Privilege Lost
Posted on October 6, 2003 at 09:18:23 AM by John Cones

Gosh, Mr. Levine, I thought you had a bit more sense than to come onto this discussion forum and to make a vicious statement like accusing somebody of being a "homophobic right-wing bigot". You know better than that. Your kind of poison is no longer welcome here. Have a nice life.

You should have responded in substance to the study that demonstrated that Hollywood moviemakers regularly and routinely ignore the fact that PG and PG-13 movies earn more money than R rated movies, thus making a mockery of your false claim that it's all about money in Hollywood. Of course, we all recognize that Spielberg made Schindler's list for the money.

John Cones

Arnold Parallel
Posted on October 7, 2003 at 03:46:54 PM by John Cones

This California recall vote and the sexual harrassment controversy is similar in some ways to the problem with getting anyone in the film industry to complain about employment discrimination. All of those women who kept silent all those years about Arnold's behavior (assuming some are true) probably kept quiet because their careers in the film industry were more important to them. The same is true for most people in the film industry. So, when people of power abuse an underling in the film industry, people generally do not complain unless they are willing to give up their lifelong dream, and most are not. That's why those women didn't complain about Arnold's behavior until the stakes became even greater (the California governorship) and that's the same reason why people generally do not complain about other abuses in the film industry, including discrimination.

John Cones

Re(1): Arnold Parallel
Posted on October 8, 2003 at 09:42:11 AM by Layne

I agree with your assessment regarding the plight of women, and "underlings", in the film industry. I am also increasingly alarmed at the way women are portrayed in film. We have adolescent girls starving themselves so they can be "sticks", get breast implants, botox, clothes that look like underwear, thongs hanging out of their jeans, etc... Is it any wonder that teen pregnancy among girls as young as 12 is on the rise? They see this in film. Watch "The Man Show" sometime.
Since the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment)seems to be forgotten, women are increasing placed in a delicate position financially. Is it any wonder that women will sometimes put up with behaviour unacceptabled to men?

Easterbrook to visit Simon Wiesenthal Center?
Posted on October 17, 2003 at 04:36:48 PM by Mendy

TAKE OUT THE GORE AND KILL BILL IS AN EPISODE OF "MIGHTY MORPHIN POWER RANGERS": Is Quentin Tarantino the single greatest phony in the history of Hollywood? I realize that's saying a lot--about Hollywood, not him. But it's the sole explanation I can think of to explain his bizarre prominence.
All of Tarantino's work is pure junk. How can you be a renowned director without ever having made a film that's even good, to say nothing of great? No film student in 50 years will spend a single second with a Tarantino movie, except to shake his or her head.
Tarantino does nothing but churn out shabby depictions of slaughter as a form of pleasure--and that, for decades, has been what the least imaginative and least talented of Hollywood churn out. Supposedly it's "revolutionary," or something, that Tarantino films revel in violence to a preposterous degree, but that's like saying it is revolutionary for a presidential candidate to revel in complaints against Washington bureaucrats. Nothing about Hollywood is more hackneyed or trite than preposterous violence--and that's all Tarantino has ever put onto film.
Set aside what it says about contemporary Hollywood culture that the supposed liberal progressives of this city now ceaselessly mass-market presentations of butchering the helpless as a form of entertainment, even, as rewarding self-expression. Why do we suppose that, with Hollywood's violence-glorifying films now shown all around the world to billions of people--remember, mass distribution of Hollywood movies to the developing world and Islamic states is a recent phenomenon--young terrorists around the globe now seem to view killing the innocent as a positive thing, even, a norm? Set that concern aside. Tarantino's films are simply trite as regards adoration of violence. In Hollywood, nothing could be less original.
And his supposed innovative screenplays? Spare me. The out-of-sequence technique Tarantino uses is praised as ingenious, yet every first-year film student is taught this device. To laud Tarantino as innovative because events happen out-of-sequence is like lauding The Bridges of Madison County as innovative because it opens with a discovered letter from someone who has died. All novice novelists know that device. Of course, the novelistic device may be used well or poorly, just as time-shifted cinema may be good or bad. Tarantino's out-of-sequence film moments are, uniformly, trite drivel.
And supposedly Tarantino is some kind of counter-genius for getting box-office stars like Bruce Willis and Uma Thurman to debase themselves in his drivel. But commercial Hollywood types debase themselves for a living; most never do anything else. To persuade someone to do that which he or she was eager to do anyway isn't much in the way of accomplishment.
Tarantino must draw his prominence in Hollywood, and among film-buff culture, from the very fact of his phoniness. First, his career says that you can do nothing but wallow in preposterous violence--Hollywood's cheapest and least original aspect--and still be revered. Second, his career validates the idea that you can accomplish nothing at all in any meaningful sense and yet acquire fame. The idea that you can get celebrity, money, and women through the movies without having any merits whatsoever is at the core of the Hollywood's conception of itself. Tarantino is its ultimate expression of this phoniness. Please don't tell me that makes him ironically postmodern.
Corporate sidelight: Kill Bill is distributed by Miramax, a Disney studio. Disney seeks profit by wallowing in gore--Kill Bill opens with an entire family being graphically slaughtered for the personal amusement of the killers--and by depicting violence and murder as pleasurable sport. Disney's Miramax has been behind a significant share of Hollywood's recent violence-glorifying junk, including Scream, whose thesis was that murdering your friends and teachers is a fun way for high-school kids to get back at anyone who teases them. Scream was the favorite movie of the Columbine killers.
Set aside what it says about Hollywood that today even Disney thinks what the public needs is ever-more-graphic depictions of killing the innocent as cool amusement. Disney's CEO, Michael Eisner, is Jewish; the chief of Miramax, Harvey Weinstein, is Jewish. Yes, there are plenty of Christian and other Hollywood executives who worship money above all else, promoting for profit the adulation of violence. Does that make it right for Jewish executives to worship money above all else, by promoting for profit the adulation of violence? Recent European history alone ought to cause Jewish executives to experience second thoughts about glorifying the killing of the helpless as a fun lifestyle choice. But history is hardly the only concern. Films made in Hollywood are now shown all over the world, to audiences that may not understand the dialogue or even look at the subtitles, but can't possibly miss the message--now Disney's message--that hearing the screams of the innocent is a really fun way to express yourself.

posted 09:24 a.m.

Re(1): Movies Reflect Experiences
Posted on October 20, 2003 at 09:41:06 PM by Anonymous

The idea that the Holocaust made Jews "insensitive" to violence is just about the most insensitive thing I've ever heard. "Insensitivity to violence" doesn't motivate people to found the NAACP or Amnesty International.

Since you've apparently forgotten, you praised Mel Gibson's unbelievably gory film The Passion of Christ up and down for its "realism"; i.e., violence. Is that because thousands of years of worshipping a figure nailed to a cross has "desensitized" Christians to violence? In case you aren't sensitive to irony either, the correct answer there is "no" - you're just applying a double standard.

The worldview presented in Tarantino's film is exactly one person's - Quentin Tarantino. Quentin Tarantino is not Jewish. The filmmakers in Hong Kong that he's specifically emulating are - you guessed it - not Jewish. Some other non-Jews include Tobe Hooper, Herschel Gordon Lewis, Sam Peckinpah, Ruggerio Deodato, Umberto Lenzi, Sergio Leone, Charles Bronson, John Carpenter, and Alfred Hitchcock. I guess the moivation for their mega-violent pictures must be "desensitization" caused by hearing about Aushwitz from Jewish executives.

If Miramax had refused to make Tarantino's movie, you would have cited it as another example of Jewish executives refusing to allow a Christian filmmaker to realize his artistic vision, quite possibly because all of the violence reminded them of losing their family in the Holocaust. Then you would have disparaged them as hypocrites for supporting "violent Israel."

Re(2): Movies Reflect Experiences
Posted on October 22, 2003 at 02:19:15 PM by James Jaeger

>The idea that the Holocaust made Jews "insensitive" to violence is just about the most insensitive thing I've ever heard. "Insensitivity to violence" doesn't motivate people to found the NAACP or Amnesty International.

You are right, I'm sure this doesn't apply to all Jews or even most of them -- but the ones that dominate the studios are probably fair game for this charge. I bet they are pretty insensitive -- and this would go for all the executives, Jewish or not, I might add.

>Since you've apparently forgotten, you praised Mel Gibson's unbelievably gory film The Passion of Christ up and down for its "realism"; i.e., violence. Is that because thousands of years of worshipping a figure nailed to a cross has "desensitized" Christians to violence?

Yes, I'm sure it has to a certain degree. I have always felt that a figure nailed to a cross is a very violent thing -- but the death of Jesus and the reason he died are central to Christian belief. I think there is a distinction to be made between a religious icon and the thousands of movies that Hollywood makes that are violent. Again let me repeat THOUSANDS of movies. So please don't bring up one or two movies or situations that are exceptions.

>In case you aren't sensitive to irony either, the correct answer there is "no" - you're just applying a double standard.

Not really. I'm talking about the thousands of violent movies that Hollywood consistently puts out. This phenomenon is different than the few isolated things you bring up.

>The worldview presented in Tarantino's film is exactly one person's - Quentin Tarantino. Quentin Tarantino is not Jewish. The filmmakers in Hong Kong that he's specifically emulating are - you guessed it - not Jewish. Some other non-Jews include Tobe Hooper, Herschel Gordon Lewis, Sam Peckinpah, Ruggerio Deodato, Umberto Lenzi, Sergio Leone, Charles Bronson, John Carpenter, and Alfred Hitchcock. I guess the moivation for their mega-violent pictures must be "desensitization" caused by hearing about Aushwitz from Jewish executives.

Again, you are bringing up a small handful of examples. Such a sampling does not change the statistical fact that a preponderance of Hollywood programming exploits violence. Mel Gibson is not even in this category, because he's not in any way exploiting violence. He's not "making up a story" with violence in it. He's trying to show the public exactly what happened. Hollywood movies rarely try to show people exactly what happened. When we were developing the screenplay for STALIN'S BACK ROOM I wanted to tell Mr. Contract's story exactly as it happened, but almost every studio and agency, including CAA, that I took the project to, wanted to "embellish" the story so it would "be more commercial." This is how Hollywood handles truth.

>If Miramax had refused to make Tarantino's movie, you would have cited it as another example of Jewish executives refusing to allow a Christian filmmaker to realize his artistic vision...

Oh that's preposterous. Why should I be particularly concerned about Tarantino when this exact thing happens by the thousand to other such filmmakers all over the world everyday?!

>...quite possibly because all of the violence reminded them of losing their family in the Holocaust. Then you would have disparaged them as hypocrites for supporting "violent Israel."

Again, twisted-mind thinking! I have proffered a simple explanation as to why there are so many violent movies coming out of Hollywood. The commonly-held explanation is: Because this is what the foreign market buys.

My alternative, or supplemental explanation is: Because possibly studio executives who have seen REAL violence (through family members in the Holocaust) are themselves insensitive to PRETEND violence on "mere" movie screens. Any psychologist will tell you that people tend to dramatize that which was done to them, whether personally or as a group. What's so difficult to fathom about all this?

