CNN aired a segment ruthlessly mocking Trump supporters as a bunch of illiterate rednecks. This of course is disgraceful bigotry, but it's great news for Donald Trump. CNN seems intent on doing everything it can to get him reelected. Also, Stephen King continues his apology tour after committing the sin of saying that art should be judged on quality and not on the race of the person who produced the art. And a female CEO argues that sports talk should be banished from the workplace so as to be more inclusive of women.
If you like The Matt Walsh Show, become a member TODAY with promo code: WALSH and enjoy the exclusive benefits for 10% off at dailywire.com/Walsh
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
You know, we spend a lot of time in this culture, a lot of time and energy.
Supposedly exposing, attacking, weeding out forms of bigotry.
And this zealousness to get rid of bigotry could be a good thing.
Even an overzealousness.
Even an overzealousness that leads to sometimes to calling something bigotry even when it isn't bigotry.
That could be a price worth paying.
Except that the problem is our crusade against bigotry is of course rather selective and inconsistent.
And self-contradictory.
And hypocritical.
And what we discover, in the end, is that we're no different than any culture in the past.
All cultures have had their accepted bigotries and their unaccepted bigotries.
There are acceptable bigotries and unacceptable, and that's the same for us.
Now, to root out and reject all bigotry, that would be novel.
That would be unique.
That would be progress.
And as I said, maybe even worth the price of overzealousness, but that's not our situation.
We have simply chosen different bigotries as acceptable, and different ones as unacceptable.
So it was a lateral move, not a progression.
And when I say we, of course, I mean the powerful forces in our culture, not you and me necessarily, but media, academia, Hollywood, government, and so on.
Which brings us to a perfect example of acceptable bigotry in our culture today.
This example provided to you by CNN, an alleged news network.
I'll just play the clip for you if you haven't seen it yet.
Here is Don Lemon with two other guys Laughing at and mocking millions of working class Americans.
Watch this.
He also knows, deep in his heart, that Donald Trump couldn't find Ukraine on a map if you had the letter U and a picture of an actual physical crane next to it.
He knows that this is, you know, an administration defined by ignorance of the world.
And so that's partly him playing to their base and playing to their audience, you know, the credulous boomer rube demo that backs Donald Trump, that wants to think that Donald Trump's a smart one and y'all elitists are dumb.
You elitists with your geography and your maps and your spelling, even though my... Your math and your reading.
Yeah, your reading, you know.
Your geography, knowing other countries, sipping your latte.
All those lines on the map.
Only them elitists know where Ukraine is.
Sorry, I apologize.
Is that North or South Ukraine?
Oh my God.
But you know what?
It was Rick's fault.
I blame Rick.
But in all honesty, you know what NPR should do?
Sorry, hold on.
Wait, wait.
Give me a second.
Hold on, hold on, hold on.
That was good, sorry.
Rick, that was a good one.
I needed that.
Okay, so listen.
Let's get back to business here.
Okay, first of all, my first problem is that it's not funny.
The worst sin that any joke can commit is failing to be funny.
And if a joke succeeds in being funny, then it's redeemed itself, no matter the content of the joke, really.
But it's not funny, and the reason why it's not funny is that being funny isn't the point.
When Don Lemon is cackling like a slap-happy drunk and says, oh, I needed that, what he needed was an excuse to mock people he hates.
That was the delight.
The delight in that, quote, humor for him and for the other people on camera is just, it was an outlet, a way of venting hatred for this group of people.
That's all.
It wasn't the humor that anyone needed because there wasn't any humor there.
There was no wit or anything like that.
This was just sheer mockery.
Mockery out of spite and hate.
And that kind of mockery is never funny.
Not because it's offensive.
And I'm not saying that mockery itself is never funny.
Mockery can be extremely funny.
But when you're mocking people simply because you hate their guts, and for no other reason, it's not going to be funny.
Because there needs to be some respect, or at least some kind of understanding in humor for it to be funny.
For it to be actually humor.
And not just you, not just you ranting and raving.
