From where I sit, this ruling was a travesty, not only because it discarded the wishes of 7 million Californians who voted for it, but because much of the money to overturn it came from Hollywood elites who are completely out of touch with the heart and soul of America.

Honestly, watching the decision come down from the 9th Circuit was like watching Brad Pitt and Elton John stomp all ever everything that flyover country holds near and dear to its heart. I cite Pitt and John because Pitt gave at least $100,000 to “fight the proposition,” and in Jan. 2011, John played a benefit concert in Beverly Hills that raised $3,000,000 for the same cause.

Of course, these two were not alone. Steven Bing, long time Democrat Party donor and Hillary Clinton supporter, donated $500,000 to the cause, and according to Advocate magazine, Mary J. Blige and Melissa Etheridge were right there in the mix as well. Oh, and we can’t overlook old “Meathead,” Rob Reiner, who opposed Prop 8 when it was on the ballot in 2008 and who’s been “one of the biggest fundraisers behind the legal effort” to overturn it since.

Other prominent Hollywood leftists who are against Prop 8 (and who attended Elton John’s concert as well) were David Geffen, who gave at least $200,000 to defeat Prop 8, Steven Spielberg, Barbra Streisand, Norman Lear, Matthew Morrison, Jane Lynch, Adam Lambert, Marisa Tomei, Jason Mraz, J.J. Abrams, and “Milk” screenwriter Dustin Lance Black.

Moreover, through a website founded by Will Ferrell, another group of Hollywood personalities did their part to oppose Prop 8 via a video mocking Christians, who are staunch defenders of marriage, and Christ Himself. The Hollywood personalities in the video included Jack Black, Neil Patrick Harris, John C. Reilly, Andy Richter, Maya Rudolph and Margaret Cho.

And of course, what Hollywood v. the Heartland battle would be complete without Keith Olbermann inserting himself into the drama? Back when he still had a job at MSNBC, Olbermann did a PSA to tell everyone in flyover country that gays in California—whom he thoughtfully described as “these people”—just “want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option.”

The bottom line: Hollywood trumped the will of salt-of-the-earth Americans once more, and in so doing, reminded everyone of the great divide that exists between celebrities on the far left coast and those whom they count on to watch their movies, listen to their music, etc. Through their efforts, the will of a clear majority of California voters was overturned and marriage redefined in what, sadly, is not a Hollywood production but real life.

And that’s just what the Republicans in Congress did to Hollywood when it abandoned the rush to pass SOPA and regulate the Internet for the benefit of Tinseltown. Astonishingly, considering its usual inability to perform competently at even the most basic level, the GOP not only managed to embrace good policy but drove a wedge into the Democratic coalition that may well have dramatic consequences down the road. And, best of all, it provided a bit of long overdue payback to the smug oligarchs of LA’s West Side who have spent the last couple decades treating Republicans like something you’d hasten to flush.

Hey, suckers, how do ya like us now?

The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) is only the latest attempt by Hollywood to breathe some life back into its dying business model. Enraged that online “pirates” are passing around bootleg copies of movies, shows, books, music, and all other manner of intellectual property, the industry did what it has done for years: ran to Congress for ever more burdensome and onerous laws designed to hold back the inevitable consequences of progress. 

But this time, it went too far. Perhaps it was Hollywood’s arrogance. Perhaps it was the provisions allowing Hollywood to use the United States government to shut down any website it pleased on the mere accusation of “piracy” without any due process, a power lefty–fascist bureaucrats would be only too eager to accept.

Not surprisingly, the people who make their living on the web were less than thrilled about giving Uncle Sam and the media conglomerates an off-switch.

Initially, the Republicans once again fell into Hollywood’s trap. When Hollywood needs something from Congress, it dons the mask of “business” and enlists the GOP ideologically. After all, the Republicans are supposed to love “business.” Until now, they have been blind to the fact that many of the “businesses” that plead for special breaks before them are about as capitalist as your typical Occupy Wall Street mutant – the only difference is nicer suits and better drugs.

They aren’t capitalists; they’re cronyists, either relying on government handouts directly or basking in the protection of special favors. And that’s precisely the opposite of what we conservatives are about.

Businesses compete; “businesses” like the entertainment industry use the government to enact rules and regulations that make it so they don’t have to compete.

So, like Pavlov’s dogs hearing the dinner bell, the GOP started drooling when Hollywood started playing the business card. In fact, Republican Lamar Smith of Texas was only too eager to carry water for it – as were several other normally solid Republicans who should have known better.

Of course, Hollywood laughed. It laughed because it holds Republicans in contempt. For decades, Hollywood has endeavored to depict conservative Americans are weirdos, losers, petty tyrants, religious nuts, baby killing fanatics, and idiots. And, once again, the GOP was falling into its trap and dancing to its tune. “What a bunch of suckers!” snickered the Hollywood big shots.

Oh, and the Democrats? Not an issue. Not only are Hollywood and the liberals in ideological lockstep, but Hollywood represents buckets of money and bushels of glamor. The Dems are always on board for whatever Hollywood wants. They know where their locally-sourced, whole wheat artisan bread in non-dairy buttered.

But something funny happened on the way to the fascism.

There was a backlash. The peasants revolted! Tech savvy Americans, both right and left, saw that the Internet that they had grown up with and embraced was in grave danger of being bound by regulations for the sole purpose of ensuring that the dying Hollywood business model would last a bit longer – at the price of stifling everyone else.

No dice.

The rebellion came as a shock to the GOP congresscreatures, who in reality probably had not given much thought to the contents of SOPA – that is, until all hell broke loose. Suddenly, they became VERY interested in intellectual property and telecommunications law.

The Republicans, pushed by a groundswell of opposition from conservative new media types, bailed. SOPA was a non-starter, and now everyone will be looking the next time Hollywood tries to play them. Hey, Hollywood, there’s a new paradigm in Tinseltown.

