How to Be a Film-Killer, by Lizz Winstead

Andrew Marcus is the director of the film Hating Breitbart, which released theatrically on May 17, 2013 and is now available on DVD and VOD. For more information visit www.hatingbreitbart.com.


lizz winsteadAs the director of Hating Breitbart, which was released nationwide in theaters and digitally on May 17th, I spend a lot of time on Twitter trying to get the word out.  It’s not about the money – I have no illusions about the commercial appeal of political documentaries, but the message of the film is extraordinarily important.  It is particularly germane now that the IRS is targeting political dissenters and organizations and the DOJ is spying on the press.  Usually when a film is released, there is an entire publicity machine that goes into action to ensure that as many people know about the film as possible, but not so much with Hating Breitbart.

It’s not that I don’t have a good marketing team – I do.  In fact, I have an amazing marketing team – I even have two publicists who regularly book their clients on Good Morning America, Piers Morgan Tonight, The Today Show, and other big shows that reach millions of viewers.  Funny thing is, they can’t seem to book me on any of the big shows, despite the fact that my film is being released from coast to coast.

In fact, it’s been extremely difficult to get mainstream media outlets to help us spread the word, and the ones that are talking about it are doing everything they can to discredit the picture – this isn’t exactly surprising, given that Hating Breitbart is, ultimately, a devastating indictment of mainstream media malfeasance.  That’s why I spend so much time on Twitter – so I can compensate, in some small way, for the overwhelming institutional resistance to our film.

So you can imagine my utter lack of surprise when Lizz Winstead, co-creator of The Daily Show, showed up on my Twitter page to trash talk the film – shocker.  In case you follow these things, this is the same Lizz Winstead who tweeted “This tornado is in Oklahoma so clearly it has been ordered to only target conservatives.” She’s a real humanitarian, Ms. Winstead, and funny, too.  In any event, and for the sake of full context, before Ms. Winstead began gleefully tweeting about dead children in a Red State, I had sent out a tweet encouraging people to review the film on iTunes and Amazon to counterbalance the effort to snuff the film out.  Ms. Winstead, in response, chimed in:

Dude. Who even knows abt this to suppress it?

I won’t bore you with the back and forth – Twitter is far more compelling in real time than in retrospect.  Ms. Winstead eventually concluded with, “Or maybe, just maybe people just don’t want to see a film that pays tribute to Breitbart.”

That would be a fair enough point, except that there’s a twist to this story, like all good stories.  As it turns out, our publicists reached out to The Daily Show on three separate occasions.  We were told, essentially, “Thank you for your interest in our show, but hell no.”  Ms. Winstead and her friends might argue, I suppose, that was because our production quality sucked and our content wasn’t compelling – so why would they want to degrade their show with our mediocre crapumentary?

Except, again, as it turns out, that three years ago, on March 31st of 2010, The Daily Show broadcast, for profit, footage that I had shot during the production of….yes, you guessed it:  Hating Breitbart.  In fact, Andrew Breitbart, the person that Lizz Winstead believes nobody wants to see, appears twice (without credit) and is featured prominently in the footage they broadcast. And so, it would seem, that our content is just fine for borrowing, but not good enough for promoting.

So that, Ms. Winstead, to address your question, is how you suppress a film. You deny it exposure, and then you mock it for not having exposure.  Classy.  Almost as classy as mocking the dead children of probable conservatives.

Ms. Winstead may not believe that people “want to see a film that pays tribute to Breitbart,” but her tweets about Oklahoma precisely demonstrate why Andrew Breitbart’s message was and is so important – because Breitbart passionately rallied against a media culture that has perpetually caricatured conservatives as racist, sexist, homophobic, intolerant, bigoted monsters.  It is only within an environment where Conservatives are so radically dehumanized that a supposed liberal like Lizz Winstead could even think for a moment that it’s acceptable to glibly tweet about such horrific destruction and suffering.  The media culture that has provided fertile ground for such callousness is what Andrew Breitbart dedicated his life to changing.  Within the span of 48 hours, Lizz Winstead went from mocking our film to proving its thesis.

