A major motion picture is in the works based on the life of the former Prime Minister of England, Maggie Thatcher, “the iron lady,” a woman of great courage and resolve.
         The movie star, Meryl Streep, plays Thatcher. Some reports say Streep could perhaps garner her 17th Ocscar-award nomination for her performance as Thatcher.
         Of course, Margaret Thatcher was a very strong conservative; therefore, she committed the unpardonable sin, according to liberal opinion.
         Maggie Thatcher inherited an economy that was in shambles because of decades of socialistic policies. She said famously, “The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other peoples’ money.”
         She was successful in helping get England back on track financially.
         Of course, she gained a lot of powerful enemies in the process.
         And now comes this movie, some thirty years later.
        Christopher Hope and Anita Singh write in the Telegraph from the UK (11/15/11): “The Iron Lady: Meryl Streep is 'cashing in' on Thatcher, say friends of former PM. It is the most eagerly awaited film performance of the year, but is also already proving to be the most controversial.”
         They add, “Friends and family have dismissed the drama as a ‘Left-wing fantasy,’ although it portrays Lady Thatcher as a strong leader during the Falklands conflict, the miners’ strike and other crises.”
         Apparently, some of the movie shows her as she is today, after a few mini-strokes, etc. Good heavens. When people get old, they often experience some forms of dementia. Why would they waste the movie-goers’ time with that?
         What if some aging Hollywood star, still alive, but whose mind and health is long-gone, were to be featured as he or she is today? Of course, they would come off as out-of-touch and decrepit.
         Tim Bell (now Lord Bell) used to work for Thatcher, and he has no inclination to see the movie: "I can’t see the point of this film. Its only value is to make some money for Meryl Streep and whoever wrote it….The depiction of Lady Thatcher as a stooped old lady in a headscarf contrasts with her appearance during her most recent public outing.”
         So my question is: Why does Hollywood have to be so liberal?
         In 2004, with his independent film, The Passion of the Christ, Mel Gibson proved that there are millions of potential theatre-goers who are starved for well-done movies that won’t insult their faith. He did this, against the grain of the Hollywood establishment and proved them wrong.
         He managed to bring millions of people into the theatres, some of whom probably hadn’t seen a movie in a theatre in decades.
         I have come to appreciate a man who is my favorite movie critic, Ted Baehr, publisher of Movieguide. He looks for the good and praises that, while criticizing the bad.
         Ted told me, “Hollywood studios release only 40% of the movies every year. Now, they get most of the box office, but they only release less than half of the movies. The other half of the movies are released by independents.”
         He said that well-done films with positive moral values tend to do really well, even if they are independent.
         Said Ted, “Once in a while an independent like Fireproof will succeed, but most of the independents, like Sean Penn’s Milk and all of Sean Penn’s movies, bomb at the box office. So, although Sean Penn has this driving passion to get across a very Chavez-laden communist worldview, he fails at the box office.”
         Fireproof was made in 2008 by the Kendrick brothers, Alex and Steve. It was basically a production by a church in Georgia. And it’s a well-made film starring Kirk Cameron, and it did well---even though its budget was limited.
         The Brothers Kendrick also came out with a movie a few months ago, entitled Courageous, which at last check (of boxofficemojo.com, which monitors box office receipts) has earned $31.5 million. That’s not bad for an independent film released by a church.
        In fact, the weekend after its release, Ray Subers of boxofficemojo.com wrote an article subtitled, “’Courageous’ Tops Weak Newcomers” (October 1, 2011).
        Subers stated: “With a strong estimated $3.1 million, Courageous looks like the big box office surprise this weekend. That debut is up on Fireproof's $2.3 million start on the same weekend in 2008, and it should translate to a $9 million opening weekend.” Courageous managed “to attract a solid Christian audience.”
        Ted Baehr told me, “films that undermine the biblical position generally don’t do well. Movies with positive Christian content last year averaged about $80 million or more. Movies with anti-Christian content averaged about $1.7 million. Year after year after year.”
        So why does Hollywood continue to make so many liberal movies, like the upcoming one on the former Prime Minister of England---which I'm sure will be very well done, very well-acted, and totally liberal in outlook?
        I think the answer is because so many of them are not aligned spiritually or politically with the vast majority of the population, including some in Britain.
        Such as Margaret Thatcher who said in the late 1980s: "The truths of the Judeo-Christian tradition are infinitely precious, not only, as I believe, because they are true, but also because they provide the moral impulse which alone can lead to that peace, in the true meaning of the world for which we all long....But there is little hope for democracy if the hearts of men and women in democratic societies cannot be touched by a call to something greater than themselves."