Ratner Pays Price for Not Being PC

Ratner Pays Price for Not Being PC
Eddy Murphy

Well guys and gals, it’s been another week and it’s time for me to either opine about politics or complain about something.  This week I choose to complain.  The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) should be ashamed of themselves.  Brett Ratner should not have allowed them to take his job as producer of this year’s Oscar telecast away.  This is hypocrisy at its worst.  As Howard Stern said yesterday, this is the same organization that is run by people who want a child molester named Roman Polanski to be permitted back into this country.  Isn’t it true that Polanski raped a 13 year old girl?  Isn’t it true that Joe Paterno was fired on Wednesday for merely not reporting something similar to Polanski’s act?  Yet Brett Ratner is fired or “asked to resign” as producer of the Academy Awards show this year for merely using a derogatory term in a non-derogatory fashion.

Didn’t AMPAS know what they were getting when they hired Ratner?  Isn’t this similar to the Golden Globe organizers complaining about the antics of Ricky Gervais when he hosted the Golden Globes after the fact?  Ratner is known to be both a sexist and un-PC.  In fact, he portrayed himself in the HBO series “Entourage” in exactly that way.  Granted, his portrayal in “Entourage” was probably an exaggeration, but just the same, AMPAS knew what they were buying.  There were no surprises when Ratner made his now infamous statement last week.

Let’s take a step back and review the facts as I know them.  Sometime last week, noted director Brett Ratner was doing a question and answer session.  During the session, he was asked a question about rehearsing prior to shooting a scene.  He responded in his typical fashion:

“Rehearsals are for faggots.”

Now, granted the word “faggot” has basically become the second worst hated word in the English language after “nigger;” neither of which I use by the way.  But, did Mr. Ratner use it in a disparaging way to homosexuals?  No.  He used it in a way that has nothing to do with homosexuals.  Now, you can argue that had he said “Rehearsals are for niggers,” there would be an uproar and he would have been fired anyway.  But, that’s not the point.  The point is that he was using colorful language to express how he feels about rehearsing.  He was actually using a disparaging and hate filled word to describe his hatred for rehearsing.  Hence, “rehearsals are for faggots.”  Nothing more, nothing less.

Hollywood Director Brett Ratner

I wonder what would have happened if he had said he was smoking a fag.  As some of you know, used in this context, the word means cigarette in British slang.  Have we gotten to the point where we also cannot use this word in America if we are using it to mean a cigarette too?  I would hate to be British and use it accidentally while hanging out in a pub in NY or Los Angeles.  I might be ostracized by the citizenry.

We have basically gotten to the point where we cannot be ourselves in America.  A few months ago, Shannon Ivey wrote an article about the womenizing of men.  Well, I’m taking that one step further now, we have womanized the whole country.  PC has run amok.  And, I don’t like it.  I’ve stated it before in many other articles in this column, but this time it seems to have gone too far once again.  See e.g.  “To Be PC or Not to be PC” and “Has PC Taken Away Free Speech?”

 

Before I close this little rant, I would like to state my hat goes off to Eddie Murphy.  Murphy was scheduled to host this year’s Oscar telecast.  However, he pulled out of the show immediately upon the discharge of Ratner.  My respect for Murphy has gone up 100%.  This man sticks up for his friends, at least in this case.  By the way, imagine if the Eddie Murphy classic “Beverly Hills Cop” were made today.  Where would the scene in which Axel Foley acts feminine be?  Where would the scene that made Bronson Pichot famous be?  Remember, Pichot played the overtly feminine employee at the art dealership.  This led to Pinchot’s landing a series tailored around his character.  Both scenes would have ended up on the cutting room floor because they would have upset the homosexual community.

