‘2016: OBAMA‘S AMERICA’ FILMMAKER RESPONDS TO The caliph خليفة’S ATTACKS: ‘I THINK THEY ARE SCARED — AND THEY HAVE A REASON TO BE’

• Posted on September 11, 2012 at 8:34pm by  Jason Howerton
• Print »
• Email »

• Comments (363)

In an exclusive interview with TheBlaze on Tuesday, Dinesh D’Souza, creator of “2016: Obama’s America,“ said President Barack Obama and his campaign are now attacking him because they are ”scared” of his documentary and what it reveals.

It’s true that with the 2012 presidential election just around the corner, Obama and his campaign can‘t be happy to see that D’Souza’s anti-Obama documentary is now the second biggest political documentary of all time, surpassing popular liberal productions like Michael Moore’s “Bowling for Columbine” and Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth.”

That may be why Obama’s so-called “Truth Team” attacked D’Souza and his film openly and aggressively on BarackObama.com last week, calling it a “deliberate distortion of President Obama and his worldview” and D’Souza a “right-wing” author peddling conspiracy theories. Or perhaps “2016” has grown so popular that the Obama campaign can’t ignore it any longer.

Photo Credit: "2016: Obama's America"

Regardless, it is clear that D‘Souza’s film has caught the attention of the White House and its inhabitant.

D’Souza sat down with TheBlaze to respond to allegations coming from the Obama campaign that his documentary provides a “distorted” and dishonest view of Obama and his past.

Point-by-point D‘Souza seemingly debunked the Obama team’s attacks, some based on topics that were not even mentioned in “2016: Obama’s America” and are found in his best-selling book “The Roots of Obama’s Rage,” which the film is based on.

“I think they are scared — and they have a reason to be scared,” D’Souza told TheBlaze. “But I certainly welcome the Obama team getting into this because it seems like the old strategy has completely failed, you know: Ignore it, pray really hard and hope it goes away.”

This publicity image released by Rocky Mountain Pictures, shows an undated film clip of director, Dinesh D'Souza, interviewing George Obama in "2016: Obama's America. " Despite the unconventional release of "2016: Obama's America," the movie is among the most successful political documentaries of all time and it doesn't show signs of cooling down ahead of the presidential election. (Credit: AP)

For argument’s sake, D‘Souza addressed the Obama campaign’s attacks one by one:

1. D’Souza falsely claimed that President Obama said he didn’t believe in American exceptionalism—when in fact the President has repeatedly praised America’s exceptional identity and core values.

“First of all, the documentary doesn’t claim that,” D’Souza said. “But I do claim that in an earlier book called ‘The Roots of Obama’s Rage,‘ that he doesn’t believe in American exceptionalism. I say that based upon the fact that Obama was asked about that specifically in 2009 and he said we are no more exceptional than the Brits and the Greeks, everybody thinks they are exceptional. And so the meaning of Obama’s response is, if everyone believes they are exceptional, no one really is.”

2. D’Souza falsely asserted that President Obama funded $2 billion in Brazilian oil exploration even though numerous fact checkers and reporters have noted that President Obama had “nothing to do with the loan.”

D’Souza said not only is that true, but he actually “understated the case.”

“Well, the Obama administration has not only approved the $2 billion in subsidies to Brazil, but after that the Obama administration has given billions of dollars to Mexico and Columbia to drill for oil, so I actually understated the case,” he told TheBlaze.

The money was approved by the U.S. Export-Import Bank, which handles these types of transactions, D’Souza explained, but the bank falls under the Obama administration, leaving the president ultimately responsible.

“So this is a case where the Obama administration is refusing to take responsibility for its own actions,” he added.

3. D’Souza falsely charged that President Obama backed Scotland’s release of the Lockerbie bomber only weeks after the Obama administration had put out a statement opposing Scotland’s decision to return Abdelbaset al-Megrahi to Libya and sent a letter to the Scottish government raising the administration’s strong objection.

Firstly, there is no reference to the Lockerbie bomber in “2016,” according to D’Souza.

“This is a recycled White House attack on my book, ‘The Roots of Obama’s Rage,’ in which I refer to a memo that was sent by the Obama administration telling the Scottish government that if they were going to release the Lockerbie bomber, Obama would prefer that he be kept in Scotland and not sent back to Libya,” the best-selling author said.

