And when I mean a glowing piece, I mean, really glowing. Like a pregnant lady holding a nightlight made of kryptonite.

On the sun.

Anyway, Joseph describes these “revolutionaries” playing foosball, table tennis and even Marxist Monopoly.

Basically it’s a “Dave and Busters” built on mass graves.

I know, small fact: Communists killed like 50 million people.

But, as Joseph shows: it doesn’t mean its desciples can’t have a little fun!

And despite existing only to gloss over the horrors of a wicked ideology, it is a “surprisingly open and idealistic place.”

And – they play poker!

Now, I often judge writing not simply on an author’s clumsy biases – but what I call “barf” moments. These are moments that occur, while reading- in which you actually throw up.

Here, there were a few.

But the two lines that buttoned up this F-U to humanity could turn even Stalin’s stomach.

The writer spews:

While Mr. Balagun waved me out the front door, I imagined Marx’s ghost floating in the hazy light of the evening, watching over the poker players. Behind his famous thicket of a beard, I could almost see a grin.”

Now if you’re imagining Marx’s ghost, then I’m sure you can see his grin – not “almost” see it. I mean, you are imagining it.

Just like you imagined the rest of this loathsome crap.

Channing Joseph, congrats – you have created the first ever literary emetic. If a child is choking, simply read those two lines out loud. And stand back.

…and if you disagree with me, then you’re a racist, homophobic communophobe.

Oh how I hated that.

For Dowd, these new “Republican Mean Girls,” are angry, aggressive women who are angry and aggressive. And mean.

Why not just call them bitches?

Anyway, to the irony. Here Mo laments the evils of smearing women – right before doing essentially the same thing. In a way, she becomes that cliched head cheerleader who always supports the loutish jock. “You better leave him alone, or I’ll say you banged the gym teacher under the grandstands!”

Funny thing is – I did. I always did.

But Dowd’s biggest blind spot? She writes this column only a week after Meg Whitman was called a whore -and – after the California NOW chief said “whore” was an apt description.

But none of that made her column.

Odd.

So, how is calling a lady a whore not seen as mean, but Sharon Angle asking Harry Reid to “man up,” is? I’d ask for an explanation, but that might be too mean.

It’s also just too funny seeing Dowd go after Angle for being aggressive in a debate. It’s what you do in a debate, sister.

But maybe Mo thinks Reid can’t defend himself, or that a debate is just no place for chicks.

And so women’s worst enemy are always women. And the media eggs this girl-on-girl action on – but only in one direction, of course. See Meghan McCain, yet again – being asked her opinion on a Republican lady: 

Eloquent.

Yep: when you’re looking for a chick to bang on a conservative chick, you can always count on double M. She criticizes O’Donnell for being inexperienced -and I, for one, totally back Meg on this. She may be the foremost authority.

And if you disagree with me, you’re a racist homophobic tyrannophobe.

Tonight:

-Juliet Huddy!

-Angela Maglowan!

-Jim Norton!

and special guest: Bill O’Reilly

PLUS, some other surprizeys.

Another shot was fired in the Middle East a year ago and the echoes to that shot are exploding like wildfire.

That intensely patriotic shot forced an extraordinary and extraordinarily  American Army officer to be entirely relieved of further duty.

This termination of his employment was, I believe, one of America’s greatest blessings in disguise.

It is now August of 2010, exactly one year after the incident, and Col. Allen West is just making his entrance on the political stage of Florida … but … well … we all know it won’t stop there.

Col. Allen West’s warning shot over the head of a profoundly suspect Iraqi police officer has been interpreted in many different ways.

The best interpretation so far, ironically and unexpectedly, can be found in the increasingly far Left NY Times, in an article by Deborah Sontag:

Senator John W. Warner of Virginia, a Republican and chairman of the Armed Services Committee, who has pressed for accountability in the Abu Ghraib affair, expressed empathy for the colonel in a letter to constituents. “As a former Marine Corps officer, I support Colonel West’s judgment,” he wrote. “I understand the colonel was well-intentioned and his efforts appear solely intended to protect the lives of troops under his command.”

