April 10, 2011, - 11:04 pm

Saying Good-Bye to the Real Sidney Lumet: Embraced Liberalism to Reject Judaism

By Debbie Schlussel

The showbiz world is chock full of lamentations over the death, yesterday, of legendary director Sidney Lumet.  While he was a talented filmmaker, it’s been completely glossed over that most of his movies were liberal.  They had viewpoints that weren’t necessarily flattering or good for America, and frankly, his films mostly looked down upon Americans. And it’s time for a reality check amidst the opium-laced fantasy about who Sidney Lumet really was.

Sidney Lumet: Proud to Be Liberal, Embarrassed to be Jewish

Whether we were portrayed as racist bigots in “Twelve Angry Men,” or war-mongering screw-ups in “Fail-Safe,” it’s clear that Lumet took a dark view on Americans. Yes, I’m sure there were plenty of racist juries back in the ’50s, but today, the racism is in the reverse, and yet, “12 Angry Men” is still hailed and tours the country in its onstage version. As a criminal defense attorney, I liked watching the machinations of the jury room, but as an American, it’s troubling to watch the outdated, stale portrayal of American juries as a monolith of old, fat White men who are racist dummies, but for the one smart person who convinces them to go beyond that. (Yes, Americans are sheep, but they bend over backward to show they aren’t bigots. If our Islamo-butt-kissing since 9/11 doesn’t show that, you’ve been living on Mars.)

Then, there is “The Verdict,” in which the hero is the ambulance chasing medical malpractice lawyer played by Paul Newman, and the villain is the Catholic Archdiocese running a hospital. “Dog Day Afternoon” makes clear who the hero is: a bank robber who screams, “Attica, Attica,” and becomes a folk hero during the day that he holds a bank and its employees hostage. “Find Me Guilty” (read my review), which I enjoyed as entertainment, also makes a hero out of a real-life mobster. Many Americans believe this point of view as reality. It isn’t. The same goes for “Daniel,” his fictional portrayal of a far left-wing activist son of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, the real-life spies who sold out America and deserved to be executed for it. In “Daniel,” they were unfairly charged.

Contrast Lumet’s choices of heroes–mobsters, criminals, sleazy plaintiffs’ lawyers, Communist traitors who betrayed America–with one of his most constant villains: the police. Sure there are corrupt police, including his based-on-a-true-story “Serpico,” but he didn’t just make one movie about the police being corrupt. In his world, almost all police were corrupt, whether it’s “Prince of the City,” or “Night Falls on Manhattan,” etc.

Lumet’s last movie, “Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead” (read my review), was an absolutely loathsome, pointless exercise in filth, evil, drugs, killing, and other despair. Watching a failing fat guy and his giant butt having sex from the rear was the opening scene, and it was downhill from that nadir. Yup, total garbage. But critics raved about it, because, hey, it’s Sidney Lumet, so it’s “magical” by osmosis . . . or something.

In his own personal life, Lumet had what I call “Napoleonstein Complex.” Although Lumet was known to be a Jewish director and suffered anti-Semitism in the various neighborhoods in which his parents raised him, his choice in women and uber-liberal topics made it clear that he was embarrassed to be a Jew, sort of a self-hating intra-anti-Semite who tried his best to escape it rather than embrace it and take pride. And in that respect, he’s not unlike so many other Hollywood liberals who’ve rejected Judaism (and other religions) for liberalism.

Except for acting very early in his career in Ben Hecht’s pro-Israel Play, “A Flag is Born,” Lumet never did anything pro-Israel that I can find. And almost all–perhaps all–of his four wives were Gentiles. Like Tiger Woods, he seemed to reject his heritage in the choice of bed partners and wives. Lumet married Gloria Vanderbilt and Lena Horne’s daughter, among others. It appears he rejected Judaism, though he was brought up by parents who were actors in the Yiddish theater. (Often those in the Yiddish theater were very secular, though, and had few ties to the religion but for the German-Hebrew hybrid language.)

While Lumet’s “A Stranger Among Us” was an aberration, in that it showed Orthodox Jews in a somewhat sympathetic, the movie seemed more of a very faintly smiling sentiment someone might have when looking upon a museum exhibit, rather than an endorsement.