Now the second thing, quickly, and just speaking for myself, I don't care at all, just to clarify here, for anyone who doesn't understand what people are upset about, and I think I speak for a lot of other people, but for myself anyway, I don't care at all About the first part of this where they're making fun of Donald Trump.
That doesn't bother me.
I will never be offended by insults directed at politicians.
I think insulting politicians is as American as apple pie.
I think it's patriotic.
I think it's our patriotic duty to insult and mock politicians.
I'm fine with that.
I'd rather err on the side of Disrespecting politicians than err on the side of giving them too much reverence, or any reverence, because we shouldn't have any reverence at all for politicians in this country.
And I do think that there are too many people on both sides of the aisle who err too much on the side of reverence.
I don't think it's a—it's not a left-versus-right thing.
I think it's a matter of the human condition.
There are some people who are inclined To fall into cults of personality and so on.
So there are some Trump supporters like that, just like there were some Obama supporters like that.
And other politicians as well have supporters like this, who can't stand any mockery of their guy and have, again, reverence for him.
I think that's a problem.
And this is...
One of the things that separates us from places like Iran and Saudi Arabia.
In this country, you can get on the TV, and you can ruthlessly mock our politicians and powerful people, and they can't do anything to you.
I think it's good for them.
It's good for them to experience that, to be reminded that they're just people, they're human beings, they're just bureaucrats.
They're not kings.
And it's good for us to remember that about them.
So that I'm fine with.
Now, To do it on a supposedly unbiased news network is embarrassing and inappropriate, obviously, but whatever.
I don't care.
Insult politicians all you want.
It's not going to offend me.
The problem is it doesn't stop there, of course.
The Trump stuff is only the first five seconds.
It goes on for another minute, clearly directed specifically at white, blue-collar, especially southern people.
And the joke, the quote-unquote joke, is that they are dumb hicks who can't read and can't spell and can't figure out how to use a map.
That's the joke.
So this is bigotry.
Plain and simple.
Mocking a politician?
That's not bigotry.
Mocking millions of Americans based on their racial and socioeconomic demographic?
That's bigotry.
And we'll talk more about this in just a second, but first, a word from our friends at Vincero Watches.
You know, with this new year, it's time to get started on improving yourself.
No one knows that better than one of my favorite sponsors, and that's Vincero.
These guys just, they know how important it is to look and feel your best, and they're here to keep you motivated through 2020 and beyond.
If you're looking to upgrade your look, don't waste money on a cheap cookie cutter watch that doesn't get you noticed.
Finding a watch that's stylish, bold, and built to last, the thing is it can cost a pretty penny.
It can be pretty expensive.
So a lot of times if you want to get a watch and you don't want to spend exorbitant amounts of money, that's when you end up with the cheap, ugly, cookie-cutter watch.
Well, you don't need to do that.
Vincero is changing the paradigm here.
They believe that you deserve to look good no matter your budget.
You deserve better than settling for something underwhelming.
So head over to vincerowatches.com.
You can check out my favorite picks.
Take advantage of my special discount while you shop there as well.
Remember to use the code WALSH while you're shopping.
Vincero understands the frustrations of online shopping, and these guys get it.
That's why they're making it as easy as possible for you.
You get free shipping, 30-day returns, and they've also got reviews on the site.
You can go and look for yourself.
The 20,000 five-star reviews should tell you, you know, don't take it from me.
Don't even take it from Vincero watches themselves.
Take it from the people that have bought the product, and they're gonna tell you how they feel about it, and it's just rave reviews all over the place.
So, You don't want to pass up on this deal.
Go to vincerowatches.com.
That's V-I-N-C-E-R-O watches.com forward slash Walsh and use my discount code Walsh for a discount at checkout.
Don't pay full price on these beautiful timepieces.
You don't need to pay full price.
Just remember to use my code Walsh when you're there.
Vincerowatches.com.
All right, so back to the cackling hyenas on CNN.
I want you to imagine this.
Imagine that exact same segment that we just played for you.
Except on Fox, during the Obama years, and directed at Obama's urban voters.
Imagine that.
If anyone who is skeptical that this is bigotry we're dealing with... Well, imagine in that scenario.
