FIRM - Discussions - April 9

FIRM Discussions
April 9, 1998 - April 30, 1998

Should the Film Industry Be Reformed?

Film Industry Reform
Joe Goldenberg
2:32 am Thursday April 9, 1998
I think this discussion is way over due. The movie industry has been controlled by a handfull of people for long enough. I am concerned about what my children see all the time in the movies: especially the violence.
re: Film Industry Reform
Sara Lilly
0:45 am Saturday April 11, 1998
I disagree, this discussion has been going on since the early sixties.
re: Film Industry Reform
Jim Hunter
0:48 am Saturday April 11, 1998
No, I believe you mean 1912 when the independent producers of that era split for Hollywood to be near Mexico for a quick escape with their boot-legged cameras.
Distribution of features
Amy Williams
2:44 am Thursday April 9, 1998
I have been reading the material on net profit participation and know several people that have been screwed by their distributors. I hope this new class action of Estate of Garrison v. Warner et. al, causes some positive change in the film business.

Confused
Shelly Doe
3:57 am Saturday April 11, 1998
This whole industry is confusing to me. Can anyone tell me a good book to read?
Automatically Parsed Royalties
James Jaeger
3:14 pm Saturday May 9, 1998
Does anyone have any constructive comments on this proposed new system of recouping investors and paying producers, writers, talent and profit participants directly into their bank accounts at time of ticket sale or rental? http://www.mecfilms.com/app-dist.htm#parsed I would be very interested in your views.
Thanks,
James Jaeger
Information Sources
John Cones
1:51 pm Saturday April 11, 1998

Shelly: If you really want to get into this whole net profit issue, which, in my opinion, is merely a small part of the larger picture in Hollywood, check out the following sources--
Hillary Bibicoff's Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Journal article "Net Profit Participations in the Motion Picture Industry" at volume II, 1991.
Peter Dekom's American Premiere article "The Net Effect: Making Net Profit Mean Something", May-June 1992.
Paul Lazarus' Entertainment Law & Finance article entitled "Ensuring a Fair Cut of a Hit Film's Profits", Leader Publications, Novbember 1989.
Adam Marcus' Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal, "Buchwald v. Paramount Pictures Corp. and the Future of Net Profit", Volume 9, 191.
Steven Sills and Ivan Axelrod's' Los Angeles Lawyer article "Profit Participation in the Motion Picture Industry", April, 1989.
Pierce O'Donnel and Dennis McDougal's book "Fatal Subtracton: How Hollywood Realy Does Business, Doublday, 1992.
Tim Connors Southern California Law Review article "Beleaguered Accounting: Should the Film Industry Abandon Its Net Profits Formula", March, 1997.
Pepperdine University School of Law symposium materials "Net Profits in the Motion Picture Industry", April 4, 1998.
My own book "The Feature Film Distribution Deal", Southern Illinois University Press, 1997.
Also, my unpublished manuscript "How the Movie Wars Were Won".
And, the David Robb series of articles in the Hollywood Reporter on net profits in 1992. Those are listed by article in the bibliography to my books.
John Cones
Two Major Issues
James Jaeger
6:27 am Sunday April 12, 1998
It is clear that there is a net profit participation problem in the film industry which is inhibiting investors in the private capital markets from investing in independent films. This translates into unemployment for talent (i.e., writers, directors actors) and bankrupsy for producers. Both the MPAA and the AFMA distributors could do their part in cleaning up the film industry's bad reputation with investors in this area.
If, on the other hand, as has been suggested by various researchers, the above state of affairs has been created by the MPAA studio/distributors to weaken the presence of the independent producers, that is another issue, an issue that will probably not get cleaned up internally unless the current class action, Estate of Garrison v. Warner et. al., prevails and the industry changes its anti-competitive, preditory business practices.
The question of WHO controls Holywood is only important to the degree that this relatively homogeneous group, the top several executives in the major studios, have maintained a direct influence over the type of movies and who gets to work on them for over 80 years. It is not important what members of the control groups' race, sex, or heritage is so long as that control group is diversified enough (in life-styles, values and cultures) that it will naturally generate motion pictures that reflect this diversity.
Motion pictures are far to influential to be controlled by ANY relatively homogeneous group and an agenda that is purely profit-motivated - such as the current film industry. This statement is not true for other industries - such as manufacturing shoes or automobiles - because such industries are not mass communication channels. They do not effect the development of our children's attitudes and actions in life to the degree an omni-present and continuous culture of dazzling and "cool" feature motion pictures, depicting endless violence and gun-play, do. . . or, for instance, features that continuously stereotype people with dark skin as the "bad guys," people who have religions beliefs as the "psychos" and people who know something about science as the "saviors and hip guys."
Because of the total realism digital technology now affords us at this decade of the cinema's advance, I am comfortable speculating that movies today play a greater part in CAUSING REALITY (and hence memes), than they do in merely REFLECTING REALITY (and hence memes). This was not true in the past.
To put it simply: the greater public, and the film community, BOTH need to work on solving the above problems so a more globally represenative number of people can generate films and get paid honestly for their services.
James Jaeger
Relivance of Exec backgrounds
Rachael Evans
12:17 pm Monday April 20,1998
In refrence to the article on "Who Controls Hollywood" - I fail to see what relivance bringing up the personal backgrounds of executives at the studios has to do with anything?! Why cite the studios for being run mostly by men when almost all the corporations in world are mostly run by men. Are you saying these too should be balanced out in accordance with the population? And why discuss the religious background of studio executives; this seems like you are bashing Jewish people.
Studio Executive Backgrounds
John Cones
6:16 pm Tuesday April 21, 1998
Some thoughtful persons working within and outside the U.S. film industry have raised the question as to the relevance of inquiries into the racial, ethnic, cultural, religious and regional backgrounds of Hollywood's major studio executives. The backgrounds of these studio executives are relevant because films are different than a lot of other products produced here in the U.S. Movies, to a large extent, tend to mirror the values, interests, cultural perspectives and prejudices of their makers, and movies tend to influence the thinking and behavior of many of those who view them.
Recent studies have shown that the top-level studio executives at the major studio/distributors are the individuals who have the power to decide which films are going to be produced and released by the major studios, who gets to work on those films in the key positions, and the content of the scripts on which these films are based. And, the major studio releases are the films seen by about 92% of the domestic moviegoing public.
When we examine the backgrounds of these studio executives, we find a huge disparity in the representation of just one or several groups in our multi- cultural society.
Whole populations of our diverse society have been excluded from those top positions in the Hollywood-based U.S. film industry for 90 years. It is extremely difficult to explain such a phenomenon without concluding that massive employment discrimination has been rampant in Hollywood for several generations.
The lack of diversity at the top in Hollywood results in the creation of blatant patterns of bias in how people are portrayed
in Hollywood films. Once again, whole populations of our diverse society have been consistently portrayed in a negative or stereotypical manner in the movies released by these major studios for many years. Not surprisingly, the groups that have been consistently portrayed in a negative or stereotypical manner in Hollywood films, are generally the same as those who do not occupy the control positions at the Hollywood studios.
Recognizing as the U.S. Supreme Court did in its 1952 case of Burstyn v. Wilson, that the motion picture is a significant medium for the communication of ideas, and therefore, films deserve the protection of the First Amendment's right of free speech, if anyone really believes in democracy and freedom of speech, along with the underlying principle that a free marketplace of ideas is essential to the preservation of our democratic way of life, then it is absolutely necessary that all racial, ethnic, cultural, religious and regional groups within this nation be afforded the same fair and equal opportunity to tell their cultural and other stories, they way they want to tell them, through this important communications medium. No one should be forced to filter their stories through the cultural sensibilities of another group.
