Streep is one of those rare thespians who truly morphs into the character she is playing. You forget for a while that you are watching Meryl Streep (as opposed to never forgetting it’s Tom Cruise in “[insert film title here]“), and for that she deserves heaps of praise.  But her off-screen silliness is ripe for mocking.

Take, for example, her declaration during a promotional interview for “Julie & Julia” that she was “disappointed” in Child because 20 years ago, Child refused to take part in Streep’s efforts to get organic produce into supermarkets:

“She was very resistant and she brushed us off quite brusquely,” the Oscar-winning actress recalled. “She sent word back that she didn’t have anything to say on the subject, and she really resisted making a connection between the high fat diet of a heavily laden cordon bleu-influenced cuisine and cholesterol levels. I remember being so disappointed that she was in the thrall of something called the American Council for Science and Health, which was a front organisation for agro-businesses and petrochemical businesses.

“They seduced Julia into giving them money, so she was on the other side for a while. Eventually I think she came around, though.”

How dare she!

I guess Streep didn’t read this bit in the New York Times obituary for Child:

Mrs. Child was always a star, never a spokeswoman. She prided herself on not granting endorsements because she was devoted to public television, and she was not afraid to mock corporate contributors to her advertising-free programs. She once demonstrated how to break off a part on a Cuisinart food processor to make it less cumbersome to use even as the manufacturer’s representatives sat in the audience. And she was known to sue to prevent a restaurant from advertising that it was one of her favorites.

And according to this, Child only accepted $50 per show for her series “The French Chef,” donating the rest of her salary to WGBH, the PBS station from where the series originated.

Hmmm…

You know, Streep’s starring role in the alar scare of 1989 caused American apple growers to lose plenty of money, despite evidence that there was nothing to worry about. But never mind; it was all for a good cause – she, like many actors, wanted to ward off the perception that she was ”just an actor” and so decided to throw herself into the environmental movement. Rachel Carson would be proud.

Streep’s disappointment in Child’s unwillingness to go along with her schemes didn’t stop her from cashing in on the cooking doyenne’s name, however. While I don’t know how much she earned for her turn in “Julie & Julia,” I do know that over the past year, she earned $24 million, making her the third highest paid actress in American film.

Also, the studio behind “Julie & Julia” is Sony Pictures. Sony Pictures is a – gasp – corporation. Does that mean Meryl Strep is in the thrall of big business too? Is she some kind of corporate tool or shill? After all, she didn’t earn her cool $24 million starring in indie projects. Some food for thought, no? Bon appetit!

Like I said before, Streep is an amazing actress. Let’s just leave it at that, shall we?

And if you’re Tom Cruise, that means you are not only qualified to advise women on how to deal with postpartum depression, but you are also qualified to act as marriage counselor.

That’s right – Tom “Couch Commando” Cruise is, out of the goodness of his heart, David and Victoria Beckham’s new “relationship guru” – because you know with all of their money, they can’t afford a certified therapist:

After an evening with David, Tom decided to have a friendly chat with Victoria about the family’s future, saying it was because he cared so much about all of them,” revealed a source.

“They love each other dearly but Tom is a big believer in talking about issues . He could see they were both worried about the future and what it might hold.”

The Mission Impossible actor is understood to be concerned that the former Spice Girl – who runs a successful fashion empire from her home in the US – will want to stay in Los Angeles while her husband, 35, heads back to Europe.

“He talked to her about David ageing, his football career, the pressures of disgruntled fans, his loneliness when away from the family and how time apart is how marriages can fall apart,” adds the source.

That’s kind of creepy. Tom Cruise giving marriage advice? The man whose current wife is on such a tight leash she can’t even go to work without him there, watching her every move? The same man who, according to reports, rarely lets ex-wife Nicole Kidman see the children they adopted when they were married? The guy whose first wife, Mimi Rogers, reportedly split with him because he was seriously thinking of becoming a monk and felt he had to remain celibate?

Wow, that’s the man I want giving me marriage advice, for sure.

But Cruise is more than just a good friend; he’s a big cheese in the strange world of Scientology and is given credit for the “conversions” of Will Smith and Jada Pinkett. He’s also planning a big recruitment drive while he accompanies Katie on a four-month movie shoot in Australia, which begins this month. (There he goes again, not allowing Katie out of his sight. What, is he afraid she might find someone her own age?)

