Generation Y’s great filmmakers have not yet arrived. And don’t expect too many of them.

William Strauss and Neil Howe argue in their fourth book of generational theory, Millennials Rising, that the babies born from 1982 through 2003 are part of a “Civic” generation. This is the same as the GI Generation (the accurately named “Greatest Generation”) born from 1901-1924 who went through World War II as young adults.

The Greatest provided us with many cinematic giants but none made a deeper footprint on the 20^th century than Walt Disney. The Disney Effect came not just in the artistry of his films but his technological innovations and capitalist ventures. He constructed a billion-dollar corporation which has changed our lives. That’s what leaders of Civic generations do: build transformative institutions.

The Millennial Generation has already seen our Walt Disney emerge and release his equivalent of “Steamboat Willie.” It’s Mark Zuckerberg, and Facebook is only the primitive beginning of what he’ll build in the coming decades. Today because of our saturation in cartoons we fail to appreciate how groundbreaking “Steamboat Willie” and “Snow White” were to a world that had never seen such creatures. And so it shall go with Facebook in a few decades’ time.

Narrative films and television programs were America’s unifying, transformative cultural experience of the 20^th century. Computers, the internet, and technology are their equivalent for the 21^st.

If there was one key disagreement that I had with my friend Ben Shapiro over Primetime Propaganda it was how little he considered the implications of exponential technological growth in the political war with the Hollywood Left. Shapiro acknowledges in the book that a merging of television with the internet will happen someday but still argues that the primary goal of Hollywood conservatives should be to develop careers within the existing entertainment infrastructure.

It’s a worthwhile thought in spirit but such advice fails to consider the success of the blogosphere and Andrew Breitbart’s victories. It’s akin to urging conservative journalists in 2011 to try and get jobs at newspapers and magazines instead of just starting their own online publications.

Hollywood conservatives should be more concerned with developing their own technological, media, and entertainment properties in the world of the internet. They should be thinking not about the technological world as it is now, but rather as it will be 5, 10, 15, and 20 years down the road. (This is where the Silent Generation Doubt comes in – we must doubt that the cultural institutions we have had our whole lives will never become obsolete.)

Consider Transcendent Man, the recent documentary about inventor and futurist Ray Kurzweil. The film is based on his 2005 book The Singularity is Near and builds on his past 20 years of accurate predictions of technological growth. This is the reality we forget: technology is constantly getting twice as powerful, half as expensive, and much smaller. And the speed of this doubling is accelerating. (Kurzweil has pretty startling predictions about how powerful computers will be by 2020, 2029 and 2050.) By anticipating the future technology we can position ourselves to dominate its use once it’s widely adopted.

Through Kurzweil we can see that the merging of TV with the internet is likely to happen much sooner (certainly within the decade) than most realize.

Movies and television are not always going to have the place in our lives that they did during the last 60 years. Not only will it continue to become cheaper and easier for the whole population to produce their own TV shows and movies, but the mediums themselves will become passé, like theatre and painting today. Roger Simon acknowledges as much in one of the sadder passages of Turning Right at Hollywood and Vine:

The dramatic film is, more than we admit, a superficial form and, in an odd way, dependent on its superficiality for its success. It is at its essence a quick emotional hit, a feeling that we are all engulfed with as we identify with the life on the screen, throwing ourselves into it. At its best (Casablanca, The Seven Samurai, Nights of Cabiria) this can be an inspiring experience with overtones of Aristotle’s catharsis, but it is not necessarily deep or complex. Nor is it engaging to the audience, except in a passive way. The interactive computer arts of the future may reach the mind and the emotions on far more significant levels.

This means that the Hollywood Left as we understand it is losing its powerbase. Just as the Left’s comfy home in the mainstream media is crumbling, so too with entertainment.

This was the great failure of Antonio Gramsci and the Frankfurt School (see chapter 6 in Righteous Indignation.) They thought that by persuading leftists to invest decades of time in seizing the “means of cultural production” – the media, arts, and universities – that Marxism could actually destroy the country. But they failed to understand how cultural institutions are just reactions to the technology of the period.