And the Democrats who supported SOPA  – and who could not back out no matter how outraged the nutroots got – ended up looking both foolish and like tools of the corporate power structure.  And that’s just what they are.

But it gets better.

It gets better because this was a great object lesson all around. To those in Republicans in Congress, it brought attention to a subject that had been sadly ignored but is vital to a huge number of influential voters. It gave them an issue – Internet freedom – that is truly congruent with conservative values, unlike the past political payoffs to connected Hollywood cronies. We conservatives can run on this.

It was also a lesson to young, tech-savvy people who see themselves as culturally liberal and just kind of voted that way, mostly out of habit.  The group that really shares their values – creativity, enterprise, freedom – is the conservativees. The liberals they counted themselves among wanted to shut down websites, not the conservatives. SOPA opened a lot of eyes.

Everything they thought they knew was a lie. Here was Kevin Bacon, and he was telling John Lithgow not to dance.

Can you say “Wedge issue?”

Internet freedom, besides being the right thing to do, is a powerful banner to carry aloft into the battle for the next generation’s hearts and minds. The young, affluent, educated voters the Democrat Party is counting on for the future have to choose between the stolid, limited, controlled world of the Democrat’s corporate owners or the free market of the conservatives where their only limits are those they impose upon themselves.

The Democrats can’t flex on this – they are bound to Hollywood for money and what’s left of its fading aura. But the GOP? It won’t miss what it never had.

In fact, Hollywood’s history of trashing conservatives only make it sweeter when its emissaries come to us for help and we laugh in their botoxed faces.

With its crappy product, promotion of (mostly) non-stellar “stars” and sneering contempt for the majority of its customers, Hollywood seems desperately committed to failure. That’s why when is asks us for a life preserver, we should be only too happy to hand it an anvil.

We all know Hollywood is spinning around the bowl, waiting for the final flush. Attendance at theaters is not just flat-lining, it’s in free fall. There are a lot of reasons, some of which Hollywood really cannot do much about. Video games occupy young eyeballs. Technology now delivers a tsunami of entertainment options to our TVs, computers and iThings. But there are ways that Hollywood can respond. It can make movies that don’t suck, but that’s another subject for another time. And it can make the theaters into something new and different – that is, it can make them into places we want to be.

I (and folks like me) should be a target demographic for the green eyeshade guys who supposedly run Hollywood.  While, even if all the conditions were perfect, I wouldn’t go as much as I used to, I used to go a couple times a week before I was married, and even after I’d go weekly. I’ll spend my few free bucks (including the fortune for babysitters) if there’s something I want to see (doubtful, and again another issue for another time) and if going to the theater itself is something other than a nightmarish death march.

Which brings me to my trip to the El Segundo, California, ArcLight Cinemas on a recent Friday night to see “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy”…

The ArcLight, and other “premium” theaters, represents the industry’s attempt to address some of the more common complaints about theaters from people like me – decrepit facilities, careless projection, and snack options that range from bland to hideous.  As a drunken college student, I didn’t mind going to some hellhole theater on dollar night to see awesome fare like “The Exterminator II” and “Pieces”– hey, aesthetics aren’t Consideration No. 1 when your flick’s tagline is “You don’t have to go to Texas for a chainsaw massacre!” But today, I want a little more than sticky floors and discreet ticket takers who overlook the beer cans I had obviously secreted in my pockets.

The ArcLight promises a premium movie-going experience; it’s a concept that is being tried around the country. In theory, it’s awesome. There’s assigned seating – no more battling for a seat with some nimrod who announces that he’s “saving” the entire row for his coterie of quarter-wit buddies who are out in the parking lot sparking a doob in the back of somebody’s mom’s Dodge Caravan.

There’s alcohol, both in the refreshment area and in one of the 14 theaters. The snacks are of higher quality and are carefully prepared. There’s even gourmet coffee. The seats are roomy and clean. A nice young attendant comes in and introduces the movie. There’s no coming in after the first five minutes, and they do not show ads during the previews.

It all sounds awesome in theory. In practice, however, the ArcLight is a pain. It seems that the proposed solutions to our complaints simply spawn a whole new set of different problems.

Start at the beginning – buying the ticket. The first thing you notice is the price – $14.50 a seat. To be clear, that’s dollars, not pesos.  I started off flipping burgers at Carl’s, Jr. for $3.10 an hour; $14.50 is a lot of dough. And double it if you’re not a creepy loner. Leaving aside parking and a sitter and dinner, you’re out $29.00 walking in the door. That’s like the per capita income of residents of Burkina Faso.

So, if I’m dropping $29.00 on a flick, I want it smooth and I want it comfortable and, most of all, I want it hassle-free. But the hassle starts when I try to pay that $29.00. There’s a line, and there’s a line because everyone has to go through the ritual of picking their seats. It takes forever. I took forever; I wanted one near the aisle but not up in the stratosphere because I enjoyed a light alcoholic beverage and didn’t want to shimmy past a dozen folks to go out and hit the head. Buying a ticket is just a pain in the tail.

Now, I could have avoided the hassle by buying the tickets online – I’d have even gotten a discount. But leaving aside the fact that many couples are still arguing about which movie to see right up until they plunk down the cash (as we were), when I’m paying people to provide services, I expect them to conform their behavior to my desires, not vice versa. I’m not here to make ArcLight’s job easier by buying tickets the way they want; they need to make whatever choice I make easy. I’m called a “customer.” Look it up.

Oh, and no, I don’t have the answer on how to make the process less annoying. It’s not my job to figure it out; it’s theirs.

So, after getting a ticket, I was ready for a drink. I looked over to the tiny bar and observed a long line of thirsty patrons snaking into the dining area, being frantically served by two overworked bartenders who not only mixed drinks but had to make gourmet coffees. Having only 20 minutes until the movie started, we headed to the theater. ArcLight lost a sale, probably $20 worth.

