Last week an outside link to Big Hollywood led me to a leftist blog I’d never heard of that goes by the name of Sadly, No! For lack of a better term, here’s a portion of their, uhm, mission statement:

Sadly, No! is a liberal/progressive humor site based in Germany, originally as a project of founder Seb, but since 2004 operating as a group blog, currently with American contributors. It has daily traffic between 7,000 and 15,000 visits. …

The site’s main running joke is in finding embarrassing slips or untrue statements by conservatives and linking to a refutation, saying, “Sadly, No!”

Well, even Germans need a hobby, though it wouldn’t surprise me to learn that “sadlyno” is the German translation for “get a life.”

Last week Sadly, No! decided to target John J. Miller’s Big Hollywood article about his novel “The First Assassin.”  Violating their own mission statement, the attack wasn’t based on any “embarrassing” or “untrue” statements made by Miller. They just found it oh-so hilarious that the novel is self-published. As a snark attack, it’s Gawker-lite –- and Gawker isn’t all that impressive — but here’s what’s especially confusing…

Ridiculing a self-published novel are writers working for a … wait for it, wait for it …. self-published blog – a self-published blog with fewer daily visits than my local Home Depot. In their mission statement, Sadly, No! claims to be a “humor site,” but these self-published authors obviously missed the chapter on “Irony” in “Building a Poorly Trafficked Humor Website for Dummies.”

They must have also missed the chapter on “clever.” The best shot they could come up with at us was “Big HollyButt.” And I must admit that my first reaction to “Big HollyButt” was an apology email to Gawker for the comparison.  Better yet, the very same people who squeezed “Big HollyButt” out of their own Wit Machine actually have the sand to criticize Miller’s prose.

To be fair, Sadly, No! does have something more to offer than just a breathtaking lack of self-awareness. Like most Leftists, they have a mean streak a mile wide.

When it comes to sarcasm and snark, all’s fair on these here Internets. But Sadly, No! isn’t content with a written assault because they’re not really a “liberal/progressive humor site.” What they are is a Leftist Rage Machine who close their post with marching orders to their minions to go on Amazon.com and trash Miller’s book with negative reviews — a book none of them have read.

True to form, the minions complied.

Their willingness to cross this line does, however, help to explain a lot about Sadly, No! For starters, the site’s lack of wit and humor suddenly makes sense. “Funny” can come from dark places like anger, but never cruelty.

Finally, anyone who suggests spamming a novel with negative reviews has to know that such an act could someday backfire on them. Of course, in order for that to happen that someone would actually have to write a novel. My guess is that the Sadly, No! contributors know they have absolutely nothing to worry about.

Maybe they possess more self-awareness than I give them credit for.

Side Note: One way you can help to combat “Sadly, No!” and their online vandals is to rate the Amazon comments and report the reviewers. The phony reviews are obvious.

Better yet, purchase John’s book for the holidays, read it and give it an honest review…

–

Don’t be fooled by the self-effacing humor or Gore’s willingness to engage in gentle self-mockery. As the leader and symbol of this socialist-wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing movement, GE/NBC understands that Gore’s popularity can only aid in the passing of legislation beneficial to GE. And Gore’s “30 Rock” enablers also understand that the more appealing he is, the more appealing his leftist ideas seem…

“Gee, why would such a nice guy want to hurt America?”

The Left will argue, “Come on, it’s funny, it’s harmless…”

No, but it is effective. And in its drip-drip-drip way, relentlessly so.

You need not work in Hollywood to understand that this is the single most intolerant industry in America today — just watch their product. I wasn’t surprised to learn from Christian Toto that ”The Blind Side” filmmakers couldn’t control themselves. Unless it’s outside the mainstream Hollywood system, a film marketed to traditional American conservatives — much less, Southern Christians! — has to hit us with a leftist sucker punch one way or another. It’s an unwritten rule… 

Hollywood is high school and if you want to sit at the cool kids’ table (i.e. work) you better fit in, and if you’ve been involved in the writing, directing or producing of a film sympathetic towards the most hated demographic (yes, even more hated than terrorists — again, watch the product) in the 9-0 zip code, you had better inoculate yourself.