As technology transforms the way we live our lives the old institutions crumble. This is the opportunity facing Hollywood conservatives today. The three components of the previous generations – Silent Doubt, Boomer Aggression, and Gen-X Independence – require one final ingredient to unify them together: Gen-Y Optimism.

That was the key for Civic Generation President Ronald Reagan, and here’s what it looks like on film for those so beaten down in the age of Barack Obama that they have forgotten:

I will say, though, that after watching every film nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay, that Aaron Sorkin certainly deserved his nomination. Obviously, I have an awfully low opinion of Sorkin as a human being, but the brilliance of the “Social Network” script can’t be denied. The dialogue is sharp and keeps the story moving, the characters are well defined, but most impressive is a structure that effortlessly leaps from one lawsuit deposition to another to a series of linear flashbacks. The flow of information is non-stop and yet thanks to some extremely well written exposition and a seamless structure, the audience is still able to keep track. That is no small achievement. And while the overall feel of the film might be stand-offish and emotionally detached (by design, I’m sure), it is a thoroughly engrossing story from opening scene to close, even if you’ve already seen it once before.

I do not, however, believe Sorkin deserves to win. The ‘Toy Story 3″ screenplay is far more impressive, a hands-down masterpiece of storytelling filled with more imagination than any film in recent memory. “Magic” feels like too small a word to describe the final and best chapter in Pixar’s beloved toy series, but it’s the only word that does the story justice. Sorkin’s going to win the Oscar and no one can say that his work wasn’t Oscar-worthy, but it was not the most Oscar-worthy amongst those nominated this year.

From my original review:

Directed with skill and precision by David Fincher and impressively scripted by “West Wing” creator Aaron Sorkin, “The Social Network” is tightly told, well paced, and quite brilliantly structured with a story that unfolds through the inter-cutting of two different lawsuit depositions and flashbacks. The acting is impeccable, especially Eisenberg’s performance as the world’s youngest up and coming billionaire and Justin Timberlake as Napster founder Sean Parker, a craven party-boy genius whose unerring sense of the big picture is frequently undone by a dark nihilistic streak. His Svengali-like influence on Zuckerberg, who like himself is driven beyond reason to settle old scores, real or imagined, will prove the old adage about gaining the world at the cost of your soul.

The producers of “Atlas Shrugged” have just posted via their Facebook Fan Page the date of the USA theatrical release date. To see the release date click on over.

After nearly two decades of false starts, rights owner John Aglialoro greenlighted production on “Atlas Shrugged”  (Part one of three) in June 2010 and is reporting that the picture is in the final stages of post-production and is slated to be completely finished by the end of January 2011.

The picture stars a cast of fresh, young actors including — photographed above — Taylor Schilling (Dagny Taggart) and Grant Bowler (Henry Rearden) who, along with Matthew Marsden, Graham Beckel and Edi Gathegi round out the lead stars in the motion picture directed by Paul Johansson from a screenplay by Brian O’Toole and Aglialoro.  Harmon Kaslow and Aglialoro produced the motion picture.

The producers have been posting content on their Facebook Fan Page, but provided Big Hollywood with this exclusive production photograph.

Look for more “Atlas Shrugged” Big Hollywood exclusives in the coming weeks!

More on the production can be found here.

In the old days, this was called “sloth.” We used to link sloth with lying around in one’s own filth. But that’s wrong. I read a bunch on sloth – which, I know, may defeat the purpose of sloth – but, according to Daniel Rosenberg, in a magazine called Cabinet, sloth was originally defined as “unregulated curiosity.” That sloppy need ends up as pointless work – which is worse than doing nothing, because you think you’re doing something.

You know that guy you know who has a crapload going on – from decoupage to reiki therapy – but he’s always broke? If you tell him to focus, he’ll tell you he does more in a week than you do in a month. But nothing he does matters – he just created a schedule to make distractions seem important. They’re called adult education classes.