James Jaeger

Re(3): Movies Reflect Experiences
Posted on October 22, 2003 at 10:21:52 PM by Mitchell Levine

but the ones that dominate the studios are probably fair game for this charge.

- How? Most executives - even Jewish executives - aren't Holocaust survivors, or even the children of Holocaust survivors: Only a tiny fraction of Jews are. The overwhelming majority of them probably weren't exposed to any more violence during childhood than you were.

I bet they are pretty insensitive -- and this would go for all the executives, Jewish or not, I might add.

- That's just a stereotype: It could just as easily be applied to you, sight unseen, as head of Matrixx Entertainment.

Yes, I'm sure it has to a certain degree. I have always felt that a figure nailed to a cross is a very violent thing -- but the death of Jesus and the reason he died are central to Christian belief.

- Then that hardly supports your theory that more Christians in film management would lead to less violence in film; it's not as if Christian believers haven't ever been historical perpetrators of violence; i.e., the Inquisitions, the Crusades, the Salem Witch Trials, etc. There's little here to credit the blaming of film violence on Jews.

I think there is a distinction to be made between a religious icon and the thousands of movies that Hollywood makes that are violent. Again let me repeat THOUSANDS of movies. So please don't bring up one or two movies or situations that are exceptions.

>In case you aren't sensitive to irony either, the correct answer there is "no" - you're just applying a double standard.

Not really. I'm talking about the thousands of violent movies that Hollywood consistently puts out. This phenomenon is different than the few isolated things you bring up.

>The worldview presented in Tarantino's film is exactly one person's - Quentin Tarantino. Quentin Tarantino is not Jewish. The filmmakers in Hong Kong that he's specifically emulating are - you guessed it - not Jewish. Some other non-Jews include Tobe Hooper, Herschel Gordon Lewis, Sam Peckinpah, Ruggerio Deodato, Umberto Lenzi, Sergio Leone, Charles Bronson, John Carpenter, and Alfred Hitchcock. I guess the moivation for their mega-violent pictures must be "desensitization" caused by hearing about Aushwitz from Jewish executives.

Again, you are bringing up a small handful of examples. Such a sampling does not change the statistical fact that a preponderance of Hollywood programming exploits violence.

- A few examples? How about a few more non-Jewish filmmakers that make hyper-violent films: George Romero, Rick Baker, David Lynch (Blue Velvet,Wild at Heart, Eraserhead), Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola, Clint Eastwood, John Ford, Ang Lee - and just about any other Hong Kong or even martial arts filmmaker - Greg Araki, Paul Verhoeven, Michael Cimino, John Boorman, Walter Hill, - that's a lot more than just a few "isolated instances." Most exceptionally violent filmmakers are non-Jewish. Let's see you prove otherwise.

The only serious obvious counter-examples are Kubrick, a couple of Paul Schrader's movies, David L. Cronenburg, Roman Polanski, marginal figures like Lloyd Kaufman and Russ Meyers, and one or two of Oliver Stone's pictures. The fact is that most mega-violent filmmakers are non-Jewish.

Mel Gibson is not even in this category, because he's not in any way exploiting violence.

- Are you kidding? He's exploited violence his entire career! Apparently, you haven't seen too many of his films. And he isn't making films like Ransom and The Patriot because he has to - he's been equally successful, if not more so, making non-violent pictures like What Women Want. In fact, when he recently made an cameo in an educational film about Shakespeare for students, he told kids "How bad can Hamlet be? It's got what, like 8 or 9 violent deaths in it!"

He's not "making up a story" with violence in it. He's trying to show the public exactly what happened.

- Like everyone else, he doesn't KNOW exactly how it happened - even the biblical texts disagree, and it's not even fully clear what the biblical texts are or say. Although he may be trying to make it more realistic, he's certainly trying to make it more commercial by punching up the gore as well.

>If Miramax had refused to make Tarantino's movie, you would have cited it as another example of Jewish executives refusing to allow a Christian filmmaker to realize his artistic vision...

Oh that's preposterous. Why should I be particularly concerned about Tarantino when this exact thing happens by the thousand to other such filmmakers all over the world everyday?!

- You've provided no evidence that filmmakers are being denied the opportunity to make films simply for being non-Jewish at all. In fact, the majority of directors are non-Jewish, and Jewish directors and producers themselves get projects turned down or cancelled all the time.

>...quite possibly because all of the violence reminded them of losing their family in the Holocaust. Then you would have disparaged them as hypocrites for supporting "violent Israel."

Again, twisted-mind thinking! I have proffered a simple explanation as to why there are so many violent movies coming out of Hollywood.

- Simple, and, like most overly simplistic explanations for complex phenomena, wrong.

The commonly-held explanation is: Because this is what the foreign market buys.

- No, it's because it's what the public wants, period. The two box-office tops right now are The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Kill Bill, both by non-Jewish directors. People have loved violent art from the time of the Iliad, the Odyssey, and The Aenied, and don't need Hollywood to tell them to enjoy it.

They did so long before the existence of cinema, and would without or in spite of cinema or the studios. It's quite simply a transcultural human universal, in evidence in societies of all technological sophistication and demographic diversity. There were no Jews in Britain during the Medieval era, and check out their dramas.


My alternative, or supplemental explanation is: Because possibly studio executives who have seen REAL violence (through family members in the Holocaust) are themselves insensitive to PRETEND violence on "mere" movie screens. Any psychologist will tell you that people tend to dramatize that which was done to them, whether personally or as a group. What's so difficult to fathom about all this?

- The fact that you can say such nonsense with a straight face. There is simply no correlation between Jewish filmmakers and violent cinema. If this isn't so, please compile a similarly substantial list of examples demonstrating otherwise.

Re(3): Movies Reflect Experiences
Posted on October 22, 2003 at 04:27:40 PM by George Shelps

When we were developing the screenplay for STALIN'S BACK ROOM I wanted to tell Mr. Contract's story exactly as it happened, but almost every studio and agency, including CAA, that I took the project to, wanted to "embellish" the story so it would "be more commercial." This is how Hollywood handles truth.

___That's because the final version of
the script I read was dull as dishwater
and full of endless lines of narration.

Easterbrook's apology
Posted on October 17, 2003 at 04:38:07 PM by Mendy

AN APOLOGY: Nothing's worse, as a writer, than so mangling your own use of words that you are heard to have said something radically different than what you wished to express. Of mangling words, I am guilty.
Monday I wrote an item about the disgusting movie Kill Bill, which so glorifies violence as to border on filth. I was indignant that a major company whose work is mainly good, Disney, would distribute such awfulness, in this case through its Miramax subsidiary. I wondered how any top executive could live with his or her conscience by seeking profits from Kill Bill, oblivious to the psychological studies showing that positive depiction of violence in entertainment causes actual violence in children. I wondered about the consciences of those running Disney and Miramax. Were they Christian? How could a Christian rationalize seeking profits from a movie that glorifies killing as a sport, even as a form of pleasure? I think it's fair to raise faith in this context: In fact I did exactly that one week earlier, when I wrote a column about the movie The Passion asking how we could take Mel Gibson seriously as a professed Christian, when he has participated in numerous movies that glorify violence.
But those running Disney and Miramax are not Christian, they're Jewish. Learning this did in no way still my sense of outrage regarding Kill Bill. How, I wondered, could anyone Jewish--members of a group who suffered the worst act of violence in all history, and who suffer today, in Israel, intolerable violence--seek profit from a movie that glamorizes violence as cool fun? Below is the paragraph I wrote that's causing the stir (to read the item in its entirety from the beginning click here). I quote it verbatim so that you can see how easy it is, on subjects like these, for good righteous anger to turn offensive by a careless choice of words:
Set aside what it says about Hollywood that today even Disney thinks what the public needs is ever-more-graphic depictions of killing the innocent as cool amusement. Disney's CEO, Michael Eisner, is Jewish; the chief of Miramax, Harvey Weinstein, is Jewish. Yes, there are plenty of Christian and other Hollywood executives who worship money above all else, promoting for profit the adulation of violence. Does that make it right for Jewish executives to worship money above all else, by promoting for profit the adulation of violence? Recent European history alone ought to cause Jewish executives to experience second thoughts about glorifying the killing of the helpless as a fun lifestyle choice. But history is hardly the only concern. Films made in Hollywood are now shown all over the world, to audiences that may not understand the dialogue or even look at the subtitles, but can't possibly miss the message--now Disney's message--that hearing the screams of the innocent is a really fun way to express yourself.
I'm ready to defend all the thoughts in that paragraph. But how could I have done such a poor job of expressing them? Maybe this is an object lesson in the new blog reality. I worked on this alone and posted the piece--what you see above comes at the end of a 1,017-word column that's otherwise about why movies should not glorify violence. Twenty minutes after I pressed "send," the entire world had read it. When I reread my own words and beheld how I'd written things that could be misunderstood, I felt awful. To anyone who was offended I offer my apology, because offense was not my intent. But it was 20 minutes later, and already the whole world had seen it.
Looking back I did a terrible job through poor wording. It was terrible that I implied that the Jewishness of studio executives has anything whatsoever to do with awful movies like Kill Bill. Nothing about Eisner or Weinstein causes any movie to be bad or awful; they're just supervisors. For all I know neither of them even focused on the adoration-of-violence aspect until the reviews came out. My attempt to connect my perfectly justified horror at an ugly and corrupting movie to the religious faith and ethnic identity of certain executives was hopelessly clumsy.
Where I failed most is in the two sentences about adoration of money. I noted that many Christian executives adore money above all else, and in the 20-minute reality of blog composition, that seemed to me, writing it, fairness and fair spreading of blame. But accusing a Christian of adoring money above all else does not engage any history of ugly stereotypes. Accuse a Jewish person of this and you invoke a thousand years of stereotypes about that which Jews have specific historical reasons to fear. What I wrote here was simply wrong, and for being wrong, I apologize.
Every reporter who has called me today has asked me my faith. Since I say this is relevant for others, it's relevant for me. I'm a Christian. I worship in one of the handful of joint Christian-Jewish congregations in the United States. This website describes the Bradley Hills Presbyterian (USA) side of the church. This website describes Bethesda Jewish, a Klal Yisrael ("All Israel") congregation that shares the same worship spaces and finances. Two years ago I wrote in THE NEW REPUBLIC of the Bradley Hills-Bethesda Jewish joint congregation, "One of the shortcomings of Christianity is that most adherents downplay the faith's interweaving with Judaism." I and my family sought out a place where Christians and Jews express their faith cooperatively, which seems to me a good idea. Bad idea: writing poorly about this, and being misunderstood. Again, I'm sorry.

posted 11:55 p.m.

If it sounds like anti- Semitism, maybe it is
Posted on October 18, 2003 at 10:07:14 AM by Fisho

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.latimes.com/features/lifestyle/la-et-rutten18oct18,1,4041661.story
REGARDING MEDIA TIM RUTTEN
If it sounds like anti- Semitism, maybe it is
TIM RUTTEN

October 18, 2003

Earlier this week, Gregg Easterbrook, a senior editor at the New Republic, ignited a blistering controversy when he criticized those responsible for the release of Quentin Tarantino's violent hit film, "Kill Bill Vol. 1," singling out Miramax Co-Chairman Harvey Weinstein and Disney Chairman Michael Eisner, who were described as "Jewish executives" who "worship money above all else."