And that’s what the gratuitous, unnecessary, jarring, take-you-out-of-the-movie shot at Bush is: an inoculation. The filmmakers want to work again; they want to be invited to all the right parties. But if you’re remembered as the person involved in bringing to life a movie only Glenn Beck could love, no matter how big of a hit, that’s not a good thing on the ole’ resume’.

There are notable exceptions, but working in Hollywood — an industry built on social interaction — means getting along with Leftists, and Leftists are religious, regional and ideological bigots of the worst order. The smart people involved in the making of “The Blind Side” knew the Bush shot was bad storytelling — was what what John Boot described as ”a non-sequitur nonpareil” — they just felt, for whatever reason (their own bigotry or career survival), that it was worth it. 

Hollywood is not money or profit-driven. This is an industry engaged in an ideological war with traditional conservative America that doesn’t mind making a profit, but never will at the expense of the cause. Everyone involved in the making of “Blind Side” knew an unnecessary partisan shot at Bush would turn people off. They all knew they were insulting the very audience the film was marketed at for no reason other than to insult them. But there was absolutely no way in hell this thing was going to see the light of day without something for the Hollywood bigots to snicker over.

This is their sandbox, and there’s a ring to kiss if you want to play.

Oscar season approaches, which means that once again it’s time for the annual cry of … There-Are-No-Good-Roles-For-Women! Maybe “cry” isn’t the best word. ”Whine” is more suitable — from a self-inflicted wound. Here’s a taste of this year’s first-whine from a Hollywood Reporter story titled: Shallow Pool for Oscar’s Actress Contenders:

How shallow is the pool? Some are talking about performances such as Sandra Bullock’s in the feel-good film “The Blind Side

The lack of depth has led to a slew of awards-season chatter, from the expected downplaying — all categories are cyclical — to blanket explanations about studios making fewer awards movies in general. …

But it also highlights that, for all the strides made by the women behind the camera, the women in front of them can still be subject to the old prejudices. Indeed, the more cynical in town — including at least one actress awards-contender — say that the director and actress trends are hardly a coincidence. Many female directors, they argue, can feel pressure to cast a preponderance of strong male leads to negate the perception that theirs is a female-oriented film.

The article is simply wrong on one very important point. These aren’t “old prejudices,” these are new prejudices.

Back in the bad old studio days when a handful of Republican men ran everything, women ruled. Well, maybe not “ruled,” but they were a steady force at the box office because those Republican men spent millions grooming girls into movie stars and building A-pictures around them. (And for a while, Rita Hayworth did rule Columbia.)

At one time or another, Bette Davis, Katherine Hepburn, Barbara Stanwyck, Olivia De Havilland, Jean Harlow, Mae West, Joan Crawford, Norma Shearer, Janet Gaynor, Mae West, Claudette Colbert, Ginger Rogers, Myrna Loy, Alice Faye, Judy Garland, Ingrid Bergman, Bette Grable, Esther Williams, Marilyn Monroe, Grace Kelly and many, many others worked as regularly and earned nearly as much success (and sometimes more) as their male counterparts in all kinds of films, including big-budget prestige pictures that put many butts in many seats. At one time or another, each was was a stand-alone movie star and many enjoyed long legendary careers.

Did a paternalistic and sometimes sexist system force these women to fight for decent roles in-between casting couch wrestling sessions? Of course, but anyone who wants to argue something’s changed should drop me an email inquiring about a bridge for sale.

But the real story is just how many of those fights were won allowing these immortals to leave behind a wealth of films loaded with strong, dignified, feminine performances that will live for as long as there’s civilization. And what won those sometimes historic battles wasn’t some sense of entitlement over ”fairness.” These women were as tough as they were talented. 

So what changed?

Well, you tell me.

Forty years ago the left started their takeover of the film industry. Now that they own it fully there are more women in executive positions than ever before, and yet most every year you can hear the scrape of a barrel bottom when Oscar nominations are announced.

Sounds to me like some sensitivity training is in order.

