Lionsgate President of Theatrical Releasing Tom Ortenberg, actors Joe Pantoliano, Cara Seymour and Daphne Zuniga and 20th Century Fox Vice President Rita Prosyak face off with political pundits Lawrence O'Donnell, Jr. (MSNBC's Senior Political Analyst) and Eric Alterman (The Nation columnist), as they engage in an uncensored, uncut conversation on Hollywood's responsibility and influence on society via the silver screen.
Eric Alterman is distinguished professor of English at Brooklyn College of the City University of New York and professor of journalism at the Graduate School of Journalism at CUNY, as well as the liberal columnist for The Nation and Altercation blogger for Media Matters for America(formerly at MSNBC.com) in Washington, DC, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress in Washington, DC, where he writes and edits the "Think Again" column, a senior fellow (since 1985) at the World Policy Institute at The New School in New York, and a history consultant to HBO Films.
Alterman is the author of seven books, including the national bestsellers, What Liberal Media? The Truth About Bias and the News (2003, 2004), and The Book on Bush: How George W. (Mis)leads America (with Mark Green, 2004).
The others include: When Presidents Lie: A History of Official Deception and its Consequences, (2004, 2005). His Sound & Fury: The Making of the Punditocracy (1992, 2000), won the 1992 George Orwell Award and his It Ain't No Sin to be Glad You're Alive: The Promise of Bruce Springsteen (1999, 2001), won the 1999 Stephen Crane Literary Award, and Who Speaks for America? Why Democracy Matters in Foreign Policy, (1998).
His newest book is Why We're Liberals: A Political Handbook to Post-Bush America, (2008).
The Creative Coalition (TCC) appointed Robin Bronk Executive Director on July 7, 1998. TCC is the leading nonprofit, nonpartisan social and political advocacy organization of the arts and entertainment industry. As Executive Director, Ms. Bronk is dedicated to educating and mobilizing the arts community on issues of public importance, particularly the First Amendment, arts advocacy and public education.
VP, National Promotions, 20TH Century Fox Film
Lawrence O'Donnell is an MSNBC Senior Political Analyst and a panelist on "The McLaughlin Group."
O'Donnell is an Emmy-winning producer and writer of NBC's The West Wing. He also served as the creator and Executive Producer of NBC's drama Mister Sterling. The West Wing episode he co-wrote on the death penalty won the 2000 Humanitas Prize for writing that "communicate(s) those values which most enrich the human person."
During the election year 2000, O'Donnell was a contributing editor of New York magazine with a column on national politics.
President of Theatrical Releasing, Lionsgate Films
Joseph Pantoliano is former president of the Creative Coalition. He is an American actor and sometimes referred to as Joey Pants.
Pantoliano is also known for his role as "Eddie Moscone", the bail bondsman, in the Robert De Niro comedy Midnight Run and a police officer of dubious credentials named John Edward "Teddy" Gammel in Memento. He also played "Deputy Marshal Cosmo Renfro" in The Fugitive along with Tommy Lee Jones and reprised the role in the sequel U.S. Marshals.
In 2003, Pantoliano won an Emmy Award for Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Drama Series for his portrayal of "Ralphie Cifaretto" on The Sopranos.
Cara Seymour is an English actress of both stage and screen.
She has appeared in many ensemble casts for acclaimed films such as American Psycho, Adaptation., Gangs of New York and Hotel Rwanda. She appeared on stage in the NYSF production of Caryl Churchill's The Skriker with Jayne Atkinson Angie Phillips and Philip Seymour Hoffman.
Vice President of Corporate Affairs, Heineken Beer
Daphne Zuniga began her film career with Rob Reiner's The Sure Thing opposite John Cusack. Then she was cast opposite Lucille Ball in Ball's final performance Stone Pillow.
Daphne went on to star in feature films such as Mel Brooks' Spaceballs, Vision Quest, Gross Anatomy with Christine Lahti and Matthew Modine. Zuniga became familiar to millions of viewers as Jo Beth Reynolds on the hit series Melrose Place. Other credits include highly rated NBC miniseries' Pandora's Clock and Degree of Guilt, both based on best-selling novels, tv guest spots on Spin City, Stark Raving Mad, Eve and Law and Order, and recurring as Playboy Playmate Shelly Pierce on the NBC series, American Dreams.