No single, nor even a few, narrowly-defined racial, ethnic, cultural, religious or regional groups should be allowed to dominate or control access to motion picture production, distribution or exhibition. Without diversity in an important communications medium like film, our democracy is significantly weakened.
re: Relivance of Exec backgrounds
Shane Hendrix
5:54 pm Sunday May 3, 1998
:In refrence to the article on "Who Controls Hollywood" - I fail :to see what relivance bringing up the personal backgrounds of :executives at the studios has to do with anything?! Why cite the :studios for being run mostly by men when almost all the :corporations in world are mostly run by men. Are you saying :these too should be balanced out in accordance with the :population? And why discuss the religious background of studio :executives; this seems like you are bashing Jewish people. : : Having read the information presented regarding the elite group of men who continue to control the film industry, I didn't perceive for a moment anything that could be referred to as "bashing Jewish people." The information was presented in a straight-forward manner without bias in my opinion. I agree with the statement that "...almost all the dorporations in the world are run mostly by men," and I feel that a more equal balance of power should exist worldwide. Discussing the religious backgrounds of studio execs isn't "bashing of Jewish people" - it is a necessary and relevant part of any discussion of the film industry in America. The facts speak for themselves.
What Makes a Closed Group
Paul Gibbons
5:57 pm Tuesday April 21, 1998
Interesting discussion. This is the problem one faces in attempting to change any significant part of the world. Some people cannot see the forest for the trees. The color of one's shirt or shoes does not define a cohesive group (but it may be a symbol of such a group).
What makes up a closed group is the idea that one can only get along with people of your own kind. This can sometimes be unintentional, unconscious. But it can also be dogmatic. Just as someone can be dogmatic about the idea that there are no differences between people and someone suggesting there may be is evil.
The point is, HOW is the film industry run? John Cones is attempting to understand and point out the mechanisms of the select group that is made up of film moguls, not Jews. The only relevance religion has is that it is one ingredient that CAN form a cohesive group.
It's a case of 'they can understand me', not 'we Jews will take over the world'. One must defend against insularity in any endeavor by clearly defining one's purpose and aligning your filters with it, not your predudices.
Paul
What ithe film industry needs
Sammy Finkelman
6:34 pm Monday May 4, 1998
Well, what the film industry needs is competition or the
ability to make other films. I understand these days there are people who write scripts that are bought, but are never made.
There are certain preevalent biases present in all or most movies, so prevalent that a person can think them universal. One, of course, is the dea that there is nothiung wrong with having sex - and another maybe perhaps that thAT WILL NOT HAVE A BAD EFFECT ON THE LIFE OF THE PERSON WJO DOES THAT.
There is a lot of prevail;ing wisdom that isn't wise. If someone has other ideas or even is neutral on that, it is hard to get something made - and this may apply also to other matters.
Movies themselves are often spectacles.
I think the only general reform possible is something that makes ot easier to create and distrubute films with different plot ideas. What really is wrong with many films is the plot and the subplots and the dialogue.
One very common thing is obscene language, like everybody uses that. What in the wrld is the matter wiith these people. By the way, who subscribed the LSOFT Flight-800 list to this newsletter?
re: What ithe film industry needs
James Jaeger
2:39 pm Saturday May 9, 1998
:Well, what the film industry needs is competition or the :ability to make other films. I unneedsderstand these days there :are people who write scripts that are bought, but are never :made.
That's true Sammy. Many feel this is sort of a "Development Scam" - the idea of taking writers' valuable time to constantly create screenplays that will never be made or just giving development deals to girlfriends and others who really have no business displacing the dedicated writers who are much more qualified to write scripts - and lastly, the idea that scripts are bought-up simply to keep them off the market and away from competitors. I guess this is one of the places commerce clashes with Art. : : :I think the only general reform possible is something that makes :it easier to create and distribute films with different plot :ideas. What really is wrong with many films is the plot and the :subplots and the dialogue.
Because of the money involved, the big pictures have to appeal to as wide an audience as possible so as to recoup. This lends itself to "tried and true" formula pictures and unfortunately this suppresses unique plot ideas sometimes. This is not to say that the major studio distributors have not financed and released many spectacular and original plots over the years. I think that CONTACT was such a picture and I was sorry to see it garner much less recognition at the Academy Awards than it did. This must have been heart-breaking for Jodie Foster, Robert Zemeckis and the rest of the folks connected with the production-distribution of the picture. : : :One very common thing is obscene language, like everybody uses that.
The over-use of obscene language - in my opinion - seems to act almost as a type of camouflage for otherwise mediocre writing.
James Jaeger
Ethnic/Minority Portrayals in Films
Marlon Mendieta
10:23 am Monday April 27, 1998
I am a graduate student currently looking at the way Latinos and other ethnic/minority groups are portrayed in films. I would like to see more information posted on how films actually affect people, and more examples of discrimination within the business, such as examples of movies that encountered discrimination. For example I read an article in a local paper regarding "Soul Food" and white executives not wanting to support it.
Why this adjenda is troubling
J.M.
3:06 pm Monday April 27, 1998

Greetings all!
I have read at length the writings of John Cones, and while I at first dismissed him as yet another rabble rouser falling into the classic "Jews are too successful in this society" rally cry that has been used for centuries (see Nazi Germany), I have since come to realize he is an extremely intelligent man, well researched and with an exemplary command of the English language (better then mine, I'm afraid).
However I find his entire argument predicated on a few sinister assumptions that not only undermine the hard working talents of everyone in the film industry today, but categorize and classify
people by race/relgion/background in an insulting and dehumanizing way, assigning them group responsibility, and ultimately group blame for failing to create the type of movies that Mr. Cones would prefer to see.
With what little time I have available for this pursuit, I'd like to offer up a few counter arguments/observations about this entire organization.
Mr. Cones makes a few basic assumptions in his argument that he attempts to assume are "facts". He does this quickly and subtly, using his use of the English language to guide the reader along with him. These "facts" that Mr. Cones assumes to be true without bothering to justify them are the following:
In Mr. Cones' own words:
"the relevant characteristics of the people who really contrrol the production and release of the vast majority of the films seen by about 92% of the theatre-going audiences in the domestic marketplace, recognizing that patterns of bias exist in those films and that movies, to a large extent, tend to mirror the values, interests, cultural perspectives and prejudices of their makers,"
I do not recognize these points as true, and in fact would like to point out that such observations of "bias" that Mr. Cones assumes to be objectively true, are biased and subjective in their own right. Mr. Cones' view of "bias" is clearly as "biased" as the so-called filmmaking biases he claims to be seeing. Cones may see "bias", I may not. Ask 35 people where they saw "bias" in a movie, you'll get 35 answers.
If I see "TITANIC", and feel it to be biased against cold climates, am I right? I'm as right as John Cones.
conclusion #1: Until Cones offers irrefutable proof of objective "bias" (not just what Mr. Cones feels to be "bias"), he has no argument.
Another quote from Cones:
"However, I believe that any such study or attempted definition of the Hollywood control group that overlooks the cultural heritage, sex, political and religious background of these individuals will fall short when trying to explain the cultural, sexual, political and religious biases found in American films. That is why this part of the discussion is clearly relevant."
conclusion #2: This is not relevant until Cones proves a clear and direct connection between the studio heads "cultural heritage, etc." and these "biases" that Cones sees (I've already mentioned how subjective Cones' view of "bias" is, as is anyone else's perspective).
ex: A Jew makes a "biased" film, does not prove the bias was made "because" he was Jewish. Cones needs to prove this connection. And as this connection can never be proven (who is to really say why anyone does anything? How can you prove something as nebulous as influence?).
Another point Cones refudiates is the "Free market" argument -- namely that since people choose to buy a ticket, they are casting a vote for what they want to see.
Cones argues:
"All of these 'free market' arguments are based on the fallacy that the best quality films get the widest release and are therefore seen by the largest number of moviegoers."
