FIRM Discussions May 1, 1998 - May 14, 1998
Open Letter to JM
John Cones
4:36 pm Friday May 1, 1998Law Office of
JOHN W. CONES
1324 Marinette Road
Pacific Palisades, California 90272
310/477-6842May 1, 1998
JM
Re: Your Continued Defamatory RemarksDear JM:
As much as I have enjoyed our exchanges on the Internet regarding film industry reform, I must regrettably inform you that I can no longer respond to your hysterical ramblings because of the continued irresponsible repetition of your false allegation that some of my writings are, in some vague and indeterminate way, anti- Semitic. On the other hand, if you care to be more honest or forthcoming regarding this important issue, and we can resolve this question once and for all, I would be happy to continue a serious discourse on the larger topic of film industry reform.
Here's the problem. I consider the repeated false accusations of anti- Semitism in my writings to be a very serious accusation and, in fact, defamatory. I would hope that you would also consider the accusation of anti-Semitism to be a serious matter, and not an accusation to be made lightly, or without substantiation.
As you may or may not know, I have been practicing securities/entertainment law in Los Angeles for about 11 years now, working with hundreds of independent feature film producers, helping them meet their federal and state securities law obligations in the process of raising development and production money for their feature film projects. These independent filmmakers come from all backgrounds and walks of life, and their films are remarkably diverse. In addition, during that same period, I have lectured to nearly 4,500 film industry professionals in some 175 seminar and panel discussion events on the topics of film finance or investor financing of entertainment projects, under the sponsorship of AFI, IFP/West, UCLA, USC, Cal Western School of Law, Nashville Bar Association, American University in Washington, D.C. and other film industry organizations. Further, I have published four books relating to film finance that have been purchased and read by thousands of filmmakers all across the globe. And, finally, I have other books about the Hollywood-based film industry that I am still seeking publishers for at this moment. In addition, and as you know, I have recently (in cooperation with others) created a film industry reform movement presence on the Internet (our FIRM site) at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM), and sincerely hope to address many inequities in the film industry through that forum. On the other hand, if some supporters of the FIRM site choose to withdraw their support for fear that they may be associated with a movement labeled anti-Semitic (even though a false label), that would be a grave injustice, and could have far-reaching consequences.
In addition, to all of the above, and considering an even larger context, I do not believe it is healthy for our democratic society (partly founded on the concept that we should all be treated fairly and approximately the same) to allow any particular group, no matter how defined, to get away with making false and defamatory accusations of prejudice against someone who correctly criticizes the wrongful behavior of some members of that larger group, because the resulting effect, is to carve out a class of people in our society, who are above criticism (i.e., they have special privileges not enjoyed by others in our society). In other words, if anyone in our society, hesitates to criticize the wrongful conduct of a small group of individuals, because of the status of members of that group and the reasonable fear that their fair criticism may be falsely labeled anti-Semitic (a label which may cause uninformed people to shun professional and personal relationships with the critic), then we have a chilling effect on the speech of that critic, and we are offering a free ride to those in the group who may choose to take advantage of that vacuum and engage in wrongful conduct. Is that your intent, to help promote a class of people who are above criticism? If so, don't you recognize that if enough people in our society see that this phenomenon is occurring (and that it occurs in a broader context, i.e, even beyond the film industry), it could cause a backlash of ill-will, directed (undeservedly) toward the larger so-called Jewish community. That would not be a positive result. The bottom line is that mere criticism of the business- related behavior of someone who happens to be Jewish is not anti-Semitic, and it should not be labeled as such by you or anyone else.
You have made your defamatory remarks in at least three different online facilities: (1) the Web Cinema Digest, (2) the FIRM site and most recently in (3) the Film Threat Weekly. Each of these online publications reach thousands of viewers, visitors, subscribers, etc. Your defamatory remarks pose a potential threat to all five of my above-described interrelated business and professional relationships, and could conceivably cause significant damage to my reputation in any one or all of those relationships (which, of course, may be your intent). Thus, it is extremely important, I think for both of us, since you now know what is at risk for me, and you must realize that, at the very least, your credibility is at risk, that we clarify your true belief on this important issue of anti-Semitism. By the way, I do not think the law of defamation is any different for online publication of defamatory remarks, so there may also be a serious legal consequence to your conduct, and the conduct others who have followed your lead in this regard.
It seems to me that, on the one hand, you may not believe your own false accusations, but are merely using these false accusations of anti-Semitism in my writings to discourage people within and outside the film industry from considering my views regarding the problems of the Hollywood-based U.S. film industry and the need for film industry reform (that's the "chilling effect"). Of course, if that's the case, your conduct is downright dishonest. In point of fact, your false allegations made to the Film Threat Weekly had exactly that effect, their editors refused to publish the FIRM site Internet address. In the alternative, of course, you may sincerely believe what you are saying is true, but are simply unaware of what anti- Semitism actually is, and therefore, you are just wrong.
For these reasons and for the benefit of all who have read your defamatory remarks (the repeated false accusation of anti-Semitism in my writings), I must ask, once again, that you do the following: (1) provide us with a specific reference to the precise language of mine that you deem to be clearly anti-Semitic, (2) provide us with the reasonable and authoritative definition of anti-Semitism on which you are relying (your previous effort in that regard was nothing more than a made-up description of something you term "group-think" and would not be accepted by anyone as a definition of the term "anti-Semitism").
Having already made this request of you several times, I must for the moment conclude that since you have either refused or have simply failed to adequately respond, that you are either acting in a blatantly dishonest manner by making such false accusations (i.e., acting in reckless disregard of the truth), or you (and this would, it seems to me, be the most embarrassing to you) do not know what anti- Semitism is.
So, for all of those people who are counting on you, the self-appointed guardian of the Hollywood establishment, to carry the day, it is time to step up to the plate and accept responsibility for your conduct, and either apologize for and retract your false accusations, made repeatedly in more than one public forum (and now existing in printed form in my files), or tell us exactly where this supposed anti-Semitism resides in my writings.
If you can't respond to this simple request, I can no longer assume that you are acting in good faith, and therefore cannot consider you to be an honorable debate and discussion opponent, thus you are not worthy of any of my additional time or thought.
Since your original defamatory remarks were posted on the Web Cinema Digest, the Film Threat Weekly and the FIRM Internet sites, I have taken the liberty of forwarding a copy of this letter to each of those facilities. Are there any other online sites or hard-copy publications or other media where you have repeated your defamatory remarks? I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible regarding this critically important issue.
Sincerely yours,
John W. ConesJD/pc
re: Open Letter to JM
JM
4:54 pm Friday May 1, 1998Dear John --
Well, I am somewhat shaken up at your last posting, and in fact am greatly upset by it. I thought an "open forum" meant I was free to express my opinions no matter how absurd, outrageous or stupid you feel them to be. However, if you feel that my postings threaten you in any way larger then in a forum of discussion, I will cease them immediately and never post again.
I am not interested in taking this any further then it has already gone. I have wondered aloud as to your statements as potentially being "anti-Semitic". I think this is a legitimate possibility. Is it true? I don't know. I believed I had the freedom to express concern about this topic. However, if my addressing this topic is cause for you to feel your job/career is threatened, I promise you I will stop it immediately, and never address it in print again.
I will make a few postings over the next few days clarifying a few of your points (but without making any further accusations or allegations about you), and then I will withdraw entirely from this discussion.