Daphne was a founding board member of Earth Communications Office (ECO), an organization that harnesses the power of the environmental movement and the entertainment community. She is devoted to the conservation of our planet and "mercury awareness," having written articles for Oprah's O magazine and working with such organizations as the NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) and Robert Kennedy Jr.'s Waterkeeper Alliance. Recently Daphne has focused her efforts on environmental problems in Hispanic communities, where childhood asthma is an epidemic.
Good afternoon, I'm Robin Bronk, executive director of the Creative Coalition, and welcome to ourannual Sundance sushi stars and society panel with Heineken, and we are delighted to be here. I firstwanted to open up by telling you a little bit about the Creative Coalition, we are the membershiporganization of the entertainment industry can we cut the music? I mean, I like it. Because we'regoing to have our panelists dance up here.We are the nonprofit, nonpartisan, public advocacy arm of the entertainment industry, we walk thewalk, we talk the talk and we bring issues to the forefront of the national agenda by shining thespotlight of the entertainment industry on those issues and moving it forward. We have a very excitingevent for you today, and sneaking up behind me are some of the panelists, but before we introducethem, I'm going to introduce Dan Tiernel of Heineken who is a great support of the Creative Coalition,a great mentor, and we're delighted to be here again.Thank you, Robin. Thank you. Once again, it's great to be able to sponsor this event with the CreativeCoalition, this is I think the third year? The third year we've done this out here, it seems like ten. AtSundance. And we've done a number of other events with the Creative Coalition. Social and eventsthat are more thought-provoking, we've got some celebrity panels about alcohol issues in Washingtonand Chicago, and I can say to you that the weather here is a lot nicer than it was in Chicago, kind offoggy.But we're happy to have all of you here today, I'm glad you could all, if any of you were here last night,it was a very late night, and a lot of fun, and if you were there you rarely get up to come to this, so weappreciate that, and I'd especially like to thank our panelists for being here with us, we have a greatgroup of folks of varied backgrounds all tied in with entertainment or public policy issues, and I thinkwe'll have a very lively discussion on today's topic. So I'm going to hand it back to Robin and onceagain we thank you on behalf of Heineken USA for being here today. Thank you.Thank you. So, just to introduce the drill today. And thank you all for getting up and coming here.Lawrence O'Donnell, who is our moderator, will open up the discussion, and we have on our panelactor Daphne Zuniga, next to her is Rita Prosyak, who is the Vice President of 20th Century Fox FilmedEntertainment--It says Rita Drucker on my list.Joey is on Prozac. How would you like to be addressed?Rita Drucker is fine.The honorable Miss Drucker. Her Royal Highness. Then we have Joey Pompliano, who is actor andco-president of the Creative Coalition, Eric Alterman from The Nation, Tom Ortenberg, president oftheatrical releases of Lion's Gate, and Cara Seymour, who also is an actor and who also has a film herein Sundance. And now I'm going to turn it over to Lawrence O'Donnell, he's going to open it up, he'sgoing to talk, he's going to get people riled up, and then we're going to get a couple, we're going tohave some time for questions from the audience, and we remind you, I'll be walking around with amike, we know you're all in the entertainment industry and we know you have a lot to say, but keep itas a question. And then afterwards, when we have sushi and lunch and lots of fun, then you can talk.Oh! So we're going to questions, at some point?Right.Joey, let's start with you as a are you busy?No, keep going.As one of the many presidents of the Creative Coalition, and this being a discussion of...He just likes to yell.I was going to ask as long a question as necessary for you to get a microphone. And this being adiscussion in general of social responsibility and moviemaking, what is the Creative Coalition's generalposition on this and what are you trying to get the creative community to think about this?Well actually, we use the creative community to educate the general masses out there whoa it's toohot this way, there's an echo. So we take on initiatives, things that are important to the board, that dealspecifically with creative arts. And it's always our intention because we are nonpartisan organization,that we would be able to being up things that both the left and the right could agree on, children,education, free speech, and we know the power of the movies and television to be able to bring thatforward is always a really important. So we're always looking and we love bringing people out onthese panels who totally disagree with each other, and in a heated discussion everybody can have apoint of view and see all sides.Uh, let's go to the non movie maker on the