Category Archives: Hollywood

Oct 14

It’s the worst of times (for men)

Posted on by

Feminist1If a visiting alien was asked to evaluate the roles of men and women based solely on the current rash of books, movies and TV shows, the E.T. would undoubtedly conclude that all men are not only dolts, they're also emasculated fools who can't make any decisions on their own.
 
In fact, I think the title of Maureen Dowd's 2005 book best sums up the current wave of ManBashing. It's called "Are Men Necessary'?"

And, sadly, Alessandra Stanley's review of the Fall TV season in the New York Times confirms that these are, indeed, the worst of times for men.
 
Every new show, ranging from 'Man Up!' and 'Last Man Standing' to 'How To Be a Gentleman' and 'Whitney' go to ever greater lengths to marginalize the role of men in society. And, says Stanley, the trend will only continue since "…female viewers outnumber men and network executives know what women want."
 
That may be great for feminists (and the ratings), but it's very bad news for male adolescents and boys. I don't care how many problems you have with men, ladies, but you need to speak up and stop this never-ending, ever-escalating emasculation. Here's why: you owe it to your kids, nephews, younger brothers and friends' kids.
 
By focusing on the short-term ego gratification of women, the mass media is dealing a major psychological blow to future generations of men. Not only will boys and adolescent males buy into this totally ersatz, politically correct stereotyping but, worse, their female counterparts will reinforce it.
 
But, maybe that's OK with you, Virginia. Maybe you're fine with women becoming the dominant gender. But, somehow, I doubt it. If 50 percent of the population feels permanently marginalized, how in the world will we ever regain our global competitiveness? You ladies are terrific. But, you can't do it alone. Sorry. You can't.
 
So, here's a plea to the movers and shakers in Hollywood, and on Madison Avenue and at the major publishing houses. Lay off men. Now! The psyche you save may be that of your son. And the future you save may be that of your own country.
 
 Now, though, we return to our regularly scheduled programming…
 
“…Male lead admits he's too afraid to lift weights at the gym. Female lead nods her head knowingly and sighs, “I always knew you were a dumbbell, Adam. But, I never thought you'd be afraid to lift them.” Audience laughs and applauds. Screen fades to black.”

And a tip o' Repman's gender neutral beret to Jackie Kolek for suggesting this post.

Aug 15

Would Gaga go to war?

Posted on by

I'm flying through “Our Mothers' War”, a brilliant examination of the roles of women on the home  front and abroad during World War II.
 
01-women-working-poster-us-wwiiWritten by former New York Times reporter (and Peppercom consultant) Emily Yellin, the book shines the spotlight on a completely overlooked aspect of the Second World War: what women did and how profoundly their actions changed society. It's also an inspirational read that examines an American society that was united as one in its fight against the Axis Powers (a far cry from today's pathetic, polarized, soon-to-be second-class successors).
 
The book is chock full of fun and little known facts, such as:
 
– Betty Crocker, the ultimate role model for American housewives in the 1930s and '40s, was a fictional character. Her surname came from a General Mills executive and another employee, who thought Betty was a bright, cheerful name. Most Americans never knew she was ersatz, though, and often wrote long and compassionate letters to Betty asking for advice. In 1943 a Fortune magazine poll named her the second most famous woman in America, after First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt.

– Captain Ronald Reagan sent a photographer out to search war factories and plants in Southern California for attractive Rosie the Riveter types to feature in the war effort's propaganda program. At a parachute factory, the photographer stumbled across an 18-year-old housewife named Norma Jean Dougherty, who stopped him in his tracks. He asked, “Where the hell have you been hiding?” Norma Jean agreed to pose for a few photographs. Those, in turn, led to a few more. All of which led to her divorcing her husband, dying her hair blond and changing her name to Marilyn Monroe.

– While I knew all about Bob Hope and the countless shows he arranged for front line troops, I had no idea how many A-level Hollywood actresses did the same thing. Marlene Dietrich, a German born actress who was despised by Hitler and actually placed on his hit list, courageously followed Patton's army as it plowed through Europe. Carole Landis, Martha Raye. Mitzi Mayfair and Kay Francis, all A-level actresses and performers, toured North Africa and actually sang for the troops in a makeshift bunker as they were being blitzed by bombs from Nazi planes.
 
I was amazed not so much by the image and perception of women 60 years ago but, rather, by their willingness to roll up their sleeves and pitch in (especially the Hollywood stars). Betty Grable, Bette Davis, Clark Gable and Tyrone Power all did their bit. Carole Lombard died on plane flight back from selling war bonds. Jimmy Stewart served as an Air Force colonel and flew scores of bombing missions over Germany.
 
