The Third Estate Sunday Review focuses on politics and culture. We're an online magazine. We don't play nice and we don't kiss butt. In the words of Tuesday Weld: "I do not ever want to be a huge star. Do you think I want a success? I refused "Bonnie and Clyde" because I was nursing at the time but also because deep down I knew that it was going to be a huge success. The same was true of "Bob and Carol and Fred and Sue" or whatever it was called. It reeked of success."
Director Martin Ritt died in 1990. And it's hard to forget that when you watch any offering pretending to deal with the working class today.
Take SPRUNG -- or maybe take it off AMAZON?
SPRUNG is the latest offering from Greg Garcia. Some reviewers have been very, very kind to it. Overly kind, in fact. Maybe they're hoping that some of the smugness involved will tone down in future seasons? Garcia's again mocking the working class as he did in RAISING HOPE -- portraying them all as idiots is what each episode of SPRUNG telegraphs.
The series begins with Jack getting out of prison at the same time as Rooster. Jack's family wants nothing to do with him so he ends up living with Rooster at Rooster's mother's home. Mom Barb explains that he and Gloria (another prisoner) can only stay if they take part in the criminal escapades she intends to carry out to afford basic necessities such as toilet paper.
Each episode exists to remind you of just how stupid these working class people are.
1973's STEELYARD BLUES dealt with ex-cons and others carrying out crimes but the characters played by Donald Sutherland, Jane Fonda, Peter Boyle and others were brought to life, not made into a mockery.
My how times have changed.
The cast of SPRUNG is strong. But they can only do so much with the bad scripts they're provided. We hope Martha Plimpton manages to find the humanity in Barb, for example. She's an incredibly talented actress and she eventually brought so many levels to Virginia Chance on RAISING HOPE. Garret Dillahunt brough levels to Burt Chance as well but we're not hopeful that will happen with Jack, his new character on SPRUNG, because the character isn't written for levels.
Garcia's churned out another tale of scorn and laughter at the expense of the working class who, unlike him, have not attended college and are stupid people who believe stupid things and say even more stupid things.
RAISING HOPE took time to develop. SPRUNG doesn't have that luxury. All four seasons of RH were 22 episodes long. AMAZON's just ordering nine episodes for season one of SPRUNG and episode nine is just as insulting as episode one was.
ROSEANNE was a show about the working class. In all of its original run and in the one season reboot, the characters were not the joke. In fact, Roseanne Barr had knock-down-drag-out fights with Matt Williams during the start of the show as he offered one insulting take on the working class after another -- including wanting a joke about how someone had pissed into Roseanne's kitchen sink leading Roseanne to ask what kind of a family he grew up in?
Long before Sara Gilbert stole them, Roseanne created these characters and she gave them heart and she gave them purpose and she gave them minds. Comparing those characters to the ones in SPRUNG left us scratching our heads over Martha's participation in this garbage -- it's not funny and it is so insulting to the working class.
If THE CONNERS hadn't ripped off Roseanne's creations, Darlene wouldn't be a college graduate. That's not what happens in Greg Garcia's sitcoms. They're dumb and stupid, the working class, and they're a bunch of lazy crooks. If Ronald Reagan were alive today, he could start a bidding war at all the networks by proposing a sitcom entitled WELFARE QUEENS -- because that is how the networks see the working class.
These content creators sneer at the working class while being smug about their own greatness.
We realized that while watching B.J. Novak's hideous film VENGEANCE
VENGEANCE bombed. Those attacking BROS need to take a gander at VENGENACE's low box office. Novak's film deserved to fail.
Back in the 30s, Hollywood could have made VENGENACE and made it better. They could have still mocked the characters -- the way BJ does -- but they wouldn't have glorified the lead character. Ben Hecht, for example, wouldn't have made the lead character an idealistic sweetheart of a guy. The journalist Novak plays would have, instead, been an example of an unethical journalist gladly prepared to do whatever to get the story. Those are the characters of THE FRONT PAGE, HIS GIRL FRIDAY, etc.
But they are not the character BJ portrays.
And as if he wasn't soft and fluffy enough, leave it to THE NEW YORK TIMES to say the film starts with the death of a young woman that Novak's character was "dating." He didn't date her -- he f**ked her. She was one of many. She's still in his phone as a booty call.
She's dead. He answers his phone to take her call when he's in bed with another pick up and it's her brother Ty explaining that she's dead and when her funeral is. He thinks Novak was the love of his sister's life.
Novak ends up going to Texas for the funeral because he's too worried about a stranger's reaction to learning that he pumped and dumped the dead woman. Once there, he marvels over the stupidity of her family. And he finds a story in it for a podcast. Then he finds another story, then another, things keep shifting regarding how the dead woman died.
And then, because locals are so damn stupid, he 'saves' the day by killing the man responsible for the woman's death. This self-important 'journalist' would rather cover up the truth -- and murder a person -- than let the truth come out because he doesn't believe the truth can stand up to spin.
It's an embarrassing movie and it never should have been filmed. If it couldn't progress with its characterization, it should have been stranded permanently in development hell.
But the script was shot and the film came out and critics who seem to think they're reasonable people rushed to embrace the mockery of the working class and to embrace the message of the film -- that truth will lose out so do a DEATH WISH by murdering someone instead of calling the cops to have them arrested.
England has an open class system and their artists comment on that. In the US, we pretend there's not a class system but, more and more, not only are various creative types commenting on it, they're endorsing it.
Jim (Con't): The Congressional mid-terms are around the corner --
Ava: Tuesday, November 8th.
Jim (Con't): Thank you. Who, if anyone, is excited? And I've got dead silence. Why?
Cedric:
I canvass for the Democratic Party every election. Not this go round.
I have no reason to. I asked what we were doing -- message wise -- to
turn out voters? Nothing really. People are suffering with inflation
and you want me to go to their homes and offer them nothing? I'm not
bothering people. It would be one thing if the party had a plan --
"Help us keep control of the House and we will pass legislation for
stimulus checks," for example. But they have no plan.
Trina: I don't think DC gets how badly people in this country are hurting. Or that Ukraine is not part of this country.
Marcia:
Way too much money has gone to Ukraine to support a racist government.
I hope all those screaming their support for Ukraine grasp that there
will be a reckoning. We are not going to, five years from now, be kind
about the idiots who gave billions of our tax dollars to racists who are
so racist that the Peace Corps had to warn their volunteers.
Ann: Exactly.
Jim: At the end of last week, Joe Biden was talking Armageddon -- and I don't mean the Ben Affleck and Liv Tyler film.
Kat
(singing): "I could stay awake just to hear you breathing . . . Watch
your smile while you are sleeping . . . While you're far away and
dreaming."
Jim: That's Kat offering her version of Aerosmith's "I Don't Want To Miss A Thing."
Ty: From the film ARMAGEDDON.
Jim: Yes, from that film. But Joe was talking about a real life Armageddon.
Ruth: And acting as if this just developed and as though he had nothing to do with it.
