Throughout the three-year history of this space, we’ve posted countless stories about the Hollywood blacklist. In the American capital of free speech and tolerance, conservative leanings are tantamount to career suicide.

We know most Hollywood conservatives keep it in the closet, but it turns out there is one secret far more dangerous — a secret so closely guarded among the trade unions, a lawsuit was filed to prevent a website from leaking the data. That big secret is actors’ real birth dates.

As movie audiences have become younger, movie roles for the elderly have become quite sparse. Being a Hollywood star is a really sweet gig, kinda like being a rock star in normal clothes. Who would ever want to give it up just because Father Time is sounding the gong? It’s a lot like the new film ‘In Time,’ where you’re dead at twenty six unless you have enough money to fix yourself.

Through the use of computer graphics, actors can still be action heroes long after receiving their AARP cards, and thanks to high-tech plastic surgery, actresses who should be eating brunch with a host of ladies in red hats can still work nude. So when IMDB started publishing birth dates on the Internet, well, you can just imagine the chaos that ensued.

In a town where a woman like Cher (born May 20, 1946) still wants to play a single mom, revealing birth dates can be tragic.

Adult teenagers have been the norm in Hollywood since a middle-aged Mickey Rooney (born September 23, 1920) took Judy Garland (born June 10, 1922) to the high school dance. The trend continues today with women old enough to be mothers playing sisters and women old enough to be grandmothers still playing mothers.

Hollywood is like a living, breathing, version of ‘Twilight,’ where actors are eternally the same age, and high school politics have deadly consequence. Perhaps that’s the reason why conservatism is loathed in Hollywood. It’s associated with previous generations, and those who subscribe to it are revealing their true age. An obvious tell that a teenager might really be a vampire is an affection for Buddy Holly music.

The funniest irony about this scandal:  it wasn’t too long ago, actors were linking up behind Julian Assange (born July 3, 1971) like a human centipede. They applauded the WikiLeaker’s brave stance, publishing information they thought was public domain on the Internet (although not many of them were thrilled when they learned their latest blockbuster was available on the Internet as well).

Michael Moore (born April 23, 1954) even choked up bail for Assange. Steven Spielberg (born December 18, 1946) offered to do a movie about his heroics. Everyone speculated that Sean Penn (born August 17, 1960) should play him and that Susan Sarandon (born October 4, 1946) should be cast as his mother, Christine (born 1951).

These people delight in sharing every intimate detail of their lives on tabloid pages, but a secret like how many birthday candles they’ve blown out in their lifetime is just intolerable. Something that is trivial to most Americans is garlic to the immortal vampires of Hollywood. It’s quite telling that our nation’s security is not as important to these people as their own vanity. They would rather see the nation fall to terrorists than let you know their real age.

That’s something that should be remembered by anyone who seeks Hollywood endorsements as voting criteria.

Bono, son of singing icon Cher, told ‘Good Morning America’ he felt the judges got too personal during his final appearances on the show.

“I was called a basketball, a penguin, an Ewok, and I just didn’t appreciate it … If you want to critique my dancing and give me some constructive advice so I can try to improve the next time that I’m there, that would be great.”

“But I don’t really know how to be less penguish, and so I kind of took offense to that.”

Let’s hope Bono decides against following in his mother’s career footsteps. We hear ‘The X Factor’s’ Simon Cowell can be pretty unflinching with his own judgments.

She did so initially by accusing Sarah Palin of being “a traitor to this country.” This ridiculous statement caught my attention not because it had any foundation in facts, but because it was being made by Barr: a woman who made headlines in 1990 for mocking America by grabbing her crotch and spitting while singing the National Anthem for a baseball game between the San Diego Padres and the Cincinnati Reds.

Barr next accused Palin of being “a dupe” and an opportunist who’s capitalizing on the “anti-intellectualism” of Americans. And while there’s something inherently laughable about Barr speaking derisively of “anti-intellectualism,” it’s somewhat offensive that she doesn’t guard against throwing the word “dupe” around so recklessly. After all, she is the dupe who once donned a Nazi uniform and wore it in pictures that showed her taking “burnt Jew cookies” out of an oven.

