Question : How does a first class French cinematic thriller, with a prominent director (Thomas Vincent) and a respected leading actor (Clovis Cornillac) open to enthusiastic reviews from the public in Paris and then manage to sink into oblivion without a ripple, within weeks of its release?
On March 19 of this year, 'Le Nouveau Protocole' (in English, 'The New Protocol') was released to enthusiastic (for the most part) audiences and mixed critical reviews (depending on the source). Today, four months later, it seems this film is no longer being shown in France, although audiences in the States can still find it playing in some places (for a theater near you, see:http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/453163/The-New-Protocol/overview). What happened? Did the film hit too close to the truth in its illustration of Drug Industry ruthlessness?
Interviewed, at the time of the film's release on TSF radio (Paris's jazz station, also broadcasting from Nice, and which does a nice little job of alternative reporting on local and cultural topics), Clovis Cornillac declared that although the film's scenario was fiction, everything said about the pharmaceutical industry was true, 'otherwise we'd already be in court!'.
Apparently neither Cornillac, nor Vincent, nor even the scenarist, Eric Besnard, have ever heard of Hans Ruesch (for one example, although there are others), and his eyeopening exposé of vivisection, the mainstay of the pharmaceutical industry in convincing the public that the industry's products are safe and that they can improve human health.
Ruesch was already a best-selling author, with notable among his titles 'Top of the World', and two of them made into films, one starring Kirk Douglas and the other, Anthony Quinn. Bantam Books in New York, which undertook to publish Ruesch's book on vivisection, 'Slaughter of the Innocent', wrote to the author, in his native Switzerland, to tell him that they expected it to be an important best seller on their list in 1978, and how proud the whole Bantam team was to be involved in its publication.
About that event, Ruesch wrote, in the Preface to the 1983 reissue of 'Slaughter of the Innocent' :
It is not generally known that the major media are subject to influence by the Drug Trust, often without being aware of it. In 'The Drug Story' (1949) [N.B. :excerpts of which are available on internet], former Maryland news editor Morris Bealle revealed how the Drug Trust had all news about drugs and therapies in America censored, under the pretext that the average newsperson knows nothing about medicine and thus needs guidance from experts – which the Drug Trust obligingly provided.
Knowing this, I had advised Bantam not to advertise the book ['Slaughter of the Innocent'] beforehand and not to circulate advance chapters to the media before publication, but to launch the book by surprise. They said it could not be done that way, and went ahead distributing advance copies. The first American review was also the last...
A change of ownership had taken place at Bantam during the 18 months between acceptance of the manuscript and publication. Agnelli, the Italian automobile tycoon, had sold his majority stock in Bantam to Bertelsmann Corporation, a huge West German publishing conglomerate headed by Reinhard Mohn. Mohn's string of magazines made him dependent on advertising which, in Europe as in America, came largely from petrochemicals and derivatives: drugs, cosmetics, plastics, dyes, rubber, oil, etc. Earlier, Bertelsmann had turned down the German version of 'Slaughter' ['Slaughter of the Innocent']. At the time, it had just been forced to withdraw 'Weisse Magier' (White Magicians) by Kurt Bluchel, a shattering expose of West Germany's pharmaceutical industry. Bertelsmann had learned its lesson – no more attacks on the Drug Trust. Now it was in control of Bantam, which had been getting ready to publish 'Slaughter' in an English language verson in America.
So in our Western democracies, no public book-burnings are necessary; there are subtler and more effective ways to stifle information unfavorable to the industrial powers-that-be... »
Individuals, book shops, associations et al, that tried to order 'Slaughter of the Innocent' were told, within months of its release, that it was out-of-print. In fact, it was never distributed, printed copies being consigned to Bantam's basement and the printing plates destroyed, despite a clause in the publishing contract that ought to have allowed Ruesch to buy them. From that time on, sales and reprints of 'Slaughter of the Innocent' were managed directly by Ruesch (who died last year) and his close supporters. By word of mouth, the book has continued to live and to be read, although clearly without access to major distribution networks, its reputation is limited mostly to those interested in the subject of vivisection.
