Privilege Lost
Posted on October 6, 2003 at 09:18:23 AM by John Cones

Gosh, Mr. Levine, I thought you had a bit more sense than to come onto this discussion forum and to make a vicious statement like accusing somebody of being a "homophobic right-wing bigot". You know better than that. Your kind of poison is no longer welcome here. Have a nice life.

You should have responded in substance to the study that demonstrated that Hollywood moviemakers regularly and routinely ignore the fact that PG and PG-13 movies earn more money than R rated movies, thus making a mockery of your false claim that it's all about money in Hollywood. Of course, we all recognize that Spielberg made Schindler's list for the money.

John Cones

Arnold Parallel
Posted on October 7, 2003 at 03:46:54 PM by John Cones

This California recall vote and the sexual harrassment controversy is similar in some ways to the problem with getting anyone in the film industry to complain about employment discrimination. All of those women who kept silent all those years about Arnold's behavior (assuming some are true) probably kept quiet because their careers in the film industry were more important to them. The same is true for most people in the film industry. So, when people of power abuse an underling in the film industry, people generally do not complain unless they are willing to give up their lifelong dream, and most are not. That's why those women didn't complain about Arnold's behavior until the stakes became even greater (the California governorship) and that's the same reason why people generally do not complain about other abuses in the film industry, including discrimination.

John Cones

Re(1): Arnold Parallel
Posted on October 8, 2003 at 09:42:11 AM by Layne

I agree with your assessment regarding the plight of women, and "underlings", in the film industry. I am also increasingly alarmed at the way women are portrayed in film. We have adolescent girls starving themselves so they can be "sticks", get breast implants, botox, clothes that look like underwear, thongs hanging out of their jeans, etc... Is it any wonder that teen pregnancy among girls as young as 12 is on the rise? They see this in film. Watch "The Man Show" sometime.
Since the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment)seems to be forgotten, women are increasing placed in a delicate position financially. Is it any wonder that women will sometimes put up with behaviour unacceptabled to men?

Easterbrook to visit Simon Wiesenthal Center?
Posted on October 17, 2003 at 04:36:48 PM by Mendy

TAKE OUT THE GORE AND KILL BILL IS AN EPISODE OF "MIGHTY MORPHIN POWER RANGERS": Is Quentin Tarantino the single greatest phony in the history of Hollywood? I realize that's saying a lot--about Hollywood, not him. But it's the sole explanation I can think of to explain his bizarre prominence.
All of Tarantino's work is pure junk. How can you be a renowned director without ever having made a film that's even good, to say nothing of great? No film student in 50 years will spend a single second with a Tarantino movie, except to shake his or her head.
Tarantino does nothing but churn out shabby depictions of slaughter as a form of pleasure--and that, for decades, has been what the least imaginative and least talented of Hollywood churn out. Supposedly it's "revolutionary," or something, that Tarantino films revel in violence to a preposterous degree, but that's like saying it is revolutionary for a presidential candidate to revel in complaints against Washington bureaucrats. Nothing about Hollywood is more hackneyed or trite than preposterous violence--and that's all Tarantino has ever put onto film.
Set aside what it says about contemporary Hollywood culture that the supposed liberal progressives of this city now ceaselessly mass-market presentations of butchering the helpless as a form of entertainment, even, as rewarding self-expression. Why do we suppose that, with Hollywood's violence-glorifying films now shown all around the world to billions of people--remember, mass distribution of Hollywood movies to the developing world and Islamic states is a recent phenomenon--young terrorists around the globe now seem to view killing the innocent as a positive thing, even, a norm? Set that concern aside. Tarantino's films are simply trite as regards adoration of violence. In Hollywood, nothing could be less original.
And his supposed innovative screenplays? Spare me. The out-of-sequence technique Tarantino uses is praised as ingenious, yet every first-year film student is taught this device. To laud Tarantino as innovative because events happen out-of-sequence is like lauding The Bridges of Madison County as innovative because it opens with a discovered letter from someone who has died. All novice novelists know that device. Of course, the novelistic device may be used well or poorly, just as time-shifted cinema may be good or bad. Tarantino's out-of-sequence film moments are, uniformly, trite drivel.
And supposedly Tarantino is some kind of counter-genius for getting box-office stars like Bruce Willis and Uma Thurman to debase themselves in his drivel. But commercial Hollywood types debase themselves for a living; most never do anything else. To persuade someone to do that which he or she was eager to do anyway isn't much in the way of accomplishment.
Tarantino must draw his prominence in Hollywood, and among film-buff culture, from the very fact of his phoniness. First, his career says that you can do nothing but wallow in preposterous violence--Hollywood's cheapest and least original aspect--and still be revered. Second, his career validates the idea that you can accomplish nothing at all in any meaningful sense and yet acquire fame. The idea that you can get celebrity, money, and women through the movies without having any merits whatsoever is at the core of the Hollywood's conception of itself. Tarantino is its ultimate expression of this phoniness. Please don't tell me that makes him ironically postmodern.
Corporate sidelight: Kill Bill is distributed by Miramax, a Disney studio. Disney seeks profit by wallowing in gore--Kill Bill opens with an entire family being graphically slaughtered for the personal amusement of the killers--and by depicting violence and murder as pleasurable sport. Disney's Miramax has been behind a significant share of Hollywood's recent violence-glorifying junk, including Scream, whose thesis was that murdering your friends and teachers is a fun way for high-school kids to get back at anyone who teases them. Scream was the favorite movie of the Columbine killers.
Set aside what it says about Hollywood that today even Disney thinks what the public needs is ever-more-graphic depictions of killing the innocent as cool amusement. Disney's CEO, Michael Eisner, is Jewish; the chief of Miramax, Harvey Weinstein, is Jewish. Yes, there are plenty of Christian and other Hollywood executives who worship money above all else, promoting for profit the adulation of violence. Does that make it right for Jewish executives to worship money above all else, by promoting for profit the adulation of violence? Recent European history alone ought to cause Jewish executives to experience second thoughts about glorifying the killing of the helpless as a fun lifestyle choice. But history is hardly the only concern. Films made in Hollywood are now shown all over the world, to audiences that may not understand the dialogue or even look at the subtitles, but can't possibly miss the message--now Disney's message--that hearing the screams of the innocent is a really fun way to express yourself.

posted 09:24 a.m.

Re(1): Movies Reflect Experiences
Posted on October 20, 2003 at 09:41:06 PM by Anonymous

The idea that the Holocaust made Jews "insensitive" to violence is just about the most insensitive thing I've ever heard. "Insensitivity to violence" doesn't motivate people to found the NAACP or Amnesty International.

Since you've apparently forgotten, you praised Mel Gibson's unbelievably gory film The Passion of Christ up and down for its "realism"; i.e., violence. Is that because thousands of years of worshipping a figure nailed to a cross has "desensitized" Christians to violence? In case you aren't sensitive to irony either, the correct answer there is "no" - you're just applying a double standard.

The worldview presented in Tarantino's film is exactly one person's - Quentin Tarantino. Quentin Tarantino is not Jewish. The filmmakers in Hong Kong that he's specifically emulating are - you guessed it - not Jewish. Some other non-Jews include Tobe Hooper, Herschel Gordon Lewis, Sam Peckinpah, Ruggerio Deodato, Umberto Lenzi, Sergio Leone, Charles Bronson, John Carpenter, and Alfred Hitchcock. I guess the moivation for their mega-violent pictures must be "desensitization" caused by hearing about Aushwitz from Jewish executives.

If Miramax had refused to make Tarantino's movie, you would have cited it as another example of Jewish executives refusing to allow a Christian filmmaker to realize his artistic vision, quite possibly because all of the violence reminded them of losing their family in the Holocaust. Then you would have disparaged them as hypocrites for supporting "violent Israel."

Re(2): Movies Reflect Experiences
Posted on October 22, 2003 at 02:19:15 PM by James Jaeger

>The idea that the Holocaust made Jews "insensitive" to violence is just about the most insensitive thing I've ever heard. "Insensitivity to violence" doesn't motivate people to found the NAACP or Amnesty International.

You are right, I'm sure this doesn't apply to all Jews or even most of them -- but the ones that dominate the studios are probably fair game for this charge. I bet they are pretty insensitive -- and this would go for all the executives, Jewish or not, I might add.

>Since you've apparently forgotten, you praised Mel Gibson's unbelievably gory film The Passion of Christ up and down for its "realism"; i.e., violence. Is that because thousands of years of worshipping a figure nailed to a cross has "desensitized" Christians to violence?

Yes, I'm sure it has to a certain degree. I have always felt that a figure nailed to a cross is a very violent thing -- but the death of Jesus and the reason he died are central to Christian belief. I think there is a distinction to be made between a religious icon and the thousands of movies that Hollywood makes that are violent. Again let me repeat THOUSANDS of movies. So please don't bring up one or two movies or situations that are exceptions.

>In case you aren't sensitive to irony either, the correct answer there is "no" - you're just applying a double standard.

Not really. I'm talking about the thousands of violent movies that Hollywood consistently puts out. This phenomenon is different than the few isolated things you bring up.

>The worldview presented in Tarantino's film is exactly one person's - Quentin Tarantino. Quentin Tarantino is not Jewish. The filmmakers in Hong Kong that he's specifically emulating are - you guessed it - not Jewish. Some other non-Jews include Tobe Hooper, Herschel Gordon Lewis, Sam Peckinpah, Ruggerio Deodato, Umberto Lenzi, Sergio Leone, Charles Bronson, John Carpenter, and Alfred Hitchcock. I guess the moivation for their mega-violent pictures must be "desensitization" caused by hearing about Aushwitz from Jewish executives.

Again, you are bringing up a small handful of examples. Such a sampling does not change the statistical fact that a preponderance of Hollywood programming exploits violence. Mel Gibson is not even in this category, because he's not in any way exploiting violence. He's not "making up a story" with violence in it. He's trying to show the public exactly what happened. Hollywood movies rarely try to show people exactly what happened. When we were developing the screenplay for STALIN'S BACK ROOM I wanted to tell Mr. Contract's story exactly as it happened, but almost every studio and agency, including CAA, that I took the project to, wanted to "embellish" the story so it would "be more commercial." This is how Hollywood handles truth.

>If Miramax had refused to make Tarantino's movie, you would have cited it as another example of Jewish executives refusing to allow a Christian filmmaker to realize his artistic vision...

Oh that's preposterous. Why should I be particularly concerned about Tarantino when this exact thing happens by the thousand to other such filmmakers all over the world everyday?!

>...quite possibly because all of the violence reminded them of losing their family in the Holocaust. Then you would have disparaged them as hypocrites for supporting "violent Israel."

Again, twisted-mind thinking! I have proffered a simple explanation as to why there are so many violent movies coming out of Hollywood. The commonly-held explanation is: Because this is what the foreign market buys.

My alternative, or supplemental explanation is: Because possibly studio executives who have seen REAL violence (through family members in the Holocaust) are themselves insensitive to PRETEND violence on "mere" movie screens. Any psychologist will tell you that people tend to dramatize that which was done to them, whether personally or as a group. What's so difficult to fathom about all this?

James Jaeger

Re(3): Movies Reflect Experiences
Posted on October 22, 2003 at 10:21:52 PM by Mitchell Levine

but the ones that dominate the studios are probably fair game for this charge.

- How? Most executives - even Jewish executives - aren't Holocaust survivors, or even the children of Holocaust survivors: Only a tiny fraction of Jews are. The overwhelming majority of them probably weren't exposed to any more violence during childhood than you were.

I bet they are pretty insensitive -- and this would go for all the executives, Jewish or not, I might add.

- That's just a stereotype: It could just as easily be applied to you, sight unseen, as head of Matrixx Entertainment.

Yes, I'm sure it has to a certain degree. I have always felt that a figure nailed to a cross is a very violent thing -- but the death of Jesus and the reason he died are central to Christian belief.

- Then that hardly supports your theory that more Christians in film management would lead to less violence in film; it's not as if Christian believers haven't ever been historical perpetrators of violence; i.e., the Inquisitions, the Crusades, the Salem Witch Trials, etc. There's little here to credit the blaming of film violence on Jews.

I think there is a distinction to be made between a religious icon and the thousands of movies that Hollywood makes that are violent. Again let me repeat THOUSANDS of movies. So please don't bring up one or two movies or situations that are exceptions.

>In case you aren't sensitive to irony either, the correct answer there is "no" - you're just applying a double standard.

Not really. I'm talking about the thousands of violent movies that Hollywood consistently puts out. This phenomenon is different than the few isolated things you bring up.

>The worldview presented in Tarantino's film is exactly one person's - Quentin Tarantino. Quentin Tarantino is not Jewish. The filmmakers in Hong Kong that he's specifically emulating are - you guessed it - not Jewish. Some other non-Jews include Tobe Hooper, Herschel Gordon Lewis, Sam Peckinpah, Ruggerio Deodato, Umberto Lenzi, Sergio Leone, Charles Bronson, John Carpenter, and Alfred Hitchcock. I guess the moivation for their mega-violent pictures must be "desensitization" caused by hearing about Aushwitz from Jewish executives.

Again, you are bringing up a small handful of examples. Such a sampling does not change the statistical fact that a preponderance of Hollywood programming exploits violence.

- A few examples? How about a few more non-Jewish filmmakers that make hyper-violent films: George Romero, Rick Baker, David Lynch (Blue Velvet,Wild at Heart, Eraserhead), Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola, Clint Eastwood, John Ford, Ang Lee - and just about any other Hong Kong or even martial arts filmmaker - Greg Araki, Paul Verhoeven, Michael Cimino, John Boorman, Walter Hill, - that's a lot more than just a few "isolated instances." Most exceptionally violent filmmakers are non-Jewish. Let's see you prove otherwise.

The only serious obvious counter-examples are Kubrick, a couple of Paul Schrader's movies, David L. Cronenburg, Roman Polanski, marginal figures like Lloyd Kaufman and Russ Meyers, and one or two of Oliver Stone's pictures. The fact is that most mega-violent filmmakers are non-Jewish.

Mel Gibson is not even in this category, because he's not in any way exploiting violence.

- Are you kidding? He's exploited violence his entire career! Apparently, you haven't seen too many of his films. And he isn't making films like Ransom and The Patriot because he has to - he's been equally successful, if not more so, making non-violent pictures like What Women Want. In fact, when he recently made an cameo in an educational film about Shakespeare for students, he told kids "How bad can Hamlet be? It's got what, like 8 or 9 violent deaths in it!"

He's not "making up a story" with violence in it. He's trying to show the public exactly what happened.

- Like everyone else, he doesn't KNOW exactly how it happened - even the biblical texts disagree, and it's not even fully clear what the biblical texts are or say. Although he may be trying to make it more realistic, he's certainly trying to make it more commercial by punching up the gore as well.

>If Miramax had refused to make Tarantino's movie, you would have cited it as another example of Jewish executives refusing to allow a Christian filmmaker to realize his artistic vision...

Oh that's preposterous. Why should I be particularly concerned about Tarantino when this exact thing happens by the thousand to other such filmmakers all over the world everyday?!

- You've provided no evidence that filmmakers are being denied the opportunity to make films simply for being non-Jewish at all. In fact, the majority of directors are non-Jewish, and Jewish directors and producers themselves get projects turned down or cancelled all the time.

>...quite possibly because all of the violence reminded them of losing their family in the Holocaust. Then you would have disparaged them as hypocrites for supporting "violent Israel."

Again, twisted-mind thinking! I have proffered a simple explanation as to why there are so many violent movies coming out of Hollywood.

- Simple, and, like most overly simplistic explanations for complex phenomena, wrong.

The commonly-held explanation is: Because this is what the foreign market buys.

- No, it's because it's what the public wants, period. The two box-office tops right now are The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Kill Bill, both by non-Jewish directors. People have loved violent art from the time of the Iliad, the Odyssey, and The Aenied, and don't need Hollywood to tell them to enjoy it.

They did so long before the existence of cinema, and would without or in spite of cinema or the studios. It's quite simply a transcultural human universal, in evidence in societies of all technological sophistication and demographic diversity. There were no Jews in Britain during the Medieval era, and check out their dramas.


My alternative, or supplemental explanation is: Because possibly studio executives who have seen REAL violence (through family members in the Holocaust) are themselves insensitive to PRETEND violence on "mere" movie screens. Any psychologist will tell you that people tend to dramatize that which was done to them, whether personally or as a group. What's so difficult to fathom about all this?

- The fact that you can say such nonsense with a straight face. There is simply no correlation between Jewish filmmakers and violent cinema. If this isn't so, please compile a similarly substantial list of examples demonstrating otherwise.

Re(3): Movies Reflect Experiences
Posted on October 22, 2003 at 04:27:40 PM by George Shelps

When we were developing the screenplay for STALIN'S BACK ROOM I wanted to tell Mr. Contract's story exactly as it happened, but almost every studio and agency, including CAA, that I took the project to, wanted to "embellish" the story so it would "be more commercial." This is how Hollywood handles truth.

___That's because the final version of
the script I read was dull as dishwater
and full of endless lines of narration.

Easterbrook's apology
Posted on October 17, 2003 at 04:38:07 PM by Mendy

AN APOLOGY: Nothing's worse, as a writer, than so mangling your own use of words that you are heard to have said something radically different than what you wished to express. Of mangling words, I am guilty.
Monday I wrote an item about the disgusting movie Kill Bill, which so glorifies violence as to border on filth. I was indignant that a major company whose work is mainly good, Disney, would distribute such awfulness, in this case through its Miramax subsidiary. I wondered how any top executive could live with his or her conscience by seeking profits from Kill Bill, oblivious to the psychological studies showing that positive depiction of violence in entertainment causes actual violence in children. I wondered about the consciences of those running Disney and Miramax. Were they Christian? How could a Christian rationalize seeking profits from a movie that glorifies killing as a sport, even as a form of pleasure? I think it's fair to raise faith in this context: In fact I did exactly that one week earlier, when I wrote a column about the movie The Passion asking how we could take Mel Gibson seriously as a professed Christian, when he has participated in numerous movies that glorify violence.
But those running Disney and Miramax are not Christian, they're Jewish. Learning this did in no way still my sense of outrage regarding Kill Bill. How, I wondered, could anyone Jewish--members of a group who suffered the worst act of violence in all history, and who suffer today, in Israel, intolerable violence--seek profit from a movie that glamorizes violence as cool fun? Below is the paragraph I wrote that's causing the stir (to read the item in its entirety from the beginning click here). I quote it verbatim so that you can see how easy it is, on subjects like these, for good righteous anger to turn offensive by a careless choice of words:
Set aside what it says about Hollywood that today even Disney thinks what the public needs is ever-more-graphic depictions of killing the innocent as cool amusement. Disney's CEO, Michael Eisner, is Jewish; the chief of Miramax, Harvey Weinstein, is Jewish. Yes, there are plenty of Christian and other Hollywood executives who worship money above all else, promoting for profit the adulation of violence. Does that make it right for Jewish executives to worship money above all else, by promoting for profit the adulation of violence? Recent European history alone ought to cause Jewish executives to experience second thoughts about glorifying the killing of the helpless as a fun lifestyle choice. But history is hardly the only concern. Films made in Hollywood are now shown all over the world, to audiences that may not understand the dialogue or even look at the subtitles, but can't possibly miss the message--now Disney's message--that hearing the screams of the innocent is a really fun way to express yourself.
I'm ready to defend all the thoughts in that paragraph. But how could I have done such a poor job of expressing them? Maybe this is an object lesson in the new blog reality. I worked on this alone and posted the piece--what you see above comes at the end of a 1,017-word column that's otherwise about why movies should not glorify violence. Twenty minutes after I pressed "send," the entire world had read it. When I reread my own words and beheld how I'd written things that could be misunderstood, I felt awful. To anyone who was offended I offer my apology, because offense was not my intent. But it was 20 minutes later, and already the whole world had seen it.
Looking back I did a terrible job through poor wording. It was terrible that I implied that the Jewishness of studio executives has anything whatsoever to do with awful movies like Kill Bill. Nothing about Eisner or Weinstein causes any movie to be bad or awful; they're just supervisors. For all I know neither of them even focused on the adoration-of-violence aspect until the reviews came out. My attempt to connect my perfectly justified horror at an ugly and corrupting movie to the religious faith and ethnic identity of certain executives was hopelessly clumsy.
Where I failed most is in the two sentences about adoration of money. I noted that many Christian executives adore money above all else, and in the 20-minute reality of blog composition, that seemed to me, writing it, fairness and fair spreading of blame. But accusing a Christian of adoring money above all else does not engage any history of ugly stereotypes. Accuse a Jewish person of this and you invoke a thousand years of stereotypes about that which Jews have specific historical reasons to fear. What I wrote here was simply wrong, and for being wrong, I apologize.
Every reporter who has called me today has asked me my faith. Since I say this is relevant for others, it's relevant for me. I'm a Christian. I worship in one of the handful of joint Christian-Jewish congregations in the United States. This website describes the Bradley Hills Presbyterian (USA) side of the church. This website describes Bethesda Jewish, a Klal Yisrael ("All Israel") congregation that shares the same worship spaces and finances. Two years ago I wrote in THE NEW REPUBLIC of the Bradley Hills-Bethesda Jewish joint congregation, "One of the shortcomings of Christianity is that most adherents downplay the faith's interweaving with Judaism." I and my family sought out a place where Christians and Jews express their faith cooperatively, which seems to me a good idea. Bad idea: writing poorly about this, and being misunderstood. Again, I'm sorry.

posted 11:55 p.m.

