FIRM Discussions

June 25, 1999 - September 19, 1999

Okay. What Are Hollywood's Good Points?

re: Hollywood
Wanda Haight
5:10 pm Friday June 25, 1999

It is obvious that Hollywood has become a serious creature of habit. It started out as a great place for using technology to do what the tribal shamans used to do: Tell Stories.

Hollywood can still tell stories BUT it will take a lot of effort to get back those stories with plot and not a lot of violence, which takes the place of plot.

Actually, I guess the only good point about Hollywood is that it is centrally located, with most of the big production companies in one spot.

This is very disturbing. Perhaps H'wood has out lived it's usefulness in the movie industry. And people aren't willing to take the next step, to be original. I mean, the movies that are out this summer are mostly repeats. Where is H'wood's originality, which made it famous and a mecca for the creative mind?

I guess I've not answered this post very well. I give up... What are Hollywood's good points?

guy fix
4:39 pm Saturday June 26, 1999

I thought if I didn't reply to this topic immediately and that over a good nights sleep and lacksadaisal meditation I would have at least a few good things to say regarding the babylonian city of cinema. It is sad to report that this Dionysian thinker could not muster very much good at all to say about Hollywood as we know it today. Straining in the abysmal depths of some kind of emphatic attempt, the only reprise I could imagine would be it's unprecedented contribution regarding the history of film itself. Unfortunately it took a dark path many years ago and is now fated for not much more than a succesful ruse in the pursuit of getting people to pay for it's less than good immitation of what was once good. The true innovators of film today are trapped in some kind of underworld where the pay is bad and not many a spectator is there to appreciate their vain accomplishments because Hollywood has monopolized the market in every way it can think of.(those hal hartley fans can understand this when they compare Amateur to his low budget works of art) If anyone has anything good to say about Hollywood I would like to hear it. As Wanda Haight puts it,"I give up."

Hollywood: A Can-Do Town
James Jaeger
7:36 pm Saturday June 26, 1999

One of the things I love about Hollywood (other than the production equipment everywhere), are the people that live there and work on features.

There are no people like film people. You can do or be anything and you are accepted in Hollywood. You are not looked down on when trying to express yourself or entertain - no matter how bad. People do not suppress you for artistic expression like they do almost everyplace else. The worst that can happen is you may be ignored, rejected (for bad acting) or blacklisted - but it's nothing personal. In fact, if you are REALLY "bad" or "hard to fit in," Hollywood sometimes even finds special appreciation for you: Look at Ed Wood and Angeline (...and I know Angeline. She is an incredible and talented woman who needs to be given a break -- provided she lets the director direct -- like a nice supporting roll in a major feature before she runs out of boy friends willing to buy her billboard space.)

If you do not live in Hollywood, but live in some small town somewhere else, especially back East, and someone asks you what you do and you tell them you make movies, you can almost guarantee the next sentence out of their mouth is: "What kind of movies - porn, ha, ha?" They're clueless about movies and cannot even conceive that they might be talking to someone who JUST MIGHT have the ability to point a camera at something other than something they can understand: naked bodies having sex on a mattress.

In Hollywood you tell them you make movies and the next thing out of their mouth might be: "...Features or MOWs? Or, "What production company?" Or, "Oh, I'm a production designer."

In my opinion, people in Hollywood are more diligent than most other people (except scientists and computer techies). There are less errors and omissions. In Pennsylvania, for instance, it is a nightmare getting ANYTHING done right. 35% of the time you ask to have something done, and it is done LATE or done INCORRECTLY. (I am actually keeping a record of this stuff and might publish a book on it.) Things like: you send out for potato salad, it comes back EGG potato salad. You ask that 50 scripts be made and bound 3-hole punch and you get back 3 scripts that are 50-hole spiral-bound. You ask that a document be given to you on a 3.5-inch floppy disc and it arrives on a 5.25-inch disc. You tell him to arrive at lunch time and he arrives at 1pm with the excuse that "everyone eats at 1." In Hollywood these problems occur less than 10% of the time. People are on the ball. They know mistakes cost money. You don't get a second chance to be at the location. A mind like a steel trap is the norm in Hollywood. A mind like a wet ball of yarn is the norm in Pennsylvania (too many drunks with trust funds administered by corrupt Philadelphia lawyers and bank fiduciaries). This makes it very CREEPY producing movies out of Hollywood and is probably a major reason Hollywood production companies prefer to bring in most of their crew and staff...and just do local hires when absolutely necessary (or to placate the natives).

In Hollywood, near-perfection is the order of the day. Most everyone in Hollywood has a CAN-DO attitude...and CAN-DO. Others just dream about it. Lee Garmes used to tell me: "James, the impossible just takes a little longer here." Lee always got things right.

Most people cannot even imagine how difficult it is to get a picture it in the can - let alone create a GREAT film. It's beyond most people's ability. In fact, a lot of film students, when they find out how much work it actually takes to get a feature done - don't want to be filmmakers anymore. I have had hundreds of dilettantes pass through my office over the years. But I have no doubt that the most dedicated people, the best and brightest gene-pool have gravitated to Hollywood over the past century (and this includes the people I gripe about sometimes, the 21 people running the studios). The unfortunate thing is, little of this gene-pool gets to manifest itself because most of it goes down the toilet wrapped in latex as having children in Hollywood is as welcome as raising pet skunks in law library.)

Hollywood is a great town which has wandered into an extreme situation, a system that needs better distribution agreements, more standard accounting practices and greater diversity in output so that it does not have to rely on the same kind of successes it has had in the past and so it does not have to rely on the foreign territories to recoup production costs.

James Jaeger

re: Hollywood: A Can-Do Town Cathy Jourdan 8:19 am Sunday June 27, 1999 I hope that one day I will be able to know Hollywood's good points! I am an aspiring screenwriter in Ohio and your observations about Pennsylvania, if multiplied by ten would represent Ohio. I've had contact with a few people in Hollywood (producers asking to read my material) and have felt that there is something special about them. However, the only negative thing that I have found is that many times, the only contact you get is the initial contact and maybe a quick email saying this is great...but not for me.

I must say, I appreciate those's the ones who call and say, "I read it...I loved it...I'm not promising anything yet...but let me get back to you." Then you never hear back...very disheartening. All in all though, I am still writing my heart out and subbing stuff everywhere hoping to find that person who will give me my break and allow me the opportunity to show them just how creative I am. Anyway, I just thought I'd add my two cents.

Cathy Jourdan

re: Hollywood: A Can-Do Town
Peter Aaron Weisman
9:28 am Sunday June 27, 1999

What is it about film? Is it that this medium captures time and space for all to witness, somehow producing a 'bigger than life' attitude? Is Hollywood, as James says, an allocation for all the carpe diem geniuses that America has grown? Is Hollywood not a place, but a mental destination?

No one knows. This food for thought is truly revolting. What is it about this business that makes people go ga-ga? At the end of the day, I figure, we're all the same. It's just that Hollywood has the soft food and pop culture kicks of the almighty 'image' and we worship away to the tune of $6 a ticket, even reading their magazines and magazines about them; like our lives aren't lives and that these people somehow live more than we do cause they are the producers of the image. Well, guess what, the vanity business is a machine that feeds itsef.

