One of the lead stories in Military.com’s Entertainment channel at the moment is titled “Why Anti-war Movies Bomb.” Here’s a snippet:
Americans have little interest in being told by the likes of director Brian DePalma how terrible their sons and daughters are while they are still dying in foreign lands. So people are staying away from these movies in droves.
How bad is the bloodshed at the box office?
DePalma’s “Redacted,” a film about American soldiers who rape an Iraqi girl and murder her family, opened Nov. 16. Through Nov. 25 it had pulled in just $44,651 in domestic ticket sales, according to the Web site boxofficemojo.com.
“In the Valley of Elah,” about an Army cover-up of a soldier’s death, has made $6.7 million in domestic ticket sales since opening Sept. 14. Robert Redford’s “Lions for Lambs,” about political machinations over the military campaign in Afghanistan, has made $14 million domestically since opening Nov. 9.
In contrast, the year’s blockbuster, “Spiderman 3,” pulled in $151 million in its opening weekend alone. More-adult fare such as the teacher drama “Freedom Writers” made $36.6 million, while the romantic comedy “No Reservations” made $43.1 million.
So is Hollywood guilty of misreading the mandate? Or are these just bad movies?
Whatever the reason, I must admit I love it when the people show the entertainment machine how the game is played. You can just imagine the headscratching and gnashing of teeth going on among those who greenlighted these dogs.
The article ends with a thought that is dead-on:
No one is arguing that Hollywood must make pro-war propaganda films. But a few stories of heroism and courage to balance the dark message hammered relentlessly in the movies made to date would be nice.
It would be more than nice. It would be real … not Hollywood’s wheelhouse, of course.
Read the entire article here.
(Photo: Director Brian De Palma, courtesy dvdrama.com)
– Ward
{ 27 comments… read them below or add one }
I’ve never seen “platoon”; tiny bits of it. It took me years to see “full metal jacket”
why? because the overwhelming voice of the media and public painted ALL who fought in Nam, as monsters, druggies, worthless, lost, used.
Damnit, there were a thousand times more GOOD men (and women) in the services at that time. I honor them. I did then. I do now.
Same with now? hope so.
Semper Fidelis
Hollywood doesn’t get out much, anymore. If the only people you talk to are Mike Reiner and Steven Speilberg, you might get the impression that movies about American atrocities are not only desirable, they’re bankable.
The customer is always right, even if you hate their troop-supporting, righteous war guts. You can hold whatever opinions you’d like about the war, but rarely does it cost you millions and millions of dollars.
Unless you act on it – but then, when recently has Hollywood been accused of good judgement?
Brian De Palma making a bad film? That is unpossible!
The reason why Spiderman does better than any movie out there.. is because its formulaic. The movie is so predictable that I usually know what’s going to happen 10-20 minutes before it does…
Sometimes… I watch some movies and predict the ending in the first 5.
However, that’s what people come in droves to see…. Defensetech.org and Military.com should stick to topics they are experts on.
Ward,
I’ll bet you an adult beverage that “Charlie Wilson’s War” will do very good. It too has some names in it, Tom Hanks/Julia Roberts, a name director, Mike Nichols, and a name writer, Aaron Sorkin. While I haven’t seen it, my take on how it differs from the rest is it’s a true story that doesn’t bash our country, military, or Intel community. I realize Hollywood is (mostly) about making money but the only route most seem interested in is the hate route.
I don’t want simple jingoistic movies either but there are tons of good, honest stories that also can show the goodness in our Country and way of life, not trashing it.
Wait till they compare to the numbers when the next Rambo movie hits the screens.
Compare and contrast with the numbers for Apocalypse Now, the Deer Hunter, the Killing Fields, Good Morning VietNam, The Green Berets etc and you will see the loaded message of negativity almost always loses.
Heck even look at the draw for the movie The 300.
It’s just extreme left defeatism doesn’t sell.
You don’t need to compare a kid’s movie like Spider-Man 3 to these films. These don’t even rise to the level of “Dude, Where’s My Car?” This is Gigli-level failure.
Compare these films to movies like “Saving Private Ryan”. You’ll see what types of movies the public wants to see versus what types they just want to see go away.
It is strange. Once upon a time Hollywood actually made pro-America movies. WWII produced tons of them.
Even in the 80s we had occasional movies like Red Dawn. A bunch of American high schoolers beat the Red Army and the Cubans — how awesome is that!
It’s frustrating. All I can personally do is boycott movies from lefty America-haters like George Clooney, Sean Penn, etc, etc. Which is too bad, cause I loved Clooney in O Brother Where Art Thou.
Still, when somebody repeatedly insults my friends, family, and loved ones … I can’t in good conscience give them my money.
This isn’t about left/right politics. It’s about American attitudes towards violence. Historically, when America is at war/threatened with war we start making films that celebrate violence. The anti-war films are implicitly anti-violence. Films with no political message but manage to be extremely violent still sell well, while films that cast violence in a negative light do poorly.
Also, according to polls, American attitudes towards the war are split 50/50, or slightly against. So being pro-war shouldn’t really have an affect on ticket sales since there are just as many people who are anti-war and ought to love it. It’s violence they care about, not politics.
Personally, while I am very patriotic in my views, I don’t think it has too much to do with patriotism. I don’t think people mainly go see movies for any other reason than just to be entertained.