Yet as stupid as all these things were, perhaps Barr’s most stupid statement was her assertion that Dick Cheney has never “[earned] one damn thing. [The] guy’s never worked an honest day in his life.” Where has she been for the last 10 years? A period of time in which Cheney was relentlessly criticized for his ties to Big Oil, via his past working relationship with Halliburton. To this day, Cheney continues to be vilified for his work with that company.

Thus while Barr tried to paint Cheney as elitist and out of touch, the truth is Halliburton has been a convenient political noose that real elites tighten around Cheney’s neck every chance they get. By “real elites” I mean people who’ve never had to work a day in their lives because they either married wealthy women or were born into families with enormous wealth: people like Senator John Kerry or the late Ted Kennedy. (Such elites have been so successful at tying Cheney to Big Oil that even the all knowing, all seeing Robert Redford was fooled into blaming him for the April 2010 Gulf Oil Spill.)

That Cheney was (and is) one of the most hardworking, decent human beings to ever hold the office of Vice President is lost on Roseanne because she is swallowed up in a world of self-loathing and bitterness, much akin to Cher and Janeane Garofalo. And for this same reason, she can only look on Palin with contempt and spew vitriol toward her because the former Governor dares to be comfortable in her own skin.

Barr is so hate-filled and so non-intellectually stimulating that I may even owe Garofalo an apology for mentioning her in this post (and that’s saying a lot).

Why it’s a left-wing film

For my money, nothing exposes the left for the anti-capitalist, anti-progress socialists they really are more than their opposition to nuclear power. Here’s an energy source that overcomes all their objections regarding safe, clean, and renewable and still they vehemently oppose it with the worst kind of hysterical scare tactics. In this respect you can’t even label them “European Socialists” because there are nearly 200 nuclear power plants currently powering Europe, over 50 in France alone, and yet here in America — thanks mainly to environmental fear-mongering — we only have a little over a hundred.

The same leftists opposed to this provably safe answer to many of our energy problems somehow have no problem social-engineering all of us into the rolling coffin of a Smart Car, and if given the personal choice between living next to an enviro-wacko approved hydroelectric dam or an evil nuclear power plant, give me Three Mile Island any day. The failure of dams and levees feels like an annual event, whereas Chernobyl (which was really a failure of socialism) happened over 25 years ago.

Director Mike Nichols’ “Silkwood” is obviously a Hollywood broadside in favor of the anti-nuke movement, making a folk hero out of a personally troubled labor union activist who supposedly was just about to dramatically deliver the final blow to her employer, real-life energy company Kerr-McGee, before being involved in a fatal but “mysterious” car accident. No documents were found on her at the scene, but the legend of Karen Silkwood tells us that just before she died on the evening of November 13, 1974, this brave whistle-blower was just miles away from delivering documents to the New York Times that proved all kinds of corporate misdeeds involving missing weapons-grade plutonium, faulty nuclear reactor fuel rods, and a number of employee safety issues.

While it is true that she was going to meet New York Times reporter David Burnham, it’s also true (and the film does inform us of this) that Quaaludes and marijuana were found in her purse, she had twice the amount of recommended sedatives in her blood, and the dumbest way I know of to try and kill someone is by running them off a rural road where chances are more likely than not they will survive. But of course these are the same conspirators supposedly reckless and stupid enough to try and kill Silkwood by poisoning her with plutonium — as though death by radiation of one of their own employees wouldn’t bring all kinds of unwanted attention and scrutiny down on the company.

But again, in furtherance of a left-wing agenda, these are the “true stories” Hollywood cherry picks to bring to life, and while Nichols is very, very careful not to declaratively take a side, it’s impossible to walk away from “Silkwood” feeling good about the usual-usual routine at Kerr-McGee, much less the big bad nuclear power industry as a whole. Just for starters, it’s more than a little unnerving to watch everyday working folks mess with the most volatile substance known to man as though they’re on a toaster assembly line.(I personally prefer something more along the lines of a “Dr. No” type setting when it comes to all things plutonium.) If that’s unsettling, add to that the idea of a company less concerned with the risk of a catastrophic nuclear meltdown than missing a production deadline.

