RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/2021/12/its-bad-time-wokes-box-office-daniel-greenfield/

Steven Spielberg’s Woke Side Story crashed and burned already. Defenders were hoping that the holiday season box office would bail it out, but considering its $100 million budget (not counting promotional cost), it would take a lot of bailing and there’s no sign of it happening.

Politico, among others, dedicated high-profile articles promoting The Matrix Resurrections and its effort to “un-red pill America”.

That’s not going so well either.

The webbed wonder swung past the White Rabbit on Christmas Eve.

In the battle of the holiday season sequels, “Spider-Man: No Way Home” continued its box office dominance Friday, taking in $19.7 million, according to Box Office Mojo.

In second place was the family friendly “Sing 2,” which sold $5.3 million in tickets. The poorly reviewed fourth installment of the “Matrix” franchise, “The Matrix Resurrections,” took in just $2.7 million.

The third installment of director Jon Watts’ Spidey series, which stars Tom Holland, is on pace to earn up to $100 million over the weekend and $478 million in its first 10 days in domestic theaters, Variety reported.

It probably doesn’t help that the studio is hedging its bets, releasing TMR on HBO Max and then swinging back to an exclusive theatrical release in some complicated formula that probably made sense in boardroom meetings, but not to the general public.

But things aren’t looking very good.

Wokeness is very much a part of the Hollywood culture industry, but it also looks like some of the worst offenders are taking a beating.

Older adults have largely dropped out of going to movies and young audiences weren’t going that often before the pandemic. Alienating sizable chunks of the potential audience is not proving to be a good formula for Hollywood.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/12/what_spielberg_gets_surprisingly_right_in_west_side_story.html

I had serious reservations about the Steven Spielberg version of the film classic West Side Story.  Rumors of wokeness haunted the new movie from the first casting call through to its dismal opening weekend.  I expected to wince throughout, but Spielberg did something brave and unexpected.  He gave the Jets a rationale for their existence and their resistance.

The 1961 original did not.  As a 14-year-old living in a “transitional” neighborhood very much like the one the Jets and Sharks inhabited and not far away, I fully identified with the white gang, the Jets.  My friends, even my black friends, did as well.  Despite our affection for our homies, we had a grudging respect for the Puerto Rican gang, the Sharks.  Their guys were arguably cooler, their girls hotter.

Missed by liberal observers, then and now, is that vestigial urban whites saw Puerto Ricans not as another “race,” but as another ethnic group, no more alien than Italians were to Irish or Irish were to Germans in generations past.  Like Tony, we would definitely date their girls if they’d have us.  The absurd racial delineation for “Hispanics” would come later.

As much as I liked the original movie, however, it struck me even then as a confection.  The Jets were too soft, feckless, even, especially Tony, their legendary leader.  They seemed ungrounded, their defiance more cinematic than real.  Spielberg’s critical revision was to root the new version in the real world of New York’s West Side circa the late 1950s.  Much has been said about the “texture” he gave to the Puerto Rican characters, but he gave equal texture to the Jets.  That is what surprised me.  It would have been so easy in today’s environment to portray them as Archie Bunkers in training, Proud Boy wannabes, but he chose not to.

As the film makes clear from the opening scenes, redevelopers were leveling whole West Side neighborhoods to make way for the Lincoln Center complex.  In fact, the producers of the original film used the vacated but as yet un-demolished buildings as backdrop for the street scenes.  In this version, a wrecking ball seems to hover over every shot.  The Jets and Sharks are contesting for limited space in a shrinking universe.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/why-must-james-bond-be-reinvented-as-non-binary/

Perhaps the woman who’s running the James Bond franchise is just speaking off the cuff and not ruling anything out, and not signaling an intent to overhaul one of the most iconic characters in the history of movies to comport to woke sensibilities.

James Bond could be a non-binary character in the future, the boss of the 007 franchise has suggested in an interview.

Barbra Broccoli, who co-owns Eon Productions — the production company behind the franchise — didn’t rule this out in a recent interview on the Girls on Film podcast.

The 61-year-old producer said she thinks James Bond should be a man’s role — as more films should be made about women, rather than having women playing traditionally male roles.

She added: “So I think Bond will be a man.”

