tv stands for flat screens with fireplace - Hallo friend furniture stands lover, At this time sharing furniture stands entitled tv stands for flat screens with fireplace, I have provided furniture stands ideas. hopefully content of posts that I wrote this home design, Furniture Decorating, interior, furniture stands can be useful. OK, following its coverage of furniture stands ideas..

About : tv stands for flat screens with fireplace
Title : tv stands for flat screens with fireplace

tv stands for flat screens with fireplace

michael: that makes me feel just great. ireally thank you very much. one of the reasons i volunteered to do this introduction is becauseof my admiration and my respect for the person i'm about to introduce. i'm not going to tellyou anything about leonard nimoy, the actor. i think you all know something about that.what i am going to tell you are some things that you may not know; that in addition tohis acting, mr. nimoy is an author and a poet. he's the author of 6 books, including 5 booksof poetry, books of his photograph. he's a professional photographer as well.you also may have missed his hit album which was entitled "leonard nimoy sings mr. spock'smusic from outer space" which sold over 130,000 copies, so he's also a musician. he's also,aside from star trek which everybody knows

about, a very distinguished stage actor who'sdone very well as sherlock holmes. he had a 1-man show that was very widely respected,a show on vincent, a show about a different type of hero. leonard nimoy is also, and thiswas most surprising to me at all, a grandfather. he has a 3 and 1/2-year-old grandchild.he has 2 children in their 30s. i should tell you that the buzz in hollywood is and hasbeen on leonard nimoy for some years, that when it comes to someone who gives his timeto a variety of charities, goes out of his way to help people, is a gentleman in hiswork, mr. nimoy is exemplar. he has the kind of reputation that every actor or actressor every director would like to have but very few of them do. most importantly of all, andi think the main reason that mr. nimoy is

with us tonight, is because he is, aside fromhis acting background, an outstanding filmmaker. just look at his last 3 films and his rangeas a director. star trek 4: the voyage home for which we just saw the trailer is, in myhumble opinion … and look, i'm a movie critic. i have to have opinions. i have to give themto you, right? star trek 4: the voyage home is by far the best star trek of the seriesand one of the best science fiction adventure movies, i think, that has come out in thisdecade. then he made three men and a baby, which isone of the most commercially successful films and a completely different type of film, veryfew special effects … unless you include the baby urinating as a special effect…very few special effects and yet a charming

comedy, a delightful comedy, that was a hugesmash hit, the most successful movie of 1987. then his most recent film which is a filmfor which i feel a particular passion, is a film called the good mother.i will tell you that long before i knew that i was going to have the privilege of sharingthis podium with mr. nimoy here at hillsdale, i was very proud to list the good mother onmy best of year list for 1988. it's a film that deserved a much larger audience thanit received, a film that is as different from star trek 4: the voyage home as that filmis from three men as a baby. here's a man as a director who has shown thathe can direct science fiction adventure, an action, who has shown that he can direct lightcomedy and has shown a tremendous facility

for directing a drama that raises some ofthe most important issues of love and parenting and some of the difficulties of a single motherin dealing with sexuality, and with that sexuality potentially interfering with her role as amother. i was very proud of the fact that … onceagain, long before i knew that i was going to be appearing with mr. nimoy here at hillsdale,i said on the air that i thought that diane keaton's performance under leonard nimoy'sdirection in the good mother was the best performance that any actress gave in 1988.i still believe that. i think it's a shame she was not nominated for an academy awardand, frankly, it's a shame that mr. nimoy wasn't nominated for the academy award hedeserved as one of the best directors of the

year.having said that, we have lots to talk about concerning his films, the issues that theyraised, and the entire question of hollywood and its role within the popular culture. toproceed to those questions, it is a very great honor to introduce a multitalented and verygracious gentleman, mr. leonard nimoy. michael: you're supposed to take this chairright here. leonard: thank you. thank you.michael: i think this counts as a friendly crowd.leonard: i would say so. yeah. michael: let me begin, if i may, at a difficultpoint, which is i know that the good mother is just out on video now and is doing verywell on video and you … it's number 10 apparently

on the los angeles times video chart. whenit opened in theaters, it was not a commercial success.leonard: no. true. michael: one of the things that i think somecritics, not this critic, complained about in the film was the fact that despite thattrailer which is somewhat misleading, you didn't seem to really take a side on behalfof the diane keaton character who was fighting for the custody of her child that you seemto leave some of the questions open. the question that i would have is would you say that thatwas an accurate description of what you were doing in the film? having said that, wouldyou do anything differently if you have the film to direct again?leonard: let me say that the audience response

or the lack of audience for the film was amajor disappointment, a surprise to many of us including the marketing people at disney.when we were making the film, it was understood that it would be a film that had to be nurturedin the marketplace, that we … you couldn't just toss it out there in several hundredtheaters and expect people to flock to see it because it's somewhat an unusual film.we were hoping for critical and audience reaction to build gradually to an awareness of thepicture and that would hopefully draw in audience. by the time the picture was ready for release,the disney marketing people were convinced that this procedure was not necessary, thatthere was enough anticipation for the film, enough of a “want to see” quotient, forthe picture, that they could as they say broad

and open into something like 800 or 900 theaters,and we're … we hit a disaster. we hit a brick wall when we opened it. i think thefirst weekend we did maybe a third, 25% of the business they had hoped to do. by theend of the first 10 days, it was obvious the film was finished and was coming out of thetheater. i am still today reviewing some of the decisionswe made including content, the way the film was made, including what's in the movie. itwould probably be easy and comfortable in the hindsight to say now that i might wantto change some things for the sake of satisfying audience, but i know … i really don't thinki would. i don't think i would. i set out to make the picture in a way which would givean audience an opportunity to respond to it

based on their own prejudices, if you will,and i think that that is still operative. i think the picture does that.the picture is kind of a rorschach test, in a way, and it has to do with each individualmember of the audience's feelings about what is proper, what is correct, what is morallyright, what is morally wrong, ethically right, ethically wrong in raising children and inmaking decisions about parenting and family. these are very, very sensitive issues andi … what i'm surprised to find, what surprised me, is that there is that do people come outin discuss from their own points of view what happened in the film and what … how theyfeel about that and on both sides of the issue, that feeling that either that justice wasdone or justice was not done.

that we expected. what happens is that ifthey … i find that if the film doesn't satisfy individual needs in terms of the way theyfelt the story should go, they're not angry with the society that creates that condition,they're not angry with the judicial system which creates that condition, they're angryat the film. you see? michael: it’s easier to be angry at thefilm? leonard: yes. that i find very, very interestingand that surprised me. that really caught me by surprise. i thought we are doing a storyabout a particular lady. we are doing a story about a particular situation and we have establishedher character and we understand the dilemma in which she finds herself and we understandthe reasons for it. they're all very clear.

now, when things go wrong, the audience wouldbe much happier if diane keaton's character could function differently than she does butshe can't because that is her character. that is her nature. the audience would liketo see her … in this case, she loses custody of her child. the audience would like to seeher do or try to do something about it even though it's futile to rise to the occasionas a heroine. this is not a heroic person. this is a lady who doesn't come visually anda particular lady with a particular background from a particular family.the message that i'm getting is that the audience is saying, "don't put us in that position.don’t put us in a position where we must experience with this lady this problem andnot be able to do anything about it, even

try even though futile to do something aboutit." that surprises me and if one were to go back and remake this movie in order tomake it commercially acceptable and successful, i think you'd have to do that.michael: what you're talking about is people used to talk years ago about the hollywoodending that you would turn everything around even tragic material, and i should say thisis a heartbreaking movie to watch. it is … for those who haven't seen it and everybody whohasn't seen it, go rent it on videocassette. it really is worth renting. it's a terrificfilm. one of the things about it is it takes you from absolute luminous romantic high.there's a snap in the middle of the movie where it's almost nightmarish, and yet yourealize that it's mistakes that the heroine

has made, some carelessness that she's done.it's not something that comes out of left field that is based on character which isthe best kind of drama, of course. with all that, do you suspect that if you would changethe novel, and it was based on a bestselling novel, and you would give in the film "thehappy ending" that everybody wanted where diane keaton is reunited with her little girlthat the film would have had the commercial success?leonard: i had no question about it. no question about it.michael: yet you're saying that if you had it to do over, you wouldn't make that change?leonard: no. that film wouldn't interest me. at this particular point in time, that filmwas not interest me. i did it because i felt

the film was complex. i thought it was challengingand unusual and those are the reasons that i chose to do the picture. there were actresseswho refused to play the role for the very reason we're talking about, because they didnot have the opportunity to rise to the heroic occasion at the end and win out.i give diane keaton a lot of credit. she's … if you look back at the body of her work,it is filled with complex characters, characters of humanity and ambiguity and frailties and… diane is not an actress who goes into a film worrying about what the audience aregoing to think of her. she's only concerned about what is necessary to serve the characterin the film. if you think less of her at the end of the movie because she's … becauseyou associated her with this character, so

be it but that to me is artistry.michael: what a great performance. the question … and this raises a larger question andyou'll pardon me for getting into this right away … which is who … to whom is yourhighest obligation as a filmmaker? do you visualize it … is it to your collaborators,is it to the novelist whose work you're adapting or is it to the audience that you're attemptingto reach? leonard: i don't think … i think you'veleft out a key ingredient and that is the studio that pays for it.michael: that's what's a few million dollars between friends, right?leonard: it is. it is actually their movie. it's their film. they own it and they commissionedyou to make it. before you set out to make