Can you picture Lady Gaga, Britney, Lindsey, Leo, Johnny, Brad or any of today's superstars not only putting themselves in harm's way but, like their predecessors, actually serving coffee and food to the troops (and cleaning their pots and pans afterwards)?  Unlike Carole Landis for example, those that have gone have not had to duck into bunkers to avoid bombing runs.
 
Yellin's book chronicles a major flash point in the evolving role of women in American society. And, as she points out December 7, 1941, was very likely the start of the feminist movement in America.
 
Our Mothers' War is a great read for women or men interested in history. But, it's an even better read for public relations and marketing executives who study image and perception. The greatest generation clearly earned its moniker. Today's sorry lot should be called the slacker generation.

Apr 27

PR’s answer to Don Draper

Posted on by

Long before 'Sex & the City', 'The Hills' and 'Kell on Earth', there was What Makes Sammy Run?. 

310-1 For those of you unfamiliar with the 1941 book, it was written by the legendary Budd Schulberg (best known for his Academy Award-winning “On the Waterfront” screenplay).

What Makes Sammy Run? follows the sleazy, backstabbing ways of Hollywood publicist, Sammy Glick. Although dated, I highly recommend it for anyone plying the PR trade, or aspiring to do so.

I also highly recommend a far more obscure tome entitled, The Build-up Boys. It was written by someone named Jeremy Kirk and first published in 1951. Unlike La-La Land's Press Agent Extraordinaire Sammy Glick, however, Kirk's protagonist is a New York and Washington, D.C.-based public relations “agency man.”

Although The Build-up Boys reads more like a Raymond Chandler detective novel than an insider's view of PR, it's funny as hell and, sadly, still highly relevant. To wit, check out this passage: 

“There were about as many ethics in the public relations racket as in a contest to see who could gouge out the most eyes.” Ouch.

The build-up boys tracks the progress of “…Clint Lorimer, a smart and ruthless operator who had every qualification for success as a public relations expert except for a small, deeply-buried shred of self-respect.” It also follows Anne Tremaine, “…an advertising agency expert who was successively Clint's partner, mistress and boss.” Sounds just like any of today's prime-time TV dramas, no?

In fact, Clint Lorimer is PR's answer to Don Draper. He has an answer for every client and a wink for every attractive woman. And, like the quintessential Mad Man, Lorimer positively thrives when the chips are down.

He even delivers some of the same strategies we would suggest in similar circumstances today (i.e. His firm represents a failing dairy company that's tanking because its CEO would rather deliver milk bottles at sunrise than examine P&L statements at sunset. When Clint meets the shrinking violet of a CEO and his marketing chief, he recommends doubling both the advertising and PR budgets. The clients are incredulous. “Are you nuts?” asks the marketing chief. “Nope,” says Lorimer. “We're going to feature your CEO in a national ad and PR campaign about a big man who's not too big to do a little man's job. John Q. Public will eat it up and wash it down with your milk.”). It's a brilliant suggestion and exactly the strategy I'd recommend today.

Sammy Glick and Clint Lorimer are sexist, unscrupulous and, at times, loathsome. But, they're also successful PR executives who GET business strategy. I'd recommend any student of PR analyze the protagonists' professional approaches, deep-six their personal proclivities and see if you don't learn a new trick or two from these old dogs. Oh, and here's one other reason to read both: there are still plenty of Sammy Glicks and Clint Lorimers out there. Knowing what makes a Don Draper type tick will make it that much easier for you when you eventually bump into him.

And a tip o' Repman's straw boater to Thomas Joseph Powers, Jr. for this idea.

Apr 08

Ask not what your cable programmer can do for you; ask what you can do with your remote control

Posted on by

'The Kennedys', a new mini-series on ReelZChannel, is to cable programming what the Bay of Pigs  was to JFK's administration: an unmitigated disaster.Kennedy cigar bay of pigs

While it may provide a momentary ratings hiccup for the totally anonymous network, the series itself is abysmal. The plot's predictable, sophomoric and hackneyed. The acting is stilted and the sets are positively amateurish. Indeed, the fabled Hyannis Port Compound looks more like the dilapidated bungalow from 'Jersey Shore'. I half expected to see Snooki leap into Jack's arms.

ReelZChannel rolled the dice with The Kennedys after The History Channel exercised its pocket veto and wisely decided to pass on the poorly-told tale.

