Image 01 Image 03

Hollywood tries to rescue Obama, unexpectedly (Reader Poll)

Hollywood tries to rescue Obama, unexpectedly (Reader Poll)

Soon after the raid in which Obama got bin Laden took place, as Obama was in the midst of his not-spiking-the-football victory lap, I asked readers to predict when Hollywood would roll out a major motion picture about the raid in order to help Obama’s reelection chances.

Readers predicted the weekend prior to the November 2012 election:

In response to the vote, I commented, tongue in cheek:

I am so not sure what to make of this overwhelming response.  Are you trying to say that Hollywood will do whatever it takes to get Obama re-elected, even an early November surprise?

How cynical of you.

I’d say readers were pretty much on target, as a Hollywood studio has announced a mid-October release of the first major motion picture about the raid, as noted by MoDo (via HotAir, h/t a reader Philip):

The White House is also counting on the Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal big-screen version of the killing of Bin Laden to counter Obama’s growing reputation as ineffectual. The Sony film by the Oscar-winning pair who made “The Hurt Locker” will no doubt reflect the president’s cool, gutsy decision against shaky odds. Just as Obamaland was hoping, the movie is scheduled to open on Oct. 12, 2012 — perfectly timed to give a home-stretch boost to a campaign that has grown tougher.

The moviemakers are getting top-level access to the most classified mission in history from an administration that has tried to throw more people in jail for leaking classified information than the Bush administration.

It was clear that the White House had outsourced the job of manning up the president’s image to Hollywood when Boal got welcomed to the upper echelons of the White House and the Pentagon and showed up recently — to the surprise of some military officers — at a C.I.A. ceremony celebrating the hero Seals.

I think this will backfire on Obama, because it will remind people that Obama has had only a single accomplishment in almost four years, and the rest of his administration has been a failure.

What do you think? (Poll closes 10 a.m. Eastern on Monday, August 8 )


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


I don’t understand the idea that this was some kind of brave decision on Obama’s part. What else was he going to do? Not get bin Laden?

    SunnyJ in reply to JohnJ. | August 7, 2011 at 3:38 pm

    Agree. We were as much responsible for getting Bin Laden, since we financed the operation, as he was! I for one have no trouble seeing that rationale does not work for me or for Obama.

It’ll also be saddled with political motivations and a compressed production schedule that risk making the film look formulaic and implausible. Will WH staff have edit approval? That won’t help.

    LukeHandCool in reply to billdyszel. | August 7, 2011 at 3:24 pm


    WH staff might have edit approval … but you have a double-OH! license to parody. Work with Q. M and O are just too haughty.

LukeHandCool | August 7, 2011 at 3:06 pm

I get goosebumps just anticipating the scene where Mr. Bean looks steely-eyed into the camera and barks, “Bama.”

LukeHandCool (who loves nothing more than to lie on the couch watching episodes of Mr. Bean with the little ones).

If this actually goes forward it will remind Americans, instead, of the Seals killed in action this weekend.

The last thing Obama wants after this weekend’s horrific loss of life in Afghanistan is to be reminded of SEAL Team 6 days before the election.

Honestly, as we watch Navy Seals die in their line of work, I feel that the role of The Prince is diminished. What did he do but sign the order? It’s all empty bravado, and everyone knows it. What are they going to do, put Obama in wet suit on the golf course? How do you dramatize that? Show him shrunken in the corner in his golf shorts biting his fingernails?

    Thank you for the visual…wet suit/golf course…Rodney Dangerfield would have a hayday with that one. As I said above, do we get credit for getting Bin Laden because we write the checks and pay the bills…hell no! This is all relativity: Obama is more respnsible for getting Bin Laden than Clinton, who let him go, because he at least voted “present” on this one, at let the military do what we pay them to do.

    Enjoyed the visual you describe. A propaganda film with a fauxbama? Well, of course, none of the screenplay will be based on truth, how can it be? Nothing he has done has had any truth to it? Fred Amisen (who is white & asian) played the fauxbama on SNL and remember the fuss that he had white blood(whatever that is, there are only 8 blood types in the whole world’s population, 6 billion people only 8 types).
    According to the zero’s speech at the time, it was I, I, I so guess the screenplay would have zero in a superman wetsuit who can play on the golf course and be in bin Laden’s house shooting him at the same time. He is magic, remember? Let’s pray, this propaganda film does backfire big-time! Has anyone else notice how the zero seems to be channeling Hitler?

