Sometime between when I finished the critique and when it went live online, I was invited by the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) to take part in a conference call that invited a group of rising artist and art community luminaries “to help lay a new foundation for growth, focusing on core areas of the recovery agenda – health care, energy and environment, safety and security, education, community renewal.” 

Now admittedly, I’m a skeptic of BIG government. In my view, power tends to overreach whenever given the opportunity. It’s a law of human nature that has very few exceptions. That said, it felt to me that by providing issues as a cynosure for inspiration to a handpicked arts group – a group that played a key role in the President’s election as mentioned throughout the conference call – the National Endowment for the Arts was steering the art community toward creating art on the very issues that are currently under contentious national debate; those being health care reform and cap-and-trade legislation. Could the National Endowment for the Arts be looking to the art community to create an environment amenable to the administration’s positions? 

Before arguing why I see this as a gross overreach of the National Endowment for the Arts and its mission, a brief background on the conference call is needed. 

On Thursday August 6th, I was invited by the National Endowment for the Arts to attend a conference call scheduled for Monday August 10th hosted by the NEA, the White House Office of Public Engagement, and United We Serve. The call would include “a group of artists, producers, promoters, organizers, influencers, marketers, taste-makers, leaders or just plain cool people to join together and work together to promote a more civically engaged America and celebrate how the arts can be used for a positive change!” 

I learned after the conference call that there were approximately 75 people participating, including many well respected street-artists, filmmakers, art galleries, music venues, musicians and music producers, writers, poets, actors, independent media outlets, marketers, and various other professionals from the creative community. I suppose I was invited because of my work in creating arts initiatives, but being a former employer of the NEA’s Director of Communications was probably a factor as well. 

Backed by the full weight of President Barack Obama’s call to service and the institutional weight of the NEA, the conference call was billed as an opportunity for those in the art community to inspire service in four key categories, and at the top of the list were “health care” and “energy and environment.” The service was to be attached to the President’s United We Serve campaign, a nationwide federal initiative to make service a way of life for all Americans. 

It sounded, how should I phrase it…unusual, that the NEA would invite the art community to a meeting to discuss issues currently under vehement national debate. I decided to call in, and what I heard concerned me. 

The people running the conference call and rallying the group to get active on these issues were Yosi Sergant, the Director of Communications for the National Endowment for the Arts; Buffy Wicks, Deputy Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement; Nell Abernathy, Director of Outreach for United We Serve; Thomas Bates, Vice President of Civic Engagement for Rock the Vote; and Michael Skolnik, Political Director for Russell Simmons. 

We were encouraged to bring the same sense of enthusiasm to these “focus areas” as we had brought to Obama’s presidential campaign, and we were encouraged to create art and art initiatives that brought awareness to these issues. Throughout the conversation, we were reminded of our ability as artists and art professionals to “shape the lives” of those around us. The now famous Obama “Hope” poster, created by artist Shepard Fairey and promoted by many of those on the phone call, and will.i.am’s “Yes We Can” song and music video were presented as shining examples of our group’s clear role in the election. 

Obama has a strong arts agenda, we were told, and has been very supportive of both using and supporting the arts in creative ways to talk about the issues facing the country. We were “selected for a reason,” they told us. We had played a key role in the election and now Obama was putting out the call of service to help create change. We knew “how to make a stink,” and were encouraged to do so. 

Throughout the conversation my inner dialogue was firing away questions so fast that the NRA would’ve been envious. Is this truly the role of the NEA? Is building a message distribution network, for matters other than increasing access to the arts and arts education, the role of the National Endowment for the Arts? Is providing the art community issues to address, especially those that are currently being vehemently debated nationally, a legitimate role for the NEA? I found it highly unlikely that this was in their original charter, so I checked. 

The NEA published a book entitled National Endowment for the Arts: A History 1965-2008 early this year. Combing through the 40+ year history of the NEA, I could not find a single instance of the agency creating or supporting a national initiative that encouraged the art community to address current issues under contentious debate. 

The NEA was created by the Congress of the United States and President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965 as “a public agency dedicated to supporting excellence in the arts, both new and established; bringing the arts to all Americans; and providing leadership in arts education.”  The issue of health care is curiously absent from this description on their website. 

So I’d like to start a little debate and ask you, the reader, the same question. Do you think it is the place of the NEA to encourage the art community to address issues currently under legislative consideration? 

And before answering, let me give you my take. 

The NEA is the nation’s largest annual funder of the arts. That is right, the largest funder of the arts in the nation – a fact that I’m sure was not lost on those that were on the call, including myself. One of the NEA’s major functions is providing grants to artists and arts organizations. The NEA has also historically shown the ability to attract “matching funds” for the art projects and foundations that they select. So we have the nation’s largest arts funder, which is a federal agency staffed by the administration, with those that they potentially fund together on a conference call discussing taking action on issues under vigorous national debate. Does there appear to be any potential for conflict here?   

Discussed throughout the conference call was a hope that this group would be one that would carry on past the United We Serve campaign to support the President’s initiatives and those issues for which the group was passionate. The making of a machine appeared to be in its infancy, initiated by the NEA, to corral artists to address specific issues. This function was not the original intention for creating the National Endowment for the Arts. 