Image, image, image. We used to have political leaders that were rather intellectual and unapproachable, unless you spoke the language. Now, it's not what someone says, it's how they say it.

And it's not what you look like, it's who you look like. And it's not how well you know someone, it's how thinly you can spread yourself to get as many eyes as possible in as many places.

I'm disgruntled. Postmodernism is bad, not wonderful. Email and cyber relations are making us forget real interactions. Maybe it's the millenium, people are just freaking out. At least where I am. It's making me sick. Maybe I need to go somewhere . . . like Hollywood!

The Nature of Film
John Cones
11:22 am Sunday June 27, 1999

Many questions relating to the impact of feature film on our society can answered through a more realistic view of the nature of film. Feature films tend, to a large degree, to mirror the values, interests, cultural perspectives and prejudices of their makers. Further feature films are much more than mere entertainment. As the U.S. Supreme Court stated in its 1952 Byrstyn v. Wilson decision, the motion picture is a "significant medium for the communication of ideas".

As we all know, ideas have always, and will always influence human behavior. Thus, our nation's feature films have become an important part of our democracy's free marketplace of ideas--an important communications mass medium for imparting ideas that influence the thinking and behavior of millions, especially our less sophisticated youth. Unfortunately, not all ideas have an equal and fair opportunity for being expressed and communicated through the Hollywood feature film. Such films tend to be biased for and against certain readily identifiable concepts, regardless of their impact on society.

For example, many Hollywood movies (and Hollywood movies dominate the U.S. makretplace) tend to be biased in favor of gratuitous violence, graphic sex, obscene language, anti-religion generally and contain consistent portrayals of certain populations in our diverse society in a negative or stereotypical manner (e.g., Latinos, Arabs, African-Americans, Italian-Americans, women, Christians, Muslims and Whites from the American South). Why do these patterns of bias occur in Hollywood films. For the very simple reason stated above (i.e., films tend, to a large extent, to mirror the values, interests, cultural perspectives and prejudices of their makers).

In order to bring about a significant change in the kind of movies Hollywood effectively promotes for viewing by millions of our citizens, we must insist on bringing more diversity to the executive suites of the Hollywood major studios. Don't ask for anyone's permission to do so. Just do it!

John Cones

4:44 pm Sunday June 27, 1999

One thing that slipped my mind regarding Hollywood was that since it has move up into Vancouver and Toronto it has given the oppurtunity for Canadians to become trained in the art of making films, and as James aforementioned, trained by people who know how to tackle monstrous tasks efficiently such as filming a feature. My only hope is that this training will be put to use in using this fantastic medium to make a film with some depth, that captures the great, courageous, innovative aspect of human nature in a honest way. Instead of paying the typical Hollywood actors all money that we bring in new talent and spread the wealth about. I do enjoy the way film can explore the darker aspects of humanity, but why does it have to be so crass or hokey? Perhaps this phase of violence oriented cinema will die out(hopefully soon) and filmakers will have the oppurtunity to make films from their heart rather than their assholes.

Peter Aaron Weisman
10:43 pm Sunday June 27, 1999

Blame is a sure cure for anything.

Take it from a scapegoat.

All this talk of race and voices that go unheard appears to be valid, but borders on the ridiculous. Don't we have subcultures within subcultures? How is each demographic going to have their fare share of play time when, in fact, some of them fill their time with slack and kicks in the name of 'shits and giggles'; some have no capital and would make no capital on if they made a movie about, say, the hippie highway -- a topic I've written a script about.

If we consider all of it, we might find that Hollywood is as Hollywood does. The masses decide what's good and Hollywood tries to cater to them; not a one-way street, as those masses in turn are manipulated by image.

Consider Hitchcock -- a man who used point of view shots to make men empathise with women. His attempt to bend gender worked on subliminal levels and the voice of women was felt.

As for manipulating the industry, why not make a few million somewhere else and start producing your own movies, as the distribution people would buy into a great idea they think would work. If socialist movie makers took over Hollywood, would it be any different?

I'm not being very coherent. That's it.

NETWORK...TV Tragedy
guy fix
3:13 pm Monday July 5, 1999

I watched NETWORK for the first time this weekend, and I must say I was blown away by the Exquisite locution of the script. Obviously the writer Paddy (?) had a very clear idea of the dangerous medium television offers. Denoting TV junkies in their worst moment. Faye Dunaway executed her post modern tv diva dialoque with extreme intensity and likewise Peter Lynch with his awesome portrayal of a political TV guru mesmerizing millions of viewer and having a significant influence. I thought this movie delivered such a heavy message that it makes The Truman Show or Pleasant Ville look like fluff even though it was made twenty three years ago. We need an awesome portrayal of the media that speaks of the new level of degeneratism TV has succumbed to. I don't think it was very hard to prediict where it was going, but this movie encompassed the tragedy of television most eloquently. I'm mad as hell, and i'm not going to take it any more.LIES!!

Will Hollywood Placate Everyone Until the Storm Blows Over?

Bullets Over Hollywood
James Jaeger
8:05 pm Monday July 5, 1999

TIME magazine (as in Time-Warner Bros.), ran a placating, defiant little piece in their June 28, 1999 edition entitled Bullets over Hollywood "A chill has settled over Hollywood on the subject of violence...Hollywood lobbyists continue to attack such efforts as a violation of the industry's First Amendment right....Still, Hollywood isn't about to stop making violent movies or TV shows."

Here is a classic case where Hollywood, through one of it's mouthpiece mags, TIME, is continuing to promote the false idea that Hollywood has First Amendment rights. As I explained at length in an earlier post, Fi rst Amendment Sword, PEOPLE have First Amendment rights, NOT corporations, or even more absurdly, Industries.

The Hollywood money-making-machine does not have the right to exploit and damage the movie-going public with decades of movies which create self-perpetuating memes of destruction and negativity in a civilization interested in getting along peacefully.

James Jaeger

With all that cash at stake?
guy fix
4:00 pm Wednesday July 7, 1999

Hmmph, I really doubt that.

Do Major Stars Get Paid Too Much?

Unified Field Theory of Hollywood
James Jaeger
5:07 am Saturday July 17, 1999


After dealing with this subject for about 30 years now, I think I am ready to posit a theory of what MIGHT BE the global situation in Hollywood and in doing so, possibly provoke some refinements or catharsis.

Here are the factors, and causalities, as I can see them now:

1. The average cost of a feature film today is in excess of $33 million.

2. Much of this money is preempted by:

a. union salaries;

b. the above-the-line-talent (because their attorneys advise them that "they better get it up front as the back end will probably not materialize.")

3. Since the studios do not WANT to "materialize the back end," because this will open them to excessive tax liabilities, they always claim that movies have made less than what they did make and to substantiate this claim they show that no one had any net profit participation on their balance sheet, (hence no net profit participants ARE paid so that this appears to be a legally valid claim).

