THE JEWS OF PRIME TIME
Posted on July 17, 2003 at 12:19:15 AM by WM

THE JEWS OF PRIME TIME
By David Zurawik

http://www.jbooks.com/nonfiction/NF_Crasnik_Prn.htm

"America, by and large, hates the Jews..."

If psychotherapy earned frequent flyer miles, I’d be eligible for a free trip to Pluto. Self-censorship has been a central issue in my own life. It’s the sense that if anyone knows the fullness of your identity and background, you will lose everything. David Zurawik’s new book, The Jews of Prime Time, is like a history lesson whose protagonist is self-censorship; it’s the story of the Jews in Hollywood who, nine times out of ten, refuse to write about or portray Jews. What sounds like a Who’s Who of Television quickly changes channels into a who’s not who.
Zurawik applies his skills as a TV critic and Ph.D. in American Studies to answer a seemingly simple question: In an industry dominated by Jews, why are there so few self-identified Jewish characters on TV? What began as a two year project evolved into a ten year process in which Zurawik conducted over a hundred interviews with Jewish executives, writers, producers, and actors working in TV land. The end result is a clear and sharp picture of the unwritten rules of the tube with the camera pointed at the people behind the screen.
The Jews Of Prime Time takes us back in time, introducing us to the founding fathers of electronic media. Movie pioneers like Louis B. Mayer, Sam Goldwyn and Harry Cohn begat network moguls William S. Paley, David Sarnoff, and Leonard Goldenson. These founding fathers were the original Not Ready for Prime Time Players—many were immigrants who were no strangers to anti-Semitism. They set their sights on assimilation and success.
As Marshall Herskovitz (co-creator of Thirtysomething, My So Called Life and Once and Again) relates: "The Louis B. Mayer’s of the world carefully scrubbed out any ethnicity…They were trying to create a world that America would accept"—a world, the assumption ran, without Jews.
Zurawik takes us behind closed doors to meetings where old phrases like "Write Yiddish, cast British" lassoed many a Jewish writer. And of course, there’s the infamous "CBS research." Allan Burns and Jim Brooks once met with executives at CBS to pitch The Mary Tyler Moore Show. They were told about the researchwhich clearly showed that American viewers did not want to see people from New York, men with mustaches, and Jews. The executives telling this to Burns and Brooks were Jewish men from New York with mustaches. No such research has ever been documented—but that didn’t stop TV executives, usually Jewish ones, from relying on it for decades.
There were, of course, rare exceptions to the eradication of Jewishness from the airwaves. One example was Gertrude Berg’s popular series The Goldbergs; an unprecedented episode focused entirely on Yom Kippur, complete with a six minute Kol Nidre scene in a synagogue. The year was 1954. America would not see another leading Jewish character in a prime time series for eighteen years.
Bridget Loves Bernie premiered in 1972 and after only one season an outraged Jewish community got the show canceled. They objected to the comic approach to the serious subject of intermarriage, and to the portrayal of the Jewish family characters as inferior to their rich WASP counterparts. The show remains the highest rated program ever canceled, and a powerful example of how different the Jews on TV have often been from the Jews watching it.
Years later, breakthrough characters like Michael Steadman of Thirtysomething and Dr. Joel Fleischman of Northern Exposure began to appear, in part because the founding fathers had sold their networks in the mid-80’s—it turned out that the new non-Jewish owners were less sensitive to Jewish characters. Still, truly Jewish themes remain rare. Notable have been shows like Brooklyn Bridge and State Of Grace, which centered on Jewish family life. Seinfeld was in a class by itself in terms of popularity and the comedian didn’t change his Jewishy name, but the late NBC President Brandon Tartikoff only gave it a four episode commitment and insisted that the Larry David-created character of George Costanza be Italian (at least officially).
While exploring this history of self-repression, Zurawik also turns a spotlight on the familiar categories prime time Jewish characters seem to fall into when they do appear: the funny, yet not so attractive sidekick (see Rhoda Morgenstern, Buddy Sirell, George Costanza); the overbearing crazy mothers (Ida Morgenstern, Sylvia Fine, Mrs. Costanza); and a host of Jewish American Princesses, silent husbands, and many neurotic-obsessives who can’t take care of themselves. Good luck finding a married Jewish couple on TV—if anything, prime time teaches that marrying a Gentile solves everything, as demonstrated by Bridget Loves Bernie, The Nanny, and Mad About You. Of course, sitcom characters are meant to be flawed and eccentric, not models for real life; that’s what makes them funny. Still, though the climate has changed, the above freaks and loudmouths are still the rule when it comes to Jews on TV, rather than the exception.
Why? A friend of mine from New York (not with a mustache) suggested to me that TV shows about Jews will never sell because anti-Semitism is still as strong as ever and America, by and large, hates the Jews. And the Jews who go into TV are there to make money, so they won’t fight the trend. I guess there is no business like show business—at times, everything about it is appalling. I still admire and remain touched by those, many of whom are interviewed and profiled in Prime Time Jews, who try to break the implied rules and create entertainment that will touch people deeply and change the way they think

"America, by and large, hates the Jews"
Posted on July 17, 2003 at 08:29:45 PM by Sisu

Ben Stein writes: "The typical Hollywood writer . . . is of an ethnic background from a large Eastern city—usually from Brooklyn [i.e., they have a Jewish background]. He grew up being taught that people in small towns hated him, were different from him, and were out to get him [i.e., small town people are anti-Semites]. As a result, when he gets the chance, he attacks the small town on television or the movies. . . ."

Re(1):
Posted on July 17, 2003 at 10:22:20 PM by Ralphie

So your saying everyone for Brooklyn is Jewish? You're way off!

If you're going to quote something, quote it correctly then give your opinion. When you right it the way you did, it is misleading and dishonest.

The Hollywood Establishment
Posted on July 17, 2003 at 04:38:52 PM by James Jaeger

To: JOHN LONGENECKER, DGA

John,

Regarding the Hollywood Establishment. I had lunch with a gentleman yesterday
who was in from Hollywood and who has produced a number of features -- what
George Shelps would call a real "Hollywood producer" -- and he had some very interesting observations to relate about the industry. And forgive me if I don't mention his name as I don't think it would be appropriate.

He said that the Establishment of Hollywood does definitely function like a "club" and if you get into it, you are basically paid to keep your mouth shut and to blindly support it. He said that Hollywood is known as the "yes town" because almost everyone in the Control Group will take meetings (say
"yes" to them) with outsiders and virtually anyone because they are interested doing two things:

1. Hearing every possible idea they can to make sure none have fallen between the cracks. These ideas are then stolen and worked into screenplays by the Control Group's roster of development executives and approved writers.

2. Stringing you, your idea or screenplay along so that you are, in essence, taken out of circulation so none of their competitors can be exposed to your idea. Meanwhile they are proceeding with 1 above.

John, would you say this is an accurate description of your experience with
WARNER BROS. a number of years back, and if so, will you, or will you allow me to, post confirmation at http://www.b2g4.com/boards/board.cgi?&user=FilmReform so that others may benefit from your experiences? You don't have to use your real name.

James

Re(1): The Hollywood Establishment
Posted on July 17, 2003 at 04:47:06 PM by John Longenecker

James

At 20th Century Fox, I brought in a project with a director attached.
The director (Nick Castle) and I had a long relationship based on friendship.
So, the project went ahead well.
Fox was eager to work with the director.
I was accepted as the Producer of the project.
My Producer Agreement was fair and reasonable.
A script was developed and paid for by Fox.
The picture was not made.


At Warner Bros.
I brought in a project with a writer attached.
The writer was John Briley ("GHANDI")
and Warner Bros. was interested in working with John Briley.
Warner Bros. was also interested in the story for my Project.

The problem I had at Warner Bros.
is simply that I failed (my attorney failed) to write up a letter of understanding with John Briley prior to bringing the project to Warner Bros.
-- Story by John LONGENECKER
-- Screenplay by John Briley
-- Producer: John Longenecker


Warner Bros. wanted to work with John Briley and paid him $400,000 to write a screenplay for my project
-- based on NO STORY.
-- As if John Briley was the "writer."
-- Writer: story & screenplay


Warner Bros. never finalized a written agreement with me as a producer.
They offered terms for a Producer Agreement that were acceptable,
but when the agreement document drafts arrived, the producer deal
was NOT based on any underlying story rights.

So, the Producer Agreement documents would provide for compensation as agreed, and on-screen credit as agreed,
but then in later provisions Warner Bros. could elect not to utilize my services, and thus there would be no further payment, and no on-screen credit.

Give it provisions 1 to 10. Take it all away in provisions 11 to 20.

John Briley had no interest in supporting my rights and position as a producer.

John Briley's agent at ICM had no interest in supporting my rights and position as a producer.

No one at Warner Bros. had an interest in supporting my rights and position as a producer.
My own attorney had no interest in supporting my rights and position as a
producer, -- he just kept on billing me for talking with folks at Warner Bros. -- over $18,000

Hollywood Producer Club
No, Warner Bros. had no interest in my becoming a member of the Hollywood Producer Club.

Hollywood Producer Club
Talented writers, producers, directors, actors and even executive types become members of the Hollywood club every day.
They are from all sorts of backgrounds,
from all over the USA and around the world.

No. I do not know how they do it. Not at all.

Hollywood Producer Club
"if you get into it, you are basically paid to keep your mouth shut and to blindly support it."

No. I do not agree that "if you get into it, you are basically paid to keep your mouth shut and to blindly support it."

Hollywood Producer Club
I do believe that somehow your work
provides membership into the club -- sometimes. I do not know how it works.

Douglas Wick is a successful producer
Douglas Wick is a member of the Hollywood Producer Club.

I knew Doug Wick back in high school.

All I know about Doug is that he is bright, well educated, works hard, and has been a successful producer.

-- Working Girl -- Stewart Little -- Gladiator | http://us.imdb.com/Name?Wick,+Douglas+(I) |

JOHN LONGENECKER, DGA
Director / Cinematographer
| http://JohnLongenecker.com/ |

James -- you can post this if not edited
and you can include my name if printed
exactly as above.

How Movie Wars Were Won
Posted on July 18, 2003 at 10:50:36 AM by John Cones

The following is excerpted from "How The Movie Wars Were Won":

Conclusion--In addition to the numerous unfavorable provisions of the feature film distribution deal imposed on the rest of the film community by the major studio/distributors, this book explores some 114 specific tactics that have been used by these same studios and their associates during the nearly 90-year history of the Hollywood-based U.S. film industry to gain and maintain their control of the Hollywood empire. These include:

Chapter 1

1. Abusing the law of supply and demand;
2. Involvement in acquisition, development and production financing;
3. Imposing excessive controls in conjunction with financing;
4. Extracting unconscionable amounts for distribution expenses;
5. Overstating distribution expenses;
6. Providing favored treatment for their own productions as opposed to independent films;
7. More aggressively collecting revenues for their own films as opposed to independent's;
8. Consistently failing to properly implement the terms of the distribution agreements;
9. Misinterpretation of the distribution agreement terms in favor of the distributor;
10. Limiting their film choices to certain time-worn genres;
11. Opting for sequels instead of more creative films;
12. Cross collateralizing an entire slate of films even when not authorized to do so;
13. Using wide releases to take the public's money before bad word-of-mouth gets out;
14. Wasting huge amounts of money in development;
15. Using development deals to take competing projects off the market;
16. Using the turnaround transaction to shift moneys back and forth between studios;
17. Shamelessly promoting the star system to the American public;
18. Exploiting stars for commercial gain;
19. Raiding the talent of competitors;
20. Cooperating with the agencies in utilizing packaged deals;
21. Studio executives accepting loans from producers who make films for the same studio;
22. Studio executives cashing checks written for certain stars;
23. Hiring a screenwriting represented by the studio executives wife;
24. Using films to promote other businesses;
25. Tying up most of the major law firms in Los Angeles with studio business, thus preventing the use of their services by others;
26. Agent involvement in film finance;
27. Hiring attorneys as in-house counsel and continuing to use the attorney's outside firm;
28. Attorney packaging ;
29. Law firms pressuring their own attorneys to improperly represent the interests of their clients;
30. Ignoring well-established ethical standards for attorneys;
31. Engaging in rampant nepotism, cronyism, favoritism, blacklisting and other forms of discrimination;
32. Participating in an insider's executive shuffle among the studios;
33. Utilizing the threat of the executive mass exodus to retain studio control;
34. Arbitrarily excluding outsiders from the social activities that lead to advancement;
35. Regularly engaging in reciprocal preferences with other Hollywood insiders;
36. Artificially inflating the cost of film production for self-serving reasons;
37. Paying excessive studio executive compensation;

