Brando was right: Standard themes of bias in hollywood

Geronimo

I saw a movie a few years ago, in 1993 actually. It was a major studio

release by Columbia, and featured one of my favorite actors, Robert

Duvall. The movie was Geronimo--An American Legend. Maybe some of you

saw the film.

Texans

Duvall played a Western character, and in a part of the movie not

significantly related to the main theme, he had a run-in with a group

of Texans. After the Texans rode off into the sunset, the Duvall

character announced to his associates that "Texans are the lowest form

of human life". Now, I ask you, was that funny or offensive?

Different Character

What if in a different movie a character said "African-Americans are

the lowest form of human life"? Would that be funny or offensive? What

about another movie in which the character said "Latinos are the

lowest form of human life"? Funny or offensive? And, what if the movie

character said "Jews are the lowest form of human life"? Funny or

offensive?

Acceptable

Would it be any more or less acceptable if the people being descri bed

as the "lowest form of human life" were women? Christians? Arabs ?

Italian-Americans? Asians? Gays? Lesbians? or Whites from the South ?

Do your feelings differ depending on which group is being defamed?

Should your feelings differ?

Southerners

Would your feelings differ if you knew that White folks from Texas and

the American South are among a half dozen or so distinct populations

in our diverse society that have been consistently portrayed in

Hollywood movies in a negative or stereotypical manner for the last

several decades?

Significant Medium

Would your feelings differ if you realized that contrary to what we're

often led to believe by the Hollywood establishment, feature films are

much more than mere entertainment. No less an authority than our own

United States Supreme Court has actually declared that the motion

picture is a significant medium for the communication of ideas, and on

that basis has extended the broad protections of the constitutional

right of free speech to feature films?

Influence

Would your feelings differ if you realized that throughout the history

of human civiliz ation, ideas (no matter how comm unicat ed) have

always and will always be impor tant factors in influe ncing human

thinking and behav ior? And, would your feelings differ if you

realized that millions of the people who are regula rly expos ed to

the ideas comm unicat ed through film are young , not very sophis

ticated, and in some cases, not well educa ted or even menta lly balan

ced. After all, no one stands at the theatre door trying to deter mine

who can effecti vely separate reality from fantasy in movies, do they?

Repeated Viewings

If persons like any of those I've just described, repeatedly saw a

particular group consistently portrayed in a negative or stereotypical

manner in a significant number of Hollywood movies over the years

(which is exactly what happens in real life), what are the chances

that such portrayals would influence the attitudes and behavior of

some of those moviegoers with respect to the people portrayed?

Probably, pretty good, wouldn't you say?

Richard Donner

The truth is that all movies communicate messages of one sort or

another. One of our problems is that these messages have been

consistently biased. Some filmmakers readily admit they sneak messages

into their films. The Producer/Director of the Lethal Weapon series,

Richard Donner, told Daily Variety just this past month that he tries

to deliver a message in almost every picture, and that it's best if

you sneak it in while getting a laugh. In his previous Lethal Weapon

movie, the villain was a white racist from South Africa. That got a

laugh, I'm sure. But his latest message in Lethal Weapon 4 is even

more hilarious. It's a blatant attack on the National Rifle

Association. Movies are much more than mere entertainment.

Consistent Portrayals

Would you feel any different about my original question if I told you

that my ten year study of the U.S. film industry has confirmed that

(among other things) for the last 30 to 40 years at least, Hollywood

films have consistently portrayed Latinos, Christians, Italian-

Americans, Asians, Arabs and Whites from the South (including those

poor Texans) as the villains (or at least in a negative or

stereotypical manner), while simultaneously promoting politically

liberal points of view? Aside from the irony in that, some of you may

rationalize that these movie patterns of bias are merely coincidental.

