December 16, 2011, - 4:07 pm

FOX Family Values: Rupert Murdoch’s Porno Flick is a Real “Shame”

By Debbie Schlussel

The next time you hear anyone on FOX News talking about family values or the extreme, deviant sexuality being pushed on America, think about their boss Rupert Murdoch and the movie, “Shame.”  It’s been in theaters in some parts of the country over the last two weeks and opens in the rest of the country, today.  You won’t hear a word about Rupert’s “high brow” porno flick from Murdoch’s paid employees who constantly shout about morality otherwise (that includes Michelle Fraudkin, Megyn Kelly, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Vannity, etc.) They won’t say a thing because they wouldn’t wanna hurt their paycheck and bottom line, and they know who signs their paychecks. They are sell-outs and phonies. But, then, you knew that a long time ago.

murdochalwaleed
I saw the movie more than a month ago and have been chomping at the bit to write about it when the studio embargo was lifted. Because my only “shame” here was sitting through this waste-of-time filth.


“Shame” is about a sex addict and is rated NC-17 for a reason . . . many reasons, including several full-frontal penis shots.  The main character, played by actor Michael Fassbender (who is normally a terrific actor, but lowered himself tremendously for this flick), is addicted to sex and has threesomes with prostitutes (played by real life porn stars), has sex with anonymous gay men at an underground club, watches porn all day long at work and at home, and repeatedly masturbates in the shower. There are multiple scenes of Fassbender with various prostitutes in his apartment, with him having sex with other people in hotel rooms, and then, there’s that scene of him telling a girl’s boyfriend in obscene detail what he’ll do to the girl sexually. (The only good part is when Fassbender gets beaten senseless by the boyfriend.) There’s zero plot ion this flick. And you don’t need to be a prude to know this movie has nothing of value in it.

There isn’t even a story here. They hint at one, but there’s no story. There’s a sister, played by Carey Mulligan, who sings an overrated version of “New York, New York” at a club and then sleeps with Fassbender’s married boss. She says something about how she and her brother are not bad people, and we see his contempt for her, before she tries to commit suicide. But that’s it. The rest is just one porno flick dressed up as something of substance. And it isn’t, despite the myriad of movie critics who think this celluloid emperor with no clothing is some sort of masterpiece. And since when is the stuff men go to dark places to see while wearing a trenchcoat, suddenly a “masterpiece?” It’s just garbage.

Since I’m a member of the Detroit Film Critics Society, I was sent the screenplay.  Here are just a couple of scenes as depicted in the script. You tell me if the muttawa [religious police] in FOX News/News Corp major investor Prince AlWaleed Bin Talal’s country (Saudi Arabia) would allow this to be shown there. They call us the perverted ones, and yet their hypocritical prince (as the second largest individual investor in FOX after Rupert Murdoch) produces this trash and foists it on the West. And ask yourself why Rupert Murdoch is putting forth this trash in America:

Brandon banging the life out of HOTEL LOVER, doggy style, t–s pressed up against the glass of the window-

The DISTANT SCREECH of horns.

Yup, that’s an entire scene in the movie. But I guess the “DISTANT SCREECH of horns” makes it classier than, say, the $1.00 XXX movie that used to occupy Times Square?? More:

A THIN BOY down on his knees sucking a c–k through a hole between walls.

BRANDON stands, legs splayed letting the THICK SET GUY take him in his mouth. He is beautiful.

The palm of BRANDON’s hand pressed against the side of the cubicle. He stands, f—ing the THICK SET GUY in the mouth-

The PULSE Of music heaving, the club rocking, punctured by groans and grunts of rough sex from deep within.

Another classy scene from Rupert Murdoch’s fancy porno flick. And then there’s this slice of wholesome:

A threesome. BRANDON has sex with a BLONDE and BRUNETTE. . . .

BRANDON, at climax, his animalistic grimace turns to pain and anguish.

Ah, pain and anguish. You see, it’s “complex emotion” like that in the script that’s supposed to make this trash “respectable” and “upscale.”

I’m a bit of a libertarian when it comes to regulation over what kind of movies are made. The government shouldn’t dictate it, nor should any law. However, Hollywood–and especially Rupert Murdoch–should exercise just a tad of restraint and self-regulation. Is that too much to ask?

It’s movies like this that Osama Bin Laden used as evidence of the decadence of Western society and America, in particular. And movies like this, that the repressed late bastard terrorist-in-chief with a gazillion wives probably also had in his porn stash.

