| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Fifth Column | |
| Hollywood Anti-War Movies Are Box Office Poison | |
| 2007-10-25 | |
| It doesn't matter how many Oscar winners are in front of or behind the camera — audiences are proving to be conscientious objectors when it comes to this fall's surge of antiwar and anti-Bush films. Both "In the Valley of Elah" and, more recently, "Rendition" drew minuscule crowds upon their release, which doesn't bode well for the ongoing stream of films critical of the Iraq war and the Bush administration's wider war on terror. "Rendition," which features three Oscar winners in key roles, grossed $4.1 million over the weekend in 2,250 screens for a ninth-place finish. A re-release of "The Nightmare Before Christmas" beat it, and it's 14 years old. "Rendition" follows an Egyptian-American who gets kidnapped by U.S. authorities who think he's a terrorist. Reese Witherspoon plays the man's wife, Meryl Streep dials up her dark side as the official who keeps his disappearance a secret and Alan Arkin is a senior senator with the power to influence the case. Meanwhile, the man is shipped off to an unnamed North African country, where he is tortured for information. "Elah" boasts Tommy Lee Jones, Charlize Theron and Susan Sarandon, another Oscar-winning triumvirate, under professionally red-hot director Paul Haggis, who won his own Oscar for "Crash." Mr. Haggis' drama focuses on the disappearance of an Iraq war veteran upon his return home. Beyond the fiction features, the anti-Iraq war documentary "No End in Sight" (box office: $1.4 million) couldn't capture the indie crowd, beating a swift retreat to DVD next Tuesday despite glowing reviews. Brandon Gray, president and publisher of www.boxofficemojo.com, says audiences seek out movies for inspiration, for laughter and to be moved. "Many of these recent dramas fail on all those fronts," Mr. Gray says. "They're too heavy handed in their presentation." "Rendition" director Gavin Hood — who wrote and directed "Tsotsi," winner of the 2006 best foreign language film Oscar — has been quoted as saying he doesn't want his new film to preach. But audiences who can't figure out where he stands on the rendition policy must have dozed off after the opening credits. The current crop of antiwar films simply don't offer new insights into the Iraq conflict, Mr. Gray says. "You might hear this stuff from the commentators or on the Internet," he says. "It's not that interesting to see it fictionalized." "The Kingdom," a more ambivalent film, which shows U.S. forces smiting a terrorist cell, has pulled in a more respectable $43 million (so far). " 'The Kingdom' looked like 'CSI: Riyadh.' It danced around the issues," Mr. Gray says. Hollywood shouldn't soft-pedal its beliefs, he argues. "You really can't try to take on subject matter like this and appeal to all views at the same time," he says. "They act like they're saying something when they're actually not saying anything." A film that took a principled stand, particularly against terrorism, might fare better with audiences, Mr. Gray says. Films with bold perspectives also spark op-ed flurries which can lead to more ticket buyers, says Dan Vancini, movies editor with Amazon.com. "Then, you'll get your audience in who already resonates with the message," Mr. Vancini says, though he adds such free publicity isn't always a good thing.
Hollywood's antiwar drive continues Nov. 9 with "Lions for Lambs," in which Tom Cruise, Miss Streep and Robert Redford spar over matters of patriotism and war. And "Grace is Gone" follows a father (John Cusack, no shrinking violet when it comes to his anti-administration rhetoric off-screen) who can't bear to tell his children their soldier-mother died in Iraq. Mr. Vancini predicts "Lambs" could fare well thanks to its starry cast. "They have a word-of-mouth following," he says, particularly Mr. Cruise. Mr. Gray remains skeptical, citing a lack of clarity from early peeks at the film. " 'Lions' will be an interesting test," Mr. Gray says. "Is it simply them sitting in rooms giving speeches? That's what it looks like," he says. In other words, ignorant, whiny, pessimistic leftist rants, screen written by political hacks and portrayed by egotistical partisan actors, aren't selling. Hollywood blames America for not appreciating their brilliance. | |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #29 The last movie I went to in a movie theater was Disney's "Little Mermaid", with my then-five-year-old daughter (she's now 22). I'd rather watch a 60-year-old B&W movie with either decent acting or a good laugh than any of the crap coming out of hollyweird studios these days. The only thing that's NOT crap are the "kids" movies, and even some of them qualify. There's a reason there are 4000 books in this house... |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2007-10-25 22:12 |
| #28 last movie I saw was the redone 3:10 to Yuma - liked it |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-10-25 19:57 |
| #27 The last time I went to a movie house was to see either Saving Private Ryan or Armageddon (whichever was made last). Only went then because some movies you need to see the first time on a big screen. I recently watched March of the Penguins on DVD (it was a gift). Other than that - books are good. I do wish they'd make some good movies again. But I am not holding my breath (blue not being my best color and all....). |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2007-10-25 19:34 |
