I was not in particular big fans of the recent Nick Loeb and Cathy Allen Roe V. Wade, giving an F grade to shrill right (and yet not even fun run wild) anti-abortion film. Really, the movie has arrived apparent much more interesting for his backstage fights than for the extremely distorted version of history trying to tell a story; Loeb et al. famous had a hard time doing it, because, once people understood the movie real intention – including actors, crew members and Loeb’s original co-director – ei guaranteed on bulk project. Those who remained in essence were formed a bag with stumbling Hollywood and online elites from Jon Voight, to Tomi Lahren, to the most-forgotten blessed Milo Yiannopoulis. Oh, and Jamie Kennedy, for some reason.
The daily beast I tried to get to the center of this “reason” this weekend, with a probably more in-depth interview than Jamie-Kennedy expected with the actor and comedian. Kennedy says, in addition, in a funny fashion, “Well, here we go.” that he accepted and then stayed in, the role of abortion rights champion Larry Lader (played in the film as a rich man who gets rich and 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, so I did some research. I knew there were a lot of things I was going through, but in other parts of Hollywood, I have to read, read, read and that was a nice offer …Some 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 annoyed people.
The net result of the surprisingly long interview is to clarify this The daily beast The main entertainment editor, Marlow Stern, made a lot more research and thinking Roe V. Wade and his various distortions of history than Jamie Kennedy – who has been wild ever since Jamie Kennedy is the one in fact in the damn job, putting his name and reputation on the line in support of Loeb’s agnostic vision. (Among other things, the film repeats his story in the epilogue “Jane Roe” McCorvey has moved to the anti-abortion side in recent years – a decision that McCorvey has made very clear. in the last years of her life, was motivated exclusively through the money he was offered to do so.) In his defense, Kennedy takes the questions with a certain degree of acceptance, even though Stern tells him, “I think you were sold a fake banknote here,” and describes the film as “a rather insidious right-wing propaganda film you found yourself in. ”
Not in his defense, however, are his repeated claims that he is “just an actor” and his willingness to take Loeb’s version of the story word for word of questions about the party he chose to accept. Even though he asserts his own pro-choice inclinations and suggests that his agent semi-force him to take part, Kennedy repeatedly returns to a kind of “Well, what are you going to do?” answer, without ever acknowledging that “Not being in the shrill anti-abortion movie with the damn Milo Yiannopoulis” was, in fact, an option. (One is taken, again, by many people involved in the film.) And you really can take as a template for Kennedy’s entire interview answer to a question about the Catholic League, Aoften criticized for their challenges to free speech, and who given financing for the movie:
I didn’t even know that, and to be real with you, there are a lot of people who have produced this and … I didn’t even know that. I didn’t know the Catholic League did that. I also believe in freedom of expression. I just thought it was a really cool role. Did I know how controversial it would be? Not. Did I know enough about Nick’s background? Not. Was it directed by a woman? Yes. But another woman left and entered. I am in the middle as a human being. I’m a centrist.
G / O Media may receive a commission
You can read the full interview Here.