I made sure to hit the restroom on the way in. See, the 14 theaters are strung out along a long hallway and there’s one bathroom in the whole place, which is back in the lobby. Yeah, it’s like a 150 yard walk each way, and you have to go through the ticket guy again. Are you kidding me? If you were watching “Gone with the Wind,” and you left to hit the restroom when Scarlet is watching her suitors ride off to battle, you’d get back about the time Atlanta catches fire.

“What did I miss, honey?”

“Just the Civil War.”

Here’s another suggestion for the restrooms. Managers, you might want to walk through them once in a while. Your people will keep spotless the things they see you inspect. I don’t like to have to strategically position myself before the urinal to avoid stepping in the puddle of used soda generated by those whose aim fell short. There’s really no excuse for it.

And heaven forbid you want a snack. See, they give you extra loving care when you buy your snacks – they even insist on putting the cream into your regular coffee themselves. That’s nice. And utterly inefficient. It takes forever to get a popcorn – no, I don’t want to hear about how your butter is locally-sourced. Get me my food, take my money (and they want a lot of money) and let me get the hell back to my $14.50 movie.

Oh, here’s another idea. You might want to have more than two of the cashier stations open. I mean, I understand that Friday is not usually a big “movie night” and all, but it might speed up the process from “agonizingly slow” to merely “ridiculously slow.” ArcLight lost yet another sale, probably another $10-$20 worth.

The theater itself is okay – the seats aren’t as comfortable as ArcLight thinks they are, but they aren’t awful. I felt cheated because we did not get the usual cheery pre-movie briefing by one of the ushers. Ironically, this is the one movie that really could have used it. “Tinker, Tailor” appeared to be shot on particularly grainy stock, probably to recreate the feeling of 1970s England and movies of that era. But it looked odd, and it would have been nice to hear that the movie was shot that way on purpose.

Note that all the employees I encountered were well-groomed, helpful and polite. There was just the right number of previews – not too few but not too many. And no one decided the theater was the perfect place for an extended cell phone chat, but that might have to do with the fact that “Tinker, Tailor’s” target demographic is not teen morons who were raised by wolves. We liked the movie too.

Experimentation is good, and I think ArcLight (and others) should be commended for trying. However, there are some serious bugs that need to be worked. They need to engineer their processes better – I find it hard to believe any ArcLight executive has dropped in unannounced like a regular customer.

If any had, they would have seen how many of the processes are not fully thought through; if you want to sell drinks to 14 theaters full of people, you need more than a pair or bartenders. You need to speed up the food service or you’ll lose sales – like they lost mine. You need a toilet within walking distance of all your theaters. And you need managers who get off their tails, walk through their operations, and actively lead their people (hint: hire some recently retired Army non-commissioned officers to run your theaters – problems solved, gentlemen).

I want to go back to the movies, and I appreciate that premium theaters like the ArcLight are trying to address the concerns of people like me. I really want to patronize you, so fix the flaws under your control and I’ll give you a chance. It’s just too bad you don’t have control over the quality of the movies.

—–

—–

Ellen Barkin, Roseanne Barr, John Legend, Lance Armstrong, and many others have pledged to not only end their support of Komen, they are also urging others to do the same. But that’s how the left thinks. First off, how dare a private charity make a private decision (so much for “choice”). Secondly, you can’t support both for heaven’s sake, Harvey might not invite you to his next shindig.

And yet it is possible to support Komen AND Planned Parenthood, but these sanctimonious celebs are choosing to turn their backs on the fight against breast cancer just to prove to the rest of Hollywood they are good little left-wing minions.

Of all the things for the Hollywood left to put their energy, riches, and celebrity behind, they choose an abortion factory that targets the poor, specifically blacks and Hispanics.

Where are their priorities? Isn’t there a cop killer on death row somewhere in need of support? A child rapist? What’s the matter with these people.

Anyway, good for Ms. Heaton. Not only are her beliefs properly aligned but she’s willing to publicly stand up for them.

Hollywood conservatives are the new Hollywood iconoclasts.

The rest are the Borg, The Man, the minions, The Establishment.

The arrival of a serious film about a serious conservative presents liberal reviewers with a quandary. When the film trashes the conservative, that’s great – the slander in and of itself is good for at least a star on its own, and if the boom mikes aren’t looming in the frame and the actors don’t forget their lines you’re guaranteed at least a three star review if only in the name of socialist solidarity.

But if the movie, as some say happened here, refuses to take a position on its subject, then there’s a problem for the liberal reviewer. As we shall see, they tend to handle it by simply inserting their own limousine liberal insights into the review. Somewhere, sometime, someone must have lied to them and told them that the world gives a damn about the political views of guys whose job it is to discourse upon movies that feature singing chipmunks, space robots and/or Ashton Kutcher.

No one is really sure about what might happen in the third theoretically possible situation. It will be interesting to see how liberal reviewers respond if Hollywood ever makes a major movie biography about a prominent conservative that views him or her in a positive light.

The reviews for “The Iron Lady” are mixed, with Rotten Tomatoes giving it a 55 percent score by the critics.  Not surprisingly, the critics are having a tough time sticking to the substance. Many of them just can’t resist taking a whack at her – as if she had not spent her career being hit harder by better.

Roger Ebert, a reflexive leftist whose pinko opinions usually saturate his movie reviews, wrote a thoughtful review here. He objected not to the opinion the film held of its subject, but that the producers seemed too timid to offer any opinion at all:

Was she a monster? A heroine? The movie has no opinion. She was a fact. You leave the movie having witnessed it. Whatever your feelings were about Thatcher were before you saw it, you now have some images to accompany it.

Love him or hate him, that’s some sharp writing. If true, it represents a valid criticism and is the kind of keen insight one looks to a reviewer to express. But, of course, Ebert could not resist a long digression into lefty/peacenik silliness over Thatcher’s steadiness in the face of Argentine aggression in the Falklands which then morphs into a lament for her heartlessness:

Thatcher held office for an unprecedented three terms, bitterly divided Great Britain, and led her nation during the Falklands War, which seemed to be largely an exercise in hubris on both sides. Before the war (and now), no one frankly gave a damn about the Falkland Islands, and Thatcher’s foreign policy amounted to: “They’re ours and you bloody well can’t have them.” For this brave troops on both sides were killed, and those who cared to could deceive themselves that there was one small spot of foreign soil that, as far as Thatcher was concerned, would be forever British. (Footnote: The British didn’t consider it foreign.)

