WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON IN HOLLYWOOD!
by John W. Cones, Esq.
Please wait while this loads
Copyright 1997 by John W. Cones All Rights Reserved No part of this work covered by the copyrights hereon may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any manner--graphic, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping or information
and retrieval systems--without written permission of the author.ALL OPINIONS EXPRESSED HEREIN AND NOT ATTRIBUTED TO ANOTHER SOURCE
ARE THOSE OF THE AUTHOR.
ISBN: 1-890341-10-X Printed in the United States of America
Rivas Canyon Press
11734 Wilshire Blvd., C-505
Los Angeles, CA 90025
310/477-6842
jwc6774@adelphia.net
Contents Chapter 1--Patterns of Bias: Movies Mirror Their Makers
Chapter 2--More Bias in Motion Picture Biographies
Chapter 3--Favored Themes and Motion Picture Propaganda
Chapter 4--Who Really Controls Hollywood
Chapter 5--Legacy of the Hollywood Empire
Chapter 6--Economic and Human Losses
Chapter 7--Murder, Suicide and Other Forms of Hollywood Death
Chapter 8--Some Speculation About Motivation
Chapter 10--Movies Influence People
Chapter 11--The Medium and Its Ideas
Other Books by the Same Author
This book is dedicated to all of the African Americans, Hispanic/Latinos, Native Americans, Asian Americans, German Americans, Italian Americans, women, gays/lesbians, Christians, Muslims, Arabs and Arab-Americans, White Southerners and others who have been victimized by Hollywood employment discrimination and patterns of bias on the screen for some 100 years.
In the summer of 1992, a rather remarkable but little noticed series of coincidental events occurred: four separate film industry-related professionals (a film critic, a litigating attorney, a journalist and a securities/entertainment attorney), working independently of each other (each approaching his task from his own unique perspective as two individuals and one pair) published three separate books that were extremely critical of the U.S. film industry. All three books agreed on at least two important points, while still disagreeing on one or two other issues. These authors agreed that (1) motion pictures play an important role in society (they are more than mere entertainment) and (2) there are serious problems with the U.S. film industry. All four authors were also very critical of the way in which the film industry is operated today and critical of the results in terms of the motion pictures produced and distributed. These authors appeared to disagree about (or at least some were hesitant to honestly discuss) the question of who is primarily responsible for these problems and the question of how to remedy the situation.
A fourth book that was also somewhat critical of the U.S. film industry, was published in 1993 but, again, was written without benefit of the three previous works since it was already at the publisher's when the other books came out. That was David Prindle's Risky Business--The Political Economy of Hollywood (see brief description below),
In their book Fatal Subtraction--How Hollywood Really Does Business, Los Angeles litigating attorney Pierce O'Donnell (along with co-author Dennis McDougal of the Los Angeles Times) provided a detailed review of the Buchwald v. Paramount lawsuit during which Pierce O'Donnell represented the plaintiff writer and producer against the major studio/distributor Paramount. In addition to points (1) and (2) above, the Fatal Subtraction book and subsequent magazine articles about the same lawsuit, furnished a fairly good look at the way in which at least one major studio/distributor handles its financial relationship with the creative community. The book also states that the other studios conduct their business in the same or similar manner, and goes on to offer that an " . . . elite group of two dozen white males . . . " are primarily responsible for the industry's problems. Finally the O'Donnell/McDougal book makes some broad suggestions to the effect that a number of institutions and people should become involved in remedying the situation including Congress, the U.S. Justice Department, the President, the Federal Trade Commission, the talent guilds and the movie-going public. Unfortunately, little else is offered in the way of specific remedies.
In Michael Medved's Hollywood vs America--Popular Culture and the War on Traditional Values, film critic Medved basically made four points: (1) motion pictures are important, (2) Hollywood has been turning out a lot of trash of late, (3) the fault lies with a secularist Hollywood creative community and possibly the foreign and domestic international corporate conglomerates who own the major studio/distributors and (4) the way to get Hollywood back on track is to (a) get the Hollywood establishment to publicly acknowledge its obligation to accept reasonable standards for its own activities, (b) let Hollywood know how the
public feels, (c) change the values of the people who shape our popular culture, (i.e., persuade Hollywood to alter its underlying attitudes) and (d) infiltrate Hollywood with more religious filmmakers who can produce new movies that reflect more traditional values. Thus, this critic of specific films has also evolved into a film industry critic.
My own 1992 book offering, Film Finance and Distribution--A Dictionary of Terms (Silman-James Press), first provides the definitions of some 3,600 terms relating to film finance and distribution, provides some examples of how those terms are used in the industry and then goes on to express some of the same criticism of the film industry in commentary appended to many of the definitions. At the time the dictionary was being prepared there were no other books on the market that were as blatantly critical of the overall film industry as the Medved and O'Donnell/McDougal books turned out to be and the dictionary/commentary format was considered to be a convenient way to both contribute to a higher level of understanding of film finance and distribution topics among those working in the industry, while at the same time, showing how financial control in the industry is inextricably intertwined with creative control. Thus, my book explained why many of the problems complained about in the Medved and O'Donnell/McDougal books actually come about as a result of the financial controls of the film industry exercised by the major studio/distributors. My dictionary also discusses certain more controversial issues of concern to both myself and others in the industry through commentary related to specifically defined terms.
Prindle's 1993 book, Risky Business--The Political Economy of Hollywood also provides some useful analysis relating to Hollywood politics, economics and sociology. This current study of Hollywood (What's Really Going on in Hollywood) will comment on the Prindle, Medved, O'Donnell/McDougal books, at length, agreeing with those authors on some issues while disagreeing on others. In addition, some 145 other books (plus articles) relating to the film industry have been reviewed in preparation for the writing of this book and observations from those writings have been incorporated herein. Thus, this writing has evolved into a review of the literature of the industry, and utilizes the observations of other writers to either confirm the underlying research of this book and my ten years of experience as a practicing securities/entertainment attorney in Los Angeles, or to serve as a point of departure on matters of disagreement.
Although there appears to be a tendency for the so-called Hollywood insiders and others who have special knowledge and information about what is really going on in Hollywood to keep quiet, occasionally, someone does step forward to offer limited, but valuable criticism of the business side of the film industry and how that relates to the films that are available to be seen by mass audiences. An honor roll of some of those who have not been intimidated by the Hollywood power structure and who have come forward in recent years to write about their own perspective on the corruption in Hollywood should include Dan Moldea, Kenneth Anger, Pierce O'Donnell, Dennis McDougal, Steven Bach, William Cash, Steven Sills, David McClintick, Michael Medved and Terry Pristin. These are the few who have not kept quiet. Aside from the many quotes included in this book and attributed to such authors and others, the balance of the statements made are my own and represent my opinion only.
Literature of the Industry and Original Research--As already stated, this book and its companion volumes on Hollywood take a critical look at the film industry, thus attempting to review and critically analyze much of the literature regarding the business and legal aspects of this important field. This series of books are not intended to focus on original research, although a limited amount of such research is reported. Expressed in its simplest terms, what this book seeks to accomplish is to combine a review of the literature of the film industry with the experience of a working professional in that industry while comparing the views expressed in those books and articles with personal impressions and the impressions of others. This book then attempts to draw certain conclusions regarding important issues based on that variety of perspectives, recognizing that such conclusions are not unassailable, simply the honest expression of personal opinions, offered at a minimum to stimulate further research, writing and discussion. In addition, however, this book attempts to go beyond where most of the other writers on the film industry have gone with respect to the question of who is responsible for the current circumstances of the industry. The companion volume (Motion Picture Industry Reform), also seeks to go beyond these other offerings with respect to what remedies ought to be applied.
Thomas Schatz " . . . and others have called attention to the questionable value of only using oral histories in constructing a chronicle of Hollywood that will explain its films. Anecdotal histories--gripping in the telling and listening--often suffer from what Schatz calls 'selective recollection.'" Similarly, Gabler notes that the memoirs of writers--often the least powerful creative figures during the studio era--are 'history by retribution.' Hollywood writers in their writings that recall the production heads of studios finally get a chance to create a history that favors them by writing it themselves." Custen also warns that "[m]emoirs and interviews must be balanced with other forms of data, where possible, to avoid becoming part of the public relations machinery that Hollywood puts out." This book and its companion volumes are not oral histories or memoirs, thus to that extent, may serve to help balance the huge number of such books that have been published in the past.
On some points, Custen admitted that he was " . . . forced to use secondary material and, interestingly, material often not deemed officially appropriate for serious academic study, like Kenneth Anger's hugely entertaining Hollywood Babylon (1975)." On the other hand, Custen, points out that "[o]ften only in such non-mainstream media sources can banished or taboo behavior be chronicled at all." Thus, Custen concludes that "[a]cademic standards of proof can be as repressive as the culture they seek to illuminate." Even worse, so-called academic standards and other factors severely limit the scope of the inquiry, particularly with regard to the film industry. In addition, as Myrdal Gunnar suggests, "[f]ull objectivity . . . is an ideal toward which we are constantly striving, but which we can never reach. The social scientist, too, is part of the culture in which he lives, and he never succeeds in freeing himself entirely from dependence on the dominant preconceptions and biases of his environment."
In addition to the more contemporary books about Hollywood noted above that came out in the summer of 1992, the earlier work by anthropologist Hortense Powdermaker (Hollywood The Dream Factory), adds a contrasting perspective from a different era. Dr. Powdermaker studied and wrote about Hollywood in the late '40s. She suggested that the " . . . choice of the social scientist is between being aware of his values and making them explicit, or being unaware and letting the reader get them by inference. It seems more scientific to openly present the values, which can then be rejected by a reader if he chooses, than to have them hidden and implicit." Powdermaker " . . . spent a year in Hollywood, from July 1946 to August 1947 . . . " Her " . . . hypothesis was that the social system in which (movies) . . . are made significantly influences their content and meaning." Powdermaker readily admits that her " . . . hypothesis is hardly original . . . (in that) [a]ll art, whether popular, folk or fine, is conditioned by its particular history and system of production."
Powdermaker herself reported that she had " . . . no desire . . . to find a job in the movie industry or to become a part of it . . . " In other words, she " . . . had no ax to grind . . . " She interviewed a sampling of " . . . approximately three hundred people . . . representative of the various functional groups such as producers, writers, directors, actors and so on (including) . . . the very successful, the medium successful and the unsuccessful." Powdermaker also states that since " . . . political opinions may influence attitudes, the sample also cut across left, right and center groups." Powdermaker made appointments with people she was to interview by getting others in the industry to vouch for her and provide an introduction. She did not identify the persons interviewed by name. Her interviews were conducted in a casual manner and she took no notes during the interview.
Powdermaker's book tried " . . . to explain in nontechnical language how the social system underlying the production of movies influences them." Her " . . . questions were concerned with what aspects of the system of production and which individuals most influenced movies. The answers were found in a study of the locus of power and its exercise, in the taboos which circumscribe all production, in the values as represented in goals, in historical and economic factors and in the introduction of new technology and new ideas with resulting conflicts between old and new." Powdermaker felt the relationships between various parties involved in filmmaking were extremely important and that " . . . the key ones were those of producer-writer, director-actor, and of all with the front office." "Related problems of distribution and exhibition are discussed only incidentally, since the study was focused on production in Hollywood." Powdermaker's observations relating to the movie industry of the 1940s, are contrasted in this work with more current observations. Enjoy!
This work grew out of the observed frustration of film industry critics who have chosen to criticize specific Hollywood movies over the years only to be rebuffed by the false logic and overly simplistic studio arguments that such films reflect the real world and that moviegoers vote with their pocket books. After all, if it can be shown that there are consistent patterns to the choices Hollywood studio executives make with respect to the movies produced and released and the specific content of those movies, it becomes obvious that Hollywood is selectively portraying reality and that moviegoers only have limited options among all of the possibilities that could be portrayed on the silver screen (i.e., their votes do not really count, or only count in a limited way).
