Tag: Hollywood

Ben-Hur

The brilliance of Ben-Hur, and its simultaneous duplicity, lies in its quiet realignment of cultural identity for the sake of narrative expedience. Judah Ben-Hur, ostensibly a Middle Eastern Jew in the Roman province of Judea, is unmistakably reframed as an Ashkenazi Jew—a Jewishness that is Western, assimilable, and, crucially, palatable to mid-century American audiences. Charlton Heston’s towering Nordic features and clipped diction render Judah less a Judean patriot and more a prototypical American man of destiny, stranded inconveniently in an antique world. This is not an accident; it is a choice—a calculated sleight of hand.

The adoption of the name Arius is no small symbolic act. By being subsumed into the Roman patrician elite, Judah casts off his provincial origins like a beggar discarding his rags. To Rome, he ceases to be an outsider—a Jew—and becomes instead a version of himself that the empire can tolerate: a cosmopolitan inheritor of power. He is a Jew only in so far as it facilitates the story’s moral arc, his identity purified of the inconvenient specifics of Judean culture. This transformation reflects not just Hollywood’s discomfort with depicting the true otherness of ancient Jewishness, but its preference for Westernizing its heroes to make their triumphs universal.

This is the dog whistle of identity in Ben-Hur. Judah’s ascension within Rome is not just a personal victory but a conversion—a metaphysical endorsement of Rome’s civilizing mission. The implicit message: true Jewishness is only acceptable when it ceases to be distinct, when it is grafted onto the trunk of Western culture. Judah’s final absolution, kneeling at the cross, is less about the salvation of a man than the quiet erasure of his heritage. He is no longer a Jew, nor even a Roman; he becomes something more familiar to the 1959 audience: a Christian.

Gore Vidal was brought in to revise the Ben-Hur screenplay, and his sharp wit and skill with innuendo elevated the material far beyond the typical Roman spectacle. Vidal made implicit themes explicit, particularly in the dynamic between Judah Ben-Hur and Messala. He deliberately framed their relationship as one with a deeply intimate past, transforming Messala’s betrayal into a personal and emotional rupture rather than a purely political one. This subtext added a layer of sophistication and complexity, turning Ben-Hur into a reflection on identity, power, and forbidden desire, rather than just another grandiose biblical epic.

At the same time, Vidal infused the film with his own critique of hypocrisy. The Rome of Ben-Hur, sanitized for mid-century consumption, is a far cry from the violent, chaotic empire Vidal explored in his own writings. Yet it unmistakably mirrors Eisenhower’s America: imperial yet righteous, brutal yet self-proclaimed benevolent. Judah’s journey embodies the ideological transformation Hollywood often demanded of its Jewish characters—placing them at the center of grand narratives of empire while simultaneously stripping their identity of its troubling particularities.

The gradation of Jewishness in Hollywood epics becomes a dance of acceptable assimilation. Middle Eastern Jews—unruly, provincial, overtly tied to the land—are rarely represented except as foils or obstacles. Ashkenazi Jews, with their European lineage, occupy the middle ground: able to transcend their origins, provided they shed their specificities. And at the pinnacle is the Christianized Jew, who triumphs by stepping fully into the universalizing embrace of Western civilization. Judah Ben-Hur’s story, then, is not just one of revenge and redemption, but of quiet cultural conquest.

Hollywood, we might note with a sardonic smirk, has always preferred its Jews Europeanized and its saviors Romanized. In this way, the cinema becomes less a temple of storytelling and more a house of mirrors, endlessly reflecting the anxieties of its creators.

HOUSE OF MIRRORS

In Ben-Hur, as in so many epics of the era, we are confronted not with history but with myth—specifically, the myth of America as a reluctant, benevolent superpower. By 1959, the United States was no longer an isolationist republic but the torchbearer of Western civilization, standing vigilant against the twin specters of godless Communism and decolonial unrest. And yet, the uneasy conscience of empire-making seeped into these films in ways their creators could not entirely control.

