Jews Run Hollywood and That's Okay

In his tongue-in-cheek column about Jewish people running Hollywood, Joel Stein discusses the number of Jewish people in top positions in Hollywood, Americans' feelings on this topic, and the Anti-Defamation League's (ADL) reactions to these feelings. The percentage of Americans who believe that "the movie and television industries are pretty much run by Jews" decreased almost 30 percent since 1964, and this pleased the ADL, which viewed it as a sign of decreasing anti-Semitism (or at least a minor decrease in the severity of it). Stein jokingly points out that all this proves is how dumb America has become because "Jews totally run Hollywood." According to his research, he could only find five gentiles in high positions at entertainment companies, and he wants America to admit Jewish people are prevalent in the industry because he wants the nation aware of "our accomplishment."

Only 22% of Americans now believe "the movie and television industries are pretty much run by Jews," down from nearly 50% in 1964. 

But Foxman said he is proud of the accomplishments of American Jews. "I think Jews are disproportionately represented in the creative industry. They're disproportionate as lawyers and probably medicine here as well," he said. He argues that this does not mean that Jews make pro-Jewish movies any more than they do pro-Jewish surgery. Though other countries, I've noticed, aren't so big on circumcision. 

The ADL poll, he pointed out, showed that 59% of Americans think Hollywood execs "do not share the religious and moral values of most Americans," and 43% think the entertainment industry is waging an organized campaign to "weaken the influence of religious values in this country."

Yes, many top executives may be Jewish, but that doesn't mean that the representation in characters is proper. In fact, I find to be these executives irrelevant for accurate representation of Jewish people because viewers, when watching shows, don't look up who runs the company that runs the network that runs the station that oversees the TV show's director and writers.Therefore, the only image the masses get is the lack of image on their screens. Jewish people may be at top levels in the industry, but they certainly aren't using it to their advantage and there is certainly no "Jewish agenda" being fulfilled. Stein's backwards way of discussing anti-Semitism when it comes to the media (particularly the line "Hollywood: If you enjoy TV and movies, then you probably like Jews after all") may have been fun, but it never addressed this issue.

Source:

Stein, J. (2008, December 19). Who runs Hollywood? C'mon - Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2008/dec/19/opinion/oe-stein19

In her report, Rachel Becker not only discusses the two most prevalent archetypes for female Jewish characters but also the origin of these ideas. The "Jewish Mother" and the "Jewish American Princess" stereotypes, like many stereotypes for American Jewish people, originated from the culture clash of Western/Central European Jews trying to integrate into American society. 

In Europe, the woman was the head of the house and supported the family so the men could study Torah (essentially the Jewish Bible); when they came to America, though, gender roles for the middle class were more rigid and the women were forced to give up this role they'd always held, so they were still domineering, they just didn't have the social standing to back it up. The "Jewish Mother" archetype developed when the children of these first-generation American mothers began creating media and basing characters off of their childhood views of their mothers. Even though this guilt-inciting, nagging, overbearing Jewish mother figure really only existed in the 1950s and 1960s, this idea has been perpetuated by the media to the point where almost every Jewish mother in the media acts this way.

After World War II, many Jewish people and families fled to the U.S. for safety and in the hopes of prosperity. Like many immigrants today, they were looking for a better life in the land of the free and the home of the brave. After their suffering in Europe, these new Jewish Americans found prosperity and wanted to make sure their children never knew the squalor they had lived in, particularly their daughters. In an ironic twist, this "princess" ideal was one the Jewish Americans sought in order to fit in with the gentiles (non-Jews), who were the original "JAP"s. The idea that these traits were purely Jewish spread and has been kept up by the media ever since.

The presentation of Jewish women in the media of fiction, television, and film in the last fifty years is fairly uniform: either Jewish women are absent or they play what initially appears to be an unlikeable, one dimensional character present for comedic relief. Although many negative characteristics and stereotypes of Jewish women show no sign of vanishing completely, today’s media has made a conscious effort to diversify the characters portrayed. 