If it sounds like anti- Semitism, maybe it is
Posted on October 18, 2003 at 10:07:14 AM by Fisho

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.latimes.com/features/lifestyle/la-et-rutten18oct18,1,4041661.story
REGARDING MEDIA TIM RUTTEN
If it sounds like anti- Semitism, maybe it is
TIM RUTTEN

October 18, 2003

Earlier this week, Gregg Easterbrook, a senior editor at the New Republic, ignited a blistering controversy when he criticized those responsible for the release of Quentin Tarantino's violent hit film, "Kill Bill Vol. 1," singling out Miramax Co-Chairman Harvey Weinstein and Disney Chairman Michael Eisner, who were described as "Jewish executives" who "worship money above all else."

Easterbrook's comments were distasteful and disturbing in their own right. But the affair also is notable because his charges appeared in the unedited blog he writes for the New Republic's online edition, and most of the reaction to them has appeared on similar sites of other prominent Internet commentators, including the novelist and screenwriter Roger L. Simon, whose blog is widely read in Hollywood.

Moreover, in an apology posted in the New Republic Online Thursday and in an interview Friday, Easterbrook attributed the furor, at least in part, to the peculiar perils of blogging, a relatively new form of personal journalism that has captured the imagination of many involved in the coverage of politics and culture. "I stand by my original thoughts, which are important and true, but the language I used to express them was careless and bad," the veteran magazine writer said in the interview. "It was crummy work on my part."

In his apology, he described himself as guilty of "mangling words" and speculated that "maybe this is an object lesson in the new blog reality. I worked on this alone and posted the piece. Twenty minutes after I pressed 'send,' the entire world had read it. When I reread my own words and beheld how I'd written words that could be misunderstood, I felt awful."

Easterbrook, a Presbyterian, is one of the rare Washington-based journalists who has written explicitly about the importance of religious belief in his life. His initial essay was a forthright attack on the brutality of Tarantino's film, which pays homage to Asian martial arts films in an elaborate — and bloody — revenge fantasy. Disney is the parent company of Miramax, which released the film, and Easterbrook extended his criticism to executives at the head of both companies. "Set aside what it says about Hollywood that today even Disney thinks what the public needs is ever-more-graphic depictions of killing the innocent as cool amusement," he wrote. "Disney's CEO, Michael Eisner, is Jewish; the chief of Miramax, Harvey Weinstein, is Jewish. Yes, there are plenty of Christian and other Hollywood executives who worship money above all else, promoting for profit the adulation of violence. Does that make it right for Jewish executives to worship money above all else by promoting for profit the adulation of violence? Recent European history alone ought to cause Jewish executives to experience second thoughts about glorifying the killing of the helpless as a fun lifestyle choice."

These days, that is about as clear an example of objective anti-Semitism as one is likely to encounter in polite rhetorical society. Over the next 48 hours, the Web's equivalent of the roof fell in on Easterbrook. Simon — who shared an Oscar nomination for his adaptation of Isaac Singer's "Enemies, a Love Story" — fiercely denounced the remarks and, shortly, had posted more than 100 responses, mostly from readers from within the film industry.

Disney and Miramax issued a statement saying, "It is sad that these terrible stereotypes persist and that these comments are receiving a wider platform."

Easterbrook's friend and New Republic colleague, Leon Wieseltier — the magazine's longtime literary editor — agreed that "insofar as Gregg's comments impute Jewish motives for everything that Jews do, insofar as they suggest that everything any Jew does is intrinsically a Jewish thing, they are objectively anti-Semitic. But Gregg Easterbrook is not an anti-Semite and the suggestion that the New Republic is in any way receptive to anti-Semitism is the most ludicrous thing I've heard since the election of Arnold Schwarzenegger. Gregg typed his way into a wildly offensive formulation, into classic anti-Semitic code."

Part of that, said Wieseltier, can be attributed "to the hubris of this whole blogging enterprise. There is no such thing as instant thought, which is why reflection and editing are part of serious writing and thinking, as Gregg has now discovered."

Simon was less charitable. "You don't have to be Sigmund Freud to believe that Web logs are to some extent a function of the id," he wrote in an e-mail. "They come out so fast and so unedited they often express our feelings more accurately and even deeply than more carefully wrought writing. This is their blessing and their curse."

Friday, Easterbrook said that "as the reaction to my piece came in, I thought that I might react with a ringing defense of free speech and a defense of my ideas about film violence, which I stand by. But after further thought, I realized that there are two kinds of offense that writers can give to readers: One is deliberate, because you want to force them to think about a difficult or unpopular idea. You might call that 'positive offense.' Then there's 'negative offense,' where you use the wrong words and prevent readers from understanding what you're trying to say. What I'm mainly guilty of is creating that negative offense Part of my failing conceptually was not realizing that words having to do with Jewish identity have a triggering effect based on thousands of years of history. There is no counterpart in the Christian context."

Easterbrook's case is not helped by other aspects of his apology. In one, he recounts how he joined a particular Presbyterian congregation specifically because it shares facilities and finances with a synagogue. Experienced readers will find it a bit like the old "some of my best friends are " argument.

Worse, in his apology and in an interview with the New York Times Thursday, Easterbrook pointed to a column he wrote last week, assailing Mel Gibson for a history of violent filmmaking while defending his controversial re-creation of the Passion. "I raised the exact same question about a Christian," Easterbrook said Thursday, and "there was not a single peep."

In that same essay, however, he attacked Catholic biblical scholars who have criticized Gibson's script as anti-Semitic, as well as the Anti-Defamation League, which has expressed similar reservations. "The ADL has a financial interest in accusing Gibson of anti-Semitism," he wrote, "as the organization raises money using this charge how better to get publicity and pry open checkbooks."

Friday, the writer said that neither those remarks nor those to the New York Times were meant "to suggest a conspiracy or anything like that. I was simply making a statement of fact."

What we have here — to gloss a phrase from the Gospels — is old wine of a particularly bitter vintage in glitzy new skins. The wine comes from a vineyard whose roots should have been yanked out and burned long ago. The fact that it hasn't been and that its fruit so readily finds a home in the brave new cyberspatial world ought to sober everyone involved.

Re(1): If it sounds like anti- Semitism, maybe it is
Posted on October 19, 2003 at 12:26:09 AM by KM

In the eyes of his critics, Easterbrook's sin was to the attribute behavior of Jewish movie executives to their being Jewish. This is an absolute taboo that anyone concerned about a mainstream public career must avoid at all costs. But what he actually said is more like, "some people of all religions worship money, but because of their history, Jews should know better than to promote violence against innocent people." But now that he has made such a mild comment--a comment that actually pays homage to the ideology of Jews as innocent victims of violence, there is no going back, and all the groveling in the world won't help. In fact, according to Rutten, Easterbrook's apologies are completely inadequate and only give further evidence that he is an "anti-Semite." Notice that in his apology, Easterbrook says, "words having to do with Jewish identity have a triggering effect based on thousands of years of history. There is no counterpart in the Christian context." In other words, people are free to blame a person's bad behavior on his Christian religion, but woe be to the person so foolhardy as to even raise the issue of Jewish identity at all, much less blame the bad behavior of Jews on their Jewish identity.

Re(2): If it sounds like anti- Semitism, maybe it is
Posted on October 19, 2003 at 04:52:49 PM by anonymous

For one, the film doesn't "promote violence against innocent people." The characters (and victims primarily) in the film are all professional killers themselves.

He wasn't saying that "people should be free to blame someone's bad behavior on their Christian religion" - an incivility that no one is even suggesting.

No one would ever claim that Quentin Tarantino's decision to make the film reflects any "Christian historical propensity towards violence, as demonstrated by the Crusades and Inquisition," for example. It doesn't. It reflects Quentin Tarantino's love of Hong Kong action flicks, and general poor taste - neither of which have anything to do with him being Gentile.

He was only pointing out that majorities don't have the same vulnerabilities that minorities do. No one is going to hold a pogrom against Christians because Kill Bill's violence is their "fault." Not even against Quentin Tarantino, whom is actually responsible for that violence.

He's implying that simply trying to scapegoat Jews for everything in the world you don't like has consequences, and they should be considered.

If the executives at Miramax had declined Kill Bill, you would have cited it as an instance of "Jews denying a Christian filmmaker his free expression" DUE to their "Jewish identity."

Review of FIRM's Main Points
Posted on October 21, 2003 at 09:51:40 AM by John Cones

FILM INDUSTRY OBSERVATIONS
(Working Theories)

By John W. Cones, J.D.

1. PATTERNS OF BIAS--Hollywood movies (those produced and/or released by the Hollywood-based major studio/distributors) have long contained blatant patterns of bias. They consistently portray whole populations of our diverse society in a negative or stereotypical manner (such portrayals in varying degrees include Arabs and Muslims, Latinos, African-Americans, women, Italian-Americans, Christians and regional populations such as Whites from the American South.

2. BIASED BIOPICS--Hollywood movies contain biased biopics, examples of historical revisionism and favoritism in movie portrayals displayed toward a single, narrowly-defined interest group of which the Hollywood control group primarily draws its members.

3. POLITICAL AND SOCIAL ISSUES–The biases in Hollywood movies also show up with respect to political and social issues, for example, Hollywood movies tend to be anti-government, anti-parent, anti-authority, anti-religion, pro-environment, pro-abortion, pro-violence, pro-smoking, pro-foul language, highly sexual and so forth.

4. SIGNIFICANT MEDIUM--The motion picture is a significant medium for the communication of ideas (see the 1952 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Burstyn v. Wilson).

5. IDEAS--Throughout the history of civilization, ideas have always and will always be an important basis for human beliefs and source of motivation for human conduct.

6. INFLUENCE--Thus, it can be proven by pure logic alone, that movies influence human conduct. After all, movies communicate ideas, ideas motivate human behavior, therefore movies must motivate some human behavior.

7. PREJUDICIAL THINKING--During a significant segment of many individual lives (particularly those who are relatively young, uneducated or unsophisticated), repeatedly watching hundreds of powerful motion picture images that consistently portray whole populations of our diverse society in a negative or stereotypical manner can contribute to prejudicial thinking, which in turn, is often the basis of real-life discriminatory behavior.

8. NOT SOLUTION--Thus, at minimum we must concede, movies that consistently portray certain people in a negative or stereotypical manner and/or movies that tend to emphasize certain positions with respect to political and social issues are clearly not helping us solve our society's problems, but more likely, making them worse.

9. MOVIES MIRROR–With respect to why the above-described phenomena are occurring, movies to a large extent, tend to mirror the values, interests, cultural perspectives and prejudices of their makers.

10. MAJOR STUDIOS--The motion picture industry is dominated by a small group of so-called major studio/distributors. The studio releases are the movies seen by more than 95% of the domestic moviegoing audience, and a significant percentage of most foreign audiences.

11. STUDIO EXECUTIVES–Aside from the fact that various creative people including: screen writers, directors, producers and actors contribute to the content of individual motion pictures, the people in Hollywood who have the power to decide which movies are produced and released, to determine who gets to work in the key positions on such movies and to approve of the screenplays serving as the basis for these movies are the three top studio executives at the major studio distributors.

12. SHARED BACKGROUNDS–In the spirit of similar diversity surveys of their members, conducted on a periodic basis by the Director’s Guild of America and the Screenwriter’s Guild, similar surveys of diversity at the top in Hollywood must be regularly conducted. Preliminary evidence demonstrates that a clear majority of these executives throughout the term of existence of these vertically-integrated, distributor-dominated major studios share a common background (i.e., they are politically liberal, not very religious, Jewish males of European heritage), a factual observation which tends to raise protest from certain segments of the so-called Hollywood apologist community, including false accusations of anti-Semitism.


13. CREATIVE CONTROL--The major studio/distributors through various approval rights are able to determine to a great extent which movies are produced and to some extent the content of those movies.

14. LESS DIVERSITY–One result of such control residing in the hands of such a narrowly-defined group is a severe limit on creativity in movie-making and a more narrow selection of motion pictures which tend to range (in a commercial sense) from hoped-for blockbusters and lowest common denominator movies to exploitation fare.

15. EXCLUSION–Long-time and ongoing control of the major studio/distributors also excludes large segments of our multi-cultural society from the movie-making process (i.e., such excluded populations tend to be inaccurately portrayed through the perspective of another cultural group and their positions on many important issues are overlooked).

16. MOVIES ARE PROPAGANDA–All mass communications media including movies that are controlled by any narrowly-defined group and used over an extended period of time to consistently communicate ideas favored by that control group can fairly be described as propaganda. Motion picture propaganda is particularly effective since it is disguised and promoted as "entertainment".

17. BUSINESS PRACTICES--The Hollywood control group gained and has maintained its power through the use of several hundred specifically identifiable unfair, unethical, unconscionable, anti-competitive, predatory and illegal business practices, including massive employment discrimination and antitrust law violations.

18. GOVERNMENT INFLUENCE--The Hollywood control group gets away with its "proclivity for wrongful conduct" (language of various judicial and legal officials who have reviewed such conduct) by routing huge political contributions to presidential candidates and key members of Congress through excessively overpaid studio executives, their spouses and multiple political action committees, so as to discourage vigorous enforcement of the employment discrimination, antitrust and other laws in the Hollywood-based U.S. film industry.

19. GOVERNMENT POLICY--Federal government policy, specifically, the federal government's anti-trust law enforcement policy currently contributes to the ability of the major studio distributors to control and dominate the marketplace.

20. INDEPENDENT FILM--A motion picture industry made up of independent producers, independent distributors and independent exhibitors would result in greater creativity in movie-making and create greater opportunities for a significantly larger number of interest groups within out multi-cultural society to participate at a meaningful level in the film-making process.

21. FREE MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS–Our democracy is partly based on the concept of a free marketplace of ideas (i.e., to the extent that our society is able to vigorously and openly discuss the pros and cons of all important issues we should be better able to come up with the best decisions with respect to such issues for our society in general).

22. DEMOCRACY IS FLAWED–To the extent that any significant medium for the communication of ideas, such as the motion picture, is dominated and/or controlled by any narrowly-defined group who consistently uses such medium to communicate ideas preferred by that group, our free marketplace of ideas is diminished and our democracy is weakened. In a democracy, no important communications medium, including film, should be controlled or dominated by any single, narrowly-defined group. Government policy should therefore be changed to ensure a more vigorous discussion of view points in all media including motion pictures (i.e., that all segments of our diverse society have an equal and fair opportunity to tell their stories and promote ideas of interest to them through these important communications media).

--o0o–

Re(1): Review of FIRM's Main Points
Posted on October 21, 2003 at 08:41:46 PM by George Shelps



22. DEMOCRACY IS FLAWED–To the extent that any significant medium for the communication of ideas, such as the motion picture, is dominated and/or controlled by any narrowly-defined group who consistently uses such medium to communicate ideas preferred by that group, our free marketplace of ideas is diminished and our democracy is weakened. In a democracy, no important communications medium, including film, should be controlled or dominated by any single, narrowly-defined group. Government policy should therefore be changed to ensure a more vigorous discussion of view points in all media including motion pictures (i.e., that all segments of our diverse society have an equal and fair opportunity to tell their stories and promote ideas of interest to them through these important communications media).

__You still fail to answer the crucial
question, what "government policy should therefore be changed?"

Re(2): Review of FIRM's Main Points
Posted on October 21, 2003 at 09:20:36 PM by Anonymous

And he always will

Re(3): Review of FIRM's Main Points
Posted on October 21, 2003 at 10:43:42 PM by George Shelps

And he always will

___That's the crux of the matter. Many
of FIRM's points are valid, others
are arguable, but in the end, Cones
and Jaeger advocate government control/ involvement in motion pictures through
some form of legislation which they
refuse to openly specify.

(I say this in anticipation of "diversity-mongers" Cones and Jaeger
deleting my posts as they have been
doing.)

Re(4): Review of FIRM's Main Points
Posted on October 22, 2003 at 11:42:59 AM by James Jaeger

>Cones and Jaeger advocate government control/ involvement in motion pictures through some form of legislation which they refuse to openly specify.

George, I don't honestly know if government control is the answer. It seems more likely that the government is BEING controlled by corporate interests these days, at least according to Arianna Huffington in her new book, PIGS AT THE TROUGH. The MPAA studio/distributors are no different from the many other corporations that pay-out huge sums in contributions and to maintain lobby organizations.

Now you come along and worry that "Cones and Jaeger" are going to somehow get the *government* to *control* Hollywood. I'm skeptical that this could even be possible in today's climate.

The better procedure I would think would be to more widely educate the public about the dangers to a democratic society when its mass media/film industry is controlled (dominated or influenced, if you prefer) by a narrowly-defined group.

At the same time people who are disenfranchised should become less tolerant to discrimination and take appropriate action when they see or experience it.

Perhaps legislation could be drafted that better-defined discrimination. Or legislation that required publicly-held corporations to adhere to better-defined hiring policies. From my study of Hollywood, it seems the highest jobs at the studios are passed out through some sort of covert, inner-circle buddy system. (Read POWER TO BURN to see the mechanism). Perhaps, if the top positions were required to be offered to the general executive-market so anyone could get a fair shot at the job, this would remedy the lack of diversity problem. Such a system in order to be fair would have to incorporate relatively exact job descriptions for the top posts, otherwise it would be difficult, or impossible, to compare qualifications and performance between applicants, companies and intra-industry positions.

It would seem to me that these are some possible starts. Then of course if these don't work we could simply nationalize the entire movie industry and appoint a FILM CZAR. :)

James Jaeger

Re(5): Review of FIRM's Main Points
Posted on October 22, 2003 at 01:03:27 PM by George Shelps

Now you come along and worry that "Cones and Jaeger" are going to somehow get the *government* to *control* Hollywood. I'm skeptical that this could even be possible in today's climate.

The better procedure I would think would be to more widely educate the public about the dangers to a democratic society when its mass media/film industry is controlled (dominated or influenced, if you prefer) by a narrowly-defined group.

___Cones brought up the idea of changing
the laws. Everything is discussion and debate--except this.

That's really what your opponents--especially those who are
Jewish--are worried about, something
resembling a quota, or something infringing on the right of employers
to select employees on the basis of their perceived ability.

As Mitchell Levine has pointed out,
the pool of executives with film talent
has tended to be of Jewish extraction--because Hollywood was
founded mostly by Jews.

If your pool of competent people has your social-political-ethnic designator, then they're going to tend to be hired---and it's not discrmination.

The true answer lies in (a) fighting
the legal and contractual abuses--as
Art Buchwald did and (b) getting into
the mainstream film business yourself and changing the paradigm by doing so.

Re(1): Review of FIRM's Main Points
Posted on October 25, 2003 at 10:11:40 AM by George Shelps


by John Cones

22. DEMOCRACY IS FLAWED–To the extent that any significant medium for the communication of ideas, such as the motion picture, is dominated and/or controlled by any narrowly-defined group who consistently uses such medium to communicate ideas preferred by that group, our free marketplace of ideas is diminished and our democracy is weakened. In a democracy, no important communications medium, including film, should be controlled or dominated by any single, narrowly-defined group. Government policy should therefore be changed

___You've never spelled out what changes you think would be necessary.

Jaeger said he's against quotas, but he would require that private companies publicly the motivations behind each major hire.

Presumably, if the motivations did not
reflect "diversity" some legal penalty
would follow. What penalties might
be assessed for lack of "diversity"
in hiring?


to ensure a more vigorous discussion of view points in all media including motion pictures (i.e., that all segments of our diverse society have an equal and fair opportunity to tell their stories and promote ideas of interest to them through these important communications media).

___Movies are a business as well as
a medium of communication. "Equal
opporunity" derives from the necessary
business skills to navigate in the industry as well as tell a story.\

Re(2): Review of FIRM's Main Points
Posted on October 25, 2003 at 01:00:19 PM by Anonymous

"to ensure a more vigorous discussion of view points in all media including motion pictures (i.e., that all segments of our diverse society have an equal and fair opportunity to tell their stories and promote ideas of interest to them through these important communications media)."

- All groups will have the "equal and fair opportunity to tell their stories" when the ticketbuying audience is equally and fairly interested in hearing all of them; i.e., never.

It's not "fair" that films, for example, concentrate on stories that primarily appeal to younger viewers - but because the age range of the prime ticketbuying audience is 18-24, you'll get lots more movies like XXX and Jackass: The Movie than you will like About Schmidt, and that's just the way it is.

It does not mean that older viewers have had their "right" to have films produced which appeal to their age bracket violated.

New Hiring Laws?
Posted on October 22, 2003 at 01:39:07 PM by James Jaeger

>___Cones brought up the idea of changing the laws. Everything is discussion and debate--except this.

I don't know what you're specifically referring to, but as I've suggested, maybe certain laws SHOULD be changed or even created. I'm all for good laws that reflect the needs of society.

>That's really what your opponents--especially those who are
Jewish--are worried about, something
resembling a quota,

Exactly what do you mean by a "quota"? Could you please explain this so I can get a better understanding of what you feel is not a good idea?

>or something infringing on the right of employers to select employees on the basis of their perceived ability.

