By Haoran Xia
Published on: DeepFocus
June 16, 2021
Almost without notice, Hollywood has become a major gathering point and distribution hub for contemporary political opinion. Whether it was Leonardo DiCaprio, after waiting nearly two decades to finally win the Academy Award for Best Actor in 2016, using his acceptance speech to advocate environmental protection and climate responsibility; or the producers of Moonlight in 2017 declaring, upon winning Best Picture, “To all the boys and girls watching at home who feel marginalized - you are not alone”; or Natalie Portman embroidering the names of overlooked female directors and filmmakers onto her gown at the 2020 Oscars, further amplifying the spirit of the #MeToo movement and gender equality - Hollywood’s award ceremonies and red carpets have long become a political stage. Add to this the increasing number of film texts and production companies that implicitly embody a stance of “political correctness,” and it becomes clear that while Hollywood remains the center of the global film and entertainment industry, it has also been increasingly branded, irrevocably, by identity politics and racial politics.
As we enter the post-pandemic era, the immediate impact of COVID-19 is gradually being worn smooth by time. Yet the political events that erupted during the pandemic, along with the traumas they left behind, the hatred they ignited, and the power struggles they intensified, have once again pushed Hollywood to the eye of the storm. It now stands at the convergence point of these events, seemingly tasked with pointing filmmakers and audiences alike toward a new path forward. In May this year, the outbreak of renewed conflict between Israel and Palestine quickly dominated global news headlines, once again drawing the world’s attention to the Middle East, a land saturated with historical contradictions. Hollywood, of course, was no exception.
As the conflict escalated, more and more actors began voicing their political positions on social media. Viola Davis, Michael B. Jordan, and others publicly expressed support for Palestinian independence, condemning Israel’s actions as excessively brutal and devoid of basic humanity. Meanwhile, Gal Gadot, an Israeli actress whose profile has risen dramatically in Hollywood in recent years, adopted a comparatively neutral stance online, calling only for an immediate ceasefire and a return to peace. Political positions on the Israel–Palestine issue thus appeared to function as an invisible line of demarcation beyond the film industry itself: a boundary that ushered those with “internationally correct” political views into an exclusive members’ club, granting them greater access to film projects and professional opportunities, while those perceived as having chosen the “wrong side” found themselves excluded, left alone to search for funding in the vast and unforgiving Hollywood marketplace.
It is worth noting that this invisible boundary has, in fact, existed before in Hollywood history. In July 2014, during a previous conflict between Israel and Gaza, Spanish actors Penélope Cruz and Javier Bardem co-signed a public letter condemning Israel’s actions as inhumane. The statement triggered strong dissatisfaction among major studios and independent production companies alike; some high-level industry executives even considered no longer collaborating with the Spanish star couple. Eventually, Bardem and Cruz were forced to issue a public apology. Today, the criteria for survival in Hollywood no longer revolve solely around cinematic achievement. Instead, they have become ambiguous, elusive, and difficult to pin down. A single comment on a social issue, a line spoken at an awards ceremony, or even a single image posted on social media in the streaming era can derail an entire career overnight.
The standards governing Hollywood filmmakers’ survival have grown increasingly complex, shaped by the intersection of multiple domains. The political content embedded within entertainment continues to expand without limit. This raises several questions: Why is the Israel–Palestine issue so uniquely sensitive in Hollywood? Why were Cruz and Bardem effectively blacklisted seven years ago? And in Hollywood today, who truly holds more discursive power - Jews or Palestinians?
Under Hollywood’s long-standing support, American filmmakers have come to see themselves as the original exporters of global popular culture. Yet over the past two decades of film and television development, Hollywood has increasingly turned to international markets for source material. The United Kingdom stands as a typical exporter of IP. Over the past thirty years, British productions have appeared consistently throughout awards seasons. At one Academy Awards ceremony, host Jimmy Kimmel jokingly remarked, “There are more and more Brits these days. I guess I’d better start practicing my British accent.”
According to a 2015 Time magazine survey, Israel ranked third among international IP suppliers to Hollywood, trailing only the UK and the Netherlands, and emerging as a new key collaborator. Hollywood’s awareness of Israeli television can be traced back to 2008. In 2005, Israeli screenwriter Hagai Levi launched BeTipul, a half-hour drama centered on psychotherapy sessions. The series received widespread acclaim domestically, prompting Levi to propose expanding it into international markets. After years of negotiation, he signed an adaptation deal with Warner Bros. and HBO. The American version, In Treatment, quickly established itself within the Hollywood television landscape, winning two Emmy Awards during its run and successfully introducing “Israel” as a creative source to American audiences.
