IMPORTANT UPDATE:
Thanks to commenter “Ben White,” we’ve found a video of Whedon’s exact statements, which start at 54:30 in this video (transcription below):
Questioner: “I’m actually a union organizer by trade, and in a lot of your work you’ve portrayed sort of a corporate ‘big bad’ – that’s appeared in Angel, and Dollhouse. So, in 30 seconds or less, can you tell us what is your economic philosophy?”
Joss Whedon: “Um, y’know, I was raised on the Upper West Side of Manhattan in the ’70s, by the people who thought John Reed and the young socialists of the ’20s were some of the most idealistic people, and that socialism as a model was such a beautiful concept. And now of course it’s become a buzzword for horns and a pitchfork.
And we’re watching capitalism destroy itself, right now. And ultimately all of these systems don’t work. I tend to want to champion the working class because they are getting destroyed. I write about helplessness — helplessness in the face of the giant corporations and the enormously rich people who are very often in power giving those people more power to get even more power.
We are turning into Czarist Russia. We are creating a nation of serfs. That leads to — oddly enough — revolution and socialism, which then leads to totalitarianism. Nobody wins.
It’s really really really important that we find a system that honors both our need to achieve, and doesn’t try to take things away from us, but at the same time honors everybody’s need to have a start, to have a goal, to have a life, to have an income, to have a chance.
The fact is, these things have been taken away from us, sometimes very gradually, sometimes not so gradually, since the beginning of the Reagan era, and it’s proved to be catastrophic for so much of America.
During the writers’ strike I was furious; I remain furious. I’m not always sure what to do about it, I don’t think most of us are.
But I do know that what’s happening right now in the political arena is that we have people who are trying to create structures or preserve structures that will help the working class and the middle class, and people who are calling them socialists.
And nobody has the perfect answer. But I honestly think we are now in a political debate that is no longer Republican versus Democrat or even conservative versus liberal. It’s about people who are trying to make it work because they still remember, they still have some connection to the idea of personal dignity — and people who have gone off the reservation and believe Jesus Christ is a true American.”
Audience: [Cheers.]
Here’s what I think happened:
The Wrap reported somewhat inaccurately on Whedon’s speech, perhaps because the writer was a bit thrilled by Whedon’s populist anti-conservative rhetoric, and so framed their story with various paraphrases to make it seem palatable; then Big Hollywood, not having heard the original video, based their story on what The Wrap had reported, this time viewing their version of Whedon’s sentiments through a critical lens. So we are now already three layers deep in media re-framing.
So let’s wipe that all away and start with the raw transcript: What did Whedon say, exactly?
Well, first of all, it’s quite obvious that he’s very critical of and opposed to the current conservative fiscal philosophy, treating modern conservatives like lunatics who are outside rational debate. And he’s very praiseful of the left-leaning side of the Democratic Party currently in power, as he praises them as trying to preserve the “personal dignity” of the “working class.”
Because he purposely talks a bit obtusely in an attempt to partly disguise what he’s actually saying, it’s not necessarily easy at first to decipher his position; but the giveaway is that the bad guys are the ones accusing the good guys of being “socialists” — in other words the bad guys he’s speaking of are 2012′s conservatives.
But in the middle of the speech he also does the typical Democrat do-si-do: first praise socialism in theory, then say it doesn’t work in practice, and then act like the very notion of socialism is only a Republican conspiracy theory. Hopping to and fro like this, he avoids being pinned down on any particular position.
What he apparently wants is some mysterious unnamed utopian magic solution that somehow manages to preserve private ownership but at the same time forcibly levels the playing field for the “working class” (and why is he using Marxist terminology like this?). This is pretty much the same rhetoric that Obama uses: Pooh-poohing socialism by name, but then not-so-subtly proposing socialist-tinged solutions.
So we have a mashup of minor media malfeasance, misreporting on an intentionally muddled left-leaning populist non-answer from Whedon, whose rabid fans nonetheless eat it up.
Duke it out in the comments section.
Original post below:
As reported in The Wrap and later picked up by Big Hollywood, sci-fi director Joss Whedon (Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Firefly, The Avengers, etc.) uncorked an epic anti-capitalist rant at Comic-Con on Friday, in response to a fan’s question about anti-corporate themes in his work:
“We are watching capitalism destroy itself right now,” he told the audience.
He added that America is “turning into Tsarist Russia” and that “we’re creating a country of serfs.”
Whedon was raised on the Upper Westside neighborhood of Manhattan in the 1970s, an area associated with left-leaning intellectuals. He said he was raised by people who thought socialism was a ”beautiful concept.”
Socialism remains a taboo word in American politics, as Republicans congressmen raise the specter of the Cold War. They refer to many Obama administration initatives as socialist, and the same goes for most laws that advocate increasing spending on social welfare programs. They also refer to the President as a socialist, though this and many of their other claims misuse the term.
This evidently frustrates Whedon, who traces this development to Ronald Reagan – the nominal hero of the modern conservative movement. Since then, Whedon believes the country has changed in way that has made it too difficult for regular people to succeed.
Aside from the direct quotes, it’s a little unclear whether The Wrap is paraphrasing Whedon or simply adding their own background info, but the parts that are definitely his words make his stance clear enough: America in 2012 is like Russia in 1917, when the czarists were swept away by a socialist revolution — something Whedon would obviously welcome. He subscribes to the “end stage capitalism” theory, a communist fantasy (which the far left has been trumpeting for at least three decades now) in which the American system is thankfully on the brink of collapse.
One wonders:
Does Whedon sound the rallying cry for socialism to the assembled Hollywood elite at his $5.8 million mansion overlooking the Riviera Country Club in the toniest part of LA?
Does he rail against the czar as he collects his majority percentage of the $1.33 billion earned by his film The Avengers, the third-most profitable film of all time?
No, Joss Whedon is no socialist. He’s the ultimate capitalist, and he obviously loves to enjoy the lavish comforts that having tens of millions of dollars can bring him.
Joss Whedon is not just the 1%: he’s the 0.000001%. But he thinks he can retain his street cred if he recalls his red diaper baby roots and denounces capitalists like himself.
If you really look forward to a socialist America, Josh, put your money where your mouth is, and sign over your entire personal assets to the central government.
C’mon. We’re waiting.
What makes this even wronger is that Firefly/Serenity is probably the strongest statement against the “benevolent” Caretaker State ever seen in pop culture. I am forced to think that Whedon the writer/showrunner/director is wiser than Whedon the know-it-all public blowhard.
I agree. Both pieces of work reflect libertarian values.
I’ve always heard that attributed more to the influence of Tim Minear on the show/movie.
Exactly right. He left the “world building” to Tim Minear and he concentrated on the characters. This leaves a paradox also however since the characters are arch conservatives who just want to be left alone.
I guess it is just too difficult to make a socialist into a hero, they all turn out to be community orginizers. Who the hell would want to watch that!
And I laugh at the Czarist Russia comment. Monarchy is a form of extreme statism, it’s the ultimate “smartest guy in the room” government. Remember that some monarchy forms treat their leaders as demi-gods.