Easterbrook's comments were distasteful and disturbing in their own right. But the affair also is notable because his charges appeared in the unedited blog he writes for the New Republic's online edition, and most of the reaction to them has appeared on similar sites of other prominent Internet commentators, including the novelist and screenwriter Roger L. Simon, whose blog is widely read in Hollywood.

Moreover, in an apology posted in the New Republic Online Thursday and in an interview Friday, Easterbrook attributed the furor, at least in part, to the peculiar perils of blogging, a relatively new form of personal journalism that has captured the imagination of many involved in the coverage of politics and culture. "I stand by my original thoughts, which are important and true, but the language I used to express them was careless and bad," the veteran magazine writer said in the interview. "It was crummy work on my part."

In his apology, he described himself as guilty of "mangling words" and speculated that "maybe this is an object lesson in the new blog reality. I worked on this alone and posted the piece. Twenty minutes after I pressed 'send,' the entire world had read it. When I reread my own words and beheld how I'd written words that could be misunderstood, I felt awful."

Easterbrook, a Presbyterian, is one of the rare Washington-based journalists who has written explicitly about the importance of religious belief in his life. His initial essay was a forthright attack on the brutality of Tarantino's film, which pays homage to Asian martial arts films in an elaborate — and bloody — revenge fantasy. Disney is the parent company of Miramax, which released the film, and Easterbrook extended his criticism to executives at the head of both companies. "Set aside what it says about Hollywood that today even Disney thinks what the public needs is ever-more-graphic depictions of killing the innocent as cool amusement," he wrote. "Disney's CEO, Michael Eisner, is Jewish; the chief of Miramax, Harvey Weinstein, is Jewish. Yes, there are plenty of Christian and other Hollywood executives who worship money above all else, promoting for profit the adulation of violence. Does that make it right for Jewish executives to worship money above all else by promoting for profit the adulation of violence? Recent European history alone ought to cause Jewish executives to experience second thoughts about glorifying the killing of the helpless as a fun lifestyle choice."

These days, that is about as clear an example of objective anti-Semitism as one is likely to encounter in polite rhetorical society. Over the next 48 hours, the Web's equivalent of the roof fell in on Easterbrook. Simon — who shared an Oscar nomination for his adaptation of Isaac Singer's "Enemies, a Love Story" — fiercely denounced the remarks and, shortly, had posted more than 100 responses, mostly from readers from within the film industry.

Disney and Miramax issued a statement saying, "It is sad that these terrible stereotypes persist and that these comments are receiving a wider platform."

Easterbrook's friend and New Republic colleague, Leon Wieseltier — the magazine's longtime literary editor — agreed that "insofar as Gregg's comments impute Jewish motives for everything that Jews do, insofar as they suggest that everything any Jew does is intrinsically a Jewish thing, they are objectively anti-Semitic. But Gregg Easterbrook is not an anti-Semite and the suggestion that the New Republic is in any way receptive to anti-Semitism is the most ludicrous thing I've heard since the election of Arnold Schwarzenegger. Gregg typed his way into a wildly offensive formulation, into classic anti-Semitic code."

Part of that, said Wieseltier, can be attributed "to the hubris of this whole blogging enterprise. There is no such thing as instant thought, which is why reflection and editing are part of serious writing and thinking, as Gregg has now discovered."

Simon was less charitable. "You don't have to be Sigmund Freud to believe that Web logs are to some extent a function of the id," he wrote in an e-mail. "They come out so fast and so unedited they often express our feelings more accurately and even deeply than more carefully wrought writing. This is their blessing and their curse."

Friday, Easterbrook said that "as the reaction to my piece came in, I thought that I might react with a ringing defense of free speech and a defense of my ideas about film violence, which I stand by. But after further thought, I realized that there are two kinds of offense that writers can give to readers: One is deliberate, because you want to force them to think about a difficult or unpopular idea. You might call that 'positive offense.' Then there's 'negative offense,' where you use the wrong words and prevent readers from understanding what you're trying to say. What I'm mainly guilty of is creating that negative offense Part of my failing conceptually was not realizing that words having to do with Jewish identity have a triggering effect based on thousands of years of history. There is no counterpart in the Christian context."

Easterbrook's case is not helped by other aspects of his apology. In one, he recounts how he joined a particular Presbyterian congregation specifically because it shares facilities and finances with a synagogue. Experienced readers will find it a bit like the old "some of my best friends are " argument.

Worse, in his apology and in an interview with the New York Times Thursday, Easterbrook pointed to a column he wrote last week, assailing Mel Gibson for a history of violent filmmaking while defending his controversial re-creation of the Passion. "I raised the exact same question about a Christian," Easterbrook said Thursday, and "there was not a single peep."

In that same essay, however, he attacked Catholic biblical scholars who have criticized Gibson's script as anti-Semitic, as well as the Anti-Defamation League, which has expressed similar reservations. "The ADL has a financial interest in accusing Gibson of anti-Semitism," he wrote, "as the organization raises money using this charge how better to get publicity and pry open checkbooks."

Friday, the writer said that neither those remarks nor those to the New York Times were meant "to suggest a conspiracy or anything like that. I was simply making a statement of fact."

What we have here — to gloss a phrase from the Gospels — is old wine of a particularly bitter vintage in glitzy new skins. The wine comes from a vineyard whose roots should have been yanked out and burned long ago. The fact that it hasn't been and that its fruit so readily finds a home in the brave new cyberspatial world ought to sober everyone involved.

Re(1): If it sounds like anti- Semitism, maybe it is
Posted on October 19, 2003 at 12:26:09 AM by KM

In the eyes of his critics, Easterbrook's sin was to the attribute behavior of Jewish movie executives to their being Jewish. This is an absolute taboo that anyone concerned about a mainstream public career must avoid at all costs. But what he actually said is more like, "some people of all religions worship money, but because of their history, Jews should know better than to promote violence against innocent people." But now that he has made such a mild comment--a comment that actually pays homage to the ideology of Jews as innocent victims of violence, there is no going back, and all the groveling in the world won't help. In fact, according to Rutten, Easterbrook's apologies are completely inadequate and only give further evidence that he is an "anti-Semite." Notice that in his apology, Easterbrook says, "words having to do with Jewish identity have a triggering effect based on thousands of years of history. There is no counterpart in the Christian context." In other words, people are free to blame a person's bad behavior on his Christian religion, but woe be to the person so foolhardy as to even raise the issue of Jewish identity at all, much less blame the bad behavior of Jews on their Jewish identity.

Re(2): If it sounds like anti- Semitism, maybe it is
Posted on October 19, 2003 at 04:52:49 PM by anonymous

For one, the film doesn't "promote violence against innocent people." The characters (and victims primarily) in the film are all professional killers themselves.

He wasn't saying that "people should be free to blame someone's bad behavior on their Christian religion" - an incivility that no one is even suggesting.

No one would ever claim that Quentin Tarantino's decision to make the film reflects any "Christian historical propensity towards violence, as demonstrated by the Crusades and Inquisition," for example. It doesn't. It reflects Quentin Tarantino's love of Hong Kong action flicks, and general poor taste - neither of which have anything to do with him being Gentile.

He was only pointing out that majorities don't have the same vulnerabilities that minorities do. No one is going to hold a pogrom against Christians because Kill Bill's violence is their "fault." Not even against Quentin Tarantino, whom is actually responsible for that violence.

He's implying that simply trying to scapegoat Jews for everything in the world you don't like has consequences, and they should be considered.

If the executives at Miramax had declined Kill Bill, you would have cited it as an instance of "Jews denying a Christian filmmaker his free expression" DUE to their "Jewish identity."

Review of FIRM's Main Points
Posted on October 21, 2003 at 09:51:40 AM by John Cones

FILM INDUSTRY OBSERVATIONS
(Working Theories)

By John W. Cones, J.D.

1. PATTERNS OF BIAS--Hollywood movies (those produced and/or released by the Hollywood-based major studio/distributors) have long contained blatant patterns of bias. They consistently portray whole populations of our diverse society in a negative or stereotypical manner (such portrayals in varying degrees include Arabs and Muslims, Latinos, African-Americans, women, Italian-Americans, Christians and regional populations such as Whites from the American South.

2. BIASED BIOPICS--Hollywood movies contain biased biopics, examples of historical revisionism and favoritism in movie portrayals displayed toward a single, narrowly-defined interest group of which the Hollywood control group primarily draws its members.

3. POLITICAL AND SOCIAL ISSUES–The biases in Hollywood movies also show up with respect to political and social issues, for example, Hollywood movies tend to be anti-government, anti-parent, anti-authority, anti-religion, pro-environment, pro-abortion, pro-violence, pro-smoking, pro-foul language, highly sexual and so forth.

4. SIGNIFICANT MEDIUM--The motion picture is a significant medium for the communication of ideas (see the 1952 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Burstyn v. Wilson).

5. IDEAS--Throughout the history of civilization, ideas have always and will always be an important basis for human beliefs and source of motivation for human conduct.

6. INFLUENCE--Thus, it can be proven by pure logic alone, that movies influence human conduct. After all, movies communicate ideas, ideas motivate human behavior, therefore movies must motivate some human behavior.

7. PREJUDICIAL THINKING--During a significant segment of many individual lives (particularly those who are relatively young, uneducated or unsophisticated), repeatedly watching hundreds of powerful motion picture images that consistently portray whole populations of our diverse society in a negative or stereotypical manner can contribute to prejudicial thinking, which in turn, is often the basis of real-life discriminatory behavior.

8. NOT SOLUTION--Thus, at minimum we must concede, movies that consistently portray certain people in a negative or stereotypical manner and/or movies that tend to emphasize certain positions with respect to political and social issues are clearly not helping us solve our society's problems, but more likely, making them worse.

9. MOVIES MIRROR–With respect to why the above-described phenomena are occurring, movies to a large extent, tend to mirror the values, interests, cultural perspectives and prejudices of their makers.

10. MAJOR STUDIOS--The motion picture industry is dominated by a small group of so-called major studio/distributors. The studio releases are the movies seen by more than 95% of the domestic moviegoing audience, and a significant percentage of most foreign audiences.

11. STUDIO EXECUTIVES–Aside from the fact that various creative people including: screen writers, directors, producers and actors contribute to the content of individual motion pictures, the people in Hollywood who have the power to decide which movies are produced and released, to determine who gets to work in the key positions on such movies and to approve of the screenplays serving as the basis for these movies are the three top studio executives at the major studio distributors.

12. SHARED BACKGROUNDS–In the spirit of similar diversity surveys of their members, conducted on a periodic basis by the Director’s Guild of America and the Screenwriter’s Guild, similar surveys of diversity at the top in Hollywood must be regularly conducted. Preliminary evidence demonstrates that a clear majority of these executives throughout the term of existence of these vertically-integrated, distributor-dominated major studios share a common background (i.e., they are politically liberal, not very religious, Jewish males of European heritage), a factual observation which tends to raise protest from certain segments of the so-called Hollywood apologist community, including false accusations of anti-Semitism.


13. CREATIVE CONTROL--The major studio/distributors through various approval rights are able to determine to a great extent which movies are produced and to some extent the content of those movies.

