While the story itself is quite unnerving and will sit with you for days, what is most upsetting about the film is that it did not hit the mainstream in the way that it deserved. This is unfortunate because the story of Soraya should be heard all over the world.  

So often we hear of the injustices that occur in our world today, shake our heads and move on to our daily tasks not wholly understanding what we have just talked about.  This film doesn’t allow us to do that.  Instead, the film places a vivd and graphic picture of the suffering and torture that is occurring in our world at this very moment. This film is not about promoting political ideologies, or pushing religious dogma, but rather is about bringing awareness to a topic that is almost altogether ignored by our society, and does so with the highest of artistic integrity.  

As we seek to change the worldview of films that are made in Hollywood, it is incumbent upon us to support films like “The Stoning of Soraya M”, which simply tell a story, raise awareness, but do not preach.  If we, as viewers, want Hollywood to continue making films like this we must show the industry that these films are financially viable.  Therefore, I urge you to purchase a copy of “The Stoning of Soraya M.,” when was released yesterday on DVD.  If we are to help Hollywood to ever get back to a stage where it tells stories that are worth hearing, we can start by showing the way with a little cash.  In this town, that speaks louder than words.

Director Pritchett Cotten creates an effective narrative that shows the basis of this movement is a desire to return our nation to its core Constitutional values.  While these grassroots activists have been accused of many vicious motives, the film answers these charges by simply showing the enthusiasm and work of a broad range of men and woman who were moved to political action last year.  In doing so, Cotten avoids getting caught in the all-to-easy trap of mud-slinging, and allows these patriots’ tales to dominate the story and thus inspire the audience.

While watching the film I was struck by the fact that so many inside of the movement had never been politically active previous to last year.  Jack, a former Democrat, admitted that he basically sat on his couch and complained about Washington, but had finally realized that it was his responsibility to get involved.  As he said, “[I] can either be a part of the problem, or part of the solution.”

Fred Shessel, a doctor, follows suit; getting involved in politics when Obama’s healthcare plan threatened a government takeover of his industry.  He organized a group of doctors who visited various members of Congress in the days leading up to the 9/12 march, even having an unexpected debate with a group of experts gathered by Rep. John Conyers that was intelligent and respectful (well, until Conyers pulled the racism card).

It is these stories that make the film so powerful.  These individuals understand that is our duty as Americans to be informed about the issues facing our nation and to hold our representatives accountable for their decisions.  Any reasonable skeptic of the Tea Party movement or political bystander would have a hard time watching this film, and not, at the very least, applaud their fellow Americans for seeking to change the way Washington works.

As the film finished, it left me wanting more.  The events of last year are only the beginning of a Constitutional revolution that our country desperately needs.  While this journey back to our core values may seem impossible, Tea Party: The Documentary Film shows that propelling this movement forward is as simple as speaking up.

–

Sean Hinchey and Eric Tozzi, the writer and director of DBD respectively, had been friends for years before Hinchey came to Tozzi with the idea of a fictional blog about a unsuspecting individual dealing with the aftermath of a disaster.  Hinchey says that he had “always had a strange fascination with real life disasters” as they’ve always contained stories “about humans overcoming incredible odds to save themselves or help others.”  The team decided that it would be fascinating to explore the emotional toll that a dirty bomb detonation causes, thus raising the stakes even higher.  As Tozzi explained, “a dirty bomb is meant to cause mostly psychological harm on a large population…the initial blast doesn’t cause massive damage, but the spread of radiation…is the real worry.”  Couple that pandemonium with limited access to resources like food and water, and suddenly there is widespread panic and fear.  Out of this inspiration, The Dirty Bomb Diaries was born.

While the idea of a dirty bomb attack was the motivation for the show, the struggle of a young woman in a world she never dreamed of became the heart of the story.  Before writing the script, Hinchey had watched the events of Hurricane Katrina unfold and was taken aback by the numerous failures of the government to come to the aid of the people of New Orleans, making him realized that “you should never, ever expect anyone else to help you out of a tight situation, especially the government.”  While the main character is caught unprepared, as Hinchey put it, rather than “wallow in her misery, she [attempts] to get what she needs in order to live.”  As Tozzi adds, “whether the local or federal government comes through with help or not, she decide[s] her own fate.”

As a conservative, the emphasis of personal responsibility throughout the show struck a chord with me.  The protagonist evolves from a helpless victim of an unexpected terror attack into a fighter who does what is necessary to survive the turmoil and make her way to safety, making life and death decisions at every turn.

As an artist, however, I was even more impressed with the story of how Hinchey and Tozzi took their idea and made it into a success.  Frustrated with waiting on Hollywood to finally discover their talents, the duo decided to take their careers into their own hands, and shot the show for a total of $600; literally in their own back yard.  With no marketing experience, they then promoted their show through online communities dedicated to similar type shows such as Jericho, slowly building their audience over time.  Since posting their show on online video outlets, such as YouTube, DailyMotion, Strike.tv, Veoh and Revver their series has garnered almost 2 million views, and made the team a respected force in the online world.