Elaine:
When he has led the world to this point. JFK didn't act surprised by
the Cuban Missile Crisis. He took ownership of it. He was something
like 45 years old and he took ownership. Joe Biden turns 80 next month
and he can't take ownership.
Trina: We have no leaders anymore -- just people who shuffle the blame.
Cedric: And that reality is another issue with the party and how they're not giving people anything to vote for.
Jim: What's one thing the Democratic Party should do immediately?
Mike:
Retire the old folk. Joe's too old to run for re-election. Make the
announcement. Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein, Angus King, Ben Cardin,
Mitch McConnell. They need to get out of the Congress. It's
embarrassing. We need mandatory retirement.
Ruth: And we need that for the Supreme Court as well.
Rebecca: That or term limits. This can no longer be a lifetime appointment.
Betty:
I looked it up. When the Constitution was written, the average life
expectancy was 34 years old -- actually 34 and a 1/2. Now? 78.79
years. This far exceeds what anyone expected. The Supreme Court is
illegitimate and it doesn't represent the American people. It's 2022.
Clarry Thomas is 74 years old, he needs to go. We need people with
experience, yes, but we also need mental fitness. Mental fitness does
not mean you haven't lost all of your faculties, it does mean you are
able to think quickly and well. I say a cap of 60 is required for the
Supreme Court. When you hit 60, get off the court.
Jim: And those who would say that's too young?
Betty:
Show me where in the Constitution it guarantees you the right to sit on
the Supreme Court. It doesn't. It is a privilege and the privilege
has been abused so it's time to rectify the matter.
Jim: You called it illegitimate.
Betty:
The current Court is illegitimate. It's made up of people who swore to
uphold precedent. But DOBBS tossed aside precedent. It was an
illegitimate decision from an illegitimate court. And if that makes
Jonathan Turley butt hurt, I don't give a damn.
Jess: Amen to that.
Isaiah:
They are woefully out of touch and they need to retire. I think we
need to do something like a ten year limit for Supreme Court justices.
These people are already out of touch and they just get more so the
longer they remain on the bench. DOBBS revealed that they are hacks.
They're not interested in the rule of law. Get the hacks gone and let's
have a faster turn over.
Jim:
I can understand that. What I don't understand is why they're not
pushing to impeach Clarry Thomas? That would be a winning, turn out the
vote move.
Betty: Again, I looked it up before we got ready for the roundtable. The House impeached Justice Samuel Chase in 1804.
Jim: Some would argue that if we start impeaching now, then it will be endless.
C.I.: Can I jump in?
Jim: Sure.
C.I.: I was asking Ava.
Jim: Ava and C.I. take notes for these transcript pieces. Ava's nodding yes. The floor is yours.
C.I.:
First off, one impeachment, in 1804, did not result in a slew of
impeachments. Second, impeaching Clarry Thomas is not impeaching the
whole Court. I think January 6th has been inflated but the Democratic
Party members in Congress do not. Okay then. At the very least, it was
an abuse of power for him not to recuse himself on matters relating to
January 6th. The committee has now heard from his wife, she was a part
of those actions and he should have excused himself. Strike one.
Strike two, we know he lied in Hill-Thomas. If you lied in your
confirmation hearing and you're found out? Guess what: Impeach. You
misled everyone. Anita Hill can offer testimony again and we can also
hear from the women that Joe Biden refused to take testimony from.
Strike three? You tossed aside precedent with DOBBS. And we're still
not done. Not only did he toss aside precedent, he revealed that he
planned to do it again with regards to marriage equality and birth
control. In a functioning world, having revealed his bias, he would now
not be allowed to hear on those issues. But, as evidenced by his
failure to recuse himself from cases involving his wife Virginia Thomas,
he has no ethics. A strong case can be made for his removal and should
be made. He harassed Anita Hill in the workplace. That is no longer a
question mark and he is unfit to serve on the Court as a result.
Jim: But retaliation --
C.I.:
This is not remove all the conservative justices. This is a case where
one reeks of corruption and needs to be removed. It would actually
strengthen the Court because the American people would see that even
members of the Court are held accountable. And, again, this would not
then move to target the majority on DOBBS. There's a world of
difference between them and Clarry Thomas.
Jess:
I agree. And someone needs to be used to show that there is
accountability. The Court is now illegitimate. A move like this could
restore legitimacy.
Jim: Illegitimate?
Jess:
Yes. When you toss aside past rulings because you didn't like them and
just construct a 'verdict' out of thin air, you're illegitimate. The
Supreme Court is illegitimate.
Dona:
If the Democratic Party wanted to hold both houses of Congress, the
easiest way in the world would be to announce that if they control both
houses in 2023, they will move to impeach and remove Thomas.
Cedric:
That's something I could go door to door and sell people on. Even with
the lousy economy, that is something tangible and something that they
would see as a benefit for their lives.
Jim:
Okay. Anyone concerned with the debt ceiling? That's a topic that yet
again is being raised on the Sunday chat & chews.
Wally:
I'm not worried about it. If anyone is, I suggest the argument is that
if we care about the debt ceiling, we don't give 80 or so billion to
Ukraine. I'm serious. It's appalling that the federal government has
done nothing for American citizens but Joe Biden's going to give $100
billion -- before this is all over -- to Ukraine.
Jim: Okay. Kat and Stan we need you to weigh in. Ty's got an e-mail that came in today. Ty?
Ty:
Jennifer-Ruth Green is running in Indiana's first Congressional
district. She's a Republican, she's African-American. And she's the
topic of George's e-mail because POLITICO outed her. She was assaulted
while serving in the US military and POLITICO contacted her before
publishing. She -- quote -- begged them not to publish the details.
They ignored her request and published. George wants some sort of
comment.
Kat: Me? Okay.
POLITICO is in the wrong. It was not their job to expose her. She is a
survivor. Her being attacked is no one's business unless she decides
to make it public. Had she been the attacker, that's different. In
that case, she would have been a criminal committing a criminal act.
She is not a criminal. And POLITICO should be ashamed of themselves.
It is neither their job nor their role to tell the world that
Jennifer-Ruth Green was assaulted. I will gladly stand with her and say
this was wrong. I don't care what political party she belongs to.
This was wrong.
Stan: I
second everything Kat said. I'll add something else, as an
African-American male, I find it hard to believe that POLITICO would
have done this to a woman belonging to the Democratic Party. They need
to be called out for what they did. This is not a scoop, it is not
anything that needs to be attached to Jennifer-Ruth Green -- I got her
name right? --
Ty: You did.
Stan
(Con't): It is not anything that needs to be attached to Jennifer-Ruth
Green unless she decides to make it public. This is awful. This is
like when Sally Field's awful character in ABSENCE OF MALICE exposes
Melinda Dillon's abortion. It was not Sally's character's business in
the movie and it is not POLITICO's business in this real life example.
It's outrageous.
Jim:
Okay. On that note, we'll need to wrap up. This is a rush transcript.
Best e-mail to contact at us is common_ills@yahoo.com.