panel. Eric Alterman, you're a Washington insider and aHollywood outsider. How does it look to you, what is your sense of Hollywood's sense ofresponsibility in moviemaking and are you disappointed in the outcomes, or do you have higher hopesfor it, or what is your hopes or expectations from Hollywood.Lawrence, I left Washington right around the time you did because I felt there was just no reason tolive there anymore.So you're more of a New York insider.Yeah, I asked actually to go last in this panel, maybe...You've got to tell me that. See, someone has to tell me. Otherwise...Uh, here's what I think. Um, I mostly defend Hollywood in the political realm, because the thing I likeabout Hollywood is that Hollywood is really the only lobby that puts its money behind its ideologicalagenda, and its ideological agenda doesn't serve its own interests. In other words, people are alwaysmaking fun of these rich, pampered, Hollywood elitists with their personal assistants caring about poorpeople and caring about global warming and so forth. But it's really the only big money outfit outthere, it's one of the three pillars of the democratic party, financially, that is not lobbying for somethingto help itself.I mean there is a Hollywood lobby that's sort of copyright law and they have their lobbies on that kindof thing, but when Democrats go out to Hollywood to raise money, they're just sort of saying the rightthings about the world, they're not saying to these people, "I'm going to give you what you need so thatyou can be more selfish in the political process." You know, there's a famous dinner that David Geffenonce had, where he got like the 13 richest guys together in Hollywood to lobby Clinton not to lower thecapital gains tax. They said, "We're so rich, we don't mind paying a little more in our capital gains,"and Clinton gave it to them anyway, it didn't work.So the idea that there's something dishonorable about lobbying on behalf of clean air and healthychildren and so forth, as opposed to lobbying for oil rigs for the oil industry, I think it's ridiculous. Theproblem with Hollywood is that it's so damn sanctimonious about it that it won't admit to what it'sdoing. And if people would just own up to the fact that look, this is what we believe in, this is whatwe're giving, if we don't have any particular expertise in these issues some of us do, most of us don'tbut we just want to live in a better world, then fine, that would be the end of it.But there's so much sanctimony about it, there's so much, you know, we're so wonderful, people inHollywood need their egos stroked, that I think it grates on people and gets them a lot worse press thanthey really deserve.Daphne, there is one issue that has concerned the Creative Coalition and certainly the creativecommunity, that is in their interests, and that is in the whole world of FCC fines that's developed sincethe Janet Jackson incident at the Superbowl, the Creative Coalition's been very active on that, and nowthere's some real legal challenges that the networks are bringing to these FCC fines. Is that somethingthat you find the creative community getting unified behind in a self-interested way, as opposed to themore general kind of advocacy that Eric was just talking about?Um, I think what you're talking about is that they're changing the law, they're trying to change the law,so that whoever the artist is that says something that might be offensive or break some FCC rule,they're now going to be personally liable for it. So if I said something and I was doing a Lion's Gatemovie I'm free by the way, after pilot season it wouldn't be you gotta love Hollywood, dealseverywhere but it would now be up to me that could be sued or fined.And I think it probably depends on the context, but no, as an actor, you know, actors, it's amazing, I'vebeen doing this 23 years, I'm just recently learning that I'm a commodity, that I have a currency andthere's all these things that go along with being in a business where you know, I love to act, I love tobring human emotions and stories to screen so that the audience can relate and feel somewhat seen andunderstood, but it also is a business, so no, overall I would, you know, Joey was working on the hill forthis issue, overall I think that if I'm working on a film or if there is a studio that is paying me that forthe most part, they should be responsible, well I should be responsible human being, but I don't thinkthat they should come after me to fine me a million dollars for speaking my mind if it offends them or--It's only 500,000.Or trust me, I'm never going to be showing anything, they can't even pay me enough to do that but Ithink that if the studios that are making all the money off of my 14 hour days, if they're going homewith most of the money, and the producers, there's a responsibility that comes with that, basically, Ithink.Rita, there's a lot of movement now in the area of product placement in the area of television andmovies, it's very difficult to do in television because when we were doing the West Wing, we wanted tomake a deal with one of the airlines, United or American, that flew nonstop