Conservative Self-Parody Goes to the Movies

When I heard secondhand that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was talking about testosterone, I assumed it was just his usual insecure macho bluster. I was a bit surprised to learn that he was announcing an actual plan to screen military men over 30 for testosterone levels. NPR provided a good two-minute summary. Follow the link for the audio, but here's the transcript:

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is worried the military doesn't have enough testosterone. On Wednesday, he announced a plan to begin screening service members to make sure they have adequate levels. NPR's Will Stone has more on the plan.

WILL STONE, BYLINE: In Hegseth's view, testosterone is a matter of national security and wartime readiness.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

PETE HEGSETH: This initiative, it's not about artificial enhancement.

STONE: That's the secretary in a video posted on social media yesterday.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

HEGSETH: It's about restoring and optimizing your natural capabilities, protecting your longevity, and ensuring you have the biological foundation required to sustain the fight.

STONE: According to Hegseth, service members 30 and older will have their testosterone levels checked annually. Those who are younger will have the option, too. If levels are indeed low, they could pursue testosterone replacement therapy. The guidelines from major medical groups do not recommend this kind of routine screening unless a man has symptoms. Dr. Martin Miner codirects the Center for Men's Health at Brown University.

MARTIN MINER: I think it's very aggressive. But it depends on how it's implemented. It's a little frightening to me.

STONE: His primary concern? The policy could encourage young men to reach for testosterone replacement therapy before trying to correct the underlying drivers, like poor sleep and obesity.

MINER: If you just tell men, your level is low and we need to optimize it to make you a better fighting machine, to me, that's not really doing them a service.

STONE: Especially since taking testosterone does affect fertility. But other experts think it's an entirely reasonable proposal, including Dr. Mohit Khera, a urologist at Baylor College of Medicine.

MOHIT KHERA: Men who have low testosterone levels will suffer from decreased energy, decreased muscle mass, some form of depression and poor mood. Those three in themselves, for someone who's in combat, is a significant disadvantage.

STONE: He says checking for low T and bringing it back to a normal range is very different than advocating that it should be boosted to unnatural levels. And there's an ongoing discussion in his field about whether most men should be screened. Khera says it can be a powerful marker of overall health. He acknowledges most men in their 30s will ultimately not screen for low T and require treatment.

KHERA: However, we are seeing that younger and younger men are having lower and lower testosterone levels. Why? Every decade? Because we're becoming more unhealthy as a general population.

STONE: This latest initiative fits into the Trump administration's broader push, spearheaded by figures like Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., to promote men's health and expand access to testosterone.

As some have observed, offering testosterone supplements is gender-affirming care, which the Trump administration opposes when it comes to the transgender population.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who heard the news and thought of Dr. Strangelove's ultraconservative General Jack D. Ripper, insecure and obsessed about his virility, and paranoid that the Soviets have been polluting the "precious bodily fluids" of him and other Americans.

Meanwhile, in late January this year, the documentary Melania was released, a puff piece on First Lady Melania Trump that was pretty transparently a bribe by Amazon's Jeff Bezos to curry favor with Donald Trump. Back in April, Variety summarized most of the issues:

Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren is accusing Amazon MGM Studios of committing "bribery in plain sight" after the media giant spent lavishly to land a documentary about First Lady Melania Trump. However the company disagrees with that assessment and maintains it has done nothing wrong.

In March, the Massachusetts senator and Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) led an investigation into whether Amazon MGM's investment in "Melania" was "part of a corrupt pay-to-play arrangement with the Trump administration."

That's after Amazon MGM paid $40 million to acquire — and another $35 million to market — "Melania," an unprecedented sum considering documentaries aren't box office juggernauts. Warren pointed out that Amazon MGM's offer was $26 million above the next-highest bidder, Disney. After "Melania" opened theatrically in January, the film ended its run with $16.6 million at the global box office. It's an impressive result for the genre but nowhere near enough for Amazon MGM to break even on the film since exhibitors keep half of ticket sales. To note, plenty of films (especially in post-pandemic times) fail to turn a profit in theaters.

"The fact that Amazon is seeking favorable treatment from the Trump Administration while paying a far-above-market sum to produce and promote the Trump family's film raises questions about Amazon's exposure under federal anti-bribery law," the lawmakers wrote in a letter to Amazon on March 15. "The American people deserve assurance that powerful corporations are not using their financial resources to gain political influence or favorable treatment at public expense — and that these corporations are not violating federal bribery laws."

