From a book I recently read I learned this: “Jack and Harry Warner” — yes, those Warner brothers — “loathed each other. Harry once chased Jack around the lot with a lead pipe, shouting that he was going to kill him and had to be forcibly, restrained and disarmed to keep him from making good on his threat.”*

But in modern times, whether it was called Viacom or CBS or Paramount Global, Paramount has been an actual family business. It was listed publicly on the stock market, but has very much been in the control of the Redstone family since 1994. 

Since the death of her father Sumner Redstone in 2020, with whom she had a close but complicated relationship, Shari Redstone has been the controlling shareholder of National Amusements, Inc., which owns 77% of Paramount voting stock. Her stamp has long been on the company — from facing down a legal challenge to her control by former CBS chief Les Moonves in 2018 to firing CEO Bob Bakish earlier this year to finally deciding to sell it at all. 

If the deal that Paramount’s board agreed to on Sunday goes through, the historic studio will pass into the hands of another family, the billionaire Ellisons family, who will not only hold Paramount’s purse strings but also control the company.

While Sumner Redstone’s fortune was built off the early wealth his father Michael created by building a chain of movie theaters in the Northeast — the Ellisons built their fortune in a single generation on the gargantuan riches amassed by early technology titan Larry Ellison, the co-founder of software giant Oracle. Ellison, the fifth-richest man in the world, according to Forbes, is backing his son David to the tune of $6 billion in his merger of Skydance Media with Paramount Global. 

“My father and I talk all the time,” David Ellison told TheWrap in a call with media on Monday after the deal closed. “He is an incredible advisor, across the board, and he has been throughout the process… I’m incredibly grateful for his leadership and advice.”

This dynamic feels considerably more personal than, say, a big telcom stepping in, or a hedge fund. But as one analyst told TheWrap, it matters a lot how big that stake is, and who the family is. 

“There is a huge difference in the Redstone control compared to the Ellison control, and it is this: The Redstones only owned 10% of Paramount despite having voting control; the Ellisons and co. will own as much as 70%,” observed Matt Dolgin, a senior equity analyst at Morningstar Research.

“That means that their economic interests will be much more aligned with the majority of other shareholders, whereas the Redstones were not necessarily. The voting control plus so much skin in the game makes for a better ownership structure for Paramount long term than a traditional structure, because it can do what it believes is best for the company’s long term health amid the industry disruption without feeling pressure that executives’ jobs may hinge on near-term results,” Dolgin added. 

Larry Ellison has been investing in Hollywood for some time. He helped bankroll — and then took over — daughter Megan Ellison’s Annapurna, which made several high-quality pictures but lost lots of money and saw her step back from the business in 2019. (The company still exists and appears to be focused on indie gaming.) 

*****

Family control of a Hollywood studio may hark back to the origins of Hollywood, but it contradicts the shift in the last 50 years toward a more professional, corporate entertainment industry. In general, these have been led not by swashbuckling mogul figures but by CEOs with advanced business and law degrees advised by Wall Street experts recommending mergers with related or unrelated businesses. (To wit, AT&T, internet company AOL or video gaming giant Sony.)

But it’s not at all clear that the pressures of the market produce notably better outcomes for Hollywood. The AOL-Time Warner merger in 2000 was a notorious blunder. AT&T’s acquisition of Time Warner, which closed in 2018, lasted all of four years. 

It’s equally unclear that private equity or hedge fund capital or foreign investment — all of which have come flooding into Hollywood over the decades — create reliable profits and stability. 

That may or may not have been on Shari Redstone’s mind when Apollo Global Management and Sony Pictures Entertainment came in with a rich counter-offer to Skydance. 

One thing seems clear. Of all the suitors who came for Paramount, Redstone had a clear bent toward the Ellison option. Practically every Wall Street analyst recommended the break-up of Paramount Global for parts. The math of this calculus is unassailable. The various divisions — whether Pluto, or BET or Paramount Pictures — are worth far more when broken into pieces.

But Redstone did not want that to happen. For her, the Ellison-Skydance option will preserve, for the most part, the integrity of what her family built. 

Which raises a different question. 

What will be the legacy of these fortunes created by the tech economy? Mark Zuckerberg at Facebook/Meta, Bill Gates at Microsoft, Jeff Bezos at Amazon — their riches have come so fast and in such vast quantities that dynasty has not had time to enter the picture. 

Several of the early tech billionaires have found themselves drawn to media and entertainment, whether Lorene Powell Jobs who now owns The Atlantic magazine and Anonymous Content; Bezos who bought The Washington Post; or Elon Musk who owns Twitter/X.   

They join other dynastic families in Hollywood and media. NBCUniversal is controlled by Comcast CEO Brian Roberts and the Roberts family; the Sulzbergers still reign at The New York Times.

It remains to be seen if the Ellisons will create a legacy.

For what it’s worth, the founder and driving force behind Paramount (which started under the name Famous Players in 1912) was a Hungarian Jewish immigrant named Adolph Zukor. He started out as a lowly furrier, but by the time he got to Hollywood he was a wealthy entrepreneur with an 800-acre estate in New York’s Rockland county. 

Zukor ran the studio until he finally retired from Paramount Pictures in 1959. In 1964 he became the chairman Emeritus. He stayed in that role up until his death at 103. 

Lucas Manfredi contributed to this column.

*From “An Empire of Their Own,” by Neal Gabler

The post Hollywood’s Family Business: Paramount Passes From the Redstones to Ellisons   appeared first on TheWrap.

“What Jeffrey Katzenberg has done here is unbelievable,” said one Hollywood power broker, donor and influential Democrat who declined to be identified. “Jeffrey lied about the whole Biden thing. The whole Biden inner circle lied… It’s such an act of hypocrisy.” 

“Everyone is furious,” said a leading Hollywood Democratic insider. “People are pissed – they feel betrayed.” 

They feel betrayed, certainly, because as an elder statesman of the Hollywood community, Katzenberg has personally vouched for Biden’s mental and physical capacity despite concerns voiced early on by donors about the president’s age. 

Indeed, a glowing New York Times profile of the entertainment mogul barely two weeks ago opened on this very issue: 

“When President Biden made clear last year that he was planning to run for another term, some important Democratic contributors expressed doubt. He was too old, they feared. He was not up to another four years. It fell to Jeffrey Katzenberg to tell them they were wrong,” wrote Peter Baker. 

The article continued: “When some still did not believe him, Mr. Katzenberg challenged them to come to Washington and find out for themselves — then arranged to bring the dubious donors to the White House to sit down with the octogenarian president to convince them he was still sharp enough.”

And just three weeks ago, a star-studded fundraiser for Biden with George Clooney, Jimmy Kimmel and Julia Roberts raised more than $30 million from the community, touted as the most successful in party history.

