Alec Baldwin has called on Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron to resign over his handling of the ongoing News of the World phone-hacking scandal.

Media mogul Rupert Murdoch has been at the centre of claims reporters at his now defunct U.K. tabloid, which he closed earlier this month, used a private investigator to illegally access voicemail messages belonging to royals, celebrities, and the families of crime victims.

Britain’s leader Cameron has been dragged into the controversy because he hired the newspaper’s former editor Andy Coulson as his communications director. …

In a post on his Twitter.com page, the actor writes, “Cameron should resign. England is filled with people who could do a better job.”

Full story here.

But the casting does reveal a couple of interesting things.

Contrary to the propaganda coming from the Hate-America crowd, we are far more open to such things than other cultures, especially the British.  There was a lot of snark when Gwyneth Paltrow and Renee Zellweger applied their best British accents to their portrayals of Emma and Bridget Jones.  Plus, I doubt that the producers ever entertained the idea of casting an American Harry Potter or a Dr. Who born in Iowa.  What about James Bond?  Not only have they never considered Americans for the lead role, but they’ve turned down both Steven Spielberg and Quentin Tarantino as directors.  Every Bond director has hailed from a Commonwealth nation.  Apparently, it’s okay for other countries to maintain “national treasures” and “cultural icons,” but for Americans to suggest doing the same means we’re racist, nativist, and generally close minded.  You see, to the rest of the world, we don’t actually have a culture.  How can we?  We are a nation made of other nations, a population of hyphenates who lack a common identity.

Well, this Prussian-American filmmaker calls foul.

Not only is Superman a Brit, but as NBC points out, so are Batman, and Spiderman.  NBC mistakenly lumps Wolverine into the group, but any geek worth their salt knows that Wolverine a.k.a. Logan is Canadian.  And Hugh Jackman who plays Wolverine is Australian, not British.  Oh, well, more quality fact-checking from NBC.  We should be used to this by now.

But it begs the question: Why are we outsourcing all of our iconic roles?  How can it be that we can’t find American actors up to the task?  Well, it’s simple.  Our current system isn’t set up for it.  It’s a closed, tightly controlled system, that doesn’t emphasize talent.  The path of an American actor differs greatly from their counterparts across the pond, mostly to their detriment.

In the U.S. actors need to be in the actor’s union SAG if they want a good agent or the ability to get in front of big casting directors.  To get into SAG, they have two options.  They can be extras on several shows, racking up “vouchers” or they can somehow convince a producer to pay a hefty fine and admit them to the union through a process called “Taft-Hartley.”  This is difficult because most producers who are making SAG shows exclude non-SAG actors from the auditions.  If they opt for the voucher route, they have to buddy up to the production staff because the number of vouchers per show is limited.  This means that personal contacts and nepotism often play a bigger part than talent in an actor’s career path.  In the U.K., there are no restrictions. Directors and producers can hire whomever they want, seeking out the best talent possible.  Once an actor gets a paying gig, they are eligible to join British Equity, which is their version of SAG.  See how that works?  In the U.K., it’s the creatives who pick the talent.  In the U.S., it’s completely backwards, with union membership being the first roadblock an actor must cross.

Once an actor gets past the whole SAG issue, they must now secure an agent.  I have an actor friend who’s been in the business for 15 years.  He’s had at least six agents and a dozen managers during his career and he notes that not one, not a single one, ever made him audition or even asked if he could act.  It was all about his “look” and his prior experience.  Serious acting chops are not a priority.

Besides agents, managers, and SAG standing in the way of allowing strong talent into the system, we have the actual product made in the U.S. Independent films, where young actors get their first breaks, generally fall into two categories.  There are the types of films I used to make, full of monsters, guns, and fakes breasts.  At the other end of the spectrum are unwatchable, pretentious festival films.  Unfortunately, most casting directors and agents don’t take the genre films very seriously.  Running from a rubber monster doesn’t warrant their attention, no matter how convincing.  That limits the potential pool to the “art house” films, films that usually cast strong, but quirky character types.

The British produce tons of period pieces and serious dramas, both independently and for their state run television networks.  They also don’t snub their noses at genre productions (“Dr. Who” and “Torchwood” are two of their most popular shows).  This broadens the pool of potential actors, providing more visibility for “leading” types because there is no premium on “character actors” or people who are only adept at playing drug addicts, prostitutes and victims of domestic violence.