Remember the Scientology recruiting video starring Cruise, where he claims that Scientologists have “the ability to create new and better realities and improved conditions”? Is this the guy you’d really want giving you advice on anything, let alone how to keep your marriage together?

Run, David and Victoria, run…before it’s too late.

Their big message: military films aren’t working. The country is weary and doesn’t want war films as entertainment. Rather, they say, the good citizens of our nation want to escape with the fictional heroes in movies such as “Transformers,” “X-Men,” and “Spider-Man.” 

Military movies may not be working because Hollywood presently refuses to capitalize on the real life heroes in combat everyday. Everyone loves a good hero and for Hollywood to embrace the notion that there might be a valorous man or woman worthy of a feature film may lend creditability to the cause for which they are fighting. And we can’t have that. 

Instead, their latest war films are partisan propaganda as opposed to realistic and balanced. Somewhere between the screenplay and the final edit group therapy takes place and movie houses release message films as opposed to realistic action movies. 

Take for example Lions for Lambs and Redacted. 

In Lions for Lambs, two students, the ‘Lambs,’ follow the guidance of a professor to make a difference in the world so they enlist in the Army, only to be left stranded by their chain of command on an Afghan mountaintop as the Taliban execute them. The message? Don’t be a fool and enlist. You will be abandoned. The movie is noticeably absent any true hero as Tom Cruise, Robert Redford and Meryl Streep all pontificate through a collective diatribe. The failing here is that millions of servicemen and women have fought in these wars and their families know that they are true heroes. So a movie that paints their loved ones as misguided sheep rings hollow. 

Redacted is worse and more blunt. It sensationalizes a violent criminal act by a small group of Soldiers. Why did De Palma choose the rape and murder of an Iraqi girl as the focus of his movie, using the tagline, “Truth is the First Casualty of War?” It was a heinous, violent crime, but in no way does De Palma’s movie capture the essence of these wars or the spirit of the American fighting men and women. Again, no heroes, only villains, who happen to be American service personnel. 

It seems to me that the invasion of Iraq has been a watershed. Instead of gems such as Blackhawk Down, We Were Soldiers, Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers, post-Iraq we get political pitch pieces. Hollywood is venting its displeasure with the previous administration’s foreign policy through its films. Yet moviegoers are not so easily fooled and pan the movies that portray the military as bloodthirsty goons or ill-informed morons. 

If really is that simple, and Tyler’s lyrics have it right. We are holding out for a hero-the right kind of hero. We need Hollywood to capture the heroism of our troops. The American people know that their sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, and fathers and mothers are carrying this nation’s rucksack superbly in combat. And everyday there are heroes fighting to deny our enemies the ability to attack our homeland. 

One short example takes me back to January 2007 where a young sergeant displayed the everyday valor of American fighting personnel. 

Tyler’s lyrics were the furthest thing from my mind as my UH-60 Blackhawk’s composite rotor blades cut through the thin air of the Afghan Hindu Kush Mountains. 

“Blackhawk Down”

For two weeks I had been trying to fly from Bagram Air Base, where the joint task force is headquartered, to a remote operating base near the Pakistan border called the Korengal Outpost. My team had been collecting ‘To Any Soldier” letters and boxes for weeks and the holidays were upon us. However, a sudden snowstorm prevented our movement on Christmas Eve and then again on New Year’s Eve. 

But January 5th was a crystal clear day, the winter sun low and bright in the blue sky, perfect for flying…and fighting. So we loaded the Blackhawk and departed early in the morning with the intent of circulating to several small outposts, checking on morale, and ensuring the troops had the equipment they needed, a routine part of senior leader battlefield movement in the 10th Mountain Division. 

As we approached Asadabad Base where we would refuel, the radio crackled with the excited chatter of troops in contact just one valley over. They needed air support quickly. I directed my Apache helicopter escort to provide that support and for my Blackhawk to provide cover as his wingman. After emptying all of their ammunition twice in support of the troops in contact, the aircraft returned, picked up my team and we cruised the remaining 15 minutes to the Korengal Oupost where I would link up with Captain Jim McKnight’s rifle company. 

