"It doesn't matter how many times [an email] says 'This is confidential, meant for just between the sender and the recipient,'" [Kudrow] said. "Why don't we know that there are no rules? Everything is broadcast and published. That's the part I just don't understand."Kudrow asks a good question — and she seems to imply that the answer is that these executives were embarrassingly ignorant and out of touch with modern life. But there could be other explanations. I thought of two:
That tough reality has made Kudrow extremely cautious of what she says.
"I mean, I have almost no opinions anymore," she joked.
1. Email is an efficient way to conduct business, but only when the speech is sharp and clear and cuts through all the crap. The successful executives are the ones who can communicate like this, and for them, at least until now, it has been worth the risk. Email couched in pleasantries and euphemisms would waste everyone's time and make you look insufficiently hard-assed. The risk of leakage was far outweighed by the potential to succeed, and those who weigh the risk otherwise don't get to these positions of power in the first place. It's fine for an actress to cultivate her niceness image, but she's got a entirely different kind of career. And having "almost no opinions" is a good low-risk strategy for her.
2. The Hollywood executives actually don't mind if these opinions leak out. They won't come forward now and own up to actually thinking Leonardo DiCaprio was "despicable" to withdraw from whatever commitment he made to play the role of Steve Jobs in another Steve Jobs biopic or that Angelina Jolie, who was bothering them somehow over another biopic of Cleopatra, is "a minimally talent spoiled brat." Pressuring/controlling/manipulating celebrities is what these executives need to do, and creating anxieties about whether they will get their projects funded or will get work in the future is part of how they play their game. Maybe the executives want Leo and Angie and the others to know that the executives expect better compliance.
I'm not saying I'm sure either or both of those things are true. I'm just playing with alternate scenarios and trying to open up the discussion.
Posts
46 comments:
There's the emails were scandalous narrative to deal with as well.
Perhaps they just thought Obama was stupid. That's not racism. I think it myself.
Richard Epstein hasn't gotten scandal from his podcasts saying that Obama can't reason his way out of anything that's not a talking point.
He knew the guy personally at U Chicago.
For the entire time I have been using the internet (nearly 25 years) I've used my real name in all e-mails, BBSs, list-serves, IRC, blogs, and so on. The only exception was when I got invited onto an IBM discussion group and was not an employee.
It all arises, I suspect, from my grandfather (1885-1977) having repeatedly advised me "Don't do or say anything you'd not be willing to see on the front page of the New York Times."
Phoebes always was the most sensible person on "Friends."
Most nearly sensible.
Having a hard time seeing how "more truth" is a bad thing.
The Sony executives were displaying an insider's "we rule everything" arrogance.
Control of Hollywood images is everything...or it was everything before the Apple's wifi internet tsunami started a war that Hollywood is losing.
The most recent Richard Epstein here on the New Republic, at 6:04, "..and the progressive stuff is now tied up with Barack Obama, who as a political leader I think will go down as a clear failure, and the reason is he has not been able to adjust any of his policies beyond the kinds of bromides that seemed to work in 1914."
Entertainers entertaining.
The networks have spent a lot of time on this, one reminding viewers that, "once you delete emails, they never really disappear."
The irony is lost on them because none of them spent precious airtime discussing Lerner-gate.
Some people think God is watching them all the time... even monitoring their thoughts.
Others need threats like leaking email to keep them half decent.
I vote for trad-guy's executive arrogance reason. Not because all executives are arrogant, but I have seen enough info on the Sony email matter to believe Amy Pascal fits that narrative.
I have to admit I read some of the emails, but felt unclean in doing so (as I "imagine" it would have felt to check out the celebrity nude photos leaked after iCloud was hacked). But after reading them, I found I kind of liked the executives. I agree with Ann. These are high-powered people none of whom have soft skin engaging in a weird form of hyperbolic conversation designed to cut through the BS. Its exactly the opposite email technique that 99% of corporate america follows and for that reason was kind of fun and refreshing.
A 'Kudrow' needs them more than the other way which is why they do what they did.