Three Jewish women in Kentucky have filed a lawsuit arguing that a set of state laws that ban most abortions violate their religious rights.
The
lawsuit, filed in Jefferson Circuit Court in Louisville, is the third
such suit brought by Jewish organizations or individuals since the U.S.
Supreme Court overturned the right to an abortion in its ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. In all three suits — the first in Florida,
the second in Indiana — the Jewish plaintiffs claim their state is
infringing on their religious freedom by imposing a Christian
understanding of when life begins.
Under
current Kentucky laws, life begins at the moment of fertilization.
Another law bans abortion after six weeks when cardiac activity is first
detected.
That's
a good way of reminding you that religious freedom applies to all, not
just one group. Freedom of speech applies to all as well.
Religion
and freedom of speech are not the same thing -- despite what Jonathan
Turley now thinks. He was once one of the leading legal minds. What
happened? We'll blame it on Mad Cow Symptoms of Mad Cow in humans
include:
loss of intellect and memory.
changes in personality.
loss of balance and co-ordination.
slurred speech.
vision problems and blindness.
abnormal jerking movements.
progressive loss of brain function and mobility.
We
think Turley's clearly suffered from loss of intellect and memory, and
his personality has changed, while his brain functions seem off.
That
would explain his defense of Colorado's Lorie Smith and his ignorant
insisting that Lorie's free speech rights are being harmed.
Who is Lorie Smith?
A deeply pathetic and ugly individual.
As
a sinner, Lorie feels it is wrong for her -- an apparent practicing
illiterate -- to design websites for people who support marriage
equality. As a website designer -- and all around incompetent fool --
she says it is a violation of her free speech rights.
It's
hard for us to see it as such because her lips are always flapping.
She designs websites. She advertises for customers but she thinks she
can refuse customers that she does not approve of.
If
you think about it, you may remember Lorie's ancestors and their
religious troubles. Lorie's ancestors didn't believe that
African-Americans had equal rights either. So they refused to, for
example, let them sit at the counter in Woolworth cafes.
If
only Jonathan Turley could have been around back then to defend Lorie's
ancestors -- we could have known he was full of garbage decades ago.
Do you know that there are religions that believe that a woman should not work.
That's
their free speech. And under Lorie and Jonathan's understanding of the
'law,' those people would be able to insist 'free speech' allows them
not to have to hire women.
Lorie
is entitled to all the crackpot, conspiracy theories her tiny mind can
embrace. What she's not entitled to is getting away with discrimination
or pretending that her hatred is excused under the guise of 'free
speech.'
Support equality and fairness. In other words, don't be a piece of Turley.
Dona: Doing a book chat. Marcia's "David Spiller's Mabel Mercer book" posted last week. David Spiller's BLAME IT ON MY YOUTH: A STORY ABOUT MABEL MERCER is a book she read via KINDLE UNLIMITED. Marcia, Mabel Mercer.
Marcia: Mabel Mercer was a cabaret singer and one thing I've discovered since my book review is that there is The Mabel Mercer Foundation which was started in 1985. The foundation notes:
Mabel Mercer -- arguably the supreme cabaret artist of the twentieth century — was born in England and performed in the United States, Britain, and across Europe to a large fan base including such big names as Frank Sinatra and Ernest Hemingway. She was a featured performer at Chez Bricktop in Paris, performed Le Ruban Bleu, Tony’s, the RSVP, the Carlyle, and the St Regis Hotel in New York, and eventually hosted her own room, the Byline club.
Mabel Mercer was born in 1900 in Staffordshire, England. After leaving a Manchester convent school at the age of fourteen, Miss Mercer joined her aunt in a vaudeville and music hall tour of Britain and the Continent. Her career quickly blossomed, and by the 1930s she was the toast of Paris, introducing her inimitable style of singing to adoring audiences and beguiling such steadfast admirers as Ernest Hemingway, Gertrude Stein, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Cole Porter, and the Prince of Wales.
The outbreak of World War II brought her to America where she began a series of engagements at New York’s finest supper clubs. Among the rooms she made her own were Le Ruban Bleu (a six-month stay), Tony’s (seven years), the RSVP (two years), and five years in her own Byline Club. Miss Mercer solidified her career with engagements at the Carlyle and St. Regis Hotels, and she enjoyed brilliant concert triumphs and record-breaking appearances across the United States.
The brilliance of Miss Mercer’s recordings have made both original albums and numerous reissues highly prized collectors’ items. To honor her 75th birthday in 1975, Atlantic Records assembled four classic early LPs and reissued them in a boxed set. In recognition of her life’s achievement, Stereo Review Magazine presented Miss Mercer with its first Award of Merit for “outstanding contributions to the quality of American musical life.” In 1984, the Award of Merit was officially renamed the Mabel Mercer Award. After an absence of 41 years, Miss Mercer made her long-awaited return to England on July 4, 1977, accompanied by her long-time friend and publicist, Donald Smith. So great was the public acclaim on her return to London that the BBC filmed three evenings of extraordinary footage of Miss Mercer’s performances. The BBC later devoted an entire week to a series of late-night half-hour television broadcasts—an honor never before bestowed upon an entertainer. In 1978, Miss Mercer’s new album, Midnight at Mabel Mercer’s, was hailed by Stereo Review as one of the best recordings of the past twenty years. To celebrate her 78th birthday later that year, Miss Mercer played a sold-out engagement at San Francisco’s Club Mocambo to enthusiastic audiences. Mabel Mercer was honored in January 1981 by the Whitney Museum of American Art in New York with An American Cabaret, the first musical celebration of its kind in the museum’s history. Created and produced by Donald Smith, the evening was dedicated to the artistry of Mabel Mercer. Miss Mercer next appeared as the first guest on Eileen Farrell’s new National Public Radio program featuring great popular singers, a program that was repeated in June 1992 at the Kool Jazz Festival.
In 1983, President Ronald Reagan presented Mabel Mercer with the Presidential Medal of Freedom at a White House ceremony. In bestowing America’s highest civilian honor upon Miss Mercer, the president described her as “a singer’s singer” and “a living testament to the artfulness of the American song.” Among Miss Mercer’s many other honors are two honorary Doctor of Music degrees from Boston’s Berklee College of Music and the New England Conservatory of Music. Mabel Mercer died on April 20, 1984. On Miss Mercer’s birthday the following year, February 3, 1985, The Mabel Mercer Foundation was formally established.
Dona: And what's the album you ended up getting?
Marica:
Mabel Mercer and Bobby Short At Town Hall is the album I ended up
getting. I got it on vinyl. It's a double disc. They -- Mabel and
Bobby -- did another At Town Hall album a little later but I have a copy
of the first one. She truly is an amazing singer. Or was. A real
talent.
Dona: The book you read was basically a novel.
Marcia:
Right. There's not a lot known about her life. She didn't share a
great deal. So the author took what was known and got creative.
Dona: But you didn't find that out until the end of the book.
Marcia: I did not. And I'm glad. It made me appreciate the life she lived even more. I would strongly recommend this book. Spiller took basic events and made Mabel come alive on the page.