I don't think anyone at FIRM is interested in forcing employers to take unqualified people. As an employer, I certainly wouldn't want this either. But, as I suggested in my last post, I wouldn't mind making my employment decisions transparent, especially if we were a public company. Maybe that's a step in the right direction. I mean public corporations disclose all sorts of financial information, why can't the MPAA studio/distributors, for instance, be legally required to disclose exactly WHY they hired someone and make public all the applications that they passed on?

>As Mitchell Levine has pointed out,
the pool of executives with film talent
has tended to be of Jewish extraction--because Hollywood was founded mostly by Jews.

George, just as you say, "what your opponents--especially those who are
Jewish--are worried about, something
resembling a quota," I am equally worried that I have no way of knowing WHAT criterion people are getting employed upon. Don't I, and others, have an equal right to know WHY certain executives were employed or not? You can sit there and say Jewish executives are more qualified than others until you're blue in the face -- fine, but let's prove it. You ask me to prove that even one single person has been KEPT OUT OF the industry because they weren't Jewish. If this is a valid question, why shouldn't I be able to an equally valid question: What proof does a public studio have for me that they have in fact hired only the most qualified executives and what was their criterion?

Let's make the employment methodology more transparent. Let's open to public scrutiny the Employment Applications of all the other people that were rejected. If the studios are truly hiring "only the most qualified" then it will be apparent, if not, that will also be apparent.

>If your pool of competent people has your social-political-ethnic designator, then they're going to tend to be hired---and it's not discrimination.

Don't know what you're talking about here.

>The true answer lies in (a) fighting
the legal and contractual abuses--as
Art Buchwald did and

Agree.

>(b) getting into the mainstream film business yourself and changing the paradigm by doing so.

Agree. And I'm working on it. But consider the above.

James Jaeger

Re(1): New Hiring Laws?
Posted on October 22, 2003 at 07:35:09 PM by Mitchell Levine

What proof does a public studio have for me that they have in fact hired only the most qualified executives

- The fact that their films continue to make money, which is NOT an easy thing to do, regardless of how talented you might be.

and what was their criterion?

- Typically, for the top positions FIRM is apparently discussing, seniority and experience - just as it is in any other corporate field. And that's exactly how it should be at that level.

Re(1): New Hiring Laws?
Posted on October 22, 2003 at 04:18:11 PM by George Shelps


by James Jaeger

>___Cones brought up the idea of changing the laws. Everything is discussion and debate--except this.

I don't know what you're specifically referring to, but as I've suggested, maybe certain laws SHOULD be changed or even created. I'm all for good laws that reflect the needs of society.

___But if the law is intrusive into
free enterprise deliberations...business
judgment...or if it specifies hiring
criteria in the absence of provable
discrimination, then you are treading
in dangerous waters...and that's why
people oppose FIRM.



>That's really what your opponents--especially those who are
Jewish--are worried about, something
resembling a quota,

Exactly what do you mean by a "quota"?

Could you please explain this so I can get a better understanding of what you feel is not a good idea?

___What the Supreme Court just ruled
unconstitutional in college admissions:

a mathematical formula to include/exclude certain racial or ethnic groups. Requiring that hiring reflect
the racial or ethnic compositon of the
nation on a percentage-formula basis.

>or something infringing on the right of employers to select employees on the basis of their perceived ability.


I don't think anyone at FIRM is interested in forcing employers to take unqualified people. As an employer, I certainly wouldn't want this either. But, as I suggested in my last post, I wouldn't mind making my employment decisions transparent, especially if we were a public company. Maybe that's a step in the right direction. I mean public corporations disclose all sorts of financial information, why can't the MPAA studio/distributors, for instance, be legally required to disclose exactly WHY they hired someone and make public all the applications that they passed on?

___Because this involves private judgments about executive competence
and talent that can't be reduced to
a formula.

>As Mitchell Levine has pointed out,
the pool of executives with film talent
has tended to be of Jewish extraction--because Hollywood was founded mostly by Jews.

George, just as you say, "what your opponents--especially those who are
Jewish--are worried about, something
resembling a quota," I am equally worried that I have no way of knowing WHAT criterion people are getting employed upon. Don't I, and others, have an equal right to know WHY certain executives were employed or not?

__No.

You can sit there and say Jewish executives are more qualified than others until you're blue in the face -- fine, but let's prove it. You ask me to prove that even one single person has been KEPT OUT OF the industry because they weren't Jewish.

___You might have come up with one at least--and not yourself.

If this is a valid question, why shouldn't I be able to an equally valid question: What proof does a public studio have for me that they have in fact hired only the most qualified executives and what was their criterion?

___Because you're asking for disclosure
of private business deliberations. This is not done. Will you expose the hiring rationale of Matrixx Entertainment to see if you're bringing in a diverse selection of associates?

Let's make the employment methodology more transparent. Let's open to public scrutiny the Employment Applications of all the other people that were rejected.
___This is a violation of normal business confidentiality.

If the studios are truly hiring "only the most qualified" then it will be apparent, if not, that will also be apparent.

___What are going to to, administer a
government-sponsored qualifications test?


>If your pool of competent people has your social-political-ethnic designator, then they're going to tend to be hired---and it's not discrimination.


Don't know what you're talking about here.

___Simple. It's not employment discrimination to hire from a pool
of qualified executives just because most happen to be white, male, not-very-religious Jews of European descent because that's from whom the movie industry developed.

ESPN Fires Easterbrook
Posted on October 21, 2003 at 01:10:53 PM by James Jaeger

At http://www.rogerlsimon.com,
ROGER SIMON WROTE:

"I just got off the phone with Gregg Easterbrook. . . I could offer him little advice. . . . but I did point out that in this world that has gone radioactive on what the Stalinists used to call "The Jewish Question""

"But Easterbrook also informed me of something else that is highly disturbing. He has been fired from his job at ESPN. Gregg takes full responsibility for this (he wrote the original words that he regrets), but I, as one of his harshest critics, believe that ESPN has vastly overreacted. I urge them to reconsider their decision."

Here's yet another pathetic example of someone (this time it's Gregg Easterbrook) simply stating an observable fact and now:

1. Having their Constitution right of free speech abridged and;

2. Experiencing what amounts to discrimination by ESPN.

James Jaeger

Re(1): ESPN Fires Easterbrook
Posted on October 21, 2003 at 06:31:08 PM by Mitchell Levine

I agree that ESPN overreacted by firing him - some kind of administrative reprimand would have certainly been enough, if that - but, once again, EASTERBROOK HAS NOT BEEN PROSECUTED FOR A CRIME! HE HAS NOT HAD HIS FREEDOM OF SPEECH ABRIDGED!

The only thing the Constitution promises is freedom from being charged by the state for (protected) speech. No one complained when Jimmy the Greek was fired after his racist statements, nor claimed that he had his freedom of speech denied. In fact, people get fired all the time for saying things their bosses don't like.

ESPN does not qualify as an arm of the state, and employed him at will. If he embarasses them and becomes what they feel is a liability to their image, they have every right to fire him. He was their spokesperson, and if he didn't live up to that responsibility, that's part of the deal. He knew that when he was hired.

It's not discrimination: They have every right to determine whom they feel best represents the image they wish to promote to the public. When Vanessa Williams lost her Miss America crown simply because nude photos of her were published, no one believed it constituted "discrimination."

It would be much different if they fired him simply for being Christian, which they obviously did not. In that case, he could claim discrimination.

Re(2): ESPN Fires Easterbrook
Posted on October 22, 2003 at 01:42:44 PM by James Jaeger

>If he embarasses them and becomes what they feel is a liability to their image, they have every right to fire him.

So I guess it's embarassing for the public to know that any high-up executives are Jewish.

James Jaeger

Re(3): ESPN Fires Easterbrook
Posted on October 22, 2003 at 02:48:57 PM by Mitchell Levine

As if people didn't know that George Bodenheimer or Jeffrey Borenstein were Jewish?

Or, for that matter, as if being embarassed by by a spokesperson's inappropriate public statements was equivalent to being embarassed about being Jewish?

Does that mean ABC fired Jimmy the Greek because they were embarassed to be associated with Blacks?

Hello Mr. Jaeger
Posted on October 23, 2003 at 11:25:58 AM by luyi

I am a reporter of China and want to interview you for some movie industry questions. I wrote an email to you. If it is ok, please reply to me. Thanks a lot

Jewish Media Domination in Sweden
Posted on October 23, 2003 at 11:02:57 PM by Truth Seeker

I just received this email from a guy originally from Sweden. I don't know much about the Jews of Sweden, but here he explains that Jewish media hegemony is a problem there too, although there are only 20,000 Jews in that country! From the U.S. to Great Britian, from Australia to Poland to
Peru, the problem is the same:



"Dear Sir,

First of all I would like to laud you for an exhaustive and well-prepared site. You have certainly gone through the Jewish question thoroughly before compiling your observations and analysis.

Reading your This week's Jewish News as usual today there was one piece of news that made my face wreathed in smiles. The piece of news concerned how the Jewish community of Lithuania accused LNK television for anti-Semitism.

Well, the far too familiar irony is that the LNK, as stated in the article is owned by the Bonnier family, based in my country of origin, Sweden.

New Hiring Laws
Posted on October 24, 2003 at 01:21:21 PM by James Jaeger

Maybe certain laws should be changed or even created. I'm all for good laws that reflect the needs of society.

Nevertheless, I don't think a mathamatical "quota" system would work or be a good idea for the movie industry.

I also don't think anyone at FIRM is interested in forcing employers to take unqualified people. As an employer, I certainly wouldn't want this either. But, as I suggested in an earlier post, I wouldn't mind making my employment decisions transparent, especially if we were a public company. Maybe that's a step in the right direction for the studios. Public corporations disclose all sorts of financial information, why can't the MPAA studio/distributors, for instance, be legally required to disclose exactly WHY they hired someone and make public all the applications that they passed on? Just stating that they were the most experienced is not enough.

If certain people, such as Hollywood executives, are worried about something
resembling quotas, I am equally worried that I have no way of knowing WHAT criterion such executives are using to employ people. Don't I, and others, have an equal right to know WHY certain executives were employed or not? One can sit there and say Jewish executives are more qualified than others until they're blue in the face -- fine, but let's prove it. Some have asked me to prove that even one single person has been KEPT OUT OF the industry because they weren't Jewish. If this is a valid question, why shouldn't I be able to ask an equally valid question: What proof does a public studio have for me, or anyone, that they have, in fact, hired only the most qualified executives and what was their criterion?

Let's make the employment methodology more transparent. Let's open to public scrutiny the employment applications of all the other people that were rejected. If the studios are truly hiring "only the most qualified" then it will be apparent, if not, that will also be apparent.

I agree that fighting legal and contractual abuses when they happen (as in the Art Buchwald case) and staying active in the mainstream film business are valid ways of working for constructive change.

James Jaeger

Re(1): New Hiring Laws
Posted on October 24, 2003 at 01:44:19 PM by John Cones

I agree with what you are saying James and I too have always taken a flexible approach to possible remedies for film industry reform. I think, as an example, that it would be perfectly acceptable for the appropriate committees of the U.S. Congress to investigate the Hollywood based film industry's hiring and promotion practices, pursuant to its oversight authority over the EEOC. Such committees could then seek to determine whether the EEOC has been properly enforcing current employment discrimination law in this specific industry, or whether additional legislation is needed to prevent Hollywood's end runs around the law. Of course, it would also be appropriate for such Congressional committees to investigate other industries, but I don't work in other industries, so that is not my concern. I don't have any strict notions about what the results of such an investigation should be, only that the goal of greater diversity at the top in Hollywood should be served, and that Congress should be aware of how effective the Hollywood lobby is in falsely characterizing such investigations. In addition, those who continually post messages on this site falsely claiming that you or I favor quota systems are either uninformed or dishonest, and we've had too much of those kind of postings here. Others who claim that they agree with much of what FIRM stands for, if they really want to be believed, ought to spend some time posting more about what they agree with rather than always focusing on the negative and what we disagree on. Otherwise, we can assume that they simply want to disagree and that is what is most important to them.

John Cones

Re(2): New Hiring Laws
Posted on October 26, 2003 at 03:29:48 PM by anonymous

The point of the message board is debate, John. It's rather jejune of you to complain that the debate centers around what's disagreed upon: That's the point of debate.

The reason why people claim you support quotas is that you've repeatedly stated your opinion that laws need to be changed to "promote diversity."

Since the only laws that could conceivably be implemented which would ensure diversity would be quotas of one kind or another, and given that you've consistently avoided any explicit acknowledgement of what alternate theory you have, that naturally leads to the conclusion you must actually support quotas.

All you need to do to end that speculation is simply state what laws you'd like to see changed to help create diversity, and how it would differ from a quota system. Until then, you really can't object to people who believe you want quotas.

Agent Provocateur LevinE
Posted on October 26, 2003 at 03:43:44 PM by James Jaeger

>The reason why people

People?! What people? You're the only "people" I know of.

>claim you support quotas is that you've repeatedly stated your opinion that laws need to be changed to "promote diversity."

John clearly says in his post to me: "I think, as an example, that it would be perfectly acceptable for the appropriate committees of the U.S. Congress to investigate the Hollywood based film industry's hiring and promotion practices, pursuant to its oversight authority over the EEOC. Such committees could then seek to determine whether the EEOC has been properly enforcing current employment discrimination law in this specific industry, or whether additional legislation is needed to prevent Hollywood's end runs around the law."

What's your problem with that?

>Since the only laws that could conceivably be implemented which would ensure diversity would be quotas

If that's all you can conceive of, goes to show what lack of imagination you have.

>of one kind or another, and given that you've consistently avoided any explicit acknowledgement of what alternate theory you have,

Hey, see the above.

>that naturally leads to the conclusion you must actually support quotas.

And it leads me to the conclusion, Mr. Levine, that all you want to do is argue. You're what's known as an agent provocateur.

>All you need to do to end that speculation is simply state what laws you'd like to see changed to help create diversity, and how it would differ from a quota system.

Maybe we don't know exactly what laws need to be created. Why don't you help us figure that out rather than sounding like a broken record always seeking to find fault with everything that's posted here.

>Until then, you really can't object to people who believe you want quotas.

You continue with your straw argument.

James Jaeger

Re(1): Agent Provocateur LevinE
Posted on October 26, 2003 at 04:11:27 PM by Mitchell Levine

For one, I post under my own name. For another, Cones is NOT suggesting anything like legislation that doesn't involve quotas.

Enforcing laws that already exist doesn't involve "changing laws," so that can't possibly be what he was referring to when he said that's what was required. And an inquiry into "whether additional legislation is needed to prevent Hollywood's end runs around the law" - despite the fact that he's never demonstrated it's making any with regard to diversity - doesn't rule out quotas either.

While it's true that your idea of forcing the studios to publicly post all applications for its jobs doesn't necessarily involve quotas, it has numerous liabilities and impracticalities, and would only contribute to the problem further.

If you're so imaginative, than please post some examples of changed laws that would "ensure diversity" without invoking quotas or involving compromises of other laws or rights.

Re(1): Agent Provocateur LevinE
Posted on October 26, 2003 at 04:11:27 PM by Mitchell Levine

For one, I post under my own name. For another, Cones is NOT suggesting anything like legislation that doesn't involve quotas.

Enforcing laws that already exist doesn't involve "changing laws," so that can't possibly be what he was referring to when he said that's what was required. And an inquiry into "whether additional legislation is needed to prevent Hollywood's end runs around the law" - despite the fact that he's never demonstrated it's making any with regard to diversity - doesn't rule out quotas either.

While it's true that your idea of forcing the studios to publicly post all applications for its jobs doesn't necessarily involve quotas, it has numerous liabilities and impracticalities, and would only contribute to the problem further.

If you're so imaginative, than please post some examples of changed laws that would "ensure diversity" without invoking quotas or involving compromises of other laws or rights.

Re(2): Agent Provocateur LevinE
Posted on October 26, 2003 at 05:18:15 PM by James Jaeger

>If you're so imaginative, than please post some examples of changed laws that would "ensure diversity" without invoking quotas or involving compromises of other laws or rights.

I'm a stockholder for a number of the MPAA studios and I'm plan on purchasing stock in all of them this week. I'm reading the current Annual Report of FOX which was just mailed out to all stockholders last week. As I read this document, and the other studio reports when I get them, I will try and visualize where such reporting on hiring might be appropriate and in what context. You have to realize however, FOX states that they have some 13,000 employees however the company is run by basically four (4) top executives along with Murdoch, who controls 97% of the corporation through his NEWS CORPORATION and who owns all of the outstanding Class B voting stock. Any discussion of "diversity at the top" must address the 4 or 5 people that control the corporation and the 8 people that sit on its board, as is the case with FOX. The people that are on FOX's board are basically the 4 top executives, including Murdoch and 4 of the top stockholders, one of them being another Murdoch. Although I am not positive about this, it looks like at least 3 out of the 4 top executives are Jewish, like Churney. I am in process of ascertaining this now. The point is that an inquiry or a reporting on all 13,000 employees is NOT necessary. The bios of the executives managing the corporation should include a statement about their background and a footnote elaborating on how they were chosen for the post. Money figures have footnotes to establish their authenticity all the time in financial instruments, so why shouldn't the people who spend that money have footnotes as well. As an owner of TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX, I want to know exactly how and why the people I have entrusted to run my company were hired. I want footnotes describing the process, and I want to be able to review extensive hiring reports when I come into FOX's offices at mutually convenient times. This is a public corporation after all, not a private company.

James Jaeger

Re(3): Agent Provocateur LevinE
Posted on October 26, 2003 at 06:59:35 PM by Mitchell Levine

Only one slight problem with your plan: It would have to be combined with a proposal for what to do if it was decided, for some reason, that a particular executive was hired only for being Jewish, and not because they had sufficient qualifications.

That would inevitably lead to some kind of quota system.

Re(1): New Hiring Laws
Posted on October 25, 2003 at 06:06:02 PM by Anonymous

I also don't think anyone at FIRM is interested in forcing employers to take unqualified people.

- That's exactly what you've been arguing since the first posts you made to the site.

But, as I suggested in an earlier post, I wouldn't mind making my employment decisions transparent, especially if we were a public company. Maybe that's a step in the right direction for the studios. Public corporations disclose all sorts of financial information, why can't the MPAA studio/distributors, for instance, be legally required to disclose exactly WHY they hired someone and make public all the applications that they passed on? Just stating that they were the most experienced is not enough.

- A. It's certainly enough - hiring the most experienced person for a job is perfectly acceptable methodology for selection, and is usually the primary criterion businesses use for hiring in general: promoting the person whose been with the company the longest.

B. Forcing companies to post the applications of everyone who applies for a job publicly is a complete violation of the privacy of the applicants, and would immediately bring the job application process to a screeching halt. That would not exactly be in the best interests of trying to create diversity, as we don't have a diverse industry now.

Also, forcing companies to state exactly why they rejected various applicants is slightly insensitive to the applicants that got rejected.

If certain people, such as Hollywood executives, are worried about something
resembling quotas, I am equally worried that I have no way of knowing WHAT criterion such executives are using to employ people. Don't I, and others, have an equal right to know WHY certain executives were employed or not?

- No. This information is not included under the Freedom of Information Act. You have no right to it whatsoever. It is not public information; applications are NOT public documents, and they shouldn't be.


One can sit there and say Jewish executives are more qualified than others until they're blue in the face -- fine, but let's prove it.

- Sure. The fact that studios were motivated to hire them and give them authority over their operations, when, in the competitive environment of Hollywood, if they didn't do their job competently, they could easily be run out of business.

If that doesn't satisfy you, then feel free to disprove it by listing non-Jewish executives with comparable records of seniority and proven track records that were passed over presumably for being non-Jewish.

Some have asked me to prove that even one single person has been KEPT OUT OF the industry because they weren't Jewish. If this is a valid question, why shouldn't I be able to ask an equally valid question: What proof does a public studio have for me, or anyone, that they have, in fact, hired only the most qualified executives and what was their criterion?

- The same criteria that every other corporation uses to select their top executives: Seniority and proven experience. Those are completely valid reasons to hire someone. No one would hire an incompetent to run their business strictly because they're Jewish. Point to one studio head without a demonstrated track record. I won't hold my breath, because you can't.

Let's make the employment methodology more transparent. Let's open to public scrutiny the employment applications of all the other people that were rejected.

- Ok, let's start with your posting the applications you made to various studios that rejected you. We can then speculate as to why you weren't hired.

Re(2): New Hiring Laws
Posted on October 25, 2003 at 07:40:22 PM by P. EVERET


WHOEVER YOU ARE ANONYMOUS, YOU ARE WAY OFF BASE. SOUNDS TO ME AS IF YOU ARE JUST BLINDLY DEFENDING THE OBVIOUS DESCRIMINATION AT THE HOLLYWOOD STUDIOS. I SHOULD KNOW, I WORK AT ONE OF THE MAJORS AND I CAN TELL YOU FAIR HIRING PRACTICES ARE NO PART OF THIS WORLD.

WHY DON'T YOU GET ANOTHER HOBBY OTHER THAN TRYING TO DEFEND THE INDEVENSIBLE.

PHIL EVERIT +++ OBVIOUSLY NOT MY REAL NAME

Re(3): New Hiring Laws
Posted on October 26, 2003 at 01:37:20 AM by anonymous

Let's see: You use a phony name; you shout in all caps, despite the consensus of popular opinion that it's obnoxious; and you can't even SPELL discrimination.

Oh, yeah - I consider you an authoritative source!

