In Defense of Hollywood: A Bulletin to O'Reilly

The past several weeks Fox News commentator and talk radio host Bill O'Reilly has blasted producers and directors in Hollywood who were involved in the production and the theatrical release of several motion pictures that he believes are critical of the Iraq war. O'Reilly, whose show regularly finishes in the top spot in its time slot, has been most vehement in his opposition to In the Valley of Elah, Rendition, and Redacted. The recently maligned host (probably unfairly over misdirected charges of racism and insensitivity) argues that those associated with these films are unpatriotic and that they have committed a grave disservice to the country and American audiences, especially since the U.S. is still in the middle of a war. O'Reilly has marched one pundit and media scribe after another regardless of their political ideologies on to his show to debate this particular issue, and he has concluded all of the conversations by postulating that the production and release of these films is yet another example of Hollywood's wayward thinking and leftist proclivities.

But what O'Reilly and others who share his opinion on this matter fail to understand is that the American sentiment about the Iraq war isn't directly in line with the commentator or the President. Nearly every poll taken reveals that a sizeable percentage of Americans question our decision to enter into the war with Iraq. U.S. citizens' doubts about our reasons for entering the war persist even despite recent reports that they might be willing to exercise a bit more patience before calling for an immediate withdrawal of troops.

Perhaps more importantly, though, is that cinema is at its most potent when it as a reflection and interpretation of our culture, provokes audiences to think about motivations and actions that led to significant events in history and those that define who we are in contemporary life. The films that are currently being debated do exactly this. In the Valley of Elah and Redacted are based on actual incidents, and they were directed by accomplished directors. Paul Haggis who won two Oscars for writing and directing Crash, wrote and directed In the Valley of Elah, and veteran filmmaker Brian DePalma wrote and directed Redacted. At first glance the third film, Rendition, directed by Gavin Hood, appears to compel audiences to think carefully about the potential implications of government's misuse of power and the Patriot Act, which has been undeniably controversial since its introduction in 2002. Haggis brilliantly explored the country's multilayered struggles with racism in Crash, and DePalma challenged our ideas and convictions about the treatment of prisoners of war in his well-received war drama, Casualties of War. In other words, controversial topics are not uncommon ground for these two directors, so it shouldn't have come to anyone's surprise that they would venture to write and direct films on the Iraq war, which is undoubtedly the conundrum of the decade.

Despite what O'Reilly and conservative talk show hosts believe, the significance of this debate extends well beyond liberal and conservative ideology. In 1991 Oliver Stone dodged strident assaults from liberal and conservative journalists and politicians after the release of his film, JFK. Although the film was a stunning technical achievement in editing, the film's detractors objected to the idea that a filmmaker would propose his own conclusions to one of the most botched investigations in U.S. history.

Some have argued that there were not films criticizing the Vietnam War and other wars made while American troops were fighting them. This may well be true, but it doesn't mean that our country would not have allowed someone the freedom to write and direct a film that challenged audiences to reflect upon the implications and consequences of controversial wars while they were being fought. Hollywood is simply reacting to the public's overall disillusionment with the war in Iraq. In the Valley of Elah, despite its well-known cast, is an independent film. Its deliberate pace and somber and understated tone aren't likely to attract droves to theaters to see it, and Redacted has been debated so frequently in the last several weeks that a wide release for it in the near future remains seriously in doubt. Nevertheless, those who love good cinema and the creative individuals responsible for it, have the right to see these films, regardless of how small and erudite their audiences may be. There is no reason why there shouldn't be room enough to allow free market principles to be applied here.

O'Reilly has publicly stated his support of the war in Iraq from the outset, and it is completely unjust to criticize him for his steadfast support. Many books criticizing the Iraq war and the Bush Administration's strategies have been published since the start of the war, yet O'Reilly hasn't bombard his viewers with repeated attacks against the publishing industry at-large, which may be the single most compelling reason why his current argument can be dismissed so readily. His criticism of these three films, much of which are based on actual events and created to challenge American audiences to think about the consequences of war and the decisions behind it, is misguided, misappropriately applied to only one quarter, and teeters on a dangerously slippery slope toward censorship.