it, you're going to have some pretty intenseconversation with them about what this film is going to be about, how you see the film,how … what is your perception of this movie? in this particular case as you can imagine,it being a touchstone movie and i think their first that was not of the three men and ababy commercial type, they were particularly interested and concerned in what i had tosay about how … what … how i saw the film. it is to their credit that they never oncesaid, "let's soften this ending. let's not go out on this painful note. we're essentiallydoing a tragic story here." they never once asked me to avoid that or change that or mitigatingthat in any way. in that sense, at least in the sense that you have a conversation withthem before you start to make the picture,

then you owe it to them to try to hue to thatconcept. then after that, the process takes over.you're in the process now and your responsibility is to your actors, the script, the writers,and particularly to yourself to try to see through the … you … for me, to give thefilm something personal so that it is not simply a film that anyone else could havedone. it … i'm trying to read through some kind of personal touch into these films, toremake some kind of a personal investment, and the audience is always in mind. if i'mdoing a comedy, i want to hear laughter. i want that audience laughing at it. if they'renot laughing, then i failed myself, i failed the audience, i failed the whole project.in the three … in the good mother, if they're

not touched, i have failed. now it's interestingthat you asked about the novelist. i had lengthy conversations with her, sue miller, who wrotethe novels, who's a bestselling novel, and essentially the film follows the path of thenovel. the novel was much more dense and detailed which we … you don’t have time to servein the film. i think essentially the film is truly not what … i don't think she'sseen the film yet and i can understand why. i had lengthy conversations with her duringthe preparation and one final conversation the day we started filming in cambridge, massachusettswhere she lives and she came on the set to visit, and on that day, i said to her, "thismust be a strange experience to you. novelist, successful first time, first novel, now beingmade into a film and you really have nothing

to do with it in a way." she didn’t writethe script and she's not participating into making the film, "it must seem that it issailing away from you." she said that she had come to terms with it and she told mean interesting story. she said that a good friend of hers had writtenironweed and a screenplay and she said he invited her and her husband to see the filmat a previous screening and they were very disappointed in the film. the novelist-screenwriterthought the film was wonderful. of course, he was a novelist and a screenwriter and hewas very subjectively involved. she said what she discovered was that he doesn't know anythingabout making a movie. he knew how to write the novel but he's not a filmmaker and thefilm had no tension, no design, no form, no

shape. it was formless.it was … anyway, she said, "you people know how to make movies. i don't know anythingabout it. you go and make the movie," and when the movie was finished and i invitedher to come to see it, she said, "i won't be able to see it for a long time to come."she said, "i certainly won't be able to able to see it with you in the room," because shesaid, "the last thing in the world i want to do is when the lights come up, have toface you and tell you what i thought of it." she separated herself which was very comfortablefor me but, yes, she would just … finally to answer your question, yes, i was tryingto satisfy her as well. michael: speaking of you being in the roomwhen she saw the film, that's one thing you

always wondered about. you've had the experienceof this phenomenally successful film, "three men and a baby" which i think is your firstfilm directed in which you didn't appear as an actor, first feature film as what …leonard: that's right. michael: with that film, was there one momentor one screening when you saw it for the first time with an audience and you realized, "waita minute, this is going to hit," what was that like? what was …leonard: yes. i have a house in lake tahoe in nevada and the picture had shot well. wehad finished a little bit ahead of schedule and we had saved some money and i asked thestudio … normally, you would negotiate for this in advance but i said, "i would likevery much to take the editors with me and

go to incline village, nevada for a monthand edit there. we'll rent some space and create some editing facilities and if youwould truck some stuff. i have a house up there. i think it would be helpful to allof us." it costs them some money and you would saythey didn't need … they didn't owe me, but they said, "yes, go and do that." we spenta month at the end of which time we had a cut and we put together some temporary musictracks and so forth and we brought in a projector, a projection system. for the dual system,it's complicated. you have … at that point, you don't have the film composited with thesoundtracks so you can't just put at your local movie houses, take around the machine.we brought in the necessary equipment.

we announced too in the village, the inclinevillage, there would be a sneak preview of a film this coming friday night or whatever,and the place was full, 400 or 500 people. there were lengthy periods of time where youcould not hear the dialogue because there was so much laughter and people recognizedme afterward and were saying things like, "thanks … this was key. thanks for makingme feel so good." i knew that we had a potential monster on our hands. people would want tocome out of a movie feeling good. michael: yes, they do.leonard: that's part of the process. michael: speaking about that, this afternoon,one of the things we're talking about, we're talking about three men and a baby in thecontext of a series of movies that seemed

to come out in 1987 that sort of returnedamerica to its fascination and love affair with children which hadn't been seen in moviesfor a long time. were you conscious when you were making a film of being part of that?was that on your mind? leonard: yes or no. i was … the irony ofit is that i was most concerned and conscious of one other film which was starring dianekeaton. michael: baby boom?leonard: yes. when i saw it, i was very nervous for the first 10 to 15 minutes. i thoughtthey're doing the same jokes. she's having troubles diapering this baby and so are herguys. michael: it's funnier when guys do it.leonard: yes. that's true. essentially, except

for that very, very important difference,here was a lady who was unprepared … a person who was unprepared for in having to deal withan infant and so were our guys. i worried for the first 10 to 15 minutes. after that,baby boom really went off in a whole other direction and i realized that we had two uncannydifferent films and they were both successful. baby boom was successful.michael: yes, it was. leonard: in fact, it was the success of babyboom for diane that was very helpful in getting me to … helping me to convince disney thati should use her in the good mother. michael: were you … i guess going back tothis question, we've been talking a lot in the last 2 days when i'm in touch being withpeople here …

leonard: about the baby?michael: … no, about values, about films and values.leonard: yes. michael: there's no question that comparedto a lot of the comedies that you've had earlier in the 80s and a lot of the films in general,that the values that one can take away from three men and a baby were wholesome, reassuring,more traditional in terms of … was that a conscious aspect of your filmmaking at all?leonard: yes. it's interesting that you say more traditional because at the end of thefilm, you have a very non-traditional family structure.michael: yes, indeed. leonard: you have three fathers and a motherand there's no marriage involved.

michael: right, the mother is not involvedwith any of them apparently. leonard: that's right. you have an entirelynew kind of family unit. she says … when she says at the end they've invited her tomove in, she says, "do you have room?" and selleck says, "i'll build you a room." itgets a big laugh. everybody loves that. very fresh, i thought, the ending in that sense.on the other hand, what i was shooting for, what i was trying for in the development ofthe script and the development of the characters was to deal with a peter pan syndrome withthese three guys who just didn't want to grow up and that's not particularly new.michael: no. leonard: i think they did it very well. thevery concept … the concept of … the decisions

of what they did, the choice of their careers,for example, selleck was an architect who had always been building things as a kid andwas building bigger things as an adult; guttenberg was in cartoon line, literally playing withchildish figures and childish ideas; and ted danson was functioning in a profession whichwe literally call playing. he was playing roles. they were all children in that respectand the structure was to put them in a position where they had to begin to feel some senseof responsibility to something other … someone other than themselves. i think we did well.michael: yes. okay, baby. it's time to grow up.leonard: yes, exactly. michael: actually, we were talking about thisalso before. i know that you inherited this

project, you had mentioned before. to whatextent did you change, alter, revise the script? leonard: a lot, a lot. the script was veryfrench when i came on the job. the script had been developed under a french director.the lady, coline serreau, who had written and directed the french version was on thejob for disney to … not to write but to direct the american version. she had writerswho were writing under her supervision who were doing as what essentially was a translationof the french film. it was very far in nature. the tone of it was foreign. the nature ofthe characters, i felt, was inaccessible. it might have been an enormous success butshe left the project, i came on and i had to do something that i could get in touchwith, so we changed very word of the script,

just reconstructed the whole thing in a 5-weekperiod. michael: in 5 weeks?leonard: yeah. michael: good luck.leonard: yeah. michael: it worked out. the … two more questionsabout three men and a baby. you'll pardon me, the one question that i had about … theone thing about the film that troubled me a little bit and it's something else thati spoke about earlier here, so i think in order to be honest, i should bring it up withyou was the subplot about the drug deal. leonard: it would never go away. i just couldn'tget it to go away. michael: you wanted it to go away?leonard: we tried desperately to find any

other scheme. one of the most agonizing problemsthat i had to deal with was to find a way to play a scene when 2 supposedly intelligentguys like tom selleck and steve guttenberg hand over a baby, an infant, to 2 characterswho are drug dealers, who come and say, "where's the package? give us the package. we're herefor the package." yes. very difficult to pull off, i thought.there was no complaint about it. i wouldn't have believed if i said … i'd say, "oh,no. we're not going to give the baby with these 2 obviously hoodlums." we got away withit. the audience's suspense of disbelief was enormous, enormous. then we re-wrote for weeksduring the shooting the picture, the whole exchange where they go finally to get ridof these guys who get them caught by the police.

