Well done, Mr. Shapiro.

From Variety:

“What is troubling is that now it seems discrimination is an acceptable practice to stifle divergent opinions.”

Paul Bond in the Hollywood Reporter:

Lionel Chetwynd and Norman Powell are upset over remarks they deem discriminatory that were made by some TV Caucus members during interviews with “Primetime Propaganda” author Ben Shapiro.

—–

An organization of politically active TV heavyweights is in turmoil over partisan remarks that some say smack of discrimination, all related to videos The Hollywood Reporter revealed on its website last week.

Two members, Lionel Chetwynd and Norman Powell, have already quit the Caucus for Producers, Writers & Directors, an honor society founded in 1977 by Norman Lear, James Komack, Aaron Spelling, Richard Levinson and others to promote creative freedom and quality and diversity in television.

Chetwynd and Powell quit separately over remarks made by some Caucus members during interviews with Ben Shapiro, author of the book Primetime Propaganda: The True Hollywood Story of How the Left Took Over Your TV. ….

Powell, who once ran CBS Entertainment Productions, hasn’t made his resignation letter public, but he emailed his thoughts to The Hollywood Reporter.

(more…)

Specifically, I refer to remarks attributed to Vin in the recent publication “Prime Time Propaganda: The True Hollywood Story of How The Left Took Over Your TV” by Ben Shapiro. I do not defend the book, having yet to read it; I address only the matters raised by its research content.

June 2, 2011
(AN OPEN LETTER)
Dennis Doty, Chair The Caucus for Producers, Writers & Directors

Dear Dennis,

Herewith, I tender my resignation as both Co-Chair of the Steering Committee of The Caucus for Producers, Writers & Directors, and also my general membership. The proximate cause are comments by our friend and Caucus leader Vin Di Bona; but the true reason lies in how those comments make clear that views held dearly and passionately by me, and my sense of the American story, render me unsuitable for continued membership.So while this is not about our friend, the talented and decent Vin Di Bona, it does begin at his side.

Specifically, I refer to remarks attributed to Vin in the recent publication “Prime Time Propaganda: The True Hollywood Story of How The Left Took Over Your TV” by Ben Shapiro. I do not defend the book, having yet to read it; I address only the matters raised by its research content.

In preparing his book, Mr. Shapiro interviewed a large number of our Hollywood notables on the subject of diversity – not the sacrosanct mélange of race, religion, gender orientation and the like, but a more challenging diversity: that of opinion and policy. The vast majority felt quite comfortable endorsing discrimination against those whose political philosophy was not rooted in the reflexive Leftism of Hollywood. Vin’s contribution, when asked to address this alleged anti-conservative bias, was that it “ … (is) probably accurate and I’m happy about it, actually. … If the accusation is there, I’m okay with it”. In a subsequent statement, he endorsed the content of the quote, saying he “stood by it”. He was not alone; indeed many of those interviewed held the opinion that discriminating against conservatives was a simple virtue – i.e., one all could/should accept. Vin’s comment was mild compared to some. Many called for wider efforts at shutting out voices with which they happen to disagree. But, what if we substitute for “conservative”, words like African-American, or Gay, or Jew, or Muslim, — or, God forbid, Leftists, Communists, or Liberals?

While Mr. Shapiro’s revelations are appalling, and cause enough for any person such as myself to choose to sever ties, it becomes mandatory when the comments made are later affirmed rather than mitigated. (Vin and I have now spoken, and I reference that conversation below.)

(more…)

The New York Times:

The dust-up around Ben Shapiro’s book, “Prime Time Propaganda: The True Hollywood Story of How the Left Took Over Your TV,” has taken a toll on a values-oriented Hollywood organization that prides itself on reaching across partisan lines. That is the Caucus for Producers, Writers and Directors, whose members include Tom Hanks, Dick Wolf, Garry Marshall and some of the more prominent creative types in television.

