I'm in an Abusive Relationship with George Clooney

And then blaming the other person. What fun is it to admit you have a problem if you don't simultaneously point the finger at someone else? And if I'm admitting things, then I have to admit that my battered-spouse existence with George Clooney is just the beginning of my relationship woes.


You see, I'm also in an abusive relationship with Cameron Diaz and Julia Roberts.

And, as it turns out, I'm also in an abusive relationship with director Ang Lee. And writer/director David Koep.

Sure, Steven Speilberg and George Lucas may not pistol-whip me like some of these other folks. But, let's be honest. They aren't really my friends.

And neither is Owen Gleiberman, entertainment critic for Entertainment Weekly. In fact, now and again, he's been known to smack me around.

And so has songstress Norah Jones. And Pixar CEO Steve Jobs. And former Disney CEO Michael Eisner. And don't get me started on the beatings I've taken from Michael Stipe and Moby and Eminem. And Garrison Keillor, who called me a hairy-backed shrieking midget, among many worse names. Or so many of the fine folks at Ain't It Cool News. Which I read as religiously (sometimes moreso) as I read National Review or Red State.

See, I'm an entertainment geek. I love movies. I love music. I love pop culture. I could be an entertainment critic--well, could be, if my political persuasion were more leftwards, I guess. But I love the stuff. I love industry gossip. I love knowing who is doing what.

As I have a regular life and geeking on entertainment news doesn't feed the kids or pay the bills, I often find myself out of the loop, and then, when it comes time to play catch up, I love learning about all the new movies, bands, and books that I've missed.

Sadly, this is a decidedly one-sided relationship. See, Julia Roberts has said, point blank, that she hates me and doesn't understand how anybody could be me. I think she said something about wishing I was dead, but I blocked it out.

George Lucas thinks I think in absolutes. When it comes to Star Wars, I might fancy myself more the Luke Skywalker type, and he thinks I'm a Sith Lord. He may not say it, but . . . he practically does.

I love those guys (and gals), but when they talk about me, they think I'm evil. When they write people that live and vote like I do (sort of) in a screenplay, those are the bad guys, with extra-added evil that I personally haven't witnessed as being part-and-parcel of conservatism.

And then, there's what doesn't get made. Stephen King's Cell, just released, has been optioned and is already on it's way into scripting and production. But what about Michael Crichton's State of Fear. That would make one helluva movie, but, alas, he doesn't tow the Hollywood line on global warming. Or Crichton's cautionary tale of nanotechnology gone awry, Prey would also make a great movie. But, heck, Crichton's already wandered off the reservation. Even Airframe, which was in the production line at one time, didn't end up getting made. Could it be because of the negative take on unions? Or the Chinese government and culture? Hmmm.

Perhaps that's too conspiratorial. And, to be honest, Crichton has a better shot than some folks. Any movie with Christians that aren't either evil or misguided-but-then-enlightened-by-some-liberal are destined to be straight-to-dvd, or never produced. But movies that "bust stereotypes"--i.e., that load L.A. with lots of 1950s style-racism, ala Crash, or shows us manly gay cowboys, ala Brokeback Mountain get the red carpet in Hollywood.

So, what's the problem? Are they out of touch with mainstream America? Well, given that George Clooney proudly proclaimed that he was out of touch, and that "out of touch" essentially meant that he was out of touch with all those racists, bigots, misogynists, and homophobes and their well-thumped Bibles in middle-America, is, to some extent, proof that they are not just out of touch, but living in an alternative, largely fantastical, reality.

First, he gives Hollywood too much credit for being on the right side of important issues, historically or now. Clooney's protestations aside, Oscar has passed over many exceptional performances by many exception black actors while, at the same time, exceptional African-American managers have been promoted and rewarded for their fine performance in evil, backwards corporations at rates that, while imperfect, would certainly put the Academy to shame. Any number of African American entertainers could tell you how hard it was to get African-American themed movies made in enlightened Hollywood--movies that turned out to be classics, and made a hefty profit. And then, when it came time to make the next movie, those enlightened Hollywood folks couldn't be bothered to help make the bread once again. Although George Clooney would certainly be willing to show up and take credit for it, once the bread was baked, sliced and toasted.

Second, he gives middle-America no credit. Even if only liberals were good folks, there are plenty of them in Middle America. Not to mention, women's suffrage and the abolition movement in this country were things politically championed by the Republican party (and opposed by the Democrats) and also more supported than opposed by Christian evangelicals. There's no pause to wonder if, perhaps, they paint conservatives, Republicans, and Christians, with too broad a brush. No stopping to consider the possibility that being "out of touch", to paraphrase Inigo Montoya (Mandy Patinkin in The Princess Bride), does not mean what he thinks it means.

But then, that's just the problem. They are so sure of their world view, and so insular in the company they keep and the material they digest, that there is no reason to do anything but dismiss everything else out of hand. It wouldn't occur to them to have a sympathetic Christian or conservative character--at least, not one that didn't somehow come to understand how liberals were right and conservatives were wrong.

