Andrew Garfield faces backlash for telling billionaires to fear his movie
Left 0%
Center 0%
Right 100%
0 left · 0 center · 3 right
What happened
On Thursday at a Los Angeles screening of the upcoming film The Uprising, actor Andrew Garfield was asked what he hoped audiences would take away. He said he hoped the movie would be galvanizing and that if any billionaires watched it, they would be scared. The Paul Greengrass-directed historical drama depicts England’s 1381 Peasants’ Revolt; Garfield plays a fictional character. A video of the exchange circulated on X and drew public criticism citing Garfield’s own earnings as a film star. Neither Garfield nor Greengrass commented to Fox News Digital; Garfield later described the Munich shoot as miserable on the SmartLess podcast while praising Greengrass.
Sourcing check · Fully on the record · 3 articles
2 of 2 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report.
What these terms mean and how they're counted
- On the record · names a source 2 of 2
- On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Andrew Garfield, Rick Davis, Spencer Pratt, John William Sherrod and Noam Blum
- Primary evidence · cites a document or data 1 of 2
- Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: video
- Credits another outlet 0 of 2
- The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
- Unnamed sources 0 of 2
- The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
- How it developed
- When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Sep 6, 22:00 UTC by Fox News, naming its source. First document in the first report, from Fox News (video).
- Not counted 1
- Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
BLINDSPOT.
Only right-leaning outlets are covering this story
— the other side's media is silent.
Omitted — what each side leaves out
Unpacked
Right-leaning coverage treats Andrew Garfield's screening remark — that he hopes billionaires who watch The Uprising are scared — as a hypocrisy story, while left-leaning coverage has not reported the comments or the backlash at all. Fox News and the New York Post quote him hoping the film is galvanizing, then immediately stack critics who note his own movie pay. A reader of the silent side would miss both the line and the claim that a well-paid star is play-acting as working class.
Among right-leaning outlets the first wave of copy is nearly identical, but a later New York Post piece leads instead with Garfield calling the Munich shoot miserable on a podcast, a detail the backlash write-ups do not carry. That follow-up still recaps Spencer Pratt's jab about greenlighting billionaires, so the wealth-irony frame never leaves the page.
What does The Uprising actually argue about living billionaires, as opposed to fourteenth-century lords?
Bottom line
The fight over Garfield hoping billionaires fear The Uprising exists only on the right, where the New York Post highlighted a claimed $5M paycheck to play Sam Altman as the gotcha.
The receipts — 6 facts one side's coverage lacks
- Andrew Garfield told a Los Angeles screening audience he hopes billionaires who watch The Uprising are scared
- Spencer Pratt said Garfield was paid like $5M to play billionaire Sam Altman in Artificial
- Neither Garfield nor director Paul Greengrass responded to Fox News Digital's request for comment
- Associate pastor Rick Davis said the more Garfield talks the more the Wat Tyler film sounds like socialist garbage
- The Uprising depicts England's 1381 Peasants' Revolt after taxes to fund the Hundred Years' War
- Garfield plays a fictional lead named Ploughman while Cosmo Jarvis portrays Wat Tyler
The Right View
Fox News and the New York Post reported Garfield’s screening remarks and the ensuing X backlash, quoting critics who called the project likely socialist garbage, noted irony given studio billionaires and Garfield’s reported multimillion-dollar pay (including for playing Sam Altman), and said a wealthy star was cosplaying as working-class. They listed his blockbuster credits and said he and Greengrass did not respond to comment requests. NY Post also covered his later podcast account of a difficult, non-luxurious peasant-war shoot in a Munich field.
Our Take (balanced)
The story is thin: it rests on one checkable on-camera remark, named social-media replies, and public facts about Garfield’s career and pay—not documents, official actions, or disputed records. The quote and that named critics posted those reactions are established; claims of hypocrisy are opinion, not proven misconduct. No left-leaning outlet has reported this. Watch for any statement from Garfield or the filmmakers, the film’s release, and whether the remark is addressed again.
3 sources
More stories
The week's bottom lines, in your inbox
One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.