The first three chapters of this book summarize and provide an overview of the contents of three companion volumes all relating to Hollywood movie patterns of bias (Patterns of Bias in Motion Picture Content, A Study in Motion Picture Propaganda, Motion Picture Biographies–The Hollywood Spin on Historical Figures). This book and its companion volumes differ from other studies touching on the same topic. Whereas most books considering the subject of bias in motion pictures focus on the treatment of a single ethnic, religious, cultural, racial or other readily identifiable interest group in our diverse society, this study attempts to provide an overview of such bias. The underlying assumption is that once the patterns of bias in motion picture content are demonstrated, it then becomes easier to identify the source of the bias and to explain why such bias exists. This more comprehensive patterns of bias approach is also more useful when remedies are considered, since no single interest group offended by Hollywood with its movie portrayals has yet been able to effectively persuade Hollywood to substantially alter such portrayals over a long period of time. To the extent that some slight change has been brought about, due to the temporary pressure of a particular group or the gradual evolution of cultural sensibilities, Hollywood has merely substituted another equally offensive pattern of bias for the previous portrayals.
The studies reported here also attempt to avoid redundancy by providing only summary coverage in the areas that have been fairly adequately studied, (e.g., treatment of African-Americans, Hispanics, women, etc.), while placing a greater emphasis on subjects that have not been adequately covered (e.g., bias directed toward Whites from the South). In addition, in order to avoid the creation of a book that is too lengthy to digest, the entire text of the section on anti-Nazi movies has been omitted, since there appears to be no question that Hollywood's all-time favorite villain is the Nazi.
This study of Hollywood patterns of bias in motion picture content (including negative portrayals, bias in biopics and favored themes) is directly related to the material presented in the subsequent chapter "Who Really Controls Hollywood", since movies, to a large extent, tend to mirror the values, interests, cultural perspectives and prejudices of their makers. These chapters considered together demonstrate quite clearly that the Hollywood-based U.S. motion picture industry is controlled by a single, very narrowly-defined interest group. It further concludes that it is inappropriate for any such group to control a significant medium for the communication of ideas in a society that is as diverse as that in the U.S., particularly a supposed democratic society, based on a free marketplace of ideas.
Another book in this series on Hollywood, How the Movie Wars Were Won catalogs discusses a variety of business practices and other techniques used by the Hollywood control group to gain and maintain its dominance over the U.S. film industry for the past 90 years. The book concludes that many of such business practices are unfair, unethical, unconscionable, anti-competitive, predatory, and in some case, illegal. A closely related volume entitled The Feature Film Distribution Deal (published by Southern Illinois University Press) critically analyzes the single most important film industry agreement and shows how the Hollywood major studio/distributors have abused their excessive power in the film industry marketplace to contractually exploit producers, directors, writers, actors, actresses, investors and others through documents that can only be characterized as contracts of adhesion, filled with unconscionable provisions.
Another of the books in this series, Motion Picture Industry Reform takes a serious look at various approaches to instigating significant and long-term reform in the way the motion picture industry operates. It specifically promotes a policy designed to insure equal and fair opportunities for persons of all races, religions, ethnicity, cultures, nations or regions of origin, sexual preferences and so forth to tell their cultural stories through this important communications medium, the feature-length motion picture.
The research underlying this work ultimately occupied 2,222 pages of text. The material was originally divided into nine books (Patterns of Bias in Motion Picture Content, Motion Picture Biographies, A Study in Motion Picture Propaganda, How the Movie Wars Were Won, Who Really Controls Hollywood, Politics, Movies and the Role of Government, Hollywood Corruption, Legacy of the Hollywood Empire and Motion Picture Industry Reform). However, this current title (What's Really Going On In Hollywood) provides an overview of five of those books by excerpting the summaries and conclusions of those works, while omitting the detailed notes relating to specific films. Anyone interested in reviewing any of the original nine titles with the more complete presentation of the basic research may obtain copies through the author/publisher.
--o0o--
Chapter 1 PATTERNS OF BIAS: MOVIES MIRROR THEIR MAKERS
Powdermaker went on to say that "[m]uch of the producer's power is similar to that of the front-office executive. Both tend to project onto the movies their own personalities, their ideas of love and sex, their attitude to mankind, and their 'solutions' to social problems." In addition, Powdermaker says that the producer also " . . . usually picks able, skilled authors who share his (or her) interests."
Hortense Powdermaker The " . . . taste, good or bad, of the men (and women) who make the movies will be inevitably stamped on them and will break through all rules and taboos."
One of the underlying theses of this work is that to a large extent, movies mirror the values, interests, cultural perspectives and prejudices of their makers, not to an absolute degree, but as a general rule. As George Custen pointed out in connection with his study of biopics, "[a]lthough the cinematic lives of the famous take place in locations the world over, and are set in time periods covering over two thousand years, they inevitably reflect the values of the world of the Hollywood studio and their personnel . . . " Hortense Powdermaker agreed, saying that the " . . . taste, good or bad, of the men (and women) who make the movies will be inevitably stamped on them and will break through all rules and taboos."
In other words, regardless of whether the " . . . executive reads or listens, acts singly or with others, he usually projects his own taste onto the public." The " . . . important decisions on scripts are conditioned by the taste, judgment and personality of executives. Decisions about casting and cutting or on shooting a picture on location or in the studio, on the production's budget, and the settlement of disputes which may arise between any of the important people involved in the movie are likewise the responsibility of the production executive." Of course, all of the above decisions made by a film's producer and/or its supervising studio executive will inevitably have creative effects on the ultimate film. Thus, one of the less than desirable direct results of a film industry dominated by a small group of men who share similar backgrounds (see the chapter on "Who Really Controls Hollywood" below) is a likely bias in the content of the movies. For example, as Pristin points out, the practice of nepotism " . . . is at least partly responsible for Hollywood's insularity, narrow perspective and largely homogeneous work force." Pristin goes on to say that the " . . . industry has long been criticized for employing relatively few women, blacks and other minorities, especially in its upper ranks. More diversity among management personnel would likely lead to a more interesting mix of movies . . . " It may thus be accurately stated, that economic control of the Hollywood-based U.S. film industry cannot be separated from creative control of the films produced and released. As noted earlier, Powdermaker also states that "'Hollywood is no mirrorlike reflection of our society, which is characterized by a large number of conflicting patterns of behavior and values.' Instead, Hollywood had emphasized some of those values to the exclusion of others." Also, as noted earlier, in talking about Hollywood's politically liberal slant, David Prindle says " . . . it is not Hollywood's willingness to embrace national problems in movies and on television that is disturbing. It is the relentless one-dimensional viewpoint that dominates the films and television that come out of the industry." The present studio dominated system also allows certain insider filmmakers or filmmakers with insider backing to pursue their own hidden agendas (i.e., plans of things to be done or intentions that are not apparent or divulged). Filmmakers make movies for many reasons. Making money, becoming famous, earning the respect of professional peers, providing entertainment and communicating important ideas would seem to be high on anyone's list of the typical reasons why movies are made, although the order of importance certainly may differ amongst individuals. The feature film, as a communications medium, with its large screen, color technology, special effects, lighting techniques, exquisite photography, incredible sound, excellent talent on and off the screen, is also, without question, one of the most effective forms of communicating ideas that the world has yet devised. It would indeed be naive for anyone to assume that the communication of ideas is not an important motive for any serious filmmaker or filmmaking concern. A feature film also affords a unique opportunity for those who control or dominate the process of decision-making as to which movies or ideas are included in motion pictures, to insert such ideas or select and actively promote the movies which best express the views held by those same decision-makers. This book serves to collect and furnish some of the available evidence which points toward the answers to two fundamental questions about the American motion picture industry: (1) Is the control exercised by the Hollywood control group reflected in the kinds and content of the motion pictures produced and released? and (2) Do American movies adequately reflect the nation's multi-cultural diversity or do they reflect a consistent pattern of bias in favor of those who control Hollywood and against those who do not control Hollywood? Because of the inherent difficulties in assembling an objective panel and reviewing enough movies that have been produced and released over a sufficient period of time to constitute an adequate sampling of negative and positive portrayals of various ethnic, religious, racial, gender, sexual preference and cultural groups in American motion pictures this report is based on a different approach and a less formal study of the above questions. Hopefully this effort will stimulate interest in this overall approach to the study of patterns of bias in motion picture content and lead to further studies using more formal methodologies. As stated earlier, there appears to be substantial evidence that the Hollywood control group does in fact consistently portray itself in a more positive manner while consistently portraying other populations in a negative manner (see the discussion of this phenomenon in the chapter "Favored Themes and Motion Picture Propaganda"). The various ethnic, cultural, religious and racial groups that have publicly complained about the portrayal of their members in movies are listed below. A significant number and variety of ethnic, cultural, religious, gender, sexual preference and racial groups within the American multi-cultural society have bitterly complained over the years about how Hollywood's mainstream movies have consistently portrayed them in a negative or stereotypical manner and about unequal employment opportunities in the film industry. A sampling of these complaints are set forth below in a mostly chronological order within each subject category. Hollywood movies have consistently exhibited certain specific patterns of bias with respect to the people and places portrayed. Some of such patterns of bias have been consistently negative and others, consistently positive. Michael Medved's book Hollywood vs. America vigorously, and in most instances, correctly, criticized Hollywood for attacking religion, assaulting the family, using excessive foul language, being addicted to violence, being hostile to heroes and for bashing America and its government agencies. In fact, it was quite instructive to see President Clinton in April of 1995, following the Oklahoma City bombing, attacking the conservative radio talk show hosts for bashing America and its government, when Hollywood motion pictures have been doing the same thing for years, through, an even more effective communications medium (i.e., the feature-length motion picture). As an example, we have to look long and hard to find a movie portrayal of a current CIA or FBI agent that is sympathetic. We also have to look long and hard to find a movie portrayal of a politician or government official that is not negative. But, in a rather transparent attempt to use one of our nation's greatest tragedies for political gain, Clinton did not choose to criticize the Hollywood establishment for its America-bashing, but instead chose to criticize the political right and their talk show cronies. In other words, if anyone, including the President is going to make the argument that ideas espoused on talk shows contribute to an environment in which domestic terrorist attacks actually occur, no one could possibly assume that the communication of similar ideas or others through film are any less responsible for contributing to the creation of that same environment. Instead of pointing the finger of blame toward one side or the other of the political spectrum, both should be held responsible. In any case, the forms of Hollywood bias in motion pictures criticized by Medved are not reiterated here. The focus in this book is on other Hollywood patterns of bias, that are equally, if not more damaging to society, patterns of bias that were either overlooked or simply not addressed by Medved. The material that follows relating to the resulting patterns of movie bias serves to demonstrate two additional results of the situation in which the control of Hollywood resides in the hands of a narrowly defined interest group: (1) it demonstrates how such control affects the kind of movies we see and (2) having seen these results (and moving in the opposite direction with respect to cause and effect), it provides additional support for the contention made in the later chapter entitled "Who Really Controls Hollywood", that Hollywood is, in fact, controlled by a small group of Jewish males of European heritage, who are politically liberal and not very religious; a narrowly-defined group that is either making the kinds of movies its members want to see, and sometimes producing movies it is being pressured into making by various segments of the broader so-called "Jewish community". As reported in that chapter, the history of the upper level management of the major studio/distributors that have dominated the American motion picture industry during the 20th century reveals relatively few examples of such positions being held by African-Americans, Latinos, women and others besides the previously identified Hollywood insider group. Gays, of course, present a special problem for analysis in that during most of that century, gay men were not likely to be openly gay. Thus, it is extremely difficult to determine whether there were some so-called "closet gays" in upper level management film industry positions who simply chose not to fight for positive portrayals of gays in movies for fear of revealing their own sexual orientation. Other than that possibility, the nearly 100 year history of Hollywood management suggests a positive correlation between who does not control Hollywood and who is consistently portrayed in a negative or stereotypical manner in American motion pictures. If movies, to a great extent, mirror the