4. Thus, the stars' salaries, in effect, CAUSE the huge production budgets so that the studios can justify avoiding taxes. But in doing this there are several by-product effects:

a. the rest of the people on the production get paid less, if anything, and;

b. the NET profit participants usually get NOTHING because the stars' gross participation preempts any dollars that could otherwise go to paying net profit participants.

c. the distribution entity finds it easier to "justify" large distribution fees and expenses because "production expenses are so high."

5. Thus the production budgets escalate and must remain so high that two things happen:

a. producers go to places like Canada just to produce on a cost-effective basis and/or;

b. productions must be sold in the foreign territories just to re-coup their excessive production budgets, budgets that are excessive for reasons above stated.

6. Since productions must sell in the foreign markets so they can re-coup their excessive star-driven budgets, these productions "MUST" have the elements of violence and/or sex so they are marketable in territories that more easily understand such production "values" as opposed to such things as American humor, and straight drama, etc.

7. Thus we have the reasons the movie industry acts the way it acts: producing excessively expensive, violence-oriented product that utilizes the same predictable elements and story lines in an endless quest to avoid taxes and re-coup production budgets bloated by star salaries and union catch 22's.

Any solutions?

James Jaeger

Less Pillage Would Be Nice
James Jaeger
8:48 am Wednesday July 21, 1999

As it stands now, all the wrong people seem to be getting paid and there is a tremendous amount of waste in the "system." One writer gets paid $800,000 (which is fine) but it took the studios a development staff of 20 (each getting paid a full-time salary of $50,000 plus several executive salaries of $100,000 or more per year) to "find" that one screenplay which they can "justify" to their board having to HAVE to pay $800,000 on (because the agents and lawyers have driven the price up through the negotiating process) while all the other writers out there get to now starve some more because the studio can't afford to buy very many screenplays "due to the high cost of acquisition these days."

Then, on top of driving the price wild, the agent and/or attorney pillages another $80,000 out of the transaction. So, to get (1) one writer paid his or her $720 grand the "system" wasted many times that amount (on staff & execs) plus all the needless time negotiating and just causing the overhead of the studios to be higher. And a screenplay sale like this is usually "a-once-in-a-life-time-thing" for a non-entrenched establishment writer because the entrenched writers get hired over and over and especially in preference to new (original) writers because the entrenched writers are "known quantities." So Hollywood continues to pump out the same sequels and hackneyed stuff decade in and decade out while the entrenched writers get to endlessly re-write stuff that will never be produced.

I would rather cut as much of the agents' fees and intermediate admin fat out of the equation as possible and even see 8 writers get paid $100,000 for each screenplay or 16 writers get paid $50,000 for each screenplay so a greater diversity and originality of content makes it onto the screens. Plus, writers could then sell more and have a more predictable livelihood as a group. Since all would make sales more often, there might develop more collaboration as the general environment would be less cut throat and ad hoc. In the end, I believe the quality of the cinema would elevate and the people that deserve some credit for this (the writers) would be better served and validated.

Using digital delivery and the new infrastructures we are piloting, we may be able to accomplish some improvements and make the transaction costs of acquiring screenplays much less than what studios and other entities are already paying to do everything in-house. Again, reduced transaction costs mean more money for the writer and less cost to the studio or production company. If you are a studio development executive, producer or writer, check out the deal here and sign up or let us know what would improve the service for you.

James Jaeger

Frozen Rights, Frozen Industry
James Jaeger
3:13 am Saturday July 24, 1999

As technology and markets develop, increasing bandwidth will provide new high-speed access to independently produced films which are distributed over the Internet making hundreds, if not thousands, of downloads possible each day.

This means that filmmakers and independent producers will benefit greatly from the ability to deliver motion picture product in almost unlimited amounts. Our projections indicate that within the next five to ten years you could be selling and renting many more copies of your film than are now possible in (studio-controlled) home video stores.

In fact, the major studios, with all their "brick and mortar assets" weighing heavily on the balance sheet -- may not even be able to stay in business in the opening decade of the next century.

With this possibility on the horizon, it may be very unwise to tie-up the Internet distribution rights to your motion picture product with such entities. If a studio or larger distributor with whom you are signed is forced to undergo reorganization under chapter 11 bankruptcy, an injunction on the exploitation of your film may be effectuated until reorganization is sorted out to the satisfaction of creditors and stockholders. Such a scenario would result in you having possibly some of your most valuable future rights frozen indefinitely while other producers and filmmakers were moving ahead generating considerable revenues with less "top heavy" (studio) distribution companies.

The studios have been around for "a long time" (90 years, whoopee) and some will say they have made every transition so far (such as competition with TV, consent decree, divestiture of back lot assets, studio system to star system, advent of sound and color, etc.) - what makes the digital-delivery age any different?

This time, I don't know if they will be able to reposition their physical and financial infrastructures quickly enough to out-pace Moore's Law. When I got my first PC in 1980, I sat around Hollywood for quite a few years wondering when "these people are going to get their act together." Barry Mahon and I, for instance, monitored the budget for MY WICKED WICKED WAYS (an MOW on Errol Flynn's life, Doris Keating, his daughter, made for CBS) on multi-plan running on a Tandy Model 4 PC. We were hot-wired directly to the controller of CBS who was interested to see if these new-fangled things called spread sheets had any application in budget control (to make sure property departments do not steal too much stuff from the production before the auditors can figure everything out, by pencil, after wrap).

Seems to me, while the town has its act together in avoiding errors and omissions, not much is changing very quickly in too many other areas, such as selling off the rest of their useless real estate, Movieolas and changing their creative accounting practices which are drying up Hollywood-bound capital faster than you can believe.

For a better understanding of potential liabilities facing the larger corporations (such as the MPAA studios) and the paradigm shifts they must deal with to survive, read a book called Unleashing the Killer App: Digital Strategies for Market Dominance by Larry Downes, Chunka Mui, Nicholas Negroponte, available at

James Jaeger

dan melnick
Nick Melnick
3:37 pm Friday August 6, 1999

I was really enjoed a meeting with Dan Melnick in his home a few years ago. He is very good guy and, I think, outstanding producer. I was practicing in LA with CA-based law firm of Paul, Hasings, Janofsky@Walker. Being a Rusian attotey at law, invited to work out with my US colleges, I was very busy. Once I told to Dan Melnick: " Dan, I am very busy. But I do hope, I should have a time to tell you how to make a real movie."

I am very appreciate to Dan ( nemed between us as uncle Dan ) for his attention to me and Kitty Liverse ( Datch attorney ), for his hospitality. I was staying in Mr. Robert Hastings home ( one of outstanding US attorney, died a three years ago). Phillis Diller has visited us many times and she has told to me: " Yes, Nick, Daniel Melnick is a great producer. " .

I don' t think that, and I am absolutely sure that Dan Melnick is jewish. I know his nationality ( where his grans father was born ). It doesn' t matter - who he is - jewish, japanese, etc. He is MELNICK. Please tell him that Ms. Faina Melnick ( 45 y. o. ) a world and Olimpic Games Champion ( hight athletic ), and simply very attractive woman, dantist, says to him " O'K, Dan ! "

Dan can be reached via his good secretary Liz Fox.

Best regards,

Nick Melnick, Esq.