Finally, Big Labor is the over-arching hero of our story, those courageous and selfless truth-tellers only looking out for the little guy. Whatever would we do without them.

Why it’s a great film

I’m probably ranking this film higher than even most critics sympathetic to the political message would, but I would urge any and all doubters to give “Silkwood” another look. The passing of the decades has been very good to a film that we can now clearly see did a remarkable job in capturing a particular place and time. Watching Meryl Streep, Kurt Russell and Cher almost thirty years later, it’s easy to forget that all three were already famous, glamorous stars in 1983. And yet, accents and all, this superb trio completely and convincingly lose themselves into the world of working class, rural Oklahoma.

Nichols also takes time to explore his characters. Unnerving pieces of information regarding the bigger conspiracy are dropped like seeds that will bear fruit later, but for the most part we spend almost all of the first hour getting to know the characters and how deceptively complicated their relationships really are. And in this era when we’re relentlessly bludgeoned to death when it comes to all matters involving sexuality, watching Cher’s lesbian character, Dolly Pelliker, presented as who she is with matter-of-factness and some gentle humor feels like a revelation. Furthermore, do you think Russell’s sympathetic Drew would be allowed to hang the rebel flag in his room if “Silkwood” were filmed today — even if he had in real life? If nothing else, “Silkwood” is a reminder of how far backwards we’ve gone in the arena of tolerance and acceptance.

Unlike outright embarrassing crap like “North Country,” where the working class are treated as nothing more than a series of phony affectations (and accents) meant to twist them into the convenient liberal archetypes of who Hollywood needs them to be in order to get Oscar attention, Nichols sees real-life human beings and demands we get to know them as such before the fireworks begin.

Throughout, this subtle directorial approach is extraordinarily effective at catching us off guard. Major turning points within the relationships occur almost without us noticing and without any heavy exposition. The best example of this is the wordless scene between Drew (Russell) and Karen (Streep) as they watch a slideshow of her recent trip to DC. A couple of seemingly innocent photos of Karen with a labor union executive (The Mighty Ron Silver) make it clear she’s been unfaithful. Drew’s pain, Karen’s guilt, and their break up is all accomplished with nothing more than an exchange of looks. Another memorable moment occurs after Drew sucker punches Craig T. Nelson’s character and reveals a side to Drew we never expected when he scurries away afterwards like a childish coward. “Silkwood” is a treasure chest of wonderful acting, wordless storytelling and characters with endless layers.

The film’s second hour is something akin to a horror film, but because so much time’s been taken to create the characters, no monster or hyper-drama is necessary to plant a sense of dread in your gut. The torturous shower scenes and the men in hazmat suits descending on Silkwood’s dilapidated house are harrowing and even heartbreaking. You were comfortable in that old house with those people and hate to see it all come to an end. When Drew walks around the shell of a place afterwards, you share his sense of loss.

The performances are all so good that you’re reminded that once upon a time Meryl Streep could actually act, that Kurt Russell remains under-appreciated, and why Cher would win an Oscar just a few years later. There’s also a ton of talented faces who had bigger things ahead of them, including Fred Ward, Bruce McGill, Will Patton, David Straithairn, Josef Sommer, Tess Harper, and M. Emmet Walsh. Someone who really stands out, though, is Craig T. Nelson as this unknowable, hulking menace who always looks as though he’s either ready to murder you or hug you.  

Nominated for five Oscars (Streep, Cher, Nichols, editing and a fantastic script co-written by Nora Ephron and Alice Arlen) “Silkwood” is timeless because it isn’t really a political film. It’s a character study of what happens to the relationships between three everyday, sympathetic and flawed people caught up in something extraordinary. Best of all, it’s a character study done with a respect, affection and genuine curiosity for its subjects. For anyone willing to look close enough, the most fascinating, complicated, and intriguing people in the world aren’t just found in Manhattan skyscrapers or working in the arts.

—–

At the 1:44 mark Cher worries that if she comments on Palin or “teabaggers” that no Republicans will see her new movie “Burlesque.”

Little late for the aging diva to worry about that. She alienated us long ago.