values, interests, cultural perspectives and prejudices of their makers, then it is possible to learn a great deal about movie makers by observing who and what things or places are consistently negatively or stereotypically portrayed in their movies. For purposes of this book, the term negative portrayals refers to the unfavorable or stereotypical depiction of someone or something in a motion picture. The underlying assumption is that it is absolutely wrong for the motion picture industry to consistently portray any particular group of persons in a negative or stereotypical manner in its feature films and in fact, such consistent portrayals actually rise to the level of private propaganda, since the Hollywood-based U.S. film industry is, after all, in private hands. Be that as it may, the studies reported in this series of books on Hollywood and the work of others in this regard indicate that there are clear biases expressed in movies released by U.S. filmmakers. One of those informal studies was conducted several times during the eight years prior to the publication of this book during lectures on topics relating to "Film Finance", "The Business and Legal Aspects of Film Distribution", "The Relationship Between Economic and Creative Control in the American Motion Picture Industry"and "Motion Picture Industry Reform" under the sponsorship of the USC School of Cinema-TV, the American Film Institute, the USC Cinema-TV Alumni Association, the UCLA (graduate level) Independent Producer's Program, the UCLA Anderson Graduate School of Management Entertainment Section, UCLA Extension, IFP/West, Cinewomen and other film industry groups. The people attending such lectures represented an international cross-section of film industry professionals and other persons interested in careers in the film industry who are also avid moviegoers. Informal surveys of such classes were undertaken from time to time, asking the question: "Based on the movies you have seen during the past ten year period, what racial, ethnic, cultural, religious, sexual preference, regional and/or gender groups have been consistently portrayed in MPAA movies in a negative or stereotypical manner? These informal survey results consistently included the following groups or subjects: "The personalities of the men who sit in the front office are of interest . . . because their own natures influence the content of the movies . . . it is the executives (and film producers) who have the greatest power to stamp the movies with their personal daydreams and fantasies . . . the tendency of executives to see the movie audience in their own image results in a rather high correlation between the executives' personalty and their opinions of the audience . . . power concentrated in the hands of one man or a few becomes personalized . . . In Hollywood . . . the man (or woman) who sits in the front office sets the tone of the whole studio, influencing and shaping attitudes and behavior of everyone in it; even more important, he leaves his stamp on the movie." American Indians
American Institutions
Arabs
Asian Americans
Bi-Cultural Couples
Business
Capitalism
Gay/Lesbians
Establishment
Government
Hispanics
Japanese
Middle Class
Nazis
Police
Professionals
Rednecks
Religion
White Southerners
Texans
White Supremacistsmovies in a negative manner, and those groups perceived by a cross-section of moviegoers to be consistently negatively or stereotypically portrayed in American movies. The literature of the industry also provides additional evidence of these same patterns of bias in our movies. Where applicable, references from industry literature are included in the study below. Further, this study is based on thousands of reviews of motion pictures covering the entire period of the existence of the Hollywood-based U.S. film industry, as those reviews appear in several publications including Steven Scheuer's Movies on TV and Videocassette Halliwell's Film Guide Mick Martin and Marsha Porter's Video Movie Guide 1989 and Roger Ebert's Video Companion (1994 Edition). In other words, the movies used as the basis of this study were not specifically selected for that purpose. Rather, the study primarily relies on the selections of several readily available books containing thousands of movie reviews and the authors of those books are not in any way connected to this study. Race-Based Portrayals Several of Hollywood's most blatant patterns of bias fall within the categories of race, ethnicity and/or national origin. Included in this group are negative and/or stereotypical portrayals of Arabs and Arab-Americans, Asians and Asian-Americans, Hispanics and Latinos, African-Americans, along with Native Americans. Arabs and Arab-Americans--Arabs and Arab-Americans have often complained about being negatively or stereotypically portrayed in American movies, an obvious pattern of bias virtually ignored by Medved in his important work Hollywood vs. America. Considering a more narrowly-defined population, Hollywood historian George MacDonald Fraser reported in 1989 that based on his studies, Hollywood movies about ancient Egypt " . . . have helped to fix in the public mind the idea of old Egypt as a cult-ridden, curse-stricken land of mystery given over to embalming, necrolatry, interbreeding, and the worship of gods with animal heads." Patrick Robertson reported the very next year (1990), that "[w]hile the greasy, knife-toting Mexican, the shuffling, wide-eyed Negro and the perfidious American Indian have been discarded as offensive stereotypes, there is no such constraint on depicting Arabs as oily and oversexed or shifty-eyed and violent. In addition, Nicholas Kaldi, is a U.S.-based Iraqi who makes his living playing terrorists, but he deplores the racial typecasting. "There are other kinds of Arabs in the world', he said in a 1990 interview with the Washington Post. 'I would like to think that some day there will be an Arab role out there for me that would be an honest portrayal.'" The negative and stereotypical portrayals of Arabs in Hollywood movies has been a consistent feature of American films for many years. The study, for which the results are summarized below, covered 81 Hollywood movies featuring Arabs during the 73 year period from 1921 through 1994. The study demonstrates that in sum, Hollywood, throughout its history, has consistently portrayed Arabs as evil, barbaric, oversexed, depraved, villainous, shifty, possessed, hostile, fanatical, criminal, mystical, wicked and crazed. Arabs have also been portrayed as thieves, shady, kidnappers, enemies, mysterious, murderers, assassins, terrorists, blood-thirsty, saboteurs, extremists, cult-ridden, curse-stricken, oily, shifty-eyed, violent and as idiots. Also, based on this study, it would appear that Arabs in general are, in more modern times, most commonly portrayed in Hollywood films as terrorists. This review of Hollywood movies involving Arab characters clearly demonstrates that the U.S. film community consistently portrays Arabs in a stereotypical or negative manner and that little or no effort has been made by Hollywood filmmakers to balance their portrayals of Arabs with positive portrayals in the same movies or a similar number of positive portrayals in other movies. Thus, the overall presentation of Arabs in American movies is clearly one sided, clearly negative, and propagandistic to that extent. There is nothing more unethical in the extreme than to see a specific population such as that small group of Jewish males of a European heritage, who are politically liberal and not very religious (i.e., the Hollywood control group), using the power of the moving image in American motion pictures to consistently portray some of their long suffering arch enemies in a negative manner, thus, in effect seeking to brainwash the American and world publics with a very powerful form of propaganda. As 1995 got underway, and the tragic Oklahoma City bomb blast occurred, many news commentators and others were quick to point an accusatory finger at Middle East terrorists and Muslim Fundamentalists. One Arab-American spokesman, when asked why people in the U.S. were so quick to lay blame on Arabs, included in his response a short list of recent Hollywood movies that included negative portrayals of such persons. Much of our nation's population, including political leaders and the press, had been seduced by Hollywood propaganda. Asians and Asian-Americans--Asian-American groups have also protested from time to time about their portrayals in Hollywood movies, and rightly so. As noted by Koppes and Black, in Hollywood Goes to War, Hollywood's anti-Japanese films of World War II, were often " . . . blatantly racist . . . " Such films featured the "stab-in-the-back" thesis, equated Japan's acts with "gangsterism on an international scale", depicted the Japanese as "brutal and treacherous", sadistically cruel, blood-lusting, fanatic, fiendish and diabolical. In the meantime, the Chinese were portrayed as silly, giggling, ridiculous buffoons. In addition, recent Hollywood movies have continued the negative and stereotypical portrayal of Asians and Asian-Americans. The overall record reflects that Hollywood's portraits of Asians consistently includes depicting such persons as enemies, cold, calculating, ruthless, aggressive, criminal, slave owners and as conspiring businessmen. Although, only a small number of Hollywood movies feature Asians or Asian-Americans at all, it is the consistently negative and stereotypical portrayals that create the problem. Seldom have Hollywood movies provided more positive portrayals of Asians. Hispanics and Latinos--Hollywood movies about " . . . the Latino experience in America seem ineluctably tied to despair, whether rooted in the lives of East Coast Cubans, and 'Newyoricans,' of West Coast Chicanos, or of other groups in other places . . . " according to Entertainment Weekly's Ty Burr. Burr continues by saying that the " . . . link between such disparate films as the fablelike The Ballad of Gregorio Cortez, the shimmeringly tragic El Norte, the worshipful La Bamba, and the cautionary Crossover Dreams lies in their knowledge of assimilation's paradox: that you can live the American dream only by losing your cultural soul." The Hollywood movies reviewed in the study providing support for the conclusions reported here consistently portrayed Hispanics/Latinos in a negative or stereotypical manner. These people were portrayed as drug traffickers, in despair, kidnapers, mean, macho, scraggly, violent, cynical, gang members, tire slashers, prison inmates and as racists. Such a pattern of bias appears to be a direct result of the systematic exclusion of Hispanic/Latinos from positions of authority in the Hollywood power structure (see "Who Really Controls Hollywood"). After all, if there were more Hispanic/Latinos in decision-making positions at the studios, surely it would follow that more films would include better informed and more sensitive portrayals of such populations. This explains why widespread employment discrimination in Hollywood contributes to a narrowly focused perspective represented in Hollywood films. African-Americans--Eddie Murphy's " . . . moral outrage about the treatment of blacks in the motion picture industry led to two remarkable protests. At the 1988 Academy Awards show, Eddie was the presenter for Best Picture . . . he delivered an unscheduled, rambling diatribe against the Hollywood establishment. An angry Eddie announced to shocked viewers that he almost did not show because 'they haven't recognized black people in motion pictures,' only three blacks have won Oscars in over sixty years. At this rate (Eddie said) 'we ain't due until 2004.' A year earlier, Eddie had refused to pose for Paramount's seventy-fifth anniversary group photo of the studio's great stars . . . " because he thought there would be no other blacks in the photo. Actually there was one other, Lou Gossett, Jr., although that is clearly not enough to suggest that Eddie Murphy's original sentiment was in error. Of course, Hollywood has a long history of portraying African-Americans in a negative or stereotypical manner, pre-dating World War II. The federal government's Office of War Information, reported during the war that one of the " . . . most serious home-front problem[s] . . . " with respect to film during WWII, related to " . . . the portrayal of blacks . . . " The OWI said, " . . . Hollywood found it difficult to abandon its time-worn demeaning portrayals of blacks." As screenwriter Dalton Trumbo stated, the " . . . movies made 'tarts of the Negro's daughters, crap shooters of his sons, obsequious Uncle Toms of his fathers, superstitious and grotesque crones of his mothers, strutting peacocks of his successful men, psalm-singing mountebanks of his priests, and Barnum and Bailey side-shows of his religion' . . . In an analysis of the depiction of blacks in wartime movies in 1943, (OWI's Bureau of Motion Pictures) . . . concluded that 'in general, Negroes are presented as basically different from other people, as taking no relevant part in the life of the nation, as offering nothing, contributing nothing, expecting nothing.' Blacks appeared in 23 percent of the films released in 1942 and early 1943 and were shown as 'clearly inferior' in 82 percent of them . . . The biased portrayals undermined black war morale at home and hurt America's image abroad." "A Columbia University study in 1945 found that of 100 black appearances in wartime films, 75 perpetuated old stereotypes, 13 were neutral, and only 12 were positive." In 1963 " . . . the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) . . . threw the full strength of its national organization into the fight against racial bias in movies with threats of mass demonstrations and economic and legal offensives." Unfortunately, the effort had little lasting effect. As recently as 1991, former Secretary of the Army Clifford Alexander told a U.S. Senate panel probing the problems of black males in 1991 that "[n]egative images of blacks are fed by portrayals of blacks in movies, television and elsewhere . . . " Also, in 1991, the Coalition Against Media Racism in America issued a statement that [the movies] . . . Jungle Fever and . . . Boyz n the Hood are among the features targeted for a boycott called by [that] . . . coalition of diverse mainstream black groups . . . [who claimed that] films perpetuate black stereotypes . . . " Of course, the claim is accurate, but it takes more than protest by a single group to influence Hollywood. In an interview appearing in the Josephson Institute's Ethics magazine (1993) Dr. Prothnow-Stith stated:
