Notes From D.R. | Random Thoughts on the Passing Scene

If one wanted to compile a list of films that should have been financial failures but turned out to be successes, Save the Last Dance would have to be at or near the top.

Dance–a teen romantic drama about a white teenager (Julia Stiles) from the Midwest who’s forced to move to inner-city Chicago, whereupon she falls in love with an ambitious black classmate (Sean Patrick Thomas)–was not a particularly well-written film: the script was filled to the brim with stock characters and tired subplots involving teenage pregnancy and gang violence. While Stiles, Thomas, and Kerry Washington (as Thomas’ sister) delivered solid performances, the film is excessively long and at times unforgivably dull. Nevertheless, it resonated with its target audience, grossing $91 million in the United States–an impressive achievement for a film that was originally supposed to be "dumped" into theaters in August 2000 before being released over the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday in January 2001.

So why was Dance so successful?

The film was flawlessly marketed by Paramount Pictures and MTV Films: Paramount released a compelling trailer in the fall of 2000 that made the film seem like a must-see event for teenage girls, and followed up with several weeks of similarly well-produced commercials (one of which featured a hip-hop song that used a sample from Gary Numan’s 1979 hit "Cars.") Stiles and Thomas were both well-known to teenage audiences, the former from her performance in 1999’s 10 Things I Hate About You and the latter from his role as Selma Blair’s would-be love interest in 1999’s Cruel Intentions. In addition, much like 1990’s Ghost, Dance is one of those films that, even if it’s not great, has a certain ambiance that makes one want to watch it repeatedly.

Was Dance successful because of its interracial-romance theme? I don’t think so: the film probably would have been just as successful had the Thomas character been white. The interracial theme was interesting only because Hollywood doesn’t make a lot of films featuring mixed-race couples. (After the film’s $27 million opening weekend, Us Weekly claimed Dance’s success represented the destruction of another racial barrier in Hollywood. I thought that was a manifestly dubious claim: I could understand the argument if a movie featuring, say, Denzel Washington and Julia Roberts as lovers became a huge hit, but Dance was geared to teenagers, who arguably have the fewest racial hang-ups of any age group in American society, so where was the supposed triumph?)

I’m not sure if the filmmakers realized how popular Dance would be with teenage girls: presumably, they thought the film would be somewhat successful, but they could not have imagined that it would gross nearly $100 million. It’s impossible to duplicate the film’s success: Usher tried, and failed, with the nearly unwatchable 2005 film In the Mix. Dance is now one of those films that keeps gaining new fans as a result of repeated cable-TV airings; perhaps in 2021, people will mark the twentieth anniversary of the film’s release the way they now mark the twentieth anniversary of Dirty Dancing’s release. In fact, both films share the same legacy–they were more successful than they had any right to be.

…down instead of standing up to his hard-left critics in the Democrat Party.

If Newt Gingrich does indeed decide to run for President, he could be the best and the worst Republican candidate in the 2008 election.

Gingrich’s conservative credentials are impeccable. What has always impressed me about Gingrich is his steadfast commitment to conservative principles: although he’s not as skeptical of the left’s doomsday climate-change proclamations as other prominent figures on the right, he is a reliable, resourceful voice of intelligent conservatism. Gingrich is every bit the eternal optimist that Reagan was; he never seems to age, for his ideas keep him young.

However, the cold reality is that Gingrich’s sordid personal past would make him unelectable in a Presidential contest. Like Rudy Giuliani, Gingrich succeeds as a GOP nominee only in theory.

If Gingrich were to face off against Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in a general election, it would be a replay of the 1990s battle between Gingrich and Clinton’s husband–and unfortunately, Bill won that fight. The Clinton machine successfully characterized Gingrich as a mean-spirited, heartless bully who wanted to starve poor schoolchildren and throw elderly women out into the snow. It was a savagely false characterization–but the Clintons were skilled enough to make it stick.

For all of Gingrich’s brilliance, he has never been able to rise above the smear campaign he was subjected to a decade ago. When one sees Gingrich’s face, one still remembers the things that were said about him by the far left. It’s an image that has never gone away.

The Republican Party is already severely weighted down by image problems; can the GOP afford to add Gingrich’s baggage to its cargo hold? If Gingrich is the GOP contender, the left and the mainstream press will not hesitate to play the hypocrisy card. The theme will be obvious: the party that expressed outrage over Bill Clinton’s adultery in 1992 now sends a man with similar flaws into battle against Clinton’s virtuous, pure wife.

One has to think the left hopes Gingrich runs and secures the GOP nomination. From a "progressive" perspective, beating Gingrich will require little effort. Having demonized him so successfully in the 1990s, defeating him in 2008 will be a mere formality. Hillary Clinton may have high personal negatives, but Gingrich, as the standard-bearer of a supposedly "warmongering" party, will be held in much higher contempt.

Newt would make a great Secretary of State. It would be interesting to see him as the US Ambassador to the United Nations. He could play a critical role in the next Republican Presidential administration–but not the lead role.

