Robin PottratzO'Reilly and the movies: A lesson in hypocracy
October 7th 2008 23:24
About a week ago, I posted a column about poilitics and the movies. I gave my theories on why political films have failed at the box office recently. I also predicted that two films that happened to be released that weekend: "An American Carol", Hollywood's first right wing film, and "Religulous", Bill Maher's documentary looking at the absurdity of religion. However, the topic that I want to further elaborate on is the appearance in "An American Carol," of talk show host Bill O'Reilly.
Lets turn back the clock a year. The multiplex was full of left leaning films which were critical of the current U.S. foreign policies. Throughout this wave of political films, Mr. O'Reilly gave his own "fair and balanced" analysis of these films...which would be branding all of them to be unamerican. Even though he had equal venom for every film, he took a special agressive stance on Brian De Palma's "Redacted", which dramatized the real life rape and murder of a 15 year old Iraqi girl and her family by U.S. soldiers. The most curious aspect about his hatred of "Redacted," is that he was highly critical of it even though he hadn't made any effort to see the film.
Here is an actual quote from Mr. O'Reilly on why he hadn't seen "Redacted":
"People asked me why do I criticize this film that I haven't seen...how do I know its bad...well as one viewer has said 'I don't need to smoke meth in order to know that its bad either."
I do respect Bill O'Reilly's position even though I don't agree with it. I think that he should have at least seen the film before he criticized it, and comparing it to meth usage is just silly and unfair. However, these events occured almost one year ago. It has come and gone and I really haven't thought about it...until I saw the trailers for "An American Carol." Carol clearly displays a conservative bias and when I saw that Mr. O'Reilly had a cameo in the film, I laughed at the glaring hypocracy that was taking place. If Mr. O'Reilly were really the "fair and balanced" journalist that he claims to be, he wouldn't be appearing in a film that contains such a clear bias. Further more O'Reilly has used his program to promote "Carol" and take shots at Bill Maher's film "Religulous."
An even more humorous snippit of O'Reilly's two-faced take on the movies takes place in his weekly column on his website Billoreilly.com.
The article is entitled: "The Culture War at The Movies."
In it he takes shots at Bill Maher, film critics, and people see bias in "An American Carol." To start with, he describes both films briefly...guess which one he thinks is bad:
"This week marks the opening of two highly charged movie comedies. The first, "Religulous," is a Borat-style journey starring Bill Maher that is designed to demonstrate that anyone who believes in God is a total moron. The second, "An American Carol," is a slapstick satire that pokes fun at the far left."
I don't think that its fair to label what Maher's film is even though he hasn't seen it. I admit, in my posting last week I may be guilty of the same thing...but I do not have a television program that draws millions of viewers every weeknight.
He then proceeded to take aim at film critics:
"Now, it will be interesting to see how the critics react to these films. Most people who review movies for a living are liberal thinkers. Are they godless? I have no idea. Are they ready to embrace Bill Maher's point of view? I believe they are. Already, the New York Times, Variety and the Hollywood Reporter have labeled Maher's fable "hilarious" while conceding that many religious folks may not share that point of view."
He then took aim at the news and entertainment site Salon.com:
"What is not doubtful is that most critics will hate "An American Carol." Far-left internet sites like Salon are hammering Zucker and his movie even though they haven't seen it."
Well I couldn't help but find this statement odd seeing as that Bill O'Reilly himself had spent weeks criticizing Brian De Palma's film "Redacted" even though he had never actually seen it. This is just balatant hypocracy and with the statement Mr. O'Reilly looks foolish.
On to Salon.com...here, I am assuming is the quote that Mr. O'Reilly described as "hammering Zucker and his movie."
"One of the things I've always appreciated about "The Daily Show" is that it doesn't hesitate to poke fun at both sides of the political divide, even though it's clearly left-leaning, and so is its audience. Personally, I think that makes for a much funnier show. (Contrast it with, for example, Fox News' failed imitation, "The 1/2 Hour News Hour," or with the forthcoming movie "An American Carol," which, judging from the trailers I've seen so far, looks absolutely horrendous.)"
