Category: News/Opinion

Hollywood Liberal Says: Angelina Jolie a ‘Closet Rightie’ Who Must Therefore be ‘Great in Bed’

By Jason Apuzzo. Earlier today I read what has got to be one of the most unintentionally funny excrescences from a Hollywood liberal that I’ve ever encountered.  Jeffrey Wells today over at Hollywood Elsewhere, a site renowned for its faux-insider musings on the industry – not to mention Wells’ retro-ducktail haircut – engages in some decidedly breathless speculations over whether Angelina Jolie might be … a closet right-winger!

Jolie gets 'politically profiled.'

Who is ‘Salt,’ indeed!

But that’s not all!  In conspiratorial tones redolent of his apparently deep, penetrating insights into female psychology, Wells also speculates on whether Ms. Jolie’s alleged conservatism is somehow responsible for her legendary sexual prowess in bed! Well!

Even if I tried, I couldn’t make this stuff up.

Some context here: we’ve been talking-up Jolie’s Salt for months here at Libertas (see here and here) because of that film’s blistering critique of the communist cause – a cause which lingers on today, as we all know, in other guises … both domestic and abroad.  And as regular Libertas readers know, it remains astonishing to me that the right wing media in America continue to ignore Salt while promoting Stallone’s anti-CIA hit job The Expendables, which still isn’t even doing as well at the box office as Jolie’s savvier, more pleasurable film.

So here comes Jeffrey Wells stumbling into the mix, with his conspiratorial musings on whether Jolie is some kind of puppet for her “saliva-drooling Tea Party nutter” father (Jon Voight), along with some Rat Pack-level psychology on the female of the species.  [By the way, all of this comes fast on the heels of the LA Times’ Tom O’Neil political ‘profiling’ of Ernest Borgnine, based solely and exclusively on Borgnine’s refusal to see Brokeback Mountain.]

Here’s Jeffrey Wells, sans irony:

Angelina Jolie isn’t just the once-estranged daughter of Hollywood’s worst saliva-drooling Tea Party nutter, Jon Voight. She may also be a closet ally of Voight’s, at least in terms of despising Barack Obama. (Call this a flimsy maybe.) She also seems to be a supporter of America’s military adventures in Iraq and perhaps also Afghanistan and…well, basically anywhere that the poor are suffering due to the deprivations of war. …

I only know what Jon Voight has said and stands for, and that I saw him standing near his daughter and Brad Pitt inside a roped-off area at the Salt premiere after-party. And the old cliche about the acorn not falling too far from the tree flew into my mind, especially considering her rep as a closet rightie (including her alleged support for McCain during the ’08 campaign) and that “stay the course in Iraq” Washington Post article she posted in ’08. And being…okay, maybe she’s more of an Ayn Rand libertarian, given her interest in making a film version of Atlas Shrugged.

It’s fair to say that if Rush Limbaugh is singing your praises, something stinks in the kingdom of Denmark.

The basic conservative impulse is to bow down and show total allegiance to authority. This obviously links up with the old cliche about right-wing women (like Rand) being especially passionate about worshipping strong males, which is incidentally why they’re said to be so great in bed. This could be one possible explanation for those reportedly overheard sounds that suggested “an animal being killed.”

I’m not one to take unsourced Us magazine quotes as anything to rely upon, but combine the Washington Post op-ed piece with this 11.09 non-attributable quote that Jolie considers Obama to be a “closet socialist,” and I’m at least thinking “hmmm.”

The term “closet socialist”….well, what’s so bad with that? FDR was one, and he had it right in my book. Anyone who uses such a term is clearly a closet rightie. I mean, that’s a symmetrical way of looking at it.

“‘She hates [Obama],” a source close to Jolie told an Us reporter, according to the article. “She’s into education and rehabilitation and thinks Obama is all about welfare and handouts. She thinks Obama is really a socialist in disguise.”

So let me summarize some of what we’ve learned from Mr. Wells here, because it’s really quite fascinating.

