Infinite MonkeysThe results of Hollywood's attempts to protest the war — the highest form of patriotism — are in. And the box office returns are as grim as the prospects of Congress impeaching the Chimpy McBushitlerburton cabal.
In the Valley of Elah: $6.7 million in 8 weeks. It played to an "almost empty house" for Academy Award screeners this week, according to The LA Times.
Rendition: $9.5 million in 4 weeks. (And as Jonah Goldberg points out, it was crushed in its opening weekend by a re-release of the 14-year-old film, "The Nightmare Before Christmas.")
Lions for Lambs hit theaters Friday, and is getting slaughtered by even liberal reviewers. The New York Post — not a liberal paper, mind you — gives it a great (as in devastating in its mockery) review: "... if you want to be bored by pompous-assery, "Meet the Press" is free.
Only The Kingdom, which was marketed as more of a thriller than an anti-war screed, raked in respectable numbers. But it didn't fool me, or many movie-goers into plunking down $11 to see the thinly veiled message that the war on terror is problem for the FBI to take care of as a criminal matter.
But the real laugher in all of this is the LA Times' attempt to explain away the public's reluctance to embrace these star-studded bore-fest lectures.
I mean, really. Doesn't this picture from "Elah" just scream: DON'T SEE THIS MOVIE!
The Times has some unique theories on why these movies, and the slew of war-related films that will slip in by the end of the year for Oscar consideration, are bombing.
"Many members of the academy would like nothing more this year, as a run-up to the election, to stand up and be identified with a valiant and sincere antiwar film," said film historian and critic David Thomson. "But I don't think they'll go that far unless the public has gone down that road already. If the public accepts one of these films and . . . there's an undeniable feeling that this is an important picture, that could make it happen. I'm not sure it will happen this year."
Ah, yes. That pesky free market at work again, foiling the plans of Hollywood to "stand up" with their "valiant and sincere anti-war films."
More gob-smacking cluelessness that laments "Where's our 'Platoon'? Where's our 'Deer Hunter'?:
USC professor Nick Cull, president of the International Assn. for Media and History and a specialist in film and war propaganda, agreed that no matter how esteemed the current war-related movies are in the eyes of critics, they all face an uphill battle to get audiences.First, there is the question of "entertainment" value in watching films about war. "It's a remarkable moment," Cull said. "It's unusual to have critical and questioning films that are happening while the story is still going on. This is happening five years earlier than usual." ... 'Elah' is pretty much done, which is a shame. The reviews were good, the credentials and buzz seemed to have a lot going for it. But it came out, people yawned, and then they left," Hartigan said.
... On Friday, the megawatt-star-powered "Lions for Lambs" opens. Will it be the one to break the box office curse and give credence to early Oscar buzz? "If Robert Redford, Tom Cruise and Meryl Streep can't get it over $100 million, I don't know what can," Hartigan said. But reports that the film is too preachy could sink its chances. "Americans are extremely unhappy about this war . . . you've got to be awfully clever to get them to buy it as entertainment," Thomson said.
So the expert in "war propaganda," wonders why no one is embracing anti-war propaganda. (Clues for sale! Three for a dollar! Get your clues here!) Maybe it's because while most of Hollywood is "extremely unhappy about this war," most Americans are not. Movie-goers in flyover country have an aversion to seeing their country's leaders portrayed as soulless meat-grinder operators perpetrating endless war for personal or political gain. No matter how clever a movie-maker tries to be — and these films deliver their anti-war messages with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer — the public won't "buy it as entertainment." The public is simply worn out with endless anti-war coverage and protest from every corner of the popular culture.
Better questions than "Where's our 'Platoon'? Where's our 'Deer Hunter'"? are "Where's our 'Longest Day'? Where's our 'Green Berets'?"
The LA Times is predicting that The Kite Runner will suffer the same fate as "Elah" and "Rendition." I have my doubts. I think the public will be able to discern the difference between a tiresome anti-war screed and an inspiring story of triumph in the face of evil. But, then again, I'm no "expert" on war propaganda.
UPDATE: As Powerline notes, The Kite Runner's first U.S. screening was in the White House theater in September.
President Bush found the film powerful and the consensus of those in attendance was that it was a powerful and well-made movie that tells an important story.
Bush was moved by The Kite Runner? That is certain to color the reviews down the line. Anything that validates Bush's world view must be hammered down.
Posted by Dr. Zaius at November 10, 2007 09:27 AM | TrackBackMy wife and I saw "The Kingdom" several weeks ago and thoroughly enjoyed the movie. It may be the case that both our skulls are encased in neutronium, but neither of us saw it as a "thinly veiled message that the war on terror is problem for the FBI to take care of as a criminal matter." The acting was for the most part adequate. While Jamie Foxx did a credible job, IMO, Ashraf Barhom stole the picture. But beyond this, Richard Jenkins, as FBI director James Grace, gave a memorable speech to, I believe, the Attorney General. I found it almost worth the price of admission and certainly a reason to buy the DVD. The ending gave much to think about -- what made the two men who had the same approach to the conflict so different? Why did one come to regret it? Is there a better way and, if so, what is it? I know the answer, but I don't want to give it away.
Posted by: wrf3 at November 10, 2007 07:17 PM