FIRM Discussions February 25, 1999 - April 20, 1999
Hypocritical Media-Jews
John Darance
10:38 pm Wednesday February 25, 1999The fact that John Cones is making an observation that the majority of the studio heads are Jewish is no more racist than the Media-Jews continuously pointing out that the majority of the people killed in the Holocaust were Jewish.
I pointed this out before and no one made any comments. I guess the truth is hard to assault.
And by the way, it is not my intention to direct anything negative towards the vast majority of Jews out there who are okay folks.
Boycotting 20th Century Fox
Laura R. Linder, Ph.
2:20 am Sunday February 28, 1999HOLLYWOOD DESTROYING NATIONAL PARK IN THAILAND:
Boycott 20th Century Fox movie "THE BEACH"Dear Friends,
On a recent trip to Thailand I discovered that 20th Century Fox is making a movie called "The Beach" on Phi Phi Leh Island, a treasured national Park in Thailand. Portions of the film, starring Leonardo Di Caprio, (Titanic-fame) will be shot on Maya Beach on the island of Phi Phi Leh. This is one of the most beautiful, unspoiled islands in the Pacific and it is being destroyed to meet Hollywood's perception of paradise. The film company has already bulldozed large portions of the beach and removed much of the natural vegetation (Giant Milkweed, Sea Pandanus, Spider Lily and other beach grass) in order to widen the beach to accommodate a football scene. Fox plans to replace the native vegetation with 100 non-native coconut palms to create their "paradise."
Local Thai activists feared that removing the natural vegetation would create serious erosion and they were right. The beach has already been eroded and now locals are very worried about how much of the beach and bay will remain after the monsoons.
Phi Phi Leh island is supposed to be protected as a national park and is key to the local tourist economy. The Thai activists say that Thailand's Royal Forestry Department violated their own regulations and were bought off by 20th Century Fox who paid the goverment Bt4 million. Local activists are enraged that the government would cave in to Fox's demands and that their concerns were ignored. They are not opposed to filming on Maya Bay but want the island to be filmed as is. A lawsuit has been filed but an injunction to stop further destruction of the island was denied. The local Thai people have tried everything, from the courts to blockading the beach, to protect their island. Now they need our help. The only thing left is for the American public to take action and boycott the film. The Thai people point out that Americans would never allow Thai film makers to bulldoze Yellowstone or other US National Parks. Perhaps Hollywood will finally get the message that exploiting the environment and powerlesspeople is unethical especially for mere entertainment.
Please help my friends in Thailand by:
1) Passing this message on to everyone you know;
2) Signing the petition below;
3) Write a letter to producer Andrew McDonald telling him you will boycott the film unless 20th Century Fox stops destroying Maya Bay. The address is:
Andrew MacDonald, Producer
c/o Carol Sewell
10201 W. Pico Blvd.
Building 89, Room 224
Los Angeles, CA 90035Check out web site of Maya Bay at: http:www.wildrockies.org/wve/
(Please sign the petition and forward to someone else. If your name is #50, #100, #150 and so on, please send the petition back to me at: bryony@wildrockies.org
PETITION:
To: Andrew McDonald, Producer "The Beach"
We, the undersigned, will not see your film "The Beach" and will encourage our friends and family to boycott the film unless you cease and desist from destroying Maya Bay by removing the native vegetation and planting coconut palms. Maya Bay is already a paradise and does need Hollywood's unnecessary alterations.
1) Bryony Schwan, Missoula, Montana USA
2) Laura Scherubel, Missoula, MT, USA
3) Claire Emory, Ovando, MT USA
4) Schuyler Greenleaf, Boulder, CO, USA
5) Audrey Fisher, Syracuse, NY, USA
6) Joanna Nichols, Baton Rouge, LA, USA
7) Jason Wade, rapid city, sd USA
8) Chris Pitzel, Winnetka, Ca. USA
9) David Pitzel, Winnetka, Ca. USA
10) Stefanie Drootin, Winnetka, Ca. USA
11) Kathy Gouch, Reseda, Ca. USA
12) Paul Rauch, Reseda, Ca. USA
13) Heather Peters, Simi Valley, CA. USA
14) amos fisher, chapel hill, NC USA
15) Katherine Everhart, Asheville, NC USA
16) Jay Stallings, Chapel Hill, NC USA
17) Mary White, Chapel Hill, NC USA
18) Linda Chupkowski, Chapel Hill, NC USA
19) Megan Keefe Govus, High Point, NC USA
20) Laura R. Linder, Greensboro, NC, USA
21) Matthew Huntington, Glen Gardner, NJ, USA
Bryony Schwan, Exec. Director
Women's Voices for the Earth
P.O. Box 8743
Missoula, MT 59807
mail to:bryony@wildrockies.org (Bryony Schwan)
Laura R. Linder, Ph.D.
100 Carmichael Bldg.
The University of North Carolina at Greensboro
P.O. Box 26170
Greensboro, NC 27402-6170
336-334-5360
336-334-5039 fax
http://www.uncg.edu/~lrlinder
re: Hypocritical Media-Jews
Lisa--&--Tim Weedn
9:56 pm Tuesday March 9, 1999Are you suggesting that the only way to reform Hollywood is to "cleanse" Jews from the system? ... Maybe you could start by burning scripts instead of books.