• One of the reasons Jolie might be a right winger is that Mr. Wells spotted her standing next to her father at the premiere of Salt.  My, that does seem incriminating!

• Another reason she must be a conservative is that she was interested in playing the Dagny Taggart role in Atlas Shrugged … which, apparently unbeknownst to Wells, famous Hollywood liberals like Charlize Theron and Julia Roberts have also been attached to because it’s a great female role.  Does that make them ‘closet righties’ too, Jeffrey?

Right wing women: "great in bed."

• “The basic conservative impulse is to bow down and show total allegiance to authority,” asserts Mr. Wells. And blissfully unaware of the ironies involved, just a few lines later Wells goes on to praise the presidency of FDR.  I’ll leave that fun little contradiction alone because I don’t believe in shooting turkeys while they’re squawking in a barrel.

• This is my favorite Wells-ism, though: that right-wing women worship strong males, and for this reason are “great in bed.” Well! Among other things, we’re learning here about what Mr. Wells himself apparently thinks makes a woman “great in bed”: namely, the worship of “strong males” … like him? Fascinating!  It’s amazing how retro some of these ‘liberal’ guys can be!

• I also like Wells’ efforts to tie Jolie’s right-wing politics to celebrity gossip about some apparently loud lovemaking (the “animal getting killed” stuff) between Jolie and Brad Pitt at an African resort, from five years ago.  Apparently in Wells’ mind that’s a strong journalistic lead in the hunt to uncover Jolie’s secret, reactionary worldview!

I could go on here, but I think you get the point.  I’m less interested here in whether Jolie is actually a right-winger (I doubt that, frankly) than in a typical Hollywood liberal’s image of what a conservative must be like.

I’m also intrigued by what Mr. Wells’ heated musings suggest about what the average Hollywood liberal really thinks of the female of the species, by the way.  Who’s really the caveman here?  It sounds like it’s you, Jeffrey.  Or maybe you’re just not getting your ducktail stroked enough.

Posted on August 26th, 2010 at 2:02pm.

Mad Men Season Four, Episode 5: “The Chrysanthemum and the Sword”

Betty & Edna.

By Jennifer Baldwin. After two blessed Betty-free weeks, the former Mrs. Draper returns in this week’s episode. And wouldn’t you know it, this episode gave us Betty at her worst (the vindictive, Sally-smacking, “I’ll cut your fingers off!” mother from hell) and at her most sympathetic (Betty in the therapist’s office).

I’ve always been sympathetic to Betty when she’s in these therapy scenes. In the first season, her vulnerability with the (duplicitous) psychiatrist was heartbreaking; it was Betty at her most likable and human. Whenever she gets talking on the therapist’s couch, Betty often reveals more about herself than she knows — there’s a very wounded and messed up human being in there beneath the cold, aloof, shrewish surface. This is Betty at her most honest (even if she’s unaware of the honesty bleeding through her pretense) and as a result, it’s hard to hate her in these scenes. Perhaps that’s why I was so anti-Betty last season — we were only given the surface pretense and the outward coldness and very little of the inner, human Betty.

Well, we get human Betty again this week — after a long absence. In a meeting with a child psychiatrist (for Sally), Betty unknowingly starts having a therapy session with the shrink herself. This makes sense, of course, since Betty has been much more of a “child” than the other adult characters on the show (recall her twisted, sometimes tender, but ultimately creepy relationship with young Glenn Bishop). Betty doesn’t really reveal much outwardly, but the little pauses, the half sentences, the tone of her voice and her demeanor all show just how much pain Betty is in — and how much she’s trying to suppress and disguise it. Eeesh. Betty is so screwed up.

However, Betty does make a good point, re: Don. Why did Don plan a date when he knew he’d have the kids? Of course, Don reveals later to Faye in the break room that he doesn’t see his kids enough and he doesn’t know what to do with them when he does. He feels relief when he brings them back to Betty – but then afterward, he misses them. Eeesh. Don is so screwed up.

