The controversial pro-life film, "Roe v. Wade" — which purportedly aims to tell the true story surrounding the landmark 1973 Supreme Court Case which granted women the right to an abortion — might have only debuted today, but it's already causing critics on the left to lose their ever-loving minds.
One such example of the freakout can be seen in an interview recently conducted by the Daily Beast's senior entertainment editor, Marlow Stern. In the lengthy and, at times, awkward interview, Stern, rather than asking inquisitive, open-ended questions, effectively bullies one of the film's actors, Jamie Kennedy, for taking part in what the progressive editor unabashedly dubbed "a creepy propaganda film."
What are the details?
Kennedy, known for his role in iconic films such as "Scream" and "Malibu's Most Wanted," described himself in the interview as a "centrist" who was interested in getting involved with the film because, as he said, it's an "important story."
But that wasn't good enough for Stern, who viewed Kennedy as an outlier in the film produced by Nick Loeb and Cathy Allen which featured a cast of largely prominent conservatives, including Jon Voight, Stacey Dash, and Robert Davi.
Rather than letting Kennedy speak for himself about his intentions and experiences, Stern repeatedly grilled Kennedy on the claims the film makes and pushed onto the actor the notion that he was conned into "one of the most appalling movies of the year."
Comedian Jamie Kennedy (‘Scream’) stars in the anti-abortion film ‘Roe v. Wade.’ I spoke with him about how he was… https://t.co/UpY9Ml9qDV— Marlow Stern (@Marlow Stern)1617381950.0
Early in the interview, Kennedy explained that he was attracted to the controversial subject the film dealt with and added that Loeb and Allen did their due diligence in explaining where they were pulling the script ideas from.
"They introduced me to a lot of the history of Margaret Sanger, Larry Lader, and Planned Parenthood. I knew it was going to be a hot-button issue going in, but I saw what they were quoting from, and I was like, 'That's interesting. I didn't know that,'" Kennedy told Stern. "They said everything in this movie was taken from books. Whether they took some liberties, I don't know. I didn't fact-check everything."
Immediately, Stern jumped in to assert," There were a lot of liberties taken," before setting off on a scene-by-scene breakdown of what he viewed were historical inaccuracies reflected in the film. Such inaccuracies had to due with the everything from the film's depiction of Kennedy's character, Larry Lader, a student of Margaret Sanger who founded the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), to Planned Parenthood's claim that abortions are only 3% of what the organization does.
"Are you worried that you got roped into a right-wing anti-abortion film?" Stern asked Kennedy at one point, to which he responded, "I mean, yes and no."
On the subject of abortion itself, Kennedy said, "When I started this movie, I was pro-choice. As I did this movie, I am still pro-choice, but I got educated on certain things that I have questions about, and I believe that, ultimately, it's a woman's right to choose. But I do have questions."
That slight admission obviously upset Stern, who later asserted, "I think you have been sold a false bill of goods here" and "this seems to be a pretty insidious right-wing propaganda film that you've found yourself in."
At no point during the interview did Kennedy say directly or without provocation that he was conned into the taking part in the film. Nor did he ever say that he totally regretted it. Yet, in promoting the interview, Stern suggested that Kennedy was obviously "misled" into appearing in the film.
It should be noted that this author has not seen the film in question so he cannot comment on the specific allegations leveled by Stern. However, suffice it to say that countless movies aiming to tell a memorable story have avoided some context, stretched the truth, portrayed facts in a certain light — or even outright lied to make a point — without so much as a whisper from liberal critics.
The difference here is that this particular film sets out to criticize something considered sacred among liberals; this being the controversial decision in Roe v. Wade which gave women the right to an abortion.