Chapter 2

38. Utilizing the power of censorship for commercial purposes;
39. Inconsistently applying rating standards with respect to violence and sex;
40. Providing preferential treatment for MPAA company films at ratings time;
41. Failing to provide adequate information to prospective parents regarding film content;
42. Studio suppression of films for various reasons;
43. Allowing Jewish interest groups, and no others, to effectively censor films;

Chapter 3

44. Consistently engaging in antitrust law violations throughout the history of the industry;
45. Engaging in anti-competitive practices by means of vertical integration;

46. Using massive political campaign contributions to influence government law enforcement policy;
47. Continuing the practice of block booking through the use of the blockbuster strategy;
48. Using blind bidding and other more contemporary techniques to place independent theatres at a competitive disadvantage;
49. Squeezing independent films off the desirable screens through the use of the wide release;
50. Using so-called standard form contracts that are contracts of adhesion and contain numerous unconscionable provisions;

Chapter 4

51. Engaging in discriminatory practices directed towards Hollywood outsiders;
52. Operating as a shared monopoly;
53. Destroying the lives and careers of some of the most talented filmmakers;
54. Using the trade press and other publications to defame Hollywood outsiders;
55. Using the trade press to spread harmful rumor and innuendo;
56. Rewriting history in books and articles about these same Hollywood outsiders;
57. Falsely accusing Hollywood outsiders and film industry critics of being anti-Semitic;
58. Misleading the public about the complexity of the McCarthy era;
59. Accusing Congressional investigators of being anti-Semitic;
60. Stealing ideas for films, stealing scripts and stealing profits;
61. Using the early censorship offices to deny approval to competing films;
62. Rushing similar films to production to interfere with the prospective success of others;
63. Refusing to offer the same level of cooperation among studios depending on which one was owned by the outsider;
64. Making false accusations of theft;
65. Repeatedly cheating profit participants out of film revenues;
66. Fraudulently misrepresenting the ability of talent to extract exorbitant sums from competitors;
67. Failure to provide distribution support for the films of unfavored producers;
68. Intimidation of talent to prevent them from working for outsider controlled studios;
69. Using influence to suppress unfavorable stories in the press;
70. Using mob connections to force the loan of talent;
71. Hypocritically criticizing an outsider for engaging in the same conduct as other studios;
72. Wrongfully criticizing the motives of outsider producers;
73. Engaging in malicious whisper campaigns directed toward outsiders;
74. Bad mouthing prospective studio purchasers in attempts to prevent purchases by outsiders;
75. Executive interference with a studio owner's right to run the studio;
76. Criticizing films that reflect a more conservative political view;
77. Routinely overcharging outsiders for the services of actors and actresses under contract;
78. Using block booking and other tactics to prevent wider releases for unfavored films;
79. Crediting employees for victories but the outsider studio head for the studio's mistakes;
80. Denying an outsider the ability to purchase raw film stock;
81. Discriminating against Mormons and other non-Jewish religious groups;
82. Accusing outsiders of being involved with organized crime;
83. Pressuring studio executives out for refusal to purchase the inflated agency packages;
84. Using the false allegation of anti-Semitism to damage the credibility of film industry critics;
85. Attempting to carve out a class of people in our society that are above criticism;
86. Regularly engaging in discrimination directed against all non-Hollywood insiders;

Chapter 5

87. Refusing to provide reliable statistical information about the industry;
88. Using its power and control over the press to perpetuate numerous myths about the industry;
89. Engaging in blatantly misleading advertising with respect to films;
90. Using the studio's relationship with film critics to obtain favorable advertising blurbs;
91. Constantly proclaiming that the industry will be destroyed whenever anyone proposes something that does not favor the studios;
92. Using the false argument that simply because something occurs in real life it is appropriate to show it on the screen;
93. Constantly claiming that Hollywood outsiders do not understand the film business;
94. Repeatedly misrepresenting that films are merely entertainment;
95. Refusing to accept that films influence human behavior;
96. Trying to shift the blame for children's behavior to the incompetence of parents;
97. Making the false claim that movies merely reflect society;
98. Regularly crying about violations of their free speech rights when the same rights of
others are repeatedly being violated by the Hollywood system;
99. Falsely claiming significant financial benefits for the national economy when movie revenues only benefit a small insular group of people;
100. Using the censorship smokescreen to distract people's attention from the real issues in Hollywood;
101. Using the Academy Awards to promote MPAA films;
102. Using the "winners must pay for losers" concept to justify grand larceny;
103. Falsely claiming that distributors take all of the economic or other risk;
104. Misleading the public about why film companies fail;
105. Misleading people in the film industry into thinking that "there are no rules";
106. Encouraging film schools to turn out more film students when there is no need;
107. Suggesting that there is no racial discrimination in script selection;
108. Falsely claiming that the film industry is anything close to actually being a free market;

Chapter 6

109. Regularly failing to properly account for film revenues to profit participants;
110. Consistently offering significantly less than the amount contractually due in settlements;
111. Interfering with the ability of profit participation auditors to effectively conduct audits;
112. Refusing to settle litigation for reasonable amounts;
113. Dragging litigation out over extended periods of time; and
114. Requiring litigants to sign gag orders in order to settle.

John Cones

Re(1): How Movie Wars Were Won
Posted on July 18, 2003 at 08:14:04 PM by Mitchell Levine

It's clear to me that some of these charges are good and relevant ones, and several of them are beyond the scope of my knowledge of the law. However, more than a few are, in my opinion, bogus.

For example,

10. Limiting their film choices to certain time-worn genres;

-Considering the fact that this one applies equally to Greek and Elizabethan drama, and, actually, entertainment throughout history, it's kind of hard to understand how this would constitute an specifically unfair practice on the part of Hollywood.

Opting for sequels instead of more creative films;

- This is just good business, and is really difficult to pin specifically on Hollywood per se. Sequels generate profits that can be re-invested in "more creative films." Besides, how is this "unfair practice?" It's certainly something the independents could do if they wish. Are you suggesting that the studios should somehow be penalized for having more successful films that can be franchised? Why should they not have the freedom to determine whether they want to shoot a new potential franchise or capitalize on an old one? What justification could possibly be given for forcing their hand that way. When independents are able to create films with enough juice TO spin off, they do, like, for example, The Gods Must be Crazy II, or The Rise and Fall of Western Civilization: the Metal Years.

13. Using wide releases to take the public's money before bad word-of-mouth gets out;

- How's this an unfair practice, unless your contending that it's "unfair" the studios have wider distribution channels? Is it unfair to Alternative Tentacles that Dreamworks has a larger record distribution chain? Perhaps you're suggesting that promoting a movie audiences decide they don't like is a violation of Truth in Advertising?

17. Shamelessly promoting the star system to the American public;

- As if anyone ever had to "promote" this concept to the public? It's a human universal, extant in every form of entertainment in every era known to Man. Besides, it's certainly not "unfair practice," as independents do exactly the same; they may not have access to the stars that the studios do, but they do their best to develop their own. What alternative would studios have? Are you suggesting that it would be more evenhanded if the studios were therefore forced to cast every film with unknowns?

32. Participating in an insider's executive shuffle among the studios;

- In what industries are the highest executive offices considered to be entry-level positions? Expecting your top administrators to have relevant experience is a completely reasonable qualification for hire.

34. Arbitrarily excluding outsiders from the social activities that lead to advancement;

- In what industries do top management generally host social events for guests they don't know?

37. Paying excessive studio executive compensation;

- How is this to be determined, and how is it any more disproportionate than compensation for executives in similar corporate positions

41. Failing to provide adequate information to prospective parents regarding film content;

- Exactly what information are they supposed to be giving parents that they are not? These days a fairly detailed set of descriptics are generally displayed with a rating. Isn't that what reviews are for anyhow? In the internet age, there's numerous sites with reviews for parents.

76. Criticizing films that reflect a more conservative political view;

- Everyone has a right to do this, if they wish. It's guaranteed in the Constitution.

81. Discriminating against Mormons and other non-Jewish religious groups;

- You've never produced even the slightest evidence that this was true.

85. Attempting to carve out a class of people in our society that are above criticism;

- And what is your benchmark to distinguish "legitimate criticism" of all Jews everywhere from antisemitism, or do you think the latter does not exist?

89. Engaging in blatantly misleading advertising with respect to films;

- What are they supposed to do? Run blurbs like "Pauline Kael says: 'Zero stars! This thing blows!'" Opinions of this nature are rather subjective.

96. Trying to shift the blame for children's behavior to the incompetence of parents;

- Do you have kids? Where you ever a child? Nothing could possibly be more ridiculous than to suggest that blame for the "misbehavior" of children should be shifted from parents to the movies. Parents, not Creative Artists Agency, have the responsibility to raise kids.

98. Regularly crying about violations of their free speech rights when the same rights of
others are repeatedly being violated by the Hollywood system;

- You've never presented the slightest evidence whatsoever that free speech rights are being violated by the studios, nor will you ever. People do not have the 1st amendment right to have their films produced, released, and distributed, nor could they ever. Screenwriters sign away their rights when they sell their scripts. Your argument here is inane.

104. Misleading the public about why film companies fail;

How does anyone have the "right" to know why a company failed?

106. Encouraging film schools to turn out more film students when there is no need;

- Exactly how is it certain that there's no need? The new does have to replace the old, and every generation has its new ideas. Why would the film industry have any more of a reponsibility to discourage young people from studying their craft, than the Bar Association would to discourage law students?

107. Suggesting that there is no racial discrimination in script selection;

- You haven't demonstrated that there is any "racial discrimination" in script selection.

Re(2): How Movie Wars Were Won
Posted on July 25, 2003 at 11:26:26 PM by James Jaeger

>>96. Trying to shift the blame for children's behavior to the incompetence of parents;

>- Do you have kids? Where you ever a child? Nothing could possibly be more ridiculous than to suggest that blame for the "misbehavior" of children should be shifted from parents to the movies. Parents, not Creative Artists Agency, have the responsibility to raise kids.

The movies are a BAD influence on kids. Period.

James

Re(3): How Movie Wars Were Won
Posted on July 26, 2003 at 00:42:48 AM by Mitchell Levine

That's true, Jim - for example, they influenced you to enter the movie business.

Re(1): How Movie Wars Were Won
Posted on July 18, 2003 at 05:31:05 PM by George Shelps

Mr Cones, please explain how more
diversity is the "magic bullet"
solution to your list of abuses?

Re(1): How Movie Wars Were Won
Posted on July 18, 2003 at 10:51:26 AM by John Cones

When you consider the overview of Hollywood business practices presented by this book and its companion volume The Feature Film Distribution Deal, it is difficult not to reasonably conclude that something is incredibly rotten in Hollywood. It appears that the major studio/distributors have taken a basic economic advantage, that of a favorable law of supply and demand, and exploited it for nearly 90 years, to the point where there is no merit system left in Hollywood, the lives and careers of talented people are being destroyed on a regular basis and the motion picture medium is a detriment to society.

It is important to recognize that he who controls the money in Hollywood also controls the right to choose which movies are produced and released, who gets to work on those movies at the highest levels and the actual content of those movies. Thus, the economic dominance of the major studio/distributors, gained and maintained as these books reveal, through the use of unfair, unethical, anti-competitive, predatory and illegal business practices, is also responsible for the blatant employment discrimination that occurs daily in the Hollywood-based U.S. film industry and the outrageous patterns of bias seen in Hollywood films (see Legacy of the Hollywood Empire and Patterns of Bias in Motion Picture Content).