That one line in the first paragraph of one article is the only mention that Salon.com makes of "An American Carol." Also, the statement that Salon makes, which is judging "An American Carol" based on its trailer is what millions of filmgoers do whenever they see any trailer for any movie. I thought that the trailers for "Eagle Eye" looked bad...so I didn't see the film and told people that I thought it looked bad, thats just what people do. O'Reilly makes it seem that there is a full scale attack by this website against "Carol," which there simply isn't.
I thought that this would be the end of it, I mean "An American Carol" and "Religulous" both opened with little bang at the box office, finishing 9th and 10th respectively. However, Maher's film is actually considered a statistical success. It opened on 502 screens and still managed to make $3.4 million dollars with a per screen average of $6,792. "Carol" is considered a bomb. It opened on 1639 screens and only grossed $3.65 million dollars. Its per screen average was a respectable yet unimpressive $2,231. So even though both films aren't box office hits, "Carol" only topped the weekend total of "Religulous" by about a quarter of a million dollars.
Seeing as that "Carol" opened on 1100 screens more than Maher's film and that "Religulous" had more than 3 times the per screen average of its "An American Carol," I wouldn't think that "Carol's" weekend "victory" over Maher's film would be cause for celebration for anybody...I mean if Maher's film is shown on 100 more screens it probably outgrosses "Carol." That didn't stop Mr. O'Reilly, in his "reality check" segment he took aim at liberal critics and gloated about "Carol's" box office victory.
He criticized the New York Times for claiming that "Carol" contains "Cheap shots and mean spirits abound." He then criticized that the Times had given a positive review to Bill Maher's "Religulous," which was probably helpful to that film because it was screened for critics..."Carol" was not. At the end of his segment he snidely said..."oh and by the way 'Carol' beat Maher's film this past weekend." with a smirk.
I've always respected Mr. O'Reilly's opinions even though I don't agree with many of them, but when he is just plain wrong and hypocritical on a particular subject, it should be the job of people like myself to call him on it. I sent him an e-mail asking him to correct his error, but I doubt he read it. Oh well, this will pass in time but Mr. O'Reilly's hypocracy will not...I can only hope that the majority of his inaccuracies only exist in the realm of movies.
Lets turn back the clock a year. The multiplex was full of left leaning films which were critical of the current U.S. foreign policies. Throughout this wave of political films, Mr. O'Reilly gave his own "fair and balanced" analysis of these films...which would be branding all of them to be unamerican. Even though he had equal venom for every film, he took a special agressive stance on Brian De Palma's "Redacted", which dramatized the real life rape and murder of a 15 year old Iraqi girl and her family by U.S. soldiers. The most curious aspect about his hatred of "Redacted," is that he was highly critical of it even though he hadn't made any effort to see the film.
Here is an actual quote from Mr. O'Reilly on why he hadn't seen "Redacted":
"People asked me why do I criticize this film that I haven't seen...how do I know its bad...well as one viewer has said 'I don't need to smoke meth in order to know that its bad either."
I do respect Bill O'Reilly's position even though I don't agree with it. I think that he should have at least seen the film before he criticized it, and comparing it to meth usage is just silly and unfair. However, these events occured almost one year ago. It has come and gone and I really haven't thought about it...until I saw the trailers for "An American Carol." Carol clearly displays a conservative bias and when I saw that Mr. O'Reilly had a cameo in the film, I laughed at the glaring hypocracy that was taking place. If Mr. O'Reilly were really the "fair and balanced" journalist that he claims to be, he wouldn't be appearing in a film that contains such a clear bias. Further more O'Reilly has used his program to promote "Carol" and take shots at Bill Maher's film "Religulous."
An even more humorous snippit of O'Reilly's two-faced take on the movies takes place in his weekly column on his website Billoreilly.com.
The article is entitled: "The Culture War at The Movies."
In it he takes shots at Bill Maher, film critics, and people see bias in "An American Carol." To start with, he describes both films briefly...guess which one he thinks is bad:
"This week marks the opening of two highly charged movie comedies. The first, "Religulous," is a Borat-style journey starring Bill Maher that is designed to demonstrate that anyone who believes in God is a total moron. The second, "An American Carol," is a slapstick satire that pokes fun at the far left."