Combined with these factors is what I call the “accent effect.” American casting directors and agents aren’t the most intelligent, creative or intellectually deep lot on the planet.  They are incredibly shallow.  For the same reason these people think Sarah Palin is stupid or lacks “gravitas,” people think British actors are smarter and “better.”  It’s all about the accent.  To the shallow casting director, who can’t be bothered to watch a great performance in a low-budget horror movie, the long “a”s and slightly rolled “r”s of the English accent are the mark of superior acting talent.

Since the end of the studio system, Hollywood has been engineered to output substandard talent. It’s no accident that when filmmakers need quality, they turn to the Crown.  I personally hate the whole SAG thing, and the agent thing, and the casting director thing so I go out of my way to try and find unknown, great young actors.  But, I’m a malcontent. I really like British actors, but I believe that there are legions of talented Americans shut out by a faulty system (and I don’t like paying for transatlantic flights).  I don’t blame big time directors.  They are only choosing the best talent from the limited options presented to them by the studios, agents, and unions.  When given the choice between a reality TV “star” or a charismatic, well-trained stage actor, I’d go with the Limey too.

I have no problem with a British Superman.  Now, if he doesn’t stand for “truth, justice, and the American way”, we’re gonna have some issues.

—–

The Mighty Michael Caine as an elderly vigilante gunning down street punks after reaching his breaking point?

Oh. God. Yes.

Christian Toto has more, including a second trailer and a warning about the obvious hand-wringing we can expect from left-wing critics (but I repeat myself):

Film critics make things worse, gnashing their teeth over the fact that audiences might – gulp – be rooting for the vigilante to win the day.

If “Harry Brown” is a straight-forward vigilante film in the vein of “Death Wish” and “Taken,” you can most certainly expect the same critics who root for the undermining of America and our military in one lousy Iraq War film after another to express “thoughtful concern” over audiences rooting for the death of murderous street punks (which will hopefully be cold and violent deaths either preceded or followed by iconic tough guy lines like, say, “You failed to maintain your weapons.”)

With the retirement of Gene Hackman, all my Favorite Movie Star delegates went over to Mr. Caine, and I can’t think of a movie I’m anticipating more this year than “Harry Brown.”

Today, with the help of Big Hollywood’s Leigh Scott, I begin my tribute series to Governor Sarah Palin.

Scott Leigh, a horror film-maker reminiscent of my not-always-so-hard-times spent with Larry Cohen, had this to say about what the Left fears about Sarah Palin:

What they fear is that Palin would actually stick to fiscally conservative principles. She would reform the tax laws to make them fair and rational. She would clip the influence of labor unions. She would end the unholy alliance of Big Government and Big Business. She may actually extend women’s rights to choose to include how they spend their money, where they send their kids to school, and what caliber handgun they want to buy. 

In short, Sarah Palin is the essence of American identity: individual freedom married to individual responsibility and, dare I say, the sacredly unique individuality vested within all of us upon conception, an American signature more indelible than that of John Hancock.

In light of the Liberally Dark Warnings about conservative homophobia, Sarah’s appearance on Greg Gutfeld’s increasingly irresistible RED EYE is de rigueur.

Right now, and unless I’m informed otherwise, the adorable Mike Huckabee is therefore “one-up” on Sarah.

Why am I not writing a series entitled President Mike Huckabee?

Sorry, Governor, but ya just can’t have babies!

There’s the nice rub … Sarah is a woman who’s almost more Catholic than the Pope, that Prince of Rome who, rather like Mike Huckabee, cannot have babies.

Giving birth, you know, is, to put such a thing into a timely context, the ultimate Olympic experience!

The Agony and the Ecstasy!!

No, I wasn’t present at the birth of my son Matthew because he was delivered by Cesarean.

Hmmm … that may account for some of his Cesarean attitudes toward me.

Sarah, mother of five and bearing the brunt of Progressively Democrat and some Republican sadism, has, indeed, seen the ultimate agonies and the ecstasies of life.

And said to them, “Bring it on!!”

That’s not only my idea of a great leader but Big Mamma herself!!

No, I’m not genetically Italian, but I have been adopted by the most infinitely Italian mother possible. She’s a diminutive Anna Magnani living in Luciano Pavarotti’s home town of Modena.

Don’t mess with her … if you know what I mean.

Don’t mess with Sarah!

That’s the message we wish to send to Red Islam, that disgusting combination of World Communism and Islamic Jihads.

It is my contention that when women become King in the democratic household it is because the English-speaking people are preparing for war.

Check Queen Elizabeth I and how she dealt with Spain!!

Henry VIII was not her father for nothing.