He continued: “So basically, Scottish officials understood that to mean that the Obama administration was giving them the green light to release the guy as long as they kept an eye on him… that‘s how the Scottish government read Obama’s memo. So my original report was correct, and in any case, that has nothing to do with the film.”

4. D’Souza even claimed that President Obama passed the bank bailouts when the facts clearly show that it was President Bush who signed the Troubled Asset Relief Program into law in October 2008.

D’Souza says he never claimed that President Obama was alone in passing the bank bailouts, however, for President Obama to argue he did not approve of the action is “disingenuous.”

“That is true but a technicality,” he said. “The fact of the matter is, Obama was included in those discussions, he approved of them. He said publicly that he supported the bailout and subsequently the stimulus. For Obama now to disclaim responsibility for things that he has signed off on seems a bit disingenuous.”

The fact that the Obama White House is annoyed with the success of “2016” only shows that they are “worried,” D’Souza told TheBlaze.

“They have succeeded in keeping these facts off the public menu all this time and now they feel like they have to work really hard to prevent people from seeing the film,” he said, taking a deep breath before continuing.

“We are asking one fundamental question: who is Barack Obama? We are investigating the president’s background, his ideology and the implications of his ideology for the future. We are a truth telling team ourselves and I guess his truth telling team is trying to prevent us from getting our message out.”

D‘Souza attributes the documentary’s overwhelming success to the nation’s desire to know more factual information about Obama. Even pro-Obama people have seen the movie and marveled at how much they learned about Obama that they didn’t know before, he explained.

“I think that the film goes into territory that has been previously unexplored. In fact, it even goes into territory that the Romney campaign won’t touch,” he added.

D’Souza told Deadline that the producers of “2016: Obama’s America” are trying to find a network to air the documentary before the November elections. He expressed his frustration over the mainstream media ignoring the film.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016-obamas-america-filmmaker-responds-to-presidents-attacks-i-think-they-are-scared-and-they-have-a-reason-to-be-scared/

EXCLUSIVE: ’2016 The caliph خليفة’s America’ Filmmaker Reacts To The caliph خليفة’s Slam; Looking For Network To Air Before Election; Says Mainstream Media Refusing Coverage

Dinesh D’Souza responds

Home - by Cardigan - September 12, 2012 - 08:00 America/New_York - 5 Comments

Deadline

’2016: Obama’s America’ Docu Slammed By President’s Campaign As “Lies”

BREAKING… EXCLUSIVE:

Dinesh D’Souza is the conservative author of the best-seller The Roots Of Obama’s Rage which was the basis for the #2 political documentary of all time 2016 Obama’s America. He is also its co-director. He answers today’s slam on the film by the Obama-Biden campaign, which comes just as the movie is hot in battleground states and its producers are looking for a network to air it before the November election. D’Souza attacks the mainstream media for “refusing” coverage:

DEADLINE: What is your reaction to today’s Obama-Biden campaign slam of 2016 Obama’s America??
DINESH D’SOUZA: “I welcome Obama’s critique of the film. He has probably figured out that he cannot ignore it any longer. Obama’s response is a characteristic mix of name calling and false allegations. Some of the claims he makes refer to things that are not even in the film. Elsewhere Obama just gets it wrong. For example, he disputes that he funded $2 billion in Brazilian oil exploration. In reality, Obama has given billions of dollars not only to Brazil but also to Colombia and Mexico to drill for oil. On March 19, 2011, Obama gave a speech in Brazil in which he deplored the legacy of colonialism, promised technology and support for Brazilian energy development, and concluded “when you are ready to start selling we want to be one of your best customers”. The facts in the film stand up very well to the closest scrutiny. I think people should see 2016 and make up their own minds.

http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=149294

The Film: 2016: The Roots of Obama’s Rage - Commentary

The Film: 2016: The Roots of Obama’s Rage

Commentary

Wil J. Wellisch

31-August-2012

NOTE:  I do not claim to be a film reviewer or a political analyst.  These are simply personal thoughts; musings of an old fellow who knows as much as a jelly fish.

Introduction

The film, 2016, is based upon a recent book titled The Roots of Obama’s Rage by the south-Indian/American author, Dinesh D’Souza.

Body of film

The film’s title directs us to the author-director’s central theme which is two-fold. 

One, the author maintains that Obama’s life from late childhood has led to a career path directed by rage. 