to Washington because weused to shoot there a lot. The trouble is, the studio, although it wanted the money, couldn't do it.Because you'd be syndicating the show out there and selling ads out there in a world where you mightwant to get an American Airlines ad but they won't do it if United is already in the tv show.In movies it's different because you have a closed environment, and you can do a certain amount ofproduct placement in movies that won't in any way harm where you're trying to go. But is there somesense that you have to bring to that, of the social responsibility issues involved in exactly what youhave people using and doing in movies, smoking being the big example that everyone's really seen achange on in the last decade in movies.Musical microphones. Uhh, yeah, I would definitely say so, I think about one of the that we'reconfronted with, you know my responsibility at Fox is to generate awareness and excitement and dragthe film properties into the culture, and doing so I am working with brands and kind of given otherbrands in corporate America and leveraging their media dollars to do that.And most of the time, there are product placement and product integration opportunities in the film,and sometimes there aren't, and I think that from my standpoint is for example, especially these days, inthe child obesity issue which has really gained so much traction in Washington and lobbying groupsand Disney recently announced that they weren't going to tie in with, at the end of their McDonald'srelationship they weren't going to tie in with fast food partners anymore, there is definitely a socialresponsibility that we need to take into consideration when we're placing certain brands or working topromote certain brands, but the thing that frustrates me the most, and this is purely a personal point ofview, is that there is no individual responsibility.When did Hollywood and when did all these lobbying groups all of a sudden become our parents? Andthat's what frustrates me, is that there's individual responsibility first, and then of course socialresponsibility by these media companies and the producers and the filmmakers who have, who placethe product, and who create messages and have characters smoking on screen and so forth, but therecomes down to pure and simple individual responsibility, which I think is really not being discussedenough, and somehow the burden is placed on these other organizations and individuals to sort of baby-sit.Who do you mean, individual responsibility?I mean parents. I mean the idea of parents not allowing their kids to watch certain shows that theydon't find responsible or going to the movies. I mean, there's a rating system in place for a reason, Idon't necessarily think it does a good job of describing the content in the films, but there's a ratingsystem in place. Parents need to be responsible about what they allow their children to go see. And thesame for television and the same for music. There's a lack of individual responsibility.Tom, do you feel that too much is asked of movie studios from both sides, meaning say from the liberalside that's interested in social responsibility, getting nervous about how many cigarettes are smoked ina movie, to the conservative side that worries profusely about which words of profanity are used inmovies at what time, from where you are, in the center of moviemaking, do you feel just kind ofbesieged by both sides about what is essentially a work of art being interpreted as a work of politicswhen that isn't even necessarily intended?Absolutely. I would like to say something quickly about the last couple of comments, I agree withRita, simply there are such things as off-switches and things like that that are available to most tv setsand choices when you're walking into a movie theater, so I do think a little bit more personalresponsibility instead of always the blame game whether it's blame Hollywood, blame something,personal responsibility, would go a long way towards making the country a better place, but alsomaking entertainment better and making it easier for us to bring more choices to people.I also have to say with what Eric said, there's a fair amount of sanctimony in Hollywood, but I think themedia exaggerates it and I don't think it's necessarily fair to say that they are so sanctimonious, thereare certainly some big examples, but I think the media gets great play out of exaggerating thesanctimony and parodying it and that's fun for people to watch on the tabloid shows or Fox News orsomething, but to answer your question, it is. It can be stifling.When you're trying to make creative decisions, whether you're reading a script, deciding whether togreen light a movie, deciding how we're going to market a movie, and always having to think who'sgoing to attack us for this. You know. If we do this, are we going to get it from over here, if we dothat, are we going to get it from over there, it really is stifling. I do think that not much should beexpected from studios in terms of social responsibility, I think anybody, I think you can say studiosshould have a level of social responsibility, it's