From Variety:

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.

“Certainly the fact that our industry has a liberal bias is no surprise,” he said. “What is troubling is that now it seems discrimination is an acceptable practice to stifle divergent opinions. Speaking out against this is specifically on the Caucus Mission Statement. Our First Commitment is ‘promoting the artistic rights of the creative community,’ not solely the rights of the liberal creative community.”

Read the full piece here.

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.)

In my years as a member of the Caucus, I worked tirelessly to promote fidelity to our First Amendment rights. You well know, for example, the Bipartisan Political Panels I organized, my pieces for the Caucus Journal, and – now to my embarrassment – my involvement in bringing to the Caucus such speakers as Eric Cantor, Tom Ridge, John Thune and others. I knew most of my fellow members looked upon the political positions of these people as distasteful; what I now understand is the disgust was not for their views, but for their very person. Such people, Mr. Shapiro’s sources make clear, must be silenced and it is therefore proper to make them suffer discrimination. Shame on all of them. Their sickness is an infection that belongs in Europe of the 1930s. It does not belong in America. It is especially evil that it be found in our community, where America’s popular culture is born, where we create the images explaining who and what America is to our fellow countrymen, and more, to the world. Next Monday will mark 67 years since young Americans from across our country – and that includes Oklahoma, Nebraska, Kansas, Montana, all the “fly-overs” – willingly gave their lives on Norman beaches to bring freedom to the subjugated peoples of Europe, people about whom those brave young heroes knew little or nothing.

And is this how today’s beneficiaries use the freedom won by the blood and sacrifice of men and women surely better than we?

Lest I seem like Claude Raines, I am not protesting, “shocked, shocked!” for I always knew the truth; indeed, as I believe you’re aware, I experienced overt Blacklisting for my views as a conservative – at the very hands of those who piously deplore the Blacklisting of Communists in a former day. As 1950s Blacklist victim Carl Foreman warned me when I told him I was moving to Hollywood: “Beware the fearless defenders of the safely contentious.” He was right: Rhetoric is easy, principle is hard. Certainly, then, I have always known and understood the Leftward prejudice of Hollywood. Yet, until now, I have remained relatively passive and simply rolled with the blows. So what has changed?

Three things:

- The first is personal: I realize, now, the enormous special obstacles put in my path by my supposed colleagues, obstacles that over the years made earning a living or a quiet pursuit of my trade so unusually onerous, were not a matter of political difference; they were a declaration of my unworthiness to be one of them. The rejection was not of my ideas, but of my person.

- The next is my immediate community: Until now, the Hollywood culture kept mean-spirited and odious persecution carefully discussed out-of-earshot of we lepers; now, however, there appears to be no problem in openly admitting to cheap and easy prejudice. Few cancers are more lethal to a civil society than ideological bigotry. And no one can spread disease better than our industry. – The last, and by far, far, the most important, is our beloved America: This is a time of inflamed political confrontation, evoking Bleeding Kansas of the 1850’s or even the Civil War itself. And as Dante taught, “there is a special place reserved in hell for he, who in the face of moral crisis, does nothing.” So if the Hollywood Left has no compunction in publicly proclaiming its creed, then for the sake of those Americans who have a different vision for our country, someone must shout, “Stop! This is not what America’s about! The American people deserve better!” In my own awkward way, I am trying to meet that challenge. We, privileged to work in the entertainment industry and enjoy the bounty our chosen career bestows on success, should never imagine ourselves the arbiters of what is permissible in the public square. We do not own the dream factory, but are merely its custodians, stewards at best. Rome won its empire at the edge of the sword. The British built theirs with commerce, sending out grocers. But America? We dispatched Humphrey Bogart and Bette Davis and Elvis Presley, Writers, Producers, Directors, DPs, all our talent. The jewel of our national patrimony – our popular culture – has been a beacon to the world in spreading the message of freedom and tolerance. The success of this enterprise when in the hands of prior generations makes the miserable failure of our current crop to even listen to voices other than their own all the more painful.

Since beginning this letter, I have had the opportunity to speak to Vin, and I assure you both, I believe his distress at what has been said, his explanation of how the words came to be spoken, and accepted his personal apology. But this issue now goes beyond my personal trust, having migrated to the very nature of our community and its mainstream organizations – amongst which The Caucus holds a particular pride-of-place. It is for that very reason I no longer belong in your midst. I shall miss you all.