A machine that the NEA helped to create could potentially be wielded by the state to push policy. Through providing guidelines to the art community on what topics to discuss and providing them a step-by-step instruction to apply their art form to these issues, the “nation’s largest annual funder of the arts” is attempting to direct imagery, songs, films, and literature that could create the illusion of a national consensus. This is what Noam Chomsky calls “manufacturing consent.” 

Now, if you are for the issues being pursued by the current administration, you may be inclined to think favorably of what I am labeling “overreach.” What a powerful weapon to fight those that are opposed to our ideas, you may think. For those in this camp I ask you this – will you feel the same when the opposition has access to the same machine? If history is any indication, the pendulum swings both ways. Is persuasion what the originators envisioned when they brought the legislation that created the NEA to the floor of Congress? 

As a member of the art community for the past 14 years, I raise these questions only after careful consideration. Many of those on the call are from my hometown. My position here should not be construed as a personal attack on the call participants. Many of those on the call worked tirelessly on the Obama campaign and are proud of their victory. They look at this as an opportunity to be involved directly with the White House, which is an exciting prospect to many in the art world whose experience with the government may be limited to paying taxes and voting. 

But the art community must put this excitement aside and ask itself about the proper role of government agencies created to promote the arts.  And if put in the wrong hands, could a message machine built by the NEA be used in a nefarious manner not currently foreseeable? 

In an attempt to recapture the excitement and enthusiasm of the campaign the organizers of this conference call have entered murky waters, a strait that the NEA cannot afford to swim. Previously shackled with the controversy over the Serrano and Mapplethorpe images of 1989 that escalated to a debate over its very existence, the NEA needs to stay far away from any questions of impropriety. 

There is no shortage of problems within the art community that the NEA could tackle. Museums across the country have been hit hard by the financial crisis. Their trusts and portfolios have seen massive declines. Donations, attendance, and memberships are down. Many have had to reduce exhibition hours due to staffing and budget reductions. And countless art galleries, the lifeblood and revenue stream for many artists, have closed or are on the brink of closure.  Rallying the art community around these issues seems a more appropriate use of its resources. 

I’m not a “right-wing nut job.” It just goes against my core beliefs to sit quietly while the art community is used by the NEA and the administration to push an agenda other than the one for which it was created. It is not within the National Endowment for the Arts’ original charter to initiate, organize, and tap into the art community to help bring awareness to health care, or energy & environmental issues for that matter; and especially not at a time when it is being vehemently debated. Artists shouldn’t be used as tools of the state to help create a climate amenable to their positions, which is what appears to be happening in this instance. If the art community wants to tackle those issues on its own then fine. But tackling them shouldn’t come as an encouragement from the NEA to those they potentially fund at this coincidental time. 

And if you think that my fear regarding the arts becoming a tool of the state is still unfounded, I leave you with a few statements made by the NEA to the art community participants on the conference call. “This is just the beginning. This is the first telephone call of a brand new conversation. We are just now learning how to really bring this community together to speak with the government. What that looks like legally?…bare with us as we learn the language so that we can speak to each other safely… “ 

Is the hair on your arms standing up yet?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And then there’s Cher, who recently said:

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

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

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

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

Mario Lavandeira, the mean-spirited impresario behind the celebrity-obsessed mega-Web site PerezHilton.com, was left scratching his pink-tinged pompadour last week, wondering aloud in a campy cry-baby YouTube classic why, after being physically assaulted in public, he is now universally scorned and widely considered the villain of an incident that left him appropriately “black eyed.”

Aside from the basic rules of karma, here’s why: The calculus of political correctness is like roshambo, the “rock-paper-scissors” game. Different identity groups hold specific levels of power over others when their battles play out in the media. To wit: Black beats white. Gay beats white. Black beats gay.

Don’t ask why. It just is.

For those not paying attention to this tawdry tale, Mr. Lavandeira, aka Perez Hilton and the self-proclaimed “Queen of All Media,” referred to Will.I.Am, the black frontman of the platinum-selling Black Eyed Peas, by an anti-gay slur at an after-party of the MuchMusic Awards in Canada.

This interlude was born of the L.A.-based hip hop trio’s displeasure over critical comments about their recent album on the Perez Hilton Web site. The affair later culminated in the band’s black manager, Polo Molina, reportedly slugging Mr. Lavandeira after an evening of silly ego- skirmishes between the two parties.

Even though it is obviously worse to punch someone in the face than to hurl an inartful slur, Mr. Lavandeira made the fatal mistake of choosing to verbally berate a man with darker skin than he. By the next day, the event was publicized around the world and Will.I.Am and Mr. Molina were being universally treated as heroes.

What Mr. Lavandeira does on his Web site goes beyond satire or biting criticism. It is cruelty of the worst kind. No taunt or insult is too low. Using primitive drawing skills, he and his crew even scrawl vulgar pictures on the faces of their victims.

If you feel dirty reading this, imagine how I feel writing it. But the deed of pushing “Perez Hilton” off the public stage is a necessary one. And we must do it as a united rainbow: Black, white, gay, Hispanic, transgendered, Republican, Democrat, celebrity, Eskimo and Aleut alike.

One major celebrity follower, and a celebrity in her own right, refused to go on the record to describe her deep concerns about Perez Hilton.

You can read the column in full here.

So it was not unsatisfying to watch his latest run-in with fellow Obama-supporter, assumed-name-fellow-traveler, Will.i.am.  In fact, it was delicious. Perez Hilton/Mario got into a verbal confrontation with Will.i.am, which ended with gay Mario calling Will.i.am a “faggot.”  Will.i.am’s manager then got into the act, punching Mario in the eye.  To which Mario responded with an enraged and hilarious YouTube video.  Because, after all, what better way to respond to being punched than to bitch about it on your blog? 

Let’s parse Mario’s hysterical video – and I mean hysterical in the literal sense, since by the end of the video, poor Mario is crying and screaming the F-word.

I am making this video as Mario Lavandeira.  What happened to me in Toronto happened to me as a human being and it should not happen to anyone.  Violence is never the answer.  E-ver.  No matter what anyone says.  Blood should never be drawn.  Another person should never be hit.  That’s why people die. 

Technically, people die because they stop breathing or their heart stops beating for a significant period of time.  They generally don’t die by being punched in the face.

Mario explains that he was a presenter for the Much Music Video Awards.  He went to a dress rehearsal on Saturday night. The Black Eyed Peas were rehearsing; Fergie saw Mario.  She asked why Mario was mean.  He said “I’m not angry at you.”  At this point, Mario digresses to explain just how tough he really is:

I’m a big boy.  I dish it.  I can take it.  I will let people have their moment.  I know that I say things that can really upset people.  That’s never a reason to hit someone.  I’ve been doing this for five years now.  And nothing like this has ever happened to me.  I’ve had people scream at me, write nasty things on other blogs, I’ve had people sue me.  I’ve never had someone attack me like this.  It’s wrong, and I’m not going to stand for this.

Apparently, he can’t really take it.  Because after launching into a diatribe about how “Will.i.am is a coward and a disgusting human being,” Mario starts whining.

I like writing about other people’s drama.  I don’t want drama in my own life.

There’s an easy way to avoid drama.  Stop tearing down others.

Anyway, Mario continues the story.  During the Much Music Awards, one of Will.i.am’s crew elbowed Mario.  Several media outlets asked if there was gossip from the awards show, and Mario said he had an “agro”-moment from a member of the Black Eyed Peas.

Mario then went to an after-party.  And another after-party.  As he’s getting ready to leave, Will.i.am came into the club, seeking Mario like a “heat-seeking missile.”  But let’s let Mario take it from here:

He says, “Yo, I need you to do me a favor.  I need you to never write about my band on your website again.”  Right in my face he was saying this.  Very aggressively.  I was not wanting or trying to antagonize him.  And he was like, “NO.  I need you to never write about my band on your website again.”  He’s like this close to me and screaming.

The epic saga continues:

And I was like, “Listen, I can’t make any promises, but I’ll try.”  And he’s like, “Why are you disrespecting me?  Why are you disrespecting me?”  And I was like “I’m not disrespecting you.” …  I am not afraid of him.  And I was saying that in my head.  And I told him, “You know what?  No.  I don’t need to respect you.  I don’t respect you.” And that’s when I made the split-second decision that I was gonna say what I thought was the worst possible thing that thug would ever want to hear.  I was standing my ground without being violent or physical, which I would never do.  I told him, “You know what?  I don’t need to respect you, and you’re a fag.  Stop being gay, and you’re a faggot.”

The astonishing irony of this statement is apparently lost on Mario/Perez.  You don’t see Jews going around calling neo-Nazis “kikes” – Jews recognize that there’s nothing insulting about being Jewish.  You don’t see African-Americans going around suggesting that KKK members are “niggers” – they recognize there’s nothing insulting about being black.  But Mario believes there is something egregiously wrong with being a “fag.”  No wonder GLAAD condemned him.

So Mario left.  Will.i.am was outside the club.  And here’s where it gets truly funny.

Then his manager, Polo, whom I have met before, from behind comes up to me and clocks me in the eye right here.  And punches me two or three times.  I am in shock.  I did not know what to do.  I touch my eye and it was bleeding.  I see my fingertips and I am bleeding.  I think my eye might be falling out of my head.  They carried me away.

Clearly Mario is on a par with the men who stormed the beaches of Guadalcanal and the protestors being shot in Iran.

Nothing like this has ever happened before … And Will.i.am, f— you.  You lying m—–f—– … You know very well, I know very well, God knows … you’re a f—– liar … Fergie is ashamed of you and Polo.  You’re shameful, you’re disgusting, you’re subhuman.

The hilarity of a paparazzi calling on the mighty authority of Fergie to punish Will.i.am is unparalleled.

Will.i.am followed us to the hotel!  Where they were also staying.

Mario is obviously upset that Will.i.am had the temerity to show up in the same zip code after Polo’s vicious, Charles Manson-like assault.

