GZ Expat has a fascinating and knowledgeable article on Spielberg’s withdrawal from the Beijing Olympics on PJM today. I don’t agree with GZ Expat’s conclusion… or more specifically I doubt Spielberg really cares that his movies may now be banned in China – he’ll do just find in other markets… but GZ Expat’s insider view is worth reading. (He’s writing from Guangzhou).
Roger L. Simon
Blacklisting Myself Memoir of a Hollywood Apostate in the Age of Terror
BUY HERE IN HARDCOVER- BUY HERE ON KINDLE! New radio: Fred Thompson Show, Hugh Hewitt on PJTV (first of five-parter). YouTube version of Roger on BookTV (After Words) with Armstrong Williams - here. Video: Roger on Greg Gutfeld's Red Eye. Reviews so far: Lloyd Billingsley @ FrontPage, Ron Radosh in the National Review, Sonny Bunch in the Washington Times, Andrew Klavan in City Journal, Marty Dodge in Blogcritics, Tod Goldberg in LV City Life, John Hinderaker in Powerline. Lone Star Times, Mark Coffey at Informed Speculation, John Ruberry at Marathon Pundit, Dan Blatt at Gay Patriot. First syndication Commentary. Advance comments from Michael Barone, John Podhoretz and Ron Silver. Podcasts: Milt Rosenberg Show, John J. Miller - National Review, Ed Driscoll - Sirius Radio. Video review by Bernard Chapin. FrontPage Interview w/ Jamie Glazov. Join the Facebook group. BUY HARDCOVER! - BUY KINDLE!
PJM HomeRoger L Simon
The blog of the mystery writer, screenwriter and CEO of Pajamas Media
Just Published
 With gratitude to the readers of this blog without whom my new -- and first non-fiction -- book would likely never have been written.
Simon's first non-fiction book - Blacklisting Myself: Memoir of a Hollywood Apostate in an Age of Terror - Pub. date: February 5, 2009 |
Books
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
3 Comments
1. Jamie Irons:Roger,
With Mr. Spielberg’s recent “embarrassment” to the government, look for the government to begin “banning” his movies and turning a blind eye to the counterfeits (of his movies particularly) as well.
Whatever else he may be, I think Spielberg is no fool as a businessman, and he was quite aware of the possible business consequences of his actions.
For that reason, I very much admire what he did here. It wasn’t, for once, mere empty moral posturing by a Hollywood celebrity.
Jamie Irons
Feb 17, 2008 - 10:59 am 2. Roger:I completely agree, Jamie. Spielberg was perfectly aware of the implications. And he won’t starve!
Feb 17, 2008 - 11:08 am 3. ElMondo:At risk of derail, let’s also understand that possibly Spielberg was well aware that even if the Chinese government loved him, the piracy would still continue, just not to as large an extent as it would if the government turned a blind eye.
Roger, I know Cebu City Philippines isn’t China, but the phenomenon is still the same, and I wish I had a picture of the open air market where pirated movies were being sold. It was blocks long, and totally out in the open. Piracy is simply not worried about in many parts of Asia. Harsh but true reality.
Anyway, back to the topic: I actually agree with a good portion of Expat’s article there, but at the same time, I’m not sure why the focus is on Spielberg’s “resonance” with the Chinese people. Simply put, I don’t see that act as being aimed at the Chinese people. Nor at his domestic audience. Either you have a principle, and you act by it, or you don’t. He’s simply acting according to an internal principle (I hope!), and let the consequences fall as they may. Am I worried that I fail to resonate with (cliched example here) trailer denizens because I shun the meth dealer in their park? Should I be? Or should I act according to my principles?
Feb 17, 2008 - 12:42 pm