Friedman has had it out for Valkyrie for months, culminating in his omission from press-screening invitations issued around the beginning of December. Studio reps said at the time that Friedman had already made up his mind and MGM/UA didn't owe him anything ("Screenings are a privilege, not a right," marketing boss Mike Vollman told Patrick Goldstein); ever the professional, Friedman included Valkyrie among his Worst Films of 2008 despite not having seen it, forced to expense the ticket to Fox and join the unwashed masses on opening day.

Surprise! He hates it. Not that you should care, except for the part where he lies, perhaps libelously so. For your convenient reference, we've responded to some of Friedman's more outrageous claims with a bit of context and/or reality checks:

"I’m more concerned that Valkyrie could represent a new trend in filmmaking: Nazi apologia."

Yes, Valkyrie is a pretty gutsy move toward defending the honor of Nazis — particularly the central plot to deceive and kill Adolf Hitler and eradicate his leadership from Germany's governance. Way to call it, Rog.

"Cruise plays Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg — referred to in this film constantly as “Stauffenberg”— as if to make him sound less German or something."

Exactly. Reference to Cruise's character as "Stauffenberg" decidedly downplays his German heritage. Everyone involved should be ashamed for forcing this linguistic quirk down audience's throats.

On top of that, there is the matter of the uniforms and the set design. Suddenly, we have German officers in World War II who are not wearing arm bands. Their swastikas are now small tokens on chests of medals. They look more like airline pilots than Nazi soldiers. When they meet, it looks like they’re at a lovely retreat in the Adirondacks.

Indeed, the lack of Nazi insignia affirms the historical accuracy that Colonel von Stauffenberg was not a member of the Nazi party. Not all German soldiers were Nazis, nor all Nazis soldiers. As far as their meeting locations, Hitler did have a redoubt or 12 in the woods, of which vast portions of Germany are composed. Clearly from Hitler's depiction in Valkyrie, the setting did not assuage his paranoia, treachery, incompetence or sense of imminent doom.

Director Bryan Singer is so sparing with his Nazi flags, swastikas, etc that you’d think the Nazis hardly existed. What’s everyone so upset about anyway?

Unfamiliar with the act of purchasing a movie ticket, Friedman apparently arrived late to his Valkyrie screening, missing the title sequence's slow unveiling over the billowing red, white and black fabric of a Nazi flag. He may also have left early, skipping the [SPOILER ALERT] Nazi siege of Stauffenberg's coup HQ and their subsequent assassination of the resistance.

Because in Valkyrie Singer opens the door to a dangerous new thought: that the Holocaust and all the other atrocities could be of secondary important [sic] to the cause of German patriotism. Not once in Valkyrie do any of there [sic] “heroes” mention what’s happening around them, that any of them is appalled by or against what they know is happening or has happened: Hitler has systemically killed millions in the most barbaric ways possible to imagine.

We're certainly not here to downplay the Holocaust, but as it pertains to Valkyrie's plot — which is explicitly about terminating history's worst monster — Hitler and all that he stands for are the collective Scourge of German Honor. Would Friedman have preferred no conspiracy to kill Hitler, and thus a couple dozen fewer German politicians and officers wishing to end World War II and, thus, the Holocaust? And yes, not coincidentally, defend Germany from further disgrace. We know you're a fan of revisionist history, Rog, but seriously: From here, please leave the movies to the experts.

• Is Horrible 'Valkyrie' Tom Cruise's Nazi Apologia? [Fox News]

Out for a stroll in New York City, Tom Cruise surprised his wife and daughter on Friday morning. Cruise, who had been waiting for ten minutes behind a SUV before popping out to hug his family, became concerned when Suri didn't recognize him. Suri asked her mother who the man was. Cruise said, "Hey, it's me! Your dad. Tom Cruise. Remember?" Suri shook her name and said that the name didn't ring a bell. Holmes looked over at Cruise with a wink as if to indicate "you know what to do." Cruise sighed and then flashed his trademark million dollar smile and started to dance around. Suri said, "Oh, right. You're the guy from the YouTube videos. Awesome. I love those videos."

[Photo Credit: Splash News]

*A Call To The Bullpen is a work of fiction. Although the pictures we use are most certainly real, Defamer does not purport that any of the incidents or quotations you see in this piece actually happened. Lighten up, people ... it's a joke.

But, for whatever reasons—and Paula knows what they are—the much ballyhooed $500 million Merrill Lynch credit line went unspent, causing an increasingly nervous MGM chairman/UA remote-overlord Harry Sloan to enact a contingency coup that resulted, directly or indirectly, in a flurry of executive resignations culminating in Wagner's own. The once-moribund UA now returns to the comfortable, ghoststudio stasis in which it stagnates best. But what of the real issue now at hand—and by that we mean What This Means for Tom, and By Extension All of Hollywood, and By Further Extension Every Single One of Us?

Cruise's trajectory lately has been, for lack of a better metaphor, not unlike a Tori Spelling dinner party; it started out promising enough—some nice notices for his over-the-top, Scott Rudin-esque (whoever keeps comparing it to Sumner Redstone hasn't seen the movie) turn in Tropic Thunder—but ended with the actor seated squarely on the career crapper, surrounded by yes-men applauding his every movement. You know the beats: The curious case of Edwina A. Salt. The Scientology racketeering lawsuit. The whispers that he personally—personally!—pressed a pillow onto Isaac Hayes's face in his sleep when he found out the singer planned on donating none of his $750 Sunset Junction earnings to the Church.