“He added that America is “turning into Tsarist Russia” and that “we’re creating a country of serfs.””
More like the communist Russia. But it’s being done by the Left here.
Hey Joss:
I bet the third key grip on “The Avengers” got the same cut of the gross as you did? I am sure you made sure every daily extra got health coverage and was paid a living wage? Hey Joss, I am sure none of the tech work and CGI effects were outsourced to foreign shops right? I am sure every single person was union right?
Another Ted Turner, Warren Buffett, George Soros, get rich in the capitalist system and then make sure to pull the ladder to the tree house up behind you.
Hey Joss, I was planning on buying The Avengers on DVD, but I won’t be doing that now. This serf has better things to do with his money! Jerk!
A bit off topic, but I remember in the early 90′s Ben and Jerry’s icecream was running into a problem hiring a CEO because they believed that teh pay scale should be relatively flat. So the CEO should make no more tahn 5x what the ice cream scouper made. While their Socialistic tendencies of Ben and Jerry’s anoy me, at least they were more consistant/honest in their approach.
Weren’t the Lefties promoting the 20 to 1 rule, where a CEO shouldn’t/couldn’t make more than 20x the wage of the lowest man in the firm?
Consider someone like Matt Damon who has been paid $20M to star in a film. He’s his own little corporation and CEO (and no, I won’t split hairs on this one). Does everyone in his entourage make at least $1000/hr? (and that’s assuming he put 2000 hours into the movie). I didn’t think so. It’s amazing that their “talent” makes ridiculous paychecks acceptable for them, but other business honchos are just ripping off everyone.
Personally, I agree that many CEOs make more than they deserve and shouldn’t get golden parachutes. But I refuse to listen to the left until they bring over-priced actors, musicians, and athletes into the discussion.
As always, I’m with zombie: You first, Joss.
“We are watching capitalism destroy itself right now.”
I beg to differ, Mr. Whedon. We are watching government destroy what little is left of free market enterprise. We really don’t have capitalism in this country. We do have numerous government bureaucracies overseeing and getting in the way of every private transaction and every attempt to provide products and services at a profit. We do have government deciding which industry is to flourish, and which industry is to be bankrupted and destroyed.
Captialism did not create 16 trillion in debt. Government did.
Capitalism did not cause the housing market crash. Government did.
Capitalism does not coerce people into buying products or services they do not want. Government does.
Capitalism does not tax people simply for existing. Government does.
^^THIS^^
What we are turning into is not so much Communist Russia or Tsarist Russia. What we are turning into is Hitler’s Fascism where companies remain private, but only with the state’s blessing.
And no – Godwin’s rule does not apply here.
Wanted to add:
It’s not private industry, but gov’t that won’t let us drill for our own oil off of our own coasts – while letter OTHER countries do that.
The same rigs that were down in the Gulf of Mexico are STILL there. Since Obama won’t let our people lease them, they were leased to other countries and are still being drilled – and then the oil is sold to us.
It’s gov’t that won’t let us make more power plants, not private industry – thus causing higher energy prices.
Gov’t in CA won’t make desalinization plants – but will back 100 BILLION dollar “high speed rail” projects. Meanwhile the state and federal gov’t shut off the water to “the bread basket of our fruit and vegetable” basin – making it into a dust bowl.
It’s gov’t (and the late Ted Kennedy) who won’t let us put a wind farm off of the coast of Massachusetts – as it might interfere with the favorite yachting areas of the Kennedy clan (no, really!).
It’s gov’t that is printing money (electronically) that is devaluing our Dollar, and permanently devaluing (STEALING) from every senior that saved money for their retirement.
It’s gov’t, not private industry, that in the early-mid 70′s raided the Social Security fund to BUY more votes, and left a big fat juicy IOU, and also co-mingled SS funds with welfare so that the fund went bust.
—– Meanwhile Google “The Galvaston Inititive” – whereby up to 1983, you could opt out of SS, and save on your own. Using identicle money, today the SS payout would be $1700 – the private one (now paying as they retire) is $4400 per month.
Gov’t built the crime infested “projects” of public housing.
Gov’t has FAILED FAILED FAILED to make public education “work”, but has empowered unions, whose pensions are now going to bankrupt many cities.
THAT is what gov’t has done.
This guy is an proof positive that some suburb of Chicago is being left to languish without its’ town I-D-I-O-T.
This is a disappointing capitulation to the Hollywood Cult of Kneejerk Leftism by the creator of Firefly, Serenity, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, etc. Does he believe what he’s saying, or is this just a sop to his dinner-party circuit? Either way, very, very disappointing, and does not speak well for the future creativity of Hollywood. Time to turn America’s great entertainment vehicles over to the various states’ film offices and indie producers.
Joss is correct – America is “turning into Tsarist Russia” and that “we’re creating a country of serfs.” (We’re must be a code word for democrats).
How else do you explain the bailouts, the lawlessness, the endemic corruption and the systematic removal of our civil rights under the constitution that is the cornerstone of Obama’s “change”.
There is a huge failure staring all us conservatives in the face which is that while the federal government is made up, in a majority sense, of national socialist democrats, and they are the ones who are currently holding all the cards and controlling things, except for a republican-majority congress which is still made up, largely of statists, that….
….The people who are “causing all the problems” are Cheney, Bush and the long-since-retired people who USED TO BE in power. The left-wing elites still think that they are STILL the power-brokers; That they are turning the thumb-screws to make the poor people more dependent on government and create more like them.
Whedon is one of those who has drunk the Kool-Aide and his ignorance is showing. But he cannot for the life of him, admit that the years that the congress and senate and the executive branch of government had carte-blanche to do as they pleased, setting in motion the “fixes” that socialism would allegedly bring to troubles that EvilBushHitler set in motion.
Ignorance can only be repaired if the party wants to learn. It is not something that can be fixed simply by explaining it to the ignorant. Whedon most likely categorically dismisses logic and common-sense because he would lose the favor of the hollywood top-feeders. Again, being popular trumps being independently intelligent and knowing what’s right vs. what’s crap.
It is impossible to reconcile the creator for the plot of Serenity with a rabid supporter of the Democratic party, for something lke the Alliance is far more likely to have the Democratic party as ancestor than the Republican, and was so obvious at the time as to be not open to debate–so what I think we have here is a muddled report, and perhaps a man saying the GOP cannot be the party of Big Business only (vice, say, free markets). Or the man might himself have muddled thinking due to, say, social issues. Such is always possible.
But I am becoming increasingly agreed to the idea that it is not impossible, just very difficult, for the regular guy to today succeed on his own terms without connections or credentials. So, if you mean by “serfs” the phrase “wage slaves”, then, yes, I agree. Jefferson wanted a nation of freehold farmers because they would be independent in mind and deed. We don’t have enough of that today.
I am curious about how much he knows about Russian history. If he means by Tsarist Russia a certain kind of incompetence (as shown in the 1905 war) that still demanded its prerogatives as by right, then he needs to look to the left and academia more than the right, but he has a point there too. But it truly is an issue of the left, for the meritocracy isn’t.