BLAIR WITCH - What a Bitch!
James Jaeger
7:10 pm Monday August 16, 1999

If you were a movie investor, which would you rather invest in:

1. a $120,000,000 Hollywood studio picture that makes $60,000 at the box office or,

2) a $60,000 Independently-produced VIDEO TAPE that makes $120,000,000 at the box office?

As I have said in MANY of my previous posts, we are moving into an era where digital technology will finally replace most of the technologies Hollywood has come to know and exploit over the years. "Creative accounting" distribution as practiced in Hollywood will be replaced by a new paradigm of digital-delivery directly to movie-goers and even directly to theaters. The non-necessity for a studio (which is 80% paperwork and accounting) to exist in any particular place, will be a thing of the past. The creation, sale and pirating of "name talent's" digital images will replace the syndrome of the same old people getting $20 million a picture for the same old "bankable" performance. Affordable video cameras WILL someday exceed the quality of film, as my mentor Lee Garmes stated in his "shocking" interview in American Cinematographer in 1978.

THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT, and the much better tape (except for the unnecessary and totally gratuitous suffocation scene at the end) called THE LAST BROADCAST (which I saw LAST year), are only the first of a series of films that will play to the new crop of 33 million BabyBoomers' off-spring now hitting their early and mid, movie-addiction teens.

I guess all that "fantasy" about us moving into a new digital era, where brick and mortar Hollywood is quickly becoming the center of NOTHING, is coming a little closer to reality.

James Jaeger

Kodak's Betrayal of Film Students
James Jaeger
6:46 pm Monday August 16, 1999

Remember back in the early 1980's when KODAK said they "had" to raise their prices on motion picture film stock because "the cost of silver had gone up"? Well, did they LOWER their prices when the price of silver went down -- of course not -- thanks to the greedy CEO of the day who was steering a great company in every direction but the right direction (like when he helmed Kodak, a film manufacturing company, into buying Sterling Drugs - a pharmaceutical company! Real on-purpose).

Well around this time several reasonably-priced Super 8 cameras (such as the ELMO 1012s and the Nizo), came into existence at a time when Kodak sold 50-foot cartridges of Super 8 SOUND film for $5.00 each - a fair price. When Kodak raised their prices due to the silver squeeze) the same Super 8 film rose to $10 a cartridge, then $15, then over $20 making it onerous for starving, budding filmmakers to afford the price of film, film which looked great in the magnificent SOUND SYNCHRONOUS cameras that had FINALLY evolved. Thus many dedicated filmmakers began starving because WE would have to spend our FOOD MONEY on SUPER 8 FILM thus making the Kodak executives fatter while WE became rails.

Since Kodak continued to NOT lower their prices, year after year as we all waited, and well after the silver squeeze, many filmmakers, including myself, hold them responsible for forcing a WHOLE GENERATION of would-be cinematographers and directors to migrate to video tape to practice their "FILM" making skills. The quality of these tapes was terrible and no one got any REAL experience lighting or directing for FILM, especially the more expensive formats such as 16mm and 35mm, which cost many, many times as much as Super 8.

Thus Kodak betrayed a whole generation of film students by allowing a greedy and insensitive CEO (who HAS since been removed) to fail to reduce the price of a practice format (one on which we could make NO COMMERCIAL PROFIT) once the REASON for its increase was no longer present. Kodak in essence, because of this stupid CEO, shot itself in the foot as they suppressed the very film students who would be their future clients - purchasing the more expensive 16mm and 35mm film stock - once they where trained and employed on COMMERCIALLY VIABLE features.

But Hollywood's union-infested Establishment was happily able to more easily "justify" having to use the same old, same old "experienced" union personnel in their Catch-22, restraint-of-trade System because "all of the new film students these days only know how to light and shoot tape." Plus, since tape is so cheap, student directors just let it run through cameras like water hoping to capture SOMETHING worth printing and so never learn the delicate skills of discernment many of our older, classic directors were able to develop because they actually spent focused-time PERCEIVING the actor's performance in PRESENT TIME as it occurred on the set instead of pissing endless video tape through their camera (as they snort coke) and then looking at a video assist tape when they come to their "senses" the next day or so.

Thus the crappy VHS video cameras began to proliferate, initiated by desperate filmmakers and film students and eventually embraced by the home-video-making, could-care-less-about-quality, goo-goo-baby-shooting public at large. By now Kodak, a FILM manufacturer was FORCED to sell VIDEO tape to keep up with the mudslide THEY helped create. You're used to it now, but didn't you think, at first, it was kinda funny seeing those little yellow boxes of Kodak VIDEO TAPE popping up in your super markets for $5 each around 1987? That's when Kodak began shooting it self in its film-foot.

Now the days of great companies, such as the Elmo Corporation, making inexpensive better and better Super 8 cameras are virtually gone - replaced by a few piranha companies still in the business exploiting the last hold-out real FILMmakers in-training to eventually shoot the highest quality 35mm feature FILMS someday.

The best thing Kodak could do is make some amends. What they should do is start manufacturing high-resolution, high color saturation, (Kodachrome) Super 8 sound film on 400-foot cores and revive the double system, (the Regular 8 that proceeded Kodak's invention of Super 8). The Super 8 aspect ratio was a great invention -- but putting it in plastic cartridges that are subject to jamming and registration problems was stupid.

Even as a loss leader, Kodak should then price double system core-loading Super 8 stock at a cost of no more than $1 per (24fps) screen minute (including processing) so virtually all the video freaks could then get back to shooting film. Manufacturers of Super 8 cameras might come back on-line and they could even add value to their cameras by having a small high-tech video assist (for those that have been hopelessly screwed up by their forced video march in the electronic wilderness). All manufacturers would ultimately get to sell more of everything, film students would get proper training and the audiences would get better quality movies in the class room and later in the theater or home cinema.

All of this while we wait for the day when tape absolutely surpasses film - such day NOT here yet, but coming. . .

James Jaeger

re: Unified Field Theory of Hollywood
Brett Thornquest
5:23 pm Saturday August 21, 1999

Dear James, I agree with most of the points in your theory on Hollywood. As an accountant though, I can tell you that the balance sheets of the studios will and must be reporting net profits to their parent companies and the stockholders. Also, the banks are shown how profitable movies can be so as to secure credit facilities etc to cash flow the productions. Remember, as per John Cones' publication - net profit participations for the creative elements in a picture are contractually defined terms and differ substantially from Generally Accepted Accounting Principles under which P&L statements and Balance Sheets are prepared. Why else would Mr Katzenberg take Disney to court over 2% of net profits? Because they existed under his contract. He also had significant "clout" as compared to 90% of the talent negotiating with a studio at any given time. The remedy is not simple and not exclusive to the movie industry. Look at Microsoft or any organization or group of organizations who have a virtual "monopoly" in an industry. The terms they deal on are favorable to them. A change some 10 years ago to the US tax code in the way a company can write off production costs against revenues, is also an indication that profits are being made in movies. Like in any industry, all you can do is to increase your bargaining position when negotiating a participation contract as the forces of supply and demand will dictate the "price" you receive for any product or service you are offering.