As we approached for landing, PKM machine gun fire echoed from two or three directions. Jim McKnight was there to greet me as we disembarked, but it was clear that he had other priorities. Soon machinegun fire and rocket propelled grenades were raining down upon our exposed position. The Blackhawk alone took 8 rounds in its cargo door, where we had just been sitting, and the left engine caught on fire. The pilots powered up with the right engine, leaving their crew chief on the ground and yanking his communications cord from his crew helmet. 

As rocket propelled grenades begin to crisscross through the outpost like Roman candles, I told Captain McKnight, “Forget about me, go command your company.” Happy to be unburdened from the task of managing a general in his outpost, he got to work. Meanwhile, we hunkered down and returned fire. As we moved toward the command bunker, I caught out of the corner of my eye a Soldier running down to the command post. This Soldier was shot through his left arm, tying off his tourniquet with his teeth. 

As he wheeled into the bunker, he hooked a radio handset into his helmet strap with his good hand while his wounded arm was bleeding badly. Soon, it was apparent he was going into shock and that his arm was seriously damaged. He began convulsing and a medic approached him, saying, “I need to take a look at that.” 

“Get away from me,” the Sergeant said, bluntly, as he punched numbers into his mortar ballistic computer. The biggest weapon at this firebase was a 120mm mortar that, with the right calculus, could destroy the attackers in quick fashion. This sergeant’s mission was to perform that calculus with the aid of a ballistic computer and then relay the information to the gun crew. Conversely, if he got the math wrong, a misguided round could kill friendly troops or civilians. 

He had an important mission. 

As the sergeant began to shake from the onset of shock, the medic approached again, and a second time the sergeant refused medical care, this time employing an expletive to keep the intruder at bay. 

As enemy machine gun rounds punched through the plywood roof of the bunker and fell to the floor like a Colorado summertime hail storm, the medic approached a third time. Looking up from his ballistic computer the sergeant said, “You can work on me when we get first round down range.” 

That was his compromise, which of course was no compromise at all. This Soldier was going to perform his most vital mission until the last drop of his blood fell into the gathering pool at his feet. 

Finally, a few minutes later the mortar launched the first round, which was impressively accurate. Soon, the mortar crew was melting the tubes, pumping out high explosive, fin stabilized and deadly accurate rounds onto the enemy. 

His mission done, the sergeant pushed the ballistic computer across the table to his assistant, handed him the radio, turned to the medic, and said, “Now you can work on me.” 

While it’s not Paul Blart, Mall Cop, there is a good message for Americans in the young Sergeant’s sacrifice. His actions were truly heroic. And the amazing part of this Sergeant’s valor is what came next. 

I was privileged to pin on his Purple Heart (2nd Award), the following day in Bagram after we medically evacuated him out of the Korengal Outpost. The sergeant then was evacuated to Landstuhl, Germany and then finally to Walter Reed Army Medical Center where he spent two months getting reconstructive surgery and healing from the gunshot wound. 

In the interim, the Secretary of Defense extended by 5 months his brigade combat team’s deployment in Afghanistan, making that brigade’s cumulative time deployed 17 months. As soon as this sergeant was released from Walter Reed Army Medical Center he had every right to go on convalescent leave and chill out. He’d earned that after 11 months of combat and a serious battle wound. 

Everyone but perhaps Hollywood knows how this story ends. Our hero scoffed at the notion of taking time off while his buddies were in the thick of it in Afghanistan. 

Of course, he was on the next airplane smoking to Bagram. 

So, we don’t need to hold out for our heroes. They’re there, right in front of us everyday. 

They are holding out for Hollywood’s enormous resources and talent to capture the right heroes doing the right things at the right time. And that’s a timeless story. It’s Hoosiers on the battlefield. Good men and women with solid values placed in difficult circumstances and producing unbelievable results. 

On our behalf. 

Message to Hollywood: Get to work. If you remove the political lens so that you can see the American heroes fighting the good fight, your only issue will be too many good screenplays and packed movie theaters. 

Believe it or not, the America I know is very proud of its men and women in uniform.

Nathan Lane and John Goodman are selling tickets hand over fist for their revival of “Waiting for Godot” but neither received the honor of a nomination.  Same with David Hyde Pierce, Frank Langella, Mary Louise Parker and Matthew Broderick. 