—–

On Thursday, Lionel Chetwynd, a prominent Hollywood conservative whose credits include “DC 9/11: Time of Crisis” and “Ike: Countdown to D-Day,” sent an open letter resigning as co-chairman of the steering committee and as a member of the caucus. Mr. Chetwynd cited remarks by Vin Di Bono, a fellow steering committee member whose credits include “America’s Funniest Home Videos” and “MacGyver.” In a recorded interview with Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Di Bona said it was “probably accurate” that scripted television reflects a liberal bias, and that he was “happy about it, actually.” …

“Those comments make clear that views held dearly and passionately by me, and my sense of the American story, render me unsuitable for continued membership,” wrote Mr. Chetwynd, who had been instrumental in presenting conservative-leaning politicians like Eric Cantor and Tom Ridge before the Caucus. “What I now understand is the disgust was not for their views, but for their very person,” Mr. Chetwynd wrote.

(more…)

That Robert Duvall is one of the greatest actors to ever grace the silver screen is incontestable. His roles as Gus McCrae in “Lonesome Dove” (1989), Sonny Dewey in “The Apostle” (1997), and Mac Sledge in “Tender Mercies” (1983), are simply unforgettable. In addition to these characters, Duvall gave us famous lines that have literally worked their way into our nation’s lexicon over the years. In particular I’m thinking about his lines, “I love the smell of napalm in the morning” (“Apocalypse Now,” 1976) and “It’s a pretty day for making things right” (“Open Range,” 2003).

Although Duvall has received an Academy Award, two Emmy Awards, and four Golden Globe Awards, among other recognitions, I concur with film maker Lionel Chetwynd in saying that Duvall has not been “elevated to the unique place he [deserves to occupy] in American art.”

So why hasn’t Duvall been elevated to that unique position? Generally, it’s because he’s not your run of the mill Hollywood personality: he makes his home in Virginia instead of Los Angeles or New York City. And specifically, it’s because of his politics.

By his own admission, Duvall “[tends] to be conservative,” which is better that being a leper, but alienates just as many Hollywood elitists nonetheless.

And Duvall isn’t just talking when he says he tends to be conservative. For instance, not only is he open about the fact that he didn’t vote for Obama in 2008, but he laughingly told Mike Huckabee that, “if given the chance, he wouldn’t vote for him again.“ Keep in mind, Duvall not only attended a McCain/Palin rally in Albuquerque during the 2008 election cycle, but also introduced Palin to the crowd there and held a sign reading: “Drill Here! Drill Now!” (I’m sure Robert Redford is pleased as punch about this.) (more…)

The New York Post ran a story this weekend with a very encouraging headline: RIGHT TURN ON B’WAY? Michael Riedel’s article revolves around two new plays that are being shopped around for a home.  One is a one-man play about Ronald Reagan.

“Reagan” is a one-man play that doesn’t portray the 40th president as a fascist. It’s by Lionel Chetwynd, whose scripts for television and film include “The Hanoi Hilton,” “Color of Justice,” “Kissinger and Nixon” and “DC 9/11: Time of Crisis.” ….  Chetwynd declined to comment on “Reagan,” except to say with a laugh, “It will change lives and the course of history.” A copy of an early script portrays Reagan as thoughtful, determined, sly (when necessary) and winning. Talking to the audience from the main room of his California ranch, Reagan explains his journey from FDR Democrat to conservative Republican. Along the way, he offers a spirited defense of conservative principles. At least three top directors have passed on the play because, says a source, “They can’t stand Ronald Reagan.”

The other play cited is “Girls in Trouble (Formerly Three Abortions)” by Jonathan Reynolds.

In “Girls in Trouble,” Reynolds presents a balanced view of pro-lifers while taking some swipes at the NPR crowd. The play ends with a harrowing confrontation between two women — one pro-life, the other pro-choice — that’s not for the squeamish. “Thus far, its claim to fame is that it’s been turned down by all the theaters in New York,” Reynolds says of his play. “It was commissioned by the Long Wharf, but they wouldn’t put it on. There was a theater in the suburbs of Washington, DC, that said they wanted to present the ‘other side’ of the abortion debate. But when they read it, they said it would “infuriate our audience.” Oskar Eustis, the head of the Public Theater, told Reynolds that his staff “didn’t go for it,” but that he would take a look at it himself.

(more…)