Again, we see Mr. Cones taking his own subjective perspecive for granted as the ultimately defining objective view of his entire argument. Because who can really define "quality films"? Again, subjective. A flawed argument. Until Cones satisfies an objective definition of "bias", (one not based on John Cones' point of view),...and until he establishes the relevancy of biological background and genetic makeup on the way it affects films being produced (unprovable, subjective), in an irrefutable way, Cones has no logical argument. Cones also likes to hide behind the "just the facts, ma'am" argument when confronted with the troubling ramifications of his targeting of people's background characteristics as some form of group-responsibility/blame for the "Cones-personal-opinion-of-Bias" that he sees in movies today. He claims to draw "no conclusions". Cones will also repeatedly attack anyone who questions his motivations (implies Anti-Semitism, etc.) as insulting and irrelevant, yet Cones is more than happy to question the motivations of those he defines as the "Hollywood Control Group". Apparently hidden adjendas appear throughout Hollywood, and Mr. Cones will feel free to comment on them, but don't accuse Mr. Cones in the same way. Once again, a delightful double standard.
I could go on, and if anyone is interested, I have attempted to break down Mr. Cones eloquence into basic terms. The unproven
tenants of his argument are spoken about as if foregone conclusions. His defense from attacks is beautifully constructed through a combination of proclaiming accusations as either "Straw Man", "irrelevant" or "an attempt to distract" (this last one, a term he's used in almost everything he's written. Conspiracy theorists take note).
I respect Cones for his research, his intelligence and his eloquence. He is better at this game then I am.
But until I can match him in the rarified airs of discourse (of which I'm still learning), I'll just keep calling it like I see it. And this argument stinks of group-blame, group-accusations, and the thing I find most personally demeaning -- that my characteristics of race and religion might mean I am somehow limited and biased as a story-teller, and if because there is a large number of people "like" me, I am of less worth to be telling stories.
Please email me if you would like to read some of my writings directly to Mr. Cones.
Best
--Josh
re: Why this adjenda is troubling
brian clarke
5:30 am Tuesday April 28, 1998
josh, i think your words posted on john cones bulletin board were nothing short of BRILLIANT! and in MY opinion your take on hollywood's intentions and motivations are FAR more realistic than THIS moron's. i simply can't believe he chided hollywood for making all of those old mummy movies!!! i mean how did he EXPECT them to portray karloff's egyptian character??? are we really ready for a politically correct mummy? in an era where film makers (HOLLYWOOD directors at THAT!) are allowed to make such anti-establishment/government movies like WAG THE DOG, how can he say hollywood has it's own agenda?? hollywood has equally corrupted our high ranking officials, police forces and hollywood itSELF!! name me one group this "biased" industry IS protecting???? and why hasn't this cones fire-starter castigated black filmmakers like keenan ivory wayans for HIS negative portrayals of blacks?? I'M GONNA GET YOU SUCKA featured a "ghetto olympics" in which blacks were timed for how fast they could run down a street with a stolen tv! being black myself, i HATE the way people like cones chastise whites (or according to him, the JEWS that rule hollywood) for their potrayals of minorities, but excuse blacks for THEIR silly and harmful stereotypes they uphold so often! like it's ok for US to deride our own people, but it's wicked for anyone else to! i'd LOVE to see you literary exchanges with mr cones! please continue being MY voice of reason AND sanity!
your statements
Michael Kennedy
10:41 pm Monday April 27, 1998
I sense a subtle anti-semetic message in your mission statement which may prove to be less than subtle if I wanted to do further research, but regardless, I'll not be visiting your site any further. Racism of any kind is repulsive whether subtle or obvious.
re: Your Senses
Joe Goldenberg
3:23 pm Tuesday April 28, 1998
:I sense a subtle anti-semetic message in your mission statement :which may prove to be less than subtle if I wanted to do further :research, but regardless, I'll not be visiting your site any :further. Racism of any kind is repulsive whether subtle or :obvious. :
Why don't you put your attention on the real problems in the film industry, such as the net profit participation issue instead of acting like some little old lady stuck in the past worrying if anyone out there is being "anti-semitic." The Christians lost many more in THEIR "Holicaust" (lasting hundreds of years) and THEY have gotten over it and stopped using negative past experiences to justify THEIR paranoia in the business world and of the Human race - why don't you. Be a courageous light to Jews everywhere and get into present time: deal with the current issues, not the past.
Your Press Release is Up on Our Site
Yemi Toure
6:50 pm Tuesday April 28, 1998
Your Press Release Is Up on Our Site
John,
congratulations on a well done site. i hope you get great response.
yemi
http://afrikan.net/hype/wwwboard/index.html
Read John Cones Writings?
John Cones
12:18 pm Wednesday April 29, 1998
"JM", who prefers to hide his real identity, for whatever reason, claims to have "read at length the writings of John Cones". That's not likely, however, since 11 of the 15 books I've written about the film industry have not been commercially published, and are therefore not readily available except directly through me. I would remember if "JM" had ordered one or more of those books. So, the truth is that "JM" is merely reacting to a few articles, Internet postings, book excerpts, speeches and summaries of my writings that I've made available in recent months. Thus, it is misleading for "JM" to pretend that he is familiar with the "writings of John Cones" since he has only scratched the surface.
re: Read John Cones Writings?
J.M.
2:36 pm Wednesday April 29, 1998
Hey John! I'm not hiding my identity, I just didn't know it was required to make a posting. I'm not sure why you make an issue out of it, does it mean that my opinions carry less validity?
I do concede I have not read your books, but since I took direct quotes from you, I believe my responses are 100% valid. Unless of course, I took your words out of context (as you did mine in your Response to WebCinema Group). If I did take your words out of context, please respond and clarify.
-Josh
Cones a Nazi Rabble Rouser?
John Cones
12:19 pm Wednesday April 29, 1998

If as "JM" states he now recognizes that I am not "another rabble rouser" claiming "Jews are too successful in this society" (referring back to "Nazi Germany"), why then even bring that up? Is this his sneaky way of trying to somehow taint me and my writings with the ugly specter of Nazi- style anti-Semitism, while at the same time denying that's what he now believes? This is a very unnecessary "cheap shot" "JM" and if you want anyone to take your criticism of my work seriously, you ought to drop the pretense. By the way, neither "JM" nor anyone else who has yet to respond to any of my Internet postings, have been able to quote from any of my writings where I say anything about Jews generally. Thus, all of the arguments based on the false assumption that anything I'm saying has any relevance to Jews generally is just that--false. And, it really doesn't make any difference whether "JM" is making such false mischaracterizations of my statements inadvertently or on purpose, the result is the same--it distracts from a serious discussion of the substance of my criticism of the Hollywood-based U.S. film industry, something, that I am now convinced that "JM" wants to avoid at all costs.
re: Cones a Nazi Rabble Rouser?
J.M.
2:34 pm Wednesday April 29, 1998
Hey again, John!
I thought the entire point of that was to say I DIDN'T think you are of this sort, and was initially mistaken. My point was to convince others who might've had an initial knee-jerk reaction like I had about your writing to reconsider and probe further.
But once again, I'm serving to "distract". I forgot, I'm not allowed to question John Cones' motives, even as he does mine (see his words, above).
--Josh
A Few Sinister Assumptions?
John Cones
12:20 pm Wednesday April 29, 1998
Since "JM" has not really read the bulk of my work, he does not realize that these few assumptions to which he is responding are not assumptions at all. They are well-reasoned conclusions based on thousands of hours of research and analysis, all reported in my books on Hollywood and summarized in part on the FIRM site. That's a far cry from an "assumption" which is something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof. My posted statements are supported by a significant amount of readily available evidence set forth in the whole of my writings, and to date, neither "JM" nor any of his cronies have offered any evidence whatsoever that tends to refute my facts or conclusions. "JM" has yet to offer a single study or fact about who really controls Hollywood, yet he not only claims I'm wrong, but prejudiced to boot. Clearly
demonstrate that any specific statement I've made is wrong first, "JM", then we can talk about my motives. You're too anxious to get to the "let's attack his motives part" before confronting me directly with evidence that would tend to contradict mine.
