I asked Jonathan Pageau and Mary Harrington why we can't tell better stories yet. We underestimate what it takes to turn private belief into mass culture.
Very insightful and well-written piece. I was particularly struck by two points you made, first, that film "has to slip through Overton windows to enter the acceptable unconscious of the culture while also appeasing global market interests," and second, that "The New Right so far fails to capitalize here because it tends to conflate correct ontological propositions (which it often has) with [...] many embodied choices." Admittedly, I'm reading a certain interpretation into "embodied choices" here in order to connect these two points, but it seems to me that together they illustrate a kind of catch 22. The need to slip through Overton windows and enter the acceptable conscious of the culture seems to pose a much greater obstacle for creators with politically disfavoured visions. For "embodied choices" in film to resonate, perhaps they have to be modest about how much of their counter-cultural vision they seek to evoke, and skillfully work these oppositional elements into themes and styles which can appeal to the dominant culture. But the catch is that these conditions may too strongly favour the dominant culture, to the point that creating successful, resonant art may not accord any possibility of significantly disrupting the dominant culture. Maybe it can only allow minor nudges of the culture which its acceptable conscious can regard as elaborations of its own principles.
As a 51 year old performing artist who escaped both NY and LA, and NOT abandoned all hope or my mission, even after menopause-- the line between art and entertainment became a chasm in the last 10 years. Yes, the woke stuff started it. At least in my underground community, where I had been writing a screenplay and TV pilot about the underground as I knew it, until I got canceled and my entire life was ripped out from under me.
Navigating since, I have been in CONTRACTION, getting back to simplest elements. Unfortunately, the modern world only ever values EXPANSION. I can't find collaborators willing to start anything without being shown the money first. To me, having money before you create will ruin it. I start every show or project with available materials, even if that means cardboard. First I get the 1.0 version up on its feet AND THEN worry about putting money into it to get to 2.0. Thereby avoiding putting the cart before the horse. Thereby giving creative ideas the freedom to play in the woods instead of perform well on a test.
There's also a lot of misplaced values and flimsy allegiances to the status quo-- aka the rebels turned into normies. I'm sick of hearing about all the expenses and responsibilities everyone has. What about the responsibility to culture? To humanity? What about making uncomfortable sacrifices to do something bigger than you? Let's pretend we're 20 again and that our passion IS going to change the world. And that the 20 year olds of today aren't going to know how to do it if we don't show them how it's done.
Another factor that may not be on the radar of more mainstream folks is that the underground scenes have been intentionally destroyed. Mainly since the Ghost Ship fire in Oakland in 2017 which gave police the right to shut down artist warehouses in cities all over the country. There was a MASSIVE underground world where radical ideas were put into practice and tested out-- now those spaces are just about nonexistent. No one talks about this part of the problem, but artists (like me) don't need a fancy house with a living room, we need a dreamspace with a workshop. And it's basically illegal to live and work in the same place in this country. They enforce it mightily and it has slowed me down and rendered me un-housed. Now what's left of the underground is basically limping along at pay-to-play festivals, which are really just about drugs and hedonism.
The GLOBAL part of this is a lot of the problem too. Creative ideas can't cook long enough anymore. The outliers may come up with something innovative but then it will get co-opted so fast by social media. Then it gets mimicked (if not mocked, like you said) and ground down into paste before it can even take form. All of this has / is destroying the seeds of creative revolutions that COULD grow in the mainstream culture, but have not been able to take root in this environment.
And I can barely find collaborators who can hold something small long enough without pressuring it to PRODUCE RESULTS-- the mind virus of always SCALING UP and MONETIZING has ruined what is real and true. I think that's what books DO have-- the gestation in the darkness.
Those are some of the reasons I see as to why the culture is broken and why movies suck.
Yeah these are all good points. The New Right has still mostly defined itself by what it is against, not taking risks with a true creative spirit. But of course if you create something genuine, you also risk many on 'your side' also critiquing it. Which is why it's safer to keep defining yourself in the negative.
My novel being published later this year does do some of the things you are mentioning. Hopefully part of a new upswell of high quality art that transcends being woke or antiwoke, but also does more than just hearkens back to safe old stories. Like you say, we are in a hybrid age which requires hybrid stories.
I think the fundamental error people make is believing that art, particularly great art, is an expression of what the artist believes. I bet if you ask great artists why their work is great, most of them will give the wrong answer. Great art comes from people who devote their lives to making those millions of decisions, as you say, that somehow make everything fit together.
Basically no great accomplishment is an expression of what the person who accomplished it believes. That's not where accomplishments come from. We accomplish something when we surpass ourselves. If we try to merely embody what's already in us, we accomplish nothing.