In contrast, Lumet’s “The Pawnbroker,” while critically acclaimed by most critics, is one of the worst–if not THE worst–Holocaust survivor movies I’ve ever seen. It seemed as though Lumet was obsessed with turning the Holocaust survivor experience in America from something meaningful into a nutty film noir experience with Black mobsters, hookers, and dysfunctional relationships with women. America was, for the most part, a great opportunity and wonderful experience for those who survived the Holocaust, including my grandparents, who had it tough at first, but succeeded and flourished and were proud and happy of what they made of their lives here. They were patriots who loved this country and what it gave them after so much tragedy. But Lumet turned America into the post-Holocaust tragedy in this boring, waste of time movie.

I’ll never forget how upset my late father was when he learned of the movie, “Daniel.” But my father, drafted during Vietnam, was as proud to be American as he was proud to be Jewish: very, in both cases. Lumet, on the other hand, was equally embarrassed by both, it appears. Those who embrace and observe the Jewish religion tend to be conservative. Those who reject Judaism and replace it with empty politics are almost always liberal.

Sure, Lumet served America with three years in the U.S. Army during World War II and is to be congratulated for that. And I enjoyed some of Lumet’s films, including “Network.” But Hollywood needs a reality check and that include the conventional wisdom on Sidney Lumet.

Yes, he was talented and a master of cinematography, but that’s exactly the problem, as he often used his talents and skills to turn American on itself and on his own people… or at least try to.

Saying good-bye to Sidney Lumet means saying good-bye to a man who sometimes made trash. And when he didn’t, it was often a very high quality portrayal of crappy viewpoints, which is even worse because it has an impact.

Now, Sidney Lumet is gone. Sadly, far-left liberal film directors whose work preaches against America, its authority figures, and achievers are like dead Islamic terrorists:

There are plenty of replacements.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly



Tags: , , , ,

23 Responses

lumet isn’t the first, last, or
biggest jewish jerk

biggest might be the illiterate
hallucinator who called himself
mohammed

prestigio on April 11, 2011 at 12:22 am

Sidney Lumet had a career to be sure but most people aren’t remembered for their work.

Most of his films are eminently forgettable.

NormanF on April 11, 2011 at 2:49 am

Whether we were portrayed as racist bigots in “Twelve Angry Men,” or war-mongering screw-ups in “Fail-Safe,” it’s clear that Lumet took a dark view on Americans. Yes, I’m sure there were plenty of racist juries back in the ’50s, but today, the racism is in the reverse, and yet, “12 Angry Men” is still hailed and tours the country in its onstage version.

In 12 ANGRY MEN, the level-headed, tolerant liberal is an educated white man. How paternalistic, how snobbish, how (possibly unconsciously) racist.

Miranda Rose Smith on April 11, 2011 at 7:23 am

He can go where Howard Zinn is now. His best work was horribly dated by the time he died, and yet it lived on and on. It no longer embraced a reality that actually existed, but was more of a tract against the United States in the vein of Howard Zinn.

Worry01 on April 11, 2011 at 7:38 am

Sad isn’t it that we try to be something else and forget who we really are. Sidney Lumet despite his talent will pass into obscurity and no one including me will care.

Naomi R on April 11, 2011 at 8:06 am

As a LIBERAL, Sidney Lumet was guaranteed to take the wrong side of things.

While he fought for America in WW II, acted in a pro-Jewish movie, and produced one movie that showed Orthodox Jews in a favourable light, as you concluded the bulk of his work was anti-American that hailed, mobsters, gangsters, ambulance-chasers, criminals, and Communist traitors as the real heroes on the American scene. “The Verdict” was anti-Catholic dribble aimed deliberately at the hierarchy of the Church.

Sidney’s rejection of his religious heritage, and his country…through his films or through his personal decisions, would surely earn him Torontonian Kaithy Shaidle’s catchphrase that even Ezra Levant takes special delight in.

Kathy, a Catholic, labels these type of reprobate Jewish liberals (like Mr. Lumet) as, “too stupid to really be Jewish”.

The Canadien on April 11, 2011 at 10:26 am

LIBERALISM IS THEIR RELIGION(LEFT WING JEWS)

ERIC SIMON on April 11, 2011 at 10:39 am

I feel like my IQ has fallen after reading this trash. I could go over this pathetic article piece by piece and tear it apart, but it seems like for you and your supporters there’s no hope. I am truly, and completely, disgusted.

Toby on April 11, 2011 at 11:29 am

Interesting fact: Sidney Lumet’s son-in-law, at least for a while, was P.J. O’Rourke, the prominent libertarian writer. Go figure.

As an aside, my favorite Lumet film was “Prince of the City” (1981), the breakout film for Treat Williams.

