The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age

    Reforming Weinstein's Hollywood

    Former movie producer Harvey Weinstein is a serial sexual harasser, exercises zero anger management, and abuses nearly everybody with whom he has contact. He is one among a number of powerful, or once powerful, Hollywood men who share some or all of these behaviors and characteristics. Trying to avoid the rapists, gropers, and grinders is, therefore, a very serious dilemma for women in the entertainment industry. Sadly, it’s not the only one.

    Of those credited with working on the 100 top-grossing films in 2016, women comprised just 4% of the directors, 11% of the writers, 3% of the cinematographers, 19% of the producers, and 14% of the editors. Men don’t just dominate behind the camera either. They filled two thirds of the speaking roles in commercial films released in fiscal year 2015. People of color trying to break into films or climb the industry ladder face similarly daunting statisticss.

    The two-headed monster oppressing women - sexually abusive men and limited opportunities - stalks Hollywood because a handful of big shots possess multi-generational wealth and wield extraordinary power over nearly everybody working in movies. Slaying this monster therefore entails: 1) Cutting significantly the gap in wealth and living standards Hollywood heavyweights enjoy over those scratching to survive. 2) Creating a viable alternative to the commercial film industry for those seeking a career in movies.

    Weinstein’s very deep pockets - London’s Sunday Times estimates his net worth to be between $240 and $300 million - have almost certainly helped him avoid criminal prosecution. Two years ago, Weinstein retained $2,000 an hour trial lawyer David Boies to help him skirt prosecution for allegedly “assaulting 22-year-old model Ambra Battilana Gutierrez in March 2015.” According to Vox, “Gutierrez reported the assault to the NYPD the night it happened, and wore a wire the next day, when she recorded Weinstein saying, ‘I won't do it again.’” Nevertheless, after meeting with Boies, Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr., directed assistants to abandon the case. A few months later, Boies contributed $10,000 to Vance’s reelection campaign.

    The Gutierrez assault was rare in that police investigated it and recommended prosecution. In other cases, Weinstein’s victims were shamed, threatened, or bribed into silence. The Weinstein Company - 42% of which is controlled by Harvey Weinstein and his brother Bob - has paid out nearly $1 million in eight known settlements since 1990 plus an undetermined but surely significant amount in associated legal fees.

    By publishing these facts, the New York Times ultimately laid Weinstein low. But even when Executive Editor Dean Baquet ultimately decided to approve the story, he was mindful of Weinstein’s wealth and the potential negative impact on the paper’s bottom line. Without a hint of irony, Baquet told reporter Jim Rutenberg “Harvey Weinstein is an advertiser – but that never even crossed my mind.” Former New York Times reporter Sharon Waxman speculates that Weinstein’s advertising dollars may have played a role in the New York Times decision to redact from her 2004 story sexual harassment accusations against Weinstein by an Italian actress and an intern.

    Weinstein’s victims explain their silence by referencing the studio mogul’s influence and reach. One woman told a colleague:

    I am a 28 year old woman trying to make a living and a career. Harvey Weinstein is a 64 year old, world famous man and this is his company. The balance of power is me: 0, Harvey Weinstein: 10.” In 2008, Weinstein cornered Los Angeles TV journalist Lauren Sivan and then ejaculated in front of her.

    Although, the Huffington Post reports, “the experience left Sivan shocked . . . she remained quiet because she was in a long-term relationship and fearful of the power that Weinstein wielded in the media.

    It wasn’t just victims who remained silent or, worse, abetted Weinstein even when his appalling behavior was an open secret at his company. Weinstein’s company Miramax produced Matt Damon’s breakout hit Good Will Hunting and two early Russell Crowe films before he was widely known. Sharon Waxman contends that Damon and Crowe, possibly in a show of gratitude towards their benefactor, helped kill most of her 2004 New York Times story on Weinstein.

    It’s certainly understandable that the New York Times might be reluctant to slaughter a cash cow. Likewise, it’s easy to see why aspiring actors and filmmakers would be leery of antagonizing Weinstein while ones who made it big would feel grateful. The reward for success in Hollywood is so extraordinary and the cost of failure can be so great. Fame, influence, beautiful women and men, race cars, and homes in Beverly Hills, New York, and Italy flow to the few at the top. A marginal existence, without a secure retirement, health care, or even perhaps permanent housing awaits those at the bottom.