we had written in … under all kinds of circumstancesincluding a basketball game with the 5 of them played and the drugs are in the basketball.it was … you wouldn't believe the permutations that this went through. it was … i just… i wanted to do it as quickly and as offhandedly as possible and be done with it.michael: he … i guess the question and i don't want to beat this to death, but hereis a … as close as hollywood comes ever to a real … to a wholesome family comedy.it's really something you can take your aunt tilly to see and your grandmother and littlekids and everybody. here all of a sudden in the midst of this film is this subplot aboutcriminals and drug dealing and it gets pretty tense at certain moments. did it ever occurto you or other people involved in the picture,

"wait a minute. we don't need that. why arewe throwing …?" leonard: it's not that we didn't need … weneeded some kind of device. we needed a device where they mistakenly give the baby away andthat's what we represented with it. under the circumstances with all of the other facetsof the film having to be changed, we just … we ended up having to live with it. itwas the best we could do. we should have done better. we simply couldn't.michael: it worked out okay? (laughs) leonard: yeah.michael: the one last question about it, the famous scene …leonard: it's interesting that you say that this is a wholesome film for which you canbring your aunt tilly. stop and think about

what that says about what's acceptable todayin a movie. here is a child born out of wedlock, and the father doesn't even know the childexists. the father comes home and says, "that's not my baby."here comes the mother … and the mother has dropped the baby off on the doorstep withouta face-to-face confrontation, you see, just drop that baby off and walk away. all thingsare kind of shocking if you look at them in terms of what's acceptable behavior.michael: that's today. do you know that today statistically 20% of all american babies … allamerican babies are born out of wedlock? leonard: i'm not surprised with that statisticbecause during my research for the good mother, i discovered that something like 50% of thechildren in the united states today are in

single-parent homes and growing.michael: last question about three men and a baby to get us on a happier note, the famousscene where the three guys are singing "goodnight sweetheart," was that scripted? was that youridea? leonard: yes. no, it was script- yes. no,it wasn't my idea. no, it was … i've forgotten whether it was in the original version ornot but it was in the script that i inherited. yes. i thought, "how corny."leonard: we did it. no shame. michael: listen, we're talking about movies.it's not … speaking of no shame, so just to cover so that we are doing justice to everything,to cover star trek for a moment. a vastly entertaining film, another very successfulfilm with a message and the message being,

to simplify it, "save the whales."leonard: save the world. michael: true. true. to what extent was thatmessage important to you as a filmmaker while you were doing the picture?leonard: that was very important. it was very important, but i wanted to … i wanted itto be a fun adventure. i didn't want to be hammering people over the head with a problem.we had done 2 pictures, star trek's 1 and 2 … or 3 pictures, star trek's 1, 2, and3, all of which were pretty intense. there was a lot of dying. there was death and resurrection,if you will. michael: they didn't get rid of mr. spock?leonard: no. it was intense stuff and i thought it was really time to recapture some of thefun that we'd had making the series, which

we'd had brought a little of in the 3 movies.i also wanted very much to do a film in which there was no particular nasty villain that… again, circumstances, lack of awareness, unconsciousness, whatever would create theproblem. given that we were going to do a time travelstory and given also that we're coming back to earth now to find a solution to a problemthat's taking place in the 21st century, the question was what to come back for, what isit that's missing in the 21st century that we need. i'd read a book called biophiliawritten by a harvard biologist in which he talked about the fact that by 1990, we willbe losing something like 10,000 species per year off this planet, many of them never havingeven been recorded, discovered or recorded.

then when you start to lose species in thatlarge a number, you have to be consumed with what they call the "keystone species theory"which is that … it's like a house of cards. you can take a card away here, you can takea card away there and the house stands but eventually if you continue to take cards away,you will finally get to a card that was a keystone card and that card will cause … theloss of that card will cause others to collapse and others to collapse and so forth down thechain. the idea was that we would … we have hita keystone and we now have … and the problem is developing in the 21st century, we haveto come back to the 20th century to find that thing and solve the problem. you're goingto come back for a mosquito. you're going

to come back for a plant. none of those seemedparticularly interesting visually cinematically. when i struck on the idea of the whales, notonly the size and the grandeur of them, but also the mysterious song that they sing thathas never really been quite explained. we don't know exactly why they do it. that ledme to another interesting subject which always intrigues which is communication or failurein communication. i was just taken with the whole thing. i started doing a lot of research.i'd looked at a lot of films with whales and i'd contacted all the whale institution … butyou see, my consciousness had already been raised by the greenpeace people and i givethem the credit. they're the ones who first put me in suchthe idea that people must do something about

this. i was … i thought that it was greatdrama years ago when they got up in their rubber boats and planted themselves out inthe ocean between the whales and the wedding ships and were in danger being harpooned.boy, that's dramatic stuff. they made me conscious of this concern.michael: have you had any indication from either the greenpeace people or anyone elseabout the film's impact and … leonard: yeah. boy, i hear from them all thetime, all the time. michael: what do they tell you?leonard: that there's a big awareness that i have … auditioning to raise consciousness.i was invited to russia when the film was finished, let's see, about a year and a halfago. no, after the film was released ago,

about a year and a half ago, i was invitedto go to russia to show the film in moscow to help celebrate the event when the russiangovernment declared a ban on all commercial whaling. there was an awareness even there.michael: the soviets were quite late in declaring that ban too, i think, yes.leonard: yes. that's right. michael: you haven't been invited to japanwhich is still doing commercial whaling, right? leonard: yes. no, that's right.michael: that's the next step. in terms of your work as a filmmaker and as an actor,are there certain kinds of issues, certain kinds of aspects of human life that you thinkmovies, hollywood does not handle well that simply don't lend themselves to effectivetreatment on screen?

leonard: i don’t know if i can answer yourquestion directly. it does seem to me that because of the nature of what the film isand what the concerns are in making the film, particularly those concerns that i talkedabout with the good mother and the audience, that we too often find it useful to distortsubject matter. i think mississippi burning is a big distortion. the picture was offeredto me and i couldn’t do it. michael: the picture with the chris gerolmo's… with the script, the drama script? leonard: the job was offered. the chris gerolmo'sscript. yeah. michael: wow. i didn't know.leonard: the job was offered to me and i couldn't do it.michael: why couldn't you do it?

leonard: i really didn't think that my presentationof the film, my vision of the film was what the company and what the audience want.michael: how would it have been different? leonard: i just couldn’t do it. it wouldhave been an entirely different movie, entirely different movie. alan parker who made thefilm has said that the only way the film could be made is the way he did it which is to makethe film about white people doing the job and that admission in itself tells me there'sa major distortion because that's not what the civil rights movement was about.now, given that statement, there is this ongoing discussion about should one make the moviethen and, of course, a lot of people say yes because the film finally does say that repressionis wrong, and that's a good thing. that's

a good statement to make. i take issue witha television miniseries that was done called "holocaust" a few years ago. i did not likeit at all. i thought it trivialized. i thought it reduced to a pathetic level this giganticevent. there are others who said and i'm sure thatthere's a truth in it, that getting it on the air was important because there were millionsand millions of people who would not even have been conscious of what the event … thatthe event took place or what it was all about or what was involved if they hadn't seen thatminiseries and i'm sure that's true. you have to finally do these things on the most personallevel. the question is how … will i feel comfortablespending the next 7 or 8 months of my life

making that film and the answer was no, idon't think so because i would be unhappy about some of things that i would have todo to make the film work. michael: would i be … would it be accurateto describe your position or your decision to turn down that film which i had no ideaabout? was that a political decision? leonard: i would say it was of social decision.i suppose political but more social. i'm more concerned about doing justice to what theevent … what eventually took place. i think we all know that the fbi was not that literallyinvolved, that diego hugo was not that happy about having fbi and men go down there all,that his hand had to be forced to send the first fbi man down, and now the picture, theymake it seem so simple.

when they run through a problem, they go witha phone booth, they need 100 more men and the next day there are 100 more fbi men down.that simply was not the case. there were no blacks in the fbi as we know except for hugo's… michael: driver?leonard: … driver, his chauffeur. when they do bring down a black agent, he's a terrorist.he comes out with a razorblade and he's going to do terrible things to the mayor of thetown if the mayor doesn't give him the information he needs. he becomes a vigilante. i just thinkit's a distortion of what's right. michael: just a couple more questions andthen we'll turn it over with… leonard: the picture was well done, and imean that. it's very slick, good filmmaking

and it pleases audiences because right winsout at the end of this. michael: we have just a couple more questionsand we'll turn this over to the panel. is there a dream project that leonard nimoy asa filmmaker would like to do and has dreamed of doing but hasn't gotten together yet?leonard: i wish there was because i'm in a position today and i don't know how much longeri'd be in that position to probably get it done.michael: you could do whatever you want, sure. leonard: probably, probably. i really wishthere was some very specific and wonderful dream project that i've had in many, manyyears and now finally i have the cache to get it made. the answer is no. i'm readinga lot of scripts. we read several scripts

a week in the next … so they could be madeinto movies in the next 4, 6, 8, 10 months. i haven't made a choice yet. i have severalprojects as we say in development, 3 or 4 ideas of mine that are in development in variousplaces and in various stages, any one of which could become a movie or any 2 or 3 of whichcould be made into movies in the next 2 or 3 years, but i don't have 1 dream all-timeproject. no. michael: let me ask a more general questionthen. is there some overwhelming statement, some kind of social cause …leonard: not any one. no. not any one. i'm at the mercy of what happens to me on a week-to-weekbasis, what i read on a week-to-week basis, what i'm exposed to, and for that reason,the development process, i find very painful

and very difficult because on a given day,i may read about an idea or see or be told about an idea or experience something whichi decide would i really want to make into a movie that's a terrific subject and importantand worthwhile, worth making the investment and expending the energy, let's do it.you go to the studio and say, "here it is and this," "oh, yeah," and they see your passionand they see what you're after, they'll say, "okay. we will put up the money and we'llget a script written on this subject." now from that point on, it can take several monthstill the time you get the story laid out, you get the writer you want and he gets startedon or she gets starting on the script, and in the meantime, you might go up and do anothermovie.