I wish you and all my former fellow members the rewards freedom, hard work, and talent, enable.

With best wishes and great sincerity,
Lionel Chetwynd

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.

Full article here.

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.)

How many other Hollywood personalities go against the grain to this extent?

Duvall has that which General Stonewall Jackson described as the courage of his convictions: he is true to himself, his country, and the heritage from which he sprung. No wonder Chetwynd said of Duvall, “[he] is authentic to what he thinks, [and] to his background.”

This authenticity is on display when Duvall talks about America. While many others in Hollywood harbor resentment toward our nation for its successes (and its failures), Duvall says: “America is a great country… To me, if this country went down it would be a dark world.”

Whether Hollywood will ever elevate Duvall to the unique place he deserves to hold in film history remains to be seen. Odds are, they won’t do it because of his politics and his patriotism. Fortunately, that hasn’t stopped Duvall from being Duvall.

God bless Robert Duvall.

“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.

Forgive me for not jumping up and doing a victory dance quite yet… It has always seemed a no-brainer to me that a positive telling of the Ronald Reagan story would be a hugely popular hit.  Not only is his story compelling, inspiring and quintessentially American, but he was and continues to be incredibly popular.  The drama contained within the pages of Peggy Noonan’s “When Character Was King” screams for a stage adaptation.  I hope Chetwynd’s work does Duke justice… the fact that many directors have turned down the piece is a sign that it does.

But, to me the real story in this article is less about the plays that are being shopped as it is a story about the doors that are shut to plays that have this kind of content.  My favorite passage is Oskar Eustis at the fledgling Public Theater.  The staff of the Public “didn’t go for it.”  Hm.  The staff of the Public has succeeded in running the once thriving non-profit to the brink of bankruptcy in recent years.  Maybe we, the theatre-going public don’t go for your staff, Mr. Eustis.  And what a weak-kneed response, too.  Can anyone imagine the original founder of The Public Theater… that titan of New York non-profit theatre Joe Papp, saying that his organization would not produce a play because “his staff didn’t go for it”?  No, Papp would be a man and take the responsibility himself.

I think it would be instructive to take a look at what Eustis’ staff DID “go for” in the 2008 and 2009 seasons.  Perusing their website you will see that these seasons’ plays are chuck full of diversity.  You can’t GET any more diverse than the Public Theater right now.  Black, White, Native American, straight, gay, male, female, Latino, Asian… diversity, thy name is Eustis.  So, what is missing?  How about diversity of THOUGHT AND OPINION?

The diversity that is being celebrated at the Public Theater is the laziest kind of diversity.  Diversity of appearance.  Big deal.  It’s like Eustis is at a dinner party and he makes himself feel good by saying “Some of my best plays are black.”  I thought the over-educated, uber-intellectual, non-profit theatre staffs were a little more interested in being challenged with new ideas.  I thought they are in favor of “speaking truth to power.”  I thought maybe the staffs at non-profit theatres, fresh from Yale Drama School and NYU’s Tisch School of the Arts, were originally drawn to the non-profit theatre world so through their art they could give voice to the voiceless and speak for those who do not have an outlet to speak for themselves.  Instead, Mr. Eustis’ staff give us “Why Torture is Wrong, and the People Who Love Them” and “The Good Negro.”  Yes staff, those plays will truly be intellectually challenging to your well-educated, upper-class, liberal, New York audience.  Truth to power, my brothers and sisters!  Pat yourselves on the backs; you should be so proud.

Is it cool that there are a couple of playwrights getting attention for shopping conservative-themed plays in New York?  Yes.  Is it really cool that the New York Post wrote an article which pretty much ridicules the New York intelligencia for not having enough room in their club for even one play every few years that doesn’t preach to the secular choir?  Yes.  Is it enough that these plays have been written and are talked about even if they never get produced?  Hell no.  Let’s not let this story end here.  Apply the pressure to Mr. Eustis and his staff now.  If there is room in the budget for “Tales of an Urban Indian” then there should be room for a positive play about Reagan or a play which dares to suggest that maybe abortion is wrong.