easy to say and it's probably right, but I don't thinkanybody should expect it.Studios are in business for one reason, and that's to make money. And for whatever reason the peopleinvolved in the studios have chosen the movie business for their personal ways to make money, or partof a larger multinational corporation, part of that business, but I do think that it's really up to creativetypes like actors, directors, writers, the occasional enlightened studio executive to try and push thestudios to try and push those large corporations that we work for, and as Daphne said, even actors thatare at the base, they're commodities and are treated as such anyway, that it's our responsibility to tryand push the studios and show them there are ways, there are socially responsible ways, to make money.And to make broad entertainment that is also socially aware, we're a company at Lion's Gate that kindof made our name with socially conscious art house films at the beginning - pictures like Monster'sBall and several others, and then we became known for being the horror movie company, I'm sorry tosay that that's what we're best known for, even though it's fun to do, which makes doing movies, whenyou do a movie like Crash all the more rewarding, you know, a) because it's a great movie and has agreat message of tolerance, but also personally speaking, just for my people, that some of us at thecompany actually still like doing good work and not just soft core Hostel 17 or something. But it is. Itis. To answer your question, it is stifling, it is very difficult knowing that almost everything we do,having to measure everything we do by how much flak we're going to get from one side or another, ifit's a horror movie, how far can we push.Can we do a blood drive for Saw III without getting these people up in arms, you know, even though,for the blood drive persona, we got over 10,000 pints of blood. We actually did good work with it, andyet you have the hate emails and letters that I got about it, you know, were nasty. You know wedonated tons of you know, it's hard. It's really hard, I wish it wasn't that way, but I think it's alwaysgoing to be that way.By the way, I want to congratulate you on the snowfall that occurred in Los Angeles last week, becauseone of the big criticisms I heard about Crash, which I didn't take very seriously, was that, you know,come on, snowing in LA, that's ridiculous, I was on Sunset Blvd watching the snow accumulate lastweek, it was pretty great. Yeah, Paul's thrilled. It snowed pretty close to Paul's house.Cara, actors are the last thing added to a movie project, the very last thing. And so they are, in manyways, in the worst possible position to determine or to influence the direction of the project, and toraise issues like what are the social responsibilities we have in making a movie like this. Do you findyourself and your friends in the acting community thinking about that much, talking about that much,or is there so much general career desperation about getting the next job that it's hard to even get thatinto your thinking as one of the factors?Well I think from what inspires you and makes you passionate about your work, is your connectionwith the world and your concern about it. And also as an actor, we've all probably trained in studyingdrama anyway, and we care about the quality of the writing, and we care about how the humancondition is explored in drama. And most of all, I'm getting a little sick and tired of the sex andviolence obsession. What about our obsession with the quality of the drama? You know, we owe it toour kids to give them good quality stuff, we owe it to them good writing, good acting, you know wehave warnings on the beginning of television and films about swearing, what about bad acting or badwriting.We, and the world is in a slightly desperate position outside of our privilege here, and how are weresponding to it? If we really care about our kids, do we care about the world that we're giving them?And how are we as artists, as dramatists, as writers, as movie producers, how are we exploring that?I'm not being a prude here, at all, we shouldn't be entertaining, but let's give it a go at doing somethinggood with all respect, not at popsicles, but give them something, put the money into, you know, gettingthis I am a bit of a prude, aren't I?Joey, you have kids. Did that change, when you had children, did that in any way change some of thedecisions you made about what kind of roles you do and what kind of work you do, when you're, doyou think, I can't let my kids see this, so how am I going to handle that, or I'm really glad that this issomething my kids can see, how does it affect those choices?Well I'm, in terms of the food chain, most of the time there's a lot of projects I take because I need toput food on the table. So when I do movies like Bound or the Matrix, I just don't allow my kids to gosee it. And what we do at home now is, with the advent of TiVo, it's become a lot easier. But my, Ihave my daughter's 21 in college and my son's 26, so he's out.Can they see the Matrix now?Marco just saw it, he liked it. But the 8 year old and