I’m thinking “Oh my God, this person just hit me, what if something else happens?”  I was in shock, I didn’t know what to do, I did what should be done … I called the police … They explained to me that they would try to make it but there were actual emergencies going on.  But I was in fear of my safety.  And I had been assaulted.

The police were in no mood to come down to baby a frantic hypochondriacal quasi-entertainer who got a love tap from another entertainer.  Apparently they had something important to do, like clipping their toenails.

Then where Mario stands up for himself, and in the process, becomes the Winston Churchill of domestic violence:

If you are a victim of violence, speak out.  Because no one deserves that.  Violence is never the answer.  I could have told Will.i.am I hope he dies, I could have told him I hope Fergie sits on a stick and impales herself.  I could have said anything I wanted.  That was not an excuse for their manager to attack me.

Mario has, in a flash, changed the basic legal standard of free speech, which does not actually protect fighting words – and calling someone a “faggot” while telling them not to “be gay” would fall into that category.

The Supreme Court ruled in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) that fighting words are not protected by the Constitution because they “by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.”  That doesn’t mean Will.i.am’s manager had a legal right to smack Mario around, as tempting as it would be to pass such legalizing legislation.  It just means that Mario’s third-grade understanding of “free speech” is basically incorrect.

But Mario isn’t done.  Now he describes his brave response:

I took to Twitter.  Because I was in shock and I felt helpless.  And that was my very public cry for help.  And to all of those people who expressed concern, who called the police, thank you.  From the bottom of my heart, thank you.  Because I am a human being, and no one deserves to be treated that way. Violence is never the answer.

Violence isn’t the answer.  Violent laughter is the answer.

This error would be egregious even without context, but wait until you hear who actually made the list:

There is an entire spread called “Barack’s Beauties” featuring seven Obama staffers who are among the USA’s finest 100–easily the highest number of executive branch hotties since the Coolidge administration.

White House Director of Speechwriting Jon Favreau was one of those selected; he is the boy who gave the memorable metaphoric “f*ck you” to the 18 million people who voted for Hillary in the primaries by groping a cardboard likeness of the New York Senator during the campaign (we’re still waiting for the feminist reaction to this one…).

Tim Geithner, a human incarnation of Beavis, was in there too.  Geithner is about as ill suited for a “Beautiful Peoples” list as he is for his job as Treasury Secretary.

The great Sam Kass, White House Chef (you read that right, not “Chief”)–a true Adonis if I have ever seen one—is on the list, along with Michelle Obama and three others who mark their business address 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Of course Tina Fey was among the anointed, and she arguably has her “Palin as bozo” SNL character to thank.  I wonder if Ms. Fey would have objected to the Palin snub?  In her own words: “I’ll tell you, that lady [Palin] is five times better-looking than I am.”  People Magazine did the worst vetting since the Obama cabinet appointments.

Katie Couric, who used her interview with Sarah Palin to stave off irrelevancy, was named one of People’s breathtaking beauties.  Is there a person on earth who watched that interview and thought “Palin’s alright, but that Couric babe!  Hubba Hubba!”?  I wonder if People selected Ms. Couric before or after she went to Zac Efron’s hairstylist?  It’s a good look for him.

A “Most Beautiful People” list without Sarah Palin is like an Obama Speech without a teleprompter.  The guy who prepares Obama’s spinach and feta quiches for his brunch with Ben Affleck, Don Cheadle, and that homeless-looking guy from the Black Eyed Peas…gorgeous!  The guy who felt-up a Hillary cut-out like a chick he met at a Black Eyed Peas concert…dazzling!  The tax-cheat with the Artist Formally Known as Prince haircut (no offense, Prince, “When Doves Cry” is fabulous)…delicious! Pretend Sarah Palin…divine!  Real Sarah Palin…?

People can’t even make the case that this is about inner beauty, as Kim Kardashian managed to make People’s roll despite the fact that she achieved her fame by releasing a homemade porno she made with irrelevant hip-hop-opotamus Ray J.  This type of behavior is deemed acceptable for “Beautiful People,” but holding traditional values is not.  More evidence: Miss USA, whom not a single one of you can name…in.  Miss California Carrie Prejean…out.

Sarah Palin is the most impressive beauty in American public life.  There is no close second.  She is feminism personified and she was trumped by a bunch of lefties who could never look as good as she does, let alone pull off a beehive.  I’d say I was outraged, but People’s pathetic predictability makes this oversight no surprise.

Yet, we can still take solace in this fact: while People may snub our woman from their bogus list, they can never take away our Palin pin-up calendars.  Which reminds me, it’s May now…time to turn the page. Oooooooo…bear trim…classy…

Star-turned-producer Hugh Jackman has scored his second-biggest opening ever and, easily, his biggest as a solo star. Wolverine has mauled the competition with a massive $34.75M opening day (including $5M or so in Thursday midnight sales). That could translate to a 3-day of $86.8M, getting Hollywood’s most lucrative season off to a spectacular start.

The stars of WOLVERINE (from the left): Ryan Reynolds as Deadpool, Taylor Kitsch as Gambit, Hugh Jackman as Wolverine, Liev Schrieber as Sabretooth and Lynn Collins as Kayla Silverfox

The X-Men spin-off, which has been made for substantially less than the $210M budget ponied up for to produce 2006’s X-Men: The Last Stand, becomes the all-time fourth-best first-weekend-of-May opening, trailing only Spider-Man 3 ($151.1M), the original 2002 Spider-Man ($114.8M) and last May’s Iron Man ($98.6M). Wolverine has also posted one of the top seven opening days ever for a comic book adaptation.

ALL-TIME BEST OPENINGS DAYS FOR COMIC BOOK ADAPTATIONS
1. The Dark Knight – $67.1M
2. Spider-Man 3 – $59.8M
3. X-Men: The Last Stand – $45.1M
4. Spider-Man 2 – $40.4M
5. Spider-Man – $39.4M
6. Iron Man – $35.2M
7. X-Men Origins: Wolverine – $34.75M (estimated)
8. X2: X-Men United – $31.2M
9. 300 – $28.1M
10. Watchmen – $24.5M

And, as comic book movies go, Jackman’s solo effort has cut and sliced through the pack to become the all-time seventh-best 3-day start.

X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE will not match the opening weekend of last year's summer starter IRON MAN

ALL-TIME BEST OPENING WEEKENDS FOR A COMIC BOOK ADAPTATION
1. The Dark Knight – $158.4M
2. Spider-Man 3 – $151.1M
3. Spider-Man – $114.8M
4. X-Men: The Last Stand – $102.7M
5. Iron Man – $98.6M
6. Spider-Man 2 – $88.1M
7. X-Men Origins: Wolverine – $86.8M (projected)
8. X2: X-Men United – $85.5M
9. 300 – $70.8M
10. Hulk – $62.1M

How does Jackman hold his silverware during dinner?

Jackman himself is getting lots of positive feedback on his personal Twitter page, but there is some real negative feedback in the Twitterverse. Here are some actually Tweets from movie fans that have been posted in the last couple of hours.

if its wolverine dont waste your time

Wolverine sucks!

Wolverine: not too bad. Better than the horrible second X-Men movie. Coolest thing was preview for District-9.

I went and paid for 2 movie tix to see that damn Wolverine movie. I just wasted my money.

Wolverine was ok – too much smooshed into one movie and too many things attempted to be neatly wrapped up and squared away.

Saw Wolverine. It was weak.

What does Hugh Jackman being a hottie have 2 do w/ how crappy the movie is?

Oh my God Wolverine was just as bad as everyone was saying.

out to see Wolverine! Ill let you guys know how bad it is.

“don’t waste your money” unless you’re a huge fan. Like 2nd X-files bad.

So, it appears that fans are as tepid about this movie as film critics. X-Men Origins: Wolverine will likely be very front-loaded both for the weekend and the long haul. I’m guessing that the weekend could play out like this. Wolverine did $5M Thursday at midnight and has added another $29.75M Friday (for a $34.75M opening day). Then Saturday, the movie may drop 9% to $31.6M or so, followed by a Sunday dip of 36% to just over $20M.

Jackman is not just another action star; Here he is in his Tony-winning performance in Broadway's BOY FROM OZ

After speaking with a number of competing studios, the consensus is that Wolverine will have a multiple of less than two. (The multiple is the number by which you multiply the opening weekend to arrive at the ultimate domestic gross.) With a multiple in the 1.8-1.9 range, the summer’s first movie spectacle will finish at $156-$165M. That’s a good, but not great number. Meanwhile, Star Trek (Paramount) has a chance to be this year’s Iron Man, an early May release that plays deep into the summer at a high multiple in the 3.2-3.3 range.

Matthew McConaughey and Jennifer Garner are creating some sparks in GHOSTS OF GIRLFRIENDS PAST

The other wide release in the marketplace this weekend is the poorly-reviewed Ghosts of Girlfriends Past (Warner Bros). With Matthew McConaughey and Jennifer Garner as the romantic leads and an assist from Oscar winner Michael Douglas, Ghosts has performed decently, especially with Females 25 Plus. The Mark Waters-directed rom-com coaxed an estimated $6M in opening day sales and will likely reach about $16.5M for the weekend. That’s would be 12% stronger than last year’s first-weekend-of-May chick-flick counter programming, Made of Honor, which finished second to Iron Man with $14.7M.

Ali Larter (center) and Beyonce (right) come to blows over THE WIRE's Idris Elba in OBSESSED

Last weekend’s box office champ Obsessed (Sony) – the one where Beyonce “tromps a tramp” (played by Ali Larter from Heroes) – took a nosedive with just $4.2M or so on Friday. It seems headed for an estimated 3-day of $12.39M, down 57% from its opening, but the genre pic with a budget of only $20M will still have $47M in the bank by Monday. That’s a very profitable little movie.

Tween are pushing Zac Efron's 17 AGAIN past the $50M mark

The Warner Bros comedy 17 Again, starring tween dream Zac Efron, continues to perform well with about $2.22M to start the weekend and a possible $6.62M for the frame. Zac’s high-concept comedy will have topped $48.7M domestic in its first 17 days of release.