This episode had weird shifts in tone, from strange and disturbing (the Betty/Sally storyline) to comical and bouncy (all the stuff with Don and Miss Blankenship and the caper involving a rival agency and the Honda account). An uneven episode, and probably the season’s weakest overall (also: the first episode this season to not be written or co-written by Matthew Weiner).

Miss Blankenship.

Which is not to say it doesn’t have some spectacular moments. The trick Don and Co. pull on rival agency CGC is pure delight — accompanied by the kind of swinging mid-60s music that makes it all seem like a Tony Curtis comedy. And everything involving Roger’s WWII service and his continued animosity toward the Japanese is precisely the thing that makes historical drama fascinating. It’s a peek inside the mind of a WWII vet, twenty years after the war. It’s hard for us to imagine now — that lingering hostility towards our WWII enemies — but Roger’s words and actions show how hard it was for some men to forget. Plus it gives us another perfect scene between Roger and Joan. Forget Peggy and Pete, and Don and Betty — Roger and Joan are my all-time favorite pairing.

Other points and observations:

On the weekly Pete front, I must say, Pete’s vocabulary always amuses. Vincent Kartheiser rolls out lines like “A Deerfield chum of mine” as if he’s been saying it his whole life. Also: “Christ on a cracker!” Seriously, where does he get this stuff?! And Pete speaks for many of us when he asks: “Who the hell is Dr. Lyle Evans?” (Is the line a red herring?).

I might be in the minority opinion, but I find the never-ending vaudeville comedy routine between Don and his new secretary, Miss Blankenship, to be a hoot. Yes, it’s rather low comedy, but it’s added a bit of levity to a show that sometimes takes itself too seriously.

Also good for some comedy gold: The Japanese, their translator, and one Joan Holloway Harris.

Honda Honcho (in Japanese, while staring at Joan’s breasts): “How does she not fall over?”
Joan (to the translator, noticing the Japanese staring eyes): “They’re not very subtle are they?”
Translator: “No.”

Bethany — who looks like Virginia Mayo — makes a reappearance this week. Also, who knew Benihana was around in the 60s? Apparently I need to bone up on my cultural knowledge!

Pete & Ichiro.

Continuing Cultural Reference Watch: “A Margaret Dumont-sized disaster” (note that she died just about the time this episode took place); Man from U.N.C.L.E.; and of course, the title of the episode: The Chrysanthemum and the Sword.

It’s interesting how the Japanese this season are playing the role the British played last season. Culture clash and the growing influence of Asian culture on American culture: business and entertainment, Honda and Godzilla.

Also of note: I was indeed right — Dr. Faye was wearing a wedding ring. But … she’s not married! It’s basically a “keep away” sign for all the wolves. Of course, now that Don knows the ring is a fake, how long before he and Faye are “doing it,” as Sally would say? I predict it happens in two weeks.

Finally, the closing credits song was “I Enjoy Being a Girl,” as sung by Doris Day. “I Enjoy Being a Girl,” of course, is from the Rodgers and Hammerstein musical, Flower Drum Song, made into a film in 1961, and starring James Shigeta and Miyoshi Umeki. Both Japanese.

Posted on August 26th, 2010 at 10:05am.

LFM Review: Scott Pilgrim vs. The World

Scott & Ramona.

By Patricia Ducey. Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is an action-packed, coming of age adventure that even non-gamers – or those unfamiliar with the original graphic novel – can enjoy. Pilgrim is adapted from Canadian Brian Lee O’Malley’s graphic novels of the same name by writer/director Edgar Wright (of comedy classic Shaun of the Dead) and remains true to the visuals and the spirit of O’Malley’s story. But Wright grabs every film and cultural reference he can and brings the novel to life in a bold and raucous romp through 20-something slackerdom and redemption.

