We were not above all big fans of the recent Nick Loeb and Cathy Allen Roe V. Wade, giving a grade F to stridently right-wing (but not even funny bonker) film against abortion. Indeed, the movie is over similar much more interesting for their struggles behind the scenes than for the very skewed version of the story trying to explain; Loeb and co. famously it cost a lot, because, as soon as people got to know the movies real intention, including the actors, the crew, and Loeb’s own original co-director – them solved the project en masse. Those who stayed were basically trained a right-wing Hollywood and online elite bag you stumble upon, by Jon Voight, to Tomi Lahren, to the blessedly forgotten Milo Yiannopoulis. Oh, and Jamie Kennedy, for some reason.
He Daily beast this weekend he tried to put himself at the center of this “reason”, with a probably much deeper-than-expected interview by Jamie-Kennedy with the actor and comedian. Kennedy states, except, in a funny way, “Well, here we go.” who accepted and then stayed in, the role of abortion rights champion Larry Lader (portrayed in the film as an enriched scammer who seeks to take advantage of the suffering of others) because, well … they asked.
To be honest, I was offered the role. It was a more dramatic part and a real offer, and that’s why I researched. I knew there were a lot of things we walked to, but in other parts of Hollywood, I have to read, read, read, and that was a good deal …Some parts of Hollywood make me read nineteen times for the tenth season of a TNT show, and here comes this detailed character. I am an actor. Sorry if I got people angry.
The net result of the surprisingly long interview is to make this clear Daily beast The main entertainment editor, Marlow Stern, has made one a lot more research and reflection Roe V. Wade and his various distortions of history than Jamie Kennedy, who has since been wild Jamie Kennedy is the only one really in the damn, putting his name and reputation in support of Loeb’s agnostic vision. (Among other things, the film repeats in its epilogue the story of Norma “Jane Roe” McCorvey has shifted to the anti-abortion side in recent years — a decision McCorvey made very clear: in the last years of his life, era motivated only for the money he was offered to do so.) In his defense, Kennedy takes the questions with some degree of acceptance, even when Stern tells him directly, “I think you’ve been sold a fake bill,” and describes the film as “a rather insidious right-wing propaganda film you’ve come across. ”
No in his defense, however, are his repeated claims that he says he’s “just an actor” and his willingness to take the version of Loeb’s story to his word with a minimum of questions about the party you chose to accept. While stating his own pro-election leanings and suggesting that his agent forced him to take part, Kennedy repeats himself repeatedly over a sort of “Well, what are you going to do?” answer, without ever acknowledging that “Not being in the movie stridently anti-abortion with the fucking Milo Yiannopoulis” was, in fact, an option. (A prey, again, by many people involved in the film.) I you really can take as a template for the entire Kennedy interview answer to a question about the Catholic League, Ooften criticized for their challenges to free speech, and who always funding for The movie:
I didn’t even know it, and to be real with you, there are a lot of people who have produced this and … I didn’t even know it. I didn’t know the Catholic League would do that. I also believe in freedom of speech. I just thought it was a really fun role. Did you know how controversial it would be? No. Did you know enough about Nick’s background? Was it run by a woman? Yes. But he left and another woman came in. I am in the middle as a human being. I am a centrist.
G / O Media may receive a commission
You can read the full interview here.