MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

FIND On Raddon

It took all day to get to this…
The Film Independent Board of Directors has issued the following statement:
“As a champion of diversity, Film Independent is dedicated to supporting the civil rights of all individuals. At the same time, our organization does not police the personal, religious, or political choices of any employee, member, or filmmaker.”
issued at 7:48p on a Friday night.
With due respect to all involved… it feels like a cop out.
I didn’t need Rich Raddon to go. I didn’t need him to stay. There is a lot of complexity in this situation and I don’t really know how I would feel in time, either way. But faced with a very real issue and a chance to make a statement of some weight, the FIND board issued nothing but a textbook platitude. And that is unfortunate.
I’m going to reserve further comment, as I am sure that the intentions of the board members who pushed for this were good. To presume otherwise would be unkind. And I think we’ve all had enough of that for one day.

Be Sociable, Share!

15 Responses to “FIND On Raddon”

  1. scooterzz says:

    um…yeah….like i said at eight o’clock…hmmmmm…..

  2. christian says:

    I think that is a fair statement. What’s the cop-out?

  3. David Poland says:

    Well, could they come any closer to “no comment,” christian?

  4. smokeyjoelobster says:

    I’m a Mormon, and have been following this blog (and others) for the past few weeks. I did not financially support the campaign for prop 8, and voted no on it. I was pretty shocked that it passed.
    The last little while since the election has been tough. (Its much more tough for the people who were denied the right to marry, I know). My integrity has been called into question by many people I work with or have known for a long time, and I’ve faced a lot of suspicion. I’ve also been ridiculed for my lifestyle, when before it never seemed to be a problem for anyone. I was pretty sure I wouldn’t be able to find work for a while.
    Maybe its just the company I keep, but most of my Mormon friends wanted nothing to do with the “Yes on 8” campaign. And contrary to what you might have heard, the church did not force anybody to be a part of it. Since the election, everyone I know who did contribute or campaign has been sweating bullets, just wondering when their name will show up on a list and they’ll get canned. Even when you disagree with what they did, it’s hard to watch (or throw them under the bus) when it’s somebody you know. I think many of us socially liberal Mormons (and there are plenty of us) just kind of stood back and watched others around us make misguided choices. I guess we’ll have to take our lumps, and the underwear/polygamy jokes with the rest of them.

  5. jeffmcm says:

    I don’t know, it seems to me that in certain circumstances, ‘no comment’ is the most appropriate comment to make, especially for an organization that isn’t intended to be explicitly political/cause-based. Let the actual advocacy groups take the lead.

  6. there is no way to win in a situation like this :-/

  7. David Poland says:

    Thanks you for speaking up, smokey. You are an important reminder about why none of us should demonize any group based on the acts of some of its members.
    The incredibly difficult question remains how people “should” respond to people who took an active pro-8 role. Our politics should be ours and should not be up for citizen referendum. However, the same is true of our personal love relationships and many of the very people who argue for their privacy felt completely righteous in not only voting for, but funding the effort to control the personal lives of others.
    And don’t delude yourself, J-Mc, that FIND is not extremely political and often driven by cause. You can imagine the Independent Spirit Awards trying to clamp down on jokes about Rich on the air in a few months… when the whole spin of the event is how freewheeling it is. I’m not sure that this will be as easily swept under the rug as the questions of the organization’s not-for-profit credentials were a few years back.
    This is the kind of sand in the eye that starts to corrode an organization slowly and painfully. The topic will simmer, not discussed in polite meetings. And the people who are most enraged will not let it go anytime soon. Flip side, if Rich went away, many would feel it was an injustice… but they would move on pretty quickly, since their committment is to a moral philosophy and not to a personal cause.
    Again, I don’t have a lot of skin in the game. I have liked Rich well enough when he has engaged with me. I have issues with some of the choices the festival has made, but that’s something on a completely different level of discussion. I see the arguments and empathize with both sides. But I do think that the greater price will be paid by soldiering on with Rich. Every choice has a price. And there’s nothing wrong with that.