Take, for instance, the Romans of Ben-Hur. They are ostensibly the villains, decadent and cruel, presiding over their subjects with an iron fist. But look closer, and you’ll see their resemblance to a certain other global hegemon: their technological prowess, their sprawling reach, their smug conviction that their way of life is the pinnacle of human achievement. And yet, for all their might, the Romans are hollow, their society already in decline. The message, whether intentional or not, is clear: America, beware. Empires crumble under the weight of their own contradictions.

And what of the Arabs, those swarthy figures from central casting who populate the background of Ben-Hur and countless other films of the era? They are either exoticized as noble savages or reduced to comic relief, their humanity flattened into caricature. These portrayals were not merely lazy but ideological, reinforcing the idea of the Middle East as a backward region in need of Western intervention—a narrative that dovetailed neatly with America’s burgeoning interest in the region’s oil reserves. The Arabs in Ben-Hur are not real people; they are a pretext, a justification for the West’s paternalistic gaze.

Then there is the film’s infamous subtext, the simmering tension between Judah Ben-Hur and Messala, which Vidal himself gleefully claimed credit for. Here we find another reflection in the House of Mirrors: the unspoken queerness that permeates so many of these epics, lurking just beneath the surface like a whispered secret. The relationship between Judah and Messala crackles with a fervor that transcends friendship, yet the film cannot name it for what it is. To do so would be unthinkable in 1959, an era defined by McCarthyite purges and the Lavender Scare. Instead, their bond is sublimated into rivalry, their love transformed into hatred, a tragic casualty of a culture too fearful to confront itself.

And then, of course, there is the bomb. The specter of nuclear annihilation looms large over every frame of Ben-Hur, though it is never mentioned. The chariot race, with its thunderous violence and apocalyptic energy, is a microcosm of the Cold War itself: a contest of wills in which there can be only one victor, and the stakes are nothing less than the survival of civilization. The crucifixion scene, with its somber skies and anguished cries, feels less like a historical reenactment and more like a prophecy—a reminder that humanity’s greatest threat is not external but internal, the darkness within.

In the end, Ben-Hur is less a story of redemption than a reflection of America’s contradictions: its yearning for moral clarity and its complicity in imperial violence, its embrace of progress and its terror of change, its belief in its own exceptionalism and its gnawing fear of decline. The House of Mirrors offers no escape, only endless refractions of the same uncomfortable truths. And like Judah Ben-Hur, we find ourselves racing in circles, searching for salvation in a world that refuses to give it.

If Vidal were here, he might chuckle at the absurdity of it all—the grandiosity, the self-deception, the unspoken truths flickering on the edges of the frame. And then he would turn back to the mirror, not to admire himself, but to remind us that the reflection is always more revealing than the image we wish to project.

IP Bloat and ZIRP

IP bloat and zero interest rates, my friends, are the twin nightmares of our modern entertainment and economic systems. The former, a grotesque carnival of stale franchises and soulless sequels, floods the market with an avalanche of derivative dreck, hoping to drown out the creaky echoes of its own mediocrity. The latter, zero interest rates, is a mind-numbing drug administered by our overlords to keep the capital tepid, stagnant, and utterly devoid of life.

It’s a classic case of the emperor’s new clothes—except the emperor here is a blundering idiot, and the clothes are made of garbage. The system churns out endless rows of overpriced, overblown spectacles and rotting franchises, while the so-called “investment opportunities” provide nothing but a monotonous drip of zero returns. It’s a cosmic joke, where the punchline is a world choked by its own excesses and failures.

The only remedy to this grand farce is to stop pretending that pouring millions into soulless, formulaic monstrosities is a viable strategy. Give the damn car keys to the creators, the directors, the writers—the real dreamers and schemers who might actually have a spark of originality left. Not one $180 million bloated blockbuster, but nine $20 million productions brimming with fresh ideas and raw energy. Give them the chance to experiment, to fail, and to surprise. It’s the only way to pull ourselves out of this dismal quagmire of creative bankruptcy and financial futility.