The campaign has been gripped by crisis since last Thursday’s debate in which the president appeared dazed, unfocused and mumbled half-answers, generally appearing to be a senior citizen in need of aid, not the leader of the free world. The ensuing discussion has led to whether Biden should step aside, but also a damning debate about who covered up when and why. 

In recent days, major entertainment figures including Netflix co-founder Reed Hastings, Hollywood showrunner Damon Lindelof, media mogul Barry Diller and Disney heir Abigail Disney have all called on Biden to step aside. Many have said publicly and privately that they will stop donating to the Biden campaign and redirect their Democratic giving to down-ballot races instead. 

Katzenberg’s role in that debate about a cover-up is the talk of Hollywood. At a summer disco party last weekend where Hollywood showrunners hung out with their families “not a single person wanted Biden to stay in,” said the Democratic insider. 

Outside of politics, though, the damage for Katzenberg is more complex. His relationships within the entertainment industry are precious. “It would be easier for Jeffrey to get closer to any president than to lose his reputation in Hollywood,” observed the insider.  

The power broker said that Katzenberg was looking to reestablish himself after the failure of his tech company, Quibi, and had hounded people to support Biden in the relentless way he’s attacked every objective in his storied career.

“Jeffrey is doing exactly what he did with Quibi,” the power broker said. “He just won’t stop calling you, so you just give him money to get [him to leave you alone]. You donate the money. And a lot of people did it. But that’s what happens with Jeffrey.”

“He wants to be a power broker and has completely lost sight of the objective here – which he would say is to get rid of Trump – without telling anybody the truth about his guy,” this person said. 

Several political observers who spoke to TheWrap noted that Katzenberg has been silent since the debate. The Financial Times reported that the campaign co-chair “raised eyebrows” the day after the debate when he failed to show up to a meeting to coordinate celebrity endorsements. 

As days pass since the debate, the feeling in Hollywood has only deepened that Biden should step aside. And many are turning their gaze to Vice President Kamala Harris. 

For his part, Biden remains steadfast that he’s staying in the race and will attempt to further quell fears about his health during an ABC News interview on Friday night with George Stephanopoulos.

Reached by TheWrap, Katzenberg referred questions about his role to the Biden campaign spokesman. The spokesman did not get back to TheWrap ahead of publication. 

The post Jeffrey Katzenberg Under Fire From Hollywood Biden Donors: ‘Jeffrey Lied’ appeared first on TheWrap.

The deal came a day after news leaked that billionaire mogul and once-Paramount executive Barry Diller had entered the competition for Paramount, and set off what could become an all-out bidding war. But insiders close to the tentative deal said the surprise Skydance agreement appeared to be moving forward apace. Late Tuesday the special committee met over the NAI agreement and advanced to the next stage, vetting the deal to merge Skydance with Paramount.

“National Amusements and Skydance have reached terms and the deal has been referred back to Paramount’s special committee,” an individual close to the deal told TheWrap. 

Under the agreement, Ellison’s Skydance would pay $1.75 billion in cash to acquire NAI before merging with the Hollywood studio. The deal, which would have an enterprise value of about $2.4 billion, also includes a 45-day go-shop provision that gives other bidders the opportunity to make a better offer. 

Should both stages of the two-step deal be finalized by Paramount’s special committee, it would likely put Ellison and former Universal chairman Jeff Shell in the executive leadership of Paramount, according to a knowledgeable insider. 

But unlike the bid that fell through a month ago, this deal will not go before shareholders for approval. The head of the special committee, Charles Phillips, had previously voiced concerns about the deal; he is a former Oracle executive and has history with Ellison’s father Larry Ellison, the co-founder of Oracle. It is not known if he still has concerns.

The deal has propitious timing, coming just a week before the Allen & Co. conference in Sun Valley, Idaho, where media and tech moguls gather every summer and where deals are often hatched or concluded. Insiders speculated that Redstone’s camp may have leaked the Diller negotiation ahead of Sun Valley, which had been underway for weeks, to put pressure on Skydance. 

Redstone and Diller are expected to be in Sun Valley. Ellison will not be in attendance, according to his representative.

Representatives for Paramount, Skydance and National Amusements declined to comment on the tentative deal. News of the deal was first reported by The Wall Street Journal.

Other interested bidders for Paramount besides Diller include “Baby Geniuses” producer Steven Paul and former Warner Music Group CEO and chairman Edgar Bronfman Jr., all of whom have the opportunity to make counterbids. 

Other Paramount bidders include Sony Pictures and Apollo Global Management, who submitted a $26 billion all cash offer, and Allen Media Group founder Byron Allen, who placed a $30 billion bid including debt. Warner Bros. Discovery CEO David Zaslav also met with former Paramount CEO Bob Bakish about a potential merger in December, though those talks were later halted. 

The new deal comes after Redstone scrapped the two-step deal with Ellison last month, which would have included $1.5 billion in cash to help reduce the company’s $14.6 billion in debt and the option for class B shareholders to cash out at $15 apiece. That deal was opposed by the company’s minority shareholders, who argued it prioritized Redstone at the expense of the rest of Paramount’s investors.

Shares of Paramount Global jumped over 8% in after-hours trading on Tuesday.

In the meantime, Paramount is currently being run by its new co-CEOs Brian Robbins, George Cheeks and Chris McCarthy, who replaced Bakish in April. The trio unveiled a long-term strategy last month that includes streaming partnerships, divesting assets and $500 million in cost cuts in areas including legal and corporate marketing.

At an employee town hall last week, the executives said they’ve hired bankers to help with asset sales. The stock rose this week on news that BET was once again in play with buyers. Other Assets on the auction block include Pluto TV, VH1 and the famed Paramount lot itself, which would be leased back for the studio’s use, four individuals familiar with the matter previously confirmed to TheWrap. According to Bloomberg, a group that includes BET CEO Scott Mills and CC Capital founder and senior managing director Chinh Chu are considering offering up to $1.7 billion to acquire BET.

Robbins, McCarthy and Cheeks are also advancing talks with potential partners in international markets that will “significantly transform the scale and economics” of its streaming business, which is currently on track to reach domestic profitability in 2025. The Office of the CEO said they could team up with other streamers or technology platforms on a joint venture or long-term partnership. CNBC reported on Monday that Warner Bros. Discovery is interested in a potential merger of Max and Paramount+.

Paramount, which has a market capitalization of $7.48 billion, has seen its stock price fall 25% in the past six months and 34% in the past year.

The post Paramount, Skydance Merger Is on Again in $2.4 Billion Deal appeared first on TheWrap.

IN THE LAST MONTH, the culture wars raging around antisemitism have come home to roost at Hollywood’s Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and its new museum on Wilshire Boulevard. After the museum initially failed to recognize the Jewish founders of the industry in 2021, this year the exhibit aimed at righting this lapse managed to insult and offend instead of making amends. TheWrap, which broke this story in early June, looked deeply at the reasons why the Academy managed to get it wrong, twice, and what it says about the heightened sensitivity of this cultural moment.