I suppose, the question as to whether any of my statements or positions are "sinister" (i.e., suggesting or threatening evil or presaging trouble) depends on your perspective. If you are an apologist for the Hollywood establishment, which "JM" appears to be I'm actually flattered that my work may "presage trouble". It is intended to do that. But, for the vast majority of those people who would like to work in the film industry or would like to have a fair opportunity to tell their cultural stories through this important communications medium, but can't because they've been arbitrarily excluded by the Hollywood control group, "sinister" is not the right word. Other words like "honest", "straightforward", "truthful", "factual", "long overdue" and "thorough" come to mind.

re: A Few Sinister Assumptions?
J.M.
2:49 pm Wednesday April 29, 1998
Hey John!
I wish you would reread my initial posting again. You seem to be very personally upset, and I believe you missed the basic points I was making. I tried to get at the essence of your argument, and why I thought it was flawed. Mainly, and I quote you from the above posting: "a fair opportunity to tell their cultural stores", is a based-on-John-Cones-personal-view-of-Bias opinion, and can in no way be proven. Thus your entire argument is predicated on everyone else excepting the John-Cones-definition-of-Bias. As I've said before:
1) Bias in films can never be objectively determined, it is way too nebulous and subjective. 35 people could see a movie, and have 35 different views on where the "bias" existed. Unless, of course, everyone accepts John Cones' personal view of "bias".
2) The causal connection between background characteristics and its influence on films made can never be proven or even studied. How can one study something as vague as "influence" on an artist? Did that make a film a certain way because they were Catholic? Or because they are left handed? Or because the director hates women? Who knows? Oh right, Cones has "studies" to prove this.
Obviously everyone else, and everyone in Hollywood, make biased films based on their personal viewpoint, yet John Cones has the One True Objectivity to tell the rest of us where he sees corrutption. I find that incredibly ironic, and ulitmately laughable.
I'm also glad to see I gave you a word ("sinister") to latch on to for your defense, (Once again the "effort to distract") for if I hadn't, you might've had to actually address my criticisms of your flawed theories.
--Josh
Insulting and Dehumanizing?
John Cones
12:21 pm Wednesday April 29, 1998
"JM" would like for us to think that I "categorize and classify people by race/religion/background in an insulting and dehumanizing way". Again, this is merely another example of his choosing to misinterpret my work. I maintain that movies, to a large extent, tend to mirror the values, interests, cultural perspectives and prejudices of their makers and my studies of patterns of bias in Hollywood films tend to support that premise. Although using somewhat different language, many other observes of the film business have made similar statements in the past about the relationship of the filmmakers' backgrounds to the final product. In fact, I'm not aware of anyone who would either deny this basic premise about the nature of motion pictures, or who can come forward with any evidence to demonstrate that this position is false. "JM" surely has not offered us any such evidence. So, "JM", if this theory about the nature of motion pictures is false, why do you think so? Or do you? And, "JM", if this premise about the nature of motion pictures is true, then it is absolutely relevant that we inquire into the backgrounds of the persons who are responsible for determining which films get produced and released, who gets to work on those films in the key positions and the actual content of the scripts on which such films are based. Since movies often deal with significant issues like race, religion, ethnicity, culture and so forth, it is clearly relevant to determine the race, religion, ethnicity and cultural background of the filmmakers. There is nothing "insulting" or "dehumanizing" about such an inquiry. Sociologists and anthropologists conduct such studies all the time. Are you saying their work is inherently "insulting" or "dehumanizing", or is it just mine?
re: Insulting and Dehumanizing?
J.M.
3:08 pm Wednesday April 29, 1998
John, if your work was to study the influence of "American" films, I would not have a problem with you. But you are attempting to take a culture, and attempting to subgroup a certain people in this culture, and to make generalizations about them (see "patterns of bias"). This is ultimately the foundation of all racist thought, whether or not you intend that in your argument (and I don't think you do, but pardon me for bringing it up, and please don't launch into another "attempt to distract" ramble). Because the factors of influence on every film (the producer, the director, the actors, what the weather was like, what did well at the box office that year), and in every single filmmakers case (the director, John Doe, bases a certain story on a relationship he had when he was 17 years old) are so incredibly vast, varied and unique, that to try to draw any group conclusions because certain creators share genetics and/or religion is an absolute slap across the face of every artist and filmmaker working today.
John, if you think people are nothing more then the sum of a few broad factors like religion, race and/or sex, you obviously don't know very many people.
And if you think you can draw group conclusions about filmmaking trends based on these broad and ultimately vague observations (hey look! Roland Emerich {"Godzilla"} and Lars Von Trier {"Breaking the Waves"} are both Dutch! They must share a similar filmmaking bias!), you are mistaken.
You say I'm mistaken for finding your generalizations to be insulting and dehumanizing. Well, based on your theories, my filmmaking skills, and my movies, will now be assumed to have certain "biases" associated with those "like" me, according to your definition.
(see above: films mirror cultural biases of their makers, and your attempts to observe "patterns of bias")
And who the hell are you to make ANY assumptions about me?
--Josh
Group Responsibility and Group Blame?
John Cones
12:22 pm Wednesday April 29, 1998
Here's another area in which "JM" is simply not reading clearly. Nowhere in my writings do I assign "group responsibility" or "group blame" for anything, as "JM" contends. First, and as noted earlier, "JM" does not understand the "group" I'm talking about. He persists in trying to mislead people into thinking I'm talking about Jews generally, when, in fact, there is nothing in my writings, my speeches or my life that would fairly give any reasonably intelligent person that impression. "JM" has never cited any specific language of mine that refers to Jews generally. It's just not there. In fact, in several instances, I've clearly stated that I do not believe that the actions of the Hollywood control group are representative or typical of the conduct of Jews generally. Somehow, this seems to just pass right over "JM". Further, nothing I've written or said suggests that all members of the Hollywood control group think alike on all or any issues. My position is that there will always be less diversity of ideas in any narrowly-defined interest group when compared to the variety of ideas that would naturally flow from a substantially more diverse film industry control group. And, if you believe, as I do (and as the U.S. Supreme Court does), that the motion picture is a significant medium for the communication of ideas, and for that reason, feature films deserve the protection of the First Amendment right of free speech, then you must also recognize that the messages being communicated through feature films are an important part of our democracy's so-called "marketplace of ideas". So, to the extent that our nation tolerates control of an important communications medium like film in the hands of any single, narrowly- defined interest group, our democracy is weakened, and our government policy with respect to all kinds of issues (and our national solutions to all sorts of problems), are less likely to reflect the views of a majority of our citizens. No single, narrowly-defined interest group, no matter how defined, should seek or be allowed to gain control over any important communications medium. Such a result is not consistent with democracy.
Types of Movies Cones Prefers
John Cones
12:23 pm Wednesday April 29, 1998
Here again, "JM" is just missing the boat altogether. If he would read my work more carefully, he would see that I'm not promoting any particular type of movie, or movie preference, but more diversity in employment at all levels within the film industry, and more diversity on the big screen. That's all. Isn't it curious why he is so adamantly opposed to diversity in the film business?
re: Types of Movies Cones Prefers
J.M.
3:14 pm Wednesday April 29, 1998
Uh...excuse me?
Where did I say I was opposed to diversity in the film business?
I'm opposed to people like you telling me my filmmaking stories are somehow linked to anything larger then who I am as an individual, whether it be your assumptions about whatever "bias" I might have merely due to the color of my skin or my religion. That is my main point.