Webster's Dictionary defines reform as: "To make better as by stopping abuses; improve". By definition, reform is not about: "I don't like the way you do things, therefore things should be done my way", its' about fair and equitable treatment for the good of all.
In a democracy that supports a free enterprise system, it is necessary to build a better "mouse trap" in order to compete. The original architects who built the Hollywood system did just that. Whether they are Jewish or whatever makes no difference. Attempting to "reform" that system is waste of time. The prudent thing to do is build a better "mouse trap" .
What if Cone's so called research revealed that White Anglo- Saxon Females controlled Hollywood? Or that the top three Hollywood executives were Lesbians, or Gays, or Gay Lesbian Buddists??? WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?... Hollywood's current system is not corrupt, it is simply resting on its laurels. This lack of creativity and innovation is at the heart of Hollywood's woes, not the backgrounds of those who control it...
If you want to make something happen, then get off your ass and do it. Quit blaming your lack of success on others. Hitler blamed his country's problems on the Jews ... look what happened to him...
Lisa&Tim Weedn
re: Hypocritical Media-Jews
John Cones
12:53 pm Thursday March 11, 1999Lisa & Tim:
You seem to be consistently tripping up over the same faulty logic. If a person criticizes the activities of the Ku Klux Klan, that does not make the person anti-White. If a person criticizes the activities of the IRA, that does not make the person anti-Irish. If a person criticizes the activites of the so-called Italian mafia, that does not make the person anti-Italian. So, if I criticize the activities of that small group of top Hollywood studio executives who happen to be politically liberal, not very religious Jewish males of European heritage, that certainly does not make me anti-Semitic. So why do you keep trying to make it seem so?
With respect to your suggestion that I haven't done anything positive, I would like to direct your attention to my books "Film Finance and Distribution--A Dictionary of Terms", "Film Industry Contracts", "43 Ways to Finance Your Feature Films", "The Feature Film Distribution Deal" and "Investor Financing of Independent Films". All of these are positive contributions to the literature of the film industry and have proven helpful to thousands of independent feature film producers worldwide. In addition, of course, in my private law practice, I have been able to help hundreds of filmmakers put their visions on the screen by assisting them in financing their production or development costs through investor financing transactions. Further, I have lectured for 11 years on the topic of film finance at AFI, UCLA, USC, HFI, SMU, American University, Cal Western Law School and elsewhere. What have you done?
John Cones
Essay of race of Film Executives
annoyed in New York
9:03 pm Saturday March 13, 1999I can not believe what I am reading. A terrible, illogical essay that accuses the movie industry of inequitable treatment because many of Jewish heritage have made it to the top.
California has been a mecca for many -- those trying to escape the depression, poverty, inane social caste systems and war. Can anyone deny this might include a vast number of those of Jewish heritage?
The film industry in its earliest inception was looked upon as second class, second rate to theater -- And theater was looked on as a profession for those of low social stature. Could it be that many Jews of amazing talent couldn't find employment anywhere else? Over time a dynasty and a major industry that welcomed Jews developed. Now having overcome the odds put up against Jews are they to be accused of treating others inequitably for prospering?
It was the "Christian League of Decency" with the support of government and the American public that controlled much movie content in the late 30's and 40's. Again it was the McCarthist tactics of government in the 50's that determined much of the content of film -- an impact that is still being felt to this day. One that has limited meaningful debate of social issues in film and helped to create the "mindless" blockbusters the public is so eager to see.
Ultimately it is the public and what they are willing to pay for that controls the movie industy. And every once in a while the Movie industry has produced break through movies that have furthered the rights of Women, African Americans, Gays, Lesbians, Hispanics, Asians, Union workers and many other down trodden citizens.
In terms of those Jews who have not been "forthcoming" about their heritage. Well after six million of your race were exterminated in a War and you were living in a land full of prejudice might you not feel the need to be discreet. I think I would.
Your whole treastise on this subject is faulty becauses it excludes many significant factors. If you are really a researcher investigate the whole picture before presenting rash, false and mis-leading conclusions!
re: Essay of race of Film Executives
John Cones
12:21 pm Sunday March 14, 1999Dear Anonymous and Annoyed from New York:
Whatever historical factors may have resulted in the concentration of politically liberal, not very religious Jewish males at the top of the Hollywood-based U.S. industry that can be observed today, they can no longer be used as justification for the continuation of that concentration. My thesis is that movies to a large extent tend to mirror the values, interests, cultural perspectives and prejudices of their makers, thus the only way to insure diversity on the screen is to insure that we have diversity at the highest levels of the film industry. Also, despite the horrible injustices that occurred some 50 years ago in Europe, that experience cannot be used to justify the ongoing prejudice and discrimination directed toward non-Jews, religious Jews, Jewish women and politically conservative Jews that is occurring in the Hollywood-based U.S. film industry today.
John Cones
First Amendment Sword
James Jaeger
3:38 pm Tuesday March 16, 1999With regard to my earlier post below entitled Violence in Movies Study it looks like some of what I have discussed is actually coming about right now.
