Jason Aldean’s Wife Brittany Battles the Cancel Culture

Jason Aldean is an A-list country music singer, songwriter and record producer.

Twenty-seven singles from his 10 albums reached the top of the country charts.

Born in Macon, Georgia, his parents separated when he was only three years old. Summers were spent with dad in Homestead, Florida, where the future star first learned how to play the guitar.

By age 15 he had landed a gig in the house band at a Georgia nightspot. Greater things would be in store both professionally and personally. He’s still riding the wave of success on both fronts.

His latest album “Macon, Georgia” features the single “Trouble With a Heartbreak.” Another single has him teamed up with multi-crossover super star Carrie Underwood in “If I Didn’t Love You.” And his latest song “That’s What Tequila Does” helped make it a triple play, with all three tunes hitting the country chart’s high mark.

Jason is happily married to Brittany. She’s a devoted mom to their four-year-old son and three-year-old daughter. She’s also the latest target of cancel culture’s woke warriors.

Brittany’s societal faux pas? She captioned an Instagram before-and-after makeup video with some comments about a chapter in her childhood.

“I’d really like to thank my parents for not changing my gender when I went through my tomboy phase. I love this girly life,” she wrote.

Jason posted his approval with the following reply, along with a laughing emoji: “Lmao!! I’m glad they didn’t too, cause you and I wouldn’t have worked out.”

Left-wing bots on social media sprung into action, which resulted in Brittany being verbally assaulted. And some virtue signaling country artists piled on as well.

Winner of “The Voice” Cassadee Pope launched a tweet attack.

“You’d think celebs with beauty brands would see the positives in including LGBTQ+ people in their messaging. But instead here we are, hearing someone compare their ‘tomboy phase’ to someone wanting to transition. Real nice,” Pope stated.

Brittany responded to Pope, clarifying her position using Instagram Story.

“Advocating for the genital mutilation of children under the disguise of love and calling it ‘gender-affirming care,’ is one of the worst evils,” she wrote. “I will always support my children and do what I can to protect their innocence. Love is protecting your child until they are mature enough as an adult to make their own life decisions.”

Singer Maren Morris slid into insult territory with her own Twitter slam.

“It’s so easy to, like, not be a scumbag human? Sell your clip-ins and zip it, Insurrection Barbie,” Morris remarked.

Brittany responded to Morris via an Instagram post that included a new collection of conservative merchandise adorned with the words “Don’t Tread On Our Kids.”

“Instead of getting twisted about the twisting of my words, I’ve chosen to bring some good out of it. Introducing our NEW Barbie inspired line LIVE **Through this launch we will be giving back to and supporting @operationlightshine in effort to help fight child exploitation and human trafficking,” Brittany posted.

In a recent statement quoted by US Magazine, Brittany further discussed the safeguarding of children from those pushing questionable medications and medical procedures.

“I think I’m advocating for children. I think that children should not be allowed to make these life-changing decisions at such a young age. They are not mature enough,” she cautioned.

Jason and Brittany have drawn the ire of the politically correct crowd in the past.

In a previous marketing of merchandise, right-of-center political views were on display through comedic slogans that included the famed “Hidin’ From Biden.”

When the backlash kicked in, Jason again took to his Instagram account in defense of his wife.

Included with a picture of the singer’s silhouette in front of a giant American flag were the words: “I will never apologize for my beliefs or my love for my family and country.”

“This is the greatest country in the world and I want to keep it that way,” he added.

After one Instagram user commented, “If you thought Trump’s path for America was any better, you’re delusional!,” Jason gave this sage reply: “…We will teach our kids what we think is right and what we think is best for their future.”

Flash forward to the present. Jason now has to deal with the cancel culture muck on a business level. He has been unceremoniously let go by the PR firm that has represented him for 17 years.

Public relations company The GreenRoom has a roster that includes country artists Dierks Bentley, Kip Moore, Thomas Rhett and Lady A.

The publicity firm’s co-owner Tyne Parrish released a spineless statement, seemingly trying to justify the company’s separation from Jason.

“We aren’t the best people for the gig anymore,” Parrish stated.

https://people.com/country/jason-aldean-publicity-firm-17-years-parts-ways-after-wife-brittany-transphobic-comments/

Looks like Nashville isn’t Nashville anymore.

Like so many other formerly balanced industries, institutions and ideologies, the country music capital has gone woke, and it feels as though the transformation happened overnight.