In
Roman Polanski's ROSEMARY'S BABY, Guy tries to get Rosemary to eat a
chocolate mousse that Minnie has made. It has a chalky under-taste,
insists Rosemary who refuses to eat it and dumps it into her napkin.
We
were reminded of that while sampling Enlightened Mini Keto Chocolate
Cheesecake. The product comes two to a box. Two individual servings,
we may need to clarify. They have a dollop of something white on top
(whipped cream, the label insists, though it didn't taste like that to
us) and they have an almond crust.
There are worse things you could eat, we told ourselves. And, indeed, there are.
If you're watching carbs, this isn't the perfect dessert but it might be the best you can hope for in 2022.
But
there is a chalky under taste. We're not saying that it will leave you
pregnant with Satan's baby the way Minnie's mousse did. We're just
saying that they could have worked a little more on the taste of this
item.
Wednesday, October 5, 2022. We mainly focus on the backlash within
the US in today's snapshot (and we'll continue on that topic tomorrow).
As we noted earlier this week, we are in a backlash period. With that in mind, THE GRIO reports:
A religious school in Florida delivered a very direct message to
students and their parents: Students will only be addressed according to
the “gender on their birth certificates” and LGBTQ+ students are not to
attend.
NBC News
reported that Grace Christian School, in Valrico, used Bible verses in a
June 6 email to parents to support its decisions. Students who identify
as gay, transgender or gender nonconforming “would be asked to leave
the school immediately,” according to the email from administrator Barry
McKeen.
That's shocking and disgusting.
But don't worry, Jonathan Turley will shortly tell us this is a 'free speech' issue. (That was sarcasm.)
Let's
deal with that before we go further. Jonathan is one of our finest
legal minds today. He is not right 100%. He is not even consistent 90%
of the time.
He is dead
wrong on a case that's about to go before the Court, for example. And
he's hiding behind 'free speech.' Unlike, Jonathan, I actually support
free speech. By that I mean, I support it. I'm not Jonathan having a
freak out because someone leaked to the press a forthcoming opinion from
the Court. A free speech advocate doesn't grab the vapors over that.
Jonathan
would allow people to discriminate against LGBTQs and he would say it
was their free speech right. A baker, he insists, should be allowed to
refuse service to a gay couple if the baker doesn't believe in marriage
equality. The baker, Jonathan will tell you, is an artist and has free
speech rights.
F**K THAT S**T.
Art, as Jennifer Jason Leigh observes in MRS. PARKER AND THE VICIOUS CIRCLE, is not an elastic term.
A baker may make the most delicious cake in the world, the baker is still not an artist.
And
Jonathan's idiotic and ahistorical approach here, if applied, would
have allowed the Civil Rights Movement to have never progressed. You
can't sit at the counter, courts would have ordered, because you're
interfering with the artist working there whose free speech rights allow
the soda jerk to refuse you service because they're religious beliefs
say you are not their equal.
There's
a lot of homophobia going around and Jonathan apparently believes he
can conceal his by claiming discrimination is allowed because a baker is
an artist. I wonder if a museum -- a gallery of art work -- could get
away with refusing someone entry based on who they sleep with, the color
of their skin, their gender or whatever? Legally no -- unless you're
using Jonathan Turley's 'logic.'
Which brings us back to BROS.
BROS is a romantic comedy that opened at theaters last Friday. Billy Eichner co-wrote the screenplay and he stars in the film with Luke Macfarlane.
The
filming budget was around $22 million dollars. It made almost $5
million over the weekend. So it's made approximately, during the
weekend only, 1/4 of its shooting budget. That's not a bomb.
Nor was it "a meager opening" -- as the liar Sardine puts it at a publication.
It'll make back its budget and then some, turn a big profit, once it goes into home video and everyone knew that going in.
I have no idea why it was hyped to make $10 million in its opening week.
I
have no idea why everyone IGNORES the reality that theaters outside the
cities it did well were taking actions to hurt the film. If you're
showing SMILE two or three times at night but you're only showing BROS
once at night and you're the same theater and you're making BROS the
last show, you're harming its chances to sell an equal number of
tickets. The showings around the country meant BROS was never going to
make ten million its opening weekend. And I said that before it
opened.
I've had this
discussion with THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER and they know this. They choose
to ignore it because they're a homophobic outlet. They've always been
crap, they were part of McCarthyism.
Richard
Newby writes a stupid article for them where he wants you to know how
offsides Billy is for Tweeting that "straight people didn't show up."
This is different, Richard insists, from Viola Davis instructing people
to show up for THE WARRIOR KING to support African-American female led
films. (No, it's not.) And the marketing, he wants to insist, is
different from MARVEL marking BLACK PANTHER as the first Black superhero
film.
Hmm.
I'm
a friend of Wesley Snipes. Is that why I'm the only one, who for years
now, keeps pointing out that BLADE is the first big budget film based
on a comic book with an African-American lead?
I'm just so f-ing tired of all the nonsense.
Billy
took part in a great movie and he made it happen and he has every right
to be upset right now. Just as an artist -- Jonathan Turley, look over
at Billy, that's an artist -- he has every right to be upset.
BROS is hilarious and it's a great film and it's one of the year's finest.
I want to address the blaming of Billy for a moment.
'If only it were Channing Tatum, it needed someone who looks like Chan.'
Really?
I
sat through the awful FORGET PARIS because Debra Winger's a friend and,
sorry, but Billy Crystal is not remotely good looking.
Let's
go to Billy Crystal again. He wasn't a film star when he made WHEN
HARRY MET SALLY . . . Nor was Meg Ryan at that time a star.
People
are trying to explain why the film didn't meet the over expectations at
the box office and some are blaming Billy. That's stupid and it
shouldn't be taking place. (I don't know Billy, by the way, I've never
met him. I do know Luke Macfarlane.) He made something really
important happen and the last thing people need to be doing is blaming
him.
But there's blame
going on. Again: The blame goes to the theaters -- and to UNIVERSAL for
not grasping what was happening -- with how they showed the film. When
you bury it in the evenings by only showing it once and at your last
showing, you're sending a message the same way ABC did when they slapped
a warning in front of every episode of ELLEN during the show's final
season. You're also making it very hard for people to see it. "Let's
go see a movie after dinner. I wanna see BROS. Oh, it's not showing
until ten. Hmm. Want to see SMILE instead? It's on at seven,
eight-thirty and ten."
Alastair and Zachary Patton-Garcia discuss BROS on their latest COFFEE AND TEQUILA.
They
have an honest conversation worth streaming. Which doesn't mean I
agree 100%. I'm on record about the nonsense of casting and selling
LOVE SIMON and LOVE VICTOR. (And since my friend's no longer married to
horse face, I no longer have to try to be nice to her.)
But it's an honest discussion and it brings up many issues that are being ignored.
An issue that they don't bring up is at play currently in industry publications. There is a move to slaughter BROS.