What I am referring to was reported on the front page of the International Edition of The Hollywood Reporter of March 9-15, 1999. To wit:
"'Killers' suit won't die" ... The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to review a lawsuit against Warner Bros., its parent Time Warner Inc. and Oliver Stone, allowing a case against them to proceed in lower court."
This suit is being brought because of an alleged copycat shooting by a movie called NATURAL BORN KILLERS, such movie a farce on the media in general where Oliver Stone is actually, correctly, making fun of the media and its obsession with the exploitation of violence.
It is sad, however, that Oliver Stone is the wrong target, as he is one of the few in Hollywood that have had the guts to speak up on this issue - and the lower IQ people in Society, of course miss his point. (And this comment is not aimed at the parents who are bringing the suit except that I will say, their target should actually be the studio, not Oliver Stone as Oliver was actually exercising HIS right as a Filmmaker to make a movie about the violence in the media - a movie he felt would illustrate, ad absurdum, how far askew the media has gone. It is ironic that HE is being now attacked for the very thing that he was saying is wrong, however it IS commendable that Warner Bros. DID allowed him to MAKE this movie - even though their motive was probably the commercial and political exploitation of violence.)
Nevertheless, what is happening in Hollywood is the usual: The business camp in the film community is, in the name of the creative camp, yapping that their First Amendment rights take priority over everything, including the negative effects of irresponsible corporate "speech" and their long-term contributions to creating an environment where violence is an assumed way of life. In other words, it is continually okay for movie studios' product to reinforce such way of life no matter how many kids shoot their teachers or how enturbulated the environment becomes.
Here's the problem with their thinking: the framers of our Constitution (existing prior to the invention of mass-cinema), meant for the First Amendment to be applied to PEOPLE -- not ARTIFICIAL ENTITIES (such as corporations, foundations, trusts) or groups of entities (such as industries or governments).
People (that spiritually-animated protoplasm that has evolved sentience over the past 4.6 billion years), have First Amendment rights - not derivative entities, such as movie studios - which are corporations. There is no transitive property of equality whereby, if people have rights, then these same rights are transferable to other entities. In other words the equation: People = Partnerships = Corporations = First Amendment Rights is invalid.
Corporations are ARTIFICIAL creations of the state. They are NOT the same as PEOPLE. People are not corporations, even if there is only one stockholder. Corporations do NOT have the First Amendment right - only flesh and blood People have it - only the entity known, in legal jargon, as a "Natural Person" has it.
And this is not something that I, as a Person, like you, have to get ANY permission from any government to say. Governments on Earth, and anywhere else, do NOT have ANY jurisdiction in these matters. Therefore, even if some lawyer made a "law" some where saying that corporations have the First Amendment right - that law is not in any way valid - because that "law" is not operating in the jurisdistion of Human rights, which transcend all products or considerations of governments.
Remember, govenments are all johnny-come lately inventions, many do not even out last a song. Our own government is a very recent invention and it seems as if it is working, provided the ideals it was founded upon are not misconstrued or twisted by those who prefer cartels and socialism.
Corporations, and their owners, only ASSUME that they have the First Amendment right because they involve people as part of their operations and machinations.
These machines which are driven by a board of directors, each board member able to hide his natural person's point of view (hence "speech") under the diluted sentience of all the voting Human members of that board, act very similar to bulldozers - they plow over what ever comes in their way simply to "increase shareholder value" - the basic product of a corporate CEO charged with carrying out the will of his board of directors. There is no individual "speaking" here. Only a mechanism. There is no individual First Amendment rights involved here. A bulldozer does not have First Amendment rights, and neither does a Corporation - just another type of Human-driven machine.
Thus corporations are not speaking entities with a viewpoint in the same sense as a person. And as evidence in substantiation of this, corporations often state that "the views expressed on this show do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the studio, TV station, its board of directors, stockholders or the corporation" (a disclaimer anyone can observe for themselves on the tail credits of various media presentations, although not usually on features). Yet if you look at the tail credits of every movie made by a studio, you will see a title similar to the following: "Copyright 1999 by Warner Bros., Inc. All Rights Reserved" What this boils down to is: the artificial entity, the Corporation, owns the content, movie, however it is not responsible for the viewpoint being promulgated by that content or movie. "Let's have our cake and eat it too," they sleeze!
Ultimately our Founding Fathers, in their wisdom are telling us: Keep it simple stupid. People have First Amendment rights; other things do not.
A movie is not made by a single person. A movie is made by many, many people grouped into a movie-making machine called a studio which is organized as a corporation. It takes about five hundred people (all EMPLOYED by the corporate machine) to create a movie. Therefore the entity that creates the movie, such NOT being a Natural Person, but one only EMPLOYING THE SERVICES OF NATURAL PERSONS AS ONE OF ITS RESOURCES - does NOT have the First Amendment rights which our Founding Fathers intended to be simply bestowed upon ACTUAL flesh and blood, sentient, people. We the People... not We the Corporations....