Many of our nation’s major corporations have flipped as well.

So where do we go to at least get our unique and legendary all-American country music back?

Kudos to Jason and Brittany for helping to lead the way.

Here’s hoping that other courageous country loving artists follow suit.

The Escalating Violence of ‘Stranger Things’

Netflix’s flagship series “Stranger Things” enjoys a huge audience and has been praised by critics for its writing, directing, acting, and more.

If you aren’t familiar with the streaming series, the story is set in the 1980s and features a group of parents, teens, and kids who are trying to figure out why supernatural events are plaguing a small mid-western town.

Despite the fact that “Stranger Things” is a show about children and is highly attractive to children, it has a rating of TV-14, which indicates that some of its content may not be suitable for kids under the age of fourteen.

In each successive season since its initial debut, the media phenom appears to have amplified the violence contained within.

Seasons 2 and 3 are decidedly more brutal and graphic than Season 1 of the series.

Unfortunately, Season 4 of “Stranger Things” has descended to a base level of darkness that has parents, grandparents, and guardians of the innocent casting the program out of homes, schools, etc., and questioning whether the show has the proper rating attached to it.

In addition to gruesome imagery and intensely aggressive behavior, Season 4 of the streaming series contains inappropriate sexual scenes and unnecessary profanity.

A reasonable explanation for the increasing coarseness of programming content is hard to come by.

Writers could have maintained the Steven Spielberg-influenced style and technique of the early episodes, which made Season 1 so appealing to viewers.

Instead the show altered its approach and is using enhanced computer graphics to peddle emotionally-laden themes, which feature graphic torture scenes, some involving child victims.

A number of Season 4’s scenes are so extreme that Netflix has had to include a disclaimer, which appears at the beginning of the first episode of the season.

The Parent Television and Media Council (PTC), a nonprofit advocate of responsible entertainment, used technology to quantify the increase in violence and profanity in the fourth season of the series, relative to prior seasons.

By using the content-filtering capabilities of VidAngel, which is a video streaming service that removes anti-family content in shows and movies, PTC found that Season 4 had a significant spike in material that was objectionable to parents.

The group’s study indicated that the frequency of violence in “Stranger Things” had increased threefold, when compared to previous seasons. The study also indicated that graphic violence in the show had increased seven times, when compared to prior seasons.

Additionally, the use of crass language had increased markedly. According to the PTC’s study, the frequency of profanity in the series had doubled since Season 1.

As an example of profanity creep, the series contained zero instances of the f-word, until, that is, its second season, when the word was used six times.

During Season 3, use of the word increased to five times. And in Season 4, it jumped to nine times.

Under the guidelines system used by Netflix, a single use of the word would normally trigger a TV-MA content rating.

A statement issued by the PTC indicated that the profane words in “Stranger Things” were “once unthinkable for dialogue on programs rated as appropriate for 13- and 14-year-old children; but on Netflix they have become ubiquitous.”

The group came to the conclusion that the rating for the program needs to be changed, stating, “For a program with such multi-generational appeal, we were shocked to see the rapid rise of explicit adult content that includes profanity and graphic violence without Netflix increasing the TV-14 age rating to TV-MA.”

The sheer amount of unsuitable material in forms of violence, profanity, and sexual imagery prompted PTC President Tim Winter to send a letter to Netflix CEO Ted Sarandos, requesting the aforementioned change in the rating.

“While Netflix has never been afraid to use a TV-MA rating, we suspect it wants to attract a broad audience for ‘Stranger Things’ and has rated it TV-14 for that reason,” Winter said. “However, ‘Stranger Things’ later seasons are clearly being rated inappropriately considering the amount of explicit content.”

The PTA indicates in its letter that the mislabeling makes it hard for parents to do their jobs.

“It is imperative that the TV rating system is accurate in order to be useful to parents,” Winter said.

In addition to the previously stated objectionable material, Season 4 of the series ridicules religion and denigrates adult authority.

Unfortunately, the series has continued the idea that adult authority is dispensable and that children have greater wisdom than adults. Young characters in the series routinely deceive, falsify, undermine, and/or steal from adult characters in order to achieve their goals.

Where there’s awareness there’s hope. So as word about this issue gets out, the public just may get a ratings system that is once again accurate and reliable.

After all, stranger things have happened.

