O'Reilly vs. "Bourne"

email this story
read comments (31)
post a comment

Paul Greengrass, the director of The Bourne Ultimatum, "told the Times of London that he purposely tapped into the mistrust the world has of the USA. In my opinion, Mr. Greengrass has used his skills as a filmmaker to create a slick propaganda package that will make him millions of dollars. And standing between Mr. Greengrass and real-life terrorists who would slit his throat are, of course, real-life American intelligence people.

Former CIA director Richard Helms (pictured here with Robert Redford) served as technical advisor on Three Days of the Condor

"In the end, the America-haters will love The Bourne Ultimatum and apolitical others may enjoy the action and carnage. The movie is a perfect storm of mis- guided ideology, silly plotting, and absurd conclusions. In other words, it's a blockbuster." -- from an 8.9.07 Bill O'Reilly column called "The Bourne Buffoonery."

O'Reilly is irked because his view of CIA operatives -- good fellows looking to protect Americans from the Islamic baddies -- sharply conflicts with Bourne's portrayal of upper-level CIA guys (Scott Glenn, David Strathairn, Albert Finney) as coldly calculating Machiavellian sociopaths. Well...? Has there been much substantial reporting over the last 45 or 50 years to lend credence to this observation or not? Are pharmacies selling denial pills over the counter these days, or do you still need a prescription?

Mistrust and even loathing of CIA operatives been part of the standard American belief system over the last 35 or 40 years, certainly since the gray paranoia days of the Nixon and Ford administrations in the early to mid '70s. The first significant Hollywood manifestation was Sydney Pollack's Three Days of the Condor ('75). Greengrass and Bourne screenwriter Tony Gilroy (plus the others) are simply drawing from the same mindset 32 years evolved.

Secret screenings<< previous | next >>Dark, deep-down places

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on August 10, 2007 at 8:33 AM

comment #1

Howlingman says ...

I think I said something to this effect on the last O'Reilly v. Bourne posting; that it's unfortunate that some people can't just watch any sort of art without filtering it through their political ideologies.

That applies to both extreme sides of the fence, both of whom are equally guilty of that sort of cultural retardation.

Posted by Howlingman at August 10, 2007 9:20 AM

comment #2

starfunker says ...

Read "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" by John Perkins. The mistrust of the good 'ol USA reaches far beyond the CIA. We've been exposed as the con men of the world, and that's saying something when you're standing shoulder to shoulder with guys like Putin. We created and prop up some of the most disgusting people on earth, and then stick a retarded shill in the Oval Office to attract investment in the "Great American Opportunity".

The jig is up.

Posted by starfunker at August 10, 2007 9:30 AM

comment #3

Edward Havens says ...

The same could be said of anyone seeing any movie, Howlingman. We filter movies through our own ideologies (political, personal, philosophical, metaphysical, spiritual, etc.), which is why even the most intelligent, educated people can have wildly varying opinions about any given movie.

Posted by Edward Havens at August 10, 2007 9:31 AM

comment #4

MilkMan says ...

Bill O'Reilly makes for very entertaining slapstick. Beneath all that Jim Beam bluster hides a frightened little male cheerleader who can't stop watching his worn-out Beta version of Invasion U.S.A. Yes, Bill, a sweat-stained Cliff Curtis is hiding in the bushes, a polished scimitar clenched between his yellow teeth. Bill O'Reilly must pray for death; I would if I were him, having to invest my every waking moment in maintaining the persona he has created for himself.

Hell is not other people, Bill. Hell is yourself.

Posted by MilkMan at August 10, 2007 9:39 AM

comment #5

Howlingman says ...

"The same could be said of anyone seeing any movie, Howlingman."

At least most people who frequent HE generally seem to see the films they criticize, unlike O'Reilly. Judging by his column he just read the "Talking Points."

Posted by Howlingman at August 10, 2007 9:50 AM

comment #6

Luke Y. Thompson says ...

The only thing that bothered me about Bourne 3 was how everyone seems to hop from country to country instantaneously, with no flight time or jet lag. Do they have transporter beams?

At least in the first one, they showed him driving and taking the train a fair bit.

Posted by Luke Y. Thompson at August 10, 2007 9:50 AM

comment #7

Pelham123 says ...

