1. Are motion pictures merely entertainment? The motion picture is more than mere entertainment, it is a significant medium for the communication of ideas (see Legacy of the Hollywood Empire). Back
2. Is it possible to identify patterns of bias in Hollywood films? Hollywood films have consistently portrayed whole populations of our diverse society in a negative or stereotypical manner (see Patterns of Bias in Motion Picture Content). Specific groups targeted for such prejudicial treatment include African-Americans, Hispanic/Latinos, Asians and Asian-Americans, Arabs and Arab-Americans, women, gays/lesbians, Christians, Muslims and White Southerners. Back
3. Do movies influence human behavior? Since all movies communicate ideas (i.e., messages), and ideas have always and will always influence human behavior, then it is therefore proven by pure logic that movies influence human behavior (see Legacy of the Hollywood Empire). Back
4. Do movies contribute to prejudicial thinking? It is therefore highly likely that movies consistently portraying whole populations of our diverse society in a negative or stereotypical manner will contribute to prejudicial thinking and discriminatory behavior directed toward those same populations. Back
5. Do motion picture biographies (biopics) also contain patterns of bias? Further, motion picture biographies produced or released by the Hollywood major studio/distributors also exhibit patterns of bias (see Motion Picture Biographies). Back
6. Is there any one readily identifiable group in U.S. society that is consistently treated more favorably in their screen portrayals than the groups identified above that are consistently portrayed in a negative and/or stereotypical manner? What is that group? Is is fair to suggest that such more favorable screen portrayals rises to the level of movie propaganda? Hollywood films also tend to provide more favorable portrayals for a specific religious/cultural group in our society and such favoritism rises to the level of movie propaganda (see A Study in Motion Picture Propaganda). Back
7. Is it a fair observation to say that generally speaking, movies mirror the values, interests, cultural perspectives and prejudices of their makers? Ultimately, movies mirror the values, interests, cultural perspectives and prejudices of their makers (see Patterns of Bias in Motion Picture Content, Motion Picture Biographies, A Study in Motion Picture Propaganda and Who Really Controls Hollywood). Back
8. Who actually makes the important decisions about which movies will be produced and/or released by the major studio/distributors, who gets to work on those movies in the key positions and what the content of the underlying scripts for such movies are? The people who still determine to the greatest extent the movies that the vast majority of American audiences see on the screen are the three top studio executives at these so-called major studio/distributors (see Who Really Controls Hollywood). These are the people who control Hollywood and have exercised that control for the nearly 90-year history of the Hollywood-based U.S. film industry. Back
9. Assuming you have determined that Hollywood is and has been controlled by a small, narrowly-defined interest group for its nearly 90-year history, what are the consequences? In addition to the observations noted above, the book Legacy of the Hollywood Empire reveals that the structure of the Hollywood-based U.S. film industry has resulted in an emphasis on so-called 'commercial films', lowest common denominator movies, homogeneous films, exploitation fare, movies that can be easily marketed (high concept movies) and just plain mediocre to bad movies (i.e., an overall deterioration in the quality of films). Back
10. How can we most precisely define the Hollywood control group (also known as the Hollywood insiders)? My studies demonstrate that Hollywood is controlled and has been controlled for its nearly 90-year history by a small group of politically liberal, not very religious, Jewish males of European Heritage (see Who Really Controls Hollywood). This narrowly-defined Hollywood control group does not behave the way they do because they are Jewish, nor is their behavior typical of the much broader so-called Jewish community. Back
11. Is the control over Hollywood exercised by the above-defined Hollywood control group legitimate? This small narrowly-defined Hollywood control group (also known as the Hollywood establishment, traditional Hollywood management or Hollywood insiders) has gained and has maintained its control over the Hollywood-based U.S. film industry through the consistent use of unfair, unethical, anti-competitive, unconscionable, predatory and illegal business practices (see Hollywood Empire ,The Feature Film Distribution Deal and How the Movie Wars Were Won). Back