It is not worth it for me to get into it like this. I work very hard, and while this discussion may be related to your work (your books), it is not to mine.
I'm sorry it had to end like this, I was actually enjoying our discussion and found you to be an incredibly intelligent man who argues convincingly and with great conviction. Know that although I think you are wrong in your analysis, I have respect for you and your intelligence.
Best Regards -
-Josh
Film Threat letter
JM
4:58 pm Friday May 1, 1998In regards to the FilmThreat letter --
I am not in any way affiliated with FilmThreat online. I sent them a private email expressing my concerns over the organization, FIRM. I asked them to investigate the site and make their own determinations. This was a PRIVATE correspondance.
I was never checked with when FilmThreat sent my PRIVATE letter out to its mailing lists. My letter was written directly to Chris Gore, the publisher, who I've corresponded with before. It was not addressed to FilmThreat online.
I apologize to Mr. Cones for any inconvenience this letter caused. I did not request FilmThreat run any correction, only that they investigate it and make up their own opinion, which they did. I take no responsibility for the actions of FilmThreat online.
--Josh
I am not a group
JM
5:05 pm Friday May 1, 1998This taken from the open letter to me by John Cones:
"In addition, to all of the above, and considering an even larger context, I do not believe it is healthy for our democratic society (partly founded on the concept that we should all be treated fairly and approximately the same) to allow any particular group, no matter how defined, to get away with making false and defamatory accusations of prejudice against someone who correctly criticizes the wrongful behavior of some members of that larger group, because the resulting effect, is to carve out a class of people in our society, who are above criticism"
I am not a "group", nor do I represent any "group". I am an individual, and speak only for myself. I certainly do not believe ANYONE is above criticism, as Mr. Cones seems to think I feel, and in fact encourage it. I appreciate Mr. Cones for all his criticisms as I feel they are an interesting perspective that I was hoping to challenge.
I will no longer continue to do so
-Josh
my correspondance with J.C.
JM
5:35 pm Friday May 1, 1998Dear Mr. Cones --
There are no other letters/correspondences out there other then what you already have read. I am not out to silence you in any way, and in fact have encouraged people to visit your site and offer up opinions and thoughts.
As you feel my postings questioning whether there is any "bias" to your writings to be "defamatory", I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to you. I only meant to question issues that you brought up, and felt that this forum, and the Webcinema forum, allowed me that freedom. In fact, I felt you were seeking to address these issues yourself. Since you have notified me you feel otherwise, I no longer intend to make any statements that you might feel to be defamatory, specifically regarding any anti-Semitic bias, and apologize again.
Thank you.
--Josh
Don't apologize to this racist fuck
paul haggis
11:16 pm Saturday May 2, 1998Josh--
Don't apologize to this moron. Mr. Cones can rant all he wants about his supposed "facts", it doesn't make them so. If they were self-evident truths, he would not need to attack you so childishly for your valid criticisms.
Now he's threatening to sue you because he doesn't like what you're saying? Oh, please, Mr. Cones, go sulk somewhere else. Your writing is so obviously biased against Jews that it is nauseating. It is not JM who is being dishonest, it is you. Come out of the closet, put on your hood, you'll feel better.
And as far as Mr. Cones lecture being cancelled, I think that's an awful shame. I would dearly like to hear him in person, so I can boo the poor fat schmuck off the stage. Or would you threaten to sue me for that, Mr. Cones?
But Mr. Cones really shouldn't worry -- the KKK and the John Birch Society always need people to write and lecture for them. And you'll note that they quote a lot of the same "facts" that Mr. Cones does about Jews running Hollywood and the world.
And, failing that, he could always smear his opinions on bathroom walls. They wouldn't be any more intelligent, but they would at least be pithy, so there would be SOMETHING we could admire about his writing.
Stand your ground, Josh. Stop arguing with the guy if you wish (because he is nowhere near intelligent or secure enough to ever admit any fault or flaw in his arguments), but don't apologize. The man is a fool. He just can't stand that you know it.
paul haggis
re: Don't apologize to this racist fuck
John Cones
2:26 pm Sunday May 3, 1998Dear Paul Haggis:
Your message of May 2nd was so filled with mindless name-calling and obscenities that it could only be fairly considered hate-mail, thus it is not worth responding to. Have a nice day.
John Cones
JDJ@MCI2000.com
Apologies Accepted
John Cones
6:54 pm Friday May 1, 1998JM:
Your apologies are received, acknowledged and accepted. I also accept your recharacterization of your treatment of the anti-Semitism issue as a mere "raising of the question" not an accusation, which then, of course, means you really haven't found any actual anti-Semitism in my writings. If I can get all of the rest of those individuals who made similar accusations of "anti-Semitism" and "racism" to also do the responsible thing, we can put this behind us. On the other hand, I have heard some rumblings, about somebody trying to get a scheduled lecture presentation of mine cancelled in the near future. I hope that doesn't happen.
John Cones
JM versus John Cones
brian
3:36 am Saturday May 2, 1998mr. cones,
the only person making you look bad is YOURSELF! i can't believe you would consider litgation against "jm"! for a moment i thought you and him had staged this opus of an exchange yourSELVES it was so good! why in the WORLD would you even THINK of scaring "jm" off of your bulletin board?? both of you made valid points (though in comparison to "jm"s gentlemanly attitude, you came accross as rather hostile REGARDLESS of what he accused you of being).can't you defend yourself with your own facts and opinions? and from where i'm sitting, it's YOU, mr. cones, that keeps harping on the issue of anti-semetism! "jm" seems to want to debate your definition of biased film producing and hollywood's wicked ulterior motives. "jm" seemed to be enjoying this intellectual exchange as much as i'm sure all of your visitors have been!
and in my humble opinion, if you believe the cigar-chomping powers that be in tinsel town have their own biased and personal agendas in their film making practices, your right. that agenda, of course, revolves in every direction around the dollar sign. be they jewish, japanese or jupiterian, they ALL want to earn enough money to keep the process going (and to make a little on the side for a town house or two). that's abSURD to think hollywood producers are consciously portraying a certain group, race or religion in a positive or negative light!! surely you're not THAT paranoid! your like oj simpson claiming the entire lapd was in on the planting of the bloody glove! do you really believe EVERY single big wig in the film industry is in on this "bias" conspiracy?? and did they simply put up the cash for the making of movies that told the true stories of such unpopular and uncommercial subjects as the black panthers, malcolm x, the vietnam war and larry flynt just to divert us temporarily from their TRUE mission??
as an attempt to re-inforce "jm"'s point about two people's different opinions of something biased , may i point out how ludicrous it is for people such as yourself to chide studios for backing the production of a film featuring self-destructive, fowl-mouthed, gang-banging african-americans (and i'm glad you DO!), while african-american film makers receive praises for making virtually the same film! they're lauded for portraying life as it is in the inner cities, even though it's still just as crass and exploitative as the white filmmakers film! (we) blacks get mad when and accuse hollywood of consciously neglecting the telling of our history, but when hollywood DOES make films like AMASTAD and MISSISSIPPI BURNING, we either bitch about how wrong they told it, or we simply don't bother to go in the first place (according to statistics, we prefer the gang-banging flicks a BIT more).
i really don't believe hollywood executives are using the medium of film to promulgate their political or religious affiliations. they'd show their mother's rear ends on the silver screen if they believed it would draw "titanic" crowds!
not only should you not feel threatened by "jm"s points of view, but you might want to consider asking him to help better develop this noble cause of yours.imagine the positive and powerful impact the two of you could make as a team!
re: JM versus John Cones
John Cones
2:30 pm Sunday May 3, 1998Brian:
Your message reveals that part of what you are reacting to is something I'm not saying, and that's typical of most of what I've received so far from people who are opposed to my positions. I've never stated that I believe "Hollywood producers are consciously portraying a certain group, race or religion in a positive or negative light". I'm simply saying that the consistent negative or stereotypical portrayals of certain groups in Hollywood movies is the natural result of having very little diversity at the top in Hollywood, since movies, to a large extent, tend to mirror the values, interests, cultural perspectives and prejudices of their makers. Do you see the difference?