Such informal surveys again suggest that there is a positive correlation between the groups who publicly complain from time to time (see discussion below) about being portrayed in AmericanDr. Prothnow-Stith went on to state that " . . . as an African-American Protestant, I was particularly offended by the genre of movies that made buffoons of black preachers. Knowing the black church as critical to liberation in this country, knowing black preachers who run the gamut, including intellectual people, I was offended by this kind of regular portrayal." Dr. Prothnow-Stith went on to get at the heart of the problem by pointing out: " . . . I never saw a movie where a rabbi was a buffoon character." Native Americans--Although a few somewhat more sympathetic portrayals in movies have occurred in recent years, American Indians have long been victims of the Hollywood stereotype, although more recently they have simply been ignored. By 1964, Marlon Brando was making appearances at protests on behalf of American Indians. In 1973, when he won the Best Actor Academy Award for his portrayal of Vito Corleone, he " . . . sent an Indian woman named Sacheen Littlefeather to reject the award, saying he could not accept it 'because of the treatment of American Indians in the motion picture industry, on TV, in the movie reruns and the recent happenings at Wounded Knee.'" There has been a recent change in the depictions of American Indians on screen. As George Fraser points out, a " . . . stranger with no knowledge of U. S. history save what he got from films . . . would be puzzled at the change in status of the Indians, from the perpetual enemy, a mixture of noble savages and murderin' red varmints, into oppressed and cheated defenders of a precious culture--the conflicting images are all true, but the fashionable viewpoint has changed." On the other hand, even as recently as 1992, native American spokesperson Russell Means, in an Entertainment Weekly article, criticized Hollywood's depiction of Native Americans, from the films of the '40s to The Last of the Mohicans (released in 1992). In the same article, Means said the " . . . educational system of the dominant culture doesn't let our children know that American Indians existed in the 20th century." He went on to say that "[t]here's a danger in letting Hollywood define us." Of course, there is a danger in letting any narrowly defined interest group use a powerful communications medium to define any of us over a long period of time. Sexual Stereotypes Hollywood movies also have a tendency to exhibit consistent biases relating to sexual stereotypes. Two of the most blatant include the industry's treatment of women and its portrayals of gays and lesbians. Women--Women have not fared much better than other minorities in the male dominated U.S. film industry. According to novelist Meg Wolitzer, "[m]ovies that address the complex emotional lives of girls are rare . . . " In actress Michelle Pfeiffer's speech at the Women in Film awards ceremony (1993) she ". . . took aim at Hollywood for movies in which women were 'sold' to men, like Pretty Woman (1990), Mad Dog and Glory (1993), and Indecent Proposal (1993)". Academic, Elisabeth Joyce, in her study of violent women in recent movies concludes that such examples underline a depressing paradox: ". . . that women of violence may appear in films and may on first look seem to be harbingers of a new social order which accepts women as equals in the power game, or which in fact presents the patriarchy as giving way to female power, but which in reality only reaffirm the patriarchy and put women in their secondary place in the social order, a place which is in further reintrenchment." Thus, with all of the progress for women in the rest of U.S. society, Hollywood still seems to be well behind the curve. Hollywood portrayals of women in recent years have included the silent, submissive and untrustworthy females. In addition, women have been portrayed as being on the sidelines, for sale and as the sexual harasser. Gay/Lesbians--Gays and lesbians have also been victimized by consistent negative and stereotypical portrayals in American films. In 1987, Vito Russo points out in his book about homosexuality in American movies (The Celluloid Closet), nothing is ". . . more imbedded in industry culture than a belief that the public would never accept a gay hero. "For most of its history, therefore, the screen entertainment industry pretended homosexuals did not exist; when they did appear, they were portrayed as harmless buffoons or as murderers, murder victims, or suicides." Also in 1991, gay activists were so outraged by the negative portrayals in Basic Instinct that they marched near the location shoot in San Francisco. They failed to stop the filming of the Tri-Star feature (starring Michael Douglas and Sharon Stone). "Protesters charge[d] it portrays lesbians in a negative light." Jessea Greenman, co-chair of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation/San Francisco Bay Area said Basic Instinct was a film ". . . in which all the lesbian and bisexual women are portrayed as potentially homicidal . . . " "This film is just one in a series of films which have defamed us," said Ellen Carton executive director of GLAAD/New York. "The lesbian and gay community is angry at Hollywood and tired of being consistently portrayed inaccurately." Homosexual activists planned and implemented ". . . a peaceful yet powerful demonstration . . . "at the 64th annual Academy Awards presentation ". . . to show their disgust with Hollywood's alleged hateful portrayal of gays in movies." Variety's Michael Fleming wrote in March of 1992: "If gay groups were upset by Basic Instinct, wait till they see a scene from Columbia's Mo' Money, starring Damon Wayans . . . In the movie scene . . . Wayans tries to pass a bad credit card. He escapes scrutiny by mimicking an effeminate character . . . " In August of that same year (1992), Premiere magazine subscriber (and/or reader) William Stosine responded to an earlier Michael Douglas article in the same magazine. Stosine stated: "As a gay man, I'd like to respond to Michael Douglas' question about why gays are so upset by Basic Instinct. Douglas asks: 'Should WASPS be the only villains?' Of course not. It's a matter of balance. The fact is that gays [as presented in movies] are never anything but villains and buffoons, and we're sick of it. It doesn't take an Einstein to figure out that constant negative portrayals of gays in the media result in homophobic attitudes in real life." Once again, constant negative portrayals of any segments of our diverse society in our mass media will tend to result in negative attitudes directed toward those same populations. It then safe to say that, as a general rule, movies mirror the values, interests, cultural perspectives and prejudices of their makers. The prejudices of the Hollywood filmmakers, as a rule, view gays as bitchy, lonely, jealous, murderous, angry and gloomy. They are also sometimes presented as effeminate and harmless buffoons, but also as child molesters, murder victims, suicides, potentially homicidal and villains. Lesbians have been portrayed in a similar stereotypical manner, except for the substitution of masculine for effeminate, while in still other movies they have been delesbianized altogether. Until the Hollywood establishment stops systematically excluding gays and lesbians from positions of authority in the Hollywood power structure, and more gays and lesbians are allowed to green-light production financing and determine which films are to be released, we are not likely to see any significant change in the number of films that provide more accurate and positive portrayals of such persons. In addition, until such developments occur, movie audiences are not likely to see more overall balance in the portrayals of gays and lesbians in mainstream cinema. These same observations are also true with respect to the consistent Hollywood bias towards women. Religious Bias Christianity--Contemporary Hollywood motion pictures also clearly portray a general anti-religious slant, although early films took a more supportive approach. As Neal Gabler points out in his book An Empire of Their Own, ". . . the Jewish immigrants who founded the film business wanted more than wealth and power: they felt a powerful craving for acceptance as mainstream Americans . . . With this goal in mind, the films of Hollywood's Golden Era invariably portrayed clergymen in a sympathetic light . . . " In more recent years however, ". . . Hollywood has swung to the opposite extreme--presenting a view of the clergy that is every bit as one-sided in its cynicism and hostility as the old treatment may have been idealized . . . " Although, some have suggested that a drastic change occurred in Hollywood following the final demise of the Production Code in 1968, this author's review of Hollywood films about religion indicate that prior to 1968, at least two parallel approaches to religious topics were represented, one sympathetic to mainstream religious beliefs (although limited to Old Testament biblical stories), the other antagonistic. The thing that appears to have changed, is that after 1968, the films that are antagonistic to religion clearly predominate. This analysis of Hollywood films with religious themes or characters reveals that in the last four decades Hollywood has portrayed Christians as sexually rigid, devil worshipping cultists, talking to God, disturbed, hypocritical, fanatical, psychotic, dishonest, murder suspects, Bible quoting Nazis, slick hucksters, fake spiritualists, Bible pushers, deranged preachers, obsessed, Catholic schoolboys running amok, Adam & Eve as pawns in a game between God and Satan, an unbalanced nun accused of killing her newborn infant, dumb, manipulative, phony, outlaws, neurotic, mentally unbalanced, unscrupulous, destructive, foul mouthed, fraudulent and as miracle fabricators. Few, if any, positive portrayals of Christians were found in Hollywood films released in the last four decades. In any case, even though Michael Medved holds himself out as a very religious person (specifically an Orthodox Jew), and this author is more like the members of the Hollywood control group with respect to the "not very religious" attribute, we still agree that Hollywood films have in recent years been consistently anti-religious. As Medved points out, "[t]he movie industry has ignored the success of films that look favorably on faith with the same sort of self-destructive stubbornness that has led to its continued sponsorship of antireligious-message movies." Of course, this is occurring at a time when the Hollywood establishment still contends that movies are merely "entertainment". Others besides Medved and myself have expressed similar concerns about anti-religious movies. In the Josephson Institute's Ethics publication, Media & Values founding editor Elizabeth Thoman said: "My concern would be, what is left out, rather than what is shown. Why is normal religious practice left out of entertainment media? The only thing that religion gets are those perverted kinds of strange images with Madonna pushing the envelope, somebody who's very dissatisfied." Medved, however, also states that "[i]n addition to the obvious antipathy to various forms of Christianity displayed in so many recent movies, Hollywood has also attempted some significant jabs at Judaism . . . however, the ridicule of the rabbis has been less intense than the negativity that is injected into the caricatures of Christian clergy." It would appear (based primarily on analysis of the Roger Ebert and Steven Scheuer reviews included in the study supporting this work) that there is a significantly greater disparity between the number of negative portrayals of Christians and Jews in Hollywood movies, than Medved would admit. In addition, there appear to be many more positive portrayals of Jewish film characters than Christians in Hollywood films (see "Favored Themes and Motion Picture Propaganda"). On this issue, Dr. Prothnow-Stith states that "[t]here should be an issue of fairness considered . . . For instance, If I'm Jewish and I'm willing to make fun of this Baptist preacher, would I be as willing to make fun of a rabbi?" In present day Hollywood (and in the Hollywood that has existed for nearly 90 years), apparently not. Again, it is a basic issue of fairness and access to equal opportunities in a so-called free, democratic society. The contention being made here is that, even if some segments of our society are not saying what we would like for them to say, it is not in the national interest to stand by and allow any single or narrowly defined interest group to prevent the important messages of others from being communicated through a significant communications medium such as film. All segments of our society deserve an equal opportunity to tell their stories through film. Anti-WASP Films--Since, from a religious perspective, the American South is predominantly Christian-Protestant and of white Anglo-Saxon heritage, the entire body of the films used as the basis the study summarized below for providing negative or stereotypical portrayals of people, places and things from the South can also be fairly considered anti-WASP films. Hollywood films, also more specifically portray a more general anti-WASP sentiment (i.e., the WASPs portrayed are not from the South). No attempt has been made for purposes of this publication to quantify those many negative portrayals. Of course, it would be even more offensive if a study of Hollywood movies demonstrated that an industry controlled by a small group of politically liberal, not very religious Jewish males of European heritage (see "Who Really Controls Hollywood") consistently portrayed WASPs in a negative manner, although, clearly in the case of WASP film characters generally, there are at least some positive portrayals to balance the overall presentation, whereas the Hollywood anti-South bias seems much more consistently negative (see "Regional Prejudice: Hollywood's Rape of the South" below). Bad Guys From the Political Right Considering the repetition of Hollywood character portrayals from a political perspective, it is quite apparent that another of the most consistent patterns of Hollywood movie bias comes in the form of the villain from the extreme right of the political spectrum. Seldom does Hollywood portray its movie villains as political liberals. The Overly Popular Nazi Villain--There is also no question that the all-time champion villain for American movies since the '30s is the Nazi, and this alone tells us a great deal about who controls Hollywood. American films dealing with the Nazi threat during the years from 1934 through 1941 (prior to the U.S. entry into World War II) are considered in the chapter "Favored Themes and Motion Picture Propaganda". Some 33 anti-Nazi films are considered there. Another 241 anti-Nazi movies were identified by this study, having been released from 1942 through 1994. On average, Hollywood released nearly 5 anti-Nazi films a year during this latter 52 year period. Although, this study did not go so far as to quantify the results, it would appear that more Hollywood films have featured the Nazis as villains more than all other films focusing on other World War II enemies of the U.S., considered together. The appearances of Nazis as villains in American-made motion pictures seem to far outdistance the appearances of any other consistently negatively portrayed human population. Interestingly, but not surprisingly, Michael Medved made little or no comment regarding this clear Hollywood bias, which has, over the years, risen to the level of movie propaganda. Even though we might all agree that Nazis are appropriate movie villains, the concern expressed here centers on the fact that if a narrowly defined interest group that happens to control Hollywood is allowed to obsessively portray its most despicable enemies through a disproportionate number of movies showing them as villains, then all other groups that have any interest in portraying someone else as a movie villain are arbitrarily prevented from doing so. Thus, the proliferation of Nazi villains in Hollywood films, not only confirms the priorities and biases of the Hollywood film community, it precludes others from telling their important stories through films that are available to be seen by large segments of the American and world publics. As noted above, it may also be true that there have been more so-called anti-Nazi films produced or released for consumption by the American public than films about all of the other U.S. war-time enemies put together. If that were true, such a result, would once again suggest that those who control the American film apparatus, do in fact use their power and discretion to create and offer negative portrayals of the enemy most feared or hated by the filmmaking community itself. In any case, none of these references to movies that portray an anti-Nazi point of view or provide a sympathetic portrayal of Jews is intended to discredit the perspective portrayed, but only to illustrate that the excessive number of such movies support the contention of this book that clear patterns of bias exist in Hollywood films and that too many movies reflecting such views have been produced or distributed by the U.S. film industry to the exclusion of movies that could have been made by other groups within our society, who also have important stories to tell through this significant communications medium. This pattern of bias, in fact reflects the rather arrogant contention that the perspective of this small group of these politically liberal, not very religious Jewish males of European heritage is more important that the perspective of others in our society, and