Exact same thing, exact same kind of mockery, but directed at a different politician's supporters.
The outrage in that case would be nuclear in proportion.
And justifiably so.
I mean, but the left, they would go beyond that.
I mean, they'd be calling for an FBI investigation probably.
They'd be asking for hate crime charges to be filed.
And I'm not exaggerating.
You know I'm not exaggerating.
But there's not going to be anything close to that sort of reaction here because bigotry against white working class people, especially in the South, Is totally acceptable in our culture.
It's one of the last remaining acceptable bigotries.
Or with this group of people, you can basically say whatever you want about them.
You can make a caricature of them.
You can mock them.
You can cut them down.
Doesn't matter.
And why can you do that?
Well, because they don't count.
Their opinion doesn't count.
Doesn't matter.
They don't matter.
That's the attitude.
Now, I don't want to spend 20 minutes of the show hyperventilating over this.
Oh, they made fun of us!
It hurts!
It hurts so much!
Give me my fainting couch!
I don't want to do that.
And on one level, I don't care what they think of us.
It doesn't bother me.
But there is an enormous double standard at work here, and it's worth pointing out.
It's worth pointing out the double standard.
Because, remember, These very same people, especially on CNN, they're doing that one minute and then the next minute they're fretting over, you know, the coarseness of Donald Trump and how mean and insulting he is and so on.
Not to mention they're talking about bigotry and how we need to get rid of bigotry.
If they didn't do that, listen, if they would just It wouldn't even really bother me that much that they were mocking millions of Americans if they would be open and say, okay, yeah, this is how we are.
We don't care about having respectful dialogue.
We don't care about bigotry.
We don't care about any of that.
If we hate someone, we're going to say it.
At least if they took that approach and they were honest, I could have some respect for the honesty at least.
But it's the hypocrisy and the double standard that annoys me the most.
More than the insult, it's what it represents.
But, really, Trump fans should be thanking CNN for this, because this is the most effective Trump ad anyone could ever come up with.
This is millions of dollars worth of campaign ads, right here, that Trump doesn't have to spend.
So it's 2016 all over again.
Trump may have put a few ads out, but he could have spent no money on ads at all because the media was advertising for him, and they're doing it again.
They haven't stopped doing it for three years.
If the people at CNN were to sit around trying to dream up a way to get Trump re-elected, they could not have thought of a better strategy.
And they couldn't have thought of a better, more effective, more persuasive 60-second segment than that.
To persuade people to vote for Trump.
If for no other reason than to do the opposite of what those people want.
One other thing about this, because a defense that you'll hear with this kind of thing, people will defend it by saying, well, Trump mocks people all the time.
Trump's a big meany head himself.
Which is a very childish defense, but it's also It also misses the point.
Because, yeah, Trump can be very mean and insulting, we know that.
Trump can mock people.
And I'm not even going to claim that Trump, you know, yeah, Trump mocks people, but he never punches down.
He does punch down.
Arguably, when you're the President of the United States, if you're punching at all, you're always punching down, because everybody is less powerful than you.
So, he's not above that.
But think about the people that he mocks and insults.
It's gonna be other politicians, people in the media, Hollywood celebrities, and that's pretty much it.
Other world leaders.
Okay, it's a pretty long list of people that he's insulted, but they're all in that realm, right?
What he doesn't do, what I've never heard him do, And correct me if I'm wrong, if anyone's ever heard this, I have never heard him mock Democrat voters across the board.
That I've never heard him do.
And that's the difference here.
This is something that you see on the left.
They are increasingly cavalier and blatant.
About their feelings about millions of working class people.
Trump really doesn't do that.
Which should tell you something.
That should be kind of a cautionary tale, should be a word of warning for people on the left.
That even Donald Trump, who has no compunction about insulting people, even he doesn't do that.
Alright.
So let's go briefly back to the sad, sad story of Stephen King.
You know, we talked about it a few weeks ago on the show.
Stephen King sent out, it was around the time of the Golden Globes I think, and he sent out a tweet saying basically that We should award works of art based on their merit, based on how good the art is, based on the quality of it, and not based on demographics.