At least half, if not more, of the discussion that has occurred to date on this forum, would have been totally unnecessary if you and your fellows would read more carefully. As another example, Paul Haggis erroneously remarks that I'm concerned about "Jews running Hollywood and the world". In that brief statement, he reveals himself to be wrong on two counts. I've written nothing about Jews generally, and my criticism of the people who control the Hollywood-based U.S. movie industry is limited to that industry. Where he gets the idea that I'm writing about something beyond the movie industry is baffling. He's obviously reacting to something or someone other than me, and then projecting those feelings onto my writings, to the point where he can't think straight. It's a shame.
Now, back to your remarks about JM . . . clearly the main point I made in my "Open Letter to JM", was that if he wanted to persist in making his false allegation of anti-Semitism in my writings, he needed to back it up. Since he could not do so, he dropped out. On the other hand, if JM wants to consider a responsible discussion of the serious issues relating to film industry reform, he is welcome to continue his participation. You fellows need to recognize that just because we're on the Internet, that doesn't mean the rules relating to defamation have changed. You still need to conduct yourselves as if what you write was going to be published in a magazine or newspaper. After all, what we are publishing on this discussion forum, could potentially be seen and printed out in hard-copy form by millions. If you can keep your discussion responsible, you are welcome to participate. If you can't, you don't belong here.
One other quick point -- it seems incredibly ironic to me that Hollywood filmmakers have the freedom to produce and release films touching on all kinds of important issues relating to race, ethnicity, culture, religion, region or nation of origin and so forth, but that when someone comes along and points out that since movies, to a large extent, tend to mirror the values, interests, cultural perspectives and prejudices of their makers, it is therefore appropriate to consider the backgrounds of those who make the decisions about which of these movies are to be seen by moviegoers, you somehow think that such an inquiry is inappropriate. Please consider the irony of that one-sided point of view.
John Cones
further clarification
JM
1:14 pm Saturday May 2, 1998Hi all!
I'm glad to see others entering this dialogue, I thought Mr. Cones and I were the only ones out here in cyber-space!
re: my apologies to John Cones. I apologize only regarding anything he felt to be defamatory, for it was never my intent to defame him in any way. I do not apologize for my personal opinions, every one in which I have expressed genuinely my thoughts and feelings on this subject (despite Mr. Cones' suspicions of ulterior motive).
I do believe this is a very interesting and important issue, and Mr. Cones should NOT be silenced in any way. I am sorry to hear he is potentially being held back from a speaking engagement, I think that this is the wrong approach towards anyone that people feel is speaking negatively or incorrectly.
re: threat of lawsuit. As much as I was enjoying our discussion, I don't have the time, the money or the inclination to be put under that sort of threat, and regardless of the merits of it or not, I can not continue this discussion with that possibility out there. I did feel that since Mr. Cones started this discussion, and since Mr. Cones has created a website for this discussion, I was free to express all of my misgivings about his theories, including the potential of anti-Semitism to be found in them. Without this freedom, I can not continue.
re: accusations of anti-semitism. I am glad Mr. Cones now understands my intent, namely to raise this question and explore whether it is true or not. Mr. Cones certainly presents a respectable argument that it is not true. However, I can not address this issue, as if, as stated above, I feel that my addressing this issue might be misconstrued as defamation (actually, I believe the term is "libel") towards Mr. Cones, I am faced with the threat of a lawsuit.
A bit on my background: I have little money, and am a struggling filmmaker. This entire discussion benefits me in no way, other then allowing me to express my feelings regarding this issue. Thus, if this discussion will hurt my life (threat of lawsuit), it is only logical for me to get as far away from it as possible.
However, if Mr. Cones will permit me, in writing, to address this issue under the guarantee that I not be threatened in any way, I will address it. Until that time I will remove myself from this discussion, and wish Mr. Cones well.
I encourage freedom of speech in all ways. This is a wonderful forum for this, and everyone should have the right to offer up their perspectives. Mr. Cones is an intelligent man with an impressive resume. He should be allowed to speak in all formats. But so should others, who feel the need to question him as I have. Please keep the discussion going...I will be reading.
Best --
-Josh
re: further clarification
John Cones
2:45 pm Sunday May 3, 1998JM:
You don't need a guarantee that a lawsuit will not be forthcoming, and none will be offered. You only need to clean up your discussion. If, after repeated demands that you present your evidence of alleged anti-Semitism in my writings for all to see, you fail to do so, it is fair to assume that you do not believe your own allegations and that you are therefore making them in reckless disregard of the truth, for the sole purpose of discrediting my writings and reputation. That sort of irresponsible approach to a discussion is never welcome here and will be resisted with all available remedies. On the other hand, I will also defend your right to express yourself freely on this forum, just do so without the defamation. By the way, libel is the written form of defamation. Slander is oral defamation. A good article on the topic of defamation in cyberspace can be found at http://www.lawcrawler.com/mad/webisnot.htm.
Best wishes,
John Cones
re: further clarification
Robert
8:48 pm Tuesday May 5, 1998Dear Mr. Cones:
It's very clever of you to deflect the charge of anti-Semitism by asking your accusers to prove it. You say, look at your writings and prove the anti-Semitism.
One does not have to specifically say or write something anti-Semitic to BE anti-Semitic. And a person who has some intelligence certainly knows how NOT to speak or write something anti-Semitic, so as to avoid ANY APPEARANCE of anti-Semitism.
You, sir, do just that. Aren't you clever! You dance around this issue so nimbly.
All one has to do is read between the lines: You consistently make reference to "Jewish males of European heritage...." etc, etc, in your writings. WHAT HAS THIS, SPECIFICALLY, GOT TO DO WITH ANYTHING? If you weren't anti-Semitic, these references would never be part of your writings.
The only correlation you make between the religious backgrounds of the "Jewish males of European heritage" and the movies is that Christian ministers (and other religions' priests) are not portrayed fairly or honestly in the movies. Give me a break. There are many movies with positive portrayals; you just do not acknowledge them as they don't serve your agenda here.
You say that you're not a particulary religious man, although I suspect this is a lie. It's always a good strategy to say "I'm not one of those...however...". People use this to give their arguments more credibility, don't you know. You also conveniently leave out WHAT your religious background is. How interesting. Are you a...Christian Fundamentalist by any chance??? That WOULD explain some of your agenda here.
