By L.F. Brown
14 October 2004
In 1999, the film studio Warner Bros. released the critically acclaimed antiwar film "Three Kings," directed by David O. Russell. Set during the first Gulf War, it told the story of a small group of US soldiers who, at the end of the war, found some gold in Iraq that had been stolen from Kuwait and decided to take it themselves. Later they came across some Iraqi refugees and were faced with a tough choice.
This year "Three Kings" was to be re-released at the cinema and on DVD. Mr. Russell was commissioned to produce a documentary as a companion piece, apparently to concentrate on those involved behind-the-scenes, including some Iraqis. The final result, "Soldier's Pay," instead turned out to be a "polemic" about war according to Warner Bros. and not what was originally asked for. Additionally, Warner Bros. voiced concerns about the documentary being too political and possibly illegal in the run-up to the Presidential elections this November.
Mr. Russell saw things differently (Film Focus: Soldier's Pay, BBC's Talking Movies, 28 September 2004):
David O. Russell: "Warner Brothers, which wanted to rerelease 'Three Kings', said why don't you make something in addition to it? And I said, OK, we'll make a documentary. I interviewed veterans, I interviewed a general, I interviewed a congressman - a Republican congressman - and they later freaked out. They felt it was too partisan in the election climate because it asks a lot of questions about what's happening right now. So they gave it back to me, which was gracious. I was disappointed that they weren't going to release it themselves, which reflects a lot about our corporate culture, which is critiqued in 'I Heart Huckabees'."Warner Bros has emphasized that it isn't the content of the film but Russell's intent to influence voters that an expert on Federal election regulations told them could be problematic. There is a general reluctance by the big studios to release political films during a campaign. A fact that became clear when it was revealed that Disney didn't want to distribute 'Fahrenheit 9/11'.
Tom Brook: "Do you think that the studios in Hollywood are more nervous now than they have been in a long, long time?"
David O. Russell: "Unquestionably."
Tom Brook: "And how does that manifest itself?"
David O. Russell: "I think they're part of media conglomerates. Five years ago when I made 'Three Kings', Warner Bros was a more independent place. Even when it was just Time Warner, which still seems rather large to you, it was not Time Warner AOL. And now I think they have huge political things going on in Washington with their business that they want to protect, and they're stepping very carefully about how they're perceived politically."
Tom Brook: "Do you think that this climate is constraining what filmmakers can do? Is there self-censorship among filmmakers?"
David O. Russell: "Hmmm. Interesting. I think that's a danger actually. You know, I didn't think that before. People would ask me that about 'Three Kings' and they would say, how did the studio let you make this movie? And I'd say, well, they did and they didn't seem to mind. So maybe it's not as uptight as you think. Nowadays, I don't know. Because now I'm starting to think that they're becoming more partisan. And if you look at the heads of every major media conglomerate, with just two exceptions, they're all Republicans. That's the climate we're living in."
Personal Partisanship
The president of Warner Bros., Alan Horn, is a Democrat supporter, while the head of its holding company, Time Warner Inc., Richard Parsons, is a Republican supporter. In fact, it was reported that Mr. Horn wanted to avoid the perception that he was being partisan by releasing the film. It must also be noted that Mr. Russell is himself partisan, clearly siding with Mr. Kerry who supported the war when it counted.
Commercial Reasons
A partisan boss would be taking quite a chance. After all, he has been put in by shareholders to make profits for them by catering well to its customers, not to get his favourite Presidential nominee elected. As the Dixie Chicks found with their lead singer's comment about being ashamed that President George W. Bush came from Texas, bad publicity is bad for business (although not for a Michael Moore), with radio stations boycotting their records due to angry elements of the American public.
Business Partisanship
As for the record of Time Warner Inc. at the business level, according to Federal Election Commission figures obtained from The Center for Responsive Politics, Time Warner Inc.'s Political Action Committee (PAC) has, at last count, given $123,000 (38%) to all federal Democratic candidates and $199,000 (62%) to all federal Republican candidates so far in the 2004 election cycle. In 2002 the ratio was 51% to Democrats and 49% to Republicans and in 2000 it was 44% to the Democrats and 56% to the Republicans. Time Warner Inc. taken as a whole, including PACs, individual employees and owners, for all subsidiaries and affiliates, have so far donated $2,056,000 at a ratio of 76% to the Democrats and 24% to Republicans. In 2002 the ratio was 76% to Democrats and 24% to Republicans and in 2000 it was 66% to the Democrats and 34% to the Republicans.
Certainly various companies (and unions, etc.) that lobby government may see one political party as more compatible with their own interests than another and they may gain favourable treatment as a result (eg. subsidies, contracts, cartelisation). But this is not a lifetime guarantee. Ask the traditionally Republican supporting tobacco industry who have come under the hammer of the Republican-run Justice Department.