Kudrow is no dummy and she's been in the business a long time. My BS detector beeped at that wide-eyed "Gee, they really should know better! This e-mail thing can really get away from you!" Baloney; I suspect she was having a little fun with whoever asked her opinion on the matter.
As others have noted, and Kudrow knows very well, high-powered movie executives don't operate in a world where people hit the fainting couch over direct or harsh criticisms.
All fine and well, but what's next? Do you really want to live in a world in which private telephone conversations get leaked, meaning you can never say in a private call what you would never say in public?
Think of this as a car in the ditch.* It is a very expensive sports car with an agro driver hence assuming speed was the cause is somewhat heuristic-based yet nevertheless accurate.
"Why don't people know to drive the speed limit? I mean duh, I don't even drive anymore and I know that. Why did Tracy Morgan lose his career and maybe even life when his driver and the semi driver should have known to drive the speed limit and make safe lane changes?"
Some people know and respect that Johnny Law is there to keep them from speeding, but others need the threat of death in order to drive half-way decent.
*There is no reason to think differently about this except extensively esoteric/ephemeral learning potentials.
Ann Althouse said...
Some people think God is watching them all the time... even monitoring their thoughts.
Fantasy speculations are not necessary.
For social Man, how the tribe views you as far as honesty and trustworthiness is a basic survival skill. An instinct to always assume someone is watching, would be naturally selected for.
From the arguably related context of lawyers and our fiduciary duties to protect our clients' legal privileges and confidentiality: Here are the concluding lines of a continuing legal education presentation I made a few years ago to fellow lawyers, on the subject of confidentiality and attorney-client privilege:
"A final, utterly practical note — from me as a practitioner, not directly from In re Gainsco [a recent Texas case I'd just summarized] or any other appellate decision: From time to time as lawyers, our duties to exercise independent judgment and render candid advice to our clients under Disciplinary Rule 2.01 may oblige us to make very subjective evaluations of members of the judiciary — usually of a trial judge, but occasionally of appellate judges too. Just remember who reviews materials submitted in camera to confirm or reject privilege claims. There are things that sometimes have to be said, but that doesn’t mean that they also have to be written. Accordingly, when I have a harsh or even potentially unflattering appraisal of a judge to share with my client, even if I’m confident that my attorney-client privilege claim ought to be upheld and my client’s opponents ought never be able to compel production, my practice is to never put such views in writing of any sort (including hand-written notes or emails) — and to instruct my client to avoid putting what I’ve said on that subject in writing either."
I've had many occasions to give this same advice to other lawyers, many of whom, upon receiving and digesting it, show a sudden look of alarm — inevitably they're recalling something ugly they've written down about some judge.
Who would have thought it would take the Norks to show us what awful people our media elite really are.
Hoillywood execs fear the Damocles Sword of firing that continually hangs over their head. To make matters worse, that sword will typically fall based on a star's box office performance: woe be the exec who green-lights the Tom Cruise film that fails.
The execs control the actors' ability to be hired, but the stars retain the ability to get the execs fired, albeit through a poorly-performing film.
Tough talk hides the fear, and their dependence on these stars turning out their fans to the box office.
I am Laslo.
Leaked Movie pitch:
Prospective name: "Indecent Exposure"
Premise: three Hollywood actresses awake to find their world turned upside-down: nude photos of them have been leaked onto the internet. Note: meet with SCARLETT JOHANNSEN's agent.
Lots of shots in the film of the NUDE photos of course; flashbacks to the scenes in which the photographs were taken for emotional back-story for the women audience?
One of the three actresses is black. Or Latina. Asian could also work, but definitely a MINORITY.
The three actresses team with a geeky-yet-good-looking-if-he-cut-his-hair-and-shaved-his beard MALE computer hacker to track down the source of the leaks of the photos: they want REVENGE.
Male computer hacker becomes a LOVE INTEREST to one of the actresses (not the minority one).
The actresses and hacker go through a dark criminal UNDERWORLD in their pursuit of the leakers. In doing so, one of the (white) actresses poses as a STRIPPER at a STRIP CLUB to seek out information.