Brett Thornquest

Does It Matter Who Controls Hollywood?

A Tragedy of Errors?
Jim Rarey
5:54 pm Monday August 23, 1999

MEDIUM RARE - By Jim Rarey
August 18, 1999

In the wake of the shooting at the Jewish Community Center in the Los Angeles area by fanatical racist Bufford Furrow, Jr., equally fanatical opponents of the second amendment, when congress reconvenes, will be pushing legislation to further restrict possession of firearms by law abiding citizens. The effort probably will be led by Senators Dianne Feinstein of California and Charles Shumer of New York. They will argue that more laws are needed to keep weapons out of the hands of the likes of Buford Furrow.

The facts show that no serious effort is being made to enforce the laws already on the books. While details are still sketchy in some areas, let us consider what we do know from the voluminous "leaks" from the FBI and other law enforcement agencies.

Furrow appeared at a psychiatric clinic in a suburb of Seattle and requested help. He said he was fighting an urge to go to a shopping mall and shoot people. When he was denied admission he reportedly threatened a clinic employee with a knife for which he was arrested, prosecuted and put in prison.

The "official" story from the clinic is that he was turned away because he was drunk.

Upon conviction of the felony it became unlawful, under federal law, for Furrow to possess any kind of firearm. He reportedly received some psychiatric treatment while in prison which would also disqualify him from possessing firearms under federal law.

When he was released on probation, one of the terms of probation was that he surrender all firearms he possessed. Court officials obviously knew he had weapons or it wouldn t have been a condition of probation. However, the probation officer failed to follow up and Furrow kept his weapons.

Where were the FBI and ATFS? If ever there was probable cause to obtain a search warrant for illegal firearms, Furrow s case is a classic. It could almost lead one to believe these government agencies are more interested in allowing terrorist acts to happen (to provide fodder for gun control fanatics) than they are in nipping such acts in the bud. That suspicion is buttressed by the unprecedented interview with Furrow granted (by the FBI) to a television journalist before any charges had been filed. This tragedy has obviously been chosen as the showcase for the newly enacted "hate crime" legislation.

The actual weapon Furrow used in his dastardly crime (evidently including the murder of a postal employee) has been traced back to a local police department in Washington State. The politically appointed heads of police departments (through their national association) profess to be dedicated to curtailing the amount of firearms available to the general public. In this case, the local police department chose to sell the weapon rather than destroy it. It will be interesting to see if the FBI and ATFS track the chain of custody of the weapon and if the results will be made public.

Are we seeing a chain of "terrorist" acts that are allowed to happen in order to further the cause of disarming the general public? In the World Trade Center bombing, the FBI had an "informer" on the inside who acted more like a provocateur than an informer. In the Oklahoma City bombing, the ATFS had a true informer on the inside whose warnings were ignored. At Ruby Ridge, the chain of events was actually instigated by the ATFS. New information is now coming out about government culpability at Waco.

It is past time for the American public to start asking searching questions.

Permission is granted to reproduce in its entirety or call Jim Rarey at (734) 942-7667.

The author is a free lance writer based in Romulus, Michigan. He is a former newspaper editor and investigative reporter, a retired customs administrator and accountant, and a student of history and the U.S. Constitution.

Listen to Amerikan Expose'

Of Course, Who Controls Matters
John Cones
2:30 pm Wednesday August 25, 1999

Of course, who controls Hollywood matters. Movies, to a large extent tend to mirror the values, interests, cultural perspectives and prejudices of their makers, thus to the extent that those persons in control positions in the film industry are (as a group) substantially less diverse than the rest of our society, we cannot expect to see the diversity on screen that actually reflects our society.

John Cones

James Jaeger
10:08 am Saturday August 28, 1999

I saw THE LAST BROADCAST last year at the University of Pennsylvania and I have seen THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT - both projected in theaters.

LAST is a better film - more woven, more structure with actual "filmmaking" involved and a good ending. Although BLAIR had great "acting" in and was entertaining - its ending sucked big time and this non-catharsis made it nothing more than a home movie for me.

Except for a terrible suffocation scene towards the end, THE LAST BROADCAST is a nice little film (actually the first HD digital video which was broadcast to a theater by satellite). This picture deserves to make as much money as BLAIR.

It is kind of a travesty that BLAIR got its original start based upon a LIE. I had the opportunity to meet and chat with Stefan Avalos, one of the filmmakers, a little. He is a good guy, dedicated and good at his craft. He is a filmmaker. I would like to see him, and the others on the LAST production team, get more recognition (and money) because they made a "FILM" - not sold a home movie to the public through a false pretense perpetrated on the Internet. It would be much better for the public to realize that there ARE some really original films out there in the indie scene - than to realize that they were HAD by what boils down to a marketing campaign.

Investors in the private capital markets need to start investing in Independent films more easily and the distributors need to start distributing these films instead of always giving the bloated, brick and mortar, Hollywood studio/distributors all the financing and distribution deals. It is these studios that have muddied the waters for the Independents by creatively accounting away net profit participation for investors. Maybe most of the films made for $60,000 will not gross $120,000,000 but even if they gross $1,000,000 this is a better return on investment than most of what the studio pictures will do.

If more investors, and venture capital firms, invested more money in independent films - and these were distributed properly and fairly, which many distributors are willing to do - there would be much more cash flow for them, the indie producers and their distributors. But this, of course, would be bad for the studios' business as they are currently monopolizing 90%-95% of the market with their hackneyed "bankable" product and over-paid stars. Ho hum. . .

James Jaeger

re: Kodak's Betrayal of Film Students
4:08 pm Saturday August 28, 1999

What betrayal? Things are going the way they are because no matter how low the price of film could drop, tape (and I'm talking DV) is cheaper. You claim that would be directors are just letting the tape run, hoping to catch something interesting. No, I don't think so. Most are as serious, or more so, than the snobs that still insist on using film, saying a dv to film transfer is not real filmmaking. Well, dv to film is real filmmaking. It is the protectors of the status quo, those that know that most middle class folk cannot scrape together the money for a feature done in film. That is, unless they wish to do the type of film that say, the folks at Sundance or the NEA fall over. You know the type: Lesbian nuns battling prejudice as they try to set up their own enema clinic near a housing project threatened by the business interests of greeedy, white (non-jewish of course) males that lack compassion and tolerance. The fact is, the folks running the film industry lack compassion. To them it's more than a money machine, it's an organ to push their political views -- and leverage against politicians at the same time: Don't do what we want, and you'll look bad on the news. Over and out.

re: Kodak's Betrayal of Film Students
James Jaeger
7:27 pm Sunday August 29, 1999

What betrayal? Things are going the way they are because no matter how low the price of film could drop, tape (and I'm talking DV) is cheaper.

I'm not talking about how low film could go as tape is cheaper. No kidding tape is cheaper. I'm simply saying that the price went up but did NOT go down when it could, and should, have.

You claim that would be directors are just letting the tape run, hoping to catch something interesting. No, I don't think so.

