After reading about Redacted a few months ago, I predicted it would come to naught at the box office, along with the slew of other films that can broadly be described as "anti-war." Redacted hasn't hit the screens yet, but all of its fellows have sunk like stones at the box office. This weekend saw Lions for Lambs plummet, despite star power and a media barrage of advertising. So the question is: Has Hollywood learned that this sort of politicking isn't going to get butts in seats, or will they soldier on making these sorts of films?

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071109152054.vnv6fviw&show_article=1

Documentaries aren't made to make money. Other than Farenheit 9/11 and an Inconvenient Truth, name some popular ones. I sure as heck can't, regardless of the subject. Maybe Blue Planet/Planet Earth, but those were never in the theatres.

Just like with Rupert Murdoch's numerous paper's he has worldwide that lose millions of dollars every year, that's no problem in the same way that these documentaries aren't. What revenue is lost is made up in propaganda value, so they all continue to do what they do.

Besides, Iraq War documentaries are a bit of a fad, that's why they're not selling. When the first couple come out, they sell well, just like any movie, but when that's all you get, you get bored of it. If a bunch of zombie movies, alien movies, or whatever come out at the same time, the first sell, the rest tank. Hollywood does this a lot, well, all companies do. If something sells, they stick with it until the fad is over and the people late to the party lose their money not being the first in the pack.

- N

These aren't documentaries, so nice try...

Well, Redacted is a docu-drama, but I didn't know what Lions for Lambs was. Even so, my point still stands in my previous post about fads. Even The Kingdom barely earned over half it's budget, which is an action movie in Saudi Arabia with no Hollywood anti-U.S. negativity.

- N

Your point about fads stands, but the rest collapses. These are all dramas. The fact one is based on a real event has little to do with whether it succeeds or fails (and it will fail).

The fad point, however, is pertinent. Hollywood has decided to make a slew of what politely can be called anti-war films. None of them are making any money, and most of them are getting horrible reviews, which is saying something, consider the film critics are notoriously liberal and anti-war themselves. So will Hollywood figure out people don't want to hear what they have to say or will they blunder on with this foolishness and keep trying to foist their ill-prepared opinions on people?

The reason Hollywood is making so many anti-war films isn't simply to foist their opinion on people, but because, according to the polls, people already agree with them. The thing they "missed" (maybe, from a domestic perspective at least) is that these films are depressing. The Americans who realize what a intractible quagmire we've gotten ourselves in don't want to pay to see these movies because it just reminds them of that. The people who think that Middle East politics are much better off now that we have invaded Iraq don't want to see them becuase they disagree with the premise.

The only people who really do want to see them are the small minority who agree with the premise, and who don't get depressed when they see a depiction of how bad things are. That has to be a minority in the U.S.

But what about foreign markets? There I expect the movies might do better because those nations aren't stuck in the quagmire (even major members of the coaltition are extricating themselves from the muck). There the local sentiment (mostly a Nelson Muntz-esque "Ha ha") Lions for Lambs has only been out for a week, domestically, it might make skads of money overseas.

Were you out in the vanguard criticising them when they made a series of very bad volcano movies (notably "Volcano" and "Dante's Peak") or when they made both Armageddon and the unintentionally creepy Deep Impact within seeming minutes of one another?

No, I wasn't, because those movies were made to entertain people — not to influence or reflect on complicated political issues. And if you think Hollywood doesn't see itself as some sort of vanguard that is supposed to stand up and make these sort of "important" films, then you're naive (and I know you're not). If you don't believe me, track down some comments made by the preformers in these films. Their sense of self-importance and righteousness is evident.

I think you're also mistaken when you talk about polls and people. The majority of the American people might think the War in Iraq is a disaster, but that doesn't mean they agree with the extreme viewpoint of a film like Redacted, which attempts to paint one horrendous episode of American brutality as a metaphor for the entire war. I also think American public opinion is more nuanced on issues depicted in a film like Rendition, too. In other words, the film might be failing for the reasons you list, but they also might be failing because people know these movies aren't going to give the issues a fair shake. They're propaganda, even when they try not to be. It's also possible they're just bad movies. As I mentioned, none of them have received positive marks from critics. Regardless, I think the motive behind them is clear. The fact Americans basically ignored these films (as I predicted they would) ought to send Hollywood a powerful message.

the first sell, the rest tank. Hollywood does this a lot, well, all companies do. If something sells, they stick with it until the fad is over and the people late to the party lose their money not being the first in the pack.

- N

So, when will this happen with reality TV shows? I've been impatiently waiting for this to happen with Survivor/American Idol and all those other p.o.s. 'junk food' shows; they are the TV version of pork rinds.

hollywood anti-war movies sink, while "24" is a huge hit for the 7th straight season.

let's see if you can spot the difference...

Exactly.

After reading about Redacted a few months ago, I predicted it would come to naught at the box office, along with the slew of other films that can broadly be described as "anti-war." Redacted hasn't hit the screens yet, but all of its fellows have sunk like stones at the box office. This weekend saw Lions for Lambs plummet, despite star power and a media barrage of advertising. So the question is: Has Hollywood learned that this sort of politicking isn't going to get butts in seats, or will they soldier on making these sorts of films?

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071109152054.vnv6fviw&show_article=1

Hollywood will never learn. War movies have a History of taking home the Oscar. But the American audience will never go see a War movie as it's taking place. Most people go to the movies to escape reality. And going to watch a movie about Iraq is counter intutive. I hate the Iraq war. And the last thing I want to see is a Movie illustrating my imperialistic government.

Bad movies are bad movies, whatever the subject matter.

Bad movies are bad movies, whatever the subject matter.

Indeed

Bad movies are bad movies, whatever the subject matter.

bad excuses are bad excuses, whatever the subject matter.

And the last thing I want to see is a Movie illustrating my imperialistic government.

That might be the last thing you want to see, but as someone already pointed out, fatigue isn't entirely the answer: Fox's 24 remains a popular show, despite the burnout people feel toward the War on Terror. The film Black Hawk Down also did well, even though it very obviously isn't jingoistic. I think the negativity of the Hollywood films and the abject bias they contain has much to do with their failure.

Take Syriana, for example, which I thought was an extremely well-made film. It had all sorts of critical accolades (unlike the current crop of critical films), but still didn't make a heck of a lot of money at the box office. The reason, I imagine, has to do with the slant of the picture, which is extremely cynical. Noboby in that film operates for moral reasons. All the characters are compromised and acting largely out of self-interest. It's a very damning portrait. Is it reality? Nope. The world is rarely so absolute — and people don't want to see myopia like that.

I haven't heard anything good about any of these movies that would make me want to see them, and I'm supposed to be their target audience, I guess.

I haven't heard anything good about any of these movies that would make me want to see them, and I'm supposed to be their target audience, I guess.

what the movie makers thought is that the Leftist anti-war plot is plausible. bottom line is:
* it is NOT plausible (because it is based on Leftist logic)
* it is demoralizing -- people need an empowering and unifying message -- a pep-talk, if you will.
* less people have BDS than previously believed.
* Hollywood (and most mainstream media) is disconnected from the American center when it comes to politics -- WHAT A SHOCKER!

Being anti-Iraq war is not a leftist position these days.

Being anti-Iraq war is not a leftist position these days.

public opinion shifts back and forth, depending on the headlines. i predict the support will increse because of Patreus' recent success

public opinion shifts back and forth, depending on the headlines. i predict the support will increse because of Patreus' recent success

What success? You mean the sucess he will likely run into after whoring himself to the bush administration?

What success? You mean the sucess he will likely run into after whoring himself to the bush administration?

you must live under a rock. or you're a typical BDS sufferer whose brain cannot handle Good News From Iraq and blocks them out.

This year has been the deadliest year for Aerican troops in Iraq, I dont view that as sucess

This year has been the deadliest year for Aerican troops in Iraq, I dont view that as sucess

the devil is in the details.
hint: look in the details.

would you like me to provide you some? or can you google it yourself?

the devil is in the details.
hint: look in the details.

would you like me to provide you some? or can you google it yourself?

Oh please do :D

the big picture: 2007 has been the deadliest
if you fragment the picture, the last few months have been the least deadliest in a few years -- in terms of the amount of suicide/car bombings, in terms of Iraqi casualties, and American casualties.

Iraqis have turned against al Qaeda types and are hunting them down like dogs. it started in Anbar province and is spreading all across Iraq.

al-Sadr is also laying low. his reps have met Patreus and they agreed on reducing their activity. in fact the Mahdi army itself is hunting for radical Shiite splinter cells that are part of the insurgency.

yesterday al-Maliki has declared a very balsy statement (i'm assuming his level of confidence is pretty high to be saying stuff like that) that the insurgency is over.

go to any Iraq-related blog, left or right, and you'll see.

im too lasy to google up the links, but it's pretty much everywhere.

the big picture: 2007 has been the deadliest
if you fragment the picture, the last few months have been the least deadliest in a few years -- in terms of the amount of suicide/car bombings, in terms of Iraqi casualties, and American casualties.

Iraqis have turned against al Qaeda types and are hunting them down like dogs. it started in Anbar province and is spreading all across Iraq.

al-Sadr is also laying low. his reps have met Patreus and they agreed on reducing their activity. in fact the Mahdi army itself is hunting for radical Shiite splinter cells that are part of the insurgency.

yesterday al-Maliki has declared a very balsy statement (i'm assuming his level of confidence is pretty high to be saying stuff like that) that the insurgency is over.

go to any Iraq-related blog, left or right, and you'll see.

im too lasy to google up the links, but it's pretty much everywhere.

I fail to see a link that you said you would provide?

but i'll look around

To save my thread from being hijacked, I suggest you go to the "Iraq violence down..." thread in this subject and see the story I posted there.

To save my thread from being hijacked, I suggest you go to the "Iraq violence down..." thread in this subject and see the story I posted there.

cool thanks :D

Or you could look for my "good news from Iraq" thread, which died of starvation.

Or you could look for my "good news from Iraq" thread, which died of starvation.

i find that positive / encouraging news don't get much response...

Because they are ultimately meaningless compared to the vast amounts of destruction, death, waste and suffering that is Iraq.

Redacted was slammed at the box office, as I predicted.

Maybe it was just another bad movie?

Could be, but all the reviews I read of it were fairly wonderful.

Could be, but all the reviews I read of it were fairly wonderful.

hmmm, maybe its just that people dont give a shit about the real world anymore, at least as long as they can continue to live in their safe little bubble of consumerism.

hollywood anti-war movies sink, while "24" is a huge hit for the 7th straight season.

let's see if you can spot the difference...

the first are based on reality and the second is not.

Could be, but all the reviews I read of it were fairly wonderful.

most movie critics don't know what thier talking about.

I disagree. Most movie critics know plenty about what they're talking about. In fact, most movie critics know so much about their subject matter that their reaction to film's is out-of-step with the Cineplex crowd, who don't know what dolly shot or a steady cam are. This leads them to proffer reviews that often don't jive the with box office results. For further evidence of this, see the Oscar's.

I disagree. Most movie critics know plenty about what they're talking about. In fact, most movie critics know so much about their subject matter that their reaction to film's is out-of-step with the Cineplex crowd, who don't know what dolly shot or a steady cam are. This leads them to proffer reviews that often don't jive the with box office results. For further evidence of this, see the Oscar's.

most critics tend to by biased toward certain types of movie. Please don't mention the Oscars to me i am still pissed about Titannic winning 13 awards.

I disagree. Most movie critics know plenty about what they're talking about. In fact, most movie critics know so much about their subject matter that their reaction to film's is out-of-step with the Cineplex crowd, who don't know what dolly shot or a steady cam are. This leads them to proffer reviews that often don't jive the with box office results. For further evidence of this, see the Oscar's.

Oh you mean the same Movie Critics that gave Braveheart 2 stars? The same critics that said the Matrix was stupid? The same critics that gave Empire Strikes back mediocre reviews? Or the same Critics that predicted the Transformers would fail in the box office? The critics are wrong 50% of the time when it comes to reviews.

10 years from now, these movies will be revered by the public and critics alike. This subject is to depressing for the movie going audience to sit through. And it doesn't help that every right wing chicken hawk calling the movie anti american, because it depicts reality. Apparently reality is Anti American.

Apparently reality is Anti American

You didnt know that?

Critics are on a whole 'nother level when it comes to movies. Yeah, they know what they're talking about and can spot a movie with great dialogue, know tons about the technicalities of a movie, but again, they're critics, not normal people. What critics like aren't always what average joe likes. It's like jazz-fusion musicians that are the most-skilled musicians and the best at what they do, but uh, how many people like their music? You're part of the elite if you do, but most people think it stinks. Different tastes for different skill levels.

I like that music and I tend to like movies critics rave about (I love indies and whatnot), but I still enjoy those 1 or 2-star popcorn action or comedy movies that I can watch for fun, even if critics shunned it. Hell, just that right there puts me on a better playing field than some critic. I can see a movie for what it is, not sticking my nose up at all movies that aren't below 4 stars, and I'm not stupid enough to bet against the idiotic masses saying a certain movie won't do well all because it's not a 4-star movie (sure, the critic wouldn't wanna see it, but regular people aren't elite critics, different tastes).