I understand the logic behind ReelZChannel's move. They hoped, like AMC did with 'Mad Men', to catch lightning in a bottle with The Kennedys and leapfrog into the A level of cable programmers. That decision may qualify as a profile in courage, but it makes as much sense as JFK's alleged dalliance with Mafia moll Judith Campbell in the early 1960s.

Mad Men was an original drama with a first class ensemble of actors who beautifully captured a bygone era. The Kennedys, on the other hand, is a hastily pulled together mish mash of well-known family stories mixed in with salacious gossip (and endless commercial interruptions).

Family patriarch Joseph P. Kennedy is portrayed by the grossly over-exposed Tom Wilkinson (who seems to be Britain's answer to Dustin Hoffman and Robert DeNiro; once distinguished actors who continue to prostitute their craft with highly-paid gigs in terribly scripted movies).

Greg Kinnear plays Mr. President and does, in fact, look a lot like Jack. But, he can't pull off JFK's gravitas or charisma. And, Katie Holmes is Jackie Kennedy. I think that speaks for itself.

The ReelZChannel took a major image and reputation risk that, I believe, will end badly. I think the me-too network will enjoy a temporary buzz and then sink permanently beneath the waves.

And, so my fellow Repman readers, ask not what your cable programmer can do for you. Ask what you can do with your remote control. And, if you happen to land on a ReelZChannel replay of The Kennedys anytime soon I suggest you, er, ah, channel surf faster than an ICBM headed for er, ah, Cuba.

UPDATE: Apparently, SNL shares my opinion.

Aug 31

Try keeping them down on the farm after this

Posted on by

A recent Gallup survey finds most Americans think more highly of farmers than they do public Hollandtown -Holland-Farm -Corn-Harvest_00a relations people.

Now, I'm OK with a tinker, a tailor, a soldier or a spy finishing ahead of a PR executive in these annual rankings, but a farmer? Are you telling me Americans think more highly of someone who has just finished plowing the back 40 than a publicist who knows Hollywood's 40 hottest party spots? Say it ain't so.

The findings actually heartened a few AdWeek readers since advertising and PR rose a few points year-to-year. That's akin to a BP employee pumping his fist in the air because a few less Gulf pelicans died in August than July. C'mon.

I, for one, am a tad disappointed that Americans think more highly of Mr. Green Jeans than they do of Messrs. Burson, Golin and Edelman. How far has PR fallen if American Gothic trumps American Party Planner? (That would be a great name for a new, TV reality show.)

The Gallup findings are just the latest confirmation that our industry's image is being defined by Hollywood. For every 'seat at the table' earned, it seems to me the average American sees us wallowing ever further in the mud. Now, a certain licensing type who posts regularly on Repman, believes an industry's image and reputation really doesn't matter. I couldn't disagree more. Until, and unless, we do a better job of educating Americans about the serious, senior counseling being provided by top public relations officers, the more likely we are to be stuck recruiting talent from the bottom of the gene pool.

It's a serious problem that, for reasons known best to them, remains unaddressed by our various trade journals and industry associations. It's akin to fiddling while Rome burns. Or, in this case, reaping what Hollywood has sown.

Aug 23

For every APCO, there always seems to be a Command PR

Posted on by

(Tip o' RepMan's rock climbing helmet to Julie Farin for this blog idea.)

Kathy Cripps, president of The Council of PR Firms, recently waxed poetic about APCO's Alg_spin_crowd high-profile role in H-P's dismissal of CEO Mark Hurd (a knee jerk reaction based on poor counseling in this blogger's opinion, BTW).

In her blog, Kathy opined that PR no longer needs to aspire to gain a seat at the C-suite table because we already have. I posted a response to the effect, “Well, maybe, some have. But, we still have a long, long way to go.”

PR IS making great strides and, regardless of APCO's questionable counseling, we ARE being invited to attend more and more strategic decision making pow-wows. But, virtually no one knows it.

Thanks to Hollywood, the average American still thinks PR consists of little more than celebrity party planning, intra-office 'Jersey Shore' type dramas and mindless, bubblegum-chewing girls manning the phones.

The latest travesty is being broadcast on E! and is called 'The Spin Crowd.' It follows the exploits of Command PR, its histrionic owner, Jonathan Cheban, and his manic staff. Cheban says his new show is different than its predecessors and depicts PR as: “We're not just sitting there, wearing all black and looking depressed,” he said. “We're a lot more exciting. We're out there working it. We go to the Hamptons. We're in Miami. We're in planes and yachts, and the girls always look gorgeous and fashionable.” Hmmm, that does sound much more like the PR that I know. Ed, for example, rarely wears black. And, the man is “always working it.” Ted, now that I think of it, always seems headed to the Hamptons to counsel some mysterious client. And, me, well I do my best to look gorgeous and fashionable each and every day.