DREAMWORKS Flunks Diversity 101
Posted on October 26, 2003 at 03:22:42 PM by James Jaeger

Well I guess I was wrong about DREAMWORKS: they don't think outside the box. I'm disappointed that they didn't pick up THE PASSION, now retitled THE PASSION OF CHRIST, for distribution.

In a letter I received from Jeffrey Katzenberg, Jeffrey says that he and his partners, Steven Spielberg and David Geffin, "are excited about this venture (DREAMWORKS) for many reasons - not the least of which is the opportunity to create a new studio structure rather than perpetuate an existing system."

Had DREAMWORKS broken ranks with the MPAA studios, in what amounts to a ban on the distribution of THE PASSION, they truly would have been true to the ideal of NOT "perpetuating an existing system," but I guess they have now been co-opted by the MPAA studios for distribution of their own product so they have to march to the "company line" - which seems to covertly mandate as little diversity in the corporate ranks as possible, such ranks in turn greenlighting little diversity in their slate of "Filmed Entertainment" (as their 10-K's call it).

So now we have NEWMARKET, an independent distributor, distributing THE PASSION instead of Mel's home company, FOX, distributing it. And FOX's "reason" for passing on the project is because 'it's not in English.' Please. Mel has agreed to put subtitles, so NOW what's their excuse? I guess their excuse is there's no market for a class-A film about the death of a religious icon, Jesus, having a built in potential audience of over a billion people worldwide. In other words, THE PASSION would be "too risky" to finance and distribute. Right. Let's see, the picture cost $15,000,000 to produce (rule of thumb: you take whatever one says it costs and halve that) and will cost $30,000,000 to market, so that's $45,000,000 tied up. Now, let's say only 10% of a billion people, 100,000,000, go to the theater and buy a $5 ticket. Gee that's only $500,000,000, or a profit of $455,000,000. I guess the MPAA studios are right, THE PASSION is too risky. And besides that, getting only a 1,011% profit is not worth it.

Now what will be interesting is to see if the film actually DOES do well. If it DOES generate profits anywhere near what I have predicted above (and my numbers only include one market; I didn't even mention video-on-demand, home video/DVD, pay-per-view, pay cable, basic cable, network TV, syndication or ancillaries) what will be interesting to see is whether one of the domestic or foreign divisions of the major studios attempt to pick it up. I hope NEWMARKET and Mel don't give it to them if they do. It will serve them right. Most likely the film is neither anti-Semitic nor unprofitable, thus the only real reason the studios didn't distribute THE PASION OF CHRIST is because they don't want to push what they perceive as the Christian agenda. And is this so strange? After all the studios are controlled/dominated by politically liberal, not-very-religious, Jewish males of European heritage and have been so for many decades. (See http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/control.htm#execlist)

So who was it that said the studios are just profit motivated and market driven? What a bunch of hooey. Looks like the information at the FIRM site at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/bginfo.htm is right on the money.

James Jaeger

Re(1): DREAMWORKS Flunks Diversity 101
Posted on October 26, 2003 at 03:57:25 PM by Mitchell Levine

1) You have no idea whether the film is "class A" or not, because, like everyone else, you've never seen it.

2) Mel didn't agree to put subtitles on it until after the studios had turned it down, and had by that time already generated a ton of bad press and friction from different religious groups, not all of them Jewish.

3) Your comment that the only reason the studios didn't distribute it is because they didn't want to promote a "Christian agenda" is bullshit: They make many films that promote a Christian agenda or have specifically Christian premises, including numerous filmed accounts of the Gospel narratives. Mel's is just the latest and goriest. They had no problems distributing The Last Temptation of Christ, a film written, produced, and directed by devout Christians.

4) Your numbers are ridiculous. Just to begin with, the budget estimates are actually twice as high as you suggest, at about $30 million, mostly financed by Gibson himself. The Last Temptation was produced for much less, by a superior filmmaker, and didn't create revenues anywhere near the figures you estimate, even with the publicity its own debacle created.

You're also making many other questionable assumptions, like, for example, that every Christian in the world wants to see a movie that graphic and in biblical languages, with or without subtitles, or that foreign markets provide an equal return to domestic ones.

The fact is that biblical movies have not done well in recent times, the most notable being Richard Gere's King David, which lost loads of money. There are no indications that this one will necessarily do any better, and it comes with seriously embarassing baggage attached. No executive wants to touch a hot potato like that, especially when its commercial prospects are very unclear. Its only prospects for box-office success have been gained from the controversy surrounding it, which may all be part of Mel's master plan.

Re(2): DREAMWORKS Flunks Diversity 101
Posted on October 26, 2003 at 04:57:02 PM by James Jaeger

>1) You have no idea whether the film is "class A" or not, because, like everyone else, you've never seen it.

An assumption on your part. Mel Gibson is a superstar with a class-A reputation. Every recent film he's been a part of has been class-A, thus there no reason to suspect that this film will NOT follow the lines of his "track record." Your speculation is the odd ball out.

>2) Mel didn't agree to put subtitles on it until after the studios had turned it down, and had by that time already generated a ton of bad press and friction from different religious groups, not all of them Jewish.

Any press which generates public awareness is "good" press. Even students in PR 101 know this.

>3) Your comment that the only reason the studios didn't distribute it is because they didn't want to promote a "Christian agenda" is bullshit: They make many films that promote a Christian agenda or have specifically Christian premises, including numerous filmed accounts of the Gospel narratives.

Have you ever actually WATCHED any of these? I have. Almost all of them are horrific due to the fact that the studios won't allocate any real money to their production, as they refused to do in the case of THE PASSION (by a Christian filmmaker, but did do for SHINDLER'S LIST by a Jewish filmmaker). And given their actions, the studios probably like this: a bunch of crappy low-production-value films out there with Christian themes while any film that depicts Jewish interests gets full funding and full distribution with little question. Pathetic. A class-A, star-producer, Mel Gibson, comes along, after making the studios hundreds of millions, and they pass on his pet project. Why? Because they know very well that HIS project probably won't be another crappy low-production-value Christian film -- and this, of course, scares them. As the research presented at FIRM states, movies reflect their makers. Applied here: Studio execs only greenlight what aligns with their long-term agenda and this agenda is more aligned with making people aware of the Holocaust than making them aware that Jesus Christ came to Earth with an important message.

>Mel's is just the latest and goriest.

Horse.

>They had no problems distributing The Last Temptation of Christ, a film written, produced, and directed by devout Christians.

That film was considered a blasphemy by most of the Christian world so of course the studios WOULD finance and distribute THAT picture. But I guess this is too subtle for you to comprehend Mitch.

>4) Your numbers are ridiculous. Just to begin with, the budget estimates are actually twice as high as you suggest, at about $30 million, mostly financed by Gibson himself.

I said, you take the promoted budget and halve it. That's why $15 million will be the actual budget. How little you know about the film business Mitchell.

>The Last Temptation was produced for much less, by a superior filmmaker, and didn't create revenues anywhere near the figures you estimate, even with the publicity its own debacle created.

That's because, since the film was blasphemy, it didn't receive support from the Christian world . . . A. And B, this picture was made in the mid 1980's, at a time when production budgets were MUCH smaller. So, please, compare apples to apples.

>You're also making many other questionable assumptions,

Questionable ones eh?! Levine, you're the questionable assumption!

>like, for example, that every Christian in the world wants to see a movie that graphic and in biblical languages, with or without subtitles, or that foreign markets provide an equal return to domestic ones.

I never MADE that assumption. Your straw is showing again. I said that 10 PERCENT go see the movie. Get it? My assumption was based on the idea that 90% DON'T go see it. Pretty conservative if you ask anyone.

>The fact is that biblical movies have not done well in recent times,

Because of the reason I stated above.

>the most notable being Richard Gere's King David, which lost loads of money.

Until I see this I have no comment here.

>There are no indications that this one will necessarily do any better,

Sure there are PLENTY of indications:

A. There are over a billion Christians on the planet.

B. The film has already generated VAST PR through media and WOM to a significant portion of that billion.

C. It's being produced/directed by a super-star with proven track record.

D. The picture is not blasphemous, but authentic.

E. It has subtitles, yet retains the flavor of the original languages spoken at the time.

F. Many millions in the Jewish community will probably see the film just to see if it's anti-Semitic and/or because parts of it are spoken in Hebrew.

LevinE, you don't have a case.

>and it comes with seriously embarassing baggage attached.

Oh, come on. The only "embarrassing baggage" from the POV of Jewish executives that run the MPAA studios is the fact that it will probably promote the Christian agenda, as I already stated.

>No executive wants to touch a hot potato like that,

Oh horse.

>especially when its commercial prospects are very unclear.

Horse.

>Its only prospects for box-office success have been gained from the controversy surrounding it, which may all be part of Mel's master plan.

Well. Good master plan, since Mel probably knows the MO of the studios anyway. And that MO is clearly spelled out at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/bginfo.htm

James Jaeger

Re(3): DREAMWORKS Flunks Diversity 101
Posted on October 26, 2003 at 08:52:29 PM by Mitchell Levine

An assumption on your part. Mel Gibson is a superstar with a class-A reputation. Every recent film he's been a part of has been class-A, thus there no reason to suspect that this film will NOT follow the lines of his "track record." Your speculation is the odd ball out.

- A) Gibson's been in plenty of crappy movies, and his record hardly supports the thesis that anything he stamps his name on will be a masterpiece, unless you think The Singing Detective is a film classic.

B) You simply have no way of knowing whether or not a movie you haven't seen is good. It's not a matter of speculation.

Any press which generates public awareness is "good" press. Even students in PR 101 know this.

- Not when it embarasses the hell out of the studios, and leaves them open to the charge that they're furthering a bigoted agenda, in a commercially doubtful genre.

>3) Your comment that the only reason the studios didn't distribute it is because they didn't want to promote a "Christian agenda" is bullshit: They make many films that promote a Christian agenda or have specifically Christian premises, including numerous filmed accounts of the Gospel narratives.

Have you ever actually WATCHED any of these? I have. Almost all of them are horrific due to the fact that the studios won't allocate any real money to their production, as they refused to do in the case of THE PASSION (by a Christian filmmaker, but did do for SHINDLER'S LIST by a Jewish filmmaker). And given their actions, the studios probably like this: a bunch of crappy low-production-value films out there with Christian themes while any film that depicts Jewish interests gets full funding and full distribution with little question. Pathetic. A class-A, star-producer, Mel Gibson, comes along, after making the studios hundreds of millions, and they pass on his pet project. Why? Because they know very well that HIS project probably won't be another crappy low-production-value Christian film -- and this, of course, scares them. As the research presented at FIRM states, movies reflect their makers.

- You've provided no such proof or evidence. Most of the available evidence indicates that they make films that will appeal to their audiences. Simply listing various executives with Jewish names, and then correlating it to your stereotypes of what Jews would think or like doesn't establish your thesis.

Applied here: Studio execs only greenlight what aligns with their long-term agenda and this agenda is more aligned with making people aware of the Holocaust than making them aware that Jesus Christ came to Earth with an important message.

- Bullshit: The Last Temptation of Christ was hardly a cut-rate production, as it made virtually every critics' Ten Best list that year. Films promoting a Christian message or featuring Christian premises include End of Days, Bless the Child, Stigmata, and Jesus of Montreal. Those aren't exactly low-budget films. Even Dracula 2000 had a pro-Christian message, with the evil monster finally being destroyed through the power of the Saviour. That's a lot considering the fact that the average ticketbuyer does not want to be hit with a heavy religious message. And your idea that Hollywood executives are implementing a "long-term Jewish agenda" designed to harm Christianity is just more bigoted, paranoid bullshit.

>Mel's is just the latest and goriest.

Horse.

When has a gorier one ever been made? When was the last one made?

That film was considered a blasphemy by most of the Christian world so of course the studios WOULD finance and distribute THAT picture.

- Couldn't be too much of the Christian world as it was written, directed, and produced by devout Christians, and adapted from a best-selling novel by a devout Christian. The primary groups that were opposed to it were born-agains and fundamentalists, almost all of whom condemned the film without even seeing it. Sophisticated viewers understood that it was not blasphemous. Many such Christians considered the film to be a masterpiece. That's why many non-Jewish critics proclaimed at the time that it was Scorsese's best film, and the greatest of the decade.

But I guess this is too subtle for you to comprehend Mitch.

- Apparently, you weren't able to perceive the subtleties I mentioned above.

>4) Your numbers are ridiculous. Just to begin with, the budget estimates are actually twice as high as you suggest, at about $30 million, mostly financed by Gibson himself.

I said, you take the promoted budget and halve it. That's why $15 million will be the actual budget. How little you know about the film business Mitchell.

- It's not a studio picture - it's an independent, and Gibson has no reason to lie, as doing so would make it less likely a studio would pick it up. By the way, I've been involved with several projects which I can assure you would not have been correctly estimated by your crude rule of thumb. The latter would be rather difficult to validate in any case as you have no access to the actual production budgets of the movies in question.

>The Last Temptation was produced for much less, by a superior filmmaker, and didn't create revenues anywhere near the figures you estimate, even with the publicity its own debacle created.

That's because, since the film was blasphemy, it didn't receive support from the Christian world

- Only the most unsophisticated elements of the Christian world considered it blasphemous, and those that did said so without even seeing the picture. The fact that numerous Christian critics proclaimed the film one of the greatest they'd ever seen belies your interpretation.


. . . A. And B, this picture was made in the mid 1980's, at a time when production budgets were MUCH smaller. So, please, compare apples to apples.

- Even adjusted for the relative Consumer Price Indices of the eras, it would still disqualify your argument.


>like, for example, that every Christian in the world wants to see a movie that graphic and in biblical languages, with or without subtitles, or that foreign markets provide an equal return to domestic ones.

I never MADE that assumption. Your straw is showing again. I said that 10 PERCENT go see the movie. Get it? My assumption was based on the idea that 90% DON'T go see it. Pretty conservative if you ask anyone.

- No, your lame assumption was that 100% of Christians make up the potential market to which the 90% figure should be applied. They don't. Many Christians won't even consider seeing it because it's so graphic, or because they believe it's inherently blasphemous to represent Christ on a film screen. First you need to eliminate all those individuals from the pool before you start determining the sample population that would feel like spending $10 to buy a ticket to a film in dead languages with subtitles.

>The fact is that biblical movies have not done well in recent times,

Because of the reason I stated above.

- No, it's primarily because large numbers of people are no longer interested in or believe in the Bible, or care to see movies based on it. You could spend $100 million on a biblical epic these days, and it isn't clear that it would draw an audience sizable enough to make it profitable. Large numbers of people see it as corny. That's not to say there aren't exceptions to that rule in the general population, but it's not exceptions that make a film profitable, it's the masses.

>the most notable being Richard Gere's King David, which lost loads of money.

Until I see this I have no comment here.

- Just go to the page for the film on IMDB and click on "Box Office."

>There are no indications that this one will necessarily do any better,

Sure there are PLENTY of indications:

A. There are over a billion Christians on the planet.

- That doesn't mean that they all compose a potential market for Gibson's film, any more than the world's twelve million Jews all made up a potential market for King David. Vast numbers of them won't sit through a film with subtitles, or simply consider a cinematic representation of Christ a blasphemy in itself. Plus studios know that they won't get fair returns from foreign markets, so they aren't calculated similarly to domestic proceeds.

B. The film has already generated VAST PR through media and WOM to a significant portion of that billion.

- That will easily turn off as many as it turns on.

C. It's being produced/directed by a super-star with proven track record.

- He's had numerous flops, and has never made an art film before, unless you count Man without a Face as an "art film." Plus he doesn't appear in it, and has little directorial experience besides Braveheart.

D. The picture is not blasphemous, but authentic.

- Many Christians, as I've already mentioned, simply consider any cinematic representation of Christ blasphemous.

E. It has subtitles, yet retains the flavor of the original languages spoken at the time.

- Films with subtitles usually make a lot less money than films in an audience's native language. Because no one alive today speaks Aramaic or Hebrew, that means there's no one who speaks the movies' language as a native.

F. Many millions in the Jewish community will probably see the film just to see if it's anti-Semitic and/or because parts of it are spoken in Hebrew.

- If that's what Gibson's banking on, he's in serious trouble. Jews tend not to pay money to people who they believe have an antisemitic agenda, as you've bemoaned on numerous occasions.

LevinE, you don't have a case.

- No, you don't have an analysis.

>and it comes with seriously embarassing baggage attached.

Oh, come on. The only "embarrassing baggage" from the POV of Jewish executives that run the MPAA studios is the fact that it will probably promote the Christian agenda, as I already stated.

- No, the embarassment is in the fact that large numbers of people will connect the film with a potential antisemitic agenda. Most Jews are not juvenile idiots who believe that religion is a high school popularity contest.

>No executive wants to touch a hot potato like that,

Oh horse.

- The film's box-office doubtful in a genre that's considered commercially forbidden, and large numbers of people feel that it's connected with antisemitism. Few executives anywhere will want to chance their careers on that: The risk-to-reward ratio's too high.

>especially when its commercial prospects are very unclear.

Horse.

- Sorry, but you're simply wrong. You are just fundamentally incapable of thinking commercially, which is why you were turned down for executive positions at the studios you applied to. Stick to directing and hire a business manager.

>Its only prospects for box-office success have been gained from the controversy surrounding it, which may all be part of Mel's master plan.

Well. Good master plan, since Mel probably knows the MO of the studios anyway. And that MO is clearly spelled out at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/bginfo.htm

- In that the "master plan" of the studios is to "distribute movies that make more money than they cost to produce."

Re(4): DREAMWORKS Flunks Diversity 101
Posted on October 27, 2003 at 04:29:20 PM by James Jaeger

>- A) Gibson's been in plenty of crappy movies, and his record hardly supports the thesis that anything he stamps his name on will be a masterpiece, unless you think The Singing Detective is a film classic.

Since I haven't seen it I have no comment. Gibson has been in enough good films for anyone to give him a little free reign as Warner did for Travolta on BATTLEFIELD EARTH and Universal did for Spielberg on SHINDLER'S LIST.

Gibson did just fine in SIGNS, THE PATRIOT, WE WERE SOLDIERS, PAYBACK, the LEATAL WEAPON pictures, CONSPIRACY THEORY, RANSOM, BRAVEHEART, TEQUILLA SUNRISE, and the MAD MAX pictures

I bet if Gibson wanted to do a movie called THE PASSION, a story about how a Jewish family survived the Holocaust, his beloved home studio, FOX, or some other MPAA studio would have financed it in a millisecond, at least distributed it.

>- Not when it embarasses the hell out of the studios, and leaves them open to the charge that they're furthering a bigoted agenda, in a commercially doubtful genre.

Ridiculous. The only thing they should be embarassed about is their OWN bigotry.

>3) Your comment that the only reason the studios didn't distribute it is because they didn't want to promote a "Christian agenda" is bullshit: They make many films that promote a Christian agenda or have specifically Christian premises, including numerous filmed accounts of the Gospel narratives.

Yeah, yeah, prove it. If this were true, then they would have included Mel's movie as one more such movie out of the "many." Like I said, they're happy to see any low budget abortion of a Christian movie made because it makes Christians in general look all the worse. Were that not true, they would have jumped to finance and distribute a good project, THE PASSION, with a name star attached.



>- You've provided no such proof or evidence.

I have watched a number of Christian movies over the past 10 years. They were so bad I didn't memorize their titles or directors. Sorry.

>Most of the available evidence...

Oh, most available evidence. This is your logo statement of horse.

>...indicates that they make films that will appeal to their audiences.

Maybe 75% of the time, but the other percentage of the time it's movies to support their worldviews, as I have gone over before.

>Simply listing various executives with Jewish names, and then correlating it to your stereotypes of what Jews would think or like doesn't establish your thesis.

That's not how John Cones did his research Dude. He looked at the trends FIRST and then asked the question: Who? SECOND.

>Applied here: Studio execs only greenlight what aligns with their long-term agenda and this agenda is more aligned with making people aware of the Holocaust than making them aware that Jesus Christ came to Earth with an important message.

>- Bullshit: The Last Temptation of Christ was hardly a cut-rate production, as it made virtually every critics' Ten Best list that year.

Horse. Every Christian I have ever spoken to hated that film. What critics are these? And since when are critics THE AUDIENCE.

>Films promoting a Christian message or featuring Christian premises include End of Days, Bless the Child, Stigmata, and Jesus of Montreal. Those aren't exactly low-budget films. Even Dracula 2000 had a pro-Christian message, with the evil monster finally being destroyed through the power of the Saviour. That's a lot considering the fact that the average ticketbuyer does not want to be hit with a heavy religious message. And your idea that Hollywood executives are implementing a "long-term Jewish agenda" designed to harm Christianity is just more bigoted, paranoid bullshit.

No it's you that are full of horse. In just the past year there have been at least 5 Holocaust films among which were: MAX, THE PIANO, AMEN, THE GREY ZONE.

>Mel's is just the latest and goriest.

Horse.

>When has a gorier one ever been made? When was the last one made?

There have been plenty of gory movies made in non-stop insanity.


>- Couldn't be too much of the Christian world as it was written, directed, and produced by devout Christians, and adapted from a best-selling novel by a devout Christian. The primary groups that were opposed to it were born-agains and fundamentalists, almost all of whom condemned the film without even seeing it. Sophisticated viewers understood that it was not blasphemous. Many such Christians considered the film to be a masterpiece. That's why many non-Jewish critics proclaimed at the time that it was Scorsese's best film, and the greatest of the decade.