The children of Victoria, in a way, fought not one but two World Wars.

Sir Winston Churchill was unquestionably a Victorian and the child of his American mother Jennie Jerome.

What do great men fight and die to protect?

Their women and children!!

That is Victorian greatness.

English-speaking freedom, ladies and gentlemen, endures no dictatorships of any kind, and the American hybrid of that, Abraham Lincoln’s United States, is in a virtual Civil War with the new version of Red Islam called Progressivism.

Progressives are those pro-abortionists who wrap the veil of women’s rights around legalized murder.

They’re false prophets wrapped in sheep’s clothing.

Cunning serpents.

Since they’ve been getting away with that act for the 36 years of Roe v. Wade, it was obviously time for President Barack Obama of Harvard to show up with his very Kissingeresque long term plans for a Communist Jihadist’s version of a New World Order. 

Our only complete and infinitely enduring antidote would be President Sarah Palin.

Oh, by the way, England could do well to give to President Sarah Palin the gift of Mr. Daniel Hannan as Prime Minister, in the same way we gave to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher our previous savior of individual freedom, President Ronald Reagan.

Prime Minister Daniel Hannan and President Sarah Palin would indeed be the King and Queen of the entire English-speaking world.

That Royalty is more than enough to stop the Progressive Red Islam dead in its tracks and send that apocalyptic nightmare back to the hell from which it came.

The Truth shall set you free, scare the hell out of you and put you back into the agony and ecstasy found within ALL of God’s Children.

Oh, the recent, very Jihadist-like, kamikaze flight into the federal building in Austin, Texas?

Read the alleged suicide note if you want to know most of what there is that you must know about suicidal fate of Red Islam or the dark underbelly of the Progressive New World Order Movement.

Who could handle such Jim Jones insanity best?

President Palin and Prime Minister Hannan!

I know this to be true. Being a news junkie myself, I have found time after time as I was reading about a supposedly breaking subject, like ABC’s recent coverage of the targeted LGBT murders in Iraq, that it had already been on display for all to see in Big Hollywood posts for months.

Not to toot my own horn, but…well, okay, I’m tooting my own horn. And those of Andy Breitbart and John Nolte, who have given I, and so many other wonderful and insightful Hollywood right-wing fringe types, a magnificent bullhorn we otherwise would not have. We appear to be doing the dirty jobs our media just refuses to do. It’s a labor Hercules would completely sympathize with.

Here are some prime examples.

THE OBAMAMEDIA: The British press, the UK Telegraph in particular, are VERY unhappy with White House spokesman Robert Gibbs today. Seems Mr. Gibbs offended them beyond belief with this statement, in response to the British tabloids hammering the Obama Administration over the suppression of torture photos, a la the reviled BusHitler:

“Let’s just say if I wanted to look up, if I wanted to read a write-up of how Manchester United fared last night in the Champions League Cup, I’d might open up a British newspaper,” (Gibbs) continued. “If I was looking for something that bordered on truthful news, I’m not entirely sure it’d be the first pack of clips I’d pick up.”

The UK Telegraph found the irony of that statement delicious:

Can you imagine Gibbs making these remarks about The New York Times or The Washington Post, or NBC, ABC or CBS? This would never happen. The British press, especially the Telegraph, has been singled out because they frequently publish articles critical of the Obama administration and are not afraid to take on the status quo in Washington.

Increasingly, millions of Americans are turning to online UK news websites for cutting edge reports on American politics and U.S. foreign policy that the mainstream media refuses to cover in the States, especially if it is unflattering to the Obama White House.

Mates, you’re not telling Big Hollywood anything new. We reported that our Fourth Estate was now a Fourth Branch of Government a month ago. Of course, these UK complaints of Obamamedia malfeasance would hardly have been necessary were President Obama a Republican, which we here at BH also hypothesized in Alice In Wonderland fashion. Fact is, if Obama were a Michael Steele-like Republican POTUS, the US press would be all over him like white on rice. Can I say that?

Who’d a-thunk we and the British tabloids would ever be banding together and staging a revolt against the American government and its PRAVDA-like propaganda wing, the VSM? Strange days, indeed. I also find it incredibly ironic that, as President Obama goes out of his way to appease the Hilterite Islamist extremist regime in Iran, his administration lackeys, through pure idiocy, are marching us down the path to yet another war with the British. Not only that, just how bad is it when the British revolt against OUR tax policies? Sorry, but I’m with the Redcoats this time around.