Please stop putting words in my mouth, Mr. Cones, or at least quote me directly if you would like to make an assumption about me, as I have when responding to you.
--F
Subjective Bias?
John Cones
12:24 pm Wednesday April 29, 1998
"JM" suggests that my observations of bias are subjective in their own right, and that I have the burden or offering "irrefutable proof of objective bias". My conclusions about bias are based on the studies of thousands of movie reviews, summaries of which are provided in my books "Patterns of Bias in Motion Picture Content" and "Motion Picture Biographies". Further, my conclusions do not focus on the bias in any given individual film, but the clear patterns of bias seen in hundreds of motion pictures over a long period of time. My studies indicate, for example, that Hollywood movies have consistently portrayed Arabs, Italian-Americans, Christians, Latinos and Whites from the American South in a negative or stereotypical manner. Again, I have seen no reports in the film industry literature suggesting that the portrayals of such groups in Hollywood films have been balanced over any significant period of time. In addition, other groups representing these same populations have conducted their own studies from time to time and have reported similar conclusions regarding Hollywood bias. Thus, it would seem that all of the evidence to date supports my contention that Hollywood movies are biased as described, and in fact, neither "JM" nor anyone else has offered any evidence to the contrary. So, with respect to the burden of proof, on this matter, it's really very simple. We have lots of evidence supporting the patterns of bias in Hollywood films observation and we've seen no evidence to the contrary, thus the preponderance of the evidence wins ("JM's" disingenuous attempt at imposing a standard of "irrefutable proof" notwithstanding). Instead of arguing that my conclusions relating to movie bias are subjective, "JM's" position would be better served if he could come up with a study that demonstrates a significant number of Hollywood films, released during some finite period of time, have actually portrayed Arabs, Italian-Americans, Christians, Latinos and/or Whites from the American South in a positive and non-stereotypical manner. That would be helpful evidence, as opposed to the arguments without substance, "JM" offers. If he can't produce such a study, then he'll have to accept my patterns of bias conclusions for what they are--the truth.
re: Subjective Bias?
3:37 pm Wednesday April 29, 1998
:Instead of arguing that my conclusions relating to movie bias are subjective, "JM's" position would be better served if he could come up with a study that demonstrates a significant number of Hollywood films, released during some finite period of time, have actually portrayed Arabs, Italian-Americans, Christians, Latinos and/or Whites from the American South in a positive and non-stereotypical manner. That would be helpful evidence, as opposed to the arguments without substance, "JM" offers. If he can't produce such a study, then he'll have to accept my patterns of bias conclusions for what they are--the truth. :
Oh okay, I need a "study" to disagree with Mr. Cones on "bias" in Hollywood. I guess the assumption here is if other people feel this to be true, I have to accept it as so.
John, I would never attempt to produce a study on, and I quote you, "number of Hollywood films...(that) have actually portrayed Arabs, Italian-Americans, Christians, Latinos and/or Whites from the American South" in a positive and non-stereotypical manner" because it would be absurd.
Who the hell am I, or anyone else for that matter to say what "positive and non-sterotypical" is?
I wouldn't presume to speak for all those people represented by those definitions, how they "should" or "shouldn't" be portrayed on film. I don't have that kind of arrogance.
As I've said before, two people might have opposite views on whether something is "biased", regardless of the "studies" that Mr. Cones produces telling them that HAVE to believe it.
I ask Mr. Cones to consider the possibility that because of the wide variety of responses you will get when trying to pinpoint "negative stereotyping", this ultimately boils down to personal opinion. And, if as Mr. Cones says, this is not based on "personal opinion", then I would like to know the criteria for finding an official case of "bias" (one NOT based on Mr. Cones' personal view).
Is it:
99% of a minorty group see "horrible stereotype"
1% of the same minority group see "a realistic character.
Is this bias? Maybe, maybe not. But how about when:
70% of a minority group see a "negative" stereotype,
30% see "nothing unusual"
Or what if:
56% see a "sort-of negative stereotype"
23% see "a completely realistic portrayal"
11% see "a bad movie"
10% see "really cool f/x sequences....what stereotype?"
And is this study only allowed to the minority group that Mr. Cones sees being violated? Or can everyone vote? Who is the ultimate deciding authority on stamping "stereotype" on a movie?
Just wondering...
--Josh
Proof of Clear and Direct Connection
John Cones
12:25 pm Wednesday April 29, 1998
As if he controls the debate, "JM" seems to suggest that I must accept the burden of proving a "clear and direct connection" between the studio heads' cultural heritage and the patterns of bias observed in Hollywood films. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have no such burden. By the way, this reminds me of the 30 years we've been hearing the tobacco industry executives say there is no proof that tobacco smoke is harmful or that nicotine is addictive. Give me a break! I only need to show 4 things: (1) that a hugely disproportionate number of persons who share similar backgrounds have occupied the top executive positions at the major studio/distributors for 7 decades, (2) that these individuals have the power to make the decisions as to what movies will be produced and released by the major studios, to decide who gets to work on these films in the key positions (i.e., producer, director, screenwriter, lead actors) and to approve of the contents of the screenplays on which these films are based, (3) that movies, to a large extent, tend to mirror the values, interests and cultural perspectives of their makers and (4) that as a result, the previously noted patterns of bias in Hollywood movies exist. That's it. I've made my case. A "clear and direct connection" is not the standard of proof required, just the logical and common sense observations that will make sense to the millions of people in this country who are adversely impacted each year by Hollywood's continued pollution of our cultural environment.
re: Proof of Clear and Direct Connection
J.M.
4:04 pm Wednesday April 29, 1998
Nice cigarette analogy!
I enjoyed it very much.
As to my postings, I am taking issue with points #3 and #4.
#3 -- I don't accept this to be true, yet you word it like it is a foregone conclusion. For why I don't agree, see previous postings.
#4 -- "patterns of bias" is an ultimately argumentative, subjective and (in an ironic twist) ultimately biased view in its own right. One could just as easily argue films are "biased" against the animal kingdom because they always have so many damn Homo Sapiens in them. There's just too many opinions, views and perspecives out there to draw any broad reaching conclusions, and to then make the next step and connect them to the cultural biases of the filmmakers...well John, I need a little bit more then the "because I said so" argument, or various "studies". I need a logical argument presented to me on how this can be objectively proven, and that is the "direct correlation" I have been seeking. Something, unfortunately, you can't seem to do.
In fact you cut and paste the same definition over and over again, the nicely worded "films tend to mirror the cultural...biases of their makers...". And this is connected to "bias" how?...
John, please answer this:
What role do the specific life experiences of the individual filmmakers involved play in the work they create? Is this more or less then their "background characteristics"? Is it not reasonable to assume the individual identities of each creative person involved, the specifics of the books they've read, the time in 5th grade when they first fell in love, etc. etc. play a VASTLY superior role in the work they create then any broad-stroke generalizations about the color of their skin, their religion, or where they are from?
Your fan,
-Josh
Because he Was Jewish?
John Cones
12:26 pm Wednesday April 29, 1998
Rather incredibly, "JM" falsely attributes a statement to me (a statement that I've never made), then he turns around and demands that I prove the statement. What a great and meaningless way to argue, and otherwise waste our time. Here it is. "JM" says, if a "Jew makes a 'biased' film, (that) does not prove the bias was made 'because' he was Jewish. Cones needs to prove this connection." No, Cones does not need to prove this connection, because Cones has never made such a statement. If I may switch to the first person, as stated above, I've never said that any of the actions taken by any of the members of the so-called Hollywood control group were taken because of their religious/cultural heritage. "JM" appears to be just making this stuff up.