I personally liked the film. So what are you trying to say? That more films come out of Hollywood with Christian interests than Jewish. I don't think so.


>- Apparently, you weren't able to perceive the subtleties I mentioned above.

False.


>- It's not a studio picture - it's an independent, and Gibson has no reason to lie, as doing so would make it less likely a studio would pick it up. By the way, I've been involved with several projects which I can assure you would not have been correctly estimated by your crude rule of thumb. The latter would be rather difficult to validate in any case as you have no access to the actual production budgets of the movies in question.

Again you show your ignorance of motion picture production. An independent picture is more likely to inflate its budget because independents know that they will have to deal with studio/distributors who will try to screw them out of their recoupment as their SOP. ON the other hand, a studio will only inflate its budget for PR effect.


>That's because, since the film was blasphemy, it didn't receive support from the Christian world

- Only the most unsophisticated elements of the Christian world considered it blasphemous, and those that did said so without even seeing the picture.

Your assumption. Hey, last time I looked I was a Christian. You're a Jew. Who do you think is more qualified to know how a film was received in the Christian world?

>The fact that numerous Christian critics proclaimed the film one of the greatest they'd ever seen belies your interpretation.

Critics often do not represent the movie-going audience. If they did, all the studios would have to do is make films the critics like and then filmmaking would not be very "risky."


>- Even adjusted for the relative Consumer Price Indices of the eras, it would still disqualify your argument.

Movies back in the early 80s were an average of $10,000,000.


>I never MADE that assumption. Your straw is showing again. I said that 10 PERCENT go see the movie. Get it? My assumption was based on the idea that 90% DON'T go see it. Pretty conservative if you ask anyone.

>- No, your lame assumption was that 100% of Christians make up the potential market to which the 90% figure should be applied. They don't. Many Christians won't even consider seeing it because it's so graphic, or because they believe it's inherently blasphemous to represent Christ on a film screen. First you need to eliminate all those individuals from the pool before you start determining the sample population that would feel like spending $10 to buy a ticket to a film in dead languages with subtitles.

Gee, let's say you are even right on this, that the potential market was "only" 900 million instead of a billion. Well 10% of 900 million is only 90 million x $10 for a ticket, as you suggest, gives us $900 million. So I guess you're right -- the picture would make $400 million than I suggested before.

>The fact is that biblical movies have not done well in recent times,

>>Because of the reason I stated above.

>- No, it's primarily because large numbers of people are no longer interested in or believe in the Bible, or care to see movies based on it. You could spend $100 million on a biblical epic these days, and it isn't clear that it would draw an audience sizable enough to make it profitable. Large numbers of people see it as corny. That's not to say there aren't exceptions to that rule in the general population, but it's not exceptions that make a film profitable, it's the masses.

Well we'll see I guess.


>- Just go to the page for the film on IMDB and click on "Box Office."

>There are no indications that this one will necessarily do any better,

Sure there are PLENTY of indications:

>>A. There are over a billion Christians on the planet.

>
- That doesn't mean that they all compose a potential market for Gibson's film, any more than the world's twelve million Jews all made up a potential market for King David. Vast numbers of them won't sit through a film with subtitles, or simply consider a cinematic representation of Christ a blasphemy in itself. Plus studios know that they won't get fair returns from foreign markets, so they aren't calculated similarly to domestic proceeds.

Mitch, you can't qualify the word potential. Potential Christian Market means ALL the people that are Christians. They are the POTENTIAL number of Christians out there. My ultra conservative 10% takes into account that not all of the POTENTIAL will watch the movie.

Even if the "potential" market was only 500,000,000 and 50% of them went that would be more than enough money to justify making this picture.

>B. The film has already generated VAST PR through media and WOM to a significant portion of that billion.

>- That will easily turn off as many as it turns on.

No, that's not the way it works. Many people went to see BATTLEFIELF EARTH when they heard it was one of the worst Sci-fi pictures ever made. Same with PINK FLAMINGOS

>C. It's being produced/directed by a super-star with proven track record.

>- He's had numerous flops, and has never made an art film before, unless you count Man without a Face as an "art film." Plus he doesn't appear in it, and has little directorial experience besides Braveheart.

Oh, "besides" BRAVEHEART. Let's just gloss by that one. (BTW, Mitch, the names of movies are traditionally capitalized.)

>D. The picture is not blasphemous, but authentic.

>- Many Christians, as I've already mentioned, simply consider any cinematic representation of Christ blasphemous.

Many? I guess all those Born Agains who don't watch movies, like the LAST TEMTATION, anyway. Eh?


>E. It has subtitles, yet retains the flavor of the original languages spoken at the time.

>- Films with subtitles usually make a lot less money than films in an audience's native language. Because no one alive today speaks Aramaic or Hebrew, that means there's no one who speaks the movies' language as a native.

>F. Many millions in the Jewish community will probably see the film just to see if it's anti-Semitic and/or because parts of it are spoken in Hebrew.

>- If that's what Gibson's banking on, he's in serious trouble. Jews tend not to pay money to people who they believe have an antisemitic agenda, as you've bemoaned on numerous occasions.

You mean Jews act collectively? I though they were individualistic?

>>LevinE, you don't have a case.

>- No, you don't have an analysis.

See above.

>>and it comes with seriously embarrassing baggage attached.

>Oh, come on. The only "embarrassing baggage" from the POV of Jewish executives that run the MPAA studios is the fact that it will probably promote the Christian agenda, as I already stated.

>- No, the embarrassment is in the fact that large numbers of people will connect the film with a potential antisemitic agenda. Most Jews are not juvenile idiots who believe that religion is a high school popularity contest.

I would be very surprised if the film is actually anti-Semitic. After it's in theaters and people see that it's not, many will feel like fools for believing the ADL and it lapdogs.


>No executive wants to touch a hot potato like that,

>Oh horse.

>- The film's box-office doubtful in a genre that's considered commercially forbidden, and large numbers of people feel that it's connected with antisemitism. Few executives anywhere will want to chance their careers on that: The risk-to-reward ratio's too high.

>especially when its commercial prospects are very unclear.

Horse.

- Sorry, but you're simply wrong. You are just fundamentally incapable of thinking commercially, which is why you were turned down for executive positions at the studios you applied to. Stick to directing and hire a business manager.

How do you know what I have applied for or not?

>Its only prospects for box-office success have been gained from the controversy surrounding it, which may all be part of Mel's master plan.

>>Well. Good master plan, since Mel probably knows the MO of the studios anyway. And that MO is clearly spelled out at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/bginfo.htm

>- In that the "master plan" of the studios is to "distribute movies that make more money than they cost to produce."

As I posted before, maybe 75% is to make money and the other 25% is to "service" their worldview. Confront truth LevinE.

James Jaeger

Re(4): DREAMWORKS Flunks Diversity 101
Posted on October 26, 2003 at 11:26:43 PM by George Shelps

The fact is that biblical movies have not done well in recent times, Because of the reason I stated above.

Re(5): DREAMWORKS Flunks Diversity 101
Posted on October 27, 2003 at 02:50:18 AM by Mitchell Levine

In my opinion, and several sociologists', all of that is tied to the recession of traditional religious belief in the country.

I'm not implying that's a good thing and I'm not implying it's a bad thing. I'm just saying it is.

That, of course, doesn't mean there isn't a core of religious believers out there, Christian, Jewish, or, like myself, believers in Eastern spirituality. It only means that it's no longer the norm of the overwhelming majority of Americans it was in the days of the epics.

It also doesn't mean those masses don't identify with a religious tradition, and say that they're Christian or Jewish (or Hindu or Muslim or...). It means that fewer today accept the orthodox versions of the religious beliefs that were often taken for granted in the Golden Age of the studios.

The hit in overall attendance that theatres have seen since the popularization of television must have something to do with it to - but regardless hyper-expensive blockbusters continue to appear. Whether the cost of, say, Titanic or the Matrix movies is on a par with the DeMille pictures adjusted for inflation I don't know, but at the very least I'd assume that it would have to be just as improbable they would be viable either.

Re(5): DREAMWORKS Flunks Diversity 101
Posted on October 27, 2003 at 09:18:50 PM by Mitchell Levine



Gibson did just fine in SIGNS, THE PATRIOT, WE WERE SOLDIERS, PAYBACK, the LEATAL WEAPON pictures, CONSPIRACY THEORY, RANSOM, BRAVEHEART, TEQUILLA SUNRISE, and the MAD MAX pictures

- Signs, Conspiracy Theory, and Tequila Sunrise all got Golden Turkey awards, so not everyone agrees that those were good movies. I agree about all the rest, except the last Mad Max movie.

I bet if Gibson wanted to do a movie called THE PASSION, a story about how a Jewish family survived the Holocaust, his beloved home studio, FOX, or some other MPAA studio would have financed it in a millisecond, at least distributed it.

- There's nothing wrong with that, if that's what he wanted to do. Most critics agree that the Holocaust genre is played out. People still continue to be fascinated by it, and buy tickets, so the films keep getting made. To date though, no one's really made a film which conveys the authentic experience of being interned in Buchenwald or Treblinka, I suspect, although I, of course, wasn't there.

>- Not when it embarasses the hell out of the studios, and leaves them open to the charge that they're furthering a bigoted agenda, in a commercially doubtful genre.

Ridiculous. The only thing they should be embarassed about is their OWN bigotry.

- Bullshit! Refusing to distribute a film that you feel stigmatizes your ethnic group is NOT bigotry! If a Greek production company refused to carry a Jewish producer's My Big Fat Greek Wedding because they felt it stereotyped their people, you would have it applauded it, and if you insist on applying a different standard for Jews, you're a hypocrite.


Yeah, yeah, prove it. If this were true, then they would have included Mel's movie as one more such movie out of the "many." Like I said, they're happy to see any low budget abortion of a Christian movie made because it makes Christians in general look all the worse.

- Stigmata, Jesus of Montreal, Bless the Child, End of Days, Jesus Christ Superstar, The Seventh Sign, and Dracula 2000 were low-budget films designed to make Christianity look bad? I don't think so.

Were that not true, they would have jumped to finance and distribute a good project, THE PASSION, with a name star attached.

- Not when it's believed to be a bigoted diatribe, is filled with gore, and is written in dead languages, with or without subtitles. Not everyone agrees it's a good project and it carries a heavy religious message that usually spells box-office poison.



>- You've provided no such proof or evidence.

I have watched a number of Christian movies over the past 10 years. They were so bad I didn't memorize their titles or directors. Sorry.

- If you're blaming this on Jews, then you really must blame Jews for literally everything.


>...indicates that they make films that will appeal to their audiences.

Maybe 75% of the time, but the other percentage of the time it's movies to support their worldviews, as I have gone over before.

- You have absolutely NO evidence to support this dogmatism: It's just a flimsy rationalization designed to hopefully try and gloss over the serious logical incompatibility of your thesis with actual, documentable studio practice.

>Simply listing various executives with Jewish names, and then correlating it to your stereotypes of what Jews would think or like doesn't establish your thesis.

That's not how John Cones did his research Dude. He looked at the trends FIRST and then asked the question: Who? SECOND.

- Bunk. If he hadn't noticed that many studio executives were Jewish, he never would have carried out his unscientific, poorly designed pseudoresearch. He did NOT start out from the zero point and then deduce your Jewish conspiracy theory

>- Bullshit: The Last Temptation of Christ was hardly a cut-rate production, as it made virtually every critics' Ten Best list that year.

Horse. Every Christian I have ever spoken to hated that film. What critics are these? And since when are critics THE AUDIENCE.

- Numerous critics put it on their Ten Best of the Year lists that year, and if every Christian you know hated that movie, you should really spend your time with more Christians and fewer Scientologists.



No it's you that are full of horse. In just the past year there have been at least 5 Holocaust films among which were: MAX, THE PIANO, AMEN, THE GREY ZONE.

- So what? I only saw the first two films, but they were fine, interesting productions. Your idea that Holocaust films harm Christianity is loony. It's not a freaking popularity contest. Films get made because there's an audience that wants to see them (or at least it's believed so). Biblical pictures haven't done well since the 50's or 60's - including Jewish ones - but WWII is recent history that Americans took part in.

>When has a gorier one ever been made? When was the last one made?

There have been plenty of gory movies made in non-stop insanity.

- No, when has a gorier NARRATIVE OF THE GOSPELS been made - that was the question - not a gorier movie in general. Obviously, it's not Cannibal Holocaust.



I personally liked the film. So what are you trying to say? That more films come out of Hollywood with Christian interests than Jewish. I don't think so.

- Once again, neither religion nor the movie business are popularity contests. It is not the case that studios have to give equal time to Jewish and Christian movies, and a proportionately smaller amount of time to other religions. Scripts that test well and have mass appeal will get made. Biblical pictures, subtitled pictures, and period pictures are all documented commercial no-no's, as any introductory book on screenwriting will confirm. When's the last time anyone made a picture based on the Old Testament either? King David was the last one I know of, and it was a terrible flop. At that time, Richard Gere was just as big a star as Gibson is now. Mel's picture had several strikes against it going in, and his stated desire to show it in Aramaic and Hebrew only was the last one. All of that applies even before the question of deicide was known.

Again you show your ignorance of motion picture production. An independent picture is more likely to inflate its budget because independents know that they will have to deal with studio/distributors who will try to screw them out of their recoupment as their SOP. ON the other hand, a studio will only inflate its budget for PR effect.

- I've worked with several independent production companies, and most of them have to finance their stuff with completion bonds. Overstating their budgets only harms their ability to get financing. A film I worked on and pitched called The Slaughterwright had exactly this problem. If we had inflated the budget, they never would have gotten the full balance of the loans that got the movie made. And, like I said, since you don't have access to most films production budgets to compare them with their stated budgets, you have no way of validating the statement.

- Only the most unsophisticated elements of the Christian world considered it blasphemous, and those that did said so without even seeing the picture.

Your assumption. Hey, last time I looked I was a Christian. You're a Jew. Who do you think is more qualified to know how a film was received in the Christian world?

- Look again: Half of my family is Catholic, and I graduated from Catholic school in 1985. A surname - as you've noticed - doesn't always tell the whole story.

Critics often do not represent the movie-going audience. If they did, all the studios would have to do is make films the critics like and then filmmaking would not be very "risky."

- If that were true, they certainly wouldn't hold press junkets, would they? Getting Ebert and Roeper's thumbs-up is considered slightly important in marketing a film.


Movies back in the early 80s were an average of $10,000,000.

- Sure: For example, E.T. was made for about the above sum. Now adjust it for the consumer price index and industry average for production budgets.



Gee, let's say you are even right on this, that the potential market was "only" 900 million instead of a billion. Well 10% of 900 million is only 90 million x $10 for a ticket, as you suggest, gives us $900 million. So I guess you're right -- the picture would make $400 million than I suggested before.

- It's not even close to that: Numerous Christians throughout the world live in abject poverty in areas where the film won't be released or that have no movie theatres. Even in the U.S., vast portions of the Bible Belt and Southwest have socioeconomic norms that may or may not allow those Christians to buy a ticket. Plus Christianity is the norm for many minority demographic groups that have economic resources below the general run of the middle-class, if not the poverty level. This doesn't even consider the fact that the primary ticketbuying audience is in the 18-24 age bracket, a demographic noted for not typically liking presentations of traditional religous material. Your presumption that all Christians everywhere make up the potential market for the film is rather naive. Only a small fraction of Christians will actually even consider or be able to buy a ticket. Even with all of the free publicity, Mel will be quite fortunate if his B.O. breaks $40 million.

Well we'll see I guess.

- I'll be interested in seeing myself. In fact, I'm looking forward to the film personally. I agree with you that Foxman and the ADL have probably completely overreacted, but, given the effect the deicide thing has had on the Jewish community, it shouldn't be hard to understand why he would feel that way. Still, you should really see a film before criticizing it.


Sure there are PLENTY of indications:
Mitch, you can't qualify the word potential. Potential Christian Market means ALL the people that are Christians.

- It's simply not the case that all of those Christians make up a potential market for the film: As I mentioned, many of those people can't possibly see the film or afford to pay for a ticket. Many have religious objections to any portrayal of the Saviour on film, or will be turned off by Gibson's Catholic-style interpretation of the Gospels. If a fifth or tenth of those billion people make up a true potential audience, then Mel's lucky. And the percentage I'd apply as a sample proportion would be more like 5%. Jesus Christ Superstar - another film claimed to have antisemitic overtones - probably had a bigger built-in audience, and even adjusted for inflation, it wouldn't have generated anywhere near the figures you mention here. And that was in English, and didn't have horrific gore.


Even if the "potential" market was only 500,000,000 and 50% of them went that would be more than enough money to justify making this picture.

- The justification for making the picture is that it's a (supposedly) realistic treatment of the Passion presented in an original way. It's foolish to believe that in addition it will be a blockbuster. If it makes back its cost and Gibson doesn't lose his investment nut, he'll be lucky.


>- That will easily turn off as many as it turns on.

No, that's not the way it works. Many people went to see BATTLEFIELF EARTH when they heard it was one of the worst Sci-fi pictures ever made. Same with PINK FLAMINGOS

- No one is ever likely to see Mel's picture as a camp classic, unless it's much more poorly handled than claimed.

>C. It's being produced/directed by a super-star with proven track record.

>- He's had numerous flops, and has never made an art film before, unless you count Man without a Face as an "art film." Plus he doesn't appear in it, and has little directorial experience besides Braveheart.

Oh, "besides" BRAVEHEART. Let's just gloss by that one. (BTW, Mitch, the names of movies are traditionally capitalized.

- Like YOU never make a typo??? Speak not on the mote in thy brother's eye...

>D. The picture is not blasphemous, but authentic.

>- Many Christians, as I've already mentioned, simply consider any cinematic representation of Christ blasphemous.

Many? I guess all those Born Agains who don't watch movies, like the LAST TEMTATION, anyway. Eh?

- Spend some time down South, or even in Pennslyvania, and you'll meet lots of them. Those are, of course, the most conservative of the lot. Many Lutherans and Calvinists feel this way, for example.

>- If that's what Gibson's banking on, he's in serious trouble. Jews tend not to pay money to people who they believe have an antisemitic agenda, as you've bemoaned on numerous occasions.

You mean Jews act collectively? I though they were individualistic?

- They are. However, as a general feature of human nature, people tend not to pay money to see things that offend them. Some, however, will go and see it for just the reasons you mention (including me). The idea that "millions" will is a gigantic stretch. If even thousands do, he'll have beat the odds.

How do you know what I have applied for or not?

- Because you said so in earlier posts.


>- In that the "master plan" of the studios is to "distribute movies that make more money than they cost to produce."

As I posted before, maybe 75% is to make money and the other 25% is to "service" their worldview. Confront truth LevinE.

- It isn't "truth"; it's your completely unsubstantiated hypothesis. The notion that "the Jews" are conspiring to promote a sinister agenda designed to harm Christianity is the same typical antisemitic bullshit that was circulating in the Middle Ages.

No Quota System
Posted on October 26, 2003 at 08:05:00 PM by James Jaeger

Mitchell Levine wrote:

>Only one slight problem with your plan: It would have to be combined with a proposal for what to do if it was decided, for some reason, that a particular executive was hired only for being Jewish, and not because they had sufficient qualifications. That would inevitably lead to some kind of quota system.


I don't think so. You're being overly protective. I recognize that, since the movie industry was developed predominantly by Jewish males there is bound to be a significant number of such people who are probably more qualified than your average other person. I think all we're saying at FIRM is: give other people a chance.

I am not advocating that because Jews comprise 2% of the American population that only 2% of the executive roster in the MPAA studios should be Jewish. The way it is now, it's between 60 and 80 percent Jewish. I feel this is unreasonable. Quite frankly, I would be satisfied if the ratio were 50 - 50, Jews - Gentiles.

The first fifty percent would be in recognition that Jews developed the movie industry and deserve a certain amount of respect and seniority for that, especially when Gentiles and WASPs etc., felt it was not their cup of tea. Goes to show how short-sighted they were and for this they deserve to only get 50% employment in the top ranks.

The second fifty percent would be in recognition that 274 million people in America are not Jewish, but of every imaginable demographic. These people also deserve a certain amount of respect. They deserve to have programming made FOR and BY as many of the members of their collective multi-cultural demographics as possible. The operating word being BY. It's not sufficient that bunch of Jews get together and make a bunch of programming for a bunch of Blacks. That's placation, not programming diversity.

Obviously not everyone will be able to have a top-executive voice all of the time, but there is no reason every person from every background, heritage, belief, sexual orientation and political bent can't, and shouldn't, get a fair shot at the top -- be warmly welcomed -- and have a voice part of the time. These people collectively deserve 50% employment in the top-ranks as well.

Were the studios, or the stockholders of the studios, to move policy in this direction, I bet everyone would be happier and better informed in the end. I bet people would like to see what different people come up with. Isn't it pleasant when you see some independent film that's totally original and totally different from the "feel" of a Hollywood picture? Hey, this is how the movie business could be and no one would be pushed out or invalidated. Why not?

James Jaeger

Re(1): No Quota System
Posted on October 26, 2003 at 09:33:21 PM by Mitchell Levine

- James, apparently you've overlooked this, but it should be mentioned that: THE PROPOSITION THAT YOU ARE DISCUSSING IS A QUOTA SYSTEM! Just because your suggested hiring quota is as large as 50%, and doesn't involve displacing the current executives, doesn't mean it's not a quota.