Film Executive Priorities

In the high-stakes world of Hollywood, film executives emerge as tragicomic figures, navigating a landscape where profit, status, and survival dominate every decision. Their priorities are not mere tasks to be checked off but are deeply embedded in the very fabric of the industry. It’s a brutal game where the sharpest minds, the quickest thinkers, and the most adaptable personalities manage to stay afloat.

This relentless pursuit of success transforms the executive into a creature of habit, constantly juggling the demands of the industry with the need to project an image of invincibility. The job isn’t just about making movies—it’s about managing perceptions, manipulating appearances, and staying one step ahead in a world where a single misstep can mean the end of a career.

At its core, the list of priorities reflects a reality where the tangible aspects of filmmaking—storytelling, artistic vision, and cultural impact—often take a backseat to the more pressing concerns of maintaining power, securing status, and ensuring profitability. The executive’s world is one where the symbols of success—box office numbers, awards, high-profile talent—are more important than the substance behind them.

This isn’t just a reflection of the film industry; it’s a mirror of a larger societal structure where appearances often trump reality, and where the pursuit of status and survival drives every action. The film executive, caught in this relentless churn, must constantly balance the demands of the industry with the need to project a carefully curated image, all while navigating an environment that is as competitive as it is unforgiving.

  1. MORTGAGE

The wolf at the door, gnashing its teeth at the heels of the Hollywood executive. The mortgage is not just a monthly bill but a blood pact with the American Dream, a constant reminder that even those who sit atop the gilded ladder of success are shackled to their McMansions and Beverly Hills bungalows. They live in fear, a fear that propels them to hustle harder, scheme deeper, and sleep lighter. A mortgage might be seen as a signifier within a larger economic text, signifying stability, security, or responsibility. However, like all signifiers, its meaning is not fixed but is deferred through its relationship with other signifiers, such as “home,” “debt,” or “ownership.” The mortgage is part of a system of signs that constructs the executive’s identity and place within the capitalist structure, yet this identity is never stable, always contingent on the interplay of these signs. Even the most basic need, financial stability, is subsumed into the hyperreal, where personal security is linked to participation in the system of production and consumption. The mortgage represents a connection to a material reality that is increasingly mediated by financial institutions, themselves part of the hyperreal economy.

2. LOOKING BUSY FOR INVESTORS

In the cutthroat kingdom of Hollywood, appearance is nine-tenths of the law. The executive, with phone glued to ear, must always seem on the verge of something monumental—a deal, a breakthrough, a seismic shift in the cinematic cosmos. Investors, those shadowy overlords of capital, need to see their dollars in action. Even when there’s nothing brewing, the executive must conjure up the illusion of ceaseless motion, the alchemy of turning time into gold. Here, the appearance of productivity is more important than actual productivity. This aligns with Baudrillard’s idea that in a hyperreal society, appearances often replace substance. The goal is to simulate busyness to satisfy investors, whose perceptions are shaped by the spectacle of business rather than its actual outcomes.

Looking busy” can be deconstructed as an act that is less about actual productivity and more about the performance of productivity—a simulacrum of work. Derrida would point to the slippage between the appearance of busyness and the reality of it, showing how the sign of busyness defers its meaning through the context of investor expectations, capitalist pressures, and the performative nature of corporate roles.

3 NAVIGATING STUDIO POLITICS

A danse macabre where every step could be your last. The studio is a viper’s nest of egos, alliances, and betrayals, where power flows like mercury—slippery, toxic, and ever-shifting. The executive must glide through this perilous landscape with the grace of a seasoned diplomat, mastering the art of the backhanded compliment and the well-timed smirk. One false move, and you’re out—exiled to the barren wastelands of irrelevance. Studio politics can be seen as a battleground within the Symbolic order, where the executive must engage in a constant interplay of signifiers—status, power, alliances—to assert their position. Their desire to navigate these politics reflects their attempt to find a stable identity within the ever-shifting Symbolic structure.

