When it comes to humor I’m super picky. I physically cringed at all but one of the multiple fart jokes in Pixar’s Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs. I still don’t get The Three Stooges. Call me uptight. Slapstick without redeeming intellectual humor, toilet jokes, sexual references, and ”shock” scenarios do nothing for me.  So how is it possible that I laughed myself sick while watching Bruno? That’s easy. Because, goofy as it pretends to be, it is a pretty smart film. 

You’ve probably heard that this film is about homophobia, but the story arc is about what it takes to become a celebrity.  Frankly, both facets are hilarious. 

This satire has real teeth, and it’s also fair. I completely disagree with the reviews that claim it mocks middle America, puts “innocent” people on the spot or casts them in a bad light. If anything this film ruthlessly savages Hollywood. The scenes with stage mothers are so appalling that the audience collectively gasped and groaned. One hopes that this exposure will, at the very least, lead to interventions from Social Services and cause us to rethink some of the “entertainment” exemptions from child labor laws. Cohen introduces us to women who are willing to have their babies/toddlers strung up on crucifixes, dressed like Nazis, subjected to bees/wasps, and driven in cars at high speeds without restraints. (Personally, I hope this leads to actual arrests). One toddler’s mother adds that she’s okay with all of that, “if he’s got the job.” 

Other fun includes exposing a Hollywood PR agency that doesn’t have a clue or a care about the causes they claim to promote. When Cohen posits that his cause will be “Dar-five” (as opposed to Darfur) the  reaction is priceless. 

But how do the average folks fare here? Pretty darn well, if you ask me, and this film doesn’t make much of them either way. Among the only average folks in this film are the hunters Bruno camps with, who, in my opinion, comport themselves admirably, despite the filmmaker’s best attempts to provoke a reaction. Is homophobia alive and well in America? This particular snapshot says not so much. Even the military seems at ease (almost shockingly so) with Cohen’s antics. 

While Paula Abdul uses a Mexican migrant worker as furniture (literally), the audience of a local Texas talk show demonstrates genuine concern for Bruno’s “adopted son,” OJ.  A social worker is called upon to intervene. 

Sure, Cohen exposes some disturbing trends east of Hollywood. The two reverends who claim to be able to “cure” homosexuality are as ripe for satire as any stage mom. They raise some flags, but frankly come off as tawdry and confused and somehow not quite as sinister as their California counterparts. 

The most disturbing scene in the film is the wrestling match in which Cohen takes on an entirely different character who is boldly anti-gay, and who then proceeds to…well, shock the audience at hand. This scene is far more tense and frightening than humorous, and made me fear for the safety of the camera crew, never mind the principle actors. This is the only scene that felt gratuitous, and yet on another level it was probably the most insightful. In other words, those who came off poorly deserved it. The hooting wrestling fans were truly scary. And if Cohen had been clocked with that metal folding chair by the crowd he deliberately riled? It would have been tough to argue that he didn’t deserve it. 

Another uncomfortable scene in the story is Ron Paul’s “interview.” This segment is part of the celebrity story arc (Bruno attempts to make a sex tape with Ron Paul to garner world fame), and Paul’s reaction has been described by some as homophobic. I thought the Congressman handled the situation surprisingly well, but judge for yourself. 

About that fine line between stupid and clever: Mike Long is on the right track when he invokes Bill Hicks and Howard Stern and Penn & Teller. Not because they ”break barriers,” which isn’t inherently funny. But because their work is smart. You don’t have to agree with Bill Hicks’s politics to understand that the guy could write a brilliant joke. You don’t need to enjoy the entire Howard Stern show to understand that he conducts celebrity interviews that put Rolling Stone to shame, and that he’s used his radio pulpit to defend the First Amendment more vociferously, and maybe more effectively, than almost anyone. And if you haven’t seen Penn & Teller’s brilliant program on Showtime, it’s your loss. 

But Bruno isn’t for everyone. If you enjoy smart, biting satire, and you aren’t put off by coarse language or sexual scenarios, you’ll love it. If you’re afraid that this film mocks middle America, or that it ambushes average people, a la Michael Moore — your fears are misplaced. 