Seek on April 11, 2011 at 11:38 am

When critics rave………BEWARE! Remember “Reds?” MSM Critics love leftist propaganda films. Ever hear them pontificate on TV about politics? “Nuff said.

Herbster on April 11, 2011 at 11:40 am

    “Reds” was not Sidney Lumet’s film in any way. Warren Beatty produced, starred and directed.

    Anyone can cherry-pick a handful of movies and use their existence to “prove” anything they want. “Reds” came out in 1981 — thirty years ago. Gee, can’t you come up with something more recent? Or maybe “Secretariat” was liberal “propaganda” underneath, too.

    Seek on April 11, 2011 at 1:03 pm

You mistakenly said that Lumet should be congratulated for serving in WWII. Why? Defending your country is a DUTY!!!! No one should be congratulated for doing that which is expected of them.

If he was a hero, I would agree with you. To my knowledge, he won no special honors during his service.

Jonathan E. Grant on April 11, 2011 at 12:50 pm

Massacre at Rio Public School – He was indeed a Muslim (use google translator Portuguese – English).

http://veja.abril.com.br/blog/reinaldo/geral/e-preciso-investigar-sim-se-assassino-do-rio-tinha-vinculo-com-terrorismo-islamico

Nos últimos anos, Wellington parece se interessar também por outra religião: o islamismo. Uma das irmãs do atirador disse à polícia, em depoimento, que Wellington passou a freqüentar uma mesquita no Centro do Rio. Na carta, ele relata um conflito:
“Já errei com minha família, mas eu mudei com o alcorão e eles não confiam em mim…”

Wellington faz referência ao que seria um grupo. E relata dividir o próprio tempo entre orações e reflexões sobre o terrorismo.
“Estou fora do grupo, mas faço todos os dias a minha oração do meio-dia, que é a do reconhecimento a Deus, e as outras cinco, que são da dedicação a Deus e umas quatro horas do dia passo lendo o alcorão. Não o livro, porque ficou com o grupo, mas partes que eu copiei para mim. E o resto do tempo eu fico meditando no lido e algumas vezes meditando no 11 de setembro”.

Para o professor de Teologia, a mudança é um sinal claro da confusão mental de Wellington: “Acharia muito difícil um Testemunha de Jeová realmente trocar Jesus por Maomé. Não é que seja contraditório, que seja um contra o outro, mas acho meio complicado um fanático por Jesus ser fanático por Maomé, acho difícil acontecer”.

O sheik Jihad Hassan diz que Wellington não era muçulmano e afirma categoricamente:
“A religião islâmica proíbe esses atos. A religião islâmica não dá amparo, não ensina, a religião islâmica não dá esses ensinamentos, ela não acolhe esse tipo de pessoa, esse tipo de pensamento, a religião islâmica ensina o bem. Ensina a preservar a vida, e não a tirar a vida”.

Apesar de viver em aparente isolamento, Wellington Menezes de Oliveira deixou muitas pistas que precisam ser seguidas para entender qual foi o caminho que o levou a praticar tal barbaridade. Seguir essas pistas não é um trabalho fácil, porque é preciso separar o que é fato, realidade, do que é pura ficção.

Documentos como os que o Fantástico apresenta levantam muitas perguntas, que precisam ser respondidas. Por exemplo: Wellington participou de algum grupo extremista, com ligações até no exterior, como diz nos papéis? Ou isso é apenas fruto de uma imaginação fértil e doentia?

No manuscrito, Wellington volta a citar o “grupo” e o nome de alguém que teria vindo do estrangeiro se repete: Abdul.
“Tenho certeza que foi o meu pai quem os mandou aqui no Brasil. Ele reconheceu o Abdul e mandou que ele viesse com os outros precisamente ao Rio, porque quando eu os conheci e revelei “tudo” a eles eu fui “muito” bem recebido e houve uma grande comemoração”

No mesmo trecho, ele diz algo que pode ser uma referência ao atentado de 11 de setembro. O tal Abdul parece ter se vangloriado de quase ter participado do atentado às torres gêmeas, uma fanfarronice para impressionar Wellington, se for verdadeira essa interpretação:
“E o Abdul teve uma conversa comigo e me revelou que conheceu meu pai e que chegou a comprar uma passagem para um dos voos, mas não fazia parte do plano e usou uma identidade com algum dado incorreto pensando no futuro para não reconhecerem ele”.