The problem from my vantage point is that “The Wrap“‘s article was so badly written that it wasn’t entirely clear whether they were quoting him directly, or merely paraphrasing him, or putting in their own interpretation of what he said, or rather filling in the blanks with their own opinion.
I searched futilely for a video of his answer, but could not find one (if anyone else finds it, please post it here). So all we can do is rely on those quotes from Whedon that are in quotation marks.
While it is theoretically possible that Whedon’s statement meant the exact opposite of what it was reported as meaning (i.e. “I was a red-diaper baby, but I got over it, and it is Obama that is destroying capitalism,” etc., I have the sinking feeling that he has indeed drunk the Hollywood Hypocrite-Aide.
We need to remember that when the GOP gives in to rent-seeking demands that it undercuts the capitalist case and makes it that much easier for Democrats to obtain power, it is in fact a case of capitalism killing itself. Not that the Democrats aren’t doing crony capitalism also–but neither are they going around talking about the beauties of the system. He *might* be making that point, which is a serious one, because Democrats do not understand that what they desire is not a stable equilibria–it will go to some kind of autocracy eventually, either Napoleon’s authoritarian France or Russia’s inability or the gangster state of a Nazi Germany or Putin’s Russia. And thus it is a valid point, because, as the man pointed out, a lot of people want everybody to be happy. He was raised by some, and thus he is aware they will ram a solution home if they are given a chance. Nice people but stupid.
And if that is not his take, it is mine.
Go to minute 54: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dEEHn7ZiXU
Joss Whedon is just another Hollywood douchebag. He’s (indirectly) advocating pulling up the ladder of success behind him.
How is anyone supposed to save and invest and succeed financially when the government takes it all? Don’t ask Joss Whedon. He just wants it taken from you. Because … some bullshit about the middle class.
Well, my initial reaction was “and the war came”.
Beyond that, I’m fairly sure Ronald Reagan did not have much to do with the writer’s strike, one way or the other. His fellow libs in Hollywood did. One way, or the other.
Above all else, while I am not sure what the ultimate solution is, I am fairly sure it will not come from Joss Wheedon.
Incidentally, I understand Poland has unveiled a statue of Reagan this week. Had something to do with his struggle for personal dignity for the working class and middle class.
Having had a moment to reflect, I would say to Mr. Wheedon that *if* capitalism is destroying itself today, then socialism destroyed itself a long time ago, and that is why anything having a whiff of it is persona non grata–because time after time it proved destructive of the liberties and dignity of man. And since we never know where the tipping point will be, the best thing to do is to always be on guard.
I’m sure the peoples of Eastern Europe will agree with me here. Add in the fact that some things have deleterious second- and higher-order effects.
And then we have the fact that these days some of the left are as interested in my moral and social “well-being” as my economic. Say what you will about “oligopolists” running things–but the fact is that even if this true, then as long as you let them rake in the dough they will otherwise leave you the heck alone.
If only the left could say the same.
If Mr. Wheedon think there is a revolution that is going to be won by those of that ilk, he is sadly mistaken. Mystic chords of memory are going to resonate a lot louder–and fight a lot harder– than “show me the money” and “I love everything about you except anything you actually are.” I promise you.
The Marxist playbook proscribes calling Black White. Note:
“We are watching capitalism destroy itself right now,” he told the audience.
He added that America is “turning into Tsarist Russia” and that “we’re creating a country of serfs.”
Isn’t it exactly the opposite? Aren’t we turning from (frankly a better version of) Tsarist Russia into whatever become the 70 year Hell of Stalinist Soviet Union??
You must mean “prescribes.” “Proscribe” means to forbid or prohibit. Yes, it’s ridiculously confusing, isn’t it? Sort of like “inebriated” and “ebriated” meaning the exact same thing.
But aside from that, you are beyond right!
No, Tsarist Russia was closer Fascism. Loose free-markets at the beck and call of totalitarian leaders that would fiddle about and manipulate it when they saw fit. Russia was slowly becoming a free market economy, but not quick enough. But remember, Lenin coming to power was a coup, not a popular uprising.
– home in San Francisco with the other billionaire hypocrites.
This article fails.
I see no mention of socialism in JW’s remarks.
Is the man who owns slaves, in a slave owning society, a hypocryte, if he realizes there is something wrong with slavery, and says so?
This article is just wrong.
Yes, a slave-owner who owns slaves while simultaneously condemning the practice of slavery is indeed a hypocrite. In fact, one might hold such an example up as the very definition of hypocrisy.
“He said he was raised by people who thought socialism was a ”beautiful concept.””
See your optometrist for a better prescription.
Later in the article, visible at either link, he does the typical leftist do-se-do, first embracing socialism, and then claiming that the very existence of socialism is a Republican conspiracy theory. We’ve seen it all before.
Whedon mentions his parents. He does not say, “I support socilism” anywhere.
Your reply to my slavery example, ignores many real world realities.
Again, this article fails, The Wrap is a lousy source.
See my update.
I agree that The Wrap was a lousy source. Everyone was arguing without having reference to the source material.
Make sure nobody tells Glen Reynolds!
Yah, I can’t tell from this article what Whedon thinks, and maybe I couldn’t even tell from hearing him wtf he meant to say.
Cuz I agree that we are in a crisis of capitalism, it’s Washington and the banksters against the 99%, whoever is doing it the jobs *are* being outsourced, from the Olympic uniforms to flying astronauts to the space station. Is it a contest who is more destructive of capitalism, the socialists like Obama or the banksters and vulture capitalists? Who is creating the serfs, Obama or Romney, or basically, both?
But you can’t run around Hollywood saying stuff like that, so who knows what he meant, other than maybe he should have kept it more at arm’s length.
“Banksters” is a term only used by Occupy Wall Street and their apologists. It’s called a “tell.”
zombie, wander over to belmont club sometime, a whole lot of us on the right use it too. if you are NOT using it, you … might be a zombie.
If you *are* using “bankster”, you’re a moron.
It’s a portmanteau of “banker” and “shyster,” so it’s not only a tell, it’s an anti-Semitic one at that.
Er. can you back that up? It’s a mashup of gangster and banker.
And really, are you trying to say the likes of Geithner are not shysters? That’s a hard sell.
I don’t know what’s worse, the guy who sees a Jewish cospiracy behind every bush or the guy who sees an anti-semite behind every bush.
AFter a while I just wish they’d both shut up.
“Bankster” is a term used all over the libertarian right. Banker + gangster = bankster.
I know that bankster is a portmanteau of “banker + gangster,” but I’ve only ever seen it used by Occupiers.
Beats me. I most regularly encounter it at sites like voxday.blogspot.com – pretty much the polar opposite of the OWS bunch there.
Does Whedon sound the rallying cry for socialism to the assembled Hollywood elite at his $5.8 million mansion overlooking the Riviera Country Club in the toniest part of LA?
Well of course.
The guy outta just strip naked and divest himself of everything he owns/wears/uses that is a product of nasty capitalists.
Antiquated Noam Chomsky should give up the yacht and all the amenities he enjoys (including whirring around the planet on luxury aircraft) and Billy and Bernardine should give up the gourmet food and the big Chicago house.