This rage is directed at western industrial-postindustrial societies.  Particular attention is given to the global colonization drives of England in the 19^{t h} and 20^th centuries.  The later expansionistic activity of the United States in the 20th and 21st centuries also becomes a source of his rage, decrying as he does the notion of “American exceptionalism”.  

Believing that England’s activities were aimed at exploiting the  beleaguered people and securing the abundant resources; believing that the colonizers were convinced of their own inherent superiority, a superiority that might ironically benefit the colonized; such invasions – economic, military, cultural – took place.  This colonizing land-lust directed at the lesser developed nations [LDNs} always led to harsh outcomes for the indigenous populations.

These targets of Obama’s rage, by their very nature, lead to collateral points of focus; attacks leveled against the religions of the technologically advanced societies - Christianity and later Judaism - and people of white ethnicity insofar as they harbored the values of the market economy and gave force to the belief in their inherent superiority over people of color who occupied these colonized places.

For D’Souza, Obama’s early acquisition of a psyche of rage and his later actions in governing are inextricably linked.

Two, given this psychological hurricane at the core of Obama’s psyche, the emerging question for author-director D’Souza has to do with the sources of this rage directed at individuals, groups, and institutions. 

The film takes aim at the sources or instillers of such rage.  The result is a series of interviews with people across the political spectrum, showing footage of historical film relevant to explaining Obama’s development and other visual inserts of relevance.  The interviews are sober and focused: there is no “Gotcha” journalism in the questioning.   For those old enough to remember, D’Souza’s interviews are reminiscent of those in earlier days of television in programs hosted by Dick Cavanaugh or William F. Buckley.

Concluding commentary

Considering the complexity of the topic – covering various time periods and visiting nations on at least three continents – the film does a fine job in a brief period – 87 minutes.

A modest proposal

Given the fine quality of the finished product and considering the host of challenges D’Souza and company faced in producing this documentary it seems bad manners for a rank amateur to make serious recommendations for expanded development.  Yet I believe that such an expansion would lend greatly to a fuller appreciation of the themes laid out by the author-director.

It seems to me that the documentary would have been greatly enhanced if the attention given to Obama’s psychological makeup and consequent actions had led to a more comprehensive discussion of Obama’s subsequent policies – proposed and enacted – as an adult. 

The film would have benefitted by showering the filmgoer with what would prove to be embarrassing contradictions between Obama’s words and later policies.  The hollowness of his claims and the vagaries of his promises, lend no comfort.  [Some might consider these as signs of conscious and willful deception, as being intentionally misleading by Obama, but let the reader decide.]

True, the film addresses the staggering and unparalleled national debt that Obama has bestowed upon future generations and wishes to expand [with the film acknowledging the disturbing role that G.W. Bush played in debt-growth during his two terms, albeit with the drive of a Congress controlled for some years by Democrats]. 

It is also true that a few other serious issues are given comment – the dismantling of the military, the dangerous disregard for the well-being of the one dependable ally in the Middle East, Israel for example – but they do not receive the detailed attention that they deserve.

Apart from the above-mentioned items, several other key matters are either ignored entirely or addressed almost in passing.  Not in any particular order, I would offer the following.  To wit:

·        the staggering assault on the nation’s solid health care system, one that needs modification rather than destruction, the “Affordable Health Care for America” act – referred to by its detractors as “Obamacare”-  is an incomprehensible tome of two thousand pages, 330,000 words, innumerable strikeouts of existing legislation and countless references to other relevant legislation – that demands studied understanding capable of only a privileged few:

The bill:

o   adds thirty million [30,000,000] people to the list of the insured [22,000,000 of whom were not on insurance programs by choice].

o   cuts payments to physicians and hospitals covering Medicare recipients by nearly three-quarters of a trillion dollars [$716,000,000,000 –billions].

o   selects who will receive certain kinds of care and the types of care that will be allowed through a national screening board of 15 appointed members called IPAB {Independent Payment Advisory Board]; the board deciding whether patients presented will be approved for certain treatments recommended by a physician, the board having final authority.

