Hollywood goes paranoid
Donald L Ferrt
Article Published: Sunday, May 18, 2003 - 12:00:00 AM MST
Joanne Ostrow
commentary
Hollywood goes paranoid
TV's closed-mouth conservatism surfaces in firing of 'Hitler' producer
By Joanne Ostrow
This is much more insidious than the Dixie Chicks incident: The
executive producer of this week's CBS miniseries, "Hitler: The Rise of
Evil," was fired for publicly likening the climate in America in
advance of the invasion of Iraq to the climate in pre-war Germany that
allowed the rise of the Third Reich.
Ed Gernon lost his job for drawing an analogy.
Imagine being axed for expressing an opinion about a period in history
when it was unsafe to express an opinion. If it weren't so nasty,
you'd be forgiven for thinking it was all a publicity stunt. The Dixie
Chicks have had their CDs destroyed and been banned from playlists;
Tim Robbins has had his movies boycotted. But a high-profile firing
based on the expression of an opinion marks a serious turn.
And you thought it was just another Nazi miniseries.
Based on numerous recent incidents and in the opinions of several
watchdog and academic media observers, a very real paranoia exists in
Hollywood circles these days. The mood of the entertainment culture as
a whole has become very, very cautious.
Ironically for a community perceived to have progressive or liberal
tendencies, the brakes are on.
"Entertainment is conservative, in the sense of preserving the status
quo. By definition a mass medium like television or even the movies is
always going to be that way," says Robert Thompson, Syracuse
University professor of film and television.
TV historically lags behind the culture. It doesn't steer the culture
into shocking new ideas. It has always been more follower than leader.
Television only got around to doing its groundbreaking commentary on
race relations, "All in Family," in 1971, long after 1954's Brown vs.
Board of Education and 1964's Civil Rights Act, Thompson notes.
Similarly, the first entertainment shows about Vietnam, "Tour of Duty"
and "China Beach," came more than 10 years after the war.
"It's always funny to hear people talk about the left-leaning
Hollywood and entertainment industry as though it's a radical force,"
he said, "when by definition this stuff is always going to be
conservative because it has to appeal to a lot of people."
Just ask Ed Gernon. In the story in TV Guide that got him in trouble,
Gernon explained the modern parallels he saw in the culture that
allowed a Hitler to rise to power. Viewers will draw the analogies
themselves.
"Hitler" dramatizes the suspension of civil liberties in 1930s Germany
in the name of national security, the rise of a new government agency
given special powers to protect the homeland, and the intimidation of
critics into silence.
"It basically boils down to an entire nation gripped by fear, who
ultimately chose to give up their civil rights and plunged the whole
nation into war. I can't think of a better time to examine this
history than now," Gernon told TV Guide. He said a climate of fear
nourished Germany's endorsement of Hitler's extremism, and added,
"When an entire country becomes afraid for their sovereignty, for
their safety, they will embrace ideas and strategies and positions
that they might not embrace otherwise."
If enough people watch it, the "Hitler" film could end up underscoring
Gernon's concerns. The movie is a better-than-average drama about the
culture that produced the Nazi leader; Robert Carlyle gives a riveting
performance as Hitler.
Gernon didn't mention secret tribunals, racial profiling and
elimination of lawyer-client privilege, realities of present-day
America. He didn't have to.
Gernon was sacked by the production company, Alliance Atlantis,
presumably under pressure from CBS. The network issued a statement
noting that Gernon's "personal opinions are not shared by CBS and
misrepresent the network's motivation for broadcasting this film."
The network's motivation, obviously, has little to do with urging
viewers to think and everything to do with the May sweeps.
By presenting a film with serious themes, then backing away from
serious discussion of those themes, the network hopes to have it both
ways.
As usual, Hollywood is reluctant to be seen as radical. No wonder
Michael Moore's anti-Bush outburst at the Oscars resulted in plenty of
boos from the entertainment elite. The last thing Hollywood wants is
to be perceived as out of step with the majority.