Either way, it’s complete garbage.
FOUR MARXES PLUS A BIN LADEN PLUS A RUPERT MURDOCH PLUS A VANNITY PLUS A FRAUDKIN
karlmarxmovies.jpgkarlmarxmovies.jpgkarlmarxmovies.jpgkarlmarxmovies.jpgplus.jpgbinladensmallerplus.jpgplus.jpgplus.jpg

Watch the trailer . . .

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly



Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

36 Responses

“I’m a libertarian when it comes to regulation over what kind of movies are made. The government shouldn’t dictate it, nor should any law.”

Agreed DS, you are spot on in that statement you wrote in you’re sentence at the end of this article. I could careless if you watch adult-films (I happen to be a sexual-libertarian myself, and whatever you do in the privacy of you’re bedroom with you’re partner is NONE of my business or anybody elses bees-wax), but DO NOT watch it with under-age minors, it is forbidded to them.

“Hollywood-and especially Ruport Murdoch-should excercise just a tad of restrainment.”

I also agree that Mr. Murdoch should be put a restrainment on this film til a degree, as I said, those under 18 years old shouldn’t see this film, “Shame”, there not old enough to watch the movie (yet).

“A nation is defined by its borders, language & culture!”

Sean R. on December 16, 2011 at 4:32 pm

It is “champing” at the bit, not “chomping”.

Peter Winch on December 16, 2011 at 4:33 pm

Hmm… so I gather you didn’t much like it?

I notice how the sort of creeps that peddle this type of sleaze always jump to proclaim “art” in their nudity, perverse sexual situations and outright pornography. Yet, even their own screenplays betray that lie for anybody who could have been fooled into it. “T–s,” “c–k,” “f—ing,” these aren’t words of an artist in the delusion of creating any sort of masterpiece, but a smut peddler proudly and boldly wallowing in his filth. Completely disgusting. Just because they convinced Fassbender to join doesn’t mean it is anything even slightly better than cheap Cinemax porno; it just means Fassbender is willing to lower himself to that level.

Brian R. on December 16, 2011 at 4:45 pm

    I’m not a prude – I enjoy tasteful and restrained depiction of human lovemaking as most men do but I think this film carries sexuality to uninhibited excess. After you’ve seen “Shame” – will you like the character better and identify with him? I don’t think so and neither would the audience. Debbie is right, this is absolute garbage and if this movie has a message, its that sexual addiction can be a serious behavioral problem. But we didn’t need to be sold endless scenes of meaningless sex to get it.

    FOX has really scraped the bottom of the barrel with this movie.

    NormanF on December 16, 2011 at 5:19 pm

      I don’t think the point is to like him. Maybe get in his mind a bit, but I don’t think your supposed to like him. The movie isn’t about a happy ending (pun intended) or a moral lesson, It’s about this guy and what he does, what you make of it is up to you.

      petebone on December 17, 2011 at 11:06 pm

Debbie,
Perhaps this is based on the true story of what robert murdoch and prince AlWaleed Bin Talal find sexually stimualating. Apparently men sucking off other men is something they enjoy being a part of. They must have found satifaction in seeing this art form being produced and released. I am sure it is a “must have” for their personal collections.

Poncho on December 16, 2011 at 4:57 pm

    This is a turn-off to heterosexual men. I bet gay men may see it for a reason but gay sex is not appealing to your average hot-blooded red man. Whoever wrote the script didn’t know or could have cared less about normal male sexuality. When men watch an explicit movie with a beautiful woman, they want to “date” her or someone like her and women who see handsome men in such films want to “date” them or be with someone like them. In other words, people are sold a fantasy. This movie isn’t such a fantasy and that is what kills it.

    NormanF on December 16, 2011 at 5:24 pm

      From Debbie’s description, it sounds like a pretentious porno flick. Rupert Murdoch is not even being original here in trying to get a wider release for this film. After the film ratings system changed in the 1960′s, you got a rash of films over the next decade, such as Debbie Does Dallas, Deep Throat, The Opening of Misty Beethoven, etc. The porn industry tried to upgrade its fare from the Blue Movies and Stage Films of yore to capture a larger adult market. By the end of the 1970′s, that effort for the most part was abandoned. The producers of such fare finally realized that their target audience simply liked sexual activity with a minimal, if any, setup. Also, by the early 80′s VHS recorders and tapes had fallen in price, so porn consum