Spoilers ---

Of course the buffoon O'Reilly neglects to mention that it is the AMERICANS inside the CIA that assist Bourne and ultimately oust the bad AMERICANS. Actually the most unrealistic aspect of the movie is the ending when CNN & MSNBC broadcast the story about the illegal black ops unit inside the CIA. Yeah, like CNN & MSNBC (Or FAUX) would broadcast something that hot (and "anti-American").

Posted by Pelham123 at August 10, 2007 9:52 AM

comment #8

Howlingman says ...

Spoilers ---

Exactly, Pelham123 -- O'Reilly says it's the "evil CIA" doing the dirty work, whereas in the Bourne series it's always been some rogue covert ops group (Treadstone, Blackbriar) working within the organization for its own ends. The folks targeted -- Pam, Nikki, Bourne -- are all CIA who come perilously close to uncovering them and are targeted as a result. Kind of the POINT of the movie, you know?

Posted by Howlingman at August 10, 2007 9:59 AM

comment #9

Mr. Kockum says ...

Best thing I've ever seen when it comes to the CIA is the documentary CIA: Guerres SecrÃ©tes by William Karel. Unlike most films about the CIA it has a number actual CIA directors, operatives and observers telling their side of the story when it comes to the history of the CIA. Among them: Richard Helms (pictured above), Robert Baer (Syriana co-writer), former Secretary of Defense and chairman of the Carlyle Group Frank Carlucci, Joseph Wilson, Stansfield Turner, and current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.

Fascinating thing is that they paint a picture of the CIA as a pretty maladjusted and misguided place, somewhat out of control.

Film doesn't paint a pretty picture, but it's a riveting documenary if you like this stuff.

Posted by Mr. Kockum at August 10, 2007 10:02 AM

comment #10

christian says ...

given the CIA's de-classified files show constitutional abuses of the highest order, o'reilly should rephrase it to say in days past, the CIA would have illegaly tapped greengrass's phone and used other dirty tricks on him.

o'reilly is a sputtering fool whose leash to reality was severed a long time ago.

walter? walter?

Posted by christian at August 10, 2007 10:03 AM

comment #11

MovieBob says ...

What's annoying about crap like this is that it's NAKEDLY O'Reilly trying to filter the attention from a hit movie onto his show. If "Bourne" was a direct-to-DVD tanker with the same plot, he'd be ignoring it.

You want proof? How many news stories outside of niche "geek" sites have you heard about Uwe Boll's "Postal?" Just based on the TRAILER it's easily the most anti-American film in years, opening with a comedy-slapstick version of 9-11 (a window washer on Tower One gets taken out by the plane! Ho-ho! The hijackers are having a slapfight over who gets the most virgins! Ha-ha!) and featuring Bush and Osama as frolicking buddies. And Boll openly said at comic-con that he did it (these elements aren't in the crappy video game it was based on) because he's hoping anti-U.S. jokes will net him "good reviews" in the European press. The Right should be joining Geek Nation in THROTTLING this guy, but there's no attention to be grabbed so instead they'll imagine conspiracies about Jason Bourne.

Posted by MovieBob at August 10, 2007 10:06 AM

comment #12

lazespud says ...

I agree with LYT -

It was kind of weird to see the shorthand employed by the movie; it was just "boom" and he's in DC... That said, it was entirely in keeping with the point that the this guy is unstoppable, and the only place you could come close to catching or killing him is when he strikes out at you. Don't even bother trying to stop him in any other way. It's the exact polar opposite of a movie like day of the jackyl, which was all about the journey.

The thing I find most remarkable about the bourne movies is that they are able to take a creaky, 70s conceit like creating a "super spy" and "brainwashing" all of his memories away, and make it seem, well, if not plausible, certainly completely and totally acceptable within the confines of movie. I don't know if Damon or Greengrass want to do more, but I'm not totally sure where the story can go from here...

Posted by lazespud at August 10, 2007 10:06 AM

comment #13

Griff says ...