Michael Cera, of Superbad fame and present day reigning filmic geek, graduates in Pilgrim vs. the World into action hero and possibly into mature manhood. Cera plays a 22-year-old bass guitarist living in a one-room shack with best friend/gay roommate Wallace (Kieran Culkin in a fine performance). He and his buddies are trying to break into indie rock stardom with their garage band Sex Bob-omb, while Scott manages or mismanages his complicated, feckless love life.  (The band is actually pretty good, with songs written by Beck.)

Scott lives partly in Toronto and partly in his own fevered dreams. He is a serial heartbreaker who refuses to take responsibility for the trail of tears he leaves behind when he bails. He negotiates the vagaries of a multiculti, multi-sexual limbo of 20-something slackerdom; he and his buddies are adrift, jobless, unable to commit to anything or anyone. His chaste romance with a 17-year-old (and thus unavailable) schoolgirl Knives Chau personifies that emotional paralysis.

His hesitant heart explodes, though, when he spies the beautiful and aloof Ramona Flowers, a woman his own age, whose disinterest proves the headiest of aphrodisiacs. After one date, he discovers the roots of her melancholy withdrawal—a string of mean ex-boyfriends who have wounded her, she fears, for good. To win her, he must first defeat these 7 jealous ex-boyfriends, now allies in the nefarious League of Evil Exes (Axis of Evil?) and release her from the past.  Scott easily vanquishes first ex Mathew Patel, an Indian-Canadian hipster, who then breaks into a Bollywood danceoff accompanied by his demon chick backup dancers. After defeating an angry lesbian and a vegan rock star, Scott approaches the last level and last ex, Evil Exes ringleader Gideon, the one who still holds sway over Ramona’s affections. In a nod to the classic Rushmore, Gideon is played by the grandfather of all lovelorn nerd heroes, a now grown up Jason Schwartzman.

Canadian O’Malley’s Toronto, filmed in lovely tones of winter black and white, proves a lovely palate cleanser when sequences of dazzling special effects and primary-colored graphics threaten to overwhelm.  Wright borrows visuals from PacMan to Wii, the original TV show Batman, manga, comic book split screen close-ups, and even inserts of O’Malley’s original pen and ink drawings from his Scott Pilgrim novel series.

Pilgrim has been described as the first movie for the joystick generation, and it may well be the first ‘post-liberal’ film, as well. The characters exist in the fullness of well-developed character, not as motes in some polemicist’s eye. Wallace’s sexuality is but one facet of his character: he is neither Magical Gay nor Victim Gay. The racial identity of Knives Chau or Mathew Patel is as important to the narrative as Scott’s — which is to say, not at all. Pilgrim also merrily and mercilessly jabs at a few PC targets like vegans, in a laugh-out-loud sequence involving one of Ramona’s exes.

Pilgrim vs. the World at almost two hours may be a couple of villainous exes too long — O’Malley claims they structured the story like a game, with confrontations that lead to higher levels or to doom — but its heart and its values redeem it all in the end. Pilgrim is probably safe for teenagers, with a few sexual references and excesses, but Scott and his buddies learn a few lessons about responsibility and empathy, and the world rights itself.

Kudos to Wright for keeping it PG and exploiting fully the dispensation from cynicism that Hollywood grants to Young Adult fare; for all its techno razzle-dazzle, Pilgrim v. World honors a very traditional narrative that respects its ‘message’ and its young viewers both.

Posted on August 24th, 2010 at 3:29pm.

NBC’s The Event: An Obama Stand-in, CIA Conspiracy … and an Alaskan Detention Camp?

By Jason Apuzzo. I’m curious as to what people think of this preview (above) for NBC’s forthcoming series, The Event.  Here are the main elements I’m getting from this trailer:

• Heroic, charismatic young black President.

• CIA conspiracy involving illegal detainees.

• A secret detention facility in Alaska?

• Some sort of 9/11-type event.

I believe this is what is referred to as ‘on the nose’-style filmmaking.  And we apparently now have the Obama Administration’s own version of The West Wing.

Somehow you knew this was coming, didn’t you?

[Special thanks to LFM’s Patricia Ducey for tipping me off about this.]

[Special thanks to Hot Air for linking to this post.]