So, John, if I were to say that "black people are not as good at swimming as white people because they're not as buoyant," would this make me a bigot? (Yes, a famous quote.) Well, if I use your argument that you use with others in this discussion, then by my saying that or speaking that, I am not. BUT THIS IS NOT THE TRUTH, JOHN. Someone who would say that, is prejudiced. And this is precisely what you do in your writings. You do not specifically say you hate Jews, or that you think they ought to die or whatever. You identify what you believe to be the religious background of a group of people and then explain what is wrong with the movies they make. And you conveniently leave out the wonderful films "this group" has made, and conveniently leave out the terrible movies that people of other religious backgrounds have made.
John, deny what you will. Deny all you want. I see through you. Others do too. You are appearantly a very frustrated man who I assume has not achieved what you wanted to achieve in this industry, and therefore on a psychological level need to find emotional comfort by having a scapegoat.
And you have even gone far enough to develop an anti-Semitic agenda that you couch in idealistic, "lets change the world for the better" language.
You can bet I will never buy one of your books or anything else that you ever sell.
Ciao baby.
don't pass the blame.
Ploaby
8:27 pm Saturday May 2, 1998as flattering as it might be to film threat magazine and "JM", i REALLY don't believe between the two of them they could muster up enough clout to be anywhere's NEAR responsible for your lecture's cancellation. take responsibility for your flawed platform, mr. cones. and if you want to see a positive change made in hollywood, you're going to have to convince them that a movie about the plight of haitian refugees will do bigger at the box office than die hard part 3.until then money rules. no movie company wants to fall into the red for making nothing but humanitarian or politically correct films! but i think they DO see it's important to try and release one every once in a while.i mean for every two or three ace venturas,isn't there an eight days in tibet?
I Want to Help F.I.R.M. Shane Hendrix
7:48 pm Sunday May 3, 1998I'm a struggling actor. I guess surfing the net is what brought me into contact with F.I.R.M.
At this time, I've only read the information regarding who controls Hollywood, and found it to be very interesting. As time permits, I'll continue to explore the rest of F.I.R.M.'s site. I don't know exactly how I could help at this time, but I'm open to suggestions.
I would like to be placed on your mailing list (if there is one), and informed as to what you're doing, and how you're trying to do it.
The All About Money Myth
John Cones
10:01 pm Sunday May 3, 1998As this discussion continues, quite a few people keep repeating the Hollywood mantra/myth that "it's all about money". Of course, that's exactly what the Hollywood establishment wants you to believe, and its members have been reminding us for years of that view. It's not true, of course, for a number of reasons I'll mention in a moment, but the "It's All About Money" myth has been effectively used as a smokescreen to discourage anyone from looking past the money motive to other possible motives for the conduct of the Hollywood insiders. When you do that, as I have, you realize that, as with most wealthy people, money is not the real objective. It's the things that money can buy. In the context of Hollywood, that includes some semblance of power, the ability to make the movies you want, the ability to hire talented people at high salaries, the power to make sure those movies say what you want them to say, the ability to help your family and friends in and out of the film business, keeping huge amounts of other people's money circulating within the Hollywood insider-controlled system, the ability to make large donations to charities, get the recognition of your community and feel good about it, the ability to contribute large amounts of money (collectively) to other important causes, the ability to influence government policy and legislation, in some instances, the ability to gain the attention of some of the world's most attractive women, etc. That's what it's all about -- the power to do all of these things and more. Another important thing to remember, if it really was all about money in Hollywood, the blatant patterns of bias I've reported elsewhere in this site and in my books, the biased biopics and the favored movie themes wouldn't exist. If it was all about money in Hollywood, there would be more diversity in the studio executive suites, after all, there is no single racial, ethnic, religious or cultural group in our society that has the corner on making money. If it was really all about money, there would also be more diversity on the screen. [for a list of other Hollywood myths, click on the heading "Hollywood Myths and Misinformation"; for more discussion of Hollywood's ongoing manipulation of the truth see the book excerpt "Myth and Misinformation"]
John Cones
Violence in the Movies
James Jaeger
11:50 am Tuesday May 5, 1998One of the reasons there is so much violence in feature motion pictures is that "action scenes," as such are sometimes called, are relatively cheap to manufacture yet some producers and directors consider that they add, what could arguably be called, "production value" to their pictures.
I am not talking about the kinds of expensive effects like those in T2 or DIE HARD, but your basic incessant gunshots sparking off walls; green- or blue-screen background explosions (you know - the one where the hero in the foreground is always running towards CAMERA); punching/fight scenes; and blood/guts bursting out from body parts scenes -- to name some of the most common.
Since the addition of such violence creates an impact in the movie greater than the production budget it cost to produce it, and such impacts translate into sales in the world wide film markets - some producers continue to irresponsibly make such pictures as their staple.
The fact that many areas outside the United States (known by distributors as the "foreign territories") ARE EMBROILED in violent conditions, movies depicting violence "align" with what they observe to be "the way life simply is." Hence, they identify with such movies and continue purchasing tickets to them - thus feeding the production of more of the same. The cheap profits to the producers and distributors continue and the world is made a colder and more restless place.
Some of our greatest producers and directors, such as Steven Spielberg, on the other hand have proven that quality entertaining movies can be made without resorting to gratuitous violence. This is not to say pictures about war or human conflict are bad and cannot retain an important value - as did SHINDLER'S LIST, BRAVE HEART and SILENCE OF THE LAMBS - it is simply to say that the endless exploitation of violence for pecuniary reasons is devastating to our world in the long-run and should be attenuated.
Coming from a medical family I have had the opportunity to watch various operations (such as interorbital brain tumors and autopsys) at the side of my late grandfather. I have also seen a reasonable amount of blood and death on the highway and suffering coming in through emergency doors of hospitals. My point is: the way THE VAST MAJORITY of movies show violence, even people dying from a gunshot, is NOT the way it actually happens. The way it actually happens is SO HORRIBLE, even the movies the producers and directors are just trying to make a buck off of - do not show it because if they actually showed it the way it really is - they would not make any money as it would be TOO horrible and hence loose all its "production value." It would be "politically incorrect violence."
There is NOTHING ENTERTAINING about watching someone getting shot, beat, or blown up -- whether in a movie or in real life. When filmmakers tropistically place this sort of stuff endlessly in movies, yet do not have the courage to show things the way they actually are - because they would not sell tickets - one could say they are actually "glamorizing" violence or putting a "glossy finish" on a terible, terrible thing. And over the decades, it keeps getting worse, proving that audiences are little by little becoming insensitive to what would have abhored them 10 years ago yet today is so routine and mass marketed - they don't mind taking a gun to school and just shooting a teacher or two.
On the other hand, there are many Veterans and a few Filmmakers out there (such as Oliver Stone), that probably understand what I mean. And I am not advocating making movies more and more horrible and realistically violent for the "purpose" of attempting to "educate" everyone about its horrors so much that they will never again watch, or even want to watch, another violent movie - this does not seem to be the correct direction at all.
I am simply saying that we have enough movies out there, thank you, that have covered, educted us and exploited the subject, so let's move on - there is an unimaginably huge (physical) universe out there to make movies in and about; and the interaction of complex molecules (especially those that have grouped into human beings over the years) is almost endless.
James Jaeger
Studio Executive Backgrounds
John Cones
1:27 pm Tuesday May 5, 1998A number of FIRM Discussion Forum participants have expressed concern about the appropriateness of inquiring into the backgrounds of studio executives, and have suggested that I am a bigot for doing that, and reporting the facts.