Latinos

The consistency of the record, however, suggests otherwise. My study

of thousands of movies and movie reviews indicates that Hollywood,

throughout its nearly 90-year history, has specifically portrayed

LATINOS in films as mean, macho, scraggly, violent, cynical, racist,

tire slashers, drug traffickers, kidnappers, gang members, prison

inmates or in despair. Despite a couple of recent exceptions to this

general pattern, Hollywood films have traditionally contained very few

positive portrayals of Latinos. If the objective is to hold back or

create a disadvantage for Latinos in our society, I suppose there is

no better way than the historically proven method of using powerful

mass communications media to poison people's minds toward one or more

designated populations. By the way, the words and phrases used to

describe these biased movie portrayals, mostly come right out of the

reviews relied on for this research.

Arabs

My studies also show that ARABS have been portrayed in Hollywood films

as evil, barbaric, oversexed, depraved, villainous, shifty, possessed,

hostile, fanatical, criminal, mystical, wicked and crazed. Of course,

that's not enough to satisfy Hollywood, so Arabs have also been

portrayed as thieves, shady, kidnappers, enemies, mysterious,

murderers, assassins, terrorists, blood-thirsty, saboteurs,

extremists, cult-ridden, curse-stricken, oily, shifty-eyed, violent,

and idiots. Seldom have Hollywood movies contained favorable

portrayals of Arabs or Arab-Americans. Thus, millions of viewers of

Hollywood movies worldwide are being burdened with Hollywood's

perspective of what Arabs and Arab-Americans are like, which we all

have to admit is prejudiced and extremely unbalanced. In all fairness,

this record suggests that some Hollywood movies are being used as a

form of private propaganda (paid for by the unsuspecting moviegoers

themselves), and in this instance, the propaganda could have

consequences for Mid-East and world peace.

Asians

My studies also reveal that Hollywood's portrayals of ASIANS AND ASIAN-

AMERICANS consistently present them as enemies, cold, calculating,

ruthless, aggressive, criminals, slave owners and conspiring

businessmen (some of whom, of course, bought a couple of the major

Hollywood studios a few years ago). Evenso, just as with Latinos and

Arabs, it is also accurate to report that Hollywood has seldom

portrayed Asians and Asian Americans in a positive light.

Politics

>From a POLITICAL perspective, it's quite apparent that another of

these consistent patterns of Hollywood movie bias comes in the form of

negative portrayals of characters and positions representing

conservative points of view, and positive presentations of characters

and positions representing a liberal perspective. While Hollywood

movie villains often hold political views of the extreme right, seldom

does Hollywood portray its movie villains as political liberals.

Religion

Another blatant Hollywood movie bias occurs with respect to RELIGION.

Most are just overlooked, but some, including Christianity are

vigorously attacked in films. In recent decades, Hollywood has

portrayed Christians as disturbed, phony, sexually rigid, devil

worshipping cultists, manipulative, hypocritical, murder suspects,

talking to God, neurotic, fanatical, slick hucksters, Bible quoting

Nazis, outlaws, psychotic, fake spiritualists, Catholic schoolboys

running amok, dishonest, Bible pushers, Adam & Eve as pawns in a game

between God and Satan, unscrupulous, dumb, deranged preachers, an

unbalanced nun accused of killing her newborn infant, obsessed,

mentally unbalanced, destructive, foul mouthed, fraudulent and miracle

fabricators. That pretty much describes your Christian neighbors,

doesn't it? Of course, I'm not even a religious person, but regardless

of how you feel about religion and Christianity in particular, the use

of a powerful communications medium by anyone to consistently portray

Christians or any other religious characters in this manner is a

national disgrace.

South

Still another little recognized Hollywood movie bias regularly appears

in the form of negative or stereotypical portrayals of WHITES FROM THE

SOUTH. My studies reveal that during the 1970's, 80s and early '90s

Hollywood continued a long-established and consistent pattern of

negative or stereotypical portrayals of Southerners that began as

early as the 1920s. White Southerners have been most often portrayed

as hillbillies, eccentrics, murderers and other types of criminals,

flawed lawmen, country music lovers, being from small towns, cagey

Cajuns, oil field workers, rednecks, strippers and prostitutes,

plantation owners, dumb, odd-ball characters, poor, gossips, "the

lowest form of human life", aimless, lifelong losers, members of the

Ku Klux Klan, racists or otherwise prejudiced individuals. Hollywood's

record with respect to the South is nothing more than a combined form

of regional and race-based defamation.