In his letter, Senator Warner stated that one potential attacker was apprehended and potential ambush sites were identified and avoided as a result of Mr. Hamoodi’s interrogation. Colonel West notes that there were no further attacks on him or his men after the interrogation.  

Hmmm … what if such clarity and depth of purpose, the protection of men under his command, were extended in a Presidential declaration to all Jihadists and their intent to destroy the Free World?

Or, indeed, to all Communists who are still intent upon ruling the whole world?

“Cease and desist!”

“If not, there will be serious consequences!!”

Hmmm, indeed.

If we had a President who took the oath to protect the citizens of the United States and did so with the depth and clarity of Col. Allen West, I do, indeed, think that the enemies of America might actually take him seriously.

Therefore they would have to take America and Americans seriously.

We now have our first black President, Barack Hussein Obama, and the end of the color ceiling in America is great cause for our rejoicing.

However, we just ended up with the wrong black President.

President Obama’s character, as a perennial Harvard graduate, and indelibly Marxist, Oval Office philosopher, is the antithesis of what is required to lead and protect the citizens of the United States.

Col. Allen West, on the other hand, is the perfect President for these, oh so perilous times.

We continue the American triumph over racism!

We do so with an American hero who just happens to be black.

Col. Allen West is profoundly American!

Certainly more American than most of us.

Why is that?

He, more than most, has had to ponder, to the bottom of his soul, what it really means to be an American.

He has seen the answer not just through the eyes of the Founding Fathers, their Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights. Not just through the tortured history of American slavery and a Civil War, the seemingly endless nightmares of American assassinations, from Lincoln to Kennedy to Rev. Martin Luther King, he has seen this all through the eyes of Biblical Saviors and Prophets.

From Moses to David to Elijah to Christ.

In short, he is not just walking with America. He carries the entire history of the Judeo Christian Civilization within his soul.

The Communist Jihadist movement, or Red Islam as I call it, will, indeed, roll over America.

It already has!

With a President Barack Hussein Obama?!

Red Islam has literally invaded our Holy of Holies!!

God, our God, Jehovah, let them do it!

Why?

How can we, as Judeo-Christians, possibly know how Great, indeed, is our God!

How can the rest of the World know?!

How Great, Indeed, IS our God?

Unless our God’s enemies are given the run of The House?!

His House!

There’s a very militant reason that our Lord Christ said, when dealing with either friend or enemy, “Give them even the shirts off of your backs!”

None of those possessions, none of them, will bring them one ounce of the eternal power and peace that the Almighty would give them, if only they would honor Him, and his Judeo-Christian Family.

But they don’t.

In addition to wanting the Judeo-Christian world destroyed, the Islamo-Fascists, with great help from both Red China and neo-Soviet Russia, belittle all of Western Civilization.

Look down on it.

These elitists’ attitudes were best summed up by Voltaire!

He called the Elitists, “Enlightened Despots!”

For “The Revolutionaries”,  it has been “Us and Them!” for over two hundred years!

These Despotic Revolutionaries – and their now, unavoidable desperation – have been on a War-footing, a Combat-ready alert condition, since their spiritual forefathers started beheading the bourgeoisie in the French Revolution of the 18^th Century!

It has not stopped since then.

Now these “Know-it-alls”, these “Enlightened Despots” are the graduates and professors of Harvard. They are throughout the entire Ivy League; and are now rampant within the American Public Educational System.

Oh, these several generations of “Liberated Americans,” Marxists, Free Thinkers … have an over-two hundred year, unendingly revolutionary, curriculum vitae that has filled them with the very Communist Certainty that “They will bury us!”

The only man to tell them to “cease and desist”?

The only man they are forced to listen to?

The man before which they have no other choice but to listen to?

Col. Allen West … President Allen West!

You do know that we are back in the Cold War.

We need a President Eisenhower … this time, a black President Eisenhower.

Beyond just defending ourselves, however, and because the enemy has so infiltrated America that not even the White House, Congress, The Supreme Court and the Press are sacred anymore. Those checks and balances are gone. The Marxist Majority hold sway over everything!

Therefore, our Great American Counter-Revolution has begun.