while you're doing another movie, your lifeis changing drastically. you are … i am deeply affected by each movie i make. i haveliterally waken … awaken and find myself in tears as a result of a scene i'm shootingthis week in a movie. i'm deeply affected by it. by the time that picture is finished,i'm a different person. i may be so different that i'm no longer at all interested in thesubject that i just put into development 4 or 5 months ago.i may look at it and say, "why didn't i want to do that? it's … that's over. that's done.i've touched on enough about in this film or whatever." it's a tricky process and i'mnew to it. it's only been in the last 3 or 4 years that i've been involved with thisparticular kind of process and i'm learning

as i go.michael: do you feel that on balance if you look at the body of work that's coming outof hollywood that that work is having an elevating effect on american society, a negative effector basically is just a relevant entertainment? i'm not trying to say choose one of the above,but how would you describe the impact? leonard: i don't … i can't … look, i tryto be loyal to my industry and my friends in it. i cannot honestly say here tonightand say to you, "we are helping the world with our movies. we are bettering mankindwith our movies. we are in touch with all the things that we should be giving with themand they will … that they're being dealt with." i can't say that. it's … on the otherhand, it's too easy to hollywood-bash. it's

always been easy to hollywood-bash and toblame hollywood for our ills. i think there's a mutual problem here andi don't know how well i can express this tonight but let's see. i do believe that there's amutuality of failure, that the audience is not demanding enough and … nor are the studiosreaching high enough in terms of the products they want to deliver. i do believe that audiencesdo want to … not to be challenged but to be told what the problem is and to be showna hero or heroine fixing it, dealing with it, so that in a sense they have a … theyempathize. they have a catharsis. they go through the problem without havingdealt with it themselves and come away feeling, "wow, that's … i'm glad that problem issolved. i'm glad … "

michael: yes, spock and kirk have.leonard: yeah. i'm glad they did that. boy, i feel a lot better about that and it wasfun and that kind of thing. i don't think any of us will rise to the occasion frankly.michael: do you … of course and you're right about the audience. do you feel that the valueswithin our community, if i may say that, within the filmmaking community, within the creativecommunity in the film industry, that those values accurately reflect or reflect in anyway the values of society at large or they had variance somehow?leonard: i think you have an extraordinary range. i think that there are some peoplein our industry who are simply want to hit the homerun ball every time up if possibleand that means cookie-cutter kind of movies,

formula movies, movies that do exactly whatthe audience wants them to do, and they will be repetitions of previous films.for example, after 48 hrs. was success … i'll go back to beverly hills cop, a more obviouschoice. after beverly hills cop was so successful, a black gritty detroit cop comes to clean,sanitize beverly hills who worked with the police department there. fish out of waterstory is what we call it in our business. i must have read a half dozen scripts of copswho are in the wrong city (laughs) including what's on my desk right now of a … 3 copswho are sheriffs and brothers in texas who go to monte carlo.i could go on with variations on the scenes that are being made. these movies will bemade. they've already been … they're being

made all the time. then you got the odd couplebuddy cops like 48 hrs. which was nick nolte and eddie murphy, people who really don'tlike each other but are forced to work with each other. then a couple …michael: like mississippi burning? leonard: that's right.michael: same movie? leonard: exactly, exactly. at the end comesa kind of a mutual respect, you see. they discover the values in each other. there'sjust a lot of that stuff going on and there are people who are going to make that stuffbecause it's … it can … it will be programmed that way. you will get out there and there'llbe an audience who'll come to see those. there's very little risk in that kind of stuff.michael: we were talking earlier today about

the most frequently used machine in hollywoodobviously is a xerox machine. that's it. two final questions here. what do you …leonard: to be fair, i didn't say that on the other end of the spectrum, there are peoplewho are doing unique material and dangerous financially. sometimes it works, sometimesit doesn't, but there are people who are committed to that kind of work.michael: if i may say so, i think the good mother is a very good example. it was nota film that was a safe commercial bet, by any means.leonard: yes, it was dangerous. michael: two last questions. number 1, whatdo you think it is … you're doing what almost every actor or actress that i know wants todo, what you're doing right now. they would

rather be directing, making movies, shapingmovies. what do you think it is that it takes for an actor to make this transition as wonderfullysuccessfully as you have done from acting in front of the camera to serving behind thecamera? leonard: in my case, i was a lot better preparedfor the job than most people were aware. i had already made a sizeable investments inenergy, time, study. i had done a lot of theatrical directing. i have been on sound stages foralmost 40 years in one capacity or another, mostly acting, but i had been doing it. ihad spent a lot of time in editing rooms on various projects, watching of film go togetherpiece by piece from a footage that's been shot.i had thought acting classes for 5 years so

i really was in touch with how to help anactor or an actress in a scene. i had a lot camera work. i had done a lot of my own camerawork so i was very much in touch with lenses and composition and so forth. i was very wellprepared. it takes a sense of theatricality. it takes a sense of the dynamic of how 1 sceneforms another in film. it takes a sense of what to do when a scene is flat on a soundstage and nothing's happening. the actors are doing it but there's fun in, there's nodrama, there's no tension in it. they've missed the point perhaps or perhapsthe scene is badly written and needs to be rewritten. some sense of the drama. for mehistory of drama helps because the roots are there whether it's in beverly hills cop orwhether it's an oedipus rex, the roots are

there. directing is a … for me, a greatchallenge because it draws on every skill, every sensibility, every bit of educationyou ever had in your life, drawing all of it.michael: final question and we turn it over to the panel group, give you a rough timei know. is there one movie that you've seen recently that you looked at it and you said,"gee, i wish i had taken that script. i wish that was a … that was a movie i wish i wo-had done or could have done." anything that sticks in your mind?leonard: you tend to go to the big hits. i'm jealous of barry levinson's work. i thinkhe's a good filmmaker. michael: he is.leonard: i don’t know if rain man is his

best but he certainly … successful in handlingthat material in terms of what the audience can take with that material. i think one canfind flaws, one can find fault with the way that dustin hoffman character is use almostto the edge of exploitation, almost. his problem is almost exploited but the film is successful.it's good filmmaking. on the other hand i'm frankly disappointedon mike nichols. i think working girl is a good film. it's solid all the values there,but i think that mike nichols should do better somehow. i don’t think i'm as good a filmmakerever will be in terms of social vision as a mike nichols because has been at it forso long and he has his own perception and somehow i don’t think there's anything uniquewith mike nichols about that movie. it's a

successfully made put together film, goodcarpentry. i don’t know. i'd have to do some more thinkingabout the films that are out. i have not seen, i haven’t seen it so i don’t know. i have… i'm looking forward to that. people whose taste i respect tell me that is a very goodpicture. i don’t have a really good answer to your question. that's the best i can doat the moment. michael: let me conclude my section of thisby saying that i know that you're always looking for material. i know that a very inspiringstory that you may want to consider is the hillsdale college story which is full of … it's full of drama, it's full of controversyand full of heroes who win. leonard: that's right.michael: with that, having said that, let's

turn it over to mark and to the panel for… mark: good evening ladies and gentlemen. myname is mark evans. i'm moderating the panel this evening. i'm a composer and writer andi have a newspaper column in the new york city tribune called mark my words. my colleagueson the panel this evening will include to my left, chuck moss, of the detroit news.next to him, steve advokat, staff writer for the detroit free press, and finally, jim lyonsof the hillsdale daily news. michael, before going over to mr. nimoy, imight add that apropos your remark about the xerox machine being the most used one in hollywood,this has been going on for times even before this invention of xerox. dorothy parker wayback when said the only ism in hollywood anyone

cares about is plagiarism and some of thatstill true today. mr. nimoy, the name of this event, this conferenceis popular entertainment and its impact on society and one of the subjects that we'vebeen pursuing is an interesting one the extent to which the values that appear in popularentertainment represents an influence on our society or a reflection of that society. therehave been certainly cases, a study recently by the national institute of health thy suggestedthat television provides role models for both parents and children who acknowledge derivingmuch of their sense of values from the entertainment industry.we know that people are interested in what actors wear, how they behave in their personallives and also the sense of right and wrong,

the sense of meaning, the sense of moral worththat appear in films or lack of moral worth on occasion and there is a running debategoing on. you mentioned those people who are cultural critics. who place a lot of blameon hollywood and on the entertainment industry, there are defenders of course of the industrywho would say that the industry is merely reflecting that which already exist in society.others would say that the industry is not just a mirror but it is in fact the primarystimulus and a prime mover. i've suggested on occasion i'd like to ask you to commenton this. that in fact both realities are in to a certain extent true. that the industrycertainly is a tremendous influence on society but also given a period when family has declinedand there is something of a vacuum in our