YOU AND I AS PEOPLE, SHOULD ALWAYS HAVE THE RIGHT TO SPEAK UP AND SAY WHATEVER WE WANT. And you and I should have the right to go on TV, write in a newspaper or be in a movie and say what we want, as a PERSON, stating a VIEWPOINT. If we represent the EXPRESS and specific viewpoint of many PEOPLE, as does the law, one PERSON should have the right to state that "viewpoint" on behalf of the others and be protected under the First Amendment (provided that that bunch of people does not try to legislate-way basic Human rights, such as the right of free speech by a Natural Person). If a bunch of executives, writers, producers and financiers on PBS want to get together and make a documentary under the corporate structure and state a viewpoint - fine - let them state that viewpoint - but I don't want to see them weenie out with a disclaimer at the end of the show saying that the material presented herein does not necessarily reflect the view of the stockholders and management. Why should they be made judgement-proof when it is THEY who are beneficial owners? If they see fit to allow their corporate entity to SCREAM II fire in movie theaters, then they should be fat and sueable like the rest when they damage the PEOPLE who OWN the actual First Amendment rights. I.e., no more cake for the FF's .....
An ACTOR standing on a movie set "speaking" (under a contractual legal obligation to perform) a line from a screenplay is different from a PERSON standing on a movie set speaking what THEY want to say as a sentient being who has formulated their own opinions of reality and desires to share these with others. Such a Natural Person is, and should be, protected under the First Amendment. But that actor, who is simply reading canned lines from a screenplay, an instrument which has been highly processed and massaged by scores of "Writers-for-Hire", W-2 producers and studio executives (all EMPLOYED by the corporation) should not be so protected. In fact such movie-making machines should be responsible for the negative effects SPEWED OUT by their studio/distributors (violent movies) just as the tobacco companies should be responsible for the negative effects SPEWED OUT by their machines, (cigarettes) and just as the old factory in CIVIL ACTION was responsible for the negative effects it SPEWED OUT (poison) into the public's water supply.
| F.I.R.M. Home | Mission | Background Info |When the studios continuously SPEW OUT violence-oriented movies into the impressionable minds of our youth - they are not PROTECTED by the wisdom of our Founding Father's creation set forth for People - please.
So as we have now learned in Free Speech 101, living People ALONE (not corps) have the right to speak up and say what they want. This is you and I exercising our First Amendment right - such right granted by the Supreme Being, not, as the United Nation's perverted (Rockefeller-saturated) charter would have you believe, granted by some socialistic state. There is no chilling effect as long as we have this God-given right and so long as the corporate machines we have created, are under our control and are not allowed to bulldoze over people - in essence creating VERY chilling effects - that of cold corpses in teacher-like graves. That's where the CHILLING EFFECT is - as the 21 studio bosses and their lap-dog lawyers/stars like to yap about under the guise of First Amendment rights.Thus, in summary: a corporation - that artificial CREATURE of the state - that huge and non-homogeneous ENTITY (comprised of material assets, intangibles, gigabytes, conveyor belts, and last and most dispensable, as the passage of labor-flight-NAFTA proves, EMPLOYEES) is a non-feeling, non-responsive machine that is used to facilitate production and allocate the right to draw on cash flow - in other words delineate ownership through the issue of securities.
These machines, these corporations, these studio/distributors - do NOT own the First Amendment right - even though they are trying to - along with everything else. Thus, the movie studios and producers that use it to justify bombing the public with "free speech" (and a movie is NOT speech, it's only "canned speech") are not protected by the First Amendment - especially when their output on the electromagnetic spectrum is deleterious to the public's mental health.
Resolved to the level of physics, what we have, in essence, is symbols of artificially-created entities, preserved on processed dead trees (i.e., paper) and stored in some filing cabinet in a Secretary of State's office (also known as movie studios) employing human resources and capital to emanate a continuous, non-agreed upon, broadband electromagnetic phenomena (in the form of pictures and sounds) to LIVE human beings by means of PUBLIC AIR WAYS, among other things, over long periods of time such that these emanations are, or seem to be, causing, or abetting, cultural changes in our population - many of these changes being negative, as claimed by the current suit being brought against Warner Bros. and as speculated in my proposed study on violence.
It takes hundreds, if not thousands of Natural Persons stuffed into uncomfortable, ill-fitting posts in a Corporation to make a movie. Far from all of these people agree or endorse the "free speech" that such Corporation (such studio) is emanating therefore this artificial entity has no common mind and is therefore NOT within the jurisdiction of a right. Thus the doctrine of free speech cannot apply to other than a person, speaking as a person, for that person, by that person and from that person.
Bluntly: Movie Studios (which are NOT Natural Persons) are NOT protected by the First Amendment and never will be - especially when they do damage to the civilization. These artificial entities must be accountable for the portion of the public's electromagnetic spectrum that they use to promulgate sound and picture which has an adverse effect on the population - especially children who are still establishing their construction of reality and ethical conduct.
Here, right from the Reporter article itself, is the standard, canned-line the movie studios' executives, lawyers and directors use to justify the continued exploitation of the movie-going public with their violence-oriented programming: "We are disappointed that the Supreme Court has declined to grant review at this stage in the case...(said attorney Jack Weiss who represents Time Warner, Warner Bros. and Stone)...We will continue to defend vigorously the constitutional rights of artists and directors* to express their creative ideas without fear of liability."