How Godlessness Leads to Tyranny

So many people are feeling it in the core of their beings.

The country has been unmoored from its anchor, an intangible one that for generations provided the stability needed to form communities in which people were able to reside together and care for one another.

We’ve known for a while that we had been drifting toward a destination that was strange and unfamiliar.

Now that we have seemingly arrived, we find ourselves at a place that is deeply disturbing and at times even intolerable.

An analysis may be helpful in understanding how the fix we find ourselves in came to be. It is also useful in a self-comforting kind of way, societally speaking. And it may prove especially helpful in figuring out ways in which we can get ourselves back on course.

Every society has an underlying ideology upon which beliefs, attitudes, norms, customs, institutions, etc., are structured.

Years ago a destructive type of worldview took root. As things would have it, this harmful ideology burgeoned over time and ended up displacing important foundational building blocks of our society, including those of civility, integrity, respect, and the like.

A new Gallup poll provides a key to understanding what happened.

Gallup’s recent Values and Beliefs Poll found that Americans’ belief in God has dropped to the lowest level since the polling organization first began to gather research data on the topic about 88 years ago.

From the 1940s to the 1960s, a consistent 98 percent of Americans indicated that they maintained a belief in God. The rate of believers has since taken a steady downturn, hitting an all-time low of 81 percent in 2022.

Gallup’s data indicate that in recent years belief in God has declined most significantly among young adults and those who are of a politically liberal persuasion.

Removing God from public life has been a goal of secularists, who for a long time now have been hard at work restricting religious expression in all major American institutions.

Prayers, holiday celebrations, music, etc., which since the nation’s founding were culturally unifying aspects of American life, have been supplanted or, in some cases, completely removed.

In his Farewell Address, the country’s first president emphasized the importance of religious values as he assessed the future of a then-budding nation.

“Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports,” President George Washington said.

His words were very precise. If an indispensable support is absent, an entire structure is destined for collapse.

Most people are aware that, despite the capacity for goodness contained within each and every individual, there is a dark component of human nature that lurks below the surface.

The Judeo-Christian explanation of this concept, and for the existence of evil itself, is the notion that humankind initially had a virtuous nature but early on took a precipitous fall from grace.

Judeo-Christian values in large part serve to restrain the human tendency to indulge in the most negative inclinations, which are manifested societally from street gangs to government corruption.

Without constraints on evil, society will become spiritually ill. Such sickness results in a culture that literally hits bottom, with the attendant failure to protect the most vulnerable and an apathetic attitude toward injuries suffered.

If God does not exist, then what is determined to be good or evil becomes merely a subjective human construct.

If no guidelines are in existence when decisions are being made regarding which ethical options would be preferable, then in conflicting situations the self-interests of decision makers will inevitably rule the day.

If good and evil are only human concepts, then morally upright actions will take a back seat to expeditious ones.

To cut to the chase, if God doesn’t exist, then neither do objective moral values.

In his book, “The God Delusion,” atheist-author Richard Dawkins wrote the following: “It is pretty hard to defend absolutist morals on grounds other than religious ones.”

Any system of government that lacks moral underpinnings is a system where freedom cannot flourish or even be mildly sustained.

As promised, God stands in the way of would-be tyranny, if those who keep the faith take to their knees.

Tom Cruise Returns to His Roots in ‘Top Gun: Maverick’

Tom Cruise is one of the biggest box-office stars of all times. And in a career that has spanned the decades he is once again wearing the crown.

Film-goers may remember Cruise for his initial breakout vehicle, the 1983 classic “Risky Business.”

Other hits would soon follow for the actor-producer; notably, the “Mission: Impossible” franchise series, which kicked off in 1996 and played out over six installments.

This is where Cruise really established his credentials as an action star. He reportedly performed many of his own stunts, a rare feat in a business that in many cases computer-generated action scenes have supplanted authentic ones.

He is presently sitting atop the box office, courtesy of his latest blockbuster “Top Gun: Maverick.” The movie is the long-awaited sequel to his 1986 hit film “Top Gun.” Its Memorial Day weekend box-office tally rang in at over $150 million, making it the biggest debut of his career.

It’s been a long road for the movie’s 2022 release. Paramount Pictures first announced the idea in 2010 and secured from the original film the indispensable services of Cruise and Val Kilmer to reprise their roles.