Nikke Finke calls the opening of “Burlesque” soft. With a reported $50 million production budget and a $17.8 million opening, “soft” is another word for disappointing.

Only in Hollywood are the company’s primary spokespeople allowed to cheap shot 50% of the customers. If you remember, until we found out she didn’t like us, we “teabaggers” used to like Cher. Think the movie might have done a just a teensy bit better had Cher been born with the “class” gene. Maybe even good enough for the few millions dollars necessary to move from “soft” to “solid” — which is everything on opening weekend.

Please comment below about how Hollywood is only money-driven….

Less than a month after Barack Obama was sworn in as President, Cher breathed a sigh of relief by saying the previous eight years of Republican rule had almost “killed” her.  I’ve never figured out if the root of her hatred for the Republican Party really rests in George W. Bush, whom she called “stupid,” or in the fact that her former husband, Sonny Bono, traded Hollywood for a career as a Republican Congressman before his untimely death?

And here’s an interesting insight into the “progressive” Cher and the Republican Sonny:

Cher kicked Chastity out of her NY apartment when her daughter came out to her, and it took her a while to come to terms with it. Chastity’s father, the late singer and Congressman Sonny Bono, was said to be immediately accepting and to have already realized that his daughter was gay.

Her own daughter.

In the Vanity Fair issue referenced in my first paragraph, Cher is on record saying of Palin: “A dumb woman is a dumb woman.” Maybe she wishes she hadn’t said this after watching the November 2nd election results?  In those elections the “dumb” woman and her Tea Party candidates made the “smart” liberals in DC and Hollywood look pretty stupid.

By the way, the very Cher who believes herself intelligent enough to pronounce Palin “dumb,” looked at Obama’s inauguration with such gullibility that she said of him: “His intelligence is so great and his spirit is so great, I believe he will be able to do as much if not more than anyone could possibly do.” (Perhaps Cher would also like to recant this statement in light of Obama’s healthcare reform, which, when coupled with the cost of the stimulus bill and January 2011’s pending tax increases, portend economic ruin for this nation?)

In addition to the Cher statements enumerated above, remember that she holds Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer in greater contempt than she does Palin. Of Brewer she said: “She’s got a handle on the services of [Arizona], and I would not let her handle the remote control.” Such statements make Cher look like an out-of-touch Hollywood elitist along the same lines as a Robert Redford or a George Clooney: especially since the people of Arizona just re-elected Brewer at landslide proportions. (Of course, the people of Arizona are probably viewed as being dumb as Sarah Palin in Cher’s mind.)

Call me crazy, but Cher seems to be quite angry. And the more she talks, the more evident it is that she’s fast approaching the outright lunacy we’ve seen in people like Janeane Garofalo: people who let her anger consume them and rule their lives.

Vanity Fair:

“I got so obsessed with [C-SPAN] that it was kind of interfering with my life. Sarah Palin came on, and I thought, Oh, fuck, this is the end. Because a dumb woman is a dumb woman.” On the subject of Arizona governor Jan Brewer, Cher says, “She was worse than Sarah Palin, if that is possible. This woman was like a deer in headlights. She’s got a handle on the services of the state, and I would not let her handle the remote control.”

To soak in the genius that is the Sonny-made Cher, read full article here.

…there’s a real possibility that for the first time since the 73rd Oscars 10 years ago, there will be no black nominees in any of the acting categories at the February ceremony. In fact, there are virtually no minorities in any of the major categories among the early lists of awards hopefuls.

What the liberal media might call a “predominantly white” crowd…

I mean, we have the likes of Cher wondering why anyone who isn’t white, rich and Christian would want to be a Republican. Brilliant political mind John Cusack supports the idea of a “Satanic death cult center” outside of Fox News headquarters. Actor John Hamm agreed the Tea Party is a racist institution – on the show hosted by a guy who is upset that President Obama doesn’t act like a “real black president” with a “gun in his pants.” And white comedienne (?) Joy Behar says that only the majority (read: white people) can be racist. Well, I guess as a white chick, she should know. Plus, she studied sociology in college and everything!