The World without a traditional America is worse than the Universe without Suns.

It is a humanity without the solid foundations of the Earth.

The plain-talking, simple common sense of America is the only salvation Humanity has left.

Israel, despite its often patronizing attitude towards us?

Israel, of all nations in the World, knows that.

With a President West, who also knows that, we cannot lose.

No matter what Red Islam chooses to throw at us, we shall not lose.

It is humanly and inhumanly impossible for a Reborn, Counter-Revolutionary America to fail.

We’ve already had our Revolution … and we won!

The French Revolution and its unending and eternal desire to bring America to the knees of a Marxist World Empire?

We had the greatest, single and most successful Revolution in the History of Mankind … and now we must institute the most successful Counter-Revolution that Mankind will ever witness.

Col. Allen West rises out of American history as the triumph we actually thought President Obama might be … but … well … this experience with the Obama Nation has, indeed, been an eye-opener for all of us.

Col. Allen West is a proven leader and, most importantly these days, protector of American men, women and children.

Beyond even that, he is one of the few American politicians who understands what the following words actually mean: “One nation under God”.

The play received quite positive reviews.  Here are some interesting things I read in the reviews…

In Elysa Gardner’s positive review in USA Today, she refers to the contrasting times in which the play is now produced versus the original production:

When David Mamet’s Oleanna premiered in 1992, it was widely perceived as a response to the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, in which Thomas was accused of sexual harassment by former assistant Anita Hill.  It has been 18 years since that real-life drama played out. But as the very different controversy now surrounding David Letterman reminds us, the debate over what constitutes an abuse of power between a male authority figure and a female subordinate isn’t going away.

I find it interesting that the Hill/Thomas debate is compared to the Letterman story.  Was Clarence Thomas ever accused by Anita Hill of anything even remotely close to what Letterman has ADMITTED to?  I don’t think there is a debate about “what constitutes an abuse of power between a male authority figure and a female subordinate” with regard to Letterman, do you?  Does Letterman?  Does anyone?

Later, Gardner properly hits the nail on the head:

Mamet, after all, seems less interested in condemning women or men than exploring the complicated dynamics between them, made no simpler by such modern inventions as academic equality and political correctness.

Brava, Elysa.

Meanwhile, unlike Gardner, the NY Post’s Elisabeth Vincentelli doesn’t see ANY topical issues reflected in “Oleanna” and she uses the occasion of this play’s opening to put Mr. Mamet on the couch a la Sigmund Freud:

But watching the play 17 years later is like watching something made during the Red Scare of the ’50s. “Oleanna” speaks volumes not only about an era dominated by the shared paranoia of conservatives and lefty activists, but also about its creator’s id. And what surged from Mamet’s brain is the closest Broadway now has to a slasher movie.

In Ben Brantley’s all-powerful NY Times review, further mind reading of Mr. Mamet occurs: [emphasis added]

What’s so infernally ingenious about “Oleanna” is that as its characters vivisect what we have just witnessed, we become less and less sure of what we saw. Anyway, that’s what occurs in performance — or should.  Think about it afterward, or read the script, and you’ll realize that the sympathies of Mr. Mamet, a man’s man among playwrights, are definitely with John, however flawed he may be. It also becomes clear that Carol, as a character, is full of holes, most conspicuously in the way she uses words.

John Simon wisely avoids any direct criticism of Mr. Mamet (Mamet effectively castrated Simon in print last year thus rendering the critic incapable of objectively musing on the playwright’s talent), and he also differs with Ben Brantley’s suggestion that the play is skewered in the man’s direction:

The entire play is a clever enough piece of equivocation, allowing viewers to approve or reprehend either character according to their notions of feminism and sexism. The writing clearly and deliberately aims at provocation, at which it succeeds rather better than at credibility.

