Fresh and Exciting

Admirable film.

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Poliwood is an interesting documentary by renown filmmaker Barry Levinson (Rain Man, Wag The Dog, Sleepers). In this film he has set out with a number of celebrities, interviewing them about their political affiliations and activities, with hopes of scratching the surface to reveal the ever-blurring boundaries between Celebrity (Hollywood) and Politics. It is essentially looking at how Celebrity influences Politics in a number of ways: from Actors becoming Politicians (Reagan) and vice versa (Gore); to how PR Firms/Mainstream Media Outlets promote and cover Politicians the same way they do celebrities ("they don't sell you the product, they sell you the lifestyle you will inherit"-Sarandon); to how politicians align themselves with Celebrities in order to gain an advantage over their competitors (Obama); and, of course, how all of this affects the decisions of voters.The film particularly focuses on a group of Hollywood "Elites" that have aligned themselves with a "non-partisan" (clearly liberal leaning) organization called the Creative Coalition, where they work together in order to influence politicians on a variety of issues and promote social programs in the realm of the arts, music, and physical education. The group was founded by Ron Silver in 1989. Some members highlighted in this film include Spike Lee, Susan Sarandon, Anne Hathaway, Ellen Burstyn, Rachael Leigh Cook...and don't worry, there are some Conservatives in there too... like crazy Christian Stephen Baldwin.The first important revelation comes when Levinson is talking to Susan Sarandon and Ellen Burstyn about an interesting article written by JFK, published in TV Guide in 1959, prior to his running for the Presidency. Now Narrating, Levinson discusses how JFK used this article to outline how the growing influence of Television- and the Hollywood style PR that came with it- was starting to drastically affect America's political culture. Sometimes for good, sometimes for greed.He compliments this by noting how it was a television speech that Reagan made as an actor in support of Goldwater's presidential bid that led him to politics ; and how TV News, which had been previously operated as a social service, became watered down when it started to require ratings and sell advertising...He even gets an MSNBC anchor to admit that he and everyone but Jim Lehrer are pandering for ratings.After putting forth his argument and interviewing a bunch of CC members from both ends of the spectrum, Levinson follows the group to both the Democratic and Republican Conventions, where they seek to garner support for their causes while educating themselves about what their opponents are thinking, and why. They are particularly surprised by the Republican Convention where everything is like it is on TV: the politicians fake; the speeches scripted; and the audience there as props to cheer when required. Though, keep in mind, the majority of the group's members allowed themselves to be used as promotional props for Obama's campaign. To be fair, Levinson and the members of the group do acknowledge that, "everything is orchestrated on both sides", as one person states.I personally found the segments near the end, where the CC sat down with the talking group of Republicans for a "dialogue", and the interview with that bow-tie wearing douche from CNN, to be particularly interesting. The accusations and assumptions made by the group toward the CC members: that because they were actors they had no political knowledge and thus had no right to promote a political agenda, were not only hypocritical (in that they felt that way only because the CC members didn't agree with them), but were actually more applicable to the Conservative minded celebrities, as opposed to the more liberal-minded ones they were degrading in the meeting. You've got to respect the CC members' attempt to dialogue with their ideological enemies, at the very least.Shot and edited like a homemade documentary, the film offers us a glimpse into what it's like to be a liberal leaning celebrity with a political opinion, as seen through the eyes of Barry Levinson, a liberal leaning celebrity with a political opinion. It must be noted that the film was edited in a way as to ensure that the film's focus would not be on the actual opinions of the Celebrities, but rather on their role as a mechanism of influence. Unlike the organization's non-partisanship, the film does take a partisan stance...but that does not detract from it's value. I quite like the argument that Levinson develops in regards to the technological introduction of Television and how it got us into this mess; in fact, i think it's rather un-debatable. But at the same time, I left feeling that this film was an attempt to vindicate the Celebrities for promoting Obama as the lesser of two evils...despite the fact that they realized both sides are just as fake as Hollywood.In conclusion, I'll leave you with this quote from Levinson, which pretty much sums everything up: "If they are not Telegenic then they cannot become President of the United States. We are about this far (*shows an inch between his fingers*) from the political version of Miss America." Interesting watch, worth checking out. 6.5 out of 10.

The horrible picture quality of the footage from newscasts and movies was a big turn off. Even the clip of 'Wag the Dog' which was Levinson's own movie was presented in sub-hi-def quality image in 4:3 format. It looks like all of the other footage was highly compressed and pulled from YouTube then zoomed in to full size. The original footage of course looked fine. Not a whole lot of new or shocking themes in the movie. This would be a good primer for someone who didn't know about the Nixon/Kennedy debates or that news was driven by ratings, but not sure who that person would be. The parts of the movie that worked the best were the actors telling their personal stories.