Yes, these are the people who believe they set the social narrative in America. And yet…and yet…they don’t seem to live up to their own hype! I mean, here we have what might be the first Oscar night in 10 years with no ethnic minority actors/actresses nominated for an acting award. My goodness, what will George “Smug” Clooney have to say about it?

Actually, considering the high amount of tripe coming out of Hollywood lately, I should think that those excluded from the nominee list would be thrilled by their narrow escape.

Now there may be some of you out there who say that it’s the quality of the performance, not the color of the actor’s skin, that should count. In a rational world, this would be true. But leftists, many of them residents of LaLaLand, are constantly telling those of us who don’t agree with them politically that we are a bunch of bigoted, racist hacks who are destroying the social fabric of America. Just ask Megan Fox! Therefore, it’s quite satisfying to point out their particularly smarmy brand of hypocrisy whenever it pops up. 

John Cusack thinking: Don’t try this at home!

No matter where they live and work, leftists usually live by – and die by – the Balkanist sword. Rather than seeing us all as just plain old Americans, they like to sort us into different groups: black, white, brown, gay, straight, man, woman, handicapped, Christian, Jew, whatever. Divide and conquer is the game. Like the Greek goddess Eris, sow that golden apple of discord and resentment among different groups and then promise to cure all of their ills if they just vote for liberals and trust the powers that be in a centralist government to do right by them. After all, the people can’t be trusted to do right by themselves.

Unfortunately, when color and creed is all you think about, you often get caught in your own web of destruction. Take  Helen Thomas and Rick Sanchez as recent examples. These so-called journalists both made public comments about Jews that were definitely offensive: Thomas said Jews should “get the hell out of Palestine” and “go back home” to Europe – where they had nearly been exterminated during World War II by Hitler and his minions. Sanchez, who has been mocked frequently on Jon Stewart’s Daily Show, complained that the Comedy Central star  (a Jew) is a bigot and that those who run CNN are “a lot like Stewart, and a lot of people who run all the other networks are a lot like Stewart, and to imply that somehow they, the people in this country who are Jewish, are an oppressed minority? Yeah.”

Thomas, a White House press room regular since the Cretaceous period, resigned under the onslaught. Sanchez, a CNN anchor with pathetic ratings, was outright fired. That’s what you get for biting the proverbial hand.

Anti-Semitism is on the rise worldwide and Western media may be complicit in demonizing Israel. However, to come out and say such things outright is still considered taboo in the world of media. (Thank goodness for small favors.) Both Thomas and Sanchez rightly paid for their diarrhea of the mouth. “Journalists” claim to be unbiased (which is a load of baloney, IMHO). But as long as they’re making that bogus claim, they should at least attempt to live up to it.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, the Tea Party welcomes anyone who believes in smaller government and greater personal responsibility – no matter what color your skin may be.

But don’t tell Hollywood and the rest of the media. They’re still too busy promoting the myth of their own greatness and holier-than-thou stature to notice. Meanwhile, minorities in the entertainment world continue to bear the brunt of this self-serving lip service.

Who are the real bigots? You decide.

Fortunately, the liberal seasoning that flavors Hollywood’s narcissistic lunacy has yet to permeate mainstream American society. While the ideologues that control Hollywood (not to mention the media and university classrooms) make it seem as though ultra-leftism trumped conservatism in a battle lost long ago, a surprising new poll shows that the plurality of Americans still see themselves as politically conservative.

According to research from Gallup, when asked how they would classify their political views, 40% of Americans call themselves conservative. This compares to a mere 21% who claim to be politically liberal. An additional 35% – the second largest ideological subset – are self-proclaimed moderates.

In a nation comprised of such a diverse set of ideologies – not to mention the presence of a clear right-minded majority – one wonders why Hollywood banishes projects that promote family values or right-minded ideals, for that matter. This lack of diversity is a symptom of a greater problem: A one-mindedness and intolerance that permeates the industry at every level.

Hollywood types are so removed from the mainstream American sentiment that they refuse to fathom the possibility that opposing ideals exist. Just look at what occurred in the aftermath of this year’s Miss USA Pageant.