    Truly redistributive policies that both 1) reduce the after-tax rewards afforded those who hit the jackpot and 2) guarantee a decent quality of life for all would surely help detoxify Hollywood. They would change the cost-benefit calculus of those contemplating exposing sexual predators. The potential pecuniary value of keeping silent wouldn’t be so outsized. Likewise, the potential downside of speaking out wouldn’t be as great.

    Ultimately though, higher marginal tax rates and a tight safety net wouldn’t be enough to rein in the moguls. Their might does not derive merely from the size of their bank accounts and their consequent ability to bribe D.A.’s and kill newspaper stories. Nor does the silence of those in their orbit reflect solely their ability to make a pauper a king and to impoverish a chorine. Harry Cohn, the chief of Columbia Pictures, during Hollywood’s golden age, faced a 91% top marginal tax rate. Nevertheless, he was by many accounts an abusive tyrant in the Weinstein mold. Cohn got away with it because he decided who got very desirable and highly-compensated work and who didn’t.

    In order, therefore, to effectuate real change, we need to develop a supplemental structure for making movies. The for-profit studios have shown that they can produce subversive, sometimes even transcendent, art. But they have also demonstrated that while they are good at protecting abusive power mongers, they are especially poor at both 1) devolving power to women and people of color and 2) portraying them on screen. In response, the federal government should create and fund an agency tasked with producing and distributing movies made by and about individuals and groups whom Hollywood has traditionally ignored.

    This would lead to a number of positive developments. Many more Americans would have the opportunity to see communities like their own in movies. A much greater percentage of women and people of color would be able to make a decent living making movies and this would mean that would-be Weinsteins would no longer have the juice to run subordinates out of the business for reporting abusive behavior.


    Hal, this whole piece is a red herring. You spend the first half arguing that Weinstein's wealth facilitated his abuses and then just dismiss it all by stating the obvious: "Ultimately, though higher marginal tax rates and a tight safety net wouldn’t be enough to rein in the moguls."

    In any system, even a pure Marxist system, people like Weinstein would have the power. We can reduce power differentials, but we cannot eliminate them, and as long as they exist, people will be tempted to abuse their power. Back in the 50s when marginal tax rates were much higher, the movie moguls were plenty powerful, and there was plenty of sexual harassment.

    So really, your only solution to the problem of sexual harassment comes in this one sentence: "the federal government should create and fund an agency tasked with producing and distributing movies made by and about individuals and groups whom Hollywood has traditionally ignored."

    But this idea is so half-baked and silly that it does nothing to redeem the piece. Sure, we need more diversity in Hollywood, but a government ministry for Hollywood diversity is worthy of a Monty Python skit, and the idea that such an agency could reduce sexual-harassment in the workplace (a problem that is far bigger than Hollywood) is an even bigger joke.

    There are plenty of arguments for promoting redistributive policies, but trying to reduce every social problem to income redistribution undermines those arguments and your credibility.

    Thank you for commenting. You are or course more than welcome to call my ideas "half-baked and silly" and a "joke" but those are strong words and I don't think you come close to justifying them with evidence.

    The proposal in question is less than half-baked, actually. It's literally one sentence long. Maybe you've got a brilliant policy recommendation in your head, but you haven't given us anything here. I certainly see no need to spend my time refuting it with evidence when you haven't taken any time at all to explain or defend the proposal, which makes little sense on its face.

    1) You criticize the argument that we need higher taxes to reduce the influence of the moguls by noting that they engaged in predatory behavior in the 50s when top marginal tax rates were much much higher.

    But I anticipated this specific objection in the section where I discuss the proto-Weinstein Harry Cohn.

    2) You say that my only response to this point is that we need a government film commission to compete with Hollywood. You claim this is a "joke."

    Why? We have PBS that does extraordinary work like Ken Burns's various documentaries. In the 30s, Pare Lorentz was commission to make documentaries about the Depression and they were damned good. A consensus has emerged that the government does health care better - more efficiently with better results - than for-profit corporations. The default positoin should be that it can make at least some movies that are as good, and as profitable, as those made by for-profit corporations.

