This column can be delivered in your inbox by subscribing here.
There is a slow trend making its way into culture and politics now. It’s a necessary adaptation to new media and the modern age, which is evolving faster than our fragile human selves can keep up with. This is particularly a problem for the alignment of power on the Left — Democrats, Hollywood, book publishing, mainstream journalism, etc. They (we) built the “old way,” after the Left colonized the internet (I got online in 1994 and watched it happen), and as civilization began to migrate online, the Left dominated all of it. And for a while, it felt like a new frontier, a utopia of forward-thinking early adopters mingled with progressive politics.
But it left too many people behind. By 2016, it was obvious that enough people felt locked out that they voted for Trump. To the Left, that felt like an invasion, like Pearl Harbor. That would kick into motion mass hysteria – cancel culture, extreme “woke” politics, inclusivity mandates, sensitivity readers, and intimacy coordinators. Mass hysteria does weird things to people.
Over time, free thinkers like myself would feel suffocated inside the utopian/dystopian bubble of the Left and we would Howard Beale our way out of it. Either we would be fully red-pilled or we would drift into the heterodox zone. They call it “based” on the Right. This ecosystem has now birthed a fledgling counter-culture. It is a counterculture like the one in the 1960s that pulled away from the utopian conservatism of the 1950s. Only this time, the politics have swapped places.
The heterodox or “based” ecosystem isn’t necessarily MAGA. But it is a place for free thought, where people say what they want to say without fear of being “canceled.” Many of those who exist in this space are already canceled, so what do they have to lose? It is by far a better place to be for all good things, especially comedy and art.
Only some people are catching on to the counterculture. Most still think they can go the traditional routes of mainstream press like 60 Minutes or CNN. You can do that if you want to attract the kinds of people who listen to NPR and read the New Yorker—Intellectual Blue State Democrats who don’t really go to the movies now, thanks to COVID.
But if you want to tap into what is a much more alive and ever-changing zone, you have to get out of the bubble. One way to do that is to go on a podcast. It isn’t managed by publicists and they won’t kiss your ass. You have to be prepared for surprising and tough questions and you have to be prepared to be honest and authentic.
I’ve seen only Timothee Chalamet appear on Theo Von’s podcast, which was surprising and funny. But now, Ben Affleck did it, which also surprised me. He went on to talk about The Accountant II, but in appearing on Theo Von, he also said, This movie is a safe zone for free thinkers. And you guys are all welcome to the party. I’m not drawing the line anymore between “us and them,” but I’m saying, we’re cool. And oh, what a relief it is.
There are many podcasts in the zone now where long-form, honest conversations are on tap. If you appear on a left-leaning podcast, and there are many of those, there will be strident rules to follow, and only one point of view is allowed. It is essentially one world that has closed itself off from the other world. Which is a crying shame, if you ask me, and makes me feel kind of sick if I think about it too much.
This is why, for a while now, I have been trying to open up my site, at least, to the broader world and not have it be so insular to one mindset, which has become suffocating and boring. I have been “canceled” for my views, which is fine, you do you, and people are also invited not to read this site if you demand ideological compliance.
I was happy to see Ben Affleck, whose curiosity did not allow him to stay confined, venture outward to less predictable spaces.
Theo Von is an incredibly popular podcast interviewer because he’s funny. He’s also thoughtful and asks honest questions. That’s why people tune in. They know it won’t be the same bullshit. Here are his most popular interviews:
Joe Rogan – 24 million
Trump – 16 million
Tucker Carlson 12 million
Shane Gillis 11 million
Katt Williams 10 million
And eventually, we get to Timothee Chalamet with 4.6 million views, which is pretty good for a Hollywood celebrity. In case you haven’t noticed, celebrities don’t have the same kind of social clout “out there” anymore. They became too partisan in their politics and alienated large swaths of the country. Also, if you want hetero dudes to show up for you most of them have fled the Left too and hang out in these outsider, counterculture spaces.
It was a smart move for Timothee Chalamet and Ben Affleck. I would love to see more celebrities do Theo Von. Nikki Glazer, who has just been announced as host of the Golden Globes, has been on Theo Von at least three times.