thus deserves more attention in the movies. Again, this book does not argue that anti-Nazi films should not have been made. Nor does this book argue that Nazis should not be portrayed as villains. Anyone who makes such a suggestion, either has not read this book (and/or the underlying research), or is merely trying to discredit the book by spreading malicious untruths. This book, instead, argues that the proliferation of anti-Nazi and other themes of particular interest to that small group of politically liberal, not very religious Jewish males with a European heritage who control Hollywood, has crowded out other movie themes that relate important stories, just as important to other racial, cultural, religious, ethnic or regional groups in America, who ought to have an equal opportunity to tell their stories to the rest of the world. In other words, that small group of Jewish males of European heritage, who are (generally speaking) politically liberal and not very religious, should not be allowed to foreclose the opportunities of other interest groups like African-Americans, Jewish and non-Jewish women, Hispanic and Latinos, Asian-Americans, Arab-Americans, White Southerners, Christians, Muslims, political conservatives, etc. in our diverse society from portraying their villains in motion pictures that are seen by mainstream America and the rest of the world. The Anti-German Spillover--Of course, one of the problems with an American film industry churning out so many anti-Nazi movies is that the negative feelings for Nazis may spill over into a more generalized negative feeling about Germans in general. There seems to be some evidence to indicate that such a more generalized prejudicial spillover has already occurred in the movies. A couple of recent examples illustrate the point. For example, Die Hard (1988) featured a villainous " . . . multinational group, led by a German named Hans Gruber (Alan Rickman) (who) . . . thinks he is superior to the riff-raff he has to associate with." Also, even more recently, Alan Parker's The Road to Wellville (Columbia Pictures-1994), while on the surface, a " . . . satire of health fanaticism in turn-of-the-century America . . . ", contained numerous negative references to the Germans. In addition, the 1994 TriStar film release Legends of the Fall was " . . . set during the early 20th century . . . " The story " . . . focuses on the three sons of retired calvary officer William Ludlow (Anthony Hopkins) . . . " who " . . . left the military at issue with government treatment of plains Indians." The film includes an important segment portraying the horror of World War I and fighting against the German enemy. Much of the rest of the movie dealt with the effects of that war experience on the lives of a U.S. family. Thus, Hollywood's strong anti-Nazi prejudice appears to have evolved into a more generalized anti-German prejudice, which illustrates the problem with prejudice of all kinds. In all likelihood, there are lot of Germans today who are very tired of seeing American movies showing German villains, regardless of whether they are Nazis or not, partly because such a pattern of bias is morally wrong and partly because, before long, the viewers of this kind of consistent propaganda begin to see all Germans as villains. Fascism, Totalitarianism and Repressive Dictatorships--After the flurry of anti-Fascist and propagandistic motion pictures relating to the Spanish Civil War, (see "Favored Themes and Motion Picture Propaganda"), Hollywood films have continued to warn against the threat of fascism, totalitarianism and repressive dictatorships, even though, as Hortense Powdermaker reported, the Hollywood establishment itself is operated in a totalitarian manner. It would be interesting to determine why an industry that operates in such a fascistic manner could make so many anti-fascistic films? On the other hand, maybe the filmmakers themselves are actually trying to say something about the system within which they must function. The Continuing Attack: Neo-Nazi/Fascists, White Supremacists and the Klan--In addition to the long series of anti-Nazi and anti-fascist motion pictures, the Hollywood-based U.S. film industry also routinely churns out films that negatively portray neo-Nazis, neo-fascists, white supremacists and the Ku Klux Klan. Once again, this reported conclusion based on an analysis of Hollywood films and pointing out that such movies commonly use white supremacists as villains is not included as any form of argument that they should not be cast as villains, only that if they are used as villains, so should extremists of all other religious, cultural, ethnic and racial groups. If the Hollywood-based U.S. movie industry takes the position that only the white race has extremists on its fringe, then that movie industry itself is racist. Part of the danger of the anti-Nazi, anti-Fascist and anti-White Supremacist movies that is of concern is that the underlying prejudice against such hate mongering can so easily and appears to have in fact, evolved into a broader anti-neo-Nazi, anti-German, anti White Supremacist, anti-Ku Klux Klan, anti-redneck and finally, anti-Southern mentality in the movie industry (see discussion of movies about the South below), all of which tends to stir prejudice based on stereotypes in our contemporary society and lay the groundwork for a form of regional discrimination in the U.S. that is encouraged by the powerful communications medium, the Hollywood motion picture. It would appear, in fact, that the people who are making these movies are more prejudice than most of the people portrayed. Interestingly enough, the Ku Klux Klan has had chapters in states other than in the American South (e.g., Kansas, California, Oregon, Ohio, Indiana, New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania), while the vast majority of Hollywood films portraying the Klan are centered in the Southern states. Again, there is nothing inherently wrong with portraying neo-Nazis and others on the political right as movie villains, so long as the film industry also portrays extremists on all other sides of the political spectrum as villains from time to time. Otherwise, Hollywood's liberal bias is being converted into political propaganda and that is far afield from "entertainment". There is also nothing wrong with portraying Southerners as movie villains, so long as some Southerners are portrayed in a positive manner either in the same movie or in other movies during the period. The problem with the Hollywood's consistent portrayal of those on the political right and Southerners, however, (as can be seen further from the discussion below) is that their portrayals in Hollywood movies have been consistently negative and/or stereotypical. Such a pattern of bias might be more acceptable if all interest groups in our society had an equal and fair opportunity to tell their important cultural stories on the screen, but such opportunities simply do not exist (see How the Movie Wars Were Won and the book version of Who Really Controls Hollywood). Regional Prejudice: Hollywood's Rape of the South Hollywood films appear to consistently project a pro-bi-coastal prejudice and an anti-regional prejudice against the Mid-West and the South. As an example, negative portrayals of the American South in Hollywood films are particularly offensive and often include the negative or stereotypical portrayals of people, places or things in the Southern U.S. from Texas to Florida. Such portrayals appear to be the result of a form of regional stereotyping, based on the regional prejudice of the filmmakers themselves. The Hollywood film moguls (read bigots) must feel that prejudice based on pre-conceived notions about a group of people from a particular region of the country, is more acceptable that prejudice based on pre-conceived notions about people of a certain race, religion, ethnic group or culture. But in reality, there is no substantial difference. Michael Medved also shows no interest in this blatant Hollywood bias which again, appears to be based on a widespread Hollywood prejudice against people, places and things of the American South. The 20's and '30s--The negative or stereotypical Hollywood portrayals of the South also started early. Of the 13 Southern film portrayals in the 20's and 30's reported in the movie review publications utilized for this study the most prominent themes in order of appearance included kids in the South (4), life on the river (4), and Southern Belles (2). In addition, the following four themes were offered in one film each during this period: family life, poor sharecropper, Southern prison, hillbillies (family feud) and wandering printer. The 1940s--In the '40s, the sources used for this study reported 25 films about the American South. The most common themes included Texans of one sort of another (6), individuals associated with farming (4), political corruption (3), family feuds (2) and the mentally ill (2). Other themes appearing in one movie each during this decade included oil field roughnecks, outlaws, racial discrimination, ruthless Southern industrialists, the Southern family and more Southern Belles. The 1950s--The 43 films about the South released in the '50s and reported in the sources used for this study continued several common themes. Texans were generally portrayed as cowboys or oil tycoons. Southern families were decadent or feudin'. Other Southerners were portrayed as criminals, mentally ill, moonshiners, murderers, yokels, drunkards, gamblers, Ku Klux Klan members, poor farmers, politically corrupt and racist soldiers. The 1960s--As the '60s decade began, racism became the new favorite Hollywood theme for films about the South. At least 5 films of the decade featured this issue. Next in order, Hollywood films about the South focused on Texans (portrayed as dim witted, small town, cowboys or millionaires), Confederate soldiers and related topics (4), hick and hillbillies (4), Cajun troublemakers (2) and tyrannical landowners. The 1970s--Some 86 Hollywood movies of the '70s primarily portrayed the American South as a region of racists (8), moonshine runners (7), criminals (7) and murderers (5). Texans (8) were portrayed as cowboys, criminals, lovin' girls, football players, millionaires, crazy, silly and from small towns. Other stereotypical Hollywood portrayals of the decade included Southern Sheriffs (4), slaves and slave owners (3), more small town folk (3), dumb and eccentric people, country music lovers, back woods monsters, demented families, deprived or mistreated blacks in the South, confederates, family feuds and kids from the South who were either orphaned or jumping off a river bridge. The 1980s--During the '80s decade, Hollywood produced or released even more films with characters and stories from the American South. Unfortunately, the old negative and stereotypical portrayals continued to be even more common. Southerners were once again most often portrayed as murderers (8), country music lovers (6), being from small towns (6), flawed lawmen (5), criminals, other than murderers (4), racists (4) cagey Cajuns (3), eccentrics (3), hillbillies (3), members of the Ku Klux Klan (3), oil field workers (3), rednecks, strippers and prostitutes, prejudiced individuals or slaves. The Texas subgroup (8) were portrayed as irresponsible parents, high-rollers, crude, lonely and in despair, as thieves, cowboys, being from small towns and unjust. Based on this review of Hollywood movies about the South, it may be accurate to report that never in the history of the Hollywood-based U.S. film industry, has a movie been produced or released by a major studio/distributor that portrayed a White Anglo-Saxon male from the South, set in a contemporary urban environment in the South, as a hero, without serious character flaws. Is the Hollywood failure to provide positive movie role models for the white youth of the South a mere oversight, coincidence or natural result of the prejudices held by the specific subset of politically liberal, not very religious Jewish males of European heritage who control Hollywood? The Early 1990s--In the early years of the 1990s decade, Hollywood's favorite target in the American South appears to be the Southern subgroup, the Texans. They are specifically portrayed in 7 films as inhabitants of dreary small towns, football crazy, cowgirls, evil fathers, the "lowest form of human life", lifelong losers and aimless. Other Southerners were portrayed as criminals (5), racists (4) and leaving the South for other more desirable places (4). Southern women are portrayed as simple, backwoods, discontented or stuck in drab marriages with a domineering white-trash husband. The rest of the 44 films reviewed (and portraying recurring characters) presented Southerners as eccentrics, murderers, dumb, Ku Klux Klan members, odd-ball characters and poor. As can be seen from the fairly comprehensive overview of Hollywood movies that formed the basis for this study about the American South, the Hollywood movie southern stereotype typically involves "tyrannical" fathers and uncles, "eccentric" mothers, "demented" hillbillies, moonshiners, corrupt sheriffs and racist rednecks. Specific Texas stereotypes involve cowboys, millionaires and oil field roughnecks. It would appear from the review of motion pictures summarized above that the Hollywood-based U.S. industry has for the past nearly 90 years systematically engaged in the malicious defamation of an entire region of our country, the American South. Much as Michael Medved argues that the film industry is losing potential revenues from a major segment of an overlooked potential moviegoing audience by focusing on vulgar, crude, bizarre, sexually explicit, violent movies, a similar argument can be made that motion picture revenues in the South, including Texas are less than they would be if there was more balance in the movie industry portrayals of people and places in the South. It is safe to say that a lot of people in the South simply do not go to see modern Hollywood movies because they consider them silly and quite often insulting or offensive. A total of 251 movies are included in this specific survey of Hollywood movies featuring the American South. As it turns out, only 29 of them (12%) were directed by directors from the South. Fifty-five (55) of these movies (22%) were directed by directors from the state of New York alone. Sixty-five (65) others (26%) were directed by directors from other Northern states besides New York. Sixty-nine (69 or 27%) were directed by foreign directors and another 33 (13%) were directed by directors from the American West. In all, 88% of these films about people, places and things of the American South, were directed by non-Southerners. This may help explain why so many of them present negative and/or stereotypical portrayals of these subjects. Consider the multiple levels of arrogance involved in a filmmaking community, controlled by a small group of politically liberal, not very religious Jewish males of a European heritage (see "Who Really Controls Hollywood"), that consistently turns out films portraying the people, places and things in the South in a negative or stereotypical manner. There is an initial level of arrogance and supposed "superiority" involved in the moralistic judgment made in deciding that it is ok for one cultural group to consistently be critical of another. There is a second level of arrogance in assuming that other regions of the country cannot provide an approximate equal number of the settings for some of these negative or stereotypical portrayals of local populations. There is a third level of arrogance in controlling the film industry to the exclusion of other cultural groups, thus preventing the other cultural groups (including people from the South) from providing a more accurate or alternative depiction of themselves on the screen. And there is a fourth level of arrogance involved in the proposition that the people of the South are so stupid that they will continue to pay money to see such films, money which in turn allows the Hollywood filmmakers to continue to spread this kind of negative propaganda. It appears quite clear from the record set