Morris Bealle's earlier book, 'The Drug Story', mentioned by Ruesch, is another example of publishing industry collusion in censorship decided by the pharmaceutical industry. Of this book, Ruesch has written [in 'Naked Empress', self-published after the 'Slaughter of the Innocent' fiasco, and in which Ruesch delves more deeply into pharmaceutical medicines and medical treatments, as applied to humans] :
He [Bealle] couldn't get it into print until he founded his own publishing house, the Columbia Publishing Company, Washington, D.C., in 1949. Although it is one of the most important books to come out of the USA, it has never been carried by a major bookstore nor has it been reviewed by any of the newspapers that dictate the national best-seller lists. Nevertheless, at the time of this writing [1982], it is in its 33rd printing, under a different label –Biworld Publishers, Orem, Utah.
Bealle, who died a few years ago, had to use direct mail for the sale of his work, as most avenues of advertizing were closed to him...
Anybody who tries to get into the mass media independent news, contrary to the interests of the Drug Trust, will sooner or later run into an unbreakable wall... Morris Bealle's report on how this is done in the United States of America can be taken as emblematic for what happens in most industrialized nations in the world, notably Germany, Switzerland, Great Britain, and France... »
Which brings us back to the French film, 'The New Protocol'...
The film tells the story of Raoul Kraft, described as a 'lonely' man, living remotely in the mountains for his logging business, and who is one day confronted with the death of his teenage son in a seemingly banal car accident. But a young woman, an antiglobalization activist, comes from Paris to inform him that his son's accident may not have been banal at all. Diane tells him that his son was participating in the testing of a new drug for migraine headaches, and that an adverse reaction to this drug may be the true explaination for his son's accident. Diane wants a sample of the drug, to submit for independent analysis. Kraft has difficulty believing her theory, but when his lodgings are ransacked, perhaps by someone looking for what was left of the drug in his son's possession, he decides to go to Paris to find out more from the drug's manufacturer. There, in a temple of learned scientists, he is reassured that his idea could not be further from the truth, but he also runs into Diane again, denouncing the drug manufacturer's lies in a press conference, and being uncerimoniously thrown out by the company's gorrllas. Together, they investigate the incriminated drug, and in so doing, find themselves followed, chased, aggressed, shot at, and driven into hiding, without abandoning their investigation. With Diane as his guide, Kraft finds himself in a world far from his own, the world of drug company intimidation, coverup and violence (active and passive). And he discovers, from the horse's mouth, the logic that justifies such behavior, which he inevitably rejects as corrupt and unjust. And we see how an individual of integrity lives the consequences of rejecting this mammoth industry's immorality, to its logical and spectacular conclusion.
Already, this portrayal of the Drug Trust is enough to stir the wrath of the beast, but that 'spectacular conclusion', which you will have to see the film to discover, undoubtedly has Drug Trust bosses sitting on the edge of their seats, and worried. For theirs is a formidable beast indeed, but even bigger and more formidable is the public that has been duped, and which may be, at last, waking up to the fact that they have been had. With the equivalent of a jumbo jet of fatalities daily, in the U.S. alone, attributable to adverse drug reactions, the public may at last be catching on. To the fact that it has been estimated that most Americans have an injury or fatality from an adverse reaction to precription medicine in their own personal circle, we can add the inevitable, in the age of internet, publicity surrounding certain testing fiascos (the students who almost died in drug trials in London a few years back, the Nigerian lawsuit against Pfizer following the deaths of some 56 children there, and the very recent case of GlaxoSmithKline in Argentina, where 12 babies died testing a new vaccine). Yes, all things considered, Drug Trust bosses already have reason enough to sit on the edge of their seats, without another one, in the form of 'The New Protocol', giving their 'dissatisfied' customers ideas...
Clovis Cornillac, who bears an uncanny resemblance (when not sporting a beard and mustache, as in this film) to the young Marlon Brando, has said how much he likes this film. His interview (in French) is available on internet. So are the reactions of the crowds leaving the theaters in Paris, after the opening of the film, who also, in the vast majority, were highly enthusiastic. So, why is 'The New Protocol' not playing in a theater near me now? Nor in any other movie theater in France?