David Sheward in Backstage takes a different approach.  In honoring this production, he decides to slam the original, Mamet-directed version:

Under Mamet’s direction, Rebecca Pidgeon (the playwright’s wife) played the co-ed as a vacuous fool obviously manipulated by an offstage group of evil feminists into ruining the life of the nice-guy prof played by sweet, teddy-bearish W.H. Macy. Many saw the powerful one-act as a backlash against the excesses of political correctness and the women’s movement. In Doug Hughes’ reconsidered staging (now on Broadway after a run in Los Angeles), with a pair of powerhouse performances by Julia Stiles and Bill Pullman, the terms of combat are more equal and the outcome more ambiguous.

And over at Talkin’ Broadway, Matthew Murray is not a fan of this production at all, but unlike his counter-parts, he does not take this as an opportunity to personally slam, label or psycho-analyze the playwright.  On the contrary, he actually compliments him and the play:

The beautiful thing about Mamet’s incomparably incendiary play, however, is that it inspires fervent disagreement about which character represents what – stories of post-performance shouting matches and even fistfights have dogged the show for years.

But the prize for assault by play review has to go to David Rooney in Variety.  Here are a few choice quotes:

…Mamet stacks the deck too heavily in favor of the former to make the drama a fair contest — or to escape the charges of misogyny that have long dogged this play.

…Carol is possibly the most complex female role created by Mamet, a writer whose women are more often ciphers than believably fleshed-out characters.

…Hughes’ sleek production is psychologically needling and uncomfortable to watch in a way that surely honors Mamet’s intentions

…Designer Neil Patel amplifies the abrasive nature of the material

…But while Pullman makes John’s undoing a harrowing spectacle, the sheer acrimony of Mamet’s stance against Carol blunts the confrontation.

In case you’re having trouble reading the hidden message in Rooney’s review, let me help you out:  Mamet hates women. (He is a conservative, after all.)

More reviews are sure to trickle in as the week goes on, and If I find anything particularly obnoxious, I’ll bring them to your attention.  In the meantime, as the show is a limited engagement, do yourself a favor and see it if you are in New York.

“I took the liberal view for many decades, but I believe I have changed my mind.” – David Mamet

As I discussed in my very first post here at Big Hollywood, many in the theatre world were surprised to read David Mamet’s amazing article, “Why I am No Longer A Brain-Dead Liberal” in the Village Voice.  In my post, I used the play “Oleanna” as an example of a conservative lean that I recognized in Mamet’s work when it premiered off-Broadway in 1992.  I concluded with a couple of questions:

The real test will be when Mamet offers a new work for public consumption.  Will it be viewed through a new spectrum?  Will critics recognize Mamet’s un-deniable brilliance?  Or, will a hidden meaning be searched for in every scene and in every rapid-fire dialogue sequence?

It turns out we won’t have to wait long for an answer.  Our current Broadway season will feature two major productions from Mr. Mamet, and both deal with the most controversial political issues of our time:  Race and Gender.

This week, the Mark Taper Forum’s revival of the aforementioned “Oleanna” will open on Broadway.  ”Oleanna” was universally hailed when presented in the wake of the Clarence Thomas hearings.  Many of the critics praised Mamet for being so even-handed in its presentation that it was hard for people to really know if the accused man was truly guilty of sexual harassment.  Now that Mamet has “outed” himself, will they still see “Oleanna” and Mamet as “even-handed?”

Later this winter will see the opening of the brilliantly and economically titled:  ”Race” directed by Mamet, himself.  Precious few details have been leaked about the plot other than a quick description in Mr. Mamet’s recent, must-read NY Times op-ed:

In my play a firm made up of three lawyers, two black and one white, is offered the chance to defend a white man charged with a crime against a black young woman. It is a play about lies.

How will “Race” be received in the Era of Obama with the knowledge that Mamet is no longer a “brain-dead liberal”?

I plan to use my space here at Big Hollywood to let you know.  I will be providing a run-down of the critics’ reactions to these plays and any direct, personal attacks on Mr. Mamet and/or his politics.