That's only surprising if you're unaware of the entrenched homophobia in the film industry.
William
Haines is rightly celebrated by some as a strong person who bucked the
system. The Tom Cruise of his day,, he made one successful silent film
after another, audiences loved him. William was gay. MGM gave him the
ultimatum of dump your lover and marry a woman or we dump you. He
refused to comply and they dumped him. He and his lover Jimmie Shields
went on to have a long relationship that lasted until Haines' death and
they also started a successful business that's still alive today.
William was presented with the ultimatum for only one reason: He was a star. He was a money maker.
The same homophobia didn't render 'nelly' supporting actors invisible.
Why was that?
Why were they, in fact, supported?
Hollywood went out of its way to establish that image.
They telegraphed this is what gay is. (Ava and I have covered this at length. If you're late to the party, probably start with our first piece on HAPPY ENDINGS.)
It was about money. It's always been about money.
Rock
Hudson can make money, keep him in the closet. You can help him stay a
money maker by elevating stereotypical portraits of gays so that people
know that's what a gay person acts like and, therefore, there's no way
a Rock Hudson could be gay.
MGM continued to employ
gay people after William Haines. It wasn't anti-gay in that way. But
it wanted to protect its own profits and you either played the game or
you were out.
Billy has cast a film with LGBTQ actors
and that's an uncomfortable reality for some. Those whining about the
marketing campaign, should grasp that UNIVERSAL could have went with,
"Not since Nazimova . . ." And cited Nancy Regan's godmother (Naimova's
SALOME is supposed to be an all gay cast.) Billy also presented a
hugely diverse canvas of what LGBTQ can be and that's uncomfortable for
some.
We live in a world where a no-talent can, and
did, smear a dead woman who told her the truth about her gay father.
The no-talent can then say Oh, it doesn't matter. And in this world no
one's going to point out that the entire industry says no-talent is a
lesbian and that her marriage to a gay man is a sham and that no-talent,
in the 80s, went on a talk show acting as part of a lesbian thruple.
We live in a world where actors and actresses are still told, "Don't come out, it will kill your career."
That
doesn't mean the studio doesn't know that Mr. X is gay. That does mean
that they need him to continue to play straight in public.
There is a huge homophobia built into the system and it goes back to the start of the industry.
BROS transgressed and now certain elements of the industry are moving in to attack.
That's
appalling. They're doing it for profit motive. They're doing it to
keep certain things hidden, realities of life. The closet has proven to
be very profitable for the industry.
Billy made a
great film. He should be proud of himself. People should see the
film. It's hilarious. If you doubt it, read some of the community
coverage:
Thursday, October 6, 2022. We're part two on BROS today and we also note a new event in Iraq and an anniversary.
This week, the late Cass Elliot
got her star on The Hollywood Walk of Fame thanks to the very hard work
of her daughter Owen Kunkle. Cass was a one-of-a-kind vocalist. With
The Mamas and the Papas (Michelle Phillips, Denny Doherty and John
Phillips), she sang on such classics as "Dream A Little Dream Of Me,"
"Safe In My Garden," "California Dreamin'," "Creeque Alley," "Dancing
Bear," "Midnight Voyage," "Got A Feeling," "Monday, Monday," "I Saw Her
Again Last Night," "Sing For Your Supper," "12:30 (Young Girls Are
Coming To The Canyon)," "Dedicated To The One I Love," "Too Late,"
"Words of Love" and many more. As a solo artist, her classics included
"California Earthquake," "Make Your Own Kind Of Music," "It's Getting
Better," "New World Coming," "Move In A Little Closer Baby," etc.
"Different" (video above) is a song she performs in the film PUFNSTUF.
There are so many classics waiting to be rediscovered. I'd include
Cass' version of Judee Sill's "Jesus Was A Crossmaker" . . .
. . . and of Laura Nyro's "He's A Runner."
Owen's
done a great job honoring her mother. Cass is remembered to this day.
And her music pops up everywhere -- yes, LOST, but I'm thinking of
Hettie MacDonald's BEAUTIFUL THING. That 1996 film is an important
one.
We're back to BROS and we're back to my
marveling over how some people are so uninformed and some are taking
part in the backlash without even grasping it.
BROS is the best comedy of 2022. Billy Eichner
co-wrote the screenplay and he stars in the film with Luke Macfarlane.
People are continuing to see it and maybe if theaters were running it
it would be making even more money. I've already detailed how
homophobia on the part of theater owners led to less showings on the
Friday it debuted. But what's going on now, especially with AMC
theaters, is it's only been shown once or twice a day. Even so, it made
$1.4 million on Monday and Tuesday -- Wednesday's numbers will come out
later today.
It's an important film and let's address that because people don't seem to understand what an important film is.
Some
are carping and blaming Billy -- on that, I haven't seen anything like
that since MOMENT BY MOMENT -- when, as Academy Award winning film
editor Verna Fields (JAWS, WHAT'S UP DOC?, PAPER MOON, AMERICAN GRAFFITI
. . .) observed they refused to let the film die. They being the
industry. They slammed and they ripped apart long after it had faded
away. The film starred Lily Tomlin and John Travolta. It was directed
by Jane Wagner. And it was attacked because the director was a lesbian.
Now
MOMENT BY MOMENT is not a great film. It's not an awful film. There
were awful films released at that time and they were allowed to fade
away. But there was a concentrated effort to go after the film. As
Verna pointed out, many, many films bomb and they're allowed to die but
with Jane Wagner's film, they wouldn't let it. They kept after it, kept
insulting and destroying it inflating it into the all time worst movie.
If MOMENT BY MOMENT were widely available today -- TCM can show the crap that is WHO'S THAT GIRL? but they can't show Jane Wagner's film -- it might be re-evaluated. It might seem better than it did in its own time.
But
let's teach the lesbian her place -- that was the industry's goal.
Everyone knew Lily was gay and that she and Jane were in a relationship
-- everyone in the industry knew. And no studio wanted Lily out of the
closet and they didn't want her working with Jane. Which is why Lily
and Jane would find their success on Broadway.
The
industry doesn't honor coming out. It never has. Ellen came out and
ABC pissed all over her show -- adding that warning before every
episode, for example, refusing to promote it, acting as though it was a
flop when it was still doing better than SPIN CITY or the awful show
that replaced it.
Ellen got another shot at sitcoms.
But CBS refused to back it. It didn't belong on Friday nights --
something they realized when the show landed Mary Tyler Moore and Ed
Asner as guest stars on one episode. CBS suddenly moved the show to
Monday nights for one episode. Oh, wow, look at the high ratings, look
at the difference a time slot can make. Then it was immediately shove
it back to Fridays.
CBS didn't want to support it -- like they didn't want to support PARTNERS.
Sometimes, the industry is more interested in laying down the law than they are in making a profit.
And
some of the garbage being published in the trades reads like an effort
to destroy Billy. Even sadder, the trashing is finding an audience
gleeful to join in.
(As noted before, I know Luke Macfarlane and consider him a friend. I don't know Billy, I've never even met him.)