Is anyone surprised that the New York Times doesn’t like Newt Gingrich’s latest book?

Will Mitt Romney follow George W. Bush’s path to the GOP nomination?

Congressional Democrats change tactics in their war-funding dispute with President Bush. More from the Weekly Standard, Washington Post and New York Times.

UPDATE: More from the Washington Times, Washington Post, the New York Times, the Weekly Standard, RedState.com and Michelle Malkin.

SECOND UPDATE: More from the Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, Washington Post and New York Times.

How do you fight a culture war when you’ve been a fan of one of the chief enemies?

I can’t deny that I have a almost-irresistible urge to give Madonna a pass when she engages in the same sort of left-wing Hollywood political ranting that Barbra Streisand and Alec Baldwin are known for. I know it’s not right, but I can’t help it–because Madonna was the first celebrity I ever had a crush on.

I can’t recall if either "Borderline" or "Lucky Star" was the first Madonna video I saw her in, but I was convinced that Madonna was the most beautiful woman in the world. Madonna became for me what Michael Jackson became for many young girls during the same time period: the absolute center of the universe. (I remember winning a Madonna poster in 1985 for selling a certain amount of candy bars during an elementary school fundraiser. I had the poster–a concert still photo of Madonna wearing her "Boy Toy" outfit with a purple-and-white jacket–on the wall of my room for a year.)

Madonna seemingly became more beautiful with every new video–"Material Girl," "Like a Virgin," "Into the Groove," "Live to Tell." I remember being jealous of Sean Penn when I heard about his marriage to her; I also remember desperately wanting to see Who’s That Girl?, the first PG-rated movie she was in. (I eventually saw Girl nine years later on television; it’s not the greatest film in the world, but like Prince’s film Under the Cherry Moon, it’s not nearly as bad it’s been made out to be.)

On some level, I never stopped being a fan of Madonna; my childhood crush allowed me to excuse any number of transgressions. I remember watching Bill O’Reilly on Inside Edition in the summer of 1989, tearing into Madonna for her extremely bizarre (and in O’Reilly’s estimation, blasphemous) video for "Like a Prayer"; I thought O’Reilly was being way too hard on her–and that Madonna looked even better with her natural dark hair. I also remember the fuss over her 1990 song “Justify My Love,” her 1992 book Sex and her 1993 film Body of Evidence–and wondering why people were singling her out for criticism, when there were so many other folks peddling questionable content at the time.

I was glad to see Madonna survive the "Justify My Love"/Sex/Body of Evidence controversies, and regain her past prominence with the Bedtime Stories and Ray of Light albums, as well as her above-average (considering her previous films, that is) work in Evita. Regardless of what I think about her politics, she is a legitimate musical talent, and it’s always nice to see talent being rewarded.

There’s no way around it: when it comes to Madonna’s more outlandish activities (the Bush-bashing, the awful films, publicity stunts such as the 2003 Britney Spears kiss), I hold her to a different (lower?) standard than I do other entertainers. It’s one of those things where, once you start liking a person, you never really stop liking them. Perhaps Madonna has never changed in my mind; she’s still the charismatic entertainer I was attracted to as a young boy, as opposed to an overbearing Hollyweirdo calling attention to herself and spouting off about things she knows nothing about.

To be fair, there are times when even I can’t make excuses for her. The crucifix imagery she used in her 2006 Confessions tour was manifestly stupid and distasteful; although she denied that the use of the imagery was intended to be offensive, it’s hard to avoid the sense that she was really trying to make fun of her critics on the religious right.

However, it’s virtually impossible for me to join the chorus of those who have condemned Madonna as an exemplar of American moral decline. The part of me that likes her will never go away. Instead of ripping her next outrageous act, I just might go on Holiday.

Is it the end of the line for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales?

Does the Republican Party stand for anything anymore?

There was a time–not all that long ago–when the GOP stood for a series of clear, conservative principles. Opposing abortion. Strengthening national defense. Limiting the size of the federal government. Reducing high taxes. Preserving the Second Amendment. Respecting the rights of religious organizations. Ending the welfare state and racial quotas. Protecting the Constitution by appointing judges who reject the philosophy of judicial activism. Putting a stop to unchecked illegal immigration. Stamping out corruption in the federal government.

The reason the Republican Party is in such poor shape in 2007 is because the GOP has abandoned most of these principles.

Ever notice that the party does extremely well when it actually stands for something, and falls flat on its face when it seems to have no direction? You’d figure by now that an adherence to core values would be the "default option" for any Republican elected to a federal position. However, it seems that most Washington Republicans seem to have defaulted on that "default option."

It’s one thing for a Republican from the generally liberal Northeast not to adhere to conservative principles: you really can’t expect conservatism from the likes of Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. However, for those Republicans who were elected by a conservative constituency but who consistently reject conservative principles, the question has to be asked: what’s your excuse?

