BREAKING: Amanda Hess gets it right!


In the New York Times, no less:
We were nauseated by the Streep-Hanks "blathering tour" concerning Harvery Weinstein. Basically, Hanks would mug and defer while Streep would change the subject, offering watery bromides.

Interviewers would gaze away. These are industry rules.

For these reasons, we were gratified by Amanda Hess' essay in Sunday's New York Times. It topped page one of Arts & Leisure. We strongly recommend it.

Coming next week: "Fish and frogmarch," a record-shattering, award-winning homage to the shape of film


  1. The cited article asks: "Is it possible for Hollywood to truly reckon with its issues while it’s so busy celebrating itself?"

    Aside from its (mis)treatment of women, movie themes are anther area where Hollywood celebrates itself unjustly. E.g., Hollywood stands forthrightly against slavery ("Eleven Years a Slave"). That was a fine movie, but it takes little courage to point out the evils of slavery.

    1. It took courage to point out the evils of slavery, if you lived in the South prior to 1860. It took courage to advocate civil rights for blacks in the South in the 1950's.
      It takes courage right now to publicly embrace liberal views in the South.

      And that movie was raw and gut-wrenching, showing the horrors of slavery as they had never really been shown before in a film.

    2. What does "Flags of our Fathers" say about Hollywood? What do "The Lost Weekend" or "Gentlemen's Agreement" say? "Gone with the Wind?" Or how about "Transformers", "X-Men" or "Snow White?" Each one an individual film, made by directors, writers, etc, with their own visions and purposes. Forget the Academy Awards. That's bs anyway.

    3. "Aside from its (mis)treatment of women ...."

      Concern troll's concern is duly noted.

      Now FO, you scabrous twit.

  2. I guess we'll find out why Somerby liked the article he links to here.

    But his stance on this whole "MeToo" movement is confusing. Recently, he has characterized this movement as a new "McCarthyism." He implied that the response to the Nassar/U Mich scandal may have gone too far.
    In his previous post just today, he denounced Kristof for worrying about "people having sex", despite the existence of multiple accusations of harassment (or worse) of our sitting president. Somerby was quick to condemn Weinstein, but was crickets when it comes to Trump. In endless posts, he tried to adjust our view of Roy Moore trolling the shopping mall for teenage dates, molesting some of them.

    The Times article seems to be written from a feminist point of view, and faults Hollywood for not going far enough to rectify its problems with sexual harassment and unequal pay for women. Is that what Somerby agrees with??

  3. For your consideration: Somerby criticized Nicholas Kristof in a previous post. Kristof's opinion piece was in support of women's empowerment and against misogyny.
    The Hess piece also condemns misogyny and supports women's empowerment. Somerby liked this piece.

    Why the different reaction?

    More for your consideration: Kristof's piece condemns a Republican ( and Trump), whereas Hess' piece criticizes liberals.

    Just sayin'.

  4. Somerby has no standing to address this issue.

    Hollywood is trying but its efforts are imperfect so Somerby takes a swipe at it. No, it doesn’t work like that. Any movement in the right direction is welcome.

    Unless Somerby has been sexually harassed or underpaid because of his sex, he needs to shut the fuck up.

  5. Somerby has been trying to work up this rather odd argument for some time now: because some liberals (in Hollywood, for example) have been sexual harassers or have helped cover up sexual harassment, that therefore all liberals are tainted and are hypocrites when they speak out on this issue. I leave it to the reader to work out why this notion is hogwash.