14. LESS DIVERSITY–One result of such control residing in the hands of such a narrowly-defined group is a severe limit on creativity in movie-making and a more narrow selection of motion pictures which tend to range (in a commercial sense) from hoped-for blockbusters and lowest common denominator movies to exploitation fare.

15. EXCLUSION–Long-time and ongoing control of the major studio/distributors also excludes large segments of our multi-cultural society from the movie-making process (i.e., such excluded populations tend to be inaccurately portrayed through the perspective of another cultural group and their positions on many important issues are overlooked).

16. MOVIES ARE PROPAGANDA–All mass communications media including movies that are controlled by any narrowly-defined group and used over an extended period of time to consistently communicate ideas favored by that control group can fairly be described as propaganda. Motion picture propaganda is particularly effective since it is disguised and promoted as "entertainment".

17. BUSINESS PRACTICES--The Hollywood control group gained and has maintained its power through the use of several hundred specifically identifiable unfair, unethical, unconscionable, anti-competitive, predatory and illegal business practices, including massive employment discrimination and antitrust law violations.

18. GOVERNMENT INFLUENCE--The Hollywood control group gets away with its "proclivity for wrongful conduct" (language of various judicial and legal officials who have reviewed such conduct) by routing huge political contributions to presidential candidates and key members of Congress through excessively overpaid studio executives, their spouses and multiple political action committees, so as to discourage vigorous enforcement of the employment discrimination, antitrust and other laws in the Hollywood-based U.S. film industry.

19. GOVERNMENT POLICY--Federal government policy, specifically, the federal government's anti-trust law enforcement policy currently contributes to the ability of the major studio distributors to control and dominate the marketplace.

20. INDEPENDENT FILM--A motion picture industry made up of independent producers, independent distributors and independent exhibitors would result in greater creativity in movie-making and create greater opportunities for a significantly larger number of interest groups within out multi-cultural society to participate at a meaningful level in the film-making process.

21. FREE MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS–Our democracy is partly based on the concept of a free marketplace of ideas (i.e., to the extent that our society is able to vigorously and openly discuss the pros and cons of all important issues we should be better able to come up with the best decisions with respect to such issues for our society in general).

22. DEMOCRACY IS FLAWED–To the extent that any significant medium for the communication of ideas, such as the motion picture, is dominated and/or controlled by any narrowly-defined group who consistently uses such medium to communicate ideas preferred by that group, our free marketplace of ideas is diminished and our democracy is weakened. In a democracy, no important communications medium, including film, should be controlled or dominated by any single, narrowly-defined group. Government policy should therefore be changed to ensure a more vigorous discussion of view points in all media including motion pictures (i.e., that all segments of our diverse society have an equal and fair opportunity to tell their stories and promote ideas of interest to them through these important communications media).

--o0o–

Re(1): Review of FIRM's Main Points
Posted on October 21, 2003 at 08:41:46 PM by George Shelps



22. DEMOCRACY IS FLAWED–To the extent that any significant medium for the communication of ideas, such as the motion picture, is dominated and/or controlled by any narrowly-defined group who consistently uses such medium to communicate ideas preferred by that group, our free marketplace of ideas is diminished and our democracy is weakened. In a democracy, no important communications medium, including film, should be controlled or dominated by any single, narrowly-defined group. Government policy should therefore be changed to ensure a more vigorous discussion of view points in all media including motion pictures (i.e., that all segments of our diverse society have an equal and fair opportunity to tell their stories and promote ideas of interest to them through these important communications media).

__You still fail to answer the crucial
question, what "government policy should therefore be changed?"

Re(2): Review of FIRM's Main Points
Posted on October 21, 2003 at 09:20:36 PM by Anonymous

And he always will

Re(3): Review of FIRM's Main Points
Posted on October 21, 2003 at 10:43:42 PM by George Shelps

And he always will

___That's the crux of the matter. Many
of FIRM's points are valid, others
are arguable, but in the end, Cones
and Jaeger advocate government control/ involvement in motion pictures through
some form of legislation which they
refuse to openly specify.

(I say this in anticipation of "diversity-mongers" Cones and Jaeger
deleting my posts as they have been
doing.)

Re(4): Review of FIRM's Main Points
Posted on October 22, 2003 at 11:42:59 AM by James Jaeger

>Cones and Jaeger advocate government control/ involvement in motion pictures through some form of legislation which they refuse to openly specify.

George, I don't honestly know if government control is the answer. It seems more likely that the government is BEING controlled by corporate interests these days, at least according to Arianna Huffington in her new book, PIGS AT THE TROUGH. The MPAA studio/distributors are no different from the many other corporations that pay-out huge sums in contributions and to maintain lobby organizations.

Now you come along and worry that "Cones and Jaeger" are going to somehow get the *government* to *control* Hollywood. I'm skeptical that this could even be possible in today's climate.

The better procedure I would think would be to more widely educate the public about the dangers to a democratic society when its mass media/film industry is controlled (dominated or influenced, if you prefer) by a narrowly-defined group.

At the same time people who are disenfranchised should become less tolerant to discrimination and take appropriate action when they see or experience it.

Perhaps legislation could be drafted that better-defined discrimination. Or legislation that required publicly-held corporations to adhere to better-defined hiring policies. From my study of Hollywood, it seems the highest jobs at the studios are passed out through some sort of covert, inner-circle buddy system. (Read POWER TO BURN to see the mechanism). Perhaps, if the top positions were required to be offered to the general executive-market so anyone could get a fair shot at the job, this would remedy the lack of diversity problem. Such a system in order to be fair would have to incorporate relatively exact job descriptions for the top posts, otherwise it would be difficult, or impossible, to compare qualifications and performance between applicants, companies and intra-industry positions.

It would seem to me that these are some possible starts. Then of course if these don't work we could simply nationalize the entire movie industry and appoint a FILM CZAR. :)

James Jaeger

Re(5): Review of FIRM's Main Points
Posted on October 22, 2003 at 01:03:27 PM by George Shelps

Now you come along and worry that "Cones and Jaeger" are going to somehow get the *government* to *control* Hollywood. I'm skeptical that this could even be possible in today's climate.

The better procedure I would think would be to more widely educate the public about the dangers to a democratic society when its mass media/film industry is controlled (dominated or influenced, if you prefer) by a narrowly-defined group.

___Cones brought up the idea of changing
the laws. Everything is discussion and debate--except this.

That's really what your opponents--especially those who are
Jewish--are worried about, something
resembling a quota, or something infringing on the right of employers
to select employees on the basis of their perceived ability.

As Mitchell Levine has pointed out,
the pool of executives with film talent
has tended to be of Jewish extraction--because Hollywood was
founded mostly by Jews.

If your pool of competent people has your social-political-ethnic designator, then they're going to tend to be hired---and it's not discrmination.

The true answer lies in (a) fighting
the legal and contractual abuses--as
Art Buchwald did and (b) getting into
the mainstream film business yourself and changing the paradigm by doing so.

Re(1): Review of FIRM's Main Points
Posted on October 25, 2003 at 10:11:40 AM by George Shelps


by John Cones

22. DEMOCRACY IS FLAWED–To the extent that any significant medium for the communication of ideas, such as the motion picture, is dominated and/or controlled by any narrowly-defined group who consistently uses such medium to communicate ideas preferred by that group, our free marketplace of ideas is diminished and our democracy is weakened. In a democracy, no important communications medium, including film, should be controlled or dominated by any single, narrowly-defined group. Government policy should therefore be changed

___You've never spelled out what changes you think would be necessary.

Jaeger said he's against quotas, but he would require that private companies publicly the motivations behind each major hire.

Presumably, if the motivations did not
reflect "diversity" some legal penalty
would follow. What penalties might
be assessed for lack of "diversity"
in hiring?


to ensure a more vigorous discussion of view points in all media including motion pictures (i.e., that all segments of our diverse society have an equal and fair opportunity to tell their stories and promote ideas of interest to them through these important communications media).

___Movies are a business as well as
a medium of communication. "Equal
opporunity" derives from the necessary
business skills to navigate in the industry as well as tell a story.\

Re(2): Review of FIRM's Main Points
Posted on October 25, 2003 at 01:00:19 PM by Anonymous

"to ensure a more vigorous discussion of view points in all media including motion pictures (i.e., that all segments of our diverse society have an equal and fair opportunity to tell their stories and promote ideas of interest to them through these important communications media)."

- All groups will have the "equal and fair opportunity to tell their stories" when the ticketbuying audience is equally and fairly interested in hearing all of them; i.e., never.

It's not "fair" that films, for example, concentrate on stories that primarily appeal to younger viewers - but because the age range of the prime ticketbuying audience is 18-24, you'll get lots more movies like XXX and Jackass: The Movie than you will like About Schmidt, and that's just the way it is.

It does not mean that older viewers have had their "right" to have films produced which appeal to their age bracket violated.

New Hiring Laws?
Posted on October 22, 2003 at 01:39:07 PM by James Jaeger

>___Cones brought up the idea of changing the laws. Everything is discussion and debate--except this.

I don't know what you're specifically referring to, but as I've suggested, maybe certain laws SHOULD be changed or even created. I'm all for good laws that reflect the needs of society.

>That's really what your opponents--especially those who are
Jewish--are worried about, something
resembling a quota,

Exactly what do you mean by a "quota"? Could you please explain this so I can get a better understanding of what you feel is not a good idea?

>or something infringing on the right of employers to select employees on the basis of their perceived ability.

I don't think anyone at FIRM is interested in forcing employers to take unqualified people. As an employer, I certainly wouldn't want this either. But, as I suggested in my last post, I wouldn't mind making my employment decisions transparent, especially if we were a public company. Maybe that's a step in the right direction. I mean public corporations disclose all sorts of financial information, why can't the MPAA studio/distributors, for instance, be legally required to disclose exactly WHY they hired someone and make public all the applications that they passed on?

>As Mitchell Levine has pointed out,
the pool of executives with film talent
has tended to be of Jewish extraction--because Hollywood was founded mostly by Jews.

George, just as you say, "what your opponents--especially those who are
Jewish--are worried about, something
resembling a quota," I am equally worried that I have no way of knowing WHAT criterion people are getting employed upon. Don't I, and others, have an equal right to know WHY certain executives were employed or not? You can sit there and say Jewish executives are more qualified than others until you're blue in the face -- fine, but let's prove it. You ask me to prove that even one single person has been KEPT OUT OF the industry because they weren't Jewish. If this is a valid question, why shouldn't I be able to an equally valid question: What proof does a public studio have for me that they have in fact hired only the most qualified executives and what was their criterion?

Let's make the employment methodology more transparent. Let's open to public scrutiny the Employment Applications of all the other people that were rejected. If the studios are truly hiring "only the most qualified" then it will be apparent, if not, that will also be apparent.

>If your pool of competent people has your social-political-ethnic designator, then they're going to tend to be hired---and it's not discrimination.

Don't know what you're talking about here.

>The true answer lies in (a) fighting
the legal and contractual abuses--as
Art Buchwald did and

Agree.

>(b) getting into the mainstream film business yourself and changing the paradigm by doing so.