This will lead to an impossibly cumbersome process slowing care to a virtual standstill.   As IPAB will be called upon in the most serious cases what will occur will prove ironic – those in need of the best treatment posthaste will be those facing prolonged delays, likely to writhe in pain until they expire.

o   the IPAB board thus will be in the position of being able to over-ride medical decisions by physicians in an effort to control health care costs; leading to such near-future consequences as three of four physicians recently surveyed saying that they will NOT take new Medicare patients or would refuse to enroll in Medicare-directed treatment.

o   this enforced reliance upon IPAB  coupled with the above mentioned cut in payments will cause the care for the elderly to plummet.

o   with limited payment for care coupled with a decline in the number of physicians   medical services will be delayed severely or denied completely to people of all ages; long waiting lists on the order of those found in western European nations will become the norm in the U.S.

o   costs of medical will rise dramatically for most people with most current group coverage insurance programs from private plans disappearing.

o   government plans will impose requirements and restrictions that will make a cumbersome one-size-fits-all health care system that ignores individual needs, violates the edicts of religious groups, and will have the design efficiency  of the committee that designed the elephant.

·        the disregard for constitutional procedures to circumvent the Congress and establish laws by fiat as in the cases of creating as never before czars beholden only to the White House and controlling important areas of government.   

[In the case of establishing czars, it is not by accident that many of these appointments  displayed particular penchant  for selected people clearly to the far left on the political spectrum, communists and other radicals, with at least one having been a member of a self-declared communist group.

·        in the same vein as the preceding, the penchant of Obama has been to create policies by executive order without consideration of the role of the Congress and to appoint people to critical positions without regard to the role of Congress through the expansion of “recess appointments”.

·        pulling vital missile systems from Poland and the Czech Republic simply to appease Russia’s de facto dictator Putin without any quid pro quo, abandoning an established and legitimate military program.

·        remaining silent or giving only feeble expressions of support to citizens of Iran protesting fraudulent elections, a failure that contributed to the strengthening of control over this nation by the mullahs, letting the protestors face slaughter or imprisonment for their orderly protests.

·        showing contempt for the Dalai Lama, the exiled holy leader of Tibet and not wishing to antagonize the Chinese government which opposes recognizing the Dalai Lama, by compelling the Dalai to exit the White House by the backdoor, going past the garbage cans

so that news photographers could not capture images of this revered spiritual leader with an American president.

·        expressing contempt for the PM of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, unceremoniously insisting that the PM wait while Obama dined, then escorting him out the backdoor previously used by the Dali Lama.

·        giving a speech in Cairo, Egypt in which he did NOT denounce the cruelty suffered by the Coptic Christians or of women under Islamic law but condemned the construction of apartments in Israel on Israeli land that even the Arabs had recognized until then as legitimate construction sites.

·        criticizing the state of Arizona to the United Nations and the World Court because that state wished to regulate and control immigration, a federal duty that the federal government refused to carry out; falsely charging Arizona with discriminatory policies when in fact the law – SB-1070 –  followed faithfully the governing federal law.

[It should be noted that both Obama and Attorney General Holder falsely criticized the law as racist, having to admit at a later date that they had not read a single word of the bill but relied instead upon the assessment of their advisors.]

·        tax policies that would allegedly benefit the middle class, promised in the vaguest of terms, has proven to involve a host of increases – some directly applied with others indirect, some labeled as taxes while others masked by alternative terms.

·        ridiculing, blocking, burdening with unreasonable regulations basic mining and energy exploration industries at a long-term cost to be shared by individual as well as businesses, coupled with heavily subsidizing new, untested energy industries, seeking to put these at the head of the industrial-energy line:

o   Does Solyndra ring a bell with its bankruptcy after receiving $457 million in ‘loans’ to develop a state of the art clean energy system?

o   How about closing down without justification of 66,000 [thousands] jobs along the Gulf after the BP explosion crippling various industries including fishing and tourism?

o   Blocking the Keystone project that would have brought much needed Canadian oil into the US with an estimated 20,000 construction jobs followed by operations that would have offered employment for several thousands.

·        for an executive employing the politics that would have fit into Machiavelli’s “The Prince”, Obama’s early reference to transparency and unity rings sadly hollow.

·        the racial-ethnic politics shared with Attorney General Holder in such matters

o   as refusing to bring to justice members of the militant New Black Panther Party for their menacing and threatening behavior towards white voters in Philadelphia during the 2008 presidential elections – the young males in black leather trench coats, dark sunglasses and berets, holding in menacing fashion combat batons.

o   as allowing death threats with a promise of a financial bounty if a “while-Hispanic”, George Zimmerman, could be found and killed for the controversial shooting by Zimmerman of a black fellow of questionable character, Treyvon [sp] Martin.

o   as condemning immediately the Cambridge, Massachusetts police for detaining Professor Henry Louis Gates [a black fellow, aka African-American] after Gates was reported by neighbors, not recognizing him, as appearing to be breaking into a home.

o   making it official government policy to NOT employ such terms as “Muslim terrorist” when Muslims, in the name of Islam, have engaged in terrorist acts.