The real bigotry in this situation is the view that it is ok for studio executives to use one of the most powerful mass communications media yet devised to:
1. Consistently portray Arabs, Italian-Americans, Latinos, Christians and Whites from the American South, and others in a negative and stereotypical manner;
2. Ridicule and demean the religion, ethnicity, culture and/or nationality of others;
3. Selectively portray the lives of people who are worthy of treatment in motion picture biographies; and
4. Revise American and world history . . .
without recognizing that it is just as appropriate for all persons concerned about the impact of this powerful communications medium on the lives of our children and others who may be influenced by film, to inquire into any and all information about the backgrounds of the studio executives and others responsible for bringing these film messages to the screen.
Where's the Real Bigotry?
John Cones
1:30 pm Tuesday May 5, 1998A number of you have resorted to the word "bigot" to describe me, or used the word "bigotry" to describe my work. As you may know, I am very fond of checking out the definitions of such words in the dictionary or other available resources, because I have found over the years that if a word is not something I use regularly, I may not have a really good understanding of the word's precise meaning. I am also finding that is true of others, in their use of such words to describe me as "anti-Semitic", "Communist", "Nazi rabble rouser", "racist" and so on. In any case, my rather worn copy of the American Heritage Dictionary (Third Edition) defines "bigot as one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race or politics and is intolerant of those who differ". Bigotry is defined as the attitude, state of mind, or behavior characteristic of a bigot; intolerance.
Of course, the first thing that comes to my mind with respect to these terms is the obvious bigotry involved in arbitrarily excluding Blacks, Latinos, Native Americans, Arabs and Arab- Americans, Asians and Asian-Americans, Christians, Muslims, Mormons, Whites from the American South, and so forth from the top-level executive positions in Hollywood's major studios. Now, there's some real intolerance over a long period of time, that has extended far beyond any historical accident (or other cause) that may have originally created the concentration of a particular group of people in Hollywood.
Of course, for those of you who are so inclined to exaggerate my arguments (partly because it is then easier to respond), please recognize that I'm not saying no one from any of these groups have ever held such positions (although certainly not a single African-American has ever held one of the top three studio executive positions in the 90 year history of the Hollywood-based U.S. film industry), but what I am saying is that some 60 to 80 percent of these top-level studio executive positions have been held by men who share a common background, and that does not happen by accident.
The second form of bigotry I see is how many of these same people are portrayed in Hollywood movies. My studies of thousands of movie reviews demonstrate that most of the above-mentioned groups have been consistently portrayed in a negative or stereotypical manner, through a very powerful communications medium. This is real intolerance, where it counts; where's its being projected to millions of moviegoers around the world. By the way, finding a few examples of positive portrayals of such persons does not effectively refute the results of these studies. Let's see some more long-term studies.
The third form of bigotry or intolerance I've seen recently, is that expressed on this FIRM site Discussion Forum by people who just can't stand being exposed to the truth. Where is your tolerance for the ideas of others? Where is your tolerance of those who differ? Aren't some of you who are arguing most vigorously in defense of the Hollywood establishment the real examples of someone showing a strong partiality to "one's own group"? And, aren't you missing something in your analysis of my position? I'm not really intolerant, I am promoting greater tolerance. I'm for opening up the U.S. film industry to all comers, of all backgrounds, to tell all kinds of stories. I just want the industry to be fair in how it goes about determining who gets to tell their stories through film. Does that really sound like intolerance to you? I cannot help it if one particular, narrowly-defined group has chosen to gain dominance over this powerful communications medium. I have no influence over that fact. I can only report the phenomenon accurately. It is quite intolerant of you to suggest that my accurate studies and my resulting views of what's really going on in Hollywood or any in way a form of bigotry.
Best wishes,
John Cones
Where's the Anti-Semitism?
John Cones
5:06 pm Tuesday May 5, 1998Since some of you have chosen to make the repeated false allegation of anti-Semitism in my writings, but have failed to provide us with any clue as to which definition of anti-Semitism you are using, and although repeatedly requested, you have failed to point specifically to any language in my writings (available for all to see), that is clearly anti-Semitic, I have decided to help out. Here are three definitions of the term anti-Semitism.
The first comes from Geoffrey Wigoder's The New Standard Jewish Encyclopedia (7th Edition--1992) at page 58. This publication is acknowledged as the authoritative source book of information about all aspects of Jewish life. It provides a very conservative definition of anti- Semitism, saying it is a " . . . term . . . used . . . to designate the organized movement or other manifestations against the Jews; more loosely, hatred of the Jews generally." Wigoder's definition of anti-Semitism clearly requires that in order for something to rise to the level of anti-Semitism, it must either be part of an "organized movement" or at least directed at Jews generally. Thus, under such a definition, it would be inappropriate to label an individual as anti-Semitic unless you can demonstrate with credible evidence that the individual was part of a larger movement against Jews generally, or was at least guilty of an expression of hatred (which is even stronger than "hostility") toward all Jews.
A second definition comes from University of Arizona professor Leonard Dinnerstein's book entitled Anti-Semitism in America. At page ix of his book, Professor Dinnerstein defines anti-Semitism as " . . . hostile expressions toward, or negative behavior against, individuals or groups because of their Jewish faith or heritage." Thus, Dinnerstein does not focus on either of the "organized movement", or the "Jews generally" elements of the Jewish Encyclopedia definition, instead offering the difficult to prove requirement that the alleged anti-Semite's motives be examined. If it can be proven that the alleged anti-Semite was publishing "hostile expressions toward . . . individuals or groups because of their Jewish faith or heritage" then the allegation may have some substance. Thus, anyone relying on Dinnerstein's definition, would have to show some credible evidence of the author's motives (i.e., something more than mere speculation).
A third definition of anti-Semitism comes from Patricia Erens' discussion in her book The Jew In America Cinema (page 257). In defending Jewish filmmakers who provide negative or stereotypical portrayals of Jews in American films, Erens stated that the " . . . fact that most of the works (reviewed in her book The Jew in American Cinema) were written or scripted by Jewish writers and produced by Jewish businessmen and actors classifies them as a form of self- examination." And she points out that this Jewish self-examination is different " . . . from an attack from without." However, in determining whether such Jewish self-examination in film actually rises to the level of Jewish anti-Semitism, Erens quotes Robert Alter's definition of anti- Semitism, which holds that "Anti-Semitism implies an active hostility towards Jews as a group and an active intention to vilify them". Thus, Erens takes the position that " . . . one must make a distinction between a negative character or even an unlikable family and a slur aimed at the entire Jewish community. Using this criterion . . . " Erens reports that " . . . very few films are genuinely anti-Semitic works, despite the outcry and rage of overly sensitive, defensive, and protective Jewish critics." The Robert Alter definition of anti-Semitism, relied on by Patricia Erens seems to return to the "Jews generally" element of the Jewish Encyclopedia's definition. So, the bottom line seems to be that anti-Semitism may manifest itself as part of an organized movement, or in other ways, but in any case, it must at least be "hostility" directed (1) toward Jews generally, or (2) toward one or more Jews because they are Jewish. When any of you find that in my writings, please let me know.
re: Where's the Anti-Semitism?