Ironically, many of the traits attributed to a JAP, were traits of the gentiles of the era that these new princesses were trying to imitate (Booker 39). Regardless, the materialistic, spoiled rotten, and vain princess has become associated with the Jewish culture. 

The Jewish mother is a character with whom many are familiar. She is derived from the “Yiddishe Mama” originating in Europe who loves and protects her children in a less dictatorial way than the Jewish mother with whom our culture is familiar.

Even Orange is the New Black, a show lauded for its excellent representation, features the "Jewish Mother" archetype in Larry Bloom's mother. The phrase "Jewish guilt" is well-known and well-used. The word "JAP" is thrown around without a thought, particularly around here. I have been asked why my nose isn't bigger, if I'm really Jewish. People believe Jewish Americans run the banks and big media and there is a Big Plan to run this nation/the world... the same theories Hitler and Goebbels spread with films and flyers throughout Germany are all over the Internet and sometimes given air-time on the news. Stereotypes are harmful and reusing these archetypes only serves to keep them alive. As Becker pointed out, Jewish representation in the media is not great, but the representation of Jewish women is even worse. She believed the media was improving; however, it has been six years since she wrote this report, and sadly, I've yet to see any improvement.

Source:

Becker, R. (2008). Exploring the portrayal of American Jewish women in fiction, film, and television. Retrieved from https://digitalarchive.wm.edu/bitstream/handle/10288/628/Exploring%20the%20Portrayal%20of%20Jewish%20Women%20In%20Film,%20Television,%20and%20Fiction.pdf?sequence=1

The Evolution of Popular Representations of Jewish Characters

Jews on Television, the second chapter of Popular Representations of Jewish Identity on Primetime Television: The Case of The O.C., discusses various representations of Jewish characters on television in America since about 1950. Olson's goal is to show that over time, the Jewish identity shown on T.V. changed from "ethnic Other" to "White" as time passed. There was a show in the 50s whose main characters were a Jewish family; this was a time when assimilation of Jewish citizens was a big issue in mainstream America. However, as time went on, the show became not about the mother's traditional Jewish values or the families cultural identity but more basic in an attempt to "avoid anything remotely controversial, political, or overtly ethnic." In fact, The Dick Van Dyke Show was supposed to star a Jewish writer from the Bronx with Carl Reiner, the creator, playing lead; however, it was decided that the premise was "too Jewish." Dick Van Dyke was instead cast as a WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) writer in Westchester County. Jewish representation was scarce after that, with reappearances in the characters of Bernie (Bridget Loves Bernie), Jerry Seinfeld (Seinfeld), Paul Reiser (Mad About You), Fran Drescher (The Nanny), the Gellers (Friends), and Grace Adler (Will and Grace).

Audiences could accept Jewish identity and culture as long as it remained in the ghetto, but were not ready for “the movement of American Jews outward in American life” (146). 

The only Jewish presence on the show is Buddy Sorrell, portrayed by Morey Amsterdam – a secondary character whose purpose is comic relief, rather than a three-dimensional character whose behavior was central to the show’s plot. 

But televised Jewishness is only stylistically ethnic, and then only in the sense of being witty and self-effacing. Indeed, in most other respects, contemporary televised Jewishness is the same as normative middle-class Whiteness.

Is there even a known show (or even just currently running) that stars a Jewish family? The only one I can think of that came close in my lifetime was Rugrats, which had the half-Jewish Tommy Pickles. I still remember how much I loved every time "A Rugrats Passover" came on because it was representing me and my religion (more than just shoving a Hanukkiah in a window come December), which was something that, as rare as it is on regular television, I never saw on children's shows. These barely-there Jewish characters the report discussed hardly count as representations, and if they were representative, it was only of bad stereotypes, as in the case of Fran Drescher.