forth above (and at "Favored Themes and Motion Picture Propaganda") that the people who control the U.S. film industry are very much into including messages that promote tolerance, whenever tolerance might affect them, but promoting "hate" whenever their movies have anything to do with people, places and things from the South. Based on such an observation, it would be fair to label the people who control Hollywood as "hatemongers" and "bigots". The fact that some of these films providing negative or stereotypical portrayals of people, places and things of the American South are based on the works of Southern writers is also irrelevant. The relevant consideration here is who has the power to determine what movies are made and the content of those movies, and how has that power been exercised for the nearly 100 year history of the U.S. film industry. If, for example, there are 100 writers from the Southern region of the country writing about the South and fifty of them provide negative and stereotypical portrayals of people, places and things in the South, but the Hollywood moviemakers choose almost all of their movies from this group of fifty negative writers, as opposed to the group that provides more positive portrayals, what difference does it make, that the literary works on which the movies are based were written by someone from the South? This logical argument relating to the contributors to such film projects also applies to all of the other patterns of bias exhibited by Hollywood movies. Another aspect of the problem with the American film industry is that it seems to make a lot of movies about racism generally (as opposed to other equally important issues), and racism in the South, specifically, the cumulative effect of which is to falsely suggest that most of the racism directed toward Blacks in this country is geographically centered in the southern United States. At the same time, prejudice, racism and discrimination directed toward Blacks and others pervades the very industry that produces and releases these accusatory movies. The situation is so bad that the U.S. film industry may be one of the most racist industries in America, and of course, what makes the situation even worse, is that the film industry produces a product that is effected by the beliefs of those filmmakers. Confirmation of this blatant prejudice may be revealed simply by asking the question: How many Hollywood films during the last ten years have portrayed white males in the cities of Miami, Atlanta, New Orleans, Houston, Dallas or San Antonio, or any of the other vibrant cities in the South as anything other than redneck jerks? Obviously, not very many, because (1) most Hollywood films about the South are set in the rural South and (2) because most of the white people portrayed are presented as ignorant, prejudice local yokels. Another variation on that question, the answer to which tends to corroborate the premise that the U.S. film industry consistently produces and distributes movies exhibiting such a regional prejudice, is: What and how many major studio/distributor releases in the past ten years have featured a positive portrayal of an urban, contemporary, white Anglo-Saxon Southern male? The answer again is, very few indeed, if any. Here is an example of the potential harm from regional prejudice. In 1986, some eleven years after the so-called Malibu Mafia launched the Energy Action Committee, the lobbying organization Hollywood liberals used " . . . to battle big oil in the legislative wars over energy policy . . . " the OPEC oil countries arbitrarily decided to flood the world oil markets with cheap oil, at prices so low, domestic oil producers here in the U.S. could not compete. The U.S. Congress then had an opportunity to step in and protect our domestic oil industry (with tariff supports), from the anti-competitive and predatory actions of this foreign cartel. It basically came to a vote of the non-oil producing states against the oil-producing states (essentially a regional industry primarily based in the South). It is the contention of this book that the kind of regional prejudice fostered by the movie industry's pattern of bias (i.e, its consistent negative or stereotypical portrayals of people, places and things of the American South), and the well-financed lobbying activities of the Malibu Mafia, may have contributed to the 1986 Congressional decision not to provide support for the domestic oil industry when threatened by the economic attack of the OPEC oil cartel. As a result of that crucial Congressional decision (very possibly based on the same kind of regional prejudice regularly spewed forth through Hollywood movies), hundreds of oil industry related companies in the South went out of business, thousands of people working in affected jobs were out of work, homes were lost, real estate values suffered significantly, savings and loans and banks suffered losses and an entire region of the country suffered through a severe economic recession. There may, of course, be no way of knowing for certain whether regional prejudice played a part in that decision, but in the Congressional debates themselves, which were carried live on cable television, you could easily see that the regional interests of the country were being debated, not the national interest. At the very least, such an incident highlights the critical importance for Congress not to allow an important communications medium like the U.S. film industry to be controlled by people who consistently provide negative portrayals of any segment of our population. After all, in addition to the potential for psychological damages, such consistent negative portrayals may ultimately affect the economic interests of the region or group being victimized. And, as can be seen from the above example, adversely affecting the economic interests of a region destroys jobs, careers, fortunes and lives. Further, of course, if a region of the country can be victimized by this sort of Hollywood propaganda, what is to stop such propaganda from being turned on other segments of our diverse population? Of course, this book provides persuasive evidence that other segments of our population have already been targeted (also see "Motion Picture Biographies" and "Favored Themes and Motion Picture Propaganda"). As Paul Johnson wrote in his 1987 book A History of the Jews, "Germany could not be judged by Nazi anti-Semitism, any more than France by its Terror, Protestantism by the Ku-Klux-Klan or, for that matter, 'the Jews by their parvenus'." In addition, the American South cannot fairly be judged by the racist attitudes of just some of the people who live there, cannot be fairly judged by the many negative movie portrayals of Southern country-folk and cannot be fairly judged by the Hollywood movie portrayals of "tyrannical" fathers and uncles, "eccentric" mothers, "demented" hillbillies, moonshiners, corrupt sheriffs, racist rednecks, cowboys, millionaires or oil field roughnecks. There is much more to the American South than what Hollywood wants the world to see. Thus, this book is an argument for extending the common Hollywood movie theme of tolerance to the real world, including Hollywood itself. If the roles were reversed (i.e., a small group of white males from the South had been able to gain control of the U.S.-based film industry through the use of anti-competitive business practices, historical accident or otherwise, and had established its headquarters in Atlanta, instead of Los Angeles, then proceeded to produce and distribute movies that portrayed American Jews in a consistently negative or stereotypical manner for nearly 90 years), the country might be and should be rightfully outraged. The country should also be equally outraged by what has actually been offered by the Hollywood-based U.S. film industry, certainly with respect to its consistent defamation of the American South. Other Negative Portrayals in Hollywood Films The above listing and discussion is not intended to be exhaustive nor does it include all groups that have complained about being consistently negatively or stereotypically portrayed by the American film industry (or about the related lack of equal employment opportunity at all levels of the film industry). Other identifiable populations voicing complaints from time to time with regard to their portrayals in Hollywood movies include Muslims, Italian-Americans, German-Americans, Irish-Americans, Gypsies, the deaf and hard of hearing and the elderly. Also, we rarely see any Mormons working in the Hollywood-based U.S. film industry, nor many films about Mormons. Practitioners of the Voodoo religion are also consistently portrayed as villains in Hollywood movies, along with most forms of religions that are considered by the Hollywood community to be cults. In addition to serving as a brief history of those groups that have recently complained about biased movies and their negative or stereotypical portrayals in American movies, this review also tells us which groups of people view themselves as "outsiders" or the "disenfranchised" in relation to the Hollywood power structure. Thus, this listing tells us quite clearly, who does not control Hollywood, and helps to predict the results of the analysis in "Who Really Controls Hollywood". For surely, if any of these groups controlled Hollywood, they would choose to portray themselves in a more positive light in motion pictures from time to time and provide more equal employment opportunities for members of their respective groups. Further, we see again that creative control in Hollywood cannot be separated from economic control, after all, the top studio executives ultimately make the decision as to which movies are produced and released for viewing by most moviegoers, and these same executives exercise considerable contractual control over the producer, director, screenwriter, script, actors, actresses, budget, running time and MPAA rating, all of which affect the creative result. Many of the business practices (primarily distributor business practices) discussed in this book's companion volumes How the Movie Wars Were Won and The Feature Film Distribution Deal contribute to the major studio/distributors' control and dominance of the motion picture industry. That control in turn gives the major studio/distributors the power to make whatever movies they want and to communicate through such movies whatever ideas they choose. In addition, the control of the major studio/distributors excludes large segments of our multi-cultural society from meaningful participation in the movie-making process and results in the consistent portrayal of many of these same "outsider" interest groups in a negative or stereotypical manner. Movie critic Roger Ebert comments on the problem of movie villains saying that "[m]ovies like The Fourth War (1990) are a reminder that Hollywood is running low on dependable villains. The Nazis were always reliable, but World War II ended forty-five years ago. Now the cold War is winding down, and just when Lethal Weapon 2 introduced South African diplomats as the bad buys, de Klerk came along to make that approach unpredictable. Drug dealers are wearing out their welcome. Bad cops are a cliche'. Suggestions?" Yes, the portrayals of movie bad guys should be distributed more evenly among all populations within our society. It may be unreasonable, however, to expect the presently configured power structure in Hollywood to engage in such a re-distribution of portrayals. Thus, it may be necessary to take further steps to alter that power structure. Another planned companion volume to this book Motion Picture Industry Reform contains numerous suggestions along those lines. Included are detailed discussions of the following possibilities, among others: (1) the creation of a national coalition to monitor and publicize on an annual basis, the patterns of bias contained in Hollywood films; (2) the creation of a national political action group designed to tell the truth about what is really going on in Hollywood to the general public, the press and our representatives in Congress, (particularly with respect to employment discrimination and anti-competitive business practices) so as to bring about reasonable reforms to permit all interest groups a fair opportunity to tell their important cultural stories through this significant medium for the communication of ideas; (3) the bringing of a class-action lawsuit by all net and gross profit participants against the major studio/distributors for cheating them out of their fair share of the upside economic potential of their own films, with the related result that the creative control of such participants is severely weakened; (4) the organization of a national boycott (including participants from all groups that are consistently portrayed in Hollywood movies in a negative or stereotypical manner) of all feature length motion pictures distributed by the major studio/distributors, until more diversity is brought about in the top level studio executive positions and throughout the industry, as well as more diversity in the portrayals in Hollywood films; (5) creation of a Film Industry Research Institute for the purpose of continuing critical studies of who controls Hollywood and how that control relates to the moves produced and released; and (6) a class action law suit against all of the major studio/distributors on behalf of all those groups consistently portrayed in a negative or stereotypical manner and based on defamation. Hollywood is too powerful for a limited boycott of one or two offensive films by a single interest group to be effective. Finally, on the novel side for possible remedies, it would only seem fair that a regional organization such as a Chamber of Commerce of the South might be able to bring a class action lawsuit against the major studio/distributors for defamation of the entire region. Of course, it is also important to keep in mind that offensive negative portrayals or stereotypical movie portrayals do not always rise to the level of a movie villains (i.e., a person, place or thing can be portrayed in a movie in a negative manner without that person, place or thing having to serve as the movie's villain) or even as a lead character. It would also be quite natural to ask: "If all of these groups have been consistently portrayed in a negative or stereotypical manner all of these years, what group or groups in our diverse society have benefited from positive Hollywood film portrayals?" That question is treated separately in the chapter entitled "Favored Themes and Motion Picture Propaganda". As we have seen, in recent years, numerous interest groups in the U.S. have vigorously complained about being consistently portrayed in a negative or stereotypical manner in Hollywood films, but such complaints have been effectively ignored by the all-powerful, vertically integrated, distributor-dominated MPAA companies. Quite often, as in this case, where power is concentrated in the hands of a few, such power breeds arrogance. As noted above, these complaining outsider groups include women, the elderly, African-Americans, Hispanic/Latinos, Arabs and Arab-Americans, Asians and Asian-Americans, Italian-Americans, German-Americans, White Southerners, gay/lesbians, Christians and others. Unfortunately, it is very likely that the consistent portrayal of negative stereotypes in U.S.-made movies contributes to prejudice. Prejudice in turn contributes to discrimination and discrimination often leads to conflict. Thus, in all probability, the U.S. motion picture industry has, over the years, become a contributing factor and potential cause of unnecessary conflict within our diverse society. "I think that when you are only using characters of color, black or Hispanic, to depict negative influences or stereotypical influences, when you fail to use [them] to represent everyday characters you are contributing to an over-burdened situation, a group overburdened with stereotyped images . . . There's a willingness to portray the negativeness in an 'other' whether that person is 'other' by race or by gender. The danger in that is you make me and my community more of an 'other' for the rest of America."