I jest. But, shows like ‘The Spin Crowd’ do real damage to PR's image. This is purely anecdotal to be sure, but I guarantee the average college or university PR major is much more likely to watch ‘The Spin Crowd’ and be sucked in by the drama than they are to scan the pages of The Wall Street Journal and analyze the APCO/H-P story (which, BTW, contains enough accusations of sexual hijinks, financial malfeasances and other good “stuff and things” to grab the attention of even the most ADD-addled 21-year-old).

Our industry leaders can write all the self-congratulatory blogs they like. The fact is, though, that Americans understand LESS about public relations today than ever before. Oh, and by the way, shame on PR Week for naming Kelly Cutrone one of the 25 most influential people in PR. If you aren't part of the solution, PR Week staffers, you're part of the problem. Question: will we see Jonathan Cheban vying with Richard Edelman for the coveted top spot in your 2011 rankings?

May 05

Hooray for Hollywood

Posted on by

Guest post from Gaetano LePoer


May 5 Throughout my life my passions have been sports, American history and the movies. This past week, in “Wizard of Oz”-like fashion, I got to see behind the proverbial curtain of Hollywood.

My bucket list includes being in a Hollywood movie. With that in mind, I went to an open casting call for background actors for the upcoming HBO miniseries “Mildred Pierce,” a remake of the original starring Joan Crawford who won an Academy Award for her role. Amazingly I was selected. The five part miniseries stars Kate Winslet and Guy Pearce and is a 1930s period piece that takes place in Los Angeles. Part of the movie, however, was being filmed in Peekskill, New York.  

As I prepared for the shoot, I knew the days would be long. After an initial report for wardrobe fitting and a 1930s era haircut, I had a 5:30 a.m. report for my first day on set. The folks who manage the background actors prepared us by running through our cues and pointing out where we needed to walk, stop, talk, etc. Their job is to synch the movements of the background actors to the main scene inside. My scene took place in a restaurant and my role was to walk outside on the street. During the eight to 10 takes for each scene, we’d repeatedly hear, “Cut!” “Reset!” “Let's do it again!” And then came my big break. The production team requested a “Lawrence Tierney” type – an old school, tough guy – to  stop near the front door of the restaurant while smoking a cigarette and talking to a friend. After a few hours of shooting, it happens. If you are a background actor and they are sure that you are going to be seen in a particular scene, you are finished. They don't want the same background characters showing up in later shot. 

While the directors, principal actors, wardrobe team, makeup people and set designers are true artists, I was shocked at the number of ne’er-do-well’s that were all over the set. The grips, best boys and gaffers are like a group of renegades from the used car business. As Howard Cosell would say, “they were the sleazy underpinnings” of a Hollywood movie. It really broke my expectation of the beauty of the Hollywood set. It was fun, but if there ever is a next time I will be prepared for the “Dark Side” of the business. In a sense, a movie is sort of like a hot dog – I still love them but I don’t ever want to see how they are made. 

May 28

The six lies of Henry VIII

Posted on by

May 28 - the-tudors Catharine 'Goose' Cody and I have been captivated by the plot twists and turns of the second season of the Showtime series, 'The Tudors.' The Goose is quite the fan of all things 'Ennnery' and somehow manages to find a new book on the subject on an almost weekly basis.

That said, the show's historical inaccuracies are enough to make us want to behead our remote control (or at least banish a battery or two).

To begin with, there's Jonathan Rhys Myers, who plays Henry. He's a fine actor and, says Catharine who likes to use Elizabethian prose at every opportunity, 'quite fetching.' Now, that was fine when Rhys Myers was portraying the youthful, 'rock star' Henry who bounced from Catherine of Aragon to Anne Boleyn to Jane Seymour faster than one can say 'The Reformation.' But, we're deep into the saga now and, despite a nagging leg wound, the Rhys Myers' version of Henry Tudor still looks like an up-and-coming bantamweight boxer. As everyone with a wit of historical knowledge knows, though, the historical Henry aged rapidly and, by the time, he'd dumped Anne of Cleeves in favor of the young tart, Catherine Howard, looked more like a pale version of Notorious B.I.G. than Snoop Dog.

The other characters' physical appearance also strains credulity. The actress portraying the notoriously unattractive Anne of Cleeves is a real looker who, in fact, bears a passing resemblance to the young Ingrid Bergman (who stole the hearts of Bogie and about 40 million other red-blooded American men when the film debuted in 1942).