Agree. And I'm working on it. But consider the above.

James Jaeger

Re(1): New Hiring Laws?
Posted on October 22, 2003 at 07:35:09 PM by Mitchell Levine

What proof does a public studio have for me that they have in fact hired only the most qualified executives

- The fact that their films continue to make money, which is NOT an easy thing to do, regardless of how talented you might be.

and what was their criterion?

- Typically, for the top positions FIRM is apparently discussing, seniority and experience - just as it is in any other corporate field. And that's exactly how it should be at that level.

Re(1): New Hiring Laws?
Posted on October 22, 2003 at 04:18:11 PM by George Shelps


by James Jaeger

>___Cones brought up the idea of changing the laws. Everything is discussion and debate--except this.

I don't know what you're specifically referring to, but as I've suggested, maybe certain laws SHOULD be changed or even created. I'm all for good laws that reflect the needs of society.

___But if the law is intrusive into
free enterprise deliberations...business
judgment...or if it specifies hiring
criteria in the absence of provable
discrimination, then you are treading
in dangerous waters...and that's why
people oppose FIRM.



>That's really what your opponents--especially those who are
Jewish--are worried about, something
resembling a quota,

Exactly what do you mean by a "quota"?

Could you please explain this so I can get a better understanding of what you feel is not a good idea?

___What the Supreme Court just ruled
unconstitutional in college admissions:

a mathematical formula to include/exclude certain racial or ethnic groups. Requiring that hiring reflect
the racial or ethnic compositon of the
nation on a percentage-formula basis.

>or something infringing on the right of employers to select employees on the basis of their perceived ability.


I don't think anyone at FIRM is interested in forcing employers to take unqualified people. As an employer, I certainly wouldn't want this either. But, as I suggested in my last post, I wouldn't mind making my employment decisions transparent, especially if we were a public company. Maybe that's a step in the right direction. I mean public corporations disclose all sorts of financial information, why can't the MPAA studio/distributors, for instance, be legally required to disclose exactly WHY they hired someone and make public all the applications that they passed on?

___Because this involves private judgments about executive competence
and talent that can't be reduced to
a formula.

>As Mitchell Levine has pointed out,
the pool of executives with film talent
has tended to be of Jewish extraction--because Hollywood was founded mostly by Jews.

George, just as you say, "what your opponents--especially those who are
Jewish--are worried about, something
resembling a quota," I am equally worried that I have no way of knowing WHAT criterion people are getting employed upon. Don't I, and others, have an equal right to know WHY certain executives were employed or not?

__No.

You can sit there and say Jewish executives are more qualified than others until you're blue in the face -- fine, but let's prove it. You ask me to prove that even one single person has been KEPT OUT OF the industry because they weren't Jewish.

___You might have come up with one at least--and not yourself.

If this is a valid question, why shouldn't I be able to an equally valid question: What proof does a public studio have for me that they have in fact hired only the most qualified executives and what was their criterion?

___Because you're asking for disclosure
of private business deliberations. This is not done. Will you expose the hiring rationale of Matrixx Entertainment to see if you're bringing in a diverse selection of associates?

Let's make the employment methodology more transparent. Let's open to public scrutiny the Employment Applications of all the other people that were rejected.
___This is a violation of normal business confidentiality.

If the studios are truly hiring "only the most qualified" then it will be apparent, if not, that will also be apparent.

___What are going to to, administer a
government-sponsored qualifications test?


>If your pool of competent people has your social-political-ethnic designator, then they're going to tend to be hired---and it's not discrimination.


Don't know what you're talking about here.

___Simple. It's not employment discrimination to hire from a pool
of qualified executives just because most happen to be white, male, not-very-religious Jews of European descent because that's from whom the movie industry developed.

ESPN Fires Easterbrook
Posted on October 21, 2003 at 01:10:53 PM by James Jaeger

At http://www.rogerlsimon.com,
ROGER SIMON WROTE:

"I just got off the phone with Gregg Easterbrook. . . I could offer him little advice. . . . but I did point out that in this world that has gone radioactive on what the Stalinists used to call "The Jewish Question""

"But Easterbrook also informed me of something else that is highly disturbing. He has been fired from his job at ESPN. Gregg takes full responsibility for this (he wrote the original words that he regrets), but I, as one of his harshest critics, believe that ESPN has vastly overreacted. I urge them to reconsider their decision."

Here's yet another pathetic example of someone (this time it's Gregg Easterbrook) simply stating an observable fact and now:

1. Having their Constitution right of free speech abridged and;

2. Experiencing what amounts to discrimination by ESPN.

James Jaeger

Re(1): ESPN Fires Easterbrook
Posted on October 21, 2003 at 06:31:08 PM by Mitchell Levine

I agree that ESPN overreacted by firing him - some kind of administrative reprimand would have certainly been enough, if that - but, once again, EASTERBROOK HAS NOT BEEN PROSECUTED FOR A CRIME! HE HAS NOT HAD HIS FREEDOM OF SPEECH ABRIDGED!

The only thing the Constitution promises is freedom from being charged by the state for (protected) speech. No one complained when Jimmy the Greek was fired after his racist statements, nor claimed that he had his freedom of speech denied. In fact, people get fired all the time for saying things their bosses don't like.

ESPN does not qualify as an arm of the state, and employed him at will. If he embarasses them and becomes what they feel is a liability to their image, they have every right to fire him. He was their spokesperson, and if he didn't live up to that responsibility, that's part of the deal. He knew that when he was hired.

It's not discrimination: They have every right to determine whom they feel best represents the image they wish to promote to the public. When Vanessa Williams lost her Miss America crown simply because nude photos of her were published, no one believed it constituted "discrimination."

It would be much different if they fired him simply for being Christian, which they obviously did not. In that case, he could claim discrimination.

Re(2): ESPN Fires Easterbrook
Posted on October 22, 2003 at 01:42:44 PM by James Jaeger

>If he embarasses them and becomes what they feel is a liability to their image, they have every right to fire him.

So I guess it's embarassing for the public to know that any high-up executives are Jewish.

James Jaeger

Re(3): ESPN Fires Easterbrook
Posted on October 22, 2003 at 02:48:57 PM by Mitchell Levine

As if people didn't know that George Bodenheimer or Jeffrey Borenstein were Jewish?

Or, for that matter, as if being embarassed by by a spokesperson's inappropriate public statements was equivalent to being embarassed about being Jewish?

Does that mean ABC fired Jimmy the Greek because they were embarassed to be associated with Blacks?

Hello Mr. Jaeger
Posted on October 23, 2003 at 11:25:58 AM by luyi

I am a reporter of China and want to interview you for some movie industry questions. I wrote an email to you. If it is ok, please reply to me. Thanks a lot

Jewish Media Domination in Sweden
Posted on October 23, 2003 at 11:02:57 PM by Truth Seeker

I just received this email from a guy originally from Sweden. I don't know much about the Jews of Sweden, but here he explains that Jewish media hegemony is a problem there too, although there are only 20,000 Jews in that country! From the U.S. to Great Britian, from Australia to Poland to
Peru, the problem is the same:



"Dear Sir,

First of all I would like to laud you for an exhaustive and well-prepared site. You have certainly gone through the Jewish question thoroughly before compiling your observations and analysis.

Reading your This week's Jewish News as usual today there was one piece of news that made my face wreathed in smiles. The piece of news concerned how the Jewish community of Lithuania accused LNK television for anti-Semitism.

Well, the far too familiar irony is that the LNK, as stated in the article is owned by the Bonnier family, based in my country of origin, Sweden.

New Hiring Laws
Posted on October 24, 2003 at 01:21:21 PM by James Jaeger

Maybe certain laws should be changed or even created. I'm all for good laws that reflect the needs of society.

Nevertheless, I don't think a mathamatical "quota" system would work or be a good idea for the movie industry.

I also don't think anyone at FIRM is interested in forcing employers to take unqualified people. As an employer, I certainly wouldn't want this either. But, as I suggested in an earlier post, I wouldn't mind making my employment decisions transparent, especially if we were a public company. Maybe that's a step in the right direction for the studios. Public corporations disclose all sorts of financial information, why can't the MPAA studio/distributors, for instance, be legally required to disclose exactly WHY they hired someone and make public all the applications that they passed on? Just stating that they were the most experienced is not enough.

If certain people, such as Hollywood executives, are worried about something
resembling quotas, I am equally worried that I have no way of knowing WHAT criterion such executives are using to employ people. Don't I, and others, have an equal right to know WHY certain executives were employed or not? One can sit there and say Jewish executives are more qualified than others until they're blue in the face -- fine, but let's prove it. Some have asked me to prove that even one single person has been KEPT OUT OF the industry because they weren't Jewish. If this is a valid question, why shouldn't I be able to ask an equally valid question: What proof does a public studio have for me, or anyone, that they have, in fact, hired only the most qualified executives and what was their criterion?

Let's make the employment methodology more transparent. Let's open to public scrutiny the employment applications of all the other people that were rejected. If the studios are truly hiring "only the most qualified" then it will be apparent, if not, that will also be apparent.

I agree that fighting legal and contractual abuses when they happen (as in the Art Buchwald case) and staying active in the mainstream film business are valid ways of working for constructive change.

James Jaeger

Re(1): New Hiring Laws
Posted on October 24, 2003 at 01:44:19 PM by John Cones

I agree with what you are saying James and I too have always taken a flexible approach to possible remedies for film industry reform. I think, as an example, that it would be perfectly acceptable for the appropriate committees of the U.S. Congress to investigate the Hollywood based film industry's hiring and promotion practices, pursuant to its oversight authority over the EEOC. Such committees could then seek to determine whether the EEOC has been properly enforcing current employment discrimination law in this specific industry, or whether additional legislation is needed to prevent Hollywood's end runs around the law. Of course, it would also be appropriate for such Congressional committees to investigate other industries, but I don't work in other industries, so that is not my concern. I don't have any strict notions about what the results of such an investigation should be, only that the goal of greater diversity at the top in Hollywood should be served, and that Congress should be aware of how effective the Hollywood lobby is in falsely characterizing such investigations. In addition, those who continually post messages on this site falsely claiming that you or I favor quota systems are either uninformed or dishonest, and we've had too much of those kind of postings here. Others who claim that they agree with much of what FIRM stands for, if they really want to be believed, ought to spend some time posting more about what they agree with rather than always focusing on the negative and what we disagree on. Otherwise, we can assume that they simply want to disagree and that is what is most important to them.

John Cones

Re(2): New Hiring Laws
Posted on October 26, 2003 at 03:29:48 PM by anonymous

The point of the message board is debate, John. It's rather jejune of you to complain that the debate centers around what's disagreed upon: That's the point of debate.

The reason why people claim you support quotas is that you've repeatedly stated your opinion that laws need to be changed to "promote diversity."

Since the only laws that could conceivably be implemented which would ensure diversity would be quotas of one kind or another, and given that you've consistently avoided any explicit acknowledgement of what alternate theory you have, that naturally leads to the conclusion you must actually support quotas.

All you need to do to end that speculation is simply state what laws you'd like to see changed to help create diversity, and how it would differ from a quota system. Until then, you really can't object to people who believe you want quotas.