society for other reasons people within inthe industry are also a part of our society and reflect the values that are evolving withinit. i'd like to ask you how you see a questionof hollywood and the entertainment industry has either a stimulus or as a reflector andwhether you feel that your view, i'll ask this in 2 parts, your view and whether youfeel that your view is shared by the money people, the executives, the governing boardif you, decide what pictures are made, which networks are going to produce which products.that's essentially the essence of the conference in which we've been engaged and we would appreciatevery much you sharing us your view of that. leonard: i think you're right. i think itoperates in both directions. i think life

imitates art and art imitates life. there'sno easy answer here. i'm sure we must all accept that. you can discuss but there isno easy answer. one of the reasons that there's no easy answer is because hollywood is notone mind nor is television even one mind or motion picture's one mind. there's a verywide range of taste, attitudes, needs, perceptions and so forth.i have a project which i've brought to one of the networks about 2 years ago and theyagreed that they would develop and go ahead with it. we have a script. i was just toldabout 2 weeks ago that they've decided they don’t want to do this project and i'm notfrankly not sure why. it is of a kind subject matter. i don’t want too much detail aboutit, but i did, having let out the word to

some people i'm connected with that this projectis now available. i'm no longer connected with that particular network.the word comes back to me that network x is interested in doing some good stuff meaningsomething of social importance, quality. that makes a statement about … that i think speaksto some of these issues. what is said is that network y has chosen not to but network xis interested in that right now. network y may feel they've enough good stuff this yearand now they're looking for something like a naked lies starring james farentino anda girl who plays a hooker. i watch about 5 minutes of that about 10 daysago. i was amazed. i don’t watch that kind of stuff. i don’t have time frankly. it'snot a question of taste. i don’t have the

time, because i do have this television projecti wonder what they're buying, what are they doing. in the first 3 or 4 minutes i see ajudge played by james farentino involved with a prostitute played by victoria principaland down to his g-string i was amazed at the semi nudity, not to his g-string.in walks a guy with a camera start shooting pictures, out comes a gun and the next thingyou know somebody's dead and the judge is … great exposition done, "bang. bang. bang."you got a judge in front with a prostitute being brought and somebody's dead.mark: all the elements. leonard: yeah. right. it's like 3 minutesand i got that much of the story out. it was amazing storytelling. there's that kind oftaste. they'll probably get very big numbers

doing that kind of thing. why is that? whowants to see … there must be people who want to see that stuff. on the other hand,last night i watch for quite a while the tv piece about the development of the bomb andi don’t know it was sensationalize or trivialized at all. there was remarkably in-depth studyof all these characters and their motivations and the politics of the case and the scienceof the case. we're looking at a very wide range of stuffand i can't tell you, i'm not an authority on what the numbers were last night as comparedto naked lie with james farentino, i don’t know. one would hope that there are a lotof people watching last night and really interested but i can't guarantee that.there are a lot of different kinds of work

being done for a lot of different reasonsand at a different time and i do believe that there are times when you can go to a networkand say, "i have an idea and i can … i can show why this idea has merit on basis of thenumbers because x number of millions of people are involved in this kind of activity andthis is the film about that activity so they will be interested." and that wasn’t badon the one hand. on the other hand, there may be some new ideathat is bubbling on the edge of social consciousness that you could take to a network or to a studioand they might say, "yeah, you're right. i think that's an idea whose time is coming.perhaps it's not yet come but it's coming. let's investigate that. let's explore to doit." i think there are all kinds. i think

the individual finally has to decide for himor herself which way do i want to go? why am i in this thing?michael: i think one of the interesting things to observe here, you'll pardon me, is thatthe series that mr. nimoy is talking about, about the development of the atomic bomb wasproduced by aaron spelling who has given the world charlie's angels, the love boat andother important contributions to western civilization in the past. sometimes, quality product fromsurprising and unexpected sources. speaker 4: mr. nimoy, i'm going to drop thedirty boot and mention the science fiction angle, hopefully, without inducing you tojump off the podium and begin throttling me. i'm 35 years old, i remember growing up inthe 50s and 60s and one of the staples of

popular culture was the world of the futurewas this confident bright happy future a better world which we would inevitably create generallyby this far future date of around 1979. now, here it is. it's 1989. this must be theworld of future and yet as you said, "here we are and all the … all the audience seemsto want is reassurance." as you said, "certainty." you want the good mother to confront the situationand win or fight nobly. the audience it all seemed to be any images anymore of a confidentbetter world, at least i don’t see very many of them, even in the star trek extrapolation,it's kind of fear of ecological disaster. my question is, what does that say about thecondition of the country or the mentally of people today that instead of a confident visionof where we're going, people want reassurance.

leonard: we've been through some devastatingtimes i think as a civilization in the last couple of decades. i think we've been shownthe frailty of the society and the planet and i think we're looking for some kind ofreassurance that both will survive. when i was in the research that i did for star trek4, i talked to a lot of scientist about their concerns or expectations or hopes for immediatefuture. what exciting breakthroughs you think might happen in the next 10 or 15 years?what great problems do you foresee in the next 10 or 15 years? i had a wide range ofanswers including a very highly respected scientist who told me that he expects thatwe will make contact with another intelligence by the end of the century and i was quitestartled by that and he's very serious about

it. i wonder whether that's good or bad. idon’t know how we'll handle that. speaker 4: do you think they're getting ourtelevision up there? leonard: i don’t know. my point is this,that science is a concern for example that there is a feeling that things aren’t goodwith the planet. there's a sense that we cannot deal with all of the problems simultaneouslythat therefore there's a question of priority that there's the politics of the situationand the economics of the situation that the politicians have to decide at some point,yes, there's enough … i have enough of a mandate from my constituents that they wantthat fixed. they want that problem stopped and if we announced that we're going to spenda lot of money to fix it, my people will go

for it because they feel we've gone as fardown the road that we can with this. the scientist are concerned in a given daya problem that they have been talking about, complaining about, concern about will reacha point, will reach that point where the citizenry says, "fix it." the politicians will say,"right." and they’ll turn to the scientists and say, "fix it." the scientists have tosay, "we can't anymore. it's gone too far. we don’t have the means right now. we canstart working with the money you gave or whatever." you get the point that the prioritizing ofour concerns has become a concern and there is a sense of uneasiness. you're reading thenewspaper suddenly that there's a ozone problem. that the layer is disappearing rapidly andnow there's a report that there's a major

international conference which says, "yes.we agree. let's fix it." it feels like a band-aid to me like just in time, just before the patientgets seriously ill and perhaps unredeemable ill.i personally feel that way. i have that concern. i don’t have that sense of, "oh, boy. wecan do anything." having lost a war for the first time, i think our citizens feel lessthan unbeatable obviously. these are concerns that i think have affected all of us and maybein all fairness to our society that's why we want to be told, "hey, everything's okay.go see a movie. enjoy yourself and watch they'll probably be fixed. go home feeling better.don’t take the problem along with you, we'll fix it at the theater for you."speaker 4: the 1930s.

leonard: yeah. exactly. it is historical thatwhen times are bad films do well particularly escapist films, when people have problemsthey want to go see a movie and be made to feel good.speaker 5: good evening mr. nimoy. leonard: have i depressed all of you?speaker 5: there was a woman recently from a detroit suburb sat down with her 3 youngchildren who watched married with children was incensed by itleonard: i have to plead ignorance because i have never seen this show but go ahead.speaker 5: it's about. she sent her children out and she watched it and it's an adult comedyon the fox network and she thought of the one woman led a writing campaign to get thatshow and others that she finds objectionable

off the air. last year martin scorsese hasreleased a film about jesus christ that offended many people who picketed the film throughoutits theatrical run. my question is, how do you balance makingprojects which on the one hand may offend people with at the same time trying to raiseconsciousness? are there any topics that hollywood just should not touch?leonard: no. i don’t think so. i don’t think there's any topic that should be taboo,censored, you don’t talk about that or deal with it. particularly in television and filmsthe individual has the right not to buy a ticket, not to go see it, turn in to anotherchannel and i believe that. i think it's an easy out and i think some people take it asan easy out but i think it happens to be true.