You know, he said diversity.
The point is not diversity when it comes to art.
The point is the merit of the work of art itself.
That was the point that Stephen King made.
Well, of course, that is not acceptable on the left, and so the Pitchfork Mob came after him, and so he spent the last several weeks On an increasingly pathetic and hard-to-watch apology tour, just begging for forgiveness.
This brief moment of sanity and clarity from Stephen King, and he's been begging for forgiveness for it for the last few weeks, and it just gets more and more pitiful.
Reading now from the Daily Wire, this is the latest in Stephen King's apology tour, apologizing for his lapse into common sense.
Daily Wire says, in an op-ed for the Washington Post on Monday, the renowned author scolded the recent Academy Award nominations for their lack of racial and sexual diversity, arguing that the whole business is rigged in favor of white folks.
He says, has there been progress in the film community?
Yes, some.
I'm old enough to remember when there were only a handful of African-American directors, and about the only director of Hollywood was Ida Lupino, who made hard-edged noir B-pictures in the 1950s and later worked in television.
But King blames the lack of diversity among those nominated on the Diversity of the Academy's voting members, noting that there are only 32% women and 16% minorities.
King says, not good enough.
Not even within shouting distance of good enough.
King closed out his post op-ed by reflecting upon how a perfect world would be completely colorblind before lamenting on how that perfect world has been supplanted by a system rigged in favor of white folks.
He writes, my overall attitude that as with justice, judgments of creative excellence should be blind.
But, that would be the case in a perfect world.
One where the game isn't rigged in favor of the white folks.
Creative excellence comes from every walk, color, creed, gender, and sexual orientation.
And it's made richer and bolder and more exciting by diversity.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Okay, you get the point.
Just a simpering, uh, groveling, you could tell he was like on his hands and knees while, probably while he was typing this.
Weeping onto the keyboard.
Please forgive me, please!
He goes from saying, listen, you know, the issue here is not racial diversity with art.
It's just about was it good or not.
Really common sense.
He goes from that to the arts are rigged against minorities and so on and so forth.
This is what happens.
And this is why it's, you know, we talk about having common sense in our culture and how common sense is so important.
Common sense is important.
But I think most people have common sense.
That's why we call it common, right?
If most people didn't have it, it wouldn't be common sense.
So most people have it.
And there's this illusion we have, I think, and it is kind of an illusion, that people don't have common sense anymore, that everyone's going crazy.
I don't think that exists.
There might be an element of that, but that's not really the problem.
It's not common sense that we lack.
It's backbone.
It's courage.
You need to have some backbone and courage to stand for common sense and then keep standing when the irrational hordes come after you.
So Stephen King, He's not a crazy person.
He obviously has common sense.
But he doesn't have any courage.
He doesn't have any moral fortitude whatsoever.
And think about how lacking in courage you must be to back down this way when you're Stephen King.
I mean, you're rich beyond most people's imagination.
This guy's worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
Like, 15 of his books have been made into movies.
And he's completely in a position where he could say, I don't care what you people think.
Yeah, that's my opinion.
Go ahead and go cry about it some more.
What are you going to do to me?
What are you going to do?
I'm still going to have fans.
Even if I don't, I'm rich.
I'm wealthy.
I've made my point.
He's in a position where he could say that, but so lacking in courage that he refuses to do it.
Hard to watch.
All right, before we move on, a quick word from Rock Auto.
You know, I have to tell you, we've been having issues with both of our cars, actually, recently.
And it seems like it's kind of a when it rains it pours situation when you have car problems where one thing leads to another.
At least that's how it is for us.
So I've been getting a lot of use out of RockAuto.com recently.
RockAuto.com is a family business serving auto parts customers online for 20 years.
Go to rockauto.com to shop for auto and body parts from hundreds of manufacturers.
They've got everything from engine control modules and brake parts, tail lamps, motor oil, new carpet, whatever you want.
Whether it's a classic car, it's the daily driver you drive around every day, whatever it is that you need, rockauto.com has it.
