To the filmmakers, it was done very well. I want to say that the film is interesting to watch even those viewers who live outside the United States. However, I have to keep in mind that I am a Fox News viewer, so I know some of the anchors on Fox News, and I also know the political position of Fox. But the main thing is not even that, but the fact that I am aware of the opposition of TV channels that support either Republicans (Fox News, Sky News Australia) or Democrats (MSNBC, CNN, FRANCE 24 English) in the United States. This understanding is crucial in light of the film's assessment, mainly of its approach. I have a big question about that.
Let’s take a look at what the film has to say. According to the film, Roger Ailes was a very nasty man who used his high position to force women into sexual relations. If you don’t think hard, that’s how it comes out. However, in reality, the film is about who breathed life into Fox, what kind of person was the person who created Fox. In other words, the film attempts to discredit Fox by showing how disgusting, base and fallen a man (especially for traditional Republicans) created Fox News. Couldn’t the identity of the creator of the Fox TV channel be transferred to the TV channel itself and the journalists and presenters working there, as if this documentary asks? After watching the film, the viewer will no longer have (or should not remain) any doubts about the baseness of the Fox News channel itself. In other words, the film did everything it could to compromise the channel by telling the “life story” of Roger Ailes, the founder and longtime head of the channel and the man who led Fox News to commercial success.
It’s a long movie, but the only thing we hear about Roger Ailes is what a pig he was. To do this, for almost an hour and a half, we are told various ugly (bad) deeds that Roger Ailes committed, the peak of which came at the very end of the film. As in classic Hollywood movies, the main antagonist (Roger Ailes) is incredibly commercially successful and just as incredibly successful in getting out of any clutter that would break an ordinary person almost immediately. But that's not Roger Ailes, the film says. The documentary portrays Roger Ailes as a political PR genius and an incredibly successful media manager. Whether Roger Ailes himself, or the authors of the film, but the film says that Roger Ailes did not lose the election of any candidate. That is, he is such a genius, a master of conviction. Only now he works exclusively for the Republicans, which is why he is portrayed as an evil genius. I want to say that everything attributed to Fox can (and certainly can) be used by other TV channels, especially those supporting the opposite political camp. The film shows us only one side of the political spectrum, without saying anything about the opposite camp. Yes, some methods are abhorrent, others controversial, but in most of the examples I have cited, I have not found particularly immoral and outrageous violations of social and professional norms. What's the film's claim? The creation of Fox, which sometimes allows itself to cover conspiracy, and the presence of sexually attractive presenters in short tight dresses (for radical supporters of the Democratic Party of the United States, this is, of course, a big sin). All in all, anything negative about Roger Ailes was found and included as a biopic. But the main thing, of course, was the fall of Roger Ailes from the top of the main boss of Fox News.
Fall. The evidence is against Roger Ailes. This is mainly a recording of a telephone conversation, in which there are just incriminating materials with an openly sexual overtone. And then there is the accusation by many women of sexual harassment (harassment). Fox agreed to pay at least $140 million to settle the case peacefully. It is noteworthy that the film mentions only one case, where there was indisputable evidence. In all other cases, as I understand it, only the verbal statements of women. Word against word, so to speak. Maybe it was blackmail (by Roger Ailes), or maybe it was revenge by a former employee. Roger Ailes was clearly a difficult man. Perhaps what struck me most was the story of his specially guarded office at Fox headquarters, with bulletproof windows and other equipment. Whether it was in fact, to say with certainty is quite difficult, because the film is clearly biased.
Despite all that being said, watching this documentary was quite interesting. I don’t think, or rather, I’m even sure that watching this movie will not help us understand who Roger Ailes really was and what he wanted to create, nor will we be able to answer the question of whether he was a true Republican supporter of the United States or just made money by creating a successful TV channel.