And when podcast host Anna Smith asked whether the role could be non-binary in the future, Barbara said: “Who knows? I mean, I think it’s open. We just have to find the right actor.”

But if this isn’t just a stray thought, and the next time we see James Bond on screen, the character will suavely look at some femme fatale and declare, “Nonbinary. Very nonbinary . . .” then some of us will be left shaken, not stirred.

This continues the unpleasant new trend of taking an established and beloved character and changing the character to fit some sort of woke category, instead of starting afresh with a new character in that woke category. Thor’s a woman! Sulu is now gay! Dr. Who is a woman! Superman is going to be black next time, reportedly!

There’s no reason that talented and creative producers couldn’t make a thrilling and exciting spy series featuring a a nonbinary protagonist. Sure, some segment of the audience might be initially wary or repelled by this aspect of the character, and another segment of the audience would be initially excited or intrigued by this aspect of the character. In the end, the movie would rise or fall based on how compelling, interesting, and appealing that protagonist is — and hopefully a good antagonist, plot, thrilling action scenes, and so on. Lots of white people paid to watch Black Panther, and the Zorro movies, and Bruce Lee movies, and so on.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/why-west-side-story-flopped-on-opening-weekend/

I assume Steven Spielberg’s $100 million remake of West Side Story isn’t being advertised quite as heavily in your neighborhood, but on the Upper West Side of Manhattan where I live, you can scarcely take a breath without being hit with advertising for the movie. 20th Century Studios/Disney treated this as an event movie, it had the weekend all to itself, it had considerable critical acclaim/hype and some of the target demographic (the theater community, extending out to everyone who ever performed in the show in high school) was intensely interested.

Unfortunately, the movie also suffers from having no stars (sorry, Ansel Elgort, but you make Timothée Chalamet look like Marlon Brando) and it’s based on a property that may be beloved by people over 50 but is, I suspect, totally unknown to those under 40.  People over 50 don’t go to the movies. The single comment I most often hear from people when I tell them I’m a film critic is, “Oh, I haven’t been to the movies in years.” TV is where it’s at these days. West Side Story is on track to gross $10.2 million in North America on its opening weekend — less than the $11.5 million earned by In the Heights in June, even though In the Heights is a little-known property and it debuted on HBO Max the same day. Certainly, the public sense that the pandemic was over in June provided a boost and the reverse is true six months later.

West Side Story is, despite the terrific songs and attempts to update it, still an extremely dated property — corny, maudlin, contrived, phony. I saw it in a huge theater full of enthusiastic fans, and even there reaction was muted. It just isn’t that great. Word of mouth is not going to help this movie earn out.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/12/fauci-film-lloyd-billingsley/

EXCERPTS

Dr. Anthony Fauci, Joe Biden’s chief medical advisor, claims that his critics are “really criticizing science because I represent science.” That was also the theme of Fauci, a hagiographical documentary released back on October 6.

According to Disney+ promotional materials, Fauci is “the ultimate public servant” facing attacks from adversaries, with “science increasingly caught in the crosshairs.” Fortunately, a more cinéma vérité portrayal has been around for some time.

Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) funded the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in Communist China, where gain-of-function research could be conducted in secret, with no accountability. In early 2020, Fauci praised China’s handling of the pandemic and initially opposed President Trump’s ban on travel from China. Like Ash, Fauci basically let the Covid virus come aboard.

In similar style in November, 2021, Fauci delayed a travel ban on Omicron-infected African countries and quickly announced that Omicron had arrived in the USA, just in time for the holidays. If some replicated scientific study supported these developments, it has yet to be made public.

With “this degree of transmissibility,” Omicron is going to be “all over,” proclaimed Dr. Fauci, who ought to know. The research NIAID funded at the WIV aimed to increase, not decrease, the transmissibility and lethality of viruses. For Fauci, the covid virus is the perfect organism. It can’t be killed and appears in endless variation. The virus empowers bureaucrats and politicians to impose restrictions, shut down sectors of the economy, demonize their critics, spend vast amounts of money, and portray themselves as heroes.

Anthony Fauci is most responsible for the lockdowns that wrecked the surging Trump economy and inflicted untold suffering on millions of people. Fauci backed New York governor Andrew Cuomo, who sent some 15,000 people to their deaths in nursing homes. Cuomo claimed he was following federal policy, but when CNN asked Fauci if that was true, the man who claims to represent science declined to answer.