Agent Provocateur LevinE
Posted on October 26, 2003 at 03:43:44 PM by James Jaeger

>The reason why people

People?! What people? You're the only "people" I know of.

>claim you support quotas is that you've repeatedly stated your opinion that laws need to be changed to "promote diversity."

John clearly says in his post to me: "I think, as an example, that it would be perfectly acceptable for the appropriate committees of the U.S. Congress to investigate the Hollywood based film industry's hiring and promotion practices, pursuant to its oversight authority over the EEOC. Such committees could then seek to determine whether the EEOC has been properly enforcing current employment discrimination law in this specific industry, or whether additional legislation is needed to prevent Hollywood's end runs around the law."

What's your problem with that?

>Since the only laws that could conceivably be implemented which would ensure diversity would be quotas

If that's all you can conceive of, goes to show what lack of imagination you have.

>of one kind or another, and given that you've consistently avoided any explicit acknowledgement of what alternate theory you have,

Hey, see the above.

>that naturally leads to the conclusion you must actually support quotas.

And it leads me to the conclusion, Mr. Levine, that all you want to do is argue. You're what's known as an agent provocateur.

>All you need to do to end that speculation is simply state what laws you'd like to see changed to help create diversity, and how it would differ from a quota system.

Maybe we don't know exactly what laws need to be created. Why don't you help us figure that out rather than sounding like a broken record always seeking to find fault with everything that's posted here.

>Until then, you really can't object to people who believe you want quotas.

You continue with your straw argument.

James Jaeger

Re(1): Agent Provocateur LevinE
Posted on October 26, 2003 at 04:11:27 PM by Mitchell Levine

For one, I post under my own name. For another, Cones is NOT suggesting anything like legislation that doesn't involve quotas.

Enforcing laws that already exist doesn't involve "changing laws," so that can't possibly be what he was referring to when he said that's what was required. And an inquiry into "whether additional legislation is needed to prevent Hollywood's end runs around the law" - despite the fact that he's never demonstrated it's making any with regard to diversity - doesn't rule out quotas either.

While it's true that your idea of forcing the studios to publicly post all applications for its jobs doesn't necessarily involve quotas, it has numerous liabilities and impracticalities, and would only contribute to the problem further.

If you're so imaginative, than please post some examples of changed laws that would "ensure diversity" without invoking quotas or involving compromises of other laws or rights.

Re(1): Agent Provocateur LevinE
Posted on October 26, 2003 at 04:11:27 PM by Mitchell Levine

For one, I post under my own name. For another, Cones is NOT suggesting anything like legislation that doesn't involve quotas.

Enforcing laws that already exist doesn't involve "changing laws," so that can't possibly be what he was referring to when he said that's what was required. And an inquiry into "whether additional legislation is needed to prevent Hollywood's end runs around the law" - despite the fact that he's never demonstrated it's making any with regard to diversity - doesn't rule out quotas either.

While it's true that your idea of forcing the studios to publicly post all applications for its jobs doesn't necessarily involve quotas, it has numerous liabilities and impracticalities, and would only contribute to the problem further.

If you're so imaginative, than please post some examples of changed laws that would "ensure diversity" without invoking quotas or involving compromises of other laws or rights.

Re(2): Agent Provocateur LevinE
Posted on October 26, 2003 at 05:18:15 PM by James Jaeger

>If you're so imaginative, than please post some examples of changed laws that would "ensure diversity" without invoking quotas or involving compromises of other laws or rights.

I'm a stockholder for a number of the MPAA studios and I'm plan on purchasing stock in all of them this week. I'm reading the current Annual Report of FOX which was just mailed out to all stockholders last week. As I read this document, and the other studio reports when I get them, I will try and visualize where such reporting on hiring might be appropriate and in what context. You have to realize however, FOX states that they have some 13,000 employees however the company is run by basically four (4) top executives along with Murdoch, who controls 97% of the corporation through his NEWS CORPORATION and who owns all of the outstanding Class B voting stock. Any discussion of "diversity at the top" must address the 4 or 5 people that control the corporation and the 8 people that sit on its board, as is the case with FOX. The people that are on FOX's board are basically the 4 top executives, including Murdoch and 4 of the top stockholders, one of them being another Murdoch. Although I am not positive about this, it looks like at least 3 out of the 4 top executives are Jewish, like Churney. I am in process of ascertaining this now. The point is that an inquiry or a reporting on all 13,000 employees is NOT necessary. The bios of the executives managing the corporation should include a statement about their background and a footnote elaborating on how they were chosen for the post. Money figures have footnotes to establish their authenticity all the time in financial instruments, so why shouldn't the people who spend that money have footnotes as well. As an owner of TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX, I want to know exactly how and why the people I have entrusted to run my company were hired. I want footnotes describing the process, and I want to be able to review extensive hiring reports when I come into FOX's offices at mutually convenient times. This is a public corporation after all, not a private company.

James Jaeger

Re(3): Agent Provocateur LevinE
Posted on October 26, 2003 at 06:59:35 PM by Mitchell Levine

Only one slight problem with your plan: It would have to be combined with a proposal for what to do if it was decided, for some reason, that a particular executive was hired only for being Jewish, and not because they had sufficient qualifications.

That would inevitably lead to some kind of quota system.

Re(1): New Hiring Laws
Posted on October 25, 2003 at 06:06:02 PM by Anonymous

I also don't think anyone at FIRM is interested in forcing employers to take unqualified people.

- That's exactly what you've been arguing since the first posts you made to the site.

But, as I suggested in an earlier post, I wouldn't mind making my employment decisions transparent, especially if we were a public company. Maybe that's a step in the right direction for the studios. Public corporations disclose all sorts of financial information, why can't the MPAA studio/distributors, for instance, be legally required to disclose exactly WHY they hired someone and make public all the applications that they passed on? Just stating that they were the most experienced is not enough.

- A. It's certainly enough - hiring the most experienced person for a job is perfectly acceptable methodology for selection, and is usually the primary criterion businesses use for hiring in general: promoting the person whose been with the company the longest.

B. Forcing companies to post the applications of everyone who applies for a job publicly is a complete violation of the privacy of the applicants, and would immediately bring the job application process to a screeching halt. That would not exactly be in the best interests of trying to create diversity, as we don't have a diverse industry now.

Also, forcing companies to state exactly why they rejected various applicants is slightly insensitive to the applicants that got rejected.

If certain people, such as Hollywood executives, are worried about something
resembling quotas, I am equally worried that I have no way of knowing WHAT criterion such executives are using to employ people. Don't I, and others, have an equal right to know WHY certain executives were employed or not?

- No. This information is not included under the Freedom of Information Act. You have no right to it whatsoever. It is not public information; applications are NOT public documents, and they shouldn't be.


One can sit there and say Jewish executives are more qualified than others until they're blue in the face -- fine, but let's prove it.

- Sure. The fact that studios were motivated to hire them and give them authority over their operations, when, in the competitive environment of Hollywood, if they didn't do their job competently, they could easily be run out of business.

If that doesn't satisfy you, then feel free to disprove it by listing non-Jewish executives with comparable records of seniority and proven track records that were passed over presumably for being non-Jewish.

Some have asked me to prove that even one single person has been KEPT OUT OF the industry because they weren't Jewish. If this is a valid question, why shouldn't I be able to ask an equally valid question: What proof does a public studio have for me, or anyone, that they have, in fact, hired only the most qualified executives and what was their criterion?

- The same criteria that every other corporation uses to select their top executives: Seniority and proven experience. Those are completely valid reasons to hire someone. No one would hire an incompetent to run their business strictly because they're Jewish. Point to one studio head without a demonstrated track record. I won't hold my breath, because you can't.

Let's make the employment methodology more transparent. Let's open to public scrutiny the employment applications of all the other people that were rejected.

- Ok, let's start with your posting the applications you made to various studios that rejected you. We can then speculate as to why you weren't hired.

Re(2): New Hiring Laws
Posted on October 25, 2003 at 07:40:22 PM by P. EVERET


WHOEVER YOU ARE ANONYMOUS, YOU ARE WAY OFF BASE. SOUNDS TO ME AS IF YOU ARE JUST BLINDLY DEFENDING THE OBVIOUS DESCRIMINATION AT THE HOLLYWOOD STUDIOS. I SHOULD KNOW, I WORK AT ONE OF THE MAJORS AND I CAN TELL YOU FAIR HIRING PRACTICES ARE NO PART OF THIS WORLD.

WHY DON'T YOU GET ANOTHER HOBBY OTHER THAN TRYING TO DEFEND THE INDEVENSIBLE.

PHIL EVERIT +++ OBVIOUSLY NOT MY REAL NAME

Re(3): New Hiring Laws
Posted on October 26, 2003 at 01:37:20 AM by anonymous

Let's see: You use a phony name; you shout in all caps, despite the consensus of popular opinion that it's obnoxious; and you can't even SPELL discrimination.

Oh, yeah - I consider you an authoritative source!

DREAMWORKS Flunks Diversity 101
Posted on October 26, 2003 at 03:22:42 PM by James Jaeger

Well I guess I was wrong about DREAMWORKS: they don't think outside the box. I'm disappointed that they didn't pick up THE PASSION, now retitled THE PASSION OF CHRIST, for distribution.

In a letter I received from Jeffrey Katzenberg, Jeffrey says that he and his partners, Steven Spielberg and David Geffin, "are excited about this venture (DREAMWORKS) for many reasons - not the least of which is the opportunity to create a new studio structure rather than perpetuate an existing system."

Had DREAMWORKS broken ranks with the MPAA studios, in what amounts to a ban on the distribution of THE PASSION, they truly would have been true to the ideal of NOT "perpetuating an existing system," but I guess they have now been co-opted by the MPAA studios for distribution of their own product so they have to march to the "company line" - which seems to covertly mandate as little diversity in the corporate ranks as possible, such ranks in turn greenlighting little diversity in their slate of "Filmed Entertainment" (as their 10-K's call it).

So now we have NEWMARKET, an independent distributor, distributing THE PASSION instead of Mel's home company, FOX, distributing it. And FOX's "reason" for passing on the project is because 'it's not in English.' Please. Mel has agreed to put subtitles, so NOW what's their excuse? I guess their excuse is there's no market for a class-A film about the death of a religious icon, Jesus, having a built in potential audience of over a billion people worldwide. In other words, THE PASSION would be "too risky" to finance and distribute. Right. Let's see, the picture cost $15,000,000 to produce (rule of thumb: you take whatever one says it costs and halve that) and will cost $30,000,000 to market, so that's $45,000,000 tied up. Now, let's say only 10% of a billion people, 100,000,000, go to the theater and buy a $5 ticket. Gee that's only $500,000,000, or a profit of $455,000,000. I guess the MPAA studios are right, THE PASSION is too risky. And besides that, getting only a 1,011% profit is not worth it.