Then we’ll talk.
Okay, maybe I’m a bad person, but . . . I laughed. “The Avengers” and “Firefly” are both excellent pieces of work, and surprisingly conservative in several ways–especially with the former’s treatment of Captain America, the relic of ’40s patriotism who is said to be needed more than ever in the fight for the salvation of the modern world. Oy vey.
I’m thinking Joss has fallen into the same trap as Paul Verhoeven, who set out to make “Starship Troopers” a criticism of the military and accidentally turned out a fun pro-military action film. There are none so blind as those convinced they have 20/20 vision.
Did we see the same movie? The one I saw was neither “fun” nor “pro-military”. It was as bad an interpretation of Heinlein as there could be.
What did that movie have to do with Heinlein’s book? Only similarity I saw was the title.
I’m still holding a grudge against that douche for screwing up one of the greatest sci-fi novels ever written.
During the era I read everything by Heinlein and loved him I was still aware that Starship Troopers was not one of the best SF novels ever written.
Yes, it was a horrible interpretation of Heinlein. You won’t catch me arguing on that one. But I remember watching it and cheering for the military guys, ready to see the bugs die . . . it was a shock to learn, years later, that it was supposed to be an extremely subtle piece of anti-military satire. So maybe I’m just obtuse.
Funny thing about Tinseltown socialists: They believe that nonsense that a person getting rich makes other people poor. Yes, that makes them hypocrites because they’re rich, but it’s actually worse than that, because, you see, it IS true in their world!
A movie has a set budget, so when the director or “star” asks for 20 million, well, that directly cuts into the amount that everyone else can get paid. Still, they ask for their mega-paychecks and the key grip and best boy be damned.
Taking a cut of the profits is OK, but that’s just the cherry on the sundae of their fat guaranteed pay.
this is how weenies with money buy “mob insurance”
say a few things, as this dude did, and “up your street cred”
then, when the angry mob comes with the pitchforks (as rush is wont to say) this guy can youtube what he said and the mob will move-on
no need to critique the senseless diatribe; it is what it is
Hopefully Joss will lead by example and ask for a huge salary cut to direct another Avengers film, but he probably won’t since his movie just made a bajillion dollars for his bosses, and would like to retain his services for a lucrative sequel.
Hey, Joss, Go brush up on your Russian history of the 20th century. The people blathering your ideas didn’t come out so well after the Bolsheviks took power. But you you didn’t know that, so why should anyone listen to you?
EVERYBODY:
See the update now at the beginning of the post. I have FULL EXACT TRANSCRIPT OF HIS SPEECH.
Please base subsequent comments on this actual transcript. I will add an analysis of this in a few minutes.
I guess the applause was at “personal dignity” and my own round of applause would be against anyone who even faintly believes a room full of PC analogues to Forester’s The Machine Stops are remotely like Americans. In my mind, these are people who will hug failure until we’re all dead and they are not the protagonists in SF literature but a suicide cult of droning hive-minds that lead to dystopia.
I know that sounds over the top but what I really did is just write a dramatic very short SF story and it needed some punch. In my story the room was composed of clones of the Berkeley City Council or as I call them, the two-legged Chicxulub impact.
I’ve watched the full remarks on youtube linked above and they’re simply rambling nonsense more than anything else punctuated by a rousing round of applause over something I frankly didn’t even understand other than it was some PC BS.
As someone who’s loved SF almost his entire life, I can say that from my point of view Whedon only has one claim on me and that is the very wonderful “Serenity.”
Other than that he appears to have a career that has produced a lot of unremarkable work I find almost unwatchable. I liked The Avengers film but to suggest it was in any way a smart screenplay is kinda dim and I also liked Captain America but feel the same way.
I don’t know if SF and comic fans have always been PC, almost teary-eyed idol-worshipers but I find such people disturbing. Other than “Serenity,” Whedon has done nothing to advance the cause of SF in film or TV other than to produce SF from the point of view of how a mainstream audience would enjoy it which is to say crud.
SF film and TV has never truly and consistently gotten off the ground compared to the literature and the literary side of it has shown signs of falling back in on itself for 20 years or more. It has become overtly conscious of itself as art in a faux-literary way, boring and repetitious and truly showing the effects of not having editors that are listened to. You have an awful lot of short stories padded out to amazing lengths.
I keep reading the much talked about new authors and new novels and it seems they give out Hugos and Nebulas nowadays to work that simply isn’t very good. I don’t know if there’s really nothing there to give awards to or whether the genre has been overcome by people who love doltish stereotypes rather than true expressions of iconoclastic creativity. Since the very meaning of iconoclastic in the arts for some years has been set in cement, i.e. the “Snowcrash,” effect, it’s an ironic view of what that means. Far from being a seminal work, I find novels like “Fire Upon the Deep” and “Snowcrash” to be inferior regurgitations of sitcoms.
Men like Whedon and John Scalzi seem to be almost unbelievably politically correct in a way that to me is the antithesis of what SF is about. Their fan base wants it and expects it and there’s hugs all around. Over the years, when it comes to the arts, I have found the use of the term “social justice” to me so sugar-sweetly sickening it makes me want to take up arms smuggling and burning down rain forests.
I would agree that there’s a derth of good SF out there right now. It’s really depressing, the whole section seems to be filled up with derivative vampire romance/mystery crap and unoriginal rehashings of tired cliches. Overall, I think it’s a problem with our PC culture. It seems to me like science fiction used to push the envelop back in the day, in terms of subject matter and social commentary, where you had plotlines that dealt with some topics – different sexual standards, for example, or anti-war statements or the benefits of cloning, etc – that were almost taboo and/or controversial. But those things are becoming more mainstream now. For an author to be pushing the boundaries and exploring new ideas, it’s much more difficult to use such ideas in a new and/or impactful fashion. One almost has to write stories exploring the opposite viewpoints (amorality in cloning, the necessity of war, the long-term social repercussion of new sexual norms). You do see that sort of thing, but it’s harder to find. Of course, not all SF is political, but good SF ought to be saying something about the human condition, which can’t happen if we have big swaths of it that are protected under the “ist” umbrella of untouchability. I don’t know if it’s a problem with the publishing houses or authors themselves, but I think that’s the major issue we’re seeing with it today.
I’d also agree that Whedon has contributed very little to the genre overall. Buffy was good for a few seasons, Angel had a mostly decent run, but I think the main problem with those two was his obvious discomfort/unfamiliarity with the subject matter (ie, demons, magic, religion) that he was working with. I do like that it didn’t rip off all its imagery from mythology and/or Christianity, but in a more general way, I think he was unwilling to commit to a firm stance on evil and the nature of it, or more specifically, how good is able to triumph over it. Whedon’s position in that ‘verse was that those two things (good/evil) are on the same playing field, with the same rules (with good possibly being more restricted), that both have an equal probability of winning, and evil can never be defeated. It’s very bleak. It never sat right with me, and made everything everyone did in his shows relative. I’ve never really been able to connect with his work because of it.