Survey

A total of 251 movies were included in that particular survey of films

about the South. As it turns out, only 12% of them were directed by

film directors from that region of the country, which helps explain

why so many of them present negative and/or stereotypical portrayals

of these subjects. It also highlights the heart of the problem for all

of the groups mentioned. There are relatively few Latinos, Arabs,

Arab- Americans, Asians, Asian-Americans, political conservatives,

Christians or Whites from the South making the key decisions with

regard to the production and distribution of Hollywood films. Under

those circumstances, these observed patterns of bias may be considered

inevitable. The makers of these films do not, as a general rule, know

their subjects and are prejudiced themselves.

Movies Unique

Now, without continuing the litany of the few other specific groups

that Hollywood has consistently defamed (like Italian-Americans), or

consistently defamed until just the last few years (like women, gays,

lesbians and African-Americans--and even those groups are not where

they ought to be in terms of balanced movie portrayals), I am

confident in telling you that using a powerful communications medium

to consistently portray people you don't like in a negative or

stereotypical manner is wrong! So, let's look more closely at the

question of, why is this happening? More specifically, why do movies

portray these incredibly misleading stereotypes and such limited views

of the world? Well, partly because, movies are different from most

other products produced in this country. Movies, to a large extent,

tend to mirror the values, interests, cultural perspectives and

prejudices of their makers.

Control Relevant

This means it is absolutely relevant and entirely appropriate for all

of us concerned about the impact of movies on our society (and we all

should be concerned) to know exactly who in Hollywood has the power to

make the key decisions with respect to which movies are produced and

released, to determine who gets to work in the top positions on those

movies and to approve the screenplays that serve as the basis for such

motion pictures. These are the people who create, encourage or

tolerate the blatant patterns of bias just described, and we cannot

fully understand the relationships between these decision- makers,

their films and our society without knowing about their backgrounds.

Major Movies

This is particularly important with respect to the major studios and

their releases because those are the films seen by about 92% of all

theatrical moviegoers in the domestic marketplace, and these same

movies represent a significant percentage of the films seen in most

other countries.

Important Messages

In addition, as already noted, movie makers do not hesitate to use

feature films to communicate to millions of people in our society,

important messages about such sensitive topics as race, religion,

ethnicity, culture, politics, violence, sexuality or regional and

other perceived differences. Thus again, the study of any factors that

may influence the decisions by movie makers about which messages are

to be presented to our society through this powerful communications

medium are clearly relevant and appropriate.

Studio Executives

Is there anyone in this audience who would try to convince me that it

is inappropriate to consider the backgrounds of studio executives who

consistently release movies that defame Latinos, Italian- Americans,

Arabs, Arab-Americans, Asians, Asian-Americans, Christians and Whites

from the South; not to mention movies that teach our impressionable

youngsters by powerful cinematic example that, among other things, it

is acceptable to smoke, do drugs, lie in the middle of busy highways,

or take a gun to school and fire away at teachers and classmates? Who

are you kidding?

Objective Discussion

As opposed to many other Hollywood observers of the past who have

merely expressed a rather crude and subjective opinion (or tap- danced

around the truth) about this issue of who controls Hollywood, I've

actually conducted and published a study, that can be replicated by

anyone who chooses to do so, although so far as I know, no one else

has had the courage to undertake such research. Evenso, I think it is

time for us (as a nation) to get past our inability to discuss this

issue both objectively and intelligently.

Who Controls

First, my studies demonstrate that the people who still determine

which movies the vast majority of American audiences see on the screen

(that is, the real Hollywood movie "makers") are the three top studio

executives at the so-called major studio/distributors. Despite what

we're often led to believe by the so-called Hollywood establishment

about influence on a relatively small number of films from other

sources (like certain powerful actors, agents and directors), these

top studio executives are the people who directly control the

important level of Hollywood decision-making I've described, and they

have exercised that control for the nearly 90-year history of the

Hollywood-based U.S. film industry.