At a minimum, it would appear that the Congress and federal agencies of the United States have negligently avoided their oversight and regulatory responsibilities with regard to the implementation of U.S. laws relating to employment discrimination and competition in the marketplace (antitrust laws), specifically as such laws are supposed to be applied to the U.S. film industry. At the other extreme, it may be fair to argue that years of enormous political contributions to U.S. Presidents, key members of Congress and Los Angeles District Attorneys have effectively negated both the federal government and the DA's office as factors in the Hollywood game. Thus, until someone in such a position decides to take on the Hollywood establishment, it may actually be accurate to say that there really are no rules in Hollywood, after all, no one has accepted the responsibility of enforcing the rules that currently exist.

John Cones

Re(2): How Movie Wars Were Won
Posted on July 18, 2003 at 08:47:37 PM by Mitchell Levine

John, you've just given a long-winded reply that doesn't ever answer the question: "how would more diversity cure your list of abuses?" In other words, how would not being Jewish ensure that you wouldn't engage in "unfair, unethical, anti-competitive business practices?"

Re(3): How Movie Wars Were Won
Posted on July 18, 2003 at 09:25:53 PM by John Cones

Once again fellas, you seem to be so focused on that one part of the overall cluster of Hollywood problems that offends you that you cannot see the forest for the trees. The fact that many of these business practices occur has nothing to do with the background of the people in positions of power. It does have a great deal to do, however, with the fact that there is very little diversity at the top in Hollywood. Such lack of diversity, no matter what the background of the individuals involved, tends to lead to a certain amount of clannishness, or tribalism. Thus, the less diversity, the more likely that the rest of the clan or tribe will tolerate the behavior. Loyalty is to the clan or tribe, not to more ethical business practices. On the other hand, the more diversity, the less likely that shoddy business practices would be tolerated because the loyalty to the clan or tribe factor would have been removed or diminished. Thus, the need for greater diversity.

John Cones

Re(4): How Movie Wars Were Won
Posted on July 19, 2003 at 03:42:52 AM by George Shelps



by John Cones

Once again fellas, you seem to be so focused on that one part of the overall cluster of Hollywood problems that offends you that you cannot see the forest for the trees. The fact that many of these business practices occur has nothing to do with the background of the people in positions of power. It does have a great deal to do, however, with the fact that there is very little diversity at the top in Hollywood. Such lack of diversity, no matter what the background of the individuals involved, tends to lead to a certain amount of clannishness, or tribalism.

___Not necessarily. A diverse group
of people can share the universal
human failings of greed and lust for
power. Whether it is one ethnic group
or many, the huge amounts of money
and the perks are still a lure.

Thus, the less diversity, the more likely that the rest of the clan or tribe will tolerate the behavior.

___Not necessarily. In a religion,
does the fact that all members share
the same belief lead to the toleration
of bad behavior. Or in a political
party, does it automatically lead to
a toleration of corruption?

Loyalty is to the clan or tribe, not to more ethical business practices. On the other hand, the more diversity, the less likely that shoddy business practices would be tolerated because the loyalty to the clan or tribe factor would have been removed or diminished. Thus, the need for greater diversity.

___This is the central flaw in your
argument, and goes to the heart of why
you are accused of anti-semitism and
why anti-semites like Jenks/Baker/whomever are attracted to
FIRM.

Your assumption that "clannishness"
will necessarily lead to bad conduct
is one of the typical slurs aimed
at Jews and other ethnic groups by
bigots.

In reality, "clannishness" can reinforce
good conduct as well.

Re(5): How Movie Wars Were Won
Posted on July 21, 2003 at 08:57:26 PM by Mitchell Levine

Thus, the less diversity, the more likely that the rest of the clan or tribe will tolerate the behavior.

___Not necessarily. In a religion,
does the fact that all members share
the same belief lead to the toleration
of bad behavior. Or in a political
party, does it automatically lead to
a toleration of corruption?

- For example, consider a diverse group like, say, the Bar Association.

Re(4): How Movie Wars Were Won
Posted on July 18, 2003 at 10:00:37 PM by Mitchell Levine

What evidence is there that studio heads are "loyal" to their rival chiefs because they share an ethnicity, instead of, say, threatening to have their heads blown off by their footsoldiers marching up and down Wilshire Blvd?

Re(5): How Movie Wars Were Won
Posted on July 23, 2003 at 11:14:14 PM by mg

Racist Israel as the beacon of international trans-Jewish solidarity.

Re(6): How Movie Wars Were Won
Posted on July 24, 2003 at 11:13:30 AM by MK

Is this your answer to everything. If "international trans-Jewish solidarity" means a common heritage, then why should that threaten you?

Haven't you ever seen "international trans-Catholic solidarity" in action? Why are the Jews such a big issue for you. Have Jews stopped you from doing what you want? Have they killed anyone you know, stolen from you? Even if you say yes, you would be wrong.

The Jews as a group have done nothing to you. A point you can't seem to grasp is that Jews do not function as one. There are many Jewish groups that do not agree on some very fundamental levels. You know this, you just don't want to understand it. It goes against what you are trying to do, which is to cause hatred and resentment towards one religion.

You are just one more in a line of creeps that have tried this, but the world has evolved beyond this sort of primitive thinking. No doubt, you have reaped benefits from Jewish hard work in medicine, law, and business. It's that you just can't compete that has you in such a rage. It's easier to find someone else to blame than to critisize yourself. Get help and move on to something more productive than hate mongering.

Movies Mere Entertainment?
Posted on July 18, 2003 at 09:29:50 PM by John Cones

Why, however, would the Hollywood establishment attempt to mislead the American public about the nature of films? Why would this group (or any other movie industry control group) repeatedly try to convince the American public that movies are merely entertainment, that the moviegoing public votes with its pocketbook (i.e., the audiences ultimately determine what kinds of movies will be shown) and that movies do not influence human behavior? The evidence set forth in this book (and its companion volumes) suggests this deception occurs because the Hollywood establishment wants to discourage the next natural step in any inquiry into the affairs of the film industry, if such questions were answered truthfully. In other words, Hollywood does not want a closer examination of the messages being communicated by a medium that is more than mere entertainment, by a medium that is controlled by a small, narrowly defined interest group (to the exclusion of all other interest groups in a very diverse society). Hollywood does not want an examination of why the Hollywood control group chooses to produce and release the movies it does (regardless of whether audiences really want to see such movies) and Hollywood does not want to accept responsibility for any of the anti-social behavior for which movies are partly responsible.

Unfortunately, there appears to be a significant number of people within our society that have allowed themselves to be brainwashed by movie industry propaganda over the years, and have concluded that movies are not important, that they are really only entertainment, and that they do not influence human behavior. On the other hand, once more people recognize that movies are more than mere entertainment, that they are, in fact, a significant medium for the communication of ideas, and that ideas influence human behavior--therefore, movies influence behavior, then it is likely that people will understand that movies are important, and that they are actually evolving into a vital component of the health and welfare of our entire society.

It is then also easier for more people to recognize that they must become involved in making certain that the leaders of the motion picture industry more accurately reflect the diversity of our society. Such diversity at the top will, in turn, be reflected in the decisions that determine which movies are produced and released, who gets to work on those movies and the messages that are regularly communicated through motion pictures. After all, every citizen has a stake in what messages are repeatedly being communicated to the rest of our society, particularly when those messages are being communicated through such a powerful medium as the motion picture.

Excerpted from "What's Really Going On In Hollywood"

John Cones

Re(1): Movies Mere Entertainment?
Posted on July 20, 2003 at 02:18:51 PM by Mitchell Levine

If this is so, then exactly why does the entire industry revolve around marketing research? Most of what's seen on the screen isn't selected on the basis of what any "control group" wants the public to see, but rather what statistical measures applied to essentially randomly selected focus groups have determined the public wants to see. Certainly any kind of forced change in studio management would leave the public unaffected, which implies that regardless of ethnicity, competent businesspeople would be rather unlikely to make many content changes anyhow. People, Jewish and non-Jewish alike, don't become film executives because they want to make art - those types enter the independents - they become execs to make money. That's unlikely to change no matter whose in the catbird seat, unless you sincerely believe that Jews are greedier than other people, quite a potent anitsemitic stereotype.

Besides, one of the highest-profile signifiers of cinematic merit displayed publicly is the Academy Awards, which are rountinely given out to "prestige" flicks intended to teach both history and moral points like Gandhi, Amadeus, and The Last Emperor. That fact would hardly be consistent with the idea that "the industry," which sponsors the Oscars, doesn't want its films to be considered anything but mere entertainment. The highest levels of social, artistic, and professional validation are bestowed on projects which are quite obviously not meant to be considered mere entertainment by the industry authorities.

In fact, if they really wanted to confirm the hypothesis that films are just entertainment, they wouldn't work artistic messages into blockbuster films created for mass consumption, like, for example, Spiderman, whose theme was that "America carries God's blessing," and repeatedly made reference to specifically Christian theology. This is true for many, many other mainstream commercial films, like Volcano and Die Hard 3, which were both about race relations. That's hardly consistent with your idea that movies only carry "ethnocentric" dogma, and that their makers deny that their movies have messages, at least in their most commercial form.

Hollywood Reform
Posted on July 21, 2003 at 05:42:50 PM by John Cones


MOTION PICTURE INDUSTRY REFORM



"Rarely in the history of mankind has any group with power given it up voluntarily." [Powdermaker, 304.]


Introduction/Overview--This book focuses on what can be done about problems in the Hollywood-based U.S. film industry, problems addressed in this and my earlier books. The suggested solutions considered in this discussion are referred to as "remedies". One of the main reasons for the lack of success in earlier efforts to reform Hollywood, in my opinion, is that the film industry critics have been looking for a solution in the wrong places. In many instances, they have been going to those in power in the film industry and asking for change, trying to "shame" them into changing their ways as Senator Robert Dole would say. In my view, that will never bring about long-term lasting reform of the motion picture industry. People do not generally give up power unless they have to. As pointed out in the following pages, I contend that long-term, lasting reform will never come to the U.S. film industry, until the power is taken away from those who now control it and have long abused it. The discussions in the companion volumes to this book set forth the underlying basis for taking such power away from those who now control Hollywood. [Footnote--Such companion volumes are entitled "Who Really Controls Hollywood", "Patterns of Bias in Motion Picture Content", "How the Movie Wars Were Won" and "The Feature Film Distribution Deal".]

The following is a discussion of proposed activities that may be engaged in by film industry professionals, the public and the government, in attempting to level the playing field in the film industry and to provide greater diversity in the marketplace of ideas portrayed through film. Those suggestions focusing on the relationship between independent producers and the major studio/distributors and designed to eliminate many unconscionable provisions in the drafting and implementation of the feature film distribution deal were discussed in my book "The Feature Film Distribution Deal". To the extent that the film distributor practices described in that book are actually occurring, they are very likely to continue to occur unless and until more net and gross profit participants, whether they be investors, producers, directors, screenwriters, actors, actresses, or others take more aggressive steps to protect their own financial interests and their creative control interests in feature films by engaging in the remedial activities described below. Remember, that in the film business, you cannot completely separate economic control from creative control.

Getting Better Information (Research Projects) As George Custen points out, "[i]n general, there are few grounded analyses in film studies that use large systematically selected samples of films." [Custen, 27.] Custen goes on to report that the "...methods of the various social sciences have only sporadically been brought to bear upon Hollywood." [Custen, 24.] Thus, much more research ought to be done.

For example, leaders of all groups who are portrayed in motion pictures should regularly conduct such studies and report to the public about the results, so that some organization can then assemble these annual reports over a period of time and publish them in the form of a book that will be available to all. In addition, religious leaders throughout the U.S. and the world should systematically analyze the entire body of work provided thus far by the American film industry or the so-called major studio/distributors to determine whether (or where) there is a consistent pattern of bias against such religions in such films. If so, those religious leaders should not bother to try to change the behavior of the film moguls, but instead, petition Congress to pass laws assuring that all interest groups, including religions have the same opportunity to produce and release films containing a more balanced presentation of issues of concern, including religious issues.