Now what will be interesting is to see if the film actually DOES do well. If it DOES generate profits anywhere near what I have predicted above (and my numbers only include one market; I didn't even mention video-on-demand, home video/DVD, pay-per-view, pay cable, basic cable, network TV, syndication or ancillaries) what will be interesting to see is whether one of the domestic or foreign divisions of the major studios attempt to pick it up. I hope NEWMARKET and Mel don't give it to them if they do. It will serve them right. Most likely the film is neither anti-Semitic nor unprofitable, thus the only real reason the studios didn't distribute THE PASION OF CHRIST is because they don't want to push what they perceive as the Christian agenda. And is this so strange? After all the studios are controlled/dominated by politically liberal, not-very-religious, Jewish males of European heritage and have been so for many decades. (See http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/control.htm#execlist)

So who was it that said the studios are just profit motivated and market driven? What a bunch of hooey. Looks like the information at the FIRM site at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/bginfo.htm is right on the money.

James Jaeger

Re(1): DREAMWORKS Flunks Diversity 101
Posted on October 26, 2003 at 03:57:25 PM by Mitchell Levine

1) You have no idea whether the film is "class A" or not, because, like everyone else, you've never seen it.

2) Mel didn't agree to put subtitles on it until after the studios had turned it down, and had by that time already generated a ton of bad press and friction from different religious groups, not all of them Jewish.

3) Your comment that the only reason the studios didn't distribute it is because they didn't want to promote a "Christian agenda" is bullshit: They make many films that promote a Christian agenda or have specifically Christian premises, including numerous filmed accounts of the Gospel narratives. Mel's is just the latest and goriest. They had no problems distributing The Last Temptation of Christ, a film written, produced, and directed by devout Christians.

4) Your numbers are ridiculous. Just to begin with, the budget estimates are actually twice as high as you suggest, at about $30 million, mostly financed by Gibson himself. The Last Temptation was produced for much less, by a superior filmmaker, and didn't create revenues anywhere near the figures you estimate, even with the publicity its own debacle created.

You're also making many other questionable assumptions, like, for example, that every Christian in the world wants to see a movie that graphic and in biblical languages, with or without subtitles, or that foreign markets provide an equal return to domestic ones.

The fact is that biblical movies have not done well in recent times, the most notable being Richard Gere's King David, which lost loads of money. There are no indications that this one will necessarily do any better, and it comes with seriously embarassing baggage attached. No executive wants to touch a hot potato like that, especially when its commercial prospects are very unclear. Its only prospects for box-office success have been gained from the controversy surrounding it, which may all be part of Mel's master plan.

Re(2): DREAMWORKS Flunks Diversity 101
Posted on October 26, 2003 at 04:57:02 PM by James Jaeger

>1) You have no idea whether the film is "class A" or not, because, like everyone else, you've never seen it.

An assumption on your part. Mel Gibson is a superstar with a class-A reputation. Every recent film he's been a part of has been class-A, thus there no reason to suspect that this film will NOT follow the lines of his "track record." Your speculation is the odd ball out.

>2) Mel didn't agree to put subtitles on it until after the studios had turned it down, and had by that time already generated a ton of bad press and friction from different religious groups, not all of them Jewish.

Any press which generates public awareness is "good" press. Even students in PR 101 know this.

>3) Your comment that the only reason the studios didn't distribute it is because they didn't want to promote a "Christian agenda" is bullshit: They make many films that promote a Christian agenda or have specifically Christian premises, including numerous filmed accounts of the Gospel narratives.

Have you ever actually WATCHED any of these? I have. Almost all of them are horrific due to the fact that the studios won't allocate any real money to their production, as they refused to do in the case of THE PASSION (by a Christian filmmaker, but did do for SHINDLER'S LIST by a Jewish filmmaker). And given their actions, the studios probably like this: a bunch of crappy low-production-value films out there with Christian themes while any film that depicts Jewish interests gets full funding and full distribution with little question. Pathetic. A class-A, star-producer, Mel Gibson, comes along, after making the studios hundreds of millions, and they pass on his pet project. Why? Because they know very well that HIS project probably won't be another crappy low-production-value Christian film -- and this, of course, scares them. As the research presented at FIRM states, movies reflect their makers. Applied here: Studio execs only greenlight what aligns with their long-term agenda and this agenda is more aligned with making people aware of the Holocaust than making them aware that Jesus Christ came to Earth with an important message.

>Mel's is just the latest and goriest.

Horse.

>They had no problems distributing The Last Temptation of Christ, a film written, produced, and directed by devout Christians.

That film was considered a blasphemy by most of the Christian world so of course the studios WOULD finance and distribute THAT picture. But I guess this is too subtle for you to comprehend Mitch.

>4) Your numbers are ridiculous. Just to begin with, the budget estimates are actually twice as high as you suggest, at about $30 million, mostly financed by Gibson himself.

I said, you take the promoted budget and halve it. That's why $15 million will be the actual budget. How little you know about the film business Mitchell.

>The Last Temptation was produced for much less, by a superior filmmaker, and didn't create revenues anywhere near the figures you estimate, even with the publicity its own debacle created.

That's because, since the film was blasphemy, it didn't receive support from the Christian world . . . A. And B, this picture was made in the mid 1980's, at a time when production budgets were MUCH smaller. So, please, compare apples to apples.

>You're also making many other questionable assumptions,

Questionable ones eh?! Levine, you're the questionable assumption!

>like, for example, that every Christian in the world wants to see a movie that graphic and in biblical languages, with or without subtitles, or that foreign markets provide an equal return to domestic ones.

I never MADE that assumption. Your straw is showing again. I said that 10 PERCENT go see the movie. Get it? My assumption was based on the idea that 90% DON'T go see it. Pretty conservative if you ask anyone.

>The fact is that biblical movies have not done well in recent times,

Because of the reason I stated above.

>the most notable being Richard Gere's King David, which lost loads of money.

Until I see this I have no comment here.

>There are no indications that this one will necessarily do any better,

Sure there are PLENTY of indications:

A. There are over a billion Christians on the planet.

B. The film has already generated VAST PR through media and WOM to a significant portion of that billion.

C. It's being produced/directed by a super-star with proven track record.

D. The picture is not blasphemous, but authentic.

E. It has subtitles, yet retains the flavor of the original languages spoken at the time.

F. Many millions in the Jewish community will probably see the film just to see if it's anti-Semitic and/or because parts of it are spoken in Hebrew.

LevinE, you don't have a case.

>and it comes with seriously embarassing baggage attached.

Oh, come on. The only "embarrassing baggage" from the POV of Jewish executives that run the MPAA studios is the fact that it will probably promote the Christian agenda, as I already stated.

>No executive wants to touch a hot potato like that,

Oh horse.

>especially when its commercial prospects are very unclear.

Horse.

>Its only prospects for box-office success have been gained from the controversy surrounding it, which may all be part of Mel's master plan.

Well. Good master plan, since Mel probably knows the MO of the studios anyway. And that MO is clearly spelled out at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/bginfo.htm

James Jaeger

Re(3): DREAMWORKS Flunks Diversity 101
Posted on October 26, 2003 at 08:52:29 PM by Mitchell Levine

An assumption on your part. Mel Gibson is a superstar with a class-A reputation. Every recent film he's been a part of has been class-A, thus there no reason to suspect that this film will NOT follow the lines of his "track record." Your speculation is the odd ball out.

- A) Gibson's been in plenty of crappy movies, and his record hardly supports the thesis that anything he stamps his name on will be a masterpiece, unless you think The Singing Detective is a film classic.

B) You simply have no way of knowing whether or not a movie you haven't seen is good. It's not a matter of speculation.

Any press which generates public awareness is "good" press. Even students in PR 101 know this.

- Not when it embarasses the hell out of the studios, and leaves them open to the charge that they're furthering a bigoted agenda, in a commercially doubtful genre.

>3) Your comment that the only reason the studios didn't distribute it is because they didn't want to promote a "Christian agenda" is bullshit: They make many films that promote a Christian agenda or have specifically Christian premises, including numerous filmed accounts of the Gospel narratives.

Have you ever actually WATCHED any of these? I have. Almost all of them are horrific due to the fact that the studios won't allocate any real money to their production, as they refused to do in the case of THE PASSION (by a Christian filmmaker, but did do for SHINDLER'S LIST by a Jewish filmmaker). And given their actions, the studios probably like this: a bunch of crappy low-production-value films out there with Christian themes while any film that depicts Jewish interests gets full funding and full distribution with little question. Pathetic. A class-A, star-producer, Mel Gibson, comes along, after making the studios hundreds of millions, and they pass on his pet project. Why? Because they know very well that HIS project probably won't be another crappy low-production-value Christian film -- and this, of course, scares them. As the research presented at FIRM states, movies reflect their makers.

- You've provided no such proof or evidence. Most of the available evidence indicates that they make films that will appeal to their audiences. Simply listing various executives with Jewish names, and then correlating it to your stereotypes of what Jews would think or like doesn't establish your thesis.

Applied here: Studio execs only greenlight what aligns with their long-term agenda and this agenda is more aligned with making people aware of the Holocaust than making them aware that Jesus Christ came to Earth with an important message.

- Bullshit: The Last Temptation of Christ was hardly a cut-rate production, as it made virtually every critics' Ten Best list that year. Films promoting a Christian message or featuring Christian premises include End of Days, Bless the Child, Stigmata, and Jesus of Montreal. Those aren't exactly low-budget films. Even Dracula 2000 had a pro-Christian message, with the evil monster finally being destroyed through the power of the Saviour. That's a lot considering the fact that the average ticketbuyer does not want to be hit with a heavy religious message. And your idea that Hollywood executives are implementing a "long-term Jewish agenda" designed to harm Christianity is just more bigoted, paranoid bullshit.

>Mel's is just the latest and goriest.

Horse.

When has a gorier one ever been made? When was the last one made?

That film was considered a blasphemy by most of the Christian world so of course the studios WOULD finance and distribute THAT picture.

- Couldn't be too much of the Christian world as it was written, directed, and produced by devout Christians, and adapted from a best-selling novel by a devout Christian. The primary groups that were opposed to it were born-agains and fundamentalists, almost all of whom condemned the film without even seeing it. Sophisticated viewers understood that it was not blasphemous. Many such Christians considered the film to be a masterpiece. That's why many non-Jewish critics proclaimed at the time that it was Scorsese's best film, and the greatest of the decade.

But I guess this is too subtle for you to comprehend Mitch.

- Apparently, you weren't able to perceive the subtleties I mentioned above.

>4) Your numbers are ridiculous. Just to begin with, the budget estimates are actually twice as high as you suggest, at about $30 million, mostly financed by Gibson himself.

I said, you take the promoted budget and halve it. That's why $15 million will be the actual budget. How little you know about the film business Mitchell.

- It's not a studio picture - it's an independent, and Gibson has no reason to lie, as doing so would make it less likely a studio would pick it up. By the way, I've been involved with several projects which I can assure you would not have been correctly estimated by your crude rule of thumb. The latter would be rather difficult to validate in any case as you have no access to the actual production budgets of the movies in question.

>The Last Temptation was produced for much less, by a superior filmmaker, and didn't create revenues anywhere near the figures you estimate, even with the publicity its own debacle created.

That's because, since the film was blasphemy, it didn't receive support from the Christian world

- Only the most unsophisticated elements of the Christian world considered it blasphemous, and those that did said so without even seeing the picture. The fact that numerous Christian critics proclaimed the film one of the greatest they'd ever seen belies your interpretation.