Specific Group

My studies demonstrate further that the most honest, accurate and fair

description of the relevant characteristics and backgrounds of the

members of this Hollywood control group is that a clear majority (not

all, but a clear majority) of it's members have been politically

liberal, not very religious, Jewish males of European heritage. And,

as with most institutions in our society, majority rules. On the other

hand, "control" in this context does not mean absolute control, but

the "exercise of dominant influence" over this particular industry.

Now, apparently this is the part of my speech that makes some people

uncomfortable, and that's not my intent, I'm just trying to get at the

truth and be as precise as possible. So, if anyone disagrees with my

facts, show me your studies. To help avoid any misunderstanding or

misinterpretation of my work, however, I'll pause here for a moment to

emphasize what I am clearly not saying.

What I'm NOT Saying

I am not saying that the behavior of this narrowly-defined Hollywood

control group (a majority of not more than twenty-five individuals at

any given time) is in any way representative of the 5.5 million or

more members of the much broader so-called Jewish community here in

the U.S., so I'm clearly not talking about Jews generally. Second, I'm

not suggesting that any of the members of the Hollywood control group

behave the way they do because they are Jewish. I am only observing

and merely criticizing the well-documented, business-related behavior

of a small group of unrepresentative individuals, who in all

likelihood and at certain levels, are behaving just like anyone else

under the same or similar circumstances. After all, as human beings,

we all tend to want to associate with people who are more like

ourselves, and since movies tend to mirror the values, interests,

cultural perspectives and prejudices of their makers (no matter who

they are), the motion pictures of any particular group will tend to

reflect the interests of that group. In addition, since the motion

picture is a significant medium for the communication of ideas, it is

essential in a democracy (based on a marketplace of freely competing

ideas) that we consumers of motion picture product and victims of its

legacy know as much about the backgrounds of these individual mass-

media communicators as possible.

Also NOT Saying

I'm not even saying that these members of the Hollywood Saying control

group think alike, merely that there is less diversity of thought in

any narrowly-defined group than there would be in a more diverse

group. Finally, I'm not alleging any sort of conspiracy. I'm only

concerned about the improper business practices and the adverse

results. On the other hand, as we will see, one of those business

practices is discrimination, and in order to clarify who the modern-

day victims of this discrimination are, we must identify as best we

can the perpetrators of the discriminatory acts.

Unfair Practices

Now, to make matters much worse and even more intolerable with respect

to Hollywood, my studies demonstrate that this small narrowly-defined

Hollywood control group has actually gained and has maintained its

dominance over the U.S. film industry through the consistent use of

several hundred of these specifically identifiable unfair, unethical,

unconscionable, anti-competitive, predatory and illegal business

practices. I specifically identify, describe and discuss these

business practices in varying degrees of detail in three of my

published books.

Outsider Exclusion

So, in addition to all of the patterns of bias in Hollywood films

noted earlier, this narrow control of Hollywood has also generally

resulted in the systematic and arbitrary exclusion of those who may be

considered "outsiders" from positions of control at the major studio/

distributors and a significant number of associated entities, in and

around the film industry. An insidious network of social and cultural

relationships based on reciprocal preferences for Hollywood insiders,

and those closely associated with them, has long enveloped this

industry. In Hollywood, that is the most accurate interpretation of

the deceptive rationalization commonly offered by the Hollywood

insiders. They say: "It's a relationship business . . . " which is

just another way of saying: "We're going to exclude you because you

don't have a relationship with us, and, of course, you don't have a

relationship with us because we don't consider you to be one of us."

Job Bias

Specifically, the executives of the Hollywood major studio/

distributors have engaged in wholesale employment discrimination from

corporate top to bottom for nearly 90 years. Not only has that

discrimination destroyed thousands of the career opportunities,

livelihoods and some lives of Blacks, Latinos, Italian- Americans,

Native-Americans, Irish, women, Arab-Americans, Asian- Americans,

Christians, Whites from the South, among others, but these Hollywood

employers have also historically shown several distinct hiring

preferences, including a strong preference for employing specific

immigrants from just 4 or 5 European countries, as opposed to hiring

equally talented persons already in the U.S. (or from other parts of

the world), and even when no demonstrated need for the employment of

immigrants was apparent.