(Gee, I guess he must be referring to the kind of liability whereby all the mad mothers across America (and the World) get sick and tired of their children being continuously altered by the violence-oriented product being SPEWED OUT by the studio/distributors.)
The lower court will serve the public's best interest if it allows the Brothers Warner to serve as a precedent that it is not okay for the producers of violence-oriented programming to go unchecked and it is not okay for them to have the gall of hiding behind the First Amendment, in an act of Hollywood-ish business-as-usual.
*And BTW, notice, as usual, how Weiss USES the artists and directors to serve his corporate, slave master, ends. Let us never forget that these are the same artists and directors (that are sooo important for Time Warner to preserve the rights of) that almost always get screwed out of their net profit participation. (See another major class action suit against Warner being brought by the Estate of Garrison, et al over ANOTHER Oliver Stone movie called JFK. That Oliver!). What is really going on here is a) the studios could care less about the artists and directors and their QUOTE First Amendment rights and b) it is really the publicly-held corporate entity known as Time-Warner that the concern is about - trying to mis-apply the rights and freedoms reserved for People to itself so it can continue to exploit the public.
And lastly, Warner is not the exclusive bad guy here, all of the studios/distributors are equal in this. Warner just gets picked on because plaintiffs think they are the industry's keystone studio - and they are.
James Jaeger
Reform Accomplished!
Joe Goldenberg
1:45 am Wednesday March 31, 1999Well,
I guess the film industry has now been reformed thanks to everyone's input. No more comments, because no more comments necessary. No more accusations, because no more apologists heaving their stuff around. Everything resolved.
Now that it is done, wasn't it worth it? Aren't you glad you participated, if only in thought. The benefits are everywhere now.
In fact, all my filmmaking friends now seem to be fully employed and, having food in their refrigerators, have shut up.
And I just drove by the theater and playing there is BABI MEETS THE FLOWER, JOE PLATONICALLY HUGS THE WORLD, THE CHAPARONED KISS and WHAT DREAMS MAY COME (spelled "come" not "cum," I might add). Not a touch of violence or sex anywhere.
Oh, and I have several producer friends that tell me Warner Bros. has been sending in their net profit participation checks early. And, in fact, Paramount just started something new -- their legal department did something really brilliant the other day, they suggested to top management that, everyone listed in the Hollywood Blu Book should automatically be sent a grand a month as an advance payment on any judgements they should get against the studio in the future. By paying everyone in Hollywood money just for BEING in the city, the studio actually saves a lot of money in the long-run and everyone is reformed even before they become un-reformed. This way fewer filmmakers are desperate to make deals, hence less desperate deals get made, hence less desperate movies are released.
The film reform movement has also helped my writer friends too. Instead of spending so much time down at their local Newsgroup lamenting over a bunch of life, almost every writer I know is actually busy writing a new screenplay. In fact, all of my writer friends have sold at least one script to a producer or studio. One even sold 45 screenplays to a studio. And the going rate for a high budget movies is now between $500,000 - and $1 million - not $65,000. Also six of my other friends got agents, but all the studios are now so warm and friendly they say they don't even NEED to be represented - they just love talking directly to the artists now. And releases - a thing of the past. You can send in as many unsolicited screenplays to any studio as you wish. They love 'em. In fact, every time you send in a screenplay, the studio immediately bank-wires the writer the money he/s spent for postage and photo copying. And some times the studio's development division will even send a pizza.
In fact the union catch 22 has been completely dissolved. All the unions and guilds have mounted massive media campaigns (time even donated by the studio-owned TV networks) LOOKING FOR new members. NOW, if you want to get into DGA, IA or SAG, you can even buy a Big Mac, complete and mail in the convenient application printed right on the wrappers and the union will send a limo right to your apartment door to welcome you in. The union brass will then treat you to an all-expense-paid night-out on the town while they try to get to know you as a human being and an artist.
And remember all those mean Jewish studio executives, the male ones who, have been running the studios for the last 90 years... well, they're are all gone now (working with their pyrotechnic buddies in the building demolition business). And depending on which day you visit, the executive suites of the studios are now filled with 50% women, 50% Mexicans, 50% Italians, 50% African-Americans, 50% Arabs, 50% Latinos, 50% Whites from the south, 50% fundamentalist Christians and 50% other species. That's right, the studio executive suites are so diversified now, farm animals and psychiatrists are being kept in the offices for added input. Ideas for new movie projects are actually being channeled from these animals TO the psychiatrists - least the industry run into the same rut again of only having two legged-Humans making all the decisions.
And Hollywood's reform has even influenced the Boulevard: all the hookers are now diversifying their clients from producers and directors to granting one week of free service to art directors and production managers - the unsung heroes in the business.
I knew Hollywood didn't need any government to help it get its act together. In fact Hollywood has reformed so much, it has become a light unto government. The US government admires Hollywood so much that it has actually BECOME Hollywood - even though it has only been able to start out with its first White House soap opera - THE TIDES OF POWER.
Democracy has improved too. People from all over the country are now voting on what movies will be green lighted the following year. Now everyone in America will love all the movies made. The unanimity and agreement have had a very positive effect on culture too. In fact, I just happened to get a hold of five of the movies that have been green lighted for production. They are: PROJECT 01, PROJECT 02, PROJECT 03, PROJECT 04 and THE PROJECT. And judging by the project numbers, it looks like no more than 96 sequels of the PROJECT can be made, a vast improvement over the old Hollywood.