In my mind, hyperactivity – whether it’s a disorder or just a description of the boastful multi-tasker – is just sloth reinvented. “I can’t focus,” everyone says, popping the orange pill. Adderall was not just a cure for a biological ill, but also a weakened will. Willing yourself to attempt a small project -and see it all the way through – is braver than tackling that screenplay and abandoning it at page 12. (it’s always page 12).

Worse, the richest people in America have made their cash creating machinery for sloth. Facebook was made to replicate college life – four years of sloth disguised as learning. I learned nothing from college – except how to projectile vomit.

I write this as someone who sits behind a desk doing lots of things. But it’s sloth. I will never call it multitasking. You cannot do more than one thing at once, without, in the end accomplishing a few things very badly.

And if you disagree with me, you’re a racist, homophobic gut-ophobe.

Tonight a “wiz-bang” show for all you “knockabouts.”

-Congressman McCotter

-Remi Spencer

-Tom Shillue

-the best metal band going, right now: Torche

and a special guest cameo by Gov. Huckabee.

And…my mom (I think – can’t be sure).

Still in his 20’s, Zuckerberg is the billionaire creator of Facebook, a massively popular website that has changed how people use the Internet. “The Social Network” chronicles the creation of Facebook and the success of  Zuckerberg (played by Jesse Eisenberg). Leaving aside its harsh treatment of its lead character, “Network” is still one of the best films of the year.

“The Social Network” tells the story of a young man disillusioned by rejection and unwavering in his determination to become successful. The film begins in a bar with a conversation between Zuckerberg and his then-girlfriend. After comparing dating Zuckerberg to dating a Stairmaster, she breaks up with him. He is shocked by her cold rejection and carelessly apologizes to win her back. When that proves unsuccessful, he takes his frustrations to the Internet calling her a “bitch” on his blog. As he drinks in his dorm room that night, he single-handedly creates a website where Harvard students can judge the attractiveness of school’s female population.

After his website proves successful in a matter of hours, Zuckerberg becomes well-known on campus. He then begins work on a new social website that will eventually become known as Facebook. The battle over who invented Facebook lies at the heart of “The Social Network.”

The story of Facebook’s creation is framed around two lawsuits that Zuckerberg faced after the site became wildly popular. Two brothers at Harvard, who originally hired Zuckerberg to build a similar site, sue him for stealing their idea. Additionally, Zuckerberg’s best friend Eduardo files a lawsuit against him as well. All three allege that they are partially responsible for the creation of Facebook and deserve credit for their significant contributions to it. The movie jumps from their testimony to the story of how Facebook became the massive sensation that it is.

Zuckerberg is clearly presented as the lead architect of the site but the film’s portrayal of him is extremely harsh. He is seen as a smug, condescending, and downright arrogant college student who despises the elitists on campus. Ironically enough, the movie itself treats Zuckerberg as an elitist who doesn’t care about the people who have helped him become successful. At times, Zuckerberg is also seen as the brilliant and driven developer that he undoubtedly  is.

His best friend Eduardo Saverin is seen in a much more favorable light. Played by Andrew Garfield, Saverin is seen as an idealistic entrepreneur who doesn’t understand the full potential of Facebook. He is easily the most likable and relatable character in the story. Like a small-time fisherman who doesn’t notice a tidal wave approaching, Saverin is clueless about Facebook’s potential importance in the online world.

As Facebook gains momentum, other people want to get involved including Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake), the founder of Napster.  Parker sees the potential of the new site and seemingly seduces Zuckerberg into his world to the disapproval of Saverin. While Saverin is working tirelessly to market the website on a small scale, Parker sees a bigger picture and grabs onto Zuckerberg’s coattails, never letting go.

From the very first scene, the script for ”The Social Network” is incredible. Based on the book The Accidental Billionaires, Aaron Sorkin brings this story to life. Known for sharp and fast-paced dialogue, Sorkin has previously written shows like “The West Wing” and movies like “A Few Good Men.”  In “Network,” Sorkin rises to a new level and has almost guaranteed himself an Academy Award nomination and will likely be the front runner in the adapted screenplay category.