Chapter 2 MORE BIAS IN MOTION PICTURE BIOGRAPHIESGeorge Custen Patterns of bias similar to those revealed in the previous chapter appear in Hollywood movie presentations of historical figures. The results of the study reported in this chapter provides followup to an earlier review of movie biopics conducted by Professor George Custen. Whereas his study of biopics ended with films in the '60s, this more comprehensive study carries the topic through into the mid '90s. Analysis of this body of films, the Hollywood biopics, considers the geographic setting for such films, the occupations portrayed, time and sex biases, ideology, historical accuracy and the race, culture and ethnicity of the biopic subjects. In some instances, the conclusions of the author of the earlier work in this area (George Custen's Bio/Pics) are compared with those of the more contemporary study. In other instances, this later study places an emphasis on different issues which are critical in gaining an understanding of the Hollywood-based U.S. film industry. Geography--As Custen points out, "[i]n their projection of biography onto a world map, Hollywood created a distorted view of accomplishment that sustained an image of history that . . . made it appear that entire domains of achievement had been invented by Americans . . . " Custen's study of biopics, which only surveyed the genre through the middle of the century, reveals that "[t]wo-thirds of all biopics are either about Americans or set in America . . . " and "[a]fter the United States, Europe appears to be the center of the biographical universe, with 22 percent of films set there." As Custen pointed out for his study, if " . . . the American and European totals (are combined) . . . 89 percent of all famous people are either American or European . . . Asia and Africa account for only 3 percent of all biopics (in Custen's study) . . . " Custen's study also revealed that " . . . America's (former) . . . rival, the U.S.S.R., as well as uncolonized Asia . . . " were "[n]oticeably under-represented . . . " Custin points out that these " . . . enormous voids represent a kind of cinematic equivalent to isolationism, a willful ignoring of entire nations whose ethnicity, race, ideology, or, dangerously, all three prevented them from gaining the credentials needed for entering biography land." In Custen's study "[f]ilms set in Japan and China (less than 1 percent) take place either in the long ago past (The Adventures of Marco Polo), or present Asian nationals as outmoded resisters to the voice of American modernity . . . " The weighted geographic distribution appears to have continued (and even increased) in more contemporary biopics. This later study of Hollywood biopics (continued through the mid-1990s) reveals that the films focusing on American subjects were far greater in number than any other country or continent. There were 324 Hollywood biopics with American subjects in this study. The next significant level of subjects came from Europe (101), and considering the European heritage of many of those in the Hollywood film community, that is not surprising. After all, movies tend to a large extent to mirror the values, interests, cultural perspectives and prejudices of their makers. The American and European subjects combined (from the more recent expanded study) account for slightly more than 95% of the biopics, an increase of 6% over Custen's results. The next highest number of subjects from an area of the world (in the more recent expanded study) was the Middle East with 9 films and then Australia and Asia with 3 each. Biopic subjects from Africa and India were featured in 2 films per country. There were also only 2 films featuring subjects from our nearest neighbor to the south, Mexico. There was only one Hollywood biopic featuring a subject from Greece. None of the biopics focused on a subject from our nearest neighbor to the north, Canada. There were also none from any of the Central or South American countries. Hollywood completely ignored these countries in their biopics. Occupations--As Custen reports the " . . . great man as a tragic or grand royal figure or the famous statesman, popular before World War II (was) . . . replaced by the great man as a giant of some branch of the entertainment industry. While military figures and gangsters would be honored equally with biopics, particularly during the 1950s, the era of the biopic of the statesman vanished with the close of the war." Custen reported that " . . . by weighting the universe of fame so that it is numerically biased in favor of fame in the performing or creative fields, the movies justify their own system, lending credibility to idols of consumption rather than idols of production. In short, the dominance of performer biopics is a grand justification for the legitimacy of popular entertainment." Leo Lowenthal observed similar tendencies in his 1944 study of magazine biographies. In seeking to discern in magazines, biographical patterns over time, Lowenthal noted " . . . a shift both in the subjects of biography and in the explanations proffered for why a particular life was meritorious. His content analysis of 1,003 issues of Collier's and The Saturday Evening Post, covering sixteen sample years, found that while magazines of the first decades of the century had focused their attention on the biographies of what he called 'idols of production' (captains of industry, the military, and other members of conventional ruling elites), later magazines, inspired by the new media, radio and the motion picture, chose to highlight what Lowenthal called 'idols of consumption.' In this change from idols of production to idols of consumption, he detected a shift in American values and a shift in the morality lessons--'lessons of history'--that readers might derive from these magazines. Power through the making of the world had been replaced by power through ownership of its coveted items." "Lowenthal shared (with others of his day, including Theodore Adorno, Walter Benjamin, and Max Horkheimer) a fearful contempt for the products of the mass media, which according to his view, increasingly manipulated audience members into an authoritarian view of history . . . 'corrupting the educational conscience by delivering goods which bear an educational trademark but are not the genuine article . . . '" Continuing to reflect the interests of Hollywood filmmakers, the more recent expanded biopic study also revealed that the most common occupation for biopic subjects was people in the entertainment field, including actors, actresses, singers, musicians and composers. There were 130 (29%) of those. The next most common occupation favored by Hollywood was the criminal/gangster/outlaw at 50 (11%), thus the criminal/gangster/outlaw biopic has now surpassed the military hero. In some instances the gangsters and entertainers were also involved with each other. The criminal/gangster/outlaw and entertainer biopics combined accounted for 40% of all occupations portrayed in Hollywood motion picture biographies covering an 82 year period. This unusual combination raises interesting questions about Hollywood's interests. The next favorite Hollywood biopic topic was the Western. There were 38 of those, including the 7 of the Custen study that could easily be identified as Westerns from their titles only (see footnote). Also, 6 of these Western biopics focused on Indian subjects. Then there were 30 athletes (7%) featured in the biopics (20–white; 6--black; 1–Indian; 1--woman; and 2--horses). Unfortunately, there were no American women athletes honored with Hollywood biopics throughout the period covered. Also, on this lower end of the numerical spectrum, there were 25 military heroes (6%), 24 royalty (5%), 22 politicians or government leaders, 18 writers (including poets and playwrights), 14 religious leaders, 8 biopic subjects from law enforcement, 8 aviators, 7 businessmen, 7 dentists and doctors, 6 spies, 6 journalist/reporters, 5 inventors, 5 scientists, 4 artist/painters, 4 ambassador/diplomats, 4 nurses, 3 explorers, 1 banker, 1 teacher and 1 Supreme Court Justice represented. Men vs Women--In Custen's study of studio biopics he discovered that there " . . . are almost two and a half times as many male biographies as females. Moreover, the bulk of female biographies are of entertainers and paramours." Custen noted that " . . . in general, the distribution of power in society is mirrored by the distribution and limitation of the lives women are allowed to depict." Custen's study showed that " . . . men have numeric superiority in twelve careers (while) . . . films on women dominate only four areas. After paramour and educator, they are royalty and medical . . . " The biography of the " . . . single famous woman accounts for only one-quarter (25.8%) of all biopics (in Custen's study) . . . men alone account for 65 percent of all biographies, more than twice the number of biopics than women . . . " "One might also add that . . . three categories--entertainer, royalty, paramour--make the female the object of a male gaze." Those trends were altered even more in favor of men in the more contemporary study, which revealed that 83% of the subjects were male and only 17% were female. Even though the mistress, entertainer, Royalty and nurse categories dominated among women in the later study, other occupational fields like writer, poet, intern, governess, athlete, orphanage founder, gangster, scientist, aviator, were included along with peasant girl, wife and groupie. The continuing trend of male dominance in Hollywood biopics re-confirms the continuation of male dominance at the key decision-making levels in the Hollywood studios. Time Bias--Custen's study also revealed a "time bias" in Hollywood biopics. He reported that " . . . 59 percent of all films set in the United States take place in the twentieth century, 39 percent in the nineteenth century, and only 2 percent in the seventeenth century. This is in contrast to Europe, where only 8.5 percent of all films are set in the twentieth century." As Custen reports, " . . . biographies of those before the Renaissance are rare indeed (4 percent), and limited to charismatic biblical figures or Egyptian or Greek royalty." "More than 80 percent of all entertainment biopics . . . " in Custen's study " . . . are set in the eighty years between 1880 and 1960. Of these entertainer biopics, almost a third are about vaudevillians . . . " Custen determined that if the subject of the biopic spoke German, chances are that such a person " . . . lived in the nineteenth century (the 'good' Germany) and composed music (Schumann, Schubert, Brahms, Strauss) or were a scientist (Erlich), or a humanitarian entrepreneur whose fondest wish was for 'one world' (Julius Reuter)." On the other hand, if the subject of the biopic was French, such a person " . . . lived in the nineteenth century, or (was) . . . either an intensely romantic eighteenth-century female (Madame Du Barry, Marie Antoniette, etc.) or an intensely political writer (Zola), statesman, and military figure (Napoleon), or, in the case of Louis Pasteur, a man dedicated almost equally to the advancement of science and the honor of France." In addition, Both the Zola and Ehrlich biographies dealt with anti-Semitism. Paul Ehrlich, the scientist " . . . who discovered a treatment for syphilis, was consciously selected as a subject for a biopic (Dr. Ehrlich's Magic Bullet) because he was both German and a Jew. As Warners story editor Finally McDermid explained to Will Hays (who was concerned with the explicitness of the 'syphilis' angle in Ehrlich), 'the reason for picking Ehrlich as a protagonist had very little to do with syphilis and its cure. Ehrlich happened to be a great humanitarian and a German Jew'." Ideology--Political orientation is one of the areas that cannot always be ascertained by a review of a film's synopsis. For example, there were only 23 readily identifiable political liberals in the expanded sample of biopics. Even so, the liberals significantly outnumbered the political conservatives, since their were only 4 of the latter. The portrayal of the major political parties of U.S. Presidents was much closer, with 7 biopics of Democratic presidents and 6 of Republicans, although only one of the Republican presidents was in office in the last forty years (Eisenhower 1952-1960). The Soviet Union, and its overall absence from Custen's study of studio biopics " . . . cannot easily be explained (as racist) . . . Here, the barrier to representation is ideological . . . with studio heads being even more afraid of Communism than they were of the threat of the Nazis. Thus, 'Russia' (represented in eight films of Custen's study) had to mean pre-revolutionary Russia . . . The incredible cinematic possibilities available in the Russian Revolution are of course, off-limits to the virulently anti-Communist industry . . . Moreover, many of the early movie moguls were immigrants from Russian or Eastern Europe, where as Jews, they were subject to a variety of forms of discrimination and persecution." Of course, the film industry was not as "virulently anti-Communist" as Custen would suggest since it is well-known that many Communists worked in the industry (primarily as writers, actors and directors) before the anti-communist purges in the 1950s. In addition, the studio house-cleanings came only after the studio heads began to fear that the public furor over communists might negatively impact the amount of money that could be earned at the box office with their movies. In