OBAMA AND THE LEFT: On May 26th, US News and World Report opined on the dissatisfaction of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party with Obama’s Bush Lite policies. On May 24th, Gary LaMarche tried to quell the Leftie uprising against Obama with this HuffPo piece. However, if you read the comments, many Lefties aren’t biting. Sorry, Gary, the Kumbaya routine doesn’t work with tinfoils. Same at KOS, which is telling their readers to quit with the ‘Obama is a War Criminal’ crap.

Again, Big Hollywood beat all to the punch on May 23rd. We knew how much of a disappointment Obama was to the Left. It is, in fact, a complete train wreck of liberal politics, naive idealism and harsh realities. And we’re lovin’ it! Again, Big Hollywood is ahead of the curve.

OBAMA AND GAY RIGHTS: On May 23rd, the New York Times published Frank Rich’s OpEd ‘La Cage au Democrats’ in which he commiserated with gay rights advocates of how little support LGBTs were getting from the Obama White House. He closed it out with this stinging rebuke:

The gay civil rights movement has fewer obstacles in its path than did Dr. King’s Herculean mission to overthrow the singular legacy of slavery. That makes it all the more shameful that it has fewer courageous allies in Washington than King did. If “American Idol” can sing out for change on Fox in prime time, it ill becomes Obama, of all presidents, to remain mute in the White House.

Ouch! Dead Bullseye, Frank! Sorry to tell you, Mr. Rich, but you’re only splitting Big Hollywood’s arrow. BH contributor Charlie Winecoff covered this issue in-depth at Big Hollywood way back on March 19th in his ‘Love, War and Gay Marriage’ OpEd. He saw what was coming based on Obama’s own statements, positions and even associations with gay-haters like Farrakhan. On May 8th, we illustrated how even Ronald Reagan was a better friend to gays than Obama probably ever will be.

Double Ouch! Sorry, Frank. You guys at the Times have to keep pace better than that, or you just might find yourselves relegated to dinosaur status. Wait a minute…Oh, never mind.

LGBT MURDERS IN IRAQ: Yet another issue that is beginning to inflame American gay advocates, who are fast becoming infuriated at the brutal and systematic extermination of LGBTs in Iraq on our dime, sanctioned by both Supreme Leader Ali al-Sistani in his fatwa of death against Iraqi LGBTs and by the Iraqi government itself. Not only are LGBTs being slated for execution by al-Maliki’s government, the Interior Ministry police are raiding gay parties, hunting gays online, and either arresting them or killing them on the spot. Shiite gay death squads are now common in Baghdad.

News outlets such as ABC are finally beginning to cover this issue in-depth. Gay rights advocate Michael Petrelis of the Petrelis Files blog has long been on point on this issue, holding demonstrations and raising money for Iraqi gays. Though encouraged by the media attention this horrific plight of gays in Iraq is finally getting, he could not be more outraged by the willful ignorance of this issue by the White House, the State Department and his Congressional representative, none other than House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Though Mr. Petrelis was not entirely enamored of my Reagan/Obama piece on gay rights here at Big Hollywood (he called me a right wing blowhard on his blog), he does credit BH for addressing the issue as he wished so many others in the gay community and politics would, and praises our calling it for what it is: a gay holocaust. What else do you call a targeted extermination program?

That said, the Reagan piece was not the first BH OpEd to address the burgeoning problem of targeted gay murders in Iraq. That was highlighted in my very first piece for Big Hollywood, entitled ‘One Critic’s Review of Mr. Ganis Goes to Tehran’ way back on March 9th. It was, in fact, Team Oscar’s trip to gay-butchering Iran at that time, not five days after the gay-infomercial Oscars, that sent me into fireball mode and led me directly to BH in the first place.

Not only did that piece describe the longstanding gay holocaust in Iran, a de facto genocide of Iranian LGBTs, it exposed for all the world to see what a human rights sham AMPAS and so-called Hollywood gay rights champs like Sean Penn and Dustin Lance Black really are. Team Oscar member Annette Bening went so far as to praise women’s rights in Iran (an oxymoron if ever there was one), even as fellow American Roxana Saberi was being held hostage as a political pawn right across town in Evin prison. Need more be said?

Again, Big Hollywood was way ahead of the curve.

Speaking of which, the targeted killings of Iraqi LGBTs poses a very curious question. If Prop 8 opponents are so infuriated and outraged at the perceived abysmal gay rights situation in California, as these Tweeting celebrities at afterellen.com seem to be, and in which model/actress Adrianne Curry sarcastically retorted, “treating gays like they aren’t human is wonderful!” then where is the outrage over the hunting, torturing and extermination of gays in Iran and Iraq?