the 14 year old are still in the house, and so our tvin the kitchen, which is the kid's tv, is just TiVo and videos. Or dvds. And what they watch on a loopis Gilmore Girls and Grey's Anatomy. Which I think is pretty good, so, and my daughters they alwaysask, is it R-rated, because they won't watch it. And then I think that that education is important. Youknow, it's easier to censor your kids if they're going to a movie, because you know where they're going.The big problem, I find, is in television, and the vertical integration of all these studios owning everything.Where I think that the network television business in the next ten years is going to be like AM radio.And everybody's gearing their way to the cable because they can give them more and we become, as anorganization, a lot more popular over the last two years because of our vertical integration, because ofpiracy, because of indecency, you know, we can go up there and say, you know, teach the parents,teach the parents, don't sue, if a guy saw a truck go though a plate glass window and a live news teamsaid, "What'd you see," and he says, "I don't know, I was walking down the street and this fuckin truckjust you know," he would be fined. It's not just artists, it's the man on the street.Eric, you were signaling me when you were listening to Tom talk about don't expect studios to exhibita social responsibility, what's your reaction to that?Well, I think there's a little bit of unreality about the conversation about personal responsibility,because it's just, with two parents working, and with the internet, everything's on the internet now, youcan't control what kids see, it's just impossible. You can convince yourself that you are, but you're not.Kids can see whatever they want. They know how to use the internet better than you do. And so to saythat it's up to the parents to prevent all this gratuitous violence from coming to the house, particularlyviolence toward women, I'm personally shocked and offended by what I see on television.I just think that the studios have a the people who work in not the studios themselves, those arecorporate entities that are responsible to shareholders, but I do think it's entirely fair to shun thesepeople, in fact it's moral, it's the right thing to do, you're a bad person if you don't do it, if someone ismaking a living by glorifying cutting up women, screwing women and then cutting them up, or anyvariation of that, I think it's fair to say, we in Hollywood don't believe in that kind of thing.We have different values. But the fact is, it's my impression, and I'm sure there's an exception forevery person in this particular room, what Hollywood seems to respect above all is money. So if MelGibson makes $400 million with the most blatantly anti semitic violent snuff film, in my opinion, that'sgreat. He only gets in trouble when he calls a woman sugar tits. You know. So--Well, he said more than that.No, but what I mean is, is that the comments that he made as a drunken crazy person were a lot moreoffensive to people, were a much bigger deal, than this vicious violent movie that transmitted theseinsane anti semitic stereotypes, and by the way, we're washed out a little bit in the American version inthe subtitles, but they're still there in all the foreign version, which is really where the problem is. So Ithink that Hollywood has an ethos that if you're successful, and if success is defined by money, thenthat's the answer to everything. That sort of shuts everybody out.And I would just, I don't know how you do this, but I think there ought to be some sort of communitystandard within Hollywood, that sure you can make your money on violence or on exploitative porn,you know, we're not going to stop you, we're not in favor of censorship, we're a business where weneed to be creative, but you know, you're not in our community, we don't want anything to do with you.And I think that will have a lot to do with it. Because once you make enough money, what you want isthe respect and admiration of your peers. And you won't get it if you do this kind of thing. That wouldbe my illustration.Tom, is the industry defense to that sort of angle on it simply that look, there's a violent crime everyfew seconds in the United States, and that all of the behavior we're putting on film is all out there and itall exists and we aren't really inventing anything, and we don't really have any responsibility beyondthat, holding up this mirror to this society.It's not my defense. I don't know, but they're tough issues. In many ways I don't believe Hollywood isa lot different than most other industries, which is that the dollar is the bottom line. For better worse,that's the society we have chosen to live in. I don't think that it always means that we're always comingup with the best product, I share Eric's outrage at some of the product that is developed by Hollywoodand is embraced, whether it's violence, whether it's sexual violence, whether it's anti antisemitism,whatever it might be, any level of intolerance, so it's an important issue and honestly I don't know whatthe answer is, but I don't think everybody on