Even with movies based on true stories like “Network,” audiences will likely never understand the complete story of how Facebook was created and who was really responsible for it.  It is doubtful that Zuckerberg is as vengeful and angry as he is presented as being in this film and I hope one day he tells his side of the story.  Despite this movie’s portrayal of him, Zuckerberg is a young genius and his work ethic speaks for itself.

“The Social Network” is an extremely well-done and often brilliant depiction of the creation of Facebook but it’s surely not the complete story of how a Harvard undergraduate student became a billionaire and how Facebook went from being an idea to being an online phenomenon.

Emboldened by alcohol and a vengeance fueled by his own palpable sense of inadequacy, Zuckerberg then goes on to use his impressive computer hacking skills, and those of his more level-headed best and only friend Eduardo (Andrew Garfield), to humiliate most every girl on campus through the creation of a website that ranks their attractiveness using sorority photographs. A small Harvard scandal erupts but this only ends up being the first sordid step towards what will eventually become the multi-billion dollar sensation we know today as Facebook.

Directed with skill and precision by David Fincher and impressively scripted by “West Wing” creator Aaron Sorkin, “The Social Network” is tightly told, well paced, and quite brilliantly structured with a story that unfolds through the inter-cutting of two different lawsuit depositions and flashbacks. The acting is impeccable, especially Eisenberg’s performance as the world’s youngest up and coming billionaire and Justin Timberlake as Napster founder Sean Parker, a craven party-boy genius whose unerring sense of the big picture is frequently undone by a dark nihilistic streak. His Svengali-like influence on Zuckerberg, who like himself is driven beyond reason to settle old scores, real or imagined, will prove the old adage about gaining the world at the cost of your soul.

Based on Ben Mezrich’s The Accidental Billionaires, there’s no doubt that this look at how the creation of a cultural phenomenon left behind a wake of betrayals, broken relationships and billion-dollar lawsuits is an absolutely fascinating one – and one told by skilled filmmakers at the height of their respective powers. Every frame demands and holds your attention from beginning to end, and that’s about as strong of a compliment as there is. The problem, however, is that all you are is fascinated, and what you are not is in any way emotionally invested. Whether or not you walk in knowing the ultimate outcome of the various relationships and lawsuits, there’s not a single character in the bunch sympathetic enough to help you summon a damn.

If forced to pull for someone, I guess I would choose Zuckerberg. Yeah, he’s an irony-smeared superior prick – a mini David Letterman — but at least he was making things happen; pushing that boulder uphill and rolling it over anyone who got in his way or slowed things down to wring their hands. On the other hand, his best friend and CFO Eduardo might have been a nicer person, but it’s hard to pull for a whiny weak sister with less vision that Ray Charles. Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss  (both played by actor Armie Hammer and some digital help), the identical twins who claimed Facebook was their idea and sued Zuckerberg for intellectual theft, are a little too square-jawed pretty and willing to let others do their work for my taste. And as far as Sean Parker goes, whether it’s the music business or the relationships around him, he’s not a creator, he’s a destroyer.

If anything, “The Social Network” feels like a two act film. You keep hoping and waiting for that third act where someone anyone will find some sort of personal redemption through something other than a victory in court or a deadpan quip. But it’s painfully obvious that this is a production meant to be an awards magnet, a prestige film, and for whatever reason, these days “important” is always translated into something emotionally distant, spiritually bankrupt, and carried by a smarter-than-thou anti-hero destined to be left hanging in some ironic limbo of his own making.

“The Social Network,” is, well, clever. Yes, that’s the word: clever. And good for it. Hats off, respect, and all due applause. From the photography to Trent Reznor’s driving, moody score, I’m impressed because there’s a whole lot to be impressed by.

But I’m also indifferent.

Why would this be so personal? Because my Grandparents are from Kyrenia and their land was unlawfully taken away from them during the Turkish occupation of Cyprus in 1974. Even though they had to come to the United States many years prior and became American citizens (like they use to do back in the day), there is no recourse for them to claim what is rightfully theirs. In brief, the Turks invaded the northern half of Cyprus, brutalizing its citizens and evicting 180,000 Greek Cypriots from their homes as Turkish Forces settled the Turks into the properties of those displaced Greeks.