But it’s really about the free market. Women don’t draw like they once did and you can trace the reason for that to the roles and the actresses themselves. Somewhere along the line, ”acting like men” became confused with strength, and nudity and sex with romance. Other than a natural charisma and a dab of talent, the secret to stardom is retaining enough sense of mystery to allow audiences to project what they want on you, and nothing breaks that spell quicker than the literal and figurative baring of the ass. 

On the big screen, as in real life, it’s hard to respect someone you’ve just seen tramp around cussing like R. Lee Ermey in “Full Metal Jacket.” For the men in the audience, the illusion is shattered (lust fades, love lasts forever) … for the women, they can no longer relate. Offscreen, no one likes a loudmouth trashing who you are and what you believe in. You can sum the whole problem up in a word … ”class.”

But in the true spirit of socialism, present-day Hollywood’s solution is not an attempt to rebuild the female movie star but to foster equality through the dragging down of the male star.

The death of the movie star is no longer just a “woman’s problem.” Narcissism is an equal-opportunity affliction and without those sexist, paternalistic conservative studio bosses to look out for their shared interests, both male and female stars have worked overtime to deconstruct themselves in the eyes of the public. And so…

…today the chickens and roosters are coming home to roost.

Oh, you can be certain Moore’s fellow travellers in the entertainment media will try: “It’s the 5th highest grossing political documentary of all time!” But that’s like saying , “This is the fifth best car accident I’ve had this month!” A good rule of thumb is that after theaters take their cut, 55% of ticket sales make it back to the studio, and there’s no way $8 million is anything more than a sea of red.

After peaking with a near $120 million domestic take for “Fahrenheit 9/11″ in 2004, Moore’s subsequent fall from box-office grace has been sharp. 2007’s “Sicko” cleared a disappointing but respectable $24.5 million, “Captain Mike Across America” was so sure to lose money Moore ended up distributing his ego trip for free under the guise of a populist giveaway, and now “Capitalism” — which was about as timely as one could hope — makes about two-thirds of what ”Sicko” did and is unlikely to do very well in foreign markets.

Like DVD sales, Moore’s stock is plummeting. In a 50/50 country conservatives and we Red State Rubes aren’t necessary for box office success. Two million is a generous estimate of “Capitalism” ticket buyers, which means that less than 3% of the 66.8 million who voted for Barack Obama bothered.  

Like most everything political that comes out of Leftist Hollywood these days, even Leftists aren’t interested. No one enjoys propaganda or being spoon-fed dishonesty. Just because they vote for hollow slogans, empty promises and class warfare doesn’t mean they want to spend an evening with it. 

With his cherry-picked ”facts,” absurd arguments, and heavy reliance on emotional appeals and absurd stunts, Moore’s greatest achievement might be in exposing the only real way a Leftist can argue their case, but the fifty-five year old progressive muckraker appears to have lost his mojo … even with his base. Which only goes to prove that…

Capitalism works.

Hugo Chavez: Toast of the Venice Film Festival

When you and I picture life under Obama’s vision for America, we see a dreary existence spent in breadlines, drab apartments and small jail cells with rat cages strapped to our face conditioning us to say “Herstory” instead of “History.” These Castro-lovers and Polanski-defenders see something completely different.

Watch “The Lives of Others.” Not only is it one of the best films of the decade, it also answers the opening question. You’ll see how life under fascism is the complete fulfillment of every narcissistic desire Susan Sarandon, Barbra Streisand, Oliver Stone, Sean Penn and the rest of their sorry lot has ever had.

Leftist Hollywood is not driven by wealth or artistic freedom, they’re driven by status and the insatiable need to be unconditionally adored. Unfortunately for them, as actors in America, status and adoration is tied to awards and the size of the paycheck – in other words competition and a free market – which they hate. But that’s the least of their worries. All this messy American capitalism forces our favorite artistes into the undignified position of having to beg for money in order to have the millions necessary to watch themselves be all artistic on the big screen, and all this messy American free expression allows people like you and me to criticize and ridicule their hard self-serving work.

Not so under a dictatorship.