Mais adiante, surge um novo nome, Phillip. E sinais de desentendimento dentro do grupo.
“Tive uma briga com o Abdul e descobri que o Phillip usava meu PC para ver pornografia. Com respeito ao Phillip, eu já esperava isso. Mas do Abdul eu não esperava isso. Nos dávamos bem e ele sempre foi flexível nas nossas conversas e dessa vez ele foi muito rígido.”

O motivo da briga teria sido uma menina, de uma certa igreja, que Wellington teria tentado levar ao grupo:
“É que eu resolvi falar sobre a menina que me convidou a ir à igreja dela e antes de eu terminar, ele já foi cortar ela logo no início, ao invés de ouvi-la. Depois disso ele me ligou umas vezes e eu disse que estou saindo por respeito ao grupo”

Wellington também manifesta vontade em conhecer países de população islâmica:
“Pretendo trabalhar pra sair desse estado ou talvez irei direto ao Egito.”

Além da carta, a polícia encontrou uma folha com anotações soltas, e uma referência à Malásia, um país de maioria islâmica, onde há alguns dos edifícios mais altos do mundo. Ele anota que é preciso verificar as condições climáticas da Malásia em setembro, mês dos ataques de 2001 em Nova York. Sinais de uma mente delirante, obcecada por atentados:
“Retornar fotos e dados sobre tais condições climáticas na Malásia no mês de setembro”.

A fixação pelo terrorismo tinha sido percebida por pessoas que conviviam com Wellington, como o barbeiro que o atendia há sete anos. À polícia, ele disse que “no último ano Wellington passou a deixar a barba crescer, atingindo o comprimento até o peito”. Quando brincou com Wellington, dizendo que cortaria a barba dele, o cliente o impediu, dizendo: “Vou ser expulso”.

O barbeiro entendeu que Wellingon se referia ao grupo de islamismo, pois ele dizia que o islã era a religião mais correta, e que estava estudando o alcorão. De tudo o que veio à tona, não há dúvida de que o assassinato dos 12 alunos foi obra solitária de Wellington. Mas os manuscritos revelados pelo Fantástico podem levantar uma ação paralela: o atirador teve contato com algum grupo radical? Abdul e Phillip existem? A polícia vai investigar?

“Eu acho que é uma necessidade. Nenhuma prova pode ser excluída. Há necessidade de se buscar tudo, desde uma simples suspeita. Se a gente pensar num quebra-cabeça, e uma investigação é sempre um quebra-cabeça, uma peça pequena pode estabelecer várias ligações e pode dar a solução para a montagem de um mosaico. Tudo é importante numa investigação. Qualquer policial sabe muito bem disso”, avalia Walter Maierovitch, jurista especializado em criminologia.

Don José Manuel Fernando Villareal de Assumpción Gomez Bolaños Smith on April 11, 2011 at 12:54 pm

I have to disagree with your take. To me, the movie has always been about a slovenly public defender. (well, presumably the kid had a p.d.). The reasonable doubts and “evidence” that the jury came up with–for instance the view through the dirty glass, the train, the witness without glasses–were all things the p.d. could’ve done. So the movie was really a 6th amendment, inadequate assistance of counsel indictment. It wasn’t really about racism at all. It was about 10 credulous men, one skeptical man (Fonda), and one man bitter about his own son (Cobb). That the skeptic was able, in a single afternoon, to convince the other 11 that the kid hadn’t done it is inarguably a celebration of American character and lack of bigotry.

Louie Louie on April 11, 2011 at 1:59 pm

To hell with “12 Angry Men”. Go see/rent the take-off on it : “One Angry Man” starring Jackie Mason

Not Ovenready on April 11, 2011 at 3:20 pm

I have never and will never understand people who hate their own culture and country and spit on it. In almost all of this guy’s movies, the country was evil and corrupt, the police were evil and corrupt, and only the minority “hero du jour” was good.

We can all admit that our country has problems. But instead of using his gifts to show a problem and maybe a possible solution via a movie, instead he ALWAYS tore everything down. The Verdict has always pissed me off. It makes an ambulance chaser a hero and a charity hospital run by the Catholics as evil. How many people did that hospital save ?? Wouldn’t a reasonable person say that that hospital did far more good than harm ??? But no–they are evil and it all must be torn down and I guess the kind & loving Uncle Joe Stalin…err government will help you instead.

jimmyPx on April 11, 2011 at 5:20 pm

3 objections.