The success of the first season will allow the pair to take the show to another level in season 2, which the pair plan to shoot in HD.  Hinchey and Tozzi will add more complexities to the show, as they introduce their audience to new characters, new plot-lines, and new locations as they examine the attack further.

New media is still the wild west of Hollywood, providing conservatives with an incredible opportunity to take control of our own fate.  The Internet, coupled with cheaper technology, gives us a chance to stop relying on the old Hollywood system of distribution and allows us to create our own material and take it directly to our audience without ever stepping foot in a studio office.  For instance, it has been asked many times on this site why Hollywood won’t produce content that celebrates the heroics of our men and women in uniform.  Perhaps, instead, we should ask ourselves the same question Hinchey and Tozzi asked themselves: why wait on Hollywood?

With the news of Iran’s nuclear research being more widespread than previously thought, as well as the Obama administration’s retreat on the missile defense system; a documentary like “33 minutes” is more timely than ever.  Too often, Americans think of nuclear threats in the abstract, and this film does much to move the hard truths of the current state of our defense into the concrete.  Featuring interviews with numerous political luminaries such as Ronald Reagan’s Attorney General from 1985-1988, Ed Meese III, and the Iron Lady herself, Margaret Thatcher, the film will leave you understanding why missile defense is arguably the most important issue facing our nation today.

Check out more information about the film on Heritage’s website, and be sure to look for a screening near you.  For those of you in the Los Angeles area, Heritage will be having a screening at the Arclight Theater in Hollywood on October 27, followed by panel discussion including Senator Jim Talent and Kim Holmes, VP of Foreign and Defense Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation.  Be sure to RSVP for this important event.

The other night, Bill O’Reilly was explaining that this award meant the world would view America as a peace-loving nation.  Brent Budowsky, lectured the “talk America down” Republicans for attacking the announcement, saying ”this is good for America.”  TIm Kaine claimed that the prize was “an affirmation of the fact that the United States has returned to its longstanding role as a world leader.”  America is popular again; may we all celebrate with great enthusiasm.  If only there wasn’t that nagging question of what price President Obama has paid in order usher in this era of good will.   

In January, most conservatives cheered Barack Obama’s actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, where he mostly kept President Bush’s policies intact.  Unfortunately, this agreement on foreign affairs quickly dissolved, as Obama began his series of apology tours through South America, Egypt and Europe.  His administration ignored the corrupt Iranian elections, and gave little to no support to the democracy advocates being killed as they protested in the streets of Tehran.  Weeks later, his administration attempted to bully Honduras into reinstating a corrupt president who had attempted his own coup of the country’s democratic government.  Then our President left our Eastern European allies in the lurch when he abandoned the missile defense system there as a conciliatory move towards the Russians (for which he received nothing in return).  And now we are seeing what may become the beginning of an about face on Afghanistan, as President Obama changes his tune on the Taliban. 

It would seem as though the Nobel committee is only congratulating our President for emasculating America’s role as a leader and advocate for democracy. As usual, America’s popularity rises only when we abandon the position of strength which has secured both ourselves and our allies over the past eight years.  Rush Limbaugh said it best with these words: “[The world] love[s] a weakened, neutered US, and this is their way of promoting that concept.” 

Of course, by taking this stance, Rush and the rest of us have “thrown in [our] lot with the terrorists” according to the DNC.  Democrats would rather we blindly cheer as our President wins a popularity contest, while our enemies gather and strengthen their own positions.  This last week, America’s status as an economic world leader weakened further as rumors surfaced that the Gulf states were considering abandoning the dollar. At the same time, our President risks emboldening terrorists around the world as he toys with the idea of giving the Taliban any sort of victory in Afghanistan.  

So, I’m afraid this moment of triumph for America is anything but.  While some may be tempted to smile and wave as our President accepts this award as some sort of victory for our national pride I can’t help but picture a beaming Carrie being crowned the prom queen as a bucket of pig’s blood hovers dangerously above.

Whether it is Barack Obama promising to cut 95% of Americans’ taxes, instead of admitting that he wants be expand the government’s role in redistributing wealth, or the Democrats’ support of the misnomer Employee Free Choice Act, which removes an employee’s right to a secret ballot in union elections, liberals always disguise their leftist agendas with conservative talking points.  I will happily support the Democrats the day they actually advocate meaningful tax reform, and support workers’ rights over the monopoly of overgrown unions.