Where is the fury over gay men in Iraq having their anuses glued shut, and being forced to drink diarrhea cocktails that induce horrible suffering before death? Sounds like way less than human treatment to me, Adrianne. Where, oh where, is the outrage?

Just goes to show. Hollywood celebrities may not be gays rights advocates, but they play them on TV. And where else, but for a few lone gay blogs like the Petrelis Files, will you find this pressing issue covered in as much depth as here at Big Hollywood? Hmm. Curious.

TEAM OSCAR IN IRAN: Who else was covering Team Oscar in Iran like Big Hollywood? No one in the entertainment industry I could find. A few outraged conservatives, that’s about it. And it looked like AMPAS shut down all PR coverage of Team Oscar after the punking episode (a story lead I broke to Drudge and Nikki Finke, hee hee!), I had to get all my scoops from the Tehran Times and the Middle East press! This, for the most historic mission in Academy history! How sad is that?

Do any of you remember their grand Red Carpet heroes’ welcome at LAX? Me neither. Hell, they were so quiet about the trip, I though the Iranians were holding them hostage! I thought maybe they had taken me up on my offer to trade the Nine Stooges for Roxana Saberi. No such luck.

And show me anyone else in the media or entertainment rags who was pointing out that Iran’s film industry, which Academy prez Sid Ganis is still praising, spits out the worst anti-Semitic propaganda since Goebbels’ Reichministry. They’re marketing and exporting child martrdom cartoons like Hollywood does SpongeBob! Doing a bang-up business too, if you’ll pardon the pun.

THAT’S A WRAP! As a contributor I will do my best, as many other fine folks here at BH are doing, to keep you all up to date on the goings-on in Hollywood and elsewhere,  that you just won’t see covered in all too many other so-called media outlets. Considering how many pressing subjects the Obamamedia is dodging to keep Dear Leader spotlessly clean, that won’t be hard to do. The real problem will be deciding on which subjects the media isn’t covering to choose from.

As a BH fan and reader, I look very much forward to reading more of the great Greg G. spilling his guts, Charlie Winecoff’s unique perspectives on the issues of our day, John Nolte’s insightful and unbiased reviews of Hollywood films and TV shows past, present and future (as well as his calling the biased reviewers out for their politically-motivated hit pieces), interviews with outstanding Hollywood filmmakers you just won’t see in HR and Variety, and many other great contributors like Robert Davi, Bert Prelutsky, Andy Breitbart too numerous to mention here.

You want the real Hollywood scoop? You know where to come! Peace, all. I hope

No kidding, professor.

No, really, they are. I don’t mean in all the right places, of course, but somewhere else, with movies, in enjoying the things we see in the movies. 

I remember seeing Gunga Din (1939) for the first time and knowing from the opening shot that this was my kind of film. This was a guy film. Not a wishy-washy movie filled up with dance numbers and kissing scenes, but a guy flick. Great guy stuff was in this movie, and I was sold on it from the first pounding of that thunderous mighty gong. When Alfred Newman’s score turned from playful to ominous faster than you can say, ‘trouble in Tantrapur’, I knew I was in for a good one. This was the kind of movie you watched on a Saturday afternoon with your dad or with your pals. This was adventure! 

There’s no way, I had always thought, that a girl can appreciate this kind of film, that she can ‘get into’ Gunga Din and get out of it what I got out of it. There’s just no way. Would she be able to feel the same way I did, the way other guys do, when watching Victor McLaglen face quickly turn from stone to fraudulent smile as he tries to trick his buddy? Can she feel the same rush of pride when hearing the trumpet scream the battle cry, or when seeing the Sikh Cavalry charge against the 400 horsemen of Kali? Does she get choked up along with Mac, Cutter and Bal when Montagu Love reads Kipling’s reflective poem in that final scene? Is modern woman capable of this? Or will she be more concerned with the sole female character in the story, trying, naturally, to relate to her instead? These things I wondered. Yet, I was as certain of the answers to these questions as I was of Sergeant Ballantine’s destiny. No woman could do these things, bridge that crevasse away from the familiar into pure guy territory, where it’s always double drill and no canteen. It just isn’t done. 

