I challenge anyone to objectively demonstrate that plenty of "great" films manage to sneak through the studio system every year. The judgment required is too subjective to begin with, and I doubt that the author of this statement has conducted any valid study of this question, or can cite such a study. He did not offer any such reference. The people who are wasting their time are those filmmakers who pursue their lifelong careers with blinders on, not considering the larger environment in which they seek to function and prosper. The expressed repulsion of this third author in this group merely reflects his lack of understanding of what has been stated. His repulsion is actually caused by his own inability to more clearly focus on what was said.

15. PREMATURE CELEBRATION.

This message also really gave me a chuckle.

This individual is engaging in a shallow bit of premature self-congratulatory adulation, by assuming that since I did not respond as soon as he thought appropriate to his posting, I must have lost interest. I have long recognized that the business of bringing about long-term and lasting film industry reform in the U.S. is a good 15 to 20 year project. My Mensa Speech and this discussion on the Web Cinema Digest are just two of the very early steps along the way toward that ultimate goal. I think the kinds of responses I'm getting, however, are quite representative of what I am likely to get in the future: mostly false misdirected rhetoric, hyperbole, demagoguery, straw-man arguments, personal attacks, smokescreens, but little substance supported by facts, evidence or studies.

16. RACISM.

This false characterization of the basis of my work is closely related to the false accusations of anti-Semitism. It is, once again, an attack on my motives.

The suggestion being made with the "racism" attack is that I am prejudiced and therefore my thoughts should not be considered on their merits. Racism is very wrong, but calling someone a racist when they are not is also very wrong. Since this author and others seem to be confused on this issue, we should clarify a few fine points. Being Jewish is not a racial issue. It has long been established that Jews do not constitute a recognized race, to the extent there is such a thing at all. The concept of "Jewishness" combines both a religious and cultural component. In other words, someone may hold themselves out as being Jewish without being religious because they identify with their cultural heritage. Or, they may be Jewish in both the religious and cultural sense. Anti-Semitism, on the other hand, is not strictly at attack on merely the religious part of being Jewish, but hostility directed toward Jews generally, or hostility directed toward a single Jew, because he or she is Jewish. Thus, anti-Semitism can be directed toward a non-religious Jew.

It just so happens, however, there is no anti-Semitism of any kind in my speech, books or other writing. Criticizing someone who happens to be Jewish for their business-related conduct does not rise to anti-Semitic behavior. You will note that in my communications, (1) there is no hostility directed toward these individuals, merely criticism of business-related behavior. (2) There are no broad statements in my work directed toward Jews generally. My criticism is merely directed toward a small group of unrepresentative, politically liberal, not very religious, Jewish males of European heritage. (3) There is also no evidence in my speeches, writings or life to suggest that I have criticized the behavior of these individuals because they are Jewish. Merely pointing out that they are Jewish, does not suggest that I believe they behave the way they behave because they are Jewish. In fact, I am willing to stipulate that I do not believe that is the case with these gentlemen. Further, I believe that the individuals within most any religious, ethnic, cultural, racial, regional or other readily identifiable group in our society would be likely to behave in much the same manner if by historical accident or otherwise, they found themselves in control of a powerful communication medium like film. No one would want to give up that power, and to the extent that they could, they would continue to expand that power until effectively challenged.

17. SMOKESCREENS.

The author of the following quote makes a huge and unwarranted inferential leap from my criticism of the well-publicized compensation packages commonly granted to past and present studio executives, to a false and reckless assumption that my suggested remedy is an extreme not ever considered by me, much less advocated.

I happen to believe that capitalism is the best form of economic model yet devised by human civilizations, but it is not without its problems and abuses. That is why it is necessary for citizens and our government to monitor anti-competitive activities of the very big and powerful private corporate conglomerates in every field. I haven't worked in any other industry for 11 years, as I have in the film industry. I haven't conducted a study comparing studio executive salaries with the salaries of other executives in other industries. If anyone else has, we should all like to see the results.

My criticism is based on the fact that there have never been any African- American or Native Americans admitted to the top executive positions at these studios, and therefore none of those individuals (along with the diverse ideas they may be able to bring to the table) have benefitted from those huge salaries. And, apparently only one individual with what appears to be a Latino surname has made the upper echelon of Hollywood studio executives.

In addition, only a relatively small number of females have achieved those positions and very few Whites from the American South and Asian-Americans have enjoyed that status.

In addition, only a relatively small number of openly Christian individuals or Muslims occupy those positions.