    If by anticipated, you mean conceded, then yes, you anticipated. But why write a whole article about how we need redistributive policies to stop sexual harassment only to concede that redistributive policies won't stop sexual harassment? As I said, it's a red herring.

    As for your actual solution, are you advocating that we create a new PBS for film? But it would only make movies by/about women and people of color? And this new agency, which will be as good or better at making movies than Hollywood, will stop sexual harassment, how exactly? What you're advocating is as clear as mud, because as I said, you only wrote one sentence in a 1,000+ word piece about your actual solution.

    Nothing will eliminate sexual harassment since the desire to push ourselves on others regardless of their preference is encoded in our genes. The goal (as I see it) therefore should be to reduce the incidence of sexual harassment as much as we reasonably can. To do this in Hollywood, I proposed (albeit perhaps not as clearly as I should have) that we need policies that: A) Reduce both (1) the mogul's wealth and concomitant ability to influence investigators and prosecutors and (2) the economic insecurity of aspiring filmmakers and actors. B) Provide a true, wholly separate, alternative to the current for-profit filmmaking production and distribution apparatus so that top producers and directors "no longer have the juice to run subordinates out of the business for reporting abusive behavior." In my view, neither of the two policies set forth in the piece is sufficient in and of itself given the etiology of the problem. That's why I discuss both.

    Yet, you haven't made a case to demonstrate that your proposed solutions will make even the slightest dent in workplace sexual harassment. The problem we're dealing with is not a few starlets abused by Hollywood's most powerful producer; it's a culture that pervades the industry, from minor casting directors on up. And of course, it goes well beyond Hollywood and reaches every income bracket. Do you think only rich people harass?

    But what is most remarkable to me is the lack of perspective here. Your proposals are audacious--huge political and economic undertakings--but the evidence of any impact they might have on the specific problem of sexual harassment is nil. It reminds me of high school competitive debaters who respond to every argument, no matter how specific, with a "socialist counterplan" that they claim will solve every problem better than the the other teams's ineffective capitalist proposals.

    I'd hardly call a call to return to the tax levels that were in place when our economy was strongest particularly audacious. Neither, by the way, is having the government produce films. With respect to whether I've proven my case, obviously the proof would have to be in the pudding. I think I set forth significantly more than a prima facie case.

    Sure, propaganda films helped us win the big one, WWII

    You've set forth no case at all. That's my whole point. You like to ask "what evidence," but you've offered no evidence that your grandiose proposals will have any measurable impact on the problem of sexual harassment, the causes of which you don't even seem to understand.

    Thanks Mike for your comments.

    Yes, you pegged it: never lose an opportunity of something bad going on to push socialism as being the solution to every problem, that we don't have it is why we have problems. You start with the frame that more economic quality can solve all problems. Details not needed, really, just inspiration. The committee of the people would fill in the details. When all voices are heard, there will be less abuse, the masses have the wisdom to reign in all the base impulses of man. Only the masses should have power.

    Here's two big problems: the arts have always been a meritocracy; with "Hollywood", riches and luxury are part of the package they sell worldwide and a very popular package it is.

    You claim that I don't provide any details just inspiration. In fact, I quote harassed women explaining why they chose not to out Weinstein. I quote a newspaper editor noting when green lighting the story that took Weinstein down that he was an advertiser. I point out that Weinstein may have skirted criminal charges because he could afford to hire an incredibly well-connected $2,000/hour lawyer who contributed heavily to the re-election fund of the prosecutor who decided not to press charges. I remark on the fact that two men Weinstein made stars went to bat for him.

    You claim that I start with the frame that more economic equality can solve all problems. I do think it can help solve many of our problems. After all, many of us believe St. Timothy was onto something when he called money the root of all evil. But I don't believe and didn't say it would solve this problem. As I note, the problem ultimately lies in our genetic code. In any event, do you believe economic equality can help solve any problems?

    If not, you may want to check out this provocative NYT article:

    Finally, my policy proposals are not socialist because I do not call for a nationalization of the film industry or anything close to it.

    I will just say that Ken Burns seemed to be doing just fine with the system as it was, at least until Trump came along. But that the vast majority of government-supported arts does not turn out high quality but mediocrity. Because: the only fair way to go about it is: lowest common denominator. If you don't you will instigate culture wars. It is not fair to make people pay tax dollars to support arts that they don't approve of.

