What does “calling bullshit” actually mean?
From comments on Why the Matrix trilogy ultimately blows:
This from the guy who brought us “Charlie’s Angels�. Guess what? I’m calling bullshit too.
– Aaron Giles
Knock yourself out, Aaron. But I don’t think you really understand what “calling bullshit” means.
You may not like the Charlie’s Angels movies — hell, I don’t particularly care for the second one — but the fact that I wrote them doesn’t lessen my ability to point out sucky things about the Matrix sequels. I have the right to call bullshit, and so do you. But I think you’re doing it wrong.
Not that I can say exactly what “calling bullshit” means. There’s probably no perfect definition, but to me it involves pointing out inconsistency (or worse, hypocrisy) in a person’s statements or actions. If you do a Google search on the phrase, that’s how it’s almost always used.
And here’s where I think Aaron went awry: you can’t just call bullshit and not back it up with something. If he’s going to say that I played obscurity for depth in one (or more) of my films, the proper form would be to give examples along with the bullshit-calling.
Otherwise, he’s just swearing.
Articles
March 18th, 2006 at 8:45 pm
Regardless of what “calling bullshit” means, Giles’ comment cracked me up thus accomplishing what I suppose was his true goal.
March 18th, 2006 at 9:50 pm
“Calling Bullshit” comes from the game Bullshit, which my cousins played but I could not, because you had to say “Bullshit” right there in the living room.
Essentially, you lay cards face down, and when someone thinks you’re bluffing with a weak hand, they call bullshit.
Not a very fun game, unless you’re 12.
March 18th, 2006 at 9:52 pm
Dude, that was poetry.
March 18th, 2006 at 9:55 pm
Good call, Aaron: if you’ve made a mistake in a field, you shouldn’t be allowed to give advice in that field. That way, we only get advice from either perfect people (of which there are none) or people that have no experience. Or, we could criticize an argument rather than a person.
March 18th, 2006 at 10:23 pm
It seems Aaron must never pay heed to an Ebert review, since he co-wrote Beyond the Valley of the Dolls with Russ Meyer!
March 18th, 2006 at 10:27 pm
Yeah, Aaron has his substances mixed up. Charlie’s Angels is cheese, not bullshit. CA:Full Throttle might be processed cheese. The Matrix films are pure bullshit because not only do they pretend to be profound when they are patently not, but they also try to obscure the fact with bluster ( both of which are different from trying to be profound but failing, or having a point but failing to put it across). A musical equivalent might be Stairway to Heaven: twaddle shrouded in great pyrotechnics. One way of recognising bullshit in film (and most forms of art) is when you need to read a long winded, fanboy, psuedo-academic style essay to explain what you didn’t understand while watching the movie or thinking about it afterwards on your own. I think we should at least expect internal coherence.
March 18th, 2006 at 11:33 pm
Okay John, the brilliant thing about Fantasy Island, sorry, Charlie’s Angles is that the mythic shape of the meta-universe you created of the three girls is that it is solidly backed up by valkryie pagan mythology, with a monotheistic god-voice (charlie) thrown in just to mix things up. Where you went wrong in your trilogy (as i’m sure there must have been a third film planned just to tie up some of the philosophical buddhist/panty-line loose ends) was that you played depth for depth, and weren’t obsucre enough. Everything you wrote, you meant, which is such a deconstructionist post-modern approach to in your face kung-fu hot chick girl-toy teasing, that I’m not sure people like Aaron could really handle it. If the Matrix had a few more tight-butt shots and breathelss pouty lips after some kick ass chop socky, maybe everyone would have lightened up a bit and not been so fucking damn heavy about every little thing.
March 19th, 2006 at 1:28 am
Are you guys serious? I agree with John here. The Matrix is one of my favorite movies. And I was the most excited by the sequels than most. I couldn’t wait. But they both really really disappointed. The second one was so off, it ALMOST hurt my love of the first. I think the real bullshit was that although Larry and Andy Wachowski claimed they had a triology in mind the whole time, I think that is the real bullshit.
It made money so they though of sequels to capalize on the sucess. And some stories don’t have the need for sequels. I love Rawson’s (Dodgeball I presume - unless it’s not a film guy) comment. That’s how I feel about many of the films that get rave reviews. I don’t think people see half of the movies or like them or understand them. But one lone reviewer says this movie is brillant so people follow alone as not to appear stupid. On the same lines of “Playing obscurity for depth”. I call it “Being Afraid to go outside the majority opinion”.
Anyway, attacking Charlie’s Angels doesn’t hold water. First, you may not like them, but you understood them. No? You got the plots. They made sense. You may hate them and think them shit, but the movie is upfront. No deep messages. Also, how much did you expect from them. No offense John. But they are comedies.