People with seniority in the business will get top management positions. No one will hire someone without such experience, nor should they. Non-Jewish top execs will happen as they work their way up through the ranks. That's the way it works in every other industry and you can't expect the film business to have to bear an additional anticompetitive burden because you're paranoid about the "Jewish influence."

Raising the public's awareness of this is good to a point because at least it lets the studios know that the public is thinking about it. The only other solution to the problem is simply time.

However, Cones' idea about a Congressional investigation into the matter given their oversight of the EEOC is a pretty reasonable one. There's no reason the studios should be exempt from meeting the same standards every other business is legally obliged to. I'm not saying the current laws shouldn't be enforced, if done so fairly.

Re(2): No Quota System
Posted on October 27, 2003 at 01:53:01 PM by James Jaeger

>- James, apparently you've overlooked this, but it should be mentioned that: THE PROPOSITION THAT YOU ARE DISCUSSING IS A QUOTA SYSTEM! Just because your suggested hiring quota is as large as 50%, and doesn't involve displacing the current executives, doesn't mean it's not a quota.

I see what you're saying but the way I am using the term "quota system" is to mean a 1:1 ratio between the population demographics and the employment demographics. I am trying to propose more of a compromise than a quota system.

>People with seniority in the business will get top management positions. No one will hire someone without such experience, nor should they. Non-Jewish top execs will happen as they work their way up through the ranks. That's the way it works in every other industry and you can't expect the film business to have to bear an additional anticompetitive burden because you're paranoid about the "Jewish influence."

It's not paranoia. Paranoia is irrational fear based upon unreality. It is widely acknowledged that nepotism and cronyism are (more) prevalent in the movie business (than most other business). Entrenched and experienced executives train-up and pass the torch to their kids and friends incessantly in the movie biz. Thus the "experience" is passed on to the privileged. This is not fair. We could wait forever for, as you say: "Non-Jewish top execs will happen as they work their way up through the ranks."


>Raising the public's awareness of this is good to a point because at least it lets the studios know that the public is thinking about it. The only other solution to the problem is simply time.

I agree on this point.

>However, Cones' idea about a Congressional investigation into the matter given their oversight of the EEOC is a pretty reasonable one. There's no reason the studios should be exempt from meeting the same standards every other business is legally obliged to. I'm not saying the current laws shouldn't be enforced, if done so fairly.

Right. Perhaps if an investigation were conducted we could see if applicable laws were being enforced. If they were not, or if they were inadequate, we could go from there.

When I used the term "gentiles" I was probably being inaccurate as my understanding of this term is that it applies to anyone who is non-Jewish. The people that should be given the break therefore include anyone who is not of the specific demographic that currently dominates Hollywood, i.e., politically liberal, not-very-religious, Jewish males of European heritage. This would include conservative Jewish females, for instance, as well as African American males or Asians.

Lastly, I think my 50-50 proposal is generous because, after all, it was a Non-Jew, Thomas Edison, who made the entire movie industry possible by inventing the motion picture camera. Early Jews and others, moved to Hollywood so they could evade paying royalties to Edison for use of his camera. The movie industry was therefore not started by Hollywood Jews(1), it was developed as a feature film industry by the Hollywood Jews, close to the Mexican border so they could escape the arm of the law. Of course, apologists will say that the entire reason the movie industry was moved to California was because of the steady sunlight needed for low EI films of the day, and a wide variety of terrain, but this is only part of the truth.

James Jaeger


---------------------------------
(1) When I use the term "Hollywood Jews" I am NOT referring to Jews in general, I am referring to only the Jewish people that comprise a portion of the demographic of politically liberal, not-very-religious, Jewish males of European heritage. We at FIRM are not addressing Jews in general because Jews in general are not in the dominating minority of the MPAA studio/distributors.

Re(3): No Quota System
Posted on October 27, 2003 at 09:54:41 PM by Mitchell Levine

I see what you're saying but the way I am using the term "quota system" is to mean a 1:1 ratio between the population demographics and the employment demographics. I am trying to propose more of a compromise than a quota system.

- Sorry, but it still meets the legal definition of a quota system, and is still unconstitutional. Do not bristle when people say you advocate for a quota system as long as you're promoting this idea.

>People with seniority in the business will get top management positions. No one will hire someone without such experience, nor should they. Non-Jewish top execs will happen as they work their way up through the ranks. That's the way it works in every other industry and you can't expect the film business to have to bear an additional anticompetitive burden because you're paranoid about the "Jewish influence."

It's not paranoia. Paranoia is irrational fear based upon unreality.

- Your belief that there's some "control group" conspiring to harm Christianity is what's paranoid.

It is widely acknowledged that nepotism and cronyism are (more) prevalent in the movie business (than most other business).

- Unlike the law, you're defining "cronyism" as simply hiring another Jew, regardless of whether or not the individual in question was actually known prior to being hired. That's not cronyism.

Entrenched and experienced executives train-up and pass the torch to their kids and friends incessantly in the movie biz. Thus the "experience" is passed on to the privileged.

- Open up any copy of Variety, and you'll see the names of numerous non-Jewish executives. Do a background check on the board of any major corporation, and you'll notice just as many "trained ups" and so on.

This is not fair. We could wait forever for, as you say: "Non-Jewish top execs will happen as they work their way up through the ranks."

- That's simply not true: The balance is changing due to the many non-Jews in the studios. They'll get their share of top positions as their careers progress.

When I used the term "gentiles" I was probably being inaccurate as my understanding of this term is that it applies to anyone who is non-Jewish. The people that should be given the break therefore include anyone who is not of the specific demographic that currently dominates Hollywood, i.e., politically liberal, not-very-religious, Jewish males of European heritage. This would include conservative Jewish females, for instance, as well as African American males or Asians.

- This simply violates the Constitution. Gender and racial preferences in college admissions have already been struck down by the High Court. It can't apply any less to a private industry.

Lastly, I think my 50-50 proposal is generous because, after all, it was a Non-Jew, Thomas Edison, who made the entire movie industry possible by inventing the motion picture camera.

- The ethnicity of the inventor has nothing to do with anything. Jobs in a free market capitalist state are NOT assigned on the basis of what various groups "racially deserve."

Early Jews and others, moved to Hollywood so they could evade paying royalties to Edison for use of his camera. The movie industry was therefore not started by Hollywood Jews(1), it was developed as a feature film industry by the Hollywood Jews, close to the Mexican border so they could escape the arm of the law.

- Actually, it was to avoid the anticompetitive East Coast gentile monopoly's vertical integration.

Re(4): No Quota System
Posted on October 28, 2003 at 03:30:13 PM by James Jaeger

>>I see what you're saying but the way I am using the term "quota system" is to mean a 1:1 ratio between the population demographics and the employment demographics. I am trying to propose more of a compromise than a quota system.

>- Sorry, but it still meets the legal definition of a quota system, and is still unconstitutional. Do not bristle when people say you advocate for a quota system as long as you're promoting this idea.

I don't bristle over quota systems. If you want to call or consider my proposal a "quota system" I don't care. If you want to call me "anti-Semitic" I still don't care. Why should I care what you, or anyone, want to label. I'm looking for resolutions to problems -- not words.

>>People with seniority in the business will get top management positions. No one will hire someone without such experience, nor should they. Non-Jewish top execs will happen as they work their way up through the ranks. That's the way it works in every other industry and you can't expect the film business to have to bear an additional anticompetitive burden because you're paranoid about the "Jewish influence."

>It's not paranoia. Paranoia is irrational fear based upon unreality.

>- Your belief that there's some "control group" conspiring to harm Christianity is what's paranoid.

That's not my belief. I don't believe that Jewish executives who control the studios are out to harm Christianity or Christians any more than I believe that Christians are out to harm Jews or Judaism. Christians in general and Jews in general have reached a mutual understanding and peace with each other here in the U.S. and after some 2,000 years. None of this is the issue. I DO believe however (and you can call it paranoia if you want) that the executives who dominate the studios that happen to, be, or call, themselves Jewish, DO have an agenda to promote that which interests them and conforms to their worldview, whatever that may be. If you want to twist this around to be my "belief that there's some "control group" conspiring to harm Christianity" -- ask me if I care.

>>It is widely acknowledged that nepotism and cronyism are (more) prevalent in the movie business (than most other business).

>- Unlike the law, you're defining "cronyism" as simply hiring another Jew, regardless of whether or not the individual in question was actually known prior to being hired. That's not cronyism.

No I'm defining it as one experienced executive passing preferential training and employment onto his friends rather than the best man or woman for the job. Now if you think Jews tend to do this more than others, as you imply by your above statement, then that's your business.

>>Entrenched and experienced executives train-up and pass the torch to their kids and friends incessantly in the movie biz. Thus the "experience" is passed on to the privileged.

>- Open up any copy of Variety, and you'll see the names of numerous non-Jewish executives. Do a background check on the board of any major corporation, and you'll notice just as many "trained ups" and so on.

We are referring to the top three executives in the 7 MPAA studios -- not all the window dressing executives that you, and apologists always, truck out. Go check out http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/control.htm#execlist and you will see that what you have said is an obfuscation.

>>This is not fair. We could wait forever for, as you say: "Non-Jewish top execs will happen as they work their way up through the ranks."

>- That's simply not true: The balance is changing due to the many non-Jews in the studios. They'll get their share of top positions as their careers progress.

Tell you what. I'll get out my current issue of the HOLLYWOOD CREATIVE DIRECTORY and look up the top three executives at the 7 MPAA studios and list them here on this site. You then look at that list and tell me how many of them are Jewish. Then we'll do the same check next year (I assume you will still be here arguing your pointless points at that time) and see if there is any change. If there is change in the direction of greater diversity -- I'll concede you're right, others are gaining seniority.

>>When I used the term "gentiles" I was probably being inaccurate as my understanding of this term is that it applies to anyone who is non-Jewish. The people that should be given the break therefore include anyone who is not of the specific demographic that currently dominates Hollywood, i.e., politically liberal, not-very-religious, Jewish males of European heritage. This would include conservative Jewish females, for instance, as well as African American males or Asians.

>- This simply violates the Constitution. Gender and racial preferences in college admissions have already been struck down by the High Court. It can't apply any less to a private industry.

The movie industry is a vastly different animal than colleges. Since the controllers of the movie industry have the opportunity to, in essence, program the society, the rules that apply to other industries and situations do not apply to the movie industry. I'm not saying that the Constitution doesn't apply to the movie industry, I'm saying that the control of the movie industry should be more representative of the demographics of the general population. If you want to call this a quota system -- then yes, I believe the movie industry needs to be under a type of QUOTA system. The more I think about this the more I am considering that perhaps this is the ONLY industry where this type of a system is totally justified. Making the deal that 50% of this industry being run by Jewish interests (when Jews didn't even invent the movie camera or start the business) is probably unreasonable. Given the potential for propaganda and abuse, the movie industry SHOULD probably only have a representative number of Jews in it - 2% as in the population. Thanks Mitchell, your incessant arguing has brought me back to my senses. What was I thinking when I said that it should be 50-50, since you consider even this generous proposal a "quota system."

So, in summery, let me get your POV straight:

1. That the data at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/control.htm#execlist is NOT incorrect;

2. You're saying that establishing the ratio of who and who in the studios is not okay because it's a quota system;

3. That the most experienced will get the positions;

4. That nepotism and cronyism are not existent or not factors;

5. That things under the conditions of 1- 4 above will self-remedy over time.

Oh brother, what a bunch of horse!


>>Lastly, I think my 50-50 proposal is generous because, after all, it was a Non-Jew, Thomas Edison, who made the entire movie industry possible by inventing the motion picture camera.

>- The ethnicity of the inventor has nothing to do with anything. Jobs in a free market capitalist state are NOT assigned on the basis of what various groups "racially deserve."

They should be in the movie industry. The movie industry, due to its propaganda nature, should be a straight representation of the public - as congress is supposed to be.

>>Early Jews and others, moved to Hollywood so they could evade paying royalties to Edison for use of his camera. The movie industry was therefore not started by Hollywood Jews(1), it was developed as a feature film industry by the Hollywood Jews, close to the Mexican border so they could escape the arm of the law.

>- Actually, it was to avoid the anticompetitive East Coast gentile monopoly's vertical integration.

Yeah, yeah, as I said, you only tell part of the story. What a spin-master you are LevinE.

James Jaeger

Re(5): No Quota System
Posted on October 28, 2003 at 09:55:49 PM by Mitchell Levine

>- Sorry, but it still meets the legal definition of a quota system, and is still unconstitutional. Do not bristle when people say you advocate for a quota system as long as you're promoting this idea.

I don't bristle over quota systems.

- Then why the hell did you name the thread "No Quota Systems," and why do both you and Cones continue to assert the bullshit party line that you "reject quota systems?"

If you want to call or consider my proposal a "quota system" I don't care. If you want to call me "anti-Semitic" I still don't care. Why should I care what you, or anyone, want to label. I'm looking for resolutions to problems -- not words.

- As the history of the 20th Century taught us, not all solutions to perceived problems are valid.

>- Your belief that there's some "control group" conspiring to harm Christianity is what's paranoid.

That's not my belief. I don't believe that Jewish executives who control the studios are out to harm Christianity or Christians any more than I believe that Christians are out to harm Jews or Judaism. Christians in general and Jews in general have reached a mutual understanding and peace with each other here in the U.S. and after some 2,000 years. None of this is the issue. I DO believe however (and you can call it paranoia if you want) that the executives who dominate the studios that happen to, be, or call, themselves Jewish, DO have an agenda to promote that which interests them and conforms to their worldview, whatever that may be.

- Excuse me, but you wouldn't be making claims like your stated belief that Jewish executives only allow low-budget Christian movies to be made specifically because it makes Christians look bad, if you didn't believe that they had some sinister conspiratorial plot to harm Christianity

If you want to twist this around to be my "belief that there's some "control group" conspiring to harm Christianity" -- ask me if I care.

- Ask me whether I care if you care.

>>It is widely acknowledged that nepotism and cronyism are (more) prevalent in the movie business (than most other business).

No I'm defining it as one experienced executive passing preferential training and employment onto his friends rather than the best man or woman for the job.

- At the uppermost executive level, what makes a candidate the most qualified for the job is experience and seniority. By the time a person has accumulated that level of experience and a satisfactory track record in an industry, they've been around long enough that of course they've already met the rest of the top people in the business. If they didn't, they couldn't possibly have enough experience to be qualified. How could you possibly be a complete unknown and be the most qualified studio president? Anyone with an adequate record of experience would already be recognized as a leader in the business.


If you want to call this a quota system -- then yes, I believe the movie industry needs to be under a type of QUOTA system. The more I think about this the more I am considering that perhaps this is the ONLY industry where this type of a system is totally justified. Making the deal that 50% of this industry being run by Jewish interests (when Jews didn't even invent the movie camera or start the business) is probably unreasonable.

- Not at all: The American form of government gives rights to individuals and not ethnic groups. You quite simply cannot legally limit individuals from a position based on their ethnicity in the United States, and you never will. Unless you can demonstrate that anyone's being excluded from consideration on the basis of ethnicity - which you can't - than equal protection forbids you from ever making ethnicity an issue. You may not like it, but it's the way it is. If that doesn't suit you, move to Europe.

Given the potential for propaganda and abuse, the movie industry SHOULD probably only have a representative number of Jews in it - 2% as in the population. Thanks Mitchell, your incessant arguing has brought me back to my senses. What was I thinking when I said that it should be 50-50, since you consider even this generous proposal a "quota system."

- That's because it is a quota system, which is why it will never happen in this country. So please stop saying that FIRM doesn't recommend quotas.

So, in summery, let me get your POV straight:

1. That the data at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/control.htm#execlist is NOT incorrect;

- It's also not correct. Quite simply, nothing can be concluded from this data. It has no credibility whatsoever.

2. You're saying that establishing the ratio of who and who in the studios is not okay because it's a quota system;

- That's because it is.

3. That the most experienced will get the positions;

- As is the case in every other industy.

4. That nepotism and cronyism are not existent or not factors;

- They are factors, but your definition of "cronyism" is logically suspect - under the circumstances; i.e.,that the candidate is sufficiently experienced to be a Hollywood CEO, the most qualified persons for the job will already be known to the hirer.

5. That things under the conditions of 1- 4 above will self-remedy over time.

- Very likely, unless you honestly believe that Gentiles are incapable of producing executives that can make the grade. Anyone with a demonstrably exceptional record of making money as an executive and leadership can eventually get serious consideration. The boards of trustees of the studios are certainly not going to turn down such an individual, and all the power and revenue they would bring, to favor an inferior Jew.



They should be in the movie industry. The movie industry, due to its propaganda nature, should be a straight representation of the public - as congress is supposed to be.

- This is a capitalist country, not a communist one, and Congress is NOT necessarily supposed to be demographically proportionate to the populace. It's only supposed to represent whom the populace believes to be most qualified to legislate on the basis of their vote. Their ethnicity is, by direct Constitutional fiat, completely irrelevant. Nowhere in the Constitution does it ever say that the legislature or government were intended to be ethnically porportionate. If the public wants to vote in Jews to take up 100% of the Senate, that's perfectly permissible for them. If, for some reason, none of the senators they vote in are Jewish, that's not a crime against democracy either.

>- Actually, it was to avoid the anticompetitive East Coast gentile monopoly's vertical integration.

Yeah, yeah, as I said, you only tell part of the story. What a spin-master you are LevinE.

- Have George Shelps explain it to you when Cones is done teaching you remedial Constitutional Law.

Re(6): No Quota System
Posted on October 31, 2003 at 04:43:57 PM by James Jaeger

>- As the history of the 20th Century taught us, not all solutions to perceived problems are valid.

Well duh, so let's use this as an excuse to become even more irrational.

>- Excuse me, but you wouldn't be making claims like your stated belief that Jewish executives only allow low-budget Christian movies to be made specifically because it makes Christians look bad, if you didn't believe that they had some sinister conspiratorial plot to harm Christianity

No excuse me, I said: "I DO believe however (and you can call it paranoia if you want) that the executives who dominate the studios that happen to, be, or call, themselves Jewish, DO have an agenda to promote that which interests them and conforms to their worldview, whatever that may be."

For those of you (i.e., LevinE) who can't read without filters over their eyes, this means that the interests of the control group crowd out the other interests to a point where any reasonable patriot will wonder if this is good for democracy, where the free interchange of ides is its life blood. In otherwords, I am NOT saying that there is some JEWISH CONSPIRACY in the studios to TARGET Christians. I am saying that the Christian interests take SECOND seat to the JEWISH interests. You as a Jewish person gonna tell me you are more interested in MY interests as a Christian than you are in your own? Well this is the same thing with the studios. The interests of people that are . . .

A. politically liberal
B. not-very-religious
C. White
D. Jewish
E. Male
F. of European heritage

. . . in the studio control group will take precedence over the interests of all others and therefore the movies that they will ALLOW to be made will reflect these interests to the EXCLUSION of all others. Is this OKAY in a Democratic society John Cones, and increasingly others, ask?

>>If you want to twist this around to be my "belief that there's some "control group" conspiring to harm Christianity" -- ask me if I care.

>- Ask me whether I care if you care.

Do you care if I care?

>- At the uppermost executive level, what makes a candidate the most qualified for the job is experience and seniority.

Exactly HOW are you defining "experience"? WHO you know or WHAT you know?

Exactly HOW are you defining "seniority"?


> By the time a person has accumulated that level of experience

WHAT level of experience?

>...and a satisfactory track record in an industry, they've been around long enough that of course they've already met the rest of the top people in the business.

MET the top people. Oh, so this IS a club! You have to have MET everyone. You can't just be a fabulous and efficient and ethical manager that knows how to organize and get things DONE -- you have to have MET everyone and kissed everyone's ass I guess. I guess this is the old boys club that Arianna Huffington speaks of, you know the ENRON and WORLDCOM and ARTHUR ANSDESON-type club. They all had "experience and seniority" too? No? So you see business as a smoozing club where everyone has to have MET everyone. This explains a lot. I guess the idea is that mutual crime pays.

>If they didn't, they couldn't possibly have enough experience to be qualified.

So they have to have met everyone and be willing to be a "team player" wink wink -- I wont exposed your crimes if you don't expose my crimes. I get it. So THIS is how Hollywood works -- but it's OKAY, because "everyone in binny does it this way." Post hoc ergo propter.

>How could you possibly be a complete . . .

A COMPLET one. Use of the superlative to qualify your illogical, ridiculous argument.

>unknown and be the most qualified . . .

MOST QUALIFIED. Another use of the superlative to give "credence" to your inane argument.

>... studio president? Anyone

ANYONE. More superlative qualification

>...with an adequate record of experience would already be recognized as a leader in the business.

Define experience?


>- Not at all: The American form of government gives rights to individuals and not ethnic groups. You quite simply cannot legally limit individuals from a position based on their ethnicity in the United States, and you never will.
Unless you can demonstrate that anyone's being excluded from consideration on the basis of ethnicity

No, the burden of proof is on YOUR back not mine. These are PUBLIC DELAWARE CORPORATIONS we're talking about. You have a copy of the DE Corporate Law? When 90-years of data show that the top 3 positions of the MPAA studios are more than 60% filled with liberal, not-very-religions, white, Jewish males of European heritage -- it's YOUR burden to prove that under Delaware law no discrimination has been occurring over the long-term in these publicly-held corporations. You prove to me that the hiring practices of these corporations that produced this incriminating record were kosher.