The rules and strategies of studio politics are not natural or self-evident but are constructed through language and social practices that can be deconstructed to reveal the contingent and unstable nature of these power structures. Studio politics can be seen as a game of signs, where the real power dynamics are obscured by layers of posturing, alliances, and strategies—essentially, simulations of control and influence.

4 AVOIDING BLAME FOR FLOPS:

Failure is the black plague of Hollywood, and the savvy executive knows how to inoculate themselves against its deadly grip. When the box office tanks or the critics sharpen their knives, the blame must be deflected with the precision of a master fencer. The trick is to position oneself just outside the blast radius, ensuring that when the bomb goes off, it’s someone else’s career that gets blown to bits. Lacan would interpret this as a manifestation of the subject’s desire to avoid the confrontation with the Real, the traumatic kernel of failure or inadequacy that threatens their constructed identity. By avoiding blame, the executive seeks to maintain their position in the Symbolic order, deferring any encounter with the Real.

In a hyperreal world, responsibility is deflected and diffused. The goal is not to produce successful films but to maintain the illusion of success by avoiding blame. This reflects Baudrillard’s notion that accountability becomes a game of signs rather than a reflection of reality. The concept of “blame” could be deconstructed to show how it is distributed within the film industry. Blame is not a simple, direct concept but one that is always deferred—shifted between individuals, contexts, and interpretations. Derrida would highlight how the avoidance of blame involves a play of signifiers, where responsibility is displaced and reinterpreted depending on the narrative constructed around a film’s failure.

5 PER DIEMS/EXPENSES


The lifeblood of the Hollywood hustle. In an industry where every meal could be a power play and every drink a negotiation, per diems and expenses are not just perks but essential tools of the trade. The savvy executive understands the delicate balance of indulgence and excess, knowing when to pick up the tab and when to let someone else sweat over the check. Per diems and expenses can be seen as signifiers within the economic and social text of the film industry. Derrida would likely explore how these expenses are not just monetary compensations but also symbols of status, entitlement, and participation in a capitalist system. Their meaning is not inherent but is constructed through their role within the larger network of industry practices and expectations.

These could be seen as symbolic signifiers that contribute to the executive’s Imaginary identity—signs of their success, importance, and value within the industry. The focus on per diems and expenses is a way to sustain the fantasy of a successful self-image.

6 MAXIMIZING PERSONAL BRAND:

The executive is not merely a person but a walking, talking billboard. In Hollywood, you are only as valuable as your last headline, your last tweet, your last Instagram post. Personal brand is the currency of clout, the key to unlocking doors that might otherwise remain bolted shut. The executive must constantly feed the beast, curating an image that is equal parts enigmatic and aspirational, ensuring their name remains a golden ticket in the eyes of the industry. The personal brand is a construct of the Imaginary, where the executive seeks to project an idealized version of themselves. This brand is a fantasy that helps them navigate the Symbolic order, providing a sense of coherence to their fragmented sense of self.

The personal brand is a simulacrum—a constructed image that executives project and maintain. It is less about who they are and more about how they are perceived, fitting perfectly into Baudrillard’s idea that identity itself becomes a simulation. The personal brand is a form of “deterritorialization,” where the executive abstracts themselves from their specific role or function within the industry to become a more fluid, marketable entity. This brand can then be reterritorialized as a commodity within the capitalist system, generating new flows of desire and capital. The “personal brand” can be deconstructed to reveal how identity is constructed through the play of signs. Derrida would argue that the personal brand is not a fixed or stable identity but a series of signifiers that are constantly in flux, dependent on how they are interpreted by others. The brand is a construct that defers meaning through its associations with success, influence, and marketability.