The Matrix was one of the best movies I ever saw. I was fasanted with it. Watch it at over and over. Loved the ending. So when I heard about the sequels, I was pumped. And I tried to like the 2nd one… I convinced myself I did.. then I saw the third one and I tried to like that. But after watching them both again, I felt empty. What the hell happened?
It is bullshit. The standard I have, and you should have, vary from movie to movie. The Matrix was/is a cultural phennomenon. But it wasn’t Star Wars. It had no more story to tell. When Neo said “I’m not going to tell you how it’s going to end, I’m only going to tell you how it’s going to being” or something like that.. then he flew up into the air and then the Rage song started to play I was pumped.
I didn’t need to see anyone. He is “The One”. No one can stop him. That is whay they set up in that movie. I assume that the human race is free.
I’d glady watch Charlie’s Angels any day over the Matrix sequels. Although the Matrix sequels are funnier. Did you know Neo is Jesus? Hilarous.
March 19th, 2006 at 2:17 am
wow… um what?
March 19th, 2006 at 2:37 am
I’m calling bullshit on Harry’s editorializing about bullshit, since he admitted to having not played in paragraph one, but they went on to disparage the game a mere two sentences later.
Bullshit can be an iconic ritual of American manhood; the first time I got tossed out of a drinking establishment was when, at the age of 17, some friends and I played boisterously enough to get booted from a boy scout camp commissary after a five day backpacking trek. It may not have the drama or the danger of getting heaved off a Jamaican balcony or being knifed in a Mexican barrio, but we all gotta start somewhere.
March 19th, 2006 at 6:49 am
I agree with the through-line. I think “Charlie’s Angels: The Pagan Myth-God Allamanga”, aka the completion of the trilogy, would’ve brought John’s true vision into light. But, somewhat unluckily, that will never come to be. So we can’t technically call bullshit because the ideology and themes and mythos brought together in the first two has yet to coalesce into a tangible whole. John, you’re lucky, otherwise we’d all be throwing bullshit around… and that’d be real smelly.
March 19th, 2006 at 7:28 am
For an amusingly academic look at exactly what ‘bullshit’ is, take a look at the book “On Bullshit” by Harry G. Frankfurt. Its a tiny book (67 pocketbook-size pages with pretty generous margins), but its actually quite insightful. Worth a read.
March 19th, 2006 at 7:37 am
At least John has his tongue firmly planted in cheek with the Charlie’s Angels films. But he also has a heart, as shown in Big Fish. John also displays a wicked grasp for witty dialogue and great situations as we saw in Go. And can travel to a bizarre world that is still coherent in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.
All of these things are sadly lacking in The Matrix sequels.
Besides, what do the sequels offer that the first film didn’t cover brilliantly? Bottom line: the sequels were a waste of cash and, as an audience member, a waste of time.
March 19th, 2006 at 9:52 am
Wow… that Aaron guy had no justification for his harsh paroxysm. John did write Charlies Angels and for that you have to give him a lot of credit. We are all thriving to become apart of the entertainment business and John has reached this goal which we all have. If anything he has more right to call “bullshit” on any movie beacause he has made movies of his own, whereas we have not. Kudos to you, John.
March 19th, 2006 at 10:19 am
For the record, I didn’t mean for this to be the “let’s rag on Aaron” thread. I just thought it was odd that “calling bullshit” was sort of un-defined, beyond the kiddie game.
March 19th, 2006 at 11:12 am
JOHN:
I feel like a complete and total asshole for pointing this out but I think Aaron was calling bullshit on your post because of the stark differences between the 1st Charlie’s Angels and its sequel. Although your post about The Matrix trilogy was more about “playing obscurity for depth”, the meat of the post was mostly about “how the sequels lost its heart–or lack of a better term, its goodness”.
One can argue that the same happened to the Charlie movies.
The 1st Charlie movie was pretty campy but it still had some sort of grounding in reality. The sequel went waaaaay of that mark and the film concluded with the Demi Moore character flying down Sunset Blvd (yes, flying) and the Angels “swinging” after her in what could only be described as the longest extension cord in the history of West Hollywood.
BUT
I think there’s a big difference.
John may have wrote the sequel but he didn’t direct it. There’s no way to know what was in the screenplay vs. what McQ decided to shoot. Although I’d love to know who’s idea it was to have the Super Powered Techno Info Golden Rings That Hold The Secrets to, I guess, Secret Agents.
March 19th, 2006 at 11:57 am
I’m calling bullshit on John calling bullshit on himself for this not being a “rag on Aaron post” about his calling bullshit on John and John then calling bullshit on the term “bullshit”. Because that’s just bullshit.
