Skip to main content

I will never watch "The Distinguished Gentleman" in the same way again...

Ever see a movie, an episode of a show, or hear a song which clicks with you years, even decades after first experiencing it? Then think to yourself, "Wow, were those writers psychic or something?" That's kind of how I'm feeling with regard to the 1992 film "The Distinguished Gentleman." The political comedy, written by Marty Kaplan and Jonathan Reynolds, is led by Eddie Murphy, and now seems to have been a psychic foreshadowing of our current president, Donald Trump.

In the film, Murphy plays a con man from Florida who plays off his well-known name of Jeff Johnson to get elected as a congressman. The guy has no experience politically, hires his inner circle of con artists as assistants, and speaks about as vaguely as a stoned psychic concocting horoscopes. Not long after he gets elected, his shady history starts to catch up with him, and he appears to fit right in with the rest of Washington more so than he may have initially. Not only that, but at one point in the film, he even threatens to share a tape which allegedly showcases a fellow Congressman engaging in political activities, for it only to be revealed as a fake. There's even a scene where a pastor engages in the following back-and-forth with Congressman Johnson:

Pastor: "Come on, now. Everyone knows you're Dick Dodge's boy!"

Johnson: "Hey, I'm nobody's boy, alright?"

Pastor: "You're Dick's yes man."

Johnson: "Not true. If Dick says no, I say no."

Then, after Johnson's history finally gets brought to light and he's ousted from Congress, he tells one of his assistants, "I'm gonna run for president."

I'm sorry, but how similar does that sound to Donald Trump's current situation?

The man initially earned decent poll numbers in the GOP primary due to his name. He had about the same amount of political experience upon running as my 3-year-old niece. Even following 4 months in the Oval Office, he speaks more vaguely than the before-mentioned stoned psychic writing horoscopes. While the man's office may be in Washington (D.C.), his true home seems to be in Mar-a-Lago, Florida. Based on his actions thus far as president, it seems pretty well established that he's a con man. Right after his inauguration, Trump's history started catching up with him, not only due to his own personal decisions, but the actions of the inner-circle of con men he hired for his Cabinet. While he ran on a platform of "draining the swamp," he now appears to be very much a part of the swamp, refilling, as opposed to draining it in the process. The man appears to be everyone's yes-man, from Steve Bannon to Vladimir Putin to his daughter, Ivanka, to the voice in his head he calls Pebbles. Lastly, how many times has Trump threatened individuals with false claims on Twitter, including tapes?

If this were Jeopardy, the exchange would be:

Trebek: "This story involves a con man from Florida running for president."

Contestant: "What is Donald Trump?"

Trebek: "That is correct. We also would have accepted The Distinguished Gentleman as a response."

Actually, when I think about it, we could include several Eddie Murphy films to provide the story that is Donald Trump:

The Trump family saw Donald as a Golden Child, as they decided him Trading Places with his uber-rich father was for the best. He became a con man, ran for office (The Distinguished Gentleman) and found a way to win by stripping the country of its democracy (Tower Heist). No matter what one man think of him, he spends most of his time hearing voices that aren't there (Dr. Dolittle) and being a complete and total ass (Shrek).

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"