    Government support of arts is good for lowest common denominator funding of teaching children creative pursuits and non-threatening historical documentaries like Ken Burns and your local symphony performing the classics.

    There has never been an avant garde movement without capitalism, capitalism supports individuality and iconoclasm, democracy and socialism supports mediocrity so that people can get along.

    Weinstein's work which you cite is a perfect example: Reservoir Dogs could have never ever been publicly funded. No way. Even liberals make fun of NPR being boring and insipid

    Public funding of arts means culture wars unless you make it lowest common denominator, pure and simple.

    Soviets learned this quickly in the early 20th century, they let the avant garde play around for a couple years and then quashed them, never to let it return.

    Capitalism is crucial to avant garde, government funding will only get you mediocrity in arts. Unless you're living in a monarchy and the monarch's tastes are incredibly refined. But more often than not, a patronage system in a monarchy or totalitarian state where the leader has good taste wil get you highly developed and refined craft but not avant garde art, that will be disallowed. Capitalism is the only system to date where the "patron" will pay to have a pie thrown in his face. Starting with Renaissance capitalism. And the middle class is not included: they will only pay for what became famously became known as art of bourgeois taste.

    P.S. And yes, for the most part, "Hollywood," and Bollywood, for that matter, cater to bourgeois tastes. Enormously popular bourgeois tastes.A significant part of the whole appeal is the luxury and glamour of the moviemakers.  Hence my "rioting in the streets" comment.

    But the system that includes Hollywood also allows for avant garde, and for those skillful enough to slowly introduce more avant garde ideas into a bourgeois film, but still "sell" their product, and slowly change the culture that way. (Religious conservatives know this! That's why Hollywood is an enemy.) You don't get this from public funding, you get "art" that doesn't offend people like religious conservatives.

    The Renaissance was largely fueled by the mad gay iconoclastic and very rich Rudolf of Bohemia and the Medicis with their vast trading wealth, while the spirit of the times was irreverance towards the church and the Pope. When the powers got involved it was mostly to excommunicate and threaten and occasionally execute people.

    them's the ones, the newly mega rich guys and their gay sycophants, was all their fault cheeky Ah but that's the crude generalization; the nuance: Dutch/German, protestant, uptight, little "irreverance", less into star power but perhaps even more enamored of this new capitalist thing, very intriguing difference, different art, too. Enter: "globalization". I.E., Durer packs a bag for Italy. Maybe not so much vicey versa, it's cold up there.

    p.s. all cosmopolitan elites, every single one of them.

    P.S. Oh and that "provocative" NYT op-ed on Soviet women having better sex, that too is a red herring article as to the spin and the headline. The real argument of the article once you read it is that independent liberated women freed from traditional roles have better sex. The argument has nothing to do with class, pay or taxes.

    Furthermore, that was the first time I've seen that argued about the Soviet system of giving equal work to the sexes. Formerly, I've read many very convincing arguments post 1989 from Soviet women that were quite different: that what they were "liberated" to do is work even more than before they were liberated, that besides having to take care of home and family, like their mothers, unlike their mothers, they now also had to work at a job full time. While their husbands came home, drank vodka and passed out every night, did not help at home, but were depressed about the supposed emasculation of this new system where they were no more important than lowly women.

    So not too convincing to me.

    A more scholarly example from a quick google, so I admit I've only read the abstract, but I have read similar things

    “Girls” and “Women”. Love, Sex, Duty and Sexual Harassment in the Ranks of the Red Army 1941-1945

    Brandon M. Schechter


    This article focuses on the tension between female soldiers’ military duties and sex/romance in the ranks of the Red Army. Drawing on terminology used during the war, the author posits “girls” and “women” as two models of behavior – the former emphasizing soldierly duties, the later the realization of civilian norms. Female soldiers were placed in a highly ambiguous situation, in which the Komsomol, which had recruited large numbers of “girls” into the army, promoted sexual abstinence and feminine culturedness, while the Party and Army acquiesced to the desire of commanders to take lovers from among their subordinates. The article ends with a discussion of pregnancy and its implications.

    I didn't think you worried about sexual harassmentduring theelections. What makes the movies special? And then we have an alternate to the alternate movie scene? Not to mention Netdlix and the other new cinema. BTW, McKayla was sexually abused for 4-5 years. Maybe that sports trainer was making too much money? Maybe we need an alternate Olympics too?