Andrew Marcus is the director of Hating Breitbart which released nationwide in theaters and on DVD/VOD on May 17th. For more information please visit www.hatingbreitbart.com.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

  • Moa

    Thanks for making the film Andrew. I hope it is as commercially successful as it can be.

  • Anamah

    An Andrew Breitbart film is a new reminder of the challenge that lies ahead.
    Everything related to him is very interesting. Andrew was an amazing journalist an great guy. I hope it will help to expose the corruption he unraveled, making public the tangle of power corruption still in functions.
    I wish you the best!

  • heydra

    Most left wingers do not see the dangers of the far left perspective or leftist ideologies. Nor do not see the dangers of politically correct multiculturalism. The Obamamania cheerleading of the left is going to learn some hard lessons soon – especially as it relates to Islam. As the "Arab Spring" death toll continues to mount for apostates, homosexuals, would be feminist reformers, etc., the lefty's are going to learn that we right-of-center folks were not nearly as bad or bigoted as they would like to cast us.

  • tagalog

    Twitter (and Facebook to boot) isn't all that compelling in real time either.

  • Texas Patriot

    Here's a heads up for David Horowitz and his team. The biggest news of the last 40 years is that America is in the middle of a news "white out". No, it's not because we don't get the news. Rather, because we get so much news about so many things that the really significant things we need to be paying attention to get lost in the blizzard of information contained in the modern day news cycle. As a result, most people are are totally "snowed" and go from one hot button news item to the next without really taking anything seriously to the point of (a) recognizing clear and present dangers to American freedom, (b) being able to formulate concrete action plans that respond appropriately to the danger, and (c) actually taking the necessary action to make the changes required to avoid the looming disaster. We saw this first when Team Nixon so mercilessly manipulated the "silent majority" by sending their sons into a hopeless quagmire in Vietnam. We saw it again as the American people were duped by Team Bush into sacrificing 5,000 soldiers, 25,000 to 100,000 maimed or wounded soldiers, and $5 trillion in an attempt to transform Iraq and Afghanistan into Western-style democracies. And now we are seeing it again as Team Obama is spinning the tale that (a) it was not foreseeable that Benghazi was an Islamic terror attack, (b) it was not foreseeable that the Tsarnaev brothers were radical Islamists who represented an imminent threat of terror attack to the United States, and (c) it was not foreseeable that placing the IRS under the control of political operatives with a history of attacking conservative political groups would actually result in such groups being discriminated against. How have these administrations gotten away with that? It's the ever-increasing speed and volume and multiplicity of sources and content in the news cycle. As such, we are all literally flying blind in the middle of a snowstorm, and there has never been a greater threat to truth and freedom in the history of the world.

    • Mark

      Actually, Kennedy got us into Vietnam; Nixon got us out. Congress voted to authorize the Iraq War based on 20 plus "writs" which did not include wmd, though later over 500 metric tons of enriched uranium was moved out of there. Democrats which were all for the war until they observed Howard Dean leading as an anti-war candidate then pronounced "Bush lied, people died," etc, etc. The standard drivel, ya know.

      • Texas Patriot

        Thanks for proving my point. It's hard to imagine that some people still believe that Nixon was the hero in ending the war in Vietnam. Here's a tip. At least half the names on the Wall in Washing wouldn't be there if Nixon had just gotten us out of Vietnam like he promised to do in the 1968 campaign. Instead, the war was continued for another six years for no reason whatsoever, except of course to continue the enormous profits of defense contractors and the enormous political contributions to their sponsors on Capitol Hill. Wake up, my friend. If we had learned the lessons of Vietnam, we would never have made the same mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan. And we would never be allowing this President to get away with the deceptions (a) that Benghazi Massacre was not foreseeable, (b) the Boston Massacre was not foreseeable, and (3) the IRS debacle was not foreseeable.

        • hrwolfe

          Sir:
          Your historical knowledge is hysterical to say the least.

          • Texas Patriot

            Sorry to intrude on your "bubble", but if you have any contrary facts that you would like to assert please do so. Otherwise, please return to your peaceful slumber. If what I say, irritates you, try a game show. Or better yet, try a talk radio program that agrees with your preconceived notions about things. It will make you feel much better.