It was no surprise that Jeremy Piven was included out of the Best Actor category after his famous sushi defense for missing performances in David Mamet’s “Speed-the-Plow,” but not honoring John Lithgow’s brilliant turn in “All My Sons” in the same category is a crime against humanity!  It ranks up there with the snub of Dustin Hoffman as Willy Loman in the 1984 revival of “Death of a Salesman.” Brian Dennehy was honored with the Best Actor award when he did Willy Loman in 2000, but that goodwill did not anoint him worthy of a nomination this year for his turn in “Desire Under the Elms.” 

Add to the list of the egregiously overlooked: Diane Wiest, Kristin Scott Thomas, Daniel Radcliffe, Tovah Feldshuh, Joan Allen, Jeremy Irons, Rupert Everett, Christine Ebersol, Patrick Wilson, Susan Sarandon and Katie Holmes. 

As an industry, Broadway seems to take an odd pride in the moniker “The Fabulous Invalid” and I have lamented this mindset on these pages before.  Broadway’s ability to eat its young and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory has become legendary and not a little bit annoying. 

Here we are at the end of a season where the biggest headline was about how horrible things are on Broadway and how every show is closing and how there are nothing but empty theatres, and right when the industry has a chance to turn that story around and promote the fact that not only has every theatre been occupied but incredibly high-wattage stars have come out to perform live in intimate, beautiful theatres, they turn around and kill their own lead. 

Wouldn’t it have been great to have a nationally televised theatre awards show with ratings better than an NHL playoff game? 

Now, I understand the argument that everyone can’t be nominated, and I recognize that some pretty big names were honored like Jeff Daniels, Geoffery Rush, Marcia Gay Harden, Jane Fonda, Stockard Channing, John Glover and Angela Lansbury.  But, really, if the industry is in the trouble they say it’s in, and you have a chance to showcase Daniel Radcliffe, Katie Holmes (and maybe Mr. Holmes?) and Rupert Everett on national television as honored performers from the prior season, shouldn’t you figure out a way to do it? 

Here’s a modest proposal:  Expand the acting categories!  Where is it written in stone that there should only be five nominees for each category?  In some pretty thin years in the not-too-distant past they have nominated LESS than five in some categories.  (I know that the doom-sayers on Broadway all think that this is the worst it’s ever been, but seriously, in 1989 the THREE nominees for Best Musical were “Jerome Robbins’ Broadway”, “Black and Blue” and “Starmites”!).  So in a crappy year, they change the rules and only nominate three, but in a year packed with stars, they hold to the arbitrary five nominee rule and the story becomes “Who Got Snubbed”.  It makes no sense at all. 

I know that none of this seems to follow a “Right versus Left” storyline that many of you may be used to here at Big Hollywood, but hang in there with me for a few more thoughts.  The fact is, the left on Broadway (meaning the vast majority of actors, designers and staffers in the production offices) relish the fact that they give a big “up yours” to the Hollywood types who dare to come to Broadway.  In this context, the Hollywood actors are “rich” and the New York theatre people are the poor, starving artists giving up riches for their craft.  They want to see the Hollywood star fail.  It’s classic class warfare, just like it is played out in the political world of America. 

The same mentality that celebrates the increased taxes on “The Rich” and rails against “Big Pharma” and “Big Oil” yet fails to recognize the damage done to our society when these productive members of our economy are punished by ever-burdensome taxes and regulations is at play when they watch in bitchy glee as Hollywood movie stars are snubbed in favor of a “real” actor from their ranks.  But they fail to realize that those Hollywood hacks are the ones who are selling the tickets and keeping the “Theatre Community” employed.  If Hollywood actors ever get the message and stop risking rejection and embarrassment by performing on Broadway, it will just mean more unemployment for the theatre purists. 

But, that’s OK, they’ll just blame Middle America for not being smart or cultured enough to truly appreciate Thomas Sadoski in “Reasons to be Pretty” instead of wanting to see Tom Cruise’s wife or that guy from “3rd Rock From the Sun.” 

Stage Right is on Facebook.

When life gives you lemons… Poke fun at the absurdly oblivious Vice President and his pipe-cleaneresque hair-plugs.

HBO, of course, apologized for offending Mormons but defended its use of the ceremony because its depiction is “critical” to the show’s story line. Ah, the quintessential non-apology apology, used frequently by politicians: We’re sorry if we offended anyone, but we’re not going to do anything that will actually rectify the situation. Be sure to tune in, though, and boost our ratings!

What I’m more interested in learning, though, is if there are any shows or movies in the works about the “sacred” rite of female genital mutilation – more kindly known as female circumcision – or “honor killings” in Islam. I’d even settle for a program that just depicts a polygamous Muslim family living somewhere in rural America.

I’ll wait. I have plenty of time.

Back in 1997, Law and Order aired an episode about an American man, married to an Egyptian immigrant, who murders the doctor brought over from Egypt by his wife’s family to perform female circumcision on his daughter. That was before 9/11, however, and since then it’s become politically incorrect to say anything unflattering about Islam or Muslims, no matter what the context.

Note that the Church of Latter Day Saints outlawed polygamy back in 1890 while Islam, to my knowledge, has not. Americans were horrified when a rogue Mormon sect not sanctified by the church was discovered in rural Texas and hundreds of children were removed as authorities investigated allegations of abuse and the forced marriage of teen girls to much older men.

But just this week, ABC’s Good Morning America focused on Daad Abdul Rahamn, a Muslim in Dubai, who is getting closer to his goal of fathering 100 children. He’s only supposed to have four wives at a time, but “he has had 17 and is looking for more.” Diane Sawyer practically swooned in wonderment. (Maybe she’s thinking of applying to be the next Mrs. Rahamn?) But perhaps this case is different because the local sheikh approves and Rahamn is not ashamed to accept the sheikh’s handouts to help finance his growing family. Liberals love socialism in any shape or form.

And yes, I know Good Morning America is officially under ABC’s news division, but how many people actually watch it for its contributions to serious news?

Remember when South Park aired its now-infamous Scientology episode that not only skewered top dog Scientologist Tom Cruise but the depicted the “sacred beliefs” of the religion started by second-rate science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard and followed by a growing number of Hollywood glitterati? Comedy Central pulled the episode from its initial rerun schedule because of pressure from Cruise, although it did end up rerunning it later in the season. But that wasn’t the only fallout. The late Isaac Hayes, who voiced the character Chef and was a Scientologist, quit the show in protest of its “intolerance and bigotry towards religious rights of others.” Show co-creator Matt Stone responded by saying Hayes had “no problem – and he’s cashed plenty of checks – with our show making fun of Christians.”

I guess it doesn’t pay to annoy the wrong people.

It shouldn’t surprise anyone that the leftist entertainment industry has no qualms about airing what is supposed to be a sacred Mormon ritual on television because Mormons are not on the list of protected victim groups. Don’t believe me? Remember what Mitt Romney had to endure during the last presidential election regarding his religion. I’m not suggesting that production companies avoid producing entertainment that negatively focuses on a particular religion because its followers might be offended. However, I am offended by the double standard that means certain groups are considered fair game while others are left alone in the name of “multicultural sensitivity.”

Note: No Animals we’re harmed during the making of this video. Their Thetan levels were tested (it was one of Tom Cruise’s conditions) and one of the dogs ate some tainted Peanut Butter, but nothing more.

But, in the world of gambling, you always want to look for value. What are the films and performances with longer odds that would be worth a wager on Sunday? My purpose here is to establish a betting line for each of the six major categories, and then find the value bet in each category.

Question: Who will win Best Picture? Answer: Still, SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE

BEST PICTURE
Slumdog Millionaire – 1/7
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button – 6/1
Milk – 20/1
Frost/Nixon – 30/1
The Reader – 50/1

VALUE: I believe that in order to win an Academy Award, passion is required. Slumdog Millionaire has a passionate zeal among its supporters that will make it virtually unbeatable. Although I have made The Curious Case of Benjamin Button the second choice here, I give it very little chance of winning. It has major studio backing (Paramount), and it is certainly well-respected, but it is more admired than loved. So, for me the betting value is in Milk. Aside from Slumdog, it is the movie with the largest bloc of zealous fans. Gay and gay-friendly Academy members love the movie, and in the shadow of the passage of Proposition 8 in California, Milk is worth a $2 bet at the window.

Sean Penn's portrayal of Harvey Milk is now a decided underdog to Mickey Rourke

BEST ACTOR
Mickey Rourke, The Wrestler – 1/2
Sean Penn, Milk – 3/2
Frank Langella, Frost/Nixon – 10/1
Brad Pitt, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button – 25/1
Richard Jenkins, The Visitor – 35/1

VALUE: After colorful, rambling, verging on obscene acceptance speeches at both the Golden Globes and the BAFTA Awards, Mickey Rourke is the true favorite for Best Actor. Rourke has also campaigned hard, paying the paying the price for that Golden Globe win by schmoozing each and every one of those 95 Hollywood Foreign Press members. Penn just doesn’t play that awards campaign game at all, but actors love him. The only real betting value here is Penn, who still has a chance of winning his second Oscar.

It has been 25 years since Mery Streep won an Oscar

BEST ACTRESS
Kate Winslet, The Reader – 1/2
Meryl Streep, Doubt – 5/2
Anne Hathaway, Rachel Getting Married – 4/1
Angelina Jolie, Changeling – 25/1
Melissa Leo, Frozen River – 35/1

VALUE: It is Kate Winslet’s year. Just ask anybody. She has two outstanding awards-caliber performances in The Reader and Revolutionary Road. If rules would have allowed, she might have been nominated twice in the Best Actress category. She’s 0-fer-5 lifetime at the Academy Awards and deserves to win, but she can be beaten. Jolie and Leo have no shot. Hathaway is the 3rd choice in the field, and a win is not inconceivable, but Streep is the value bet. The undisputed greatest living actress has not won an Oscar in 25 years, despite the fact that this is her eleventh nomination since winning for Sophie’s Choice in 1983.

Ledger is a lock

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Heather Ledger, The Dark Knight – 1/100
Josh Brolin, Milk – 20/1
Robert Downey, Jr., Tropic Thunder – 25/1
Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Doubt – 30/1
Michael Shannon, Revolutionary Road – 50/1

VALUE: None. There is no value in this category. Heath Ledger will win Best Supporting Actor posthumously. If you are unfamiliar with how odds work, 1/100 means that you would have to bet $100 to win just $1, and even then, it would be tough to get anybody to take your wager.

Marisa Tomei's "stripper with a heart of gold" in THE WRESTLER may earn her a second Oscar

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Penelope Cruz, Vicky Cristina Barcelona – 1/2
Viola Davis, Doubt – 3/1
Marisa Tomei, The Wrestler – 5/1
Amy Adams, Doubt – 12/1
Taraji P. Henson, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button – 15/1

VALUE: This is, by far, the most competitive of the major awards. The longest shot in the field, Taraji P. Henson from Ben Button, is only a 15-1 longshot. Woody Allen has a knack for helping actresses win in this category (ask Dianne Wiest , who scored for both Hannah and Her Sisters and Bullets Over Broadway). That points to a win for Penelope Cruz, who was raw and sexy as Maria Elena in Vicky Cristina Barcelona. Davis can certainly win for her fleeting-but-powerful turn in Doubt, but my value bet is Marisa Tomei. Her first win, for My Cousin Vinny, was viewed by many as a fluke. In fact, there is an urban legend that she really didn’t win. The story goes that Jack Palance, who presented that year, read the wrong name (the legend claims that Vanessa Redgrave was the actual winner for Howard’s End). In reality, there is no doubt that Tomei is an Oscar winning actress, who gives her career-best performance in The Wrestler.

The uncompromising David Fincher

BEST DIRECTOR
Danny Boyle, Slumdog Millionaire – 1/7
David Fincher, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button – 6/1
Gus Van Sant, Milk – 20/1
Ron Howard, Frost/Nixon – 25/1
Stephen Daldry, The Reader – 35/1

VALUE: Nobody is going to beat Danny Boyle, but if I was looking for a strong value bet, I would wager on Fincher. He is a visionary with some amazing movies on his resume, including Se7en, Fight Club and Zodiac. He has worked with countless actors and industry types, and his uncompromising nature makes him tough to like, but easy to respect. If there were an upset in this category, Fincher is the only guy who could pull it off.

Steve Mason is on Facebook and now also on Twitter.