    What evidence underlies your contention that I don't worry about sexual harassment during elections? The fact that my proposal focuses on the film industry - where a lot of high profile harassers have been exposed - doesn't mean that higher top marginal tax rates and a tighter safety net wouldn't reduce harassment in other industries. They would. What solutions do you propose?

    This just struck me reading this comment by you and Michael's comment: the Weinstein case flips a traditional socialist argument about abuse on its head. I.E., guys (i.e., Stanley Kowalski) beat their wives because they feel powerless and frustrated by that, they've got to execute some power over someone.

    That brought me back to this article I read last night on this, Q & A with a sex therapist @ "The Cut" @ NYMag:

    Why Men Force Women to Watch Them Masturbate

    Fascinating, and a reminder of how all of the power thing at its heart it is truly a deep problem between the sexes and their drives and has nothing to do with class, nothing but sexual reproductive urges and the role power plays in them.  And on the continuum of disorders from sexual harassment to sexual abuse to rape, it is all just a matter of how much deviancy from the norm that the man is afflicted with. Deviancy can be a temporary condition affected by circumstance, like with rape in war, or a permanent problem, like Weinstein. They mix up their problems about feeling powerless for some psychological reason, with sex.

    Edit to add: After reading that, seemed to me Weinstein's problem was very clear, me a psychologist practicing without a license: he felt very unatttractive and rejected long ago, as he gained power he saw what the power could do to change that, then as he continued, doing the power thing became the only thing that excited him.

    And now Picasso comes to mind. One of he greatest creators to ever walk the earth, was extraordinarily abusive of all the women he had relationships with. Knew the "art of the deal", became a very wealthy man, lived in luxury villas with chaffeur, etc. Known to be abusive of men he thought were lesser beings. Also politically supported, not just socialism, but communism. The ego thing where the maestro thinks he could: 1) manipulate any system to his beneft so that he would be a powerful person 2) knows what's best for the little people, doesn't really apply to himself.

    Watch American Psycho, filmed by a woman, in feminist and Weinstein/Trump terms. It's like a Freudian enema.

    What's always been difficult for me to completely come to grips with is that there are many women  - not just some -who like and are attracted to this posture - past just money=power. Paglia rather neglects this side in her otherwise insightful interview.

    PS - your ref'd NYMag article is short on scientific study, and purports one dangerous premise, that when confronted these nen will back down. That's true in some cases, but certainly not all, and I imagine can put a woman in a lot of danger thinking she just has to resist when she might need to fight back extremely effectively or face worse results. I don't mean "sit back and enjoy it", but a sadistic monster when refused can become an outraged and dangerous sadistic monster.

    Millenials co-opted the whole American Psycho thing, taking it down a whole bunch of notches to Fifty Shades of Grey, co-equal role play as non equals with "safe words" Cosmo explains it all for you , how it's gone mainstream and :"a little light bondage is everywhere". The book sold 125 million worldwide, 52 languages. Movie is the fourth-highest-grossing film directed by a woman ,,,,and the fourth-highest-grossing R-rated film of all-time... grossed $166.2 million in North America and $404.8 million in other territories for a worldwide total of $571 million.

    Suffice it to say I have read more than a few times that it's considered by many males to be a chick movie.

    Re: PS - your ref'd NYMag article.  Yes, wise of you to give the public service warning.I thought about that. But I found it intriguing that she felt so strongly from the people that she had worked with, in L.A. no less  that they would back down if humiliated because they are mostly a bunch of pitiful losers in their own hearts. That takes you to the whole "male emasculated by feminism thing."

    Edit to add: the latter is one thing Paglia really gets into. I have scene her wax extremely excitedly about the Sharon Stone character in Basic Instinct reducing the cops interrogating her to putty by not wearing panties with a skirt and Sigourney Weaver in Alien as the hottest "mom" around protecting her "baby". She is very very interested in women rising to higher heights of power than men ever had. As in: bring back the Minoan goddess Amazon queen.