In conjunction with the discussion of various topics throughout this book (and its companion volumes), I have pointed out specific research questions, the answers to which would be helpful to an overall understanding of what is really going on in Hollywood. In addition, these suggested research topics have been collected and reproduced as an appendix to this volume, in an effort to stimulate such research.

Excerpted from "Motion Picture Industry Reform"

John Cones

Re(1): Hollywood Reform
Posted on July 21, 2003 at 08:20:50 PM by George Shelps

John Cones:

If so, those religious leaders should not bother to try to change the behavior of the film moguls, but instead, petition Congress to pass laws assuring that all interest groups, including religions have the same opportunity to produce and release films containing a more balanced presentation of issues of concern, including religious issues.

____In other words, government-imposed
quotas based on religion....

Morning Star Commission
Posted on July 21, 2003 at 06:51:39 PM by Moishe the Goyim

The Jewish business network that built Hollywood, observes Claire Pajaczkowska, "provided an opportunity for a relatively small managerial elite to formulate American culture as it should or could be. It has been said that 'Hollywood' -- the American Dream -- is a Jewish idea in a sense; it's a Jewish revenge on America. The genius of future moguls was a complex one, partly sheer business ingenuity, partly ruthless risk taking, and a kind of competitive solidarity.... They were also closely associated with the meretricious, ostentation of the industry, with poor morals, bad taste, and the industrialization of art." [PAJACZKOWSKA, p. 238] As Marlon Brando once noted, "I've never had any respect for Hollywood. It stands for avarice, phoniness, greed, crassness and bad taste." [BRANDO/LINDSEY, 1994, p. 153-154] Or as film critic Kenneth Turan noted in an introduction to David Freeman's book A Hollywood Education: "Freeman knows that the movie business is more than any old conniver's paradise, it is one where the grail is a whole new persona. Because stakes are so high, because 'in Hollywood, what you succeed with and what you fail with are virtually the same,' everything, even your most personal life, is a viable tool to get ahead. Mind games, hidden agendas, backstabbings, and all around venality, they all pass without so much as a second glance. Everything is excused in pursuit of the dream." [FREEMAN, D., 1992, p. 7]

"[A]s I heard about Hollywood," wrote prominent science fiction writer Isaac Asimov, in a reflecion on his career, "I liked it even less. Walter Bradbury of Doubleday would travel to Hollywood once a year on business. When I had lunch with him after such a visit, he would be drawn and strained. He hated the people he had to deal with there, phonies, one and all, he said, and not to be trusted an inch." [ASIMOV, I., 1994, p. 365]

The literary critic Edmund Wilson wrote

"Perelman; Hollywood. Jewish girl, very nice and intelligent. Not fancy, who had lost her husband out there after three years -- her theory [is] that Jewish men thought themselves ugly, so they had to keep proving to
themselves what they could do in the way of getting Gentile girls."
[GOULD, p. 305]

"In olden times," said the great journalist and muckraker, Upton Sinclair, "Jewish traders sold Christian girls into concubinage and into prostitution, and even today they display the same activity in the same field in southern California where I live." [GOULD, p. 305] The Hollywood rulers, noted Hollywood rabbi Edgar Magnin, "were men who made all that money and realized they were still a bunch of Goddamned Jews. Sleeping with a pretty gentile girl made them feel, if only for a few minutes, 'I'm half gentile.' No wonder they made idols out of shiksa goddesses." [RUBIN, p. 78] This kind of sexual predation, if we are to believe what some Jewish scholars have to say about it, has root in the psychological insecurities of Jewish identity. The (Jewish) Forward, reviewing a biography of (Jewish) writer Arthur Koestler by (Jewish) scholar David Cesarani, notes that

"Koestler's life was marked throughout by 'non-stop womanizing,'
Mr. Cesarani writes. As a journalist in the 1930s, for instance, he'was sleeping his way through Berlin at the rate of one girlfriend every four to six weeks.' The chronic philandering was in part a function of Koestler's Jewishness, Mr. Cesarani explained in a
telephone interview, because, for Koestler, to be seen with tall,
blond shiksas was a sign of the fullness of his assimilation and
acceptance around gentiles." [BRAHMS, p. 11]

(This kind of predator is apparently evidenced in the case of Evan (Meshulam) Frankel, a real estate mogul in East Hampton, New York, "An otherwise suave and gallant companion, Frankel might easily reach out in conversation and caress the breast of a woman he hardly knew or run his fingers over her buttocks ... In one famous incident, he gave a large party at which three generations of women he had bedded from the same family were his guests, unaware that each one of them had been a Frankel conquest.") [GAINES, F., 1998, p. 176]

Jewish men rushing in veritable herds to bed non-Jewish women is much remarked upon in the Jewish world. As an old Yiddish folk saying notes:

"Why does a Jew need legs? To school he must be forced, to marriage he must be led, to burial he is brought, to synagogue he won't go, and after Gentile girls he crawls. So why does he need legs?" [KUMOVE, S., 1985, p. 142]

This long tradition of Jewish male interest in the non-Jewish female has created profound resentment by Jewish women in modern Hollywood. In 1998, "a group of 30 high-level Hollywood women in television, film, art and academia" (called the Morning Star Commission) released a study, headed by Jewish "superagent" Joan Hyler, and sponsored by the Zionist women's group Hadassah, about the portrayal of Jewish women onscreen in Hollywood. As the New Jersey News noted about the Jewish psychological undercurrent in the survey findings:

"Among the most devastating findings of the Morning Star Commission is the way that Jews, both men and women, still regard non-Jews as competitors and even adversaries ... Jewish women, though proud of their professional achievements ... project a surprising degree of ambivalence toward themselves within American society and a shocking
degree of rivalry and hostility toward non-Jewish women ... Jewish women, in their envy of non-Jews, often project hostility onto non-Jews, often project hostility onto non-Jewish women, calling them 'air heads' and perceiving them as 'irresponsible' and 'unambitious.'" [MARKS, M.
A., 4-23-98, p. 5]

Re(1): Morning Star Commission
Posted on July 21, 2003 at 07:30:46 PM by Anonymous

Forgive me for saying this, but do I detect a little obsessive-compulsive behavior there "Moishe the Goyim". You really have to find something else to do besides obsess about Jews.

Having said that, I do so enjoy your slanted posts. They make for great comedy. Keep up the good work, you really make us laugh!

Re(2): Morning Star Commission
Posted on July 21, 2003 at 07:31:54 PM by mg

Are the posts true, or are they false?

Answer the question.

Laugh all you want.

In fact, laugh more.

Re(3): Morning Star Commission
Posted on July 21, 2003 at 07:46:36 PM by Anonymous

Are they true? Only the writer knows. You believe them because you want to believe them?

Dance clown, dance! :)

The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 21, 2003 at 06:57:27 PM by Moishe the Goyim

The Hollywood "casting couch" is an infamous icon. Actress/writer Joan Collins (half-Jewish) notes an early introduction to the world of Hollywood as a young aspiring actress:

"[When] Buddy Adler, who was head of 20th Century-Fox, to whom
I was under contract, asked me in his own home if I would like to be the
biggest star on the lot, I said, 'Yes, of course.' 'All you have to do' --
and he smiled suavely as he maneuvered me across the lacquered dance
floor of his Beverly Hills mansion -- 'is to be nice to me, and the best
parts at the studio are yours.' 'What do you mean exactly by 'be nice,'
Mr. Adler?' a worldly and sophisticated twenty-two-year-old Joan asked
warily. 'Listen, honey' -- he held me closer in the dance and whispered
in my ear -- 'you're a beautiful girl and I'm not exactly an ugly old man...
We'll see each other a couple of times a week, you can still have your
own life, and I'll have mine, of course." [COLLINS, J., p. 25]

Marilyn Monroe, as noted earlier, was a willing mistress to many to help her career. Aside from those mentioned earlier, she was also regularly invited to the home of Joseph Schenck (early head of 20th Century-Fox) where, she once said, "I liked sitting by the fireplace with Mr. Schenck and hearing him talk about love and sex. He was full of wisdom on the subjects." [WOLFE, D., p. 198] Schenck was once married to early film star Norma Talmadge. [WHITFIELD, E., 1997, p. 239] Monroe, says Ted Jordan, "bitterly complained about Schenck, who made it clear what her primary function was: sex." [JORDAN, p. 100] Schenck, says film historian Neal Gabler, "embodied just about every cliché of Hollywood decadence and debauchery." [GABLER, N., 1988, p. 259] "Uncle Joe [Schenck] continued to have 'fiancees,' notes Mary Ellin Barrett (the "god daughter" of Schenck, and Irving Berlin's actual daughter), "and when I was old enough to catch on, I wondered how a pretty girl could fancy such a homely, potbellied old man 'that way.' 'Power,' someone said, 'is attractive,' an odd concept to a young person." [BARRETT, M., 1994, p. 140]

Earlier in her career she had slept with Jewish comic and TV star Milton Berle, but he says later she didn't even remember it. "We didn't pretend our affair was a big thing. It was just part of something nice between us ... The next time I saw Marilyn, she was already a star ... I think she actually could not remember that she and I had been together for a while eleven years before." [BERLE, M., 1974, p. 265-266]

The following account of a Milton Berle sexual conquest (not Monroe) seems definitive/iconic for Hollywood: She (an aspiring young actress given a pseudonym of "Linda Smith") was dating a powerful Hollywood executive Berle calls "Jed Weston." (He later became the head of a motion picture studio. [BERLE, M., 1974, p. 19] "The trouble with Linda on screen was that she was a second-rate actress. It was her looks that carried her." [BERLE, p. 5]

The first time he spends the night with Ms. "Smith," as Berle is preparing to bed her (which he does), she begins weeping and confesses to Berle about her misery in trying to become a famous actress in Hollywood:

"You didn't do anything wrong, Milton. It's me. I suddenly felt cheap, that's all ... I figured if I was getting grabbed in barns all over Nebraska, maybe I had something that woudl pay off in Hollywood. So here I am, with a couple of B movies under my belt but nothing really going for me unless Jed Weston is the big payoff [to an acting career] ... Out here, you get so mixed up, you can't be sure you'd know what love is. It's really lousy for a woman. Half the men in this town excpect you to be a whore if you want to get somewhere in pictures, and if you do screw, they treat you like a whore and that's the end of it ... Don't [apologize], Milton. You don't have to. I was on the make for you yesterday, the same as you were for me. You're a star, so I thlught if I gave you a little something, you might be able to do something for me over at RKO." [BERLE, p. 10]

After making love, Smith goes on: "What are you up to, Milton? What are you after? Do you really give a crap about what I feel? Do you? Aren't you just another movie-town stud trying to get the girl he just screwed to say he's the greatest? If that's what you want, okay! You're better than every front-office flunky who promised to help my career in return for a one night stand."