The conversation turns to Scientology. There had recently been a expose in Time magazine (and astute readers can now speculate on how long ago this was). “It’s a really evil institution,” I start, “Kind of a cross between the Mafia and Oral Roberts with just a dash of the Manson Family.”

The girl who had been getting all my attention chuckled condescendingly, “Well, I read that Kirstie Alley is a Scientologist, and I don’t think Kirstie Alley would belong to anything like that!”

Oh. There’s the flaw. She is stupid. (And probably a pre-clear TR-4).

Scientology has been dismissed and despised by most thinking individuals, but before we throw out the Thetan with the bath water, maybe we should look a little closer at Scientology Inc. Because this kind of marketing has been quite effective. By winning over celebrities, Scientology has been able to  gain a sizable following of Americans who look to the stars for guidance.

Scientology has a Celebrity Centre inside of Hollywood set up to pamper those stars. They have a staff of masseuses to rub the backs of actors while they’re waiting off-set for the next scene. In return, Scientology has many famous followers.

This kind of marketing  has come of age in the new century. Advertising people now go into high schools and encourage popular girls to use their lip gloss. They know the less popular girls will imitate them, hoping that the new lip gloss holds the secret to popularity. We will never know how many short men and chubby women became Scientologists just because they wanted to be the next Tom Cruise or Kirstie Alley.

The Democrats have done the same thing. Most actors have a desire to be taken seriously (beautiful people never want  to be known just for their pretty faces even though we aesthetically less gifted wouldn’t mind such notoriety).  Democrats have convinced celebrities they can gain intelligence by osmosis. Just by appearing onstage with Obama, or Al Gore, they too have advanced Ivy League degrees (even high school dropouts like Sean Penn or Martin Sheen). Democrats have given actors credibility. In return, the actors sell Democrat politics to the nation.

Oprah’s endorsement of Obama cannot be understated. If Oprah finds something she likes, millions of women will try it. The difference between a starving author, and a NY Times best seller is having Oprah read your book. It doesn’t even need to be the truth, it just has to appear that way. Both James Frey and Herman Rosenblat passed off works of fiction to Oprah as memoirs. There is speculation that Obama’s books were also fabricated by a third party. (Apparently Oprah likes to be lied to, which is probably why she is still engaged to straight man Steadman.)

There is no reason why our side’s politics shouldn’t appeal to Hollywood. We have something much more valuable to offer: genuine intellectualism. Our message of lower taxes and respect for the First Amendment hits Hollywood celebrities right square in the man-purse. And (if perhaps) some of the more conservative elements of our party listened to the supply-side arguments for drug legalization, we could win on that one, as well. Because despite the appearance of “tolerance,” Democrats do not want to legalize marijuana as much as they want to outlaw tobacco.

The difference between the parties is as vast as the difference between Scientology and traditional religions. While one religion massages celebrities and tells them they are heirs to a great galactic empire, the others tell them they are born of sin and must subjugate themselves under the glory of God. The Democrats tell celebrities they are the agents of change, while Bill O’Reilly screams at them for destroying American Culture. That has to stop.

It’s hard. I know it’s hard. Part of the secret of being able to survive in Hollywood is the ability to say with a straight face something completely inhuman, like: “I’ve always admired Morgan Fairchild’s work.” Or: “The second season of ‘Family Matters’ was clearly the best.” It’s not unlike being a good parent: you have to put all the art up on the refrigerator.

It’s how Al Gore does it. When Sheryl Crow says we need to limit ourselves to one square of toilet paper, or Leonardo DiCaprio tells us that Global Warming will cause human extinction, Al Gore admires their commitment and pats them on their tiny heads. Meanwhile, the girl I left standing at the bar so many years ago is probably an OT 5 today and driving a Prius with an Obama sticker.

*For information on some of my upcoming gigs check out: TimSlagle.com

And not for the reasons you might think.

Yes, he’s a liberal’s liberal. And he epitomizes all that Big Hollywood rails against. He infuses his politics into everything he writes. He purposefully paints most conservative characters with broad, stereotype strokes which leave them characterized as either stupid or evil. He makes liberal characters out to be earnest, hard-working idealists with hearts of gold. They are all intelligent and sympathetic and their only fault seems to be that they just care too much. Even when he’s writing about sportscasters or a sketch comedy show, liberal political positions come out of most of his character’s mouths as if they are given facts, gospel truths. When he does offer up a sympathetic character with conservative views (Ainsley Hayes or Harriet Hayes) they are “lone voices” that always seem to be outnumbered, shouted down or merely there as a foil for the lead character (heroic liberal) to intellectually vivisect for the happy ending.