The actresses and hacker find out that the leakers belong to an ETHNIC CRIME CARTEL: Russians? Albanians? Note: Consult market research. No Arabs.
A seasoned male cop is introduced who is tracking the cartel. Role should probably go to an actor on the downhill slope of his career: KEVIN COSTNER? Cop becomes a LOVE INTEREST to one of the other actresses (not the minority one).
To give the minority actress an important part she will be the driver in a CAR CHASE scene: to start this scene she hot-wires a car to the surprise of the others -- minorities can do these kind of things.
Set-up before climatic CONFRONTATION scene with crime cartel. Geeky-yet-good-looking-if-he-cut-his-hair-and-shaved-his beard hacker cuts his hair and shaves his beard to set up SEX SCENE.
Slow-motion shots of the actresses handling GUNS. The minority actress also packs a KNIFE because she was from the streets (more emotional back-story for the women audience?)
Climatic CONFRONTATION scene: Hacker gets SHOT in front of love-interst Actress: shot not fatal.
After gunplay ACTION SCENES the Actresses corner head of cartel. Clever yet hard-boiled dialogue (Tarantino for script punch-up?)
The COP shows up, tells the actresses they cannot shoot him. Cartel Head sneakily pulls gun from back of pants, shoots the minority actress (not fatal).
Minority actress falls to ground, where she pulls out KNIFE and stabs Head of Cartel in leg.
Staggering, Head of Cartel aims to fire again: COP shoots him, says: "You can't shoot him, but I CAN."
Aerial shot of Hollywood sunrise, Hollywood sign. Big Song. U2, or are they over with now?
Note: all actresses must consent to nudity. Put in contracts.
I am Laslo.
--Some people think God is watching them all the time
He is. Merry Christmas.
Here's the thing. This is all inside baseball. Most people outside of Hollywood could really care what movies come from what studios and what those people think of one another.
The hype around this (which is overblown) is funny. As if people don't know these guys are all a-holes to one another. (I've seen it first hand.) However, I've also seen producers and other people in the business be remarkably nice and genuine, too.
If they've stopped shooting on the new Bond movie, it probably would have been a stinker anyway.
They make them for women now.
All psychodrama.
Good pitch, Laslo. I recently saw Expendables III. (I hate my life.). It was just as formulaic and paint by numbers as Laslo's pitch. The large explosions were professionally done, however, so it's worth checking out........I didn't think the emails were especially scandalous. Where were the emails setting up Dakota Fanning for an interview in Paris with Roman Planski for his new project? They use indiscreet language. Wow. My faith in humanity is shattered.
Skyfall is a holiday film at Kroger pic
Most of the Hollywood "talent" must have loved seeing that bit about Angelina being "a minimally talent spoiled brat."
Helpful or unhelpful for her planned political future?
Many Hollywood Execs may be assholes, but this is fairly reflective of all business, politics and academia. One thing that drives me nuts is how fanatical these types get about "civility" amongst their underlings.
If you think the execs are jerks, get acquainted with the directors and actors. Imagine running a company where almost all your mid-level employees think they are god's give to earth.
I do wonder if another Hollywood secret will come out: how many big name talents have no talent. In particular, there are many directors and producers who have a great name but who have the equivalent of ghost writers. (In film school several teachers said that there are several Cinematographers who are hired because they essentially direct the movie. Then there are all the bullshit stories about actors improvising.)
Both 1 and 2.
But I remember way back when years ago I consoled Althouse that (#2) explained her "Hollywood" treatment by Roger Simon and PJ Media, and that she should just let it roll of her back.
Here it is, from 2009 (seemd longer ago).
Take heart. Roger Simon came up in the movie business. From my experience, that kind of hegemonic treatment is routine in the agency world, and the way business is done in Hollywood. He probably doesn't even notice it after all these years, or he's projecting what he experienced on the other side of the negotiating table as a screen writer. In that mileau, power is exercised by convincing the other party that they are nothing, and that they will remain nothing unless they do what I want, on my budget, on my terms.