Thus, the Hollywood studios are not only giving out huge salaries, they are blatantly discriminating against the vast majority of those who do not fall within the parameters of the Hollywood insider community. If you want to justify the huge salaries by pointing out that they are no greater than those of other industries, show us the facts. If you also want to go further and argue that it's ok for the Hollywood insiders to discriminate against those who do not fall within the parameters of the Hollywood control group definition, since other industries have historically, done the same thing to other members of the broader so-called Jewish community, be careful, because the logical extension of that argument is that it must therefore be ok for the people in those other industries to continue their own form of wrongful discrimination. And, of course, the discrimination should stop in all industries.

Further, the systematic shifting of wealth to members of the arbitrarily selected Hollywood insider group should also stop.

18. STRAW MAN ARGUMENTS (misrepresenting exaggerating my position).

I have not and do not offer any percentage for demographic representation for any group at any level of the film industry. I have merely made the accurate observation that many groups in our society have been systematically and arbitrarily excluded from positions of power in Hollywood throughout its nearly 90-year history through nepotism, favoritism, cronyism, blacklisting and other forms of discrimination, and that all citizens, in addition to our government have an interest in taking all necessary and proper steps to see that it stops.

This argument reveals a serious lack of understanding of corporate governance. Corporate ownership and management control of the day-to-day business of the corporation are often not the same in the corporate world, and that is particularly true of the Hollywood major studio/distributors. For traditional Hollywood management, the publicly held corporation is merely another means for gaining the use of other people's money to do with as they choose. If you doubt this, conduct a study of who actually appointed and controls the decisions of the boards of directors of the film divisions of the corporate conglomerates owning the major studio/distributors. In most instances, you will discover that its the Hollywood insider management, not outside ownership interests. Even in those instances where outside ownership interests control the board of directors most closely supervising the activities of the corporate film division, a study of the history of Hollywood will reveal that management has from time to time effectively utilized techniques, such as the threatened or actual upper-level management walkout, to dictate important policy decisions to outside owners. Thus, the above statements are false and do not represent my logic or position.

Recognizing that no observer can know for sure what motivates others, my survey of the film industry literature suggests that the Hollywood control group has a number of possible "interests" or sources of motivation, including: money, greed, power, fear, respect, reciprocal preferences, the use of film for personal therapy, self-expression, culture promotion and for making political statements, winning and influence, hidden agendas, sex and beautiful women (or men), the us against them syndrome, prejudice and discrimination, something akin to Noam Chomsky's manufacturing consent, shifting wealth and keeping it within the Hollywood insider community, facilitating contributions to favored charities and causes, control of an important industry, becoming internationally competitive (or dominant), moving toward the global economy, pursuing the Hollywood insiders' cash infusion strategy, the "return to tribalism" suggested by Joel Kotkin and other motivations supporting the activities of a form of organized crime.

Recognizing that a "stereotype" is a conventional, formulaic, and oversimplified conception, opinion or image, if anyone conducts a bonafide study of who controls Hollywood and the results of that study show that Hollywood is controlled by a small group of politically liberal, not very religious, Jewish males of European heritage, the study's data supports this result, and this precise definition of the Hollywood control group has never before been articulated, then that is not a stereotype, but the honest results of the study. Again, this author is confusing my precise definition of the Hollywood control group with the many rather crude attempts by others to make broad generalizations about the Hollywood control group, unsupported by studies that can be reproduced by anyone. There is a big difference between those statements and the results of my study.

As you can see from the rather extensive list of possible sources of motivation for the Hollywood control group gleaned from my survey of the industry literature (and noted above), I have not suggested that "cronyism" is the only motivating factor influencing the behavior of the Hollywood control group. One other point, the actual strategy underlying the so-called major studio/distributor "blockbuster" or "tentpole" approach to annual release slates (i.e., your stated studio preference for large films), is really a continuation of the illegal block booking scheme.

Each year, the distributor representatives of the major studio/distributors communicate with exhibitor representatives about which films will be booked into the exhibitor's theatres in the coming months. These communications are typically oral (and among friends), so those not privy to the conversation would never be able to prove their contents.

As reported to me by some who have participated in such conversations, the gist of it goes like this: "Gee, Mr. Exhibitor, if you'll give me a break on these upcoming mediocre to poor studio movies, I'll see to it that you get first dibs on our next blockbuster." And since, the distributor/exhibitor contracts are designed to allow the exhibitor to make most of its money off the films that stay in the theatres the longest, theexhibitor is pretty much forced to accept that deal, even at the expense of excluding many other independently released motion pictures that may be better quality films or even have equal or greater audience appeal. And, so many of you independent producers still think it's a free marketplace.

