But I do think that all those involved made an error in using the film to gratuitously bash the Catholic Church. One of the few genres us Jesus freaks are still able to enjoy is the horror genre, especially as it relates to — say it with me — SATAN!, because for all the horror elements that might turn some social conservatives off (violence, etc.), our faith is at least accepted as a reality. For my money, “The Exorcist” is one of the most Christian films ever made. Bottom line: This Jesus freak loves getting the devil scared out him.

Thus, I purchased my ticket for “The Devil Inside” expecting heroic Catholic priests and the purity of Jesus Christ to be presented as the only antidote to a certain kind of evil in the world. What? Scientists can’t answer everything and fix everything? That’s not what PBS told me… with my tax dollars.

Thankfully, I can report that this marginal horror film that delivers only a very few tense moments does, in fact, star two heroic priests and Christ’s goodness. But for some reason these are “rogue” priests who work outside the church and trash it at every opportunity. You see, because the church is “hypocritical” and “bureaucratic” and “doesn’t care about people,” it no longer sanctions exorcisms, so it’s up to these two to risk excommunication and fight the devil outside the system.

This is Hollywood having its cake and eating it too. Obviously, this is an industry uncomfortable with the concept of God, Christ, faith and most especially organized religion, but by trashing the Catholic Church they can exploit our religion to make a buck and still feel as though they’re standing by their non-principles, non-faith, and deep-seated belief in nothing.

The rogue priest idea is actually a good one. You want your protagonists to be out there on their own. It ups the danger level through a sense of isolation. Story-wise I get that. But the reasoning is lazy and these moments of gratuitous exposition take you out of the story as you share one of those “there goes bigoted Hollywood again” eye rolls.

There are over a billion Catholics in the world. How does this make any sense?

Outside of the obnoxious, hostile politics, “The Devil Inside” has a number of other serious problems, chief among them a narrative that doesn’t create anything close to a sense of dread. Worse, you never feel as though the story is headed towards an inevitable confrontation that will be awful… and awesome. And the climax really isn’t. As our heroes fight the devil, we the customers fight the boredom.

Nikki Finke reports that the film is receiving a hearty “F” from the customers, so just about everyone is feeling duped. Instead of wasting your hard-earned money on “The Devil Inside” this weekend, let me recommend renting “The Last Exorcism” (my review), another found-footage, pseudo-doc that gets better with each viewing. There’s also “Paranormal Activity 1 and 2,” and the grandaddy of them all, “The Blair Witch Project.”

I began receiving emails from underground conservatives in Hollywood thanking me for revealing what everyone in town knows but few could confirm: that liberal Hollywood kills careers of those with whom it disagrees. I even got a few calls from liberals congratulating me on my attempts to open up the industry to different political viewpoints.

But traditional Hollywood remained silent. They were unruffled by the revelation that many in their industry hire and fire out of ideological bigotry. They didn’t even see it as controversial.

Then Lionel Chetwynd stepped up.

For those who don’t know Lionel, a multiple Emmy-award nominee for his television writing and the Oscar-nominated screenwriter of “The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz.” Lionel is also a member of an elite honor society called the Caucus for Producers, Writers and Directors. The Caucus was co-created by television icon Norman Lear in 1977 in order to promote “creative freedom” and “quality and diversity of all television.”

Unfortunately, Di Bona is a high-ranking member of the Caucus. Disgusted by Di Bona’s admissions, Lionel quit the Caucus. He was soon joined by mega-producer Norman Powell. “I knew most of my fellow members looked upon [conservative] political positions … as distasteful,” Chetwynd wrote in his resignation letter. “What I know understand is the disgust was not for their views, but for their very person. Such people, Mr. Shapiro’s sources make clear, must be silenced, and it is therefore proper to make them suffer discrimination.”

The fallout was immediate and intense. The New York Times covered it. So did The Hollywood Reporter and Variety.

But was Hollywood upset? Of course not.

Read full piece here.

Tonight’s awesome line-up:
the great John Gibson!
the delightful Juliet Huddy
the awesome Carrie Keagan!
the fierce and incisive Congressman Steve Kingston
Tomorrow: Felix Dennis.
Yes, the man who fired me more times than Steinbrenner did Billy Martin!