Of course, Argentina started the war by invading the Falklands, over which it had disputed Britain’s claim since 1833. You can’t say they didn’t wait long enough before taking action. And if Argentina mounted a military invasion, what could Thatcher do? She was compelled to defend the islands. The loved ones on either side who lost someone in that war must have been hard-pressed to understand why death was useful or necessary.

That wasn’t Thatcher’s concern. In a striking scene that takes place in her increasingly senile old age, she declares that ideas are more important to her than feelings. That seems to have been a governing principle in her life, allowing her to look with apparently limited concern at unemployment, hunger and homelessness on the domestic front.

Ebert’s feelings about British policy of the 1980s really aren’t the issue – we just want to know if “The Iron Lady” is any good. But like all liberals, Ebert seems to think we’re dying for his insights on politics when the important question is whether we should drop $40 for seats and popcorn to watch this flick.

Lesser reviewers likewise join in the Thatcher-bashing. You’ll be shocked to learn that Karina Longworth of the Village Voice resented Thatcher not being presented with horns and a pointy tail. Variety accepts the unexamined premises of the community it serves, showing why it is Hollywood’s own Pravda when reviewer Leslie Felperin fumes that “[m]uch is made of how Thatcher broke through the glass ceilings of gender and class on a personal level; rather less is said about how her policies disadvantaged the poor.”

While it’s no shock that Slate’s Dana Stevens thinks that it was Thatcher’s “policies of economic deregulation and union-busting that dismantled Britain’s social safety net,” I expect that British subjects taxed into poverty to support the bloated behemoth of cradle-to-grave socialism on that sinking island would be shocked to hear about this alleged “dismantling.”

Cole Smithey (“The Smartest Film Critic in the World”) sugarcoats it by labeling Thatcher one “of the Right’s most reprehensible examples of absolute power corrupting absolutely,” raising the important questions, “Who is Cole Smithey, and why should I give a rat’s ass what some hipster doofus with a website and a subscription to The Nation thinks?”

He also asserts that “Thatcher contributed to the world’s current economic collapse with a cunning brand of daring cruelty that defies logic and reason,” forgetting that the lefty Labor Party had some small part in running Britain after Thatcher stepped down in 1990. I particularly enjoyed his characterization of how “Thatcher’s heavy-handed military response in the Falklands rightly paints her as a warmonger.”

He seems to have forgotten that Argentina invaded the Falklands, not vice versa, but then he seems to have grown up in an age where wussy school administrators suspend both the kid who starts the fight and the one who fights back. Smithey opines that “[h]istory will not be kind to Margaret Thatcher,” a threat I would find more chilling if Smithey’s comments betrayed any familiarity with history.

With all the hyperventilating about the subject of the film, it’s hard to get a straight answer to the only question we really want to hear these critics answer – should we pay to see the movie?  We still don’t really know.

Huffington Post:

While accepting the Critics’ Choice Award for Best Comedy film, “Bridesmaids” producer slammed Jerry Lewis for a sexist remark the legendary comedian once made.

“Jerry Lewis once said that he didn’t think women were funny, so I’d just like to say, with all respect, ‘F*ck you!’” Apatow exclaimed at the end of his speech to cheers from the audience.

Lewis made the comment in 1998 at the U.S. Comedy Arts Festival in Aspen. He told an audience during a Q&A session that “I don’t like any women comedians” and “A woman doing comedy doesn’t offend me but sets me back a bit. I, as a viewer, have trouble with it. I think of her as a producing machine that brings babies in the world.”

With its all female leading cast headed up by co-writer Kristen Wiig, “Bridesmaids” scored critical raves, took in $288 million worldwide and is nominated for three Golden Globes. Though it seems silly to think that there were skeptics, its success proved to many in Hollywood that women can anchor successful broad comedies, not just the romantic comedies and “Sex and the City” films.

Jerry Lewis pushing ninety and this jerk is making his life miserable over a 14 year-old remark?

How ballsy.

Why not just get on his knees and beg for love?

“Where to find a little workout inspiration?,” I wondered. “Ah, yes, Rocky IV.”  Watching it for the 5,849,948th time, I am compelled to share with you my thoughts on… the greatest film ever made.  Yes, that is not mere opinion but fact.  Rate it on a sheer entertainment, emotions-evoking, never-goes-stale standard and surely you’ll agree.

To be fair, “Rocky IV” is not an overly political film, nor was it intended to be.  But it nonetheless encapsulates several key conservative points, so much so that it was, and still is, slammed by leftist critics as right-wing propaganda.  Behold, the top 10 conservative lessons of “Rocky IV”:

1) Communism… (let me be succinct and find the right word here…) sucks.

a) It allows no hint of individualism. Not only is Drago forbidden from speaking and behaves as a robot but, in a moment of raw honesty during the final fight, fed up with the commands of his superiors, he finally breaks free emotionally, looks up at the Politburo in attendance, and shouts: “I fight for me! For ME!!!”  (which, based on my repeated viewings, I can tell you sounds like “Ya-te-beeah!” in Russian, without evening cueing the DVD)

b) Who wants to live in that system? Does any one of us envy Drago? Uh, no.  Need we even ruminate what happened to him after he lost and publicly humiliated Mother Russia? Shipped off to a Siberian labor camp.

c) It keeps people in order through violence. During a (rare) sober moment, Pauly says it best when addressing the Soviet rep at the press conference: “Hey, WE don’t keep our people behind a wall with machine guns!” (I’d love to ask Stallone how he ever got a Hollywood studio to green-light that line.)

d) They cheat (doped-up Drago) and manipulate public opinion (really? They honestly felt ‘unsafe’ in the U.S. and the fight had to be in Moscow? On Christmas Day, no less?).

e) Loyalty to the State takes precedence over all else. Although not explicitly stated, you know cold-as-ice, calmly-smoking-a cigarette-while-her-husband-boxes Brigitte Nielsen’s character would spy on and sell out Drago in a heartbeat.

f) There is no, and I mean NO, freedom. Rocky is assigned steely-eyed “official chaperones” (a.k.a., spies) during his stay.