Their catalog is unique and remarkably easy to navigate.
You'll have no problem getting around on the site.
You can quickly see all the parts that are available, and you can choose what brand and everything you want, and it's as easy as that.
And this is a lot easier than going to an auto parts store, which takes time first of all, and you might have to get into the car that's not working to get to the auto parts store, so that's a problem.
And then once you get there, most of the time they're just going to have to order online the parts that you need anyway.
Why bother with that?
Just go online yourself and get it.
Amazing selection.
Reliably low prices.
All the parts your car will ever need.
rockauto.com Go to rockauto.com right now.
See all the parts available for your car or truck.
Write Walsh in there.
How did you hear about us box?
So that they know that we sent you.
Alright, so Anne Frank is the Chief Executive of the Chartered Management Institute.
And she is arguing that people shouldn't talk about sports in the workplace.
Men specifically shouldn't because it makes women feel left out.
In an interview on the BBC, she said, quote, a lot of women in particular feel left out.
They don't follow those sports and they don't like either being forced to talk about them or not be included.
I have nothing against sports enthusiasts or cricket fans.
That's great.
But the issue is many people aren't cricket fans.
I, for one, am a huge cricket fan.
I could talk for hours about it, but I won't.
But she goes a step further.
And she starts talking about how discussions of sports, a discussion about sports, is essentially a gateway drug that can lead directly into sexual harassment.
That's her argument.
I'm not making that up.
Here, I'll play a clip of that part of the BBC interview.
Listen to this.
We were talking earlier, you said one of the points about this is that football banter can be the gateway to more offensive behaviour, to much more laddish behaviour.
Is that one of the points you're trying to make about this?
Absolutely.
It's a gateway to more laddish behaviour and if it just goes unchecked, it's a signal of a more laddish culture and it's very easy for it to escalate from, you know, the VAR talk and chat to slapping each other on the back and talking about their conquests at the weekend.
Yes, a gateway Into laddish behavior.
A gateway.
You gotta watch out for those laddish gateways.
And look, she's right.
I can't tell you how many times I've been talking to a guy about sports and next thing you know, he's slapping me on the back and telling me about his sexual conquest.
It happens all the time.
It's very normal.
Actually, it's not normal at all.
And this just shows something that I have pointed out before about feminists is that, and this is one of their problems I think, that they don't appear to know anything about men.
Which maybe isn't surprising, that's why they're feminists.
But they don't know anything about men, they don't understand how men operate, and they have this cartoonish idea about men.
It's as if they've never met a real one before.
And all of their ideas about men they got from watching, I don't know, movies in the 1980s or something.
So they don't know anything about men.
But the bigger issue here with this is, this is another example of, well, are we treating men and women equally or not?
I mean, when I see a woman, am I supposed to treat her as a woman?
Or am I supposed to just treat her as a coworker, irrespective of gender, and talk to her the same way that I would a man?
I mean, which is it?
You kind of have to decide.
It can't be both.
It has to be one or the other.
And if it's, you know, we're treating everybody exactly the same, not taking their gender into account at all, that's not my, see, that's not what I advocate for.
I think that you do take gender into account in social interactions.
That's part of what chivalry is all about.
So I think you should do that.
Which isn't to say that you should never talk to a woman about sports, but in general, yeah, I think in social interactions, you take that into account.
You take gender into account.
That makes sense.
But that's not what feminists would say.
They would say, don't.
Just treat a woman like a person.
Forget about her gender completely.
Well, if that's the case, then Then we're going in that direction.
You choose that path.
That's a completely different path.
You can't have it both ways.
All right, let's go to emails.
MattWalshow at gmail.com.
MattWalshow at gmail.com.
This is from Maximilian.
Says, hey Matt, love the show.
I think I found a personality test worth taking.
Have you ever heard of the Big Five Aspect Scale?
Jordan Peterson is one of the people who helped put that together.
And I respect his opinion on a lot of things so at the very least it's worth looking into.
An example of how it points out the negatives and positives is that I got a 77th percentile for compassion, meaning that I'm more compassionate than 77% of people.