other words, it would be more accurate to say that many on the creative side of the film industry were Communists or sympathetic, whereas the studio heads themselves were either anti-Communist or simply pragmatic. Custen further suggests, however, that many forces militated " . . . against producing any biopic of a Communist or totalitarian leader. Although ideological censorship may seem to be the most obvious explanation for these absences . . . " there are other reasons. For example, a " . . . substantial number of biopics explain famous people with reference to their families, their neighborhood or home roots, their education and friends. Such humanizing touches might render the lives of these charismatic but forbidden lives emphatic, perhaps even providing social explanations for their 'evil' behavior that might seem to excuse it . . . Being masters at propaganda, Hollywood realized that the normal biopic treatment simply could not be used for these (Communist) figures." Of course, the Hollywood decision-makers have had no similar hesitation in providing "social explanations" for the "evil behavior" of the many criminals, gangsters and outlaws they have chosen to portray in their biopics and other films. Historical Accuracy--Few if any of the biopics in Custen's or this more recent and broader study can be considered historically accurate. Part of the reason for that, of course, was the attitude of the studio executives. Darryl Zanuck, for example, expressed his belief in a memo dated July 28, 1936 that historical inaccuracies in biopics do not " . . . cause any trouble." For example, he said, in the biopic 'Rothschild' he " . . . made Rothschild (from the Jewish banking family) an English Baron and there never was a Rothschild a Baron." Zanuck went on to say that he " . . . had the King of England give (Rothschild) . . . the honor, and that at this time there was no King of England as the king was in the insane asylum . . . " Hayden White also noted that "[n]o history, visual or verbal, 'mirrors' all or even the greater parts of the events or scenes of which it purports to be an account . . . " In addition, Daniel Leab points out, that "[t]ruth, accuracy, and a proper respect for history . . . have been routinely subordinated to the need for dramatic effect and even the whims of filmmakers." On the other hand, in the sample of 100 biopics Custen used for " . . . content analysis, 90 percent . . . were prefaced by a written, spoken introduction . . . that asserted the truth status of the narrative that was about to unfold." Despite such blatantly false Hollywood promotional claims, the various reviews of Hollywood biopics commonly state that a given film is only "loosely based" on the truth, or that it is "fictionalized", "unhistorical", "romanticized" or only "moderately truthful". Thus, there appears to have been a significant difference between the film industry's marketing claims with respect to the historical accuracy of its biopics and what actually is portrayed on the screen, a difference that may rise to the level of irresponsible misrepresentations, and a difference that appears to carry over to the film industry's advertising of its other movies as well (see discussion of "The World's Greatest PR Machine" in How the Movie Wars Were Won). In addition, this consistent historical inaccuracy in motion picture biographies raises even more questions about why the patterns of Hollywood bias toward the subjects chosen exists. After all, if the moviemakers are free to substantially fictionalize, almost anyone's life story could be made of interest to moviegoers (i.e., commercial). In other words, any attempt by Hollywood decision-makers to explain that certain subjects were not chosen for biopic treatment because there was nothing of interest to the typical moviegoer in the proposed subject's background, can now be recognized for exactly what it is: Hollywood rationalization and double talk! Custen ultimately concluded that " . . . Hollywood biography is to history what Caesar's Palace is to architectural history: an enormous, engaging distortion, which after a time convinces us of its own kind of authenticity. Hollywood biographies are real not because they are believable. Rather, one must treat them as real because despite the obvious distortions ranging from the minor to the outright camp, Hollywood films are believed to be real by many viewers." "The biographical film (the 'biopic') routinely integrates disparate historical episodes of selected individual lives into a nearly monochromatic 'Hollywood view of history' . . . These films build a pattern of narrative that is selective in its attention to profession, differential in the role it assigns to gender, and limited in its historical settings." As stated earlier in this work, "movies mirror the values, interests, cultural perspectives and prejudices of their makers". Similarly, Custen pointed out that the biopics of his study appear to be " . . . in-house reflections of the community of producers . . . " that made them. For example, he cites the relationship between Jewish performer George Jessel's background as a vaudeville performer and his " . . . production of six biographies for Zanuck at Fox . . . all (of which) placed vaudeville at the center of the universe . . . " Custen also observed that the studio biopics " . . . are the product of institutional pressures that located authority in the hands of one or more powerful figures whose world view was . . . remarkably narrow . . . " and that " . . . the producers of (the Hollywood biopics) . . . often filtered the content of a great life through the sieve of their own experiences, values, and personalities." In any case, the " . . . studios tried to control, through various means, the attempts of others to shape their making of history. They accomplished this--in part for reasons of efficiency, in part for ideological purposes . . . " The more current and extended study of the Hollywood biopics suggests that these phenomena of rewriting history and attempting to control moviegoers' views of history continue without significant change. In addition to historical inaccuracy (in the extreme in some cases), there are at least two other aspects of the Hollywood biopics which stand out, as this body of films are reviewed: (1) quite commonly Hollywood tends to place a great deal of emphasis on the subject's romantic involvements, regardless of how significant such relationships were to the individual in real life, and (2) many of the subjects are relatively obscure or little known individuals. One further characteristic of the Hollywood biopic, as with other films produced by entities in the U.S. film capital, is the involvement of a disproportionate number of producers, directors, writers, actors and actresses of Jewish heritage, adding further support for the contention that a movie industry controlled by a small group of Jewish males of European heritage, who are politically liberal and not very religious (who also routinely engage in nepotism, favoritism, cronyism, blacklisting and other forms of discrimination), do tend to favor those who share their religious/cultural background and routinely deny opportunities to those who do not (see the following chapter on "Who Really Controls Hollywood" and the companion volume entitled How the Movie Wars Were Won). Race, Culture and Ethnicity--In Custen's study of biopics there were only twelve films (4%) made about non-white North Americans. "Only two professions, athlete and professional entertainer, are associated with black Americans, representing in a simplistic way many people's perceptions of the limited careers open to blacks. Native Americans are represented largely as defeated warriors, victims of superior white military strength." Although, this more contemporary study reveals a few more biopics featuring favorable portrayals of Indians (6 biopics focused on American Indians), only 16 biopics in total featured African-Americans and only 5 of those portrayed African-Americans who were not athletes or entertainers. In addition, there were no other U.S. Hispanic/Latino subjects honored other than the one entertainer featured in La Bamba (1987). To put this in perspective, (to graphically illustrate whose lives are worthy of a biopic) there were more Hollywood biopics of criminals, gangsters and outlaws (51) than for all American Indians, African-Americans and Hispanic/Latinos put together. This one component of Hollywood's bias is a national disgrace! In contrast, and continuing to mirror the makeup of Hollywood, the biopics from 1912 to 1994 included at least 53 (12%) Jewish subjects (a conservative estimate, since no person in this study is identified as being Jewish or having a Jewish heritage without published authority such as Lyman, Friedman, Katz, Erens, Dinnerstein, Gabler, Lacey, Johnson, etc.). Another 32 biopics (7%) included significant roles played by Jewish characters. In addition, 27 of the biopics in the contemporary study contained subjects which may be fairly characterized as "Jewish heroes" (i.e., non-Jews who took significant actions that favored Jewish interests), while another 12 of these biopics may be characterized as films featuring Jewish "enemies" (i.e., negative portrayals of people who were considered hostile toward Jews). Thus, a total of 124 (28%) of the biopics in the contemporary study featured Jewish subjects, Jews in significant roles, "Jewish heroes" or Jewish "enemies". Also, in contrast to the above record, only 26 people from the American South were featured in Hollywood biopics and they were mostly portrayed in a negative manner, as gangsters, outlaws or stereotypical country-western entertainers. Thus, this study of Hollywood biopics further confirms a significant Hollywood prejudice towards persons from the American South as well as other religious, ethnic, cultural, racial or regional groups arbitrarily excluded from the Hollywood insiders club [the persons who control Hollywood and share a common background (i.e., Jewish males of European heritage who are politically liberal and not very religious)]. Looking at the participation of persons of Jewish heritage in the creation of these biopics, we see a similar pattern. At least 65 (15%) of the Hollywood biopics in the more contemporary study were directed by directors of Jewish heritage. Actors or actresses of Jewish heritage appeared in 119 or 27%. Producers of Jewish heritage produced some 72 or 16% of these films and at least 46 or 10% of the biopics were based on scripts written by writers of Jewish heritage. In total, 269 of the 443 Hollywood biopics in this more contemporary and broader study (61%) involved the efforts of creative persons of Jewish heritage. Again, this 61% figure does not count Jewish studio executives, composers, editors, cinematographers or others of Jewish background not listed above who may have participated in the creation of these films. Also, this study does not go so far as to do so, but if the films with Jewish creative elements were to be combined with the biopics featuring Jewish subjects, significant roles for Jewish characters, "Jewish heroes" and Jewish "enemies", the applicable percentage of the entire body of Hollywood biopics with significant Jewish elements would likely reach into the 70 percentage range, an incredibly disproportionate number for an industry supposedly based on merit. This observed phenomenon confirms that Hollywood is not a merit system, not a level playing field and not a free market at all. As can be seen from the analysis of the background of the filmmakers of the biopics discussed above, in many instances, some combination of multiple participants (i.e, studio executives, producers, directors, screenwriters, actors and/or actresses) shared a Jewish background. Under such circumstances, no credible person could seriously assert that such instances could actually result in a true free market system, unhindered by powerful anti-competitive forces (see How the Movie Wars Were Won and The Feature Film Distribution Deal). After working through this material relating to motion picture biographies, it seems clear that the Hollywood-based U.S. film industry is actually a privately controlled culture promotion machine, at least inadvertently supported by U.S. federal policy and the financial contributions of the mass movie-going public that has been duped into believing that movies are merely entertainment, when in fact, Hollywood movies taken as a whole, and because of their consistent patterns of bias over time, actually rise to the level of special interest propaganda. In other words, it appears to be quite clear that the Hollywood-based U.S. film industry has always been (and continues to be) controlled by a small group of Jewish males of European heritage, who are politically liberal and not very religious (see "Who Really Controls Hollywood") Among other things, this control group has engaged in extensive nepotism, favoritism and cronyism, in addition to reciprocal preferences, primarily based on the Jewish heritage of the beneficiaries of those forms of discrimination (see How the Movie Wars Were Won). In addition, it is clear that as a result of that control, Hollywood movies have consistently portrayed people, places and things associated with the Jewish culture in a more favorable manner, while at the same time, consistently portraying people, places and things that are not Jewish in "In their projection of biography onto a world map, Hollywood created a distorted view of accomplishment . . . "