Hollywood

As a mid-twenties single white male, I represent the target demographic for Sacha Baron Cohen’s new movie “Bruno.” The mockumentary about an Austrian fashion designer was promoted as a follow up to the irreverent character chicanery in Cohen’s hit film “Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan.” However, after viewing the film and conferring with other theatre goers I want my money back.

The film follows “Bruno,” an Austrian Fashion designer on a quest for fame and acceptance in the United States. Interspersed with a grab bag of licentious smut, Cohen uses footage of mainstream celebrities who have been tricked into granting “Bruno” what they think are authentic interviews. Other Americana, such as a Fred Phelps anti-gay protest and a lewd craigslist swinger’s party are portrayed with mirthful indifference.

Mocking stereotypes may have its place in the arts, but “Bruno” is unredeemed proof that anything goes for entertainment if it can put a viewer on the edge of their seat. Yet it may not be anticipation of the next scene that has viewers on the edge of their seats in this case; many are getting ready to walk out of the theatre.

Bruno opened on a Friday night with strong box office returns, yet ticket sales quickly fell 39% on Saturday—a sign that viewers immediately warned their friends against the hype. Scrambling in the UK, “Bruno” producers have re-released a censored version of the film this week in hopes that underage viewers will not be turned away.

Though it appears Universal Picture’s profits are secure, the movie is not the blockbuster that opening night indicated. After one full week in theatres, ticket sales are down 73%. I have to hope and wonder: has my generation turned the corner and started to reject entertainment that flaunts our sense of tolerance by shredding public decency? The box office results of Sacha Baron Cohen’s flick “Bruno” would indicate yes.

The critics aren’t helping either. Owen Gleiberman in Entertainment Weekly writes that, “the movie is a toxic dart aimed at the spangly new heart of American hypocrisy: our fake-tolerant, fake-charitable, fake-liberated-yet-still madly-closeted fame culture.” Yet if Bruno is a toxic dart, then it is poisoned with the same base hypocrisy that Cohen pitches as humorous.

If Sacha Baron Cohen’s film contains a lesson about our culture, it is that humor has been exchanged for disgust, beauty for titillation, and decency for blind tolerance. There is almost nothing left for an irreverent comedian like Cohen to criticize.

Can a tolerant generation survive if it does not censor itself? It will be up to us twenty-something’s in the target demographic to answer this question. Many of our politicians practice democratic morality when they argue about same-sex marriage, abortion, dope, war, peace and taxes, while our pop-culture applauds anything with shock value. But I am afraid that this paradigm cannot last; we are trying to stitch the fabric of a tolerant society together with the cord of a lit fuse.

After all 88 excruciating minutes of Mr. Cohen’s film have passed, the viewer should learn at least one thing from the character “Bruno:” don’t just aspire to be rich and famous, ask for your money back once in a while.

From the Wall Street Journal's Digits Blog:

Apple’s iTunes makes saving music from CDs onto one’s personal computer a simple process, but doing the same with a DVD is much more complicated endeavor. Most DVDs are encoded with digital rights management technology to prevent copying.

Most DVD-viewers think that’s hypocrisy. A study of 1,000 consumers conducted by the National Consumers League found that 90% think that they should have ability to back up DVDs on their personal computers in the same way they are able to do with music from a CD ...

However, a recent lawsuit has been broiling in the courts, with several major Hollywood movie studios suing RealNetworks, a company that makes the RealDVD player.

At first, it was beyond me why Hollywood would be against this type of innovation. Then I learned about the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a piece of legislation that prohibits backing up DVDs. As FreedomWorks recently pointed out:

There are acceptable avenues of protecting intellectual property, but banning a new product that maintains the DRM encryption and prohibits copying for distribution in the name of fighting piracy makes no sense.  All this does is impose substantial new limitations on consumers and their use of the DVDs they purchase.

When we usually think about corporate welfare, we think about all of the special tax credits and deductions along with all of the subsidies that only the most powerful companies (i.e. the ones with the most lobbyists) get. For the Right to move beyond the simplistic arguments of the past on fiscal and tax policy, we should battle corporate welfare, not only in the tax code but in regulatory matters as well. Many states already have film tax credits which try to "promote economic development" by essentially paying filmakers to produce movies in their states. Just as these film tax credits at the state level is corporate welfare, so are many of the regulatory matters that fly under the radar.

