Medved's `Hollywood Vs. America' Raises Questions, Piques Insiders

Michael Medved knew he was tossing himself into a firestorm.

In writing his book "Hollywood vs. America: Popular Culture and the War on Traditional Values," Medved - who since 1985 has co-hosted the PBS movie review program "Sneak Previews" - felt certain that he would be labeled "a traitor to the industry" and "the most hated man in Hollywood."

Depending on your point of view, Medved's book is either a long-overdue examination of the increasingly dark and disturbing trends in movies, music and television, or the ramblings of a confused conservative who has seen far too many lousy movies. In any case, Medved was more or less correct about the entertainment industry's reaction to his book:

"It reads like a nervous breakdown set in type," wrote Variety's Peter Bart in his trade-paper editorial. Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America (which determines movie ratings), said, "Medved is a singularly uninformed individual who leaps from stupid premises to soggy conclusions."

Response outside the industry has been similarly critical, ranging from lengthy and intelligent analyses by critic David Denby in The New Republic and Louis Menand in the New Yorker, to cheap-shot attacks on Medved's "demagoguery" toward the popular media.

A more balanced view was taken in a recent Newsweek article , and "Hollywood vs. America" has drawn support from a variety of syndicated columnists (including Mike Royko and John Leo). Much to his surprise, Medved says, a "shockingly supportive" reaction has come from people in the industry's creative community.

Clearly Medved has pinched a sensitive cultural nerve.

With such chapter titles and subheadings as "A Bias for the Bizarre," "Comic Book Clergy," "Kids Know Best" and "The Urge to Offend," Medved's book uses a veritable maelstrom of examples and statistics to support his theme that Hollywood - the collective of film, television, and popular music industries (with emphasis on movies) - has lost touch with its audiences, and is ruining its own financial interests with a disrespect for the institions of religion, marriage, family, miltary service, patriotism, and capitalism.

The book's assertions run the gamut from eminently sensible to outlandishly myopic and illogical. With its combination of common sense and internal contradiction, "Hollywood vs. America" will outrage some (Denby called it "the stupidest book about popular culture I have read to the end"), while providing instant affirmation for those who've been alienated by a perceived decline in the moral values of that nebulous behemoth called "popular culture."

"I'm not being misunderstood," Medved observed, while in Seattle last week to discuss his book. "But I am being misrepresented by people like (Variety's Bart). Nobody who has actually read my book could possibly believe that I call for a return the the Production Code of the 1930s (which placed strict censorial guidelines on film content). I never call Jack Valenti `a tool of the counterculture,' or Tom Cruise `a dangerous role model.' It's a lie.

"What people like Bart are doing is that, rather than encountering the theme of the book, they are singling things out from the text to wrongly claim that I don't like `The Little Mermaid,' (which Medved praises while also stating it `encouraged children to disregard the values and opinions of their parents').

"If the book were simply a list of films I don't like, it would have to be a lot longer than 400 pages. It's a description of trends, tendencies and messages which I don't like, some of which appear in very wonderful movies."

That easily misinterpreted notion - bad messages in good movies - is just one indication that Medved, 43, has probably bitten off far more than one book or one critic can chew. But the author, a registered Republican, one-time law school classmate of presidential candidate Bill Clinton and father of three young children, is steadfast in his belief that his all-inclusive Hollywood represents a particularly skewed mindset.

"What I think you have there is a very insular community, with its own standards and values, where a certain kind of work will be applauded and a certain kind derided. They applaud "Night and the City" (the current release starring Robert De Niro and Jessica Lange) because it's gritty, hard-hitting and downbeat. But they deride "Beethoven." It doesn't matter that it (a family comedy about an oversized Saint Bernard) made a huge profit, they call it commercial pap. It's that attitude, about what constitutes high artistry, that is really my target here.

"The point I am making explicitly in the book is not that Hollywood should stop making certain movies, or that any films should be censored, but that the movie mix is out of balance, that they are not giving the public what it seems they want because the public is not responding."

Before switching to film reviewing eight years ago, Medved was a screenwriter. He recently weathered criticism from colleagues claiming that his objectivity had been compromised by his acknowledged relationships with Hollywood studios. Medved still gives unpaid advice to studios about how they should release their films but, he says, that's as far as his "relationships" go.

About writing "Hollywood vs. America," Medved said, "I had a very difficult decision to make. I'm not an idiot. I realize that this will now make my work as a critic much more difficult, because now I'm seen to represent a certain point of view."

Encouraged by his wife Diane, a clinical psychologist who, he said, "has been after me for years to quit my job," Medved wrote "Hollywood vs. America" to mold something positive out of a harried career that he is still passionate about. (To indicate the complexity of the issues he raises, Medved lists "The Lover," a film controversial for its explicit sex, as one of the best films of 1992, along with "Enchanted April," "Howards End," "Unforgiven," "Alan and Naomi," "A Stranger Among Us" and "Wayne's World.")

Amid the controversy about "Hollywood vs. America," Medved finds satisfaction. "To some extent I'm gratified because the book has become a lightning rod for debate, and has caused issues to be raised that might not otherwise have been raised. And that's what I wanted."