I totally agree with your last statement about the use of political commentary when used in conjunction with a movie that makes a 'statement'. I wouldn't expect it to be part of The Waterboy special features.
However, I've never understood why 'good art' has to be shocking in order to be interesting. Many of the best-loved movies and televison shows of the past (Ben Hur, Andy Griffith, etc.) continue to entertain people consistently without being "shocking". As for as 'progressive'...well, that lies in the eye of the beholder (as does all art...'I may not know art, but I know what I like'). I appreciate literary, cinematic, or musical works that require effort on the part of the audience, but find many much-lauded works of "art" to be self-indulgent and 'shocking' in order to be 'progressive'. As a child I watched "Come Back, Little Sheba" and found Burt Lancaster's performance to be a revelation about the devastating effects of alcohol on otherwise good people. I saw "2001" as a junior high student in the theater...didn't exactly understand all of it (I was hoping for Star Trek) but thoroughly enjoyed it. I search out foreign movies that offer views of a different world from that which I experience every day. There's hardly any genre of movie which my wife & I DON'T enjoy (art films, Janus world collection, Criterions, silent films, film noir...in addition to the 'standard genres). Yet I think it's extremely short-sighted to think that one has to flout social conventions to be "progressive" (I doubt that there's anything anyone can think of that hasn't been done for thousands of years...the only difference is the degree of acceptance). What one person finds to be 'progressive' represents a regression to another person. If someone wanted to film a love story between a cowboy & his horse, it would be different (and for some, a "challenge" to watch it with a straight face) but hardly 'progressive' unless one is advocating removing beastiality from the ranks of mental illness. Performance 'artists' who slash themselves, cover themselves with pudding, invite the audience to examine their internal organs with a flashlight, etc. may be "challenging" and 'shocking" (and, evidently, very artistic to some audiences). Still, I fail to see the 'progressive' nature of such acts. I can catch a bunch of grasshoppers and squash them and invite the audience to find the symbolism...but when all is said and done, all I have is a bunch of squashed grasshoppers.
Personally, I think that the reason that you see many more "liberal" people in the arts is that their personalities make them more likely to choose a career that demands that they be able to leave home and take greater risks. I realize that professional athletes (a typically conservative group) experience some of the same 'rootlessness"), but at least they work within a "family" unit (the team). "Conservative" artists tend to value more traditional forms of art that suits their nature. Does that make their work less valuable or less "interesting"? I would hope that more writers, directors, and musicians would attempt to find different ways of producing art (new media, interesting combinations of styles, innovative plot devices & camera viewpoints, etc.) that amaze audiences with their creativity without feeling the need to 'shock'. "Lonesome Dove" and "Crouching Tiger" (from Larry McMurty and Ang Lee, respectively...the team responsible for "Brokeback Mountain") amazed me, yet I doubt if anyone thought of them as being "challenging", "shocking", or even "progressive"....even while they are extremely interesting.

And...at least for conservatives...some issues actually are black and white (can't think of an upside to child abuse, for example). The 'shades of grey' may come into play when considering motivations (mental illness, desperation, etc. vs. sheer evil), but everyone embraces certain absolutes. Even the notion that there aren't any absolutes becomes in itself an absolute belief in order to be consistent. Just a few random, late night thoughts since I enjoyed reading everyone else's comments...even the ones from the 'tolerant' folks who were bashing "scumbag conservatives" LOL.

There's a lot in your post that I disagree with or, at minimum, am simply perplexed by, but you cover too much ground for me to want to respond to all of it this early in the morning. Having said that, the quote above has to earn the WTF? moment of the month. Not only do I just outright disagree with the assertion, but your logic isn't even sound--what the hell could comprise more of a team, more of a "family", than a film crew? People who make films are far from singular craftsmen.

You mean that you don't think that "liberal" people are more likely to take greater risks in careers & be less tied down to a location in a traditional sense?
As for as the "team" element...my point is that most professional athletes (who play "team" sports) stay with the same "unit" (including the city/community for which he/she plays) for at least a long season and sometimes for an entire career. I was speaking of actors when referring to the transitory nature of the business in which primary shooting on a project may only last for a few months...not the film crews who often do enjoy longstanding relationships similar to any other career. I assumed that the OP was speaking about the 'prime movers' on the project (writers, producers, actors, directors...who may or may not form extended associations with each other). After all, the OP was talking about commentaries...and the best boy and grips don't usually get invited along for the commentaries (more's the pity...I always prefer the comments from the 'grunts' who do the sound, costuming, fx, lighting, props, etc. to the mutual lovefests that we often get from the big dogs on the featurettes). Anyway, glad to have at least provided you with your moment of the month...I feel rather proud (since I encounter so many such moments in the course of the day).

Anything other 'perplexing' comments I can clear up for ya?

Point being, challenging and questioning things, and not going along with the Status Quo are generally what makes people creative, thinking a different way, looking at things differently. NOT going along with "tradition" or following a pack mentality or buying into a culture or a set of "values" which are generally more "conservative".