In the case of Major Nidal Hassan, army psychiatrist, who killed 13 unarmed military and civilian personnel and wounded 30 others at Ft. Hood, Texas while shouting the Arabic phrase praising Allah, his massacre was described in the official military report as “workplace violence”.

o   vigorously opposing all attempts by state officials to curb the tide of illegal voting plaguing the election process  

·        waffling on what stand he should take regarding whether marriage is a monogamous, two-partner and heterosexual coupling or whether it should confer legitimacy upon homosexual partners.

·        expressing disdain at established and well recognized religious beliefs by attempting to require that medical facilities will provide for contraception practices even if the facilities philosophically oppose such practices.

·        and more, so much more.

~~~~~

NOTE: 

In considering some of the items that would have fit nicely into this film, making it run as long as Dr. Zhivago and Lawrence of Arabia in a double feature, I offered a modest selection of topics that came to mind.  This is by NO MEANS complete.  Two, they are not sequenced in any particular fashion; there is no order of importance.  Three, they are not grouped into any categories. 

Hopefully they merit some consideration – perhaps for a sequel; 2016-# 2.

wil j wellisch

31-aug-2012

h/t DJ

El Presidente Movie Killing it Despite Negative Press

August 30, 2012 by Eric Rauch

Filed under Entertainment, Media, Politics

154

358

Dinesh D’Souza’s new film, 2016: Obama’s America, has far surpassed industry “insider” predictions (read: hopes) that the movie would tank at the box office. Aside from being the top grossing movie last weekend, D’Souza has announced that he is expanding the number of theaters showing it, from 1091 to 1600 screens. Apparently there is more interest out there in a political documentary than even the “experts” believe.

The film purports to show the “real” Obama, along the same lines as D’Souza’s books, Obama’s America and The Roots of Obama’s Rage. Anticipating where America might be if Obama gets elected to a second term, 2016: Obama’s America claims: “Love him, hate him, you don’t know him.” According to the official website for the film:

Immersed in exotic locales across four continents, best selling author Dinesh D’Souza races against time to find answers to Obama’s past and reveal where America will be in 2016. During this journey he discovers how Hope and Change became radically misunderstood, and identifies new flashpoints for hot wars in mankind’s greatest struggle. The journey moves quickly over the arc of the old colonial empires, into America’s empire of liberty, and we see the unfolding realignment of nations and the shape of the global future.

Far from giving the president little credit, as most Republicans are wont to do, D’Souza gives Obama large amounts of props. D’Souza believes that Obama is unfolding his policies and political plan exactly as he wants. Far from being inept and naïve, D’Souza believes that Obama is exacting and precise in what he wants for America, and is doing it right before our very eyes. In fact, the film uses much of Obama’s own words, straight from the audiobook version of Obama’s memoir, Dreams From My Father. It is an interesting concept to use one’s actual words against him, something that liberals are not very accustomed to doing, unless the words are taken out of context or abbreviated. I’m looking at you, Michael Moore.

While it is evident that D’Souza has done his homework and is trying to present facts in his film, this doesn’t preclude liberal critics from completely dismissing the film as a witch hunt (spoiler alert!). Reviews of 2016: Obama’s America have been positive from individual viewers, but have been almost unanimously negative from paid critics. This should come as no surprise, since the majority of film critics are nothing but government shills working for the left-promoting mainstream media. The quality or factuality of a film is irrelevant, what really makes a film “good” to these reviewers is its ideology. Toeing the liberal line is what is really important, not questioning it. You can be assured that when professional film critics are universally panning a well-made film, there is a very good reason for it, and it has nothing to do with the film itself. Most of these critics probably had the majority of their “reviews” written before they even sat down in the theater.

http://politicaloutcast.com/2012/08/obama-movie-killing-it-despite-negative-press/

'Obama 2016' Movie Races to Box Office #1

Friday, 24 Aug 2012 09:03 PM

By Todd Beamon

Share:

More . . .

A    A   |

   Email Us   |

   Print   |

   Forward Article

• 8
  inShare

The anti-Obama documentary based on Dinesh D’Souza’s book “The Roots of Obama’s Rage” expanded nationwide on Friday — with early first-place showings in the domestic box office rankings, Deadline Hollywood reports.