Here's MGM's press release on the split, followed by Wagner's own statement:

"Paula Wagner, Chief Executive Officer of UA, has decided to leave her day-to-day responsibilities and return to her first love, which is producing films. As such, MGM and UA confirmed today that Ms. Wagner will transition to the role of a producer under her own independent production shingle and be attached to UA’s most exciting film properties. In November 2006, United Artists was reborn under a partnership formed between Tom Cruise, Ms. Wagner and MGM. Ms. Wagner will continue to be a part owner of UA and hold a significant stake in UA’s future success. Nothing will change in regard to Mr. Cruise’s involvement with UA and he continues to have a substantial ownership interest in the company. Furthermore, Mr. Cruise and Ms. Wagner will continue to work on film projects together.

“I’ve truly relished working with my longtime partner Tom Cruise to revitalize United Artists, and I am proud of all that we’ve accomplished in the past two years, reinvigorating the brand and developing such a strong slate of films. But I always tell my sons, ‘Follow your passion’ – and I’ve got to follow that advice myself. As much as I’ve enjoyed my time as an executive, I have longed to return to my true love, which is making movies, so that’s what I’ve decided to do. I still believe in our vision for UA, and I am confident that Harry Sloan and our colleagues at MGM will see that vision through to reality.”

• Disunited Artists: Who wins, who loses [THR]
• Tom Cruise's Movie Studio Imploding: Paula Wagner Is DOA At United Artists; But Was It Suicide or Murder By MGM? [Deadline Hollywood Daily]

As one source explained to me, the only future for UA was if "Paula calls it a day, or the company implodes on its own, or a gun is put to Wagner's head by financiers and she greenlights things and then trusts in luck..."

UA under Wagner was way behind on the timetable dictated by its financing, I'm told. "Paula wasn't greenlighting movies, so she was about to lose a lot of the money. Her camp is trying to say MGM screwed up. We didn't, she did. Now MGM can get UA moving on at least 2 movies, and make sure they're released by a certain date, to keep the financing intact."

That said, I hear Wagner wants to go back to producing movies, but this time around she'll do it on her own.

Sure, she could do that, but this seems a perfect opportunity to return to her first love: acting. That is, after all, how she got her start, before her frustrated agent sat her down and told her what she really had was the soul of a baby-gobbling negotiator. Perhaps pacing outside a fluorescent-lit casting office, nervously running through her Big Bang Theory audition dialogue for Woman At Starbucks #2, is exactly what she needs to rediscover what she loved about this unforgiving business in the first place.

• Tom Cruise's Movie Studio Imploding: Paula Wagner Is DOA At United Artists; But Was It Suicide or Murder By MGM? [Deadline Hollywood Daily]

Look at it this way: If you had $500 million of Wall Street's money waiting to be spent on a few Tom Cruise projects, or maybe on some of these comic-book adaptations we hear are doing OK these days, or even on an annual $30 million rom-com that will land snugly and profitably among the summer doldrums, how fast could you greenlight four to six projects a year? Finke's sources say Wagner herself is the "problem" — as in she, not Cruise, stands to lose the most from a third, fourth or fifth UA project facing the kind of backlash drawn by Lions For Lambs and Valkyrie (the first of which, it bears noting in fairness, actually made money). We sympathize, to a point, but at some point you've just got to pull the trigger — figuratively, of course. After last week's drama, if we heard a gunman was loose in the building, we'd probably give up, too.

[Photo Credit: Variety]

• Another Top Executive Exits United Artists [DHD]

The fallout from this move also effectively kills Cruise and partner Paula Wagner's United Artists revival at MGM. Our speculation as to whether or not UA could fill the potential DreamWorks void at Paramount hardly seems to matter when Cruise goes 0-for-2 with Lions For Lambs and Valkyrie, with the latter strikeout sending the humiliated schmogul and his pride to Team MGM's disabled list. Right now the best Cruise can hope for is a Mission Impossible 4 green light at Paramount — without the heavy back-end, without the Scientology drama and without the antics that earned Sumner Redstone's public enmity in 2006. Either that or a vacation to the John Hughes estate or a similarly low-lying area where his mystique (and demand) can recover away from the Valkyrie shock and awe. We'd miss him, of course, but we'd understand if he and the family wanted to decompress.

Of course that won't happen; his vulnerability makes him too attractive a target for new partners who can appeal to his ego. Per UA's agreement with MGM, a lot of those calls will run through Parent's office, an escalating power conduit in itself from which the Valkyrie whacking (not to mention Rick Sands' departure and last week's acquisition of the coveted Robert Ludlum property The Matarese Circle) is the soundest expression yet of who is in charge at the Lion. "She will be damn sure to pick movies she can market," Anne Thompson wrote Monday at her Variety blog. "That's half the battle. And Hollywood sat up and took notice of this move, because they know that Parent gets it." At least someone here does. Movie star, heal thyself.

PREVIOUSLY: Delayed Flight of 'Valkyrie' a Good Sign, Says MGM