We have to move on from the "tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts"-only message and refine a message that can work for those who don't have lobbyists and large political action committees working for them: government should not pick winners and losers in the market.

I want to give credit where credit is due.  Our miltary and their commander-in-chief made me proud today when Captain Richard Phillips was rescued by our Navy's special ops forces.

One issue in hostage negotiations is not to confuse delay for indecisiveness.  Wearing down the captors is often an effective tactic especially when there is no room for escape.  This ended well, with the exception of those thugs stupid enough to screw with the U.S. Navy.

And perhaps there is some interesting juxtaposition, as over Holy Week we saw a man taken away by those wishing him harm, thought likely to die, only to re-emerge safely on Easter Sunday.    

While this whole episode ended well, we need to ask deeper questions.

a) Why was an American ship seized?

b) Why did the pirates think we would let them escape with a ransom?

One answer to the first question is that the international maritime community has treated piracy like a vandalism claim.  The fear was a freighter defending itself would "escalate the situation".  For that reason, freighters were left with unarmed crews....apparently the insurance carriers liked it that way .  

One response to this ridiculous state of affairs would be to adopt either unilaterally or by treaty a "castle doctrine"  on the high seas, in which merchant sailors would enjoy blanket immunity from civil or criminal liability in the use of deadly force to prevent the boarding of their vessel.

Legislation directing U.S. flag vessels to carry firearms aboard as a condition of service might also dissuade 21st Century Jack Sparrows from seeking to commandeer our ships, seeking unarmed vessels from other nations.

But pirates also operated under the assumption that the U.S. Navy would err on the side of acquisesance instead of action when a crisis occurred, as it has been reported   

"U.S. rules of engagement prevent the Americans using their vastly superior fighting power to engage the pirates if there is any danger to civilians."

That doesn't provide much of a deterrent. Nor does the habitual payment of ransom by shipping companies. Once upon a time it was conventional wisdom that "if you subsidize something you get more if it"

The western world should collectively look in the mirror---as the prior subsidization of piracy and kidnapping....hmmmm...encouraged the problem to "escalate" 

So our Somali "friends" did not expect the Navy Seals to end this on our terms.  That creates the bigger---longer term--problem.

There's a paradigm that works---Pax Brittanica, Pax Americana, "Peace through Strength"---whatever the current iteration happens to be. It can be summed up in one common phrase.

The big dogs enforce the rules. 

Anglo-Americans have pretty much done this since Trafalgar. But now we have hints the Obama Administration and its intellectual allies find this an unwanted and unfashionable burden.

Certaintly when your overseas trip is labelled "an apology tour"   perhaps one could excuse the Somali thugs for questioning how stiff the present administration's backbone is? (I will note that covertly, Obama seems to be emulating much of what he once denounced on wiretapping   and detention; maybe the eight year record of not getting bombed again is looking more important to Obama now that he's in office) 

The problem here is that we need a power with some swagger, and yes, maybe even a touch of arrogance to enforce the international order.  It's easy to make lots of friends promising to consult everybody, and not impose one's will on those unwilling to go along, and generally make clear it case it wasn;t obvious enough you are not George W. Bush.

That said--"soft power" wasn't what freed Captain Phillips. Or what will prevent Iran from going nuclear. Or deal with an innumerable set of problems where only decisive action by one nation and one military is going to make the difference.

Maybe this minor crisis might cause Obama--whose actual military and foreign policy experience is ,,,hmmm..thin--- to reevaluate what he's trying to accomplish in protecting our interests and that of our allies.

He shouldnt listen to experts who suggest the age of deterrence is over.  Indeed, what we have seen off the Horn of Africa is in a multipolar world we will be left with a lawless "tragedy of the commons" devolving into a Hobbesian state of nature.  

Maybe this naval vessel might be a better inspiration. now that the President might have a better appreciation of their capabilities.

“One thing is certain. If we’re to continue to advance world peace and human freedom, America must remain strong. If we have learned anything these last eight years, it’s that peace through strength works.”

Now there's an alternative reality popular among college campuses, Hollywood, and various Whole Foods Markets around the country, and which it must be said, many of the Obamatons subscribe to,  Movie Director Ron Howard put it best, wanting a "more progressive America" that..

 I don't think we'll be, at a certain point I don't think we'll be so consumed with being the pre-eminent super-power and, you know, driven by sort of militarism and this need to export, you know, democracy and so forth.