****

After more than a decade of missteps and misfires, the magnificent, $480 million Academy Museum of Motion Pictures opened, finally, in 2021. After one building, and then another. After design battles among the architects. After the hiring and the replacement of a museum director. After fundraising stalled out and had to be started and then started again. And after delays and delays and more delays. 

When the doors finally opened in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, it seemed that all the struggles could finally be put in the past. Judy Garland’s ruby slippers were there, along with the mechanical shark from “Jaws” and the Rosebud sled from “Citizen Kane.” 

But what really stuck out to early visitors was the politically “woke” tone of the museum, drawing attention to Hollywood’s past failings toward Black, indigenous, LGBTQ groups and women, in a way that some found salutary and others heavy-handed. An homage to “Real Women Have Curves,” the 2002 film about a Mexican American family in East LA, won a prominent place, as did a gallery on the films of Spike Lee. 

A gallery called Impact/Reflection looked at Black Lives Matter and the #MeToo movement in the context of Hollywood, while the animation exhibit featured a deep look at the history of racist imagery and sexual violence in cartoons. 

The aim was “to confront head-on the dark legacy of exclusion and discrimination in the industry,” wrote The Guardian at the time. “The hope is to tell a much more complicated, and accurate, story of Hollywood through the years.”

Museum officials agreed. “As the Academy, we want to recognize our own complicity,” Assistant Curator Dara Jaffe told the British paper, in the anti-racist patter of the moment. 

“We need to speak honestly about who we are as an industry,” said then-Museum Director Bill Kramer, now the CEO of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.

Although diversity and inclusion were the bywords in conceiving the museum’s exhibits and programming, one historically significant minority was notably excluded: Jews. And only a few weeks later, the Academy began to be hit with complaints from Jewish groups — and donors — about why the museum left out the central figures in the creation of the movie industry.

From Adolph Zukor to Carl Laemmle to Louis B. Mayer (an Academy founder) to the Warner brothers to Harry Cohn, Eastern European immigrants came to America, mostly with nothing, and built a mighty studio system — in Warner Bros., MGM, RKO, Universal, Paramount, Fox and Columbia studios. All of them Jews. All of them immigrants. All of them fleeing vicious antisemitism, eager to prove their American bona fides and make their mark on the world. 

The Academy recognized the error and committed to honor those founders. But when the exhibit “Hollywoodland” opened in mid-May, Jewish visitors to the museum were dismayed. Instead of celebrating the achievements of these founders, the exhibit took pains to point out their flaws, using terms like “oppressive,” “tyrant,” “predator,” “womanizer” and “frugal.” 

“THIS VERY EXHIBIT IS COMPLICIT in the hatred of American Jews, by using antisemitic tropes and dog-whistles,” wrote an enraged Patrick Moss, co-chair of the WGA Jewish Writers Committee, in a scathing letter to the Academy leaders, one of a half-dozen written by prominent individuals including directors Kimberly Peirce and Alma Har’el, which TheWrap obtained exclusively in early June. 

The Museum quickly backtracked and vowed publicly to get it right this time, even while privately wondering if the protest was really that widespread. A week went by and the Academy had its answer as a letter signed by 300 prominent Hollywood Jews, including Casey Wasserman, Debra Messing and David Schwimmer, expressed their hurt and outrage. 

This time the exhibit was changed within two days, removing the most offensive words, and the Museum set in motion a process to more deeply overhaul “Hollywoodland.” 

So how did the Academy get it so wrong, twice? Is it possible that the institution itself is antisemitic, despite having so many prominent members who are themselves Jewish, and despite Jewish donors from Haim Saban to David Geffen to Steven Spielberg with their names on the building? 

The Academy insists this notion is absurd on its face. But it’s what some Jewish advocates believe, including a group that has demanded that curator Dara Jaffe be fired. Indeed, some Jewish Academy members who spoke to TheWrap believe even now that a pernicious antisemitic strain resides within the institution. 

“I do think so,” said Lawrence Bender, a producer and AMPAS member who has been Oscar-nominated three times for Best Picture.  

When asked why, Bender said, “Three things: I’ve been told directly by people in the Academy that they refuse to have a Jewish affinity group. It was voted down. They blatantly opened the museum excluding the Jews when they’re the founding fathers of our industry. Lastly, the exhibit that they put up, it felt begrudgingly done, with no joy, mixed with all kinds of antisemitic tropes.”

A spokesperson for the Academy denied that the institution has any strain of antisemitism within it: “We will not and we do not tolerate antisemitism at the Academy.”

An Academy official acknowledged to TheWrap that a Jewish affinity group was indeed rejected, but said that a new affinity group was in the process of being constituted. 

What is undeniable is that the controversy at the museum has now become part of the current culture wars. With anti-Israel, pro-Palestine sentiment on the progressive left fueling a wave of antisemitism around the world, the errors with the Jewish Founders exhibit are inflaming sensitivities in the Hollywood community. And that is making attempts to repair the damage around the Hollywoodland exhibit more difficult. 

It is all too easy to forget that only three years ago, when the museum opened, the world was a very different place. As the country questioned daily whether the scourge of racism against Black people could ever be extinguished, the priorities for a community focused on being a standard bearer for social justice in its gleaming new shrine to cinema were completely different. 

****

On the one hand, he [Harry Cohn] wanted to be the toughest, most brutal executive in Hollywood — the one they all feared. On the other hand, he wanted to be regarded as a man of good taste and judgment — the one they all envied. Negotiating between these — the vulgarian and the patron — required an excruciating balancing act, and it was one apparently important enough for Cohn to perform, yet it took its toll.

— “An Empire of Their Own,” Neal Gabler

Harry ruled the production arm in Los Angeles, earning a reputation as a tyrant and predator; he modeled his office on that of Italian dictator Benito Mussolini, built to intimidate anyone who entered.

— Hollywoodland Exhibit (original)

**** 

IT WAS SUMMER 2019, and the museum project was not going well. Museum director Kerry Brougher, a veteran in the arts world who had joined in 2014 from the Smithsonian’s Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, had been hard at work on planning the permanent exhibits around classic Hollywood iconography such as Cleopatra’s wig worn by Elizabeth Taylor and an exhibit called “The Studio System “which included classics like “Casablanca” and “Singing in the Rain.” 

But that April his deputy curator Deborah Horowitz exited, and the museum was struggling with fund-raising — stalling more than $100 million short of its $388 million goal. And Brougher was winning no friends inside the cliquish AMPAS organization. 

The museum had just been forced to postpone the opening date yet again, pushing to some time in 2020. In August, Brougher was asked to leave. 