this panel, everybody in this room, we're at a moviefestival so we're talking about Hollywood, but I think that it's a problem more emblematic of societythan just pigeonholed in Hollywood, and I certainly don't mean to imply that the answer to keeping, toprotecting our children from images which are not appropriate for them, is to say, don't watch it, andthen hope that they don't.The world's changing faster than a lot of us are adapting, and so I think there's important questions thatare raised. I don't know what the answer is. I do believe, as I said before, that whether it's actors,writers, directors, crew people, studio executives, yes, people do have personal responsibility to pushthe people that are paying our checks, signing our checks, to do more socially responsible work likethat, but whatever the solution is to protecting the kids, and those are the ones I'm certainly mostconcerned about, I'm less concerned about adults making their own decisions, because they are capableand they make good decisions or not, we have to allow them to be capable to make their own, I don'tknow what the answer is, I do think that Hollywood is capable of doing better work, and more betterwork, I think Eric's suggestion is noble, I also think it's probably not practical in the present day. Idon't know what the answer is.Joey?You know, I think that art and commerce has never gotten along, and you can't really make them befriends, and the business model is, maybe you have to regulate entertainment, and so that you have, wewere talking about this earlier, you have a moral responsibility to force some of these important issuesdown America's throat. It's getting to a point where executives and heads of studio and CEOs don't seethe difference, or care to see the difference between, a show like Gray's Anatomy and American Idol.As far as they're concerned is, on American Idol you can be more vicious and more mean, as long asit's getting ratings it's a great show. In fact it's better than Gray's Anatomy. I mean, back to Crash, Imean isn't it true that Crash took about two years, I mean a movie was just floating around, andprobably it was to Paul's success with Million Dollar Baby and that it got interest again, and I take myhat off to you for picking the movie, but they had a hard time selling that movie, didn't they?Paul had a really hard time raising the financing to get it made. Lion's Gate and I'm sure Fox, amongevery other studio in Hollywood passed. At script stage. Everybody loved the script, execution-based,tough concept, what was most interesting to me was, a little bit off the point, but the picture premieredat the Toronto Film Festival September 2004, we did not make the movie, we all loved it, we all wentout and bought it right away, but I was shocked that there wasn't a bidding war for it, and maybe thatdoes speak to your point, you know, whether Lion's Gate were the only ones who got it, who saw it, Idon't know, once it was done, but I was stunned when the movie ended there were several of us in thetheater who turned to each other, we're all shaken, we're looking at each other, we huddle, asacquisition people always do after the screening and going to find the corner and huddle, and we're justamazed that we went out and bought it. We paid a fair price, but nobody else was chasing it, and Idon't know whether that speaks to some of the points of should some of the others in Hollywood havegotten it, that there was no other competition to buy that film shocked me.Daphne, you wanted to get in here.I think the good news is that this business model that you guys are talking about is changing, and infact compassion, and what we all know innately as human beings and as citizens of this globe that'sgetting smaller and smaller as we all know, is now becoming a commodity, and that corporations aremaking money by doing what they know is the right thing, because they know that the consumer iswanting that now, especially today.I was at, with my friend Ted here, at a house just yesterday, and it was these filmmakers making thesefilms about their issue, what was important to them, I saw one on an orphanage in Africa, I saw oneabout child abuse, and I saw one about AIDS, and USA Today was there as a sponsor, the UN wasthere, Stars picked up the distribution of these, and Netflix was there, and trust me, they were all happyto be there, because these kids are not waiting for Hollywood to catch up, the old business model tocatch up, they're making their movies now, and they're getting distribution, they're online, and they'rebeing handed cameras and making them and you and everyone else will be clamoring to get theirmaterials, so I really think it's important.The good news is that the tide is turning. I mean, we're such, the bad news is that we're, the world is insuch tremendous, horrible place right now that uhh, it can only get better, that people can only lookinside and see their own way that they can give, and I think personal responsibility, meaning each oneof us, and the parents, and the studio heads are people too, so I think all of that is now changing, andwe'll be able to make money at it.