The events were a violation of the Geneva Convention and various UN resolutions. In 1983, Turkish Cypriots proclaimed the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus which is recognized only by Turkey. So when I read about J. Lo’s concert it affected me as well as many others of Greek heritage.

Believe me, I get it, if you are blessed enough to have a high profile career like Ms. Lopez, people will pay $3 million dollars for an evening in your presence. God Bless you that is your path, but no matter what amount of money or accolades you will attain from the experience, one really must know who they are breaking bread with. I was not hopeful all the website groups and the subsequent emails to Ms. Lopez’s and her agents would have an affect because I, for one, did not think they would even be aware of the severity of that island’s history. Additionally, for someone who does not have a vested interest, who cares? — it’s one night, you fly in on a private jet, you belt out 8 songs, you are fed well, photographed, put up in a beautiful suite and then flown out on a private jet the next day. So I was shocked when I read a few days ago that Ms. Lopez withdrew from her commitment with the Cartos Hotel and made the following statement:

“Jennifer Lopez would never knowingly support any state, country, institution or regime that was associated with any form of human rights abuse, after a full review of the relevant circumstances in Cyprus, it was the decision of her advisors to withdraw from the appearance. This was a team decision that reflects our sensitivity to the political realities of the region.”

Jennifer please allow me to say “Euxaristo Para Poli”—which is thank you very much in Greek. I was so impressed that you took a stance and you and your people took the time to investigate the situation.

Unfortunately, in the litigious world that we live in, Ms. Lopez has been threatened with a $35-$40 million lawsuit for reneging on her obligation. I wouldn’t expect anything else from full-fledged thieves. In the end it will cost her at the very least legal fees, but she made the right decision this time — not taking blood money and doing what was morally and ethically correct.

It’s very much appreciated J.Lo, and a tray of homemade baklava is on me!

Molly Norris, mild-mannered cartoonist, started a fire she cannot put out. As Rick Santelli’s “rant” on TV from the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade fueled the Tea Party, Norris inspired thousands revolt against Islam. In a desiderative whim, she drew innocuous, refrigerator-door magnet caliber pictures which she claimed were images of Mohammad: a spool of thread, a teacup, a spoon, and other mundane things. Overall, they looked more like idle doodles than passionate expressions of the freedom of speech. She posted them in protest of Viacom’s Comedy Central forbidding its cartoon show, “South Park,“ to depict Mohammad in a bear suit.

That spawned the immensely popular “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day!” on Facebook. And thousands did draw. It is interesting to note that one can invite people to “draw Lincoln,” and we would see images of Lincoln ranging from good to unrecognizable. But how does one draw an image of a person whose face has never been seen, except in imagination? Imagination took hold.

Numerous responses have appeared on Facebook where artists comment, “We have reached 50,000 members. As the news of the rebellion against the attacks to our liberties are heard, brave people join the campaign to stave of those who would annihilate that which we believe in, freedom. Thomas Jefferson’s quote is also on the Facebook page. “All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.”

Americans and their friends across the globe responded en masse. The defiance was overwhelming, producing more cartoons than the Danish could draw, many of them ingenious. For a while, everyone was a Guy Fawkes, or a Paul Revere, or a Joan of Arc.

But — Molly Norris was criticized. Islam answered. Muslims demonstrated. Shut up. Molly Norris recanted. She didn’t mean to offend Muslims. She was only expressing her right to freedom of speech. But — Molly Norris was criticized. Islam answered. Muslims demonstrated. Shut up.

Too late. Contrition doesn’t carry much weight in Islam. No one has a right to offend Islam, or blaspheme against it. Whether Mohammad is depicted as a pedophilic ogre, as a knock-off of Charlton Heston’s Moses, or as a teacup, it matters not. It is forbidden. “Sorry” doesn’t cut it. Facebook also caved to Muslim demands and took down the page.