7 MAINTAINING INDUSTRY CONNECTIONS

Hollywood is a club where membership is everything. The executive’s Rolodex—or rather, their iPhone contacts—represents the sum total of their power. It’s not just about knowing the right people; it’s about knowing when to call, what to say, and how to make the stars align. Securing A-list talent isn’t just a task—it’s a seduction, a game of high-stakes courtship where the prize is immortality on the silver screen. :Connections and talent are commodities in the hyperreal system, valued more for the signs they represent (status, success) than for their intrinsic qualities. The actual relationships or talent become secondary to the symbols they represent in the industry’s symbolic economy.

Connections and talent are not inherently valuable but gain their meaning through their position within the industry’s network of signifiers. Derrida would deconstruct the idea of “securing” talent to show how this process is about creating and maintaining relationships that are themselves constructed through language and social practices, always subject to reinterpretation and renegotiation. Connections and talent are part of the capitalist assemblage that organizes and directs flows of desire and production. By securing these connections, the executive ensures their continued relevance and power within the larger capitalist machine, maintaining their position in the system.

8 CHASING THE LATEST TREND

In a town where yesterday’s news is ancient history, the executive must have their finger on the pulse of the next big thing. Trends in Hollywood are as fickle as the wind, and the executive must be both a soothsayer and a gambler, betting big on what’s hot today and what might sizzle tomorrow. It’s a race against time, against irrelevance, where the spoils go to those who can turn a fad into a fortune before the world moves on. This reflects the hyperreal’s constant need for novelty and stimulation. Trends are not driven by genuine cultural shifts but by the need to perpetuate the cycle of consumption, creating a simulacrum of progress and innovation.

Chasing trends can be seen as a response to the shifting desires of the Other. In Lacanian terms, trends are part of the Symbolic order, constantly reshaping what is considered desirable. The executive’s pursuit of trends reflects their attempt to align with the ever-changing desires of the Other. Trends represent new flows of desire that capitalism seeks to capture and exploit. The executive’s pursuit of these trends is an attempt to align with the ever-shifting movements of desiring-production, ensuring they remain plugged into the most current and profitable flows.

The pursuit of trends can be seen as an example of différance in action—where the meaning of success is constantly deferred through the latest cultural and economic shifts. Derrida might argue that trends are part of an endless play of signs, where what is considered “in” or “valuable” is never stable but always changing, dependent on the shifting interpretations within the industry.

9 WINNING THE NETWORKING GAME

The cocktail party, the charity gala, the film festival circuit—these are the executive’s battlegrounds. Networking isn’t just a skill; it’s an art form, a delicate dance of proximity and distance, of knowing when to press the flesh and when to keep your cards close to your chest. In Hollywood, it’s not about what you know but who knows you—and, more importantly, what they think of you.

Networking is a construct that relies on the play of signs within the social text of the industry. Derrida would suggest that the “game” of networking involves a series of strategic moves within a system where meaning is never fixed, and where relationships are constantly being renegotiated. The “win” is never absolute but is always contingent on the shifting interpretations of success within the industry. Networking is another part of the capitalist assemblage, where relationships are commodified and transformed into flows of power, information, and capital. The networking game is about capturing and directing these flows in ways that benefit the executive’s position within the industry. Networking is an extension of the Symbolic order, where the executive’s identity is constructed and reinforced through relationships with others. The “game” is a symbolic exchange where signifiers of success are traded, and the executive’s subjectivity is affirmed by their position within this network.

Networking is another simulation, where relationships are often superficial and transactional, valued more for their potential to generate signs of success than for any real connection or collaboration.

10 CONTROLLING THE NARRATIVE

In the land of make-believe, perception is reality. The executive must be a master storyteller, not just on screen but in life, spinning the narrative of their own career with the deftness of a Pulitzer-winning novelist. They craft the story that will be told at industry lunches, in Variety headlines, and in the whispered gossip of studio backrooms. Control the narrative, and you control your destiny.

Controlling the narrative is an attempt to direct the flow of desire within the capitalist system. By shaping how events are perceived, the executive can influence the direction of capital and desire, ensuring that they remain a key node in the network of desiring-production.

