A concerned reader writes:
You must know that I disagree with you 100% on the Bill O Reilly column. You cant dispute what he is saying and why he thinks that way he does. Basically…he is saying we paint the CIA in a bad picture because the whole movie revolves around them being the bad guys. Now…would I make it a huge story? Prolly not…but I get his point and I challenge the Pajama Pundit to pick apart his facts and try and dispute them…what he says is true…whether it is to be said or not.
Okay. Where to begin?
I see what Bill-O is saying. He thinks (like so many on the Right) that 'Hollywood will do
anything in it's power to paint America as an oppressive nation bent on terrorizing other countries'. Fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But I disagree.
In the latter part of 2006, I had the opportunity (a rare one at that) to go OUT to a movie with my wife. The movie that we opted to see was
the Good Shepard starring (ironically) one Matthew Damon. Yes. The
same Matt Damon that Mr. O'Reilly is so happy to paint as being anti-American.
In
the Good Shepard, Matt Damon plays a CIA agent who is anything but a "bad guy". There is definitely an element of internal conflict in the character, but he is far from villainous. The movie goes into how Damon's character comes to join the ranks of the CIA, what kinds of activities he is involved in during the Cold War era, and how being involved in the Agency affects his personal life.
At no point in this film did I feel like I was watching some anti-American propaganda flick. In fact, I would argue that - while fictional -
the Good Shepard definitely had a pro-American, pro-CIA spin to it. The creators of this film definitely did not "paint the CIA in a bad picture".
But back to
the Bourne Ultimatum...
I guess there are several key ideas that I was trying to convey in my recent post on this topic:
1:: Matt Damon may have a progressive political ideology, but that does not make him un-American, or even play exclusively un-American characters. This is proven in several of his films, as the aforementioned
the Good Shepard.
2:: The Bourne Ultimatum was a book LONG before it was a movie. Where was Bill O'Reilly to accuse Robert Ludlum (the author) of being unpatriotic or anti-American when the book(s) were released?
3:: Most importantly - If Bill O'Reilly's argument (as my reader seems to think) is based on the idea that "the whole movie revolves around them (the CIA) being the bad guys", then it is fundamentally flawed. Observe:
In ALL of the
Bourne films, there are good elements and bad elements of the CIA. The basic plot of the first TWO films is that there are
rogue agents in the CIA and they are trying to cover-up their past misdeeds. The character of Jason Bourne (ably played by Matt Damon) gets framed by these rogue agents and therefore is
mistakenly hunted by the GOOD elements of the CIA (as well as the KGB, Interpol, and other international crime-fighters). Once the leaders of the CIA figure out that there are bad elements (the rogue dudes) in their midst, they are quick to leave Bourne alone.
NOW, all of this aside, I do see Bill-O's point about people in other countries watching this and thinking anti-American thoughts. The producers, directors and actors in these films (or ANY American films) cannot predict the reaction from an international audience. But, I would add that, like American viewers, I would hope that anyone watching a fictional movie would see it for what it is: A WORK OF FICTION.
I don't know about you, but I do not go to the movies and drop upwards of 20 bucks to bolster my political ideology.
Hopefully, nobody would misconstrue a work of entertainment with a work of anti-American propaganda. Then again, maybe I give too much credit to dumbass terrorists.
I still think that Bill O'Reilly has not seen any of these movies.
The Pajama Pundit - Founder/Editor