Again, you are missing my point. It takes much more discipline to shoot in film than in tape because film is so much more expensive. A director on film has to really perceive what is being shot because s/he might only be able to afford 1 or 2 takes. A tape director, because of the cheapness of tape, will usually shoot at a higher shooting ratio, hence prepare himself less well when, he or she arrives at the desk of an investor who is willing to finance them for ONLY 50,000 feel of 35mm stock.

Most are as serious, or more so, than the snobs. . .

Has nothing to do with snobbery. Has to do with TRAINING. When the military is training you for combat flying, they do not put you in a simulator of a 747. When you are training to shoot features, which are made because they "feature" a story that merits the highest technical quality attainable, you do not train in tape or juju beads, you train on that which closest resembles the war zone that you will be entering - and if you have never directed a feature, as I have, you don't realize that it IS a war zone until you get there - and all your little VIDEOmaker lighting and directing techniques get blown to hell. While your VIDEO-trained cinematographer is sitting there trying to figure out how many foot-candles of light he will need to get the shadow detail you want - he will find out that YOU don't even know what shadow detail IS and in fact you have your attention on the last take, wondering if the actor exited at the same speed as take 3 in the previous set up. You're so used to VIDEO tape replays - you have not even trained yourself to be able to SEE in real-time.

. . .that still insist on using film, saying a dv to film transfer is not real filmmaking. Well, dv to film is real filmmaking. It is the protectors of the status quo, those that know that most middle class folk cannot scrape together the money for a feature done in film.

No, if the investors invested, you middle-class filmmakers would have plenty of money to shoot in film. You need to book-up on the problem in the industry with regard to the money so that you're not off on some tangent.

That is, unless they wish to do the type of film that say, the folks at Sundance or the NEA fall over. You know the type: Lesbian nuns battling prejudice as they try to set up their own enema clinic near a housing project threatened by the business interests of greeedy, white (non-jewish of course) males that lack compassion and tolerance. The fact is, the folks running the film industry lack compassion. To them it's more than a money machine, it's an organ to push their political views -- and leverage against politicians at the same time: Don't do what we want, and you'll look bad on the news. Over and out.

I don't know where this last paragraph came from.

James Jaeger

Ignorance or Dishonesty?
John Cones
12:22 pm Thursday September 9, 1999

The often implied, and sometimes stated contention that "The cultural, religious, ethnic, racial and political backgrounds of those person in Hollywood who have the power to decide which feature films will be produced or released by the major studio/distributors, does not influence their choices," may be accurately characterized as one of two things: (1) ignorance or (2) dishonesty. We must insure that all levels within the U.S. film industry are equally open to persons of all backgrounds. If you support the Hollywood establishment, actively or by your silence, you are in effect supporting its continuing and massive discrimination, and you certainly must be opposed to diversity at the top. Why is it that we clamor for an end to discrimination in all other fields of endeavor in our nation, but fall silent when it comes to criticizing the same unacceptable behavior in Hollywood?

John Cones

Do Studio Execs Practice Funding Discrimination?

Typical Funding Problems
William Essence
4:44 pm Tuesday September 14, 1999

Sure, I bet if you're a nice little German boy who just happens to have been born with the last name of Hitler, you might have some funding problems in Hollywood.

Hollywood should be stopped!!! says bann
Brian Evans www.apo
8:11 pm Friday September 17, 1999

Subject: Brian John Evans New Zealand poet is banned by all NZ media, because he attacks their support in total of sick Hollywood movies.

Brian Evans says: "Here is my summation of the sick media madness, that spreads around the world from Madison Ave and Hollywood,- Firstly there was ideal man: the poor but Noble Savage of Jean Jacque Rousseau. But yeah, the rich and sad cult media hate him. Next is a Hollywood attempt: Tarzan of the Apes (hey, Johnny Weismuller. was great!) But from here on it is all American cultism downhill: We get Conan the Media Barbarian, then a gene splice of man plus mass- media turtle: Ninja Mutant Media Turtles. We also get these increasingly sad and camp media inventions like Media Robocop, Mad Media Max, Marilyn Media Manson,- total advertising agency media bullshit.

Without noble media role-models, the heterosexual family, soon self-destructs. The revengful side of the gothic-sad media, feasts on its victims' sad bad media news.You can sense gay media murderous rage, is all about revenge, but sanity has to be restored.

It returns with The Fern Party of New Zealand; and we all join. Yes. We do. Gay or straight.We are sick of the waste of our lives:it's ok to get media tooth rot from media plaque?,- just fix it with media toothpaste? Not!

Our media-wrecked depressed kids soon in media's jails at 10 yrs old, for copying sad media Arnie,- rapidly replicating clones world-wide of Arnie Media Barbarian. So kiwis get active, and we join in a common patriotic thrust and trust to save NZ: The Fern Party peacefully takes over. Next we clean up America, especially its film-media junk-food death cult..

Music and culture and peoples' Telethons replace the television 'stars'.The 'stars' and all the rich sad news readers and rich sad talkback hosts will be sent off to Rousseau rehabilitation programs, for sad California type cultists. And Hollywood 'Force' self combusts like sodium! And you know what? - People start whistling once again, and talking! We become more noble less nazi, like Rousseaus freed from the media''s jails and drugs

The police are ecstatic and stop resigning. Doctors stop suiciding. Priests and bishops must do penance, for having been rich New Order collaborators and not defending, their vulnerable flocks like Christ would.

Xena, worrisome warrior mess, returns home to NZ and loses her sad media rage (and american accent) She recants, and becomes Xena, mother and seamstress. And extremely active within NZ Plunket. (Plunket is mother and child support) So active that the sad U.S. sickness and violence industries all close.! Sad Planet Hollywood becomes happy NZ Plunket and NZ Symphony Orchestra, and NZ Rousseau Revolution Council and Billy T. James Health Foods. The latter man is a maori who died from obesity caused by US type junk food. Soft men and hard women no longer dominatrix our media. And our nature lover Prince Charles is called 'the new Rousseau' of the age.(even by the reformed media) I of course, am made poet laureate. Calvin soon stops being a weird stressed out bully to Hobbes, his teacher, his classmates and himself. Calvin will later write love poetry and waiata for the new age of enlightenment between peoples.

Media stops banning us on talkback, so we return to romantic poetry, and put our anger poetry on hold...... The world discovers it is more fun doing culture than fighting! As straight family types take over control, television's spin becomes child-support again, no longer child-abuse. " Brian John Evans New Zealand poet

Brian Evans
8:54 pm Friday September 17, 1999

I am a New Zealand poet ( fighting the destruction of my country by crass Hollywood movies.

I got banned early in the piece by all the talkback radio hosts.

I still get on radio, by assuming different voices. I have a great time with fooling the silly rednecks. Many are gay, or rather campy gay.

I say "campy gay" to show I don't hate homosexuals.

I believe that 'campy gay' run much of the interlocking incestuous media of the world.

They are extracting some sort of revenge, on straights especially families.....look up "The Pink Swaztika" about Hitler's gay Gestapo etc etc

Also his warped artists and architects...fruitful inquiry.

Also look up how Women in nazi society want to mother the sick leader, even when they know 'he done wrong'. Clinton? He is soft on Hollwood, REALLY BEHIND THE RHETORIC..