I doubt very much Captain Phillips was quite so worried about American miltarism when he was floating around the Indian Ocean. American miltarism is why he's alive today. And you know, here's one issue where I really expected more out of Ron Howard. 

Remember one of Howard's best movies---ironically titled---Ransom ?

In Ransom Manhattan business tycoon Mel Gibson has his kid seized and a money demand placed on his safe return.  En route to a drop point in New Jersey, the kidnapper calls Gibson on a cell phone and makes an observation which is directly relevant to where we are today.

The kidnapper taunts Gibson calling him an "eloi" ...an elitist wimp who thinks he can buy his way out of all forms of trouble.  The kidnapper says he is one of the Morlock ...vicious brutes who exost only to prey on the Eloi.

The President might want to dwell upon that for a moment. The world is full of "Morlocks"---individuals who if given a chance will lay waste to civilization for fun, profit, ideology or due to mental illness. If civilization is going to act like the benign and peaceful Eloi, we are in for dark days. And sadly, the "human rights" people seems to think our military is the problem, not the prevention.

The term in law enforcement is "thin blue line". Our nation's military and intelligence services serve the same role in the global community. Are we going to make them stronger or make them weaker?. Are we going to reward action or penalize initiative?   

Will we be Seals or will we be Eloi? 

Andrew Breitbart writes that conservatives won’t fix their Internet problem until they fix their culture problems. Writes Breitbart:

The Democratic Party resonates on the Internet because it resonates in pop culture. The Democratic Party resonates in pop culture because it has been committed to dominating it for over a generation…

The spectacular Will.I.Am song and video, “Yes We Can,” could not be duplicated by Republicans if T. Boone Pickens airdropped his fortune on the RNC headquarters.

The Mac versus PC advertising campaign best sums up the stark divide. Only it’s much worse.

What the Republican Party needs to do now is figure out how to make up for 40 years of ignoring the net effect of film, television and music, and the youth culture that goes along with it. When will the people who make the big decisions and write the big checks realize the AM radio band is not enough?

As I’ve written and stated many times, college Republicans and other young conservative activists need to go Hollywood - in mind, spirit and even in location.

I don’t know if it’s quite as bleak as Breitbart says, but it is a challenge for conservatives. Here’s the deal. It seems that most of the people leading on the right are so left-brained towards fields like finance, business, or government that they can’t even grasp the idea of cultural productions as anything more than diversions.

When in reality, culture really turns the wheel of society and in fact is often far out front of government. Culture defines how many people think about issues. Something as simple as who the good guys and who the bad guys are can move people’s views of the world.

Of course, works of culture need not be about specific topics. One example of this if Harrison Ford’s 1993 Hit “The Fugitive.” The plot: A doctor is wrongfully accused and convicted of the murder of his wife. He escape and seeks to clear his name. It was based on a 1960s TV Show.  In the 1960s show, the villain was a one-armed man, a simple thug who did the crime. *spoiler warning ahead*

But we couldn’t have that in 1993. The source of villainy was an evil corporation that wanted to get their heart drug approved by the FDA even though it caused liver problems, because we all know it’s better to make a few hundred million in sales and then get hit by a multi-billion dollar class action lawsuit when someone else figures out the problem.

And how did Deputy U.S. Marshall Samuel Gerard figure out the company was behind it. He quoted it’s Market CAP of several billion dollars and said, ”It’s a monster.”

Yes, any corporation with a larget Market CAP is a criminal enterprise ready to kill you and/or frame you for murder in order to kill other Americans because of their insatiable greed. Thus, to many Americans, if you say, “My name is Bob, I work for a Fortune 500 company…” they’ll think, “Must be a soulless robot.”  

Now, if conservatives are smart, we’ll see more films that feature labor unions as the bad guys. Such an effort would produce a situation where people would think, “So you work for the mafia?” when they introduce themselves as a leader of a union.

While my fellow conservatives may look at me as if I’m from another planet when I mention that I write Science Fiction, my cultural efforts will continue as they matter more long-term than my political ones.

-->

Crossposted at Right Minds

It's not every day, or every year, or every decade that Hollywood comes out with an unabashedly conservative movie. There was the Passion of the Christ, though that was a Mel Gibson vanity project, albeit a very good one, and then there was...I'm not sure there have been any more. So when David Zucker came out with An American Carol, a film that exists solely to mock liberals, people noticed. Conservatives were encouraged by this film's existence--it seemed that at least one man in Hollywood was willing to take on Hollywood's liberal agenda.