1. Regarding Sidney Lumet’s marriage choices, were Denzel Washington, Will Smith, Eddie Murphy or someone along those lines to come out and say “I don’t date Jewish women”, the response from conservatives would be vitriolic and vicious. And also, conservatives were very pleased with Woods’ marriage choice until his infidelities became known, and haven’t had a single negative thing to say about who Clarence Thomas, Ward Connerly and a slew of other conservative black men – who unlike Woods are for the most part not actually far more Asian than black AND were not raised in an otherwise all white suburb – are married to. Look, we either need to take the “who people marry is their own business” position, or admit a bunch of blatant hypocrisy and double standards.

2. There may have been SOME racist juries in the 1950s? Talk about understatement.

Gerald on April 11, 2011 at 6:31 pm

Sidney Who?

Infidel Pride on April 12, 2011 at 12:26 am

I love your website and I am a conservative with zero tolerance for Jew haters and their ilk. I hate to defend a liberal like Lumet but your dismissal of his films is oversimplified. Twlve Angy Men is a great film and although it has a decidedly liberal slant, in the context of when it was made it was hardly radical in its message. Only one of the jurors is portrayed as a racist and the strength of the film isn’t its social message but rather the powerful characterizations and superb acting. The Verdict is an inferior film but nevertheless the villains in the film are the lawyers and the doctors and not the Catholic church. I think when taking liberals to task, the cricisms must me very precise and objectively verifiable or the message gets lost. Please keep up the good work.

Martin on April 12, 2011 at 1:15 pm

I had recently bought Network on DVD…because I am sick and tired of the way the media has operated…ONE BIG STINKING CIRCUS TO SATISFY GLOBAL ELITES!

One of the features on the DVD…audio commentary from Lumet himself. It exposes how network news really operates…even for 1976.

Bob Porrazzo on April 13, 2011 at 7:50 am

Debbie, I think you are attempting to brand Sidney Lumet and his films in an erroneous broad brush. If there is one overriding theme in Lumet’s works it is that the individual can often make a difference in a system that seems to cut out the individual, and that is a good message, and hardly anti-American or anti-Semitic. Nor do I think that there’s any evidence that Lumet could be characterized as a self-hating Jew, as he hardly fits that mold at all.

Rather, I believe that Lumet was simply a secular Jew. And you might be interested to know that although it is true that Lumet married several non-Jewish women, one of his daughters, actress and screenplay writer Jenny Lumet (granddaughter of legendary singer Lena Horne), is married to Alexander Weinstein. They have a daughter together. (Jenny Lumet’s film, Rachel Getting Married, is about a secular Jewish Connecticut family that is very dysfunctional.)

Here is an article about Lumet that might shed a little more light on him and the themes in his life:

“Sidney Lumet’s Legacy of Zionism, Civil Rights & Hasbara”

Academy Award winning film director Sidney Lumet, who passed away on April 9 at age 86, is remembered for classics such as “Twelve Angry Men,” the courtroom drama that challenged racial prejudice and which Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor has cited as a major influence on her career.

What is not widely known is that before he became a director, Lumet, as a young actor, was at the center of a 1940s controversy in Baltimore involving Zionist activists and the fight over racial segregation.

In the summer of 1946, hundreds of thousands of Holocaust survivors languished in Displaced Persons camps in postwar Europe. The British refused to let them enter Mandatory Palestine, for fear of alienating the Arabs. In New York City, the Jewish activists known as the Bergson Group came up with a new way to publicize the survivors’ plight: a Broadway play. They called it “A Flag is Born.”

Ben Hecht, the Academy Award-winning screenwriter, was active in the Bergson Group. So were the Adlers, the “first family” of the Yiddish theater. Hecht wrote the script for “A Flag is Born.” Luther Adler directed it. Adler’s half-sister Celia and another ex-Yiddish theater star,Paul Muni, costarred as elderly Holocaust survivors straggling through postwar Europe. Their sister Stella, the statuesque actress and acting coach, cast her most promising student, 22 year-old Marlon Brando, in the role of David, a passionate young Zionist who encounters the elderly couple in a cemetery. Celia Adler’s son, Prof. Selwyn Freed, told me: “When my mother came home from the first rehearsal, she said of Brando, ‘I can’t remember his name, but boy, is he talented’.The actors all performed for the Screen Actors Guild minimum wage, as a gesture of solidarity with the Zionist cause.