Car Theft

If you steal a car in this country, you might very well go to prison.

If, on the other hand, you arbitrarily destroy someone else's career

by hiring your less-deserving cultural cousin for a high-paid

Hollywood studio job, our government has generally looked the other

way.

Antitrust Violations

My studies further reveal that the Hollywood control group has also

consistently violated U.S. antitrust laws and continues to do so

today. Some of you may be shocked by these allegations, because you've

been convinced that ours is a nation of laws. Unfortunately, the

Federal Election Commission records show that the arbitrarily selected

and excessively overpaid Hollywood studio executives, their spouses

and multiple political action committees gave some $23.5 million

dollars in so-called "political contributions" during a recent five

year reporting period to candidates for the U.S. Presidency (from both

major political parties) and in key Congressional races.

Justice Department

Consequently, it is absurd for us to expect, or even hope, that any

U.S. President who accepts such "generosity" would turn ment around

and direct the head of the Justice Department (or the FTC) to

vigorously enforce existing federal antitrust laws in the film

industry. Of course, a similar phenomenon occurs at the federal Equal

Employment Opportunities Commission, in Congress and at the local

level with District Attorneys. We have to face up to the fact that our

system of justice is vulnerable to the indirect political bribe,

particularly in this area of white-collar crime. And, that is one of

the important reasons why the antitrust law violations in the film

industry are occurring, and will continue to occur, until the U.S.

public becomes sufficiently informed and outraged to force an end to

the practices. And yes, in a broader context, this requires meaningful

campaign finance reform.

Adhesive

Further, most if not all, of the major studio film distribution

Contracts agreements are contracts of adhesion filled with multiple

unconscionable provisions. They have been specifically drafted and

refined over the years to give these vertically-integrated,

distributor-dominated major studios whatever discretion is necessary

to prevent revenue generated by the exploitation of any motion picture

they distribute from flowing past the distributor to anyone else,

including certain outside investors.

Creative

This illegal and manipulative control of the revenue streams Control

generated by the exploitation of feature films in all markets and

media, is routinely converted in turn, into creative control over

future motion pictures. In Hollywood, he who has the gold, rules.

Circle of Control

Thus, we come full circle back to the reasons why the previously cited

blatant patterns of bias exist in Hollywood films. Illegal business

practices have been used to gain and maintain control of the Hollywood-

based U.S. film industry. That control has been used to hire

generation after generation of individuals with similar backgrounds

and interests for the key executive positions at the major studios.

Additional unscrupulous business practices have been used to extract

unconscionable profits from the studio movies and to retain most of

those profits within the Hollywood insider community.

Uses of Money

Some of that money is used to keep the government at bay. Other

illicit revenues are used to employ the services of some of the best

hired guns for legal and legislative protection. Some is used to buy

the loyalty and silence of high-profile members of the creative

community. After all, you are not likely to complain about the actions

of someone who is paying you anywhere from $1 million to $20 million

dollars to appear in a movie are you? Other portions of these funds

are used for outrageous producer deals on the studio lots for outgoing

studio executives or "super golden parachutes" for retiring

executives. Still other such monies are used for giving insider

development deals to the girl friends, wives, other friends and family

members of studio executives. Additional funds are used for

philanthropic purposes to help gloss over what's really going on in

Hollywood, and to soften potential sources of criticism (obviously,

none of that money has been given to me). Still other profits are used

to attract other people's money to cover the costs associated with the

production and release of the movies the Hollywood insiders choose.

Nobody else matters. Complaints over the years, and there have been

many complaints from a variety of groups, have generally been met with

a wall of arrogance or temporary and superficial adjustments that have

little or no impact on the long-term distribution of power in

Hollywood.