The Avengers was good, but it lacked a solid focus on good-vs-evil that a comic book movie needs (was Loki really evil, or was he just being controlled? etc), and was more or less a rehash of plot points Whedon took from Buffy/Angel. I’m honestly no hopeful for the second one – I think the studio’s going to give him more control, and it’s going to be a mess. Overall, I think that unwillingness to take a true and honest stance on good in his work reveals something deeply unsettled in his own worldview.
Here’s my full update:
IMPORTANT UPDATE:
Thanks to commenter “Ben White,” we’ve found a video of Whedon’s exact statements, which start at 54:30 in this video (transcription below):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dEEHn7ZiXU
Here’s what I think happened:
The Wrap reported somewhat inaccurately on Whedon’s speech, perhaps because the writer was a bit thrilled by Whedon’s populist anti-conservative rhetoric, and so framed their story with various paraphrases to make it seem palatable; then Big Hollywood, not having heard the original video, based their story on what The Wrap had reported, this time viewing their version of Whedon’s sentiments through a critical lens. So w`e are now already three layers deep in media re-framing.
So let’s wipe that all away and start with the raw transcript: What did Whedon say, exactly?
Well, first of all, it’s quite obvious that he’s very critical of and opposed to the current conservative fiscal philosophy, treating them like lunatics who are outside rational debate. And he’s very praiseful of the current left-leaning side of the Democratic Party currently in power, as he praises them as trying to preserve the “personal dignity” of the “working class.”
Because he purposely talks a bit obtusely in an attempt to partly disguise what he’s actually saying, it’s not necessarily easy at first to decipher his position; but the giveaway is that the bad guys are the ones accusing the good guys of being “socialists” — in other words the bad guys he’s speaking of are 2012′s conservatives.
But in the middle of the speech he also does the typical Democrat do-si-do: first praise socialism in theory, then say it doesn’t work in practice, and then act like the very notion of socialism is only a Republican conspiracy theory. Hopping to and fro like this, he avoids being pinned down on any particular position.
What he apparently wants is some mysterious unnamed utopian magic solution that somehow manages to preserve private ownership but at the same time forcibly levels the playing field for the “working class” (and why is he using Marxist terminology like this?). This is pretty much the same rhetoric that Obama uses: Poo-pooing socialism by name, but then not-so-subtly proposing socialist-tinged solutions.
So we have a mashup of minor media malfeasance, misreporting on an intentionally muddled left-leaning populist non-answer from Whedon, who rabid fans nonetheless eat it up.
Duke it out in the comments section.
Joss, might as well put the “Return of Firefly” back in the closet.
No thinking person will watch it.
Either you are a Soros lite hipocrit or you are just another gutless Hollywood drone. Either way, I’ll never see another piece of your work in any format.
Maybe Mr Whedon should put just a small amount of his wealth towards funding an entertaining film which would also explain how his ideal society would function. He could establish a foundation to “spread some wealth” amongst the deserving “working class”.
By the way, 0.000001% equals one in a hundred million; is Mr Whedon one of the three or four richest people in the USA?
Actually, Whedon gives tons of money to charities, including those helping abused girls and women in Third World, especially Muslim, countries. He is the son of the one of the writers of Golden Girls, and the grandson of one of the writers of the old Donna Reed Show. His television series Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel (both heavily comedic) are possibly two of the best series, ever, in the history of television, with brilliant writing, acting, casting, editing, and scoring. He’s an accomplished writer, director, and music composer with so many credits to his name, nobody can keep track. He’s also responsible for coining dozens of idioms now part of our vernacular.
His mother was a feminist activist, and her indoctrination has affected him. Still, his movies and television shows do not reflect the Democratic Party platform. His half-black pseudo-messianic villain Jasmine in the Angel series was, possibly, an authentic presage (which he may not be aware of) of Obama, complete with fawning sycophants (including the MSM), phony messages of love and light, and an utter ruthless personality unknown to her hoodwinked followers.
Whedon’s obsession with the supernatural and paranormal, and his hilarious, but never malicious, spoofs on both, are not typical of modern atheists. Say what you will about his politics, the man is a genius and first rate artist, with virtually no competition.
Note that the character Jasmine was dark-skinned, and that my description of her as “half-black” is probably too simplistic. The gorgeous actress and trained opera singer who played her, Gina Torres, is of mixed racial Cuban heritage.
I admire Whedon much like you do, but know little about him. That he is the son and grandson of connected TV writers now explains A LOT. I had wondered how his rise had been so smooth and fast (the Buffy feature film failed, but he got a chance to write a weekly TV show of it? Unprecedented!), and now I know. *Sigh* More of the same. Connections and credentials, the sine qua non elements without which no amount of talent will take you very far anymore. In the light of Ayn Rand’s description of the “aristocracy of money” defeated and replaced by the “aristocracy of pull,” everything he said makes sense, and his socialist fantasies are perfectly congruent with the world he lives in, which has been so very generous to him. They’ll see that we get fed, they’ll grant us our “dignity,” and we will of course be grateful for it – just as long as we know that our place is on the outside looking in. If you haven’t read Angelo Codevilla’s polemic “The Ruling Class,” go do yourself a favor right now.
Hollywood legend has it that he had endless failures and rejections till he finally landed a writing spot on Rosanne, and that his family contacts either were of no help, and/or that he refused to take advantage of them.
I think his success is more than deserved, but, then, so is the potential success of thousands of talented writers and performers. Maybe there IS an element of Fate or Karma at work in everyone’s life, after all.
Buffy the Vampire-Slayer was hackneyed. It broke no new ground, the design, stories and scripts were boring, the casting poor – a predicable show. I’m a fan of the genre so I come pre-disposed to like such things. It wasn’t good. The movie’s really overrated too. I get it: teenage faux-bimbo kills vampires – da opposite of wut you’d expek – well, do something with the idea. How far can you stretch what’s basically a still shot of a lava lamp? It would’ve been a lot smarter to set it in the ’50s or something, use old monster movies, drive-in theaters, a time when people were more naive would’ve set it off – anything.
It wasn’t hackneyed. At the time, it DID break new ground, over and over, and over. And you obviously didn’t see the sixth season musical episode, which was a tribute to 1950s and 1960s films, including the melodramatically sexy female dancing straight from James Bond, and every corny 1960s musical out there. Whedon wrote the music and the lyrics throughout.
As someone who grew up with the occult (ugh!), I very much appreciated the inside jokes, and the many well-deserved slaps at the occult community.
The musical was embarrassing. It’s what happens when actors take themselves too seriously and start serving themselves as “serious” actors who want to show what else they can do. The series stinks. Every episode is a average cast going through the motions with terrible make up on someone’s head to make them a “demon.” I might have liked it when I was 6 and had no discrimination filters. It had no panache, style, an appreciation of it’s own genre’s history, nothing. Even the fight stunts were half-hearted and terribly choreographed. Calling man like Whedon a genius doesn’t cut it. I can find more originality in a short story from the 30s.
Serenity was different. It showed an awareness of when stereotypes were twisted, Sf film history, had a great script, great cast, fine acting and incredible fight stunts and seminal and unique special effects and design. I could watch that type of work all day.