So people who are constantly challenging the way one looks at the world, people who tend to be creative, and make movies, tend to be more open minded, liberal etc.

I'm not saying things have to be "shocking" to be good, or to be art. I'm saying that things that break new ground or really interesting or insightful do not jive with the "values" of what people consider "conservative" in this day and age (assuming we're talking about what is considered Republicans in this day and age)

I cannot think of any "conservative" movies, does anyone have any examples?

Lastdaysofrain, if you'll allow me to play devil's advocate and answer your question, one might consider the RAMBO series (at least 2 and 3) and RED DAWN conservative movies.

creekdipper, I already passed on the opportunity to deconstruct your entire post, but ultimately, I take umbrage at your not-so-well-veiled implication that only conservatives believe in the value of the family unit, being a bunch of raised-by-divorced-mothers hippies that we tree-huggers are.

Yeah Red Dawn if very conservative. A bit unrelated, but I was having a debate with someone regarding Iraq and the 'insurgency' and to illustrate my point said that if Iraq is "Red Dawn" the 'insurgents' are the Wolverines, from the viewpoint of the country, etc.

Smoke came out of the guys ears.

Rambo and Red Dawn are at best popcorn munching time killers. Not classics by any means, not really all that interesting (enjoyable maybe, I like watching them).

Are there any other examples of a movie with a 'conservative' point of view?

This (locked) thread is relevant: http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread....t=conservative

In it I posted a link to this old National Review article listing the best conservative movies.

Actually, that was not my intent. I merely meant to point out that "liberal" folks (by definition) are usually more willing to go out on a limb to pursue their career (which usually requires moving far from family & home). I did not mean that as an insult...just thought it is logical. "Conservative" folks (again, by definition) do not embrace changes so quickly and are thus more likely to follow a more traditional path. I did not mean to imply that one type loves their families more than the other.

I stand by my earlier comments regarding the elusive qualities that define "good" art (I thought art was supposed to elicit emotions...do those emotions always have to be outrage, disgust, shock, etc.? What's wrong with a movie that some find "sappy" that elicits feelings of warmth, compassion, comfort, or security?). As for as "challenging the status quo", I would submit that a conservative in Hollywood who attempted to get a script made that points out the horrendous genocide of abortion would have lots of trouble from the "status quo" members who made "If These Walls Could Talk". Or how about a movie that challenges many other "progressive" ideas trumpeted by Hollywood? Do you honestly think that "liberals" TRULY embrace "diversity of thought" any more than conservatives. Even Katie Couric (not exactly a flaming liberal) had to add a disclaimer when CBS Evening News recently aired a spot from the parent of a student killed at Columbine. In his segment, the parent argued that the modern secular culture has devalued human life (abortion was one thing mentioned) and that this fact has contributed to the violent acts we see happening in the news. Couric felt compelled to say that many viewers might find his opinions "repugnant". Or the college students who refused to let am invited speaker make his remarks about illegal immigration (naming the speaker a "bigot" gave these students the right to censor the speaker without hearing his views). At any rate, we obviously will not see eye to eye anytime soon on these issues. Just don't assume that my attempt (rightly or wrongly) to explain the abundance of "liberal" thought in the arts as a personal attack on liberals. There are SOOO many other opportunities to "deconstruct" liberal views LOL.

BTW...I suppose I was "taking umbrage" at the implication that liberals are much more creative than conservatives. To me, the crux of the issue lies in the definition of "creativity". I feel that one can be creative within already-established patterns of art without having to "challenge the status quo". What if the 'status quo' is accepted by nearly all as a good thing? Does one need to constantly change belief systems that way that one changes fashions in order to be "progressive"? Cannot a work of art reaffirm traditional values in an uplifting way? Cannot maintaining an institution in the face of opposition be a sign of progress? History is full of examples of movements that represented change...whether the millions whose lives and freedom were sacrificed in the name of that "progress" would agree that 'challenging the status quo' is always a good thing is highly debateable.

I wish that 'conservatives' would be more open to trying new artistic techniques and that 'liberals' would be less open to accepting nearly any work that attempts to be different as also being artistic.

The horrendous genocide of abortion? Not even touching that one.

Anywho, valid points and an interesting arguement. But I still stand by my point that creative people, especially people who use film as their medium for creativity are going to lean to the left. People who look at the world differently, the "outsider" looking at the picture differently etc tend to draw what most of you would probably label as "liberal" conclusions.

If someone had a legitimate, entertaining, interesting and emotionally resonent "conservative" script or movie they could point me to, I'd like to check it out. I honestly cannot think of a single one.

We have those terrible religoius movies like "Left Behind", are they 'conservative'?

creekdipper, sorry to perceive a hidden agenda when there was none. I may respond to your new points later, but I have to take my kid to the doctor.

It's hard to come up with a list of "conservative" movies, because that term is extremely vague. I'll give it a shot, though.

Before Night Falls, about the gay Cuban writer Reinaldo Arenas, is anti-Castro and anti-communism. Arenas himself was shunned by many of his leftist intellectual contemporaries for his views on communism and the Castro regime.