A fatwa has been issued against her and anyone who participated in Everybody Draw Mohammad Day. It appeared in an Al Qada online “magazine” and was issued by a former American turned Muslim cleric, Anwar Al-Awlaki, who now lives in hiding in Yemen. Molly Norris is now a “prime target” to be murdered.

“A cartoonist out of Seattle, Washington, named Molly Norris started the ‘Everyone Draw Mohammed Day,’” the article attributed to the radical Yemeni cleric says. “She should be taken as a prime target of assassination, along with others who participated in her campaign. “The large number of participants makes it easier for us because there are many targets to choose from,” reads the article in the magazine of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP.

The killings should not, however, be limited to “Draw Mohammed” participants, the article says. “Because (participants) are practicing a ‘right’ that is defended by the law, they have the backing of the entire Western political system. This would make… attacking any Western target legal from an Islamic viewpoint.”

Molly Norris should know that Islamic “legality” is consistently, irratinal and brutal. It is not a matter of a slap on the wrist and a fine. Submission to Islam must be total — or not at all. The “justice” metted out to those who only partially submit is perilous. Even Muslims are not exempt from it.

So, Molly Norris’s life, and that of anyone who drew Mohammad on Facebook, is in danger. So is the right to freedom of speech. The law that defends it is also fair game. The First Amendment is targeted for assassination, as well, not only by President Barack Obama’s wannabe censors, but by Islamists who want to replace the Constitution with Sharia law. Anwar All-Whacky is just as determined to see censorship imposed as is Cass Sunstein (by government force) or Stanley Fish (censorship by proxy). Excuse the mocking nickname; my powers of illustration fail me.

Stanley Fish, self-appointed academic ombudsman of free speech, quibbles about the use of the term censorship, not understanding, or not wishing to understand, that if fear results in the silencing of speech — a fear sired by the threat of direct force, or of a costly, ruinous lawsuit — that is as much censorship as the employment of force itself.

So what Random House did was not censorship. (Some other press is perfectly free to publish Jones’s book, and one probably will.) It may have been cowardly or alarmist, or it may have been good business, or it may have been an attempt to avoid trouble that ended up buying trouble. But whatever it was, it doesn’t rise to the level of constitutional or philosophical concern. And it is certainly not an episode in some “showdown between Islam and the Western tradition of free speech.” Formulations like that at once inflate a minor business decision and trivialize something too important and complex to be reduced to a high-school civics lesson about the glories of the First Amendment.

Fish manages to denigrate not only Salman Rushdie in his New York Times piece, but also business itself. He has no grasp of what is fundamentally of “constitutional or philosophical concern.” It’s all so trivial, nothing to get worked up about. Save your concern for something important. And that would be…?

“The large number of participants makes it easier for us because there are many targets to choose from,” boasted All-Whacky. True. How are he and his American proxies going to find and slay 50,000 offenders? No problem. He has designated any Western target for destruction. Perhaps someone who “drew Mohammad” will be one of the bomb victims.

How better to vitiate the First Amendment than to frighten men from upholding it? Those who refrain from drawing Mohammad, or from satirizing him and his Moonie-like flocks in word or deed out of “respect” or “tolerance,” or from sheer funk, or who counsel others to refrain, are just as culpable in the loss of that liberty as any Washington censor or duty-bound Muslim.

Of course, one needn’t have drawn Mohammad to become a prime target for assassination. Watching a soccer match in Uganda is also a punishable offense. Or publishing an Islam-friendly novel about the adventures of Mohammad’s child bride – without illustrations. Or an imageless history of the images of Mohammad. Or employing terms that identify the enemy in national security reports (that would be “profiling” a “religion of peace”).

Those who drew Mohammad last spring cannot all go into hiding, as doubtless Molly Norris must now do. The FBI has advised her to take the threat seriously. There are countless Muslims — itinerate loners or residents of Muslim enclaves in this country or the patrons of the proposed Ground Zero Mosque — willing to do All-Whacky’s bidding. We are at war with Islam, and the enemy is amongst us.