Warren and Johnson asked Amazon to explain its $40 million payment for the documentary and clarify whether the company discussed its bid with Melania Trump directly or with anyone in the administration. In response, Amazon pushed back against the notion that its financial commitment was a bribe. The company said its decision to license "Melania" was based on "the access, the story, and its cultural and historical relevance." . . .

"If there's nothing corrupt about this deal and the bidding process was truly 'competitive,' why won't Amazon explain why it reportedly paid three times as much as the next highest bidder?" Warren said in a new statement. "The logical explanation is that Amazon is trying to buy the President's favor by dumping millions into the Trump family's pockets. This looks like bribery in plain sight, and Amazon must give Congress — and the American people — answers now."

The letter notes that since President Trump's 2024 election, Amazon has donated $1 million to his inauguration fund, along with an unknown sum to the construction of the White House's new "gold-encrusted" ballroom. The lawmakers also argue that Amazon and its founder Jeff Bezos have financial stakes in several matters before the administration ranging from an antitrust lawsuit it recently settled with the Federal Trade Commission to foreign trade deals and federal contracts.

"When we saw the oligarchs and tech bros gather in front-row seats at Trump's second inauguration — some of whom gave him millions for his re-election campaign — it raised the specter that the rich and powerful were going to wield dangerous levels of power and influence on the nation through their largess to this transactional and corrupt president," Johnson said in a new statement. "Amazon's 'nothing-to-see-here' response makes this fear even more of a reality. If there were truly nothing to see, then Amazon would have answered these basic questions."

The corruption behind Melania shouldn't be ignored. Meanwhile, looking at the film as pop culture and conservative culture war fodder, the conservative faithful predictably praised the movie, although independent critics were much less impressed. As of this writing, Melania is rated an abysmal 1.6 of 10 on IMDb, 5 of 100 on Metacritic and 10% of 100% from critics at Rotten Tomatoes (where conservatives have bombarded the fan ratings to rate it 99%, higher than many bona fide classics, but conservatives don't really get the whole "art" thing). To be fair, I haven't seen the movie yet myself (and wouldn't want to give it any money). I suspect I'll largely agree with the zero star reviews, although historian Rick Perlstein has argued that while the film has been reasonably mocked, it is interesting to see it for "how the pageantry gets staged."

In addition to the Trumps pocketing $40 million for the movie, Donald Trump joined with other conservatives in praising the film itself and his wife:

"She has a very successful movie out right now, like number one. Can you believe this?" Trump said.

"Big movie star," he continued of his wife. "I always say it's trouble, because I always say there's not room in one family for two stars. I told her that we can't have two stars in one family ... The theaters are all packed. Women, especially, they go back, and they see it two or three times, four times."

A powerful man pushing a woman into the limelight, which she's ill-suited for, and insisting she's great? I found myself thinking of Charles Foster Kane.

The Oscars for the Films of 2025

I didn't see that many films in 2025, but if nothing else, the Oscars are a good way to get viewing recommendations. I also always enjoy seeing people who have done good work for a long time get recognition, and the victory of underdogs and the not-as-well-known.

I like Conan O'Brien as the Oscars host and thought he did a great job again. He's always been willing to be goofy and off-beat, which means some jokes might not land, but it makes for a less predictable and more lively show. The cold open was a fun bit with him made up as Amy Madigan's creepy character Gladys from the film Monsters, chased by kids through several of the nominated films, with perhaps the funniest being a slow, somber interlude with him speaking Norwegian with Stellan Skarsgård. His opening monologue was strong. (His post-credits sequence was pretty dark, and a spoiler if you hadn't seen One Battle After Another.)

Several other prepared bits were strong. An ad for fake company "Ventura Crossroads," cropping classic movies for a vertical format to create recuts such as Two Angry Men, was funny and also disturbing for cutting too close to the truth. Conan also did a funny, painful bit trying to summarize Casablanca for younger viewers. (The relentless real ads for Burger King during the broadcast were much less welcome.)

I'm not a fan of individual tributes for nominees, because they typically drag and get way too gushy. But it made some sense when awarding the first Oscar for casting, because the general audience wouldn't be familiar with the nominees (all women) and what their job entails, so it was an effective way to honor them all.

The montage of death/memoriam segment was much less effective than usual because it used text too small to read on a TV screen, and probably too small in the actual theater as well. It made sense to single out Robert Redford for special recognition (by Barbra Streisand), because in addition to being a movie star actor and quite a good director, he founded the Sundance Institute and Film Festival, which have launched many careers and leave an impressive, ongoing legacy. I thought Robert Duvall, one of the best actors of his generation, should have gotten a little more time. Rachel McAdams gave a nice, brief tribute to her costar Diane Keaton, and also mentioned Claudia Cardinale, Diane Ladd and fellow Canadian Catherine O'Hara.