    She's Italian, she likes these trix from a dominatrix Freudian figure telling Giovanni he's been a bad boy and no canneloni for supper and get ye to confession - mother, whore, nonna, wife, mistress, daughter, granddaughter, 7 cycles of womanhood, all convoluted in this Teatro Divino (maybe sitting in a suddenly grey Roma having gone to stalk the Pope the day before gives me this Circus Massimo script, maybe too many awful 60's Italian movies). Italian men, badboys but still always boys at heart, waiting for a sharp'-tongued Sophia Loren to cut them down to size. But that's only 1 gameplay - the console has dozens of others, not all with safe words. Okay, now on to your Cosmo piece.

    PS - Cosmo article sadly boring. And "banana" as safe word? Big larf, that one actually came up by no amazing coincidence in this morning's interlude. Perhaps I'm more familiar with gay rough trade or old Italian nuova cinema (Porcile;  Salo or 120 Days of Sodom) to think what they're talking about is serious S&M.

    Your first paragraph sounds just like Camille talking.

    On the second paragraph: yes the point was that S & M has been dumbed down to a level where even it is marketable to a large audience. As per lowest common denominator mentioned elsewhere on thread. But that's the way culture change is affected, see? Slowly, step by step.

    But if the NEA had given a grant to the making of American Psycho, trying to help female directors, there would be protests and massive culture wars dominating news coverage for weeks and more polarization resulting,.Instead, with "Holllywood" doing the whole Shades of Grey thing, the Overton window of what is acceptable has been moved.

    To many, in this instance I am sure it's not a wished for result. But it's just another example of how it can work to change culture. And again, that's exactly why "Hollywood" is the enemy of the religious right, it can change culture, it can get the majority to accept things it wouldn't accept before.

    Government is terrible at this, because it's seen as top down. Government cannot get people to accept avant garde. It will just  make them angry that they are paying for it.

    Just think of Ted Cruz or Mike Huckabee or Ben Carson or Newt Gingrich deciding how you should make a film or have sex or basically anything. That'd be your government tax dollars at work.These guys are creepy, tasteless curmudgeons with a yen for destroying other people's fun.

    Yes!  Every movie would be like a video of a high school play of Tom Sawyer.  

    Except with none of the nuance.  The underlying message would be not to trust injuns. 

    Even Naughty Marietta (one of my faves) would have never been made.

    With those jokers in charge, every movie would be about Adam and Eve, with no discussion about who their children mated with; but for sure, there would be no fun at all.  Does anyone think Sarah H Sanders has ever had any fun inher entire life?  Her brother's idea of fun is to torture dogs.  

    You left out USA flag pins. Where are the mfking USA flag pins?

    The Flag Pins are EVERYWHERE!  I thought you were paying attention!  Adam and Eve actors have them pinned  on to hide their belly buttons, lol  


    Corey Robin has a very interesting take on why many working-class people are attracted to conservative arguments. He says it's because conservatives/reactionaries give them a "taste of lordly power" over those even lower on the class ladder than they are. This is similar to George Lakoff's strict father model. Under it, conservatives tell the blue-collar husband that his family is his business and it is his right to take out whatever frustrations he feels at work on his wife and kids. Consider how conservatives are almost always the ones saying the government should stay out of a family's business - abortion being an interesting exception in some ways.

    In the conservative mind, Harvey Weinstein's family includes those for whom he cares by paying a salary. Since they're his family, he has the right to exercise power over them. See Lakoff again. Under these well-researched and persuasively described constructs, class, wealth, and family position play a huge role in who gets to harass/abuse/mistreat whom.

    Ultimately, sexual harassment is about sex and power. Those who want sex from those with less power are the ones most likely to harass. This is as true of Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, Bill Cosby, and Stanley Kowalski, as it is of Harvey Weinstein. Taking away a good chunk of Weinstein's wealth and creating an alternative film production structure over which he can exercise virtually no control would greatly reduce his power and therefore the likelihood that a) he would harass subordinates in the first place, b) greedy or appreciative sycophants would protect him, c) newspapers would overlook reports that he's a harasser, d) prosecutors could be bought off, e) victims would be afraid to speak out.

    Honestly, I can't understand why this relatively self-evident argument should excite such a strong negative reaction.