Is America fated to become a nation-in-hiding? You, the reader, decide. Our government will not acknowledge the war declared against us. It is up to Americans acknowledge it, and to never surrender this country to Islam or to its secular, Obama-esque form — to never let it go.

I got “unfriended” on Facebook a few months ago by comedienne Elayne Boosler. Out here in the real world I wasn’t really “friends” with Ms. Boosler. We had met a few times and I think we may have shared a stage or two somewhere along the way but that was it. Our Facebook friendship was almost as brief. When I disagreed with one of her political postings I was soon scratched from her “friend” roster. It seems that Ms. Boosler does not like to have her opinions challenged. She is one of many “progressives” who believe in diversity of appearance but not of thought. Fair enough.  You want to be narrow minded and intellectually lazy so you don’t have to defend your opinions, that is your right as an American. Second in my mind only to the right to be as stupid as you want to be is the right to put your fingers in your ear when someone who disagrees with you is so rude as to start throwing facts at you.

A little more hurtful was another “progressive” friend who electronically dumped me last week. For many years when I lived in California I had supported this person artistically because I thought she was talented, and I still do. I helped her find gigs and talked her up to bookers and agents when I could.

I got a terse message from this now former Facebook friend: “Go f#*@ yourself!” The reason for this dismissal: I expressed a conservative viewpoint in a comment to something she had posted. She had posted a negative message about Sean Hannity insulting Elena Kagan’s appearance. I posted back that I agreed that personal appearance attacks are lowbrow and said I hoped she was as vocal about her distaste for personal attacks when the left was doing it to Sarah Palin. My ex-friend said that there had never been an appearance based attacks on Ms. Palin (I know, I know) and asked if I could supply some links to back up my position. I did with a link to the Letterman “slutty airline attendant” line. She posted back that that was just one example and when I when I took the discussion off the public board and sent her a personal message with several more links I got the GFY brush off.

This whole episode got me to thinking about the bigger question; what is the cost of being openly conservative in show business? A few years ago another friend who is a television producer told me about going to a meeting at a studio where a major “suit” went on for fifteen minutes during a creative meeting about Rush Limbaugh and how they would never hire anyone who listened to “that moron.”  My friend is a closeted conservative and since he was in the middle of trying to make a deal at that studio, he kept his mouth shut. Another friend has a job as a casting director on a show and is very careful never to express a political opinion even though many lunch discussions are strongly anti-conservative.

I look at folks like Dennis Miller, a guy who I have admired for years, and Drew Carey, and wonder what their brash conservatism has cost them. There used to be a cost if you were a drug addict or gay in Hollywood. Now those things are career boosters. A few years back when I was still in Hollywood, some people would attend recovery group meeting to “network” with those there for help. Being seen at AA or CA was a career move. Does anyone think Ellen DeGeneres’ coming out has hurt her? I may not remember correctly but I seem to remember her sitcom was on life support until she came out on the show and on Oprah. I wouldn’t doubt it if there were a few “ersatz” gays in Hollywood these days. Meanwhile, if you are conservative or Republican in show business, you better have a two bedroom closet because you are going to be there for awhile.

If you want to join my Facebook group for those dumped online for being too right, follow this link and post your story.

I also informed all parties involved that I would do the same for any of them under similar brutal and inhuman circumstances. Whatever it took, be it sweetheart pleas or promises of a nuclear PR war. I have since dropped the latter approach, as I have been informed by Iranians also campaigning for Mr. Panahi’s release that it was not helpful to his cause. So on Mr. Panahi’s behalf, I have traded in my sword for a plowshare for the duration. Not a problem. I’m not a total ideologue. Just mostly.

This past three weeks have also brought many valuable learning experiences as well. I have since found that Facebook, which I have avoided like the Plague because I have enough on my geek plate already, is an incredibly valuable social networking tool that reaches even into the heart of Iran itself. I have made many new friends behind the Islamist Curtain, among them a Panahi family member, by posting any good news I could find on the Jafar Panahi and Free Jafar Panahi Facebook pages.