Either way, well done, Ben Affleck.
Make Best Picture Five Again
I almost didn’t catch the news on the Academy’s press release that voters would be forced to watch all of the movies before voting in any of the categories. Film Twitter, and other bloggers, whose entire lives revolve around getting paid to see movies for free, then curating the Academy’s lineup every year, seem adamant that Academy members MUST watch everything.
The Hot Button’s David Poland writes:
Unlike what seems to be a lot of people, my answer after sitting on this for 24 hours and my immediate instinctual answer remain the same. Like many of the rules that have been added/changed in the last 15 years, this rule complicates the process and has no actual benefit to the Oscar, aside from silencing people who have been whining that this is an issue in recent years… a very small tier of people who are either expressing their self-interest (“We lost because you didn’t force everyone to watch our film”) or just bloviating like Matt Belloni, who is now taking credit for inspiring this cock block addition to the Oscar rules… because some people only know how to cock block, adding nothing but the negative to the world.
And he writes:
How many of you actually believe that if members are forced to watch all 10 Best Picture nominees that outcomes for Best Picture will be different… either “better” (100% subjective) or more commercial?
How many of you actually believe that what is best for Oscar as a whole is to have 25 award categories, with at least 35 feature films and another 15 short films nominated each year, voted on by a widely varying number of voters in each category out of the pool of approximately 10,000 total voters with no one but Academy leadership and their accountants knowing how many people ended up voting in each category?
I think if the Academy reduced Best Picture back to five, where it should be now, considering the state of the Oscars and Hollywood, this would not be a problem. There is no reason to have ten Best Picture slots now except to satisfy people who profit off the (dying) industry. To save the Oscars, make Best Picture five and make them theatrical only. Yes, that will mean pissing off Ted Sarandos who gives a lot of money to the Academy and is deeply intertwined with them.
If there are five, Netflix will be forced to open a film theatrically—and by the way, everyone wants to see David Fincher’s new movie on the big screen. Netflix should have ONE Oscar contender, not two or three to take up space. That contender should play in the movie theaters.
With five, you instantly solve the problem of voters having to watch all the movies. And about that.
Oscar voters are now treated like children who don’t want to eat vegetables. They eat the dessert first (sexy women (or men) naked), then the meat (masculine men doing things important and heroic). Last would be the vegetables. Movies that are GOOD for you that send the right social message and make everyone feel like they’re good people doing good work. These are agonizing to sit through, especially now amidst a pendulum swing. No one inside the industry thinks that, but ask anyone “out there” if they even watch movies anymore. I always do, and I almost always get the same answer: no, they don’t watch them because they are pushing an agenda. No shit.
I do think voters will have to choke down the vegetables if they want to keep their cushy voting privileges, but why not make it easier on them and us by reducing the number to five? It’s time, Academy. It’s time.
Deadline’s Anthony D’Alessandro is one of the few writers in Penske corp I read regularly. His columns on the box office are always honest and direct. I appreciate that. His latest piece is:
I love how so many people out there are pretending like they knew Sinners would do well. They didn’t. I posted about it in March as being a potential Oscar contender. I wrote:
So it surprised me to read this in Anthony’s piece:
The first trailer for Sinners dropped in September and didn’t really make a splash, hence the worrisome buzz that floated around the movie for quite some time as one of the risky, $100M auteur feature productions (net $90M+ actually) under the Michael De Luca and Pam Abdy administration.
I never heard nor paid any attention to “worrisome buzz” because to me it looked like a winner, just the trailer alone. Sometimes it’s good not to pay attention to whatever it is that passes for showbiz coverage now. But then again, sometimes it can pay off too.
Either way, happy for the success of Sinners. I hope it makes a lot of money. Audiences love it.
Audiences, like Academy voters, should not be scolded or blamed for not WANTING to watch the movies Hollywood puts out, especially those earmarked as “Oscar movies.” Sinners are one of those who require no effort. It has that crackling heat that sends people to the movies. Call it the X-Factor. For me, I know when I see it.
That’s how this whole drama should play out. Make movies good enough that people or voters can’t stay away.
