PoliWood

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.

Well, the Hollywood circle-jerk is now complete. We started with simple political movies, presenting an inherent dogma and begged questions as part of a Leftish worldview. Then we had Michael Moore, whose biased 'documentaries' (actually, cleverly contrived mosaics of out-of-context quotes, syllogisms, and cuts misrepresenting reality) would have inspired Leni Riefenstahl to tears. Then, An Inconvenient Truth, the sad story of a self-inflating concept by a desperately out-of-touch self-inflated politician who urgently needs to become relevant again - a purely political propaganda film whose synchronization with the sophomoric Hollywood worldview could be tallied by the free-flowing ejaculation as Mr Gore was handed an Academy Award for what was little more than the gussied-up rehash of the long-since-irrelevant ecological message of the 1970's: Humans BAD! Now, Mr Levinson has reached over to complete the chain, yanking Hollywood furiously to priaptic relevance as he actually made a film about how Hollywood 'activists' can participate and advance the political discussion without looking like fools. Short answer: this film proves that, at least for this bunch, they can't. Nothing is more persuasive than objectivity, which is why this group is utterly UNpersuasive. My impression is that Hollywood is so full of yes-men that these folks haven't been contradicted in years, at least not by anyone that they respect (of course, as professional narcissists, that's a pretty tall order). Barry's assembled a panel of interviewees (oh, and a token conservative, can't forget the little head-fake toward 'inclusiveness') natters on about relevance and meaning without seriously recognizing that they're all just preaching to each other. Like a sad evangelist standing on a soapbox and preaching to his wife and 18 children while everyone else walks past, Hollywood 'activists' are so convinced of their certainty, so certain of their relevance, that they don't notice that nobody is listening. Sure, the politicians are listening folks, but that's because you offer two things that politicians (the only thing as narcissistic as yourselves, by the way) need to live: money, and media time. Here's a hint: the next time a politician expresses their appreciation for your support, do a reality check. Tell them that you can't give them any money, and you refuse to PUBLICLY endorse them, but they have your full moral support. Oh, they'll shake your hand and tell you how much they appreciate it deeply, but see if they'll take the time to chat with you 'next time they're in town'. To paraphrase Homer Simpson..."Barry, just because I understand, doesn't mean I care." If he could tear himself from the cocoon of self-justification and bear to have his ideas contradicted by normal people, perhaps next time Mr Levinson could make a movie about the absurd concept of people who professionally pretend to play other people, misreading the attention that comes with celebrity as the regard that comes with respect.

But then again, that's pretty unlikely.

The basic premise of this film is that the media has blurred the lines and polarized the country in a way that has created conflict over truth in reporting.

The sub text is celebrity and it's role in making or breaking a candidate.

I went into this movie wanting to really like it.

The celebrities are all idiots who could care less about anything except getting their names in the paper. What an insular jaded bunch of jerks.

It's not an even handed take, as some reviewers say. The film is roughly 90 minutes long and 2/3's is devoted to the DNC convention with Obama butt licking.

Then we shift to the RNC convention and a bunch of liberals are interviewed saying they are going to learn what the Republicans believe in. They arrive and we are told the mood is somber and there is "nobody" there. Five minutes into what you think will be the right's say, we cut back to the libbie and some idiotic concert with Woody Guthrie music and the SEICU commies. Then Sting with some strange hair.

Where's the balance?

To be fair, Levinson's commentary is really good and on target. But those are few and far between. The vast majority of the movie is left- biased and presents the liberal point of view.

The Republicans are shown as sand buffoons, unlike the Democrats.

As i said, I really wanted to like this film more than I did. I wanted to smack Ellen Bursten. SHe's such a self centered jerk.