An enigma? Or dirty tricks, as usual?
On March 19 of this year, 'Le Nouveau Protocole' (in English, 'The New Protocol') was released to enthusiastic (for the most part) audiences and mixed critical reviews (depending on the source). Today, four months later, it seems this film is no longer being shown in France, although audiences in the States can still find it playing in some places (for a theater near you, see:http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/453163/The-New-Protocol/overview). What happened? Did the film hit too close to the truth in its illustration of Drug Industry ruthlessness?
Interviewed, at the time of the film's release on TSF radio (Paris's jazz station, also broadcasting from Nice, and which does a nice little job of alternative reporting on local and cultural topics), Clovis Cornillac declared that although the film's scenario was fiction, everything said about the pharmaceutical industry was true, 'otherwise we'd already be in court!'.
Apparently neither Cornillac, nor Vincent, nor even the scenarist, Eric Besnard, have ever heard of Hans Ruesch (for one example, although there are others), and his eyeopening exposé of vivisection, the mainstay of the pharmaceutical industry in convincing the public that the industry's products are safe and that they can improve human health.
Ruesch was already a best-selling author, with notable among his titles 'Top of the World', and two of them made into films, one starring Kirk Douglas and the other, Anthony Quinn. Bantam Books in New York, which undertook to publish Ruesch's book on vivisection, 'Slaughter of the Innocent', wrote to the author, in his native Switzerland, to tell him that they expected it to be an important best seller on their list in 1978, and how proud the whole Bantam team was to be involved in its publication.
About that event, Ruesch wrote, in the Preface to the 1983 reissue of 'Slaughter of the Innocent' :
It is not generally known that the major media are subject to influence by the Drug Trust, often without being aware of it. In 'The Drug Story' (1949) [N.B. :excerpts of which are available on internet], former Maryland news editor Morris Bealle revealed how the Drug Trust had all news about drugs and therapies in America censored, under the pretext that the average newsperson knows nothing about medicine and thus needs guidance from experts – which the Drug Trust obligingly provided.
Knowing this, I had advised Bantam not to advertise the book ['Slaughter of the Innocent'] beforehand and not to circulate advance chapters to the media before publication, but to launch the book by surprise. They said it could not be done that way, and went ahead distributing advance copies. The first American review was also the last...
A change of ownership had taken place at Bantam during the 18 months between acceptance of the manuscript and publication. Agnelli, the Italian automobile tycoon, had sold his majority stock in Bantam to Bertelsmann Corporation, a huge West German publishing conglomerate headed by Reinhard Mohn. Mohn's string of magazines made him dependent on advertising which, in Europe as in America, came largely from petrochemicals and derivatives: drugs, cosmetics, plastics, dyes, rubber, oil, etc. Earlier, Bertelsmann had turned down the German version of 'Slaughter' ['Slaughter of the Innocent']. At the time, it had just been forced to withdraw 'Weisse Magier' (White Magicians) by Kurt Bluchel, a shattering expose of West Germany's pharmaceutical industry. Bertelsmann had learned its lesson – no more attacks on the Drug Trust. Now it was in control of Bantam, which had been getting ready to publish 'Slaughter' in an English language verson in America.
So in our Western democracies, no public book-burnings are necessary; there are subtler and more effective ways to stifle information unfavorable to the industrial powers-that-be... »
Individuals, book shops, associations et al, that tried to order 'Slaughter of the Innocent' were told, within months of its release, that it was out-of-print. In fact, it was never distributed, printed copies being consigned to Bantam's basement and the printing plates destroyed, despite a clause in the publishing contract that ought to have allowed Ruesch to buy them. From that time on, sales and reprints of 'Slaughter of the Innocent' were managed directly by Ruesch (who died last year) and his close supporters. By word of mouth, the book has continued to live and to be read, although clearly without access to major distribution networks, its reputation is limited mostly to those interested in the subject of vivisection.
