Hollywood
needs an exorcism
Posted on February 21,
2005 at 06:37:30 PM by Eagle
http://www.catholicleague.org/05press_releases/quarter|01/050217_constantine.htm
February 17, 2005
HOLLYWOOD NEEDS AN EXORCISM
Catholic League president William Donohue commented today on the new Warner
Brothers film, “Constantine,” which opens tomorrow:
“Those who like Marilyn Manson and professional wrestling should be drawn to
‘Constantine.’ The movie is not only spiritual junk food for religious
illiterates, it’s another example of the way Hollywood rips off Catholicism.
“The plot centers on a chain-smoking, bummed out, demon-hunting detective who’s
been to hell and back. Constantine’s pursuit of demons is not, however,
altruistically driven: because he once tried to kill himself, he thinks he’s
doomed to go to hell unless he can earn enough chips to get into heaven. Lucky
for him, he becomes adept at performing exorcisms. Along the way he meets a
policewoman who’s determined to prove that her deceased Catholic sister didn’t
commit suicide, and thus can be given a Christian burial. And, of course, he
meets a priest, who just happens to be an Irish drunk.
“We hate to spoil the party, but the Catholic Church does not teach that
everyone who commits suicide is destined to go to hell. Nor does it teach that
those who do so must be denied a Christian burial. (It did at one time, on the
grounds that suicide violated the Fifth Commandment.)
“So what does this tell us about Hollywood? First, the fact that the producers
of this trash literally tried to induce evangelical Protestants to market this
movie for them tells us volumes about the way these guys view Christians. Also
telling is the answer that Francis Lawrence, the director, gave to the question
of his own faith: ‘I’m a skeptic, myself. For all I know, you die and rot in a
box and that’s it.’ Either that or you rot someplace else.
“It looks like Hollywood could use an exorcism of its own. Maybe they can find
a sober Irish priest willing to do it.”
Through
Their Cinema
Posted on February 24,
2005 at 05:56:34 PM by Adrien Arcand
"Through their (Jew's) international news agencies, they mold your minds
and have you see the world not as it is, but as they want you to see it.
Through their cinema, they are the educators of our youth - and with just one
film in two hours, can wipe out of a child's brain what he has learned in six
months in the home, the church or the school."
Re(1):
Through Their Cinema
Posted on February 25,
2005 at 05:36:10 AM by Mitchell Levine
Why are you so mindlessly anti-Semite? Why don't you try to make something of
your life, you pathetic little Jew-hater? No-one wants to be bothered with your
Nazi obsession, so please get lost.
Re(2):
Through Their Cinema
Posted on February 28,
2005 at 06:51:35 AM by Heebie Jeebie
>Why are you so mindlessly anti-Semite? Why don't you try to make something
of your life, you pathetic little Jew-hater? No-one wants to be bothered with
your Nazi obsession, so please get lost.
>>>>>>>>This has a wonderfully "All your base are
belong to us" quality.
sexualized
racism
Posted on February 24,
2005 at 07:42:43 PM by saurturion
Was race an issue in ‘Hitch’ casting?
Will Smith says moviemakers were afraid to cast him in love with either an
African-American or a white woman, so selected Cuban actress Eva Mendes.
By Jeannette Walls
MSNBC
Updated: 2:48 a.m. ET Feb. 24, 2005
Eva Mendes was given the role opposite Smith because the moviemakers were
worried about the public’s reaction if the part was given to a white or an
African American actress, according to Smith. The actor is saying that it was
feared that a black couple would have put off worldwide audiences whereas a
white/African American combo would have offended viewers in the U.S.
“There’s sort of an accepted myth that if you have two black actors, a male and
a female, in the lead of a romantic comedy, that people around the world don’t
want to see it,” Smith told the British paper, the Birmingham Post while
promoting the flick overseas. “We spend $50-something million making this movie
and the studio would think that was tough on their investment. So the idea of a
black actor and a white actress comes up — that’ll work around the world, but
it’s a problem in the U.S.”
Eva Mendes — who is of Cuban descent — was seen as a solution because
apparently, the black/Latina combination is not considered taboo.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7019342/
which is what I was saying to Levine. Certain couples are acceptable, like the
Asian female/European male couple in Hitched but an African couple or an
African male with an European female is taboo. Levine says that it is
diversity' to show Asian females with non-Asian males and it is 'bigoted' to
show Asian couples.
Obviously, it is not bigoted to show certain people being miscegenated. While I
haven't seen Hitched, I have heard that the Asian woman is sexually charged (a
la I want white man, sucky f****, me love u long time)
Of course, Levine will dismiss this with a wave of the hand, an act of neurosis
on my part and then he will whine about Jewish persecution from bigoted
anti-semitic board members. Ah, well.
sexualized racism
Re(1):
sexualized racism
Posted on February 25,
2005 at 02:15:48 PM by Mitchell Levine
which is what I was saying to Levine. Certain couples are acceptable, like the
Asian female/European male couple in Hitched but an African couple or an
African male with an European female is taboo. Levine says that it is
diversity' to show Asian females with non-Asian males and it is 'bigoted' to
show Asian couples.
- I never said it was "bigoted"; I said Asian actresses like Margaret
Cho and Ming Na had said they wanted to avoid racial stereotypes by partnering
with non-Asian men, which they did.
Obviously, it is not bigoted to show certain people being miscegenated. While I
haven't seen Hitched, I have heard that the Asian woman is sexually charged (a
la I want white man, sucky f****, me love u long time)
Of course, Levine will dismiss this with a wave of the hand, an act of neurosis
on my part and then he will whine about Jewish persecution from bigoted
anti-semitic board members. Ah, well.
- How is partnering him with a Cuban actress "avoid miscegenation,"
and why are you blaming Hollywood instead of the ticketbuyers that will
complain of "race mixing?"
And most of all, why do you seem to think that the most important civil rights
issue of our time is seeing guys of your ethnicity boinking A-list actresses???
Are you 15 years old???
Hollywood's
"isms"
Posted on March 1,
2005 at 12:30:08 PM by John Cones
Now that (after more than 100 years), Hollywood has finally honored a young
African-American as best actor (Jamie Foxx), an older African-American as best
supporting actor (Morgan Freeman) and another older actor/director as best
director (Clint Eastwood), many among the Hollywood establishment like to pat
themselves on the back, taking the position that a couple of the “isms” that
have plagued Hollywood for years (“ageism” and “racism”) have now been put
behind them. Of course, actors and directors do not run Hollywood, there still
exists a great deal of the traditional “isms” including “racism”, “ageism”,
“favoritism”, “nepotism”, “cronyism” and other forms of discrimination in the
suites of the studio executives, in the talent agent and management ranks and
among entertainment attorneys. That’s where the power is and it won’t be given
up without a fight. The glamour of the Academy Awards may fool most of the
people, but it's mostly for show. Real diversity in Hollywood doesn't happen
until the levels noted above are open to all on a fair and equal basis.
John Cones
Re(1):
No PASSION from Oscar
Posted on February 28,
2005 at 07:40:35 PM by Mitchell Levine
No, because, in the opinion of most critics, it wasn't a well-made movie, and I
agree.
If Chris Rock's straw poll was accurate, the film best-liked by the public was
White Chicks. Does that mean the Academy was supposed to honor that too?
Re(2):
No PASSION from Oscar
Posted on February 28,
2005 at 11:28:06 PM by Silvertstein
"Most" movie critics are Jews. They detest Christianity and Christ
the Jewish blashphemer.
Re(3):
No PASSION from Oscar
Posted on March 1,
2005 at 02:31:16 PM by Mitchell Levine
A) The idea that most Jews "detest" Christianity exists in the minds
of bigots only. I've never met anyone Jewish that told me they disliked
Christianity or Christian.
B) Pleny of Gentile critics gave The Passion an F, and stated that they felt it
was poorly directed and written.
Re(5):
No PASSION from Oscar
Posted on March 11,
2005 at 02:00:59 PM by Mitchell Levine
Uh, Jim, I work in Hollywood now, and I've certainly worked in it in the past.
I'm just finishing up getting my last project sold.
Re(4):
No PASSION from Oscar
Posted on March 1,
2005 at 10:51:02 AM by Heebie Jeebie
But you have to admit: Abe Foxman of the ADL did a bang-up job promoting
"The Passion."
There's no way Mel could have afforded all the PR he ultimately received.
Re(5):
No PASSION from Oscar
Posted on March 1,
2005 at 03:58:57 PM by Mitchell Levine
I suspect that was all part of Mel's master plan.