In 2011, Showtime acquired the Israeli series Prisoners of War, created by Gideon Raff, adapting it into Homeland, a show that went on to help inaugurate what is now considered the golden age of American television.
The groundwork laid by In Treatment and the success of Homeland once again convinced Hollywood that Israeli television was worth investing in. More importantly, American audiences responded to Israeli themes. They found resonance in the fractured, intimate stories emerging from a Mediterranean Jewish state thousands of miles away. Following these successes, Hollywood acquired the rights to an increasing number of Israeli productions for adaptation: HBO’s Euphoria (2019), which came to define contemporary youth culture; Netflix’s The Spy, which followed Mossad agent Eli Cohen; and Showtime’s Your Honor, developed by Michelle and Robert King and starring Bryan Cranston. All signs point to Israeli television taking root in Los Angeles, with stories from Tel Aviv and Jerusalem crossing the Atlantic to occupy screens in New York and Hollywood.
In an interview with Vanity Fair, Homeland producer Gideon Raff noted: “Because Israel invests very little in film and television, we often don’t have enough funding to develop large-scale projects. But this limitation pushed us to excel elsewhere, namely, in storytelling.” Until the early 1990s, Israel lacked independently operated production companies and television networks. With limited domestic resources, American films and television shows formed a central part of many Israelis’ childhoods. They gathered to discuss the latest episode of Twin Peaks or speculate about Steven Spielberg’s next project.
In the 21st century, as local directors and writers honed their craft, Israeli filmmakers began identifying themes suited to their own society. Through distinctive, empathetic, and deeply textured narrative strategies, they excavated a series of social transformations from Israel’s relatively short national history, interweaving them with themes of humanity, marriage, emotion, and politics to construct a succession of contemporary odysseys that traverse history itself. Gradually, these refined storytelling techniques opened new markets for Israeli film and television, spreading from Western Europe to East Asia, and from East Asia to North America. Coincidentally, or perhaps inevitably, American audiences proved especially receptive, finding emotional entry points in portrayals of soldiers psychologically scarred by war, revealing vulnerability before family and friends.
Trauma, of course, is central here. After 9.11, the United States entered a prolonged state of collective trauma, as if a dense, black cloud had settled over North America, blocking out the sun. Consumerism receded. Identity politics momentarily collapsed. Americans no longer knew who they were, because on September 11, identity, belonging, and security seemed to crumble alongside the Twin Towers, reduced to dust. What was destroyed was not merely a pair of gleaming skyscrapers in New York, but the once-radiant American Dream itself - shredded and cast into a historical void.
“I think Americans love Israeli films and television because we give them what they want,” Raff remarked. Perhaps so. Perhaps the once-thriving middle-class life has truly passed into history. Perhaps that plane shattered not only the Twin Towers but also the long-standing illusion of the American Dream. In the post-terrorism era, perhaps Carrie Mathison - the bipolar CIA agent at the center of Homeland - is the kind of hero Americans now seek. Perhaps Rue, trapped by love, sex, growth, family, and friendship in Euphoria, is the mirror image of contemporary American youth. These fragile, disoriented, anxious, even unhinged characters are born of Israeli reality, yet through the alchemy of history and timing, they offer American audiences and Hollywood creators an opportunity for dialogue, using film and television as a distorted yet brutally honest mirror through which to confront themselves, converse with history, peel away old bandages, and face the scars of the post-9/11 era.
Of course, compelling stories alone are not enough; sufficient funding is equally essential. Ari Folman, director of Waltz with Bashir, once noted during the film’s promotion: “This film was completed through collaboration among many teams. I traveled to France, Luxembourg, the United States to piece together the funding.” After the film garnered acclaim at Cannes, its promotion in the United States intensified, ultimately leading to Sony Pictures handling its domestic distribution.
The United States is often described as “the second homeland of the Jews,” a phrase meant to suggest not only their presence on Wall Street and in Silicon Valley, but also their dominance in Hollywood. Interestingly, news and data seem to lend credence to this label. Former Disney CEO and chairman Bob Iger is Jewish; former Warner Bros. CEO and chairman Barry Meyer is Jewish; former Sony chairman Michael Lynton is also Jewish. A closer look reveals that nearly 80 percent of Hollywood’s top executives are of Jewish descent. As a result, choices regarding subject matter, promotional scale, and even whether a film secures distribution are often predetermined, not by written law, but by unspoken industry conventions shaped over a century of Hollywood history. Thus, seven years ago, Cruz and Bardem did not commit a political error per se; rather, their stance was simply incompatible with Hollywood’s broader political ecology.