12. If a Hollywood insiders’ group exists, how does that affect the interests of others? Such control of Hollywood has also resulted in the systematic exclusion of 'outsiders' from positions of control at the major studio/distributors, the top entertainment law firms, the top talent agencies, profit participation audit firms and other film industry-related service industries. Back
13. Have the hiring practices of the Hollywood control group been discriminatory? Specifically, the top executives of the Hollywood major studio/distributors have engaged in wholesale employment discrimination for 90 years. Not only has that discrimination been directed toward African-Americans, Hispanic/Latinos, women, Arab-Americans, Asian-Americans, people from the American South, among others, Hollywood employers have also shown distinct hiring preferences, including a preference for hiring immigrants from a handful of European countries, as opposed to equally talented persons already in the U.S. (even when no demonstrated need for the hiring of immigrants was apparent). Back
14. Have members of the Hollywood control group consistently violated U.S. antitrust laws, and if so, how do they get away with it? The Hollywood control group has also consistently violated U.S. antitrust laws (see Politics, Movies and the Role of Government). Further, most, if not all of the major studio/distributor distribution agreements are contracts of adhesion with multiple unconscionable provisions (see The Feature Film Distribution Deal). Back
15. Does the Hollywood control group have a “proclivity for wrongdoing”? The behavior of this Hollywood control group has been so reprehensible that over a period of some 50 years, three different sophisticated individuals who are specifically knowledgeable about the operation of the film industry (i.e., a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, the federal judge who supervised 30 years of film industry compliance with the Paramount Consent decrees and the Los Angeles-based litigating attorney who sued Paramount on behalf of Art Buchwald), all proclaimed that the Hollywood control group has a proclivity for wrongful conduct (see How the Movie Wars Were Won, Politics, Movies and the Role of Government and Hollywood Corruption). Back
16. What role should the federal government play in bringing about long-term and lasting film industry reform? The federal government has long been highly involved in helping the Hollywood-based U.S. film industry achieve its goals, although from time to time, the government has unsuccessfully attempted to limit the film industry's efforts in this regard (see Politics, Movies and the Role of Government). On the other hand, the federal government has a legitimate interest and role to play (indeed, a duty and obligation) to stop (or at least fully investigate and consider all appropriate remedies) for any such employment discrimination and antitrust law violations, along with the many other questionable business practices routinely engaged in by the Hollywood major studio/distributors. It is in the nation's interest to see that this is done. Back
17. Has the false charge of anti-Semitism ever been used against Hollywood’s critics? Often? Against whom? In their own defense, the Hollywood insiders have often used the so-called anti-Semitic sword (i.e., the affirmative use of a false or unsupported accusation of anti-Semitism for the purpose of distracting attention from the truth or falsity of the original statement) against film industry critics (see How the Movie Wars Were Won). Back
18. Is it appropriate in our multi-cultural society for any readily identifiable interest group, no matter how defined to control the film industry or any significant medium for the communication of ideas? It is inappropriate in our multi-cultural society for any readily identifiable interest group (whether the group identity is based on ethnicity, culture, religion, race, class, region of origin, sex or sexual preference, or otherwise) to be allowed to dominate or control this important communications medium. Back
19. What should be the main goal of any film industry reform movement? Finally, in addition to any available private remedies (some of which are discussed herein), the U.S. government, through all legitimate means necessary, has the right and the obligation to protect its people from the pollution of its cultural environment, and has the right and obligation to ensure that all U.S. citizens, no matter what race, culture, ethnicity, religion, sexual preference or region of origin, have an equal and fair opportunity to participate at all levels of the U.S. film industry, with the long-term objective of ensuring that our feature films more accurately reflect the diversity of our multi-cultural society. After all movies mirror the values, interests cultural perspectives and prejudices of their makers. Back
Your General Comments:
Optional:
Name:
Email:
Phone:
Address:
How I was referred to this Survey:
Date: