We were not especially big fans of Nick Loeb and Cathy Allen’s recent Roe V. Wade, who holds an F degree from the strictly right (and yet, not even entertaining) bonkers) anti-abortion film. Indeed, the movie ends up apparently much more interesting for his fight behind the scenes as for the highly skewed version of history try to tell; Loeb and co. was very difficult to make it, because, as soon as people understood the movies real intention – including actors, crew members and Loeb’s own original co-director – they massively acquitted the project. Those who essentially stayed a grab-bag of stumbling block Hollywood and online elite, by Jon Voight, to Tomi Lahren, to the blessed-mostly-forgotten Milo Yiannopoulis. Oh, and Jamie Kennedy, for some reason.
The Daily Beast tried to get to the heart of that “for some reason” over the weekend, with a probably-much-more-in-depth-than-Jamie-Kennedy-expected interview with the actor and comedian. Kennedy says everything but on a flashy “Well, here we go” mode, that he accepted, and then remained, the role of the champion of abortion rights, Larry Lader (portrayed in the film as a fast-rich-rich man who wants to benefit the suffering of others) because, well … They asked.
To be honest, I was offered the role. It was a more dramatic part and a real offer, which is why I did research. I knew there were a lot of things we were doing, but in other parts of Hollywood I had to read, read, read, and it was a great offer …Certain parts of Hollywood make me read nineteen times for the tenth season of a TNT show, and here’s this detailed character. I’m an actor. I apologize if I made people angry.
The net result of the surprisingly long interview is to make it clear Daily Beast Senior Entertainment Editor Marlow Stern has a very more research and reflection Roe V. Wade and the different distortions of history as Jamie Kennedy – who has been wild ever since Jamie Kennedy is the one actually in the damn thing, putting his name and reputation at stake in support of Loeb’s fact-agnostic vision. (The film repeats in its epilogue the story of Norma “Jane Roe” McCorvey later switched to the anti-abortion side – a decision that McCorvey made very clear, in the last years of her life, was motivated only by the money she was offered to do so.) In defense, Kennedy takes up the questions with a certain degree of acceptance, even though Stern says straight to him, “I think you sold a fake piece of goods here” and describes the film as ‘a rather treacherous right-wing propaganda film in which you found yourself. ‘
Not in his defense, however is his repeated assertions that he is ‘just an actor’, and that he is prepared to put the version of Loeb’s history at its best questions about the part he chose to accept. Although he declares his own preferential obligations and suggests that his agent half forced him to participate, Kennedy repeatedly falls back on a kind of “Well, what are you going to do?” reaction, without ever admitting that “Not being in the stridently anti-abortion movie with fucking Milo Yiannopoulis”, was, in fact, an option. (One again taken by many people involved in the film.) And you can really take as an example for the entire interview of Kennedy answer to a question about the Catholic League, often criticized for their challenges to freedom of speech, and was provide funding for the film:
I did not even know it, and to be really with you, there are a lot of people who produced it, and … I did not even know it. I did not know that the Catholic League did that. I also believe in freedom of speech. I just thought it was a really cool role. Did I know how controversial it was going to be? No. Did I know Nick’s background enough? No. Was it led by a woman? Yes. But she went away, and another woman came in. I’m in the middle as a human being. I’m a centrist.
G / O Media can get a commission
You can read the full interview here.