Thanks Florida. I’ve bought two shows on DVD- Buffy and Angel and when Joss thinks is irrelevent. Reading the cleaned up version, at best he sounds confused- at worst, full of cliche. With the success of the Avengers- I wonder what he’ll do with the pot of gold- I worry he’ll indulge his cliches.
Still love the Joss [the knucklehead.]
It’s interesting how far people will take a single statement. He was asked a question, a question he had no prior knowledge was going to be answered, a question he wasn’t prepared for and not surprisingly he gave a somewhat muddled answer. People take that and run with it all the way to the bank, calling him socialist, utopian, communist and everything in between.
In the first article Zombie admits he didn’t have all the facts and he hadn’t heard the full statement for himself. But that didn’t stop him from calling Whedon a socialist. That tells a lot about him and his political biases. So this is a very important article; just not in the way Zombie intended it.
Yes, it is important, because unlike left-leaning media outlets, I went to great lengths to seek out the orginal primary source to verify a questionable story, spent a long time transcribing it precisely word-for-word, amended my original conclusions which were based on someone else’s poor reporting, gave the full disclosure to the readers in an update to let them reach their own conclusions, and left my original post intact so that the full arc of the story can be followed.
Compare that to the MSM or to any number of leftist blogs.
To quote my original article:
and
You can pretend to be blind when it suits you, but the rest of us can see.
Honestly, I think Whedon is more of a social conformist who’s never spent five minutes trying to understand any point of view except the one he’s expected to regurgitate.
Odd quote by Whedon. I agree with his prognosis – we are destroying capitalism and we are on the road to serfdom.
His idea – more Obama tax and spend, more government, etc… just accelerates the process. I wonder if that is what he really thinks, or just what he is expected to say in Hollywood.
As long as he keeps churning out good Libertarian Sci-Fi, I don’t care.
The man is a first class fool.
Details please, Wheedon. What was taken away? Because I can tell you what Democrats took away–the right for a guy to grow his own food. Impacts interstate commerce, you see, and interferes with the plans of those trying to help build structures for the “working class”. So top that one, jerk.
It sounded like the kind of “stream of conciousness” babble that one might hear after a night drinking with entertainment industry types.
Another chubby, silver-spooned Westside NY’er-turned-Hollywood Illiberal bourgeoisie type spouting the ‘awesomeness’ of the Socilaist construct.. TOTALLY alien to his own upbringing, experiences mind you. Knock me over with a feather.
Joss Whedon’s old man getting rich off The Electric Company & his mother being a ‘political activist’ allows and encourages this cherub to have such nonsensical views long before adulthood and idiotic sound bite at Comic Con.
As for those speaking highly of, ‘Firefly/ Serenity’ – seriously? The movie/ t.v. program completely sucked.
If you long for the smarmy, mediocre acting of Nathan Fillion he stars in the idiotic drama, ‘Castle’ nowadays. Yet this moronic show continues getting picked up. Lame.
It clearly is time for Wheedon to retire from the industry and do good works for the rest of his life, because at some point you’ve made enough money, and anything he does from now on deprives someone else of their chance to have a start, to have a goal, to have a life, to have an income, to have a chance. Especially in Hollywood–perhaps the hardest industry in America to make it in, failure being the near-universal rule, if I understand correctly.
I mean, for him to not now gracefully retire from the industry would just be some rich guy using his connections with even richer guys in ways that helped only themselves..corporations and the enormously rich people who are very often in Hollywood power giving themselves more Hollywood power to get even more Hollywood power.
Do the right thing, Joss. Retire. Let some struggling guy have his shot.
“It clearly is time for Wheedon to retire from the industry and do good works for the rest of his life, because at some point you’ve made enough money, and anything he does from now on deprives someone else of their chance to have a start, to have a goal, to have a life, to have an income, to have a chance.”
Leftist zero-sum Rubbish. Wheedon’s wealth is his own and has nothing whatsoever to do with my own (or lack thereof). The man is an ass. That’s all. Leave his bankbook out of it. It’s irrelevant to the ideology he espouses.
I think you missed the point.
But no one who knows Hollywood will have. It’s not about money. It’s about the break. He can keep the money. He’s set. If he ever works again, though, he’ll, one-for-one, be preventing an unknown from getting a chance.
Have a nice day.
Oh!
Well you have a nice, uh, evening, Dr. Logicuss.
It is truly astonishing to see the American Left *openly* proclaiming their love for the pernicious, and ultimately insupportable, ideology of our former Soviet/Maoist enemies.
I wonder what “structures” Whedon thinks are required in order to allow everyone “a start, to have a goal, to have a life, to have an income, to have a chance.” I always thought that in America, those necessary “structures” were already in place.
I don’t agree that we’re “creating a nation of serfs.” However, the left (all too often aided and abetted by those ostensibly on the right), is attempting to create a nation of dependency. Has Whedon ever considered the consequences of serfdom to one’s government? Where is the dignity in having the necessities, and even some of the luxuries, of life handed to you?
I agree, it’s honestly horrifying to see ignorant comments made on this site, that could easily have been spewed by an OWS type.
Personally, based on history, oppression comes from government, serfdoms were government constructs (micro-monarchies). Corporations don’t and can’t oppress people if they are not aided and abetted by government.
Plus, you’re right that the middle-class is not destroyed in the US. Statistically, it hasn’t grown as much as it we would like, but it hasn’t shrunk either. We are basically tied with China as the largest manufacturing economy, so while there has been jobs shipped overseas, many have been replaced.
The Black middle class has, since 2008, almost disappeared.
Black unemployment in June was 14.4% and RISING, while the national rate is 8.2%. Black families are falling out of the middle class and their prospects to return to that level of prosperity IN THEIR LIFETIME are dim.
How’s that for hope n’ change?
“No, Joss Whedon is no socialist. He’s the ultimate capitalist, and he obviously loves to enjoy the lavish comforts that having tens of millions of dollars can bring him.”
I disagree. The man is a socialist elite. His life is set. He has his. Now he wants to tell the plebes what to think. The Soviet elites all had their dachas, well-supplied with the best booze, the best food, and the best women. Whedon is no different. He has all the cash he needs. Now he wants power. He fancies himself a man of history.
Well look, ComicCon may not be the place to outline a political philosophy in depth, nor may Whedon really have one. “Corporations” are a politically safe bad guy, especially in Hollywood. I could shrug off all he said except for the last line, and even that is about as clear as mud.
The corporate culture in America did change under Reagan, everybody agrees on that, the question is from what to what, and whether it is all good, or not. And it changed further under Clinton, Bush, and Obama, but it had remained more or less stable from about 1933 to 1981. The “greed is good” culture on Wall Street, the “masters of the universe”, started in the 1980s, as did the “jackpot” mentality for VCs in Silicon Valley. As did the huge inflation in CEO salaries compared to previously.