      worry01 on December 17, 2011 at 5:18 am

As usual, I agree with much of what you write, and a little surprised at the rest. I agree don’t have high regard for Murdoch (who does?) so its not surprising that he’d make a gratutious sex film (and the phonies you mention, are indeed drek). Islam, though is very clear on its “take on porn and/or masturbation” http://www.islam-watch.org/MA_Khan/Muslims-Watch-Porn-Masturbation-sex-toys.htm (and its not a big deal at all to them) (and it is nothing even close to what Bin Laden had to say about the “wicked west”.) Though I don’t watch porn, if I’d known he felt it was one of our “evils” according to Bin Laden; I’d have sought it out and watched it often. Since when did you start letting Bin Laden dictate to you as to evidence of decadence in the west. That comes as quite a shocker.

Rick London on December 16, 2011 at 5:00 pm

    Muslims are hypocrites. As we know from Bin Laden’s porn collection. I mentioned porn films sell a fantasy to normal men – they can meet a beautiful woman, get to make love to her and live happily after. Its the male version of romance novels for women but highly visual and men can imagine inserting themselves in the action. Without the fantasy, porn isn’t alluring to men. Its a big business because it caters to a psychological need for a man to feel the hero, to feel loved and important. The dysfunctional character in “Shame” isn’t the guy most men want to be and the sex he has just misses the mark so to speak.

    NormanF on December 16, 2011 at 5:31 pm

Sounds like this movie is right up there with that crapfest of a movie called Jarhead. Total crap.

John on December 16, 2011 at 5:12 pm

The traditional porn industry doesn’t pretend to show art and people know it.

FOX’s hypocrisy is absolutely galling. Fortunately, with the NC-17 rating, few critics will review this cinematic dreck dressed up (barely) as “art” and no family newspaper will run advertisements for it.

It deserves the ratings you gave it.

NormanF on December 16, 2011 at 5:13 pm

“Murdoch’s paid employees” …”that includes Michelle Fraudkin, Megyn Kelly, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Vannity, etc.”… “they know who signs their paychecks. They are sell-outs and phonies.”

You’re probably right, but I wouldn’t know for sure since I don’t watch FoxSnooze. Refraining from FoxSnooze was last year’s New Year’s resolution for me, and, I’m happy to report that it is one that I have kept.

CornCoLeo on December 16, 2011 at 6:17 pm

A few points:

1) I used to watch and enjoy F—ed Nooz. The Greg Gutfeld dissed my brothers and sisters who were serving in Afghan at the time.

Yes, what can you expect from a group of 2000+ people doing the job of 10,000? It ain’t easy being a Canuck soldier, eh?

2) Muslims are hypocrites? HAH! Muslims are basically dumb hairless primates like us who just happen to fall under the spell of a moon Goddess (Allah, or al-Lat, was originally female – Google it) who was shilled out by a lying, power-mad drunk.

That being said, you can always tell the state of a society by its fine arts. Debbie drove it home well.

3) I know that this may not be news to you, but actors are generally over-skilled prostitutes. If the money is right, Michael Fassbender can play a dinner roll and get an Oscar nomination.

Then again, Jack Nicholson can do it better. Just saying.

4) I know my porn. That ain’t porn. That’s a tax write-off.

5) I prefer something with a plot an the ability to suspend disbelief. I don’t wan’t to be reminded of my past and addictions and compulsive self-abuse. “Shame” makes me feel dirty, because parts of it were part of my life. It does nothing for my recovery.

Just saying, eh?

So my verdict…

This weekend: SKYRIM!

The Reverend Jacques on December 16, 2011 at 6:48 pm

Say it isn’t so, you threw in a Michelle Malkin.

CaliforniaScreaming on December 16, 2011 at 7:02 pm

What a great review. One I was totally looking forward to reading and your sure did deliver. I’m very embarrassed for Michael Fassbender. He prolly thought it was “edgy” to do but really, I can’t envision him being proud of this glourified porn.

In fact, I respect a dude perving on a porn film more than the “high-brow” artsy-farsy crowd going to see this dreck. At least they’re attending to a natural urge.

Norman, I loved your point on the films/romance novels. That’s a great comparison and you are correct.

Sex addiction? AS IF! No, it’s called bad (very bad!) character. No such thing as a sex addict.