March 19th, 2006 at 12:05 pm
You guys are honestly looking into this way to deeply. Aaron simply was saying that if John can call bullshit on the Matrix Trilogy for sucking then he can call bullshit on John for Charlie’s Angels sucking. (which,I’m sorry to say, they truly did). The fact that Aaron wasn’t using the term bullshit correctly is a different matter.
March 19th, 2006 at 1:57 pm
Point of order, John did not have complete creative control over the Charlie’s Angels movies that the War bro’s had over their sequels. They could (and did) do whatever movie they wanted to, whereas I assume John was hired by a producer (drew?) and studio to give them the product they want, so it’s strange to criticize him for his work when it, in the end, even if John did have complete control over CA movies and they suck, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the Matrix sequels don’t blow and that John is wrong. John outlined how and why he thought, backed it up with examples and let it play. Aaron very simply pulled the very Republican trick of, if you cannot counter an argument or message, you attack the messenger instead.
It’s dirty and dishonest pool, Aaron.
March 19th, 2006 at 2:13 pm
Wasn’t The Matrix an original script? And wasn’t Charlie’s Angels an adaptation? If yes, there’s a BIG difference in what John and the “Matrix-brothers” COULD write in the first place.
March 19th, 2006 at 6:25 pm
I thought Aaron was saying that callin bullshit on the Matrix sequals was Bullshit and that John didn’t know waht he was talking about. I don’t think it was callin the Angels out but just saying “Who are you to call out the makers of teh Matrix when you only did the Angels or something.”
Anyway I think John was right on the money saying the Matrix 2 and 3 were a mess.
March 19th, 2006 at 9:24 pm
If Aaron IS actually calling “bullshit” on Full Throttle, then he should know JA has openly discussed it previously. This is taken from a post where a Mongolian reader stated she was offended that the “Mongolian” characters in the opening sequence spoke “Chinese.” John responded that it wasn’t entirely his fault, but here he lists other snafus that he might’ve had a hand in and probably should disturb someone even more:
1) Too many villains. (Four, if you’re counting.) 2) The wrong kind of sexy. Flirtatious, meet slutty. Oh, you’ve met. 3) The whole ring McGuffin. Where’s Frodo Baggins when you need him? 4) It’s a bird! It’s a plane! It’s — huh? Demi Moore can fly?! 5) Bernie Mac? Funny! I just wish I could understand what he’s saying.
Aaron - feel free to use any or all of these in your defense.
I’m personally calling bullshit on “Pink” as an actress. That was all you John, wasn’t it?!
March 19th, 2006 at 10:11 pm
I’m not saying that the “Charlie’s Angels” flicks are groundbreaking films or anything, but at least they were fun to watch, unlike the second “Matrix” movie (I didn’t even bother seeing the third).
March 19th, 2006 at 11:34 pm
I get this sort of thing too. Here’s the fascinating calculation going on.
If you’ve written or directed or produced a bad film, then you are a hypocrite for criticizing other films.
If you’ve never written or directed or produced a bad film, then you are free to criticize other films.
Odd, given that one thing has nothing to do with the other. I mean, let’s say I make bad movies (and lots of people say that). Hell, let’s say I’m Ed Wood. So what? Does that make the third Matrix film any better?
I’m only a hypocrite if I a) make a bad movie, b) get angry at other people for criticizing my movie, and c) criticize other movies.
Without item b, I’m just a guy with an opinion like anyone else.
This is why ad hominem attacks aren’t considered merely rude…they are fallacious as well.
March 20th, 2006 at 1:23 am
I think John’s right when he says what he really intended by his original post. Sorry, just needed to jump on the sycophant bandwagon.
March 20th, 2006 at 4:23 am
You’re right, John. He can’t call bullshit on Charlie’s Angels. They have no depth, nor are they obscure in the least. This is McG we’re talking about. He’s got as much depth as a teaspoon.
March 20th, 2006 at 4:35 am
Damn it, Craig… You’re the mature moral compass. You have to go away, otherwise I’ll feel bad when digi-harassing other people. But I understand the logic to that. Charlie’s Angels MAY NOT (I’m still not sure) have been Citizen Kane, but John’s opinion is still totally valid in judging other films. Since, well, we consider our opinion valid. I haven’t made a movie, let alone a bad one, and I still think some people give a shit what I think. I mean, look at Roger Ebert’s writing resume and we look at him for a Thumbs Up or Thumbs Down to tell us whether or not we should be playing with our thumbs during a movie.
It’s just so damn hard to not “call bullshit” on someone. I think that’s part of the catharsis for armchair critics. Or… keyboard critics… I don’t know what the hell the terminology is anymore.