. . . A. And B, this picture was made in the mid 1980's, at a time when production budgets were MUCH smaller. So, please, compare apples to apples.

- Even adjusted for the relative Consumer Price Indices of the eras, it would still disqualify your argument.


>like, for example, that every Christian in the world wants to see a movie that graphic and in biblical languages, with or without subtitles, or that foreign markets provide an equal return to domestic ones.

I never MADE that assumption. Your straw is showing again. I said that 10 PERCENT go see the movie. Get it? My assumption was based on the idea that 90% DON'T go see it. Pretty conservative if you ask anyone.

- No, your lame assumption was that 100% of Christians make up the potential market to which the 90% figure should be applied. They don't. Many Christians won't even consider seeing it because it's so graphic, or because they believe it's inherently blasphemous to represent Christ on a film screen. First you need to eliminate all those individuals from the pool before you start determining the sample population that would feel like spending $10 to buy a ticket to a film in dead languages with subtitles.

>The fact is that biblical movies have not done well in recent times,

Because of the reason I stated above.

- No, it's primarily because large numbers of people are no longer interested in or believe in the Bible, or care to see movies based on it. You could spend $100 million on a biblical epic these days, and it isn't clear that it would draw an audience sizable enough to make it profitable. Large numbers of people see it as corny. That's not to say there aren't exceptions to that rule in the general population, but it's not exceptions that make a film profitable, it's the masses.

>the most notable being Richard Gere's King David, which lost loads of money.

Until I see this I have no comment here.

- Just go to the page for the film on IMDB and click on "Box Office."

>There are no indications that this one will necessarily do any better,

Sure there are PLENTY of indications:

A. There are over a billion Christians on the planet.

- That doesn't mean that they all compose a potential market for Gibson's film, any more than the world's twelve million Jews all made up a potential market for King David. Vast numbers of them won't sit through a film with subtitles, or simply consider a cinematic representation of Christ a blasphemy in itself. Plus studios know that they won't get fair returns from foreign markets, so they aren't calculated similarly to domestic proceeds.

B. The film has already generated VAST PR through media and WOM to a significant portion of that billion.

- That will easily turn off as many as it turns on.

C. It's being produced/directed by a super-star with proven track record.

- He's had numerous flops, and has never made an art film before, unless you count Man without a Face as an "art film." Plus he doesn't appear in it, and has little directorial experience besides Braveheart.

D. The picture is not blasphemous, but authentic.

- Many Christians, as I've already mentioned, simply consider any cinematic representation of Christ blasphemous.

E. It has subtitles, yet retains the flavor of the original languages spoken at the time.

- Films with subtitles usually make a lot less money than films in an audience's native language. Because no one alive today speaks Aramaic or Hebrew, that means there's no one who speaks the movies' language as a native.

F. Many millions in the Jewish community will probably see the film just to see if it's anti-Semitic and/or because parts of it are spoken in Hebrew.

- If that's what Gibson's banking on, he's in serious trouble. Jews tend not to pay money to people who they believe have an antisemitic agenda, as you've bemoaned on numerous occasions.

LevinE, you don't have a case.

- No, you don't have an analysis.

>and it comes with seriously embarassing baggage attached.

Oh, come on. The only "embarrassing baggage" from the POV of Jewish executives that run the MPAA studios is the fact that it will probably promote the Christian agenda, as I already stated.

- No, the embarassment is in the fact that large numbers of people will connect the film with a potential antisemitic agenda. Most Jews are not juvenile idiots who believe that religion is a high school popularity contest.

>No executive wants to touch a hot potato like that,

Oh horse.

- The film's box-office doubtful in a genre that's considered commercially forbidden, and large numbers of people feel that it's connected with antisemitism. Few executives anywhere will want to chance their careers on that: The risk-to-reward ratio's too high.

>especially when its commercial prospects are very unclear.

Horse.

- Sorry, but you're simply wrong. You are just fundamentally incapable of thinking commercially, which is why you were turned down for executive positions at the studios you applied to. Stick to directing and hire a business manager.

>Its only prospects for box-office success have been gained from the controversy surrounding it, which may all be part of Mel's master plan.

Well. Good master plan, since Mel probably knows the MO of the studios anyway. And that MO is clearly spelled out at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/bginfo.htm

- In that the "master plan" of the studios is to "distribute movies that make more money than they cost to produce."

Re(4): DREAMWORKS Flunks Diversity 101
Posted on October 27, 2003 at 04:29:20 PM by James Jaeger

>- A) Gibson's been in plenty of crappy movies, and his record hardly supports the thesis that anything he stamps his name on will be a masterpiece, unless you think The Singing Detective is a film classic.

Since I haven't seen it I have no comment. Gibson has been in enough good films for anyone to give him a little free reign as Warner did for Travolta on BATTLEFIELD EARTH and Universal did for Spielberg on SHINDLER'S LIST.

Gibson did just fine in SIGNS, THE PATRIOT, WE WERE SOLDIERS, PAYBACK, the LEATAL WEAPON pictures, CONSPIRACY THEORY, RANSOM, BRAVEHEART, TEQUILLA SUNRISE, and the MAD MAX pictures

I bet if Gibson wanted to do a movie called THE PASSION, a story about how a Jewish family survived the Holocaust, his beloved home studio, FOX, or some other MPAA studio would have financed it in a millisecond, at least distributed it.

>- Not when it embarasses the hell out of the studios, and leaves them open to the charge that they're furthering a bigoted agenda, in a commercially doubtful genre.

Ridiculous. The only thing they should be embarassed about is their OWN bigotry.

>3) Your comment that the only reason the studios didn't distribute it is because they didn't want to promote a "Christian agenda" is bullshit: They make many films that promote a Christian agenda or have specifically Christian premises, including numerous filmed accounts of the Gospel narratives.

Yeah, yeah, prove it. If this were true, then they would have included Mel's movie as one more such movie out of the "many." Like I said, they're happy to see any low budget abortion of a Christian movie made because it makes Christians in general look all the worse. Were that not true, they would have jumped to finance and distribute a good project, THE PASSION, with a name star attached.



>- You've provided no such proof or evidence.

I have watched a number of Christian movies over the past 10 years. They were so bad I didn't memorize their titles or directors. Sorry.

>Most of the available evidence...

Oh, most available evidence. This is your logo statement of horse.

>...indicates that they make films that will appeal to their audiences.

Maybe 75% of the time, but the other percentage of the time it's movies to support their worldviews, as I have gone over before.

>Simply listing various executives with Jewish names, and then correlating it to your stereotypes of what Jews would think or like doesn't establish your thesis.

That's not how John Cones did his research Dude. He looked at the trends FIRST and then asked the question: Who? SECOND.

>Applied here: Studio execs only greenlight what aligns with their long-term agenda and this agenda is more aligned with making people aware of the Holocaust than making them aware that Jesus Christ came to Earth with an important message.

>- Bullshit: The Last Temptation of Christ was hardly a cut-rate production, as it made virtually every critics' Ten Best list that year.

Horse. Every Christian I have ever spoken to hated that film. What critics are these? And since when are critics THE AUDIENCE.

>Films promoting a Christian message or featuring Christian premises include End of Days, Bless the Child, Stigmata, and Jesus of Montreal. Those aren't exactly low-budget films. Even Dracula 2000 had a pro-Christian message, with the evil monster finally being destroyed through the power of the Saviour. That's a lot considering the fact that the average ticketbuyer does not want to be hit with a heavy religious message. And your idea that Hollywood executives are implementing a "long-term Jewish agenda" designed to harm Christianity is just more bigoted, paranoid bullshit.

No it's you that are full of horse. In just the past year there have been at least 5 Holocaust films among which were: MAX, THE PIANO, AMEN, THE GREY ZONE.

>Mel's is just the latest and goriest.

Horse.

>When has a gorier one ever been made? When was the last one made?

There have been plenty of gory movies made in non-stop insanity.


>- Couldn't be too much of the Christian world as it was written, directed, and produced by devout Christians, and adapted from a best-selling novel by a devout Christian. The primary groups that were opposed to it were born-agains and fundamentalists, almost all of whom condemned the film without even seeing it. Sophisticated viewers understood that it was not blasphemous. Many such Christians considered the film to be a masterpiece. That's why many non-Jewish critics proclaimed at the time that it was Scorsese's best film, and the greatest of the decade.

I personally liked the film. So what are you trying to say? That more films come out of Hollywood with Christian interests than Jewish. I don't think so.


>- Apparently, you weren't able to perceive the subtleties I mentioned above.

False.


>- It's not a studio picture - it's an independent, and Gibson has no reason to lie, as doing so would make it less likely a studio would pick it up. By the way, I've been involved with several projects which I can assure you would not have been correctly estimated by your crude rule of thumb. The latter would be rather difficult to validate in any case as you have no access to the actual production budgets of the movies in question.

Again you show your ignorance of motion picture production. An independent picture is more likely to inflate its budget because independents know that they will have to deal with studio/distributors who will try to screw them out of their recoupment as their SOP. ON the other hand, a studio will only inflate its budget for PR effect.


>That's because, since the film was blasphemy, it didn't receive support from the Christian world

- Only the most unsophisticated elements of the Christian world considered it blasphemous, and those that did said so without even seeing the picture.

Your assumption. Hey, last time I looked I was a Christian. You're a Jew. Who do you think is more qualified to know how a film was received in the Christian world?

>The fact that numerous Christian critics proclaimed the film one of the greatest they'd ever seen belies your interpretation.

Critics often do not represent the movie-going audience. If they did, all the studios would have to do is make films the critics like and then filmmaking would not be very "risky."


>- Even adjusted for the relative Consumer Price Indices of the eras, it would still disqualify your argument.

Movies back in the early 80s were an average of $10,000,000.


>I never MADE that assumption. Your straw is showing again. I said that 10 PERCENT go see the movie. Get it? My assumption was based on the idea that 90% DON'T go see it. Pretty conservative if you ask anyone.

>- No, your lame assumption was that 100% of Christians make up the potential market to which the 90% figure should be applied. They don't. Many Christians won't even consider seeing it because it's so graphic, or because they believe it's inherently blasphemous to represent Christ on a film screen. First you need to eliminate all those individuals from the pool before you start determining the sample population that would feel like spending $10 to buy a ticket to a film in dead languages with subtitles.

Gee, let's say you are even right on this, that the potential market was "only" 900 million instead of a billion. Well 10% of 900 million is only 90 million x $10 for a ticket, as you suggest, gives us $900 million. So I guess you're right -- the picture would make $400 million than I suggested before.

>The fact is that biblical movies have not done well in recent times,

>>Because of the reason I stated above.

>- No, it's primarily because large numbers of people are no longer interested in or believe in the Bible, or care to see movies based on it. You could spend $100 million on a biblical epic these days, and it isn't clear that it would draw an audience sizable enough to make it profitable. Large numbers of people see it as corny. That's not to say there aren't exceptions to that rule in the general population, but it's not exceptions that make a film profitable, it's the masses.

Well we'll see I guess.


>- Just go to the page for the film on IMDB and click on "Box Office."

>There are no indications that this one will necessarily do any better,

Sure there are PLENTY of indications:

>>A. There are over a billion Christians on the planet.

>
- That doesn't mean that