Actually, a lot more than one man--in addition to David Zucker (of Airplane! and Naked Gun fame), stars like Jon Voight, Trace Adkins, and Kelsey Grammar signed on too. In addition to its reasonably impressive star power, An American Carol had a decent budget--this wouldn't be a low-budgeted, desperate spoof like Scary Movie 4. An American Carol had the potential to be good.

Of course, it also had a lot of potential to be bad. Most of the movie's stars are a bit past their prime, and David Zucker, impressive career notwithstanding, has sunk to directing movies such as, well, Scary Movie 4. And agenda driven humor can be very successful (the Daily Show) but is just as often not (see Michael Moore's Canadian Bacon).

The plot of An American Carol is loosely based on the Dickens story. Filmmaker Michael Malone (modeled, obviously, after Michael Moore) is an American-hating lefty filmmaker whose distaste for all things American drives him to push to abolish the Fourth of July. (Just the first example of this movie's subtle, understated humor). Chris Farley, it must be said, doesn't do much with this role--he really isn't much better than the Moore lookalike in the semi-popular Internet video "Fellowship 9/11", which was shot on a much less substantial budget. "Malone" is a gold mine of laughs--he gets slapped a lot (sometimes trampled too), he's fat and loves to eat, and...that's all actually. And given that "Malone" is onscreen almost the entire length of the movie, that's really not a good sign.

The rest of the plot features some Islamic terrorists who want Moo-, I mean, "Malone", to direct an Islamic training video so that they can blow up Madison Square Garden during a Trace Adkins concert for the troops (a dastardly but complicated plan--I'm not sure what they needed Moore for), and there are some protests, and of course there are the three ghosts--President Kennedy (in the Marley role), George Washington, General Patton, and Trace Adkins (Trace Adkins?).

These plot threads are hopelessly tangled, and I'm not really sure what happens, and it doesn't matter anyway. I think the directors were shooting for a Pythonesque collection of sketches . They failed.

Some of the scenes are merely lame (example: the movie's three thousand--at least--fat jokes), others are cliched (is having kids swear still supposed to be shocking?), others are supposed to be "politically incorrect," but aren't. None are really funny, in part because Kelsey Grammar's character insists on explaining why each sketch is funny. (Yeah, it's a good thing too--I never could have figured out "Rosie O'Connell" by myself). An American Carol should have driven an agenda--not hit us over the head with it.

The movie's message is as simplistic and unsubtle as its humor. The primary theme of the film is that "Michael Moore is fat," but the secondary idea is that liberals are closeted America-haters who root for the terrorists. I don't like Michael Moore, in fact I loathe him more than any other American in public life (with the possible exception of Paris Hilton, who appears in this movie as herself), but this is unfair. I, and I think most other conservatives, prefer to think of liberals as misguided rather than knowingly destructive. This movie somehow made me feel a bit sympathetic towards Michael Moore.

One scene has attracted a great deal of controversy--Jon Voight's George Washington shows "Malone" Ground Zero as a reminder of what we're fighting for, a scene many thought was incredibly tasteless. Those people must not listen to country music--Toby Keith's biggest hit was a song about 9/11. This scene didn't work--it was far too serious given its context, and Ground Zero was represented with distractingly bad CGI, but it wasn't particularly offensive, at least to me.

My recommendation for this film would be to skip the theatrical release, and wait for the DVD. Then don't buy the DVD either, because this movie (to steal a line from Roger Ebert) sucks. It's not funny, it's not edgy, it's just bland, boring slapstick.

An American Carol is bad, but David Zucker deserves credit for his courage. Hollywood does not tolerate apostasy. His basic idea (for a conservative film) was a good one--it's just a pity that the movie was so incredibly bad. Eventually, there will be a good conservative comedy--but this isn't it.

We all know that Hollywood is overwhelmingly liberal, and so are most of the movies coming out of that city. A Conservative in Hollywood is almost an oxymoron.

That is the reason that "An American Carol" the latest offering from David Zucker and starring Kevin Farley, Kelsey Grammer, Trace Atkins, Dennis Hopper and Jon Voight is so unique.  That is ALSO the reason that Conservatives must make every effort to make the Opening Weekend on Oct 3 a tremendous success.