Asian
Pacific Islanders in Hollywood
Posted on March 3,
2005 at 00:48:39 AM by saurturion
Hollywood’s 25 Worst APA Blunders
By Philip W. Chung, Feb 25, 2005
So how does one come up with and rank the top 25 Hollywood blunders on this
list? In the past, I’ve presented lists of the most influential Asian Pacific
Americans in Hollywood and the best APA film moments. Coming up with those lists
of the “best” was difficult. Compared with that, making a list of the “worst”
was much easier. Why?
Partly, I think it’s human nature to be able to more readily see the bad things
in life. We may not appreciate all the good things we have, but we seem to have
no problem bringing up the bad.
Before compiling my previous lists, I sought opinions from friends and
colleagues about what I should or shouldn’t include, but this time, no such
consultations were necessary. I sat down and just started a list of all the
awful or embarrassing things Hollywood has done when it comes to APAs.
I remembered movies like Breakfast at Tiffany’s and how awful I felt watching
Mickey Rooney’s stereotypical “yellowface” performance. I remembered moments
like the 1987 Academy Awards when The Last Emperor received numerous
nominations but none for the talented APA cast.
Before I knew it, I had my list.
Why is it important to document these “negative” moments? Because by
remembering them, we can take stock of where we’ve come from, where we are and
how much further we need to go (which by the looks of this list is still a long
way).
So here it is — a walk down the memory path filled with weeds and potholes ...
25. TWIN TRAGEDY
Over the years, a number of Asian-themed film projects have come close to
receiving a green light only to be derailed at the last minute, including
bio-pics of acting legend Sessue Hayakawa (to have starred John Lone) and 1920s
Korean American gangster Jason Lee. But in the late ’80s, Hollywood was ready
to undertake arguably the most interesting Asian film biography: the story of
real-life conjoined twins Chang and Eng. A script was ready to go, and Mr.
Spock himself, Leonard Nimoy, signed on to direct what he called his “dream
project” (at the time, Nimoy was an in-demand director after the successes of
Star Trek IV and Three Men and a Baby). But Hollywood got cold feet, and even
Spock, who got himself successfully returned from the dead, could not rescue
these twins from development hell.
24. THE CURTAIN FALLS ON CEDAR
After the success of his film Shine, director Scott Hicks turned his attention
to David Guterson’s best-selling novel Snow Falling on Cedars as his follow-up.
The book told a story of a Japanese American fisherman on trial for murder and
his wife’s past relationship with the Caucasian reporter who may hold the key
to the case. Although the story’s characters are American-born, Hicks hired
Japanese actress Youki Kudoh for the lead. Kudoh’s “foreignness” betrayed the
character’s “Americanness” despite some fine acting and underlined the notion
that Hollywood can’t tell the difference between Asians and Asian Americans.
Making matters worse was the casting of model Rick Yune as the man on trial.
Yune’s lack of experience was evident in the numerous scenes he shared with
acting legend Max Von Sydow.
23. NO SENSE OR SENSIBILITY FROM OSCAR
In 1995, Ang Lee’s adaptation of Jane Austen’s Sense and Sensibility was a
critical and commercial hit and earned Oscar nominations in most major
categories, including Best Picture, Best Actress (Emma Thompson), Best
Supporting Actress (Kate Winslet) and Best Screenplay (Thompson again, who
won). But notably missing was a nod for Lee, who did no less than direct the
whole venture. This wasn’t the first time the Academy snubbed the APA guy while
honoring almost everyone else associated with the project (see #1icon_cool.gif.
Apparently, the Academy tried to make amends five years later by awarding Lee’s
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon multiple awards.
22. THE SEED GIVES BIRTH TO A BOMB
Katharine Hepburn is a Hollywood legend and one of the greatest actors to have
ever graced the silver screen, but even the best artist bombs on occasion.
Hepburn hit her artistic low with the 1944 film adaptation of Pearl Buck’s
Dragon Seed. Playing Jade, a Chinese woman fighting the Japanese occupation
during World War II, Hepburn falls prey to every stereotype from the taped-back
eyes to the thick, ching-chong-y accent. Other great actors have arguably had
their biggest misfires playing Asian characters (check out Marlon Brando in The
Teahouse of the August Moon, or better yet, don’t) so maybe the lesson here is
to leave the “yellowface” to the real “yellow” brothers and sisters.
21. SULU VERSUS KIRK
After years of lobbying, actor George Takei was finally going to see his
character, U.S.S. Enterprise helmsman Sulu, promoted to captain of his own ship
in a scene where Captain Kirk (William Shatner) breaks the good news to him in
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. But as Takei explained in his autobiography,
To The Stars, when it came time to shoot the scene, Shatner became
uncooperative. “Bill played it ... disinterested,” he wrote. “No eye contact.
No emotion. No relationship. Nothing.” Takei was disappointed but not surprised
when the scene he fought so hard for was cut from the film. Sulu finally got
his promotion four films later in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country.
20. NOT PICTURE PERFECT
Japanese American filmmaker Kayo Hatta made a splash with audiences at Sundance
with her 1994 debut feature Picture Bride, prompting indie powerhouse Miramax
Films to purchase and release Hatta’s sensitive story about a Japanese picture
bride who comes to Hawai‘i in the early 1900s. Miramax’s marketing campaign for
the video release tried to “sex up” the film with artwork on the package
emphasizing the back of a nude Asian woman — something which had nothing to do
with the film itself. Asian American critics, including Hatta herself, cried
foul at the blatant misrepresentation, but the brothers Weinstein refused to
budge.
19. VAN DAMMIT!
By the time director John Woo arrived in the United States in 1993 to helm his
first American film, Hard Target, he was already an internationally acclaimed
filmmaker thanks to high-octane action flicks like The Killer. Used to having
creative control in his native Hong Kong, Woo instead found a Hollywood studio
system that was unwilling to let John Woo have the freedom to be ... well, John
Woo. Studio executives, producers and star Jean-Claude Van Damme all kept tight
reins on the director (it was rumored that Woo was even barred from the editing
room), which resulted in a film that showed signs of Woo’s distinct touch but
overall was an artistic disappointment. Fortunately for us, Woo learned to work
the system and later produced films more worthy of his talent including Broken
Arrow and Face Off.
18. THE EMPEROR GETS SNUBBED
In 1987, Italian director Bernardo Bertolucci’s epic The Last Emperor swept the
Academy Awards with nine wins (including for Best Picture and Best Director)
and became one of the most critically acclaimed films of the 1980s. But none of
the Oscars — and not even a single nomination — went to any of the (Asian
American) actors. Anchored by brilliant, career-defining performances by John
Lone as the emperor Pu Yi and Joan Chen as his opium-addicted wife Wan Jung,
the cast (also including Dennis Dun and Maggie Han) was uniformly praised by
audiences and critics alike, but unfortunately that didn’t translate into recognition
by the Academy, which continued to see right through APA actors.
17. SATURDAY NIGHT IS NOT ALRIGHT FOR ASIANS
Some TV sketch-comedy shows have made at least a token attempt to feature APA
performers: Bobby Lee on MAD TV and Steve Park in In Living Color (see #15).
But the granddaddy of all comedy shows, Saturday Night Live, has yet to feature
an APA cast member, even though the late-night show has had no problem
featuring Caucasian actors in “yellowface” — still one of the few shows to continue
to do so. Sometimes the portrayals aren’t necessarily racially offensive and
are even inspired (John Belushi’s Samurai and Jimmy Fallon’s William Hung), but
more often than not, the humor skews toward characters and skits like Dana
Carvey’s chicken-loving Asian merchant or the fortune-cookie factory that would
be right at home next to the old Fu Manchu and Charlie Chan flicks (more
below).
16. KUNG PHOOEY
In the late ’60s, Bruce Lee made waves as the butt-kicking Kato, sidekick to
the titular hero of the Green Hornet TV series. Although the show lasted only
one season, Lee made enough of an impression that producers proposed an idea
for a new series entitled Kung Fu. The series would star the martial-arts actor
as a Shaolin monk wandering the Old West and imparting life lessons while
getting medieval on the bad guys. The show eventually made it on the air and
became a big hit — but without Lee. Instead, conservative TV executives cast
Caucasian non-martial-artist David Carradine. Tired of Hollywood’s racism, Lee
left for Hong Kong and turned himself into a legend in films like The Chinese
Connection and Enter the Dragon. Hollywood’s loss turned out to be the world’s
gain.