you don’t have to buy that book. you don’thave to read that book. you don’t have to watch that tv show.the question is at what point do you have the right to prevent others from seeing, hearing,experiencing that thing that you find objectionable? society sets standards and there are communitystandards as well and in some communities the standards are different than others. ithink that's valid. you establish a community where you chose your community, you're entitledto have some sense of expectations on what the experience is going to be within thatcommunity and if you don’t like it, you move it to another community but …we're still a democracy and must be and i think that's important that somebody havethe right speak out on an issue as they see

fit and nobody has to listen if they don’twant to. it's difficult, i sympathize with both sides but i finally come down with theside of they must allowed to do it. that's my sense of it.michael: follow up question on that. would you be interested if someone approached youto direct the movie version of the satanic verses?leonard: i don’t think so. that's a sad terrible problem.michael: it's terrible. that's awful, yeah, but …leonard: terrible problem. no. the answer is no.michael: because of concerns for your own safety or because of concerns for …leonard: i'd say the first place i haven’t

read it and when i do read it, if i do, it'sgoing to take me quite a while to understand what it means to those people who are offendedby it. i may have … i will have an entirely different reactions to it than they and iwill have to … i would have to make an intense investigation of what concerns them beforei … in order to make an intelligent decision about whether or not to do it.interesting way if i may say so. i find it fascinating that mississippi burning was madeby an englishman, alan parker. i don’t know where he was in the 60s. i was here, you see.i don’t know where he was and maybe that's the way it had to happen. somebody who wasfrom thousands of miles away and from a different society, different … was not emotional involved,subjective and physically involved, maybe

he could make it, i couldn’t.michael: well see, my rather flipping question is getting into an important point. you wouldthen agree that there are certain kinds of material that would be so deeply offensiveto some people that you would decline to participate? leonard: why did he rush to write it? that'sthe question. michael: well that's his prob- i mean i'mnot sure. leonard: if it is his problem, yes, you'reright. michael: major problem.leonard: it is a problem but what i'm saying is that maybe there's some passionate filmmakerwho believes in that particular piece of material. you have the right … i think … i'm reallyspeaking out of ignorance here, i haven’t

read the material and i don’t know … obviouslysome people are deeply, deeply offended by it.michael: i would say so. leonard: including cat stevens, but, there'san interesting incident in la, have you heard about it?leonard: about jeff edwards, you know about that?michael: yes. leonard: there's a tv-radio personality inla on a particular radio station who is one of this garbage kind of guys who in orderto get some heat going has decided that he was going to have all his listeners send intheir cat stevens records and they would burn all this material and there was going to bea public burning of cat stevens record because

cat stevens agreed that that rushti shoulddie and one of his colleagues on the station has a talk show and on that colleague's talkshow there was a promo for this other talk show host record burning and his colleaguejeff edwards refused to have it aired on his spot because he said that's terrorism andi won't have it. i won't promote his burning of records even though i agree that cat stevensis wrong. he had to leave the station. gave up his jobat the station. well that's a question of personal choice.jim: jim lyons from the daily news. thank you for coming tonight by the way. now weused to sit down with catholics a little bit in this country. we used not see their wayas a general population. there was the wasp

view. now, we are seeing that we have a verymixed country and rushti is a good case of it. we are not looking at his book from thepoint of view of a man who is breaking away from his religion as many people have donehere in the united states. i was wondering, we were talking earlier andi was listening to these guys this big important news men that we've got clint eastwood andwe've got all of the white male leads who do fantastic things, never get shot or ifthey do they struggle through, but we just don’t seem to be able to produce a heroor a real survivor for many other race. it seems we've narrowed our point of view throughtelevision. i don’t know … and through movies.michael: i'm sorry to jump in. what would

you call eddie murphy? what would you calldanny glover in lethal weapon? jim: i think we've integrated in a lot ofways but i also think a lot of it has been token. i think eddie murphy just loves to… he's a different character. he's always enjoyed that playing with the white guys head.michael: does pretty well with it. jim: yeah.leonard: i think the answer is … i'm not sure you're absolutely accurate really. iunderstand the question. the question has validity but i'm not sure it is really, reallytrue. i think, again, it feels like those guys out there can't do anything but makea white man hero. i'm not sure that's entirely true. i'm very curious about this. i've justreceived a project, an offer of a project

called judge d. there in chinese history avery famous judge who was a kind of a sherlock holmes detective on his own, who went outand investigated his own cases. very famous in chinese history and there wasbeen some books written about him and i have been submitted this project and i say to myself… either acting or direct. i said to myself, "do we … do we want to see a chinese judgein china in the period 1600s or whatever investigating cases?" i think the answer is if it's welldone, yes, but one has to stop and wonder. i don’t know. i don’t have the answerto that question. i do think that we've had … there are exceptions to your rule though.not a lot, but there are some. michael: that raises another interesting question.you've obviously played people from another

planet, a person from another planet, wouldyou feel … you were offered this to act in, would you feel comfortable doing a makeuptransition in playing an asian … leonard: physically comfortable, no. i wouldn’t.michael: but would you feel comfortable as a …leonard: it's a good question. michael: … a white person impersonatingan asian person? leonard: good question. there is also a projectcalled black elk speaks. with black elk is … i'm just getting to know a very reveredfigure in indian history. he is … he was a religious leader of the indian people andthere's a play called black elk speaks and there was a script for a film called blackelk speaks and have been asked to play the

lead and i had this intense discussion withthe people who brought it to me who claimed to speak for the sioux nation. who claimedthe sioux nation said, "yes. if he plays it that will sit well with us." he's saying.now, i find that very flattering but i don’t feel too terrific about it. i have playedindian. i don’t know if this audience is aware. i played indian. i played indians ingun smoke, in wagon train, in a number of television westerns and even in some films.up until the early 60s and somebody raised my consciousness and said, "hey, that's tooterrific. you know there are indians who are out there who'd like to have the job."maybe do a better job of representing their raise than you are. as a matter fact, thevery first job that i had as an indian was

in 19- don’t laugh.michael: i'm sorry. it's just in the phrase. my first job as an indian.leonard: yes. it was in 1950. it was in a picture called the old overland trail withrex allen, the arizona cowboy. his wonder horse coco and the indian was a savage indianthat i was asked to play and the reason i got the job was because it had been offeredto iron eyes cody, an indian actor who refused to play it, and i got the job. i wasn’tthinking about, "well, gee, i shouldn’t be playing nasty indian."michael: it's better than playing the wonder horse, coco.mark: we have an additional member of our panel who arrived a few minutes late willask you, sir, please identify yourself and

ask your question and that's not supposedto sound like a message that would be coming out of an congressional committee. you'rewelcome here. mike: mr. nimoy, i'm mike rosenbaum from detroitjewish news. i want to get back to something you mentioned before about how deeply youwere affected by the idea of directing certain scenes. did you go through the same processas an actor and if not, why not? leonard: yes. i do go the same process asan actor. i tend to assimilate the condition that i'm dealing with. it tends to becomepart of me, i live with it. on one of these jobs you're on it maybe 12 hours a day physically,maybe 16, 18 hours a day mentally and i can't help to be affected by it. i'm in a much bettermood when i'm doing comedy than i am doing

when i'm doing tragedy.i was aware … particularly, when we're making the star trek series where we went monthsat a time, many months at a time of shooting on the films which it's 10 weeks and you'redone, but particularly on series i was conscious of the fact that on saturdays i would stillbe in the spock mode on a day off. sunday afternoon i would start to relax a littlebit, a little loose but on saturdays i was still quite rigid and i was still doing spockin my personal life, for better or worse. michael: it must have been a lot of fun foryour family. leonard: no. yes, it does happen to me. iget deeply immersed in the process, yeah. mike: as a director, do you get immersed inthe different characters maybe on different

days depending what scene you're going toshoot or do you identify with one character? leonard: no. as a director, i think my connectionis with the overview. it's not with anyone particular character at any one time. it'swith the sense what the nature of the material is. it's been widely reported i told a reportedabout it 3 or 4 months ago and it was widely printed that during the making of the goodmother, i woke up one night in tears and grabbed for a piece of paper and a pencil and i wrotedown 3 words and the words were it's about lost.i had gone through some very personal loses around that time not long before that andi suddenly realized that that was what this film was putting me in touch with, was myown sense of loss so … it was a very moving

experience for me. on the other hand i feltgood about the fact that i was so much in touch with the process and aware of the factthat i was in touched with the process. it's a creative life.mark: i know that we have some questions from members of our audience. again, we shouldremind you that we are videotaping this and in order to hear your question, we'll askyou to please raise your hand but wait until someone approaches you with the microphone.if you ask your question and no one is near you with the microphone, we won't be ableto hear you or if we if we hear you, it won't be preserved for posterity on videotape. pleaseraise your hand and wait and someone will be over with a mic.speaker 8: i'm curious about your feelings

toward the walt disney company with respectto their rather unique image in hollywood of … or to the public of high morals andethics. secondly, what is attributed to their great success in comparison to ...leonard: the disney company. that's a multi-level question really. the people who are now managingthe disney company, the people i deal with—current management, were the management of paramountwhen we were making the first 3 star trek films there, eisner and katzenberg with thepeople who actually hired me to the direct star trek 3 and hired me to direct star trek4. then they left while we were making the startrek 4 and they became the management of disney. they hired me to do three men and a baby andthe good mother. now, they're extremely hardworking.

