Not so much ‘insiders’ as fringy-wannabes
with big Netflix bills

There is so much to play with in this unintentionally funny column by Brian Anderson, who coined the term “South Park Republicans” (which is just another term for conservatives who like movies with tits and aren’t afraid to laugh out loud at cripples and don’t worry about going to hell until it’s too late. You know: frat boys). Now, if you’re going to do an expose on why the movie business in in the tank, you might ask a Weinstein or two, maybe Steven Soderbergh, or Paul Dergarabedian, right?

Oh, no.

Michael Medved
Dick Rolfe
John Fithian
Lionel Chetwynd
Jason Apuzzo
and Govindini Murtry

Yeah. Just the people I would talk to…once they bussed table seven and filled up the frozen yogurt dispenser.

Anyway, after watching Brian Anderson rub his conservative muskgland up against all of the popular movies that he now claims in the Name of Jesusland and All That Is Good and Not Vulgar, I was amused to read this excerpt which I found here, from Michael Medved

Having the right artistic vision can mean other social advantages, too. “Making something commercially successful and appealing to a broad public, like The Incredibles, is less likely to get a Rebecca Romijn look-alike to sleep with you than making dark, hard-hitting, critically acclaimed material like Million Dollar Baby,” says longtime Hollywood watcher Medved.

First of all, if Michael Medved sold all of his earthly possessions and stole a million dollars he still couldn’t afford a handjob from Rebecca Romijn even if it would only last twenty seconds, give or take. Secondly, let’s go to the tape and see what Medved used to think about Million Dollar Baby:

As the Oscar campaign comes down to its climactic concluding days, I’ve been amazed to see much of the ferocious battle for Best Picture improbably and irrationally focused on . . . me.

In recent weeks, some of the nation’s most influential cultural observers have chosen to concentrate their Academy Awards commentary on my harsh reaction on radio and TV about the deceptive packaging of Clint Eastwood’s boxing-and-euthanasia epic, “Million Dollar Baby.” Roger Ebert raised the issue in several columns, attacking my decision to mention the movie’s crucial assisted-suicide theme as “unforgivable.” Maureen Dowd portrayed me as a witless censor (and even coined a new word, “Medvedized”) while suggesting that consistency demanded my objection to classic suicide scenes in Shakespeare. Frank Rich berated me as a leader of “the usual gang of ayatollahs” in a column titled “How Dirty Harry Turned Commie,” comparing my criticism of Eastwood’s film to the lunacy of the House Un-American Activities Committee investigating 10-year-old Shirley Temple in 1938. In more than a dozen other commentaries, from the Los Angeles Times to the Houston Chronicle, outraged observers expressed not only disagreement but denunciation of my unpopular position as a skeptic regarding one of the most absurdly over-praised movies in recent Hollywood history.

Initially, the condemnation centered on my alleged role as a “spoiler,” suggesting that I had maliciously damaged the commercial prospects for “Million Dollar Baby” by “describing its plot in great detail” (according to Roger Ebert). As a matter of fact, I never disclosed specifics on the movie’s dark surprise, nor indicated which of its endearing characters chose to exercise “the right to die.”

Oh, ferchrisake….it was about a woman boxer. Who were we supposed to think was going to choose to die? The cut-man?


My main objection to “Million Dollar Baby” always centered on its misleading marketing, and effort by Warner Brothers to sell it as a movie about a female Rocky, with barely a hint of the pitch-dark substance that led Andrew Sarris of the New York Observer (hardly a right-winger) to declare that “no movie in my memory has depressed me more than ‘Million Dollar Baby.’ “

Obviously, that mournful impact has contributed to the movie’s feeble box-office performance, with only $45 million in its first nine weeks of release (barely half of the proceeds for its chief Oscar rival, “The Aviator”). In this context, it’s perhaps possible to discern a method in the mad rush to discredit and defame the movie’s conservative critics at the very moment that Academy voters fill out their Oscar ballots. The aggressive apologists for “Baby” imply that all right-thinking members of the entertainment elite can register their distaste for “Medvedism” by casting their Best Picture ballots for a film that they strain to describe as under unfair assault. The saddest aspect of the whole manufactured controversy is that on Oscar night (Feb. 27) this inventive strategy on behalf of a sad, undeserving film could very easily succeed. (my emphasis)

Yeah. It was all about you, Michael.


(Added): If I were smarter I would have written something like this.



Yeah. Like I would tell you....