You have left out that Hollywood is gay. Hence anti woman, anti family... One favourite persona I have used is that of someone bitterly attacking me!

Then I sock in with satire and ridicule that backfires on the media.

I am sorry to say the population is apathetic here.

They will probably vote for a police state to cope with all the murders we get now, caused by sick TV.

You have the best site on the www,for this sort of protest, and I have seen many! Calm and authoratative and scientific, you are....Thank you so much.

Cheers mate, as we say in Noo Zeeland

Brian Evans

James Jaeger
4:27 am Friday September 24, 1999

You have the best site on the www, for this sort of protest, and I have seen many! Calm and authoratative and scientific, you are....Thank you so much.

Thanks Brian. And thanks for your contributions.

James Jaeger

Gay and Jewish and rich.
Brian Evans
7:26 am Sunday September 19, 1999

The Nationalist Times from August archive:-

Hillary's Coalition
It appears all but certain now that Hillary Clinton will try to become a member of the U.S. Senate from New York. Carpetbagging issues aside, it is a natural evolution. If there is one person in the United States more ambitious and power-hungry than Bill Clinton it is his wife.

During her most recent trip to New York, Mrs. Clinton appeared at a $5,000-a-plate dinner at the home of composer Jonathan Sheffer and Dr. Christopher Barley. The attendees at this event for the super-rich were homosexual men and women, a constituency that, as The New York Times put it in their June 5th issue, "was important to her husband's successful 1992 presidential race." Sheffer and Barley were also the co-hosts of a fundraiser for the president in the Hamptons last summer.

The Clintons of course have paid the "homosexual community" back in many ways. Besides carefully maintaining a Cabinet with more blacks and Jews than any previous one, the Clinton administration is filled with homosexuals, with over 100 "out-of- the-closet" homosexuals in top-level positions, and a coven of lesbians in the Cabinet itself. The few non-Jewish, non- homosexual whites in the Clinton administration have been exclusively Wall Street banksters or other corporate spear carriers.

Middle Americans should take heed that Hillary is turning to homosexuals as her primary source of campaign money. Her campaign strategy will undoubtedly be to win New York State by winning the votes of every group except one working class and middle class whites. Middle Americans in New York will be left to hold their nose and vote for the "lesser of two evils" liberal Republican Rudolph Giuliani.

The most populous state, California, has for all intents and purposes already been lost to the liberal/homosexual/Zionist/Third World voting coalition. Hillary Clinton will be running a very important race to see if the same coalition is now strong enough to win in New York. In just a few more years, the same anti-white, anti-Christian coalition will be strong enough to take over the state governments of Texas and Florida, with Michigan, Illinois and New Jersey not far behind.

But even if Mrs. Clinton loses in 2000, the important point is that it's just a matter of time before she or someone else from the radical left does win in New York. While large geographic areas of America are still relatively removed from the Third World invasion, the large population states are about to start falling like dominoes. And when that happens, it will be impossible for a non-liberal, even a "conservative" Republican, to win a national election. The revolutionary forces will not only have a lock on the presidency, they will solidify their control over the judiciary, and become a majority in Congress as well.

To those who think nationalists dwell too much on race, ethnicity and sexual orientation, the best response is, Look at what's going on all over this country. If militant blacks, hispanics, homosexuals, feminists, Jews and other liberal forces were truly only interested in a mythical, color- blind "equality," then one would have a strong argument. But they are not. Their end goal, spurred on by the internationalist elites who indoctrinate and finance their leaders, is not "equality," but domination, revenge, and a privileged position for the conquerors of a once-great nation.

There will be no end to the decadence, degradation and continual social turmoil that has been taking place with great fervor in this country since the JFK assassination until the liberal and corporate revolutionaries have open, total control over every nook and cranny of America. And at that point, the persecution of whites and Christians will greatly intensify. The only way it will not happen is if enough Middle Americans overcome their fears and apathy and begin working together for if the Clinton administration has shown anything, it is that those who have worked for so long to subvert America from within, are getting close to achieving their aims. -- Don Wassall"

Brian Evans

Gay Mafia Hollywood
Brian Evans
7:56 am Sunday September 19, 1999

'Gay Mafia' Takes Over Control of Hollywood
by Paul Richert (from the May/June 1995 issue of The Nationalist Times)

If you're wondering why homosexuals have skyrocketed in recent years to join blacks and feminists at the top of liberalism's hallowed list of "minority groups" entitled to special rights and privileges, look no further than Hollywood --- Tinseltown is controlled these days by the "Gay Mafia." The Gay Mafia is dominated by three individuals --- Sandy Geffen, Barry Diller, and Sandy Gallin. Geffen is a billionaire mogul who has recently joined forces with Steven Spielberg and Jeffrey Katzenberg to start "Dreamworks," a new studio which may well come to surpass all the other studios, given the resources and clout of its partners.

An expose of the Gay Mafia in the May/June issue of Spy magazine by Mark Ebner states that Geffen "can end a career with a phone call." Geffen "married" Bob Brassle, a Warner Bros. vice president, at an est outing, in a ceremony replete with wedding bands. But Geffen is known for sleeping with countless male Hollywood executives and actors.

Diller is another superrich Hollywood executive. Ebner calls Diller the "smartest don in the Mob," noting that he has made "gods" out of those loyal to him --- people like Michael Eisner, Katzenberg, Peter Chernin, Sherry Lansing, and Dawn Steel, among many others. Although Diller still refuses to publicly acknowledge his homosexuality, according to Ebner he was known for cruising the dorms at UCLA and holding homosexual parties.

Gallin is a 54-year-old agent, manager and TV producer. According to Ebner, Gallin has had more plastic surgery than Michael Jackson, in an effort to perpetually look like a 30-year- old.

Beyond the three "dons" of the Gay Mafia, there are of course many film executives, agents, and actors --- and the mafia acts in concert to protect each other and their images. Agent Steve Dontanville was sued by a man for sexual harassment, but the mafia has kept the story hushed up. Another agent, Scott Zimmerman, was caught having sex with his male personal trainer in his office at the same time he was divorcing his wife. Zimmerman did not receive so much as a reprimand. The Spy article notes that "straight agents, or any mid-level industry powers for that matter, would have --- and have been --- fired, blasted in the trade press, and sued for such indiscretions." A very powerful agent was Stan Kamen, employed by the William Morris agency, who died of AIDS a few years ago. His clients included Barbra Streisand, Steven Spielberg, Robert Redford and Goldie Hawn. About his homosexuality, "[T]he straight guys who came off his desk idolized him, and wouldn't mention [his sexuality], or even [kid] around about it. It was just not spoken about --- ever. It's fear, and a reverence built out of fear . . . It's not based on intellect, but based on what will happen to you," according to a former employee of Kamen's. Jann Wenner, the founder and publisher of Rolling Stone, the far- left, pro-corporate music magazine, recently left his wife for a man. Every single U.S. publication blacked out the story, until it was finally printed by The Mail, a British paper with a circulation of over 2 million.