Too bad...this really could have been a great film. Given the slant, it's just OK

While I enjoyed Poliwood and everything it taught me about some of the actual views of celebrities, I couldn't help but feel that I was being manipulated. Everyone of the liberal celebrities is shown to be open-minded, intelligent, kind, compassionate, and empathetic. Meanwhile all of the Republicans--in one way or another--are subtly discredited. Example: The interview of Stephen Baldwin centers on religion and not politics. The entire film seemed to be about how rough the celebrities have it with their opinions not being respected.

There was a clear bias in that there was rarely any mentioning of liberal media bias. The only media bias widely spoken of was, of course, Fox News. For crying out loud, Keith Olbermann, who many times out-Foxes Fox, is used to prove one of Levinson's points about conservatives.

Levinson's bias is finally and ultimately revealed when he arrives at the RNC. Upon arrival, he immediately begins to crack jokes (Which might have been funny if he didn't have his sidekick ruining them). This is in stark contrast to his reverential approach to the DNC and President Obama. (Of course once the holy liberal celebrities arrive, they begin to hold meetings with conservatives about open-mindedness.)

Final Verdict: 6/10 It was extremely interesting to me, however; it is a very manipulative, biased piece of film.

"A little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical." Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787 One documentary film serves to highlight Tinsel town's liberal artists and celebrities as they exercise their political voice and power. Poliwood, directed by Barry Levinson and co-produced by actor Tim Daly, of the progressive Creative Coalition, criss-crosses America during the 2008 presidential campaign. Interviewing Hollywood liberals and mainstream media moguls, Daly hopes the production will underscore the main goal of the Coalition, "bringing issues to the table for national discussion".

Levinson's Poliwood ambitiously interweaves several issues that that he sees as important in Hollywood: How television has changed the nature of politics, the development of politicians as "actors" in shaping public opinion, and the increasing political polarization of America.

Instead, Poliwood serves to expose the hypersensitivity of today's liberal Hollywood creative community – which is understandable - given their experiences at the hands of conservative Hollywood during the Communist Inquistion of the 1950s. If the shift sometimes appears unfair, it may depend on who's looking through the lens of history.

It probably comes as no shock that most artists are a pretty unconventional crew. This is due in part to their creative nature and because the very act of creating art itself needs a rather imaginative soil to grow and thrive. So, it's a safe bet that most Hollywood artists are liberal in their thinking and hence, in their politics.

Levinson chose the 1959 Kennedy-Nixon presidential campaign to make his point that: "Television is a medium that lends itself to manipulation, exploitation, and gimmicks. Political campaigns can actually be taken over by the public relation experts who tell the candidate not only how to use television, but what to say, what to stand for, and what kind of person to be." The movie focuses on some of the Creative Coalition's more visible members – Tim Daly, Susan Sarandon, Anne Hathaway – as they attend both the Democratic and Republican Conventions during the summer of 2008. Levinison's camera catches their roller-coaster emotions, from breathless and teary-eyed enthusiasm during the DNC's homage to candidate Barrack Obama, to their petulant "do-we-have-to-go?" resignation at the RNC.

One revealing scene occurs during an "open dialog session", facilitated by conservative pollster and communications consultant, Frank Luntz, during the Republican National Convention. He was asked (presumably by the CC) to moderate a discussion between Creative Coalition members and RNC campaigners. Levinson's camera pans the CC membership, all well-known actors, as the conservative campaigners voiced their concerns on the negative stereotyping that liberal Hollywood practices. Many in the CC entourage became visibly angry, defensive, and hostile. It was left to the more seasoned veteran liberals – Susan Sarandon, Tim Daly, and Ellyn Burstyn – to paint a pretty picture and sooth the hurt feelings all around.

Even the founder of the Coalition, the late Ron Silver, laments before the camera about the current polarization of the country, which is now coming from the left-wing faction. He saw a real danger in the "intolerance on the left", because they "are unwilling to hear arguments they don't agree with." Along the way, Poliwood is successful in interweaving television's complicity as a propaganda tool with the political processes of Washington. However, the scenes of Hollywood activists displaying their different shades of bias – however humanitarian - make a stronger statement about history repeating itself.