The best awards presenters were probably Kumail Nanjiani for best live action short, who joked about shortening various movies (It's a Wonderful Month, No Country for Old Man, Some of That Jazz, etc.) and gracefully handling a rare tie. Adrian Brody wisely mocked his interminable, self-indulgent acceptance speech from the previous year. The Bridesmaids cast were funny presenting the awards for Best Score and Best Sound, even if they did go on a bit long.

It was nice to see Amy Madigan win Best Supporting Actress for Weapons – she's been good for a long time, and she's unrecognizable and memorably creepy in the film. I was rooting for Delroy Lindo to win Best Supporting Actor for Sinners, but winner Sean Penn was admittedly fantastic in One Battle After Another. Michael B. Jordan gave a gracious speech for winning Best Actor for Sinners, and Irish actress Jessie Buckley was charmingly overwhelmed for winning Best Actress for Hamnet. Joachim Trier , who won Best International Feature Film for Sentimental Value gave the usual thanks to his family, but also celebrated his cast, crew, and fellow international nominees. (He also quoted James Baldwin, "who makes us remember that all adults are responsible for all children, and let's not vote for politicians who don't take this seriously into account.") Autumn Durald Arkapaw, who won Best Cinematography for Sinners, became the first woman and first woman of color to win the category, and celebrated all the women in the industry for their support and example. Ludwig Göransson won his third Oscar for his score for Sinners, and gave a short and generous speech. The score and soundtrack for the film were superb and easily the best of the year.

Relatedly, the show had performances for only two of the nominated Best Songs. I preferred the blues tune "I Lied to You" from Sinners, and the show recreated a key sequence from the film on stage. But there was little doubt that ubiquitous tune "Golden" from KPop Demon Hunters was going to win, and the winners were thrilled.

The show wasn't too political, apart from some of Conan O'Brien's quips, remarks for Best Documentary Feature winner Mr. Nobody Against Putin, Joachim Trier's diplomatic remarks about talking care of children, and Javier Bardem say "no to war" and "free Palestine."

The best moments were probably a salute to Los Angeles firefighters and first responders (who justifiably received a standing ovation) and a tribute to Rob and Michele Reiner led by long-time friend and collaborator Billy Crystal, who was joined by many other Reiner actors and actresses on stage.

The big contest of the night was between One Battle After Another and Sinners. I thought both were excellent and would have been happy with either winning Best Picture. Appropriately, they won the two screenplay awards for Best Adapted and Best Original Screenplay, respectively. (The screenplay awards often go to the actual best film of the year even if it doesn't win Best Picture.) I thought One Battle After Another was a bit better and more timely, and Paul Thomas Anderson has made several excellent films over a few decades, so I was glad to see him win. (He joked that the Academy really makes you work for an Oscar.) Anderson also gave nice recognition for veteran first assistant director Adam Somner, who died late in 2024 and posthumously shared in the Best Picture Oscar; One Battle After Another was dedicated to him.

As for the other films, I intend to watch Sentimental Value, Train Dreams, and The Secret Agent, as well as Hamnet after I read the book, although I know the real life story behind it. I did see Frankenstein, Superman and The Fantastic Four: First Steps. Writer-director Guillermo del Toro loves Frankenstein and owns several originals of Bernie Wrightson's stellar illustrations for the book, which del Toro homages in the film. The movie has some great moments, but some of del Toro's choices seem bad and inexplicable. A slavish adaptation would have had problems, but in several spots, he would have had a stronger film if he just followed the essence of the book more closely instead of inventing weaker substitutes. If nothing else, he needed more scenes between Victor and the Creature to show how the relationship progressed – when Victor hears the Creature speak for the first time, he doesn't even show surprise or wonder, just disdain. Superman was fun, especially because he wasn't invincible as in some other films, and an interview scene between Superman/Clark and Lois that goes on and off the record was wonderfully written, directed, and performed, telling us about the characters, their relationship, and setting up the stakes of the film, all while being funny. The Fantastic Four: First Steps is the best film of the quartet to date, although that's a low bar to hurdle. I thought setting the film in the 60s when the first comics came out was a good choice. I really wished Pedro Pascal had shaved his moustache to play Reed Richards, though. I did appreciate the recognition for Jack Kirby, who created the characters. The movie ends with a quotation from him, there's a character representing him briefly shown in the film, and "Earth-828" is a reference to his birthday. (And his family was invited to the premiere.)

I still need to catch up on my films from 2025, and 2026 had a number of tentpole movies. Happy viewing.