I always find it instructive to examine the press agent’s description of the play because the language is always carefully thought out.  The thought process is always “don’t give away too much about the play so that we reveal key plot points, and also, make sure we don’t make the theme come across as too controversial so as not to alienate potential ticket buyers.”

According to the press release, the play “takes a witty and provocative look at faith, commitment and unconditional love. While the play’s central story focuses on the five-year relationship between Adam and Luke, Next Fall goes beyond a typical love story. This timely and compelling new American play forces us all to examine what it means to ‘believe’ and what it might cost us not to.”  You see?  It’s not about two gay guys in a relationship… it’s about ALL of us… especially you middle-aged, heterosexual married people (because you are the people who overwhelmingly buy all of the tickets on Broadway.)

So, let’s explore the actual content of “Next Fall” as described to me by one of my New York sources who has a sympathetic ear whenever they call me.  (This person is “one of us” wink-wink):

It’s about… well… Let’s start from the beginning. Two gay guys, one Christian, one atheist.  Meet, fall in love, move in, etc., etc. The Christian spends all of his time trying to convert the other one, but never succeeds because the atheist is just too smart. He always meets the Christian’s attempts with “logic” and rapier-sharp rejoinders that leave the Christian unable to say anything except “Well, I believe it” or “It WILL happen, it’s written in the Bible.”

The Christian comes from a religious family, with a mother, father, and brother who aren’t exactly very understanding. The father, in particular, is basically a fundamentalist (though that word is never used), who has a habit of saying things like–when talking to his son about a Huckleberry Finn play he was in–”Was that nigger a fag?” And when the atheist meets the father, and talks about wiping himself with the Bible, the father basically responds, “Well, uh, maybe if you read it, you wouldn’t feel that way,” and so on. Oh, and did I mention that the entire family is from the South, and speaks their braindead lines with heavy accents? (“I left my maid with my dog chewing on the bull penis. No, not the maid, my dog!” – not the EXACT line, but pretty close to it… I WISH I could make this up!)

The company is rounded out by a self-described “fag hag” (her term, not mine), who of course is the prettiest and wittiest person on stage short of the atheist (who is presented as the height of poise and confidence, even when battling all these bigoted rednecks), and another highly religious friend of the Christian, who’s also gay but decided to break off contact with him when he fell in love with the atheist. (Which of course gives the atheist the choice line: “So, you don’t mind having sex with men, but you draw the line at love?”) Oh, and the kicker: The Christian is pro-abortion and pro-”stem cell research” (the word “embryonic” was conveniently left out). This, naturally, sets the stage for the father to accept the atheist and for the atheist to sort of respect the Christian’s beliefs in the last 30 seconds of the play, just in time for him to deal with the bigoted brother who’s been offstage the entire night.

So there you have it.  ”Next Fall” seems to have everything a savvy producer (not to mention a leftist theatre critic) is looking for in an evening at the theatre.

My biggest problem with this, and most plays like it, is that it gives the appearance of being thoughtful and deferential to both sides, yet ultimately the conclusion always seems to be that we all just need to put our differences aside and accept each other… a fine and worthy theme, don’t get me wrong.  But, on the journey to that conclusion, my side of the argument continues to be portrayed as hateful, bigoted, and only worthy of pity and condescending hugs at the end of the evening.

It appears that this play was developed in a vacuum.  “Naked Angels” has a great reputation, but those behind it do not hide their perspective.  Their plays are meant to provoke, and they provoke from the same perspective every time.  My question is (as it always seems to be):  At any time did someone in the development process stand up and say, “Hey, you know there are a lot of intelligent and sincere people out there who will have a real problem with being portrayed this way?”

Why do our non-profit theatres, the development labs for new plays and new playwrights, not have at least one token conservative on staff to at the very least provide the perspective of HALF of the ticket buying public who feel offended when they see themselves portrayed in this way?

I hate wishing shows ill, but this one deserves to fail. It’s seems hateful but cloaked in the appearance of acceptance, which I think makes it all the worse.