In the true tradition of Broadway, I can provide you a “preview.” The Atlantic Theatre Company just opened two Mamet one-acts under the single title:  “Two Unrelated Plays” by David Mamet.   There is a very useful website called “Critic-O-Meter” which compiles all of the reviews for plays that open in New York.  I use the site often as a resource.  The proprietors of the site provide a quick synopsis of the reviews before linking to each, individual one.  In its synopsis of the Mamet one-acts, the site provided this helpful information:

Despite writing some bona-fide classics, David Mamet hasn’t written a good play since The Cryptogram, devoting most of his time to creating a third-rate 24, excoriating Jews who aren’t into ethnic cleansing as self-hating and– in his essays in the Times and the Voice– doing his borscht-belt imitation of Ann Coulter’s schtick. Ah well, he has a banner season ahead of him anyway, including a revival of Oleanna (the first step in his artistic downfall) and a new play called Race, both of which open on Broadway this season.

Mr. Mamet:  Welcome to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fortunately for Moore, we live in a free society. Despite the fact that his films are comprised of antics and obnoxious absurdities that only small-minded Americans would believe in their totality, he has every right to continue his idiocy. It is the coverage of Moore and his half-witted films that cause one to question the media’s promotional motives.

Mainstream outlets can’t seem to get enough of Moore, as they offer him positive coverage galore and provide him with valuable air time to push his insidious projects. Meanwhile, conservative film projects receive little to no praise – or even attention, for that matter.

A few weeks back, LA Times blogger Patrick Goldstein wrote a snarky post about conservative reaction to Moore’s film. Aside from dismissive commentary about why conservatives are overreacting, Goldstein offered up what he saw as proof that not all media outlets give Moore a free pass. He wrote,

…Variety has the first authoritative review up of Moore’s film — and it hardly reads like a liberal valentine, with just as many caveats as kudos. It calls “Capitalism” one of Moore’s best films but goes on to say: “There’s still plenty here to annoy right-wingers, as well as those who, however much they agree with Moore’s politics, just can’t stomach his oversimplification, on-the-nose sentimentality and goofball japery.”

If calling the film one of Moore’s best ever qualifies as “authoritative,” I suppose journalists asking then-candidate Barack Obama how his parents would feel about his accomplishments if they were still alive qualifies as “hard-hitting investigative journalism.” And don’t even get me started on the semantic inequality present in the penning of “right-wingers” versus “those who…agree with Moore’s politics.”

How about a fact check, Goldstein? Even one? You can’t tell me there isn’t someone refuting at least one of the “facts” present in Moore’s film. It’s not just “oversimplification” that liberals and conservatives, alike, should be concerned about. Moore manipulates events and happenings and creates an aura of understanding that has the foundational value of quicksand. And that brings me to a Reuters piece (carried by none other than The New York Times) entitled, “Michael Moore’s “Capitalism” Economical With Facts.” According to the article,

…the film launches a call for socialism via a popular uprising against the evils of capitalism and free enterprise. Although it’s less focused than “Sicko” or “Fahrenheit 9/11,” this competition entry is a typical Moore oeuvre: funny, often over the top and of dubious documentation, but with strongly made points that leave viewers much to ponder and debate after they walk out of the theater.

In what other venue would a documentary, book or professional record earn the distinction of being of “dubious documentation,” while making strong points that will inspire debate and dialogue? Usually, if the basis is not founded on fact, the argument can – or should, rather – go no further.

The piece goes on to admit that Moore is not known for objectivity or “impeccable” research, and that he favors Obama as a symbol of hope in the film. Now, for the article’s a-bomb. According to Reuters,

Moore has assembled a collection of nearly unbelievable horror stories to illustrate why capitalism and democracy do not go hand in hand, like a privately owned juvenile correctional facility, which paid the local judge to jail teens for misdemeanors.

Wow.

And then there’s the Washington Post piece entitled, “For ‘Capitalism,’ Moore Sells Short Politicians of all Denominations.” The lead says it all: “Just when it looked as if conservatives might be cornering the market on angry populism, along comes Michael Moore.”

I suppose those liberals who threw bleach on delegates at the Republican National Convention were lovable Furby-like creatures – not angry populists. After all, the Republicans have apparently already dominated that market.