But, no, that’s not why he pisses me off. He pisses me off because he’s SO DAMN GOOD!

Sitting in the Music Box theatre for the first public performance of A Few Good Men was one of the most electric theatrical experiences of my life. The energy from that cast as they worked the not-yet-legendary “Sorkinese” was something to behold. If you get a kick out of following the characters on “Sports Night” or “West Wing” as they meander the hallways of their workplace trading rapid-fire verbal barbs that make the Algonquin look like an I-Hop, then you really need to experience Sorkin’s work live in the theatre. There’s nothing like being in the same room with the actors and being part of the pace and build and crescendo of his scenes.

And although Sorkin has devoted most of the past fifteen years to television drama, I would contend that each episode of “Sports Night” or “West Wing” or the under-appreciated “Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip” were mini-plays. They were structured like plays and mostly worked within the confines of two or three sets that could have been constructed on a proscenium stage. Sorkin is a man of the theatre and that’s one of the reasons he is so good at character, plot and dialogue (you know, the three things writing used to be about).

Now, of course, the fact that he is so good is not what really pisses me off… but it’s part of it. You see, because he’s so good, I know that he could write a play with a conservative protagonist. I know he could make that conservative person intelligent, and heroic and I know he could get the whole audience rooting for him. I can prove it. Pretend you don’t know the end of “A Few Good Men.” Pretend you haven’t already spent 90 minutes rooting for Tom Cruise and Demi Moore (Demi in a Navy uniform no less!). Pretend you don’t already know that the Col. Jessup character is sinister in some way… now read this:

Son, we live in a world that has walls and those walls need to be guarded by men with guns. Who’s gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and curse the Marines; you have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago’s death, while tragic, probably saved lives and that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don’t want the truth because deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use then as the backbone of a life trying to defend something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said “thank you,” and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest that you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you are entitled to.

Sorkin’s words are powerful, patriotic and true. But, they are used in a context that paint the Col. Jessup character into an evil, twisted and angry man. Couldn’t this dialogue been used for a protagonist instead of a villain? Sorkin could do it…. he could. He doesn’t want to. I don’t believe that because he is a liberal he is incapable of writing a sympathetic conservative character. There is too much in the script of “A Few Good Men” that betrays his respect, understanding and admiration of the military.

Dawson: We joined the Marines because we wanted to live our lives by a certain code, and we found it in the Corps. Now you’re asking us to sign a piece of paper that says we have no honor. You’re asking us to say we’re not Marines. If a court decides that what we did was wrong, then I’ll accept whatever punishment they give. But I believe I was right sir, I believe I did my job, and I will not dishonor myself, my unit, or the Corps so I can go home in six months… Sir.

Kaffee: A crime? What crime did he commit? Lieutenant Kendrick? Dawson brought a hungry guy some food… what crime did he commit?

Lt. Kendrick: He disobeyed an order!

Kaffee: And because he did. Because he exercised his own set of values. Because he made a decision about the welfare of another Marine which was in conflict with an order of yours he was punished. Isn’t that right.

Lt. Kendrick: Lance Corporal Dawson disobeyed an order!

Kaffee: Yeah, but it wasn’t a real order, was it? I mean it’s peace time. He wasn’t being asked to secure a hill or advance on a beach head. Surely a Marine of Dawson’s intelligence can be trusted to determine, on his own, which are the really important orders and which orders might, say, be morally questionable? Lieutenant Kendrick? Can he? Can Dawson determine on his own which orders he’s going to follow?

Lt. Kendrick: No, he cannot.

Lt. Weinberg: Why do you like them so much?

Galloway: Because they stand upon a wall and say, “Nothing’s going to hurt you tonight, not on my watch.”

He can do it. I think any good writer can do it. God knows there are many conservative writers in Hollywood forced to work on product that goes against their ideals, but they do it because they are talented writers and that is their job. Sorkin is so damn good.

He could do it to. But he chooses not to.

And that pisses me off.

Stage Right is on Facebook.