Also, take a close look at the settlement transaction between exhibitors and distributors. You will discover that the settlement amounts for independently produced films released by the major studio/distributors are consistently less than the settlement amounts for films both produced and released by the major studio/distributors. The effect of this consistent pattern is to shift hundreds of millions of dollars annually from the revenue streams that would have benefitted all net and gross profit participants of the independent films to the shared revenue streams of the settling exhibitors and distributors.

My study reveals the predominant sexual, religious, cultural and political characteristics of the Hollywood control group, not just the "religious affiliation". And, these characteristics have specific relevance to the kinds of films we see. If anyone wants to take a stab at coming up with a better study, with an improved definition of the characteristics of the Hollywood control group, I'd be interested in seeing your results. In the meantime, I have to proceed under the assumption that society as a whole will be better off by knowing the truth.

Again, this is simply a misrepresentation of the results of my study, by someone who is either not paying attention, very imprecise with their powers of observation, or just plain dishonest. You may refer above to the more accurate statement of the results of my study regarding who really controls Hollywood.

This is an attempt to extend my logic to the point of ridicule. It has no reasonable relationship to any of my facts, evidence, studies or arguments. It is mere time-wasting rhetoric.

Again, this individual is making a false assumption regarding the results of my study. It is not my position that writers, directors, producers, DP's or Stars make the all-important ultimate decisions regarding which films will be produced or released by the major studio/distributors, regarding who gets to work in the key positions on those films, or regarding the contents of the screenplays serving as the basis for such films. My studies indicate that those decisions are generally made by the top three studio executives at the major studios. Thus, my study limits the control group to the 226 studio executives who have held those positions during the period of the study, and although the percentage estimates may go as high as 80% for that overall group of Hollywood insiders, my specific research ended when the percentage reached 60%, because that's well over a majority, which is all that is necessary for control. If anyone wants to argue and expand this group of key decision-makers to include agents, producers, directors, screenwriters, actors, etc., feel free. Again, I would be most interested in your factual results, as opposed to your empty rhetoric.

This statement has a couple of problems. I do not believe one group is responsible for everything that goes on. And, I do not believe the members of the Hollywood control group behave the way they do because of their profiles. The survey of possible sources of motivation set forth above best explains the "because" of their behavior. The profiles merely help to explain who these individuals are and why the blatant patterns of bias exist in Hollywood movies.

Once again, this is simply not my statement. This author is putting forth a position and misrepresenting it as my own, so it will be easier for him to effectively argue against the statement (i.e., topple my presumed argument represented by his straw-man). That's classic straw-man argumentation, and it requires not further response. My actual statements are available in the Mensa speech press release, the actual Mensa speech or in manuscript form.

19. WRONG FACTS.

These messages are simply based on incorrect information.

This author's mistake is seeing something in my position that is not there. I do not conceive of Hollywood as "one entertainment company". I see it as an industry, dominated by seven, vertically-integrated, distributor dominated, anti-competitive corporate entities that have by and large, long-operated as a shared monopoly or oligopoly.

In other words, there are two distinct levels of competition in the U.S. film industry. There is vigorous competition among the major studio/distributors, most of which have been and are controlled by the Hollywood insiders, but an even more vicious and predatory level of competition between those major studios controlled by the Hollywood insiders and all others. For those purposes, the Hollywood insider controlled studios engage in reciprocal preferences among themselves, which puts all other companies at a severe competitive disadvantage. The turnover ratio among the studio executives is irrelevant since the vast majority of choices for those positions are made from a very limited pool of people fitting the profile of the predominant Hollywood insider group, with the single additional requirement that these individuals must "play ball" with the Hollywood insider community or they will be ousted (e.g., David Puttnam).

The truth is that we cannot communicate without making generalizations. There is no one-to-one relationship between our vocabularies and the separately describable elements of reality. Thus, we must make generalizations in order to describe what we observe of that real world.

This author limits her view of my attitude to only part of it. She refuses to recognize that what this discussion is all about is how we can insure that she and others who have been traditionally excluded from positions of power in the U.S. film industry will have a fair and equal opportunity to pursue such positions in the future. You can't get any more positive and fair than that.