15. ‘IN LIVING COLOR’ LOSES SOME COLOR
Actor Steve Park (Do The Right Thing) made TV history in 1991 by becoming the
first APA to be cast in a network sketch-comedy show on Fox’s immensely popular
series In Living Color alongside future stars like Jim Carrey and Jamie Foxx.
Working on a primarily black American show during the height of black-Korean
tensions, Park at times felt uncomfortable but knew his presence on the show
could have a positive effect. But despite assurances from the producers that he
would be back for a second season, Park was quietly fired without explanation.
After a few more years of frustration, Park wrote and distributed a personal
mission statement calling Hollywood out on its racism and turned his back on
the business. Now living in New York, Park recently returned to acting, and we
look forward to seeing more of him.
14. GOOD-BYE SAIGON
In the late ’70s through the ’80s, Hollywood discovered that Vietnam War films
were box-office gold. While these films often portrayed the experience of the
American soldier with understanding and depth, the Vietnamese were mostly
relegated to “extra” status or got screen time as caricatures. Whether they
were painted as dangerous psychotics (Full Metal Jacket, The Deer Hunter) or
just the faceless enemy (Platoon, Apocalypse Now), Hollywood seemed reluctant
to show audiences the humanity of the Vietnamese involved in the conflict. It
wasn’t until 1993 that a studio film, Oliver Stone’s Heaven and Earth, explored
the subject of the war from the perspective of those most directly involved.
13. BUGS BUNNY’S LESSON IN PATRIOTISM
Cartoons, like live-action films, are very much a product of their times. So
it’s no wonder that during World War II, when many movies portrayed the
Japanese as subhuman, animation followed the lead of live-action films. The
most offensive production may be a short cartoon released at the height of the
Second World War entitled Bugs Bunny Nips the Nips, which found our heroic
wabbit fighting a “Jap” soldier on a deserted South Pacific island. Of course,
Bugs triumphs in the end but not before introducing his audience (most of whom
were children) to some of the worst stereotyping of the Japanese since ...
actually, there was no precedent for anything this offensive in the world of
children’s cartoons.
12. BLACK KOREA
During the late ’80s and early ’90s, Korean Americans weren’t seeing much love
after the Latasha Harlins shooting, the L.A. riots and other well-publicized
incidents involving allegedly rude and sometimes violent Korean merchants in
the inner city. Hollywood jumped on the bandwagon and added to an already tense
environment by featuring a disproportionate amount of negative portrayals of
urban Korean merchants in films ranging from It Could Happen To You to Menace
II Society to Falling Down. We must note that Spike Lee’s Do The Right Thing is
a notable exception.
11. THE BIRTH OF THE YELLOW PERIL
Movies were only in their infancy when Cecil B. DeMille’s 1915 silent film The
Cheat set the template for how Hollywood would portray Asians for years to
come. The film starred Japanese-born Sessue Hayakawa as an inscrutable Asian
man who chases after a married Caucasian woman. Though Hayakawa gives a
charismatic performance that made him a star, The Cheat was the first major
Hollywood film to embrace a stereotypical view of Asians as the “Yellow Peril.”
Others quickly followed suit, including The Yellow Menace (1916), The Exploits
of Elaine (1916) and The Perils of Pauline (1919), where villainous Asians
lusted after the pure Caucasian heroines. Almost 100 years later, things
haven’t improved much.
Next week: The worst 10 flicks.
Philip W. Chung is a writer and co-artistic director of Lodestone Theatre
Ensemble.
http://news.asianweek.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=c9059dadeb244fc3bc5ca2c0e3248e2a
Re(1):
Asian Pacific Islanders in Hollywood
Posted on March 3,
2005 at 05:36:15 PM by John Cones
Philip:
Most of such instances come about because of a lack of diversity at the top in
Hollywood. That lack of diversity trickles down through many of the biased
decisions that are made relating to the production, financing and distribution
of films. It has always been less than fruitful, however, for a single interest
group to criticize Hollywood for it's lack of diversity. I have long advocated
that all of the Hollywood outsiders come together in a single organization and
work towards bringing about more diveristy at the top in Hollywood for the
benefit of everyone.
John Cones
Re(2):
Asian Pacific Islanders in Hollywood
Posted on March 3,
2005 at 09:52:52 PM by saurturion
yes a concerted effort would be better than one group going it alone. The
problem is that all minorities or affected groups are only concerned with their
welfare and as such their voices will continually be ignored
Re(3):
Asian Pacific Islanders in Hollywood
Posted on March 3,
2005 at 10:27:00 PM by John Cones
Well, we can put the idea out there and let it percolate around. Who knows,
maybe the various groups that have been complaining for years about the lack of
diversity in Hollywood, will eventually come together for more effective
action.
John Cones
Here's
An Idea!
Posted on March 4,
2005 at 12:09:29 PM by John Cones
Maybe the various and many organizations that have complained over the years
about how Hollywood films consistently depict their members should each extend
their own projects relating to the film industry to include (1) liaison with
other similarly situated groups, (2) share research regarding Hollywood motion
picture bias, (3) agree to join with these other groups in promoting consumer
boycotts (within the limits of the law) of major studio/distributor releases
that continue such patterns of bias.
John Cones
Re(1):
Here's An Idea!
Posted on March 4,
2005 at 11:49:37 PM by saurturion
great idea but our laissez faire mentality will retard progress
However, as you previously stated, the idea needs to be out there and the
interest groups motivated. This may take a while but it's either that or
everlasting complaining with little or no change
Re(2):
Here's An Idea!
Posted on March 5,
2005 at 00:10:27 AM by John Cones
Each interest group ought to create a movie review organization something like
the MovieGuide created by Ted Baehr and The Christian Film & Television
Commission. If each group would then commit to boycott MPAA films if one group
considered the film offensive, that would impact the MPAA companies where it
hurts. They may scream "First Amendment", but the truth is that they
have abused their right to free speech by using this powerful medium for
communicating ideas as their own propaganda tool, and forcing it on
unsuspecting moviegoers by force feeding with massive advertising and
promotion. It's time, the rest of the film industry, the independents, had a
shot. That would be real free speech.
John Cones
Re(3):
Here's An Idea!
Posted on March 7,
2005 at 05:31:04 PM by Mitchell Levine
Since when are boycotts imposed by private citizens a "free speech"
issue in the first place?
Re(4):
Here's An Idea!
Posted on March 7,
2005 at 08:02:23 PM by saurturion
so you find Hollywood 100% perfect?
boycotts are (and have always been) an expression of the freedon of speech
Re(5):
Here's An Idea!
Posted on March 7,
2005 at 08:25:32 PM by Mitchell Levine
That doesn't answer my question: in what way are boycotts a violation of the
1st Amendment rights of the studios in the first place?
The 1st Amendment protects you from criminal prosecution, not rejection by
consumers.
Re(6):
Here's An Idea!
Posted on March 8,
2005 at 11:19:37 PM by saurturion
You asked: "Since when are boycotts imposed by private citizens a
"free speech" issue in the first place?"
Answer: When my free speech allows me to protest
Then you asked: "in what way are boycotts a violation of the 1st Amendment
rights of the studios in the first place?"
Which seems to be another question.
The original post is : "Each interest group ought to create a movie review
organization something like the MovieGuide created by Ted Baehr and The
Christian Film & Television Commission. If each group would then commit to
boycott MPAA films if one group considered the film offensive, that would
impact the MPAA companies where it hurts. They may scream "First
Amendment", but the truth is that they have abused their right to free
speech by using this powerful medium for communicating ideas as their own
propaganda tool, and forcing it on unsuspecting moviegoers by force feeding
with massive advertising and promotion. It's time, the rest of the film
industry, the independents, had a shot. That would be real free speech. "
which simply means that the 'freedom of speech' line used by studios to protect
themselves from criticism should not prevent others from protesting if they
want to. What so hard to understand in that?
Your questions are unwarranted and seem to be putting 'word in the mouth' of
someone when none of those words were uttered
Q
& A With Sharon Waxman
Posted on March 5,
2005 at 10:48:09 PM by Hia
I've read that "Spike Jonze" is Jewish or half Jewish...
I assumed Steven Soderbergh was Jewish...
Gould (née Elliott Goldstein), who committed a Tischkoff-like faux paswhen he
asked if director Steven Soderbergh was Jewish. "He said, 'No, I'm
Swedish,' and I said, 'Well, you know, Swedish is a nationality,while Jewish is
a way of life,'" Gould recalls. Soderbergh looked nonplused. "Hey,
it's OK with me," the actor quickly added. "I hope I haven't blown
the job."well...???