“Flag” played for ten sold-out weeks at Manhattan’s Alvin Theater (today known as the Neil Simon Theater). British critics hated it. The London Evening Standard called it “the most virulent anti-British play ever staged in the United States.” American reviewers were kinder. Walter Winchell said “Flag” was “worth seeing, worth hearing, and worth remembering…it will wring your heart and eyes dry…bring at least eleven handkerchiefs.”

Victor Navasky, publisher emeritus of the political weekly The Nation, was a teenage usher who collected contributions for the Bergson Group after each performance. “The buckets were always full,” he told me. “The audiences were extremely enthusiastic about the play’s message. For me, too, it was a political awakening about the right of the Jews to have their own state.”

After New York City, “Flag” was performed in Philadelphia, Boston, Chicago, Baltimore (and, reportedly, in a DP camp in Europe). Brando’s contractual obligations prevented him from taking part in the out of town shows. He was replaced by Sidney Lumet.

Lumet was just 22 at the time, but as the son of Yiddish actors Baruch Lumet and Eugenia Wermus, he had been on stage since childhood and made his Broadway debut at age 11. Lumet told me that having grown up in the world of the Yiddish theater, it was “a special thrill” to perform alongside Paul Muni in “Flag.” (He did not know Brando well at that point, but Lumet would later direct him in the 1960 film “The Fugitive Kind.”)

When Lumet and the other cast members of the Broadway hit arrived in Baltimore, local reporters were clamoring for interviews. Lumet spoke to the Baltimore Sun about the inspiring struggle to rebuild the Jewish homeland. “This is the only romantic thing left in the world,” he said. “The homecoming to Palestine, the conquest of a new frontier, against all obstacles.”

On the eve of their performance at Baltimore’s Maryland Theater, controversy erupted when it turned out that the theater restricted African-Americans to the balcony. Neither Hecht nor the cast would tolerate such discrimination. The Bergson Group and the NAACP teamed up to protest: the NAACP threatened to picket, and a Bergson official announced he would bring two black friends to sit with him at the play. The management gave in, allowing African-American patrons to sit wherever they chose. NAACP leaders hailed the “tradition-shattering victory” and used it to facilitate the desegregation of other Baltimore theaters. Lumet, reflecting on the episode six decades later, told me was “very proud” of his part in the protest and “pleasantly surprised that it was so successful.”

For the Bergson Group and its supporters, the fight for civil rights in Baltimore was just as important as their fight for Jewish rights in Palestine. As Ben Hecht put it: “To fight injustice to one group of human beings affords protection to every other group.”

Sidney Lumet’s admirers will remember his extraordinary talents as a filmmaker when they enjoy watching “Serpico,” “Dog Day Afternoon,” or “Twelve Angry Men.” But it’s also worth remembering the role he played in the real-life fight for justice six decades ago.

Now all the plays being written for political purposes are anti-Israel. We can learn a lot from the Bergson Group in the 1940s.

POSTED BY JASON BENJAMIN PAZ AT 2:43 AM
http://jbpaz101.blogspot.com/2011/04/sidney-lumets-legacy-of-zionism-civil.html

Ralph Adamo on July 26, 2011 at 4:00 pm

lately I am increasingly becoming pro death penalty, not the kind if you insult the prophet Irving (code for Mohammed) but for far more monsterous crimes.
Still it is very easy to bring a fly into the jury ointment. We are soar brainwashed. And getting change of venue because of a bad judge is not that easy.
OJ on preponderance should have been hung as high as a pigeon, and if you read Kafta you know Kwami would not be flaunting justice as the former teflon mayor and son of a congresswoman from Brotown. After all he could start another “riot”and we don’t need that again, right? .As for pedophiles I have other ideas I cannot mention here.
And for crooked cops, they exist statistically they are no better than us, same with doctors, priests, and even one rabbi I knew who was convicted for taking a bribe from a cookie company many years ago in Baldwin Long Island. Washigton DC-don’t get me started, remember Wigand and big tobacco?
Lobbying former pols make the Mafia look like amateurs.
If we did not acend from monkeys where did we learn to act like them? Only in fiction does ape not kill ape.

Ron Wolf on December 13, 2011 at 11:40 pm

You neglected to mention the blatant faggot-pandering message of Dog Day Afternoon. Undoubtedly Lumet’s most disgusting movie and probably the reason gays think they deserve equal rights. Those fiends would probably still be in the closet and out of our way if not for Lumet making them look normal.

Chuck Kline on March 17, 2012 at 10:36 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field