You have no idea how badly ordinary Iranians are starved for good news from the outside world today, people. They long for it like a parched man in the desert longs for water. So I scoured the Internet for every Jafar Panahi rally, every screening of Mr. Panahi’s award-winning films in solidarity with the filmmaker, demands for his release by the French and German foreign ministers, and the big news of ten days ago: that Cannes was dedicating an empty jury chair in Mr. Panahi’s honor.

That empty chair is sure to loom larger as Cannes approaches, especially in light of the recent joint statement by many of America’s leading filmmakers calling for the release of Mr. Panahi from Evin prison. It was a bold and comprehensive PR salvo to the Islamist regime in Iran by Hollywood’s top filmmakers, dare I say far bolder than Comedy Central’s recent caving to jihadi wannabes living in their mothers’ basements in New York City. Full credit where credit is due. And I cannot tell you how excited ordinary Iranians were at that surprising news. Orgasmic would not be an understatement.

Speaking of credit, the Free Jafar Panahi campaign owes a great debt of gratitude not only to the many filmmakers who spoke in unison on Mr. Panahi’s behalf last Friday, but most particularly to entertainment writer Anthony Kaufman, who has been working tirelessly on Mr. Panahi’s behalf ever since his arrest on March 1. Mr. Kaufman was also a driving force on the NYC petition committee. He deserves our deepest gratitude for his journeyman work in Mr. Panahi’s cause. Please thank him at his Village Voice contact page. Mr. Kaufman has definitely earned the Egon Snickers bar on this one!

For the record, the campaign to free Jafar Panahi is not over. In point of fact, the Hollywood petition may only be the end of the beginning. Mr. Panahi is still being given the Winston Smith treatment in Evin prison, and the Ahmadinejad regime shows no inclination to release him right away. Just the opposite, in fact. As Mr. Kaufman himself just reported, the state Tabnak news agency responded with “West Meddles in Panahi Affair Again, This Time Using the Prestige of the Hollywood Greats.” The state-run Kayhan website went even further, calling the Hollywood petitioners “mofsed fel-arz” which translates to “moral corruption that threatens the social order,” a most severe crime in Iran.

But the international tide of support for Mr. Panahi is steadily rising. Despite steadfast resistance,  mounting international pressure for Mr. Panahi’s release may yet have a profound effect on the regime. It is sure to be raised even higher with that upcoming empty jury chair looming ever larger at Cannes with each passing day. Even in today’s chaotic Iran, the regime will release Mr. Panahi if the PR heat becomes too great as it did for Roxana Saberi. The regime can ill afford to lose allies like France and Germany right now, and Mr. Panahi is fast becoming a diplomatic sticking point for both.

A note of bitter deja vu. Last week, as I drafted my latest oped on Mr. Panahi at Digital Journal, it occurred to me that a year ago today I was immersed in the same kind of relentless campaign for Roxana Saberi’s release from Evin prison, both here at BH and at the Digital Journal news blog. It was in fact Team Oscar’s Iran trip that drove me for the first time in my ten years as a screenwriter to openly attack and criticize Hollywood and the Academy over their incredible ignorance of the Islamist regime in Iran, especially with regard to the political persecution of filmmakers there. But Hollywood has finally spoken up on Iran, and in many ways my mission here at Big Hollywood is now complete.

Perhaps now that they all know the dire situation with Mr. Panahi, they’ll start taking a closer look at what’s going on there with other persecuted Iranian filmmakers like Mohammad Nourizad, never mind the thousands of innocents who suffer endlessly in the shadows outside of the public eye. For the first time in all this time, I feel like there’s hope yet. Statements such as the one last Friday carry far more weight than the sum of their parts. Hollywood voices do get a lot of press and attention, and that is a very good thing in this situation. I hope they continue to speak out as they have, which I am sure will accelerate in full measure at Cannes. I’ll be watching. But I see a lot of very good things upcoming that could lead to Jafar Panahi’s freedom. Here’s hoping for the best: a free Jafar Panahi!