Tony Scott, the first “Top Gun” director, was tapped to direct the sequel. Sadly, Scott passed away and pre-production was consequently halted. Years later Joseph Kosinski was brought in to handle the direction, and work on the project resumed. In a moving tribute, “Top Gun: Maverick” is dedicated to Scott’s memory.

Release of the sequel to “Top Gun” had been scheduled for July of 2019, but it was delayed until 2020 to allow additional time for some of the more complex action sequences to be filmed.

Paramount rescheduled the release to June 2020. But due to the onset of the pandemic, a new date of December was set. Then it was bumped to July 2021, and then to November as the studio and film industry attempted to cope with the unexpected prolonging of pandemic-related restrictions.

Writers painstakingly developed the characters with deference to the stars’ younger “Top Gun” selves.

In the case of Cruise’s character, Maverick’s romantic interest is portrayed by Jennifer Connelly. Her character’s name, Penny Benjamin, was brought up in dialogue in the original movie by Maverick’s Radar Intercept Officer and best friend Nick “Goose” Bradshaw. The dialogue revealed Penny to be the “admiral’s daughter,” a family relationship that was inserted into the new sequel’s plot.

Maverick has a new assignment in the sequel, i.e., to train a group of young pilots for the Navy’s Strike Fighter Tactics Instructor program, aka “Top Gun.” The crew of young aviators includes the son of Maverick’s now-deceased best friend, Goose.

In part because the new movie is a sequel to a film released over three decades ago, it includes themes that a whole lot of people have been hungering for. It is unapologetically pro-America, pro-military, and pro-manhood.

Social media posts tell the story of spontaneous hoots and hollers from gleeful movie attendees being emitted at cineplexes around the globe.

In Taiwan specifically, according to the Central News Agency of Taiwan, audiences who were present at the premiere of the film broke into applause and cheered at the sight of their national flag being displayed onscreen in the movie.

The Taiwanese and Japanese flags had reportedly been removed from a 2019 trailer because of China’s political demands.

“It is unprecedented,” Ho Siu Bun, a film critic in Hong Kong, told VICE.com. “Major film studios have never been shy about pandering to the Chinese market. And even if it is a simple scene, editing is very costly. So no one knows why they changed it back.”

China’s Tencent Pictures had been designated as an investor and marketing partner of the film. However, the Chinese company backed out of the business arrangement.

The Wall Street Journal reported that Tencent pulled out due to concerns that Chinese leaders might be miffed over the pro-military content of the film. It is presumed that Chinese officials would not pleased with the scene restoration of the Taiwanese and Japanese flags. So far “Top Gun: Maverick” has not been given a release date in China.

Cruise’s film, and the success it has experienced so far, brings up an important cultural issue that has seemingly received very little attention, but is deserving of public discourse.

Once upon a time Americans had a common bond in the television that they watched and the movies that they viewed. Hasn’t been that way for a while now.

But there really are palpable things that serve to bind any society together as a culture. One of these things is having a common body of literature, or in modern-day terms, a common body of entertainment fare. Something that everyone is tuned into at a given time.

These media components have the capacity to serve as a kind of glue that secures people together in a life experience. It also can translate into a unifying cultural dynamic.

One other film-related note deserves commentary.

“Top Gun: Maverick” is one of the first slices of entertainment media in quite a while that is not just entertaining. It is a nod to visceral manhood, which over time has been relegated to the cutting room floor.

Disney’s ‘Turning Red’ Has Parents Concerned

Disney’s brand was always thought to have been family-friendly. Not so anymore.

Now the Mouse House’s products actually have to be pre-screened to determine whether or not they are suitable options for children’s viewing.

With all the digital devices and content providers that have permeated the media universe, it is difficult for parents to even keep up with what is out there for kids and adolescents to access with a simple click.

Disney, via Pixar, is currently streaming a movie that is over-the-top in terms of its unsuitability and potential to cause outright harm to our youth.

The film “Turning Red” is being marketed as a coming of age story. The setting is a Chinatown community located in Toronto, Canada. Lead character Meilin “Mei” Lee is 13 years-old and is in the process of transitioning to full-fledged womanhood.

Curiously, in this new state of transition, Mei discovers that whenever she feels angry, upset, or otherwise emotionally charged, she turns into a giant red panda. This condition is oftentimes accompanied by an unpleasant scent and some unfortunate occurrences.

