August 12, 2008, - 12:28 pm

Affirmative Action for Anti-American Actresses: Meet the “Real Reason” Batman Movie is a Hit

By Debbie Schlussel
For those of you who saw it, why did you go to see “The Dark Knight,” the latest Batman movie? Was it because you like superhero movies? Was it because critics were raving about it? Are you a Christian Bale fan? Did you want to see how the late Heath Ledger amped up the Joker?
Or did you go see it for the homely, anti-American co-star who said America deserved the 9/11 attacks? Well, I doubt anyone who saw “The Dark Knight” went to see it for Maggie Gyllenhaal, except maybe her communist parents, ambiguously incestuous brother, and the unmarried father of her out-of-wedlock kid. Okay, so that’s four people. The tens of millions of others who went to see it didn’t go to see it for Gyllenhaal.
But that’s not what the mainstream media wants you to think. There’s this affirmative action PR trend afoot crediting this homely biotch for the success of “The Dark Knight.” First, the Wall Street Journal, on July 25th credited Gyllenhaal for the movie’s success:

maggiegyllenhaalbatmanwsj.jpg

Gyllenhaal charmed critics and helped “The Dark Knight” rake in a record-breaking $155 million its opening weekend.

Puh-leeze. She had nothing to do with opening weekend profits or those thereafter. She was a placeholder. That’s it. Added nothing to the movie.
Now, in today’s USA Today, at the top of the Life Section there’s this photo with news of “The Dark Knight’s” continuing domination at theaters and continuing record-setting. Again, why her photo? What did she have to do with it? No photo of Heath Ledger, Christian Bale, or Aaron Eckhart–all of whom made the movie what it is, not her.

maggiegyllenhaalbatmanusatoday.jpg

So, why the interest in promoting this chick who said,

Because I think America has done reprehensible things and is responsible in some way

for the 9/11 attacks?
I think it has a lot to do with her left-wing views and her lack of box office success. She’s ugly both inside and out and her movies don’t do well. Finally, she grabs onto the coattails of a giant success, which made it despite her presence. And certain parties in Hollywood want to credit her. And help promote her and expand her acting career.
Yes, affirmative action doesn’t just happen on college campuses and in corporate boardrooms. It happens a lot in Hollywood, and often, it’s based on hate-America ideology, not race or gender. There’s a reason most conservatives in Hollywood don’t dare out themselves and their ideologies. They don’t get the Maggie Gyllenhaal treatment by USA Today and the Wall Street Journal.
I’m tired of this woman. If during World War II, an actress attacked America and said we deserved Pearl Harbor, her career would be over.
Now, it is being boosted.
So, readers, tell me: Did any of you who saw “The Dark Knight” see it for this reprehensible pinko actress? Let’s do an unscientific–but probably very representative–poll in the comments section.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly, PDF & Email






19 Responses

They could’ve put a wig on Aaron Eckhardt and had a prettier woman.

49smudge on August 12, 2008 at 12:57 pm

I saw the movie for our greatest actor these days, Christian Bale, and one of the best directors/writers, Christopher Nolan.
As for Muggie (spelled accurately), her part was just a minor role that didn’t require much. She was OK, but just about any other actress could have been in the role and it wouldn’t have mattered one bit. You can’t say the same for Bale, Ledger, or Eckhart.
And, yes, Muggie is indeed a homely broad. She makes Kirsten Dunst look halfway decent. I’ve never seen Muggie in anything before and don’t care to.

Jeff_W on August 12, 2008 at 1:13 pm

I can go one better than not going to see it because MG appeared in the movie; I refuse to go see it all because 1) doped out suicidal Bare Back Moutain appearing Heath Ledger. 2) Female battering Bale. 3) Infidel Morgan Freeman. What’s the big draw here?

4thekidz on August 12, 2008 at 1:45 pm

I did not see it for some anti-american trick who I’m glad got killed in that movie.
I saw the flick becuase it’s Batman doing what he had to do to save Gotham City.

Squirrel3D on August 12, 2008 at 1:49 pm

I doubt anyone but that anti American’s family went to see the movie to see her. She truly was a detriment to the movie. Totally unbelievable that two rich, handsome men would even date her. At least since she was killed we won’t have to see her again in the movie. If she feels that way about USA why stay? MONEY!

patriotamerican on August 12, 2008 at 1:58 pm

I’m seeing it for one reason: Nolan’s story of doing the right thing and it not winning you any popularity contests.

FlapDoodleMcGee on August 12, 2008 at 2:13 pm

“Charmed [left-wing, blame-America-first] critics” is right.
At least that part’s correct.
Audiences? Not so much.
Her homeliness renders her harmless. Lets the guys do their job.

Second City on August 12, 2008 at 2:17 pm

I think they gave a woman unjustified credit. Affirmative action for women demeans and belittles the accomplishment of much more deserving men. A woman should get recognition because of her talent and accomplishments not because of her sex!