Like most laugh-out-loud comedies, this is best appreciated in the theater. And if you enjoy comedy that reaches — even reaches a little further than it grasps — then I highly recommend that you buy the ticket and take the ride.

Thanks to Dave Konig for addressing the topic of gay marriage here on Big Hollywood the other day. As he pointed out, the issue itself might not cause most to lose sleep, come what may. But perhaps it should.

As a nation we’re at a crossroads, no question. Our banking industry scrambles to escape quasi-nationalization, our auto industry is in the process of being nationalized, and we have instituted, of all things, a Car Czar (note: it took Russia roughly 300 years to stack up so many czars). If that isn’t bad enough, nationalized health care is on the table again.

So as the Republic devolves and those with the means contemplate hightailing it to the Caymans, it’s probably time to ask ourselves what it is to be “conservative.”

One need only read the comments on this site to know that there are two fundamental schools of thought here. Some of us believe that to be conservative is to defend freedom, preserve individual liberty, and keep government small. Others believe that being conservative is about electing a government that will defend and enforce “traditional” values.

For our purposes here, a list of those values isn’t relevant. But if you place yourself in this camp, consider whether you truly want a government that will enforce your personal values at gunpoint (this is what all laws effectively do). And if you surrender such power to the government — power to defend not your life or your property, mind you, but your values — can you live with the consequences when your officials are no longer in power and you are staring down the business end of that barrel? Could you live with mandatory government schooling, for instance? (I could not). When you find yourself in a minority, as everyone does at some point, what protections do you imagine that you will have, other than our Constitution? One of the beauties of that document is that no citizen can undermine it without eventually putting his own interests in peril.

In the context of this debate, it is impossible to overemphasize that this is the same inspired, carefully considered document that protects the religious freedom we hold dear.

Looked at from this perspective, gay marriage isn’t a complex issue. Science aside, one needn’t believe that homosexuality is moral in order to understand that nowhere does the Constitution give the federal government the right to regulate marriage.

The Republican Party has made a huge mistake in advocating a kind of Cafeteria Constitutionalism. (I’ll take some guns, no helmet laws, please, a free market, and…yuck, hold the gay marriage!). One can’t legitimately invoke the Constitution to oppose federally mandated sex education, and then use the federal government to impose school prayer. Leave that fair-weather-federalism to the Left.

It’s not a state secret that the Democrat Party has become little more than a loose coalition of special interest groups with few or no coherent philosophical underpinnings. It’s also apparent that the Republicans are equally lost philosophically and couldn’t even manage to nominate a presidential candidate with the fiscal good sense to oppose corporate bailouts. Now here we are: face to face with an opportunity to take stock, recalibrate, and decide what we want from our political leaders.

Me, I implore the Republicans to become — once and for all — the party of freedom. The true moral highground is there to seize. Our Constitution was created as a shield against government encroachment on our personal lives. Conservatives should be the last people who would dare turn this document into a weapon.

I’ve yet to meet anyone in my generational sphere who doesn’t have a fondness for and owe a certain mnemonic debt to the old Schoolhouse Rock videos, which aired between Saturday morning cartoons back in the day (1973-1986, and less frequently after that). Honestly, I can’t even think of the preamble to the Constitution without singing it in my head.

According to Wikipedia:

Schoolhouse Rock! began as a commercial advertising venture by David McCall. The idea came to McCall when he noticed one of his sons, who was having trouble in school remembering the multiplication tables, knew the lyrics to many current rock songs. The first song recorded was “Three Is a Magic Number,” written by Bob Dorough. It tested well, so a children’s record was compiled and released. Tom Yohe listened to the first song, and began to doodle pictures to go with the lyrics. He told McCall that the songs would make good animation.

The resulting videos were generally brilliant and the series is still one of the most insanely effective uses of pop culture for educational purposes. True to the “Schoolhouse” theme, the videos helped reinforce important facts and lessons about grammar, arithmetic, science and history…what could go wrong?