The cinematic tale is apparently meant to be an allegory about female puberty, a kind of symbolic representation of the physiological, psychological, and emotional changes that occur in a female’s life as she journeys from youth to adolescence.

The panda manifestation, red in color, problematic, and emotionally intense, only happens to the women in Mei’s family.

The representation of the menstruation process is disrespectful and debasing in nature. But this is far from the worst of the film’s flaws. Adding to the potential mind, body, and soul-altering mix are the exploration of sexual urges and blatant participation in occult practices.

The movie is directed by Oscar winning Chinese Canadian filmmaker Domee Shi. As if on cue, mainstream media critics are showering it with praise. On the other hand, a whole lot of parents are not. Faith-filled folks in particular are really riled up.

The red panda is depicted in promos as cute and cuddly, which is seemingly designed to appeal to small children. However, there are numerous scenes in the film that in no way should be viewed by this demographic.

Christian parents should be especially concerned with the depictions of ancestor worship, polytheism, ritualistic practices, and supernatural transformations.

In the film, the transformation of little girl to panda is viewed as a curse. The only way for Mei to be relieved of the curse is to have the oldest male in the family, which in her case happens to be her grandfather, perform a ritual ceremony that coincides with the next red moon.

Prompted by the themes in the film, one prominent pastor is warning parents about the movie. Mike Signorelli, founder and lead pastor of the multiple location V1 Church in New York City, recently released a video on social media and conducted an interview with CBN’s Faithwire, all in an effort to inform parents of his religious concerns over “Turning Red.”

A former atheist, the pastor was led to Christianity by a friend after a year of faith discussions.

According to Pastor Signorelli, the sexual content of the movie as well as the menstruation metaphor are enough, in and of themselves, to make the film inappropriate for the younger demographic.

“If you extract the spiritual aspect of this movie, just on the basis of the content being about menstruation and this coming of age, it’s not appropriate for children,” he advised.

However, Pastor Signorelli finds the occult-related content even more disturbing.

“Even within the first eight minutes, you have chanting, communication with ancestors, and immediately a red flag should start to go off,” he stated.

He also noted that scenes in the film contain numerous concepts that conflict with a biblical worldview. He warns of danger in the fact that “the movie contains an intermingling of spirituality and ritual.”

This intermingling occurs, for example, during the ritual to rid Mei of the red panda spirit. She crosses into another “dimension” and encounters a deceased ancestor.

It occurs in a nightmare sequence too, one in which statues with glowing red eyes appear to be tormenting her, a scene that the pastor believes would be highly disturbing to an audience of children.

During his clerical tenure, Pastor Signorelli has had extensive experience in a deliverance ministry, one in which he has had a key role in confronting evil itself. This enables him to recognize imagery in the film that is not merely inappropriate, but dangerous to the spiritual well-being of our young ones.

“I believe that every parent — not just a pastor, but a parent — has a mandate to actually screen material, because every single device you have in your home is a portal, either a window into the things of God or, unfortunately, things that I believe are demonic,” he said.

In his post, the pastor offered a summary of his major concerns.

“I cannot in good faith allow you to show this to your children knowing what I know about demonic spirits, knowing what I know about the cultures that demons create,” he said.

Parents, relatives, and guardians of children and teens would be wise to take heed of Pastor Signorelli’s words regarding this film and other youth-oriented media that have hidden agendas embedded within.

The Heart of the Life Movement Beats On

The annual March for Life, like so many other pivotal nationwide events, has been deeply impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and its parallel ripple effects.

Last year the pro-life event was significantly smaller in size, consisting of a mere group of pro-life leaders who attended in person, along with a host of life enthusiasts from across the land who were only able to attend virtually.

It is by design that the annual pro-life rally takes place during the same time period as the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the nation-altering 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion throughout the country.

The first march was held in 1974, organized through the efforts of pro-life activist and lawyer Nellie Gray. Originally intended to be a one-time event, participants of the first march had a great deal of hope that the Supreme Court would see fit to reverse the Roe v. Wade decision.

After the first march was completed, reality quickly set in. Gray took steps to institute the march as an annual event, and was able to obtain official recognition for it as a nonprofit organization.

Jeanne Mancini assumed leadership of the March for Life organization after Gray passed away in 2012.

This year’s event is going to take place well before the expected announcement of the Supreme Court in the yet-to-be determined decision of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which holds the possibility of effectively overturning Roe v. Wade and returning the abortion issue back to the state level and jurisdiction.