Ideological conservatism, "movement conservatism," is in short supply among the Republican members of the House of Representatives and the Senate. One reluctantly accepts the lack of "movement conservatism" in the Executive Branch, because President Bush is simply not a doctrinaire conservative. However, one cannot accept the lack of ideological commitment from alleged conservative Republicans in Congress.

Did the Republican Party simply get lazy and weak? Were Republican legislators simply intimidated by the enormity of the effort required to implement a conservative political agenda?

One has to ask if the Washington GOP really has any respect for the grassroots, the "base." Does the Republican Party simply want conservative money and conservative votes? Does the GOP establishment really regard grassroots conservatives as a bunch of poorly-educated Southern hicks who read the Bible in the morning and eat mashed potatoes at night?

Give Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid this: they are unquestionably committed to their ideology. They’re not afraid of how their political opponents will react to their proposals for higher taxes, increased federal powers and a more "sensitive" approach to the War on Terror. They may be wrong, but they’re certainly strong.

So where are our ideologues? Where are our Senators and Representatives who are "down for the struggle," so to speak? Where are our conservative warriors who are willing to pay any price, bear any burden, tolerate any mainstream-media rhetorical assault in the name of advancing the conservative cause in Washington? Is there a Reagan in the house?

Grassroots conservatives love to talk about the Reagan legacy, but it’s clear that in Washington, we simply don’t have enough people willing to live up to that legacy. Reagan didn’t give a damn about what the press and his Democrat critics thought about him, but today’s Republican Party seems dominated by folks who are obsessed with being liked, as though they are at risk of being voted off via a phone poll.

It seems that the Reagan legacy is every bit as dead as the Great Communicator himself. The days of committed conservative leadership in Washington are ancient, aged, quaint. The weak leadership we have today almost makes me want to faint.

Shrek the Third has the best opening weekend ever for an animated film.

The GOP has no chance of winning the 2008 Presidential election if a majority of voters truly believe that the Iraq War is immoral.

Even if former Senator Fred Thompson becomes the Republican nominee, the party will have a tremendously difficult time securing victory a year and a half from now. If the war were not as unpopular as it is, the chances of a GOP victory would be better than average, thanks to presumptive Democrat nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton’s high negatives. However, if voter unease with the war escalates, the next casualty will be Republican control of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

The 2006 midterm election results were worrisome enough. Considering that the GOP is the only major party with a legitimate desire to confront worldwide terrorism, the electorate’s decision to take power away from the party was a truly troubling sign of deepening voter contempt for the war.

An even more troubling sign for the GOP is the electorate’s apparent lack of outrage towards House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who have tried to play games with war funding. Yes, the Democrat-controlled Congress’ approval rating is almost as bad as the President’s, but there seems to be little additional evidence that the public is disgusted by the machinations of Pelosi and Reid. One doesn’t hear Pelosi and Reid being forcefully condemned by talk-radio callers, or see both Democrats being eviscerated in the conservative blogosphere. The criticism of Pelosi and Reid seems refined, almost genteel.

Could it be that the American people aren’t really that worked up by Pelosi and Reid’s bizarre efforts? Could it be that many Americans think Pelosi and Reid aren’t anti-war enough?

If the 2008 election is indeed a referendum on the wisdom and appropriateness of the Iraq War, then the GOP doesn’t have much reason to be hopeful. The United States cannot reasonably withdraw from Iraq: after all, if the country once again becomes the official territory of terror, we’ll have to go back to destroy the new extremist regime in charge. However, if anti-war sentiment doesn’t fade, the electorate could fall for a Clinton promise to end the war with America’s honor and dignity (supposedly) preserved.

In 2008, the GOP will have to go into a political war with the army it has: an electorate seemingly more susceptible to left-wing cut-and-run arguments, an outgoing President who unfortunately failed to make a compelling rhetorical case for staying the course to the American people, a conservative media that wasted too much time questioning the credentials of various Republican Presidential contenders instead of placing proper focus on the need for the party to remain unified. The GOP has had tough times before (the mid-1970s and the early-1990s in particular), but the situation has never been as grim as it seems to be now. If "defeat and retreat" is indeed the electorate’s wish, then we could see Clinton beneath a banner saying "Mission Accomplished."

George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton deliver a joint commencement address to the graduates of the University of New Hampshire.

Conservatives are outraged by an immigration amnesty proposal embraced by the White House and the US Senate. Again, one can’t be surprised by the White House’s support of this proposal, because President Bush is not a "movement conservative." One also must confront the reality that no one in Washington accepts the conservative argument that mass deportation is the best way to deal with the problem of illegal immigration.

More from John Hawkins, Michelle Malkin, Rich Lowry, Hugh Hewitt and Power Line.

UPDATE: More from Robert Bluey, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times and the Washington Post.

SECOND UPDATE: More from the Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, Human Events, Washington Post and New York Times.

World Bank chairman Paul Wolfowitz announces his resignation. More from Booker Rising, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post and the New York Times.

The US Senate doesn’t know what the hell to do about Iraq, does it? More from the Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, New York Times and Power Line.

UPDATE: More from the Weekly Standard, New York Times, Washington Times and Washington Post.