Morris Bealle's earlier book, 'The Drug Story', mentioned by Ruesch, is another example of publishing industry collusion in censorship decided by the pharmaceutical industry. Of this book, Ruesch has written [in 'Naked Empress', self-published after the 'Slaughter of the Innocent' fiasco, and in which Ruesch delves more deeply into pharmaceutical medicines and medical treatments, as applied to humans] :
He [Bealle] couldn't get it into print until he founded his own publishing house, the Columbia Publishing Company, Washington, D.C., in 1949. Although it is one of the most important books to come out of the USA, it has never been carried by a major bookstore nor has it been reviewed by any of the newspapers that dictate the national best-seller lists. Nevertheless, at the time of this writing [1982], it is in its 33rd printing, under a different label –Biworld Publishers, Orem, Utah.
Bealle, who died a few years ago, had to use direct mail for the sale of his work, as most avenues of advertizing were closed to him...
Anybody who tries to get into the mass media independent news, contrary to the interests of the Drug Trust, will sooner or later run into an unbreakable wall... Morris Bealle's report on how this is done in the United States of America can be taken as emblematic for what happens in most industrialized nations in the world, notably Germany, Switzerland, Great Britain, and France... »
Which brings us back to the French film, 'The New Protocol'...
The film tells the story of Raoul Kraft, described as a 'lonely' man, living remotely in the mountains for his logging business, and who is one day confronted with the death of his teenage son in a seemingly banal car accident. But a young woman, an antiglobalization activist, comes from Paris to inform him that his son's accident may not have been banal at all. Diane tells him that his son was participating in the testing of a new drug for migraine headaches, and that an adverse reaction to this drug may be the true explaination for his son's accident. Diane wants a sample of the drug, to submit for independent analysis. Kraft has difficulty believing her theory, but when his lodgings are ransacked, perhaps by someone looking for what was left of the drug in his son's possession, he decides to go to Paris to find out more from the drug's manufacturer. There, in a temple of learned scientists, he is reassured that his idea could not be further from the truth, but he also runs into Diane again, denouncing the drug manufacturer's lies in a press conference, and being uncerimoniously thrown out by the company's gorrllas. Together, they investigate the incriminated drug, and in so doing, find themselves followed, chased, aggressed, shot at, and driven into hiding, without abandoning their investigation. With Diane as his guide, Kraft finds himself in a world far from his own, the world of drug company intimidation, coverup and violence (active and passive). And he discovers, from the horse's mouth, the logic that justifies such behavior, which he inevitably rejects as corrupt and unjust. And we see how an individual of integrity lives the consequences of rejecting this mammoth industry's immorality, to its logical and spectacular conclusion.
Already, this portrayal of the Drug Trust is enough to stir the wrath of the beast, but that 'spectacular conclusion', which you will have to see the film to discover, undoubtedly has Drug Trust bosses sitting on the edge of their seats, and worried. For theirs is a formidable beast indeed, but even bigger and more formidable is the public that has been duped, and which may be, at last, waking up to the fact that they have been had. With the equivalent of a jumbo jet of fatalities daily, in the U.S. alone, attributable to adverse drug reactions, the public may at last be catching on. To the fact that it has been estimated that most Americans have an injury or fatality from an adverse reaction to precription medicine in their own personal circle, we can add the inevitable, in the age of internet, publicity surrounding certain testing fiascos (the students who almost died in drug trials in London a few years back, the Nigerian lawsuit against Pfizer following the deaths of some 56 children there, and the very recent case of GlaxoSmithKline in Argentina, where 12 babies died testing a new vaccine). Yes, all things considered, Drug Trust bosses already have reason enough to sit on the edge of their seats, without another one, in the form of 'The New Protocol', giving their 'dissatisfied' customers ideas...
Clovis Cornillac, who bears an uncanny resemblance (when not sporting a beard and mustache, as in this film) to the young Marlon Brando, has said how much he likes this film. His interview (in French) is available on internet. So are the reactions of the crowds leaving the theaters in Paris, after the opening of the film, who also, in the vast majority, were highly enthusiastic. So, why is 'The New Protocol' not playing in a theater near me now? Nor in any other movie theater in France?
An enigma? Or dirty tricks, as usual?