Posted on August 24, 2010 at 2:20pm.

State Sanctioned Theft: The Art of the Steal

By Joe Bendel. Americans expect their property rights to be respected, even posthumously. However, those rights evidently do not apply to when the property in question is especially valuable. At least that seems to be the case in Pennsylvania, where the state government, the city of Philadelphia, and a group of powerful non-profit foundations have in effect legally plundered the priceless Barnes Collection according to Don Argott’s eye-opening documentary, The Art of the Steal, now available on DVD.

Steal opens with the unseemly yet so appropriate video of former Mayor John Street’s news conference, in which he overflows with glee at the prospect of finally getting the Barnes in Philadelphia. All that is missing is a football for Street to spike before doing an end-zone dance. However, this display is problematic on multiple levels.

Albert C. Barnes hated Philadelphia. The self-made entrepreneur and Roosevelt Democrat amassed probably the greatest private collection of impressionist and early modern art. Yet, when he unveiled his collection in the City of Brotherly Love, it was panned by the local press and mocked by the chattering classes.  Eventually, Philadelphia realized what they had missed, but it was too late. Barnes had established his Foundation in exurban Lower Merion, where career-defining Renoirs, Cézannes, Matisses, Picassos, and Degases were integrated into a progressive art school, with only limited opportunities for public viewing.

When the childless Barnes passed away, the terms of his will were explicitly designed to keep his collection intact and out of the grasping hands of Philadelphia and its despised Art Institute. However, as the original trustees passed away, control of the Barnes Foundation eventually fell to Lincoln University, a traditionally African American school safely outside the Pennsylvania establishment in Barnes’s day that became state affiliated in 1972. As Argott makes crystal clear, from that point on, Barnes’s intentions no longer governed the Foundation that still bears his name.

One of the unspoken ironies of Steal is that Barnes, the New Dealer and sworn enemy of Nixon confidant Walter Annenberg, was ultimately undone by Democrats like Street and Governor Ed Rendell. At least the governor consented to an on-camera interview, justifying the hijacking of the Barnes on grounds that incontrovertibly contradict the spirit of his will (like the fact that more people will be able to gawk at his collection on the Franklin Parkway). Conversely, representatives of the Pew Charitable Trust, which Argott identifies as the shadowy power player in the takeover of the Barnes, conspicuously declined to participate in the film.  (In a further irony, the only political figure in Argott’s film speaking on behalf of Barnes’s intentions is Lower Merion’s Republican congressman Jim Gerlach, to his credit.)

Producer Sheena Joyce, exec. producer Lenny Feinberg, director Don Argott.

Though he is covering the rarified art world, Argott approaches the Barnes case like a criminal investigation, and with good reason. He also memorably establishes the mind-blowing dimensions of the stakes involved, establishing the term “Barnesworthy.” As art-dealer Richard Feigen explains at a supposedly blockbuster Sotheby’s early modern show, most of the work on display that would soon be bought for millions of dollars would not have merited a second glance from Barnes. Though Feigen himself declined to assign a dollar figure to the entire collection, its value would be estimated in court filings at twenty five billion (with a “b”) dollars. This is what “Barnesworthy” means.

Steal is a smart, persuasive documentary that challenges some previously sacrosanct notions regarding the merit of museums as public institutions. While some of the finer points of estate law might sound dry, Argott makes it all quite compelling, pulling viewers through step-by-step with remarkable assuredness.

Unfortunately, the establishment considers the Barnes’ impending move to downtown Philly a done deal, even though the rag-tag Friends of the Barnes group still fights on.  Maybe so, but Argott’s film could make it a pyrrhic victory.  It is hard to imagine how anyone could willingly step foot in a Barnes bastardized by machine politics after watching Steal, regardless of the significance of the collection within.  Highly recommended, Steal is now available on DVD and streams on Netflix.

Posted on August 24th, 2010 at 11:29am.

Hollywood Round-up, 8/24

Chi Cao from "Mao's Last Dancer."