The new nature doc EARTH is really just the Cliff Notes for the extraordinary BBC miniseries PLANET EARTH

Disney’s Earth, a 90-minute version of the BBC’s 11-hour 2006 miniseries Planet Earth, will round out the top five for the first official weekend of summer. The nature doc grabbed $1.45M on its second Friday and is targeting $5.81M and a new 12-day cume of $23.47M by Monday.

The other wide release is the 3-D pic Battle For Terra (Lionsgate/Roadside Attractions). It is on just over 1,100 screens, but has managed only about $300,000 on opening day. I did see a commercial for Terra during American Idol this week, so there was some money spent, but it couldn’t have been much. Despite respectable reviews, this cg animated flick is destined for no more than $1M. That’s a full-on disaster.

EXCLUSIVE STEVE MASON EARLY FRIDAY ESTIMATES
1. NEW – X-Men Origins: Wolverine (Fox) – $34.75M, $8,478 PTA, $34.75M cume
2. NEW – Ghosts of Girlfriends Past (Warner Bros) – $6M, $1,890 PTA, $6M
3. Obsessed (Sony) – $4.2M, $1,671 PTA, $39M cume
4. 17 Again (Warner Bros) – $2.22M, $682 PTA, $44.36M cume
5. The Soloist (Dreamworks/Paramount) – $1.7M, $836 PTA, $14.2M cume
6. Earth (Disney) – $1.45M, $804 PTA, $19.11M cume
7. Monsters vs. Aliens (Dreamworks/Paramount) – $1.41M, $537 PTA, $178M cume
8. Fighting (Rogue) – $1.4M, $608 PTA, $14.73M cume
9. State of Play (Universal) – $1.28M, $527 PTA, $28.51M cume
10. Hannah Montana: The Movie (Disney) – $1.1M, $390 PTA, $67.88M cume
*NEW – Battle For Terra (Lionsgate/Roadside Attractions) – $300,000, $258 PTA, $300,000 cume

EXCLUSIVE STEVE MASON EARLY 3-DAY ESTIMATES
1. NEW – X-Men Origins: Wolverine (Fox) – $86.8M, $21,194 PTA, $86.8M cume
2. NEW – Ghosts of Girlfriends Past (Warner Bros) – $16.5M, $5,197 PTA, $16.5M
3. Obsessed (Sony) – $12.39M, $4,928 PTA, $47.19M cume
4. 17 Again (Warner Bros) – $6.62M, $2,034 PTA, $48.76M cume
5. Earth (Disney) – $5.81M, $3,221 PTA, $23.47M cume
6. The Soloist (Dreamworks/Paramount) – $5.7M, $2,804 PTA, $18.2M cume
7. Monsters vs. Aliens (Dreamworks/Paramount) – $5.65M, $2,152 PTA, $182.25M cume
8. State of Play (Universal) – $4.31M, $1,765 PTA, $31.54M cume
9. Hannah Montana: The Movie (Disney) – $3.96M, $1,405 PTA, $70.74M cume
10. Fighting (Rogue) – $3.76M, $1,630 PTA, $17.1M cume
*NEW – Battle For Terra (Lionsgate/Roadside Attractions) – $1M, $878 PTA, $1M cume

Steve Mason is on Facebook and now also on Twitter@LAMase.

Look at these numbers.

X-Men – estimated budget – $75M
$20.8M opening day – $54.5M opening weekend – $152.3M domestic – $296.3M global

X-2: X-Men United – estimated budget – $110M
$31.25M opening day – $85.5M opening weekend – $214.9M domestic – $407.7M global

X-Men: The Last Stand – estimated budget – $210M
$45.1M opening day – $102.7M opening weekend – $224.4M domestic – $459.3M global

It’s pretty clear that, with no cost-containment on budget (especially the big cast), the X-Men franchise had reached the point of diminishing returns. So, X-Men Origins: Wolverine (Fox), debuting Friday, is a sequel, but, technically, a spin-off, without costing as much as a true sequel would.

A very different Hugh Jackman won the Tony for Best Actor for his performance in Broadway's BOY FROM OZ

I’m guessing that Hugh Jackman is working for a great price, also serving as a producer with a healthy backend participation. The rest of the name cast is essentially limited to Liev Schrieber (The Manchurian Candidate, The Omen), Dominic Monaghan (The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, ABC’s Lost) and Ryan Reynolds (Blade: Trinity, The Amityville Horror), and there is no Bryan Singer (X-Men, X-2) or Brett Ratner (X-Men 3) to direct. Instead, Fox and Jackman settled on the much less expensive, but still Academy Award-winning director Gavin Hood (Tsotsi). Now with a scaled-back story and cast, the movie comes in at a much more studio-friendly price while, hopefully, still packing an X-Men-style box office punch.