you asked about their success. they're extremelyhardworking. they're very bright. i think they have a great sense of audience, greatsense of an audience. they are trying to broaden the nature of their product in films. thegood mother was, i think, probably the first step in a direction to get away from a certainkind of movie, get away from ... and identification with a certain predictable kind of movie anda movie and some other kind of territory. not successful unfortunately and i just hopeit doesn't cause him to pull in their wings and go back to the more reliable kind of product.on another level, it's michael eisner who is now in charge of all the disney parks andso forth and that sort of thing. that's an incredibly successful, incredibly popularpart of our culture and not just the american

culture but the world culture. they're openingparks in france and with great success and mickey mouse has just been to china and russiaand being well received wherever it goes and it's an incredible thing to me to be aroundthat. i went last week to disneyland in southerncalifornia because there was a program for the families of the challenger shuttle thatwas destroyed in an accident and they were being honored and may have started up an educationalprogram in connection with the challenger and they were there and had asked me to comeand introduce them. i went through the park. i haven't been to the park at some time andi'm in awe of that kind of commonality of sensibility of entertainment, what peoplewant to see, what people enjoy. there's no

question about it. they have something thatpeople want. they're in touch with something that people want and will flock to see.there's a magic about it that draws people like a magnet. incredible. walt disney didhave that sensibility, that sense of taste. speaker 9: considering the fact that startrek was cancelled and then went on syndication to become one of the most popular televisionseries of all time and that we see more and more people turning to public television andvideotapes and cable these days, do you think that the networks are doing justice to theamerican public in the context of an entertainment industry?leonard: help me. how do you put star trek in a context? where does it fit in the question?speaker 9: the fact that it gained such great

popularity after it was cancelled.leonard: i don't think they knew what we were. i don't think the network really understoodwhat we were. i think the audience was ahead of the network. on the other hand, there werecertain i think technical factors and historical factors that help star trek to become eventuallythe tremendous syndication success that it was. in 1966 when we went on the air, we hadnot yet put a man on the moon. we were cancelled in 1968 after 3 seasons.in 1969, you could walk out of doors of your house 1 evening as i did and look up at thatplanet up there and know that there was a human being standing on that planet for thefirst time. i think that really changed the american audience's perception of sciencefiction. i think it affect the star trek a

lot. the other major factor and it was technicaland perhaps we were more in touch with our time was around 1971, '72, the show was beingsyndicated and that meant that local stations could put it on at the time of their choosing,at the time that they felt that there was an audience for.when we were on the network, the stations couldn't do that. they had to put it on thehour of the network fed it and those hours were not well chosen. the network's tastefor the show was not right. the very first step so they put on the air, they chose acreature episode which we gave some sense of what they were hoping for. they were hopingfor a monster show. the show was anything but a monster series.we're out of sync with them right from the

very start. i think eventually, the audiencetold the stations that they wanted to see the show and when they want to see the showand you could watch their show at sunday afternoon at 3:00, saturday morning at 9:00, every nightat 6:00, that kind of ... suddenly, the audience was there.michael: while we're providing the next question with the microphone, just to make a briefcomment about your question, you're absolutely correct that the networks are losing totalshare of the audience and it's going to cable into an independent stations into fox butyou also mentioned public television. now, i work on public television. i host the showon public television. unfortunately or fortunately depending onyour point of view, our audience is not increasing.

in fact, i think people have suggested veryrightly that given the problems that mr. salman rushdie has at the moment, if he wanted tohide out where no one would find him, he should host a weekly series on pbs, he'd be safe.john: i'm john sherwood. i'm with the battle creek enquirer. in view of the fact that youhad somewhat criticized mike nichols for his failure to bring out a real social visionor what you perceived as his social vision in working girl, i wonder what your perceptionis of the duty of the individual artist be he director or actor to realize what he definesas a social consciousness within him so that the audience perceives it. how far must thatgo with each project? is that his responsibility to choose such projects, for example?leonard: yes. obviously, the ideal would be

that every time that person gets up the bat,he hits the ball well. it doesn't work that way in baseball. it's not going to work thatway in the arts either. your greatest homerun hitter doesn't do it every time. there isa question of percentages involved. i don't know what the origin of that project was.i'm probably being unfair to mr. nichols for sitting here speaking ill of his work.i admire. the problem is i admire him so much. here's a film that's perfectly workable, perfectlyacceptable but i'm just ... i don't think it really gives us anything special or excitingabout mike nichols's view of the world. michael: which of his films would you saydo that? leonard: carnal knowledge, for example andso many others. let's face it. this is a formula

movie. this is a female rocky comes from acrossthe river and comes into new york and makes it. i could have made it. therefore, i saymight do better because you're a better film making than i am, more experienced, wiser,more sophisticated than i am. it's an anomaly. it's just one of those things. he'll probablycome up with a brilliant film next year and that would be that. he's done great work andi certainly don't want to denigrate his career based on this successful movie.he's made a successful film. speaker 11: i'd like to ask your opinion ona subject that we've touched on a lot in the last 2 days. i'm going to use for an example,the last temptation of christ. this is a ... obviously offends a lot of people but taking that totallynot considering that at all the fact that

it offends people, the people that i've talkedto who have seen the movie everyone of them have told me that it's a totally boring moviein itself not to mention the fact that it did terrible in the box office.now, what i want to know or is your opinion on why does hollywood do movies like thiswith ... they have to have some idea that it's going to bomb when they're doing it.leonard: i remember what i said before, the hollywood is not a person. hollywood did notdo this movie. a certain particular group of people said, "yes, we will give you themoney." others said no. that tells you immediately that hollywood is not a person. it is nothollywood that did the movie. some men, some place who had the authority to say, "yes,we'll do that movie," made a personal very

human decision. that project was a paramountand in pre-production with paramount. they decided against going forward with itfor whatever reason, they either they thought it was too controversial or too risky financiallyor whatever. somebody in paramount said, "no. we will not go forward with this." martinscorsese had that project in hand and begging for the money for some years and from a numberof sources. it wasn't hollywood that decided to make it. it was a human being on a givenday made a decision. i'm sure that that person felt a number of things, that person or personsfelt a number of things that scorsese is a good film maker. scorsese has a passion forthis subject and that passion will probably be reflected in the film.the title is a well-known title. it was a

successful book. they may very well be anaudience that wants to see this film. michael: i can add just a little bit to thatbecause i've done quite a bit of research about this film and how ... we know from havingheard me last night. the fact is that not only was that film at paramount. it was notonly turned down in paramount. it was also turned down at warner's and universal greenlightedit, went ahead with the picture because martin scorsese was hot coming off color of moneywhich was quite a successful film and they made it as part of a package deal. they wantedto get scorsese's next 2 pictures and as a condition of getting those pictures of scorsese,he the director insisted, "well in that case, you got to give me $6 million and that's allthey took to make last temptation." they did

based upon the director and the idea of gettingthis package with him. leonard: let me just say this. i can understandwhy some people would be offended by that film and i can understand why some peoplewould be bored by the film. i can understand other people saying that's a great piece ofwork and the man should have the right to do it. what troubles me is people condemningsomething that they have not had seen or read. that troubles me a lot. there was a lot ofthat on that film. people refusing to see it because they found it offensive. i don'tunderstand that. michael: mr. nimoy, i should tell you thatlast night when i spoke about the film, i asked if there was anyone in the audiencewho had seen last temptation of christ, only

1 person raised his hand and he was wearinga roman collar. it was a priest who was here on campus. thought that was an interesting... leonard: now understand me, if one choosesnot to see it, that's one thing. if one chooses that others should not see it because i havenot seen it but find it offensive. that troubles me.speaker 12: rumor has it that alfred hitchcock in directing the famous shower scene in psycho,in order to get the facial expression that he wanted from the actress, he made sure ... hecouldn't get that facial expression that he wanted and in order to do so, he made surethat when the water came out, it came out ice cold. i was curious if you ever manipulatedan actor or actress or scene in the similar

fashion.leonard: he's a cold director, mean, mean direc- no. i have ... i haven't done thatkind of thing. directors work in various ways. hitchcock was never known to be an actor whocared a lot about the ... a director who cared a lot about the art of acting. the actorsfor him were tools. they provided a service, a function that he found necessary in orderto make his film. i don't think he really had a serious or important relationship withactors on artistic level. i'm very much in touch with actors coming from the persuasionand having taught actors a lot and understanding what kind of vision an actor can make giventhe opportunity. i'm very much in touch with opening up anatmosphere which the actor feel safe to make

a large investment and take chances.speaker 13: recently in detroit, a young hockey player named bob probert was arrested at theborder for attempting to smuggle cocaine into canada and he's already been expelled fromthe national hockey league and possibly will never be able to play hockey again. do youthink that the actors and actresses in the screen guild which i think is a union foractors and actresses, do you think that they should adopt similar very stringent standardsbecause as we've all heard tonight, there is such a strong impression of actors andactresses can make on us as a country and wouldn't that be a wonderful statement tomake our country if they would voluntarily adopt standards that's stringent themselves?michael: good question.

leonard: the movie stars through the yearshave come in a lot of different shapes and sizes morally and ethically as we know. insome cases for whatever reason, some stars have found themselves in obscurity for havinggotten involved in some questionable moral situation or situations the audiences foundquestionable morally or ethically. other actors and actresses have seemed to thrive on it,flagrant about their personal lives and what their personal lives are about and developenormous followings. i don't think you can legislate that. whati find terribly painful is the growing knowledge that athletes who participate in a foot race,which should be the most equal kind of competition. the most basic kind of competition. one personrunning against another at given distance

have cheated. that i find so painful and ithink is part of this conversation we had earlier about our view of the world in ourselvesthese days. what can you believe in if there's an extra meter or an extra foot or an extraleap available as a result of steroids and one is using them, the other isn't. we suddenlydiscovered that the competition wasn't real. it wasn't real and we invest so much emotionin the effort of these people in their training and of the progress of their careers and inthe event, we make such an investment in the human effort to be the best watching a humanmakes his effort to be the best. i find it so painful to discover that there's kind ofcheating going on. i think in athletics where there are people's career's at stake wherethere's money at stake where there endorsements

on ... obviously, i think some things gotto be done to clean up that act. i don't know if you can do it with actors and actresses.michael: let me be a pain in the neck and do a followup on that. given everything thatyou've said, given everything that you've said, wouldn't you agree that actors particularlythe very successful screen actors are even more role models for people than athletesfollowed by even more millions of people than hockey players and that if you're going tohave this kind of standard which you apparently support for people in athletics what aboutthe star ... let's take and extreme example. motion picture actor of some success who wasarrested selling drugs to someone else, would you say that that person should be terminatedas a working actor?