I could go on and on. While most American outlets covered the film’s synopsis, scope, theme, etc., many in the mainstream media failed to point out Moore’s glaring hypocrisy. How can a man who has makes millions off of his anti-American rhetoric have the audacity to make a film about the evils of capitalism? It took the gusto of a British journalist to really delve into the insanity. The Telegraph’s Will Heaven wrote the following:

Don’t be fooled by the scruffy cap and trampish demeanour. Moore is as well-to-do as the “stupid white men” which he has made millions of dollars from criticising…

Sadly for Michael Moore, many of the people that should be watching his films don’t get the joke either. He is supposed to be the champion of the oppressed, who spends his career holding the rich and famous to account. Now he’s one of them, and lapping up the lifestyle like a banker in boom time, it makes no sense.

Kudos to Heaven and The Telegraph for writing the most honest piece I’ve seen on Michael Moore’s deafening hypocrisy. While American media outlets seem encapsulated in wonder by Moore’s outlandish work, it seems the Europeans – who are typically quite receptive of his films – are onto his antics. Now, if we could only get the rest of America and the media on board the “reality express,” we’d be golden.

In this NY Times article titled “Necks Overflowing With Rivers of Metaphor,” the argument is gleefully made that the vampire genre is the perfect platform to expose the idiocy of the right and our strange repulsion against poor vampires who merely want to fuck all night and sleep all day.

You want to see an accurate portrayal of the modern day leftist liberal, using the vampire genre correctly? Watch my very first short film that I wrote, produced, directed and edited back in 2005 on pocket change, in 5 days in rural New Jersey using a digital camera and all unknown actors.

It is based on a short story by Richard Matheson titled “Drink My Red Blood” and what compelled me to make it was one scene in particular where the lead character, Jules, shares his composition in school called “My Ambition.” The movie is 15 minutes long. I broke it into two parts and uploaded it to YouTube for you to watch (NSFW).

–

–

Jules Dracula is the perfect portrait of how leftists develop into pure evil by absolutely despising all that is good and seeking revenge against those who won’t let them simply be who they really are deep down inside; godless haters of Christian values, especially personal restraint.

Those within the industry will instantly recognize the Jules Dracula’s in their lives.  And It should be noted that I attempted to make this into a TV series called THIRST and could find no takers. I guess the truth hurts too much.

Please visit the official website built to promote the movie and those involved in making it.

The NY International Fringe Festival is in full swing in New York.  The festival runs now through August 30th.  What is the Fringe Festival?  Well, their web page helpfully describes themselves this way:

…the largest multi-arts festival in North America, with more than 200 companies from all over the world performing for 16 days in more than 20 venues – that’s a total of more than 1300 performances! FringeNYC generates an atmosphere of extreme excitement, and our energy is contagious!

That explains things, right?

Here is Stage Right’s description:

The Fringe Festival is a collection of mediocre plays, musicals and performance art that otherwise probably would never be produced in any form of any kind except under the umbrella of a festival that celebrates the quirky, strange, off-beat and sometimes down-right offensive.  (and their energy is contagious!)

Over at the NY Times ArtBeat blog, playwright Neil Genzlinger has exposed the depth of the Fringe Festival in a recent post where he describes his first encounter there:

I had submitted a mini-musical I’d written called “Not Herself Lately,” and, to my naïve surprise, it had been accepted. Only later did I realize that, at least back then, you could submit the instruction manual for a washing machine and it would be accepted, as long as you had the required “participation fee” (this year, $550).

He goes on to give helpful advice to playwrights looking for an audience at the vastly overbooked festival (1,300 performances over 16 days of plays that don’t have mass appeal means a lot of shows where the cast out-numbers the audience):

Since no ticket buyer can possibly plow through the more than 200 offerings and make a reasoned, nuanced selection, the best way to get people into your show is to put the word “Naked” in your title, whether or not anyone is naked, or at least to strongly imply in your show description that nakedness is available. This year there will almost surely be good crowds for the likes of “Dream Lovers” (“Are they having dream sex in their fantasy or fantasy sex in their dreams?”), “Porn Rock: The Musical” (“This provocative, sexy, multimedia rock ’n’ roll extravaganza invites you to join the party”) and “Sex and the Holy Land” (“a stereotype-shattering sexploration of Israel”). Also,“Spermalot: The Musical” and “State of Undress”(www.theimpulseinitiative.com).