My generalizations about the people in charge are based on by studies. I have not used the term "policy" to describe the similar and limited range of business-related decision-making of these individuals. That word suggests group action, which is something I have not alleged.

Both of these postings are similar, and both are based on incorrect facts. If not, please enlighten me about when WASPS ran Hollywood.

My understanding is that the only period in the history of the U.S. film industry in which WASPS could accurately be said to have run this industry was in the period from the early 1900s to 1915, when the Edison Trust was the dominant force in the industry.

However, that entity was based on the East Coast and never held much influence over Hollywood, which was a film outpost created specifically by the "outlaw" independent producers of the day, who were seeking to use the film camera and projector patents owned by the Edison Trust without paying legitimate royalties. Those former independents were the predecessors of most of today's major studio/distributors.

We must be careful not to confuse temporary ownership and/or control of one or two major studio/distributors by a Hollywood outsider with control of Hollywood.

Just because Catholics and Protestants were influential in helping to create Hollywood's "production code" does not mean that Catholics and Protestants controlled Hollywood, or had any power to exclude anyone from participating in the film industry. Please check your historical facts on this.

During what period of time were there "few Jews in the studios" to use your words? And, are negative cultural stereotypes merely reinforced by movies, or do movies help to create and perpetuate negative cultural stereotypes in the minds of succeeding generations of moviegoers?

This author sees an attempt to conceal where there is none. I have no reason to disguise my definition of the Hollywood control group. I am not trying to fool anyone. My definition of the Hollywood control group does not replace "Jew" as he inaccurately states. My definition is much broader than that (see above discussions of the full definition). It is also clearly not anti- Semitic. It is merely easier to say "Hollywood control group" than it is to lay out the entire definition every time I refer to that group in my speeches or writings. It is really quite interesting to realize that so many people who hold themselves out as being Jewish, and non-Jews alike, think they see anti-Semitism when it's not there).

This rather naive observation is similar to the free market argument. However, I believe it would be more accurate to state that people only get the power that they take, and that we allow them to keep. Since my experience with this discussion group is that many of you don't recognize the problems with the Hollywood system as your own, it is not likely that you will play a role in taking anybody's power away from them.

This is really a very funny question. I don't know whether I make more money in the film business than this individual or not. Does he want to post his annual earnings for the discussion group to see? And, of what relevance is my earnings (compared to his) to all of the issues we have been discussing? Just because I've maintained a small, highly-specialized law practice in Los Angeles helping to meet the investor-financing needs of low-budget independent feature film producers from any and all backgrounds for eleven years now, does not mean I make a lot of money. Just, that I've been able to do that for eleven years. Also, for the record, I actually share some of the important characteristics of the Hollywood control group. I consider myself to be a politically liberal, not very religious male with a European heritage. It would not be accurate to characterize me as any form of "Christian". So, there's no longer any need to make any assumptions based on that inaccurate belief.

This is just pure argumentation, and is of no other value. As stated earlier, I am not a member of the Mensa group. I merely gave a speech to a regional gathering of the group by invitation. If this author wishes to point to specific language in any of my presentations which fairly suggest "arrogance" on my part, I would be happy to respond. Otherwise, there is nothing to respond to here, since the accusation is just too vague (i.e., not connected to anything specific).

Wow! Bless your heart. Your information is so very dated! Please talk to foreign sales agents, completion guarantors, production-money lenders and international distributors right away. You will discover that many foreign territorial distributors (particularly in the Asian markets) are having a difficult time meeting their financial commitments to pay distributor advances upon delivery of completed films, much less provide guarantees to support foreign pre- sales. Why do you suppose banks started resorting to gap financing anyway? And, the even more risky insurance-backed lender-financing based on foreign sales estimates, but not foreign pre- sales? The experts I've heard discuss these various forms of lender-financing in recent months indicate that the foreign pre-sale market you describe has pretty much dried up and may never come back.

You are correct about the domestic theatrical market, it is one of the most difficult to penetrate. That's partly because the majors routinely release their films (whether good, bad or mediocre) in a rather wide release pattern, thus, the films of the majors and their subsidiaries regularly squeeze independent films off the screens. Obviously, since many factors are involved, it is difficult to isolate the reasons why any particular film or filmmaker does not succeed in this market, however, my studies tend to show that scripts and films with certain recognizable themes and biases tend to get picked more often than others. And, this tends to support my theory that movies, to a large text, tend to mirror the values, interests, cultural perspectives and prejudices of their makers.

Best wishes,

John W. Cones

--o0o--