The now infamous Carrie Prejean was asked a politically-charged question by none other than gossip blogger and perpetual-big-baby Perez Hilton. When Hilton didn’t like Prejean’s answer (that she does not, indeed, support gay marriage) he went nuclear. Within hours, he released a video rant, calling Prejean a “stupid b*tch” among other sentiments. Then, he took to his blog, insulting her intelligence and continuing to fuel a controversy that did little to help either side of the gay marriage debate.

This is the same Perez Hilton who recently called Black Eyed Peas member Will.i.am a “faggot.” Aside from the hypocrisy present in this infuriating example (imagine what would have happened if some foolish conservative used that language), it can safely be stated that Hilton symbolizes all that is wrong with Hollywood (assuming you consider an obnoxious blogger with fuchsia hair a member of the Hollywood elite).

Somehow, it’s not okay for Carrie Prejean to answer a question with honesty, but it is okay for Hilton to use a word that many people in his own community would find extremely damaging. Of course, this is only one anecdotal example.  But, rest assured: There are plenty more.  Let’s not forget Janeane Garofalo’s opinion of the Tea Party protesters.  Here’s what the gem had to say:

It’s not about bashing Democrats, it’s not about taxes, they have no idea what the Boston tea party was about, they don’t know their history at all. This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up. That is nothing but a bunch of tea-bagging rednecks. And there is no way around that.

Someone get Garofalo a newspaper. Stat. Tea Party protesters are railing against unprecedented government spending that will surely endanger America’s future. If she took a moment to put down the granola and adjust her bifocals, maybe she’d understand that being against the president, for most, has nothing to do with his race and everything to do with his idiotic fiscal policy.

And then there’s Cher, who recently said:

…I just don’t understand how anyone would want to be a Republican. I just can’t figure it. I don’t understand.  If you’re poor, if you’re any kind of minority – gay, black, Latino, anything…If you’re not a rich, born-again Christian, I don’t get it.

Last but not least comes Madonna (who just screams “family values”). During the 2008 campaign, she used a photo montage during one of her performances to compare John McCain to Hitler. In Madonna’s world, she’s the hero, while McCain – a man who suffered years of brutal torture for his nation’s sanctity – is the villain. Go figure.

Why can’t people like Hilton, Garofalo, Cher and Madonna simply be good liberals and accept – as their self-professed doctrine would ask them to – that Americans have unique perspectives and life experiences? Surely, they don’t have to agree with we “rednecks,” but shouldn’t they, at the least, have the common decency to respect ideological diversity?

The answer is, yes. The reality is, until they experience what it means to be an everyday, hardworking American, it’ll never happen.

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the FCC’s authority to impose fines on broadcasters for allowing obscene language on the air.

By a 5-4 majority the Court ruled that the Federal Communications Commission did not violate the federal Administrative Procedure Act in its 2006 decision that the Fox TV network had violated decency rules in 2002 and 2003 when singer Cher and actress/TV personality Nicole Ritchie blurted out expletives on live television in separate incidents. The FCC did not actually impose any fines in the case at issue.

The Court will likely be asked to rule on the constitutionality of the FCC policy as broadcasters challenge the ruling on constitutional grounds.

Supporters and opponents of the FCC policy lined up in the usual camps, with media corporations and civil liberties groups opposing the FCC, and parent and consumer groups supporting the court’s action.

The bottom line: if the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution has any meaning at all (as opposed to the ultra-expansive interpretation given it by the Court in the twentieth century to justify all sorts of outrages by the Congress), Congress surely has the authority to ban indecency in interstate television broadcasts (while leaving people free to state any ideas they wish, as the First Amendment of the Constitution requires), which it does through the FCC.

Whether that is a good policy is open to debate, of course, as is the question of where and how to draw the line regarding what is to be considered indecent, but Congress does indeed have a right and a responsibility to say how the line should be drawn and to define the consequence of crossing it. The right to free speech has never extended to indecency, and to do so formally now would be a great perversion of the Founders’ intent.

If giant businesses want to enjoy the advantages of broadcasting across state lines, they certainly should be willing to accept the very minor constraints that accompany that privilege.

—S. T. Karnick