And now in Hollywood if you want final cut, you no longer have to even ask. EVERYONE on the set is granted final cut. After all, they all worked on the movie and a movie is only as bad as its strongest crew member. To this end all the former tiny editing rooms on the studio lots have been converted into huge stadiums (with a boxing ring and a Movieola at the very center). Everyone who worked on the picture, even the investors, are welcome to attend the cutting of each scene. As soon as you feel strongly about how something should be edited, you just jump right in the ring, beat the shit out of everyone else who disagrees with your vision of the movie and the last one standing gets to chop film on the Rivas some more. Then everyone, if anyone, moves onto the next scene.
Yes, much has changed in Hollywood since you all have contributed to the Film Industry Reform Movement - and I'm glad I was a part of it. Thanks for allowing me to be a part of FIRM - the Film Industry Reform Movement.
Joe Goldenberg
P.S. Now what should we all reform? How about the sponge manufacturing business. I hear there are too many fake sponges out there.
Hollywood Blacklist
Andrew Z.
7:10 pm Thursday April 1, 1999Hi, my name is Andrew and I am a junior and young filmmaker in high school. For a term project in my American History class, I am writing about the Hollywood Blacklist. I would like this project to be done as best as possible. I was wondering if anyone could help me.
I am looking for someone who was either blacklisted or related to someone who was. I would like to interview that person, if possible and find out what it was like for them. I live in New York, but really distance would be no problem, especially if I could speak to them through mail, e-mail, or phone. I appreciate any help I could get. Thank you.
Andrew Z.
Frogman11@aol.com
re: Hollywood Blacklist
John Cones
11:55 am Monday April 5, 1999Andrew:
As I set forth in my book "How the Movie Wars Were Won", in my view the Hollywood Blacklist was not a one-time phenomenon just occurring in the '40s and '50s as a result of the Communist scare. Rather, it is an ongoing means of maintaining control of Hollywood and is regularly combined with other forms of discrimination such as nepositm, cronyism and favoritism. If you would like more information about that section of the book, contact me at JDJ@cwix.com.
John Cones
profanity
Beverly Wittler
8:18 pm Saturday April 10, 1999Was sorry I rented Bulworth, stopped it after the 15th. or so F word, and know that it was rated R but had NO IDEA how R the language would be. The profanity added nothing to the film. Thank you, Beverly
re: profanity
James Jaeger
10:32 am Monday April 12, 1999Well I thought the more profanity the better the screenplay!? You are telling me different? PULP FICTION did NOT deserve to get "best screenplay."
I guess when you can't blow the crap out of 'em, you just cuss 'em to death and then you maintain the formula for a typical picture the studio/distributors can finance with total confidence. Thus the 413 people (mostly pyro-technicians) get another job on another picture.
James Jaeger
Propaganda Power
James Jaeger
10:50 am Monday April 12, 1999At exactly 10:36PM, Eastern Daylight Savings Time, 08 April 1999 on ABC on a special called THE CENTURY, Peter Jennings (who you can consider a paid-mouthpiece for the entrenched media) said: "Hollywood's enormous propaganda power was employed" referring to the recruitment efforts in connection with ww2 (wars don't deserve to be dignified with capital letters).
So I guess the studio-owned Networks are finally going public with the admission that Hollywood movies have "enormous propaganda power."
Thus, why is it considered perfectly OKAY by some that this "ENORMOUS PROPAGANDA POWER" be available to the (three) top studio executives in the (seven) major studios when the demographics of this control-group are so obviously skewed away from any semblance of fair representation of the nation's population or interests.
In a democratic Society, why should such a group be allowed to continuously propagandize all the rest of us, and the world for that matter, with their particular slant on reality, with their revision of history, with their justification of all the Why's of Life?
I'm waiting for a "reason."
James Jaeger
re: Hollywood Blacklist
James Jaeger
4:12 pm Monday April 12, 1999I have to agree with John on this, the Hollywood Black List is alive and well today.
When the MPAA studio brass first created it to cover their asses from fallout generated by the "Unfriendly 10's" contempt of Congress (which of course they were), they were basically demonstrating the axiom that Hollywood's business camp does not really give a damn about the talent (i.e., and as soon as writers, actors and directors are milked for all they're worth, they are trashed).
(And BTW: This Michael Douglas-sponsored golf tournament for the Hollywood Motion Picture Fund is a total joke to make the world think the Hollywood establishment gives a hoot when they do not. For one, if the establishment actually DID give care, it would not allow gross participation on pictures, participation which allows the star to get paid disgusting sums of un-deserved money while all the rest of his or her acting colleagues starve. Oh what, the FUND is going to really take care of all these people. Get real. The FUND and the GUILDS can go off and get married then.)
Thus, since Hollywood specializes in, A) wasting people and talent, and B) propagandizing the world into believing that its most perfectly-lit image of itself is the true image, a Black List comes in handy.