          • Global citize

            Texas patriot

            See below. your bubble is busted sir!

            Grow the eff up!

          • Texas Patriot

            If growing up means taking off the blinders and dealing with reality as it is, rather than languishing in the cozy confines of your favorite political commentator, I would have the same advice for you. See below.

          • Texas Patriot

            On the other hand, there are many available political commentators to choose from. And if you just want the news to make you "feel good", you will surely be able to find one just for you.

        • Global Citizen

          To the person who falsely calls themselves a Texas patriot, you really area piece of work. you dissemble so well, are so oblivious and are so indoctrinated you could be a Swedish liberal who calls for more Muslim Mass immigration after last night's riots in Stockholm.

          If Dante was still around he would have to rewrite the 1st part of the Divine Comedy and add a circle to his description of Hell.

          DCAS Vietnam Conflict Extract File record counts by INCIDENT OR DEATH DATE (Year) (as of April 29, 2008 )
          http://www.archives.gov/research/military/vietnam

          As President Nixon did not take office until Jan 20th 1969 after the election in November 1968, a logical person (no not you) can very well see that the 29,000 deaths (1/2 of 58,000) did not occur after he was sworn in.

          People like you are the reason we lost the Vietnam War and so many people were massacred.

          You make the default choice to do nothing. There is blood on your hands.

        • Global citizen

          http://www.archives.gov/research/military/vietnam

          1969 11,780
          6,173
          2,414
          759
          68
          1974 1
          1975 62 (these died as a result of Democrat congress cutting aid to south Vietnam)

          21,257 is much less than 1/2 of 58,000.

          As a reasonable & moral person can see after Nixon took office the deaths of American soldiers fell rather quickly.

          One cannot pull out over night 500,000 soldiers without it being called a defeat, a retreat or a route. But I think that is what you would like to see, a defeat.

          Mind you the Chinese had 300,000 soldiers in North Vietnam. Look it up. I know this without looking it up. My spouse had a cousin who entertained (as part of Dance troop) soldiers being sent south.

          Person calling themselves "Texas patriot" pull you head out and breathe some air. Quit huffing sulfur dioxide & methane.

          • Texas Patriot

            "21,257 is much less than 1/2 of 58,000"

            And that's the basis of your argument that Nixon's failure to keep his campaign promises is not the cause of those deaths? 21,257 deaths don't matter to you? You think it was worth it to sacrifice those Americans so it wouldn't "look" like a defeat?

            "One cannot pull out over night 500,000 soldiers without it being called a defeat, a retreat or a route. But I think that is what you would like to see, a defeat."

            It can't be called a "defeat" because we never had any intention of "winning" it. It was nothing more or less than a classic blunder, or as Nixon himself said, "a tragic mistake". But that was his campaign rhetoric. His tune quickly changed once he got elected. Then all he could talk about was "peace with honor", no matter how many Americans had to die in the process and no matter how unnecessary or hopeless the war was. There was NOTHING to lose by pulling out of that quagmire immediately and nothing to be gained by staying, unless of course you were a defense contractor with huge profits to be made or a politician on Capitol Hill with huge contributions (from political contractors of course) to be received.

            As Barry Goldwater said from the beginning, if we didn't have a reason to be there, we shouldn't have been there. And if we did have a reason to be there, we should win it quickly. Wake up, Global Citizen. Norther Vietnam was a Third World Country, and if the United States had even the slightest intention of winning that war, we could have done it in a matter of weeks, or months at the most. On the other hand, if you think the truth seems like "sulfphur dioxide & methane", you probably miss the good old days of Tricky Dick. As Barry Goldwater said, Nixon was the only man he ever knew who could lie out of both sides of his mouth.

            Have a nice day.

          • Global citizen

            Texas patriot

            South Vietnam was about the containment policy

            It worked in South Korea. It did not work in South Vietnam. The difference being that the Democrat party became more pusillanimous over time. The Democrats were in charge of the purse string for over 40 years.

            I destroyed you hyperbolic specific point of 1/2 of the 58,000 deaths, yet you meander on like a Swedish lemming.