"She was beginning to sound hysterical," writes Berle. "I reached out for her -- Hey, Linda honey, hey, wait a minute' -- but she pulled away.' Her face was red, and the tears were running." "Is there anything more you want me to say before you leave the money on the dresser and run?," Berle recalls Smith saying, "All right, so you've got the biggest -- "

"I slapped her across the face," writes Berle. "She collapsed in sobs that shook the bed." [BERLE, M., 1974, p. 11-12]


Also early in Monroe's career as a struggling actress, the head of Columbia, Harry Cohn, also once invited her, "and no one else," to an overnight cruise on his yacht. According to close friend Ted Jordan, Monroe was required to strip naked for Cohn in his office. As she bent over, at his direction, he approached her, penis in hand. When she declined his advances, said Monroe, "I had never seen a man so angry." [JORDAN, p. 91; WOLFE, D., p. 211-212] Cohn then "banned her from the [Columbia] lot after she refused to accompany him on a yacht to Catalina Island." [LEAMING, p. 8] "You know," Monroe once said, "that when a producer calls an actress into his office to discuss a script that isn't all he has in mind ... I've slept with producers. I'd be a liar if I said I didn't." [SUMMERS, p. 34-35] In 1955, 20th Century Fox awarded Monroe the richest per-film contract of any actress. "It means," remarked Monroe, "I'll never have to suck another cock again!" [MCDOUGAL, p. 217]

Cohn also, notes Barbara Leaming,

"developed an obsession with getting [his contracted actress] Rita
[Hayworth] into bed that was more than just sexually motivated...
As time went by he would become preoccupied with keeping other
men out of her life, including her own husband and any other man
who might come between Rita and the studio ... [Cohn] went so far
as to sport hidden microphones in her dressing room to listen in on
her private conversations." [LEAMING, B., 1989, p. 60]

Louis B. Mayer (head of MGM) had "a private life [that] was not always so praiseworthy," notes Norman Zierold, "... Although married, he had a keen eye for feminine beauty and courted women at a clip in keeping with his extravagant nature." [ZIEROLD, p. 319] "In his more delicate personal relations with established and aspiring actresses," adds Bosley Crowther,

"[Mayer] was naturally careful and decorous, but none the less
vigorous in pursuit of those he lusted after, frequently in vain ...
He once said to Luise Rainer, 'Why don't you sit on my lap when
we're discussing your contract the way the other girls do?' A little
adroit lap-sitting would go a long way, they found. He was hardy
and persistent, however. Tirelessly he laid siege to some of the
more formidable actresses, rewarding them with richer roles or
disciplining them with poor assignments, in maneuvering to
accomplish his private aims." [CROWTHER, 1960, p. 263]

Mayer was alleged to have "once insisted that 'the Talmud says a man is not responsible for a sin committed by any part of the body below the waist.'" [GABLER, N., 1988, p. 389]

Legendary actress Lana Turner remembers what it was like for her as a teenager at MGM:

"Often in those early years at MGM I'd see a young actress
with more experience than I had, and I'd think, 'Oh boy,
there's competition for me.' Six months later she would have
fallen by the wayside. When I asked, people would say, 'You're
so dumb!' It had to be spelled out for me that those six-month
option girls would never go on to a movie career -- they were
there for the benefit of management. That was what Zeppo
Marx [Turner's first agent and one of the famous Marx Brothers]
had meant when he told me to say I was eighteen [she was fifteen
when signed]. If I got one of those six-month-option deals, I'd
better lie about my age -- for their protection." [TURNER, L.,
1988, p. 34-35]

Actress Debbie Reynolds recalls what she had heard about another Jewish heir to the MGM movie hierarchy:

"One of my first dates was Arthur Loew, Jr., whose family were the majority stockholders in MGM ... Driving home after dinner he told me that he'd like to date me again. 'I don't think that will be possible, Arthur,' I said. 'But why?' he asked, as if I'd made him feel he'd done something wrong. I didn't know what to say. I didn't want to tell him. 'Because all the girls tell me you're a wolf. 'Wooolf?' he repeated, as if he had never heard the word before. 'Well, yes. That's what I've been told and that wouldn't work out.'" [REYNOLDS, D., 1988, p. 67) [Reynolds notes that in a few future dates she never had any troubles with him]

Part 2: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 21, 2003 at 06:58:42 PM by Moishe


Shirley Temple (Black) recalled her experience as an 11-year old movie star the FIRST time she went to the MGM offices with her mother:

"Eight months had elapsed since leaving Fox in May 1940, and on this first
executive visit under my new Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer contract, Mother and I
were split up, she ushered away by general manager Louis B. Mayer and I left
alone with producer Arthur Freed.
Best known as producer of the blockbusting The Wizard of Oz, Freed was
rumored in some adult circles to have an adventuresome casting couch. At the
time I knew none of this, nor would I have recognized such furniture even when
sitting on one. To visit an executive of such stature was enough to send my
spirits soaring.
'I have something made just for you,' he continued, fumbling in his lap.
'You'll be my new star!' That phrase had last been used when I was three
years old in Kid in Hollywood.
Obviously, Freed did not believe in preliminaries. With his face gaped in
a smile, he stood up and abruptly and executed a bizarre flourish of clothing.
Having thought of him as a producer rather than exhibitor, I sat bolt upright.
Guarded personal exposure by both brothers and Father had maintained me
in relatively pristine innocense. Not twelve years old, I still had little appreciation
for masculine versatility and so dramatic was the leap between schoolgirl
speculation and Freed's dazzling exposure that I reacted with nervous laughter.
Disdain or terror he might have expected, but not the insult of humor.
'Get out!' he shouted, unmindful of his disarray, imperiously pointing to the
closed door. 'Go on, get out!' [BLACK, S., 1988, p. 319-320]

Telling her mother about the incident as she drove home, her mother told her that she too had similar troubles, fending off a sexual advance from Louis Mayer in HIS office at the SAME time. [BLACK, S., 1988, p. 320] "Usually solemn,' writes Temple,

"[Mayer's] eyes glinted. Surely [Temple's mother] could recognize real sincerity
when she saw it. Never forget, he continued, at MGM we are a family. We take
care of our own. Slipping down off his chair, he approached the sofa and sank
down beside her, uttering a contented sigh. Surely she was the most unique mother
in the world, he said. Someone who should be a star in her own right. He grasped
her hand, pulling her toward him. Mayer's opinion of his personal prowess was rumored to be overblown, but not the power of his office. Reluctant to test either, Mother picked up her purse and retreated out the door, walking backwards. Unlike
my reaction of hilarity to Freed, hers was to be grieviously affronted. Not for nothing was the MGM lot known as the 'factory,' a studio perfumed with sultry, busty creatures with long legs and tight haunches, and more than its quota of lecherous
older men." [BLACK, S., 1988, p. 320]
Shirley Temple was probably safe from prominent MGM Jewish film director George Cukor:

"Although Cukor had been in Hollywood only a year, his sexual preference was
not a secret in the film community, [actor William] Bakewell recalled, 'People said, 'You guys be careful, watch out for this man, he is queer' ... Shortly after his
arrival in Hollywood Cukor befriended actor William Gaines and his gay entourage. Cukor and Haines had some notoriously wild nights on the town and were even arrested. Friends of Cukor are vague about the incident, which he never talked about, but they held that his arrest was a turning point. Said director JosephMankiewicz, who befriended Cukor through his sister-in-law, Sara Mankiewicz, Cukor's friend: 'George got very frightened when he and Haines were arrested in public. Once he became an MGM director, he calmed and settled down' ... He was determined to help other new gay artists in the film community. Said Mankiewicz: 'Homosexuals would call George as soon as they arrived in Hollywood, and if he liked them, he would introduce them to other members of his elite.'" [LEVY, E., 1994, p. 48]

Part 3: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 21, 2003 at 06:59:54 PM by MOishe

In the late 1950s Cukor met George Towers, "a stunningly WASPish-looking blond [who Cukor's friends believed] was a hustler." Cukor paid for Towers' subsequent years studying at USC law school. "[B]ecause Cukor was used to paying for sex, providing Towers with a 'good education' seemed like a worthy cause ... Upon Towers' graduation from law school, Cukor was instrumental in finding him a job with his lawyers' office ... Later Cukor arranged for Towers to become a partner of the J. William Hayes law offices." LEVY, E., 1994, p. 256-257]


And what of movie mogul Samuel Goldwyn, also married, partner in Paramount, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, and United Artists? As his biographer notes,

"[An assistant director] stumbled into Goldwyn's office during the
making of Whoopee! and discovered the producer in a
compromising position with a girl who did not even get into
the picture. Most of the girls on the lot had heard about
Sam Goldwyn's 'casting couch.'" [BERG, A., 1987, p. 205]

Actress Joan Crawford, early in her career, allegedly starred in a porno movie. "When she was trying to break into the studios," says Ted Jordan

"she got nowhere until several studio executives were given a private
screening of her stag film ... In short order Miss Crawford won a studio
contract." [JORDAN, p. 122; also CONSIDINE, S., 1989, p. 12-13]

Crawford was brought to Holywood in 1924 by Jewish MGM mogul Harry Rapf. Agent in the early MGM years? Michael E. Levee. [CONSIDINE, S., 1989, p. 16, 61] "Over a sixteen month period," says Shaun Considine, "Joan Crawford appeared in thirteen pictures at M-G-M. She also acquired the reputation of being a quid-pro-quo girl. Years later, when asked if she ever had to sacrifice her virtue for roles via the proverbial casting couch, Crawford replied, 'Well, it sure as hell beat the hard cold floor.'" [CONSIDINE, S., 1989, p. 17]


"While their wives were meant to be decorous and refined and sexless," notes Neal Gabler,

"many of the Hollywood Jews found sexual release elsewhere --
sometimes flagrantly ... Sex, like family, power, wealth, and culture, was
meant to be conspicuous in Hollywood. It was a symbol of power, which
may be why so many of the Hollywood Jews behaved with such little
discretion. Jack Warner [one of the heads of Warner Brothers] bragged
about his conquests as if they were trophies. Bess Lasky knew that when
her husband [the head of Universal] sneaked away to make a quick
business call he was not talking to Adolph Zucker ... David Selznick
[was] a bearish hedonist with the appetites and discipline of a child."
[GABLER, N., 1988, p. 246, 258]

Charles Feldman, founder of the important Famous Artists film artist agency, represented the likes of Greta Garbo, Marlena Dietrich, and John Wayne. "Feldman," also, notes Peter Biskind, "was known for casting his girlfriends in his movies." [BISKIND, p. 25] He was once banned from MGM for his love interest in actress Jean Howard, a woman MGM head Louis B. Meyer had his eye on too. [CROWTHER, p. 193] Feldman was once romantically involved with sex queen actress Jean Harlow. [RUBIN, p. xii] So were others. Columbia Pictures' head Harry Cohn introduced Harlow to Jewish mobster Abner Zillman (an investor in Columbia). "For years after Harlow's death, [Zwillman] was boasting nostalgically about the various ways he'd banged the actress." [MCDOUGAL, p. 146] Zwillman also "reportedly gave some gangster friends gold lockets, each containing a strand of Jean's blonde pubic hair." [MARX, S., 1990, p. 121] Blonde bombshell movie star Carroll Baker's Jewish husband was theatre and film director Jack Garfein: their son is named Herschel David Garfein. Mae West made a career centered upon flaunting sexuality -- in a long list of intimates, her "first steady beau, Joe Schenck," a pianist and singer, [LEIDER, E.M., p. 51] was also Jewish. Blonde sexpot Jayne Mansfield's boyfriend at the time of her death in a 1967 car accident was also Jewish: Hollywood lawyer Sam Brody. The crash killed both of them. Among Marilyn Monroe's long list of Jewish (and other) partners, one of her husbands was playwright Arthur Miller. She even formally converted to Judaism for him. [WOLFE, D., p. 285]

Clara Bow, renowned for her promiscuity, was the sex goddess (the "It girl") of the late silent screen era. Like many who have the burden of being "sex" stars, she repeatedly collapsed with nervous breakdowns. She was built to fame by Benjamin Schulberg, head of a film company called Preferred Pictures. "To launch her," note Joe Morella and Edward Epstein:

"Schulberg instructed his photographer [in 1923] to take a series of provocative
pictures of Clara. In the photographs she was gracefully posed and draped only
in a sheet, Greek goddess-style. Her breasts and ample derriere were outlined, and
it was obvious that she wore nothing under the sheet ... Clara was in effect a pin-up
girl, though the term had not yet been coined. This manner of selling her would set
the tone for her entire career ... One of the unpublicized advantages of being under contract to a studio, even a small one like Ben Schulberg's, was the ready availability
of reliable medical attention for 'unspeakable' problems certain to arise among Hollywood's high-living set. Abortions were easily arranged. Venereal diseases could
be treated without undue embarrassment. To put it bluntly, and in the words of an
actor of the era, 'Anyone as promiscuous as Clara was sure to catch the clap." [MORELLA/EPSTEIN, 1976, p. 58]