The middle class has been destroyed over the past thirty years by several factors, in case you haven’t noticed. James Carville is publishing a book about it. His diagnosis is good, of course his prescription is entirely wrong. I don’t think Romney disagrees with the diagnosis, but I hope he disagrees with the prescription, OTOH he may not, and that’s the problem I’d have with Romney.
Not that I even have a magic solution, but I’d be careful not to make things worse.
What was the question? Oh yeah, Whedon. Well, maybe he’ll be asked for a follow-up and expand it at length and clarify it, for better or worse.
“The corporate culture in America did change under Reagan, everybody agrees on that …”
How so?
My specific problem is when he says “we have people who are trying to create structures or preserve structures that will help the working class and the middle class, and people who are calling them socialists”.
When the government tries to “create structures” (or what-the-hell-ever you want to call it) they always do it by stealing money from the people who earned it and/or by bullying people. If you want the government to “create structures” for you, then you want the government to steal for you and bully people for you.
I’m fed up with being stolen from and bullied. And I’m beyond tired of these Hollywood douchebags, with their fortunes made, secure in their mansions, sicking their government attack dogs on the rest of us. And then lying about it, telling everyone stories about how it all worked out great because the ruling class cared so much. And the victims? Forget about them. They must have been evildoers, else they’d be cheering their ruling class benefactors.
“the “greed is good” culture on Wall Street”
Are you capable of distinguishing fantasy from reality? That line was written by a screen writer and spoken by an actor.
Bottom line: Never trust a self-proclaimed champion of “the working class” who is himself as rich as Oprah Winfry (or Teresa Heinz Kerry). NEVER. Look to yourself, and to your own self be true. Beware these “prophets” of Social Justice. All they want is to add your name to their list.
The answer is obvious: outlaw filmmaking and replace it with a government bureau directed by an Obama-appointed czar.
Each worker is paid the same. Production is controlled by government to make it fair.
The important things to know about Whedon are: his father and grandfather were Hollywood semi-royalty, gramps being a writer on Dick Van Dyke, dad being one on Golden Girls. Dad got him his first job as a writer on Roseanne, who treated the writers like serfs. His Dad divorced his feminist, Berkeley prof Mom who passed away years ago.
Moreover, Whedon like most producer-writers has had epic fights with network execs and studio heads and bosses.
Whedon is the elite of the elite, the upper 0.00001%, but in a battle to the death with the OTHER elites. Pretty much all of them DESPISE the audience, ordinary people (who they view with horror and disdain, not understanding them at all), and would happily exterminate most ordinary people and institutions.
The model to think of is cronyists in China fighting each other, over nothing more than dynastic power. That’s all it is. Whedon is no more conservative than I am the King of France. Minear was the one who according to a guy at NRO (Jim Geraghty) stopped Whedon from using a VERY icky story on Firefly. Whedon’s own work is mildly successful but based as much on casting a lead actress he fought with constantly (the reverse Charlie Sheen, basically); or total failure: Titan AE, Alien Resurrection, Serenity, Dollhouse, etc.
What Whedon HATES HATES HATES is the rise of the middle class with first Reagan and then the Tea Party because he wants HIS dynastic alliance to win, not the other one. Reportedly Whedon had some speech in the Avengers by Captain America about how no one should have weapons and the evils of the US government, cut by studio brass.
Whedon is very proud of his awards by Gay groups, is a self-proclaimed feminist, and has written rural Whites as mutant KKK mouth breathing monsters, portrayed Christianity particularly the evangelical variety as evil, and is fairly indistinguishable from your hard core leftist like Aaron Sorkin or that guy who wrote Traffik proclaiming socialism from his Malibu mansion.
That is not of course hypocritical, all socialism really is in the end is dynastic rule by a hereditary class. All Whedon has as a beef is his lot is not in total dynastic power, with a smattering of “cool” and “scientific” hereditary rule.
The thing to keep in mind about Whedon: his only massive success was taking stuff done 50 years ago or so by ill-paid comic book writers and not screwing it up. EVERY attempt on his own failed save Sarah Michelle Gellar and others carrying his ass.
[Yes Scalzi is terrible. PC is killing sci-fi.]
It’s true that a lot of his series have failed, but not because of lack of artistic quality. “Firefly” was a beautifully written, extremely well-cast (and VERY LIBERTARIAN-themed) show, but Fox screwed him over on it, airing episodes in a poor time-slot and out of order, and canceling it before the first season finished (but word-of-mouth and strong dvd sales led to a movie studio actually producing a movie based on it- has that happened for any other cancelled-during-first-season-show ever?). Lack of immediate popularity does not mean lack of quality (and Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog, which he did outside the studio system, did pretty well; and in your list of failed screenplays I see you did not include his work on the very successful films Toy Story and Speed).
Also, as to the charge of him portraying Christianity as evil- yeah, he’s written the wild-eyed zealot Christian, but he’s also written the character of Shepherd Book, which is one of the best portrayals of a devout Christian that I have ever seen on the TV (it’s one of the reasons I respect him so much; he is an atheist, but he tries to give a fair hearing to multiple perspectives on his show through his characters).
Anywho, is he a brain-dead liberal–sadly? Yeah, probably, judging from these comments of his (though it doesn’t really shock me- I assume it’s the position of anybody in Hollywood till they prove otherwise). But I still respect the man and wouldn’t ascribe any sinister, hateful qualities to him. As he alludes to here, he was raised by Marxist kool aid-drinkers. And he works within an industry that is a liberal echo chamber. As evidenced by Firefly there’s something inside him that can see the dangers of government do-gooder nannyism, but it’s hard to break out of the (in his case liberalism) religion you were raised in and are surrounded by. It took David Mamet a long time to realize the disparities between his capitalist lifestyle/conservative-themed writing and the liberal platitudes he would spout, and to make the journey to conservatism. Hopefully someday Whedon will have his road-to-Damascus moment. In any case, I still eagerly anticipate his stuff and would recommend his work to anyone who loves great character-writing and story telling.
Sorry, no sale. I encourage any friend of liberty to avoid the man’s work like a plague. Let him play to his Democratic audience, and let us have no more to do with him.
How much does it cost a family of four to see some movie? And he wants to tell me about corporate greed?
Mine was supposed to be a reply to Devon above. Apologies.
I understand the quality of his work. Hard to enjoy it when a fool thinks you are the one, despite the evidence on your side. I’ve always wondered what time-warp glasses cause these clowns to look at 21st century America and see Dickens’ London.
To be blunt, I guess the ability to have welfare baby after welfare baby and passing the tab to the tax payer was something that got taken away, starting in the Reagan era. Well thank our Obama that Obama put that institution back in place. Of course, other politicians, politicians the left doesn’t like, slightly more responsible pols–you can attack them if they have big families, because obviously they are anti-birth control, and so fair game.
And that’s Wheedon’s problems. You attack the cornerstones that hold everything up and then expect them to march in lockstep behind you to aid some folks who promise nothing but to be permanent wards, wards criticizing you all the time for not doing more, while never answering the question of why they don’t do more themselves. No thanks. If I fail, I’d rather fail on my own, because of my own issues, than fail on my own because of my issues but with a big government check coming in every other week. And I’ve walked that walk. Drop dead, Wheedon.