Aussie director Gavin Hood accepting his Oscar for TSOTSI

Fox has smartly positioned Wolverine as the first movie into the summer fray, and that is important because this is the one May huge release that may not have long legs (I believe that J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek will squash it like a bug on the all-new Enterprise windshield next week). I am told that pre-release industry tracking is in the stratosphere for this X-Men spin-off – Un-Aided Awareness, Total Awareness, Definite Interest and First Choice are all through the roof. When the tracking data gets this heated, predictions are dicey at best, but I am calling for $92M domestic. That would be just a tick lower than last year’s first-weekend-of-May starter Iron Man, which was $98.6M.

Without claws: Hugh Jackman as host of the 2009 Academy Awards

For those of you who may be reading my column for the first time, that $92M figure is my “prediction.” That means that based on my experience, conversations with sources at competing studios and interpretation of pre-release industry tracking, I am making a well-educated guess as to how X-Men Origins: Wolverine will deliver in opening weekend US sales. (The road is littered with other well-educated guessers, and I have missed substantially on a few predictions in the past.)

When I start writing on Friday, it will be based on early ticket sales. That will make my numbers “projections” instead of “predictions.” My Early Friday and 3-Day “projections” are historically off by no more than 5%-8%.

For the record, I believe that Mr. Jackman and the folks at Fox will be quite happy with anything north of $80M, but they are definitely working to keep expectations lower. In the end, I think they’ll be in the $90M-$95M range for 3-days.

Over the long haul, WOLVERINE will be no match for last year's IRON MAN

Ultimately, Iron Man performed like a monster deep into the summer. It was followed by the box office misfire Speed Racer on the following Friday, giving the Jon Favreau-directed comic book adaptation basically 17 days alone in the marketplace. Wolverine doesn’t have that luxury with the aforementioned Star Trek, arriving next Thursday starting at 7pm.

Additionally, Iron Man was jet-powered by spectacular reviews (93% Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes)
and excellent word-of-mouth. It’ll be more of a mixed bag for X-Men Origins: Wolverine, standing at 41% Fresh on RT as of Wednesday night. The multiplier for Iron Man was 3.22 (the number by which you multiply the opening weekend figure by to arrive at the ultimate domestic gross). Wolverine is more likely to finish with a multiplier of 1.8-1.9. If the picture hits my opening weekend number, that multiplier will put the final US total at something in the $165M-$175M range.

In addition to my final weekend prediction, I also believe that Wolverine may scratch and claw its way to one of the top five or six opening days ever for a comic book movie. That could make it the 2nd-biggest opening day ever for a film from the X-Men franchise, trailing only the first day for X-Men 3.

ALL-TIME TOP 10 OPENING DAYS FOR COMIC BOOK ADAPTATIONS
1. The Dark Knight – $67.1M
2. Spider-Man 3 – $59.8M
3. X-Men: The Last Stand – $45.1M
4. Spider-Man 2 – $40.4M
5. Spider-Man – $39.4M
6. Iron Man – $35.2M
7. X-2: X-Men United – $31.25M
8. Watchmen – $24.5M
9. Hulk – $24.2M
10. Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer – $22M

There is always room for an inspired piece of counter-programming, and Warner Bros is apparently executing just that. The Matthew McConaughey-Jennifer Garner-Michael Douglas rom-com Ghosts of Girlfriends Past could reach a very solid $18M by appealing to Females 25 Plus.

The only other wide release is Battle For Terra (Lionsgate/Roadside Atttractions), a sci-fi 3-D release unluckily sandwiched between Monsters vs. Aliens (Dreamworks/Paramount) and Pixar’s Up (Disney) on the 3-D release schedule. Despite essentially decent early reviews (70% Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes), Terra will not be putting up much of a Battle. The 3-D screen count will be low, and there has been no real marketing money spent on getting this one launched. I’m predicting about $3.4M, which might be enough to “sneak it” into the top twelve for the frame.

FINAL PREDICTIONS FOR THE WEEKEND OF MAY 1-3
1. NEW – X-Men Origins: Wolverine (Fox) – $92M
2. NEW – Ghosts of Girlfriends Past (Warner Bros) – $18M
3. Obsessed (Sony) – $10.2M
4. 17 Again (Warner Bros) – $6.5M
5. Earth (Disney) – $5.6M
6. Monsters vs. Aliens (Dreamworks/Paramount) – $5.5M
7. The Soloist (Dreamworks/Paramount) – $5M
8. State of Play (Universal) – $4.3M
9. Hannah Montana The Movie (Disney) – $3.9M
10. Fighting (Rogue) – $3.8M
11. Fast & Furious (Universal) – $3.5M
12. NEW – Battle For Terra (Lionsgate) – $3.4M

Steve Mason is on Facebook and now also on Twitter@LAMase.

Witness Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher’s cavalcade of shiny, happy situational patriots appearing in a derivative public servitude announcement: A “Presidential Pledge” to President Barack Obama.

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]

Forgive and forget? Right.

President Bush was not holding back Moore from “free[ing] one million people from slavery in the next five years.” Nor was he holding back the Obama-biquitous Will.I.Am from “chang[ing] how [he] live[s].” Ditto: Aaron Ekhart (”To be a better person,”) Marisa Tomei (”To integrate into my heart what I already know in my head which is that we are all in this together,”) Kutcher (”To the abolition to 21st century slavery,”) Anthony Kiedis (”To be of service to Barack Obama,”) P. Diddy (” pledge to turn the lights off, cause I used to leave the lights on but we want to conserve energy so I’ma turn the lights off, you turn the lights off,) and all-in-unison (”Because together we can, together we are, and together we will be the change that we seek.”)