Eventually, in 1925, Schulberg and his company moved under the wing of larger Jewish film moguls Adolph Zukor and Jesse Lasky at Paramount Pictures, at the time the largest movie studio in Hollywood. [MORELLA/EPSTEIN, 1976, p. 69-70] Bow's paramours were numerous, but perhaps the most publicized was her affair with "showman Harry Richman," "Mr. Broadway," "a Cincinnati-born Jewish boy ... By his own admission he often wined, dined, and bedded down as many as four showgirls in one night. And Harry was generous. He shared his conquests with his pals ... For a time one of Harry's closest buddies was fellow womanizer and enormously wealthy film mogul Joseph Schenck ... head of United Artists ... At the time of his friendship with Harry Richman, Schenck was married to top star Norma Talmadge [who later married Jewish comedian George Jessel]." [MORELLA/EPSTEIN, 1976, p. 69, 70, 169, 170] Schenck arranged the initial sexual tryst with Bow for Richman. [p. 172-175] (Richman also owned Club Richman, "a speakeasy which became a big success." [MORELLA /EPSTEIN, 1976, p. 70]) "Richman's name was romantically linked with the most glamorous women of his day, including the tragic, gorgeous silent-screen star Barbara La Marr. There was mystery and scandal too. Ziegfield girl Helen Walsh burned to death in a fire on one of Richman's yachts." [MORELLA/EPSTEIN, 1976, p. 70] Per Clara Bow, "Harry Richman had finally found his match for sexual adventure. In his own words: 'One of the greatest things about Clara was that she had an appetite for lovemaking that was at least the equal of mine. Every time I was ready, she was, and believe me, there was hardly an hour when I was not ready." [MORELLA/EPSTEIN, 1976, p. 179]

"Not all Bow suitors retained fond memories of her," write Morella and Epstein,

"Abel Baer, a sexy young songwriter from New York, was in Hollywood writing
the score for an upcoming Clara Bow picture. Baer had attracted the attention
of Mae West back in New York, and in Hollywood he caught Clara's eye. 'I
went to bed with her,' Baer says, 'but I'll tell you this -- there were no repeat
performances. Once was enough for me.'" [MORELLA/EPSTEIN, 1976,
p. 209-210]

Part 4: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 21, 2003 at 07:00:58 PM by Moishe

Jewish comedian and early television star Milton Berle hosted "the most successful show in television history." [BURNS, G., 1989, p. 269] His "reputation with the girls was pretty big," notes George Burns,

"He went out with everybody from silent movie star Pola Negri to
evangelist Aimee Semple McPherson to Marilyn Monroe. You'll notice
I use the phrase 'went out,' but that's not exactly what I mean. I can't
tell you exactly what I mean, because I do a clean act. I don't even
drop cigar ashes on the page. But if you want to know what Milton
did with these women, think of a train going into a tunnel. And based
on Milton's reputation, this train was so popular with the passengers
that he couldn't keep it in the station." [BURNS, G., 1989, p. 253]

"Why do Italian women wear panties?" joked Berle, "To keep their ankles warm." [BERLE, M., 1996, p. 306] "What's a blonde standing on her head?" "A brunette with bad breath." [BERLE, M., 1996, p. 92]

In his biography, Berle claims to have bedded many women in his life, including, he writes, Aimee Semple McPherson, one of the most prominent Christian evangelists of the era. One night, McPherson calls Berle up for a tour of one of her famed Four Square Gospel "temples." [BERLE, M., 1974, p. 126] Berle claims that she seduced him in a small apartment:

"I wasn't nervous. It wasn't Aimee the woman that made me feel shaky, it was Sister Aimee the Evangelist that bothered me. I kept seeing those newspaper pictures of her in the flowing white robes, her arms outstretched and holding a Bible. And once I had heard a radio broadcast from the Temple. For days after I had laughed, thinking of a whole mob singing 'Yes, Sir, He's My Jesus' to the tune of 'Yes, Sir, That's My Baby." It didn't seem funny now. I looked around the room. It was done very simply. Lots of what I decided were good early American antiques, and very little else. No pictures on the wall, very little of the tables besides lamps... 'I was thinking,' she said, and the light went out in the bedroom, 'that unless you were really interested, perhaps a visit to the Temple could wait for a cooler day.' The door opened, and there was Sister Aimee in a very thin, pale blue negligee, her braid undone and her blond hair hanging down around her shoulders. There was a soft flickering light somewhere behind her in the bedroom -- candles, I guessed -- and it was enough to show me tht she wasn't wearing anything underneath. 'Come in' was all she said. It was candles all right. Two of them on the table by the bed, which she had already turned down. They were burning inf ront of a silver crucifix that stood before a triptych panel of the scene of Calvary. That started my nerves going again, but I solved the problem. I decided not to face that way when we got in bed ... I never saw or heard from Aimee Semple McPherson again. But whenever I hear 'Yes, Sir, That's My Baby,' I remember her." [BERLE, M., 1974, p. 128-129]

Another of Berle's sexual conquests was Louise Cook, an African-American belly dancer. "In those days, it was bad enough for a white man and a black woman to see each other -- nobody approved on either side of the color line -- but for us it had the added problem that we were both known to the public and to the gossip columnists ... Somewhere along the way during the six months I knew Louise, I found out I wasn't the only man in her life. [Jewish show business mogul] Harry Richman was also meeting her a FEW BLOCKS AWAY." [BERLE, M., 1974, p. 137-138] (Cook died in the 1950s; Berle believed it largely from alcoholism). [p. 138]

Here's Berle's account of another conquest, and his reputation as a stud:

"I was still young enough to be impressed by the woman I had been in bed with. Somehow, to my kid's mind, the fact that shew as a world-famous sex symbol every man was supposed to want, and she wanted me, which made me think of myself as one hell of a guy. Special! Later on, I found out that she was always on the prowl for young men who were well-endowed, and to her I was just the lay of the week. There's really no polite way of getting this story into the book, but the punch line is too good to leave out. About fifteen years ago, I was in the locker room at the Luxor Baths in New York with two other guys. One guy was a friend, the other was his friend. The one was a stranger said to me, 'Hey, Berle. I hear you got a big one.' It caught me by surprise. 'Whaaaa? Go 'way.' But he didn't. 'You heard me. Well, I'm willing to bet cash money that mine is bigger than yours.' 'Will you knock it off? You drunk or something?' But he wouldn't stop. 'I hear you're a gambler, so I'm making you a bet. A hundred bucks says mine is bigger than yours.' 'I don't want to bet,' I told him. 'Let's drop the subject.' 'I'm serious. A hundred buck says mine is bigger than yours.' I was starting to get annoyed, when my friend said, 'Go ahead, Milton, just take out enough to win.'" [BERLE, M., 1974, p. 141-142]


Jewish singer Eddie Fisher, ("I prefer seduction to singing") for years a cocaine addict, divorced Debbie Reynolds, "America's sweetheart," to marry Elizabeth Taylor in 1958. To the mores of the 50s it was a scandal of monumental attention. "Even a partial list of his claimed [sexual] conquests," adds London's Daily Telegraph,

"include Mia Farrow, Marlene Dietrich, Bette Davis, Kim Novak,
Stefanie Powers, Angie Dickinson, Dinah Shore and Judith Exner,
the mistress also shared by President Kennedy and Sam Giancano,
the boss the Chicago mafia.... Fisher is of the generation that
still uses a good sprinkling of Yiddish words, and prominent among
them is shiksa."

"I think I slept with only one Jewish girl in my whole life," Fisher told the London paper, "Peggy Lipton, and then I didn't know she was Jewish ... Boy, did I have a libido." [LAURENCE, C., 10-14-99, p. 23] (Film director Oliver Stone's father was Jewish -- originally Lou Silverstein. He was a wealthy stock broker. [RIORDAN, 1995, p. 4] "Like many men his age," writes James Riordan about Oliver's father and mother, "[Lou] began to seek solace through an increasing number of affairs. There were several models, but often he preferred high-class call girls." [RIORDAN, J., 1995, p. 16]


Doris Day was stunned when her agent, Al Levy, "followed me into my room, closed the door, turned off the lights, and pulled me onto the bed. He desperately thrust himself on top of me as if he was some unknown rapist and I were an anonymous victim." [HOTCHNER, 1976, p. 102] Jewish bandleader Artie Shaw's romantic flings included those with Judy Garland, Betty Grable, and Lana Turner. [SHIPMAN, D. 1993, p. 104-107] Hollywood lawyer Gregory Bautzer "had a reputation not unlike Artie Shaw of having 'squired' many of Hollywood's most famous stars; he had preceded Shaw in Turner's life, and he was publicly associated with Joan Crawford for several years." [SHIPMAN, p. 464] Among [MGM screenwriter-producer] Joe "Mankiewicz's former lovers were Joan Crawford, Gene Tierney, and Linda Darnell. He had a habit,' said his son Chris Mankiewicz, 'of bedding down with leading ladies.'" [HEYMANN, C.D., 1995, p. 203] Screenwriter/playwright George S. Kaufman (best known for the Marx Brothers movies), who was married, "had a cleanliness compulsion, abhorred outward displays of affection, and hated physical contact except, presumably, with his many sexual conquests (the Broadway producer Max Gordon called him a 'male nymphomaniac')." [WINOKUR, 1987, p. 109] Actress Janet Leigh," notes Debbie Reynolds, "had the world trying to get her, but Tony [Curtis, born Bernard Schwartz] wanted her and she didn't have a prayer. It was physical; it was sexual. It was like dynamite. He got her and he married her." [REYNOLDS, D., 1988, p. 70)] Even Jewish Hollywood hairdresser Sydney Guilaroff "had a long affair with [Greta] Garbo and then moved on to Ava Gardner." [MCDOWELL, p. 15] (One day a friend of Reverend Billy Graham called actress Debbie Reynolds to tell her that Graham had had a dream in which Marilyn Monroe died. Reynolds dispatched Sidney Guilaroff to counsel Monroe about this. Guilaroff couldn't reach her alone. Soon after, Monroe committed suicide.") [REYNOLDS, D., 1988, p. 206-207]

Part 5: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 21, 2003 at 07:01:46 PM by Moishe

When swimmer Esther Williams first got started in show business, "famous New York showman" Mike Rose lured her into "a seduction scene -- pure and simple. I saw that look in his eyes ... Couldn't he look in the mirror? He was already in his fifties, married, and five feet two inches. I was seventeen, not even the legal age for such antics." [WILLIAMS, E., 1999, p. 45] Williams' first marriage, that same year, was to a Jewish pre-med student, Leonard Kovner, whom she soon divorced. Her lawyer in her golden years was also Jewish, Lew Goldman. [WILLIAMS, E., 1999, p. 302] As a budding actress, a particularly pesky Hollywood sexual predator was Sam Katz, head of MGM's musical productions. Williams recounts an early encounter with him:

"Sam, aren't you married?
'Yes, I am. I have two beautiful daughters.'
'And so am I,' I said. 'Don't you think it would be embarrassing if you
and I were seen in public having dinner together?'
'Well ... I have little places.'
'I bet you do.'" [WILLIAMS, E., 1999, p. 92]

"Katz's philandering was common knowledge," writes Williams,

"so I decided to deal with this head-on.
'You've done this before, Sam. Did the other girls become big stars?'
Astonishingly enough, he tried to answer the question. He began ticking
off his other conquests.
'Well, let's see. Kate Groom? No. Ilona Massey? Not really...’
I stopped him before he got too deep. I didn't want to be another 8 X 10
glossy on his wall of conquests, and I didn't want to know the names of
the rest of them." [WILLIAMS, E., 1999, p. 92]

Williams' most bizarre love affair was with Jeff Chandler (also Jewish, born Ira Grossel, his most famous role was that of Cochise in Broken Arrow). Williams fell in love and had an affair with him until she discovered his fetish for wearing women's clothing. "Jeff," notes Williams, who quickly abandoned him,

"was dead serious about this dress-up game and obviously had been
at it for a long time ... [He] had a compulsion to don Aunt Sophie's
underpants, which gave him his first orgasm, growing up and feeling
happy and secure only in women's clothing." [WILLIAMS, E., 1999,
p. 309]

As Rachel Abramowitz notes the oppressive undercurrent for women trying to make it in Hollywood:

"Go to CAA [a rival talent agency]," [top Jewish agent Sue Mengers
at the William Morris agency] derisively told the starlet Valeria Golino,
who was vacillating about William Morris, "Ronnie Meyers [a Jewish
executive at CAA] just wants to fuck you." [ABRAMOWITZ, R.,
2000, p. 331]