Murphy stood up for his close friend Ratner

One more point on the subject.  When discussing the Bret Ratner issue with a fellow conservative Monday night, he was reminded of an incident he had with Mel Brooks a few years ago.  He told me that he and Mel were driving in the car and the subject of “Blazing Saddles” came up.  Mel Brooks told him in no uncertain terms that under today’s PC climate, that movie would have not been allowed to be made.  That classic that is often considered the funniest film ever made would have not been permitted.  Where has our country gone?  I’ll say it one more time in this column, we had more freedom in the 1970’s than we do now.  And, in the 1970’s we could laugh at ourselves.

So, in closing, in the Words of Bill O’Relly, AMPAS you’re a pinhead and Eddie Murphy, you’re a patriot.  Brett Ratner, unfortunately you are this time the victim of PC run amok.

[amazon_carousel widget_type=”SearchAndAdd” width=”450″ height=”200″ title=”” market_place=”US” shuffle_products=”True” show_border=”False” keywords=”Brett Ratner” browse_node=”” search_index=”All” /]

Share This Post

6 Responses to "Ratner Pays Price for Not Being PC"

  1. Frank,

    I like the way you use the term homosexual instead of gay. Libs and progressives are always playing word games such as pro-choice istead of pro-abortion, investment instead of taxes and gay instead of homosexual. That is the basis of PC. Thanks but be forewarned there will be a backlash for your “un PC ness” Ridiculous huh?

    Reply
  2. In the 1970’s we laughed at and ridiculed powerless minorities, often with derogatory stereotypes and slurs. I, for one, do not miss the “good old days” when discrimination and prejudice were so much “fun.”

    Reply
    1. David: We were laughing at ourselves and our problems. Do you think “All in the Family,” “Sanford & Son,” “Good Times,” and “Maude” as well as littany of movies, including “Blazing Saddles” are of what you speak? If you cannot laugh at yourself, you cannot laugh. If you stifle satire, it broods underneath and becomes real. You are exactly what I am talking about. I long for the days of freedom and the 70s were free. I wish you felt the same, but unfortunately you seem to reak of central planning and government control.

      When did you stop loving America for what it is? Don’t try to turn it into some utopian society that will never exist.

      Reply
      1. You can laugh all you want at yourself, but I don’t believe you should ridicule powerless minorities who have historically suffered a lot more than discomfort in our society. A good example of your attitude is your refusal to call people what they prefer to be called (homosexual vs. gay). It is very easy to say you don’t long for a utopian society when you are in the ruling class. I grew up in the South in the 1950’s, so I understand the underlying issues with mocking and ridiculing African-Americans, gays and others who have been enslaved, lynched, tortured and even murdered in the not too distant past, or even present. There are many funny television shows and movies that don’t mock powerless minorities, yet are still funny. By the way, do you also long for the days when “freedom” meant that African-Americans could not sit at the lunch counter, could not sit in the front of the bus, and could not drink from the same water fountain as you and I? I am only 57 and I remember those days of “freedom” all too well.

        Reply
        1. Again David: I will say it, you must be able to laugh at yourself. I agree with everything you say except that we must not stifle our creativity and free speech. Do you not think those shows from the 70s are classics? Do you not think the humor of Don Rickles and the Rat Pack are national treasures? I am a little younger than you, but I remember most of what you discuss. There is nothing correct in any of it, but laughing at it and poking fun at it and satirizing it are completely different issues than being means spirited about it. In fact, if you have ever seen Don Rickles’ show, you will know that it is based upon the ridiculous of stereotypes and not the hatred associated with them.

          “Blazing Saddles” is a pure example of satire. Do you believe that the creator, Mel Brooks (a jew) was and/or is a racist or homophobe? I do not.

          Homosexual is the techinical term in the same vein as heterosexual. I do not use homosexual in any derogatory fashion. In fact, the actual meaning of “gay” is happy, not homosexual.

          I hope you understand. If not, I hope that two intelligent people can agree to disagree.

          Reply
          1. Just between you, me and the thousands who read your blog, Blazing Saddles is on my top 10 movies of all time list. I also subscribe to the philosophy that two intelligent people can agree to disagree.

Post Comment