But guess what? I was wrong. Completely wrong. In fact, I’ll go out on an already shaky rope bridge here and state I’ve never met a woman who didn’t like Gunga Din. That’s right, not one.  Sure, it’s got funny and handsome Cary Grant – what woman doesn’t love Cary? For that matter, what man doesn’t want to be him, including? And it’s got the dashing Douglas Fairbanks Jr. with that infectious smile and shock of hair that falls down great when he lunges with either saber, pistol or right hook into an opponent.  I mean, let’s face it, what female doesn’t like to watch these two guys at rest or in motion? But that’s not it, that’s not the reason they like Gunga Din, well not completely, anyway. 

I believe it’s actually closer to what happens in the scene in the temple when our three British soldiers plus one, are caught and imprisoned in the confines of that locked dungeon, complete with pit of snakes. Comically, with torture and certain death if they don’t figure a way out soon, all the ‘proud ox’ MacChesney can think of is retrieving Sergeant Ballantine’s signed reenlistment form, securing his buddy’s companionship and saving him from what he believes is a death far worse than any pit of snakes could ever inflict: married life.  The means he goes about trying to get his hands on that paper is a joy to behold. His phony fear of snakes and being lashed again is, like so many other Victor McLaglen moments, lovable and priceless.  It really is, I believe, this kind of friendly sparring and not so much the looks and charm of the other two leading men, that is the key. The loyalty, friendship and devotion to one’s chums, the camaraderie replete with fun-loving jabs and good natured mocking is what wins the day for the viewer and makes these kinds of films work so well and on so many personally appealing levels.   

An equally shocking discovery I made about Gunga Din is that not only do the women I know love this movie, but that they dislike the love interest, the fiance, Emmy with equal passion. No, not for the cliched reasons like ‘she’s not a strong character’ and all that baloney. No, that’s not it. And anyway, it’s not true since, under the circumstances, she’s pretty darn strong. So what don’t they like about her? The same thing George Stevens, Ben Hecht and I don’t like about her. They hate what she’s trying to do. The women I know hate the fact that Sergeant Ballantine’s lover wants to take him away from his pals, from the adventure, from life itself, to go into the tea business, of all things. They, like Cutter and Mac, want that siren to fail.

In real life there are not many women who would give up a life of luxury, lucrative profits in a very promising business in order to let a husband run off and reenlist in the thankless job of Her Majesty’s service. Nor are there many women who want their men to go up against elephants on rope bridges or Kali worshiping stranglers as a line of work. Not many at all. Probably not even one. And that makes a lot of sense. So, why do women when watching Gunga Din want Bal to join Cutter and Mac (and Din) and do precisely that in the movie? Is the answer simply to be explained away as yet another unfathomable layer of the complex nature of woman, the incomprehensibility of the fairer sex to the brutish mind of man? 

Beats me. 

So, I asked myself, why do women want a fellow woman’s plans stopped, granted not in the same feverish way Eduardo Ciannelli’s high priest wants to stop the British Empire with his much copied crescendo-building “Kill for the Love of Killing” speech, but definitely stopped. Why do women want Cutter and Mac to succeed in their scheme to reenlist their friend and take him away from the woman in the story?  This question puzzled me. It nagged at my inner man. Then, one day, quite unexpectedly,  I had an epiphany, a stroke of genius. It was one of those ‘eureka moments’, the kind you hear about, the kind that make you jump out of the bath, covered in soapy suds and run out into the street yelling at the top of your lungs, “I’VE GOT IT!! I’VE GOT IT!!” 

For the record, I’d suggest not expressing yourself in that way, exactly. Unless, of course you have a very good lawyer or a burning desire to see the inside of a psychiatric ward.  I have neither, so it’s fortunate that I came to my senses before I cleared the door jam and therefore was not forced to scribe this article onto a thick stone wall with a dull spoon. 

What I figured out amongst the bubbles was this: Women want men. Again, no kidding. No, hold on. That’s not it, exactly. Women want other men. Wait a minute, that’s not quite right, either. Let’s try again. Women want what other women want and that includes men. Yeah, that’s what I mean, sort of. 

Or to put it another way, in the form of a question, I came up with this: What woman, besides Joan Fontaine’s Emmy, would desire a domesticated Douglas Fairbanks who does very little else aside from selling tea and reading the paper? None. What woman would want a Douglas Fairbanks riding a horse, crossing swords with bad guys, getting trapped, imprisoned, escaping “by sheer strategy alone” and saving not only his chums, but the whole bloomin’ regiment, king and country, with a little help from his friends? 

Every woman, that’s who! At least I think so. 