Palestinian director Elia Suleiman remarked while promoting It Must Be Heaven: “Palestine today is no longer what it once was. Young Palestinians can see what’s happening around the world on their phones, and they’re aware of how the world sees them. They are forced into this political game. Palestine belongs to everyone.” In the 21st century, globalization has accelerated beyond all previous trends, weaving markets and nations tightly together. The Israel–Palestine conflict, long under global scrutiny, has naturally become a favorite subject of the media spotlight - endlessly dissected, debated, and circulated, until the next explosion pushes it momentarily from public consciousness.
Today, the power of political choice lies with each individual. Judgments of good and evil, justice and immorality, function like sticky notes, casually applied, removed, and reapplied. Expression itself, and the catharsis it brings, has become the core of opinion, while substance fades into the background. Yet we cannot forget that all viewpoints exist within a finite macro-political framework. No matter how forceful an opinion may be, it cannot escape the towering political walls that surround it.
In Nadav Lapid’s Synonyms, a young Israeli man, Yoav, arrives in Paris and obsessively learns French, refusing to speak Hebrew in any setting as he attempts to construct a new identity, becoming Parisian while shedding his Israeli self. Perhaps contemporary Americans resemble Yoav, endlessly wandering and struggling within identity politics. Perhaps they find fleeting satisfaction - or even pleasure - through political expression, using it to fill the void left by the post-9/11 era and the aftermath of the Trump administration. Perhaps Jews and Palestinians ultimately possess equal discursive power, because, in the end, the choice belongs to everyone. Even the sharpest words cannot penetrate the weight of those thick political walls.
作者：夏浩然
发表于：深焦DeepFocus
二零二一 六月十六日