Geffen made sure the movie "Interview With a Vampire," directed by the homosexual Neil Jordan (who also directed the perverted movie "The Crying Game") had its homoerotic undertones removed. This was also insisted upon by lead actor Tom Cruise, who has been the subject of much speculation about his sexual orientation. Cruise "squirmed around" that subject area when interviewed by Vanity Fair last year.

The Disney studio, once an icon of American wholesomeness when it was run by Walt Disney, has five top executives who are homosexual.

Even the Los Angeles Police Department has decided to leave the super-powerful Geffen alone. The LAPD recently busted David Forest, the head of a male prostitution ring on a par with the one run by Heidi Fleiss. According to Spy, Geffen's name was at the top of Forest's client list. But the LAPD refuses to use Geffen's name as evidence during the trial, a detective being quoted as saying, "We don't wanna touch Geffen." Ebner also writes about the "Circle of Fire," a group of young, good-looking guys who are flown around the country to the "big orgy parties" held by homosexual power brokers. Even the existence of the Lavender Mafia is denied by most of the principles involved. The incessant need to not only advance their fellow homosexuals but to zealously protect each other from public scrutiny is because the "need to maintain America's wholesome image of them is something that connects Hollywood gays at all levels --- whether one is a struggling (or a mega- star) actor, writer, agent, or producer," Ebner writes. Virtually all of the "Gay Mafia" are Jewish. Vicious character attacks are always leveled at anyone who has noted the undeniable fact that Hollywood has been Jewish dominated since its inception --- yet most Americans are aware of that fact. Probably very few are aware yet of the rise within that subculture of a homosexual subculture to dominance. Many critics of the current System note that even as Americans seem unable to influence the political process with their votes for two essentially similar, bureaucratic political parties, they have absolutely no sway over powerful institutions like the media, who hide behind the smokescreen that they are "objective" and that the ideology and agenda of those who control the most powerful instruments of persuasion ever invented are never to be subjected to close scrutiny.

Homosexual militants demand that their "lifestyle" be treated as equal to the traditional family, yet most still scrupulously hide their identity, preferring to do their subversive undermining of American culture as "closeted" revolutionaries. A Nationalist government will regulate the media, by ending the media dictatorship currently exercised by the radical left, and making sure that what Americans see and hear is commensurate with this country's heritage and values."

Brian Evans NZ protest poet:-

Bill Clinton a seducing film-star?
Brian Evans
11:11 am Sunday September 19, 1999

salon/ask camille quote:-

"Dear Ray Gordon:

Thank you for the fascinating question. Naturally, in the wake of its lightning-quick Clinton crisis coverage, Salon has been flooded with messages from its international readership.

For example, Bewildered Male declares, "For the life of me, I don't understand female passion about Clinton." Noting that "Anita Hill is given victim-sainthood for having seen a pubic hair," he asks, "can you please explain why women -- even my wife -- love to love Bill Clinton?"

Another writer, using the piquant sobriquet Draft Libby in 2000, exclaims, "Are you as frustrated as I am with feminist takes on the Clinton scandal?" Evan Allen takes the strawberry cupcake for his query: "Did the president's penis peregrinate into the private parts of a barely post-pubescent intern?" He sees poetic justice in Clinton's finally getting nailed: "Personally, I feel this is the result of his (and other politicians') knuckling under to the Anita Hill-driven nuttiness of some sexual harassment laws."

I'm glad you have refocused attention on the "misogynist" charge, which William Ginsburg, the lawyer for ex-intern Monica Lewinsky, speculatively attached to Clinton but has strategically backed away from. "Misogyny," meaning hatred of women, has been the big crutch term of contemporary feminism. Everything uncomfortable or unpalatable in sexual relations is attributed to misogyny by feminists inside and outside academe. Hence their absurd insistence on a "war" supposedly going on against women -- as in that sourpuss Marilyn French's virulently anti-male "The War Against Women" (1993) or in Susan Faludi's shrill, sloppy screed, "Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women" (1991).

In "Sexual Personae" and elsewhere, I have argued that "misogyny" is a hopelessly inadequate word for analyzing or understanding the turmoil that has been going on between the sexes since the Stone Age. For hatred of women I substitute fear of women -- illustrated, I contend, by the whole gorgeous corpus of world mythology, with its horrific monsters and vampires and sizzling femmes fatales, who live again in Hollywood.

Bill Clinton's "sexual appetite," as you put it, intrigues me as a theorist of sex. I'm immensely enjoying the spectacle of feminist leaders twisting slowly, slowly in the wind as they try to defend the debaucheries of the standard-bearer of the Democratic Party -- their none-too-secret affiliation, which they constantly elevate above feminist principle. (I speak as a registered Democrat long repulsed by their ruthless, back-room partisanship, which has so distorted and limited the women's movement.)

Freud, whom Gloria Steinem and company threw overboard, offers the only key to Clinton's strange psyche. The feminist high muckety-mucks are having a little compulsory remedial education these days, a crash course in basic psychology. How amusing to see the arrogant authoritarians turned into tolerant libertarians overnight! Those who so censoriously intruded into the sex lives of American citizens on campus and in the workplace are now performing slithery contortions of self- exculpating casuistry worthy of the Borgia popes.

Notorious for doing four things at once (e.g., watching TV, reading, eating and talking on the telephone), Clinton is literally omnivorous: He would gobble up all the hamburgers and women in the world, if he could. The book he reportedly gave to Lewinsky, Walt Whitman's "Leaves of Grass," contains the line, "I am large, I contain multitudes." Clinton is the ultimate democratic -- that's small "d" -- president. He wants to suck everything up, have it all, cram life with every sensation and emotion. His moods go up, down and sideways (like his rumored bent organ?). He's always behind; no day is long enough. He has the complexity of a great star -- like Judy Garland or Joan Crawford. Yes, the only analogies to him are female, not male.

As polls show, a majority of the American people are in uneasy love with Clinton and forgive him every fault, including compulsive lying. But love affairs are dangerously mercurial. Should Clinton's electrifying energy and transcendent self- belief begin to flag, the public will go cold and rend him limb from limb. He is the prodigal son now, but he could still end up crucified.

Exactly what drives Clinton's appetites? Fatherless, he was reared in matriarchy. He reveres women but fears their all- engulfing power. His feisty, florid, ribald mother, Virginia -- so strong that even the dominatrix Barbra Streisand fell under her influence -- would be succeeded by her rival and opposite, the male-willed Hillary Rodham, a fanatically focused, high- minded Puritan who took Bill under her wing as a lovable but ever-straying son, whom she molds like clay but can't control outside her atelier.

Clinton's crimes are incestuous: He makes the whole world his family and then seduces and pollutes it, person by person. Remember how then-Gov. Clinton, hot and sweaty from jogging, jovially stained Jim McDougal's expensive new leather chair? -- something his Whitewater partner never forgot. "

Brian Evans

ps Definition of a psychopath, includes that he had a weak or absent father, and a strong mother. cf Herr Hitler...

| F.I.R.M. Home | Mission | Background Info |
| Dialogs | Discussion Forum & Archives | Press Releases |
| Research | Help F.I.R.M. | Bookstore |