HIS REAL/GIVEN NAME IS “Joseph Hill Whedon”.
JOE HILL WAS A FAMOUS AMERICAN COMMUNIST.
COMMIES AREN’T BORN; THEY ARE MADE – BY BRAINWASHING/EDUCATION AND “RE-EDUCATION”.
IF WE WANT TO ERADICATE LEFTISM WE NEED TO DEMOLISH THE STRANGLEHOLD THE LEFT HAS ON THE MEDIA AND THE SCHOOLS.
WHICH MEANS DEMOLISHING THE NEA AND UFT AND ALL PEU’S.
(AND SUPPORTING NEW MEDIA LIKE PJM!)
He can say whatever dumb stuff he wants. He makes *GREAT* TV.
Gotta say I was perplexed and disappointed to hear this about Whedon as I really enjoy several of his movies and tv series, so I read and re-read the question and answer several times and finally think I have figured out why there is such incongruity on display.
Of late, I’ve developed the theory that the left does a lot of projection.
Whatever they are most incensed about, you can bet they are themselves the most guilty of it.
Kind of like the liar who is convinced everyone is dishonest, or…..
Screaming over transparency in campaign finance laws all the while ignoring vast overseas donations with unverified credit card data to Obama’s campaign in 2008 or…..
Screaming over civility while simultaneuously accusing someone of being a felon or….
Screaming over helping and protecting the little guy against corporations, all the while their own picks for supreme court justices rule that a city can take a private citizens land and give it to another private citizen simply to boost tax revenues or….
Screaming over personal freedom all the while claiming unto government the authority and power to force a person against their wishes to act in the way the government wants (or they’ll tax you into oblivion for misbehaving) or….
Screaming over free speech while simultaneously doing everything possible to shut down speech they disagree with or….
Claiming to fight for the little guy and justice while living in a mansion and having a child with a mistress as their wife dies of cancer or….
Living in a mansion with a “carbon footprint” the size of New Jersey and decrying capitalism while simultaneously flying around the globe on a private jet and preaching the virtue of the rest of society giving up air conditioning and the internal combustion engine, while at the same time selling “carbon credits”.
I could go on, but you get the idea.
The thing is I am not even sure the majority of the left (or at least their foot soldiers) realizes this about themselves. They strike me as shallow and lacking the urge of introspection, and more inclined to simply absorb what they are told to believe rather than develop their own belief system – so they very well could be ignorant of this tendency about themselves.
Give it a shot and you will be amazed at how accurate this theory is.
Anyway, if you think of Whedon’s work in that sense, it is very possible that he is making his villains guilty of the very things the left claim to so despise, and by unconscious default is making his heroes more closely resemble what the political right values as they will typically be the very opposite of the villains.
I’m sure some psychologists could have more fun with this theory…..but this is what I think may be going on.
Either that, or he’s simply a hypocrite.
The true capitalists of the capitalists create the problem, the people in fear, tend to “buy” into it. People like Obama and Romney are just puppets. A confused and fearful people are easy to control, who cares if the people have guns when you control the army.
Income tax paid now is higher than the share paid by share croppers back in the old days. Whos the serf?
Zombie, you’re doing good. Anyone who can write an article that gets as much intelligent feedback as this one is an asset. Please step into my replicator booth so we can make a dozen more of you…
How many more IRS agents are going to be hired so they can collect a fine for not buying something (like Obamacare)? And who passed that piece of legislative garbage? Not the GOP. Pretty soon, the democrats are going to pass some more garbage laws that will make us report every fa rt and a sswipe (or the equivalent big brother cra p).
I anticipate Whedon’s response to our criticism will be: “Grrrr! Aarghh!
Very clever.
But, what’s the point of the criticism? People, including Whedon, have a right to believe anything they want and speak out about it. Apparently, many of the posters here think only conservative Republicans should express themselves. Has it ever occurred to any of them that THEY may be wrong? About politics, about religion, about art? No, obviously not.
Most adult humans are products of their upbringings. A few of us were lucky to have had parents who didn’t indoctrinate us, but encouraged us to think for ourselves. Whedon was raised as a liberal. Many here were raised as conservatives. It’s the same process at work in both cases.
The fact that my ancestors were Christians and accepted as true the claims and myths of Christianity does not make those claims and myths true. The fact that my father is a Republican and my mother was a Democrat does not confer anything on either party. You couldn’t pay me to follow any of these traditions. Life is hard enough without sanctimonious fanatics telling everyone else what to believe and do. Let’s leave Whedon to his own devices. He’s a genius and a great artist, and has done a lot of good on the planet. Isn’t that enough? Creative right-brained people are here for a reason. Without them, the entire world would like like Afghanistan.
Well, I liked “Firefly” and liked “Serenity” even more, but Wheedon’s apparently somewhat unguarded statement of his true beliefs has now tainted them for me.
So, not really the great champion of free men, individual rights, liberty, capitalism, property, and keeping what you earn vs. the coercive, dictatorial “collective”–he just plays one for a very good living–but in reality a champion of Obama & Co.’s current day incarnation of that very collective, of what is, in essence, Communism (but, of course, in actual practice just for all those “little people”—the “masses” and “workers”).
Just as during the Clinton mess we were told that we should separate a President’s “private life” from his “public” one as President, we have also been told, ad nauseam, that we should separate an artist’s politics from his art, an argument that I reject.
The private is personal and vice versa, because one inevitably bleeds into and influences the other, and unless one is a highly trained, deep cover agent, completely isolating and compartmentalizing one part of your life from the other is just not possible. Pete Seeger may sing a great song—although I’ve always thought that was very debatable, too—but the fact that he is a Communist means, for me, that all of his work is suspect, and now so is Joss Whedon’s.
I have a friend very much like Mr. Whedon. He proudly and frequently proclaims himself to be a liberal. He’s a good man, with good intentions, and he’s someone I can discuss ideas with in-depth without it turning into a shouting match, even when we disagree.
The funny thing is, on most topics, despite his oft-proclaimed liberalism, the man is profoundly conservative. He rarely disagrees with my conservative framing of key issues (as long as I don’t mention names, parties or groups he’s been taught to react badly toward, like The Tea Party). That’s the thing, while his instincts are conservative, in the traditional founding father sense — he values liberty, personal responsibility, strong individual rights, freedom from government meddling — he has learned all his life that “good people are liberal.” It’s like a blind spot.
He watches and reads liberal media and it’s almost Pavlovian how, at the mention of certain key phrases: “Bush”, “Tea Party”, etc., his powers of rational thought go right out the window. Mention “The Tea Party” and a stream of invective about “ignorant racists” is likely to stream from his mouth. Unbelievable, when just minutes ago we were agreeing about the importance of property rights and the value of the Ninth Amendment.
I think that’s where Whedon is — I’ve seen pretty much every TV show and movie he’s done and his conservative/libertarian instincts are undeniable. Except to himself. He has been raised all his life in an environment where “liberal == good, conservative == evil.” He just wants to be on the side of good. Thus the reason he sounds so muddled every time he has to discuss politics publicly.