| #26 I liked Nightmare Before Christmas. It was bizarre, sickly funny, and had a message in there somewhere. Regardless of your sense of humor, it was more redeeming that the rest of the latest Hollywood crap put together. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2007-10-25 19:07 |
| #25 Remember the movie Hollywood refused to make? Mel Gibson's 'The Passion of the Christ'. I hear it did okay at the box office. For an indy film, that is: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=passionofthechrist.htm |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-10-25 17:00 |
| #24 Mjh, we will never see a Southern/Mid-western replacement for Hollywood and the reason is weather. Limited rain means you can shoot year round. San Diego might make a suitable replacement. In the future as we go all green screen this might change however. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2007-10-25 15:33 |
| #23 There's the problem - its a monoculture. They critics, producers, actors, etc all hold nearly the same beleifs. Thats why movies like "Predator" (which years later is stil lmaking money) dont get made anymore. They are more concerned wiht pushgin their view than entertaining. Due to the bubble they live in, with the adulating press and asskissing politicians, they think they have some sort of moral or philosphical standing when they do not. They just make movies, and when they get back to just making movies, they will succeed again. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2007-10-25 15:28 |
| #22 Sgt. Mom, didn't you mean Hollyweird "turds?' |
| Posted by: Sgt. D.T. 2007-10-25 14:41 |
| #21 Why do people care what Hollywood actors/actresses say or think? Their primary attributes are that they are, on average, better looking than ordinary people, and they are very good at pretending to be someone they are not. It does not make them smarter, better educated, or even worth listening to. |
| Posted by: Rambler 2007-10-25 14:31 |
| #20 Can't Hollywood take a hint from the success of movies like '300'? It went onto make over $200 Mil, and wasn't even pro-Iraq war, it was simply pro-Western. I think we need a Southern/Mid-western answer to Hollywood. Acting, after all, is not rocket science. And if Hollywood won't make the movies America wants to see, then who will? |
| Posted by: mjh 2007-10-25 13:48 |
| #19 ..I know that there's at least three very good scripts about the the 'Thunder Run' into Baghdad that have been tossed because the studios are terrified that they'll make a movie where we win and then they'll get stuck with a turkey if everything goes to hell. Interesting that they have no such scruples with movies where WE are the bad guys - thinking that all it proves is that the only meme that the studios want to pursue is one where no matter what happens, we're evil. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2007-10-25 13:34 |
| #18 We hope, NS - it hasn't worked so far. Guess I'll keep renting the oldies but goodies and watching TV shows on DVD, rather than going to the theater. Which is what I am sure a lot of other Rantburgundians are doing! |
| Posted by: Sgt. Mom 2007-10-25 13:32 |
| #17 Here's a market opportunity for Mel Gibson or someone else. Once a pro-America movie is released and does good box office, there will be plenty of copy cats ready to line up for the lucre. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2007-10-25 13:12 |
| #16 #14 My son works in an accounting office for a major motion picture corp. (He tells his mother he plays piano in a wh$reh&use.) The big shots almost don't care if US receipts are nothing. They make it up distributing the trash overseas. See this, **very** enlightening, and it explains why a movie actually doens't need warm bodies in theaters to be profitful, or why hollyweird producers don't spend much of their OWN money to fund the movies, european taxepayers do... #1: The Box- Office Fixation What is the secret of Hollywood financing? Even if a studio makes a movie at little or no cost, can it still lose money on it? What question will you never hear a talk-show host ask a movie star? |
| Posted by: anonymous5089 2007-10-25 13:08 |
| #15 Hollywood shouldn't soft-pedal its beliefs, he argues. That's fine. Then it shouldn't bother them that I'll not pay for the privilege of having Hollywood's Beliefs shoved down my throat. A possible solution to this would be that only our Hollywood friends all go see each others movies at about 300 grand a ticket, be happy in their insulated kiss-kiss little world, and spare the rest of us their "Hollywood beliefs"... |
| Posted by: tu3031 2007-10-25 11:57 |
| #14 My son works in an accounting office for a major motion picture corp. (He tells his mother he plays piano in a wh$reh&use.) The big shots almost don't care if US receipts are nothing. They make it up distributing the trash overseas. |
| Posted by: GORT 2007-10-25 11:47 |
| #13 Nearly all of today's Hollyweird has no concept of war so they make up $hit to fit their leftish agenda. They are not the people who go to war. If you look at who they support politically and who they back financially, it is clear what they are about. They tend towards Marxism and lean far to the left. They are America haters. If an honest war movie were made with a good story, it would most likely make a lot of money. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2007-10-25 11:44 |