Raising the stakes
Now, during a time of national skittishness, with the "Hitler"
producer's firing, the ante has been upped.
"In an industry that essentially has got to be careful and always walk
on tiptoes anyway," Syracuse's Thompson said, "here we've got such
paranoia now, whatever happens is going to be the next Dixie Chicks
incident."
Paranoia is a strong word. But the network and studio decision-makers
are at least prone to playing it safe. In financial terms, playing it
safe means sticking with sequels that will do predictable business at
the box-office and relying on imitative series and reality shows that
have proven ratings success. In terms of content, imitation remains
the sincerest form of television. Survival means respecting the
mainstream, going with the commercial flow.
This sense of caution in entertainment programming is matched on the
news side.
"As Fox News Channel plays David to the Goliath of the 'media elite,'
it is amazing people don't realize they are the elite," Thompson said.
"Fox News is now the mainstream."
Similarly, Thompson cites the "incredible sleight-of-hand" that allows
right-wing radio talkers like Rush Limbaugh to carry on as they did
when the Republican Party was out of power.
Matthew Felling of the Center for Media and Public Affairs, a
Washington, D.C., think tank, said, "People fail to grasp the
dichotomy that has occurred - the big difference between explaining
and endorsing, for instance, why the Middle East hates America. In the
current timid media environment, there is little acknowledgment of
that distinction."
Opposing the party line can be hazardous. The Dixie Chicks suffered a
nearly 30 percent drop in airplay of their songs on country music
stations after Natalie Maines told a London audience they were
embarrassed to be from the same state as the president. Organized
efforts to boycott the group and prevent airplay were successful,
although their subsequent ticket and record sales have been robust.
Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon were disinvited from an appearance at
Cooperstown, N.Y., on the 15th anniversary of the film "Bull Durham."
The president of the Baseball Hall of Fame said, "We believe your very
public criticism of President Bush at this important - and sensitive -
time in our nation's history helps undermine the U.S. position, which
ultimately could put our troops in even more danger."
In a speech to the National Press Club, Robbins responded that, "In
the 19 months since 9/11, we have seen our democracy compromised by
fear and hatred. Basic inalienable rights, due process, the sanctity
of the home have been quickly compromised in a climate of fear. A
unified American public has grown bitterly divided, and a world
population that had profound sympathy and support for us has grown
contemptuous and distrustful, viewing us as we once viewed the Soviet
Union, as a rogue state." He'd be hard-pressed to get a platform for
those views on commercial television.
Sarandon (Robbins' partner) was dropped as a speaker at a Florida
branch of the United Way. Janeane Garofalo's outspokenness on Iraq
reportedly made her the target of a negative e-mail and telephone
campaign. Martin Sheen was slated to star in a credit card commercial
until his anti-war activism reportedly resulted in the scrapping of
the planned spot.
Eager MSNBC reporter Ashleigh Banfield was disciplined for criticizing
TV war coverage. NBC News president Neal Shapiro took Banfield "to the
woodshed" for the speech in which she criticized the networks for
portraying the Iraqi war as "glorious and wonderful," according to the
Hollywood Reporter. The network issued a surprisingly obsequious
statement saying, "She and we both agreed that she didn't intend to
demean the work of her colleagues, and she will choose her words more
carefully in the future."
At the same time, the ratings are down for NBC's Sheen-starring "The
West Wing," arguably the one pro-Democratic series on television. And
writer Aaron Sorkin is gone. The trade paper Variety reported that NBC
had wanted Sorkin to share the responsibility for script development,
and that the network was pushing for a more character-driven, less
starkly political show. After this week's finale, we can expect less
political science, more melodrama and bed-hopping.
Us vs. them
These days, it's all about choosing words carefully.
