody version of "pc" supposedly holds) to simply
ban the films or pretend they don't exist.  As the new - and stunning -
film history of cinematography _Visions in Light_ [PLUG:  go see this film!!!
it's playing in NY at the Film Forum right now] points out, both GWTW and
BOAN are very important films in the development of cinema.  They are also
simply great movies.  But on the other hand, we cannot, as Ernie seems to
want us to do, in good conscience pretend that their artistic quality
simply cancels out their politics.  Indeed - like Riefenstahl's _Triumph of
the Will_ - the effectiveness of the presentation of the views depicted in
BOAN and GWTW make them _more_, not less, politically dangerous documents.
 
-- Ben Alpers
   Princeton University