To be sure, Rocky understands the majority of the Soviet people themselves are victims. He doesn’t put down the individuals in the Moscow audience and instead appeals to the idea that they “can change.”

2) There are wealthy people who are also (gasp!) perfectly good people. Rocky’s a filthy rich guy – yes, he’s got the smokin’ hot black Lamborghini, the gaudy mansion, and can buy his wife fancy, albeit tacky, jewelry (a gold snake bracelet? That’s what “the guy at the store” recommended, Roc?). But he earned it. And, as we saw in “Rocky III”, he’s generous and does his part for charity, too (including having his as* whooped by the scary-Viking-chief-looking Hulk Hogan). Yet Rocky’s in the 1 percent the Occupy movement would have us resent – I ask you, who could hate on a guy like Rocky?

3) Traditional family values are beautiful.  As annoying a buzz-kill as Adrian can be sometimes, Rocky has stood by her and seems just as in love with his wife as he was the day of their wedding. Sure, he could’ve dumped her and married a younger, hotter, glass-heels-wearing stripper, but Rocky’s no fool – he’s a traditional guy who stays true, knowing he’s got a good woman at his side. The series also emphasizes the emotional support and value a spouse can provide in one’s life – who else could’ve motivated him the way Adrian did in “Rocky II”? (“There’s something I want you do for me… Win. Win!”) Indeed, while we’re on the subject – notice there are no gratuitous, unnecessary sex scenes in the “Rocky” franchise.  Hollywood, take note: it is possible to have a wildly entertaining, appealing film without the need to show our leads gettin’ it on.

4) Patriotism.  Three words:  APOLLO ’effing CREED.  One of cinematic history’s greatest characters, period.  Apollo’s unbridled enthusiasm for his country never gets old, no matter how many times I watch this masterpiece, and it’s particularly touching that the fiercely patriotic, no-apologies-for-American-exceptionalism-found-here / “if you’re looking for someone to put this country down, look elsewhere” character … is a black male.  What’s not to love?  He-llo, the man is wearing an Abe-Lincoln-style red-white-and-blue hat and matching boxing trunks. Liberals recoil in horror.  And James Brown’s “Living in America”? Goosebumps. Best of all, we get to watch the Godfather of Soul himself (who, incidentally, was an outspoken conservative!) perform it, with American flags waving all around. (As if a patriotic black male weren’t offensive enough, liberals’ heads must explode in this scene – in fact, I reckon one would be hard-pressed to find a true leftist who’s able to sit through the whole film, sans spontaneous combustion “Spinal Tap”-drummer style).

5) Color-blind race relations are the way to go.  No affirmative action style ‘token’ minority characters but rather an authentic lead in Apollo – a strong role model who simply happens to be African-American. A true patriot who shuns Leftist mentality, Apollo has no counter-productive resentment towards whites – in fact, in “Rocky III” he trains Rocky against a fellow black boxer (perfectly played by Mr. T).  We grow so fond of Apollo that, when (***spoiler alert to any and all FOOLS out there who haven’t already seen this gem***) he dies, I dare you not to weep.  If only Rocky had thrown “the damn towel”…  In a flashback to “Rocky III”’s beach-training sequence, we are treated to the beautiful visual of Rocky and Apollo, embracing in exaltation on the sand:  a black man and a white man — neither of whom sees color, just his buddy.  (Indeed, a comment on a YouTube clip of this scene rightly notes: “When white people and black people work together, they can accomplish anything.”  Hear, hear.)

6) There is no room for moral relativism.  Apollo, stressing to Rocky the importance of his fight against Soviet Drago: “This is not just an exhibition fight that doesn’t mean anything. This is us against THEM!”  Bam — clear lines of good and evil.  (Could I love Apollo any more?  I think not.)

7) Faith in God is paramount.  Rocky kneels in prayer twice before his fight (in an earlier franchise installment, he even stops by church for his priest’s blessing and, upon beating Apollo in “Rocky II”, he thanks God “most of all” – a Tebow forerunner, if you will).  Nowadays, this would naturally be edited out of the film so as to not offend anyone.  Rocky, Apollo, and Duke always have their crosses hanging from their neck, throughout the films. And there’s an ode to Judaism in Rocky’s lovable trainer, Mickey Goldmill, whose faith is highlighted via Mickey’s synagogue burial and the Star of David on his mausoleum plaque.  The message?  Judeo-Christian beliefs are as American as apple pie.

8 ) Manliness personified.  No liberal, hand-holding wimpy ideals here. Rocky knows there’s a job that has to be done and sets out to do it.  “I just gotta doooo what I gotta dooooo,” he matter-of-factly tells Adrian. It’s all about duty and honor. Rocky is exactly like our soldiers – just in the boxing world instead of the military.  100 percent alpha and not a hint of beta.

9) Think for yourself rather than going with the tides.  Adrian to Rocky: “Why can’t you change your thinking?! Everybody else does!”  But does Rocky? Nope. The opposite of robotic Drago, he is offended by the mere suggestion and sticks to his guns (cue the roar of the Lamborghini’s engine and the chills-inducing, best-motivational-song-ever:  Robert Tepper’s “There’s No Easy Way Out”). You think Rocky would’ve been caught up in the 2008 wave of Obama-mania? Wrong.