Controlling the narrative is about managing the simulation itself. It’s not about reflecting reality but about shaping perceptions, which aligns with Baudrillard’s idea that the media and cultural industries create a reality that is mediated, controlled, and, ultimately, a simulation. In Lacanian theory, the narrative can be seen as a means of shaping the Imaginary and Symbolic orders. By controlling the narrative, the executive attempts to manage the signifiers that define their identity and the perception of their work. It’s a way of maintaining the coherence of the Symbolic structure in which they operate.

The narrative is central to Derrida’s idea of deconstruction. To “control the narrative” is to attempt to fix meaning within a text (whether a film, a career, or a brand). Derrida would argue that this is an impossible task because narratives are always open to reinterpretation and deconstruction. The attempt to control the narrative is a struggle against the inherent instability of meaning.

11 LEVERAGING DATA ANALYTICS FOR MARKETING

Numbers are the new gods in Hollywood, worshipped for their ability to predict the unpredictable, to turn gut feelings into actionable insights. The savvy executive understands that data isn’t just a tool but a weapon, one that can be wielded to justify budgets, to greenlight projects, to target audiences with laser precision. In the age of algorithms, the executive must be both mathematician and magician, turning cold, hard data into box office gold.

Data analytics represents the codification of reality into numbers and algorithms, which are then used to create simulations of audience preferences and behaviors. The goal is not to understand reality but to manipulate it through the simulation of predictive models.

Data analytics can be seen as an attempt to bring the Real (the chaotic, unpredictable nature of audience desires) into the Symbolic order by quantifying and predicting it. However, this attempt is always incomplete, as the Real resists full symbolization. The executive’s reliance on data reflects their desire to master the unpredictable elements of the industry.

Data analytics can be deconstructed to show how it represents an attempt to fix and quantify what is inherently fluid and interpretative—human behavior and desire. Derrida would likely critique the notion that data can fully capture or represent reality, highlighting the gap between the sign (the data) and what it is supposed to signify (human preferences, behaviors). The use of analytics is part of the broader capitalist text that tries to impose order and meaning on a complex, shifting reality.

12 FRANCHISE POTENTIAL

Sequels are the bread and butter of the industry, the cash cows that keep the studio lights on. Every project is scrutinized for its potential to spawn a universe, to generate spinoffs, prequels, and merchandise lines that extend far beyond the original film. The executive’s job is to think not just in terms of one movie but in terms of a dynasty, an empire built on the back of a single story.

Franchises are the ultimate simulacra—endlessly reproducible, detached from any original reality, and existing purely as commercial products designed to perpetuate themselves within the hyperreal. Franchises are repetitive structures within the Symbolic order that offer a semblance of stability and predictability. For Lacan, this could reflect the executive’s desire to cling to familiar signifiers that promise continued success, avoiding the anxiety of confronting the Real.

Franchises are highly efficient machines within capitalism, designed to capture and exploit flows of desire across multiple iterations and markets. The executive’s focus on franchise potential reflects their attempt to create stable, predictable flows of capital and desire, ensuring continuous production and consumption.

Franchises are built on the repetition of signs—characters, narratives, aesthetics—that are meant to reproduce success. Derrida might explore how each iteration of a franchise both repeats and differs from the original, showing how meaning and value are never simply replicated but are always subject to change and reinterpretation. The “potential” of a franchise is never fully realized because it is always deferred through its various incarnations.

13 BOX OFFICE NUMBERS

The ultimate scorecard, the bottom line that determines whether you’re a genius or a has-been. Box office numbers are the lifeblood of the industry, the metric by which all decisions are judged. For the executive, every weekend is a crucible, where careers are forged or shattered by the cold, hard cash that flows through the turnstiles. Box office success is a signifier within the Symbolic order, representing the validation of the executive’s work by the Other (audiences, peers). The focus on numbers reflects the executive’s need to anchor their identity and success in quantifiable metrics.

