Ann's Mega Dub: The pedophile prince (and a great sale on Vanity Fair)

Wednesday, October 5, 2022

The pedophile prince (and a great sale on Vanity Fair)

The pedophile prince is in the news again. Julie Miller (Vanity Fair) reports:

Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell’s heinous saga has already inspired several true-crime docuseries. And now Prince Andrew—their known associate and Queen Elizabeth’s disgraced second son—gets his own streaming close-up in Banished: Prince Andrew, a Peacock documentary debuting today.

The film is not a bombshell exposé but a fascinating origin story about this generation’s most disgraced member of the British royal family. Royal author and editorial icon Tina Brown offers her trademark fizzy analysis about the queen’s coddled son and his downward trajectory. Longtime Buckingham Palace press spokesman Dickie Arbiter recounts his firsthand experiences with the royal and minces no words: “I suppose there’s always one runt of the litter. And Andrew’s it,” says Arbiter, before calling the prince an “idiot” for agreeing to the disastrous 2019 Newsnight interview. Former Buckingham Palace protection officer Paul Page remembers Maxwell’s frequent palace visits, the revolving door of women Andrew entertained, and even the prince’s extensive teddy bear collection, which Andrew reportedly insisted be put in correct order by maids each day. (Page says there was even a laminated diagram of that correct order in the prince’s bedside table so staff did not screw anything up.) Simon Wilson, Britain's former deputy head of mission to Bahrain, describes an almost comically humiliating trip Andrew made to the country in the early aughts.

In a phone call with V.F., Banished director Jamie Crawford explained that he began working on the project in March, shortly after the royal had been stripped of his military titles and settled with accuser Virginia Giuffre for a rumored $16 million, even though he has always insisted he never met Giuffre and has denied all the allegations. Crawford says he sought to work with “people who had worked and lived alongside the royals through the decades” and also “speak to the journalists who’ve not been dabbling in royal coverage recently but have had a whole lifetime of it from the ’80s onward. So these people have had a front-row view of everything that's happened since the ’70s and ’80s. They were an absolute fount of fascinating information.”

The film supplements these interviews with rarely seen archival footage that traces the royal’s life, from his birth in 1960 to the mutually beneficial relationship with Epstein and Maxwell that would be his undoing. (Epstein had the money, Maxwell had the social connections, and Andrew had the status.) Crawford wanted to include Andrew’s voice as well, but unsurprisingly the prince did not respond to requests for comment or interview following his epic fail of a Newsnight interview three years ago.

He belongs in prison.

Now let's talk Vanity Fair. I always liked the magazine. In 1999, I got a subscription as a Christmas gift. And one of the issues was just ruined in the mail. I was mad and angry and fired off a letter thinking it might get an eye roll before being tossed in a trash can. They actually replaced the issue.

Like most people these days, I don't subscribe.

And I no longer run to check out the mail like I used to when I subscribed to about six magazines.

But, when I went to Vanity Fair to read the story, there was an offer. They're doing a year's subscription for eight dollars.

Now I like the magazine. My big thing is going to be making time for it (two kids) but that deal is so great that even there's a month where I don't touch it, it's still more than worth it.

That cost also includes digital access -- that's the regular edition in the mail and you also have access to all the things at the website.

So I'm passing that on in case anyone else used to read Vanity Fair and is looking for a reason to subscribe.

This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

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.

As for the cast of BROS, please check out Guy Branum's Twitter thread.

'If only it had stars.'

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:

Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills)

BROS is the best film of 2022

The World Today Just Nuts

Is BROS amusing?

Like Maria Said Paz

Need another reason to see BROS?

Thomas Friedman is a Great Man

The movie you need to see

Trina's Kitchen

Jiffy Corn Casserole in the Kitchen (and go see Bros)

SICKOFITRADLZ

Bros -- are you scared to buy a ticket?

Ruth's Report

Go see BROS!!!

Oh Boy It Never Ends

F**ck THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER and its damn lies

Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude

bros and nick kroll

Ann's Mega Dub

Bros is the film we need

Mikey Likes It!

Best news of the week

We are in a backlash period and we will continue to cover BROS tomorrow.

Turning to Iraq . . .

Alda Mussad (THE NATIONAL) notes:

The UN's special representative for Iraq has urged the country to address a growing lack of faith among Iraqis it its political system.

Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert urged Iraq to form a government and get moving on critical reforms at the UN Security Council on Tuesday.

“Public disillusion is running sky-high,” Ms Hennis-Plasschaert told the council.

“Too many Iraqis have lost faith in the ability of the political class to act in the interest of the country and its people. A continued failure to address this loss of faith, will only exacerbate Iraq’s problems.”

She stressed "the importance of maintaining calm, of maintaining dialogue, constitutional compliance, respect for democratic principles, the unimpeded working of state institutions, and a functioning government to effectively address the legitimate demands for better public services, jobs, security, an end to corruption, and justice and accountability.

Running sky high, is it? Hmm. Well maybe because today is October 5th and on October 10, 2021, Iraq held elections. Yet there's still no president, there's still no prime minister, there's still no cabinet. Five days from a year later. I think the public is correct to be disillusioned. And ticked off.

Lastly, a friend at IAVA asked me to include this:

IAVA Joins Military and Veteran Leaders to Call on Congress to Pass Landmark Veterans Homelessness Legislation

More than 50 VSOs Ask House and Senate Leadership to Pass Bipartisan Bill into Law

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
September 28, 2022
CONTACT: press@iava.org

New York, NY – Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) and more than 50 other organizations representing America’s veterans, service members, and their families, recently sent a joint letter to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, calling on them to expeditiously pass the bipartisan Building Solutions for Veterans Experiencing Homelessness Act of 2021 (S. 2172).

“This critical legislation will send an important message that we can no longer continue to allow those who have served our nation in uniform to live without a roof over their heads,” said Tom Porter, EVP of Government Affairs for IAVA. “IAVA is proud to join so many of our nation’s advocacy organizations to call on Congress to make this a priority to pass this year.”

The bill would preserve and enhance proven effective COVID-19-related program improvements from both the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act or CARES Act (P.L. 116-136) and the Johnny Isakson and David P. Roe, M.D. Veterans Health Care and Benefits Improvement Act of 2020 (P.L. 116-315), and would strengthen programs that emphasize permanent solutions to housing instability and homelessness experienced by veterans across the country.

IAVA is the voice for the post-9/11 veteran generation. With over 425,000 veterans and allies nationwide, IAVA is the leader in non-partisan veteran advocacy and public awareness. We drive historic impacts for veterans and IAVA’s programs are second to none. Any veteran or family member in need can reach out to IAVA’s Quick Reaction Force at quickreactionforce.org or 855-91RAPID (855-917-2743) to be connected promptly with a veteran care manager who will assist. IAVA’s The Vote Hub is a free tool to register to vote and find polling information. IAVA’s membership is always growing. Join the movement at iava.org/membership.