  8. Nicol D says:

    I do not in any way think this statement is a cop-out. Rich took a stand on a legal issue. He has done – nothing – illegal.
    The majority of people in the country agree with him.
    The majority of people on the planet agree with him.
    The president-elect agrees with him and is on-record as such.
    For the zealots to keep this alive is what is divisive. If Rich allows his views to interfere with his job that is one thing…he has not. There is no evidence he ever has. I have not seen or read any statements where he has called for people who are gay to not be allowed to work in the industry. For people in the industry to say he should be fired – just be because took a political opinion that the majority of people agree with including the president-elect- is a travesty.
    The debate over SSM is -not -the same as slavery or civil rights in the 60’s. Even if you believe it is…it is not. Those issues were hard fought over generations and centuries with good and noble people trying to rationalize and use philipsophical discussions to change history. At this point in history SSM is more of a pop-culture fad that seeks to redefine the institution philosphically in ways the majority of good people on the planet do not agree with. They have not resorted to philosophical discussions and instead are relying on intimidation and rhetoric. When they do use philosophy in academia , their arguments (ie. marriage is a form of “slavery” for women and must be defined down) are the worst type of trype.
    The call for Rich to resign – is – evidence of a blacklist mentality in Hollywood.
    Feel free to disagree, but this board, if they stay this course, has actually earned my respect. Diversity means diversity of thought. Not just being intimidated by threats, law suits and harrassment.
    Remember…Rich is also a member of a villified minority. It would be nice if more “progressives” remembered that sometime.
    “But I do think that the greater price will be paid by soldiering on with Rich.”
    Which perhaps is evidence that it is indeed the more principled choice. Good for them.

  9. David Poland says:

    Nicol –
    You’re just wrong about much of what you write.
    Obama is not pro-gay-marriage, but he is anti prop 8 and unlike the lies thrown around to scare churchgoers into voting for prop 8, he is 100% pro-partnership rights for gay america.
    And America is right there with him.
    It is the fear-based lies that have turned this into a big issue for the extremists. Gays are going to convert your children. Teachers will be explaining gay sex to your kids. Etc. All bullshit.
    I have to say, Nicol, even for you, ” SSM is more of a pop-culture fad” is well beyond the pale.
    When your civil rights are being reduced by the vote of a state, then tell us all how it is not a civil rights issue.
    Rich’s choice is all the more disgusting BECAUSE he is in a villified minority… sames a jews who villify blacks and blacks who villify hispanics. Excusionary behavior by people who have had and will have people do the same to them is a mental illness.
    And, much as a cliche as it has become, put yourself into that “zealot” slot. If we left it exclusively to the majority rule, we would still be without civil rights for blacks in this country. “Majority thinks” is no excuse for unconstitutional behavior and/or behavior invasive into the private lives of others.
    The irony of all of this is that it is likely Prop 8 will be overturned by the same court that gave same sex marriage to California in the first place. And if not there, in the US Supreme Court… the Bush court…
    I have no problem with “Which perhaps is evidence that it is indeed the more principled choice. Good for them.” But the bile that proceeds it is an all too real indication that they are supporting people who believe as you do… which is why there are still protests in the streets.
    I wish I didn’t feel I could reduce your comments to, “Shut up and deal with what the majority thinks, faggots,” but it sure sounds like that.
    I do not think that Rich losing his job was the only or even the best answer. But I did expect something of actual substance to come out of a leadership organization heavily involved with L.A.’s gay community… and that is why I feel it was a cop out… not because of the notably unstated result.

  10. christian says:

    I’m just plain uncozy with the idea of a person being politically beholden to an esthetic organization. And sure, they could release a statement of support for the community, but then, so could everybody.
    I think Yes On 8 was simple bigotry combined with irrational fear of change, so I’m hopeful that within a few years, things will shift. But I don’t want people to suffer under some new blacklist. I’m a crazy liberal progressive that way…

  11. scooterzz says:

    why does nicol persist in repeating that obama favored prop 8 when he, clearly, spoke out against it?
    the fact that nicol keeps repeating this lie negates everything he says.
    i’m just back from the rally at city hall….it appeared to be several thousand people…the subway was literally filled to capacity after two stops and people on the platforms instructed to wait for the next trains….
    we stayed for about ninety minutes and as we were leaving it seemed another (equally large) wave was arriving….
    despite the size of the crowd, it all seemed a bit passive…the mood was almost congratulatory rather than angry….it wasn’t at all like what i remember the ‘protest marches’ of my youth to be…
    ouch!…i now sound exactly like my father….apologies to all…….