不知不觉，好莱坞已经是当今政治意见的聚集地和散发地。无论是2016年莱昂纳多·迪卡普里奥等待接近二十年获得奥斯卡最佳男主角后，在颁奖典礼上开始宣扬“保护环境，从我做起”的环境保护主义精神，或是2017年《月光男孩》获得最佳影片后，制片人说到“电视机前那些认为自己是边缘人的男孩女孩们，你们并不孤单”，还是在2020年奥斯卡红毯上，娜塔丽·波特曼将许多女性导演和女性电影工作者的名字纹在礼裙上，进一步宣传“METOO”性别平权运动，更不用提及那些拥有潜在“政治正确”取向的影视作品和制片公司，当下的好莱坞，的确仍是世界电影娱乐产业的中心地带，不过在身份政治和种族政治上，好莱坞正被更多人贴满无法取缔的永久标签。
进入后疫情时代，疫情所带来的影响正随着时间逐渐被磨平，不过疫情期间所发生的各类政治事件，及其留下的创伤，引爆的仇恨和催生的较量，又将好莱坞推至风口浪尖，站在所有事件的集结点，为电影人和观众指明一条新的道路。今年5月巴以冲突爆发后，一时之间，巴以冲突问题霸占全球各个新闻头条界面，再次将人们的目光聚焦在中东这块充满矛盾的土地上，好莱坞，当然也不例外。冲突逐渐升温后，越来越多的演员在社交媒体上发表自己的政治观点，比如维奥拉·戴维斯，迈克尔·B·乔丹等纷纷支持巴勒斯坦独立，声称以色列在该问题上过于残暴，失去了基本的人性；而近几年在好莱坞名声大噪的以色列女演员盖儿·加朵却在社交媒体上持中性观点，只希望两国能尽早停火，恢复和平。对于巴以冲突的政治观点似乎成为了一条行业以外的分界线，将拥有国际政治正确观点的电影人和演员带进一个会员专属俱乐部，让他们得到更多电影项目和工作机会，而另一半站错政治队伍的电影人们则被摒弃在俱乐部门外，孤零零地在硕大的好莱坞市场中寻找下一个项目启动基金。
值得一提的是，该隐形分界线在好莱坞历史上还真实存在过。2014年七月，以色列与加沙地带发生冲突，西班牙演员佩内洛普·克鲁兹与哈维尔·巴登在一封说明书中指明以色列的非人性行为，而这一说名则引起了好莱坞大部份制片公司和独立工作室的不满，一部分电影行业高层甚至考虑“不再与这对明星西班牙夫妻”合作，无奈之下，巴登与克鲁兹对公众道歉。至今，衡量一名电影人是否能在好莱坞生存的标准已不再单单停留在电影之上，该标准逐渐变得模凌两可，变得让人难以捉摸，它可以是对一个社会事件的简单表达，也可以是颁奖典礼上的一句话，而在当下的流媒体时代，社交媒体上的一张图片都能将一名电影人的职业生涯毁于一旦。好莱坞电影人的生存标准变得逐渐复杂，它的定义由许多领域交叉决定，而娱乐性中保留的政治成分正在无限扩大。那么为什么巴以问题在好莱坞如此敏感？七年前的克鲁兹和巴登为什么会被高层封杀？在好莱坞，究竟是犹太人，还是巴勒斯坦人更有话语权？
美国电影人在好莱坞的扶持下，已将自己看作全球流行文化的原始输出地，而殊不知在近二十年的影视项目研发中，好莱坞许多作品都纷纷来国际市场，英国则是典型项目IP出口商之一。近三十年的电影行业，每年的颁奖季都能看到不同的英国作品，在某一年的奥斯卡金像奖颁奖典礼上，主持人吉米·坎摩尔开玩笑道“现在英国佬越来越多了，看来我也需要练习下我的英式英语了”。而在2015年时代周刊的一项调查中显示，以色列在好莱坞国际IP输入国家高居第三，仅排在英国和荷兰之后，成为了当下好莱坞的新晋合作伙伴。好莱坞对以色列本土影视作品的认知则要推回至2008年。2005年，以色列编剧哈盖·列维在以色列本土推出《扪心问诊》——一部以心理访谈为核心的半小时情景剧。剧集得到播出后，在本土好评如潮，随后列维向高层提议，希望能将剧集推向国际市场。在几年的沟通和商谈下，列维最后与华纳兄弟和HBO签下改编协议，HBO将接手并改版为美国版《扪心问诊》。《扪心问诊》在美国得到推广后，迅速在好莱坞电视行业占领一席之地，在播期间拿下两座艾美奖，并成功将“以色列”推广给好莱坞和美国观众。随后，2011年，Showtime拿下由吉迪恩·拉夫开发的以色列剧集《战俘》，改编为《国土安全》，并成功开启美国电视剧的黄金时代。
《扪心问诊》的铺垫和《国土安全》的成功再次向好莱坞证明，以色列影视值得好莱坞投资，更重要的，美国观众认可以色列影视主题，能够在相差七千公里的地中海犹太国度中，与他们支离破碎的、耐人寻味的私人故事产生共鸣。有了前两部作品的引荐，越来越多的以色列影视作品被好莱坞拍下版权，进行翻拍：2019年定义当下青少年文化的HBO剧集《亢奋》，同年带观众走进摩萨德特工科恩的Netflix剧集《特工科恩》，以及去年年底由布莱恩·科兰斯顿主演，好莱坞金牌制作夫妇——米歇尔·金和罗伯特·金开发的Showtime剧集《法官大人》，一切都在告知好莱坞，以色列影视行业已经逐渐在洛杉矶生根发芽，特拉维夫和耶路撒冷的故事正跨过大西洋，占领纽约和洛杉矶。