The Academy was facing other pressures too. In 2015, the #OscarsSoWhite scandal, a social media hashtag led by activist April Reign, shamed the organization for the lack of diversity in Oscar nominations and subsequently in the membership of the Academy. The institution had set out to change, and aggressively expanded the number of women and minorities among its voting members, going from 94% white and 75% male in that year, to 81% white and 66% male with the subsequent years bringing continued change.

In October 2019, in stepped Bill Kramer, formerly the museum’s chief fundraiser, to take on the role of museum director. The organization made the bold announcement that Brougher’s plans for permanent exhibits would be set aside, replaced with a different approach focused on individual exhibits that would rotate and bring a new emphasis on diversity and underrepresented voices.

That mission took on an even more urgency after the nation was swept up in an anti-racist fervor after witnessing the horrific murder of George Floyd by a white police officer in Minneapolis, in an excruciating eight-minute arrest (and death) caught on video over an alleged counterfeit $20 bill.  

The museum had to be part of the solution, not the problem, said one of several people who spoke to TheWrap about the internal thinking at the time. And the Academy, like society as a whole, had to correct itself. 

“We didn’t want to be the plodding history of cinema: here’s the masters,” said one person involved at the time. “Everyone is straight and white and male. That is the history of cinema in most of your textbooks.” 

The thought was: “We have a responsibility to expand this story.”

There was also an awareness that the city of Los Angeles itself is nearly 50% Latino, and the museum had to reflect that. And an awareness that attendance at the movies was declining, and the museum had an opportunity to look forward rather than backwards. 

“There was talk of cinema dying,” said this person. “That movies are dead, not alive. ‘Some Like It Hot’? Who is Billy Wilder? We wanted to make this a living thing.” 

And what about the Jews? The founders of Hollywood? 

One insider told TheWrap that there was always a plan to include the Jewish founders, but that this was planned for a few years after the opening — including a map of where the studios were established around Los Angeles. 

Another insider remembered that it was not in the initial plans for another reason, too. Avoiding the problem of memorializing old, white men like the Jewish founders who had many personal imperfections was just — easier. 

“It wasn’t: ‘We’re not going to put the Jews in there,” said this person. “It’s more: That’s the story that’s always been told.’” 

And so, the Jews were left out of the exhibits of the opening in 2021 in favor of Spike Lee and other progressive priorities. 

In hindsight, said this person, “maybe we overcorrected.” 

****

Harry Warner wanted the rights to “The Jazz Singer” because “it would be a good picture to make for the sake of racial tolerance if nothing else.”…  “The Jazz Singer” did something that was extremely rare in Hollywood: it provided an extraordinarily revealing window on the dilemmas of the Hollywood Jews generally, and of the Warners specifically.        

— “An Empire of their Own” 

Jakie performs in blackface, perpetuating a century-long tradition in the United States that caricatures and dehumanizes Black people. As part of a marginalized minority, Jakie – and the Warners – seek acceptance as Americans by embodying the dominant culture, invoking a popular symbol of racial oppression that further harms another marginalized group. 

— Hollywoodland exhibit  (original)

**** 

BILL KRAMER WAS ON HIS WAY HOME from the Cannes Film Festival toward the end of May this year when he started to get messages from prominent Academy members like Bender and Peirce. In Peirce’s case she was a member of the Academy’s Inclusion Committee. They had seen or heard about the new Hollywoodland exhibit and were upset.

They sent him messages about the words on the panels in the exhibit. For example, Jack Warner was “brash and irreverent,” a “womanizer” who was “frugal” in shaping the Warner Bros. culture. Harry Cohn was “a tyrant and predator,” with an office modeled on “Italian dictator Benito Mussolini, built to intimidate anyone who entered.” These were on panels with 50-100 words in a relatively small space of about 30 feet.

A documentary film voiced by Ben Mankiewicz similarly noted that the moguls perpetuated racism, saying: “Hollywood films… generally excluded, stereotyped or vilified people of color and LGBT+ characters and perpetuated ableism and sexism with rare exceptions. In Hollywood, to become American was to adopt and reflect oppressive beliefs and representations.” 

Kramer was furious. He had seen a model of the planned exhibit back in March, when former Academy President Hawk Koch had shown it to a group of Academy executives, including President Janet Yang, at his sprawling home in Ojai.  The exhibit was based on “An Empire of Their Own,” the definitive account of the Jewish founders of Hollywood written in 1988 by scholar Neal Gabler, who was drafted to create the exhibit with Jaffe.

People in attendance included Museum Director and President Jacqueline Stewart, a film professor from the University of Chicago and author of “Migrating to the Movies: Cinema and Black Urban Modernity,” who had been hired in 2022. Stewart was ultimately responsible for the exhibit, as were vice president of curatorial affairs Doris Berger and the curator Jaffe, who had worked with Gabler. 

But Stewart and the curators had not shown the panels with their harsh verbiage to Kramer and Yang in advance.

By the time Kramer saw it in late May, it was too late. The offense had been taken, and a half dozen letters were already being written, detailing the outrage and the belief that the exhibit went deliberately out of its way to insult these Jewish founders, to sound antisemitic dog-whistles, and to place the blame for the racism, sexism and homophobia of early Hollywood on these Jews.

It wasn’t that hard to believe. In the spring of 2024, university campuses were aflame in anti-Israel protests because of the war with Gaza, and Jewish schools and synagogues in Los Angeles were besieged by a sudden, global wave of antisemitism.

It was too much for some Jews in Hollywood who saw it as their own institution abandoning them. 

“It is almost as if, instead of celebrating the birth of the industry, the Academy is apologizing to the public for having to reveal a dark corner of its history it wishes it could have kept hidden,” wrote Keetgi Kogan in her letter to the Academy. 

Academy insiders have explanations for the harsh language, but even they concede that it sounds mostly like excuses. According to two insiders who spoke to TheWrap, academics like Stewart or Jaffe are deep in a “colonialist” conversation who maintain “we have to tell hard stories”; academics are less thoughtful about how scholarship might hurt someone in a public venue; Jaffe is more of an “activist,” and some internally believe that might not be appropriate for a museum in presenting the history of cinema. 

As it happened, Stewart had decided to step down in May for personal reasons and return to Chicago. So she was already gone when the controversy emerged in public via TheWrap. 

Stewart did not respond to multiple attempts to reach out to her. Gabler, too, did not respond to two emails seeking to discuss this article. Kramer declined to comment. Jaffe was not made available. The new museum director Amy Homma was not made available. 

Still, the Academy told TheWrap it is deeply engaged in a process to get this right, finally. Homma has had several meetings, including with Kogan and others. She’s met with the Anti-Defamation League. Thus far the museum is standing by Jaffe, despite the ongoing calls for her removal, at least from the reframing of the exhibit.

