Posts about film makers written by Anon ..

Filmmakers are constantly asking me to point them to exemplary websites but there ..

MovieMaker has long been part of the furniture at Chapter

In any case, this study (summarized here) concludes with regard to movies and propaganda during the era of World War II, that Hollywood clearly engaged in propagandistic efforts that were anti-fascist, anti-Nazi, anti-isolationist and/or pro-interventionist prior to U.S. entry into the war, clearly made propagandistic pro-Russian films during the war and certainly did not cooperate with the U.S. government during the war as much as some of the pro-Hollywood revisionist writers would lead us to believe. In addition, as demonstrated by the patterns of bias studies detailed below (and in this book's chapters on "Patterns of Bias: Movies Mirror Their Makers" and "More Bias in Motion Picture Biographies"), Hollywood has continued to produce and distribute propagandistic movies following the war, but has merely shifted gears away from the struggle over government propaganda concerns and back to the private propaganda concerns of those who control the film industry. After all, patterns of bias consistently portrayed in a communications medium such as film are implicitly propagandistic.

Fat Man and Little Boy (1989) - IMDb

It is clear that "[m]ost of Hollywood's efforts during the war centered around doing what it did best--entertaining people . . . " making money and promoting its own interests. In other words, Hollywood exploited the war for its own financial and ideological gain. The Hollywood PR machine, as represented in the writing of Lester Friedman, however, would like for us to believe that the Hollywood " . . . filmmakers added the element of ideological persuasion." According to this self-serving and revisionist view, Hollywood films of the period " . . . not only celebrated democratic virtues and goals for those at home and in allied countries, but they became two-hour furloughs for servicemen, powerful cinematic images depicting just what they were fighting to defend . . . " Again, according to Friedman, "[w]hat emerged from the war years was an acknowledgment of Hollywood's power and influence, forcing industry members and outsiders alike into an even greater awareness of film's impact on society." Of course, this is the same impact on society that many film industry leaders of today would choose to deny (i.e., today, they are claiming that movies do not influence human behavior).

First Half Century of Jewish Portrayals--The analysis and discussion provided in this book's chapters entitled "Who Really Controls Hollywood", "Patterns of Bias: Movies Mirror Their Makers" and "More Bias in Motion Picture Biographies", sets forth evidence that tends to show that the Hollywood control group has not been very sensitive (throughout its nearly 90-year reign over the Hollywood-based U.S. film industry), to the concerns of African-Americans, Hispanics or Latinos, women, gay/lesbians, Arabs or Arab-Americans, Asians or Asian-Americans, American Indians, White people from the American South and others, when it comes to the consistent negative or stereotypical portrayals of such populations in movies. Since the combined research of Neal Gabler, Terry Pristin, David Prindle, Patricia Erens and other writer/observers of the Hollywood scene, confirms that traditional Hollywood management still controls and dominates Hollywood, it then becomes materially relevant to consider the results of that control in terms of the kinds of movies produced and released by this control group, (e.g., are Jewish-themed movies actually being produced and released, in disproportionate numbers and do they tend to consistently portray Jewish issues and people in a more favorable manner than these other populations?)


At one point in her classic Hollywood interviews, Hortense Powdermaker was told that "[i]f the complaints from members of religious, professional, racial and national groups were all heeded, it would be impossible for Hollywood to make any picture with a villain in it." That blatantly false assertion, of course, is exactly what Hollywood would like for us to believe, and that Hollywood propaganda has been repeated many times since by spokes persons for the Hollywood establishment. A more realistic appraisal would assume that instead of movies without villains, which is really just a Hollywood smokescreen, the film industry's approach to villains should merely eliminate consistent patterns of bias. In other words, if the various racial, ethnic, cultural and religious groups that make up our multi-cultural society were treated more fairly in movies, there would be less reason for anyone to complain about an occasional negative or stereotypical portrayal. Further, since the defenders of the U.S. film industry are fond of pointing out that the many films that portray Jews in a favorable manner relate stories of universal application, it would also be at least hypothetically appropriate to reverse these blatant Hollywood patterns of bias and see how audiences would react to substituting Jewish characters in movies that have portrayed non-Jews in a negative manner, in films made by non-Jews and distributed by companies controlled by non-Jews, all of which also relate stories of "universal application". It is certain that some of the Hollywood establishment would cringe at such a thought.

Science, Nature & How It Works

The fact that some of these films providing negative or stereotypical portrayals of people, places and things of the American South are based on the works of Southern writers is also irrelevant. The relevant consideration here is who has the power to determine what movies are made and the content of those movies, and how has that power been exercised for the nearly 100 year history of the U.S. film industry. If, for example, there are 100 writers from the Southern region of the country writing about the South and fifty of them provide negative and stereotypical portrayals of people, places and things in the South, but the Hollywood moviemakers choose almost all of their movies from this group of fifty negative writers, as opposed to the group that provides more positive portrayals, what difference does it make, that the literary works on which the movies are based were written by someone from the South? This logical argument relating to the contributors to such film projects also applies to all of the other patterns of bias exhibited by Hollywood movies.