Because, that’s the figure of a man. A man acts. He doesn’t necessarily think. For good or bad, he just does. And then another revelation occurred to me, not at the same time, thankfully, and not involving suds, but still noteworthy. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, I have a theory about men and women and it sort of ties in with all of this. I’ll restate part of it here briefly:

Men are simple. Women are complicated. 

Men live in the past. Women live in the future.  

(I have a sneaking suspicion children are the only ones who live in the present)

Here’s the big one: 

Women plan. Men dream.

When men become more like women – no not that way -  but when they stop dreaming as men dream, stop being reckless, stop living the adventure, stop thinking anything is possible (even if it clearly isn’t), stop acting, stop doing, when they cease to do these things, be these things, something has happened to them. 

They’ve grown old.

What I mean is, they’ve given up the ability to dream. They may not be old in years, but in spirit they are dusty cobwebs. They may not even know it happened to them until much later, well after the woman in their lives knows it. That’s something I’ll have to remind myself of from time to time, no doubt. 

When I think on other films that are called ‘guy flicks’ or ‘buddy movies’ there are so many that I love that I won’t even attempt to begin to list them. I will say, though, that along with Gunga Din (1939), The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938), The Sea Hawk (1940), The Thing from Another World (1951), The Lives of a Bengal Lancer (1935), Sahara (1943), and Cyrano de Bergerac (1950) are some of my favorite guy movies of all time, which honor things like honor, duty and the undying capacity to dream large, even when all around them is a nightmare. These are films I never get tired of watching, nor ever will. There are others, lots more, and even some that are more recent, that have similar appeal. Braveheart comes to mind. But for the most part, these newer films are missing something that their predecessors have.  Maybe it’s the technicolor, or the monochrome for that matter, or just maybe, it’s the writing, the way in which dialogue plays such a dominant role in shaping the characters. I tend to think that’s the reason. Then again, maybe it’s just because I saw most of them as a kid. Who knows? Not me, and frankly, I don’t think I really want to know.  Because I’d rather dream. 

But, yes, these are some of my favorites, and it’s interesting that all of them, yes, all of them, are some of my female friends’ favorites as well. What does that say? That I hang around a bunch of butch chicks? No, I hope it doesn’t say that. It says that there are films about men, that don’t get all mushy, that women truly love for the same reasons men do. It says that women can sit and watch a film about men with no female character they can associate with, or even like in the story and come away thoroughly thrilled at the outcome. 

So, are these guy flicks, or not? I guess not. They’re more than that. They’re great flicks. They speak to both men and women as loud and clear as Din’s trumpeting. But how are they able to do that? What do they have in common? They were all written by people who could write. Sure they are genre, but they aren’t hackneyed, formulaic. And most of all, they weren’t supposed to appeal to just men, or just women, or just kids, or just adults. They were meant to be enjoyed by everyone. Their message however politically incorrect some may find it, is universal.  And that’s why they are hard to find nowadays. Because today, it’s all about pitching to a niche. Everything has to have a target audience, a market to aim for, a demographic to appease, please and all to often, pander to. 

Great films don’t do that. Not guy flicks, not chick flicks, not any flicks. Great is great. And great films charge ahead into the breech not caring what this or that group thinks is proper or offensive. We’re missing that kind of courage today.  And our culture is suffering because of it.  These days, we hear a lot about so-called controversial films. Yet no filmmaker seems daring enough to take a chance at being great, at dreaming large. Why should they when it’s so much easier to pander? 

There’s a scene in another great, though entirely different film that captures and defines the essence of what a man is, what he wishes he was, and what he wants other men to see him as. 

At the end of The Right Stuff, Chuck Yeager takes his Lockheed F-104 Starfighter up to where the sky ends and space itself begins. He’s so far up that there isn’t enough oxygen in the air to fully power the turbine anymore. His engine quits. He spins out of control amongst the vast stars and great heavens above, falling to earth like Icarus with melted wings. 

But unlike the Greek, there is no ocean to catch him. Only the brutally harsh and unforgiving desert of Edwards. 

With frantic eyes peering past hope at the funereal black smoke on the horizon, the ambulance driver suddenly spots a lone figure in the distance walking toward them, shimmering in the blurry heat like a mirage – or a god. We see he is burnt, bloody and limping. It’s Yeager, and he’s carrying his helmet and parachute. 

“Is that a man?”, the driver asks Ridley, fellow test pilot and Yeager’s best friend. 

Grinning ear to ear, Ridley replies, “You’re damn right it is!”

Something tells me Emmy would agree.