Every actor sports perfect, pearly white teeth, neatly coiffed hair and immaculate wardrobes. This at a time, mind you, when personal hygiene was virtually nonexistent. The average Tudor subject bathed once or twice annually. Oral hygiene was unknown. And pigs, cows, sheep and other animals wandered London's streets mixing their filth with the human refuse. In short, it wasn't pretty.

Continue reading →

May 15

Talk about sending mixed signals

Posted on by

May 15 - cougar-199x300 It was only a matter of time before the sleazeballs responsible for reality TV programming stumbled upon the 'cougars' concept. For the uneducated, cougars are older women who date younger guys. Cougars are considered hip, cool and uber-hot.

At the same time they're celebrating the rise of the cougar, though, the reality TV programming sleazeballs continue to entrap older guys who hit on younger girls. Chris Hanson and Dateline NBC have been ensnaring middle-aged guys in search of younger 'dates' for years ('C'mon in. I'm just getting changed. There's some lemonade and cookies on the counter for you.').

Ok, I know there's a big difference between men who cruise underage chat rooms and arrange meetings with teens and older women who date younger guys. But, why ensnare and entrap one while empowering and enabling the other? Isn't there something disturbing about both?

And, why does society 'wink' when female teachers sleep with grammar or high school boys but show immediate disgust and contempt to male offenders caught doing the same heinous thing?

Middle-aged guys have been taking a beating at Hollywood's hands for years. We're always depicted as stumbling and bumbling, and in desperate need of the distaff side to save the day. That's B.S., and sends serious mixed signals to our kids in general, and little boys in particular.

Yes, Virginia, society says it's cool for older women to hit on younger men. We even give them cute, animal nicknames: cougars. Older guys who do the exact same thing get animal nicknames as well: pigs. And, trust me, that's one word you do not want to hear in the midst of a swine flu epidemic.

May 06

What do ‘Saw 3,’ ‘CSI:Miami’ and working parents have in common?

Posted on by

I attended a presentation last night that was equal parts fascinating and disturbing. It was held at the Manhattan townhouse of a fellow Northeastern alum and featured Jack Levin, Ph.D., and co-director of NU's Brudnick Center on Violence and Conflict.

May 6 - violence Dr. Levin is arguably the world's leading expert on what he calls 'murder, mayhem and the media.' He studies serial killers, mass murderers and the rise of violence in society. Not your everyday line of work, to be sure. 

Levin says our hyper-violent society is spiraling ever further out of control. He cites a number of reasons why:

– the motion picture industry's rating system which, he says, goes virtually unenforced. As a result, kids as young as 10 are routinely allowed into theatres to watch such horrific slasher flicks as 'Saw,' 'Vacancy' and 'Basketball Diaries.'

– the lack of parental supervision at home. Moms and dads are both working nowadays (except the unemployed ones, of course). As a result, latchkey kids have unlimited access to the most violent programming on TV (Levin says most violent crimes committed by kids occur during the unsupervised, after school hours of 3-7 pm)

– an increase in not only the quantity, but the 'quality' of carnage on both the small and large screens. Levin says he's visited many crime scenes and attended countless autopsies, but the real thing is now being equaled, if not surpassed, in graphic reality by TV shows like 'Bones,' 'Law and Order' and the 'CSI' series. Levin says they routinely broadcast the most heinous, hideous and graphic images.

Now, add a dash of easy access to paramilitary weapons and a glorification of villains by the media and you have the final ingredients for widespread death and destruction. On the subject of media coverage, Levin showed us how the cover of People Magazine has dramatically changed since the magazine's introduction and now routinely features murderers and serial killers alongside the likes of Brangelina and Tomcat. Last, but definitely not least, we have the insatiable appetites of ordinary Americans weighed down by the drudgery of their lives who simply can't get enough blood and guts.

It's a toxic cocktail and one that Levin says has become more lethal with each passing decade. The only solution: boycotting TV programs and movies that carry such obscenities. It works, he says, citing Don Imus as a textbook example. Imus, says Levin, is 100 percent non-racist in his content since being fired by WFAN for his Rutgers' women basketball team comments a few years back.

The other solution? Disengaged parents need to engage the 'V-chip' on their cable boxes. If they won't supervise their kids' home viewing habits, says Levin, at least they can limit access to the most violent programming.

Levin shared a sad, sobering, scenario last night. For me, the bleakest parts concerned the future: things are very bad, only getting worse and no one really seems to be angry about it. What does it say about the image (if not the morals and ethics) of an entire population that allows this sorry state of affairs to continue unfettered?