10) If you apply yourself and work hard, success is attainable:  i.e., the very essence of capitalism.  Rocky shows us that, even with the odds stacked against you, a person can succeed. Duke’s pep-talk to Rocky when they arrive in Russia: “I know you’re gonna have to do almost everything alone. . . . Now you’re gonna have to go through hell, worse than any nightmare that you ever dreamed. But in the end, I know you’ll be the one standing.” (a lesson the ‘gimme, gimme’ entitlement-crowd laying about at an Occupy rally would do well to learn… )

So there you have it – “Rocky IV”, the greatest unintentionally-conservative film ever made and, not coincidentally, a cultural masterpiece.

*Sidebar lessons:  A) The Soviet anthem is a stunning musical composition and, were it not a Communist sing-song… hey, I’d like it!  B) Drago demonstrates it’s possible to take a needle in the arm without flinching or even blinking. Channel him during your next flu shot – it works.

(Drago, taking the needle at the 1:57 mark, in the greatest film-montage ever. If you ever need to show someone ‘juxtaposition’ done right, here it is!)

What do you all think?  Is “Rocky IV” indeed a masterpiece? Any conservative points I missed? And, should I follow through on my urge to show up at an Occupy rally decked out as Apollo and blastin’ “Living in America” from a boombox? I say ‘yes.’

—–

In these trying times, this story of one man’s unrelenting efforts to succeed can serve as an inspiration to many. I know “His Way” inspired me. After learning how Jerry cold-called Elvis Presley’s Manager, Colonel Tom Parker, every day for an entire year for the right to take Elvis on tour (for the first time in nearly a decade), I decided to roll the dice and take my own film out on the road to build an audience. Concluding our interview with Douglas McGrath, director of the documentary “His Way,” we talked about more of the film, including the amazing segments on Weintraub’s experiences with Elvis Presley and Colonel Tom Parker and Frank Sinatra.

KW: How did you go about choosing which stories or chapters to cover or not cover from the book?

DM: Well, I didn’t do it that way. I didn’t think of them in terms of chapters. I just thought of them in terms of stories. But, I knew we’d have ninety minutes, an hour and forty-five maybe at most and I just thought, there’s no way to go through everything. I just thought “I’m going to ask about all the stuff I liked the best and the things that were really the big tent poles of his life.” So, I thought I’d better go with the things that really tell us, without repeating it, what his magic was. And the Elvis story is emblematic of his whole career, you know, that tells you how he started with nothing, he persisted. He won the contract, so to speak, the right to take him. He almost blew it. When you think of 20th Century entertainment, particularly musical entertainment and particularly male musical entertainment — you know, you have Elvis and you have Sinatra. Those guys are the big tent poles in that story.

KW: Jerry’s relationship with Frank Sinatra seemed much more direct than it did with Elvis. His relationship really was with the Colonel (Elvis’s Manager). Did you have to approach the Elvis segment any differently than you did from the Sinatra segment or in trying to work a connection between the two as a bridge?

DM: Oh no, that is a very good question. I don’t remember consciously doing that. You know, we came to the Elvis story first, because in my memory of his life, I worked through it in order so he could kind of work it in order. Sometimes if you’re telling a story about your childhood or some early part of your life, certain feelings come along with these stories that can then add to the overall feeling of what you are talking about. But [with] the Elvis stuff, he was a different guy. Meaning when he came into Elvis’s life, he was “aspiring” at that point. He had some clients, he was successful, meaning he could pay his bills and he was married and had a nice life. But, he was not by any means, what he became and he knew that this was his way out. But when we came to Sinatra… which I knew is the next big seismic event in his professional life… he [Jerry] was then a different person.

He had chased Elvis, but Sinatra came to him. Now nobody was confused about anything in that situation. Sinatra was still tough, extremely powerful and I’m sure a fairly terrifying person to work for, because he had a temper and knew what he wanted and had been a huge star and a big success for, by that point, 30 years or something . And while he wanted Jerry’s help, he was hardly a helpless and frail creative person looking for tough guidance from Jerry. And the Madison Square Garden Concert (“The Main Event,” 1974), Jerry really had to talk him into it. Really had to talk him into it. I think the reason Jerry flew to Las Vegas so quickly when Frank called and sounded so upset [and depressed] was I think he (Jerry) thought, “Oh. I could lose him.” A smart manager will hear something like any kind of qualm in a client’s voice. A smart manager gets on it. A lot of them don’t. Which is why people change managers. But, Jerry knew that was “his guy” at that point.

KW: Does that come from growing up as he did [in the Bronx and Brooklyn] and being able to shake a guy’s hand and knowing if he is a good guy or a bad guy?

DM: I think you’re right. I think you’re right. He does have a very good sense of people and I remember Matt Damon saying this to me and I felt it as well… when he first meets you and shakes your hand, you can feel it for one second, he looks at you very intensely and you think, “I think he just X-rayed me.”

KW: Do you have a favorite Jerry Weintraub story yourself?

DM: Every time I try to pick one, I think of another one. There are so many that are so good. But that Elvis story is just amazing. The persistence to call the Colonel for a year, the hilarious business when the seats aren’t sold (at a Miami FL matinee) and he has to get the convicts to come take the chairs out… but I also love when the Colonel takes him into that electrician’s booth and with the suitcases of money. When he tells the story about the Colonel pouring the money on the table and whacking it with his cane. That’s yours, that’s mine… are we good? It just tells you that that it is a whole different part of show business that doesn’t exist anymore. It’s still got a foot in the “Carnie” world. That’s probably my favorite.

KW: Do you think there are more “Jerry”s out there or there’s still room for them?

DM: There must be because there’s no reason there shouldn’t be but I will say the business used to be comprised of more people like Jerry and now it isn’t. You know, that kind of renegade, non-corporate, non-business school, non-film school, come to it out of passion, bootstraps, hard work, gift-of gab, full force personality. I don’t run across many people like that. Maybe to be fair, maybe there were never a lot of people like that. I don’t know. But, there sure aren’t a lot of people like that now. There certainly a lot of people who approach it in a more systematic way with their foreign sales estimates and all their numbers that they run.

KW: The spreadsheets.