Though I haven't seen it myself, it's no surprise to me that Nolan's film ended up great, despite all the signs about "woke" garbage. Nolan is just great, as his past creations mightily attest.
I think Angel has done the best of tackling what might be the biggest two of the three hurdles outside of story-creation itself—the economics (which is huge) of both production and distribution, and tapping into the existing pool of talent (Hollywood actors that are otherwise still working).
The third is having an audience (sufficiently large) that is ready to receive, and I think that is a cultural problem related to your points. Angel has cracked this some by building on past successes and its pay-it-forward distribution model (for theatrical releases). It takes time to build an audience and trust. But there is a limiting problem regarding what their inbuilt audience will be interested in (not just their current size but their interest). So how to build it without alienating their base? It’s a tricky thing.
I'd been waiting for this piece after you teased it a few days back and it didn't disappoint with the distillation of thought on the matter. My thought also leads me to challenge the status quos.
Good film, and art, does something when it reveals what we are feeling but we haven't yet been able to put into words ourselves. Like Nolan's refusal to use CGI if he can help it, our minds know what it is real or not. The same goes for when something is corny or virtue-signaling; whether it comes from The Wokery or MAGAts. Yet the rest of us are somewhere in between and want to feel like we are moving towards something better, safer, or stronger. Which, depending on our dispositions, we could feel needs to be reminisced from the past, some new combination of old and new, or some entirely novel idea. But too much (risky) funding seems to try and follow the momentum of the extreme views rather than to try and steer the audience in a steady drift from this shared ground of the many who know the extremes to be unrealistic.
And, as you reiterated for Jonathan, subtly is not the New Right's method. As it hasn't been Trump's, or now Mamdani's. (Never mind their use of a fictitious villain, but) using the momentum of these extremes does catch a lot of people in its nets however. But that will not be of help to conservatism though, as it is not "cool" enough because it is not new enough.
What is cool about it? Well, I'd say values like family as the foundation and virtues like loyalty and honor and wisdom. And they feel a little novel nowadays too.
I am most un-Orthodox in that I have no home for an ideology but foundationally believe in Christ's words. He is the O.G. humanist before public opinion gunked his words and movement up with more words and movements. I grew up in evangelical church knocking on doors, hosting tent revivals, and being an usher at faith healings. This was in 1990s California. Then I ran away from home to be homeless within surf and skate culture because I wanted genuineness.
I read and had wanted to write ever since To Kill A Mockingbird. Hemingway's letters told me to get experiences, so I'd have something to write about. I thought of joining a monastery but through prayer I knew I didn't want to hide in the world. If I was going to try and be an Atticus Finch or a Harper Lee, writing about it in ways that did more than knocking on doors, then I had to live in the world. To experience what others were experiencing. As everyone from Dostoyevksy to Kerouac did. But the best stories aren't found in film. How many of them can you rewatch and still feel moments of being seen or seeing something new?
In film, Hollywood has a firm grasp on the greatest form of storytelling. It is so because it is easy to take in and captures all of your senses. What it can't do that writing can is the interior life. Writing not only lets you experience internal thought, but it lets you walk in another's shoes to more greatly see what they are experiencing. More than that, it develops your mind to be attuned to life at a much greater magnification. When done well, film taps into that. It makes you feel, it makes you think, it makes you share the experience with others. I'm thinking about Ted Lasso the most here, but men especially enjoy the epic myths of great men overcoming much. Lasso, btw, was famously turned down by many studios before it was picked up by Apple.
I've been editing a story set in historical events as the characters struggle with Girardian themes. It utilizes the structure of the Eddic Ragnarok where Baldr dies, and Odin makes moves to try and resurrect him. All set within the American Civil War on the precipice of the Gilded Age. But this story won't be picked up by the Big 5 publishers—just as it won't be by the Big 5 production companies—because they don't think enough of the American audience. Because they see either the extremes or the same old, same old tried and true genres. Risk averse.
I think this is ripe ground for the right, and middle. America is shifting. Like Kurtz' recent article on millennials and zoomers pointed to, young folks have a lot of challenges to overcome and they want to. They want the tools to be better men. And women. But men especially, as Kurtz pointed out.
And although Hollywood holds a lot of power, with a near monopoly on storytelling, it doesn't hold the formula. That is written within us where the ever-changing variable adapt to our environment. And one of those variables is our reaction to Hollywood's bullshit. And New York's. And London's. And politicians. It is culture at large.
I should go write the essay I intended to write today though. One of the ones I hope builds me an audience so I can actually publish the story to one. Like this response however, I have my doubts anyone will read them. Which is the realist thing the right needs to address, actually making something good enough that audiences can't deny is good entertainment.