Billy has made an amazing film and egged on by the trades, some of the garbage is mutlyping online.
And some supposedly saw the movie.
They
blame Billy, for example, because BROKEBACK was a hit!!!! If BROKEBACK
is a hit then BROS would be too -- it must not be any good!
Did they not see BROS? The dead cowboy?
I
believe Billy makes that point in the film -- sadness and death
straight audiences are more than fine with now. That's where we've
progressed as a society. We can applaud BROKEBACK and even the hideous
LOVE SIMON and its after birth LOVE VICTOR.
Original content? Sometimes about the only thing nice you can say is: Well it's new content.
We thought about that as we suffered through LOVE, VICTOR. HULU decided
to do a TV series out of the film LOVE, SIMON. And they brought along
all the baggage from the film.
You may remember Jennifer Garner and other stars of the film tried to
pimp the movie. BLACK PANTHER had done incredible at the box office for
many reasons, The people behind LOVE, SIMON suspected one reason for
the film's success was that BLACK PANTHER was being pushed as a film
with a person of color playing an admired comic book hero. Outside of
Wesley Snipes in the BLADE films, that had not happened.
In the crazy world where Jennifer Garner has some sort of career despite
so-so talents, it seemed logical to tell people that they should see
LOVE SIMON because it was about a gay person.
Here's the thing, and we objected in real time, Chadwik Boseman played
Black Panther (and did so with an amazing performance). Boseman is a
person of color.
LOVE, SIMON? It starred boxy Nick Robinson as a gay man. But, here's
the problem (pay attention, Jennifer), Nick Robinson is not gay (or, if
he is gay, he's in the closet).
The idiots didn't get it. They still don't.
LOVE, VICTOR is supposed to instill gay pride. How?
Michael Cimino stars as high schooler Victor who, yes, is gay.
And, if this were 1992, that might be something. But it's not 1992, it's 2020.
How can a series preach gay pride or even just tolerance (we've never
been fans of tolerance) when the gay character is played by a straight
actor (judging by his INSTAGRAM)?
If being gay is okay (and we agree that it is), why are you casting straight actors in the role?
Anybody remember IN AND OUT? One of the jokes in the movie is that Matt
Dillon's straight character plays -- and wins an Oscar for playing -- a
gay character. That was funny in 1997. In 2020, it's just sad.
What a great message for the world, for the youth, for us all -- It's okay to play gay.
Not to be gay, understand, but it's okay for a straight person to play gay.
Both LOVEs refused to cast an out gay actor -- as either Simon or Victor.
I'm
sorry, love Scarlet Johansson to tears, but, no, when trans actors are
getting cast so little it is not right for a non-trans person to play a
trans character.
This was our beef with Cleveland of
FAMILY GUY and THE CLEVELAND SHOW -- Ava and I tackled that repeatedly
at THIRD -- why is a White actor voicing Cleveland on FAMILY GUY and it
only got worse on TCS when other non-African-Americans were brought on
to voice Black characters.
Can a straight actor play a
gay character? Sure. They might even be able to play it well. But
when out actors are still trying for something more than a bit part,
casting gay leads with straight actors is offensive.
And don't pretend that Billy and Luke both being out wasn't an issue. Don't pretend for one moment.
Billy
could have cast a straight actor as his love interest. We would've
gotten a crappy movie -- because after that concession, he would have
had to make many more -- and some ass would be posting online about how
it was a hit that made $65 million for the studio. No, it didn't -- we
really need to educate on markets and on theaters and on the issue of
who makes the most upfront -- I'm tired of idiots trying to handicap the
box office when they don't know what the f**k they're talking about.
They're usually quoting crapapedia -- that's where they get garbage
about how LOVE SIMON is the X on the all time list of top grossing teen
romance movies per BOX OFFICE MOJO! That link doesn't work because it
never did work because that's not a truth. And if you want to make a
list, you better grasp that SIXTEEN CANDLES had $80 million in ticket
sales because you can't take that 80s movie and put it on the list
without putting it into today's dollars.
Billy made a movie that mattered.
When
we've talked about this to groups this week someone will raise a hand
or clear their throat and I know before they open their mouth where they
are about to go . . . "No offense, but I think the pushback in society
is to a degree because of trans people."
Do you think that?
You may be right.
And I think: Good.
There's always going to be a backlash, the pendulum is always going to swing one way and then the next.
It is important that people press for progress. That's the only way it ever happens.
The
trans community shouldn't be silent and they shouldn't have to wait for
their rights. We should all be pushing for equality.
You don't win anything by being silent. You don't win anything by saying, "I'll fight in a few years."
Did the trans community make some people uncomfortable? Again, if they did, good. That's how we grow.
And Billy's made a great movie in terms of entertainment. But he's also made a historic movie by being so true to himself.
He
and Luke are the first gay (out) actors to play a same-sex couple that a
film's focused on where they fall in love, where they have sex and
neither dies.
Your crappy LOVE SIMON, if you've
forgotten, makes the climatic moment of the film Simon finding out who
his admirer was. Yeah, that's all they could handle in the 90s and LOVE
SIMON is not going to push for anything better than what we could have
seen decades ago.
ABC let Ellen come out but they
didn't know how to deal with her once she was out. It was one thing for
her to have a non-romantic kiss with Laura Dern on the coming out
episode (idiots continue to refer to it as a romantic kiss -- no,
Laura's character is already involved and in a relationship) but when
Ellen found Lori, the next season, ABC had such a huge problem with it.
LOVE
SIMON takes you to the first gloricous sunset and that's all some can
handle. Billy went beyond that and his film is transformative.
Back
when he was president, Barack Obama got really pissed at Joe Biden when
Joe went on MEET THE PRESS because Barack was going to do a slow-roll
on marriage equality and Joe forced everyone's hand. Joe also noted, in
that appearance, that attitudes had changed towards gay people because
of WILL & GRACE. Joe was right.
Without representation, people don't exist. That's true in a democracy and it's true in the arts.
Billy's put some truth onto the screen. He's changed the country as a result.
I
am very limited on what criticism I will take right now on Billy
because he has not gotten any where near the credit he deserves for what
he's done.
Or for the crap he's had to put up with over the last days.
He
insulted us!!!! Get a damn grip. He said straight people didn't turn
out for the movie. He's right. as a group, we did not turn out. It's a
fact.
He's blaming!!!! It's a fact and I didn't hear
blaming in it, I heard shock and surprise. And he has every right to
have that (or any other) response. The film achieved. Where's the
audience?
I don't think they were steered to it. When
you have the kind of reviews BROS got? That's one of your trailers.
Not "Such and such on Rotten Tomatoes" -- a small segment of the
audience cares about RT. That's about it. What you do is you pull
quote from reviews and make that a trailer.
But
UNIVERSAL didn't want to do that. The attitude was, "We've spent enough
promoting the film." And that was before it opened. Before.
A
film with those of reviews? A studio goes all out -- drama or comedy.
They go all out promoting. Studios live for those kind of reviews.