  12. jeffmcm says:

    Nicol has zero credibility on this or most issues. He is fundamentally intellectually dishonest (on top of being paranoid and delusional) and cannot be taken as a serious adult.

  13. jeffmcm says:

    Oh, and DP, my point wasn’t that as an independent film organization, of course FIND has work that is implicitly ‘political’, but they are not an explicitly political organization, like HRC or GLAAD. They have no inherent obligation to ‘lead’ on this issue. It’s like asking a company that makes cheese to stand up against global warming.

  14. smokeyjoelobster says:

    DP, I understand the dilemma you’re feeling about how to react to people who supported Prop 8. But I have to admit I’m a little relieved that the FIND people aren’t forcing Raddon out, or concocting some kind of instant fix for PR reasons. While this initial response may not seem like it has much substance, maybe they can come up with something out of this mess that does. And that can also give Raddon a chance to reconcile with people he’s alienated (if he and they are willing).
    I was trying to figure out what a response “of substance” could possibly be…and honestly drew a blank. The whole CMT mess from a few days ago, coupled with Raddon being dismissed from his post could lead the way to more people losing their jobs (rightly or wrongly) just by virtue of a precedent having being established. Maybe it will turn out FIND made the right call by waiting a little longer. A true and honest response/repentance/rehabilitation can’t come about in a matter of hours.
    There are a lot more Mormons in Hollywood than people realize, including in high ranking Exec type positions. We usually try to be low key because when our Church does come up in conversation, folks tend to talk about us like we aren’t right there listening (prime examples contained in the comments section on Jeffrey Wells’ blog entry on the same subject). But… I’m willing to bet more people’s names–well liked people–will show up on yes on 8 donor lists…
    So what do we do? Do we try and think of all the Mormons we know of and look ’em all up on the lists? Clean house? It kind of feels like that’s what is going on. I’ve already had a few phonecalls from people asking about names or initials on the list that were similar to mine (for all I know they were my relatives). So I know I’m gettin’ checked out and I’m a nobody. I’m pretty sure they didn’t look up the names of my Catholic, Baptist, or Muslim friends.
    I’m trying to stay on topic, and not get on a tangent about how angry and frustrated I feel about this whole thing. I don’t know Rich Raddon or his reasons for donating, and I don’t know what FIND could do any better.
    If the fever pitch keeps up though, a lot of other companies will probably find themselves in FIND’s shoes.
    I’m sure for a lot of people, that doesn’t sound alarm bells. But having seen the term “Mormon Bigot” enter the mainstream this week, I’m a little rattled. With 14 million of us, its such a small percentage that actively worked on this measure. And of those, how many are truly “bigots”? Is there a difference between bigotry and ignorance? I dunno…I just don’t know.

  15. smokeyjoelobster says:

    Correction, or rather a clarification. I realized after posting that its pretty stupid to cite comments on a blog forum as evidence of prejudice. Talkback forums have long been an excuse for people to spout idiocy in the comforting blanket of anonymity.
    Especially since, looking at the comments section at HE again, the criticisms pointed at Mormons are totally mild in comparison to epithets and venom hurled at other minorities. I should shut up and stop my whining.
    This whole issue is about civil rights. This detour of “outing” Mormon (or other) donors to the yes on 8 campaign hopefully will lead back to the path of constructively securing equal rights for all.
    I believe that the majority of the proponents of prop 8 decided to believe that the fight is about semantics—the definition of marriage. The definition of marriage has changed so often over the course of human history (and that’s coming from someone who had 10 great great grandmothers) that the argument will not hold up. No way in H-E-double hockeysticks. And I think the people suckered by this strategy will grow to regret it (if they don’t already).
    Are there vicious homophobes in the Mormon chuch? Of course there are. You’ll find them in any religious/racial/whatever demographic. I hope they’ll change–I hope all of them will change.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon