Posted on

Jane Fonda Cosplays Free Speech Warrior on ‘Daily Show’

Jane Fonda keeps reinventing herself in her 80s.

The 88-year-old Oscar winner spent several years promoting Fire Drill Fridays, an effort to put the spotlight on Climate Change.

That didn’t exactly move the cultural needle, so she’s back with a new cause.

Free Speech.

Fonda joined Jon Stewart on Monday night’s “Daily Show” to talk up her new initiative – the Committee for the First Amendment . Actually, it’s a decades-old group that she revived to smite President Donald Trump.

The group is set to hold a free speech-themed concert with Bette Midler, Rufus Wainwright, Julia Roberts, Patti Smith and more on June 14.

Free speech should rise above partisan politics, meaning even conservatives could support Fonda’s efforts. Except she conveniently ignored sizable free speech attacks from sources including:

Fonda and, to be fair, Stewart looked the other way while free speech was under attack in recent years. 

So what changed?

RELATED: THE FREE SPEECH FIGHT KIMMEL AND CO. IGNORE

Liberals started to suffer from perceived free speech threats, real or imagined. Stephen Colbert didn’t lose his show because of a Trumpian temper tantrum. CBS pulled the plug after admitting “The Late Show” cost the network $40 million a year.

That’s a figure no one has credibly challenged. Must be true, right?

Still, the “optics” forced progressives and the Legacy Media, but we repeat ourselves, to make Colbert a free speech martyr.

Stewart didn’t dare mention her “Hanoi Jane” past. Of course. He let her wax on about her Vietnam War activism unchallenged.

Amazing.

Then, she shoveled some Fake News for Stewart to silently approve.

“We’re being attacked. Comics first,” Fonda said, sans evidence. “Tyranny and comics don’t go well together.”

Tell that to the rodeo clown who lost his career for a silly bit mocking President Barack Obama in 2013. Fonda didn’t rally by his side.

Weird. Not really.

What about the right-leaning comics who faced Big Tech Censorship in recent years?

“Our democracy is being destroyed. Our rights are being taken away,” she prattled on, while Stewart just sat there, a “truth to power” comedian letting her share conspiracies without challenging her facts.

We expect bald partisanship from “The Daily Show.” The hypocrisy of letting Fonda stand up for free speech when neither she nor her progressive pals rallied behind it is off the charts.

Source

Posted on

Cardi B Decries Karmelo Anthony Sentence: ‘Not Justice’

It didn’t take a jury long to decide Karmelo Anthony’s fate.

The 19-year-old was found guilty of first-degree murder Tuesday after stabbing teammate Austin Metcalf, 17, last year. It took less than three hours for the verdict to be reached.

The case grabbed national headlines for ghoulish reasons. The facts were never in doubt, beyond the worst of the worst fever swamps. Metcalf was unarmed. Anthony used a small knife to stab the teen in the heart after a disagreement.

That explains the jury’s quick pace. Singer Cardi B sees it differently.

The “WAP” singer posted a series of comments on X yesterday decrying the 35-year sentence Anthony received for the murder.

She reposted other reactions to the verdict, too, revealing family videos of Anthony before he committed murder.

Stunning.

The singer’s followers teed off on her moral depravity.

Her comments echo some of the most disturbing videos taken outside the courtroom this week.

The outrageous nature of the case produced some stunning revelations.

And, sadly, one of our elected leaders may have hit the lowest low.

Source

Posted on

‘Social Network’ Trailer Teases Left’s War on Free Speech

Liberals use to own the First Amendment.

Think the Berkeley Free Speech Movement of the 1960s, the rise of rebel comics like Lenny Bruce and the defense of controversial art like “Piss Christ” and “The Last Tempatation of Christ.”

The Right, more often than we’d like to admit, suggested certain art shouldn’t be shared far and wide.

It’s nuanced, of course, but left-leaning Americans had the First Amendment’s back. That was never more obvious than via 1995’s “The American President,” written by Aaron Sorkin.

Consider this pivotal speech shared by President Andrew Shepherd (Michael Douglas) in the climactic debate.

America isn’t easy. America is advanced citizenship. You’ve gotta want it bad, ’cause it’s gonna put up a fight. It’s gonna say, “You want free speech? Let’s see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who’s standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.” You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms.

Would Sorkin write that same speech today? Would any left-leaning movie scribe?

Unlikely.

The Left has rallied to smite speech for at least the past decade. Progressive stars cheered when Donald Trump got booted from multiple social media platforms. Leftists stood down as Cancel Culture dominated the landscape, stifling comics’ ability to tell their punch lines on their terms.

RELATED: TEAM KIMMEL M.I.A. ON KEY FREE SPEECH FIGHT

They teamed with Twitter to suppress right-leaning views on that platform. They also harassed, attacked and silenced right-leaning souls to attempted to speak on campuses nationwide.

Adam Carolla and Dennis Prager even made a movie about that silencing movement, one that liberal critics skewered for defending speech.

Now, Sorkin is back as the writer/director of “The Social Reckoning.” The Oct. 9 release is a sequel, of sorts, to the Oscar-winning drama “The Social Network.” The new film apparently savages both Facebook and its founder, Mark Zuckerberg, for their negative impact on the culture.

There’s plenty to be said about Zuckerberg’s digital leadership and social media’s ability to tweak algorithms to gin up a desired result.

Anger. Misinformation. Joy. Fear. Addiction. That’s a worthy subject for any film.

That isn’t the prime target here, though. The film’s October release date is your first clue. The film drops roughly a month before the midterm elections.

Sorkin, a far-Left storyteller, has something he wants to share before ballots are cast.

The film also will touch on, to say the very least, the Jan. 6 riot. That event has been weaponized by the Left and Legacy Media outlets (but we repeat ourselves) to a frightening degree. It’s a combination of Fake News, bias by omission and partisan talking points.

Now, the fracas will get a big-screen closeup. Anyone expecting Sorkin to depict the riot fairly doesn’t know Sorkin or Hollywood in toto.

What’s most interesting about the film’s first trailer? No Jan. 6 footage. Not yet, at least. But it’s coming via subsequent trailers.

Bank on it.

The film’s first trailer even suggests Zuckerberg is a villain for using the First Amendment as his defense. Imagine that. Segments feel like actual talking points from an MS NOW anchor.

“The firehouse of bad information you’re injecting into the air supply is becoming jet-powered,” a character played by comedian Bill Burr rages at Zuckerberg (Jeremy Strong, taking over for Jesse Eisenberg).

Like the Russian Collusion Hoax? The Very Fine People Hoax? The Suckers and Losers Hoax? The Hunter Biden Laptop Isn’t Real Hoax?

The trailer lets the Zuckerberg character respond.

“I’m a free speech absolutist,” Zuckerberg answers in his best boo-hiss tone. “I’m not the one who’s lying, and I’m not stopping them from seeing someone who is.”

Will audiences care about a Facebook investigation that generated mostly yawns? What about Jan. 6, already in history’s rearview mirror?

Does it matter?

The film will get endless media coverage and possible awards consideration for aligning with the progressive playbook on speech and social media.

Free speech can be tricky and, sometimes, potentially dangerous. Sorkin and his ilk want to blame Jan. 6 and, more broadly, the rise fo President Donald Trump on the First Amendment.

Will “The Social Reckoning” crystalize that effort on the Left, and potentially sway some hearts and minds? Or, more charitably, will it highlight the darker elements of social media, something both sides of the aisle must care about?

We’ll see starting Oct. 9.

Source

Posted on

Jimmy Kimmel’s Cruel Attack on Spencer Pratt, Explained

Spencer Pratt’s slide from second place to also-ran in the L.A. Mayoral race stinks to high heaven.

Is it illegal? Unethical? We don’t know, and we may never know.

Either way, watching alleged third-place finisher Nithya Raman rise from the electoral ashes should make everyone squeamish.

Remember mere days ago when a teary-eyed Raman all but conceded in the race?

Jimmy Failla of “Fox Across America” does, reminding listeners of yet another reason to question the slow-moving election results.

Either way, Pratt doesn’t deserve anyone’s disdain. He waged a smart, tough campaign, one that called out his opponents for their terrible track records. He used his personal tragedy to bolster his message, shrewdly using A.I. viral videos and, along the way, share why L.A. needs new leadership.

It’s hard not to respect his hard work, hustle and pain. Some campaigns invite blowback. Heck, they all but beg for it.

Pratt’s campaign was … different. Tell that to Jimmy Kimmel.

The far-Left host of “Jimmy Kimmel Live!’ trashed Team Pratt repeatedly from his broadcast podium. We expected nothing less, since he’s now a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party.

It’s freedom of speech, man, and if Kimmel wants to let current L.A. Mayor Karen Bass slide on her ineffective leadership, that’s his choice.

We all know it’s a poor one.

Still, what Kimmel did this week felt different. Worse. Far worse.

Kimmel didn’t wonder why the city’s super-slow counting methods apparently reversed the Pratt/Raman electoral odds. He couldn’t question how Raman’s lethargic campaign suddenly caught fire, surpassing vote totals for both Pratt and Bass.

Nope. Instead, he danced on Pratt’s electoral grave. Literally.

First, he invoked President Donald Trump. Of course.

“…the MAGA crowd is now using this to try to claim the election was rigged.”

What sane person doesn’t suspect foul play? Does Kimmel really believe Raman suddenly came out of nowhere to beat Pratt the way she did?

Doesn’t he sense foul play, too, even if he preferred the outcome?

Next, he remembered that Pratt vowed to leave the city that allowed his house to burn down should he lose the race. So Kimmel kicked him on his way out the door.

“And Spencer, if you’re watching, we are so, so sorry to see you go. We’re going to miss the hell out of you. You’re a man of your word, and you gotta go.”

“I know things might be tight right now, especially with the out-of-state donation money running out. Moving is expensive, so to help you out we rented you a U-Haul,” Kimmel joked. “Our staff spent the whole day decorating for you, and everybody will notice you and wave goodbye as you leave.”

…Mazel Tov and goodbye, Spencer Pratt!”

We don’t expect laughter or comedy from Kimmel any more. He’s a propagandist, and a dishonest one at that. This felt just mean and vindictive, a terrible look for any public personality.

Pratt, never one to stay silent, had the last word.

Pratt can hold his head high after his short, but hard-fought campaign. Can Kimmel say the same?

Source

Posted on

Kimmel’s Graham Platner Joke Proves Trump Broke His Brain

It finally happened.

Jimmy Kimmel mentioned Graham Platner, the Democrat with more scandals than the Nixon and Clinton administrations, combined.

Late-night activists have been loath to mention the “oyster farmer” turned Senatorial candidate for obvious reasons. Every ounce of Platner’s persona is riddled with career-ending accusations.

And, of course, the fact that he sported a Nazi tattoo on his chest for 18 years before being shamed to ink over it for political purposes.

Seems newsy, no? Not to Kimmel and co.

Yet the host of “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” brought Platner up Wednesday night. Now, “The Daily Show” dipped a microscopic toe in his scandalous waters before extensively shredding a Colorado Republican.

Victor Marx deserved the comic thrashing, but so does Platner.

What Kimmel said about Platner defies belief. The essential Newsbusters share the surreal monologue on the matter.

“There were primary elections in four states yesterday. In Maine, Democrats overwhelmingly voted for Graham Platner for Senate despite a number of embarrassing scandals, including revelations of a Nazi-esque tattoo on his body, sexting with women while he’s married, and allegations of abuse…”

“If Democrats cannot get him into the Senate, word is the Republicans are planning to nominate him for president in 2028.”

Huh?

No, really. Huh?

First of all, it’s not Nazi-esque. It’s a full-scale Nazi tattoo that lingered on his body for nearly two decades. Seems like great fodder for a truth-teller like Kimmel, no?

Secondly, the GOP wants nothing to do with a far-Left character like Platner, and bringing Republicans into the story smacks of desperation.

At best.

That’s Kimmel in 2026, the most popular late-night comedian who’s willing to burn every ounce of his credibility in his waning days.

After all, both he and David Letterman know the late-night format is on its last legs. He’s just hastening its departure.

Source

Posted on

Can Hollywood Still Tell the American Story?

For generations, America told stories about itself.

Not perfect stories, but stories filled with triumph and failure, courage and contradiction, sin and redemption. Stories that reminded ordinary Americans who they were, where they came from, what had been sacrificed before they arrived, and what kind of people they were supposed to become.

Those stories once came from everywhere.

From the old publishing houses of Manhattan’s literary world. From Tin Pan Alley. From Hollywood at its best. From classrooms, front porches, churches, novels, poetry, film scores, war movies, westerns, biographies, patriotic songs, and family conversations around dinner tables.

The point wasn’t blind nationalism.

The point was inheritance.Unlikely Life of Oliver Atkinson coverUnlikely Life of Oliver Atkinson cover

A civilization passes along its values through story long before it passes them through politics.

Which is why I’ve found myself wondering whether many of our major cultural institutions still love America in any recognizable sense at all.

Do today’s artistic gatekeepers still see this nation, despite all its flaws, as something worthy of gratitude, preservation, affection or admiration? Do our films, novels, television shows, popular music and elite literary circles still communicate reverence for liberty, faith, sacrifice, family, courage, service, and the astonishing historical achievement that is the American experiment?

Or have patriotism, constitutional reverence, and traditional faith increasingly become objects of suspicion, embarrassment, satire or deconstruction?

These questions are not imagined.

For years, surveys have consistently shown a significant ideological divide between many Americans and the entertainment industry itself. Researchers at USC’s Lear Center have documented the influence entertainment media has on public attitudes and social perceptions, while broader polling continues to show large portions of the country believing major entertainment institutions lean culturally and politically in one direction.

That doesn’t mean artists should produce shallow propaganda or government-approved patriotism. Great art requires honesty. America’s story includes profound failures and egregious sins alongside extraordinary achievements.

Mature patriotism should be able to acknowledge both. But somewhere along the way, much of modern culture stopped distinguishing between honest critique and reflexive contempt.

And that matters.

Because culture does not merely reflect society. It helps shape it.

Why Hollywood Matters in the Big Picture

Hollywood, publishing, music, television, literature, and art do not simply follow cultural norms; they actively participate in creating them. They influence what societies celebrate, mock, admire, desire, reject, normalize, and aspire toward. They shape moral imagination. They help determine whether younger generations feel connected to their civilization or alienated from it.

For decades, some of America’s finest artistic works understood this instinctively.

The greatest American films, novels, songs and stories often carried a quiet confidence in the country itself, not because America was flawless, but because it was striving toward something larger than power, tribalism, or cynicism. There was an understanding that freedom was rare. That self-government required virtue. That faith, sacrifice, courage, and civic responsibility mattered.

Even when older films or novels criticized America, they often did so from within a deeper framework of belief in the nation’s underlying promise and goodness.

Today, that confidence feels weaker.

Irony has replaced reverence. Cynicism often passes for sophistication. Patriotism is frequently portrayed as simplistic while anti-American sentiment is treated as intellectually fashionable or morally elevated. Traditional faith is often depicted either sentimentally or suspiciously, rarely with the seriousness, intelligence, or artistic richness it deserves.

And to be fair, Christians and patriots share some responsibility here, too.

The Faith-Based Genre Suffers from Growing Pains

Too often, faith-based or patriotic entertainment has settled for safe messaging while neglecting artistic excellence. Sometimes the storytelling lacks confidence, subtlety, complexity, beauty or emotional depth. Audiences can sense when art exists merely to deliver a lesson instead of telling a compelling human story.

The truth is that great art requires conviction and craftsmanship.

The old Hollywood epics, great American novels, sweeping historical films, timeless patriotic songs and morally serious dramas worked because they believed in what they were saying without sacrificing excellence. They understood that stories change people emotionally before they ever persuade them intellectually.

Which raises another question: Have we simply forgotten how to tell these stories well?

Have we allowed history itself to become lifeless? Reduced to marble statues, disconnected dates, shallow slogans, and classroom memorization stripped of human emotion? Many tell me learning history is like eating dry oatmeal. I assure them that real history is flavorful and anything but boring!

It is filled with desperate people making impossible choices under enormous pressure. It is filled with courage, betrayal, sacrifice, faith, weakness, perseverance and redemption. The American story includes horrors and heroism alike.

  • Slavery and abolition
  • Division and reconciliation
  • Failure and reform
  • World wars fought against monstrous evil
  • Humanitarian aid delivered across oceans
  • Scientific breakthroughs. Economic freedom that lifted millions
  • Religious liberty unlike most of human history had ever known

People did not flood to America for generations because it was perfect. They came because even imperfect freedom was still extraordinary compared to much of the world.

As America’s 250th birthday approaches, I found myself wrestling with many of these questions personally.

And somewhere in that process, I realized I may have allowed some of the wonder of America’s founding to drift too far into abstraction myself.

So I began researching again.

Then eventually, I sat down and wrote a novel.

Author David Jones IIIAuthor David Jones IIIAuthor David Jones III

“The Unlikely Life of Oliver Atkinson” tells the story of a runaway indentured orphan who arrives in colonial America aboard The Beaver – one of the actual ships raided during the Boston Tea Party. Eventually taken in by Paul Revere and immersed in the culture of the Sons of Liberty, Oliver experiences both a spiritual awakening and an American awakening against the backdrop of the Revolution itself.

But the deeper reason I wrote it had little to do with nostalgia.

I wrote it because I wanted history to feel alive again.

I wanted readers to experience the founding not as frozen mythology or political propaganda, but through the eyes of someone vulnerable, uncertain, frightened, hopeful, and searching for meaning. In many ways, Oliver himself mirrors the colonies: young, unformed, lacking representation, struggling to understand freedom, identity, sacrifice and purpose.

That is where storytelling still matters.

True history honestly told keeps the patriotic fires burning far better than slogans ever will.

And faith matters too.

Regardless of modern discomfort around the subject, it is impossible to seriously study early America without recognizing the enormous role biblical thought played in shaping the moral framework of the nation. Locke, Montesquieu, and Paine mattered enormously. But so did Scripture. So did sermons. So did the belief that rights came not from governments, but from God Himself.

That influence shaped the founders far more deeply than many modern retellings are comfortable admitting.

Neither China-like Messaging Nor Self-Hatred on Parade

America does not need sanitized propaganda as it approaches 250 years. But neither does it need endless cultural self-loathing masquerading as sophistication.

What we need are truthful stories. Rich stories. Human stories. Stories capable of holding complexity without abandoning gratitude. Stories that remind us we inherited something rare, fragile, flawed and still profoundly worth preserving.

Perhaps if our art once again reflects the best of the American spirit – courage, humility, sacrifice, faith, perseverance, liberty, redemption – it might not divide us further, but help call us back toward one another.

Toward memory.

Toward gratitude.

Toward what Lincoln called “the better angels of our nature.”

And perhaps, with Providence still guiding imperfect people as it always has, America’s next great era of literature, music, film, and storytelling is still ahead of us.

David Jones III is a historical fiction writer living in Myrtle Beach, SC. His book is available on Amazon. www.davidjones3.com.

Source

Posted on

Is Jerry Seinfeld Getting Red-Pilled in Real Time?

Jerry Seinfeld isn’t a political comedian. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

Seinfeld sticks to PG-rated material tied to everyday life. No headlines, please!

And it’s worked out well for him over the decades, given that he’s responsible for one of TV’s most beloved sitcoms and an enduring stand-up career.

Lately, though, he’s been dipping a toe into the culture war waters.

It started all the way back in 2015. His throwaway comment to ESPN’s Colin Cowherd about avoiding college campuses caused a commotion. 

“I don’t play colleges, but I hear a lot of people tell me, ‘Don’t go near colleges. They’re so PC.’ ”

He had a point, and that was before universities went fully woke. They even made a movie about it.

That was then.

In recent years, Seinfeld has gotten more vocal on issues he once would publicly ignore.

Take masculinity. Seinfeld weighed in on the subject, ignoring his industry’s preferred descriptors like “toxic” in the process.

Here, he shared with Bari Weiss what he misses in the culture at large. Note: It isn’t Tim Walz-like jazz hands, that’s for sure.

“I never really grew up. You don’t want to as a comedian. It’s a childish pursuit, but I miss a dominant masculinity. Yeah, I get the toxic [inaudible] but still I like a real man. That’s why I love [‘Unfrosted’ co-star] Hugh Grant. He felt like one of those guys I wanted to be. He knows how to dress. He knows how to talk. He’s charming. He has stories. He’s comfortable at dinner parties. Knows how to get a drink, that stuff.”

Seinfeld also decried the term “punching down” when it comes to comedic targets. Why? It “doesn’t exist,” he explained, despite the Left’s embrace of the term.

He even blamed the Left for the decline in modern comedy, although he later backpedaled on his statement.

Earlier this week, Seinfeld dropped by as a guest on “The Adam Carolla Show.” That podcast, like its host, has drifted to the Right in recent years due to the Left’s unhinged positions. 

So Seinfeld’s appearance on the show proved unexpected and slightly “problematic” in select circles. He went anyway.

And, as it turns out, he admires Carolla’s comic stylings, particularly his signature Rich Man/Poor Man routine.

Seinfeld drew fresh headlines this week when he snarked back at pro-Palestinian protesters. They confronted Seinfeld as he was leaving the NBA Finals Wednesday night at Madison Square Garden, demanding he say, “Free Palestine” after leaving the arena.

Palestine, he said, “doesn’t exist.”

That’s not what a celebrity is supposed to say. Didn’t Seinfeld see Javier Bardem’s Oscar protests? The comedian said it all the same.

And, right on cue, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) spat out a statement condemning the comic as “racist.”

“When a public figure like Jerry Seinfeld denies Palestinian existence, that racist rhetoric contributes to a climate in which Palestinian suffering is ignored and Palestinian rights are treated as disposable. This is the same logic that has long been used to erase Indigenous peoples, justify occupation and normalize apartheid.”

CAIR called on Seinfeld to retract the reported statement, apologize to Palestinians and use his platform to reject anti-Palestinian racism.

Seinfeld will likely do none of the above. At 72, he has all the money he’ll ever need, and then some. He’s proven that he’s willing to take common sense positions that fall outside of the approved Hollywood playbook sans punishment.

And he’s seen enough hate against his fellow Jewish people to realize apologizing is the wrong way to appease the pro-Palestinian movement.

They’ll only demand more.

Seinfeld still doesn’t stake out political positions. He may never do such a thing. He’s still willing to defend his faith and core values in ways that would scare lesser stars silly.

Source

Posted on

‘She Said’ Inspiration Abandons MeToo for Graham Platner

Not every journalist gets a Hollywood closeup.

The New York Times’ Jodi Kantor received just that via the 2022 film “She Said.” And Kantor, as played by Zoe Kazan, deserved it.

Kantor and her colleague, Megan Twohey (Carey Mulligan), helped bring down serial abuser Harvey Weinstein with their dogged investigation. They won a Pulitzer Prize for their work.

Their reportage helped kick off the MeToo movement, a plea to hold male predators accountable for their actions.

The film may have flopped in theaters, but it honored their shoe-leather reporting and the victims who bravely stood up to Weinstein.

That matters.

Now, the real Kantor is doing her best to defend a politician who appears guilty of MeToo-style actions. The evidence is damning, but she tried to downplay it on live television.

The person in question? Maine Senatorial hopeful Graham Platner.

Kantor told a CNN panel earlier this week that the allegations against Platner “are not classic MeToo accusations.” And, of course, she had to name drop President Donald Trump along the way.

“They’re not about a boss and a young female employee being subjected to sexual advances. They were mostly made in the context of consensual relationships … There are these, like, very sensational texts about sex. There are allegations from former girlfriends that are not — the way my colleagues reported them were not like classic abuse allegations.”

Really?

One victim, Lyndsey Fifield, said Platner repeatedly held her so tightly it left marks on her body. He also allegedly locked her in a room overnight against her will.

If those aren’t “classic abuse allegations” … what are?

Editor’s Note: Enjoying Hollywood in Toto? I hope you’ll consider leaving a coin (or two) in our Tip Jar.

Even worse?

Kantor’s own New York Times allegedly downplayed some of the more disturbing details shared by Fifield.

[Fifield] accused the paper of spending almost as much time detailing her conservative ties as they did on her descriptions of Platner’s alarming behavior. She told The Free Press that the Timesdidn’t include her most serious allegations of physical mistreatment until nearly halfway through the story.

Kantor should be ashamed of herself, but as Jimmy Failla often says, “we’re living in the death of shame.” And, in her defense, she has plenty of company.

Platner’s fellow Democrats have been tiptoeing around his many scandals, from his 18-year-old Nazi tattoo to posting a profile on a dating site known for troubling encounters.

Kantor’s journalism got Hollywood’s attention, and rightly so. Yet that’s another progressive community that refuses to hold Platner accountable or question his fitness for office.

Jimmy Kimmel only recently mentioned Platner, but he did so to mock the GOP. Jon Stewart interviewed the would-be Senatorial candidate, but threw nothing but softballs his way.

And, worst of all, Hollywood’s MeToo army has unofficially stood down rather than protest his candidacy.

What MeToo hypocrisy do you think is the worst of the worst?

Source

Posted on

Goodbye, Stephen Colbert: Let Them Eat Cake!

We should never forget what happened during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Yes, many people died, and those early days found us confused, frightened and eager for answers. What followed was a travesty of epic proportions, from censored news to forced vaccination schedules.

Many Americans watched as their businesses collapsed under the extreme lockdown protocols. And, as we later learned, they weren’t nearly as helpful as we were told.

It might have been just the opposite, in fact.

Americans needed allies against Big Government at the time, and that’s where late-night comedians could have rallied on our behalf. The Speaking Truth to Power Crowd to the rescue!

Instead, they did the opposite.

RELATED:

GOODBYE, STEPHEN COLBERT: A RARE MOMENT OF COMEDY

GOODBYE, STEPHEN COLBERT: THE VAX SCENE CRINGE FEST

GOODBYE, STEPHEN COLBERT: THE C*** HOLSTER CRACK

“The Late Show’s” Stephen Colbert mocked Americans who were pummeled by lockdown mania. Some saw their earnings dry up. Others may have watched their small businesses collapse under the government’s thumb.

Now, it’s possible that those draconian measures were necessary to keep people healthy. Perhaps.

Even still, to taunt those who protested their way of life coming under attack was a very low blow. And Colbert was only too happy to oblige.

“Now we’ve all been isolating for over a month now, and some of us are starting to go a little kooky in the old squirrel cage, like a handful of idiots who were out this weekend protesting against social distancing. For instance, this man in Washington State, carrying the sign ‘Give me liberty, or give me Covid-19.’ Buddy, you’re in a large crowd, you’re not wearing a mask, you’re not six feet away from people — you might not need to choose.”

We later learned that the six-feet rule was made up. Zero science behind it. We’re still waiting for Colbert’s apology.

But he wasn’t finished.

“Many of the protesters lamented the loss of their everyday activities, like this woman in Wisconsin with the sign, ‘I want a haircut.’ Uh, looks like your sign has a typo. We fixed it for you. It should read, ‘I want to endanger the lives of your grandparents in exchange for frosted tips.’”

Did Colbert shame Rep. Nancy Pelosi for getting her hair done mid-pandemic, against all the rules she and her government tried to make us all follow? What about Gov. Gavin Newsom, dining at The French Laundry, sans masks, while his neighbors stayed at home?

The answer would be no.

And, of course, Colbert tied the protests back to you-know-who.

“To be clear, Trump is encouraging his followers to protest his own recommendations. That’s how much he needs to hear a chanting mob. He’s like angry Tinkerbell. [as Trump] ‘Quick, kids, scream “lock her up” or I’ll die.’”

Meanwhile, Colbert broadcast “The Late Show” from his home and kept collecting millions from CBS. 

Slamming the soon-to-be-ex host as a “Let Them Eat Cake” celebrity seems almost too kind, no?

There’s more to this ongoing series, but what were your least favorite Colbert moments from “The Late Show?”

Source

Posted on

‘My Dinner with Andre’ Made Conversation Cinematic

Louis Malle’s “My Dinner with Andre” (1981) begins with the line, “The life of a playwright is tough.”

It’s uttered by Wallace Shawn, playing himself, as his narration follows him as he scrambles down a New York street. Shawn is off to meet his friend Andre Gregory, the actor/director who had been gone for some time and is reuniting with Shawn.

The two meet for dinner in a posh restaurant, the chatter begins and we’re off into a movie unlike any other.

Malle’s film steps inside the creative process. Describing the film, which is mostly an extended conversation between two people and has mostly one location, sounds drier than toast. I avoided the film when I was young, discovered it in college and now recognize how special and one-of-a-kind it is.

Shawn, who is now known worldwide for his performances in “The Princess Bride” (1987) and as Rex in the “Toy Story” franchise (1995-present day), was 36 when he made this.

The opening narration fills us in on where these artists stood at this point in their careers (though both have subsequently noted that, despite the reality of who they are/were, the film is based on reality but not a documentary).

From the very first words uttered, their exchanges are not dull.

Shawn’s narration makes it feel less like a cinematic stunt and more like a filmed play. Once the clever narration ceases, we get into their extensive conversation, which takes some wild turns.

It helps that Gregory has a hypnotic voice and that he and Shawn are such a fascinating contrast. Topics like Chappaquiddick, Bulgakov’s “The Master and the Margarita,” fawns, Gregory’s metaphysical experience and theater’s ability to make a difference all come in and out of focus.

This isn’t claustrophobic, as reflective surfaces and reaction shots make us feel like we’re there, up close and fully engaged. Malle’s film is, of course, not for everyone but not a bore fest, either.

By the time Andre and Wallace (yes, the first Pixar short, “The Adventures of Andre and Wally B” in 1984 is named after them) get to dessert, we arrive at the core element of the discussion. A verbal crossroad is met with Shawn’s skepticism in Gregory’s recollections and Gregory’s embrace of wonder, as Shawn’s response hits upon logical vs spiritual, faith vs the scientific.

Rather than either patron resorting to histrionics or feeling a definitive conclusion on the matter must be met, they both allow the possibilities to dance in our subconscious.

As a film, “My Dinner with Andre” is alive, as the performances, cinematography and editing are at a master-class level.

For diehard fans of “The Princess Bride”: At one point, Shawn does utter the word “inconceivable.” Another fun tidbit is that the production services were provided by none other than Troma, Inc.- Thank you, Uncle Lloydie!
When the two friends bring up AI, the talk it inspires sounds relevant to right now, amazing for a film that is now 45-years old.

A decade ago, I was teaching a Films of the 1980s course at University of Colorado Springs (UCCS) and showed Malle’s film. When it ended, the response from the students was divided, with the ones who loved it admitted to appreciating it more than ever, wanting to sit through it again.

The naysayers couldn’t believe they just sat through a movie about people talking. The class shuffled out and one last student, named John, waited to talk to me. I knew that John was in a band and had a hip sense of humor, but I had no idea what he thought of the film and was not expecting what happened next.

John told me that he thought “My Dinner with Andre” was “the best movie I’ve ever seen.” I laughed, because I assumed he was kidding. He assured me the film was about things he had been thinking about, spoke to where he wanted to go in his life and was deeply connected with him.

On the last day of the class, he reminded his classmates and me that the film was still the best he had ever experienced.

Not every word of Andre and Wallace’s conversation will grab you, but the juiciest parts will stay with you. “My Dinner with Andre” is a film in love with language, people and the experience of being human.

Source