In its official statements to TheWrap, the Academy has recognized that there is a wrong to be righted. “We have heard the concerns from members of the Jewish community,” came the statement on June 10. “We are deeply committed to telling these important stories in an honest, respectful and impactful way.”

The post Hollywood’s Jewish Founders: How the Academy Museum Got It So Wrong, Twice appeared first on TheWrap.

In a statement to TheWrap on Monday, the Academy acknowledged the criticism from multiple Jewish members and promised to make adjustments: 

“Some members of the Jewish community have come forward to express some concerns, and [we] are looking at how to address those concerns best while continuing to share an authentic understanding of these complex individuals and the time they lived in,” the statement read. “As part of this process, we are continuing to engage with the community members who have come forward with constructive feedback and welcome these conversations. We hope to move quickly and thoughtfully in this process.” 

A series of explosive letters to AMPAS leadership by prominent Jewish members in the last two weeks criticized the exhibit for taking pains to point out Jewish founders’ flaws with terms like “oppressive,” “tyrant” “predator” and “frugal.” 

The permanent exhibit “Hollywoodland: Jewish Founders and the Making of a Movie Capital” debuted in mid-May. It deals with studio founders including the Warner brothers, led by Jack (ne Jacob) and Harry (ne Hirsch Wonsal) Warner, and also includes Harry Cohn at Columbia, Marcus Loew and Louis B. Mayer at MGM and Jesse Lasky and Adolph Zukor at Paramount, among others. The exhibit was created in response to criticism that the $480 million museum that opened in 2021 had entirely omitted the Jews who had founded the industry. 

“The focus is not on the founder’s achievements, but on their sins,” reads one of the letters addressed to AMPAS CEO Bill Kramer, Academy Museum President Jacqueline Stewart, who exited last week, and the exhibit’s curator, Dara Jaffe. 

The letter by Patrick Moss, co-chair of the WGA Jewish Writers Committee, provided to TheWrap continued: “The words used to describe these men are the following: ‘frugal,’ ‘nepotistic,’ ‘harmful,’ ‘womanizing,’ ‘oppressive,’ ‘brash’ ‘tyrant,’ ‘cynical,’ ‘white-washed,’ ‘predator…’ and on it goes. 

“THIS VERY EXHIBIT IS COMPLICIT in the hatred of American Jews, by using antisemitic tropes and dog-whistles.”

The scathing critique is one of six letters or articles obtained independently by TheWrap from prominent members of the Hollywood community, including Moss, filmmakers Kimberly Peirce, who is a member of the museum’s inclusivity committee,  and Alma Ha’rel, who has resigned from the same committee, along with showrunner Keetgi Kogan and television writer Michael Kaplan. Kogan and Kaplan, in separate letters, reached remarkably similar conclusions about the exhibit. Andy Lewis similarly wrote about the issue in The Ankler over the weekend.

“You effectively lay the prejudice, racism and misogyny of the 20th century at the feet of the Jewish founders of the movie business,” wrote Kogan. “Your thesis seems to be that these Jewish immigrants were grasping social-climbers who chose to assimilate into American society on the backs of exploited women and people of colour. What’s more, you assert that it is these Jewish immigrants alone who created a fictitious version of America, whitewashed free of discrimination, for their own personal gain.” 

She concluded: “It is almost as if, instead of celebrating the birth of the industry, the Academy is apologizing to the public for having to reveal a dark corner of its history it wishes it could have kept hidden.”

Ha’rel declined to comment for this story. Peirce did not respond to attempts to reach her for this article.

The Academy declined a request to speak to Jaffe about the intention behind the exhibit.

A visit to the exhibit reveals a narrow 30-foot gallery with panels dedicated to each of the studios that were founded in the first decades of the 20th century: Warner Bros., MGM, RKO, Universal, Paramount, Fox and Columbia, with descriptions of the Jewish men behind each of them. The letter-writers took issue with the text of the panels, which are in English and Spanish.

“It was a period of oppressive control,” reads the introductory panel on “Studio Origins,” explaining the studio system where eight majors “dominated the industry.” 

Also in the exhibit:

* In a description of less than 100 words, Harry Cohn is described as “a tyrant and predator,” with an office modeled on “Italian dictator Benito Mussolini, built to intimidate anyone who entered.”  

* Jack Warner is described “brash and irreverent” and a “womanizer” who was “frugal” in shaping the Warner Bros. culture. 

* In the Universal panel, Carl Laemmle is described as rising from errand boy to running the studio, “where his kindness and nepotism earned him the moniker “Uncle Carl.”

* The 1927 movie “The Jazz Singer” starring Al Jolson is highlighted as the first widely released feature with synchronized sound. But the brief description calls out the movie’s “blackface, perpetuating a century-long tradition in the United States that caricatures and dehumanizes Black people.” 

“I think there’s a certain amount of antisemitism, whether conscious or not, but also a presentism,” said Kaplan, in visiting the gallery with a reporter. “Some of this is valid, but the double standard and lack of context is infuriating to many of us.” 

Kaplan pointed out that none of the other exhibits call out their subjects for criticism in this way. “This exhibit shows the villains,” he said. “Every other part of the museum shows the victims.” 

Another critic who declined to be named was upset that the exhibit did not name any Jewish filmmakers who fled antisemitism, like director Billy Wilder, who became a legend of classic Hollywood cinema after fleeing Europe in 1934.

Even more ironic, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, the parent organization behind the museum, was originally conceived by Louis B. Mayer and created by a group of moguls and industry leaders in 1927.

As in many areas of the museum, a consciously progressive tone dominates, reminding the visitor of the ways that marginalized communities were absent from the movie industry, and where stereotypes perpetuated racist norms. For example, a brief, three-sentence panel that mentions the advent of Western movies makes sure to note: “However, most Westerns — some referenced in this gallery — featured offensive depictions of Indigenous characters, often portrayed by non-Indigenous actors.”  

A documentary narrated by TCM host Ben Mankiewicz plays in a connecting space, and a large video map displays where the studios were built as they began to transform Los Angeles. 

The documentary traces the humble beginnings of the Jewish studio founders, and notes the antisemitism that was widespread at the time. But it also notes that the moguls perpetuated racism, saying: “Hollywood films… generally excluded, stereotyped or vilified people of color and LGBT+ characters and perpetuated ableism and sexism with rare exceptions. In Hollywood, to become American was to adopt and reflect oppressive beliefs and representations.” 

Hollywood philanthropist Haim Saban, whose name is on the main museum building after he and his wife Cheryl made a $50 million gift, the museum’s largest, said he was “very happy” with the exhibit and not bothered by its language or message.

“These people should say thank you to the Academy for recognizing the contribution of Jews to Hollywood,” he told TheWrap.  