Missing are pledges not to kiss the ring of Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez and other pledged enemies of America. Nor are there pledges not to make movies that glorify these tyrants. Nor are there pledges to take seriously that we are at war, will continue to be at war under President Obama and that our precious and under-appreciated military is fighting an avowed and evil enemy — so that, among other things, Hollywood can continue to make decadent crap that actually motivates our enemy to fight us harder!

Unfortunately, what happens in Hollywood does not stay in Hollywood.

For more mind-numbing background read Kutcher’s companion piece at the… you got it… the Huffington Post .

The conservatives, Republicans and sundry non-lefties I know in show business have had nothing to say but positive and helpful things about the coming Obama presidency.

“We wish him well.” “He is our president now and he needs our help.”

These are the types of things I keep hearing.

And this is exactly the right attitude and exactly the right message.

God bless, President Obama. Even though I didn’t vote for him, and disagree with much of his agenda, he has my best wishes and all of my best efforts.

But that doesn’t mean I will forgive and forget an era of narcissism, petty complaining and conspiracy theory peddling from the majority celebrity class that began well before Iraq. [See "Hollywood, Interrupted " -- my book co-written with Mark Ebner -- which was written before and during the build-up to the Iraq war and before the WMDs weren't found. The public behavior from Hollywood even then was almost uniformly deplorable.]

Conspiracy theories of America’s complicity in 9/11 dominated cocktail party discussions for eight tedious years. They couldn’t simply disagree with Bush. They had to ascribe evil to his motivations and make sure the whole world agreed on that flawed premise.

Yet, hating the president doesn’t mean one can’t still help out the country in a great time of need. But many went to foreign countries and demeaned it instead. Called those that disagreed with them rubes and hicks. The elitism of the celebrities against flyover country America could not have been more pronounced. They made a boat-load of movies that affirmed this narrow and patronizing world view.

And now they want us back.

We’re all Americans — NOW.

It’s a convenient lie the celebrity left peddles that they were with us during the initial Afghanistan phase of the war, and even after 9/11.

No syrupy revisionism will change this fact.

[As I was writing this piece, I received the following unsolicited email from a Big Hollywood reader: "Reminder to liberal celebrities: It's time to set your Fluctuating Patriotism Clock from "Hate America" to "Love America" on Jan. 20th. Remember, it's "Springsteen Ahead - Falwell Behind." Funny.]

Featured in Moore’s goofy, derivative and pretty-in-a-grotesque-way video is none other than Cameron Diaz who had this to say before the 2004 election:

We have a voice now, and we’re not using it, and women have so much to lose. I mean, we could lose the right to our bodies…if you think that rape should be legal , then don’t vote. But if you think that you have a right to your body, and you have a right to say what happens to you and fight off that danger of losing that, then you should vote…

Such mental insanity posing as erudition usually earns ostracism. But Diaz and her self-serious cohorts have no moral compass, no sense of proportion, no decency and, certainly, no shame.

This video illustrates that the current celebrity class are not citizens but serfs. They need a leader to put their minds in the right place to do the right thing. They are not heroic individualists seeking to extend America’s promise but conformists who chose to sit out and complain during the tough years in order to ensure their guy got in the next go-around.

The celebrity decadence during the “oppressive” Bush years was world class. The clubs raged. The boutique hotels rocked. The private jet industry at Van Nuys airport flourished. The party never stopped. And only a precious few (Thank you, dearly!!!) stepped up to support the American troops who have been valiantly fighting for Hollywood’s right to do lines off of each others’ buttocks at $10 million Hollywood Hills mansions.

They never spoke up against the movies that demonized our military.

They never made movies to counter the libel.

They took the easy route. And blamed Bush for everything.

Moore’s nauseating video — which, like Steven Soderbergh’s “Oceans” franchise, grants a pristine look into the modern celebrity’s sense of self-importance — is not a sign of desire to serve the country under Obama. Watch, by March this pledge like New Year’s resolutions will fall by the wayside. It is a sign that the Democrat is in the White House now. It is a sign that they get to sleep again in the Lincoln Bedroom.

Twenty years ago AIDS was the number one cause for the Hollywood left. Remember the trendy red ribbons at all the self-aggrandizing awards shows? Hollywood has moved on (dot org) to better blame-your-fellow-American causes. But President Bush didn’t. And aside from Bob Geldof and Bono , they ignore this president’s demonstrable goodness .

Amazing that Geldof and Bono could valiantly fight their battles and serve humanity without being paralyzed by the Leader of the Free World 2000-2008’s all-encompassing awfulness.

Remember this video: It is a instructive relic of the era of celebrity decadence and boutique anti-Republican activism under President Bush. It is a sickening display that they want fast and easy absolution for having comported themselves like ill-behaved children for eight difficult and war-torn years.

Good luck, President Obama. The rest of you can go to hell.