Here's an actual quote from my so-called Mensa speech, which appears in its entirety elsewhere in this FIRM site under the title "The Role of Movies in a Democratic Society". "My studies demonstrate further that the most honest, accurate and fair description of the relevant characteristics and backgrounds of the members of this Hollywood control group is that a clear majority of it's members are politically liberal, not very religious, Jewish males of European heritage. My own experience suggests, by the way, that the members of this narrowly-defined Hollywood control group do not behave the way they do because they are Jewish, nor is their behavior typical of the much broader so-called Jewish community. Thus, we are only talking here about the well-documented behavior of a small group of unrepresentative individuals. But, once again, since movies tend to mirror the values, interests, cultural perspectives and prejudices of their makers (and motion pictures are a significant medium for the communication of ideas) it is essential in a democracy that we know as much about the backgrounds of these individuals as possible."
Here again, "JM" has either inadvertently or intentionally reversed my position. I've never said that these studio executives behaved in any particular way because of their cultural or religious background, I've said just the opposite, that I believe their behavior is not based on their religious/cultural background. Thus, it is not necessary to argue in further defense of a position that's not mine.
re: Because he Was Jewish?
J.M.
3:47 pm Wednesday April 29, 1998
: : :Rather incredibly, "JM" falsely attributes a statement to me (a statement that I've never made), then he turns around and demands that I prove the statement. What a great and meaningless way to argue, and otherwise waste our time. Here it is. "JM" says, if a "Jew makes a 'biased' film, (that) does not prove the bias was made 'because' he was Jewish. Cones needs to prove this connection." No, Cones does not need to prove this connection, because Cones has never made such a statement. If I may switch to the first person, as stated above, I've never said that any of the actions taken by any of the members of the so-called Hollywood control group were taken because of their religious/cultural heritage. "JM" appears to be just making this stuff up. :

John --
I never attributed that statement to you. It was my example of something you needed to prove.
I apologize if you took my statement out of context, in no way did I mean to imply you've ever made that direct implication of Jews making biased films because they are Jewish.
I state, for the record, this was NOT my intention.
My intention based on your "background characteristics of the filmmakers tend to mirror the...biases of the films made", was to offer up this:
A filmmaker with certain "background characteristics" makes a "biased" film, Mr. Cones needs to somehow demonstrate that this film had these "biases" BECAUSE of these "background characteristics". If you reread my words again, I think you'll understand what I was questioning.
--Josh
Questionable Motives and Hidden Agendas
John Cones
12:27 pm Wednesday April 29, 1998

"JM" accuses me of a double standard because he claims I question the motives of members of the Hollywood control group but complain if anyone questions my motives. The truth is that my writings do not question the motives of members of the Hollywood control group. I do question the results of their conduct. I don't really care about their motives. On the other hand, I do include in my book "Legacy of the Hollywood Empire" a chapter and discussion on the possible motives of the Hollywood insiders as observed by others and reported on, over the years, in the industry literature. It makes interesting reading, but I agree with "JM", and so state in the book, that none of us knows for sure what motivates others, so in my writing I've carefully avoided criticizing motives. Again, "JM" mistakes this fact.
On the other hand, since this current film industry reform debate went public on the Internet in late '97, I've yet to see any of my honorable debate and discussion opponents offer any studies or evidence to support their positions. What I've mostly seen are attacks on my motives and allegations of prejudice, none of which have anything to do with the substance of my remarks.
re: Questionable Motives and Hidden Agena
J.M.
4:23 pm Wednesday April 29, 1998
:"JM" accuses me of a double standard because he claims I question the motives of members of the Hollywood control group but complain if anyone questions my motives. The truth is that my writings do not question the motives of members of the Hollywood control group. I do question the results of their conduct. I don't really care about their motives. On the other hand, I do include in my book "Legacy of the Hollywood Empire" a chapter and discussion on the possible motives of the Hollywood insiders as observed by others and reported on, over the years, in the industry literature. It makes interesting reading, but I agree with "JM", and so state in the book, that none of us knows for sure what motivates others, so in my writing I've carefully avoided criticizing motives. Again, "JM" mistakes this fact.
: :On the other hand, since this current film industry reform debate went public on the Internet in late '97, I've yet to see any of my honorable debate and discussion opponents offer any studies or evidence to support their positions. What I've mostly seen are attacks on my motives and allegations of prejudice, none of which have anything to do with the substance of my remarks. :
My motives have been repeatedly questioned throughout Mr. Cones' responses. I have been accused of everything from "attempting to distract" to not wanting to see a more diverse Hollywood. I have also been called an "apologist for the Hollywood establishment", something that gave me great enjoyment, for I don't know when I've ever made a judgment call on Hollywood either way, during this discussion.
Anyway, when I accused Mr. Cones of inquiring about "motive", I featured a direct quote from him. In fact, here is one:
"Hollywood control group has a number of possible "interests" or sources of motivation, including: money, greed, power, fear, respect, reciprocal preferences, the use of film for personal therapy, self-expression, culture promotion and for making political statements, winning and influence, hidden agendas, sex and beautiful women (or men),"

Uh....care to comment, Mr. Cones?
--Josh
(PS. Another motivation might be selling tickets.)
Who's Worth of Telling Stories
John Cones
12:28 pm Wednesday April 29, 1998
"JM" goes on to falsely allege that I have made the following argument (this is "JM" being quoted here): "that my characteristics of race and religion might mean I am somehow limited and biased as a story-teller, and if because there is a large number of people 'like' me, I am of less worth to be telling stories." Again, this is not my position. It has now become rather clear to me that we cannot rely on "JM" to accurately state my position about anything. So, at all times in the future of this debate, do not rely on "JM" to state my position. I've never said anyone, like "JM" or otherwise, is not worthy of telling stories through film. What I am saying is that no single, narrowly-defined interest group in our multi-cultural society (no matter how defined) should be allowed to control or even dominate the decision-making with respect to the content of any important communications medium. So, the bottom line is that it really doesn't make any difference who controls Hollywood, so long as no particular group controls or dominates the U.S. film industry. That's not good for the country.
Again, as stated in my Mensa speech, " . . . none of our cultural groups should be arbitrarily denied the opportunity to tell their important cultural stories (the way they want to tell them), through this significant medium for the communication of ideas. No one should be allowed to force members of other cultures to filter their important stories through the cultural sensibilities of a small, rather homogeneous group of film industry gate-keepers, which is exactly what is happening in Hollywood today, and that is exactly what has been occurring for the nearly 90-year history of the Hollywood-based U.S. film industry. After all, as noted earlier, movies are somewhat unique -- to a large extent, they mirror the values, interests, cultural perspectives and prejudices of their makers. On the other hand, the Hollywood control group is much too narrow in scope, and its members are prejudiced indeed."
Conspiracy Allegations
John Cones
12:29 pm Wednesday April 29, 1998
Finally, for this round, "JM" also suggests (and this is not the first time he's alluded to this) that I am making some sort of conspiracy argument about the Hollywood control group. Again, this is a false accusation. As stated above, I'm concerned with the conduct of the Hollywood insiders and the results of their behavior (more specifically, the business practices regularly utilized by these Hollywood insiders and the consequences). I could care less about whether they are discussing their behavior or the results with each other, or anybody else for that matter. The conspiracy argument is irrelevant to my work. Consistent patterns of behavior and the negative results for the rest of us is all that is necessary to justify the need for significant reform of the U.S. film industry.
Sensing Anti-Semitism?