As of late Friday afternoon, “2016: Obama's America” had grossed $700,000 from 1,090 theaters. That compared with $300,000 for the new big-budget, Sylvester Stallone action flick “The Expendables 2,” which is playing in 3,355 theaters, Deadline Hollywood reports.

The early showing puts Obama’s America on track to gross $1.2 million to $1.7 million on Friday alone, with as much as $3.7 million to $5 this weekend, according to Deadline Hollywood. Its afternoon ranking will likely be eclipsed by “Expendables” and several new releases, including “Ride Like Hell,” starring Michael Shannon.

Exhibitors reported that busloads of filmgoers arriving at theaters to see Obama’s America in pre-organized trips, Deadline Hollywood reports.

The film’s producer, Rocky Mountain Pictures, used the same marketing approach to build audiences for many of its faith-based films. Its efforts included advertising nationally over the past two weeks on talk radio and cable news channels.

Last weekend, Obama’s America grossed $1.2 million in select markets, including New York City, and had a total gross of $2.1 million from a total of 169 theaters.

The low-budget film features author D’Souza outlining facts to assist viewers in gaining an understanding of the apparent motivations behind a number of President Barack Obama’s policies.

In an exclusive interview with Newsmax last week, D’Souza said that Obama’s policies are unmaking the American Dream.

“Between 2007 and the present, Americans have lost about 40 percent of our wealth. Forty percent. If that happens again, if we lose another 40 percent in the second Obama term, if there is a second Obama term, Americans will be two thirds poorer than they were when Obama came to office,” he told Newsmax. “In a way, America will stop being a first-world country.”

So far, “2016” is the second-best gross of the year for a documentary after “Bully” ($3.2 million), but that list excludes the nature documentaries “Chimpanzee” ($29 million) and “To the Arctic” ($7.6 million), according to the Hollywood Reporter.

The documentary opened last month and is already the 12th-highest-grossing political documentary of all time. It also is the No. 2 conservative documentary after “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” ($7.7 million), according to the Reporter.

The aggressive expansion of Obama's America, co-directed by D'Souza and John Sullivan, was set to coincide with next week's Republican National Convention in Tampa, Fla.


© 2012 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

http://www.newsmax.com/US/DSouza-matinee-Obama-movie/2012/08/24/id/449727?s=al&promo_code=FDA3-1

Anti-El Presidente Movie #1 Conservative Docu

The shocker among all the films was Rocky Mountain Pictures’ political documentary 2016 Obama’s America which opened July 13th in very limited release and expanded into theaters across America this weekend. It wound up in 4th place Friday and 8th place for the weekend. That’s  stunning because it was playing in 2/3 fewer theaters across North American than the other wider release films. (See below for more details). Due to its hot pre-sales, the pic proved frontloaded which explains why its ranking started out #1 and then fell steeply by end of Sunday. But the doc’s new cume of $9.2M makes it the #1 all-time biggest-grossing conservative political documentary, besting Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed’s $7.7M. And the 6th all-time biggest political documentary behind liberal docs by Michael Moore and Al Gore. (Neither ranking is adjusted for inflation or higher ticket prices.) 2016 Obama’s America is based on conservative author and commentator Dinesh D’Souza’s New York Timesbestselling 2010 book The Roots Of Obama’s Rage and co-directed by D’Souza and John Sullivan and produced by Academy Award winner Gerald R. Molen (co-producer of Schindler’s List). In fact, Molen credits “learning some lessons” from Michael Moore for the film: “When he released Fahrenheit 9/11 in 2004 ahead of the election, it sparked intense debate.” And 2016 Obama’s America‘s success comes from equally savvy marketing on the eve of the Republican National Convention next week.

Exhibitors were reporting busloads arriving at theaters around the country in pre-organized trips to the pic. It also employed much of the same marketing techniques used to garner attention and support for faith-based films, understandable since the audience is overlapping. Its campaign included advertising nationally over the past two weeks on talk radio and cable news channels including Fox News Channel, A&E, History and MSNBC. ”I didn’t believe it when I first saw the film taking off in pre-sales on Tuesday,” an exhibition insider tells me. “Because there’s not a lot of new product that’s taking off.”

more

http://www.deadline.com/2012/08/first-box-office-anti-obama-movie-1/