We did not go especially Big fans of Nick Loeb and Cathy Allen’s recent work Roe V. Wade, awarding an F grade to stridently right-wing (and yet not even entertaining mad) film against abortion. Of course, the movie ended apparent much more interesting for their struggles behind the scenes which for the highly skewed version of the story was trying to say; Loeb and famous company had a very hard time doing it, because, as soon as people understood the movie actual intent, including actors, crew personnel, and Loeb’s original co-director – they rescued in the mass project. Those who remained essentially formed a bag of goodies from online and Hollywood elites reeling to the right, by Jon Voight, to Tomi Lahren, to the blessed and almost forgotten Milo Yiannopoulis. Oh, and Jamie Kennedy, for some reason.
The Daily beast I tried to get to the core of that “some reason” this weekend, with an interview probably much more in-depth than Jamie Kennedy expected with the actor and comedian. Kennedy almost stated, in a daring tone of “Well here we go”, who accepted, and then stayed on, the role of abortion rights advocate Larry Lader (portrayed in the film as a get-rich-quick con artist who seeks to profit from the suffering of others) because, well… they asked.
To be honest, they offered me the role. It was a more dramatic part and a real offering, so I did some research. I knew there were a lot of things we were getting into, but in other parts of Hollywood, I have to read, read, read, and this was a good deal …Certain parts of Hollywood make me read nineteen times for the tenth season of a TNT show, and here comes this detailed character. I’m an actor. I apologize if I have pissed people off.
The net result of the surprisingly long interview is to make it clear that Daily beast Senior entertainment editor Marlow Stern has made a lot more research and thought on Roe V. Wade and his various distortions of history that Jamie Kennedy, which is wild, since Jamie Kennedy is the actually on the damn thing, putting his name and reputation on the line in support of Loeb’s agnostic vision. (Among other things, the film repeats in its epilogue the story of Norma “Jane Roe” McCorvey moved to the anti-abortion side in later years, a decision McCorvey stated very clearly: in the last years of his life, it was motivated only for the money they offered to do it.) In his defense, Kennedy takes the questions with some degree of acceptance, even when Stern directly tells him, “I think you have been sold a fake bill here” and describes the film as “a rather insidious right-wing propaganda movie that you’ve found yourself in. ”
No in his defense, however, are his repeated claims that he is “just an actor,” and his willingness to take Loeb’s side of the story at his word with minimal of questions about the part you were choosing to accept. Even when declaring his own pro-choice leanings and suggesting that his agent partially forced him into the role, Kennedy repeatedly resorts to a kind of “Well, what are you going to do?” answer, never acknowledging that “Not being in the raucous anti-abortion movie with fucking Milo Yiannopoulis” was, in fact, an option. (One taken, again, by many people involved in the film). AND you really can take as a model for the entire Kennedy interview answer to a question about the Catholic League, oroften criticized for his challenges to free speech, and who provided financing for the movie:
I didn’t even know that, and to be honest with you, there are a lot of people who produced this, and … I didn’t even know. I didn’t know the Catholic League did that. I also believe in freedom of expression. I thought it was a very good role. Did you know how controversial it was going to be? No. Did you know enough about Nick’s background? No. Was it run by a woman? Yes. But she left and another woman entered. I am in the middle as a human being. I am a centrist.
You can read the full interview here.