Hey, I enjoyed Transformers and I knew it would sell out due to the actions scenes and the huge following of people that grew up with them. The critics didn't think about that, only technical crap about the movie. If you're a scientist, you think like a scientist. If you're a critic, you think like a critic. They shouldn't try and think or speak for the average joe masses, saying what they will or won't like.

- N

America wanted to influence the world politically and culturally and it has. They can be proud of that at least. Later, it will be someone else as the cycle continues and everyone is caught up or sets the bar higher and higher on the evolutionary ladder.

Has Hollywood learned that this sort of politicking isn't going to get butts in seats, or will they soldier on making these sorts of films?

Questions like this undermine the point.

In the first place, money is not the sole motivation of art. Much like journalism, art allegedly aspires to a greater cause. If money becomes the primary motivation, similar processes occur: journalism loses its journalistic value, and art loses its artistic value. Secondly, Brian de Palma is at the stage in his career that he can do whatever he wants. Many artists will sell their souls to reach the point that they can make art that nobody wants to look at. You don't make that kind of art just to sell tickets. Third, it doesn't matter if it's anti-war; the reality is that it's a depressing flick. Depressing art doesn't sell in this country. It is a specialty market. Fourth: the big problem with Redacted is that it's fiction at a time and under circumstances when we don't actually need fiction. We can, in fact, get the same kind of story out of documentary footage. If we're going to suffer through such a depressing barrage, why not go with the real thing? Ah, and therein lies a subtlety that escapes the film's most rabid critics.

There was a film at Cannes a few years ago that featured an extended rape scene. Critics acknowledged the repugnance of the scene while praising the overall artistic drive of the film. Of course it sold poorly in the United States; it was a depressing film without the kind of budget to put it on 3,700 screens (e.g. Enchanted, #1 Nov. 23-25, 2007, $34.4m). Redacted apparently opened on fifteen screens. That's fifteen. Not fifteen-hundred. Fifteen. And it only did around $1,700 per screen. Frankly, that's about what I would expect for the art-house circuit.

There are some excellent films that will never pack the houses, and the fact that "middle America" never wanted to see Huestis' Sex Is (about HIV and homosexuals) doesn't mean it wasn't a good film. Does the fact that the Coen Brothers' new film opened on only 28 screens mean it's a bad film? No. Does the fact that No Country did $40,000 per screen mean Redacted is a bad film? No. We should expect No Country for Old Men to do well. It's a Coen Brothers film with Tommy Lee Jones, Woody Harrelson, and Kelly McDonald.

I think the most part of the backlash against Redacted can be summed up by Jayguy's commentary at RottenTomatoes.com:

For some reason, the sight of Mark Cuban always made my skin crawl. He was just so revolting to me, worse than anyone else on this planet. But I could never quite put my finger on it. After all, he hasn't killed anyone. He's a good owner. What is it about this guy that turns my stomach?

Well now I finally have a definitive reason to detest Mark Cuban. WHAT A PIECE A SH*T THIS MOVIE IS. What a hunk of crap. And that Communist Brian De Palma is no better.


Anyone who likes this movie is a Communist.

(Jayguy (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=594396))

Yeah. Seriously. He's one that probably shouldn't see such films. As with any dramatization (fictionalization) of a true story, the true rough edges are polished in order to carefully arrange a dramatic roughness. The film isn't journalism, but mythopoeia. The essential indictment by de Palma's most vocal and condemning critics is not the mythopoeia itself, but that he did not go far enough in building the myth: he did not give them the polymerized mythical justification they so desperately crave.

Seriously, if you want to pick on de Palma for making a bad film, go ahead and crucify him for Mission Impossible. What's that? Eye candy? Tom Cruise? Sexy violence? A brainless 110 minutes? Right, right. My bad. I forgot. Those are the elements of a good film worth making, right? The kind of film that is "going to get butts in seats", which, of course, is the only reason to make a film in the first place, right?

Hell, I'd figured on waiting for the DVD release, since I'm not accustomed to going to the cinema alone, and nobody I know likes depressing films. But all this animosity only makes me want to see it sooner, and if I wasn't going to Van Halen tonight, I'd probably make the trip out for it. And then there's Tool tomorrow ... maybe midweek.

See, it's a matter of priorities. There's no rush to see this film, as far as I'm concerned. It will always be there. Which suggests I ought to stick to the original plan of waiting for the DVD release.

Tell you what: if I get out and see the film this week, I'll be sure to let y'all know what you missed.