John Cones
12:32 pm Wednesday April 29, 1998
Now, we have a message from somebody who claims to be named Michael Kennedy who also claims he can "sense a subtle anti-semitic message" in our FIRM "mission statement" no less. How does one go about "sensing" anti-Semitism? Is that like reading between the lines, and attributing prejudices or discriminatory acts to someone even though there is no objective evidence of it? I will offer the statement that there is no anti-Semitism expressed anywhere in any of my writings, posted at the FIRM site, in the FIRM Mission Statement or elsewhere, and that this Michael Kennedy's false accusations based on his "sense" are being made in reckless disregard of the truth. If someone thinks they see any anti-Semitism in my writings, provide us with the definition of anti-Semitism being used (there are a number of different ones available, you know), quote the alleged offensive language and show us how this alleged offensive language falls within the parameters of the chosen definition. Of course, the definition needs to be legitimate (i.e., based on some recognizable and authoritative source). The truth is, it can't be done. And, the fact is that in the six months or so that I have been serving as the lightening rod for these false and reckless accusations, not a single one of the Hollywood apologists have had the courage and intellectual honesty to take the three rather simple steps I've just suggested. This convinces me that these guys are not the slightest bit interested in the truth. They are just trying to drown me out with their meaningless noise. Oh, and by the way, my research relating to the Hollywood- based U.S. film industry reveals that the use of the false accusation of anti-Semitism directed toward Hollywood critics is a long-standing tradition in Hollywood. I mean, who would want to risk being called an anti-Semite whether it was true or not. Doesn't the phrase "a chilling effect on our freedom of speech" come to mind? It then really comes down to the question of whether such reckless and false accusations are being made by people who simply don't know what anti- Semitism is, or people who are malicious in their discregard for the truth.
Repulsive Racism?
John Cones
12:33 pm Wednesday April 29, 1998
Before saying he'll not be visiting our site again, our brave Mr. Michael Kennedy (if that is his real name), makes another inferential leap and suggests that my writing is somehow racist. He goes on to say that "(r)acism of any kind is repulsive whether subtle or obvious." What is obvious, is that this Mr. Kennedy doesn't have a clue. First, he does not tell us where in my writings he finds any evidence of "racism", and, of course, there is none. And, further, if he thinks that my writings are anti-Semitic and that anti-Semitism is a form of "racism" he is wrong on both counts. As pointed out in the earlier post, there is no anti-Semitism in my writings and no one has actually identified any such offensive language. In addition, as explained very clearly in The New Standard Jewish Encyclopedia (7th Edition)" there is no such thing as a Jewish race, thus even prejudice or discrimination directed toward one or more Jews would not qualify as "racism". Further, there is no generalized expression of hostility expressed toward Jews in my writings, and no hostility expressed toward even a single Jew because he or she is Jewish. That is the essence of anti-Semitism, and it is not present in my writings. What you will find is honest criticism of the business practices of a small group of people, in Hollywood who happen to hold themselves out as being Jewish in the cultural sense (although as a rule, these individuals are not very religious). There is nothing stated in my writings that is even critical of Jews generally (much less hostile), and nothing suggesting that I believe the conduct of the Hollywood insiders is in any way influenced by their Jewish heritage. I wonder if Michael Kennedy really believes that his hit-and- run tactic of falsely accusing me of anti-Semitism and racism, then running off to hide will enhance his credibility among reasonable people?
Net Profit Participation Issue
John Cones
12:34 pm Wednesday April 29, 1998
Joe Goldenberg writes: "Why don't you put your attention to the real problems in the film industry, such as the net profit participation issue instead of acting like some little old lady stuck in the past worrying if anyone out there is being 'anti-Semitic'".
After re-reading this comment, I guess it was directed to Michael Kennedy, and if that's the case, I applaud Mr. Goldenberg for encouraging us to look at the net profit participation issue. It is an important issue, but after doing the research and writing the only book that has been written about that issue to date ("The Feature Film Distribution Deal--A Critical Analysis of the Single Most Important Film Industry Agreement"; Southern Illinois University Press, 1997) I have concluded that the net profit issue is just one important issue among many in the film industry, and that we will not make much progress resolving even the net profit issue until we effectively deal with the larger issues relating to who has power in Hollywood and how did they get it? The Hollywood net profit participation scam, in my judgment, is merely a result of the long abuse of the power improperly gained by the distributor-dominated, vertically-integrated, major studio/distributors. Without effectively reducing the power of the major studio/distributors, no one will ever be able to do much about the net profit participation problem.
Morons and Old Mummy Movies
John Cones
12:36 pm Wednesday April 29, 1998
Another of "JM's" recruits to the FIRM discussion makes a similar mistake of analysis. He quickly reads a very limited part of the materials and offers a quick unthinking reaction, not based on the facts. Brian Clarke makes the erroneous observation that I "chided Hollywood for making all of those old mummy movies". That is simply not the case. These "old mummy movies" as he refers to them, were a small part of the analysis of hundreds of Hollywood movies portraying Arabs over the years. The clear pattern of bias that emerges from that analysis is that Arabs are generally portrayed in a negative or stereotypical manner in Hollywood movies. That is clearly not the same as specifically criticizing Hollywood for making "mummy movies". If Brian Clarke or any of his team wants to directly refute my accurate observations about Hollywood bias with respect to the portrayal of Arabs in movies, then they should provide us with an equally long list of positive portrayals of Arabs in Hollywood films. If they can't do that, my point is proven by their failure to offer contradictory evidence. By, the way, Brian Clarke also resorts to the time- worn Hollywood tactic of name-calling. He refers to me as "moron". It is amazing how easily such mindless epithets flow right off your back when you are confident in your position, and know that the cause of restoring a level playing field in the U.S. film business, and bringing balance back to the marketplace of ideas in our democracy is a worthy cause.
re: Morons and Old Mummy Movies
J.M.
4:27 pm Wednesday April 29, 1998
:Another of "JM's" recruits to the FIRM discussion makes a similar mistake of analysis. He quickly reads a very limited part of the materials and offers a quick unthinking reaction, not based on the facts. Brian Clarke makes the erroneous observation that I "chided Hollywood for making all of those old mummy movies". That is simply not the case. These "old mummy movies" as he refers to them, were a small part of the analysis of hundreds of Hollywood movies portraying Arabs over the years. The clear pattern of bias that emerges from that analysis is that Arabs are generally portrayed in a negative or stereotypical manner in Hollywood movies. That is clearly not the same as specifically criticizing Hollywood for making "mummy movies". If Brian Clarke or any of his team wants to directly refute my accurate observations about Hollywood bias with respect to the portrayal of Arabs in movies, then they should provide us with an equally long list of positive portrayals of Arabs in Hollywood films. If they can't do that, my point is proven by their failure to offer contradictory evidence. By, the way, Brian Clarke also resorts to the time- worn Hollywood tactic of name-calling. He refers to me as "moron". It is amazing how easily such mindless epithets flow right off your back when you are confident in your position, and know that the cause of restoring a level playing field in the U.S. film business, and bringing balance back to the marketplace of ideas in our democracy is a worthy cause. :
While I leave it to Brian to respond to your posting, I just would like to say that he is not my "recruit" nor am I trying to "recruit" anyone, and I find it an insulting choice of words. People should believe whatever the want, I'm only offering up another viewpoint.
We won't get into the whole who defines what a "Positive Arab portrayal" is...
-Josh
Without the young dreamers.
Bryn Roberts
7:44 pm Wednesday April 29, 1998
It is a pleasure to see Motion Picture companys attempting to bring into the light the talent of the next generation. However, it still remains an empty and shallow aid, speaking as a young film graduate and writer, I have seen this vailed attempt to appear as thought the Industry values new ideas and encourages anything that moves away from the Status Quo. In reality it has become harder for new talent to gain even the smallest amount of aid, and encouragement, because of the rules and established and selfimportant traditions that the Industry has chosen to apply to itself, I can only think of the great number of missed oppertunities and advances in both the written word and new idea concepts, all because the industry chosses to belive that it is greater than the ideas that keep it alive and that its own confining traditions are more important than the passion, the youth, and the energy of those that feed it, because without us, without the young dreamers, without the new blood, the industry will stagnate and die, killed by the very people that live because of it, the very people that once were the passion and the blood that travelled through it.
Hollywood's Agenda?