《国土安全》制片人吉迪恩·拉夫曾在一次与Vanity Fair的采访说谈到：“因为以色列本国对电影和电视剧的投资很有限，我们通常没有足够的资金去开发一些非常的“大”的项目，正是这样的局限，才让我们在另一板块有了突破，那就是写故事的能力”。直到90年代初，以色列才拥有独立运作的制片公司和电视频道，而在过去，因为影视资源的有限，美国电影和电视剧成为了许多以色列人的童年回忆，他们聚会时通常会讨论新一集的《双峰》如何，斯皮尔伯格的下一部电影会是什么题材。进入21世纪，随着本土导演和编剧的能力提高，以色列电影人找到适合自己国家和自己民众的影视题材，运用独特，共情，深厚的叙事手法，从以色列建国以来短暂的历史中剖析出一个个细腻又宏观的社会变故，将他们与人性、婚姻、情感、政治等多种充满人文色彩的主题相结合，打造出一个接一个无与伦比的跨越历史河流的当代奥德赛。渐渐地，绝佳的叙事技巧为以色列影视行业开辟新的市场，从西欧到东亚，从东亚再到北美，恰巧的是，美国观众异常能与以色列类主题产生共鸣，感受镜头前因战争受创，在家人与好友前展现脆弱的士兵心理。
谈到创伤，9·11事件发生后，整个美国陷入创伤阶段，仿佛北美洲上空被一层又浓又乌的云层遮盖，阳光久久不得穿透。消费主义退去，届时，美国公民的身份政治突然消失，他们不再认清自己的身份，因为似乎在9月11号当天，所有美国公民的身份认同，归属感，和安全感都跟随坍塌的双子大楼，碎成灰，烂成渣。自此，被毁掉的不仅仅是那座在纽约闪闪发光的双子塔，曾经显得光芒万丈的美国梦，也被撕成碎片，被丢进历史黑洞。“我觉得很多美国人喜欢以色列电影或者电视剧的主要原因在于，我们给了他们想要的”。拉夫在采访提到。或许如此，或许过去蒸蒸日上的中产阶级生活已成为过去式，或许那一架飞机不仅击碎了双子塔，更击碎了长久以来包围美国人的“美国梦”泡沫，在后恐怖主义时代，或许《国土安全》中拥有躁郁症的CIA特工凯莉·马西森正是美国人当下所追寻的英雄，也或许《亢奋》中被爱、性、成长、家庭和友情所困挠的茹也正是当下美国年轻人的影子，这些脆弱、迷失、慌张、甚至疯癫的角色从以色列现实中诞生，在历史和时间的巧妙结合下，为当代美国人，和好莱坞电影人提供对话机会，让他们通过电影和电视剧，这面扭曲却直白的镜子，与自己对话，与历史对话，并揭开粘贴已久的创口贴，直面后911伤疤。
当然，故事本身具有吸引力是一方面，有足够的资金来执行故事确实另一方面。《和巴什尔跳华尔兹》导演阿里·福尔曼当年在宣传这部动画纪录片时讲到：“这部电影是由很多团队共同协作完成的。我去了法国，卢森堡，美国等很多很多国家才凑齐这部电影的资金。”随着《和巴什尔跳华尔兹》在戛纳电影节大放光彩后，这部电影在美国的宣传大力增加，最后由索尼电影负责在美国本土的发行。值得一提的是，美国通常被称为“犹太人的第二基地”，旨在说明他们不仅占领了华尔街和硅谷，还占领了好莱坞，有趣的是，一些实际新闻和数据似乎也证实了这个昵称的可信度——前华特迪士尼公司执行总裁兼董事会主席鲍勃·艾格是犹太人；前华纳兄弟执行总裁兼董事会主席巴里·梅尔是犹太人；前索尼董事会主席迈克尔·林顿也是犹太人；仔细观察，会发现几乎80%的好莱坞高层纷纷被犹太后裔霸占，冥冥中，许多作品的选材，作品发行的宣传力度，甚至是作品是否能得到发行都已被提前规定，而这一规定并不是白纸黑字，法律明文的规定，而是百年好莱坞发展以来，默认的行业规矩。所以，七年前，支持巴勒斯坦自由的克鲁兹和巴登并没有犯任何政治错误，只不过，他们的政治观点在好莱坞宏观的政治背景下，不被认可。
巴勒斯坦导演伊利亚·斯莱曼在宣传电影《必是天堂》时讲到：“如今的巴勒斯坦已经不再是过去的巴勒斯坦，现在住在巴勒斯坦的年轻人能通过手机看全球发生了什么，也能察觉到全球对他们的看法是什么，他们被迫进入了这场政治博弈，巴勒斯坦属于全球所有人”。21世纪后，全球化快过任何趋势，迅速蔓延至全球各个地区，有形无形之间，所有国家与市场都相互串联，而长久以来备受关注的巴以问题自然而然成为了全球媒体镁光灯的宠儿，这片因宗教，政治，文化变得赤热的土地无尽被解剖、讨论、传阅，直到另一颗炸弹爆炸，让它淡出人们脑海。
如今，政治的选择权落在每个人手里，谁好，谁坏，谁正义，谁不道德的观点如同便利贴，一张一张地被任意使用，贴放，无论有理与否，表达和表达后畅快成为了观点的核心，而观点的实质内容却正在被遗忘，可我们不能忘了，所有的观点都在有限的宏观大背景下畅游，无论观点多么强硬，都始终无法逃出那片高不见顶的政治围墙。在那达夫·拉皮德的电影《同义词》中，以色列青年约阿夫来到巴黎，每天努力学习法语，拒绝在任何场合说母语希伯来语，尝试在巴黎筑建自己新的身份——巴黎人，摈弃自己以色列人的身份。也许，当下美国人如同约阿夫一般在身份政治中无尽徘徊、挣扎；也许，他们通过自我的政治表达而感受一丝满足，或快感，以此来填满后911时代和后特朗普政府的空虚；也许，犹太人和巴勒斯坦人都拥有相等的话语权，因为到底，选择权在所有人手中，再尖锐的话语也冲不破厚重的政治围墙。