The Minority Report has been able to arrange a Liveblog -- a one-hour chat with Kevin Farley on Wednesday, Oct 1, from 8-9 pm EDT. Kevin, in fact, is wildly excited about talking with other conservatives in getting the movie's message out to the public.

TMR Spotlights™ is very proud to present a liveblog Q & A with actor Kevin Farley, star of the upcoming outrageous comedy  An American Carol.

Please mark your calendars for Wednesday, Oct 1 -- 8-9 pm and then make the movie a success by arranging to see the movie during the opening weekend.

The addition of Andrew Breitbart to the stable of columnists at the Washington Times is, to my mind, a great development.  It seems to signal an emerging consciousness within the editorial board that there is a need for conservatism to renew its efforts to take part in the creation of cultural fare rather than ceding it to the left without so much as a peep, unless it happens to be the tired, old puling that conservatives have come to use as a crutch to explain the movement's misfortunes.

Breitbart tackles this issue in his column today, and it's well worth the read if only to serve as a reminder that if the rebuilding of the movement is to have any hope of success, it will have to take place on all fronts.  The cultural front is perhaps the most crucial one, since potential voters who aren't otherwise engaged most often develop their opinions based on what they're exposed to through the arts.

Andrew puts it aptly in the following passage:

If we encouraged our young to consider careers in the arts, we would begin to reap the benefits in short order. Instead, we waste valuable time complaining and now are knee-deep in our enemy's dogma and have the indignity of paying for their products. Too much time has been lost navel-gazing about why things haven't fallen our way.

Read the full article here.

As many Republican office bosses can probably attest, their underlings are spending too much time checking celebrity gossip websites, the most popular of which is Perezhilton.com.  Perez Hilton is the nom de célébrité pute of Cuban American Mario Lavandeira.  A visit to his site will make you start dropping modern feminist terms like 'misogynist' at levels once reserved only for Gloria Steinem.  His sexism is brazen as his targets are mostly women.  The words "bitches", "whores", and "skanks" are emblazoned over the pictures of female celebrities with abandon with no hint of irony.  Catherine Zeta-Jones got the "twat" treatment as recently as Wednesday:

The excessive sexism even has the feminist blog, jezebel.com, devote a regular feature documenting Mario's in-your-face woman-hating. 

Huffington Post has begun to recognize (and I do too) that Perezhilton.com may have some pull in our politics.  His wall-to-wall coverage of celebrity news (some of which he breaks) ranks up there with Drudgereport in providing for water-cooler conversations.  Day-by-day, Mario attacks McCain and other GOP politicians on gay issues (Mario's gay). 

However, as Huffpo's Kelli Goff pointed out, gay rights aren't even that popular on Perez Hilton's site as his latest attack on McCain generated 700 comments, and from the looks of it, a surprisingly large number were against the blogger. 

His website may be popular, but his pull with his audience is tenuous.  He supported the failing bid of Hillary Clinton and was there to fan the Rev. Wright flames to no affect on his readership.  Positive posts on Obama are always swamped with anti-Obama comments. 

One of his problems may be is that celebrity gossip is a downmarket, uh, market.  You know, red state kind of a thing.  Basically, Mario's choir is deaf to his existence as a purveyor of such gossip and because he is a gossip-monger, his more 'serious' opinions are sidelined. 

 but answering the phone may not be...

Beware if the phone rings at your home if you live in CT 5.

My wife told me today that washed up Hollywood actor Mike Farrell   http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0268286/ is busy making the phone ring with some prerecorded liberal song-and-dance about how wonderful my empty suit sophomoric freshman congressman, Chris Murphy, is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Murphy_(politician)

I'm sure that wasn;t much of an imposition for Mr. Farrell, whose biography reveals he's been less busy in the past 25 years than the Maytag repairman.

I know living out in Henry Waxman's district Farrell may be blissfully unaware of this fact, but here in staid old CT robocalls are despised!

There was a huge outcry over robocalls in the last election in CT and the General Assembly came very close to banning the practice http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=407&which_year=2008&SUBMIT1.x=6&SUBMIT1.y=8

I suspect the average CT voter thinks these things were already banned by the Do Not Call Act. I  look forward to Murphy explaining to annoyed  voters why they weren't .

Hopefully, right of center folks will avoid this tactic around here as I can assure you it will result in less support for the cause, not more.

But maybe this one makes sense. After the debacle of the energy and financial markets the Democrats in Congress have presided over, maybe their spokesman really ought to be someone who worked in a M.A.S.H unit