Most recently, Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings have displayed this pattern of liberals hiding their true political leanings from the American public.  Much has been said about Sotomayor’s disingenuous attempt to sweep her “wise latina” comments under the rug.  All of this is in an effort by Sotomayor, and her Democratic supporters to relabel her as mainstream rather than an individual who relishes in identity politics.  

Sotomayor has also been attempting to claim that her judicial philosophy is more in line with strict constructionists than is actually so.  During testimony, Sotomayor was quick to say that “[judges] apply law to facts.  We do not apply feelings to facts.” Her statements seem to be at odds with the man who appointed her, as President Obama explicitly stated that he believed that the “quality of empathy…[is] an essential ingredient” for a Supreme Court Justice. Of course, now that she is selling her qualifications to the American public, judicial empathy is shoved right out the door.  As Senator Graham said in reflection of her testimony, “I think I’m listening to Judge Roberts.”  

While much of the breakdown of political discourse in our nation has been accurately blamed on the back-biting between both parties, the left’s continual misrepresentation of their own values is also a culprit, as it makes it impossible for conservatives to engage them on a meaningful level.  In this case, instead of having a legitimate and important discussion about whether originalism or legal realism is a better judicial philosophy, Republicans are left to try and play gotcha, while the Democrats snicker about Perry Mason.  

The silver lining in this is that Americans don’t seem to be buying the liberal line on Sotomayor completely (although polls have begun to turn in her favor).  They also seem to be very wary of the so-called public “choice” being created to compete with private health insurance.  While Democrats continue to label their agenda as conservative or mainstream, Americans are waking up and realizing that their reforms are anything but.  Hopefully, Americans will spot the wolves among us before any more of our freedoms are picked off.

While Mr. Rove has been defined by the media and Hollywood elite as a partisan attack dog and nicknamed forebodingly as “The Architect,” he came off as anything but and emphasized that conservatives should be careful to work with our current president in a respectful manner.  When he mentioned President Obama’s name, a few overzealous members of the audience shouted out their less than positive feelings about the man; and Mr. Rove quickly and gently reminded them that our president has made some decisions that conservatives should applaud. From the surge in Afghanistan to military tribunals, Mr. Rove explained that President Obama has taken the right steps in regards to some very important issues that face our nation.  

As Mr. Rove stated, “We have to love our country enough that when [President Obama] is right, we are his best and strongest defenders.”  After eight years of BDS, conservatives should know better than to reflexively disagree with our current President on every issues just because he has a (D) in front of his name.  This does not mean that we must ignore the President when he is wrong, which is his tendency, but rather that we must also, as Rove explained, “disagree with him thoughtfully and carefully.”

The point is that whether or not we agree with those on the other side of the aisle, we must respect our nation enough to treat every issue that we face with careful reasoning, and intelligent discourse.  Too often, we forget that these debates are not about political victories but instead, are about finding the best way forward for our nation.  As Mr. Rove said, “our country exists and prospers because of values…that have meaning.”  By tearing a man down solely because of his political affiliations, win or lose the battle, we are degrading these values and thus our nation. We should honor our past and the fact that the United States was founded by men who put “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” before ego and power.  

Americans are exhausted by the continual battles between Republicans and Democrats; as these two parties continue to sling mud back and forth.  This is not to say that Americans are looking for bi-partisanship, which usually results in wishy-washy legislation that only panders to voters’ short term happiness.  Instead, I believe, that Americans are desperately seeking leaders who will remind them of what makes our country great: the audacity of the human spirit to accomplish great things when released from the grip of oppressive government; the need to sacrifice in order to protect our great tradition of liberty, and the duty we have to help our neighbor instead of relying on our government to do so.  If we, as conservatives, base our message on these values, we will give Americans a true message of hope that is based in the values of our past, but that will also lead us to our future.

As the readers of Big Hollywood know too well, Hollywood began its attacks by ridiculing those of us who hold our values dear—claiming a pluralistic high ground that all beliefs are equal and we shouldn’t judge others (unless you happen to be one of those white, bigoted, hillbilly Jesus freaks).  Now that pluralism no longer seems to ignite conservatives with the same fervent anger, Hollywood has turned to nihilism; because, after all, when everything is true, nothing is true.  With no truth, Hollywood can no longer give its heroes any reason to mature or chase after dreams because lives and journeys have no meaning, draining the enjoyment out of their films.

Admittedly, nihilism is not a new tool in Hollywood’s toolbox.  Numerous dramatic films and even comedies (see Woody Allen) have examined the dreary nothingness of life, but now this mindset has permeated into the realm of feel-good comedies.  I believe this is one step too far.  From “Knocked Up” to “Forgetting Sarah Marshall,” Hollywood’s last few comedy hits have provided plenty of laughs, but, in the end, nihilism sucks the meaning from these films, and, as a result, the humor gives way to gloom.