    They are going to show Barack in training sessions, between golf rounds, working out with all the other Seals .. right ??

I don’t mean to sound like a conspiracy nut, but there’s something about that whole thing that doesn’t ring true. I don’t accept that there was such limited “proof” and independent verification that the body was, in fact, Bin Laden’s. I could be wrong. There’s a long time between now and next October and it’s hard to keep facts buried that long these days. Said movie could end up being nothing more than tired fiction and a real box office bomb.

I doubt if the movie would change anyone’s mind about him if they dislike him. And the people that love him will continue to. Most people have the economy on their minds right now.

If the economy and unemployment stay they way they are, I sincerely doubt people are going to spend their limited disposalable income on a rah-rah flick for Obama.

I don’t think such a movie would really move the needle that much – not everyone will watch it, especially if it’s perceived to be a fluff piece to make Obama look good.

When the Dems tried to “man up” candidate Dukakis in 1988 with the infamous tank picture, they flamed out:
1988 Bush VS. Dukakis – Tank Ride

Professor, I think you ought to add a picture of Dukakis to your post for the benefit of your readers that aren’t as old as we are. Just as a gentle reminder of how we can make this backfire on Obama.

    yun648 in reply to alan markus. | August 8, 2011 at 1:01 pm

    There’s no way to make this move about Obama without short-changing the the SEALS. If too much focus is placed on Obama, there will be a backlash; if the film is portrayed realistically, Obama will be marginalized. Either way the Dems lose.

If it is a good movie, it could help him, but it could easily end up coming across as a pure propaganda piece and end up alienating people.

On the other hand, I can’t think of any of the past propaganda movies that have had a large impact on the final election, simply because movies tend to get swept aside in the mark of events, and this is going to be on heck on an eventful election cycle.

This movie can only help Obama’s run for re-election.   Considering that a large portion of the U.S. population gets all their news and opinions from the MSM and entertainment industry (but I repeat myself) how could it not help?

How could it help? On the one hand, the pro-O message will only be perceived by those already Pro-O beyond any hope of redemption. On the other hand, by the time the election rolls around most people won’t be able to afford the $60.00 ticket and the $150 pizza after.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | August 7, 2011 at 5:08 pm

>>I think this will backfire on Obama, because it will remind people that Obama has had only a single accomplishment in almost four years, and the rest of his administration has been a failure.<<

This is going to sound cynical and condescending, but these past three years have really shattered my confidence in people to make the right decisions: beginning with electing a far-left ideologue with absolutely no executive, managerial or leadership experience to be president; to 97% of blacks voting for Obama, including a chunk of black conservatives, simply because he's black; to the insanity of re-electing a hack like Harry Reid to the Senate regardless of your opinion about Sharon Angle; to forcing recall elections of duly elected representatives in Wisconsin — elected officials who engaged in absolutely no misconduct or corruption; to almost 1 million Ohioans signing a petition to get a referendum on the ballot to repeal Ohio's budget reforms that are crucial to fix that state's fiscal issues.

The "people" have demonstrated repeatedly how gullible and susceptible they are to outright lies and rhetoric and how very little they understand about sensible governance. It's been quite a wake up call. I have a better understanding why the Founders did not grant universal suffrage to all citizens.

I really don't know why the people won't be suckered by a slick Hollywood production.

Navy seal, as he draws a bead on bin Laden: Here’s some hope and change, Terrorist! Think we can’t beat Al Qaeda? Yes we Can! Loser!

Will an election-eve movie release about the bin Laden raid help Obama?

Probably not, although that is probably the filmmakers’ intention. It’s also possible (though not very likely) that the producers will make something critical of Obama. Example: Charlie Wilson’s War was an effort to credit one obscure House Democrat with winning the Cold War while blaming Reagan for the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

In any event, Hollywood does not influence elections as much as they think they do. Otherwise the USA would have turned into North Korea long ago.

    “Hollywood does not influence elections as much as they think they do.”

    Those fake paper-mache’d Greek columns crafted in Hollywood sure made America’s nightmare on elm street come to life.

    I voted yes; never underestimate Hollywood’s mass audience of useful idiots who have lost all ability to discern between the illusions they see on the Hollywood screen and the reality in their face. Stalin called it-useful idiots.

It’s hard to imagine how it would not be at least a bit of a boost. Thinking otherwise is surely whar they call wishful thinking

But this news is hardly surprising. In the first eight years after 9/11, Hollywood did its best to churn out movies with various anti-war themes, inluding a couple that all but cast US intelligence officers and soldiers as the villains of the war on terror. Now, Hollywood falls all over itself to produce a film where we are the good guys. Of course, we are the good guys and always were but Hollywood chooses to recognize that only when it helps Obama.