I don't think that its fair to label what Maher's film is even though he hasn't seen it. I admit, in my posting last week I may be guilty of the same thing...but I do not have a television program that draws millions of viewers every weeknight.
He then proceeded to take aim at film critics:
"Now, it will be interesting to see how the critics react to these films. Most people who review movies for a living are liberal thinkers. Are they godless? I have no idea. Are they ready to embrace Bill Maher's point of view? I believe they are. Already, the New York Times, Variety and the Hollywood Reporter have labeled Maher's fable "hilarious" while conceding that many religious folks may not share that point of view."
He then took aim at the news and entertainment site Salon.com:
"What is not doubtful is that most critics will hate "An American Carol." Far-left internet sites like Salon are hammering Zucker and his movie even though they haven't seen it."
Well I couldn't help but find this statement odd seeing as that Bill O'Reilly himself had spent weeks criticizing Brian De Palma's film "Redacted" even though he had never actually seen it. This is just balatant hypocracy and with the statement Mr. O'Reilly looks foolish.
On to Salon.com...here, I am assuming is the quote that Mr. O'Reilly described as "hammering Zucker and his movie."
"One of the things I've always appreciated about "The Daily Show" is that it doesn't hesitate to poke fun at both sides of the political divide, even though it's clearly left-leaning, and so is its audience. Personally, I think that makes for a much funnier show. (Contrast it with, for example, Fox News' failed imitation, "The 1/2 Hour News Hour," or with the forthcoming movie "An American Carol," which, judging from the trailers I've seen so far, looks absolutely horrendous.)"
That one line in the first paragraph of one article is the only mention that Salon.com makes of "An American Carol." Also, the statement that Salon makes, which is judging "An American Carol" based on its trailer is what millions of filmgoers do whenever they see any trailer for any movie. I thought that the trailers for "Eagle Eye" looked bad...so I didn't see the film and told people that I thought it looked bad, thats just what people do. O'Reilly makes it seem that there is a full scale attack by this website against "Carol," which there simply isn't.
I thought that this would be the end of it, I mean "An American Carol" and "Religulous" both opened with little bang at the box office, finishing 9th and 10th respectively. However, Maher's film is actually considered a statistical success. It opened on 502 screens and still managed to make $3.4 million dollars with a per screen average of $6,792. "Carol" is considered a bomb. It opened on 1639 screens and only grossed $3.65 million dollars. Its per screen average was a respectable yet unimpressive $2,231. So even though both films aren't box office hits, "Carol" only topped the weekend total of "Religulous" by about a quarter of a million dollars.
Seeing as that "Carol" opened on 1100 screens more than Maher's film and that "Religulous" had more than 3 times the per screen average of its "An American Carol," I wouldn't think that "Carol's" weekend "victory" over Maher's film would be cause for celebration for anybody...I mean if Maher's film is shown on 100 more screens it probably outgrosses "Carol." That didn't stop Mr. O'Reilly, in his "reality check" segment he took aim at liberal critics and gloated about "Carol's" box office victory.
He criticized the New York Times for claiming that "Carol" contains "Cheap shots and mean spirits abound." He then criticized that the Times had given a positive review to Bill Maher's "Religulous," which was probably helpful to that film because it was screened for critics..."Carol" was not. At the end of his segment he snidely said..."oh and by the way 'Carol' beat Maher's film this past weekend." with a smirk.
I've always respected Mr. O'Reilly's opinions even though I don't agree with many of them, but when he is just plain wrong and hypocritical on a particular subject, it should be the job of people like myself to call him on it. I sent him an e-mail asking him to correct his error, but I doubt he read it. Oh well, this will pass in time but Mr. O'Reilly's hypocracy will not...I can only hope that the majority of his inaccuracies only exist in the realm of movies.
| 45 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by katyzzz
Photography Tips
MS Paint Art
I tend to stay as far as possible from politics as I can but good on you for jumping right in.
Suffice it to say I have given you both my comment and my votes.