Now that I understand that I will change my mind about words and their definitions.

Fearless is willing to charge a machine gun nest all by yourself or rush into a burning building; Brave is being a black dude in the 1950's in the South and daring to set at the whites only section to force change in the country.

Making a movie isn't at the same level. Maybe making a pro-Jewish movie in Nazi Germany would make someone use those descriptions, but I don't think there is much personal risk making a movie about johns who hire prostitutes for the GFE.

Force of Evil, Brute Force, The Prowler, Night and the City - those were all damn good "capitalism is evil" movies, and the funny thing is those commies seemed less preachy than the guys making those type of films today.

And to believe that "capitalism squeezes out everything else" is one of the primary beliefs of Marxism so I don't understand how that makes TGE any less anti-capitalist

If there is more preachiness, in anti-capitalist films, I think it's the increasing desperation in the wake of Communism's fall. You have to hit the dramatic notes harder, or else people might start laughing at you, which we all know is a fate worse than being hated.

As for Stanley Kramer, yes he could be preachy and be so obvious when delivering his message (especially the ones he directed) that he should have been wearing a mailman uniform, but for one thing he was preaching a message that the overwhelming majority of Americans probably accepted – racism and anti-Semitism was bad. The majority of Americans at that time might not have wanted to hang out with blacks, Jews or other minorities, but I think they all accepted the fact that racism was bad and unfair. And yes, Southerners obviously disagreed with racial tolerance and complained about his movies, but that just made Kramer’s films seem “important” when they really were tame (obvious and in-your-face, but not very brazen or challenging).

The only film in recent years that reminds me of a Kramer film is “Brokeback Mountain” which I think is a good movie but far from being as daring as everyone thinks it is. I mean, how many people out there in America are really against the idea of two gay men being in love? And the ones that are, they are so ass-backward and intolerant you knew they never would have accepted the movie. It changes no ones opinion but gives the illusion of being a “brave movie.” It is important that it broke new ground for homosexual story lines; it didn’t change America over night.

I should also say that some of the films Kramer produced were much more powerful and touched on sensitive subject matters much better than his own films did. The Men (handicapped), High Noon (HUAC and the Witch-Hunts), and The Sniper (mentally disturbed) all dealt with important subject matter but didn’t feel preachy or obvious. In fact two of them – High Noon and The Sniper – didn’t feel like message movies at all, they were genre flicks with a message smuggled in.

That is also why I think the past filmmakers were so much better at conveying messages than most modern films – they had to smuggle them in so people would see them as entertainment and not a church sermon. Anyone who has seen Martin Scorsese’s Personal Journey Through American Film knows about this concept – Scorsese spends an entire section of the DVD on this. Yes there was the important message movie, but the lower budget genre flicks that chose not to be so overt in their message usually eclipsed those. Hence while the studio gave you a painfully obvious story about anti-Semitism like Gentlemen’s Agreement, RKO gave you Crossfire, a film noir with anti-Semitism as the motive for murder. Today you get an obvious story about racism like Crash, but back then they made films dealing with the same subject matter that were infinitely better: the Well, No Way Out, Odds Against Tomorrow. All of those films are vastly superior to Haggis’ clumsy and intelligence insulting ode to Southern California racism.

And of course the Commie filmmaker had to be more covert and clever than anyone else, because he was sending a message that was generally despised by the majority of Americans (Communism is good isn’t going to get many people in the theatres). The only thing hated more than a Commie in America is a child molester, and the only filmmaker I know making pro-sleeping with underage boys is Victor Salva, and he isn’t nearly as good at hiding it as Abraham Polansky or Jules Dassin (I mean, Jeepers Creepers II and Powder look like they could have been financed by NAMBLA).

Damn it, blakindigo, you got me sprouting off like Cliff Claven!