But Oscar-nominated producer Lawrence Bender also visited the galleries and emerged exasperated. The Jewish moguls who built Hollywood “loved movies, they loved making movies,” he said. “There’s no sense of that here.”

In a climate of rising antisemitism, he said, the exhibit seems to be an additional slap. “It feels like one more thing,” he said. “Are there more important things in the world? Sure. Is it the most important? Maybe not. But — it’s one more thing. And this museum is presenting history. What’s missing is a true love of cinema. Where does it say that they loved making movies?” 

Editor’s note: This story was updated on June 3 at 9 pm.

The post Motion Picture Academy Vows to ‘Thoughtfully’ Address Criticism of ‘Antisemitic Tropes’ in Exhibit on Jewish Founders | Exclusive appeared first on TheWrap.

You might have expected loud and sustained cheering from Beverly Hills to Calabasas to Malibu. But social media was oddly calm among bold-faced names, and the responses in the power suites of the entertainment industry were not what you might expect.  

Among some, there was cynical indifference. For others there was fear that this definitive knock on the former president would fail to move undecided voters. And there was a palpable weariness at anything related to that Orange Guy after nearly a decade of his downward gravitational pull to the gutter. 

“It’s totally irrelevant, (this) fires up his base,” one top, left-leaning Hollywood executive texted me. “The Democrats are geniuses at moral victories and actual losses … It’s almost like social media makes no difference. It just fires up people that are already decided.” 

The exhaustion was palpable, the sense that if justice was served, it has been too long delayed – and Trump may still end up president, anyway. 

“He can still run, and how is that possible?” asked a top former studio marketing executive. “The scary part is that he knows how to rev up his base with ‘fake news’ this-is-not-America bulls–t.” 

After years of Trump punching down – and up, and across – and even after the New York judicial system finally held him to account with a royal flush verdict of “Guilty” on 34 felony counts, few were moved to raise their voices. Many noted that the echo chamber of politically motivated information would use this verdict to somehow help Trump, rather than delegitimize him. 

And even those who did speak out were somewhat muted in their joy. 

“Usually when a powerful, rich, white male with experienced, expensive defense counsel, is found guilty … he’s really guilty,” tweeted Warren Leight, former showrunner of “Law & Order: Special Victims Unit” and a prolific tweeter. 

Wrote Kathy Griffin, somewhat sadly: “I am sitting in a restaurant by myself crying.” Presumably tears of joy, but still. It’s the sense of sorrow that seems to be overtaking any sense of celebration. 

The truth is the entertainment industry has been in a state of emotional paralysis for months, less about the widely loathed Donald Trump than about Israel’s war in Gaza that has divided friends and driven a wedge into the liberal and heavily Jewish community of Hollywood. 

For months, fear has been the paramount emotion – fear of reaction to public support for Israel, fear of public support for Palestinians, fear of antisemitism, fear of provoking or being provoked, fear of being on the wrong side of a complex human tragedy. And fear that Trump would be the ultimate beneficiary of President Biden’s support for Israel, or more recently his criticism of Israel. (Yes it’s both contradictory things at the same time.) 

And then where will we be? 

So it’s been months of locked-down responses. And while the silence has been deafening and the fear palpable — emotions have nonetheless been roiling. 

Trump is a known quantity in entertainment, for better or worse. By now, most have seen the man, watched him rise in media, watched him perform in government, watched him on Jan. 6 and beyond — and they long ago made up their minds. 

The idea that Trump paid a porn star hush money ahead of the 2016 election is, simply put, not a stretch. Among the people I spoke to privately, none needed convincing that he was guilty. And many remain skeptical that the felony conviction will move the needle in favor of Biden this election cycle. 

One vocal celebrity found his voice, though. Actor and activist John Leguizamo managed to celebrate the verdict, tweeting his jubilation, but also his worry that the future of democracy hinged on misinformation:  

“Finally the tephlon Don has been held accountable! No one is above the law!” he rejoiced. “You can’t have a functioning democracy if don’t all have access to the same facts! We need to bring back the fairness doctrine that kept news legit!”

The post Why Hollywood Is Too Exhausted and Scared to Enjoy Donald Trump’s Conviction appeared first on TheWrap.

TheWrap broke this story on Sunday, the same day that Kering’s Women in Motion, in partnership with the festival, bestowed a number of awards on leading women in film, including Universal’s Chief Content Officer Donna Langley, at its gala dinner. The dinner took place at a medieval castle on a cliff overlooking the harbor, with dramatic lights and good intentions and gowns and jewels and lots of media.  

But it is very hard to feel like progress is being made for women when the spectre of Weinstein, a convicted rapist, hangs in this place where for decades he preyed on women.

For the record, Weinstein has denied that he made calls to help friends go to parties. Nonetheless, TheWrap spoke to two individuals who confirmed he had done so, and two others who said that Weinstein has reached out to former colleagues in Europe to discuss plans to eventually restart his career.

Cannes has always been a touchstone for Weinstein’s successes in film from “Pulp Fiction,” which won the Palme d’Or, to “The Artist,” the French film he acquired and took to Oscar glory. It has now become a touchstone for the painful past that #MeToo brought to light, with Weinstein as its central malignant force.

It was just a few days ago that actress and now director Judith Godrèche debuted her short film “Moi Aussi”/“Me Too” at the festival, a project that flowed directly from her decision to speak out against a famous French director who abused her as a teenaged actress. (She is also a Weinstein survivor.) 

I got to interview her at our live Cannes studio about the film, and Godrèche called Weinstein’s rape conviction reversal “a nightmare.”  It’s a nightmare that seems never to end. 

The notion of Weinstein’s even distant presence re-traumatizes women in the industry everywhere. Rosanna Arquette, another survivor, wrote me on Monday, distraught: “It is shocking and disturbing especially for the women who were on the stand,” she said. “You see indeed that patriarchy is a brutal monster and we still have much work to do.”  

How true that is. The patriarchy persists.

Only four of the 22 films in the main competition this year — less than 20% — were made by women filmmakers, including “Bird” by Andrea Arnold, about a young woman grasping for stability in a British slum; “The Substance” by Coralie Fargeat, a darkly funny, primal scream against the demand for women’s physical perfection; “Wild Diamond” by Agathe Riedinger, about a young woman desperately seeking fame as a social media influencer or reality star; and Payal Kapadia’s “All We Imagine As Light,” about the life and struggles of a young woman and her roommate in Mumbai. 

And with all the big, bold ideas we are seeing on the screen at the festival so far (as Steve Pond wrote about on Monday), notably few of them are from women, even with leading feminist filmmaker Greta Gerwig presiding over the jury.

Why still so few? 

It is difficult to pinpoint the reasons for so few women directors, as the gender split in other categories is not particularly better. Are there insufficient submissions from women? Does the work simply not measure up? Or do women not receive the funding that men can more easily access?