| #12 Also Hollywood has come too late: with situation fastly improving in Irak antiwar movies will be far harder to sell than last year. I also believe that the rejection of those movies is a sign public opinion is shifting opinion against the Democrats. |
| Posted by: JFM 2007-10-25 11:41 |
| #11 The Kingdom was about two-thirds of a decent movie. It was fine up to the point where it turned into Blackhawk Down, and even then it was OK in a Rambo sort of way. |
| Posted by: Mitch H. 2007-10-25 11:39 |
| #10 Also in the named of what Robert Redford and similar who were not that bright from the start and later deteriorated their brain with alcohol and drugs think they are so much more intelligent than us than they have the right to show us the way? In the name of what people with ten divorces, twenty affairs and one hundred "open your legs for a cast" think they hare so more moral than us they have the right to tell us what is right and wrong? Boycott, any actor or ditrector who attampts to indoctriante you not only in the Irakl wars but on any issue. |
| Posted by: JFM 2007-10-25 11:36 |
| #9 Why do people disparage games so much? Maybe because they “don’t get it”. Think in the mind of the neo-socialist who lives to control others. While a vid game may seem ‘mindless’, the gamers is an active participant in the process. The gamers get ‘control’. In effect, they are director, the actor and the producer of the story line. Movies are a passive entertainment in which you’re stuck with what ever the ‘system’ determines what is ‘good‘ for you. That’s why games seldom translate well into theater hits, they’ve removed the core of the experience. It’s also why the ‘usual’ suspects are the types found disparaging the media cause in the end it gives others control over their environment. Of course, there's crap in any 'art' and vid's have their own, but it appears vid's have taken the lead in creativity and building market. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2007-10-25 11:22 |
| #8 I really and truly hope that the people working on the HALO movie get it right. If they get a decent cast and script, stick to the story, it'll rake in literally tons of money. It's also an inspiring story of fighting against the odds and not giving up. |
| Posted by: Silentbrick 2007-10-25 10:56 |
| #7 Some pollster called us the other day, wanting to learn about our cinema watching. Did not seem to believe it when we said we had not been to any movies at the theatre in over a year. (I am not sure, but 'Team America' may have been the last one.) The most successful (commercial or artistic) movies from the Vietnam era were not overtly anti-war or anti-military, though many were kind of mixed (e.g. 'Apocalypse Now'). That's probably appropriate, since war always sucks, even when the alternative sucks worse. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2007-10-25 10:52 |
| #6 > There's more creativity and imagination in many vid games today than in all of Hollyweird. Of course there is! Why do people disparage games so much? |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2007-10-25 10:47 |
| #5 Reese Witherspoon, Meryl Streep, Alan Arkin, Gavin Hood Tommy Lee Jones, Charlize Theron, Susan Sarandon, Paul Haggis Brian De Palma, Tom Cruise, Robert Redford, John Cusack Thanks for the No Watch List. See you all on Hollywood Squares 2008! |
| Posted by: ed 2007-10-25 10:36 |
| #4 Sgt. Mom, are the "Hollywood 'tards" bastards, retards, or both? I agree, I can't even bring myself to watch CNN, let alone this propaganda garbage. The Italian word for junkyard comes to mind, crappola. |
| Posted by: RWV 2007-10-25 10:17 |
| #3 I also won't go see any actor's movie that has been in these pieces of shit either. I'm voting with my pocketbook. And Hollyweird wonders why they are losing money. Hint: It ain't piracy, fucknuggets! |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2007-10-25 10:12 |
| #2 Hollywood shouldn't soft-pedal its beliefs, he argues As Samuel Goldwyn famously said, "If you want to send a message, use Western Union." If I want preachin' I'll go to church. I want entertainment. There's more creativity and imagination in many vid games today than in all of Hollyweird. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2007-10-25 10:11 |
| #1 And any Rantburgundian who didn't see this coming, please put up your hand... No, we will not line up and plunk down our movie ticket dollars to have our country slimed, our military family members defamed and our efforts to fight terrorists belittled, and all the glowing reviews from your media buds will not make us toddle down to the multiplex to watch your damned movie. At least the Hollywierd 'tards can comfort themselves with the thought of how well their anti-war wankfests will play on foreign movie screens. And all their media syncophants will coo and ahh and tell them how brave they are, speaking "trooth to power"! (I need to rinse out my mouth after saying that phrase out loud!) How many of the movie-making in-crowd will pay attention to this quote "Brandon Gray, president and publisher of www.boxofficemojo.com, says audiences seek out movies for inspiration, for laughter and to be moved." Based on past performace, I'd reckon none of them. I don't think they realize that we have other things to watch, games to play and books to read. On that note, can I put in another plug for my own book "To Truckee's Trail"? Now, that would make a movie, showing Americans to be decent, competant and brave! |
| Posted by: Sgt. Mom 2007-10-25 09:50 |