John Cones
8:16 pm Wednesday April 29, 1998

Brian Clarke also raises the question of a Hollywood agenda, by asking the question: "how can he say Hollywood has it's own agenda?" Mr. Clarke then proceeds to point to a number of different viewpoints represented by Hollywood movies as proof that Hollywood has no agenda. Of course, my studies relating to long-term patterns of bias in Hollywood movies flies in the face of Brian Clarke's limited analysis. Mr. Clarke's analysis, however, actually misses the real point I'm making with these patterns of bias studies (i.e., less diversity in the control positions in Hollywood will result in less diversity on the screen--more diversity at the top will result in greater diversity on the screen). Mr. Clarke and all of us should be seeking more diversity in the film industry control positions, not mislead ourselves into believing that because a number of different issues are treated in Hollywood films, that we must therefore have sufficient diversity. In addition, demonstrating a clear bias in movies is different than suggesting an agenda. Brian Clarke's choice of words implies a plan or program. That's not my position. I consider the Hollywood movie patterns of bias to be more of a phenomenon, a direct result of the lack of diversity at the top at the major studios . . . not a plan, a program or an agenda, but very simply a direct result of many years of employment discrimination . . . and a direct result of the prejudices held by this small group of studio executives against Arabs, Italian-Americans, Christians, Latinos and Whites from the American South, among others.
Blacks in Hollywood
John Cones
8:17 pm Wednesday April 29, 1998
Brian Clarke goes on to criticize me for not castigating black filmmakers who portray blacks in their films in a negative manner. The reason I do not criticize blacks for such portrayals is that there are no black top-level studio executives actually making the decisions about which movies will be produced and released by the major studio/distributors. The few black filmmakers who are struggling to get their films made have to convince someone else, from a different racial, ethnic or cultural background, that their movie deserves to be made. Thus, I accept that some of these black filmmakers are just trying to get a film made, hoping that someday they will have real creative control over their films, so they can communicate what they really want to communicate through film, without having to abide by the wishes of a non-black boss. In other words, if black filmmakers in Hollywood submit 100 scripts to an all-white group of studio executives, and 50 of those scripts portray blacks in a negative manner, but the studio executives only choose to produce and release some of the films from that group of 50 that portray blacks in a negative manner, is it right to blame the black filmmakers for these negative portrayals of blacks? I don't think so. It is more accurate to lay the blame on the persons with the power to make the decisions as to which movies are going to be produced and released. Another example, (in the form of a question), do you really believe that the Steven Spielberg film "Amistad" actually told the story the way most blacks would have liked to have seen it told, or even the way most blacks associated with the film thought it ought to be told?
Once again, " . . . none of our cultural groups should be arbitrarily denied the opportunity to tell their important cultural stories (the way they want to tell them), through this significant medium for the communication of ideas. No one should be allowed to force members of other cultures to filter their important stories through the cultural sensibilities of a small, rather homogeneous group of film industry gate-keepers, which is exactly what is happening in Hollywood today, and that is exactly what has been occurring for the nearly 90-year history of the Hollywood-based U.S. film industry. After all, as noted earlier, movies are somewhat unique -- to a large extent, they mirror the values, interests, cultural perspectives and prejudices of their makers. On the other hand, the Hollywood control group is much too narrow in scope, and its members are prejudiced indeed."
Jews Rule Hollywood?
John Cones
8:18 pm Wednesday April 29, 1998
Brian Clarke again makes a similar mistake of observation about my position and inaccurately represents my views. This is very similar to what "JM" does. Brian Clarke alleges that I claim "Jews . . . rule Hollywood". Once again, I have taken no position regarding Jews generally in my writings. Is that such a difficult thing to see, that so many people would immediately jump to the conclusion that I'm saying something about Jews generally when the clear language I've chosen so obviously limits itself to a small group of not very religious, politically liberal Jewish males of European heritage? After all, my definition of the Hollywood control group excludes very religious Jews (and I assume there are a lot of those). It excludes politically conservative Jews (and I assume there are some). It excludes Jewish women (and that's a significant population). It excludes Jews from all over the world that do not have a European heritage. It also, as a practical matter excludes all Jews who do not work in the Hollywood-based U.S. film industry in one of the top three studio executive positions, and it excludes all top studio executives even with a similar Jewish heritage, if they choose not to play ball with the Hollywood establishment. An example of that is David Puttnam (reported by Vanity Fair as "half-Jewish"), who only lasted 18 months as a top studio executive because he would not play ball with the powerful talent agencies who wanted to force the studio to produce their packaged projects. So, why would Brian Clarke display such shallow analysis in a public forum, and misstate my position in such a grossly inaccurate manner? I would have to assume, without additional information, that he was just in a hurry, and maybe he relied on the misstatements of others.
John Cones -- selective critic
J.M.
10:23 am Thursday April 30, 1998
Well John, that's very big of you to excuse many of the Jews who differ from your narrow definition. I'm sure they'd appreciate your excusing them from your group-association, group-blame. On behalf of the Jews you've allowed not to be "grouped" into your "Hollywood Control Group", I thank you. You truly are not blaming "all Jews" as people keep saying, but only "some Jews". And what's wrong with that?
People, Mr. Cones only wants you to blame certain Jews, the "non religious, white, yadda, yadda, look how specific I'm being it means I'm not really generalizing about people in a dehumanizing way, Jews". The rest of the Jewish population is excluded from Mr. Cones' generalizations about their "biases" and "stereotypes". They can all leave now. Only the narrowly defined Jews need remain to be put on trial by Mr. Cones' for crimes against Humanity.
What a crock. I'm really getting tired of this argument. The crack about Spielberg was an embarassment. Who the hell is Mr. Cones to presume to speak for anyone else's view on how a movie should be made? Or that the color of Spielberg's skin has any bearing on his telling a dramatic historical tale? Does this mean Bill Duke, the black director, should never have directed "The Cemetary Club" (about old white retired women)? Of course not. What a slap in the face to Mr. Speilberg's talents as a filmmaker and as a storyteller. And what a dangerous precendent, to be trying to claim who can tell which stories. Who gets to make these decisions? Should we perhaps set up a panel to review scripts and decide what "background characteristics" are most desirable in the director? Who should appoint this panel?
Mr. Cones, get with the program, and stop trying to reduce the complexities of story telling to a few vague, basic key-points like someone's background characteristics. You insult the creator, you insult the viewer, and most of all, you make yourself look like the most "biased" writer living on the west coast. God forbid anyone with your perspective ever make a film. There would be no people in it, only cardboard cut-outs of people listing their "background charertics" on them so we'd all know everything we needed to know about them.
--Josh
re: John Cones -- filmmaker
J.M.
10:38 am Thursday April 30, 1998
And please don't launch into a whole "see? My perspecive can't make a movie!" crap, I was just trying to point out how your generalizations have dehumanized people who, if put on screen, wouldn't even look human.
I wasn't making a judgement call about whether you should direct movies or not, or if any perspective has more validity to be on screen then any other. I just refuse to accept your trite and insulting connection that "perspective" is directly tied to generalities about background characteristics.
So lets not go there.
(trying to spare another John Cones rant on an unrelated topic, that of his own skills as a director)
--Josh
Control Issue v. Participation Issue
12:42 pm Thursday April 30, 1998
Nonsense! The control group issue cannot be "resolved." Control of physical distribution is an impregnable fortress.
Independent producers should either find new means (such as the internet), financing outside the industry which gives more leverage with the majors, or they should endeavour to effect change by following the legal issues raised by the "Coming to America" case and challenge the legal validity of the basic distribution contracts.
None of these involves dealing with a "control" group except in the normal business or legal sense. The issues should always be confined to issues of business and law not sociology and culture.

| F.I.R.M. Home | Mission | Background Info |
| Dialogs | Discussion Forum & Archives | Press Releases |
| Research | Help F.I.R.M. | Bookstore |