By Jason Apuzzo. • It was such a pleasure seeing Mao’s Last Dancer this past weekend.  It’s an emotional, stirring film that is carried by two very strong performances by Chi Cao and Bruce Greenwood.  The story of how this young Chinese dancer rose to prominence during the nightmare-period of Mao’s reign, came to America – and then fought tenaciously for his freedom – is a story that everyone should see, especially when it’s told as elegantly as director Bruce Beresford tells it here.

What I was stunned by, however, were all of the flattering references in the film to (then) Vice President George H.W. Bush, and also to President Reagan.  It’s made quite plain that the elder Bush was instrumental in securing this young dancer’s freedom, and this is probably going to be the most flattering take on the Bush family and/or legacy you’re going to see on film any time in the near future.  We’ve got a brief except from the film below in this context, by the way.

I cannot recommend this film highly enough, as it expands into wider distribution next weekend. Mao’s Last Dancer is not only a compelling indictment of the communist system, but a rousing testimony to the opportunities available to high achievers in free societies like our own. Make sure to see it.

On the box office front, Mao did over a $192,000 in business on 31 screens in 10 markets.  It opens to 15 new markets this upcoming weekend.  Make sure to check out the clip below.

• From the sublime to the ridiculous … the other film I saw this past weekend that involved a ballet sequence (ahem), Piranha 3D, finished #6 at the box office this weekend with over $10 million … which is actually only about $6 million less than the #1 film, The Expendables.  Despite the strikingly positive reviews this film received (Rotten Tomatoes currently has it at an 81 rating), the rather obvious problem this film faced is that its intended audience – namely, teenagers – for the most part couldn’t see it due to its R rating.  [Personally I think the film easily could’ve received an NC-17.]  Still, I think Alex Aja has created a genuine cult masterpiece here that will live long and prosper once it reaches its natural milieu of unrated home video. 🙂  And, indeed, word is now breaking late today that Aja and Dimension films are already planning a sequel to the film, possibly to take place in Thailand.

From "Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader."

• Sandra Bullock and Tom Hanks may be teaming on an adaptation of the post-9/11 Jonathan Safran Foer novel, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close. This project looks interesting, and we’ll keep an eye on it.  I haven’t read the novel, but Entertainment Weekly has a brief summary of it here.

• Angelina Jolie has announced that her next project will be a low-budget love story set at the height of the Bosnian war, for which she wrote the screenplay … and which she’ll be directing (she will not be acting in the film). “The film is a love story, not a political statement,” Jolie asserts in a recent statement about the project.

Good for her.  How odd that at this point I feel more confident in how she’ll handle this material than, say, how Stallone might.  Salt, by the way, has thus far grossed $216 million worldwide.

Turning heads at the Creative Arts Emmys.

• The annual article about ‘Hollywood Reaching Out to Christians’ has come out … this time from The New York Times.  It’s a little tiresome reading these articles each year.  Basically the only reason films get made that appeal to Christians these days is because Christians themselves – usually working outside the confines of the Hollywood system – pony up their own money and get them made.

By the way, in this context there are some new clips out today of the next Narnia film.

• The LA Times’ Tom O’Neil questions whether SAG should be honoring the great Ernest Borgnine simply because O’Neil doesn’t like Borgnine’s personal politics … which O’Neil is apparently able to divine simply because Borgnine didn’t feel like seeing Brokeback Mountain.  Mr. O’Neil, this is what’s called blacklisting.  It’s an ugly, retrograde practice and you should stop this immediately.

• AND IN TODAY’S MOST IMPORTANT NEWS … Mad Men va-va-voom star Christina Hendricks made a striking appearance at this weekend’s Creative Arts Emmy Awards.  Did you really think we were going to miss this?  The striking Ms. Hendricks will be competing for a Best Supporting Actress Emmy when the big-time Emmy Awards roll around this upcoming Sunday.

And that’s what’s happening today in the wonderful world of Hollywood.

Posted on August 23rd, 2010 at 6:02pm.