March 20th, 2006 at 7:10 am
WTF? I made the same point Craig did earlier in the thread, but when Craig does it you bow down before him like he was Neo himself?
I call bullshit on that.
March 20th, 2006 at 7:42 am
I wasn’t a fan of Charlie’s Angels (I haven’t seen the second one yet) but as John has said in response to what his favourite genre is to work in - he likes movies that get made.
And those movies got made. There was a market, a script was written, a movie was shot and it got made.
But the same can be said for the Matrix sequels. And the Star Wars prequels. Though I’d sooner have John’s cred right now, with Big Fish, Corpse Bride and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory powering his reputation engine, than George or the Brothers (bank balances aside).
If twenty years from now, I wrote a Charlie’s Angels or anything else that gets made on the same level as that movie - even if that was the only thing I ever did, I’d still be proud of it.
March 20th, 2006 at 9:45 am
Nothing like film talk to rattle things up, eh? Can we agree on a few basics? Aaron’s was, even if funny to some, but a cheap shot. I admit to haven’t compare his filmography to John’s but if qualifications were required I imagine this comments page be much shorter, if at all in existence. Also, I would invite all to excuse themselves from further indiscriminate skewering and remit themselves to do a google on something called movie reviews, that do the job quite frequently and vigorously (I hesitate to say ‘nicely’) Failing this, I would avoid the parties’ background as subject, on a mere courtesy protocol to the host (and say ‘thank you for the soapbox’ before you give it back)
March 20th, 2006 at 12:06 pm
Craig - I am calling BS on Scary Movie 3 because it wasn’t really scary, now, was it?
March 20th, 2006 at 3:11 pm
I strongly second the “On Bullshit” recommendation. Harry Frankfurt is an unconventional Philosopher at Princeton. Essentially, there’s nothing wrong with John decrying the notion of playing obscurity for depth even if, in theory, he’s committed that error in the past. People make mistakes and learn from them. On the other hand, I see no need for Aaron to point out any reference or denotation for the Bullshit call, unless he means something beyond the default notion.
March 20th, 2006 at 9:51 pm
Joshua:
Sorry, but my way sounded so much cooler.
March 20th, 2006 at 10:44 pm
I can’t believe my post spawned this entire threat. Too funny. This post sums my intent up perfectly: “Regardless of what “calling bullshitâ€? means, Giles’ comment cracked me up thus accomplishing what I suppose was his true goal.”
In reality, the post was just meant to be funny and to provoke– only because John took a very serious, opinionated jab at “The Matrix”. I was merely taking the piss out of him because it seemed very jealous and egotistical to rag on your (successful) peers even if his arguments had merit.
March 20th, 2006 at 11:22 pm
^^ haha — i meant “thread”, not “threat”
March 21st, 2006 at 12:21 am
Aaron! Dude! You’re like almost famous! From now on, every time you introduce yourself you can say, “Hi, Aaron Giles, I had a run in with John August… Yeah, THE John August. We had a difference of opinion but it’s all sweet now. Who are you again?”
Sad thing is, I am actually jealous of you now on some level.
March 21st, 2006 at 8:18 pm
I have to admit, when reading the Matrix post, a half-formed thought about Charlies Angels popped into my head. Though, in the split second it was there I got far enought with the train of thought to realize it was both unrelated to the discussion and that it would be pretty lame for me to be so critical of someone who is actually out there doing something while I’m perched in relative safety atop the tree of obscurity.
March 21st, 2006 at 8:53 pm
Wait, wait, wait! I wanna be famous!
Uh… John… er… uh… how did that kleenex re-ignite after Simon stomped it out?!!!! WTF?!!
March 22nd, 2006 at 2:09 pm
I’m calling bullshit on Scriptweaver!!
March 29th, 2006 at 10:43 am
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0691122946/sr=8-3/qid=1143654115/ref=pdbbs3/104-1032479-4404727?%5Fencoding=UTF8
Looks like a great book on the subject of bullshit.
April 8th, 2006 at 11:29 am
you guys really do have alotta time to discuss such lame stuff. i mean.. whats bullshit.. bullshit is a loada crap. IT IS CRAP. what part of CRAP cant you understand. the CRA-part or the AP part dang it.. lol.
charlie’s angels and the matrix.. these two movie titles can not be, not only in one sentence, but an entire god damn article. you cant compare bullshit with moosekaka ’cause they smell different. they’re of different genres grand pa.
oo the maytrikshh waz faaaaaiiiiiine… oo ama sharlies angelshhh faaaayn… dudes… no offence, but get a life.
regards, another bored lazy ass.