Robert
9:34 pm Tuesday May 5, 1998Dear Mr. Cones,
It's very clever of you to deflect the charge of anti-Semitism by asking your accusers to prove it. You say, look at your writings and prove the anti-Semitism.
One does not have to specifically say or write something anti-Semitic to BE anti-Semitic. And a person who has some intelligence certainly knows how NOT to speak or write something anti-Semitic, so as to avoid ANY APPEARANCE of anti-Semitism.
You, sir, do just that. Aren't you clever! You dance around this issue so nimbly.
All one has to do is read between the lines: You consistently make reference to "Jewish males of European heritage...." etc, etc, in your writings. WHAT HAS THIS, SPECIFICALLY, GOT TO DO WITH ANYTHING? If you weren't anti-Semitic, these references would never be part of your writings.
The only correlation you make between the religious backgrounds of the "Jewish males of European heritage" and the movies is that Christian ministers (and other religions' priests) are not portrayed fairly or honestly in the movies. Give me a break. There are many movies with positive portrayals; you just do not acknowledge them as they don't serve your agenda here.
You say that you're not a particulary religious man, although I suspect this is a lie. It's always a good strategy to say "I'm not one of those...HOWEVER...". People use this to give their arguments more credibility, don't you know. You also conveniently leave out WHAT your religious background is. How interesting. Are you a...Christian Fundamentalist by any chance?? That WOULD explain some of your agenda here.
So, John, if I were to say that "black people are not as good at swimming as white people because they're not as buoyant," would this make me a bigot? (A famous quote.) Well, if I use your argument that you use with others in this discussion, then by my saying that or speaking that, I am not. BUT THIS IS NOT THE TRUTH, JOHN. Someone who would say that, is prejudiced, even though they may not be "hostile" words or words filled with hatred. And this is precisely what you do in your writings. You do not specifically say you hate Jews, or that you think they ought to die or whatever. You identify what you believe to be the religious background of a group of people and then explain what is wrong with the movies they make/authorize. And you conveniently leave out the wonderful films "this group" has made, and conveniently leave out all the terrible movies that people of other religious backgrounds have made.
John, deny what you will. Deny all you want. I see through you. Others do too, obviously. You are appearantly a very frustrated man who I assume has not achieved what you wanted to achieve in this industry, and therefore on some psychological level need to find emotional comfort by having a scapegoat.
And you have even gone far enough to develop an anti-Semitic agenda that you couch in idealistic, "lets change the world for the better" language.
You can bet I will never buy one of your books or anything else that you ever sell.
Ciao baby.
Film Threat Weekly's Hit and Run Tactics
John Cones
5:11 pm Tuesday May 5, 1998I've also noticed in some of the writings of my critics, a tendency to raise issues, but not follow through. The false allegation of anti-Semitism in my writings is an example. It has been raised, by at least a dozen or so people who have responded to my work either on the Web Cinema Digest, Film Threat Weekly or here at the FIRM site Discussion Forum. But, as noted elsewhere, none of these people have been willing to provide an authoritative definition of anti-Semitism, nor disclose exactly where in my writings this alleged anti-Semitism supposedly resides. In addition, some have even gone so far as to chide me for wanting to continue to talk about the subject of my alleged anti-Semitism, and suggesting that I move on to other issues. In other words, when confronted with the falseness of their allegations, they want to move on. Film Threat Weekly did exactly this. They actually published the false allegation that the FIRM site is "heavily anti- Semitic", but when I pointed out to them that their statement was simply not true, and ought to be retracted, they said, well, let's just "drop it". Here we have someone parading around on the Internet pretending to be a responsible journalist, but when confronted with the fact that the editors of Film Threat Weekly have erroneously reported something that is defamatory, they just want to "drop it". This part of the film industry reform movement discussion is beginning to take on the appearances of a smear campaign, in which my critics do not care about the truth or falsity of their own allegations, just so long as they can keep repeating them enough, that will do the trick. That is one of the ways the truth can be manipulated in a democracy, and that's one of the reasons why it is so important to the future of our nation to prevent any narrowly-defined interest group from controlling any significant medium for the communication of ideas -- because, with that control, comes the power to arbitrarily deny access to the minds of citizens. Would anyone pretend that FIRM or John Cones' views got a fair hearing regarding the false allegations actually published on the Film Threat Weekly forum? The original defamatory statement falsely alleging anti-Semitism at the FIRM site was published, a couple of letters from so-called "loyal readers" repeating the false allegation were published, my complaints were not published and to my knowledge, no retraction has been made. It really must make those serious journalists at the Film Threat Weekly proud of their journalistic heritage. Those of you who subscribe to the Film Threat Weekly should demand basic fairness in their publishing policy. If not, you are standing by and allowing an injustice to occur, and the next time it might be you.
re: Film Threat
Joe Goldenberg
8:18 pm Tuesday May 5, 1998Hey, anyone who takes Film Threat seriously about ANYTHING has too much liquid in their brain.
In fact, when Film Threat says the worst things possible about you, or some issue - you can count on the fact that this is sure-fire evidence that the mainstream of Americans (and people around the world) are feeling exactly the opposite.
re: Film Threat
Robert
8:50 pm Tuesday May 5, 1998 Joe,Go soak YOUR brain, buddy. You are a MORON.
re: Film Threat
Joe Goldenberg
5:42 pm Wednesday May 6, 1998I rest my case.
re: Film Threat
Robert
6:20 pm Wednesday May 6, 1998Brilliant come back, Joe. Your intelligence is frickin' amazing. Are you a member of Mensa, too???
re: Film Threat
Joe Goldenberg
8:22 pm Wednesday May 6, 1998 Yup.
Studio Stockholders
Sara Lilly
4:42 pm Thursday May 7, 1998If the film industry is controled by an inner circle in the studio/distributors, why don't the stockholders of these entities, which I believe are all public corporations, just change the management team?
re: Studio Stockholders
Robert
10:42 pm Friday May 8, 1998Because these studios/distributors make lots of money and profits for the publicly traded corporations that own and control them, and therefore the shareholders (particularly the majority [and voting] shareholders) DON'T WANT to change anything.
Despite all of this, Cones & Cronies would like you all to believe that an inner circle exists. The truth here, is that this inner circle is not as closed as Cones would like you to believe. One can enter and rise up the ranks by proving an ability to make money and more "right choices" on films than "wrong ones" (i.e., those films that become hits).
Any religious bias that Cones likes to discuss is purely his own inferiority complex playing itself out in the form of him being a "victim" at the hands of these hollywood "insiders." He must feel that he can't get movies made that he wants. Although I don't believe he is even a filmmaker. I personally wonder what Cones REAL motivation is here. Is he really just prejudiced?
This industry is about money. It is show BUSINESS. It would be wonderful if more independent films could get made. Who wants to see the same old shit over and over again. But until the PUBLIC will embrace independent films to the point of actually GOING TO THE THEATRE AND PAYING $7.00 FOR A TICKET, there won't be as many as we might like.
This is, after all, a capitalist world we live in. And unfortunately, most of us are like sheep. We want to know what STAR is in the movie before we decide if we want to see it. WE are driven by WHO is in the movies more than what the movie is about. Until this changes, Hollywood won't change.