No one wants to think too hard in 90-degree weather, so titles with pop-culture references that promise easy laughs are always good. Most likely to deliver mindless entertainment this year: “Pie-Face: The Adventures of Anita Bryant,” “George and Laura Bush Perform Our Favorite Sitcom Episodes”(www.georgeandlaurabushperform.com) and “Clemenza and Tessio Are Dead.”

I think Genzlinger unwittingly shines a light on the shallow nature of the festival, its participants and its audience. Be crude, sexual and left-wing and the people will come!

The Fringe’s biggest success story was “Urinetown, the Musical” which got an off-Broadway booking out of the festival and, eventually transferred to Broadway winning three Tony Awards (trust me, 1999 was a WEAK year at the Tony’s…  ”Fosse” won Best Musical, ok?).

So, if you’re in New York over the next couple of weeks, maybe you can head over to the festival and catch what looks to be a real winner: “The Green Manifesto, A Really Green New Musical.”

The Green Manifesto is a fresh, new musical comedy about the green movement, but at it’s heart and in it’s soul, it’s a love story. Set amidst the backdrop of Earth Day, The Green Manifesto explores the differences between conservationists and environmentalists, a runaway movement that has grown from a cause into a business. It tells the story of Adam Greene, an environmental lawyer, and his girlfriend, PhD candidate Madison Lowey. Through Madison’s research she comes to realize she is a closet conservationist.

The narrator of The Green Manifesto is a Noel Coward-esque talking puffin named Pete. Adam is set to make partner at an environmental law firm. He’s preparing for the greatest speech of his life—his Earth Day speech—but he has lost sight of everything that had ever mattered to him because he is so obsessed with making partner and making money. Madison has lost sight of her way as well, but she bonds with Pete and he teaches her an important life-lesson which she is able to impart to Adam. Then there is the foil, Patrick Brown. Patrick is a conservationist who loves Madison and makes her question Adam’s love and her own path.

Stage Right is on Facebook.

So Rocco Landesman is the new chairman of the NEA. The gregarious and outspoken producer and theatre executive has long been known for his bold risk-taking, his penchant for publicity and his leftward lean.

As it is no big surprise that the Obama administration would select a liberal to head up the endowment, the fact is it could have been a lot worse. And, his first interview with the NY Times (natch) he spoke of the arts as an economic engine and how he will implement his new “Our Town” program which would subsidize artists and institutions when they move into a downtown area:

“When you bring artists into a town, it changes the character, attracts economic development, makes it more attractive to live in and renews the economics of that town,” he said. “There are ways to draw artists into the center of things that will attract other people.”

If you close your eyes you can almost hear Jack Kemp cheering this supply-sider on!

Only time will tell if Rocco continues on this path or if he follows in many of his predecessor’s paths and becomes either a zealous promoter of offensive art exhibits paid for by all of us regardless of our objections, or as a liberal whiner bemoaning the under-funding of the arts as compared to ACTUAL constitutional obligations like funding the military.

Also of note in this first interview, Rocco showed himself to be perfect for the Obama Administration…  he sounded like an elitist snob:

Mr. Landesman said he expected to focus on financing the best art, regardless of location.  “I don’t know if there’s a theater in Peoria, but I would bet that it’s not as good as Steppenwolf or the Goodman,” he said, referring to two of Chicago’s most prominent theater companies.

Of course, there is no doubt that President Obama can lose Peoria and still carry Illinois in 2012, but I like the response blogger CultureGrrl got from local Representative Aaron Schock’s office:

Perhaps Mr. Landesman would benefit from a trip to Peoria to see a production of “Rent” at the Eastlight Theater and learn about Peoria’s historical contributions to the humanities. Additionally, if the Steppenwolf and the Goodman are so superior, they should be self-sustaining.  It seems to me, Mr. Landesman makes a strong case for weaning them off taxpayer funding.

Amen, brother!

After observing Rocco for over two decades I will make a bold prediction: He will have the highest profile of any NEA Chair before him. It has often been said that the most dangerous place on Broadway is between Rococo Landesman and a microphone.