"President Bush on Sept. 12 (2001) created a very black-and-white
world," said Felling. "The message was, 'You are either with us or you
are with the enemy."' Entertainers have found out the hard way that
there is little leeway if they are not on board with administration
policy.
"It's an us-versus-them environment," Felling said. "We're all
supposed to be pulling for the homeland."
The political right continues to blast away at the fiction of "liberal
Hollywood," hoping to intimidate those who speak out, and appealing to
a public that buys the illusion that Hollywood is packed with
anti-establishment leftists.
"Even people who know otherwise have to behave as if it is true,"
Syracuse's Thompson said, "because they know that's what's going to
happen in the realm of public opinion."
In Washington, Felling notes it is "ironic that the first American
patriots held nothing sacred," in fact, they were rebels and made sure
the right to rebel was in the country's Constitution.
"In an era of terror in America, when we've been shaken to our
foundations, we are unclear what our foundations are. What's we're
seeing today is not quite McCarthyism," he said. "But there is some
sense that we're edging closer. Dissent is being stifled in profound
ways."
If interest groups discourage consumers from buying Dixie Chicks CD,
that's one thing. But when the punishment starts affecting jobs, it's
just a short step to blacklisting.
The Screen Actors Guild made that connection, likening the current
atmosphere to the witch-hunts of the 1950s. SAG posted on its website
a statement saying that no one should be denied work on the basis of
political beliefs: "The Screen Actors Guild Board of Directors,
appreciating the value of full and open debate and devoted to the
belief that the free flow of information, opinions and ideas
contributes to the health of our nation, supports the right of all
citizens, celebrated and unknown, to speak their minds freely, on any
side of any issue, as is their Constitutional right. In the same vein
- and with a painfully clear appreciation of history - we deplore the
idea that those in the public eye should suffer professionally for
having the courage to give voice to their views. Even a hint of the
blacklist must never again be tolerated in this nation."
Suddenly, "just another Nazi miniseries" has new relevance.
Gandalf Grey
the New McCarthyism.
"Donald L Ferrt" <wolfb...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:b9eb3efe.03051...@posting.google.com...
Sam Fisher
little detail escaped the nazi corporate beauracrats.
"Donald L Ferrt" <wolfb...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:b9eb3efe.03051...@posting.google.com...
Foxtrot
>Thanks for posting this. Excellent article that really sums up the roots of
>the New McCarthyism.
Boohoo, poor lefties like Gandolt, Farrt, and the Hollywood
limousine liberals whom they worship. They have finally
learned that people can be held accountable for what they
say.
>"Donald L Ferrt" <wolfb...@mindspring.com> wrote
>> http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~122~1393956,00.html
>> Hollywood goes paranoid
>> By Joanne Ostrow
>>
>> This is much more insidious than the Dixie Chicks incident: The
>> executive producer of this week's CBS miniseries, "Hitler: The Rise of
>> Evil," was fired for publicly likening the climate in America in
>> advance of the invasion of Iraq to the climate in pre-war Germany that
>> allowed the rise of the Third Reich.
>>
>> Ed Gernon lost his job for drawing an analogy.
Tough shit. Everybody has freedom of speech, but there's
no reason why your employer can't fire you for offending
him or the customers.
>> Sarandon (Robbins' partner) was dropped as a speaker at a Florida
>> branch of the United Way. Janeane Garofalo's outspokenness on Iraq
>> reportedly made her the target of a negative e-mail and telephone
>> campaign. Martin Sheen was slated to star in a credit card commercial
>> until his anti-war activism reportedly resulted in the scrapping of
>> the planned spot.
Market forces at work. What's the problem?
>> "President Bush on Sept. 12 (2001) created a very black-and-white
>> world," said Felling. "The message was, 'You are either with us or you
>> are with the enemy."' Entertainers have found out the hard way that
>> there is little leeway if they are not on board with administration
>> policy.
>>
>> "It's an us-versus-them environment," Felling said. "We're all
>> supposed to be pulling for the homeland."