I did find the "evil CIA" story line a bit tired, but was willing to go along because of the talent involved (Straithorn, Allen, Damon, Greenglass). In fact, it seemed a little lazy, creatively. In that sense, it wasn't much different from "Remo Williams," with its evil CEO as the bad guy. What has been most tangy about the three Bourne films is the idea of choice: one gets to choose between good and evil every day. In many cases, Bourne's antagonists have knowingly chosen evil (sometimes under the guise of the "greater good"). More than the kick-ass action and generally fine acting, I suspect those choices are what linger with many of the viewers. How that choice is dramatized can vary (Damon not killing Cox in B2, or Pam Landy's choices in B2 and B3), but the generally hopeful tone remains.

Posted by Griff at August 10, 2007 10:15 AM

comment #14

cinefan says ...

I agree with Howlingman, what ticks me off most about O'reilly is that he draws these conclusions about films he doesn't even bother seeing. I remember he criticized Brokeback Mountain for pushing a left-wing gay rights agenda but he never took the time to actually see the movie (he said he couldn't handle seeing a film about two "gay cowboys"). That makes him the ultimate hypocrite because he's always complaining about how people attack and judge him and his show even though they haven't seen a single episode.

Posted by cinefan at August 10, 2007 10:23 AM

comment #15

T. Holly says ...

I have a hunch there's more there, transitionally speaking, than the complainers are conscious of, whether it be while watching or remembering afterwards.

Of course, I, myself, have to watch it again to graduate from hunch to evidence.

Posted by T. Holly at August 10, 2007 10:31 AM

comment #16

sunny says ...

Billo should google the Church Committee Report and "Operation Mockingbird." Oh, wait. Billo's a Mockingbird, no need for HIM to google it.

Let Carl Bernstein educate you:

http://danwismar.com/uploads/Bernstein%20-%20CIA%20and%20Media.htm

Posted by sunny at August 10, 2007 10:33 AM

comment #17

Ogami Itto says ...

"Actually the most unrealistic aspect of the movie is the ending when CNN & MSNBC broadcast the story about the illegal black ops unit inside the CIA. Yeah, like CNN & MSNBC (Or FAUX) would broadcast something that hot (and "anti-American")."

Maybe the Bourne films take place in an alternate reality in which reporters and our "free press" actually do their fucking jobs, instead of palling around with corrupt officials at D.C. cocktail parties.

Posted by Ogami Itto at August 10, 2007 10:36 AM

comment #18

BurmaShave says ...

"Yes, Bill, a sweat-stained Cliff Curtis is hiding in the bushes, a polished scimitar clenched between his yellow teeth."

That is maybe my favorite sentence ever, especially apt because of his ability to play all types of brown people, which is O'Reilly's worst fear. Congratulations.

Posted by BurmaShave at August 10, 2007 11:41 AM

comment #19

Arizona Joe says ...

Intelligence gathering yes, but I believe most take the high road, when they are not prevaricating before Congress. Paul Greengrass is right about America, and shrewd to incorporate it into a film. O'Reilly is so full of piss, vinegar, bias, phoniness, who in their right mind would find him credible? Yes, Virginia, there are unwashed masses.

I love Pollack's "Condor." Especially the bad guys operative, played by Max von Sydow.

Posted by Arizona Joe at August 10, 2007 11:59 AM

comment #20

Walter Sobchak says ...

Cool! I'm signed in to TypeKey for two weeks! (or at least till later today)

Why are liberals always trying to dump O'Reilly on us (conservatives)? He ain't no Republican. He's an entertainer and a populist. Sure, he's far more conservative than he is liberal, but at the end of the day, he's more of a Fogeycrat. He's comfort food for people over 65 who think that the world's going to hell in a pushcart because of all that damn rap music, all those "out-of-control" judges and all those drug-taking celebrities. In a way, he's this generation's Jack Webb.

He also serves as a prop for Keith "Please Pay Attention to Me!" Olbermann to try to get someone, anyone to watch his show.

AND FOR THE LAST FREAKING TIME...(!) He is NOT a newscaster. (neither is Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh for that matter). They are entertainers. They are analysts. Calm down. Ann Coulter has not been elected to anything.

Posted by Walter Sobchak at August 10, 2007 12:28 PM

comment #21

OddDuck says ...