leonard: i'm going to plead ignorance here.i don't know. speaker 13: what studio? is that…michael: the point is ... the question was very well asked. it is possible that sag,screen actors guild, could impose a standard where he would lose his membership in theguild. leonard: then, the question becomes a legalquestion, doesn't it? does the screen actor guild have the legal right to do that andwhoever the actor ... michael: they can throw you out for breakinga strike. leonard: i think that's quite different, quitedifferent. you have broken the rules of the union and there is a rule that says if youbreak that particular rule, you're going to

be expelled.michael: what if you have a rule in the union that says it's against the rules…leonard: now, you start to legislate that rule and you start to put that rule into effectand find out what the legalities are. somebody's going to come along and say, "well, wait aminute. i'm not sure we can do that because ..." you're going to have to work out thequestion legally and the question will be worked out legally based on the consensusof opinion in our society today in terms of what we want. do we want that rule, that newrule? do we feel it’s necessary? then it would become part of a society.i'm not sure that i could speak to the issue of whether it's legal right now. that's whyi have to plead ignorance here.

michael: if i can suggest to the questionnaireand i'll shut up on this, you should ... we have a new drugs czar in this country namedwilliam benet and i think you should write to him with that suggestion. i think he wouldhave a very interesting time with that. leonard: it's obviously a very provocativequestion. i would remind you that there was a time when a career of a luminous star ladywas destroyed. her career was destroyed because she had an extra-marital affair.michael: ingrid bergman. leonard: that's right.michael: the product of that affair is today one of the leading stars in movies. isabellarossellini. leonard: isabella rossellini. ingrid bergmanwas at the height of her career when she had

an extra-marital affair with rossellini initaly and she was out of the movie business. unusual, unhireable. audiences refuse to seeher. times changed. speaker 14: mr. nimoy, i'd like to changethe subject completely and address the issue of creativity in hollywood and in societyin general. leonard: question?speaker 14: it's going to be different. it seems to me the product that hollywood sellsis not only entertainment but creativity and there's been a lot of discussion in recentyears about how tv has a negative effect on children, for instance, in society in generalbecause the viewer is viewing and observing as opposed to engaging in a creative and productiveactivity themselves. i'm wondering what your

view is of hollywood kind of being the electronicfireplace that your product is really being the devil's advocate and negative one in asense that it has a negative impact on people and i guess my question is by sitting in atheater watching a movie or sitting in front of the tv and watching tv, our people notengaging and being creative themselves and to hollywood's credit ...leonard: you're absolutely right. i think ... yeah. i would say you're absolutely right.there is nowhere near enough really creative work being done. there is too much non-creativework being done. there is too much kind of dumb stuff being done. there are dumb televisionshows. there are dumb movies which are extraordinarily successful. i agree with that 100%.on the other hand, the question is should

the kids be sitting in front of tv watchingthat and are they, because the parents find easier to let them do that than to insistthat the set is off during the week, you must be involved in some other kind of creativeor educational process. you cannot watch that tonight. now that becomes a tug of war andbattle in the house which is a tough and painful battle i know that. i know that. it may bejust easier to give in. if bad television programming exist, does that mean hollywoodis it fault for not educating your children? where is the responsibility for making thechoices? it's not easy. i know that. it's in the home and you got the set or sets andthe vcr or vcrs and the discs and all the rest of it, it's all there. are we reallydoing a proper job in our homes of saying

you can only use that for this purpose andat this time and this other time must be set aside for what you're talking about, the educationand the creativity. michael: you used a phrase and i'm just comingout briefly, video fireplace. one of the most alarming things that i have read and heardabout recently is there was a best-selling video cassette called video fireplace whereit is a 120 minutes of a crackling fire in a fireplace and you plug it into your vcrand there you area. wherever you are in your condo or your apartment, you have a fire.this is the extent to which we become dependent on this machine. run out to your stores andget it. you can also get video dog and you can also get video baby which has a littlebaby crawling around and going gugu cuckoo

but not doing anything nasty.speaker 15: mr. nimoy, i want to change the subject even further than she just did. iremember you did a series called in search of. i was just wondering whatever happenedto that? leonard: whatever happened to it was we did7 years of it. we did about 160 or 170 episodes. it was extraordinarily successful televisionseries sometimes informative, sometimes silly, sometimes hokey. i was thinking that i … knowingthat i was coming here about an interesting phenomenon that i heard about while i wasdoing that series. there was a scientist named allen hynek who was part of the air forceblue book commission assigned to investigating ufos, supposedly the scientific inquiry intothe question.

allen hynek when the blue book was publishedwent out ... came out with a book of his own which disproved the existence of ufos. hewent out of the road to publicize the book. during the course of his trip around the country,you got a call from his publisher and he told me the story. his publisher said, "the bookis not selling. we have a problem. the problem is that people don't want to hear the ufosdon't exist. people are much more interested in the possibility that they do exist." isit possible that in your public appearances on the subject of this book you're going toleave some room for the possibility that ufos do exist?in search of was an extremely successful show which left that possibility open. we discoveredthat the audience really did not want to have

any of that stuff disproved. what they wantedwas stories from people who claimed of seeing ufos. they want a discussion about why peoplethink ufos exist and all that sort of thing. we always take pains to say we don't haveany physical evidence that they exist. here's a person who claims he was on one. let's talkto him. i had a good time on that show. michael: i think you'll be delighted to knowand this is no joke that big foot has recently been sighted here in hillsdale, michigan.leonard: we did a show about big foot. now, i'm delighted to discover that in some countiesin washington state, it's illegal to shoot big foot.michael: with the camera. denise: hello, mr. nimoy. my name is denisewalton. i'm a sophomore here and i understand

that this will be the last question for theevening. my question stems from some studying i've been doing in an english literature class.recently, my english literature class read words with poem entitled michael. the fulcrumof that poem was the building between a father and a son of a pile of rocks which would bea sheep trap when the sun returned from the city in an attempt to save the family fromfinancial ruin. this pile was a sacred covenant between thefather and son. to simplify the poem, subsequently what happens is this covenant was broken.the experience of reading this poem was at in the future, whenever i'll walk throughthe woods, i guess i'll never look the same way at a pile of rocks. earlier, during thecourse of the interview, you alluded that

your work with the good mother puts you intouch with your own sense of loss. my question is two-fold. what experience ofa role as an actor or a director has the biggest impact on your personal life? it touched youor changed you so if you never perceived in a situation the same way and also, what experienceof a role as an actor or a director had you hoped would have an impact on society?leonard: thought-provoking. i've had some extraordinary experiences as both actor anddirector but i think i would be evasive if i didn't talk about the spock experience becauseof all the roles that i've played, all of the jobs that i've had as actor or directorobviously has had the most profound effect on both my life and career. the longest lastingeffect and very dramatic the changes that

i've experienced as a result of it.it changed me psychologically playing the character, changed me psychologically. certainlychanged my lifestyle a lot, very simply it was a first steady job i ever had in my business.i have been making up a living as an actor and as a teacher for some years before startrek came along in 1966. i have never had a job that lasted longer than 2 weeks. i wasa freelance actor meaning that you job around. you go from job to job. i had never had ajob where my name was painted on the parking space.in most cases, it's put on with chalk if at all. i starred in a movie in 1951 a littleb movie that was made in 9 days and my dressing room had jane nigh's name on a door. you don'teven remember who jane nigh was. it had a

profound effect on me in a lot of ways andstill does. still does. coming to the point of this evening, the impact on a society ithink was enormous. i still constantly come up across people who tell me how much theywere affected by the series or the character or both.it's a very proud thing because i think the effect essentially had been positive. it issometimes still overwhelming when i see ... last night, i was watching 60 minutes and therewas a segment on television over the years. here were these very brief flashes of historicalevents in television, a historical character in television and there was spock, my oldbuddy like a bang on 60 minutes. you understand who that is and people understand where thatcharacter fits in the culture and what's that

all about.you see spock for president bumper stickers during presidential campaigns and people understandthat and beam me up scotty there's no intelligent life down here that sort of thing. we understandthat. it's in the culture. it is in the culture and not necessarily in a bad way. i thinka lot of it is fun, a lot of it is very healthy because it stands the ... the character standsfor i think the dignity for self realization, for achievement, for intelligence, logic,compassion, a lot of good things. it's had an enormously profound effect onmy life and i'm sure it will indefinitely. michael: to conclude, to take advantage ofmy position here, i want to first of all thank all of the questionnaires as i sort of indicatedto you privately, this is an extraordinary

group at hillsdale. the questionnaires arepeople who dared boldly go where no questionnaires had gone before, and obviously not only anextraordinary group of questionnaires but an extraordinary guest in the presence ofleonard nimoy ... in the person of leonard nimoy and speaking as a friend of hillsdalethough not quite a member of the family, i'm sure that i speak for everyone here and expressingthanks to you and the hope that this will by no means be your last visit to this partof our planet. leonard: thank you very much.

Thus articles tv stands for flat screens with fireplace

A few tv stands for flat screens with fireplace, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, so this time the post furniture stands..

You're reading an article tv stands for flat screens with fireplace and this article is a url permalink https://furniturestands.blogspot.com/2018/10/tv-stands-for-flat-screens-with_5.html Hopefully this article This could be useful.

Tweet