That's right. The nation stands firmly behind Bush in our
fight for survival. Attack his foreign policy, and you're
attacking those who pay to watch your movies and TV
shows. The Hollywood left is learning a basic lesson in
life--don't bite the hand that feeds you.
Michael Schneider
> Imagine being axed for expressing an opinion about a period in history
> when it was unsafe to express an opinion.
Imagine trying to run a business where you could never fire anyone you
didn't like.
--
Reply to mike1@@@usfamily.net sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.
Liberty for Dummies: http://home.mn.rr.com/meadowbrookhome/z/dummies.htm
Walter Duranty to Jayson Blair: 70 years of "All the Lies Fit to Print"
in the New York Times.
Companies I will boycott for life: Wells Fargo, Hewlett Packard
Sam Fisher
news:conanyehaw-18...@64.212.140.215...
> wolfb...@mindspring.com (Donald L Ferrt) wrote:
>
> > Imagine being axed for expressing an opinion about a period in history
> > when it was unsafe to express an opinion.
>
>
> Imagine trying to run a business where you could never fire anyone you
> didn't like.
Better yet, imagine running a business where you could never fire anyone
whos competent and you personally don't like. I know it's a novel idea,
it's called labor rights, every civilized country has them.
Foxtrot
>"Michael Schneider" <conan...@usfamily.net> wrote
>> Imagine trying to run a business where you could never fire anyone you
>> didn't like.
>
>Better yet, imagine running a business where you could never fire anyone
>whos competent and you personally don't like. I know it's a novel idea,
>it's called labor rights, every civilized country has them.
So if somebody does a competent job at work, you feel they
have every right to publicly insult homosexuals while they're
off duty, and still keep their jobs, right?
Sam Fisher
group of people. For instance if the person is a bus driver or an engineer.
OW it's not exactly about "liking" or not "liking" the person but rather
"trusting" his impartiality, ie. his performance on the job as a
representative or a judge!
"Foxtrot" <fox...@null.com> wrote in message
news:g3hgcvohdlkojtuuj...@4ax.com...
John Starrett
>
> "Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Thanks for posting this. Excellent article that really sums up the roots of
> >the New McCarthyism.
>
> Boohoo, poor lefties like Gandolt, Farrt, and the Hollywood
> limousine liberals whom they worship. They have finally
> learned that people can be held accountable for what they
> say.
The limousine liberals they worship. Say it
really slowly. It sounds sooooooo convincing.
Hah! Foxtrot, you are hysterical.
You made a 2000 Chambolle-Musigny squirt out my nose!
--
John Starrett
"We have nothing to fear but the scary stuff"
Foxtrot
>Foxtrot wrote:
>> Boohoo, poor lefties like Gandolt, Farrt, and the Hollywood
>> limousine liberals whom they worship. They have finally
>> learned that people can be held accountable for what they
>> say.
>The limousine liberals they worship. Say it
>really slowly. It sounds sooooooo convincing.
>
>Hah! Foxtrot, you are hysterical.
>
>You made a 2000 Chambolle-Musigny squirt out my nose!
Don't blame me for your lack of bodily control.
Got anything on-topic to add to the conversation, or are
you limited to babbling about your facial fluid emissions?
Brain Death
Ferrt) wrote:
>This is much more insidious than the Dixie Chicks incident: The
>executive producer of this week's CBS miniseries, "Hitler: The Rise of
>Evil," was fired for publicly likening the climate in America in
>advance of the invasion of Iraq to the climate in pre-war Germany that
>allowed the rise of the Third Reich.
Maybe they quite rightly sensed that this person had a very poor
understanding of Hitler based on his comments, and that it was
embarrassing to have such a person in charge of the project?
BD
"Our policy is simple: We are not going to betray
our friends, reward the enemies of freedom, or
permit fear and retreat to become American policies.