Source:
Olson, T. (2006). Popular representations of Jewish identity on primetime television: the case of the O.C. Retrieved from Media and Cultural Studies at DigitalCommons@Macalester College website: http://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=hmcs_honors

Media Portrayals of Judaism Must be Balanced

A lot of the media portrays Jewish people as incredibly "wealthy, cheap, mean, immoral, or unethical." But on the flip-side, positive stereotypes such as high intelligence or proficiency in music are also prevalent and just as harmful. Examples of Jewish people being represented in media includes The Big Bang Theory's unscrupulous Howard Wolowitz, Weeds's deviant Andy Botwin, articles about "Jewish media control," and Glee's musically-inclined Rachel Berry. The problem with these representations is that none of them are balanced or present Jewish characters as the "everyman;" representation of Judaism must be balanced in order to avoid encouraging popular misconceptions.

These kinds of stereotypes, however, are no less damaging because they help to misshape public opinion regarding a social minority

It is important, particularly with a global history of anti-Semitism, that Judaism be portrayed in a balanced manner that does not encourage such popular misconceptions.

Anti-Semitism is a major issue, even in the United States. Many Jewish people will not wear a Star of David in certain areas or avoid certain cities altogether to avoid unwanted attention. While I don't see the above stereotypes as a cause of anti-Semitism (after all, it's been around for thousands of years), such stereotypes and misconceptions are not helping the situation.

Source:
Media portrayals of religion: Judaism | MediaSmarts. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://mediasmarts.ca/diversity-media/religion/media-portrayals-religion-judaism

Director Speaks of Piracy's Necessity

Lexi Alexander, a Hollywood director, spoke out against the anti-piracy piracy work. She specifically called out the MPAA and the arrest in Sweden of Pirate Bay co-founder Peter Sunde. While she never states that she condones piracy, she acknowledges that anti-piracy legislation and safeguards promote the act more than discourage it, explaining that even she has resorted to piracy. Alexander finds major issue with the money Hollywood is willing to spend fighting piracy ($19 million in one year alone to support SOPA), but condemns them for not making content available because "we still can't watch most programs from back home, even though we're willing to pay good money for it.”

“For every IP block, DRM and who-knows-what security feature Hollywood spends thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours on, some piracy kid will undo it for free and within a couple of minutes,” says Alexander on her blog.

Alexander said she thinks piracy is necessary because of country content restrictions, and that while the wealth piracy begets for the pirates isn’t right, the freedom of access to content is.

“Piracy has NOT been proven to hurt box-office numbers - on the contrary, several studies say it may have boosted the bottom line.”

Alexander is the first person I've come across to argue the side of the pirates while living the life of the content-makers. I found her points to be relevant and thought-out, particularly the idea that even if a person does pay for services, it can still be impossible to legally obtain some content. My family pays for Amazon Prime, Netflix, and Hulu, yet there are still countless shows and movies that we can't find and are therefore unable to watch. Not only is it frustrating for consumers but also it is harmful to the success of productions.

Source:

Gibbs, S. (2014, July 10). Hollywood director: piracy is necessary, and doesn't hurt revenues | Technology | The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/10/hollywood-director-piracy-is-necessary-and-doesnt-hurt-revenues

BitTorrent Claims Users Have Higher Rate of Purchasing Movies Than Average Internet User

In a survey of 2,500 users, BitTorrent discovered that its users are more likely to purchase or rent movies than the average Internet user. In fact, according to the results of the survey, which was conducted in September, 60 percent of its users said they bought or rented movies in disc format, and 52 percent said they had bought or rented at least one movie in the past month. This news is seen as unusual because, as discussed in a previous post, BitTorrent is a file-sharing website typically associated with piracy; meanwhile, this survey suggests that BitTorrent users aren't as illicit as they are made out to be.

Broken down by activity in the past year, 47% of respondents said they watched a movie in the theater; 38% said they bought a DVD or Blu-ray Disc title; 23% utilized a subscription streaming service; 23% bought a digital movie; 22% said they rented a disc; and 16% said they bought a transactional VOD movie rental.

The platform said 52% of 2,500 respondents in an online survey conducted in September said they bought or rented at least one movie in the past month. Another 16% said they acquired or rented at least one movie in the past few days; 12% in the past week; and 17% in the past six months.

BitTorrent said users spend an average of $54 a year on movies, with 35% of respondents spending more than $100. Notably, 60% of respondents said they buy or rent movies on disc.

I find it fascinating that BitTorrent users are being shown in a positive (for the industry) light, as most articles condemn them as pirating, heartless criminals with no concern for the laws of the land or the jobs in the industry. Those who pirate films are usually viewed as unwilling to spend money on the media they claim to appreciate, which can be true (I mean, hey, money isn't easy), but I believe this survey shows that while these users may pirate films, they are also willing to support the things they really love.

Source:
Gruenwedel, E. (2014, November 25). BitTorrent: our users buy/rent more movie discs | Home Media Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.homemediamagazine.com/research/bittorrent-our-users-buyrent-more-movie-discs-34690

Cinedigm uses BitTorrent to Advertise Arthur Newman

Cinedigm is a movie distributor that was in charge of the independent film Arthur Newman. The company partnered with a shocking group, though: BitTorrent. BitTorrent is a file-sharing network, but it is commonly known for acts of piracy. However, on April 22, 2013, four days before the premiere of Arthur Newman, Cinedigm teamed up with the network in order to advertise for the movie by offering a free seven-minute clip of the film on the website.

Movie studios lost nearly $2 billion in revenue on potential disc sales for the top 10 pirated movies of 2012, according to a recent research report, which cited data from BitTorrent.

The analyst believes Cinedigm didn’t opt for Facebook and YouTube to promote “Newman” (besides cost) due to the fact visitors to those social media sites are looking for something other than movies. Meanwhile, people primarily frequent BitTorrent to watch movies — for free.

“We’re able to connect Cinedigm with real movie fans that actively support content creators and by doing so BitTorrent can demonstrate how we add value through continued innovation,” said Shahi Ghanem, chief strategy officer of BitTorrent, in a statement.

If Cinedigm had been looking for a shocking act of publicity, it certainly got it. After hearing and reading big businesses complain about piracy and condemn the websites that either passively or actively allow it, I am quite surprised Cinedigm was willing to fraternize with this "enemy." However, I think it was a smart move to get word out to movie-goers, especially so close to the release date. 

Source:
Gruenwedel, E. (2013, April 22). Cinedigm, BitTorrent partner for new Colin Firth, Emily Blunt movie | Home Media Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.homemediamagazine.com/digital-evolution/cinedigm-bittorrent-partner-new-colin-firth-emily-blunt-movie-30224

U.K. Student on Trial for the First 3D Camcorder Piracy Case

Ciprian Florea, a 28-year-old film technology student in the U.K., is being accused of creating a camera that can record 3D movies and intending to record the movie Gravity. The device comprised of two high-definition camcorders placed in a custom-made box that recorded with the necessities of creating the left and right eye effect for 3D images. Movies have been "bootlegged" since cameras could be snuck into theaters; however, this is the first case where a person has allegedly attempted to record a 3D production. Florea's defense is that he brought the camera in but had no intention of using it to film Gravity.

Florea, a student of film technology at Birmingham City University, is said to have hired two special high-definition cameras the day before his arrest. These had been placed in a custom-made box in order to record the left and right eye as required for 3D imaging. 

With no specific “camming” legislation available to the prosecution, Florea stands accused of possessing a 3D camera with intent to commit fraud, i.e the recording and subsequent distribution of the movie.

It's fascinating to be around during a time when technology is developing faster than the media can keep up with it. After researching piracy for several weeks now, I have read about people and organizations accused of various different forms of piracy (see the nine types) and the repercussions for those actions; I have also read and watched several critiques of the film industry and its reactions to these pirates, and it is quite clear that the industry can't get the legislatures to keep up with the increasing abilities of consumers. It seems much more reactive than proactive. After all, the U.K. didn't even have a simple way to charge Florea.

Source:
A. (2015, January 6). First 3D camcorder piracy case: student on trial | TorrentFreak. Retrieved from http://torrentfreak.com/first-3d-camcorder-piracy-case-student-on-trial-150106/