Even
now, UNIVERSAL's not doing a good job. There should have been multiple
trailers. There should be clips on YOUTUBE that you can stream --
multiple clips. There are not.
And where is the romance in the trailer?
We
do get a kiss . . . after some pushing and shoving that others mistake
as a physical fight and think they have to break up -- cue laughter. As
a scene in the movie, it more than works. In the trailer? Looks a lot
like the reaction to 1982's PARTNERS (the comedy starring Ryan O'Neal
and John Hurt).
Why was UNIVERSAL more scared of romance being shown in the trailer?
Time and again, you look at everything that went down and you see institutionalized homophobia.
Billy was up against all of that. And he made an incredible film.
Repeatedly,
I see people posting that the trailer turned them off because it mocked
straight people. A number of people are insisting that they are butt
hurt over that.
Then they 'quote' the line and get it
wrong. But more to the point, that same trailer - the only trailer --
had Billy and Luke speaking and saying gay people were so stupid.
That happened before the joke about straight people.
It's interesting to watch this conversation and see what gets emphasized and what goes unspoken.
Alice Walker has always said she writes the world she wants to see.
And that's what you have to do. Most of us will never see the possibilities unless someone gives us a glimpse.
With
BROS, Billy goes beyond the climatic coming out moment after which
Hollywood wants the gay characters to go away or to drop deep into the
background and be supporting characters. He goes beyond the
it's-okay-for-them-to-be-in-love-because-one-is-going-to-die nonsense.
BROS shatters everything that Hollywood has created over many, many decades.
He didn't settle, he pushed the conversation along. He took us, in one film, further than Hollywood's done in three decades.
And that's what you do if you're an artist, it's what you do if you're an activist.
No one is ever going to be happy to let go of their prejudice and their entitlement.
Dave
Chappelle (who I know and like) has too much fun mocking the
transgender community. He's too vested in it. And, in his mind, you're
an awful person if you're asking him to stop and think for a moment. I
said when the criticism mounted against Dave that he needed to listen
and that people were right to press him on this issue. That's not
censorship, that's a dialogue, that's an exchange in the public square.
The trans community pushed their issues and that's what they needed to do.
They have every right to participate in this democracy, they have every right to raise their issues and to say "Here I am."
And
only by doing that are they going to be heard and are they going to be
appreciated. That's how it is for every minority group. You have to
fight.
But you have to fight smartly. That's not a
slam on the trans community, I think they've done a wonderful job. That
is a slam on some of the people posting carps online about BROS. Billy
delivered. It's not his fault that the studio didn't. It's not his
fault.
UNIVERSAL did the bare minimum ahead of the film
and now they're willing to let the film die. They're not trying to fix
their mistakes. They're not rushing out a trailer that is nothing but
pull quotes. They're not rushing a trailer that's showing romance.
They're not even flooding the internet with clips.
They
want the credit and their egos stroked. They haven't done anything
wonderful. Billy worked his ass off. UNIVERSAL's basically copying
Aaron Spelling in the 90s, copying him in 2022. That's not bravery and
it's nothing that should earn them any credit.
As certain
elements within the industry gleefully sharpen their knives for Billy, I
wish there was a real pushback leading us to all acknowledge what he
has achieved.
Billy is not Orson Welles and BROS is
not CITIZEN KANE. But we're seeing Billy getting that treatment, the
post-CITIZEN KANE treatment where the industry turned on Orson.
On BROS, I made the points I wanted to make in the last
two snapshots (here and here) and thought we were not going to cover it
today. Then came the online push claiming that FIRE ISLAND does what
BROS did not.
No, it doesn't.
You
have no understanding of film if you believe that. First off, FIRE
ISLAND did not become a conversation. Second, it wasn't a strong film.
The first act is slow and weak. Ava and I covered it when it came out:
Jane shouldn't do stand up. Stand up comedian Joel Kim Booster
shouldn't try to write screenplays. He wrote the script for FIRE ISLAND
-- an update on Jane Austen's PRIDE AND PREJUDICE. The first forty
minutes are excruciating. Once we get into Joel's character and the
film's Mr. Darcy, it begins to work. You actually care about those two.
Otherwise?
Too many movies -- and TV shows (think NAOMI) -- are just spitting out characters and confusing audiences.
The reason films used "types" -- Thelma Ritter and others for character
roles -- was to help the audience follow. It's also why famous and
semi-famous people are often cast in roles. Outside of Margaret Cho,
most of the cast is unfamiliar to movie goers. Joel' screenplay starts
with too many characters and they really needed to cast recognizable
faces or at least distinct ones. CLUELESS, another update of Jane
Austen, worked because it established characters and used 'types' -- the
skateboarder, the preppie, etc.
There
is also the fact that it's a celibate film. Did no one notice that?
Honestly, a number of gay people on Twitter are pimping this as better
than BROS but it's a chaste little film for the female/male lead. If
you don't get it, it's PRIDE AND PREJUDICE by Jane Austen. It's an
adaptation. Joel Kim Booster makes a lovely Elizabeth Bennett, but not
much of a gay man living in 2022.
The
film has many things going for it. But it's akin to an independent
film like IT'S MY PARTY in terms of look and feel. It wasn't an advance
and considering Joel's remarks in his NETFLIX special -- his angry
screeds -- I'm surprised anyone's pimping this. Ava and I also noted
that, "His persona may just be saying things for humor. If that's the case,
keep it up. But if he's serious about getting complaints from gay
people about his jokes, he might try grasping that he's not The Voice
for Gay America."
I'm glad that
PRIDE AND PREJUDICE still resonates. But FIRE ISLAND reminds me of the
play a famous blowhard wrote in college. It was his life story. He
made himself front and center in the play. And every other character
existed to tell him how great he was. They really weren't characters in
their own right. After he started writing films (and, later, bad TV),
he just knew his play would connect with me. (I'd passed on his
previous projects.) I was ambushed while having lunch (a friend tipped
him off). I was still a smoker then, thank goodness because I couldn't
have made it through his play without a vice. Indulgent was the kindest
term.
I told him it was
as though Jules (Demi Moore's character in ST. ELMO'S FIRE) had written
her own story. There was no understanding of the world around her (I'm
not talking politics or anything other than her immediate world) and
that the other characters were all props for the main character (him).
There was no arc of growth. It was just one indulgent scene after
another.
I know
screenplays, I've read a number, I've acted a number and I'm also good
at plot points and finding where the beat should be (those last two are
with regards to films I'm not a part of but that friends who are
directors seek my opinion on).
There
are many reasons you can like a film. It can be a hideous mess like
1987's ANNA but you can love it for Sally Kirkland's outstanding performance. Jane
Fonda elevated KLUTE to film classic with her performance -- the finest
performance by any actor or actress in a film that was released in the
second half of the 20th century. You can love a film because the
character reminds you of someone you love -- or of yourself. A film can
be a significant piece of art all around -- SOME LIKE IT HOT, for
example -- and you love it for that reason.