Very insightful and well-written piece. I was particularly struck by two points you made, first, that film "has to slip through Overton windows to enter the acceptable unconscious of the culture while also appeasing global market interests," and second, that "The New Right so far fails to capitalize here because it tends to conflate correct ontological propositions (which it often has) with [...] many embodied choices." Admittedly, I'm reading a certain interpretation into "embodied choices" here in order to connect these two points, but it seems to me that together they illustrate a kind of catch 22. The need to slip through Overton windows and enter the acceptable conscious of the culture seems to pose a much greater obstacle for creators with politically disfavoured visions. For "embodied choices" in film to resonate, perhaps they have to be modest about how much of their counter-cultural vision they seek to evoke, and skillfully work these oppositional elements into themes and styles which can appeal to the dominant culture. But the catch is that these conditions may too strongly favour the dominant culture, to the point that creating successful, resonant art may not accord any possibility of significantly disrupting the dominant culture. Maybe it can only allow minor nudges of the culture which its acceptable conscious can regard as elaborations of its own principles.
So many great points to ponder!
As a 51 year old performing artist who escaped both NY and LA, and NOT abandoned all hope or my mission, even after menopause-- the line between art and entertainment became a chasm in the last 10 years. Yes, the woke stuff started it. At least in my underground community, where I had been writing a screenplay and TV pilot about the underground as I knew it, until I got canceled and my entire life was ripped out from under me.
Navigating since, I have been in CONTRACTION, getting back to simplest elements. Unfortunately, the modern world only ever values EXPANSION. I can't find collaborators willing to start anything without being shown the money first. To me, having money before you create will ruin it. I start every show or project with available materials, even if that means cardboard. First I get the 1.0 version up on its feet AND THEN worry about putting money into it to get to 2.0. Thereby avoiding putting the cart before the horse. Thereby giving creative ideas the freedom to play in the woods instead of perform well on a test.
There's also a lot of misplaced values and flimsy allegiances to the status quo-- aka the rebels turned into normies. I'm sick of hearing about all the expenses and responsibilities everyone has. What about the responsibility to culture? To humanity? What about making uncomfortable sacrifices to do something bigger than you? Let's pretend we're 20 again and that our passion IS going to change the world. And that the 20 year olds of today aren't going to know how to do it if we don't show them how it's done.
Another factor that may not be on the radar of more mainstream folks is that the underground scenes have been intentionally destroyed. Mainly since the Ghost Ship fire in Oakland in 2017 which gave police the right to shut down artist warehouses in cities all over the country. There was a MASSIVE underground world where radical ideas were put into practice and tested out-- now those spaces are just about nonexistent. No one talks about this part of the problem, but artists (like me) don't need a fancy house with a living room, we need a dreamspace with a workshop. And it's basically illegal to live and work in the same place in this country. They enforce it mightily and it has slowed me down and rendered me un-housed. Now what's left of the underground is basically limping along at pay-to-play festivals, which are really just about drugs and hedonism.
The GLOBAL part of this is a lot of the problem too. Creative ideas can't cook long enough anymore. The outliers may come up with something innovative but then it will get co-opted so fast by social media. Then it gets mimicked (if not mocked, like you said) and ground down into paste before it can even take form. All of this has / is destroying the seeds of creative revolutions that COULD grow in the mainstream culture, but have not been able to take root in this environment.
And I can barely find collaborators who can hold something small long enough without pressuring it to PRODUCE RESULTS-- the mind virus of always SCALING UP and MONETIZING has ruined what is real and true. I think that's what books DO have-- the gestation in the darkness.
Those are some of the reasons I see as to why the culture is broken and why movies suck.
Yeah these are all good points. The New Right has still mostly defined itself by what it is against, not taking risks with a true creative spirit. But of course if you create something genuine, you also risk many on 'your side' also critiquing it. Which is why it's safer to keep defining yourself in the negative.
My novel being published later this year does do some of the things you are mentioning. Hopefully part of a new upswell of high quality art that transcends being woke or antiwoke, but also does more than just hearkens back to safe old stories. Like you say, we are in a hybrid age which requires hybrid stories.
I think the fundamental error people make is believing that art, particularly great art, is an expression of what the artist believes. I bet if you ask great artists why their work is great, most of them will give the wrong answer. Great art comes from people who devote their lives to making those millions of decisions, as you say, that somehow make everything fit together.
Basically no great accomplishment is an expression of what the person who accomplished it believes. That's not where accomplishments come from. We accomplish something when we surpass ourselves. If we try to merely embody what's already in us, we accomplish nothing.
Though I haven't seen it myself, it's no surprise to me that Nolan's film ended up great, despite all the signs about "woke" garbage. Nolan is just great, as his past creations mightily attest.
