Winning hearts and minds… through B-movie horror

Oh dear. Now we know that Conservapedia administrator John Patti, aka Jpatt, isn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer – after all, this is the guy who believes that Obama authorising the killing of Bin Laden is just another indication of the “Muslim agenda of the Obama administration”, but he never fails to amaze me. The man who also penned the sycophantic (and unintentionally hysterical) “Conservapedia at 4” in which he drooled over how Conservapedia and Andrew Schlafly were changing the internet, is now taking us to the movies.

He’s also – like many other Conservapedians – a rabid pro-lifer. Now, personally, I don’t have a problem with that. My own opinions on abortion are fairly simple – the day men start having babies, is the day they get to decide that they have a say in what happens to the baby. What does annoy me, however, are the emptiness of his and Schlafly’s actions. Yes, they go to marches – that achieve nothing; he coins terms such as “pro-aborts” (which is a bit like me calling pro-lifers “pro-unloved-abused-welfare-baby”); and he does some grandstanding on a backwater, 2nd-rate, hate blog. Quite frankly – until people like Schlafly and Patti and all the other so-called “pro-lifers” out there start doing the obvious thing – adopting unwanted babies – then all they’re doing is blowing off steam and they’re hypocrites for demanding that a child be born, whilst paying no mind to the future of that child. That makes them complicit in any future neglect, or abuse of, or crimes committed by, that child.

Patti’s latest stunt is to – in his own inimitable style – promote a “pro-life horror movie.” No, I kid you not.  Sez he: “New pro-life horror movie, “The Life Zone“, might make liberal minds explode.’ The psychological thriller by producer Kenneth Del Vecchio has three women seeking abortion, kidnapped against their will. They are held captive for 7 months and forced to give birth.” Wait… can minds explode? I know brains can, but minds?

Now, maybe it’s just me, but I think I can see an obvious flaw in the whole “Hey! Let’s make a horror movie to convey a social message that will sway millions!” idea. Let’s just think about that for a moment – “Jaws” didn’t exactly do much for shark conservation now, did it? And how many girls wanted to go baby-sitting after watching “Halloween”? Certainly, “Alien” put paid to any aspirations I had of going into space one day, and as for taking showers in strange motels whilst a string quartet go berserk outside the room…

Of course, the real fun of Conservapedia is when The Powers That Be try and defend their actions – that’s when the true stupid comes shining through. And Patti is no exception, as he says in defence of his headline:

I am not going to reword. It’s a horror film, youths love horror. I don’t think you would watch the film, or would change anybody’s mind if the story was about pro-choicers having coffee. It’s original, it’s bold and the affects on thinking have yet to be determined. We’ll have to wait and see if the movie reaches enough eyeballs to make a difference.

Ok, I can see the first problem with your argument:

  • “Youths love horror.” Yes they do, as long as it involves big-breasted women being chased through a forest, with plenty of close-ups of heaving bosoms (do people still say “bosom”?), scantily clad cheerleaders having terrible things done to them, and at least one bunk-bed sex scene, with a dead body in the bunk above.
  • “I don’t think you’d watch the film… if it was about pro-lifers having coffee.” Well, coming from somebody whose life was changed by an episode of Stalker Texas Stranger and who takes life tips from Stephen Segal, this might be understandable. However, I’d challenge Patti to watch “Sleuth” or “The Man From Earth” (although that might make his brain explode) – both involve people speaking in a room, but damn if they don’t make you think.
  • “We have to see if the movie reaches enough eyeballs to make a difference.” Well, given that only 50 people – including staff and cast turned up at the premiere, I think it’s safe to assume that this horror show will go the way of Atlas Shrugged, Apocalypse 2012 and Expelled.

Also, Patti offers us an explanation as to why the movie will be a horror:  “I love how everybody knows this film won’t make a difference. Monsters (kidnappers) Zombies (pro-choicers) blood and gore (birth), sounds like a horror flick to me.” Seriously, Johnny-sedition – I dare you to walk around a few maternity wards and ask the new mothers how the “blood and gore” went. It would be fun to watch them hold you down and insert a bed pan up your nose… or worse.

Just to expand on Patti’s “pro-lifers drinking coffee theme” – apparently, the movie shows that the “captive women are clothed in nightgowns and served warm milk and given opportunities to read books and watch movies explaining both sides of the abortion debate.” In addition, the women “are often tortured by dreams of death and despair – montages of swarming bees, swirling tornadoes and speeches by Hitler one night, African-Americans and foreigners shouting “abort me” in foreign tongues the next…”

Fuck me! That’s gripping stuff! Captive women drinking warm milk?? Tortured by dreams of Hitler? (What would a good conservative movie be without gratuitous references to Hitler?) Let me at it, what’s this “Hostel” crap anyway? Who needs to see naked titties and gratuitous murder, when I can watch women drinking warm milk?! That’s just the thing to get spotty teenagers flocking to your movie.

Given the fact the movie has a budget of only $1.5 million, is produced by Ken Del Vecchio (who?) and directed by Rod Weber (again… who? Oh! The guy who edited ” Fighting Nirvana” and directed ” O.B.A.M. Nude”… what???) and a cast drawn from TV shows, of whom only Robert Loggia rings a bell, I think it’s a fairly safe bet to tell you that you can avoid this movie as if your life depended on it.

Not because I disagree with it’s message.

But because it’s going to be yet another steaming heap of crap, produced by the rabid right.

About PsyGremlin

PsyGremlin is a former Conservapedia sysop (although the position was earned nefariously), stand up comedian, DJ, and is currently a self-employed financial adviser, who impersonates a responsible adult at least 5 days a week. However, highlighting and poking fun at the crazies out there remains his first love. Well besides pork crackling. And custard. And cricket.
This entry was posted in Administrators, Conservapedia, John Patti, Jpatt, Movies, Pro-life and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Winning hearts and minds… through B-movie horror

  1. Totnesmartin says:

    “whilst a string quartet go berserk” – outrage! Bernard Herrmann was a genius, I’ll have you know! A genius!

    • PsyGremlin says:

      Well yes… but the “kill the girl in the shower” theme is hardly music to make love to.

      Well, hopefully it’s not… 🙂

  2. Kels says:

    Rod Weber didn’t make “Fighting Nirvana” (which, by all accounts is a good film), he was the editor. Only things he’s directed were the O.B.A.M. thing, which looks like drivel and this, which looks worse.

    • PsyGremlin says:

      That’ll teach me to read IMDB properly before posting 🙂 Thanks – updated accordingly.

  3. PWEOTWEB says:

    You would think that this would alienate people away from the “pro-life” (read: anti-choice) side due to it portraying pro-lifers as kidnappers.

  4. WWWWolf says:

    > as long as it involves big-breasted women being chased through a forest,

    …or not-as-big-breasted women with big guns, blowing the shit out of the otherworldly horrors that torment the distraught band of protagonists. (Then again, I’m 32 and don’t exactly know what the “youths” like. I have, whatchacallit, refined mature tastes. Or something. =)

    > do people still say “bosom”?

    Verily! But only in fantasy and horror set in times of yore. Not necessarily modern horror.

    > “…the affects on thinking have yet to be determined. We’ll have to wait and see if the movie reaches enough eyeballs to make a difference.”

    That’s a stupid escape hatch. The subject should be evaluated on its own merits, not whether or not it became popular or not. You can’t just go out and say “oh well, turned out the film wasn’t actually seen by a lot of people, so you can ignore everything I said.”

    It’s perfectly okay to point out dumbness (and brilliance) in stuff that few people have heard of. Art isn’t popularity contest. (Just ask any film buff who has seen dozens of *absolutely brilliant* films that the unwashed plebeians haven’t. Or anyone who has been around one to *actually see* one of those films. They’ll probably go “huh, well, that was pretty good, actually”. =)

    > “explaining both sides of the abortion debate”

    “…and why one side is completely wrong and the other isn’t!” The very definition of objectivity! Not.

Comments are closed.