And
there are aspects to applaud with regards to FIRE ISLAND. But, no,
it's not on the level of BROS. It's screenplay dithers at the start.
It's casting is way off. It feels like a Greg Berlanti project and, no,
that's not a compliment. Greg wasn't the unnamed blow hard I was
referring to above. That blowhard is straight.
It may reflect your life onscreen and that's great if it does. But by any critical measure it's just an okay film/TV movie.
It's not revolutionary or brave -- I think Doris Day got more action in PILLOW TALK than Joel Kim Booster did in FIRE ISLAND.
And to be clear, FIRE ISLAND isn't a bad film. It's a weak film. AMERICA'S SWEETHEARTS is a bad film.
Fire Island came out with a bang as not only was it released during pride month, but according to Mashable, it was the sixth most streamed film during the week of its release, outperforming Sonic the Hedgehog 2 and Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom. Meanwhile, Bros was unable to outgross the Avatar re-release and is currently being vastly outperformed by the new horror film, Smile.
May
24th is when SONIC 2 came out on streaming. That means it was in its
fourth week of streaming release when FIRE ISLAND 'beat it.' JURRASIC
WORLD: FALLEN KINGDOM is a 2017 movie. And that week that is
highlighted? FIRE ISLAND is not the number one streaming film -- not
even number one of rom-coms. No, Sandra Bullock's LOST CITY is number
three -- and it came out on streaming May 10th -- and weeks and weeks later
it still beat FIRE ISLAND. I don't know how you see that as a win but
most people aren't stupid enough to scan Crapapedia and then write a
report. You can call it cribbing but let's be honest, it's plagiarism
-- and plagiarism of a very bad source.
BROS
came in number five last weekend. It's harder to sell tickets -- a
pandemic, Hurricane Ian, fears of harm over buying a ticket to a movie
with a storyline about gay people, etc -- so don't compare the two --
but if the metrics were exact, BROS still did better. Yet WE GOT THIS
COVERED starts out their (mis)report insisting BROS bombed. (BROS sold
1.5 million in tickets -- that's Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday --
Thursdays numbers will be released later today. People are continuing
to see the film.)
Another
thing, stop writing about the movie if you didn't see it. And I'm not
really sure what you can understand about a film and its response in the
United States when you're writing from Australia -- in other words,
maybe butt the hell out. It's interesting that BROS is said to be "less
gay" than FIRE ISLAND. That's not accurate. Again, maybe don't
comment on the movie you didn't see. Aaron (Luke MacFarlane) is a "BRO"
singular. And Bobby (Billy) thinks Aaron only likes BROS. But Aaron
is the only BRO in the film. (Some men in the club may or may not be
BROS -- they don't have dialogue and we don't know.) I'm sorry that
idiots on Twitter who haven't seen the film have influenced an idiot at
WE GOT THIS COVERED to write about something that's completely
inaccurate. There are tons of characters in the films -- gay, lesbian,
bi, trans, etc -- Aaron's the only BRO. We assume that his old friend
from high school is probably a BRO. (Bobby makes that assumption when
he's worried that Aaron doesn't find him attractive.) But Aaron spent
his life assuming that his hockey team buddy was straight. And he's not
acting very BRO when he's in bed with Aaron, Bobby and Steven.
Jamyl
Dobson's character may strike some as a BRO but a BRO wouldn't have a
Barbra Streisand poster up on their wall. Again, it helps, when
critiquing a film, to have actually seen it.
There are a multitude of characters in BROS -- they are not all the same.
And
that's what screenwriter Joel Kim Booster doesn't grasp -- not everyone is alike,
not everyone is the same. Actors in FIRE ISLAND can only do so much
with a weak script.
The
idiot at WE GOT THIS COVERED is repeating a false charge and that is why
you really need to see a movie to comment on it. The exception is
commenting that you have no interest in seeing the film. I'm fine with
that. I have always been fine with that. But if you don't see the film
you really shouldn't be talking about what it is or what it isn't
because you honestly don't know.
I
loved WORLD CAN'T WAIT and Debra Sweet (I know Debra). But when she
started slamming a film and calling for it to be censored -- when she
hadn't seen it? We dropped WORLD CAN'T WAIT.
I'm
an artist first and foremost. And I'm not ever going to support cries
of censorship to begin with. But when you start attacking a work that
you haven't seen?
Go find another person to plug your activities because it won't be me.
You
failed to do the basics before jumping into this conversation. You're
an idiot, Erielle Sudario for writing the article. And it reveals how
vested you are in attacking Billy and what he has done that you rush
your ill thought out words into print. They couldn't pass a fact check.
Don't they teach journalism in Australia?
Equally
true, since I'm now writing on the topic again, let me plug my friend
Luke who is better looking than anyone in FIRE ISLAND. He has true
charisma. Not just chemistry with Bobby, but true charisma. And he looks hot as hell in the film.
We need to point out the sexism involved in Twitter segment that WE GOT THIS COVERED elected to amplify. A small
group of gays are saying FIRE ISLAND is better because it's their life
(they wish) and they're worried about representation.
Really?
Or are you just self-involved jerks?
Because I only saw Margaret Cho playing a lesbian in FIRE ISLAND.
14 people in the main cast and only one's a woman -- and this is representative?
If that truly reflects your life, what a sad life you live.
(There
are 21 characters in the main cast of BROS. I am counting Debra
Messing who plays herself -- and is hilarious -- as a character because
she's in more than one scene. I am not counting Kenan Thompson, Ben
Stiller, Amy Schumer, Seth Meyers or Kristin Chenoweth as characters --
they do cameos. Explain to me also which FIRE ISLAND characters were
bi, trans or non-binary? Again, a small group of Twitter trolls are
playing 'woke' but just sporting their hatred of women and anyone who
isn't like them.)
The
unruly Twitter children are out of their minds as they drool over their
own mirrored reflections. It's why they rush to celebrate FIRE ISLAND
-- a bunch of young, gay men -- and say BROS -- whose characters truly
are LGBTQ and straight -- isn't 'representative.'
COFFEE
AND TEQUILA has offered two strong pieces covering BROS this week.
We've already noted the first one in a snapshot but let's put it in this
snapshot too.
Happy National Coming Out Day! Will always be so proud and so grateful for this bold and hilarious LGBTQ+ cast. I hope that many generations of queer people continue to get these types of opportunities and so much more. I adore and appreciate them all. #BrosMovie ❤️🌈 pic.twitter.com/OYa2fGUC8R
Jim, Dona, Jess, Ty, "Ava" started out this site as five students enrolled in journalism in NY. Now? We're still students. We're in CA. Journalism? The majority scoffs at the notion.
From the start, at the very start, C.I. of The Common Ills has helped with the writing here. C.I.'s part of our core six/gang. (C.I. and Ava write the TV commentaries by themselves.) So that's the six of us. We also credit Dallas as our link locator, soundboard and much more. We try to remember to thank him each week (don't always remember to note it here) but we'll note him in this. So this is a site by the gang/core six: Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I. (of The Common Ills).