I don't think I'd call Straw Dogs an entertaining film, but it's a great film, and it's quite right-wing in what it has to say about violence.

What about a movie like Thank You For Smoking, which takes a libertarian stance? Some people may see that as "conservative".

Death Wish, Forrest Gump (Maybe not as much as they say), Man on Fire (2004) (Sort of).

I think this idea of which side is more inherently creative, so-called liberals or so-called conservatives, gets right to the heart of why the conservative way of thinking is anathema to me: virtually every conservative position is based on fear. I don't say that to be hostile, insulting or condescending--it is my accurate perspective of what I see as the inherent flaw of the conservative mindset. Look at almost every conservative platform issue in recent history--"ni//ers" were ruining the country, trying to live as equals with us, in our own neighborhoods (and trying to vote, to boot--the audactiy!), rock and roll was ruining the country, Vietnam war protesters were ruining the country, women in the workplace were ruining the country, social reformers were taking our "hard-earned tax dollars" and thereby ruining the country, foreigners were ruining the country, "faggots" were ruining the country, environmentalists were ruining the country, anyone not of the Christian faith were ruining the country, and on and on and on. When 9/11 happened, and liberals were looking below just the surface of the attack to try to get a sense of why such a profound philosophical rift had opened between us and the Arab world, conservatives simply and immediately perceived a threat to "our way of life" and proceeded to bomb the tar out of anyone who might even smell like they had anti-American leanings. There appears to be a constant, deep-seated fear in conservatives that our white, rural, God-fearing "American way of life" in constantly under seige, from within and without (which I've always found to be amazingly ironic, since the conservative perspective of that American way of life, in my view, bears zero resemblance to the intentions of our four fathers, despite conservative historical revisionism to assert otherwise). Not to sink this thread under too much philosophical theory, but I believe this is what has made it so easy, so natural even, for the Christian fundamentalist Right to co-opt the Republican party--there is an inherent distrust, distaste and dislike of human endeavors and humanity itself in Christianity (especially against women and homosexuals, but we're all in the same sinking boat to one degree or another). Rather than positing a god who loves humanity because of its character and strengths we are given one who loves us in spite of our sins and failings. There is an isolationism in conservative thought that expresses a repulsion from anything that is not "like us". This distaste for the larger whole of humanity is what puts conservatism essentially at odds with creativity. Liberals, on the other hand, tend to be made up of secular humanists and people who have allocated a specific place and context in their lives for religion, rather than letting it suffuse every corner of their lives like most conservatives. As such, there is a focus on and compelling ineterest in exploring human nature and human possibility for liberals. In fact, I would argue there is something inherently more exploratory in the nature of liberals altogether (remember, it was Democrat JFK who kick started the mission to the Moon), but I digress. In terms of exploring the nature of the human experience, that means liberals are as open to and interested in the dark sides of our nature as they are in the light. It is unfortunate, from a certain point of view, that liberalism affords much of the lowest and most base aspect of human behavior and expression free reign, but we do not shy away from it because a) it is part of our nature and, as such, worth exploring and b) it is repellant to us to curb another's rights to determine their own life's parameters, because the very same might be done to us. There was a time when conservatives were the very model for such a viewpoint as the latter (though to a rather more selfish degree, if I may continue to be so bold)--they wanted no government interference in the private lives of the citizenry whatsoever, but now they've done a compete 180-degrees in that regard and are now exponentially much more interested in legislating lifestyles and morality at a federal level than liberals. What all this does in terms of creativity is constrain conservatives to works that only reinforce their specific values--conservative and biblical. It is expression and, as such, is valid and conservatives are entitled to it, but it is a rather stolid, banal form of defending their status quo and reinforcing their comfort levels. Liberals' expression, though, is predicated on a constant exploration of human nature--we exalt humanity, warts and all, and want to study every facet of what makes us us; I recognize this is repellant to conservatives and represents the very heart of what makes them peg liberals as social criminals and deviants, but to us, conservatives are committing the moral and social crimes by their push for conformity, uniformity and subjegation of the human spirit to meet a singular ideal. As creative liberals, we do find great joy in pushing the envelope and pressing experimentalism, innovation, expressionism and self-challenge; we find no greater value or wonder in creativity than to explore the great, wide spectrum of humanity, and are horrified by efforts to stifle it or make it unilateral. I know this very likely reads as little more than an anti-conservative rant at first glance, and for that I apologize. I have to admit, I'd probably be offended ten times over if I was a conservative reading this, but there is often a hazy line between being insulting and "callin' 'em like ya see 'em". If the (admittedly subjective) truth hurts, sometimes, that's a shame, but it is always better to try to get at the heart of reality (or at least the perception thereof) than make sure everybody's feelings are placated. I do hope those types of readers will allow themselves to seek out and try to understand where I'm coming from in highlighting these innate differences between the two political mindsets, even if you can never agree with me, to a) better grasp why liberals view you as they do--the prism we see your behaviors and beliefs through--and b) to comprehend the context for why I support Lastdaysofrain's assertion that liberals are more meaningfully creative than conservatives.