Merely analysing which party favours whatever special interest tends to miss the point that while both political parties may go in and out of power, it is the source of their power, government, that can ultimately giveth and take away; because only it can, by force. And that is a reason why Mr. Russell contradicted himself in the interview, when he stated that the media conglomerates are partisan, as well as being worried about being seen as partisan (as they want to protect their business).
Pragmatism
Now Mr. Russell has referred to "huge political things" going on with Time Warner Inc. in the seat of government in Washington D.C. While he doesn't elaborate on what these are, they may relate to opposition to the proposed introduction of a la carte cable programming as opposed to the current bundling provision of content, which the larger cable suppliers say will lead to "fewer choices, less diversity, higher prices."
Congress then may pass legislation to increase regulation over the running of the cable television industry. Republican Senator John McCain, chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, is a prominent proponent of forced a la carte programming. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was asked by Congress to look into the matter and report back by the 18th of November.
Debate* over the complicated results from the regulation of the cable television industry is of course not new and nor is government control over it; the same institution that was, for instance, responsible for the emergence of cable television monopolies at the local level. Government has, in effect, once again anointed itself more knowledgeable[pdf file] of the market than the market itself. There is much evidence* that interventionism, besides breeding more of the same, is also responsible for the diversion of resources away from their most valued uses as determined on the market and instead towards those determined to be more valuable by government officials and special interests, the results of which can be harmful.
Anti-Competitive Opportunities
Lobbying of government by companies is not just limited to getting government off their backs. It is also employed to get out underneath more effective competitors or to block the progress of smaller rivals. Microsoft was smothered in the 1990s with an anti-trust suit by the federal government with the help of Microsoft's rival, Netscape, who used to be the kingpins of the web browser market before being bettered by Microsoft.
In 2002, Netscape (owned by AOL Time Warner) brought a suit against Microsoft, an action that didn't please Microsoft spokesman Jim Desler (News.com, 22 January 2002):
"AOL Time Warner has been using the political and legal system to compete against Microsoft for years. This is just the next tactic in their litigation plans. Microsoft is investing to build new products, while AOL invests in lawyers and lobbyists to put roadblocks in Microsoft's way."
Which is pretty much what happened in 1999 when Microsoft, amongst others, accused AOL of blocking their own instant messengers from AOL's customers and took it to the federal government.
It is no coincidence that Microsoft upped its lobbying substantially in Washington after it was gunned for, with more time and resources being spent on satisfying interests in government as opposed to those of consumers.
So what?
I don't know for sure whether Warner Bros. dropped the documentary due to a personally partisan boss, legal reasons, commercial reasons or because it wanted to positively influence (or not be negatively influenced by) Washington. But that the latter is possible should at least give some pause to those who are quick to blame the market for most of the ills that ail the world (and if they do place blame on government, it is usually lighter and coming much further behind). Criticism of corporations is well and good when clear instances of fraud, aggressive physical coercion and the like have occurred. That corporations try to influence (some would put it in harsher terms: bribe) those in government for their own benefit is hard to deny. As too is the proposition that if it weren't for the ability and propensity of government to wield this discriminatory power, corporations wouldn't get very far with their efforts. Yet the market is itself all too often blamed for the sins of a group of its actors who, fearful of it, run for the cover of the institution that, quite hypocritically, is itself capable of being turned against them.
A happy ending
I haven't seen Mr. Russell's latest feature, "I Heart Huckabees," which he says has critiques of "corporate culture," so I'm not exactly sure what he means. But if what he has said in various interviews is any indication, it is hard not to come to the conclusion that if he addresses the free market, it will be misconstrued.
The irony of the whole affair is that while market bashing in films is widespread, government is usually given a much smoother ride (except when it is being nefariously influenced by corporations). After all, Mr. Russell's documentary was picked up by indie film company Cinema Libre, to be shown along with another anti-war documentary "Uncovered: The War on Iraq," with the dreaded market coming through. Can you imagine what kind of films would be shown if only the government were allowed to decide what could be shown?
*For further reading:
1. Bundling vs. a la carte
The upshot of a la carte programming is that instead of consumers having to subscribe to a whole bunch of channels, some of which they will never watch, cable television providers would have to let consumers choose and pay for only the individual channels they want to watch.
- The U.S. General Accounting Office (now General Accountability Office) produced a report [pdf file] last year, concluding that a la carte programming should not be regulated. The free-market Cato Institute welcomed the findings. Commentator John Garfunkel rejected them.
- For a free-market perspective against the proposal, see the likes of Tyler Cowen and Arnold Kling. For the perspective of interest groups for the proposal, see the likes of The Consumers Union and Concerned Women for America.
2. Government interventionism
- "Public choice theory" analyses the effects decision makers in government can have on the general welfare. See, for instance, its most famous advocate, James M. Buchanan.
- For the ill effects of government intervention in the market, see Ludwig von Mises and George Reisman for an "Austrian School" perspective.
http://lfbrown.typepad.com