Stacy Smith, who leads the USC Annenberg Inclusion Initiative and came to speak at Kering’s space about women in film, has recent research related to roles for women in front of the camera.

Only 30 of the 100 top-grossing movies in 2023 had a girl or woman in a lead or co-lead role, a substantial downturn from 2022 when 44 films had a girl or woman lead, according to the research. 

The overall pictures suggests a backward slide. Some have suggested that Cannes should consider a fixed quota for female directors, as Sweden has instituted for movies with public financing.

The connection to sexual abuse in France is not incidental. On May 14, 140 signatories published a petition in Le Monde saying it was time for France to take serious action over the fact that 94% of rape cases in the country are overturned. 

In response, Cannes issued an email to accredited guests, containing an abuse helpline number, and a text which stated it has a zero tolerance attitude towards sexual abuse and discrimination of any kind. 

“Since 2018, the Festival has been committed in the fight against sexual harassment and violence during the event by implementing a dedicated assistance unit,” the festival wrote. “This commitment is essential at a time when cinema, shaken by revelations of sexual violence that has gone on for far too long, must enter into a new era of awareness and collective action.”

And yet, here looms Harvey. A symbol if nothing else.

Year after year so many of the stories I see here from all over the world about women are stories of oppression, about women yearning to simply exist. This year is no different. “The Shameless,” in the Un Certain Regard section, knocked me sideways in its searing portrayal of a hardened prostitute in India and her love affair with a beautiful young teenager who was being groomed for the same. Talk about brutal patriarchy. The film opens with the lead character cleaning her knife after stabbing her client to death, a police detective. “He deserved it,” she says later, and the audience believes her.

At the other end of the economic spectrum, “Julie Keeps Quiet,” a Belgian film by first-time director Leonardo Van Dijl in the section for up-and-coming directors, La Quinzaine (Directors Fortnight), is a quiet and devastating portrait of Julie, a rising star at an elite tennis academy whose coach is suspended for sexual misconduct. This happens after another star athlete commits suicide.

So what happened to Julie? Julie won’t say. 

As The Guardian wrote: “‘Julie Keeps Quiet’ is a tense, absorbing movie of silences and absences, of difficult terrain skirted around, of subjects avoided. It’s a reminder that in key situations, to keep quiet is a stressful, strenuous and, crucially, public activity — and a survival instinct that many young people have to learn.”

“People?” Don’t we really mean young women, whether actresses like a young Godrèche or a rising tennis star, who seem to be fed the message to shut up and play along? Who only have their voices heard after years of abuse and dozens of victims? 

I wish it were different. I wish I could come to the Cannes Film Festival and know that this painful chapter was behind us. That women have been seen and heard. That the festival has cemented progress for female stories and female storytellers. 

But it just isn’t the case. Not yet, anyway. 

The post Women Recoil in Cannes as Harvey Weinstein Still Looms, While a Sexist System Persists  appeared first on TheWrap.

It’s kinda Batman, kinda Gladiator, kinda “Tomorrowland” rolled up in a smorgasbord of ideas and images and the Cannes audience didn’t know what to do with it. 

At the press screening in a packed theater in Debussy, there were several times the audience laughed at what was happening on the screen. Meaning — in mockery.

A mishmash of religious celebrations, marked by a Koran, Hanukkah candles and a Christmas tree, along with sequential shots of happy children, led to an outburst of laughter, as did one line when Nathalie Emmanuel, playing Cesar’s wife, announced she’s pregnant. “If it’s a girl, her name will be Hope Sunny, “ she said.  “If it’s a boy he’ll be named Francis.”

Loud laughter. The Cannes audience wasn’t taking any prisoners. 

Reporters and critics who were taking copious notes around me kind of gave up halfway through the movie. Playing a rising visionary who wants to build a city of the future named Megalopolis, Adam Driver as Cesar Catalina had some of the cringiest lines. 

“Time, show me the future,” he grandly declares at one point. Then in the midst of the film a real life person comes on stage, inside the theater, to ask a question of Driver/Catalina during his speech. 

It was experimental certainly, but added to the confusion. What was the point? 

In this 21st century movie somehow people were still smoking cigarettes, and photographers were using 1940s-style flashes on top of their cameras, while the “press corps” all had hats on with their press badges tucked in like “His Girl Friday.”

That too was pretty disorienting.

By the time the credits rolled after a very on-the-nose, closing shot of a beautiful baby (emphasizing the future — we definitely got the point) the audience had enough. A couple of loud boos rang out, along with some very tepid applause and mostly silence.

The post ‘Megalopolis’ Confounds Cannes Audience as Laughter Drowns Out Cringey Dialogue appeared first on TheWrap.

The committee will continue to explore the initial deal proposed by Skydance founder David Ellison. But they will also consider the Sony-Apollo joint deal, according to two individuals TheWrap spoke with on Sunday. 

It sounds like we are back to square one.

There is, however, another option. The newly-named “Office of the CEO” — composed of the three top executives Brian Robbins, George Cheeks and Chris McCarthy — who replaced ousted CEO Bob Bakish last week, are in the drivers seat right now. 

They are a viable go-forward option for Paramount, and they have a plan. 

According to four individuals who spoke to TheWrap, the executives met with the Paramount board last week and offered a detailed plan to address the most pressing problems and turn the listing company around over the next three years. 

The plan boils down to reducing Paramount’s $14.6 billion debt through aggressive cost-cutting and raising cash by selling assets which would likely include, among other things: 

* The Paramount lot for an estimated $2 billion, and then leasing it back for the studio’s use. 

* BET and VH1 networks, estimated value $3 billion

* Pluto TV, which is run by Tom Ryan

The internal plan would also involve aggressively reducing head count. And the CEO triumvirate is looking at strategic options for streaming, which could include the sale of Pluto or “potential alternatives” for Paramount+ as one insider put it – specifically a joint venture with another streamer – with the goal of getting to profitability by the end of 2025. 

As everyone knows by now, Paramount Global — the owner of Nickelodeon, MTV, CBS and Paramount Pictures — has been seeking a way out of its current predicament. The company is enduring persistent declines in its stock price in the face of secular, downward pressure on broadcast and cable businesses and a still-unprofitable streaming business in Paramount+.

The aim of the plan would be to relieve the crushing debt burden and get Paramount’s global debt upgraded from its current junk status, which continues to weigh down the stock price.  Credit rating agency S&P Global recently downgraded Paramount’s debt to junk, one level below investment grade, based on “weak credit metrics.” 

The other priority in the plan would be to restore payment of a dividend, which has endlessly aggravated Shari Redstone, the non-executive chairwoman of Paramount Global, president of National Amusements and the controlling shareholder of the studio. Bakish cut the divided by 75% in 2023 as a way of maintaining cash with the hope of driving up the stock. 