2005-03-04
Q & A With Sharon Waxman
by Amy Klein, Managing Editor
http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=13728
If you loved movies like "Pulp Fiction," "Fight Club,"
"Traffic,""Being John Malkovitch," "Boogie
Nights" and "Three Kings," then you
should probably read Sharon Waxman's new book, "Rebels on the Backlot: Six
Maverick Directors and How They Conquered the Hollywood Studio System"
(HarperEntertainment 2005).
Waxman has covered Hollywood for The New York Times for a year and for The
Washington Post for eight, and in her eminently readable and well-researched
book, she encapsulates the 1990s through the breakout films of six young
directors: Quentin Tarantino, Steven Soderbergh, David Fincher, Paul Thomas
Anderson, David. O. Russell and Spike Jonze: Waxman, 41, talks to The Journal
about filmmaking, about being an observer to "this foreign country"
of Hollywood and about the biggest taboo subject of all: Being Jewish in
Hollywood.
JJ: What do these filmmakers have in common?
SW: I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that [they] are all
extremely driven, that they're extremely individualistic, that they are wedded
to their ideas, to what they want to create as filmmakers, and that they don't
want to budge from that. They're egotistical — but I don't think they're more
egotistical than anyone I come across in Hollywood, not more egotistical than
the average Hollywood director (egotistical not in a bad sense). Directors (and
screenwriters) are the most interesting people you meet in Hollywood because
they're very different. To be a great director requires so
many different talents...
JJ: How else are they similar?
SW: All of them are guys, they're all white, from an upper-middle-class
environment, all had broken homes and tortured
relationships with their mothers and fathers. The common point is that they
were driven from a very young age to make movies.
JJ: Are any of them Jewish?
SW: No. Except David O. Russell is half Jewish. (His father was Bernard
Markovski, the name of the main character in "I (Heart)
Huckabees.")
JJ: If you read histories of Hollywood or look at the old studio system and the
people who were making movies, it really did seem as if
the Jews were running the system. But none of your book's main characters are
Jewish.
SW: The directors aren't Jewish, but the executives are still more often than
not. There's a very large Jewish presence in Hollywood. Maybe it's a bit less
than it was at the studios — I guess it's no longer 100 percent. But there are
a large number of Jewish people in powerful positions.
JJ: Yet, no one wants to talk about being Jewish in Hollywood...
SW: The Jewish question in Hollywood is the most taboo subject in Hollywood.
JJ: Why?
SW: There's a reluctance to highlight the fact that there are a large number of
Jews in Hollywood, because there's a concern that people will take that to mean
there's some kind of Jewish influence or cabal, and people don't want to feed
into false negative stereotypes.
JJ: Does being Jewish have any value in Hollywood?
SW: I think that it's just part of the culture of Hollywood. In "A Mighty
Wind," Christopher Guest plays this Swedish music producer who
speaks in Yiddish the whole time, [saying] "he's so meshuggene" — and
it's so hilarious, it's a gentle satire that there is a Jewish
character to Hollywood. Here's a Swedish character who can throw in Yiddish
[because that's the] tone of the culture that he's living in.
That's a reality.
JJ: Does it help to be Jewish in Hollywood?
SW: Just like if you are from Detroit, and you want to get a job in
the auto industry, and you have relatives at the Ford Motor Co., so
you have that connection; from that standpoint [if you're Jewish in
Hollywood] you might have that advantage going for you, if you grow up
in a connected Jewish community then there might be someone in the
system you could reach out to...
JJ: Is that a sensitive point for you?
SW: I think that it's a sensitive question that deserves a sensitive answer,
because I wouldn't deny that there are a lot of Jews in Hollywood. I am not
"The Jews of Hollywood," I am just one person, I am a reporter. I
think there's a desire to not be lumped together and
not be a target, but at the same time I would never deny that there's a lot of
Jews in Hollywood and there is a certain Jewish
characteristic to the industry.
JJ: How is it to be part of the Hollywood community and the Jewish
community?
SW: I'm observing Hollywood as a reporter. The day that I become
"part" of Hollywood is the day I should stop covering Hollywood. I'm
an observer, I'm not a joiner. I'm not part of synagogues and denominations or
any of that stuff. I think that the challenges to me
personally in the job that I have and in the Jewish community that I live are
personal challenges. Similar to the way every parent here does, my husband and
I are trying to raise our [three] children with good values in a very
materialistic and often superficial place that is wealthy Los Angeles.
Re(1):
Q & A With Sharon Waxman
Posted on March 7,
2005 at 08:30:55 PM by Chicago
"There's a reluctance to highlight the fact that there are a large number
of Jews in Hollywood, because there's a concern that people will take that to
mean there's some kind of Jewish influence or cabal, and people don't want to
feed into false negative stereotypes."
False negative stereotypes???? Please!!!!!
Yeah, how absurd! It would be completely crazy to conclude that a large number
of Jews in powerful positions would mean that Jews had any real influence!!!
Re(2):
Q & A With Sharon Waxman
Posted on March 8,
2005 at 05:11:45 PM by Mitchell Levine
It also doesn't "prove" that Hollywood is a giant Jewish conspiracy
either.
Re(1):
Q & A With Sharon Waxman
Posted on March 6,
2005 at 08:44:49 PM by Frankie
Waxman the "outsider" to Hollywood? She is Jewish. She has worked as
a journalist for the New York Times and Washington Post. The Sulzbergers that
own the Times are Jewish. The Grahams that own the Post had a Jewish father.
Both papers are top-heavy with Jews in editorial positions. Ms. Waxman got the
job to cover Hollywood with no experience in that particular field.
African-American
Stereotypes
Posted on March 7,
2005 at 04:48:47 PM by John Cones
The following article from Black Enterprise magazine is posted in its entirety
as an illustration of the continuing bias of Hollywood motion pictures:
A Picture of Black Entreprneurship?
by Earl G. Graves, Sr.
The MGM/United Artists film Soul Plane - a comedy about what happens when a
black man uses a $100 million civil judgement to start an airline - presents
some of the worst, most racist depictions of African Americans in recent
memory. It's a sign of the persistence of racism in the film industry that, in
2004, studios continue to resist investing money in quality films about black
life. Instead, they finance movies, such as Soul Plane, that perpetuate the
same false, damaging, and dangerous stereotypes of African Americans promoted
by the notorious Ku Klux Klan propaganda film Birth of A Nation nearly a
century ago. Soul Plane's depiction of the black entrepreneur as irresponsible,
incompetent, and unqualified can be all too believable to people unfamiliar
with the reality of black entrepreneurship.
Nashawn Wade, the protagonist played by actor Kevin Hart in the MGM/United
Artists film Soul Plane, says, "I'm an entrepreneur. I'm going to do
something I can be proud of."
Unfortunately, that sentiment is the only thing in the film that is true to the
legacy of black entrepreneurship. The remaining hour and 25 minutes of the
film-a comedy about what happens when a black man uses a $100 million civil
judgement to start an airline-goes on to present some of the worst, most racist
depictions of African Americans in recent memory. The film runs the gamut of
stereotypes, presenting black people as foul-mouthed, fried chicken-loving,
sex-obsessed, shuckin' and jivin' hoochies, hustlers, and buffoons.
It's a sign of the persistence of racism in the film industry that, in 2004,
studios continue to resist investing money in quality films about black life.
Instead, they finance movies, such as Soul Plane, that perpetuate the same
false, damaging, and dangerous stereotypes of African Americans promoted by the
notorious Ku Klux Klan propaganda film Birth of A Nation nearly a century ago.
In fact, there is not one positive portrayal of a black person in the entire
movie. And perhaps the most damaging stereotype of all is that of Wade himself,
who, as the CEO of the airline (he allows an unqualified, drug-abusing
ex-convict to pilot his plane), portrays black entrepreneurs and black-owned
businesses in the worst possible light.
"What's the problem?" you may ask. "It's a comedy. Everybody
knows that the characters in the film don't represent all black people."
The problem is that too many people learn most of what they know about black
people from images promoted in film, television, music videos, and even video
games. Those distorted and often racist images are then exported to countries
around the globe to be consumed by people who become convinced that the images
they see are completely accurate representations of African American people and
culture. Although Soul Plane was a flop in U.S. theaters (fortunately, the film
was roundly panned for being truly unfunny, as well as racist), the fact
remains that it will be promoted heavily in movie theaters in foreign markets,
via DVD/video rental, pay-per-view, and home video. :
Soul Planes depiction of the black entrepreneur as irresponsible, incompetent,
and unqualified can be all too believable to people unfamiliar with the reality
of black entrepreneurship. Such negative portrayals can have a chilling effect
on the efforts of black entrepreneurs to raise $100 million in capital in the
real world, or deal with people (including those who decide what films will or
will not be financed) already unwilling or unable to see past the stereotypes.