But, something tells me I wouldn't be in the 77th percentile.
But it gave me a 1% in assertiveness, meaning pretty much everyone is more assertive than me.
In my opinion, this personality test is the closest to reality as I've seen.
By the way, I agree with your opinion on personality tests.
Most people just want to hear good things about themselves.
I like how you tell me you got a 1% in assertiveness, and then immediately you tell me you agree with me.
So, very well done.
Illustrating the point.
I mean, that sounds like an interesting take on personality tests, I guess.
Maybe I'll check it out, but I still feel that the whole concept is arbitrary and sort of weird.
I mean, can you really quantify a trait like assertiveness and assign a numerical value to it?
1%?
Why not 3%?
Why not 7%?
I mean, I think personalities are more fluid than that.
Harder to quantify.
Conditional.
Situational.
Based on circumstance.
People don't really have the exact same personality in every situation.
So, that's part of the problem.
This is from Ian, says, Matt, I agree with you that personality tests are useless.
What is your take on IQ tests?
Same thing?
Well, at least with IQ tests, the person taking the test can't easily rig it to get whatever favorable result they want, right?
It's not necessarily easy to rig an IQ test for yourself so that it comes back with a 170 IQ.
You have to actually do an efficient job of answering the questions and completing the tasks and everything.
But even so, I would say IQ tests are basically useless also.
So pretty much any test that's supposed to tell you about your intelligence or your personality, I think it's all basically bunk.
And I don't know why we have this obsession with trying to measure and quantify every aspect of the human person.
Even the most complicated and indeterminate parts of us, we want something quantifiable.
We want a number, right?
Now, IQ tests may measure certain aspects of intelligence.
But they don't measure intelligence as a whole.
It's like if you're doing a fitness test.
Now physical fitness, that is something you can quantify and I think rather easily measure.
But if you're doing a fitness test, you couldn't do a fitness test and the only thing to do on the test is pull-ups.
Because a person might be able to do 19 pull-ups and yet be in pretty bad shape.
Just like a person may only do 5 pull-ups and still be in pretty good shape.
So there needs to be more to it than that.
The problem with, one of the problems with an IQ test is that It only tells you about one sort of aspect of intelligence.
So if somebody has a high IQ, that means, okay, they were good at accomplishing the kinds of tasks that are on an IQ test.
So it means that they're probably good at detecting patterns.
It means they can probably think logically in a certain way.
And so, okay, fine.
If someone has a 140 IQ, you can be pretty certain that they are, for example, good at finding and understanding numerical patterns.
But that is not even close to the full story on intelligence.
There are whole other realms of intelligence.
Personally, I think the most revealing, quote, test of a person's intelligence is just to talk to them.
Especially to talk about an abstract subject or concept.
I don't mean talk to them about what they had for dinner.
I mean talk to them about something abstract.
And as far as I know about with IQ tests, it doesn't have anything to do with that.
They don't go anywhere near that.
So if you were to say to someone, now I think, and even this wouldn't tell the whole story, But here's my thing.
If I could pick only one test of a person's intelligence, this is what I would choose.
I would just ask them a question like, I don't know, what is justice?
Some abstract concept like that.
And then listen to what they say.
It's not about answering it correctly or incorrectly, it's just about the depth of a person's thought, their verbal dexterity in explaining their thoughts.
Their ability to grapple with an abstract concept?
Now, I think that tells you a lot about their intelligence, doesn't tell you everything.
And I think there are probably people who would score a 90 on an IQ test, which is relatively low, only slightly above average, right?
And yet, if you were to talk to them about a subject like that, They could give you a brilliant and fascinating and thoughtful answer, just like there are people who might score a 140, and you try to talk to them about an abstract subject, and they have nothing to say.
So, that's just one of the issues with IQ tests.
All right.
This is from Dr. Pat, says, Dear Met, I am having emailed you many, many days.
You never are responses me.
You're my favorite person.
I get many smarter listening to your mouth.
I would have many honors if you read this email on your show.
May you having many blessings in your lif.
Sincerely, Dr. Pat.
Thank you for that email.
It's very touching.