DM: Yeah, the spreadsheets and all the things that don’t connect to the thing that makes him so winning. Which is to say, a genuine passion for movies or music or the artists that he’s working with. That you don’t feel so much anymore. And I think we’re the worse off for it too. Look what he did with that passion.

KW: And what are the upcoming projects, if you can talk about anything?

DM: I am making a TV pilot with Nathan Lane. He was in my film “Nicholas Nickleby.” We’re casting now and we’re going to shoot in December (2011). It’s a funny and kind of touching half-hour single-camera comedy.

Director Spike Lee insisted history would be measured in two distinct times – “Before Barack and After Barack.”

For 2012, said love may be on the rocks. Why else would Obama dispatch a key lieutenant to mend the fences torn down by three years of his administration in action?

President Barack Obama’s top Hollywood fundraiser has resigned the ambassadorship to the Bahamas and returned to Los Angeles in the hopes of patching up the incumbent president’s battered relationship with the entertainment industry, The Hollywood Reporter has learned….

Sources told THR that Obama’s reelection campaign plans to use Avant as one of its top liaisons to the entertainment community.

These sources characterize the relationship between the Obama administration and Hollywood as tense and troubled, even though all of the president’s fundraisers in town have sold out and have been attended by a diverse array of industry leaders.

The bottom line, beyond the millions celebrities will undoubtedly deposit into Obama’s re-election war chest, is two fold. One, the irony of the Occupy-loving President pandering to the millionaire celebrity set is palpable. More importantly, Obama recognizes the value of having the entertainment community on his side.

Yes, those gaudy campaign checks certainly help, but even more effective are the constant pro-Obama, anti-conservative messages filtered into the content we see, hear and consume every day.

This spring’s “Butter” will only be the beginning.

Today, our spoiled child is in trouble and with only the best of intentions I’m going to see if I can’t take the sting out of the boo-boo with the best advice I can offer.

1. Hollywood Needs Movie Stars, Not Brands

You can trace most of Hollywood’s problems back to the death of the movie star. At first, the industry was thrilled with this development. No movie star meant no big payday, no ego, and none of the baggage too many stahs carry with them. The industry also found that, at least for a while, they could get away with this. Audiences were still packing theatres to see pre-packaged brands developed from high concepts, comic books, novels, and television shows. Sequels, remakes, and prequels were still sure-fire. Who needs to pay Tom Cruise $30 million to run around with CGI’d dinosaurs when just as many people will pay to see Jeff Goldblum do the same?

This was all well and good until the “brands” ran out. Now Hollywood is down to “The Green Lantern” and board games like “Battleship.”

Movie stars, on the other hand, are the most reliable brands out there. People come to see them and if you have enough of them and if you keep developing them, the inventory is limitless. From the 1920s straight through to right around 1990, if you built it with movie stars, audiences would come. Hollywood didn’t need to rely on “brands” because they built pictures around their stars.

Today we’re down to Sandra Bullock, Will Smith, and Denzel Washington — the only three people I know who can still draw a crowd based solely on their name.

Tobey Maguire, Rachel McAdams, Ryan Reynolds, Natalie Portman, Orlando Bloom — this endless parade of girls playing women and metrosexuals playing men no one outside of the 90210 zip code would recognize on a bet — are not draws. The concept might be a draw or the brand they’re bringing to life or the romantic comedy with a title based on the latest hipster-speak (“He’s Just Not That In To You”), but the actors aren’t.

Hollywood must start developing stars, and the first place to start is by studying up on what exactly constitutes a star. And by “star,” I don’t mean someone bubbled in Hollywood or the sycophant entertainment media considers a star — I mean someone THE CUSTOMERS consider a star.

We The People love Sandra, Will, and Denzel for a reason. She’s gorgeous, smart, womanly, classy and approachable, and the fellas are masculine, confident, classy, and non-neurotics who take charge. They also make films that deliver. Not all the time. But most of the time we the customers know that if they’re in it, there’s a better chance than not of bang for the buck.

What they are not and what no movie star has ever been is a child playing a grownup (the exception, of course, is comedians like Adam Sandler or Lou Costello). The Orlando Blooms will never be movie stars. Neither will the Michelle Williamses. And don’t get me started on Shia Le-what’s-his-name.

Look at your history, both recent and long past. Hollywood may have changed over the last few decades, but the people — the customers — have not. The human animal simply doesn’t evolve that quickly. Furthermore, stars shouldn’t represent who we are; we don’t want to see ourselves on the screen. Stars should represent who we want to be. Men want to be John Wayne and Robert Mitchum. Women want to Ava Gardner and Barbara Stanwyck.

Masculine men.

Womanly women.

Need I mention Sandra and Denzel again?

Currently, Hollywood is spending millions upon millions to buy the rights necessary to make films based on board games. What’s next, snack foods? “Wheat Thins 2: The Crumble.”

Put those millions instead into a farm system based on the old studio system. Groom talent. Teach people with natural screen charisma to act. Most of all, teach them how to behave in public with class. And then when they’re ready, get that publicity machine humming.

This system worked perfectly for over a half-century.

There are some very smart people making movies today, but not a one is smarter than the men who built this industry from nothing and created the kind of art and artists that will live as long as humanity itself.

2. Stars Must Stop Insulting the Customers

Class. That’s what the customers are looking for in their stars, class. George Clooney could be a star and was on his way, but then he started insulting the 60-plus percent of customers who dared disagree with his obnoxious politics. Julia Roberts was the biggest star in the world until she did the same. Harrison Ford blew his image in too many ways to count, Russell Crowe can’t stop being a jerk, and Mel Gibson couldn’t control his ugly demons. Tom Hanks was universally beloved as a well-known Democrat by all of us. Not so much, though, after he called WWII a war of terror and racism.

Politically and morally, most of your customers are right-of-center. But the good news is that we don’t care how our stars vote or even if they advocate for this cause or that politician. But when you insult us and trash who we are, our faith and country — that’s crossing a line that’s awfully difficult to return from. Goodwill doesn’t just matter when it comes to the face of your industry; it is everything.