The way they see it, with the right dictator, the State would hand them money for film projects and jail anyone who criticized them in print or elsewhere. Hugo Chavez shutting television stations down doesn’t horrify Leftist Hollywood, it makes them giddy.

Certainly the days of the $20 million pay check and multiple homes would be over, but that would come as a relief because status wouldn’t be tied to uncontrollable market forces. There would be no more stressing all weekend hoping those idiot hicks in Middle America make it a box office hit. As long as the State was happy with the product, the State would hand out status like welfare checks in the form of dinner parties, awards, nice apartments and “important” projects.  

But what about artistic freedom, you might ask…

These Leftists enjoy complete artistic freedom now and what do they do with it? They flack for the state, undermine liberty and trash religion. All any fascist dictator would have to say is, “Carry on.”

Nobody liked this movie when it was called “Body of Lies.” 

This is the most revealing trailer yet and thankfully we’re given a heads up as to what the story might really be about. Hollywood will look for cover with the excuse that “Green Zone” is based on a true story, but we all know which “true stories” Leftist Hollywood cherry picks in order to fulfill the demands of an anti-American narrative. For example, the true story of 100,000-plus Americans risking their lives to liberate and protect from terrorists people they’ve  never met is one “true story” we’ll see in hell first.

Everything you’d expect from director Paul Greengrass and Damon is here, including that goddamn shaky-cam (it’s not saying the Lord’s name in vain if you mean it). Damon’s character is the protagonist and he’s there to do good but it’s not the terrorists who are the antagonists getting in his way … no, it’s The United States of America personified by the Greg Kinnear character.

Look fast for my favorite part of the trailer at the 1:42 mark after Kinnear appears to order Damon’s assassination. When Kinnear’s confronted in the next scene suddenly he’s sporting that old “liberal tell” identifying the bad guys in leftist films: the lapel flag!

In the comments, Hollywood’s few remaining water-carriers should please explain why an industry we’re told is more interested in making profits than making political points would green-light the umpteenth anti-Iraq movie after all umpteen that came before flopped miserably.

SIDE NOTE: Once again I want to make clear that this post violates the rule which only allows Leftist critics and film writers to speculate about an upcoming film before seeing it. I knew that before putting fingers to keyboard and am fully braced for the consequences.

The Left understands this, which is why the White House pushed to co-opt the National Endowment for the Arts (as though they needed co-opting) and the Entertainment Industry Foundation bent over backwards to push “volunteerism” — which is just another word for funneling the unsuspecting to Internet portals with pro-ObamaCare videos, Planned Parenthood ads and a nifty “glitch” where when you type in “Republican” you’re directed to left-wing groups.

Next week, and for the third year in a row, NBC will inject enviro-friendly messages into its primetime line-up, including a “30 Rock” appearance by former Vice President Al Gore. This push is not about ratings (Al Gore?) and it’s not about an Ed Begley Jr.-style of do-gooderism. And not only will this politically correct environmentalism infect the entertainment division, those left-wing ideological warriors disguised as the NBC News Division have also  jumped on board … and not just the Obama-ites at MSNBC.

Starting Monday, a number of Big Hollywood contributors will take an in-depth look at the insidious artistic, business and political maneuverings behind this push, which Bill O’Reilly discusses at length in this Talking Points Memo:

–

There’s much more to this than just an abuse of the public airwaves by a bunch of narcissistic television producers infecting eye-rollingly bad writing into what should be escapist fare.

The entertainment/media complex has been waiting for their Obama, and as we’ve seen, they are wasting no time in utilizing the full force of the most powerful propaganda tool ever devised to further their goals.

–

Due out December 4th, “Brothers“ is a remake of a 2004 film called “Brodre,” which is summarized in part on IMDB with the following nugget:

Then Michael comes home with a full-blown case of post-traumatic stress disorder because of what he had to do to survive in captivity.

Leftist Hollywood loathes everything the American Military stands for: Honor, patriotism, selflessness and masculinity. Openly trashing the troops backfired decades ago, so the tactics had to change. Today, “support” for the troops is reflected in film after film after film stereotyping America’s best and brightest as victims, dupes, head cases and monsters.