Box office success is a signifier within the hyperreal system, detached from any intrinsic artistic value of the film. It is a metric that reinforces the simulation of success rather than reflecting any genuine cultural impact. Box office numbers are a quantifiable representation of the flows of desire that have been successfully captured by a film. These numbers are used to validate the effectiveness of the desiring-production processes at play and to direct future flows of capital and production.

14 ASSURING FILM QUALITY

Quality is a noble pursuit, but let’s be honest—it’s often a luxury that can only be afforded after the more pressing concerns of mortgages, investors, and marketing have been dealt with. If quality aligns with profitability, all the better, but the savvy executive knows that in the grand calculus of Hollywood, quality is often a secondary consideration, something to be pursued only if it doesn’t interfere with the bottom line.

Film quality is only a concern insofar as it facilitates the capture and direction of desire within the capitalist machine. If quality contributes to profitable flows, it is pursued; if not, it is secondary to the more pressing demands of maintaining and expanding the capitalist assemblage.

Quality is secondary to the other priorities because, in the hyperreal, the appearance of quality is often more important than quality itself. If quality is pursued, it is only because it serves the simulation of a successful product. The quality of the film might be less central because it pertains more to the Imaginary—an ideal that is not necessarily tied to the Symbolic structures of power, success, and survival in the industry. The executive’s concern with quality only when convenient suggests that the Imaginary ideal of creating art is subordinate to the Symbolic demands of profitability and status.

Hollywood Debt Obligations

Leave a comment

“Hollywood has become a conduit for studios and artists to meet their debt obligations because studios are in great great debt and the job is not so much to make great movies, their job is to make their debt obligation”

In the labyrinthine fever dream of Hollywood, where ambition curdles into celluloid and dreams are monetized by the foot, a sinister inversion has taken root. The flickering silver screen, once a canvas for audacious visions, has become a relentless debt-peon, cranking out forgettable franchises like gears in a nightmarish machine. It’s a hall of mirrors where studios, bloated and teetering on the precipice of financial oblivion, churn out product fueled not by artistic passion but by the ravenous maw of their own bad bets.

Gone are the days of auteurs with Brylcreem and a messianic gleam in their eye, replaced by focus-grouped, derivative dreck, each film a cynical calculation, a desperate attempt to appease the faceless gods of the bottom line. The air is thick with the stench of burnt celluloid and broken promises, the muses sacrificed at the altar of quarterly reports. Scripts, once vibrant and subversive, are rewritten by committees of accountants, their souls leeched out, replaced with empty fan service and derivative sequels.

Even the actors, those beautiful, talented moths drawn to the flame, become cogs in the machine. Their faces, once canvases for a kaleidoscope of human emotions, are reduced to mere branding opportunities, their careers trajectories dictated not by artistic merit but by box office tallies. The independent spirit, the lifeblood of cinema, gasps its last breaths in the back alleys of Hollywood, choked out by the smog of corporate greed.

This is the new Hollywood, a dystopian funhouse where art surrenders to commerce, and the only true currency is the clinking of coins. A place where stories are birthed not from the human heart, but from the cold calculus of spreadsheets. A cautionary tale writ large in flickering images, a testament to the corrosive power of debt when it infects the very soul of a dream.

The Illusion of Funding: How Hollywood Forgot How to Dream

Leave a comment

The primary challenge for Hollywood now is to abandon the idea of creating various schemes around box office numbers, realizing that they could essentially “print money” using alternative financial methods, relying on box office and streaming figures to uphold the belief that these streams primarily funded projects.

What it funded was an artistic vision of cookie cutter films, superheroes and remakes sacrificed on the altar of free market nihilism creating the stagnated, homogenized content while disconnecting from diverse audiences and jeopardizing long-term sustainability we’re “enjoying” today

@bravojohnson

Hollywood: A Gonzo Audit in the Age of Algorithm Gods

Hollywood. Sunset Strip’s a fever dream neon jungle, where lizard kings in Armani suits wrestle with stacks of cash taller than the Hollywood sign itself. But listen up, you sun-baked celluloid cowboys, the celluloid tape is running out on this flickering projector of dreams. The sun bleeds down, casting long shadows on a town drowning in its own shallow, chlorinated pool water. The air, thick with suntan lotion and desperation, carries the faint echo of celluloid dreams long gone belly-up in the director’s pool.