Let me ask you Hollywood leftists this: would you buy Charmin if Mr. Whipple called you an anti-American, crybaby, Marxist hippie loser? Of course not. And yet, your spokespeople do this to over 60% of your customers at least three times a week.

3. Liberal Films Are Fine, Partisan Films Must Stop

What were you thinking making films opposing a War on Terror we were still fighting and still could’ve lost?

Hollywood didn’t even do that during Vietnam.

Do you have any idea how selfish, narcissistic, and treasonous that was? Do you have any idea how your propaganda encouraged the enemy, which means that more of our troops and innocent Iraqis and Afghans died as a result?

You have blood on your hands. Making those films was an act of evil, and if you don’t think openly fighting on the side of terrorists has hurt you at the box office, you’re out of your mind.

Last number I saw, Hollywood’s approval rating is lower than George W. Bush’s when he left office, 33%. And you deserve it.

Your industry is packed with immature, ungrateful, moral illiterates, and I suggest you get them under control, because they tarnish the industry as a whole.

Oh, and while you’re at it, maybe you could stop championing and defending that hellbound fugitive who drugged and anally raped a thirteen year-old girl.

The good news is that there’s nothing at all wrong with making political films. Just don’t make partisan films. All your liberal films have failed over the past 15 years because they’ve been heavy-handed and preachy. So…

Study! Learn! Hollywood has a rich history of political offerings that not only made money but also made a difference. Put your art first, your theme second, and your politics last.

4. Keep Politics Out of Children’s Movies

You loaded up “The Muppets,” “Cars 2,” and “Happy Feet 2″ with political sucker punching and left a ton of money on the table as soon as word got out.

These are our children. Hands off.

5. Stop Marketing Exclusively to Teens

“The Help” made nearly $170M because it was an outstanding film, and it made a ton of profit because the draw was the story not some overpriced star surrounded by $150 million in special effects. “The King’s Speech” made $140 million for the exact same reasons.

When you’re making movies for adults, stop with the indie, nihilistic  junk no one wants to see. We don’t want to feel bad. We want to be inspired, we want to be told to aspire, we want to see what life should be like instead of what it is.

“Rachel Getting Married and Being a Dark, Selfish, Drug-Addicted Slut” is not an adult movie. It’s a lazy, artless movie for immature, slackers who believe in nothing. Fortunately for the future but unfortunately for Hollywood, there aren’t enough of those people to create box office hits.

Adults do want to go to the movies. We just want to see grownup movies.

6. Go Back To Storytelling Basics, Crack the Code of the Classics

By “classics,” I don’t just mean the four-star Oscar winners, but also films that — critical acclaim or not — have stood the test of time. There’s a reason people still watch “Casablanca” and, yes, “Road House.” There’s a reason we all have “The Wizard of Oz” and “Rambo” in our home video collections.

What makes them so popular? What makes them timeless? What makes them beloved by each generation? I’ll give you the first two answers:

1. Stars.

2. Universal themes.

7. Learn From the NFL

That National Football League does everything you used to do so well. The NFL is Hollywood just a few decades ago.

The NFL creates stars, demands and shows class, isn’t afraid of patriotism, and puts on hundreds of spectacular shows over the course of a season. The result is that their night to shine (the Super Bowl) buries Hollywood’s night to shine (the Oscars) in the ratings.

This is not an accident.

Even those of us who don’t care for the game of football (that would be me) respect the NFL greatly and feel an enormous amount of goodwill towards it.

Not everyone loves football, but we all like the NFL.

Everyone loves movies, but most everyone has contempt for Hollywood.

8. Learn How to Market Fresh Ideas

“Hugo” and “The Adventures of Tintin” going down in box office flames is inexcusable. Martin Scorsese and Steven Spielberg are two of the most important and respected directors in the history of the motion picture, and yet I have to read that both of these Christmas entries bombed because “nobody knew how to market them.”

Even more troubling is the collective shrug over this reality. I haven’t heard one person in the sycophantic entertainment media or the industry itself show a shred of concern over the fact that Hollywood was unable to market two films by two of our greatest directors because they weren’t handed pre-sold brands.

9. Stop Making Excuses for a Failing Home Video Market

Both the collapse of the home video market and the 25% decrease in what’s known as “the multiple” proves that you can only fool fewer and fewer people all of the time.

Again, the sycophantic entertainment media is doing you no favors in perpetuating the myth that piracy, Netflix, and Redbox are to blame. No one’s saying those things don’t contribute to the problem, but your main problem is that too many movies today just aren’t very good.

The multiple is down for the same reason home video sales are down: no one wants to see a bad movie more than once.

10. The Lousy Theatre Experience

Talkers, cell phones, ticket and concession prices.

You’ve got to fix this.

Right now, unless you’re the one doing the obnoxious talking, going to the theatre is a stressful and miserable experience.

Moreover, you’re charging us too much for tickets, and the theatres are absolutely gouging us for food and drink..

Presentation and follow-through is everything, and yet you let these incompetent theatre owners ruin the presentation part of a product you spent years and millions to develop and deliver.

—–

The other thing you can do, Hollywood, is simply continue to ignore American audiences. We’re leaving you a little by little every year now, and this year you hit a 16-year attendance low. So maybe the answer is to just keep making your money overseas and work a little harder to sell your souls to the communist Chinese.

But that’s going to leave a huge market open here in the states, and someday, someone’s going to fill that market with the movies we want to see. There’s already a cottage industry out there learning their trade and cracking that code.

It doesn’t have to come to that, though. And you know as well as I do that, with rare exceptions, if a film flops in America, it flops overseas.

We love you, Hollywood — not who you are now, but who you once were and who you could still be. But if 2011 has taught you anything, it’s that we’re not going to wait forever.

2012 may well be a better year (I hope it is), but that won’t change the fact that the trend is not your friend and that you could be doing a whole lot better.