Hollywood and the entertainment industry in general for that matter, has more than its share of vacuous people...BUT, there are many intelligent and thoughtful people there. I'd like to think the latter vastly outnumbers the former. Barry Levinson does a nice job in "Poliwood" by showcasing some very popular 'celebrities' who also happen to be very passionate and credible in their concerns about political issues. When did actors cease to be 'real Americans' as asserted by Rudy Giuliani? Thanks, Barry. The rest of us who call ourselves actors appreciate seeing our profession represented as more than just a bunch of overindulged airheads.

"Make Believe" is what our world has come to, according to the intelligent voice of Barry Levinson.One criticism of an external review was that POLIWOOD is meandering; indeed, there is no neat beginning, middle and end. But that's all right, as we are partaking in what Levinson has cleverly termed a "film essay," and strict organization is not essential, as long as the bits and pieces offer substantive value, adding up to a thought-provoking whole. Another complained that there is nothing, really, that we haven't heard before. Yet what is more important is whether the points being made are substantial, and whether they deserve to be made again, to a complacent and largely unaware public.In other words, we basically are all aware that we are living in a relatively phony world, where extremist fringe groups dominate politics, with the money/zeal to effectively manipulate the public. The movie helps us to infer that perhaps we are living at a time when these forces have become more powerful than ever before. Of course, life is going to go on, we are all too weak or busy to do anything about the way we're led on a leash, but it is of extreme importance to be reminded of this truth.Levinson tells us of a 1959 TV Guide article written by John F. Kennedy that spoke of the truths we know so well today, regarding, basically, the powerful hold of the televised media. We are reminded, for example, that the photogenic Kennedy won his TV debate with Nixon, while Nixon won with the non-visual radio medium. The GOP recognized the attractive telegenic qualities of Ronald Reagan, when Reagan gave a speech during Goldwater's 1964 presidential bid, and soon after, it was probably no coincidence that Reagan was elected as governor of California, paving the way to a political journey destined to reach the top. The message: the competence and talent of the candidate began to take second place to the person's superficial qualities. We are told that physically and sometimes personality-challenged past leaders, such as Presidents John Adams, Taft and FDR, very likely could not have survived in today's political climate, where (my example) an Arnold Schwarzenegger can get elected for all the wrong reasons.One of the more thought-provoking facts pointed out was that television stations were once required by the FCC to provide public service programming, in exchange for the privilege of controlling valuable public airwaves and the opportunity to turn great profit. This was back in the days when the news meant something, a "public service," and a credible fourth wall that kept the corruption of government in check. With the help of deregulation, where giant conglomerates have gobbled up diverse news sources (resulting in mainstream media colluding with the controlling corporate world), we know we live in far different times now, very detrimental to our democratic process, where the bottom line has taken on critical importance, and the necessity to profit has taken precedence over the fact-supplying duty of journalism. Thus, the line between news and entertainment has blurred, irrelevant celebrities appear regularly on news shows, and in order to generate greater profit, news shows focus on conflict (e.g., liberal vs. conservative spokespeople in debates), thus adding to the impossibly polarized and often uncivilized status we are seeing today.The role of celebrities in news-making is also explored, something I found of interest, because we all share, to some extent, a general contempt for, say, a not-necessarily-very-intellectual actor, who pretends to carry political influence largely on the basis of fame. In fact, we see the anger of the average citizen, when paired off with celebrities in the film's finale. POLIWOOD does not openly endorse the role of the celebrity, but recognizes the inevitable role that celebrity now carries in the political process. I enjoyed seeing celebrities in a behind-the-scenes sort of way, acting like everyday people, sometimes making sense, sometimes not.What I liked about the film was that even though the participants largely represented the Hollywood left (which is my assumption, given the presence of obvious candidates such as Susan Sarandon; yet there were other famous faces, such as Robert Davi, whose political orientation isn't familiar. They belong to a group called the Creative Coalition, which stresses that they are a "non-partisan" organization), the point of the film is not to take sides, but to reinforce what has become the disturbing and unreal "reality show" aspect of our political times. This is a concept that everyone should be concerned about, regardless of political leanings. In fact, what the film is warning against is how the media has become so much more effective in manipulating minds -- that is, the kind of mentality expressed by a fellow POLIWOOD commentator, "Styopa," in his lash-out essay entitled "Self-justification hits the big screen" (offering the first comment here; I am the fourth), where Styopa gives the impression of being so conditioned by the media of the right, he immediately sees POLIWOOD as liberal propaganda. It's rather ironic, because the entire point of the film is the sad and harmful state that we have evolved into as a society, and not an endorsement for any political view.In fact, a profound moment of the film was one exposing liberal hypocrisy. The late actor, Ron Silver, identified as the founder of the Creative Coalition, opined that too many liberals have become alarmingly intolerant, with some closing the book on further discussion, announcing that their minds have been made up, and that nothing can dissuade them. Therein lies the damaging societal gridlock, and only by examining what irresponsible forces have shaped us to such extremes can we hope to return to constructiveness and normalcy. This may be an unrealistic hope, as the controlling forces have become too powerful, but if we are not aware of these forces, choosing instead to mindlessly surrender to whatever we are being spoon-fed, then the situation will become truly impossible.