Things have gotten so twisted in this area that a film like “The Hurt Locker,” where an American Colonel lets an Iraqi suspect bleeds to death — where the lead character is so mentally warped by war, so addicted to chaos, he can’t love his own son — is considered pro-military, even by some conservatives.

Sure, each individual film might be defensible in some way as “factual” or “realistic,” but you have to look at the cumulative effect of the same “factual” and “realistic” focus pumped into theatres again and again and again…

Popcorn flicks tend to be better about this than these Oscar-trolling melodramas, but when Leftist Hollywood has “a message to send,” this is the message.

UPDATE: Before I forget, let me state up front that I’m well aware this post breaks the all-important rule which states only Leftists are allowed to speculate, analyze and comment on films they haven’t seen based on trailers and the like…

There’s a whole industry of Leftist critics and film writers devoted to going on at length about their impression of upcoming films. But when someone on the right does it … well, that’s just wrong. Unless, of course, we like the movie. Then nobody ever complains, “How do you know you’ll like the movie…”

Yeah, it’s a squirrely rule, but I was aware of it beforehand and will not complain about the coming consequences.

SECOND UPDATE: The only effective part of the trailer is seeing Natalie Portman on ice skates. It’s whachoocall “bittersweet,” because it takes you back to her enchanting and memorable turn in “Beautiful Girls.”  Such promise.

–

The programmer teacher is Ms. Clark (she makes a short appearance here), but there wasn’t anything that identified the actual school. In last week’s Elementary Epidemic you saw a mix of Obama-enthusiasm. Some of the videotaped students were reminiscent of POWs speaking against their will on camera as they blink a Morse code plea for help, others were truly excited — and it’s the excited ones that are most worrisome. They’re gone. Lost forever… Ms. Clark’s entire class is like that.

The 4thgraders4obama videos do give us a broader glimpse into the methodology at work in our nation’s classrooms. In a couple of the videos you’ll see the kids watching President Obama on television and the whole class is as giddy as though they were in line for Space Mountain. Other videos have the kids standing before the camera reading what sounds like love letters to the First Family. Public or private school — that makes no difference. You don’t do this to young minds. There’s a wide berth between infusing your children with values and this.

In other news…

Nine of the eleven school children videos posted  just a few days ago have been completely scrubbed from YouTube, one other can no longer be embedded, leaving one to assume that the sole survivor hasn’t caught on yet.  Just last week the Obama-worship flew proudly and publicly, but as they say … sunlight is the best disinfectant.

The most confusing scrub is the newly christened Barack Obama Elementary School… Why remove their school song? Yeah, sure, with all its platitudes and soaring to nowhere-ness it sounded like a discarded tune from Disney’s direct-to-DVD: “Aladdin 5: Tired of Robin Williams’ Schtick.” But it is the school song, for crying out loud…

We should, however, all be grateful Gotham Avenue School hit the delete button. For a couple weeks now, we believe in Barack Obama, he loves you and he loves your mama has been stuck in my head unlike anything since “The Girl From Ipanema.”

Giffen Elementary scrubbed both their videos, but not before Accuracy In Media took a closer look, not only at the videos, but at all the creepy goings on throughout the school district to brainwash that unfortunate captive audience into the Cult of O:

It turns out that Nolte’s GME [Giffen Memorial Elementary] videos are just the tip of the iceberg for the Obama love shown by the City School District of Albany, which oversees this and other schools. According to the District’s Education Board minutes from January and February, the school district appears to have centrally coordinated, if not managed, a district-wide celebration of President Obama’s inauguration. “On Tuesday, January 20, 2009, the inauguration of Barack Obama will be celebrated in all of the District’s school communities,” states the former document.

Be sure to read the whole horrifying thing.

Even more horrifying is this thought: What haven’t we seen? What hasn’t gone public? These are performances someone had to take the time to both film and upload to YouTube. It’s not a stretch to imagine that this abuse of young captive minds is far more widespread than just the 15 or so videos that have been brought to light thus far.

We believe in Barack Obama, he loves you and he loves your mama. Catchy.