... None of the four wars in my lifetime came about
because we were too strong. It is weakness ... that
invites adventurous adversaries to make mistaken
judgments."
-Former President Ronald Reagan
Ceesco
An incredibly stupid analogy, historically profoundly ignorant analogy. He
is, however, free to continue drawing his analogies wherever he likes,
subject to the whims of his employers.
> "It's always funny to hear people talk about the left-leaning
> Hollywood and entertainment industry as though it's a radical force,"
> he said, "when by definition this stuff is always going to be
> conservative because it has to appeal to a lot of people."
Then please explain the likes of Michael Moore. (Who has expressed even
dumber opinions and has yet to lose a job.)
> Viewers will draw the analogies themselves.
Actually they won't. The series draws it for them through the use of
language. (Calling communists "terrorists", for example.)
> Gernon didn't mention secret tribunals, racial profiling and
> elimination of lawyer-client privilege, realities of present-day
> America. He didn't have to.
All of which exist today in, oh, Europe as well. Anyone drawing that
analogy? How about discussing the number of ways America is wildly
different from pre-Nazi Germany? (Not the least of which was the economic
situation.) I suppose that would be inconvenient to these, what's the word
... dumbass arguments.
Michael Schneider
> "Michael Schneider" <conan...@usfamily.net> wrote in message
> >
> > > Imagine being axed for expressing an opinion about a period in history
> > > when it was unsafe to express an opinion.
> >
> > Imagine trying to run a business where you could never fire anyone you
> > didn't like.
>
> Better yet, imagine running a business where you could never fire anyone
> whos competent and you personally don't like.
Imagine Sam Fisher running a business in which Michael Schneider, not even
a part-owner of Sam Fisher Inc., gets to decides who's a "competent"
employee.
It would be fascism.
S. S.
"Ceesco" <cee...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:czZxa.100454$3n5....@news2.central.cox.net...
> > Ed Gernon lost his job for drawing an analogy.
> analogy? How about discussing the number of ways America is wildly
> different from pre-Nazi Germany? (Not the least of which was the economic
> situation.)
The economic situation is getting there.
Sam Fisher
> "Sam Fisher" <sam0f...@ya00000.com> wrote:
>
> > "Michael Schneider" <conan...@usfamily.net> wrote in message
> > >
> > > > Imagine being axed for expressing an opinion about a period in
history
> > > > when it was unsafe to express an opinion.
> > >
> > > Imagine trying to run a business where you could never fire anyone you
> > > didn't like.
> >
> > Better yet, imagine running a business where you could never fire anyone
> > whos competent and you personally don't like.
>
>
> Imagine Sam Fisher running a business in which Michael Schneider, not even
> a part-owner of Sam Fisher Inc., gets to decides who's a "competent"
> employee.
>
> It would be fascism.
hm. So, you think the owner who's an accountant can tell what the engineer
is worth? Ultimately that's the job of the employees manager, whether his
owner or not. I don't know what a "fascist" business is like, but the owner
deciding whos staying and whos gone based on his personal feelings and not
competence, is one that comes to my mind as such. Any time someone is fired
without well substantiated performance evaluation or department liquidation,
the case smells like a law suit to me.
AKA
> "Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Thanks for posting this. Excellent article that really sums up the roots
of
> >the New McCarthyism.
>
> Boohoo, poor lefties like Gandolt, Farrt, and the Hollywood
> limousine liberals whom they worship. They have finally
> learned that people can be held accountable for what they
> say.
>
there are so many) bush stand before the world and produce the WMD. Make
him accountable for what they say!
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release Date: 5/13/03
John Starrett
Sorry, bud. That's all I got.
By the way, you may have coined another acronym in the mold
of WMDs; FFEs for facial fluid emissions, e.g. milk
squirting out your nose.
--
John Starrett
"We have nothing to fear but the FFEs"
John Starrett
<snip>
> Then please explain the likes of Michael Moore. (Who has expressed even
> dumber opinions and has yet to lose a job.)
