We were not especially big fans of Nick Loeb and Cathy Allen Roe V. Wade, granting an F grade to the stridently from the right (and yet, not even playfully mad) anti-abortion film. Indeed, The movie is over apparent much more interesting for their struggles behind the scenes than for the highly distorted version of the story it was trying to say; Loeb and co. notoriously had a lot of difficulty doing it, Why, as soon as people understood the film real intent, including actors, staff, and Loeb’s own original co-director – they rid of the mass project. Those who were essentially trained a collection of online and sassy Hollywood elites, by Jon Voight, for Tomi Lahren, to the blessedly forgotten Milo Yiannopoulis. Oh, and Jamie Kennedy, for some reason.
O Daily Beast I tried to get to the heart of this “some reason” this weekend, with an interview probably much deeper than expected by Jamie Kennedy with the actor and comedian. Kennedy practically claims, in a “Well, come on” style, that he accepted, and then remained, the role of the champion of abortion rights Larry Lader (portrayed in the film as a swindler who quickly gets rich looking to profit from 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 that we were getting into, but in other parts of Hollywood, I have to read, read, read and this was a good offer …Certain parts in 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 pissed people off.
The net result of the surprisingly long interview is to make it clear that Daily Beast Senior entertainment editor Marlow Stern made a very more research and reflection on Roe V. Wade and his various distortions of the story besides Jamie Kennedy – which is wild, since Jamie Kennedy is the only one in fact, in the damn thing, putting his name and reputation at stake to support Loeb’s agnostic vision. (Among other things, the film repeats in its epilogue the story of “Jane Roe” McCorvey standard switching to the anti-abortion side in recent years – a decision that McCorvey has stated very clearly, in the last years of her life, was solely motivated for the money that was being offered to do so.) In his defense, Kennedy takes the questions with a degree of acceptance, even when Stern directly tells him: “I think I sold a fake invoice for you here” and describes the film as “a very insidious right-wing propaganda film in which you saw yourself. ”
Not in your defense, however, are his repeated claims that he is “just an actor” and his willingness to accept Loeb’s version of the story to the letter with a minimum of questions about the part he was deciding to accept. Even when he declares his own pro-choice inclinations and suggests that his agent semi-forced him to assume the role, Kennedy repeatedly backs off in a kind of “Well, what are you going to do?” answer, without ever acknowledging that “Not being in the squeaky anti-abortion film with fucking Milo Yiannopoulis” was, in fact, an option. (One taken, again, by many people involved in the film.) AND can you really model for the entire Kennedy interview answer to a question about the Catholic League, Ooften criticized for its challenges to freedom of expression, and who provided financing for the film:
I didn’t even know it, and to be real with you, there are a lot of people who produced it and … I didn’t even know it. I didn’t know that 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? No. Did I know Nick’s past well enough? No. Was it run by a woman? Yes. But she left and another woman came. I am in the middle as a human being. I am a centrist.
G / O Media can receive a commission
You can read the full interview here.