This phenomenon cropped up most recently in “I Love You, Man.”  The film follows Peter, played by Paul Rudd, on his quest to find a best man.  Peter is a nice enough guy who does his best to do the right thing in any given situation.  However, if the going gets tough, Peter takes off.  When faced with difficult decisions, Peter is too insecure to make a choice and retreats into the safety of his personal bubble. As a result, Peter finds himself with no best man for his upcoming wedding.

During his search, Peter meets Sydney, portrayed by Jason Segal.  Unlike Peter, Sydney doesn’t care about right and wrong and is therefore never intimidated by any situation.  He’s only concerned with what he wants in the moment, and thus lives the life of an overgrown adolescent, doing as he pleases without regard for the consequences.

The dichotomy between these two men could be a perfect setup for a humorous tale in which both men are confronted with their flaws and overcome them as their relationship deepens—a modern day “The Odd Couple,” if you will. However, since the film avoids advocating any value system whatsoever, neither character has any incentive to grow.  Therefore, neither man does.

The friction between Peter and Sydney’s opposing lifestyles finally takes its toll and the two men break off all contact with one another.  When faced with the unfortunate end of their new friendship, neither man finds a reason to mature and attempt reconciliation, but instead both retreat into their old patterns.

**SPOILERS**

Peter, as usual, avoids confrontation and uses a random collection of guys as his groomsmen, despite having no intimate connection with most of them.  At his wedding, his fiancé, Zoe, sees how lonely Peter is and calls Sydney to tell him to come to the ceremony.  Sydney is already on his way to the wedding when she calls.  Having been rejected by other friends when trying to make plans for the weekend, Sydney decides his best plan of action is to crash the wedding.  Rather than think of how this could impact the ceremony, Sydney is only selfishly concerned about how much better he will feel when he sees Peter again.

In the end, the two men make up, and Sydney stands by Peter as his best man.  But does this reconciliation really mean anything?  Since neither man has changed, what exactly are we cheering for?  Would Peter have ever reconciled with Sydney if Zoe hadn’t intervened?  There’s no reason to think so.  Will Sydney continue his adolescent lifestyle as Peter moves into a new stage of life, causing their friendship to fall apart again at some point down the road?  Most likely.  If each man can look at his flaws and find no reason to change, what was the point of their struggle throughout the film; and why should we care whether or not their friendship endures?

**END SPOILERS**

In the good old days, Hollywood knew how to use a story to create endearing characters.  Felix Unger and Oscar Madison, another pair of unlikely friends, became Hollywood legend in the film adaption of Neil Simon’s “The Odd Couple.”  These two men battle it out as uptight Felix deals with his pending divorce, and slovenly Oscar still reels from his own divorce, months earlier.  Both men lead miserable lives in the wake of the demise of their marriages, and yet, through their friendship; even with its own rocky moments, each man reinvents himself.  Oscar finally moves on from his wife; leaving the past in the past, while Felix lives up to his responsibilities, paying his alimony and taking an interest keeping his former pigsty of an apartment clean.

Yet, in the end, its not that both of these men have grown up, but, rather that we have seen a friendship come to the brink of disaster and back, strengthening the bond between the two friends that draws the us in.  From the beginning, when Felix worries that Oscar is trying to kill himself, to when Oscar prefaces his rant against Felix’s laziness with his profound gratitude to Felix taking him in, it is apparent that these two men truly care for each other.  It is this fact that allows us to care as well.

This is nihilism’s greatest failing in “I Love You, Man.”  When there is no meaning in life, one is left with nothing but oneself, and so nihilism gives way to narcissism.  Peter never takes an interest in helping Sydney get off his couch, so that Sydney may do something with his life.  Rather, Peter goes along with all of Sydney’s whims, no matter how uncomfortable he is with them. Peter just wants any guy to be his friend so that he can perfect the facade that is his life.  Sydney, while perhaps taking a modicum of interest in getting Peter to break out of his uptight shell, only does so for the sole purpose of having another guy legitimize his juvenile way of life.  If Peter is willing to waste an afternoon away in the man cave, then Sydney doesn’t have the to face the fact that fact that his life is completely empty.  Neither man is invested in the friendship beyond his own selfish desires.

When a feel-good ending is finally pushed on the audience, the shallowness of Peter and Sydney’s bond become glaringly apparent.  The audience has been betrayed into thinking that they are laughing along with their protagonists as they improve themselves and save their friendship, when, in reality, the audience has just been laughing at these two men…period.  Where is the feel good in that?

So, congratulations Hollywood; you have found yet another way to annoy conservatives at the box office – turning comedy into tragedy.  Where you once used humor in films to give Americans an escape from everyday life, you now only pile on the discontent and misery.  This time, however, you’re not lulling this conservative into a sense of complacency.  In fact, I may not even notice the next time you release one of your so-called comedies – I’ll be too busy working on my own!