> - which you can't -

Which I don't have to. Management is subject to stockholders' questions. Stockholders are not subject to management's questions. The management of the MPAA studios is subject to the questions of the stockholders who demand to know why they have been employing such a narrowly-defined group of people over the past 90 years.


>than equal protection forbids you from ever making ethnicity an issue. You may not like it, but it's the way it is. If that doesn't suit you, move to Europe.

It's YOU that are bringing ethnicity into this argument. FIRM's position on diversity has NOTHING TO DO WITH ETHNICITY other than the fact that one (1) of the elements in the control group demographic just happens to be an ethnic one.

>- That's because it is a quota system, which is why it will never happen in this country. So please stop saying that FIRM doesn't recommend quotas.

>So, in summery, let me get your POV straight:

>>1. That the data at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/control.htm#execlist is NOT incorrect;

>- It's also not correct. Quite simply, nothing can be concluded from this data. It has no credibility whatsoever.

Negotiating posture. You act like a robot: invalidate everything, don't concede anything. Now I know you're full of horse. It's like if I said, data suggests that matter falls towards the ground when dropped, you'd say oh that's "not correct. Quite simply, nothing can be concluded from this data. It has no credibility whatsoever. . . "

>>2. You're saying that establishing the ratio of who and who in the studios is not okay because it's a quota system;

>- That's because it is.

>>3. That the most experienced will get the positions;

>- As is the case in every other industry.

Post hoc ergo propter.

>>4. That nepotism and cronyism are not existent or not factors;

>- They are factors, but your definition of "cronyism" is logically suspect - under the circumstances; i.e.,that the candidate is sufficiently experienced to be a Hollywood CEO, the most qualified persons for the job will already be known to the hirer.

Not necessarily. If you are defining "qualified" as someone who knows all the right people because he's Jewish and thus been introduced to all the right people because he's in a little nepotistic club, then I guess these people are the only "qualified" people. But since: "Past performance is no guarantee of future performance" these people are NOT the most qualified. Just because they have been there and "know" everyone, doesn't mean they can manage their way out of a wet paper bag. Management is the science of allocating resources effectively and responsibly in order to obtain a product or service. Sure having relationships with people are part of this, but no more than 50% part of it.

In the end, I guess my definition of "cronyism" depends on your define of "experience" and your definition of "experience" depends on my definition of "cronyism."


>>5. That things under the conditions of 1- 4 above will self-remedy over time.

>- Very likely, unless you honestly believe that Gentiles are incapable of producing executives that can make the grade. Anyone with a demonstrably exceptional record of making money as an executive and leadership can eventually get serious consideration. The boards of trustees of the studios are certainly not going to turn down such an individual, and all the power and revenue they would bring, to favor an inferior Jew.

No, but they would go to lengths to avoid a mass walkout of management. See WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON IN HOLLYWOOD.

>>They should be in the movie industry. The movie industry, due to its propaganda nature, should be a straight representation of the public - as congress is supposed to be.

>- This is a capitalist country, not a communist one, and Congress is NOT necessarily supposed to be demographically proportionate to the populace. It's only supposed to represent whom the populace believes to be most qualified to legislate on the basis of their vote.

The SpinMaster strikes again. In a democracy the people sent to congress are people that represent the interests of their constituents. Period.


>Their ethnicity is, by direct Constitutional fiat, completely irrelevant. Nowhere in the Constitution does it ever say that the legislature or government were intended to be ethnically proportionate. If the public wants to vote in Jews to take up 100% of the Senate, that's perfectly permissible for them. If, for some reason, none of the senators they vote in are Jewish, that's not a crime against democracy either.

The public, left to their own devices, votes in people that represent them and their interests. Thus your problem. Thus the need for your AIPAC.


>>- Actually, it was to avoid the anticompetitive East Coast gentile monopoly's vertical integration.

>Yeah, yeah, as I said, you only tell part of the story. What a spin-master you are LevinE.

- Have George Shelps explain it to you when Cones is done teaching you remedial Constitutional Law.

Yeah yeah yeah. . .

James Jaeger

Re(7): No Quota System
Posted on October 31, 2003 at 10:56:26 PM by Mitchell Levine

>- As the history of the 20th Century taught us, not all solutions to perceived problems are valid.

Well duh, so let's use this as an excuse to become even more irrational.

- Why would it be "rational" to promote invalid solutions, like, for example, the ones you do?

>- Excuse me, but you wouldn't be making claims like your stated belief that Jewish executives only allow low-budget Christian movies to be made specifically because it makes Christians look bad, if you didn't believe that they had some sinister conspiratorial plot to harm Christianity

No excuse me, I said: "I DO believe however (and you can call it paranoia if you want) that the executives who dominate the studios that happen to, be, or call, themselves Jewish, DO have an agenda to promote that which interests them and conforms to their worldview, whatever that may be."

- Yes, that agenda, like that of non-Jewish movie executives, is to make films that earn more in ticket sales than they cost to produce.

For those of you (i.e., LevinE) who can't read without filters over their eyes, this means that the interests of the control group crowd out the other interests to a point where any reasonable patriot will wonder if this is good for democracy, where the free interchange of ides is its life blood.

- Actually, the lifeblood of the nation is contained in the liberties enumerated in the Constitution, several of which forbid bigoted notions like the quota systems you advocate
.
In otherwords, I am NOT saying that there is some JEWISH CONSPIRACY in the studios to TARGET Christians. I am saying that the Christian interests take SECOND seat to the JEWISH interests. You as a Jewish person gonna tell me you are more interested in MY interests as a Christian than you are in your own?

- Assuming that I prioritize Judaism so highly in my interests that it consciously dominates all other factors comprising my identity, which is, of course, a typically bad assumption on your part.

Well this is the same thing with the studios. The interests of people that are . . .

A. politically liberal
B. not-very-religious
C. White
D. Jewish
E. Male
F. of European heritage

. . . in the studio control group will take precedence over the interests of all others

- There's no evidence that it would take precedence over all other interests: It's just your bigoted assumption. For example, not everyone's as obsessed with Jews or religion or ethnicity as you are.

and therefore the movies that they will ALLOW to be made will reflect these interests to the EXCLUSION of all others.

- Once again, this is a completely unwarranted assumption supported by no evidence whatsoever. You simply toss it out hoping people will believe it without questioning it, because you want to believe it. The simple fact is: The studios make movies that they believe people will want to see.

Is this OKAY in a Democratic society John Cones, and increasingly others, ask?

- Is it Ok in a democratic society to have govermental fiats which discriminate by religion? No, it's not, and that's exactly what you're recommending by your proposal to communize the movie business.

>- Ask me whether I care if you care.

Do you care if I care?

- No, thanks for asking.

>- At the uppermost executive level, what makes a candidate the most qualified for the job is experience and seniority.

Exactly HOW are you defining "experience"? WHO you know or WHAT you know?

- At the highest level of executive authority, you get hired for what you know, because you wouldn't have a demonstrated track record of success without knowing a thing or two. By the time you've established that track record, you're a known quantity - you've been in upper-management for probably about twenty years or more - and by that time, you already know everybody. There is simply no corporate industry anywhere in which positions like CEO, Chairman, and President are entry-level positions.

Exactly HOW are you defining "seniority"?

- Exactly how it sounds: An extensive record of successful administrative experience in the movie business. Please point to any top film executive that doesn't have at least 15 to 20 years of it, with numerous demonstrated successes. Good luck.

Re(7): No Quota System
Posted on October 31, 2003 at 11:38:33 PM by Mitchell Levine

>...and a satisfactory track record in an industry, they've been around long enough that of course they've already met the rest of the top people in the business.

MET the top people. Oh, so this IS a club! You have to have MET everyone.

- To have accumulated the kind of seniority and experience, and a demonstrated track record of proven successes over an extended period of time in the industry - or in any industry - that qualifies you for a top position, means you most likely WILL have met most of the people in that industry. How could you spend twenty years or more in Hollywood - or any other business - with a strong record of executive experience, including overseeing many hits and numerous seasons of maximum revenues, without meeting the other key people in the business? That happens in any business community. People socialize with others in their industry, follow the careers of successful people in their industry, engage in joint ventures with other people in their industry, etc. Other people in your profession and field constitute your peer group, and if you stay in that field over many years, you'll eventually come to meet a lot of other people in that business. There's nothing mysterious about that.

You can't just be a fabulous and efficient and ethical manager that knows how to organize and get things DONE -- you have to have MET everyone and kissed everyone's ass I guess. I guess this is the old boys club that Arianna Huffington speaks of, you know the ENRON and WORLDCOM and ARTHUR ANSDESON-type club. They all had "experience and seniority" too?

- Of course they did. You think they hired Ken Lay right off the street as CEO straight out of college? No one in any business chooses their leadership that way. Just being a fabulous manager will often get you into a middle management position. To be the CEO of a studio, you have to have years of proven experience and an extensive record of leadership, hits, and revenue. No one would ever hire someone to lead their corporation that hadn't didn't have exactly that, nor should they: It would be a recipe for economic suicide.


No? So you see business as a smoozing club where everyone has to have MET everyone.

- No, business is a subset of society where people relate to each other in much the same fashion as people everywhere else. They make friends and socialize with other people from work and their industry, keep up on and gossip about the movers and shakers in their business, strive to be noticed and recognized by their peers, etc. That doesn't mean it's some kind of sinister tribal "old boys club." It means it's a human endeavor displaying typical human social characteristics.

This explains a lot. I guess the idea is that mutual crime pays.

- There's nothing criminal about all this necessarily. Just as often, people meet socially and mutually decide to actively work to make the world a better place. Hence, we have the Knights of Pythias, Rotorarians, etc.

>If they didn't, they couldn't possibly have enough experience to be qualified.

So they have to have met everyone and be willing to be a "team player" wink wink -- I wont exposed your crimes if you don't expose my crimes.

- You're making the unwarranted assumption that any of it is "criminal." Enron and Tyco might be guilty of crimes - although even those are still only alleged - but that doesn't mean the studios certainly are. You've never been able to substantiate your claims of discrimination or exclusion in the slightest.


>How could you possibly be a complete . . .

A COMPLET one. Use of the superlative to qualify your illogical, ridiculous argument.

>unknown and be the most qualified . . .

MOST QUALIFIED. Another use of the superlative to give "credence" to your inane argument.

>... studio president? Anyone

ANYONE. More superlative qualification

- Your stupid attempts to use ad hominem innuendo here simply underline the fact that you have no logical reply to the argument.

>...with an adequate record of experience would already be recognized as a leader in the business.

Define experience?

- I think most would agree that it should involve numerous years of proven experience in studio administration at the highest executive levels, including a successful track record of hits, revenue, and profitable seasons. None of this could possibly be accumulated as a complete industry unknown, and after twenty years or so in a particular industry, you'll probably know most of the other high-level people in the business. It would be rather surprising if you didn't. You don't think Cones knows most of the other big-time Hollywood lawyers?


>- Not at all: The American form of government gives rights to individuals and not ethnic groups. You quite simply cannot legally limit individuals from a position based on their ethnicity in the United States, and you never will.
Unless you can demonstrate that anyone's being excluded from consideration on the basis of ethnicity

No, the burden of proof is on YOUR back not mine. These are PUBLIC DELAWARE CORPORATIONS we're talking about. You have a copy of the DE Corporate Law? When 90-years of data show that the top 3 positions of the MPAA studios are more than 60% filled with liberal, not-very-religions, white, Jewish males of European heritage -- it's YOUR burden to prove that under Delaware law no discrimination has been occurring over the long-term in these publicly-held corporations. You prove to me that the hiring practices of these corporations that produced this incriminating record were kosher.

- No one ever has to prove they're innocent of a crime: It's up to you to demonstrate they're guilty of one. It's a little Constitutional thing called "assumption of innocence." It also applies to Hollywood executives. Point to one studio head that didn't have twenty years or so of successful experience in the business, or non-Jewish executives that are constantly being passed over despite their superior qualifications, and you'll have a valid point. Don't and you won't.

> - which you can't -

Which I don't have to. Management is subject to stockholders' questions. Stockholders are not subject to management's questions. The management of the MPAA studios is subject to the questions of the stockholders who demand to know why they have been employing such a narrowly-defined group of people over the past 90 years.

- Because there haven't been sufficient numbers of people with the qualifications described above for them to find many suitably experienced candidates for the very highest positions outside that group, due to historical factors.


>than equal protection forbids you from ever making ethnicity an issue. You may not like it, but it's the way it is. If that doesn't suit you, move to Europe.

It's YOU that are bringing ethnicity into this argument. FIRM's position on diversity has NOTHING TO DO WITH ETHNICITY other than the fact that one (1) of the elements in the control group demographic just happens to be an ethnic one.

- That you can even say this with a straight face is truly remarkable. You can hardly type a sentence that doesn't have the word "Jew" in it, and it doesn't matter what the context is.

>- That's because it is a quota system, which is why it will never happen in this country. So please stop saying that FIRM doesn't recommend quotas.

>So, in summery, let me get your POV straight:

>>1. That the data at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/control.htm#execlist is NOT incorrect;

>- It's also not correct. Quite simply, nothing can be concluded from this data. It has no credibility whatsoever.

Negotiating posture. You act like a robot: invalidate everything, don't concede anything.

- Even if that were true, it certainly wouldn't validate that data. You can't generate valid data using invalid methodologies.

Now I know you're full of horse. It's like if I said, data suggests that matter falls towards the ground when dropped, you'd say oh that's "not correct. Quite simply, nothing can be concluded from this data. It has no credibility whatsoever. . . "

- Unlike you, Newton and Einstein created plausible theoretical formulations that explained more phenomena than opposing viewpoints, and withstood logical analysis and experimental verification.


>- As is the case in every other i- Oncndustry.

Post hoc ergo propter.

- No, that's how it should be.



>>4. That nepotism and cronyism are not existent or not factors;

>- They are factors, but your definition of "cronyism" is logically suspect - under the circumstances; i.e.,that the candidate is sufficiently experienced to be a Hollywood CEO, the most qualified persons for the job will already be known to the hirer.

Not necessarily. If you are defining "qualified" as someone who knows all the right people because he's Jewish

- Being Jewish means you know "all the right people???" This's one of the looniest things you've ever written, and that's a competitive market.


and thus been introduced to all the right people because he's in a little nepotistic club

- Once again, assuming without warrant that any of this has anything to do with being Jewish, particularly considering the many Gentile execs in the business.

, then I guess these people are the only "qualified" people. But since: "Past performance is no guarantee of future performance"

- Untrue: as any statistican will tell you, the best indicator of the future is the past. It's, however, not an infalliable indicator of future. When you can point out an industry anywhere which considers top positions entry-level, this will be reasonable enough for you to suspend the Constitution.



these people are NOT the most qualified.

- They're the most qualified because they've proven they have the skills to run a studio successfully and profitably, and that's what it should be based on. An unknown hasn't proven themselves sufficiently to be #1 yet.

Just because they have been there and "know" everyone, doesn't mean they can manage their way out of a wet paper bag.

- Other way around: Having worked as an executive in the business for the length of time it takes to accumulate the necessary track record required to be considered to be a candidate for the highest-levels of management virtually assures that you will have met most other people in your business. How could it be otherwise? Why would any board of directors say "well, even though this guy just got his G.E.D yesterday and has never seen a motion picture - I'll bet he could be a great manager anyhow?"

Management is the science of allocating resources effectively and responsibly in order to obtain a product or service. Sure having relationships with people are part of this, but no more than 50% part of it.

- That is indeed an appropriate definition of management. The way you prove that you are capable of doing this is by actually doing this - which is why CEOs, Presidents, and Chairmen are chosen on the basis of their experience. No corporation or board of trustees anywhere hires any differently, nor should they be expected to.

In the end, I guess my definition of "cronyism" depends on your define of "experience" and your definition of "experience" depends on my definition of "cronyism."

- Quite possibly. Most philosophical debates constellate around basic issues of definition.


>>5. That things under the conditions of 1- 4 above will self-remedy over time.

>- Very likely, unless you honestly believe that Gentiles are incapable of producing executives that can make the grade. Anyone with a demonstrably exceptional record of making money as an executive and leadership can eventually get serious consideration. The boards of trustees of the studios are certainly not going to turn down such an individual, and all the power and revenue they would bring, to favor an inferior Jew.

No, but they would go to lengths to avoid a mass walkout of management. See WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON IN HOLLYWOOD.

- Cones never substantiated his argument either; he just states it as a dogmatism.

>>They should be in the movie industry. The movie industry, due to its propaganda nature, should be a straight representation of the public - as congress is supposed to be.

>- This is a capitalist country, not a communist one, and Congress is NOT necessarily supposed to be demographically proportionate to the populace. It's only supposed to represent whom the populace believes to be most qualified to legislate on the basis of their vote.

The SpinMaster strikes again. In a democracy the people sent to congress are people that represent the interests of their constituents. Period.

- Period nothing: Although they do represent the interests of their constituents, they do not JUST represent the interests of their constituents only. For example, simply because their constituents might consider it in their interests to return to racial slavery, that doesn't mean it's the ethical obligation of their Congressman to amend the Bill of Rights to legislate it.


>Their ethnicity is, by direct Constitutional fiat, completely irrelevant. Nowhere in the Constitution does it ever say that the legislature or government were intended to be ethnically proportionate. If the public wants to vote in Jews to take up 100% of the Senate, that's perfectly permissible for them. If, for some reason, none of the senators they vote in are Jewish, that's not a crime against democracy either.

The public, left to their own devices, votes in people that represent them and their interests. Thus your problem. Thus the need for your AIPAC.

- Then I guess no one cares about the retired, thus the need for the AARP, the most powerful lobbying group in the country, or wishes to own a gun, thus the need for the NRA, or wishes equality for persons of color, thus the need for the NAACP, or opposes torture, thus the need for Amnesty International...

Eisenstein and Riefenstahl
Posted on October 27, 2003 at 02:54:27 PM by Joe

Why is Sergei Eisenstein (Jewish) always depicted as a film hero and Leni Riefenstahl always a propadandist when both worked in the employ of despotic regimes -- one dominated by Germans, the other by Jews?


http://www.fpp.co.uk/Letters/Hitler/Romanov090903.html

The vilification of Leni Riefenstahl, by Sergei Romanov, Focal Point
Publications, October 9, 2003

"Being Russian, I was struck by similarities between Leni Riefenstahl
and Sergei Eisenstein: both are considered to be people who changed
film-making artistically, both worked for brutal regimes, but one never
hears anything but praise about Eisenstein -- and rarely anything
but villification as Nazi Propagandist about Leni Riefenstahl. Jews
in Russia taking a very active, then leading role in the 1917 Revolution
and running of the country afterwards, protection laws were very quicly
enacted by the predominantly Jewish rulers of the new USSR punishing
"anti-semitism" (during the Civil War the Jewish population suffered
much retribution for the role of their brethren fighting on the side
of Bolsheviks), and declaring Jews a nationality that had been oppressed.
This meant that while educated Russians were banned from any teaching,
managerial etc. positions, these restrictions did not exist for the
Jews. Very soon the Jewish presence among the new bureaucracy was
astounding. As another result, the feeling among Jews was that it was
"their" revolution, their idology, their power. Film-making was immediately
recognized as part of all-important propaganda and people like Sergei
Eisenstein willingly worked creating the new language to be used on the
masses. His innovative techniques (montage is most often cited) are
continued to be recognized now. While communism criminality and
mind-numbing atrocities have long been documented as being on par with
those by the Nazis, it's very uncommon to hear the same characterisation of
one of chief and very willing propagandist to a murderous regime being
hurled at Eisenstein.

Moreover, Eisenstein is very often portrayed as a victim, an
artist whose art "continually suffered from communist incursions"! While
it is true that Stalin later consistently replaced the "old guard" of the Revolution with people of his choice, and that he did pay serious
attention to eliminating Jews from positions of power as his political
rivals, Eisenstein to the end of his days continued to produce propaganda, in which internal and concrete details might have been disliked and/or corrected by his censors, but his willingness to work for the regime was never questioned, as far as I know.

Being one of the "us" in one case -- and one of "them" in the other -- in
the predominantly Jewish business of Hollywood film-making and the largely
Jewish-controlled business of newspaper-making are the only reasons for continued discrimination between these two directors in the accepted
Western history of film that I can think of."

Re(1): Eisenstein and Riefenstahl
Posted on October 27, 2003 at 11:09:49 PM by George Shelps


Why is Sergei Eisenstein (Jewish) always depicted as a film hero and Leni Riefenstahl always a propadandist when both worked in the employ of despotic regimes -- one dominated by Germans, the other by Jews?

___For one thing, Eisenstein was not
Jewish. His father had a Jewish
heritage, but converted to Christianity.
His mother was not Jewish at all.

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Letters/Hitler/Romanov090903.html

The vilification of Leni Riefenstahl, by Sergei Romanov, Focal Point
Publications, October 9, 2003

"Being Russian, I was struck by similarities between Leni Riefenstahl
and Sergei Eisenstein: both are considered to be people who changed
film-making artistically, both worked for brutal regimes, but one never
hears anything but praise about Eisenstein -- and rarely anything
but villification as Nazi Propagandist about Leni Riefenstahl.