Perfect Crime

With all of the admiration one might muster for such a thing, some may

reasonably choose to describe the Hollywood game as the "perfect

crime". Its victims go far beyond the small production, distribution

and exhibition companies in this country and around the world that are

unfairly squeezed out of the marketplace each year by the predatory

business practices of the majors, far beyond the many producers and

screenwriters whose ideas and screenplays are stolen annually without

sufficient remedy . . .

More Victims

.. . . far beyond the diverse community of "outsider" filmmakers,

(including those among the 200 or more disfavored U.S. religious

denominations), whose stories cannot be told through feature film

because they've been arbitrarily shut out of Hollywood, far beyond the

hundreds of thousands of struggling members of the creative community

who don't even realize the playing field is titled in favor of the

Hollywood insiders (or if they do, they're so afraid of being

blacklisted they won't speak out), far beyond the hundreds of

attractive young men and women who are lured to Hollywood every year

by prospects of fame and fortune, only to end up having to sell their

bodies to survive, or even worse, literally never being heard from

again . . .

Even More Victims

.. . . far beyond all those persons who are cheated out of their fair

share of the economic upside of their own films, far beyond the

Victims millions of moviegoers who are regularly deceived by the high-

powered, all-pervasive advertising, publicity and promotion, about the

subject, suitability or quality of the films they pay money to see

(which is why Jack Valenti's oft-repeated claim that "moviegoers vote

with their pocketbooks" is fraudulent), far beyond the thousands of

college level film students (possibly some of your sons or daughters)

whose choice of studies and professional futures have been based on

the misconception that there are reasonable opportunities waiting for

them in the U.S. film industry, far beyond individuals within the U.S.

academic community and government bureaucracies whose intellectual

honesty and willingness to conduct critical research regarding this

industry has been compromised by Hollywood intimidation -- to all

citizens who have to cope with the powerful negative impact of

irresponsible visual images and biased motion pictures on our children

and all of the world's societies.

Justify

I've had people try to justify what's going on in Hollywood, by

telling me that other industries in this country are just as corrupt.

Of course, I haven't spent 11 years working in or studying the

business practices of any other industry, so I can't compare. In

addition, I've always been taught that just because someone else is

doing something wrong, that's no excuse for doing the same. Further, I

can tell you that if a significant number of our other industries are

just as corrupt as the Hollywood-based U.S. film industry, this

country is in deep trouble. And, if these people are arguing that it's

ok for members of the Hollywood establishment to discriminate against

outsiders, because some others outside of Hollywood also discriminate,

then by virtue of that flawed logic, it must be ok for those others to

discriminate. Employment discrimination has to be stopped across the

board. What do you think our ongoing national debate about affirmative

action is all about? If there was no employment discrimination, there

would be no need for a remedy like affirmative action.

Wrongful Conduct

In any case, the behavior of this Hollywood control group has been so

reprehensible that over a period of some 50 years, three different

informed and sophisticated individuals who were specifically

knowledgeable about the operation of the film industry (a U.S. Supreme

Court Justice, the federal judge who supervised 30 years of film

industry compliance [or non-compliance] with the Paramount Consent

decrees and the Los Angeles-based litigating attorney who sued

Paramount on behalf of Art Buchwald), all proclaimed in writing

(independent of each other) that the Hollywood control group has a

"proclivity for wrongful conduct".

Insider Defense

In their own defense, the Hollywood insiders have historically used a

series of myths, smokescreens and straw-man arguments disseminated

through the world's most powerful and highly-paid PR machine (aided by

a partisan trade press), to cloud public discussion and understanding

of these important issues.

Narrow Control

In the broadest sense, it's my view, that it is inappropriate in our

multi-cultural society for any readily identifiable interest group

(whether the group identity is based on ethnicity, culture, religion,

race, class, region of origin, sex or sexual orientation, or

otherwise) to be allowed to dominate or control any important

communications medium, including film.

Federal Help

Now, you may be surprised to know that our federal government has a

long and well-documented history of being highly involved in helping

the Hollywood-based U.S. film industry achieve its dominance over both

the domestic and international film markets. Although, from time to

time, our government has ineptly and unsuccessfully attempted to limit

Hollywood's excesses in this regard.