            If you say we had no intention of winning, I agree if that means we had no intention of invading & occupying North Vietnam. How can you win when you let the enemy transgress onto your turf and yet vary sparingly or not at all transgress onto theirs?

            Still we wore the Reds out in Korea & we could have done the same in Vietnam. Except the Democrat party has become infected. Look at the casualties stats for 1964 & 1965.They are very low. And yet the leftist student organization were all geared up and protesting at that time having been funded and encouraged by the Soviet Union. You can propagandize your enemy without a Tokyo Rose.

            216 combat deaths in 1964 is not a back breaker for a superpower. Having college campus radicals agitate at the behest of the soviet handlers is a back breaker.

            P.S. Edmund Burke would be so proud of you.

            P.S. We suffered 11,000 deaths a year during the Korean War. We won, because we did not cut And run. Are you a cut & run type? Yellah? We would have concluded the Vietnam War as a win if the college protesting creeps had not bucked up the enemy. the lost the Tet offensive. If they had not turned on the television they would have called it quits. If the college creeps had protested the Korean War like the Vietnam War and had not the Korean War been as close to World War 2,we would have lost it as well.

            North Vietnam was a 3rd world country supported by the Superpower called the Soviet Union. Maybe you heard of it. It was also supported by China. If you are not willing to fight a proxy directly or indirectly than you do not deserve anything, neither sustenance nor security. If you cannot engage in proxy wars that have been around since time immemorial, then wow what to say?

            If you and your enemy (in this case Soviet Union) both have allies/ proxies or whatever and you will not defend yours than do you deserve allies? I say you do not. You have failed.

            As Stalin or Lenin once said "quantity has a quality all its own". Or as napoleon said victory goes to the side with the largest battalions.

            Note that Rome had allies. lots of them If it did not it would not lasted as long as it did. Perhaps you did not learn this in school.

            Roman allies Ghassanids, Garamantes, Iazyges, Marcomanni. Sometimes the allies were not trustworthy and attacked Rome. In that case Rome punished them. but without them Rome would have not lasted until AD 476.

            If you want to throw allies to the wolves go ahead. We'll take note & take a picture. Do not go begging for a safe haven. The craven have no right

          • Texas Patriot

            Wake up, Global Citizen. You're living in a dreamworld that has no resemblance to reality. Who cares about the Ghassanids or the Garamantes? The Roman model was a failure, and unless you want America to walk the same path to ultimate defeat and destruction, start acting like an American Citizen, and start trying to find ways to reignite the greatest engine of economic prosperity in the history of the world.

            Here's a clue. The so-called "proxy wars" of Korea and Vietnam were phony wars dreamed up by Harvard intellectuals who conceived the entire world as a chessboard. They made sense only in the context of Ivy League classroom, and had nothing to do with the real world. General Douglas MacArthur rightly advised President Kennedy that he couldn't win in Vietnam even if he had 1 million men on the ground, and before he was assassinated, John Kennedy had already decided to overrule the Harvard theorists and pull our troops out of Vietnam. Unfortunately, he never got a chance to do that, and the rest is history. Johnson wasn't made of quite the same stuff and promptly knuckled under to the insane global interventionists who have dominated our foreign policy and virtually bankrupted our nation with hopeless and unnecessary wars ever since, up to and including our present involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

            The truth is we couldn't save everybody from oppression and injustice even if we wanted to, and we will be doing very well if we can save ourselves and our closest allies. Wasting money on hopeless causes is a fool's errand, and we've already wasted more than enough. It's time for a new day in American politics, and I encourage you to abandon the failed policies of the past and formulate new ones that will operate to put America back on top for the future.

            On the other hand, if you are more interested in saving others than saving Americans, you are certainly free to defect to your friends the modern-day Ghassanids or Garamantes, and I for one, will be happy to wish you bon voyage and fond adieu.

          • Global citizen

            "Who cares about the Ghassanids or the Garamantes? "

            You study historical examples. Just because you study historical examples does not mean that you are refighting the last war.

            You slice & dice examples in whatever field and using abstract theory you then reassemble them like you do in statistics, physics and structural science. you learn all the way.