Michael Moore is self employed.
--
John Starrett
"We have nothing to fear but the scary stuff"
Mike Schneider
> "Michael Schneider" <conan...@usfamily.net> wrote in message
>
> > Imagine Sam Fisher running a business in which Michael Schneider, not even
> > a part-owner of Sam Fisher Inc., gets to decides who's a "competent"
> > employee.
> >
> > It would be fascism.
>
> hm. So, you think the owner who's an accountant can tell what the engineer
> is worth?
He's worth exactly what the engineer is willing to work for him for,
and what the owner is willing to pay.
> Any time someone is fired without well substantiated performance
> evaluation or department liquidation, the case smells like a law suit to me.
It smells like fascism in which the government owns everything and everybody.
Why do you support that?
S. S.
news:mike111111-19...@64.212.142.222...
> "Sam Fisher" <sam0f...@ya00000.com> wrote:
>
> > "Michael Schneider" <conan...@usfamily.net> wrote in message
> >
> > > Imagine Sam Fisher running a business in which Michael Schneider, not
even
> > > a part-owner of Sam Fisher Inc., gets to decides who's a "competent"
> > > employee.
> > >
> > > It would be fascism.
> >
> > hm. So, you think the owner who's an accountant can tell what the
engineer
> > is worth?
>
>
> He's worth exactly what the engineer is willing to work for him for,
> and what the owner is willing to pay.
>
That's only if the market is god. There is more than one way to measure
"value" and "worth." That's why there are concepts like "under-valued" or
"going for less than it is worth."
>
> > Any time someone is fired without well substantiated performance
> > evaluation or department liquidation, the case smells like a law suit to
me.
>
>
> It smells like fascism in which the government owns everything and
everybody.
>
> Why do you support that?
>
What in heck do you mean? Protecting someone's right of due process equates
to "the government owns everything and everybody"? That's nutty.
Donald L Ferrt
> On 18 May 2003 15:58:00 -0700, wolfb...@mindspring.com (Donald L
> Ferrt) wrote:
>
> >This is much more insidious than the Dixie Chicks incident: The
> >executive producer of this week's CBS miniseries, "Hitler: The Rise of
> >Evil," was fired for publicly likening the climate in America in
> >advance of the invasion of Iraq to the climate in pre-war Germany that
> >allowed the rise of the Third Reich.
>
> Maybe they quite rightly sensed that this person had a very poor
> understanding of Hitler based on his comments, and that it was
> embarrassing to have such a person in charge of the project?
>
> BD
A bold assertion for someone who claims to watch Fox News for the News!
Mike Schneider
> > > So, you think the owner who's an accountant can tell what the
> > > engineer is worth?
> >
> > He's worth exactly what the engineer is willing to work for him for,
> > and what the owner is willing to pay.
>
> That's only if the market is god.
If you have no (longer any) interest in having me work for you, what
right do I or Joe or Bob have to insist that you continue employing me?
Are you a slave?
S. S.
> "S. S." <bently5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > So, you think the owner who's an accountant can tell what the
> > > > engineer is worth?
> > >
> > > He's worth exactly what the engineer is willing to work for him for,
> > > and what the owner is willing to pay.
> >
> > That's only if the market is god.
>
>
> If you have no (longer any) interest in having me work for you, what
> right do I or Joe or Bob have to insist that you continue employing me?
>
> Are you a slave?
That's among the more pretzel-like pieces of thinking I've run across.
Mike Schneider
<bently5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
What else do you call it but slavery when someone has free access to your
property without your approval? (This is exactly the situation the legal
commissars impliment when, first, asserting the authority to adjudicate
such market mechanics, and then ruling that employees no longer need the
permission of employers to help themselves to employers' money.)
It takes pretzel-like thinking to *avoid* the implications.
It's communazism, S.S.