Any "reason" a studio executive can use to justify his actions in getting rid of some talent or person even remotely perceived to be a "potential trouble source"or too old, or too fat, or too unpopular, or to anything -- is welcome. Thus, the Black List in use today in the executive suits of the major studios (whether verbal or written, expressed or implied) is quite a nice little tool, a tool that comes in particularly handy especially if anyone tries to accuse you of nepotism, cronyism or favoritism.
Since the studios have NO INTEREST in making money with their pictures, only in MAINTAINING the status quo and their political power/life style - the ability to whip out that little Black List, is a life saver - especially when you have to make a spot-decision on who you are going to pay a gross sum of money to. After all, if such gross sums of money were to be paid to anyone on your Black List - they might be able to use that gross sum to PROPAGANDIZE you with THEIR view of reality.
And, of course, as a well-trained studio exec you cannot tolerate THIS - (i.e., anyone ELSE having "Freedom of Speech"). Hence "The Black List of 1999, as Amended" sits right up there on the bookshelf next to the Hollywood Creative Directory and Excerpts from the FIRM site.
James Jaeger
Disney propaganda and children
Emily
6:16 pm Tuesday April 13, 1999Hello. I am doing a report for a college course on image manipulation and propaganda. I am looking for information on some specific Disney movies and the effects they have on children. Can anyone direct me to some sites that may have the info I am looking for? I have never visited this discussion group before and I hope that asking for this information does not annoy anyone, or break the rules. If so, please forgive the beginner. Thank you for your help.
The Disney Boycott
James Jaeger
6:59 pm Friday April 16, 1999Apparently, one segment of America, the Family Unit, has woken up big-time to the fact that feature films and TV are an effective image-manipulation and propaganda machine -- for better or for worse. Because they feel that much of DISNEY's product is having an adverse and negative impact on their children, they have effectuated a boycott of all of DISNEY's movies, theme parks, video toys and cable TV channel -- and they seem to be having a dramatic effect.
The people and families participating in the boycott are not happy with DISNEY because they say various movies, put out by the studio, are having a negative effect on their children. They say that such programming is eroding family values.
For instance, ABC, which is owned by DISNEY, promoted homosexuality as normal and moral on ELLEN -- before it was cancelled;
ABC's "NYPD Blue" regularly features violence and nudity and has a recurring homosexual character;
ABC's "Nothing Sacred" featured a priest who opposed Catholic Church teachings on premarital sex, abortion and homosexuality;
DISNEY's Hyperion Press promotes the gay agenda by publishing such items as Growing Up Gay, a book aimed at gay youngsters who were bred by heterosexuals, and Out and About Gay Travel Guides;
Through its subsidiary, Miramax, DISNEY promotes movies with highly objectionable anti-family material (such as violence, incest, lesbianism and homosexuality) in such shows as PULP FICTION, THE ADVOCATE, KIDS (described as "kiddie porn" by Daily Variety), VELVET GOLDMINE, SCREAM, SCREAM2, CHILDREN OF THE CORN V, THE PROPHECY, HALLOWEEN 20, HOUSE OF YES, CHASING AMY, CHICKS IN WHITE SATIN and LIE DOWN WITH DOGS.
DISNEY is being boycotted because they allege that it indirectly sells "soft core" porn by being a full partner in a company called Viewer's Choice.
Families are ticked at DISNEY because they want SNOW WHITE and DONALD DUCKish type stuff back -- not gays walking hand-in-hand all over DISNEYLAND open-mouth kissing, or lesbians employed all over the studio's back lots and front offices. They do not like the fact that DISNEY's president, Michael Eisner, sits on the Board of Trustees of a homosexual advocacy group (called HOLLYWOOD SUPPORTS) that promotes the gay agenda in the workplace, yet he runs a major MPAA studio that built its reputation on the back of Walt Disney, one of the great movie moguls.
They are pissed because they say that DISNEY's record label, Hollywood Records, handles objectionable rock bands which put out songs laced with satanic themes and obscenities.
According to USA Weekend, 49.5% of Americans support this boycott. Newsweek places it at 3 in 10 people, or about 50 million Americans, who support the boycott.
The boycott is being spearheaded by an organization called AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION located at P.O. Box Drawer 2440, Tupelo, MS 38803, in case you want to praise or cuss them out.
James Jaeger
Night Terror
James Jaeger
5:16 pm Saturday April 17, 1999I just got back from the REGAL CINEMA where I watched THE MATRIX, a very good, R-rated, sci-fi picture except violent beyond compare. We're talking futuristic machine guns blowing away marble walls as easily as human beings without pause. We're talking alien-abduction-type-stuff that makes FIRE IN THE SKY quaint. . . naked bodies on alien life support systems being fed nutrition by borg-type machines that had evolved and preempted Earth civilization. . . we're talking gross computer generated bugs and entities burying themselves directly into stomachs in full camera view. . . guns blowing away heads full-frame, close up. . . little babies being tortured by a system of embedded tubes and electrical wiring in "life support" systems so that an AI alien civilization is able to suck their little bodies dry for the chemical electricity they need to multiply and maintain their systems. . . and we're talking images that go so far beyond nightmares, that you have to go see the movie to know what I mean.