Hollywood, huh? Land of dreams, or at least that’s what the flickering neon signs would have you believe. But lately, those dreams have been smelling more like a dusty back lot and stale popcorn than fresh film stock. Why? Because the suits in charge have turned storytelling into a goddamn slot machine, cranking out the same tired tropes faster than a Vegas croupier on a sugar rush.

These days, the “creatives” in Hollywood are more like financial alchemists, desperately trying to turn derivative dreck into cinematic gold. Superheroes, sequels, and remakes – these are the sacred cows worshipped at the altar of market cannibalism. Originality? Artistic vision? Gone the way of the dodo, sacrificed to the insatiable maw of the falsifiable box office beast.

These numbers, like flickering neon signs in a graveyard, promise untold riches, a siren song leading studios down a path of creative oblivion. They chase the elusive white whale of the billion-dollar gorilla, their eyes glazed over with visions of franchised turds and superhero spectacles, all churned out in a soulless assembly line of mediocrity.

The box office, that golden calf you’ve been worshipping, is starting to look a little less golden and a whole lot more like a tarnished tin god. Numbers are down, folks. Your blockbuster “universes” are more like black holes, sucking in creativity and spewing out the same tired tropes faster than a Kardashian can change husbands.

Here’s the truth, served straight up in a chipped tequila glass with a side of mescaline: you’ve been snorting your own exhaust fumes. You tell yourselves these superhero sagas and nostalgia rehashes are “printing money,” when in reality, they’re just printing out the same tired script, page after forgettable page. The result? A cinematic wasteland of homogenized dreck, a never-ending loop of predictable plotlines and CGI-laden spectacle that leaves audiences feeling like they’ve been force-fed lukewarm gas station nachos.

It’s a vicious cycle, this obsession with box office numbers. It disconnects Hollywood from the kaleidoscope of humanity, churning out the same tired tropes and expecting us to keep shoveling money into your greedy pockets.

This “alternative financing” you’re hawking, chasing those streaming service dollars like a junkie chasing a dragon? It’s a mirage shimmering in the desert heat of desperation. Sure, it throws some cash your way, but at what cost? You’ve sold your soul to the algorithm gods, trading artistic integrity for data-driven drivel.

But the truth, my friends, is as twisted as a Kardashian’s weave. These box office numbers, these supposed harbingers of success, are nothing more than a gilded cage. They lock studios into a cycle of self-fulfilling prophecy, reinforcing the notion that the only stories worth telling are those guaranteed to mint money.

What have you gotten in return? A cinematic wasteland populated by cookie-cutter characters, interchangeable plots, and special effects that wouldn’t impress a stoned teenager in his mom’s basement. You’ve sacrificed originality on the altar of market nihilism, and the only one left smiling is the bottom line. Oh, the cruel irony! These Hollywood execs with million-dollar tans and two-dollar minds claim to be printing money, but what they’re printing is a colorless, formulaic sludge, devoid of originality and soul. Superheroes punch each other into oblivion, sequels rehash the same tired ground, and remakes defile the memories of better times.

This relentless pursuit of beige entertainment comes at a cost. Long-term sustainability? Laughed out of the boardroom faster than a blacklisted screenwriter. Disconnected audiences? Easier to find a unicorn grazing in Rodeo Drive. Artistic vision? Sacrificed on the altar of the market god, its ashes scattered to the four winds like a prop bag full of fake movie snow.

Meanwhile, the audiences you’ve so meticulously alienated – the diverse folks tired of the same old recycled garbage – they’re tuning out faster than you can say “sequel fatigue.” You’ve built a wall of mediocrity, and on the other side, a vibrant, hungry audience awaits something real, something that speaks to their soul, not just their wallets.

But here’s the thing, Hollywood: you’re sitting on a gold