Ticket Pricing
James Jaeger
2:12 pm Saturday May 9, 1998:It would be :wonderful if more independent films could get made. Who wants to :see the same old shit over and over again. But until the PUBLIC :will embrace independent films to the point of actually GOING TO :THE THEATRE AND PAYING $7.00 FOR A TICKET, there won't be as many :as we might like. : :This is, after all, a capitalist world we live in. And :unfortunately, most of us are like sheep. We want to know what :STAR is in the movie before we decide if we want to see it. WE :are driven by WHO is in the movies more than what the movie is :about. Until this changes, Hollywood won't change.
Robert,
Thanks for your input.
Why don't they charge different amounts for tickets? Why should one pay $7 or $8 for an independent feature that may have cost only $5 million to produce when studio pictures cost $30 million on up? I can see paying more for the big expensive flicks (because they spend more on them and you are getting more production value, etc.), but if the smaller independent pictures were not forced to compete at the same ticket price as the major releases, maybe this would give the Independents a better chance to sell more tickets and hence "level the playing field" a bit.
I know there are many second and third run theaters around that DO have discounted tickets and they do just this: make movies
available at lower ticket prices, but it seems to me, and I'm just thinking out loud here, it seem that if one could go to a first-run theater and see independent films for say $3.50 instead of $7.00, they would be much more likely to "take a chance" on the fact that there was no "name" or major star in the picture. If two people were willing to take this same "risk" and pay $3.50 for each independent picture, they would be generating the equivalent of a $7.00 picture with a name in it. Everyone could make more money and new talent would get more of a chance to present itself. It is my personal observation, because I am constantly in movie theaters, that rarely are all the seats taken - especially in these new multiplex Regal Cinemas popping up all over.
Why not have lower rental prices also apply to video stores? If lower budgeted AFMA-distributed pictures (you could also include lower budgeted MPAA-distributed pictures, when any, in here as well), rented for say $2.00 instead of $3.55 (which I believe is what Blockbuster is charging for new releases now), everyone could benefit.
What are your thoughts on this, or anyone?
James Jaeger
PS. And if any of your Econ students are going to bring up the Theory of Elasticity of Demand, please be very clear, so we can all examine this and determine if it is still "relevant" in the computer age, at a time when computers can parse out individual pricing and bookkeeping with extreme ease and accuracy. Thank you.
Automatically Parsed Royalties
James Jaeger
3:18 pm Saturday May 9, 1998Does 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
I Want to Help F.I.R.M.
snavel moogiestein
3:23 pm Saturday May 9, 1998snavel moogiestein wrote: > > Below is the result of your feedback form. It was submitted by > snavel moogiestein (jewpower@isreal.net) on Saturday, May 9, 1998 at 01:59:06 > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- Snavel, Thanks for you willingness to help FIRM. The best way you can help right now is to read the material posted on the site, including as many of the referenced works in the bibliography, do some thinking and observing for your self and share your opinions, observations and conclusions with everyone at the Discussion Forum from time- to-time. The Forum is at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/guide.htm.
Indecent Barbarians
Sara Lilly
5:02 pm Sunday May 10, 1998It seems strange to me that Columbia Pictures felt the Wall Street Nabisco deal/expose was worthy of a TV movie (BARBARIANS AT THE GATE in 1993), yet they did not see fit to produce what would have been an equally interesting TV movie based on the book "Indecent Exposure" which came out in the mid '80's I believe.
Could this have anything to do with the fact that "Indecent Exposure" was about David Begleman, a studio chief at Columbia Pictures at the time, who was caught up in a major scandal concerning one of actor Clifford Robertson's royalty checks?
Just one thing.... JM
2:16 pm Monday May 11, 1998Hey all!
All right, I know I said I was going to stay out of the discussion for awhile, even though I'm dying to present an argument for anti-Semitism in Mr. Cones' writings (but can't risk any more letters "from the Law Offices of John Cones"), but here's one little thing I just found so funny I had to post it:
In Mr. Cones own words:
"If, after repeated demands that you present your evidence of alleged anti-Semitism in my writings for all to see, you fail to do so, it is fair to assume that you do not believe your own allegations and that you are therefore making them in reckless disregard of the truth, for the sole purpose of discrediting my writings and reputation."
I'm just wondering if ANYONE out there agrees with Mr. Cones that this is a logical assumption to make.
Mr. Cones, all I have to say is,...WHAT???
Please reread your statement I reposted above. Not only is it not fair to assume any of that, it's down-right laughable.
And I must say, I chuckled for awhile.
I really don't see how you constantly make these "fair to assume" statements based on non-information. Merely because someone doesn't say something, you jump to dozens of self-supporting conclusions that you now feel are "proven". Does this work in court? I can't see how, as it's absurd.
Please, if anyone feels Mr. Cones' words above are true, and that if I fail to provide evidence of anti-Semitism (even though I'm threatened with Defamation charges if I do), he can somehow make any of those assumptions, please let me know. I'm honestly trying to understand what the heck he is talking about.
All right, that's it, I'm out of this discussion.
Keep it going, though, it's very interesting! I'm especially interested to hear what people think about price changes for different movies. It should be noted here in NYC, a wonderful theater of 50th street shows movies 5-6 weeks after their initial run for 3$. I go all the time. Just saw "Dark City". Good flick!
--Josh
Silence of the Filmmakers
Stamen Cartly
4:20 pm Tuesday May 12, 1998It is truly ironic, and pitiful, that most producers and directors (I'll collectively refer to as "Filmmakers") enter the movie business so they can stand up and communicate, say something, perhaps even something about their vision of what life is, or should be - yet the very industry they will spend 15 years in (practically) begging it to acknowledge their screenplays and packages, this very industry (which they tell themselves over-and-over they love), will stone wall over 95 percent of them and pretend that they never existed; or take their money and ruthlessly kick them out when they are broken and impecunious.
Or, when it comes time (one would think after 5 or 10 years of rejection) for these great communicators - these Filmmakers who have something to say in their films because after all they "ARE" Filmmakers - to stand up and observe out loud that there IS something wrong in their industry - that the playing field has rotted into a mudslide of "creative accounting" and control by a privileged inner circle and may need reform - they lay quiet and terrified in their Wilcox or Wilshire apartments and say nothing for fear of stepping on the toes of some studio executive, or some tin "power-that-be," who they fantasize may green-light one of their projects - but who in reality only wishes that most of them would move back to Iowa or New Jersey and just be good little moviegoers feeding endless dollars into their corrupt distribution machine (that even thinks it is above GAAP).
If this is you, if you have been reading this discussion and you have not posted your view, you are proving that the Film Industry cannot reform itself because people such as yourself are afraid to stand up to the inner circle, and its apologists, that are playing the "religious card" to quiet you and to twist you into thinking you have a chance with that script or package under your arm. Worst of all, however, as long as you are silent, you are proving that you are not really a communicator and therefore, sadly, you are not really a Filmmaker.
I for one would really like to see the films that you could make otherwise, but that will most likely never happen as long as nothing is done to reform the Film Industry.
Stamen Cartly
re: Just one thing....
Robert
8:50 pm Wednesday May 13, 1998I agree with you JM; Mr. Cones' assumption is false. He's using invalid logic.
What I find interesting, is that Mr. Cones has been silent since his posting of "Where's the anti-Semitism?" I had a reply to his posting which has gone unanswered by him. Perhaps you've seen it. If not, check it out. I think it responds fairly well to what you are talking about here.