DS, thanks for including parts of the skanky script. It screams that whoever (Steve McQueen!) had a hand in this filth didn’t bother to cover up how they view women. The scene itself is so offensive because it treats women with such disrespect and disdain! Where the eff are the feminists? I am NOT surprised that they used real porno stars in the scenes. What actress today would let themselves be degraded in such a disgusting way? “Oh, we’ll use porno chicks! Everyone hates them and frowns on them! They are already skanks so win-win!” Disgrazia!

I will never watch this crap. And DS, you’re the only critic that mentioned the gay scenes in this. Now I know it’s absolute filth. Only gays want to see that. (And NO, I am not against gay movies. One of my all-time favourites is “Beautiful Thing” a beautiful and cute Scottish film.) Norman was spot-on regarding that point too.

Thank you for sitting through such absolute pitch so we don’t have to!

Skunky on December 16, 2011 at 7:12 pm

I hope Fassbender attends the AVN Awards this year. He could actually be in the running! And has no right acting as if he is above it all.

My favourite part of these bizarro-world freak shows (not that I ever saw one or went to one, LOL!) is when the “winners” go up to the dais and accept their “award” and cry and thank their mum and dad! I’m so sure both are bursting with pride!

Skunky on December 16, 2011 at 7:33 pm

More of the do as we say not as we do BS. Politicians, media and hollywood need to get off the high horse and get slapped in to reality.

I argued with one guy about one of those torture snuff films they call horror movies today. He called it art I called it commercial crap. Then he complained that they had to change some scenes because of the NC17 rating. I replied if it was art the rating wouldn’t have mattered, it’s commercial crap and they are trying to sell it to make a buck. With the success of shows like Dexter, True Blood, Breaking Bad, etc they are just trying to push the envelope to see what sells.

Ender on December 16, 2011 at 7:49 pm

Upon reflection, the only surprise is this movie wasn’t released back in Hollywood’s August movie graveyard, where the industry sends its crummiest pictures to die.

I appreciate Skunky’s comments. The reason they used porn stars is no self-respecting mainstream Hollywood actress would disrobe for meaningless sex. They must have read the same script that Debbie obtained for her review and turned it down.

Its stands to figure Michael Fassbender needed the paycheck badly so its the only reason it even has a major star billing. The irony is even your usual porn film will have a coherent plot to follow.

This one is an absolute mess which makes one wonder if it really isn’t a parody of the porn film genre.

Either way as Debbie said, its pure garbage and shame on FOX for foisting it down upon America in advance of the forthcoming holiday season.

NormanF on December 16, 2011 at 8:03 pm

Looks like this is a test to see if male gay porn dressed as “art” will sell to the general public. No doubt theaters will be cleaning vomit off the floor for some time.

Brian on December 16, 2011 at 8:37 pm

    Its supposed to be a look at the choices we make in life: when we give up intimacy and true love for carnal lusts and the pleasures of this world, we are already in hell whether we realize it or not.

    That’s a theme as old as Dante’s famous evocation in Il Inferno of the doomed lovers Paolo and Francesca. We pay the price when we give up both the soul G-d gave us and surrender to our animal instincts and the ending isn’t a happy one – its a sad one.

    Its not a tragedy nor a love story because it has none – there is no conflict and there is no choice the protagonist has to make to choose the right side. Brandon Sullivan is the ultimate anti-hero for our age.

    Sex is holy and Judaism treats it as another way the Jew loves G-d with his wife. When two people love each other, G-d rejoices in their love for each other and for Him.

    A different kind of uplifting movie could have been made that could have gotten people thinking and arguing about what an incredible gift sex is that G-d gave us and that we must cherish and protect for our benefit and those of the people we love.

    Shame in word is not that movie because it doesn’t explore that territory. And it adds nothing to our understanding of the people who live in the world they do and when they spiral out of control, relentlessly, heading towards oblivion.

    I want to see a movie that makes me feel good about humanity, sex and love. Shame will never be that movie for the rest of us.

    NormanF on December 17, 2011 at 8:07 pm

This is not the first one. ALL the recent NC-17 movies(“Dreamers”, etc.) were produced by FOX Searchlight-NEWS CORPORATION COMPANY.

Lev on December 16, 2011 at 10:03 pm

I have yet to see Hollywood make a serious adult film – and I don’t mean high-brow porn.

Its clear mainstream filmmakers can’t handle the conceptual and artistic challenges posed by the NC-17 rating.

They’re better off sticking to making R-rated movies.

NormanF on December 16, 2011 at 10:20 pm

BUTTHEAD: “….uhhh Some dude is named FASSBENDER, like is the a real name?”