NormanF on August 12, 2008 at 2:24 pm

Unbelievable!! Not only did I NOT go to the because of MG, I actually commented to my fiance that I didn’t understand how she got into the movie. My total reaction was; “She’s kind of homely, isn’t she?” Looks like she got punched in the face and it never healed. I know, I know, that’s mean. But if she thinks the US deserved 9/11, then she deserves to really get punched in the face.

RightInSeattle on August 12, 2008 at 4:00 pm

I saw it because I love the comic book and have been a long time fan plus Batman does what I think alot of people should do in this country. Take law into their own hands.

RadicalRightWinger on August 12, 2008 at 4:09 pm

I personally enjoyed most scenes of the movie – especially the ones where she wasn’t and was relieved when her character died. Seriously. She annoys me very much. Maggie is a horrible actress, unattractive (to say the least) – and since I already knew about her activism, I couldn’t stand watching her.
[SM: GREAT MINDS THINK ALIKE. DS]

Shawarma Mayor on August 12, 2008 at 4:23 pm

No. I always feel cheated when talented entertainers kill themselves with drugs. From Elvis to Chris Farley / Jimi Hendrix to River Phoenix. Its just bad to feel how all is lost for them due to ones desire to do drugs.

tita2juju on August 12, 2008 at 6:52 pm

I had to see it because the Joker is my all time fav character. Though I didnt like the idea of bareback mountain co star Ledger, he did one hell of a job.
I do get ticked though when some people compare Batman, a true hero to a dirty, war mongering politician called bush and his personal war on oil.

savage supporter on August 12, 2008 at 9:21 pm

I saw it because I was curious, and I like a good action/hero flick. I liked Bale and Ledger,and Freeman.

mindy1 on August 12, 2008 at 10:38 pm

I saw it because my 17 year old son wanted to see it, period. I hated her and Heath Ledger from when he played 1/2 of the gay cowboys in Broke Back Mountain. Another hollywierd hit with the fringe lefties.

samurai on August 13, 2008 at 12:01 am

I saw the movie because friend recommended me to see it. At the time I was not aware of what Maggie Gyllenhaal’s values are and so forth (she’s been non-entity to me and continues to be that). Whenever I saw her on the screen I thought that she stuck out like sore thumb because her looks and acting was not up to the level other major characters set. And her character being killed got smile out of me because it means she will not be there if they make more of this Batman-series.

Niko on August 13, 2008 at 2:08 am

Rachel Dawes was the reason for the success of the 2 recent Batman movies?
I thought Katie Holmes didn’t fit as a asst. DA in the first one. The Maggie Gyllenhaal version was actually worse and didn’t add anything to the “Dark Knight”. I hope she isn’t the future of leading ladies in Hollywood…
I feel like Aaron Eckhart’s performance should get a lot more credit for a very good movie.
I also agree with Niko’s assessment, “Whenever I saw her on the screen I thought that she stuck out like sore thumb because her looks and acting was not up to the level other major characters set.”

Ironwolf32 on August 13, 2008 at 6:58 am

I don’t like her. Never have, never do and never will. She has no business in being an actress. Her looks doesn’t cover anything and I don’t think she has anything to do with the Dark Knight’s financial success. She’s a whore of the highest order. I always thought the character of Rachel Dawes in both Batman movies is an unnecessary diversion for Batman’s alter ego, Bruce Wayne.

Bobby's Brain on August 13, 2008 at 8:28 pm

The best thing in the Dark Knight was obviously Heath Ledger. The second best thing was that Maggie Gyllenhaal’s character got killed off and therefore shouldn’t be appearing in any future sequels. I wasn’t really aware of her anti-America statements when I saw the film (I had read your review, but did not remember your comments about her), so that did not influence my judgment of her (although I generally assume that all actors and filmmakers are left-wing, anti-American types until proven otherwise). My reasons for not liking her in this film were basically twofold: 1) She’s homely as a mud fence and it was hard to believe that two handsome and powerful men would both be chasing her because: 2) her character was dull and mostly annoying. I was pleasantly surprised when her character was blown up and did not magically reappear, a’la Commissioner Gordon.
As for the rest of the film: I’m surprised you rated it so highly. It must be because so many Hollywood films these days refuse to depict pure evil as purely evil. The Joker is certainly evil personified in this film. However, I felt that the character of Batman was pretty much given the standard Hollywood moral-equivalency treatment. The Joker gets to be full-blown bad guy, but Batman agonizes over what it means to be the good guy. Batman needs to be made to watch The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance a few times until he figures out the whole right vs wrong, greater good thing.
Other negatives: Too long, too complicated and much too pretentious considering some of the comic book absurdities of the plot (just how did The Joker manage to strategically plant enough explosives to level a major hospital without anyone noticing?)
Since I went in to the theater expecting the film to not live up to all the hype surrounding it, I can’t say I was greatly disappointed. Using your rating system, I guess I’d give it 3 or 3 1/2 Reagans. I would also add that by the end of the film I had come to find the violence so oppressive that I’m not looking forward to seeing the sequel, given that Hollywood seems to feel that they must always “top” the previous film in acts of mayhem and “body count”.

SideshowBob on August 16, 2008 at 12:38 am

Leave a Reply for Niko

Click here to cancel reply.

* denotes required field