Proper Role

On the other hand, our federal government has a legitimate interest

and role to play (indeed, a duty and obligation) to stop, or at least

fully investigate and consider all appropriate remedies, for any of

the employment discrimination and antitrust law violations, along with

the hundreds of other questionable business practices routinely

utilized by the Hollywood major studio/distributors.

General Welfare

In addition to any available private remedies that I might encourage,

such as class action lawsuits based on antitrust and racketeering

statutes, or more broad-based and long-term economic boycotts than

ever before instigated, our federal government, through all legitimate

means necessary, has the right and the obligation to protect the

constitutionally ordained general welfare of all our citizens from

what Professor George Gerbner calls the "pollution of our cultural

environment". Furthermore, our government has the right and a duty to

ensure that all U.S. citizens, regardless of background, have an equal

and fair opportunity to participate at all levels of the U.S. film

industry, with the appropriate long-term objectives of ensuring that

our feature films more accurately reflect the diversity of our multi-

cultural society, and communicate greater diversity in the marketplace

of ideas. The search for truth deserves no less.

Cultural Stories

In other words, none of our cultural groups should be arbitrarily

denied the opportunity to tell their important cultural stories (the

way they want to tell them), through this significant medium for the

communication of ideas. No one should be allowed to force members of

other cultures to filter their important stories through the cultural

sensibilities of a small, rather homogeneous group of film industry

gate-keepers, which is exactly what is happening in Hollywood today,

and that is exactly what has been occurring for the nearly 90-year

history of the Hollywood-based U.S. film industry. After all, as noted

earlier, movies are somewhat unique -- to a large extent, they tend to

mirror the values, interests, cultural perspectives and prejudices of

their makers. On the other hand, as we've seen, the Hollywood control

group is much too narrow in scope, and its members are prejudiced

indeed.

Weaken Democracy

Ultimately, as already pointed out by the Supreme Court, the motion

picture is a significant medium for the communication of ideas. And,

in a democratic society, we cannot afford to stand by and allow any

single narrowly-defined interest group to control or even dominate any

of our important communications media, because that inaction will

inevitably weaken, if not transform our cherished democracy into a

fraudulent facsimile. In the absence of a free marketplace of ideas,

our democracy is flawed. And, it is impossible to have a free

marketplace of ideas, so long as any of our important communications

media are controlled by one or even a few, narrowly-defined interest

groups. If we want to preserve our democracy and make the world a

better place, we need to start with what we communicate to each other,

and who gets to communicate.

http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/speech.htm

5,999,999 wrote:

<snip>

You've got quite a future in cutting/copying and pasting.

You should be very proud of yourself.

--

Notan

Can you imagine the variety of Hollywood films produced in the USA?

This list only goes from A-D

Alpha Dog

Do you know where your children are? In "Alpha Dog" they're getting busy,

chilling out, smoking blunts and chugging coolers faster than a toothless

wino. (Universal Pictures, R, 117 minutes)

Go to: Movie Details | Showtimes | Trailer | Review

Amazing Grace

"Amazing Grace," a prettified take on the life and times of the 18th-century

reformer William Wilberforce, carries a strong whiff of piety. (Samuel

Goldwyn Films, PG, 116 minutes)

Go to: Movie Details | Showtimes | Review

An Unreasonable Man

The documentary "An Unreasonable Man" is an admiring but hardly uncritical

portrait of Ralph Nader and his 2000 presidential campaign. (Red Envelope

Entertainment, NR, 122 minutes)

Go to: Movie Details | Showtimes | Trailer | Review

Apocalypto

More blood from Mel Gibson, but more "Braveheart" than "Passion of the

Christ." Ultra-violent entertainment, well executed (so to speak) but not

very surprising in the end. (Touchstone Pictures, R, 137 minutes)

Go to: Movie Details | Showtimes | Trailer | Review

The Aura

A heist, a case of mistaken identity and a lonely, epileptic taxidermist are

at the heart of this melancholy, deeply stasifying noir exercise, the second

and last feature directed by the Argentine filmmaker Fabi