    So you decrease Weinstein's power and increase others' so someone else will be the one to masturbate in front of and grope women. What exactly did that change? And Stanley Kowalski is a fictitious character, as is Bill Clinton largely in this context - he's known for 2 consensual affairs, while 3 others can be largely politically motivated accusations that were well investigated. You hate Clinton, so have no trouble mixing fiction and real life into an appealing mashup. Others are less comfortable with this tripe. 

    I have a read a fair amount of Lakoff. I am not sure if he is the pry bar you requre for what you want to shift here.
    His focus on the differences between languages that are developed for nurturing as opposed to those developed for punishment and control are used to characterize how authoritarian systems have the power they do when they are ascendant. His model doesn't work if that is the only kind of relationship that survives from one generation to the next. That is to say, there is more than one kind of power.

    In my mind, Lakoff is an Icarus in terms of how he tries to fly with his fundamental idea. But he would be the first to affirm that this problem is built up person by person. A heap, as it were, built from the bottom up.

    I think he was mild. I think there would be rioting in the streets if "Hal's plan for pop culture re-education via Hollywood" was instituted. And not just here, allover the world.

    By the way, Weinstein started out as anti-studio system guy,  a promoter of art house and independent films. Him and his brother built his studio up from the ground offering better quality than the big guys trash. Sometimes the revolutionaries can be very bad boys, too.

    Yes Weinstein made or distributed good, even great, movies. Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs are probably classics. I not only recognize that for-profit production companies have provided us with transcendent art but I actually say precisely that in the piece. That's why I don't call for nationalization of the film industry. I only call for an alternative so that those talented filmmakers and actors - a disproportionate number of whom are women and minorities - who can't find work will have an alternative option. There's absolutely no reason to fear rioting.

    The state of Maryland cut to the chase by having a board of censors who decided what films were satisfactory. One censor admitted that she established her own criteria.

    The board survived until 1981.

    I once met a lovely young girl in Vegas who billed herself as Sexy Sadie for snuff films - she apparently had the vocal cords to make a piercing, memorable last moment. How could anyone compassionate destroy her career? Snuff films - an oft-neglected art form. But "Love Camp" has me intruiged - certainly more rollicking than 50 Shades of Gray. Maybe Bob Crane's wife starring from Hogan's Heroes, Helga Wassername?

    <sarcasm>Turns out Les Millenials have this all figured out. We here on this thread are arguing like old folks. Don't need no Hollywood and don't need no gummint to do it either</sarcasm>

    Blockchainment: The Future of Media and Entertainment

    My inbox is full of this stuff as regards anything arts. "Blockchain" is clearly the new black, hottest meme, viral viral, the newest Dale there old timer or be square...

    (And I now can't get Al Gore saying "lockbox" out of my head! Blockchain, lockbox, what's the dif? Test after the webinar, get your certificate cheeky)

    Workers of the World unite! the only thing you have to lose is your blockchains...

    All ur workers belong to Blockchain. No one stop Blockchain. Blockchain everywhere.

    Resistance is futile.

    Same warning for the elite cosmopolitan society of LinkedIn: Blockchain: The Borg is coming and Resistance is Futile

    You know what the thing is that really bothers me: seems like when they are finally here, they won't have a phone number to which you can complain. I don't totally get it, and don't want to, but it seems like: buck stops nowhere, literally? wink

    Don't scoff - I invessted in a blockchainsaw, and it cuts 100% better while doing my taxes alongside it. (Texas blockchainsaw massacres just around the corner). Blockchainmail? Travels twice as fast, 3x as scandalous. Alice in Blockchains? Better than the original*. And now rather than put my car up on blocks and getting out the winter chains, I can do both at once. 2 blockheads are better than 1.

    *wondering how Daisy Chainsaw will adapt to the new zeitgeist. My guess is a bridge too far, strange new world.

    **shame Blockbuster didn't survive into this era. Blockchain Buster could be the hit it needed.

    Sincerely Hope©  for you that blockchains are not the same as pyramids (or Tony Robbins for that matter.)

    Not at all - received a special invite blockchain letter from Dionne's Psychic Hotline, and even got it half price! (instead of the blockchainsaw costing an arm and a leg, it only cost an arm - still ouch, and harder to type, but worth it - everything's gonna be better. And today's Halloween - can play Freddie Krueger as bonus. "Over here, kids! Special treat just for you, yep, this way to the basement...")

    Latest Comments