Jewish novelist Judith Krantz notes the stir actress Loretta Young created at the funeral of Jewish film director Mervyn Le Roy:

"At the funeral of Mervyn Le Roy ... I heard Loretta Young give a eulogy that
won the bad-taste prize of all time. She slithered exquisitely down the aisle
of the Forest Lawn chapel, clad in a startingly sexy, body-hugging black
dress and the largest black garden-party hat I'd ever seen. 'Mervyn Le Roy
discovered me,' she announced slowly. Pause. 'No, we didn't have an affair.'
Long pause. 'I was only thirteen,' she added thoughtfully, as if in explanation
for the omission." [KRANTZ, J., 2000, p. 209]


In 1977 director Roman Polanski, also Jewish, fled America rather than face sentencing for raping a 13-year old model. He had drugged her (with Quaaludes and alcohol) as he photographed the child at an actor's home. Arrested, he was allowed to work on his current film. As Barbara Leaming notes:

"Since the probation report would affect his fate, Polanski
worked on his [Jewish] probation officer, Irwin Gold, for whom he
painted a picture of a tragic past [Polanski was a Jewish survivor
of Nazi-occupied Poland] a compliant girl, and remorse for
anything he had done wrong ... He managed to win Gold's
sympathy ... This was a victimizer as victim -- a role Polanski
had played to the hilt." [LEAMING, 1981, p. 181, 184]

Also, "at age fifteen, Natassia [Kinski, star of Polanski's film Tess] became Polanski's lover. Polanski gave her books to read and suggested ways for developing her acting abilities." [LEAMING, 1981, p. 192] Polanski once married actress Sharon Tate, star of his film Fearless Vampire Killers. "During the shooting, Polanski had become Sharon's lover." [LEAMING, 1981, p. 79] She had been introduced to him by Jewish producer Martin Ransohoff of Filmways, who had her under contract. After Tate and others were sensationally murdered by the Charles Manson "family," one week later Polanski charged Life magazine $5,000 to pose at the door of the house she was slain. [KIERNAN, T., 1980, photo section]

Part 6: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 21, 2003 at 07:02:58 PM by Moishe the Goyim


Bob Rafelson and Bert Schneider were Jewish partners who produced a number of influential 1970s "counterculture" movies (Easy Rider, Five Easy Pieces, et al). "Bert was so relentless," noted one acquaintance, "that he came on to almost every pretty woman who came his way ... Sex was a publicly traded commodity among the Raybert guys, sexual exploits, a variety of who could piss farther." Actor Jack Nicholson (no innocent himself) reportedly admonished a friend, "Never bring a woman that you're serious about around Bert or Bob." [BISKIND, p. 58-59] Among Schneider's love affairs was one with actress Candice Bergen. [MCGILLIGAN, 1994, p. 181] At BBS (the Rafelson/Schneider company), notes Patrick McGilligan,

"All of the important players were men; the atmosphere was familial;
but really it was a fraternity of insiders, a boy's club. Bert was capable
of unzipping his pants during an argument and flourishing his cock; his
brother, Harold, was also known to bring his penis out and lay it on the
table. The BBS men circulated throughout the building, calling each
other "babe," and "doll," and hitting on the women. 'The important
players took a macho pride in fucking the same women at different
times,' said one former BBS staff member, 'from the starlets right
down to the typists.'" [MCGILLIGAN, p. 201]

The heart of the American popular music industry is also located in Hollywood. As Jewish author Neal Karlen notes: "Recalling [Jewish CBS music head Walter] Yetnikoff's well-documented lust for blond bimbos, a midlevel record executive would say a year later, 'Er hot in di hoizen a yarid' -- Yiddish for 'He's got a carnival in his pants.'" [KARLEN, N., 1994, p. 145]

(Paul Krassner, Jewish editor of the satirical "counter-culture The Realist magazine, recalls the moral range of his sexual world that included famous Jewish comedian Lenny Bruce. After sleeping with another woman, Krassman's wife angrily confessed to "whom she had slept with -- two of my closest FRIENDS -- Lenny Bruce and Paul Jacobs -- it really hurt ... Jeanne didn't spare me any of the juicy details. 'Lenny DIRECTED me. He'd say, 'Okay, now put your leg up here against the bedpost.' He was like a Fellini of the bedroom' ... Eventually I confronted them. Paul Jacobs acknowledged what had happened, and we embraced, but Lenny refused to admit anything.") [KRASSNER, P., 1993, p. 101] Krassner also writes this about his anti-Christian sexual world :

"The night before, I had been in bed with Miranda, [famous Jewish author] Norman Mailer's assistant. While we were making love, there was an evangelist on the radio providing a strangely appropriate background. He was talking about the importance of 'a firm God' and about 'sliding your finger into any passage in the Bible.' It was funny until he claimed that six million slaughtered Jews in Nazi Germany were doomed to Hell because they had never accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, yet Adolf Eichmann went to Heaven because he had converted to Christianity a couple of days before he was executed. Miranda made the most religious statement of the whole night. 'I'm so glad I have a cunt,' she said. It was a celebration of life." [KRASSNER, P., 1993, p. 114]

And Krassner wrote this, about similar anti-Catholic currents:

"Groucho [Marx] asked, 'Have you ever laid two ladies together?' I told him about the time that I was being interviewed by a couple of students from a Catholic girls' school. Suddenly Sheila Campion, The Realist's Scapegoat [a secretary], and Marcia Ridge, the Shit-On -- she had given herself that title because 'What could be lower than a Scapegoat?' -- walked out of their office totally nude. 'Sorry to interrupt, Paul,' said Sheila, 'but it's Wednesday -- time for our weekly orgy.' The interviewers left in a hurry. Sheila and Marcia led me up the stairs to my loft bed, and we had a delicious threesome." [KRASSNER, P., 1993, p. 122]


"This [Hollywood]," complained novelist Theodore Dreiser in its big studio glory days, "is a selfish, self-concentrated, mean, loafing town. The business and political world is hard-boiled and cruel. The movies are solidly Jewish. They're dug in, employ only Jews with American names and buy only what they cannot abstract and disguise. And the dollar sign is the guide -- mentally and physically. That America should be led -- the mass -- by their direction is beyond all believing. In addition, they are arrogant, insolent, and contemptuous." [GOULD, p. 298] "There's enough sincerity in Hollywood," wrote H. L. Mencken, "to fill a peanut shell and still leave room for an agent's heart." [GITLIN, p. 145] The novelist F. Scott Fitzgerald summed up the Hollywood scene as "a Jewish holiday, a gentile tragedy." [GABLER, p. 2]


Excerpts from:

WHEN VICTIMS RULE (mass media chapter)
at http://www.jewishtribalreview.org

Re(1): Part 6: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 21, 2003 at 07:16:16 PM by Moishe

Not enough? There's plenty more at

http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/24media1.htm

Re(2): Part 6: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 21, 2003 at 07:24:21 PM by Anonymous

So, is your real name Moisha, or are you just being a sarcastic bigot?

Does this site have enough room for all of the non-Jewish slander stories, or would you find that unfair?

Re(3): Part 6: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 21, 2003 at 07:27:46 PM by mg

Is what is posted true, or is it not true?

Answer the question.

Re(4): Part 6: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 21, 2003 at 07:32:25 PM by Anonymous

Moishe the Goyim, or MG, or Moishe. Seem like multiple personalities.

Having a nice conversation in there guys?

Re(4): Part 6: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 21, 2003 at 07:29:39 PM by Anonymous

This is the subject headline at the top of this discussion page: "Do The Major Studios Discriminate In Their Hiring Practices?"

Hmmm. Let's see. Given all the Jewish sexual predation in Hollywood, I guess the answer is yes.

Re(5): Part 6: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 21, 2003 at 07:44:59 PM by Anonymous

Typical response. "Given all the Jewish sexual predation in Hollywood."

All the Gentiles in Hollywood are saints, HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM?

Re(6): Part 6: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 21, 2003 at 08:24:09 PM by Anonymous

The real Jewish Tribal Review! Childish comics stereotyping Jews:

"Like any comic that seeks to have fun with the truth, our intention with these cartoons is neither ridicule, defamation, or hostility, but merely to highlight aspects of our current cultural milieu that all should recognize. The more powerful the subject of examination (and the more resistant it is to public criticism of any sort), the greater the tension release there is in telling, or hearing, or reading, the joke -- for all. This is the nature of comedy, as it has always been."

In other words, Jews should be made fun of because it's considered Taboo to do so.

If that were true, it would also be okay to make fun of people like MG who have leearing disabilities. It's never okay to make hurtful jokes about anyone. Check out this nonsense:

http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/carrara.htm

This is the type of slander that MG condones! Jesus loves you anyway MG.

Re(7): Part 6: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 22, 2003 at 04:52:30 PM by mg

Jews are the KINGS of vulgar jokes and jokes that insult others' ethnicity.

At the same time, they position their own power and neurosis to be beyond reproach.

Re(8): Part 6: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 22, 2003 at 05:19:34 PM by Anonymous

You are one sick puppy. THEY THEY THEY.....

When will you realize that all people are individuals.

The reason no one takes you seriously, is that you classify a whole group of people as if they are all the same.

No wonder your disgusting web site is a link in so many white supremacy web sites. You bigots are all the same. (sucks being classified doesn't it?)

Re(9): Part 6: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 22, 2003 at 05:22:47 PM by Anonymous

Jews are "invididuals" who invented the casting couch, institutionalized it, dominated turn-of-the century international prostitution (See Pride and Prejudice by Edward Bristow), dominated the American smut trade, still dominate the upper eschelons of American pornography, were central to the creation of decadent Las Vegas, dominate the international Crime Syndicate of the Russian mafia, and on and on and on and on ...

I guess it's just coincidence.

Re(10): Part 6: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 22, 2003 at 06:05:36 PM by Anonymous

Okay....Christains are the "individuals" who invented the Crusade. Muslims have their Jihad. These are documented facts. What's your point?

Your "facts" are, that if you find one or two Jews in a group of people, you assume that they run the show.

Re(9): Part 6: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 22, 2003 at 05:22:04 PM by Anonymous

Jews are "invididuals" who invented the casting couch, institutionalized it, dominated turn-of-the century international prostitution (See Pride and Prejudice by Edward Bristow), dominated the American smut trade, still dominate the upper eschelons of American pornography, were central to the creation of decadent Las Vegas, dominate the international Crime Syndicate of the Russian mafia, and on and on and on and on ...

I guess it's just coincidence.

Re(7): Part 6: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 21, 2003 at 08:51:52 PM by Mitchell Levine

Absolutely! It wouldn't be like guys like, say, Hugh Hefner, Bob Guccione, Larry Flynt, Warren Beatty, Robert Redford, Scott Baio, Kris Kristofferson, Rob Lowe, Charlie Chaplin, Charlie Sheen, or Errol Flynn to take sexual advantage of their station!

Of course, when they do it, it's not Rassenschande, like Hitler stated so eloquently in Mein Kampfe, so it's OK.

Re(8): Part 6: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 22, 2003 at 04:50:29 PM by moishe

The "casting couch" was INSTITUTIONALIZED by Jewish Hollywood. Sexual exploitation may be found anywhere, but Jewry solidified it as a foundation -- even an obligation -- of the Hollywood enterprise.

As you know.

Re(9): Part 6: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 22, 2003 at 07:52:08 PM by Mitchell Levine

Of course! If it wasn't for the Jews, guys would NEVER have gotten the idea that attractive women would have sex with them to get a part!

Never in world history did THAT happen before, shmuck! It must be the Jews fault!

Re(10): Part 6: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 22, 2003 at 08:21:24 PM by mg

It's quite amazing how you respond with flippant replies, while ignoring the evidence of the posting.

Jews have institutionalized sexual predation. Not only by the casting couch, but in their heavy influence in the international prostitution trade, the smut industry, pornography, etc.

As you know. Would you like some more citations heaped on your plate?

Any porno barons in the Levine line?

Re(11): Part 6: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 23, 2003 at 00:24:03 AM by Mitchell Levine

More like you're trying to, as usual, scapegoat Jews for things done by everyone.