Take care.
re: Silence of the Filmmakers
Robert
9:52 pm Wednesday May 13, 1998Dear Stamen,
What are you so angry about? You indict filmmakers for having dreams who won't post their views here? What is that!?
I am a filmmaker, but I will not pretend to speak for all
filmmakers. I feel, and perhaps others feel, that I CAN make the films that I want to make. I do not have to wait for a power center to validate me and green light my fantasies. I am not independently wealthy, yet with diligence and unwavering perseverence, I can pull together enough money to do it.
I may not have the budget I'd like to have (who does?), or the guaranteed distribution avenue (a wet dream), but I'm not in this business to be a schlocky filmmaker who makes the same old crap over and over for the studios.
I will make my movies the way I want and about what I want and they will get out there for people to see.
And guess what, Stamen? Anyone can do this. Be they green (like you apparently are), black, yellow, red, purple polka dotted, Christian, Muslim, Baptist, Athiest, Moonie, WHATEVER.
There are many independent filmmakers out there making their movies all the time. Don't you know this? Read some of the filmmaking magazines. You'll learn who some of them are if you don't already know.
I happen to feel that many of the "filmmakers" in Hollywood that make studio films don't necessarily have anything that is burning inside of them that they must communicate. Which is why we get so many studio films devoid of anything meaningful.
What you, in your naivete, cannot see, or don't want to see, is that this industry is driven by what you and I are willing to pay for. If large numbers of the paying public quit going to the mindless star-driven "Mission Impossible" type movies, and instead, went to movies that communicated something meaningful, then WE WOULD HAVE MORE OF THOSE FILMS BEING MADE AND DISTRIBUTED BY THE STUDIOS. But when, for example, a John Sayles movie can't even come close to what "Mission Impossible" grosses, it doesn't take a member of Mensa to figure out what the next movie is going to be. Let's grow up here, Stamen.
You say in your last sentence, that you'd like to see the films that we independent filmmakers make. Really? You're not just paying lip service here?
What I'd be interested in knowing is what, exactly, were the last 15 movies that you either saw IN the movie theatre or RENTED on videocassette. (This does NOT include what you may have seen on the Sundance Channel or the IFC.) I would bet that indie films comprise a small fraction of this total. So, Stamen, quit blaming the powers that be, quit believing John Cones' bullcrap about the industry, and blame YOURSELF for the selection we get from the studios.
Does the industry need reforming? That's like asking does the world need reforming. Do we as human beings have room for change? Absolutely. Once we change, that is when industries will change. Not just the movie industry, but all of them. That's when the politicians will change. That's when the world will change. It must always start within each one of us. Read some of Ghandi's teachings if you have a problem with this truth.
You sound very young, Stamen, and perhaps you are. There's nothing wrong with that. But do your studying and research before you speak about (and spew about) things you don't fully understand.
Take care,
Robert
re: Silence of the Filmmakers
Stamen Cartly
1:33 pm Thursday May 14, 1998Robert,
Thank you for your responce and you have proven to me that all Filmmakers are not silent - at least one of them is not.
Have you had success raising, say $300,000, for a low-budget feature?
Stamen
re: Silence of the Filmmakers
Robert
3:01 pm Thursday May 14, 1998Stamen,
Yes, I have. Why do you ask?
Robert
:Robert, : :Thank you for your responce and you have proven to me that all :Filmmakers are not silent - at least one of them is not.
: :Have you had success raising, say $300,000, for a low-budget :feature?
: :Stamen
:
How Did you get the Money?
Stamen Cartly
4:23 pm Thursday May 14, 1998Because if you have, you have beat the odds, and that's great!
I wish you would share with us other Filmmakers how you did it. I'm not trying to put you on the spot, but it would be helpful to know as many specifics as possible.
For one, it could lead to constructive discussion in this forum on how to IMPROVE or perhaps SURVIVE the Film Industry, if REFORM is too strong of a term for some.
Stamen Cartly
Missing Cones' Point
Joe Goldenberg
4:49 pm Thursday May 14, 1998I just re-read all the posts in this forum and some of you are missing Cones' point entirely and trying to make this discussion into something it is not.
If the studios were controlled by 60% - 80% Afro-Americans over the past 90 years, you same people that are falsely accusing John Cones of being a bigot or anti-Semitic, would be yapping about the lack of diversity because of the slavery pictures all over the place and not enough Hollocaust pictures anywhere.
It's bad enough that the studios are all run by people pretending to be Jewish and thus giving the larger Jewish community a bad rap, but it's worse that they are all run by WHITE MALES, and still worse is the fact that these white males are running almost all the corporations in America.
Hell - why can't we get some diversity all over this damn place - not only the film industry. And, while I'm at it, why the hell can't Congress be 50% women - by law??? Last time I checked, women make up approximately 50% of the population. Ain't this supposed to be a DE-mocracy or something.
What mental breakdown... everywhere ....let's move into the next Century with some diversity on ALL fronts PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. Maybe the film industry could even be the big boy and lead the way.
Joe Goldenberg
IndustryCentric Films - Ha!
Joe Goldenberg
5:13 pm Thursday May 14, 1998The control group only green-lights or distributes carefully selected movies depicting its inner termoil. With industry-centric movies like THE PLAYER, S.O.B., LIVING IN OBLIVION, MISTRESS, ED WOOD, ETC., you may think you are getting an insight into the movie industry's machinations, but you are not and anyone who has read the book, "Indecent Exposure," knows EXACTLY what I am talking about.
I read "Indecent Exposure" when it came out and I read "Barbarians at the Gate" when that came out - and I'll tell you, what that book, "Indecent Exposure," reports about the film industry is moving in the right direction! The way the top executives shuffle everything around and try to cover each others's asses and yet try to look politically correct all the time and hide the money and fuck the girls and yap, yap, yap at all the parties behind each other's backs, and futz with the accounting, etc., etc., - this makes tham all look like such a bunch of total morons and creeps - the real story will NEVER get out.
THE PLAYER doesn't even come close to portreying what the film industry ACTUALY IS. Most movies portreying the film industry in a movie are movies about what the industry executives think the public thinks the industry is about so they embellish on that and hollywood-ize the whole thing to make it look like the Industry is able to self-criticize. Ha!! Horseshit!!
America need to know MUCH more about the Film Industry and how it's fucking their children's minds up good.
Joe Goldenberg
PS, And in case you're wondering who the fuck I am and how I know all this - I am an old friend of what remains of Jack Warner, Errol Flynn and Howard Hughes crowd.
re: How Did you get the Money?
Robert
8:23 pm Thursday May 14, 1998I'm not ready at this time to be public around the world in this forum about my money raising methods (they were not illegal), but if you'd like to post your email address or figure out a way for me to reach you (are you in the phone book?), I'd be willing to share info. I cannot post MY email address because I have made assumptions that John Cones is anti-Semitic here, and based on his very open legal threat of law suit against someone else in this discussion site for doing the same thing, I cannot risk being sued for defamation. Therefore, in this discussion forum, I must remain "anonymous."
Robert
re: Missing Cones' Point
Robert
8:30 pm Thursday May 14, 1998Joe,
You spelled "Holocaust" wrong. (It's one "l" not two)
| F.I.R.M. Home | Mission | Background Info |
| Dialogs | Discussion Forum & Archives | Press Releases |
| Research | Help F.I.R.M. | Bookstore |