Now, Camera Diaz speculating that rape might be legalized if George W. Bush won in 2004 was just stupid. So she's easy to dismiss. But what about a fine entertainment critic, like Owen Gleiberman of Entertainment Weekly? I like Owen and read his stuff. But check out this abbreviated review of Power of Nightmares, where Owen all but endorses the movies assertion that Islamofascism and American Christianity, and neocons (who are often irreligious, just as an informational point) as being mirror images of each other. To whit:

He shows, for instance, how the neocons deliberately fabricated evidence of the Soviet threat (an astonishing clip of Donald Rumsfeld in the '70s, talking about undetectable weapon systems that never existed, will look eerily familiar), and that their philosophical godfather, the legendary academic Leo Strauss, endorsed the use of such fictions as a basic organizing tool of a civilized society.

And this isn't the complete review. I don't recall the specific words, but I do remember that the review, as it appeared in the magazine, had even more laudatory things to say about the film maker's thesis.

I don't have to wonder what Owen would think of a similar documentary demonstrating how environmental activist fabricate date for environmental problems there is no real evidence for, just "consensus" opinon--he'd revile such political drivel. I do wonder why a serious critic wouldn't address the fact that neoconservatism, as such, is not inherently religious, thus making a poor analog to Islamofascism, which is fueled entirely by religious zealotry. But no, this is a fine movie, because it "audaciously" makes an "audacious" ("audacious" being the Hollywood word for what middle-America would call "patently absurd" or "just plain dumb").

But . . . do you see how they treat me? The "deliberately fabricated Soviet threat"? Invisible weapons systems aside, the Soviet system was a killing machine that killed more human being through murder, war, starvation, and slave labor than any other political insitution in the history of the world, from Nazism to world-wide slavery. Maybe just a nod to the fact that Donald Rumsfeld's general contention that the Soviet union was unabashedly horrible and bent on world domination being completely correct and, in retrospect, perhaps understated, might be nice. Just throw me a bone, Owen. But, no. Owen doesn't like me. In fact, Owen doesn't see much difference between me and Osama.

And yet I keep on taking it.

And I'm a big fan of Harry Knowles and the folks at Aint It Cool News. But sometimes there desire to inject irrelevant politics and anti-religious garbage into their commentary stretches credulity. For example, take Harry's review of Aeon Flux.

I laughed one of those, “Oh the red states are going to love this,” sort of laughs.

Not that this film is anti-Republican – but seriously how many in the Bible belt are really going to be down for a film with plot devices involving drug induced higher planes of psychic existence where people of similarly augmented consciousnesses can gather to plot in total chemical secrecy the overthrow of their utopian existence? A film, whose design, is wholly bizarre Euro-sci-fi-esque – without a single thing that they can recognize as familiar or comfortable. How about this – how about the subject matter of cloning as the sole way to preserve humanity – because… well, it turns out “God’s Chosen Few” that survive the great decimation of mankind… well, it’s those godless fucking scientist that save mankind with their Satan ways.

So, let's check this out. Harry says:

1. That red staters don't like science.

2. Are too ignorant and uncultured to appreciate cheesy Euro-sci-fi.

3. Are so opposed to drugs that a movie that has some sort of nanotech system for sending messages and communicating "brain-to-brain" as it were would be too drug like for them, and it would make them "uncomfortable".

4. Always look for something familiar and comfortable, because they are unwilling to challenge themselves, even in a movie.

And I'm sure you can find a few insults of your own. Do you see how they treat me?

And I can go on. I enjoyed Pleasantville, despite the cliche of having the guys who wanted to keep the classic black-and-white sitcom ways being portrayed as brownshirts, but then I listened to the director's commentary on the DVD, and he had nothing good to say about me, while praising himself, and his fellows, effusively. I thought War of the World's was lame, but it certainly wasn't helped by the assertion by writer David Koep that the invading aliens, killing folks randomly then catching them and grinding them up for plant food, were analogous to the American military. What a rotten thing to say about our men and women serving in our armed services. And what a stupid thing to say.

Or Tim Robbins, who I enjoyed in The Player and a number of other movies, even though Bob Roberts was just dim-witted conservative-bashing, saying that the fact that I can find an alternative viewpoint, and find information and commentary that resonates with me, on talk radio means that there is a "chill wind" blowing. He thinks it's bad that I can hear things he doesn't agree with! Because, I surmise, they are so patently wrong (or payed for by dark-suited men in smokey-rooms, busy greasing the wheels of capitalism with the blood of the proletariat, and thus not authentic), that's it's bad that I even get to hear an alternative point of view. Sheesh! With friends like these . . .

But what am I going to do? I love the movies. I love music. Even when I disagree with some of the content, I still love 'em.

I know! I know they aren't going to change. I know that. Don't you think I know that? But I can't leave them. I love them. It would break my heart.

But maybe it would hurt for them to, you know, dry out. Spend a few days in jail. Then maybe they'll think before giving me another shiner. You know?