lol Man oh man.
As usual, O'Reilly recycles arguments from days past. If he and his style of "journalism" wasn't so influential on his viewers, he would simply be hilarious.
In doing research for my senior thesis on horror films, I've read all about the different ways critics have handled the horror genre and its viewers. One book I read summed it up thusly: in critics' eyes, to like horror films, you must either be sadistic (the Sadists Only argument) or dumb (the Moron argument). O'Reilly has simply recycled the tired old S.O. argument and put it out there for ratings. As soon as I hit "play" I was anticipating them using the word "sadistic" or "sadism," and I wasn't disappointed. So predictable.
I loved it when his "fair and balanced" side came out and he asked the writer "Do [the movie companies] ever just come out and say 'We're sorry, this stuff is garbage, but it sells.' You can just as easily say that about O'Reilly, and it would be way, way more correct. At least the films in questions have artistic value, even in the slightest. O'Reilly's show, and the man himself, is entirely worthless.
That psychiatrist was also completely incorrect. O'Reilly I think even realized this and said something like, "Well, some people just want a cheap thrill right?" For crying out loud when Bill O'Reilly thinks you are going too far something is very, very wrong. I hesitate to go into the psychology she spouted in just a response, but it is almost entirely incorrect. Only a small, small portion of the population that sees something like "The Hills Have Eyes" would relate to the mutants at all, even with something as simple as "power" issues with Mommy and Daddy. And examples like Jigsaw or the Firefly clan are MEANT to play with audiences' loyalties and sympathies, that's part of what makes it horror. If you find yourself identifying with a villain (even something like Darth Vader) it is meant to scare you further upon realizing that in the end, these people are just human. But, she isn't a filmmaker, so I wouldn't expect her to understand. However, the author that STUDIES FILM AND WROTE A BOOK ABOUT IT should know this!
However, someone made the comment that without stuff like this, the horror genre wouldn't be doing it's job, and I agree. It's good to see this kind of stuff in the news, because that means we are finally getting movies that offend people again. Frankenstein and Dracula indeed; those movies offended the hell out of people back when they were first released. Frankenstein was even described as pornographic and sadistic from some reviewers, mainly because of the little girl being killed but also because of the idea of a monster being made out of body parts by a scientist who wanted to play God. It's simply context, which shows like O'Reilly have no interest in. If they had done any research whatsoever (yeah, I know, that's asking too much) they would have realized this.
But, in the end, it is all ratings, and they are just as 'despicable' as the horror films they pretend to loathe. Unfortunately people do listen to this guy and believe everything he says, no matter how dumb, racist, sexist, or just plain wrong it is.
On top of everything else, they haven't seen the films. How can you discuss something you've never seen? What good is that? That's like me saying, "I've never seen a real van Gogh in person, but I'm going to talk about his use of color and how trivial and banal his subtle twists on everyday themes are."