The 2022 version of the March for Life would be the first one to take place since the two-year-old coronavirus pandemic descended upon us. This does not mean that individuals over the years have not tried to prevent its occurrence.

This year’s march is scheduled to take place on Jan. 21, six days after a new vaccine mandate is set to take effect in the nation’s capital.

The mandate imposed by Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser requires those who are entering restaurants, bars and nightclubs, indoor entertainment establishments, indoor event and meeting establishments, and other indoor spaces to provide proof of having received at least one dose or more of the coronavirus vaccine, or to show evidence of a negative COVID test (taken within 24 hours of the event), accompanied by either an oral or written religious exemption or a written medical exemption.

Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, founder of the prominent pro-life group the Ruth Institute, issued a statement blasting the timing of Mayor Bowser’s vaccine mandate.

“We are disgusted by the transparently heavy-handed tactics of the mayor’s office in interfering with the biggest pro-life event in the nation,” Dr. Roback Morse said.

The group’s founder continued.

“It’s hard to believe that the timing of the mandate, which goes into effect several days before the March [for Life], is a coincidence. Rather, it looks like a deliberate move by a pro-abortion politician to throw a monkey wrench in a week of pro-life events,” she added.

Because the mandate requires that those entering indoor spaces must provide proof of vaccination and/or exemption, the imposed restrictions appear to be a means by which attendees might be hampered in their participation in this year’s March for Life.

“How could the mayor not know that pro-lifers are among those least likely to be vaccinated, due to concerns that fetal cells were used in the vaccine?” Dr. Roback Morse asked.

Students for Life of America, a young pro-life leadership training organization, expressed its displeasure with the last-minute mandate.

With regard to Mayor Bowser, a statement by the group indicated it is widely known that the mayor supports abortion. Consequently, the statement also suggests that the mandates imposed, along with the timing of their imposition, appear to be an attempt to “throw a wrench into plans to mourn the 49th anniversary of the infamous Roe v. Wade decision that wiped out the pro-life laws of the 50 states replacing them with chaos.”

“Under her leadership, the D.C. government in late December announced that there would be a new and stricter mandate in the district starting January 15 – shortly before the national pro-life march on January 21 and the National Pro-Life Summit on January 22,” the statement read.

“This last-minute mandate has caused dramatic changes for many organization’s plans to mourn the day the Supreme Court first allowed the human rights atrocity of our day,” the statement asserted.

The good news is that instead of folding up and canceling the event, dedicated activists behind the March for Life are making adjustments to deal with the mandates.

As March for Life’s Mancini noted in a statement, “While the March for Life itself is not affected, our indoor events will have a few modifications due to the District of Columbia’s current COVID regulations.”

Students for Life of America have actually purchased several thousand rapid-response COVID tests, so that those who want to attend the group’s indoor conference can obtain a free test to show their status, thus making them eligible to enter.

March organizers are urging participants to attend in person and to go over to Virginia with the money that they would have spent in Washington, D.C. for lodging and food.

This year’s theme for the March for Life is “Equality Begins in the Womb.”

It will proceed as planned, with a kick-off concert by contemporary Christian artist Matthew West, followed by a noon rally and the traditional march to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Spielberg’s ‘West Side Story’ Misses the Mark

Remakes of iconic films are rarely able to match, or even come close to, the level of artistry, entertainment value, and outright magic of their original movie counterparts.

This hasn’t stopped New Hollywood from continuing to give it a try.

Steven Spielberg is the most recent one to have a go at it. Just released is Spielberg’s remake of directors Jerome Robbins and Robert Wise’s 1961 enduring musical film classic “West Side Story” (music by Leonard Bernstein and lyrics by Stephen Sondheim).

Spielberg may be wishing that he had chosen a different flick to try and reconfigure. The legendary director’s remake, which bears the original’s same name, has come up short at the box office.

The film’s estimated take for its debut weekend is around $10 million, despite its having had a production budget of about $100 million and a likely larger marketing cost. Expectations for its opening weekend had been as high as twice that amount.

Filmmaking is, of course, a uniquely collaborative art. It typically involves a large team of creative individuals who work together on a singular cinematic goal.

Sometimes everything comes together to create the perfect piece of entertainment art. That’s what happened with the original “West Side Story.” It is one of those rarities where all cinematic cylinders were fired up at peak levels.