Never mind the monasteries, I'd like to see a return to personal and familial patronage of the arts.
I think Angel has done the best of tackling what might be the biggest two of the three hurdles outside of story-creation itself—the economics (which is huge) of both production and distribution, and tapping into the existing pool of talent (Hollywood actors that are otherwise still working).
The third is having an audience (sufficiently large) that is ready to receive, and I think that is a cultural problem related to your points. Angel has cracked this some by building on past successes and its pay-it-forward distribution model (for theatrical releases). It takes time to build an audience and trust. But there is a limiting problem regarding what their inbuilt audience will be interested in (not just their current size but their interest). So how to build it without alienating their base? It’s a tricky thing.
For my last point, I think this is very good and probably why it occurs to me: https://cultureuncurled.substack.com/p/why-i-love-liberals
I'd been waiting for this piece after you teased it a few days back and it didn't disappoint with the distillation of thought on the matter. My thought also leads me to challenge the status quos.
Good film, and art, does something when it reveals what we are feeling but we haven't yet been able to put into words ourselves. Like Nolan's refusal to use CGI if he can help it, our minds know what it is real or not. The same goes for when something is corny or virtue-signaling; whether it comes from The Wokery or MAGAts. Yet the rest of us are somewhere in between and want to feel like we are moving towards something better, safer, or stronger. Which, depending on our dispositions, we could feel needs to be reminisced from the past, some new combination of old and new, or some entirely novel idea. But too much (risky) funding seems to try and follow the momentum of the extreme views rather than to try and steer the audience in a steady drift from this shared ground of the many who know the extremes to be unrealistic.
And, as you reiterated for Jonathan, subtly is not the New Right's method. As it hasn't been Trump's, or now Mamdani's. (Never mind their use of a fictitious villain, but) using the momentum of these extremes does catch a lot of people in its nets however. But that will not be of help to conservatism though, as it is not "cool" enough because it is not new enough.
What is cool about it? Well, I'd say values like family as the foundation and virtues like loyalty and honor and wisdom. And they feel a little novel nowadays too.
I am most un-Orthodox in that I have no home for an ideology but foundationally believe in Christ's words. He is the O.G. humanist before public opinion gunked his words and movement up with more words and movements. I grew up in evangelical church knocking on doors, hosting tent revivals, and being an usher at faith healings. This was in 1990s California. Then I ran away from home to be homeless within surf and skate culture because I wanted genuineness.
I read and had wanted to write ever since To Kill A Mockingbird. Hemingway's letters told me to get experiences, so I'd have something to write about. I thought of joining a monastery but through prayer I knew I didn't want to hide in the world. If I was going to try and be an Atticus Finch or a Harper Lee, writing about it in ways that did more than knocking on doors, then I had to live in the world. To experience what others were experiencing. As everyone from Dostoyevksy to Kerouac did. But the best stories aren't found in film. How many of them can you rewatch and still feel moments of being seen or seeing something new?
In film, Hollywood has a firm grasp on the greatest form of storytelling. It is so because it is easy to take in and captures all of your senses. What it can't do that writing can is the interior life. Writing not only lets you experience internal thought, but it lets you walk in another's shoes to more greatly see what they are experiencing. More than that, it develops your mind to be attuned to life at a much greater magnification. When done well, film taps into that. It makes you feel, it makes you think, it makes you share the experience with others. I'm thinking about Ted Lasso the most here, but men especially enjoy the epic myths of great men overcoming much. Lasso, btw, was famously turned down by many studios before it was picked up by Apple.
I've been editing a story set in historical events as the characters struggle with Girardian themes. It utilizes the structure of the Eddic Ragnarok where Baldr dies, and Odin makes moves to try and resurrect him. All set within the American Civil War on the precipice of the Gilded Age. But this story won't be picked up by the Big 5 publishers—just as it won't be by the Big 5 production companies—because they don't think enough of the American audience. Because they see either the extremes or the same old, same old tried and true genres. Risk averse.
I think this is ripe ground for the right, and middle. America is shifting. Like Kurtz' recent article on millennials and zoomers pointed to, young folks have a lot of challenges to overcome and they want to. They want the tools to be better men. And women. But men especially, as Kurtz pointed out.
And although Hollywood holds a lot of power, with a near monopoly on storytelling, it doesn't hold the formula. That is written within us where the ever-changing variable adapt to our environment. And one of those variables is our reaction to Hollywood's bullshit. And New York's. And London's. And politicians. It is culture at large.
I should go write the essay I intended to write today though. One of the ones I hope builds me an audience so I can actually publish the story to one. Like this response however, I have my doubts anyone will read them. Which is the realist thing the right needs to address, actually making something good enough that audiences can't deny is good entertainment.
Thank you for the call to action!