One thing I do know from making art is that ideology is the enemy of problem-solving. Nobody sits on a film set and says, "No, you can’t use green-screen VFX to solve that because I’m Catholic." There’s no place for that, and that’s why I’ve stopped being embarrassed about being in the entertainment industry, because I’m surrounded by intelligent people who solve problems quickly and efficiently, primarily because issues of ideology don’t enter into the conversation. ...
I look at Hurricane Katrina, and I think if four days before landfall you gave a movie studio autonomy and a 100th of the billions the government spent on that disaster, and told them, "Lock this place down and get everyone taken care of," we wouldn’t be using that disaster as an example of what not to do. A big movie involves clothing, feeding, and moving thousands of people around the world on a tight schedule. Problems are solved creatively and efficiently within a budget, or your ass is out of work. So when I look at what’s going on in the government, the gridlock, I think, Wow, that’s a really inefficient way to run a railroad. The government can’t solve problems because the two parties are so wedded to their opposing ideas that they can’t move. ... That’s how art works. You steal from everything.
While some of his points are worth taking, his general observation that Hollywood (allegedly) can solve things where government can't, fails to take into consideration a central feature of the American governing system - a feature that would be lacking in a film production where there is an identifiable boss (the director) making things happen.
We are decentralized both vertically (the principle of federalism) and horizontally (the principle of checks and balances). Those principles exist to minimize the degree of power any one individual or institution can attain so that the risk of tyranny is minimized. I've never worked on a movie set, but I'm reasonably sure that directors do not have to deal with competing pressures from various constituencies that come remotely close to what occurs in a governing environment. Constituencies with real autonomous power.
He is simple pointing out that concentrated power can be efficient and effective, which is certainly important in an emergency, But what happens after the emergency is over and power is still concentrated? I think he might be demonstrating a level of ignorance about the dilemmas associated with governing that folks like Jefferson were concerned about.
Might be worth a discussion.