__That is true, but that's most because
Eisenstein suffered under Stalin's regime, his films were cut and banned,
and many believe his last film (IVAN
THE TERRIBLE, PART TWO) banned
by Stalin and released posthumously
was a criticism of Stalinism.

Riefenstahl, by contrast, was loyal
to Hitler and accorded much prestige
in the Nazi regime.


Eisenstein willingly worked creating the new language to be used on the
masses. His innovative techniques (montage is most often cited) are
continued to be recognized now. While communism criminality and
mind-numbing atrocities have long been documented as being on par with
those by the Nazis, it's very uncommon to hear the same characterisation of
one of chief and very willing propagandist to a murderous regime being hurled at Eisenstein.

___Because his propaganda films were
made in the silent era and cut and
changed by Stalin....eliminating Trotsky
from the Bolvshevik Revolution for
example.


Moreover, Eisenstein is very often portrayed as a victim, an
artist whose art "continually suffered from communist incursions"! While
it is true that Stalin later consistently replaced the "old guard" of the Revolution with people of his choice, and that he did pay serious
attention to eliminating Jews from positions of power as his political
rivals, Eisenstein to the end of his days continued to produce propaganda, in which internal and concrete details might have been disliked and/or corrected by his censors, but his willingness to work for the regime was never questioned, as far as I know.

__You're wrong. One film, BEZHIN
MEADOW, was terminated and the negative
destroyed (only still frames remain)
and Eisenstein was forced to make his
living as a teacher for long periods
of enforced film-making inactivity.


Being one of the "us" in one case -- and one of "them" in the other -- in
the predominantly Jewish business of Hollywood film-making and the largely
Jewish-controlled business of newspaper-making are the only reasons for continued discrimination between these two directors in the accepted
Western history of film that I can think of

__Well, think again.

FIRM Methodology
Posted on October 28, 2003 at 05:34:21 PM by James Jaeger

LevinE wrote:
>Simply listing various executives with Jewish names, and then correlating it to your stereotypes of what Jews would think or like doesn't establish your thesis.

Jaeger wrote:
That's not how John Cones did his research Dude. He looked at the trends FIRST and then asked the question: Who? SECOND.

LevinE wrote:
- Bunk. If he hadn't noticed that many studio executives were Jewish, he never would have carried out his unscientific, poorly designed pseudoresearch. He did NOT start out from the zero point and then deduce your Jewish conspiracy theory.

Now who's being paranoid Mitch? John started out looking at patterns of bias in the movies and then worked backwards to the demographic that controls the industry. This is what makes his study different and it's what gives you and other apologists such a supreme challenge you feel you must be here 24/7 attempting to invalidate any way possible.

James Jaeger

Re(1): FIRM Methodology
Posted on October 28, 2003 at 08:46:23 PM by Mitchell Levine

He couldn't possibly have objectively deduced any such thing from his so-called "patterns of bias" because his incompetent experimental design not only relied entirely on his subjective opinion and personal prejudices as a determination criteria, it didn't even require him to actually watch many of the movies he was supposed to be evaluating.

He used NO control group. He had no statistical controls to prevent hindsight and confirmation biases. He didn't even bother to see a big portion of the films and just read printed reviews as if that were sufficient to establish signs of "bias." Exactly what can you conclude from such "research?" Nothing. Any statistician or genuine social scientist would tell you that. That he would even pretend his speculations were objective is incredible chutzpah.

Can you make a valid deduction from invalid data? No, you can't. The fact is that his "study" was a cinematic Rorscharch blot onto which he projected his own biases. And the ironic part is, as clinical studies have revealed, the Rorscharch test itself is invalid.

Cones was perfectly familiar with the ethnic composition of Hollywood when he began his research. How do we know that? Because by the time he started his little project, he was already the leading expert in his field of entertainment law. For him never to have noticed the obvious fact that many movie executives are Jewish would have made him the stupidest jackass on Earth, and you don't get to be a leading entertainment attorney that way. For him (or you) to claim otherwise is disingenuous.

And I certainly wouldn't be encouraging him to further promote ideas like a potential Congressional investigation into Hollywood hiring practices if I were an apologist for the studios.

Re(2): FIRM Methodology
Posted on October 31, 2003 at 08:33:38 PM by James Jaeger

John started his research on the movie industry within the first couple of years he arrived in Hollywood, around 1989 -- but in any case, well before being established as a securities/entertainment attorney.

What does being someone with recognized expertise in a narrow field have to do with what they know about other aspects of an industry?

John's first research and publication was the monograph, 337 REPORTED BUSINESS PRACTICES OF THE MAJOR STUDIOS. It was based on a review of lawsuits, books, articles, trade publications and discussions with attorneys, accountants, profit participants, broker/dealers and others about such business practices. That monograph then became part of his first book, FILM FINANCE AND DISTRIBUTION -- a Dictionary of Terms. Next he worked on the book FILM INDUSTRY CONTRACTS which was followed by 43 WAYS TO FINACE YOUR FEATURE FILM and then THE FEATURE FILM DISTRIBUTION DEAL. At that point he began his research into patterns of bias in motion picture content, and the discovery of those patterns of bias then led to the question of why such patterns existed.

I'm sure John was aware of what many people said about the ethnic composition of the executives of the major studios, but since no one had conducted an actual study to see if this was true, he set out to simply to find out the truth, not to "prove" that a possible myth was true. After concluding his study -- which was conducted from effect back to cause, the first of any such study I am aware of -- he concluded that the patterns of bias reflected a very specific and narrow demographic: that those in control of the MPAA studio distributors, those entities that had the most influence on the market, tended to be politically liberal, not very religious, male, white of European heritage, and Jewish. This last element took particular courage to state in public for a non-Jewish researcher. Jewish authors had stated it before, but no one had induced it by working from the observable patterns of bias backwards to a description of those who would consistently create the movies that would establish that bias.

Again, he had the courage to make all of his research available to the public when many others, cowed by the industry and it's apologists, preferred to tell only part of the truth, i.e., deleting the Jewish element from the control group demographic. With John's study, a new dimension to this issue became apparent. Not that Jews run the Hollywood studios -– everyone in the industry knows this -- the new dimension to the issue is the EFFECT this has on general democratic society. Not that Jews are bad, the most common misinterpretation of John's work, but the idea that ANY narrow demographic controlling the most powerful communications channel in a democratic society is bad. In other words, it’s not good that they are all liberal or males. Again, as John and I have said a million times on this site, this movement and this research is not trying to target ANYONE - especially Jews. But an honest researcher can't shy away from the facts and their effects just because it's not politically correct to state them. And unfortunately this seems to be the situation in which we find ourselves when people like yourself misinterpret our motives and FIRM's purposes.

Thus it's the truth that actually bothers you Mitchell. In fact it bothers you so much you repeatedly make false statements to further your prejudicial arguments as to what John Cones is all about and his methodology.

James Jaeger

Re(3): FIRM Methodology
Posted on November 1, 2003 at 06:57:15 PM by Mitchell Levine

What does being someone with recognized expertise in a narrow field have to do with what they know about other aspects of an industry?

- Because being an entertainment attorney in Hollywood and not noticing that a lot of players in the industry are Jewish is like being a sports agent and not noticing that a lot of basketball players are black; i.e., something only an idiot would do. Mr Cones is not an idiot.

John's first research and publication was the monograph, 337 REPORTED BUSINESS PRACTICES OF THE MAJOR STUDIOS. It was based on a review of lawsuits, books, articles, trade publications and discussions with attorneys, accountants, profit participants, broker/dealers and others about such business practices. That monograph then became part of his first book, FILM FINANCE AND DISTRIBUTION -- a Dictionary of Terms. Next he worked on the book FILM INDUSTRY CONTRACTS which was followed by 43 WAYS TO FINACE YOUR FEATURE FILM and then THE FEATURE FILM DISTRIBUTION DEAL. At that point he began his research into patterns of bias in motion picture content, and the discovery of those patterns of bias then led to the question of why such patterns existed.

- His research was invalid and indicative of nothing, for reasons I've already mentioned. In fact, many of the same "patterns" also existed in Elizabethan drama, when there were virtually no Jews in England.

I'm sure John was aware of what many people said about the ethnic composition of the executives of the major studios, but since no one had conducted an actual study to see if this was true

- Actually, neo-Nazi organizations like the National Alliance had already conducted a "study" - which is still circulated even today on the internet. Other, less prejudiced, studies were also known to sociologists, some even carried out using proper methodologies.

, he set out to simply to find out the truth, not to "prove" that a possible myth was true.

- If he really wanted to know the truth he would have used appropriate research protocol.


After concluding his study -- which was conducted from effect back to cause

- Hardly. Even if were true that identifiable "patterns of bias" did exist in the movies AND true that the industry was "dominated by the Jews," it would still NOT establish that the former was CAUSED by the latter - at best, you could establish that there was a CORRELATION between the two, not that the predominance of Jews was the causal explanation of those patterns of bias. Every freshman psychology student knows that correlation does not equal causation. On the other hand, even the correlation might be a statistical artifact. His selection of the similar ethnicity as his hypothetical "cause" was completely arbitrary, and his theory that the "patterns of bias" must reflect the filmmaker's and studio's biases is just a dogmatism.

A much more plausible theory is that such patterns of bias exist in the minds of the audience, and the studios therefore pander to them in order to sell tickets. The reason why NBC, for example, once originally considered Chevy Chase as a potential replacement for Johnny Carson is that they felt television, being a mass medium, would conform to mass prejudices, and that the masses wouldn't want a Jewish late-night host.

the first of any such study I am aware of -- he concluded that the patterns of bias reflected a very specific and narrow demographic: that those in control of the MPAA studio distributors, those entities that had the most influence on the market, tended to be politically liberal, not very religious, male, white of European heritage, and Jewish.

- Exactly why he would reach this conclusion is kind of inexplicable, particularly since the "patterns of bias" he says his research reveals are not all ones typical of polically liberal people; i.e., stereotypical images of minorities and women. The only one that seems to fit would be his claim that conservatives are usually unflatteringly portrayed.

Many, if not most, of his verdicts on "bias" are highly subjective. Take, for instance, his belief that Southern sherrifs are stereotypically portrayed as bloated white crackers. That he takes to represent a liberal's view of a traditional authority figure, but it could just as easily be seen as a New England conserative's view of a backwards Southern bumpkin, a stereotype often used to justify the Northern Republican's decision to dominate the Southern Democrats.

This last element took particular courage to state in public for a non-Jewish researcher. Jewish authors had stated it before, but no one had induced it by working from the observable patterns of bias backwards to a description of those who would consistently create the movies that would establish that bias.

- He did no such thing: He started with presumptions, and ended with them.

Again, he had the courage to make all of his research available to the public when many others, cowed by the industry and it's apologists, preferred to tell only part of the truth, i.e., deleting the Jewish element from the control group demographic. With John's study, a new dimension to this issue became apparent.

- Yes, pseudo-objectivity and pseudo-scientism.

Not that Jews run the Hollywood studios -– everyone in the industry knows this -- the new dimension to the issue is the EFFECT this has on general democratic society. Not that Jews are bad, the most common misinterpretation of John's work

- I'm not claiming that's his intent. It doesn't mean his methods or conclusions are objective or correct. Hindsight and confimation biases, and the halo effect are unconscious, powerful, and relentless. That's why the protocols of double-blind experimentation are used, even in the social sciences, and Cones did not bother to do that.

but the idea that ANY narrow demographic controlling the most powerful communications channel in a democratic society is bad.

- Maybe, but quota systems are even worse, no matter how benignly they're applied.

In other words, it’s not good that they are all liberal or males.

- In a capitalist democracy, the people who have the most ability to tell stories the public wants to hear will be the most successful. Their demographic composition is irrelevant. To legislate otherwise underminines the principles that our country's built on, no matter how innocent the motivation might be.


Again, as John and I have said a million times on this site, this movement and this research is not trying to target ANYONE - especially Jews.

- You REALLY expect anyone that's read your posts to believe this???

But an honest researcher can't shy away from the facts and their effects just because it's not politically correct to state them.

- No, but that implies you know what the facts and effects truly are, which you don't because you used invalid methodologies to ascertain them.

And unfortunately this seems to be the situation in which we find ourselves when people like yourself misinterpret our motives and FIRM's purposes.

- I understand FIRM's purpose and your motivations completely: I just don't agree with them.

Thus it's the truth that actually bothers you Mitchell.

- Yes, the truth about the validity of your theories, and your apparent need to continue promoting them anyhow.

In fact it bothers you so much you repeatedly make false statements to further your prejudicial arguments as to what John Cones is all about and his methodology.

- You've never identified a false statement, nor any prejudicial arguments, you're just trying to smear an opponent.

Re(4): FIRM Methodology
Posted on November 3, 2003 at 02:24:06 PM by James Jaeger

Okay, so Mitchell, how would you do a study?

James

Re(5): FIRM Methodology
Posted on November 3, 2003 at 06:53:50 PM by Mitchell Levine



1) Get a statistically controlled sample group to review selected materials and see if they identify such "patterns of bias." Also, they should be polled to esablish what they consider to constitute "bias" and "stereotypes." Cones' own personal opinions shouldn't be the determining criteria.

2) Standards of political correctness changed over the circumscribed period of time - many of the films that Cones reviewed and used as evidence of continued "patterns of bias" couldn't be made today because of just those stereotypes - so this factor would have to be controlled for.

He simply assumed that these patterns were unchanging and that they demonstrated an ongoing form of bias. In fact, films made in the 50's and 60's would probably show much more evidence of "bias" than films made in the 70's and 80's, and they in turn would have more than films made after 1990, when many of the minority groups that were traditionally demeaned became increasingly economically empowered and started to be attractive as a ticketbuying market.

Conceivably, a study which took this historical approach could actually rebutt Cones' theory, because, although it's clear that instances of his "patterns of bias" seemed to decrease (no one in their right mind would broadcast reruns of Amos and Andy in 2003), the ethnic composition of the studios themselves didn't change. That could potentially disconfirm his idea that the patterns were due to the prejudices of a "minority-dominant control group" that was just looking to spread its ideology: If they specifically began to temper their "bias" just to sell tickets, that denies his assumption that money has nothing to do with it, and that bias is ethnically ideological.

3) He should find an entirely Jewish (and possibly male, not very religious, politically liberal, and Eastern European) group of viewers and use them as a (statistical) control group. That would help determine whether or not such bias was in fact subjective and ideological, or present but unconscious, or maybe not discernible.

It would be very important that the whole thing be organized as a double-blind trial. Quite possibly, he might be able to find a friendly sociologist at U. of Berkeley or U.C.L.A. that would be more than interested in collaborating with him. It wouldn't necessarily have to be very expensive.

Some well-conducted research might be very positive for all groups concerned. But given his totally faulty research design, he really should not be promoting his previous "study" as if it were conclusive of anything, because it's not. Bad research doesn't provide less data; it generates worthless, unusable pseudo-data.

True, doing real research might place demands on his time, but it'd offer something that his pseudo-research didn't - genuine information.

Re(6): FIRM Methodology
Posted on November 4, 2003 at 04:10:23 PM by James Jaeger

Okay, some thinking out loud:

Why don't you contact Jack Valenti at the MPAA and tell him you would like him to ask the MPAA companies to each donate the sum of $50,000 (that's $350,000) to validate or update John Cone's study. You take half the money ($175,000) and use it to do your study on behalf of the MPAA and John and I (provided John even wants to do this) will take the other $175,000 for our team and we will do the same study on behalf of the independent interests.

I am willing to see this set up any way you suggest so long as John and you agree on the methodology before hand.

I don't feel it is unfair to ask the MPAA companies to finance such a study because, if they did, I believe it would be received very well by the public. It could restore some faith in the studios that they were responsible and democratic players in this age of PIGS AT THE TROUGH.

Also, $50,000 is an insignificant sum for each studio, whereas, for any of us to personally finance such extended research would be onerous.

Lastly, I would propose that the MPAA, as part of the deal, be required to publish the results of all studies no matter how they came out. If they feel a third study is warranted or necessary, I would suggest it be done by a group of professional sociologists mutually selected and agreed upon by the MPAA and FIRM.

I think I can speak for John when I say we are only interested in the truth and the goals set forth in the FIRM Mission Statement.

James Jaeger

Re(7): FIRM Methodology
Posted on November 4, 2003 at 04:25:09 PM by Mitchell Levine

Just to begin with: What credibility would the research have if it were financed by the STUDIOS?

If you teamed with an academic, say, a sociologist or anthropologist at U.C.L.A., not only would you have the credibility of academia, you could quite possibly operate on their departmental budget, or get funding from public sources.

Re(8): FIRM Methodology
Posted on November 6, 2003 at 06:20:33 PM by James Jaeger

>Just to begin with: What credibility would the research have if it were financed by the STUDIOS?

If the study came out negative for the studios (as I would expect it would in the case of John's extended study), and the studios were willing to confront the results by allowing them to be made public through their systems -- I think a lot of people would respect that. It would be a form of self-policing and make a statement that the industry was willing to foster improvement, reform if you will.

On the other hand, your study will probably cast the studios in a more favorable light and thus people might be less inclined to feel that such a study was valid. So maybe your study should be financed by non-studio sources.

Then a third arms-length study could be done by a group of sociologists that have no connection with the movie industry.

>If you teamed with an academic, say, a sociologist or anthropologist at U.C.L.A., not only would you have the credibility of academia, you could quite possibly operate on their departmental budget, or get funding from public sources.

I'm not saying this is a bad idea for a third study. I feel it is very important for adversarial studies to be made. That's why the combined effect of a study from you and one from us would be so valuable. Both you and I are passionate about our viewpoints. Our studies therefore will leave no rock unturned, whereas the study from a third party sociologist will be less extreme, more conservative/homogeneous, less concerned . . . and this is good because issues brought up by our respective studies could be resolved by such a third party study.

James Jaeger

Re(9): FIRM Methodology
Posted on November 7, 2003 at 00:39:48 AM by Mitchell Levine

James, the point of double-blind experimental protocol is to prevent personal prejudices from influencing results, even unconsciously - which is very likely to happen without such controls.

That's what's wrong with Cones' research, and the only reason why an experiment that I led would be more likely to favor the studios.

Re(10): FIRM Methodology
Posted on November 7, 2003 at 09:03:25 PM by James Jaeger

So, what you seem to be saying is that you are not willing to attempt to design, help raise financing for, and/or conduct a new, more current and updated study of some of the questions raised by FIRM -- which in turn, means, you only want to complain.

James Jaeger

Re(11): FIRM Methodology
Posted on November 8, 2003 at 06:31:43 PM by Mitchell Levine

I never said that: What I am saying is that you have a good chance of finding someone qualified to run such an experiment at any of the universities on the West Coast.

If you need help putting a grant proposal together, I'm your man.

Re(12): FIRM Methodology
Posted on November 10, 2003 at 03:44:24 PM by James Jaeger

>If you need help putting a grant proposal together, I'm your man.

Do you have any expertise in that area?

James Jaeger

Re(13): FIRM Methodology
Posted on November 10, 2003 at 09:10:05 PM by Mitchell Levine

I've written a few.

Re(14): FIRM Methodology
Posted on November 13, 2003 at 04:18:07 PM by James Jaeger

How would you design the study? What would you say are the prospects for getting such a study done by someone in academic circles and how would you expect to be paid for your part in helping draft a grant proposal and finding a financing source for the grant?

John has already set up a non-profit entity called the Film Industry Research Institute (FIRI). This could be possibly used to provide the non-profit vehicle.

Re(15): FIRM Methodology
Posted on November 13, 2003 at 06:38:59 PM by Mitchell Levine

I wouldn't expect any payment for helping to draft a proposal, just as I assume you're not looking to profit from this either. The point, I would hope, is simply to gain some unbiased information about our mutual interest.

I don't have enough experience in research design to competently plan a study like this, but that's what sociologists do.

Why don't you contact the film and sociology departments at U.C.L.A or Berkley - they all have sites with faculty e-mail addresses available - and try to spark some interest? Even if your first point of contact isn't necessarily inclined to get involved, they might be able to refer you to a colleague, or at least point you in the right direction.

Also, I could probably arrange for a small freebie advertisement for a potential research associate in our paper, which, of course, is primarily read by East Coast academics.

Although the title may not sound promising for this enterprise, Matt Lesko's book Free Money to Change Your Life has many references to private and public grant sources that might be good as potential funding resources. The fact that John has already incorporated a non-profit to use as an umbrella is likely to be a good thing that way.

You might want to mention John's books and involvement, as it would probably help establish credibility in the minds of the people you're appealing to. Also, you should really try to downplay anything which could give the impression of sub rosa bigotry; i.e, exposure to Jenks' posts, because that will equally undermine your credibility in an environment very sensitive to political correctness.

That doesn't necessarily mean that a researcher would have to shy away from conclusions that might not seem "politically correct," however. In fact, looking for "patterns of discrimination" in Hollywood might be seen as fashionable, depending on whom you reach. A good sociologist will seriously try to plan things so that the effect of their own biases will hopefully be minimized, whatever they might be.

Just a few thoughts on my part.

Re(16): FIRM Methodology
Posted on November 15, 2003 at 04:26:57 PM by James Jaeger

Thanks for the input and thoughts Mitchell. I will let John know they are here and maybe they will give him some ideas.

James