That hasn’t happened. The stock is down about 25% from a year ago. Without the normal dividend, Redstone feels backed into a corner. 

A spokesperson for Paramount declined to comment on the meeting, the plan or the dividend.  

The triumvirate’s plan met with a positive reception from the board, according to one insider. The three executives apparently get along well, and were seen at Paramount’s television upfronts in New York last week enthusiastically working the room of advertisers and talent together. Robbins has both solid digital and theatrical operating experience; Cheeks understands television and cable programming. Of the three, McCarthy is the strategic force — pushing for bottom line growth in Paramount+.

Their stewardship offers some compelling arguments as a counter to selling Paramount to either Skydance or Apollo. 

For one thing, it is abundantly clear that — other than Redstone — shareholders are opposed to the Skydance deal, which would see the production company create a combined company with Paramount valued at around $5 billion. The stock has continued to slide in price with every news beat of the Skydance deal. News of the Apollo offer sent the stock back up. 

On Sunday, Endeavor CEO Ari Emanuel and mega-director James Cameron came out in favor of the Skydance deal, suggesting it could revitalize a Hollywood stuck in the creative doldrums. This suggests a tension — Wall Street doesn’t like the Skydance deal, but Hollywood does.  

The Sony-Apollo deal is complicated but possible. The complication arises from the regulatory barriers to Sony, a Japanese company, owning a U.S. broadcast channel, CBS.  

According to The New York Times , the terms currently being contemplated in the Sony-Apollo deal would involve Sony being the controlling shareholder, with Apollo owning a minority stake. 

Indeed, it would make sense for Sony to operate the Paramount studio as part of its larger entertainment division, theatrical marketing and distribution operations.

According to the Times, the bidding group would probably push for Apollo, which is based in New York City, “to hold the rights to the CBS broadcast license,” two people familiar with their strategy told the publication.

The idea would be to have Apollo sell its minority share back to Sony in a few years. It remains unclear if having Sony in the driver’s seat would dissuade the acquisition partners from selling off at least some of Paramount Global’s less-profitable pieces, especially if Paramount executives are already contemplating such a strategy to boost shareholder value.

While the options play out, insiders say one thing is clear: The saga of Paramount’s next phase is apparently not going to be resolved in the short term. 

The post Paramount’s Options: Apollo-Sony or Skydance? The CEO Office Might Win Out | Analysis  appeared first on TheWrap.

Instead of being defined as young people driven by a principled stand against Palestinian suffering in Gaza, they’re now broadly defined as a bunch of entitled, whiny, immature kids who want their 21^st century creature comforts but also every single political demand immediately. And also: the meal plan. 

Instead of being seen as champions for free speech they’re now defined as creepy groupthinkers who robotically chant slogans and follow directives by some shadowy, far-left leaders who wear masks and spew terms from Maoist playbooks like “imperialist forces” and something something “settler-colonialists.”

Funny how a few images going viral can define a movement. 

This video of a Columbia doctoral student asking for “basic humanitarian aid” while standing outside the university administration building she and others had broken into, barricaded and commandeered will be a historic moment in stamping this movement as …a bunch of babies. 

Student activist: “They’re obligated to pay for students who pay for a meal plan… Do you want students to die of dehydration of starvation?… It’s crazy to say because we’re on an Ivy League campus but this is, like, basic humanitarian aid we’re asking for.” 

Reporter: “It seems like you’re sort of saying, ‘We want to be revolutionaries, we want to take over this building, now would you please bring us some food.” 

The video has nearly 50 million views on Twitter-X.

Then there’s this fantastic Threads post about UCLA activists banning bananas from their encampment because one person had a severe allergy to bananas. “Participants when checking in have to confirm they don’t have any banana products on them.” 

Another movement-defining image is going around Twitter of a University of Chicago list of “supply needs” at the encampment, including vital safe-sex aids among other – “HIV tests, dental dams, Plan B, Diva cup [for menstruation].” Also “Chapstik.” Implied but not stated: Mom! Please bring it quickly!

On Thursday night a mob of students eliciting a “primal scream” gathered beneath the window of Columbia University President Minouche Shafik’s home. A literal temper tantrum as political theater. 

Here’s the creepy video where activists at the encampment started chanting in call and response from some leader:

Here’s the viral video of a Columbia student leader Khymani James filming himself defending his belief that Zionists deserve to be killed. After this video was leaked James was banned from campus, but not before leading the chants in front of Butler Library for a week or two. 

If the goals of pro-Palestine protestors range broadly in demanding divestment from Israel, the extremism is nonetheless fully exposed. Instead of drawing attention to and winning hearts and mind over a principled stand against the suffering of Palestinian people in Gaza, things have pivoted to a very different perspective.   

I can palpably hear the shift in the tone of coverage on CNN and The New York Times. On CNN the anchors like Laura Coates and reporters on the scene of police arrests of students are asking how many of the protestors are students, and who are the organizers. The protests come off as a weird combination of rich, privileged Western kids and radical political organizers on behalf of a left that’s disconnected from reality. 

Coates interviewed a Columbia professor who expressed support for the decision to call in police to arrest and remove students, noting that the university needed to restore order so classes could go on. As an alum, I can tell you that is very unexpected.

And it’s a marked change from the previous days where the dominant narrative was around students calling for a cease fire, to free Palestine. The discussion veered between that topic and the question of whether the encampments had veered into antisemitism, and whether Jewish students on campus were feeling threatened by the rhetoric. 

Now I’m seeing widespread pickup of a study that delves into the origins of Students for Justice in Palestine, which is organizing much of these protests nationwide, and $3 million funding that can be traced back to Hamas. 

It goes to show that these movements turn on a dime. 

What the internet giveth the internet taketh away. The same viral images that quickly coalesced a critical mass of hurt and angry students to take up the mantle of Gaza has flipped the script and just as quickly turned mainstream media – and I believe mainstream opinion – against them. 

A quick word on bonafides. I was once a student at Columbia University. In my senior year of 1985, students took over the same Hamilton Hall, demanding that the university divest its holdings in South Africa. Students held the building for three weeks at exactly this time of year, just ahead of graduation. I covered the protest as a student journalist at the time, and also lived in the building next door, a dormitory. 

The takeover was not violent, and the tone of the protest was much different. Student  protestors were vociferous in their demands for the university to divest, and people were angry on behalf of Black South Africans, who were among the protestors. But there was no hate speech. There was no violent rhetoric, at all. And, dare I say, no demands for the meal plan. Eventually the students dispersed and we all made a stand at commencement.

That’s why I say the students have blown it for the Palestinian cause they champion. Blown it for free speech. Blown it for creating a movement of inclusion and justice. 

They’ve lost me and other people at the center. 

The post How the Student Pro-Palestine Movement Blew It: ‘Humanitarian Aid’ and Banana Allergies appeared first on TheWrap.