While funny, irreverent, and honest movies that portray black-owned enterprises
are painfully rare, we know they can be made. For example, Eddie Murphy's 1992
film Boomerangwas set against the backdrop of a polished, chic, and successful
black cosmetics firm, not unlike the types of businesses that can be found
among the be 100s. And O'Shea "Ice Cube" Jackson's 2002 film
Barbershop perfectly captured the important connection between black-owned
businesses and the communities they serve. It's no coincidence that both films
were box office hits-and not just with African American audiences.
As we celebrate the 34th anniversary of the publication of the first issue of
BLACK ENTERPRISE, eradicating , false and negative stereotypes of the black
entrepreneur and black-owned enterprises remains at the core of our mission.
Our commitment to our readers is to produce honest and accurate portrayals of
black entrepreneurs and their businesses. Whether our stories are fictionalized
or factually reported, our black business legacy requires us all to do
something of which we can be proud.
“A Picture of Black Entreprneurship?”, Earl G. Graves, Sr., Black Enterprise,
Aug. 2004, Vol. 35, Issue 1, page 12
Re(1):
African-American Stereotypes
Posted on March 7,
2005 at 06:00:34 PM by Mitchell Levine
Someone should tell Hollywood African Americans like Chuck Wilson of Soul Plane
and Keenan Ivory Wayans and Martin Lawrence to stop making cliched, offensive
films.
Re(2):
African-American Stereotypes
Posted on March 7,
2005 at 08:06:55 PM by saurturion
wouldn't a boycott be better?
Re(3):
African-American Stereotypes
Posted on March 7,
2005 at 08:26:06 PM by Mitchell Levine
Probably, because the largest ticketbuyers of such films are typically African
Americans.
Re(4):
African-American Stereotypes
Posted on March 8,
2005 at 11:07:35 PM by saurturion
exactly, they're brainwashed into accepting racism as progression for their
'race'
much like Asians
Asian
Pacific Islanders in Hollywood II
Posted on March 7,
2005 at 07:57:49 PM by saurturion
Hollywood's 25 Worst APA Blunders
Second of Two Parts
By Philip W. Chung, Mar 04, 2005
Hollywood has often been referred to as the “dream factory.” But dreams can
also turn into nightmares, and for Asian Pacific Americans struggling to make a
mark, those nightmares are oftentimes more common than not. This week, we count
down the top 10 most embarrassing moments in Hollywood history with regards to
its depiction of APAs. They are the biggest blunders and mistakes that have
been made on the big and small screens. Some of them are harmless mistakes or
minor offenses, while others had more tragic consequences. But all show that
throughout its long history, Hollywood has often just been downright clueless.
And now, to paraphrase Alice Cooper, “Welcome to our nightmare ... ”
10. SLAYING THE DRAGON
When director Michael Cimino and writer Oliver Stone joined creative forces to
make 1985’s Year of the Dragon, a film about a Caucasian cop (Mickey Rourke)
who wages war against Asian gangsters in New York’s Chinatown, APAs came
together for the largest organized protest against a film that the community
had undertaken up to that point. The protest showed that APAs were no longer
going to silently let Hollywood walk over them. The community didn’t forget its
collective power born from that experience and continued to effectively rally
against future offenses including the Broadway play Miss Saigon and Hollywood’s
xenophobic take on Michael Crichton’s Japan-bashing novel Rising Sun.
9. CHAN BAN
Between 1926 and 1949, Hollywood produced a series of successful films based on
Earl Derr Biggers’ most famous character — the Chinese detective Charlie Chan.
Chan may have been prone to spouting fortune-cookie wisdom, but for the most
part, he wasn’t as negative a creation as his contemporary Fu Manchu was (see
next entry). But as with Manchu, no actor of Asian descent was ever allowed to
play the most popular fictional Asian character in American cinema. Everyone
from Warner Oland to Peter Ustinov (in an awful 1981 attempt to revive the
series) got a shot at the part. And though there are constant rumors of another
cinematic attempt that would finally right this wrong (everyone from B.D. Wong
to Chow Yun-Fat to, most recently, Lucy Liu has been mentioned as reviving the
franchise), nothing has yet to materialize.
8. FU MANCHU
Along with Charlie Chan, Fu Manchu may be the most recognizable Asian character
in the annals of American pop culture. But while Chan represented the
well-behaved-Asian stereotype, Manchu was evil to the core and took the “Yellow
Peril” threat to new heights. The portrayal began with the 1929 thriller The
Mysterious Fu Manchu, starring Warner Oland, who became so good at playing
Asian that he gained fame as Chan. The character was then played by Boris
Karloff (he gained fame playing Frankenstein), Christopher Lee (the evil wizard
in The Lord of the Rings trilogy) and, most recently, the great Peter Sellers
in a truly awful 1980 revival. As with Chan, there are continuing rumors that
Hollywood will resurrect the character. And I’m sure APAs all across the
country are anxiously awaiting this possibility with baited breath.
7. NOT WELL HUNG
When William Hung became the break-out star of last season’s reality TV show
American Idol for all the wrong reasons, America was introduced to the biggest
racist joke about APAs since Mickey Rooney donned yellowface for Breakfast at
Tiffany’s (see No. 2). Hung personified every negative stereotype of the Asian
male and parlayed that into his own 15 minutes of fame, releasing an album that
made Milli Vanilli sound like the Beatles and even shooting a movie in Hong
Kong. Hung plans on releasing a second album and says he would like to star in
more movies but only wants to play the good-guy roles. William, if you really
want to be the good guy, please just go away.
6. ALL-AMERICAN GRUEL
Ten years ago, Margaret Cho was one of the hottest comedians around, so ABC
naturally gave her a sitcom, All-American Girl. So far, so good. But then the
network and the show’s producers stripped the series of Cho’s original, funny
and raunchy voice to offer viewers a watered-down version of a family sitcom
instead — a move that made about as much sense as sticking Chris Rock into the
cast of Leave It To Beaver. So it wasn’t surprising when the show turned out to
be a critical and commercial disappointment and drew the ire of the APA
community. But Cho got the last laugh years later, when she hilariously
skewered the All-American Girl experience in her tour-de-force one-woman show
I’m The One That I Want.
5. THE WONG DECISION
In 1937, Anna May Wong was the biggest APA star in Hollywood, so it seemed
logical to think she would be a shoo-in for the part of the loving wife O-Lan
in MGM’s film adaptation of Pearl Buck’s The Good Earth. But Hollywood thought
non-Asian Luise Rainer could do a better job, and indeed she went on to win an
Academy Award for her performance. Legend has it that producer Irving Thalberg
offered Wong the much smaller part of Lotus, but Wong turned it down, refusing
to take a supporting role in a movie about her own people while Caucasian
actors in yellowface played the leads.
4. THE DONGER NEED RESPECT
If you’re an APA male of a certain age (20s to 30s), it’s very likely that you
were subject to racist schoolyard taunts of “The Donger need food!” and “Whass
happenin,’ hot stuff?” after the 1984 John Hughes teen comedy Sixteen Candles
hit the screen. That film introduced audiences to arguably the most infamous
APA character in contemporary pop culture — Gedde Watanabe’s hard-partying,
foreign exchange student Long Duk Dong. At the time of its release, APAs cried
racism, but 20 years later, it’s easier to appreciate Watanabe’s comic gem of a
performance, which is on a par with other classic teen portrayals like John
Belushi’s slob in Animal House and Sean Penn’s stoned-out surfer in Fast Times
at Ridgemont High.
3. HOWE DO YOU EXPLAIN THIS?
Chinese American cinematographer James Wong Howe is a Hollywood legend: He won
two Academy Awards, pioneered innovative camera techniques and inspired
countless filmmakers who came after him. But being one of the best in his field
was no protection against the racism in Tinseltown during its Golden Era. He
was passed over for jobs; not allowed to sit at the same table in restaurants
with his Caucasian wife, Sanora Babb; and was mistaken for a janitor during a
Life magazine photo shoot of Hollywood’s top cameramen. Once when a newspaper
photographer came to shoot photos for the opening of Howe’s café, Howe offered
advice on what lens to use to help the novice photographer. “Just stick to your
chop suey,” the photographer replied, unaware of whom he was speaking to, “and
let me take the pictures.”
2. THE BREAKFAST FLUB
At the top of the list of otherwise near-perfect films marred by racism (Birth
of a Nation and Gone With the Wind also come to mind), you’re sure to find
Breakfast at Tiffany’s. Considered by many to be the quintessential romantic
film, Breakfast at Tiffany’s does seem to have everything going for it: a
luminous performance by Audrey Hepburn, the light-on-its-feet directing touch
of Blake Edwards and Henry Mancini’s unforgettable score (including the
standard “Moon River”). Unfortunately, the film also boasts Mickey Rooney’s
offensive yellowface take on the Japanese landlord. Arguably the most
stereotypical portrayal of an APA character ever captured on celluloid, which
begs the question: What the hell were they thinking?
1. DEATH ON THE SET
In the early morning hours of July 23, 1982, director John Landis was shooting
the climactic Vietnamese-village scene for his segment of Twilight Zone: The
Movie. The scene would involve actor Vic Morrow carrying two Vietnamese
children (played by Renee Chen and Myca Dinh Le) across a river while
pyrotechnics went off around them. But tragedy ensued when a helicopter being
used in the shot went out of control and killed Morrow and the two children.
Despite evidence that filmmakers had created an “unsafe” atmosphere on the set,
Landis and his crew were eventually cleared of any wrongdoing. But the incident
still remains one of the most horrific in Hollywood history — all the more
tragic because two young children had to die so that audiences could once again
be entertained by the magic of the movies.
http://news.asianweek.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=44fbf077526c5c7cc4921d19516fa2d5
sian Pacific Islanders in Hollywood II
Re(1):
Asian Pacific Islanders in Hollywood II
Posted on March 8,
2005 at 12:18:59 PM by John Cones
Thanks for the post. These are the sorts of things that inevitably occur when
any particular group filters the stories of other cultural groups through the
filter of their own perspective. For such purposes, it doesn't matter who the
control group is, the fact is that an important medium like film cannot be
dominated by any single group, no matter how defined if we want to maintain a
strong democracy. After all, our democracy is supposed to be based on a
vigorous free marketplace of ideas. But if any narrowly defined Hollywood
control group is consistently disseminating films that mostly provide their
cultural perspective and not the perspective of other people who are Hollywood
outsiders, that's just one group's propaganda, and the rest of us are tired of
putting up with it!
The examples posted above of the Hollywood film indignities suffered by Asian
Pacific Islanders are representative of the same sorts of indignities suffered
by every other racial, cultural, religious, national and regional group that is
not fairly represented in the ranks of Hollywood's top management.
John Cones
Re(2):
Asian Pacific Islanders in Hollywood II
Posted on March 8,
2005 at 11:08:23 PM by saurturion
you're welcome Mr. Cones
Control
Group?
Posted on March 14,
2005 at 11:19:27 AM by a cheap date
So, is the film industry (and communications in general) largely controlled by
people of one religious persuasion or not?
Re(1):
Control Group?
Posted on March 14,
2005 at 12:24:03 PM by John Cones
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).
Re(2):
Control Group?
Posted on March 14,
2005 at 05:16:38 PM by a cheap date
Not according to your pal Mitch Levine. None of this is true in his universe.
Just the ramblings of a conspiracy nut...
Re(3):
Control Group?
Posted on March 14,
2005 at 08:09:08 PM by Mitchell Levine
We all have the right to our opinions.
Re(4):
Control Group?
Posted on March 15,
2005 at 04:33:33 PM by a cheap date
Do you agree with the information in John's reply---mainly, that Hollywood and
motion pictures are controlled by Jewish males and that the content we see is
tightly controlled based on what they deem fit to fund and produce?
Or do you not believe this to be the case at all--that there is no control
group and that even though it could be shown that most of the execs in the
industry are Jewish, that it has no effect on the types of movies produced and
their content?
I've tried to read through the posts here and you guys seem to go back and
forth on all kinds of stuff. This is a pretty basic set of questions though.
Re(5):
Control Group?
Posted on March 15,
2005 at 07:02:18 PM by Mitchell Levine
Do you agree with the information in John's reply---mainly, that Hollywood and
motion pictures are controlled by Jewish males and that the content we see is
tightly controlled based on what they deem fit to fund and produce?
- I agree in some aspects and not others.
For one, what "controls" what we see is primarily what people buy
tickets to see and what they wish to buy tickets to see.
Also, while it's true that Jewish males are predominantly CEOs, there are many
non-Jewish executives, producers and directors at lower levels, and it's not
the CEOs of the studios that are primarily choosing what films get made.
For example, there's certainly no evidence that non-Jewish Faye Vincent's tenure
at Columbia radically altered the output of that studio.
Also, it's NOT true that members of a particular ethnic group expressing their
opinions or just telling stories constitutes "propaganda," because
that refers to intentional misinformation.
However, I'm NOT saying that more diversity wouldn't be a good thing or a
desirable goal. What will achieve it will be time.
Or do you not believe this to be the case at all--that there is no control
group and that even though it could be shown that most of the execs in the
industry are Jewish, that it has no effect on the types of movies produced and
their content?
- It's not necessarily true that most of the execs in the business are Jewish -
John's only claiming that the CEOs are primarily Jewish, which is true.
And the real "control group," I believe, is the ticketbuying
audience. If the executives at the studios financed just what they want to see,
we'd see a lot fewer films starring extreme sports stars and rappers.
Conversely, if the public stopped wanting to see films about the Holocaust and
didn't buy tickets, they'd stop being made.
Re(2):
Control Group?
Posted on March 14,
2005 at 05:09:36 PM by a cheap date
Why is Hollywood such a central spot if there are so many people to reach in
the marketplace and so much unrealized creativity out there? I guess I'm
wondering why there aren't more centers for movie-making that are better or
that put out higher quality products?
There seems to be a lot of money in filmmaking. Technology abounds and barriers
to entry appear to be small (a la Blair Witch). So, where are the entrepreneurs
that are willing to jump into the industry to collect on the returns that are
there? How much has Mel's film made so far? It can be done, how come there
aren't more Mels?
Movies have become myopic and almost commoditized. In short, they're
predictable. I did a little survey of some people I work with and they
generally agreed that only about 10% of all films made are worth sitting
through. Only 10% of those are 'great' films. Maybe I'm not asking the right
questions, but is this perception because of THE control group or simply A
control group?
My opinion is that it doesn't really matter who the control group is, but that
ANY control group can only diminish the arts. As soon as a group of people can
begin to monopolize something, it starts to 'jump the shark' as Howard Stern
would say. Movies have jumped the shark. So have the news, pop culture,
magazines, even certain genre's of books. 15 minutes of fame mean everything,
content means nothing.
Re(3):
Control Group?
Posted on March 17,
2005 at 08:25:52 PM by Joe Wiz
:Why is Hollywood such a central spot if there are so many people to reach in
the marketplace and so much unrealized creativity out there? I guess I'm wondering
why there aren't more centers for movie-making that are better or that put out
higher quality products?
Because the studios monopolize the distribution channels idiot!!!!
Joe
Empty
Argument
Posted on March 17,
2005 at 12:53:37 PM by John Cones
So much of the pro-Hollywood argument posted on this site is simply without
merit. For example, for someone to suggest that the FIRM position has ever been
that Hollywood is "tightly controlled" is just plain wrong. No such
position has ever been expressed. Thus, arguing about such a non-existent
position is a waste of time.
In addition, suggesting as the Hollywood apologists have for years, that
audiences really determine the kind of movies that are made, simply runs
counter to the reality that hundreds of millions of dollars are spent each year
by the major studio/distributors in advertising, marketing and promoting their
films,using the most sophisticated of techniques, while more often than not,
blatantly misleading prospecitve audiences about the nature of an upcoming
film. Most recent example, Million Dollar Baby. If Hollywood films were really
being made to meet the needs of audiences, there would be no need to spend so
much money on their marketing, and it would not be necessary to mislead the
public.
John Cones
Re(1):
Empty Argument
Posted on March 17,
2005 at 03:16:15 PM by saurturion
what is OBVIOUS to you is not to the ones who want to 'play in the dark
recesses of their minds' such that truth becomes lies and lies, truth
The
Ripples Are Working
Posted on March 17,
2005 at 02:34:17 PM by John Cones
Part of the FIRM mission is to raise issues that no one else seems willing to
raise and to stimulate reasonable and meaningful discussion of those issues.
Some of that discussion may not even take place on this forum. This may be
referred to as the ripple effect of an idea. Evidence that the ripple effect is
working appears in the form of an article entitled "Will Mega-Media
Mergers Destroy Hollywood and Democracy?" written by James Talbott and
published in the Entertainment and Sports Lawyer in the Spring of 2000. Mr.
Talbott took a more politically correct approach to the relationship between
lack of diversity at the top in Hollywood and our democracy than in my essay
"Hollywood's Threat to Democracy", but nonetheless the idea is
percolating. It is also satisfying that Mr. Talbott cited my
"Chronological History of Movies and Antitrust" which appears in my
self-published book "Politics, Movies and the Role of Government".
John Cones
Arguments
of the Hollywood Apologists
Posted on March 24,
2005 at 04:04:31 PM by John Cones
The FIRM film industry observations were first published in 1995 and have
appeared continuously online at the Film Industry Reform Movement site under
“Film Industry Observations” (http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/observe.htm).
Interestingly, the accuracy of such observations has never been challenged with
any credible evidence. The tactic of the Hollywood apologists instead, has been
to attempt to distract attention from the accuracy of these observations by
putting forth the following false arguments:
▪ the historical argument – we were discriminated against first therefore
it’s ok for us to do what we are doing in Hollywood today – 100 years later
(but that’s the old two wrongs don’t make a right argument);
▪ the “you can’t prove discrimination therefore it does not exist” argument
-- (when discrimination is always difficult to prove, victims of discrimination
in Hollywood know that if they complain their career is over and the lack of
diversity at the top in Hollywood is sufficient evidence to reveal the
problem);
▪ the tokenism argument -- one or two exceptions to a long established
pattern of bias in motion picture content or continued patterns of favoritism,
cronyism, nepotism and other forms of discrimination demonstrate that such
patterns no longer exist – which is like reasoning from a representative
sampling of one);
▪ the name-calling argument – nobody would make such observations unless
they were prejudice, therefore you must be antisemitic when simply observing
and reporting the facts.
John Cones
The
one serious subject Hollywood doesn't avoid
Posted on March 27,
2005 at 07:22:44 PM by Kev
Ukraine tycoon funds documentary about Holocaust
KIEV, Ukraine: A Ukrainian tycoon will team up with Steven Spielberg to produce
a documentary about Holocaust victims in Ukraine, an official from a Holocaust
foundation said Tuesday.
Viktor Pinchuk, a coal and steel magnate, and Spielberg will be co-executive
producers of a documentary about the Holocaust in Ukraine based on more than
3,000 videotaped interviews of survivors and witnesses, said Douglas Greenberg,
the director of the Shoah Visual History Foundation based in Los Angeles.
Re(1):
The one serious subject Hollywood doesn't avoid
Posted on June 24,
2005 at 01:36:46 PM by Enough already
Jewish swim team makes its watermark on life
By ROBERT W. BUTLER The Kansas City Star
“Watermarks” is ostensibly about Hakoah Vienna, the Austrian Jewish sports club
that from 1909 until the eve of World War II was a major force in European
athletics and dominated women's swimming.
But what this documentary is really about is growing old with dignity and
defiance.
Israeli director Yaron Zilberman tracked down members of Hakoah's final women's
swim team, women now in their 80s who escaped the Holocaust and live all over
the world.
He conducted interviews with these bright, opinionated and vibrant individuals
and invited them to return to Vienna for one last lap in the pool where they
spent so much of their youth.
“Watermarks” starts a one-week run today at the Tivoli as part of that
theater's Film Forum series. The film covers Hakoah's history, from its
founding at the turn of the century (because Christian sports clubs refused to
admit Jews) to its three decades of winning ways. With 3,000 members, Hakoah
was the world's largest sports club, sending numerous athletes to the Olympic
Games to represent Austria.
Winning was fun, certainly, but Hakoah's athletes were doing something more:
defying the stereotype of the physically weak Jewish bookworm.
Zilberman puts to good use an impressive collection of films and photographs of
Hakoah athletes at work and play, alternates them with talking-head footage of
his subjects, and ties it together with some nifty editing and sound tricks
that impart a bit of pizzazz to materials that in other hands might seem
uncinematic.
But the film's real power comes from the women's personalities. Their prescient
coach, who spirited the women swimmers out of the country after the German
annexation of Austria in 1938, spared them the grim fate of so many of their
Jewish countrymen.
As a result “Watermarks” isn't a “Holocaust movie.” It's about a way of
approaching life and death, of living in the moment. Separated from their
families, the city they had grown up in and the culture that had nourished
them, these women created new, fulfilling lives.
These are not nice little grandma types. They are college professors and a
world-class psychologist. One woman figuratively goes to the mat with director
Zilberman to receive his assurances that while wearing a swimsuit she be filmed
only in the pool.
The trip to Vienna is the film's climax. The sights remind the women of the
last months in the city, when anti-Semitism was on the rise. A cabaret
performer sings the compositions of famed Jewish composer Herman Leopoldi,
including “The Buchenwald March,” a tune the Nazis forced Leopoldi to write
while in that notorious concentration camp.
The husband of one of the Hakoah women thinks the singer has “gone too far,”
that the song is in bad taste.
His wife, though, disagrees. It's life, she says. You've got to take the bad
with the good.
Re(1):
The one serious subject Hollywood doesn't avoid
Posted on April 4,
2005 at 11:09:42 PM by Imaginary Witness
Imaginary Witness: Hollywood and the Holocaust
2004 - USA - Biography/Military & War/Social History/Race &
Ethnicity/Film & Television History
PLOT DESCRIPTION
The American film industry took it upon itself to act as a cheerleader for
United States and Allied military interests during World War II, but Hollywood
was initially reluctant to directly condemn Nazi anti-Semitism, and it wasn't
until years after the war ended that American filmmakers began offering a
realistic, dramatic look at the horrible toll of Hitler's "final
solution." Imaginary Witness: Hollywood and the Holocaust is a documentary
which examines how filmmakers reacted to German scapegoating of Jews before,
during, and after the war, ranging from the boldness of Confessions of a Nazi
Spy and The Mortal Storm (both of which were produced before America entered
the war) to more oblique statements during the war itself, and then finally
leading to an honest portrayal of the full consequences of the Holocaust
beginning in the '50s.
Produced for the cable television network American Movie Classics, Imaginary
Witness: Hollywood and the Holocaust was premiered at the 2004 Tribeca Film
Festival. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide
Re(1):
The one serious subject Hollywood doesn't avoid
Posted on March 29,
2005 at 00:34:39 AM by if the shoe fits
Another holocaust movie? Spielberg is fixated. The list of movies like this
from Steve is getting really long, and in a slew of other movies he's made
there are references to the holocaust and nazis and the like.
Guess continual reminders of the inhumanity are necessary, but they don't seem
to be having much effect on the frequency of repetition. Darfur, Rwanda,
Chechnya, Bosnia--still happening a lot. Depending upon where your sitting, you
could add Iraq, China, Indonesia and few other places to the list. Steve has
made movies about all kinds of genocide. Amistad was about the slave trade. He
has a new TV series called "Into the West" about the extermination of
the American Indian. Guy is fascinated with suffering.
Is film really the best way to reach people about death camps and genocide? If
the point of making these types of films is to alert the viewing public or to
remind them of the horrors men inflict on one another, then I suppose they've
worked. If this awareness is supposed to prevent current and future holocausts,
then they are a dismal failure. Of course, anyone that makes films is a
marketeer of their interpretation. Maybe it's that Spielberg understands that
we all need a periodic does of our own inhumanity? A few billion dollars later,
he get's an "A" for that skill.
Re(2):
The one serious subject Hollywood doesn't avoid
Posted on March 29,
2005 at 12:57:11 PM by Mitchell Levine
Guy is fascinated with suffering.
- So is virtually everyone else: it's dramatic.
If the point of making these types of films is to alert the viewing public or
to remind them of the horrors men inflict on one another, then I suppose
they've worked.
- That's been an important theme in art throughout all of history.
Re(1):
The one serious subject Hollywood doesn't avoid
Posted on March 28,
2005 at 09:39:51 PM by Mitchell Levine
I hardly think that's the ONLY serious subject Hollywood doesn't avoid.
Look how Million Dollar Baby dealt with the very serious and suddenly topical
question of euthanasia.
Re(2):
The one serious subject Hollywood doesn't avoid
Posted on March 29,
2005 at 03:15:37 PM by saurturion
I hardly think that's the ONLY serious subject Hollywood doesn't avoid
quite right
it also avoids showing that Americans have raped the Third World blind
it also doesn't avoid shows that are revisionist (re: Pearl Harbor) or where
the Americans save the world and are the only ones capable of protecting earth
(re: Armageddon)
Re(3):
The one serious subject Hollywood doesn't avoid
Posted on March 29,
2005 at 03:41:10 PM by Mitchell Levine
For better or for worse, American film will tend to depict America as America
wishes to be seen, much the same way as Japanese history textbooks refuse to
discuss the Rape of Nanking.
There will be some exceptions to that rule, but that's primarily what American
ticketbuyers want to pay to see.
Re(4):
The one serious subject Hollywood doesn't avoid
Posted on March 30,
2005 at 01:26:47 AM by saurturion
yes you folks want to live in la la land
More
Illogical Arguments
Posted on March 30,
2005 at 07:07:57 PM by John Cones
More Illogical Arguments
FIRM has conducted years of research covering tens of thousands of motion
pictures and demonstrating that patterns of bias exit in Hollywood movies.
Those multiple patterns of bias are set forth at the FIRM site as excerpts from
the books: Patterns of Bias in Motion Picture Content, Motion Picture
Biographies – The Hollywood Spin on Historical Figures and A Study in Motion Picture
Propaganda – Hollywood’s Preferred Movie Messages. Only one of several of those
preferred messages is the constant and continuing promotion of messages through
film relating to the so-called Jewish Holocaust of WWII in lieu of other
ongoing and continuing more contemporary tragedies. Thus, it is not FIRM’s
position that the so-called Jewish Holocaust of WWII is “the one serious
subject that Hollywood does not avoid”, but that it is one of many subjects
Hollywood prefers (to the exclusion of others), and since the subject is so
inextricably intertwined with the Hollywood insiders (i.e., those who have the
power to determine which movies are made and released by the major
studio/distributors), the constant repetition of such subjects in movies rises
to the status of propaganda.
At this discussion forum, the exaggerated statement that the Jewish Holocaust
of WWII is “the one serious subject that Hollywood does not avoid” prompts a
mere semantical response from the Hollywood apologist community. In other words,
the focus of the counter-argument is merely about whether this subject is the
one subject that Hollywood does not avoid. The truth is in between these two
arguments – the subject is one of many subjects that Hollywood propagandists
prefer to communicate through this powerful medium for the communication of
ideas.
Further, it is laughable that a single movie like Million Dollar Baby would be
trotted out as an example of Hollywood’s willingness to address serious
subjects in their movies. Such an argument is merely another example of the
false argument that to it is fair and appropriate to argue from a so-called
“reasonable representative sampling of one” As pointed out by Claude Brodesser
in his Variety article (“Million' not an easy sell – 'Baby' wasn't always a
sure thing” Variety, February 27, 2005) “Like many great films, Clint
Eastwood's ‘Million Dollar Baby’ nearly wasn't born. Over the years, it lurched
between existing and nothingness and several times nearly wound up as something
else altogether: An Anjelica Huston indie. An HBO miniseries. A Robert Benton
picture toplining Sandra Bullock.”
Brodesser goes on to point out that “ . . . Warner Bros. initially didn't want
to take a risk on the script (too dark), especially with its $30 million budget
(too high).” And that “ . . . Warner Bros., where Eastwood hangs his shingle .
. . offered . . .” the film’s producers “ . . .the opportunity to take it
elsewhere, (but) they met similarly cool reactions at other studios.”
Eventually, with a non-Hollywood major “ . . .Lakeshore aboard to handle
foreign distribution and Warners’ exposure limited to $15 million . . .” the
film was made. And, after all that, some would come forward to use Million
Dollars Baby as an example of how willing Hollywood is to address serious
topics other than the Jewish Holocaust of WWII in its films. What rubbish!
And, of course, while this very discussion is occurring, the independent
distributor ThinkFilm has picked up Protocols of Zion, Marc Levin's feature
documentary exploring a perceived trend of resurgent anti-Semitism in the wake
of 9/11. The movie was screened this year at both the Sundance and Berlin film
fests and ThinkFilm is planning a fall release. Levin and Steve Kalafer
produced the film, along with co-producer Jennifer Tuft, in association with
HBO/Cinemax Documentary Films. (Source: “Exex Think Highly of Pic – Indie
Banner Follows ‘Protocols’”, Ian Mohr, Variety, March 17, 2005).
The argument being made by FIRM is not intended to limit the rights of such persons
to make such films, but to allow others to have an equal opportunity to make
serious films relating to topics of concern to them. That is what’s missing in
the Hollywood-based film industry, and it is intellectually dishonest to make
semantical arguments about what is so obviously true, even if not always stated
here on the FIRM discussion forum by others in a technically accurate manner.
Control of Hollywood results in more movies that appeal to the interests of the
Hollywood insiders being made and released. Thus, there needs to be more
diversity at the top in the film community – after all – movies tend, to a
large extent, to mirror the values, interests, cultural perspectives and
prejudices of their makers.
John Cones
Re(1):
More Illogical Arguments
Posted on March 31,
2005 at 07:49:51 PM by Joe Wiz
Excellent post!
Deleted
Posts
Posted on April 7,
2005 at 04:53:41 PM by John Cones
For some time here at the FIRM Discussion Forum we have had to endure
name-calling by people who would choose to defend what is going on in
Hollywood. On the other hand, it tells us all we need to know about such
persons that they think that "name-calling" is actually an argument
of any kind. We are quite comfortable in our opinion that
"name-calling" is not an argument, that it adds nothing of substance
to the arguments being made here and that such posts are of no value to this
site. For these reasons, they are regularly and routinely deleted, and in some,
cases the people who consistently substitute "name-calling" for real
argument are simply ignored. The same is true for their attempts to sabotage
this site with their postings of porn links and other spam. All of this merely
points out to me that FIRM's research and observations about Hollywood are
confirmed. People who cannot make credible arguments, who cannot refute FIRM's
studies and statistics with better studies and statistics and/or continully
hide behind their anonymity, seeking only to distract attention from the
truthfulness of the FIRM statements, are simply demonstrating that they are
incapable of dealing with serious issues in a responsible manner. We at FIRM
have no obligation to retain such posts at this Discussion Forum.
Best wishes
John Cones
Re(1):
Deleted Posts
Posted on April 23,
2005 at 10:07:56 PM by manofthestreet
It's easy to draw parallels between the FIRM's "mission" and the
mission of the national socialist party of 1930's Germany. Anyone that can't
see them isn't looking. Someone actually pointing them out is, admittedly, a
waste of time. Thank god you guys will never amount to anything but
self-aggrandizing, malingering blips fading to black.
Re(2):
Deleted Posts
Posted on April 24,
2005 at 07:40:01 AM by LEL_is_the_internet
--It's easy to draw parallels between the FIRM's "mission" and the
mission of the national socialist party of 1930's Germany.--
Yes, because telling lies and making shit up is easy. And 'easy' is all you can
manage. Because you're a pathetic loser, chum.
Re(3):
Deleted Posts
Posted on April 24,
2005 at 01:51:51 PM by Mitchell Levine
Flaming is all you're capable of.
Re(4):
Deleted Posts
Posted on April 24,
2005 at 09:15:31 PM by manofthestreet
Making shit up? Like what? That this 'site' has anything important to say? You
fellas act as if this is your only outlet to rail against anti-semitism, like
it MATTERS. Paaallleeease. Talk about pathetic. My point is that this 'site' is
just more of the same. How many times does the world need to be shown how
stupid sites like this are? Everyone arguing about everything. "i know
more about hollywood than you" and 'I know more about judaism than
you" and " native americans should be directors" and "we
need to have more diversity in film making." What a load of crap. John and
Jim and friends would all get hard-ons if a group of commandos raided hollywood
tomorrow and physically removed every Jewish executive in town--they know they
would and you guys do too. Maybe that's the draw for you fools.
Flaming? I just stopped by here. From the history of posts, you zipperheads
can't stay away. Pathetic loser? You'll be back tomorrow--I won't.
Re(5):
Deleted Posts
Posted on April 25,
2005 at 00:30:28 AM by Mitchell Levine
I wasn't referring to you - I was referring to the poster flaming YOU.
Don't
Buy the Lie--Protests Work
Posted on April 13,
2005 at 01:20:30 PM by saurturion