And this is from Heidi, finally.
She says, Hey Matt, so based on your raving review of Ad Astra, I knew that my family and I should watch it.
You did say that you thought it was better than Interstellar.
My family and I love that movie, so we were excited to see what this Ad Astra movie was all about.
Two crazy psycho space monkeys later, we all realized that was two hours we would never get back.
The Ad Astra movie was more about the human condition and that you should never cross paths with monkeys, that you've been locked up in a spaceship for a long period of time, whereas Interstellar was more about the space-time continuum, wormholes, the search for life on other planets.
It was fascinating.
It left you really thinking and pondering about the universe and how it works.
Ad Astra left us thinking about how much better it would have been if we'd never watched Ad Astra.
When you become Supreme Dictator, will you be subjecting the people to only watching movies that you deem as good?
If this is the case, my only option will be to move my family and I out of the country.
It's our only hope.
P.S.
My husband and I also watched The Godfather for the first time ever this year, and we watched about an hour of it before falling asleep and haven't finished it since.
Well, Heidi, you really buried the lead there, because you gave me this whole diatribe about how I'm wrong about Ad Astra, and at the very end, you admit that you have horrible taste in films.
I feel like you should have said that at the beginning.
You want to lead with that.
Disclaimer, I have terrible taste.
Here's my thoughts about movies.
The Godfather, of course, is quite literally the greatest film in the history of cinema.
I can almost forgive you for falling asleep during it because you're a woman.
And the Godfather, for whatever reason, often doesn't resonate quite as much with women.
Alright.
But for a man to fall... You said your husband fell asleep.
That's disgraceful.
That's disgraceful.
As for Ad Astra, look, you're right that Ad Astra is more about the human condition.
It's a more ruminative, thoughtful film, and that's what I liked about it.
You say that Interstellar was more about wormholes and space-time and life on other planets, etc.
But see, that's exactly my issue.
I wish that Interstellar was about those things.
I thought that Interstellar was going to be about those things.
I remember the marketing campaign for the movie.
It's one of my most anticipated movies ever.
I was looking forward to that movie for months or years before when I first heard about Christopher Nolan making a movie that deals with these crazy scientific and cosmological concepts.
I've been waiting for a film like that.
And I'm still waiting because actually that's not really what the movie was about.
They spend the first third of it on Earth, they go into space, they visit a couple of planets, go into a black hole, and end up trapped in a bookshelf.
That's the whole movie.
Now the black hole scene, the rendering of the black hole, that was beautiful and very well done, almost worth the price of admission.
But I was expecting a lot more spacey stuff than what we got.
Because it turned out that Christopher Nolan also was mostly interested in using space as a forum to explore the human condition.
Which I have no problem with that.
And that's what Ad Astra does.
Other sci-fi films have done the same thing.
But I just don't think that Interstellar does a good job of that.
Their way of exploring the human condition is to have Anne Hathaway deliver like 19 speeches about the cosmic power of love.
So both films really were about the same thing and did the same sort of thing.
It's just that Ad Astra did a better, more subtle job of it.
And I think it was a smarter movie.
Whereas Interstellar hits you over the head with a 2x4 shouting the point of the movie into your ear every five seconds.
And that's why I didn't like it.
But I'm not gonna say I didn't like it.
I mean, it was a fine movie.
But it wasn't nearly as good as it could have been.
All right.
Well, I think we'll leave it there.
Thanks, everybody, for watching.
Have a great day.
Godspeed.
If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe.
And if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review and tell your friends to subscribe as well.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts.
Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, Michael Knoll Show, and The Andrew Klavan Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Matt Wall Show is produced by Sean Hampton, Executive Producer Jeremy Boring, Senior Producer Jonathan Hay, Supervising Producer Mathis Glover, Supervising Producer Robert Sterling, Technical Producer Austin Stevens, Editor Donovan Fowler, Audio Mixer Robin Fenderson.
The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2020.
If you prefer facts over feelings, aren't offended by the brutal truth, and you can still laugh at the insanity filling our national news cycle, well, tune in to The Ben Shapiro Show.