Note: No tasteless holiday parades were actually performed during the making of this video.

Well, that was pathetic. And it wasn’t an accident. The fix was in from the beginning.

Last week’s lackluster “Beer Summit” featuring Sgt. James Crowley, professor Henry Louis Gates Jr., President Obama and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. was orchestrated to end a national discussion on race, not begin one. That’s why there were no microphones, even though each participant showed himself to be perfectly qualified, astoundingly articulate and camera-ready for an illuminating and much-needed public debate.

The problem for the White House was the more the esteemed professor talked, the more trouble he created for his friend, the president. The clever photo-op sans audio was crafted to yank the director of the W.E.B. Du Bois Institute for African and African American Research off the stage, lest anyone begin to question what is being taught at Harvard these days.

Conversely, the more Sgt. Crowley weighed in, and his brave black co-workers spoke out, the more obvious it became that a national discussion featuring this cast of characters may not end with the results the professor and the president wanted.

The status quo was at risk, and Mr. Obama used his extraordinary powers to protect it.

Any serious discussion would have put multiculturalism on trial, but the pretrial public hearings showed America opposes this false and corrosive idea, an opposition that our chattering classes can only understand as bigotry and prejudice. In the public eye, being a victim of past injustices does not win the right to propagate current and future ones, and that’s intolerable to those in charge of the race industry today, whose power relies on maintaining forever a latent rage that can be turned on and off at the will of the nation’s elites.

America is Tiger Woods country for a reason, and she elected Barack Obama to punctuate this new reality. The nation’s laws, education system and media attitudes now need to catch up, but such catching up is exactly what Mr. Obama doesn’t stand for.

My long-held fear is that Mr. Obama is hiding something about his education. During the endless 2008 campaign, Mr. Obama would not release his college grades. Given that President George W. Bush and Sens. Al Gore and John Kerry all had proved mediocre grades were no impediment to a presidential bid, Mr. Obama likely had other concerns.

While I have no desire to see Mr. Obama’s birth certificate, I do want to see his college transcripts. My suspicion, one could even call it a conspiracy theory, is that Mr. Obama committed himself to a radical curriculum, aligned himself with the far-left professoriate, and sought to keep this biographical information from his political enemies, especially then-rival Hillary Rodham Clinton, for fear that they would paint the former community organizer and follower of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright as something other than an advocate of racial reconciliation.

You can read the column in full here.

The most unsettling news story of the last week came out of Philadelphia, where a group of black and Hispanic children of elementary-school age paid for the right to swim at a private suburban club and were denied the experience without cause and publicly humiliated in the process.

While the Rev. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton cry racism too often and make a mockery of their cause by exploiting events for their personal gain, sometimes old-fashioned bigotry does rear its ugly head in America.

In this instance, the Valley Club’s president confirmed our worst fears when he offered something far from an exculpatory explanation. “There was concern that a lot of kids would change the complexion … and the atmosphere of the club,” John Duesler said in his initial statement.

Some campers claim to have overheard at least one parent fretting about the sudden influx of 65 minority children at the mostly white club.

True or not, these children were clearly wronged and it’s hard to believe that race didn’t play a significant part in their being tossed from the suburban club on their very first field trip.

Bigotry is not a partisan issue, and to be sickened by this story is the proper human response. America’s original sin of slavery and the stain of Jim Crow make a bad situation almost viscerally unbearable – and warrant a conclusive remedy. This, unfortunately, is our country’s long-term burden.

Many members of the private swim club, removed from its director’s idiotic move, now find themselves in the unenviable position of working round-the-clock to defend themselves and their previously unblemished club. Even neighbors of the institution have taken to the media to distance themselves from the awful act.

“I think they’re knuckleheads up there,” said John Fenton, a local. “I don’t know how you can do that to little kids.”

Whenever legitimate acts of bigotry occur, they should be exposed to the light of day. The media and the legal system – fueled by public outrage – can do the rest. In this case, substantial national and even international news coverage of the Valley Club incident is beginning the process of making the campers whole.

You can read the column in full here.