Not to take anything away from the SeAls who nailed bin Laden and the CIA guys who zeroed them in on the right target, but for me, the Abbottobad raid’s satisfying success only underscored the fact that when you have the largest, best equipped and best trained military and intelligence services in the world and many years of “practice” through hundreds of similar wartime missions, if you don’t succeed, you might as well hang it up.

I’m still waiting for the Hollywood movie about the half dozen CIA officers who slipped into Afganistan three weeks after 9/11 by flying over the Hindu Kush in an ancient Soviet helicopter to make contact with the Northern Alliance, reignite an alliance with them, reconnoiter the frontline between them and the Taliban, which ran right through the center of Baghram airbase, make the connections necessary for special forces to follow them in, gather information on al Quaeda and the Taliban from Afghan sources, begin the process of supplying Northern Alliance troops and setting up systems to call in airstrikes to support those troops tactically.

The script practically writes itself. A 59-year-old veteran clandestine officer with vast experience in the region is literally days from retiring but agrees to lead the team (perfect role for Harrison Ford). He handpicks the rest. There are no logistics in place for a mission of this kind, so the team must put everything together on the fly. They actually go to Easterm Mountain to buy their own camping necessities. The leader exploits his multitude of personal contacts throughout CIA from a lifetime there to stitch together everything they need, including the chopper in Tajikistan. The agency gives him big cardboard boxes with $3 million in cash (millions more follow as soon as they are set up inside Afghanistan). Even the movie’s title is right there in the code name for the team, “Jawbreaker.” The first signal they send is, “Jawbreaker is open for business.”

I think this is at least as dramatic a story as the Abbottobad raid especially since it illustrates the speed and flexibility of our intelligence officers, their ability to improvise and adapt to even so awesome a challenge as they faced in late 2001.

Yhe movie release is too late to help Obama. Perhaps a July release would be better. If Obama is truly underwater by October, this will look like “Wag The Dog” with bells on.

If Obama deserves credit for the raid that killed Bin Laden, should he also not take the blame for the helicopter loss that killed 30 troops? Of course that is not the way it is–the Obama partisans give him credit for anything good but refuse to give him responsibility for anything bad.

Cassandra Lite | August 7, 2011 at 8:22 pm

That the administration is cooperating so closely with the filmmakers is the kind of thing that the NYT, for example, would normally find “troubling”. That the film is to be released in late October, rather than November/December, which is when films covered in Oscar hopes are generally released (it’s directed by Hurt Locker’s director), would normally be seen as suspicious. That the price of administration cooperation was most likely script approval and a bumped up role for the president is something that would ordinarily make Hollywood cringe. That the film may become an infomercial for the president should compel the FEC to look into Sony’s financing and release as an in-kind donation worth hundreds of millions.

I chose to say that no, the movie would not help. The reason is more depressing than the antics of Hollywood to support their chosen figurehead.

The movie won’t help because it won’t need to.

Let’s face it. The real problem with the 2012 election will be the candidate forced upon us by the RNC. It was the handicap in 2008. Sarah Palin could not overcome the albatross of John McCain, no matter how many McCain/Palin signs/stickers with the top half cut off are still on display in 2011 here in Texas.

At present it looks like Romney is going to be the nominee. He won’t run with Palin and she won’t run with him so there is unlikely to be a good second banana to his bad top banana.

The movie won’t matter because the RNC is handing this election to Obama just like it handed the 2008 election to him.

theduchessofkitty | August 7, 2011 at 10:08 pm

“That the film may become an infomercial for the president should compel the FEC to look into Sony’s financing and release as an in-kind donation worth hundreds of millions.”


If only…

If there wasn’t a sucker born every minute, O would not be president today.

The film will help him, God help us.

There must be some way in which this violates campaign contribution laws; it surely would if something like this were done for a Republican.

So Hollywood will make a film pretending to praise the military and will be believed why…?

I am planning to boycott the movie studio that produces this, as well as any theater that plays it, for at least year. If Obama gets re-eected, then it will be a 4 year moratorium.

Yes, I am that pissed.

Update: We may have to usurp Newsweek’s #QueenofRage hashtag today. The elite publication is mocking Michelle Bachmann. Now, I am no big fan of Bachmann, but this is standard fare for these idiots whenever a conservative woman starts making it big.