Prostitution exists literally everywhere, in every society all over the world, since the beginning of time. It doesn't matter where or when, every city, country, state or principality has prostitution. To blame this on Jews is the height of ridiculousness, unless Jews mystically control the world, and have done so for all of recorded history.

There is no credible evidence whatsoever that "the Jews" dominate the "international prostitution trade," and none of the links on your site offer anything other than unproven allegations by way of substantiation.

Pornography is not a form of "sexual predation," as it is conduct engaged in and viewed by mutually consenting adults. As has been repeatedly pointed out, the porn business in the U.S. was started by guys like the Perraino and Mitchell brothers, as well as Hefner, Guccione, and Flynt, none of whom are Jewish. Just because one of the partners in Vivid Video is Jewish hardly means you're justified in "blaming" the Jews for porn.

Guys have been using power and status to get women into bed as long as there's been such things as power and status. Hollywood isn't any different then any other industry, except that it attracts more desirable women. Non-Jewish males, like the ones I've listed above, pursue this end exactly as much, if not more than Jewish ones. Nor would "diversity" in management would even begin to affect this cultural universal.

For a little perspective on this issue, compare it to the case of a "diverse" field, like politics. Not one of the American Presidents has been Jewish, for example, and their record of "sexual predation" infinitely surpasses anything ever seen in the movie business - in fact, in just the cases of Kennedy and Johnson alone.

Your morbid fascination with Jewish sexuality seems to curiously echo the same obsession displayed by Hitler in Mein Kampf.

Re(12): Part 6: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 23, 2003 at 10:49:10 PM by mg

YOU SAY: Prostitution exists literally everywhere, in every society all over the world, since the beginning of time. It doesn't matter where or when, every city, country, state or principality has prostitution. To blame this on Jews is the height of ridiculousness, unless Jews mystically control the world, and have done so for all of recorded history.

RESPONSE: True, prostitution is everywhere, but Jewry has positioned itself as the premiere profiteers of sexual decadence for a long time now. They also have been instrumental in ushering sexual hedonism into the cultural mainstream. It's well documented.

For Jewish domination of the international "white slave trade", see here:

http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/10whsla.htm

For dozens of online links to the vastness of Jewish influence in the modern pornography and sexual exploitation field, see here:

http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/cripron.htm

The Jewish "Russian" mafia (and the importance of modern Israel in the trafficking of prostitutes, see here:
http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/criruss.htm

There's PLENTY more, but this a lot more than a day's reading.



YOU SAY: There is no credible evidence whatsoever that "the Jews" dominate the "international prostitution trade," and none of the links on your site offer anything other than unproven allegations by way of substantiation.

RESPONSE: There's tons of evidence. Read Edward Bristow's PROSTITUTION AND PREJUDICE, just for starters. It was published by Schocken, a Jewish publisher.

The links at our web site are vast, and varied, and they are about as good a "substantiation" as anyone might wish.

YOU SAY: Pornography is not a form of "sexual predation," as it is conduct engaged in and viewed by mutually consenting adults.

RESPONSE: You, Jewish propagandist, exemplify the problem here in defense of porno. We may argue its merits and dismerits all you want, but you, like so many Jews, defend it under the auspices of "free speech." It is, for the most part, a form of sexual predation for profit. It is, hence, a prime target for Jewish activism, as is easily evidenced.

YOU SAY: As has been repeatedly pointed out, the porn business in the U.S. was started by guys like the Perraino and Mitchell brothers, as well as Hefner, Guccione, and Flynt, none of whom are Jewish.

RESPONSE: That's false. (Firstly, Hefner, Flynt, et al have always been surrounded by Jews). But porno evolved well before that, and you're citing anomalies. Read the citations at our web site. Jews invented "smut" in America. Some who have investigated the porno industry call it a "Jewish industry." Read Luke Ford's web site about Jews and the porno industry sometime. Pretty nifty.

YOU SAY: Just because one of the partners in Vivid Video is Jewish hardly means you're justified in "blaming" the Jews for porn.

RESPONSE: It's not "one" partner. The entire field of hard core porn is Jewish dominated, from Seth Warshawsky to Ruben Stoumen.

YOU SAY: Guys have been using power and status to get women into bed as long as there's been such things as power and status. Hollywood isn't any different then any other industry, except that it attracts more desirable women. Non-Jewish males, like the ones I've listed above, pursue this end exactly as much, if not more than Jewish ones. Nor would "diversity" in management would even begin to affect this cultural universal.

RESPONSE: Jews institutionalized it in Hollywood, and we have all been part of this constant cultural conditioning. The Jewish "casting couch" is one of the pillars of Hollywood, as you know.

YOU SAY: For a little perspective on this issue, compare it to the case of a "diverse" field, like politics. Not one of the American Presidents has been Jewish, for example, and their record of "sexual predation" infinitely surpasses anything ever seen in the movie business - in fact, in just the cases of Kennedy and Johnson alone.

RESPONSE: Not true. The Jewish Hollywood elite have been, en masse, chronic philanderers.

By the way. Clinton's intern babe, Monica Lewinsky, was also Jewish. Coincidence, I'm sure.

YOU SAY: Your morbid fascination with Jewish sexuality seems to curiously echo the same obsession displayed by Hitler in Mein Kampf.

RESPONSE: My "morbid fascination with Jewish sexuality" is echoed in the many, many books and articles written by Jewish chroniclers about it.

By the way, a recent survey revealed that Jews are the most promiscuous ethnic group in America:

"According to a(1994) survey by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, Jews are also the most sexually promiscuous ethnic group in America. According to their responses, 34% of American Jews have had sex with more than 11 partners by age 18! [HALBERSTAM, p. 141]

This helps explain Jewish sexual predation and predisposition to porno, smut, etc., don't you think? They seem to be willing to jump on whatever passes by in a dark hallway.

Re(13): Part 6: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 24, 2003 at 06:11:59 AM by MK

Funny, I live in the NYC area, and know many Jews. But not one of them has ever offered me the services of a prostitute or tried to sell me a porno magazine.

What about where you live "MG" Detroit has more drugs and prostitution than most cities in America. Both are controlled by the Blacks and Latinos.

The fact is that you just hate Jews, and you're on a crusade. You hate the fact that for the most part Jews are hardworking, educated, and dedicated to family. That really pisses you off, doesn't it? Especially for someone like you...barely making it in society, from a broken home, few friends.

With therapy, and the proper medications, you can lead a normal life. But first, you must accept the fact that you have a problem and be willing to get help.

I suggest you look for a support group in MI. I know Lansing has some and Detriot as well. It's called "Recovery" and is based on the work by Dr. Abraham Low. Also, AlAnon has some excellent meetings as well.

You might ask your doctor about Zoloft, Wellbutrin and Alprazolam. Together they work well for people with rage issues.

Good luck.

Re(11): Part 6: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 22, 2003 at 08:27:53 PM by MK

This from the KING of flippant replies!

Is that how they teach you to behave up in Dansville, MI? ;)

Re(9): Part 6: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 22, 2003 at 05:14:59 PM by Anonymous

Hey Moses, can't you find anything good about Jewish people. Sounds like you think all Jews are evil. Maybe some Jews have made contributions to society. Maybe even substantial contributions. You have a lot of hatred in you.

Re(10): Part 6: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 22, 2003 at 05:19:35 PM by mg

Hey anonymous. Can't you find anything wrong with Jewish people. Sounds like you think all Jews are angels. Maybe some Jews have contributed garbage to society. Maybe even substantial garbage. You have a lot of hatred of the truth in you.

Re(11): Part 6: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 22, 2003 at 05:27:21 PM by Anonymous

No son, I don't think all Jews are angels. I have known some people that I don't like that happen to be Jewish, and some people I don't like that are not Jewish. What distinguishes me from you besides the fact that I have a triple digit IQ, is that I do not hate all Jews just because of one or two people I don't like person.

All you do is mock people. How does that help anyone. Being snide is all you have to work with. You know nothing of the truth. You just rant and rave like a moron.

You have not contributed anything that would convince a rational human being that what you say is true. You're a Joke!

Re(12): Part 6: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 22, 2003 at 05:47:29 PM by mg

It seems that all Jewish argument revolves around this, as you claim about yourself: "I have a triple digit IQ ..."

In Jewish discourse, this is enough to repel the weight of documents, evidence, and historical facts.

Say, tell us more about your innate Jewish genius. A few more lists of your trophies and we will all be convinced that anything you say is Golden.

Re(13): Part 6: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 22, 2003 at 07:55:20 PM by Mitchell Levine

Says something about you that you consider having an IQ in the three figures to be a sign of "innate genius," doesn't it?

Re(14): Part 6: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 22, 2003 at 08:23:58 PM by mg

This is your reply to the voluminous stats about the Jewish Casting Couch?

Good job, Levine.

Cat got your tongue?

Re(13): Part 6: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 22, 2003 at 05:56:21 PM by Anonymous

What makes you think I'm Jewish. I never said I was. For all you know I might be a Christian, Buddist, Hindu or Muslim.

"In Jewish discourse, this is enough to repel the weight of documents, evidence, and historical facts"

I've read your site, 90% of what you post is opinion, hearsay and rhetoric.

You are the most dangerous type of bigot. You wrap yourself in the flag of what you call truth, but in reality, you spread hatred and propaganda. The tactics of Adolph Hitler.

Re(14): Part 6: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 22, 2003 at 06:04:19 PM by mg

YOU SAY: I've read your site, 90% of what you post is opinion, hearsay and rhetoric.

RESPONSE: Probably 90% of the web site cites Jewish scholarship, Jewish journals, and Jewish "opinion."

Readers may decide for themselves what it all represents:

http://www.jewishtribalreview.org

Re(15): Part 6: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 22, 2003 at 06:42:00 PM by Anonymous

Whatever, Nazi trash

Re(10): Part 6: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 22, 2003 at 05:19:35 PM by mg

Hey anonymous. Can't you find anything wrong with Jewish people. Sounds like you think all Jews are angels. Maybe some Jews have contributed garbage to society. Maybe even substantial garbage. You have a lot of hatred of the truth in you.

Re(11): Part 6: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 22, 2003 at 05:27:21 PM by Anonymous

No son, I don't think all Jews are angels. I have known some people that I don't like that happen to be Jewish, and some people I don't like that are not Jewish. What distinguishes me from you besides the fact that I have a triple digit IQ, is that I do not hate all Jews just because of one or two people I don't like person.

All you do is mock people. How does that help anyone. Being snide is all you have to work with. You know nothing of the truth. You just rant and rave like a moron.

You have not contributed anything that would convince a rational human being that what you say is true. You're a Joke!

The Jewish Story of Marilyn Monroe
Posted on July 21, 2003 at 07:26:05 PM by Moishe the Goyim

Marilyn Monroe is another who fell under the dominance of a string of Jewish analysts, and a Jewish world, including, most famously, Ralph Greenson (born: Romeo Greenschpoon) who was her therapist when she (allegedly) committed suicide. "Like many of his colleagues at the time," notes a Good Housekeeping review of a book by Donald Spoto about Marilyn,

"Greenson relied heavily on drug therapy for his patients, routinely
prescribing barbiturates and tranquilizers or having patients' other
doctors do so. He referred Marilyn to internist Hyman Engelberg
[also Jewish], who prescribed many of the medications Greenson
ordered for her. Greenson would also regularly meet with Marilyn
at his home and even asked his daughter to befriend her, disastrously
unprofessional tactics that increased Marilyn's dependency on him ...
Her friends noticed that the more Marilyn saw Greenson, the more
miserable she became ... Greenson encouraged Marilyn's deep
dependency on him (he was seeing her twice daily)." [GOOD
HOUSEKEEPING, 1993, p. 212, 214]

The incestuous nature of Hollywood life may be noted in Greenson's case: his sister Elizabeth "was married to Milton 'Mickey' Rudin, an entertainment attorney who was one of the town's major power brokers." [FARBER/GREEN, p. 93] Rudin was Jewish and also Monroe's lawyer. He was also an attorney and publicist for Frank Sinatra, who, early in his career, was also a patient of Ralph Greenson. [KELLEY, K., p. 20