I must warn you that the following clips are not suitable for children. And I’ll suggest, (as they always do in the great old films, when bad news is on the way), that you sit down, and pour a stiff drink before viewing:

Promo here:

Carbon Footprint here:

Oh, and that’s but a taste.

Personally, I was particularly saddened by what became of Mr. Morton — the lonely man who taught me about predicates.  Granted the original video is dated (note the antique typewriter), but it’s possible to modernize without trashing content. I’m all for updating and the Skee-Lo rap version of this tune is smart and catchy.  Do listen! But now, thanks to Disney, the already tortured Mr. Morton has lost his mind ENTIRELY, not to mention his charm.

I’m hardly against addressing environmental issues, but bumper-sticker-inspired campfire songs are no substitute for facts. Our society, in which countless children struggle to keep up on the basics, is now making a complete mockery of education. Are the government schools doing such a bang-up job that anyone in a position to educate can waste time instructing children in the fine art of sorting garbage?  Disney seems to think so.

What’s evident and terrifying is that this is exactly what passes for education now, both in and out of the classroom. Schoolhouse Rock, indeed!

These videos become available March 31st.

Mainstream media coverage of crucial issues gives us plenty to complain about around here. Much like aerobic exercise, it jacks the heart-rate and makes me cranky (though if I’m going to spill my drink anyway, I’d  rather do it while yelling at Chris Matthews. Call me a junkie). 

But tonight is one of those rare opportunities to kick back and appreciate the fact that not every journalist on network TV is standing around the same water cooler. 

Tonight on 20/20, John Stossel, (with special guest Drew Carey), tackles the conventional wisdom behind the huge bailouts, universal preschool, the myth of the struggling middle class, toll roads, medical marijuana and border walls. The episode was inspired by Drew Carey’s award-winning video series on Reason.tv. 

More with Stossel and Carey here.

I can’t help but focus on the horror right now, call me twisted. Ben Shapiro, did you really suggest that the concept that “art ennobles” is a “liberal cliche”? If this is what “conservatives” actually believe, is it any wonder that liberals consistently make better films? I cannot fathom why anyone would cede such a broad truism to the “liberal” cause. Go ahead and give them Mom and apple pie while you’re at it.

In your dismissal of the brilliant film, The Lives of Others, you claim that it “goes easy on the Stasi (see some of them were really nice guys!)”. Well, Ben, some of them undoubtedly were good people, if conflicted. It is the very complexity of human nature that allows atrocities to be committed on such grand scales, and likewise, what allows goodness to somehow survive in even the darkest and most unlikely places.

The KKK member who came upon a black woman praying in a church with her child and beat her, is abhorrent. But the Klan member who could not bring himself to do so is clearly more frightening. And he is real. Without that glimmer of humanity, evil is just a dumb joke that would burn itself out rather quickly. If we cannot see ourselves reflected somewhere, if we are not made uncomfortable…if we are never made to wonder whether we would report a neighbor to the Nazi regime, for instance, in order to protect our own families, then we are only watching cartoons. And isn’t that lack of complexity one of the things that conservatives consistently (and justifiably) rail against in Hollywood?

Yes, great art ennobles! And challenges us. Those who disagree should probably not bother discussing films and their impact on society. What would be the point?

Frankly, I love the folks at NR, but Ghostbusters at number 10? Really? Because of a few sorta-kinda free-market lines? The film is fine, whatever. But hardly notable on any list of any kind. 300 at number 5? If there is a grosser mutilation of a fascinating story, I have not seen it, and I am thankful for that much.

Honestly, there are so many lousy movies on that list that it blows my mind. And if one must construct a conservative movie list (without being stoned in a dorm room), where is The Right Stuff, Lean on Me, or, my pick of the day, Remember the Titans?

This is a true story that has every element of a great “conservative” film.  It celebrates courage, hard work, redemption, and the individual facing long odds against a clear and present moral evil in society. It is family-friendly in every respect and suitable for any child 10-years or older. It’s also extremely well-executed, a pleasure to watch, and a very necessary history lesson.

Can anyone tell me why “we” aren’t claiming films like this one?

As Roald Dahl famously put it, “We have so much to do, and so little time. Strike that, reverse it.” Indeed, the genuine problems with programming are probably simpler to address than we make them out to be, and we do in fact have time to think about, discuss, and execute a more perfect product.

But while we’re at it, I believe it’s crucial to address some ridiculous claims shouted from our own ranks. For starters, the chief complaint I hear from the social cons is an absolute mystery to me: the blanket declaration that television needs more “wholesome” programming.

Let’s turn to the cable guide for clues…

For the youngsters, we now have Animal Planet, Discovery Kids, Disney Kids, PBS Kids, Nickelodeon, Noggin, the Science Channel, etc.

Clearly children’s television has evolved since the “good ol’ days.” Remember when there was nothing for children on television during the week except “Sesame Street,” “The Electric Company,” and (the always slightly disturbing) “Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood?” When those ended, you could look forward to the Gobi Desert of soap operas, game shows, and reruns of “Love, American Style.”

For tweens or teens and older viewers, the cable gods bring us, for instance, The Discovery Channel, the Food Network, the History Channel, the Science Channel, Disney proper (post noon — Phineas and Ferb is brilliant, and certainly entertaining for children and the quirky older set alike)…I could go on, but I’ve named twelve networks. Not programs, mind you, but entire networks suitable for family viewing!

Okay, not every program on each of these channels is to everyone’s taste. Personally, I would not allow my toddler to watch Barney under any circumstances. I would chop off my own finger first. Nor would I have allowed my six- or seven-year-old to watch “The Suite Life of Zack and Cody,” though some conservatives suggested that this is the proper demographic for that program (huge cringe factor for me…the child’s taste buds aren’t even formed yet!).

Some of you seem to be under the impression that I am not a discerning parent because I permitted my six-year-old to watch “Holy Grail” in the second grade — for the record, she watched it once, pausing the VCR of her own volition to transcribe all the best bits. Plenty of old, classic movies contain racy bits or innuendo–yet you could comfortably watch them with your children because they didn’t understand the parts they weren’t supposed to get. It’s that simple.

And certainly a lot of it went over her head. I stand by that decision. Further, you can feel free to mock the earnest debate I had with my husband about whether our pre-school daughter should be allowed to watch “Sesame Street” (he was convinced that Mr. Hooper’s store was some sort of socialist co-op as he claims he never witnessed any money changing hands). To each his own. Yay, marketplace! (She did, in fact, watch “Sesame Street” — but that debate itself was a luxury, given the myriad options for children’s television in this era).

The bottom line is that if you are looking for “wholesome” family programming and not finding it, you just aren’t looking very hard. Have you seen “Mythbusters,” “How It’s Made,” “Good Eats,” “Unwrapped”…or the constant cable loop featuring fantastic miniseries like “Planet Earth” and “Meerkat Manor?”

By screaming for programming that already exists in spades, we only give credence to the media’s cartoonish portrayal of the “right wing” as deeply out of touch and a little bit crazy.

As they say on “Blues Clues,” when one is frustrated: “Stop. Breathe. And think…”

Nick nailed it. But I’d go further…the disconnect from reality demonstrated by the average American  television writer is why our best TV shows tend to be cribbed from the Brits (from Archie Bunker to The Office… Couples being one particularly hideous exception, granted).

The true threats posed by Hollywood’s television studios have absolutely nothing to do with sex and drugs, but rather with sterility and sheer stupidity. It may be true that the masses are to some extent shaped by what they consume, which is why is it has been so easy for anti-free-market, leftist messages to be inserted in small but repetitive doses and swallowed so easily. When food is consistently bland, when the diet is gruel, the taste buds tune out. It’s only natural.

But back to sex and drugs…when it comes to programming for preteens and teenagers, Hollywood is not only prudish, but childish and verging on infantile.

In The Secret Life of Teenagers, for instance, Nick points out correctly that it is neither necessary nor useful to over-emphasize that the pregnant girl had sex only once. The odds of this occurring are extremely slim, for starters, and not nearly as instructional as a more realistic version of the same story. Are we hoping to “scare them straight” Little-Red-Riding-Hood style? To weave semi-implausible fairy tales with gruesome endings? And if so, it bears rethinking — either that or a far more clever revision to justify the motif. To wit: I went to an all-girls Catholic high school, and knew at least three girls who became pregnant before graduating. All were excellent students, members of the honor society, student council or class council, and excelled at sports. And all of them were, to use the 80’s vernacular, “flaming sluts”. That is far more real, far more interesting, and a problem that certainly bears addressing. The ramifications of extensive early sexual activity extend well beyond potential pregnancies and STD’s, but also to matters of reputation and self-esteem (one of these girls attempted to kill herself). Every one of them had abortions, incidentally. And what, dear teenager, will you do if your friend calls you in tears and wants you to meet her at the clinic because her “boyfriend” stood her up? There’s a potential moral dilemma for you, if you happen to oppose abortion (which I did at the time). That’s real life. THAT is the secret life of teenagers.

As to drugs…where are they? (I mean on teen television!). If they appear at all it will likely be fifteen minutes before the post-mortem. Kids don’t even smoke cigarettes on TV anymore, not even the “bad” ones. As a parent, and a generally sane person, I certainly don’t wish to see drinking and drugging glamorized for the younger set…but I’m smart enough to realize that kids will see that anyway…in Real Life. And too often it will, in fact, appear glamorous. So why the puppet show? Is your child stupid? Mine isn’t.

Frankly I’m baffled by most American programming, even the adult shows. While the entire country seemed to marvel at sitcoms like Seinfeld and Friends, I had serious questions about the writers. Were they ALL recovering alcoholics? Is that why they forced these characters, adults in their twenties and thirties, to conduct their entire social lives in coffee shops and diners? These shows were supposed to be set in New York City, but it looked more like Utah.

I guess that’s why I was so thrilled when House premiered. Finally, a character on an American program who is allowed to be flawed, a drug addict, and a jerk — a genuine anti-hero in the mode of Sherlock Holmes! I had hoped that my eleven-year-old daughter would join me in watching some pre-screened episodes, because I knew she would benefit from the complexity of an actual human character on television, and looked forward to the ensuing discussions we could have about this…but she doesn’t care for medical dramas.

Now this is a child who could recite all the best parts of Monty Python and the Holy Grail with a fake British accent when she was six. She loves Alfred Hitchcock, and has been exposed to many classic and age-appropriate films. She enjoys the Discovery Channel, etc. But she and her peers are currently infatuated with programming that is turning my hair white (literally– I’m glad you can’t see my roots right now!). And this tripe is brought to us courtesy of — yes, people — The Disney Channel. If there is a more inane channel on the cable dial, I’ve yet to discover it.

If you have a preteen, you may be unfortunate enough to have watched The Suite Life of Zack and Cody, for example (syndicated sex columnist Dan Savage on This American Life discussing why this program is “too filthy for his son to watch.” But I don’t forbid her to watch these programs, just as I don’t forbid her to eat cookies or ice cream. I do, however, make sure that I compliment it with a healthy dose of well-written, non-inane programming. And yes, I long for the day when she graduates from High School Musical Three to Heathers.

That may sound twisted. But, as parents, I think we’ve gone collectively insane and are fearing all the wrong things. Sex, obviously, is a part of life in every family (last I checked, that is where families come from). And drugs (certainly alcohol), are present in some fashion or form in most American households.

These issues can be addressed in ways that are silly and human, that expose dark dangers with dark humor, or that address these things dead-on with respect for the intelligence of any viewer of any age in the double digits.

If we don’t tailor realistic programming for preteens and teenagers, they will inevitably graduate to more adult programming too soon – and adult programs needn’t have any message at all, subtle, complex or otherwise.

Certainly it is wise to be vigilant about what one’s children consume via boob-tube, books and video games. But subject matter and quality are separate issues. Judging by the creepy, Stepford-type content currently offered to tweens and teens on television I fear not for their safety, but for their minds.