        • Rifleman

          "… the war was continued for another six years for no reason whatsoever,…" except to keep 22 million South Vietnamese free of communist rule for another six years, giving another six years of life for about three million of them, and to block soviet expansion.

          US defense contractors aren’t America’s enemy and I don’t see how they could, or why they should, operate at a loss or on meager profits. It’s not like they put out a substandard product, and it’s not like they talked the soviets into trying to take over the world, or talked Ho Chi Minh into trying to subjugate South Vietnam.

          • Texas Patriot

            "US defense contractors aren’t America’s enemy and I don’t see how they could, or why they should, operate at a loss or on meager profits. It’s not like they put out a substandard product, and it’s not like they talked the soviets into trying to take over the world, or talked Ho Chi Minh into trying to subjugate South Vietnam."

            No one is a bigger friend of state of the art military technology than I am. And in order to survive in a world where our economy is no longer the biggest and the strongest, there is no question that we are going to have to do whatever it takes to make sure that our military technology remains second to none. But not all money spent on defense serves to advance our position relative to our military competitors, and Vietnam was a classic example of wasting American "blood and treasure" for nothing. Ho Chi Minh wasn't worth one American life, and as it turns out, the fall of South Vietnam didn't diminish American security in the world one iota. What happened in Vietnam has happened all over the world since the beginning of time, and there is nothing anyone can do to stop it. If Americans want to remain a part of the future ourselves, we are going to have to learn to pick our fights and limit our involvement to those situations where the security of the United States or our key allies is at risk. None of those factors were present in Vietnam.

          • Global citizen

            " If Americans want to remain a part of the future ourselves, we are going to have to learn to pick our fights and limit our involvement to those situations where the security of the United States or our key allies is at risk. None of those factors were present in Vietnam. '

            The difference between South Korea and South Vietnam?

            South Korea has a vibrant economy? that happened after the war not before. By your standard you could argue that South Korea was not a key ally. Flush!

            The failed containment policy in south east Asia (failed at the behest of Democrats) nonetheless held long enough for Thailand to be saved. only Laos & Cambodia fell instead of Thailand also..

            South Korea is next to Japan. Japan is a key ally? What about the Phillipines?
            Is the definition of a key ally solely based on what natural resources they have? their GNP? Past behavior? how many Phillipinos fought for the U.S. during WW2 and how many are in the Armed forces? What about sea line of communications (SLOC)?

            Every place is next to some other place. Give them all up as to far away unless it is Mexico, Cuba or Canada?

          • Texas Patriot

            The wars of the future will be dominated by economic strength and superior technology, and the chessboard theories of the past are no longer relevant. To continue as a dominant player on the world stage, it will be necessary for America to remain dominant economically and technologically. Unless we maintain a position of superiority in those two areas, everything else we do will be a waste of time and money.

          • Global citizen

            Says the great general.

            you need everything, cyber-specialist and grunts. I daresay that infantry is still the queen of the battlefield.

            Just because the battle space has been enlarged does not mean that parts of it went away.

            Does the term strategic depth mean anything to you. you can sometimes win without it, but it is damn useful to have.

          • Texas Patriot

            "I daresay that infantry is still the queen of the battlefield."

            Then you would be wrong. There is no infantry on earth that can stand up to a C-130 with proper aerial cover and fighter support. The sheer folly and waste of needlessly throwing the lives of soldiers on the battlefield was first demonstrated in WWI, and with the advent of nuclear weapons, there is no longer any need for it at all.

  • James Jeffrey Paul

    Sir, I sent a link to this article as a news tip to the Huffington Post. Good luck!

  • Herb Benty

    According to Winstead's logic then the hurricane that hit NY/NJ was only targeting Democrats. The insane godlessness of the mentally and spiritually corrupt "Progressives" ( marxists), is on display for all who will allow themselves to SEE.

  • Questions

    We have democratized the public intellect too much. Perhaps a dash of elitism is just the ticket.

    • reader

      You can't dumb down everyone, george warren buffet soros. Some people are just born with the IQ over 100, which is higher than your average government teacher's IQ. It's not going to be cool to be an imbecile forever.