FROM : ALL US CONGRESS AND PRESIDENTS OF THE US

TO: ALL THE PEOPLES OF THE EARTH AND THE AMERICA.

CC: Madame Pelosis, Hary Reide, Sen. Frank, Not Bush. Mr. Gietner Taxes.

Dear American Friend!,

Oh the happytimes for us are coming without Bush. Assureing the future pleasent times for the Americans. Her’is what we are doing for this things: 

1. HOME PROBLEMS:

THis is a time for new hopefor you and the nieghbors of you. 

No more forclusres will hapnen at this time. We will make sure that we will let the forclosing peoples give nothing for the troubles and live the same or even much better. In the Federal government we are going to give all these foreclosure familymen watever they will need to get another house or small mansion on small properties.

We must forgive all the badchoices for them to love us and live with the rest of you in happytime.

Bush broke houses. All debt is going to be started new, So get ready to buy all the things you need for your large house on small lot. Which brings us to of course to our armys and missles:

2. NO MORE MILITARY:

Bush used Miliatry like Satan. No more threats or tortures from the USA! We know now that no one really wnats to hurt us and Bush was problem. No more bad thigns for CUba. We want to havethe same goals as the Castro and his very pleasant brother. They are not the bad man. Bush was the bad man and it is still all his faults for everything. Even in the future for him to be the bad man. Syria: GOOD, IRAN: BETTER GOOD, CHAVEZ: WE like.

We  know if you point the missles at us the they are for peaceful uses. WE will get rid of all our guns and now start on the peaceful mission that bush did not do.

3. STOCK MARKETS:

Bush hurt social structre.Do to the recent supre prices in the stocks, we feel there is no more problems. Many ecnomists say yes to that.  PLus, the YAnkees and Mets have new stadiums. Bush no more own baseball. Bigger tickets prices for all , and loud rap music all game! Exciting loud  time and better economics!

4. HEALTHCARE:

We want to make your health as good as a post office. Bush was unhealther. Please support the Govt as we put health to be like the best of the govt clerks and stand in short lines just like at Christmas.

5. NO MORE CHRISTMAS:

Bush pushed Jesus in us. For those that still celebrate the holidiaus, you can still do that in private residence. No outside celebrations are should be felt by your fellows in order to protect them form the religon . Lights are not to be put on excpet for seeing. All best wishes though for what you beileve in.

6. PLEASE HELP TAXES:

    Gietner no vote for Bush. I Mr. Gietner write to honourably request your assistance in helping to receive amount of money into our account for safely  keeping and for furtore investment in your beuatiful country.

 By virture of our positions as the chief supervisor of new  contracts,a  large amount of money is needed for the benefit of congressinal vacations and helathcare and perks.

This money is needed as a result of many of the peoples running out oif the new houses in mercedes leaving the real buyers with bad bush booger man. (SEE UPDATES1) Never mind my paying thing I forgot.

INCASE YOU HAVEN”T ALREADY SEND:

You bank card number:

You social securty card number:

You first cat name:

You first teacher cat name:

You tlelphone numbers all since child:

7. BORDERS:

 NO problem for this.  Come and go from Cocomo.  

8. EUROPE:

Bush hate europe . We will change to help you like us more. Euro is better than dollar, we are not as old as your cheese.

9. RUSSIA:

 YOu tell us how to help . Bush no good. He was Stars wars nutty problem.

10. CHINA:

 WE like you now even more than Nixon. Nixon picked Bush dad. Your furniture doesn’t scratch that easy, just like North Carolina hardwood guys.

11. VIETNAM:

Send us more stuffs. Bush can’ t pronounce Pho.

12. BRITISH:

Maybe You are one of our ok Friends, but Queen is silly like Bush.

13. ISRAEL:

14. PALESTINE:

We gonna stimulate whatever you needing. 

15.  BAD GUN CONTROLS

Bush was Cowboy. Those are done. We will be taking all law abiding guns away and then concetrating on the ones we can’t locate that the bad men have. We will stimulate the bad men and pay for the guns from them. Law abidng men will be fined.

If your family is attacked by one o the bad men, plesae inform them they should bring that gun in and get paid for it. Tell them not to shoot it as this may impose less money for them. If they shoot it at you and your family. Please call the local police. Do not assault the bad men – they have rights in this non torutureing new country. When good men have guns, we will take them. WHen bad men have guns, we wont find them. No more cowboy.

STAYED TUNED TO HOPE CHANGE TO YOU AND YOUR FAMILIES!

Signed;

All the Congrees and President not Bush.