The story by Arthur Laurents sublimely meshes with Bernstein’s musical compositions and Sondheim’s lyrics, creating a beautiful framework from which the Shakespearean inspired tale takes flight.

All things work in concert, including the impeccable casting, choreography, and screen presentation, which at the time resulted in the film’s winning 10 Academy Awards, including Best Picture.

The plot revolves around the lives of two teenagers who are madly in love with one another. Tragically, though, each one has an allegiance to family and friends of a different ethnicity and gang affiliation.

The inter-rivalry between the gangs is fierce, and they are continuously at odds with one another in an ongoing effort to dominate the New York City neighborhood.

In Spielberg’s remake, creators made what I consider to be a storytelling error that tends to worsen over the course of a movie-making process; that being, creators appear to have allowed an agenda to take precedence over fundamental artistry.

In other words, it looks as if the message derailed the medium.

In the remake of any iconic film, a mistake such as this may prove to be very troublesome. Here’s why.

In the remaking process, it is extremely important that deference to the original film be taken. This is because a classic movie has permeated society to such a degree that it has become an integral part of our shared cultural experience.

In the Spielberg version of “West Side Story,” the underlying storyline, song lyric content, and personality traits of some of the characters were significantly changed. This appears to have been done in an effort to comply with an invisible mandate contained within the film’s agenda of preference.

To compound matters, certain scenes are much less accessible, particularly for viewers who are not bilingual in English and Spanish languages. Portions of the film are actually in Spanish language only; however, there are no subtitles included, which many audiences have come to expect in such cases, and/or individual scenes.

Spielberg shared an explanation for the decision regarding language. He told IGN that the choice of not using subtitles in any of the Spanish speaking scenes was “out of respect for the inclusivity of our intentions to hire a totally Latinx cast to play the Sharks’ boys and girls.”

He also indicated that the decision was made to avoid an inequity that might be created if a language became over-empowered.

“If I subtitled the Spanish I’d simply be doubling down on the English and giving English the power over the Spanish,” he said.

Here are more ways in which the remaking process, minus the proper deference to the original, may be creating trouble for the reboot.

The late Natalie Wood, who was not of Puerto Rican descent, famously portrays Maria in the original film. Creators of the remake, likely in an effort to avoid the criticism of “cultural appropriation,” cast a Colombian American named Rachel Zegler as Maria.

Despite the apparent attempts to gain favor from those who subscribe to the tenets of the remake’s preferred agenda, the film is being slammed anyway for its ethnic insensitivity.

“I have an issue with Hollywood once again fumbling the easiest of opportunities to elevate a Puerto Rican actress. They seem to think that as long as the actors are Hispanic, that’s enough,” Daily Beast Assistant Managing Editor Mandy Velez wrote.

In terms of the music, many folks vividly remember the song “Gee, Officer Krupke,” the cleverly choreographed performance contained in the original film,

In Spielberg’s remake, the scene that contains this song and performance has unfortunately been twisted into an anti-police presentation. The setting is the 21st Precinct of the New York City Police Department, and it is here that members of the Jets proceed to mock the police and wreak havoc on the facilities.

Lyrics to the iconic “America” tune are altered as well. The snappy back-and-forth between Anita and boyfriend Bernardo about whether the U.S. is a good or bad place to live has been contorted into a flat lyric with no measurable zing.

Ditto for the original Rita Moreno scene-stealing performance. The remake seems to have put it through a redacting machine.

On a Moreno side note, the enduring star is also an executive producer of the remake, and she definitely provides some bright spots in the dull new version. She portrays a character that wasn’t in the original’s cast, Valentina, who is a widow that runs her store while simultaneously dispensing sage advice.

Too bad Doc, the “conscience” character of the original film, was left on the cutting room floor.

Other problems in Spielberg’s revised version include a lack of chemistry between lead characters Maria and Tony. This perhaps is partially due to a loss of an idealism that the original contains, as well as an innocence that is manifested by the characters.

All the seemingly forced alterations in the reboot simply don’t work. And one of the worst things about it is that this happened to a film that is considered by many to be the best movie musical in all of cinematic history.

I’ve been thinking, though, that the lackluster reboot might have the effect of bringing a whole new generation back to the movie experience of the real deal.

Young people could enjoy it with their moms and dads and grandmas and gramps, who in their drama club days sang and danced to the high school musical of their times, the original “West Side Story.”