BEAVIS: “You said ASSBENDER…”

BUTTHEAD: “…uhhhh, Do you think he is the ASSBENDER or bending ass?”

BEAVIS: “I don’t know lets watch FASSBENDER do an ASSBENDER.”

This name is unreal and he is doing gay porn? Who would have thunk?

CaliforniaScreaming on December 16, 2011 at 11:18 pm

    Terrific actor with poor judgment. I can picture Debbie laughing out loud at the script… its so poorly written, it shouldn’t even have been shot in that state to begin with. If I was an actor, for me the story would always be the key to connecting with the audience. You want to be believable and see people have a good time. This script had no story, no plot, nothing that made people care about it. I would have said, “gentlemen, if we’re going to do a serious adult movie, let’s do it right or let’s not do it at all.” Apparently, Fassbender couldn’t insist on minimal standards in this movie and after the scene with the sister it all went downhill from there. Every actor makes a bad movie, one so bad it gathers dust on the shelves for a good reason during their career. Again, like I said, I was surprised this dud was pushed out to the theaters at the end of the year.

    NormanF on December 17, 2011 at 9:36 am

    I know that Beavis and Butthead would love this movie, but I’m going to use one of Butthead’s lines to describe this movie, which for that reason I won’t use quotation marks.

    Butthead: …uhhh … This movie sucks. And I hate things that suck.

    JeffE on December 17, 2011 at 11:13 pm

Rupert Murdoch is getting into the porn game rather late. The “Porn with Plots” craze died after the 1970′s. It had been fueled by a change in the film rating system in the 60′s that was still sorting itself out. The people who supposedly would have watched Deep Throat, Debbie Does Dallas, and The Opening of Misty Beethoven were not interested in pretentious porno flicks, but the cheaply produced stuff that got to the point. With the advent of VHS movie rentals in the 1980′s, porn production meant for the cinema virtually disappeared. A film like Shame would be offensive to a mainstream viewer and a bore to the regular porn audience. I suspect that Mr Murdoch is becoming senile on top of his already more than evident amorality.

worry01 on December 17, 2011 at 5:49 am

Worry, mainstream porn nowadays is shot exclusively for the film to DVD market and adult movie theaters no longer exist. One no longer has to go in a trench coat to the dark side of town at twilight hours to see a porn flick. That is what makes “Shame’s” distribution model unusual. Debbie is right garbage usual sells in this country but this film is going to be the exception to that due to its subject. It won’t make back the money spent to produce it. And I believe in questions of taste and morality, the market is usually a better judge of what people like to see than the government. And this kind of movie is not what people want to see during the holiday season. Murdoch’s amorality aside, I don’t see this particular movie wowing Middle Class America.

NormanF on December 17, 2011 at 9:26 am

It has often been said that porno “propagates in favor of what it depicts”. I haven’t seen Shame, but if the descriptions I have read are accurate it isn’t porn. One reviewer said on leaving the theater that she never wanted to have sex again so long as she lived.

MonkeyShines on December 17, 2011 at 7:01 pm

I’m not surprised. Few women have the same attitude towards sex as men for good reason.

Without that there would be no family life and the world would be a dark and desolate place.

NormanF on December 17, 2011 at 7:14 pm

Thank G-d my movie theater isn’t showing this theater–at least not this weekend and hopefully never will.

Anyone who watches this crap of a movie most likely has this:

http://tinyurl.com/3qoy465

JeffE on December 17, 2011 at 11:20 pm

    Thank you for the review, Debbie.

    “Anyone” excludes Debbie and movie reviewers who are being paid to watch crappy movies like this.

    JeffE on December 17, 2011 at 11:29 pm

Rewrite:

“Thank you for the review, Debbie.

“Anyone” excludes Debbie and other movie reviewers who are being paid to watch crappy movies like this.

JeffE on December 17, 2011 at 11:29 pm”

JeffE on December 17, 2011 at 11:30 pm

You’re right. I once saw an awful bomb cuz liberal movie critics praised it.

I will never trust their judgment in matters of taste and refinement ever again.

NormanF on December 18, 2011 at 1:29 am

Satanism sodomizes the illuminati….who sodomizes all of the music, movie and entertainment world…..pushing to sodomize
the whole earth. Their obvious goal. Don’t look at it, protect your eyes, heart mind and soul. There is no going
back if you have gone too far.

cheryl on October 7, 2012 at 1:09 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field