So, as I was sitting there watching all this, I looked over and down to my right and there sitting in the chair next to me was a little kid that looked no older than 6, 7 or 8. Next to him was what looked like his "parent" and next to him was another kid, about the same age as the first.
The little kid nearest me was watching all this on the screen and he looked like he was about to shrivel up and die in his seat. He was actually in a semi-fetal position throughout portions of the movie. At one point I had to actually ask him if he was okay. He just looked at me helplessly.
This was too much, so I got up, left the theater and went to the manager. I informed the manager what was going and told him that I believed it was inappropriate for a children this young to be in such a movie or an R-rated movie and that I believed that it was illegal as well.
The manager, Frank, told me that it is the REGAL CINEMAS policy to allow children in, no matter what age, to see any kind of a movie so long as they are accompanied by an adult. He did not acknowledge that it was legal or illegal. Unlike AMC theaters, he said this policy was made at the corporate level and I should call them and/or write my congressman as he could not do anything about it.
I spoke to several other employees at this theater and none of them seemed to have the slightest sensitivity to this either. In fact, Frank then said to me, you want us to forgo the income we earn here just because YOU feel that some father is bringing his children to a movie that YOU believe is inappropriate. By now it was now obvious to me that this guy did not have any children, so I asked him, and he confirmed that he did not have any. I asked for the name and phone of the REGAL's CEO and he said it was Mike Campbell at (423) 922-1123. He practically dared me to call. I placed that call as soon as I got back to my office and got and answering machine. I expect that Mike will return it on Monday and I will report here what happens and what he says.
As the "parent" was walking out of the theater I asked him how old his kids were and he panned me off - not answering the question. I then told him that in my opinion it was completely inappropriate for him to bring them to a movie like this. He just smiled and said, "okay, noted." I then wondered if he has ever seen a child having what is called "night terror."
Look this one up in the baby books or dictionary. Night terrors are such bad nightmares that the doctors suggest that you don't even TRY to wake the child up as he has to "play it out" in the dream reality. In fact, my child once had a night terror and was screaming and sobbing in his mother's arms for over a half hour. The seriousness of this sank in when I realized that his eyes were wide OPEN yet he was completely ASLEEP, in terror, stuck in a dream world where there was nothing I, or the mother, could do except just let the child "work it out" or "fight it out" with whatever terrifying entity, demon or forces he was confronting in the dream reality. This night terror I am describing here occurred in my three year old as a result of him merely watching the movie, ANTZ, just prior to going to bed. I am absolutely positive this night terror was caused by the movie, because it has never happened before or since. I can only imagine what the two little boys that watched THE MATRIX might experience tonight.
I personally have nothing against the REGAL CINEMAS and have seen hundreds of movies there over the years. In all this time I have never seen kids this young in such a violent R-rated movie - which indicates to me that most parents have better sense.
I just hope that the REGAL CINEMA's CEO also has as some sense too.
James Jaeger
re: Hollywood Blacklist
James Jaeger
11:25 am Wednesday April 20, 1999I have to agree with John on this, the Hollywood Black List is alive and well today.
When the MPAA studio brass first created it to cover their asses from fallout generated by the "Unfriendly 10's" contempt of Cogress (which of course they were), they were basically demonstrating the axiom that Hollywood's business camp does not really give a damn about the talent (i.e., and as soon as writers, actors and directors are milked for all they're worth, they are trashed).
(And BTW: This Michael Douglas-sponsored golf tournament for the Hollywood Motion Picture Fund is a total joke to make the world think the Hollywood establishment gives a hoot when they do not. For one, if the establishment actually DID give care, it would not allow gross participation on pictures, participation which allows the star to get paid disgusting sums of un-deserved money while all the rest of his or her acting colleagues starve. Oh what, the FUND is going to really take care of all these people. Get real. The FUND and the GUILDS can go off and get married then.)
Thus, since Hollywood specializes in, A) wasting people and talent, and B) propagandizing the world into believing that its most perfectly-lit image of itself is the true image, a Black List comes in handy.
Any "reason" a studio executive can use to justify his actions in getting rid of some talent or person even remotely perceived to be a "potential trouble source"or too old, or too fat, or too unpopular, or to anything -- is welcome. Thus, the Black List in use today in the executive suits of the major studios (whether verbal or written, expressed or implied) is quite a nice little tool, a tool that comes in particularly handy especially if anyone tries to accuse you of nepotism, cronyism or favoritism.
Since the studios have NO INTEREST in making money with their pictures, only in MAINTAINING the status quo and their political power/life style - the ability to whip out that little Black List, is a life saver - especially when you have to make a spot-decision on who you are going to pay a gross sum of money to. After all, if such gross sums of money were to be paid to anyone on your Black List - they might be able to use that gross sum to PROPAGANDIZE you with THEIR view of reality.
And, of course, as a well-trained studio exec you cannot tolerate THIS - (i.e., anyone ELSE having "Freedom of Speech"). Hence "The Black List of 1999, as Amended" sits right up there on the bookshelf next to the Hollywood Creative Directory and Excerpts from the FIRM site.
James Jaeger
| Dialogs | Discussion Forum & Archives | Press Releases |
| Research | Help F.I.R.M. | Bookstore |