The robot science officer Ash had no conscience or remorse. Like Ash, Dr. Fauci holds back any admissions of error or lapses in judgment. The NIAID boss, soon to turn 81, shows little if any sympathy with embattled Americans. Unlike Ash, Fauci has an extensive back story.

Anthony Fauci earned a medical degree in 1966 but his bio shows no advanced degrees in molecular biology or biochemistry. To avoid treating wounded American GIs in Vietnam, Fauci took a cushy “yellow beret” job at the National Institutes of Health. 

Fauci became NIAID boss in 1984 but Nobel laureate Kary Mullis, who earned a PhD in biochemistry from UC Berkeley, thought Fauci was unqualified. According to Mullis, inventor of the polymerase chain reaction, Fauci “doesn’t understand electron microscopy and he doesn’t understand medicine. He should not be in a position like he’s in.” But he is, and now claims to represent science itself. That smacks of megalomania, but there’s more to the man.

Fauci wields executive-level power but never has to face the voters or secure the consent of the governed.  As Joe Biden said on December 2, “Hey look, who’s president? Fauci.” Biden thus certifies white coat supremacy, a form of totalitarianism. If that seems a stretch, consider what Fauci told a McGill University audience in October: 

“There comes a time when you do have to give up what you consider your individual right of making your own decision, for the greater good of society.”  The ultimate public servant thus reveals his inner Duce, his inner Stalin.

Fauci and NIH boss Francis Collins both lied about funding gain-of-function research. Both deserve a criminal investigation but that is unlikely under the Biden Junta. With this crew, white coat supremacists stand above the law.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/11/emcapitol_punishmentem__the_film_every_american_must_see_.html

The inimitable actor Nick Searcy was present in DC on January 6.  He has just released a film about what he saw that day, Capitol Punishment.  For all Americans who find it hard to believe that our FBI and DOJ are now very dangerous enemies of the people, this film will be a shock.  Those two law enforcement institutions are most assuredly now enemies of all law-abiding citizens.  The phenomenon of January 6th was no insurrection; it was a carefully calculated set-up.  

The powers that be, some cabal of Trump haters within our government, successfully manipulated those present to escalate the situation with the help of an unknown number of FBI operatives and some Antifa and BLM activists.  The so-called members of alleged militia groups like the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers were very likely FBI operatives as well.  

How can that be?  Because they were there, have been identified and can be seen inciting people to breach the Capitol but have never been arrested or charged.  In the meantime, hundreds of thoroughly innocent people have been literally assaulted by the FBI, without warning, without warrants.  They’ve been thrown in jails, denied attorneys and due process. 

Darren Beattie of Revolver News and Julie Kelly at American Greatness have done yeomen’s work on the mis-reporting and judicial abuses that took place that day and in the almost year since.   It is a grim and very frightening tale of governmental abuse of power.  Searcy’s film shows just how far toward totalitarianism America has gone since Obama had his way with our federal institutions and just how perverse they have become since Donald Trump threatened to drain their swamp.   Despite everything the left threw at Trump from the moment announced his candidacy to the 2020 election failing to derail his 2016 election, they planned and plotted his political demise:  the Russia hoax, now traced directly to Hillary Clinton, two phony impeachment trials, and a host of other schemes in between.  

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/11/the-sex-lives-of-college-students/

Our cynical, burned-out culture

 I t seems that some college students have become so cynical about sex that they have even begun prostituting themselves. In England, Durham University Students Union noticed an “emerging trend” of students selling themselves for sex and responded by offering two courses in “sex work.” The university’s justification was that they wanted to “ensure students can be safe and make informed choices.” On that basis, should they also provide courses in drug-dealing?

Considering the cultural influences at play, this trend is hardly surprising. Just look at our coming-of-age stories, which are less about attaining maturity and character and more about conforming to ever-lower expectations of prolonged adolescence. Take, for example, the new HBO Max series The Sex Lives of College Girls, which is the tale of four female freshman roommates as they screw around at a preppy college. Forget love or character development — the show’s male characters are weak, shallow, and interested in only one thing, while the young women are spoiled, feckless, and only too happy to give the men what they want.

