WhackyNation

Why do successful and very wealthy men and women in various phases of the entertainment industry insist on taking sides on political issues and offices and thereby risk alienating at least half the population — and suffering for it at the box office?

Worst of all are the Hollywood stars whose egos are so great that they believe they have assumed the status of “political gods” and must lead the people to the promised land, wherever and whatever that is.

These self-anointed leaders emerge on both sides of the political spectrum, although it’s quite obvious — at least in Hollywood — that the Liberals far outnumber the Conservatives. The matinee idols are not alone in these transgressions; directors, producers, screen writers, and others are just as guilty.

As I indicated in the first paragraph, my biggest question is: Why do they do it? Those who refuse to voice political philosophies do not risk losing half their followers by antagonizing them with political drivel and ideological tantrums. They are the smart ones in an industry that is not noted for an abundance of “smart ones.”

Some observers will say, “Sure, but they should have as much right as the rest of us have to pop off on the Left or the Right and say what they think on any subject.”

Really? Of course they have a right to do and say what they think on any subject. But I think the problem goes deeper. Entertainers in films, on television, on the stage, or anywhere else gather millions of “fans” who applaud their careers because they have unusual talent as performers.

However, when they step outside their sphere of artistry and performance and become political sages who demand a following, they are demonstrating an overblown ego that is bound to turn off at least half their “fans.” And deservedly so.

In a few instances — all too few — a man or woman who has won star status in one of the entertainment arenas comes out of the pack and becomes successful in the political realm. But in every one of those rare instances, the performer exhibited unusual qualities of leadership and statesmanship.

For the mass of egos in the entertainment field, I have just one piece of advice: When it comes to politics, please keep your mouth shut!

In the 20 years I served as a critic-at-large at the Seattle Times, reviewing movies occupied most of my time. Of course, the most vexing problem I found was bad movies and the time wasted watching them. But the next most irritating problem was dealing with the inconsistent, often wacky system of censorship the movie industry imposed upon its output.

It was bad enough during the years in which the “X” for naughty adult movies epitomized the rating system. Then, the industry’s decision a couple decades ago to junk the “X” rating for adult movies and replace it with an NC-17 rating made some sense in protecting many daring but worthwhile themes from the censor’s hand — but, in the long run, it created more problems than it attempted to solve.

It should be remembered that the industry’s rating system was self-imposed early in the 20^th Century because of heavy criticism against the exploitation of sex in films. Even today, the classification system doesn’t have the force of law behind it — and censor boards are imposed locally wherever they are created.

It stands to reason that, sooner or later, the producers of pornographic films, who are growing stronger every year, are going to go to court to protest the industry’s lockout of skin flicks, and they could win. In fact, such a move may actually be under way today and may have escaped notice in the press.

The issue of sex is one problem that will probably never go away, no matter what kind of classification system is in vogue. Another issue is violence, which has gone on for years virtually untouched by the ratings system or those critics of films who keep calling attention to it without fomenting action.

I am convinced that extreme violence and a passion for gore that goes along with it are the real villains of the movie industry, both the Hollywood brand and the explosive foreign brand. And the very same could be said for what is sometimes referred to as the “small screen” industry, television.

While do-gooders worry unnecessarily about exposing children to sex in films, violence on the screen in the movie houses, as well as on the TV tubes in the living room at home, has contributed unquestionably to the instances of violence we see daily in real life.

That’s why I have long pleaded for a major revision of film and TV industry codes that would tone down or ban scenes of excessive cruelty, blood-letting, and physical violence that are not essential to the plot but are designed by writers and producers purely to sell tickets.

In that regard, I hasten to point out that many reputable survey agencies have determined clearly that films with “R” and even “NC-17” ratings that are loaded with scenes of sex and/or excessive violence don’t do nearly as well at the box office as G-rated movies.

That factor alone should exercise a much stronger influence on film production than the motivations of those producers with a penchant for what some have called “dirty movies.” My own personal feeling, as a longtime reviewer and admirer of good films, is that excessive sex and violence seriously hamper the artistic quality of any film.

As a news editor, you sometimes know when a simple story is watershed.

For instance, in 1994 18-year-old American Michael Fay was caned in Singapore for vandalism.  That story was watershed because most Americans came together on the principal that you better obey the law or be willing to pay the consequences.  I knew it the moment the story broke.  In November of that year Americans rejected liberal apologists and voted the Republican Revolution led by Newt Gingrich.

This weekend I think we witnessed another watershed story: Sheryl Crow’s global warming manifesto for toilet paper rationing will be the beginning of America rejecting the Hollywierd environmental wackos, including Al Gore.

I think the singer stepped in it when she urged all of us to use one sheet of toilet paper per bathroom visit.  Yeah, right.  What planet does she live on?

America’s reaction is at first laughter.  But the second reaction is: “Do these people really believe what they say?”  And when the realization sinks in that the answer is “yes” then there is the rethink about everything else they have been saying.  Credibility has been lost.  20 foot rise in sea levels, Mr Gore?  “Life as we know it” is disappearing?

Hyperbole loses.

Al Gore and Sheryl Crow may well become known as the “one-sheeters.”  Crow’s missive may well have sunk any hope Al Gore had regarding a presidential run.  More importantly, her tissue issue is now turning tide of global warming alarmism in this country.

As Americans question her judgement about bathroom smarts, they may think she is as full of it about global warming.  Americans will wonder what she has for brains.

And that, my friends, is the fateful beginning of this latest enviro-wacko cause being flushed down the crapper.  Mark my words.

While Hollywierd celebrates Al Gore’s work of fiction, An Inconsistent Truth, here’s one documentary that is totally ignored, but far more factual: Emancipation, Revelation, Revolution.

It’s a work focussing on civil rights by Nashville native Nina May who was inspired when Bill Clinton said that Republicans were racist.

 ”Coming out of the South, knowing the history of segregation — you couldn’t be a Republican in the South,” she said, recalling the “Solid South” era of Democratic dominance in Dixie. “I’m tired of being called a racist. The Republican Party is the party of civil rights. … So I said, I’ve got to do something about this.”

So, she interviewed black conservatives and put together a movie to set the record straight.

“The Republican Party was founded specifically to abolish slavery,” says Mrs. May, a writer who lives in McLean. “The first nine planks for the Republican Party dealt with civil rights for blacks. Republicans fought for the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments … [against] total opposition from the Democrats.”

So far, the movie is getting scattered screenings and reviews around the country.  DVD’s are available for purchase.

The film was praised by leading black conservatives. “Our history has long been ignored by Hollywood filmmakers, and this film corrects that oversight,” said Frances Rice, chairman of the National Black Republican Association…

“Look at [Republican Lt. Gov.] Michael Steele up in Maryland — he had Oreo cookies thrown at him” during his 2006 Senate campaign, Mrs. May said. “Nobody in the Democratic Party stood up to condemn that.”

The film does not pull any punches.

Do you think the Federal Way School District which okays the screening of An Inconvenient Truth would okay this film?