LOL. And here's Althouse getting her professorial Hollywood Diva "on" in her response.
Yeah, well, someone had to learn that you don't call up a tenured law professor in Madison, Wisconsin a pull some Hollywood-style attitude about signing a long-term contract.
I can almost see the star fall off the dressing room door as she slams it closed. Love it!
Some people think God is watching them all the time... even monitoring their thoughts.
The teaching at church today was about the sin of unforgiveness, even in one's thoughts.
"I've had many occasions to give this same advice to other lawyers, many of whom, upon receiving and digesting it, show a sudden look of alarm — inevitably they're recalling something ugly they've written down about some judge."
I hope welfare recipients taunt those lawyers.
Those idiots.
Actors are generally shockingly friendly over email. (Logical behavior considering that acting on film is probably the world's most competitive career field, and jobs are often dependent on networking.) I assume there are no articles about this because no one cares about people saying nice things.
Spin Spin Spin.
Spinner.
Nothing is real when all is paper-pushing.
We've known this, better than I can acknowledge.
"Actors are generally shockingly friendly" - F.H.
For those who don't understand 'White privilege" think "unreachable beautywise-smarter, more moral, more having more integrity than almost any other, more rational, more logical, more if-I-were-an-Atheist-I-would-thank-God-how-wrong-I_was....
Drudge says that the new Bond script has been stolen.
If they'd print it before you see the movie, it would help everybody out a lot in following the film, if it's like the other recent ones.
If they'd print it before you see the movie, it would help everybody out a lot in following the film, if it's like the other recent ones.
Heh.
(And to be clear, no actors are writing emails to me. I've only read the emails to someone else, shared with me, who does receive a small amount of such email.)
Ann, your No. 1 is far closer to the truth than No. 2.
If any studio executive really thought that their emails would be read by others, they most certainly would be far more careful.
In this case, Pascal was communicating with one of the most powerful and prolific producers in the business. Their relationship goes back decades. Neither of them expected to be reading anything they wrote in those emails in the papers. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by publicly trashing a big star.
For all the pressuring and maneuvering of big egos that studio executives and producers need to do, they have far more effective and private ways of doing so.
These kinds of revelations are relationship-rupturing events, and the business, like politics, is about adding...not subtracting.
These stars have powerful attorneys, managers and agents who will have to react. There will be hell to pay.
- Krumhorn
Anybody who believes any electronic communication is private is a naive fool. The government has been in bed with telecom since Bell asked if anyone could hear him.
And Lisa Kudrow may be our smartest celebrity. Always loved her Phoebe character. Most other celebrities are stupid people playing smart.
ps I haven't read nor intend to read any of these leaked e-mails. Why the hell would I waste my time.
MiterBuddwing, re "Do you really want to live in a world in which private telephone conversations get leaked," LOL, I remember party lines.
Ms (I think) Freeman, "Some people think God is watching them all the time... even monitoring their thoughts" line, Matthew 6:15 "But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses." If God does it (unforgiveness), how can it be a sin?
I've always thought the biggest sin is wrapped up in the attitude that one doesn't need to ask for forgiveness via some personal rationale, like it's water under the bridge or God already knows I did it. Confession and asking for forgiveness is acknowledging God's righteousness and authority. In this case, any response these guys make is acknowledging someone else's right to judge, while failure to publically confess contrition is essentially flouting conventional morays. Most of the time it would mean nada, but if your business depends on the public, there might be repercussions (if Sharpton is having a slow week).
mores
Never write anything in an email that you wouldn't want printed in the Press (in the event of a leak) or used as evidence in a trial. Corporations are required to maintain email histories for years and they can (and are) used as evidence.
Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) said...
For the entire time I have been using the internet (nearly 25 years) I've used my real name in all e-mails, BBSs, list-serves, IRC, blogs, and so on.
That's all well and good. I used my full name on one science-related blog. Not too long after I stated a controversial opinion, a uniformed police office appeared on my doorstep saying a 911 call reporting domestic violence came from my house. I was SWATTed. Never again.
Post a Comment