In episode one, we meet Bella, an 18-year-old, who introduces herself as “super sex positive and ready to smash some Ds.” Bella wants to get into the comedy club and so is thrilled at the chance to give hand jobs to the six young men on the admissions committee. We meet Whitney, a senator’s daughter, who, after ending a sexual relationship with her soccer coach on account of his being married, rebounds with a one-night stand. There’s Leighton, a secret lesbian, who uses apps for casual hook-ups and then blocks the women she’s hooked up with. And then there’s Kimberly, the comparatively innocent one, who has sex for the first time with her high-school boyfriend, only to be dumped by him the next morning.

https://spectatorworld.com/topic/bill-clinton-come-clean-affair-impeachment/

What if Bill Clinton had told the truth? Would America’s sexual and political history be different? The thought occurs because of the new TV drama Impeachment about the Monica Lewinsky affair.

Somewhat unfairly to both main parties, it is part of the American Crime Story series. Previous subjects have included O.J. Simpson and Andrew Cunanan, who killed Gianni Versace. It’s a bit rich putting Bill Clinton in the same bracket as these murder cases. Nonetheless, the result is intriguing, not just because of the magnificent acting and production — and not only because in the quarter of a century since the world’s most famous blowjob a certain axis of society seems to have turned.

Back then Monica Lewinsky was the butt of every joke. In the ancient-modern parlance she was “shamed.” Late-night comedians, like everyone else on the planet, did jokes you can still rattle off: “Girl in her class voted most likely to suck-seed” — that sort of thing. A friend was at a post-Oscars party in 2001, the year Bjork came dressed as a swan. Shortly afterwards Monica Lewinsky entered the room. “Should have come as a swallow,” my friend quipped.

Of course, in the light of #MeToo, all that has changed. Now Bill Clinton (played by Clive Owen) is a brooding menace. He literally comes out of the shadows every time they meet. He is the abuser, she the abused. Because that is how all male-female power relations have been reformulated in recent times. It doesn’t hurt that Lewinsky is a producer on the show, allowing herself to come across almost wholly as an innocent little victim. Personally this grates with me — because as well as being an obsessive and a nut, the woman playing Lewinsky looks like that actress from Hairspray who made me grind my teeth and turn off in under five minutes.

But none of this is what is interesting. What is interesting is the question that has only come up once in the show so far: what, as I say, if Bill Clinton had told the truth?

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/10/why_is_no_one_talking_about_fxs_impeachment_series.html

Now that I am seven episodes in, I feel confident saying that “Impeachment: American Crime Story,” airing Tuesday evenings on FX, is the fairest and arguably the best real-life political drama Hollywood has ever produced.  What mystifies me is that no one on the Right appears to be talking about it.

The third in the “American Crime Story” series, this 10-part drama faithfully tracks the perjury and obstruction of justice scandal that very nearly ended the Bill Clinton presidency. While the first two in the series — “The People vs. O.J. Simpson” and “Versace” — dealt candidly with the issues of race and homosexuality, “Impeachment” takes candor a step further and deconstructs the Left’s revisionist history of Bill Clinton’s “sex” scandal.

The Bill Clinton character, served up with equal parts charm and menace by British actor Clive Owen, is something of a monster. When Paula Jones, played with minimal condescension by Annaleigh Ashford, testifies that Clinton exposed himself we believe her, not him. Her vivid description of Clinton’s royal member will not please the ex-president.

It is only in the seventh episode that the Hillary Clinton character, played — unconvincingly, alas — by Edie Falco of “Sopranos” fame emerges from the shadows. Although it is too early to tell, my guess is that Hillary will not like the portrait of herself as cold and controlling. That said, I expect the producers to pull their punches when it comes to revealing Hillary’s role in quelling the “bimbo eruptions” that threatened Clinton’s political career from the get-go.

Those “bimbos” — the Clinton term, not mine — include not just Paula Jones, but sexual assault victims such as Elizabeth Ward Gracen and Juanita Broaddrick, the latter of whom Clinton raped. (Viewers see Broaddrick briefly once in an early episode but will not see her again.)  When Bill ran for president in 1992, Hillary was instrumental in hiring private investigators to bribe and/or threaten these women into silence.