Walter, just because you view O'Reilly, Hannity and Limbaugh that way, it doesn't mean that's how much of American views them. In much of red state land, these guys are viewed as the voice of truth.

Posted by OddDuck at August 10, 2007 12:34 PM

comment #22

Howlingman says ...

It's all cool beans, Walter. O'Reilly, Olbermann, Moore, Coulter, Hannity, Colmes -- they all do a great job doing what they do best; speaking for themselves and_themselves_alone.

O'Reilly spouting uniformed nonsense about BOURNE is the same as the array of Lib pundits slamming 300 as propaganda from the Cons. Last I checked they were just movies.

Posted by Howlingman at August 10, 2007 12:35 PM

comment #23

Walter Sobchak says ...

Well then it's unfortunate that all those hayseed morons in red state land are too stoopid to tell the difference between news and commentary. If only they were as clever as OddDuck.

Posted by Walter Sobchak at August 10, 2007 1:14 PM

comment #24

Jay T. says ...

Bill O'Reilly = Colossal douchebag ... so there's no point even discussing what he says about anything.

Posted by Jay T. at August 10, 2007 1:29 PM

comment #25

christian says ...

of course, o'reilly should call in kos, who actually applied for the cia:

"I applied to the CIA and I went all the way to the end, I mean it was to the point where I was going to sign papers to become Clandestine Services."

irony-ic, ain't it?

Posted by christian at August 10, 2007 1:32 PM

comment #26

dobbsy says ...

First thing one very smart industry pro said to me after the screening was "Perfect for overseas business where everybody hates the U.S."

We will reap what we sow and the rich and famous who make money on this simplistic "Kick me - I'm American" pamphleteering should watch their backs as the bombs of the fanatics who they're encouraging don't always check to see if the person in the line of fire is repped by a major agency.

Worst thing about the movie IMHO: no script.

What passes for a critically-acclaimed action film today is flashy handheld shooting and non-stop editing, mated nicely with cliches, stereotypes and political correctness of the self-loathing kind. Complexity? Sophistication? Maturity? A story? You kiddin'?

Welcome to entertainment as grade-school masochism for the ADHD generation, produced by the folks who never met a conscience they couldn't ignore - as long as they had their own gross points deal.

Posted by dobbsy at August 10, 2007 2:13 PM

comment #27

christian says ...

i would think RUSH HOUR 3 would provide the world with all the anti-americanism it needs.

Posted by christian at August 10, 2007 2:20 PM

comment #28

PerfectTommy says ...

Watching The Bourne Ultimatum I was kind of thinking, "I wish the CIA was that effective". I was amused that the CIA seems to only track the Guardian Reporter when they overhear him use the term "Blackbrier" on his cell phone - while it seems at the same time Jason Bourne is reading the reporter's story in print - Part III.

Posted by PerfectTommy at August 10, 2007 2:25 PM

comment #29

Walter Sobchak says ...

Dobbsy... I agree with your rant on principle... it's just that Bourne Ultimatum kicks such enormous amounts of ass that I'll cut it all the slack it needs...

Mister Christian... great comment re: Rush Hour 3.. you made me laff with that one..

PerfectTommy... I was thinking the same thing...

I think alot of people are looking in too deeply here... I'm reminded of the story about "Jaws" screening for a group of esteemed ichthyologists and shark experts... Peter Benchley was there and absolutely mortified at how the film would be recieved, especially the explosive ending, (which differed from the book).... when the shark finally blows up, the otherwise staid scientists jumped out of their seats and cheered...
point being, at that moment they weren't scientists, they were movie fans...

I think most people will watch BU as an exciting action film, nothing more...

Posted by Walter Sobchak at August 10, 2007 5:40 PM

comment #30

Craig Kennedy says ...

As a guy who openly questions the actions and motives of my government (which makes me un-American to folks like Bill), I thought the pandering nods to the war on terrror (ironic quotes omitted) in BU were trite and too easy. Luckily, the movie was too busy kicking ass for me to get too upset about it for too long.

If, as LYT noticed, there was no opportunity in this movie for flight time or jet lag, there certainly was none for navel gazing either.

In the end, the good Americans beat the bad Americans, right? What more do you need?

Posted by Craig Kennedy at August 11, 2007 10:08 AM

comment #31