The reason for these box office failures is simple:
It’s easy to hammer home an anti-war message. You make sure people feel bad about the bloodshed on screen, by ensuring movie-goers can connect with the characters on-screen and you have achieved it.
But people don’t want to go to a movie to have a message repeated over and over again.
This is proved by the fact that movies like blackhawk down, full metal jacket, a bridge too far, need I go on? As I think it pretty much ecompasses all good war movies. They all actually portray war in a very anti-war way. But they just simply don’t try to rub it in.
War is gruesome, bloody and terrible enough, that it really doesn’t need much help to prove this point.
It’s just that a lot of people in the entertainment industry don’t see the whole picture, they are lost in a dream world that they can create, where the only bad guys are characters they create. I think people like bin laden can be kept out of sight and out of mind. They think war can be always avoided, just because they live in the realms of luxury, it’s easy to forget peoples opinions in places where luxury is surviving past the next week or gettin clean water.
A lot of movie associated are bloody idiots is all I can think!
Oops… typo, before people slate me for this comment!
“I think people like bin laden can be kept out of sight and out of mind”
should have been
“They think people like bin laden can be kept out of sight and out of mind”
Doh!
Flags Of Our Fathers sorta pointed out some “scandalous,” things. Soldiers being taken out of combat to sell war bonds using a picture taken of a second flag planting 5 days into a 35 day battle, while the picture was being sold as victory. And the people in the picture and the people on tour were sorta in question. That movie did pretty well and won some oscars or awards at least but maybe WWII is long enough ago and not on the news everyday that people want to know about it. Maybe it is seen as an awesome victory overall so little snafus aren’t so bad while a war that people still are debating isn’t so much fun to question or see negatives about? Or maybe it just isn’t the same as these films as I wait till stuff comes onto cable and haven’t seen any of the films mentioned, less people smacking popcorn and telling each other what was just said in my living room. I did say less…
Flags of our Fathers directly tried to undermine one of the heroic iconic images of WWII, the raising of the Flag on Iwo Jima. It was a purposeful attempt to undercut one of the last remaining symbols of patriotism in this country — that’s *why* it won awards and was critically praised.
Any successful nation or people has some unifying mythology. For most of American history it’s been the Founding Fathers — who have generally been under consistent attack for decades now. Thomas Jefferson, one of the great intellects and proponents of freedom in history, has been reduced in the public mind to a slave rapist by relentless and reckless media portrayals.
A more modern counter-example is Martin Luther King. The reality is there were some less than savory aspects to MLK’s life. But we as a society, and especially our media and cultural elites, have chosen to focus on the more important positives of his life.
MLK is, rightly, held up as an exemplar of bravery and courage. To focus primarily on his negatives misses the point.
I wish the Hollywood Left would do the same about America. If I constantly criticize another person, and go out of my way to try and tear down what they are most proud of … do I really expect that person to believe me when I say I’m only doing it out of love?
Hollywood is like a guy who always publicly tells his attractive wife she’s ugly and stupid, but says it’s out of love and he’s only trying to help her.
RE: This isn’t about left/right politics. It’s about American attitudes towards violence. Historically, when America is at war/threatened with war we start making films that celebrate violence.
An ‘interesting’ opinion….stated as fact.
IMHO, when “America is at war/threatened with war” we are more prone to recognize that violence is sometimes necessary and desired. I’ve never seen or heard of an American ‘pro-war’ film that ‘celebrated violence’: I have seen many that celebrated the doing right against impossible odds no matter what the cost.
Indeed this seems to be very much a ‘left-right’ divide. There are just a lot more of the ‘left’ on the ‘far left’ in Hollywood.
A final note: The way the original statement was made one might get the impression that the person who made it thought ‘violence’ was a bad thing irrespective of motive. I would invite anyone so believing to consider some Father Schall (at http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3432296.html) as food for thought.
If they could actually predict which films were going to make money, they’d never make a loss.
As it is, something like 80% of movies don’t make a profit – but the winners win big.
Sometimes it’s westerns, sometimes it’s sci-fi, sometimes it’s war movies. You can’t predict what’s going to be big when.
Why people think this has anything to do with patriotism beats me. Not all patriots are in favor of every war!
Hey folks. I actually work in Hollywood. Was one of the writers on TRANSFORMERS which some people saw as a very positive representation of US troops. I’m also kind of a lefty blogger. So hopefully the balance will null out any instant dismissal …
The difference in the box office has absolutely nothing to do with subject matter. It’s business, pure and simple. The “Hollywood Left” makes enormous amounts of money making very popular, safe movies. Sometimes, individual members of that community decide to make very small independent movies. To compare “Valley of Elah” — which had a production budget of somewhere under $20 million, and hell, was probably under $10 million below the line, and barely had an P&A spent on it — to compare performance with a movie like “Spiderman 3″ with over $100 million dollar budget, full family appeal and massive amounts of promotion, it’s … “meaningless” is the polite word. Completely and utterly meaningless. In Hollywood we don’t even consider those two market styles in competition with one another.
“Redacted” for example, on that horrible 44k weekend, was available in roughly FIFTEEN THEATERS, a not uncommon strategy for art-house roll-outs. Comparing the take of a movie out in 15 theaters with the mainstream releases in anywhere from 2000 to 3000 theaters nationwide is … well, you get the picture.
So, no, these aren’t “Gigli” size failures, because economically, they’re no risk at all for the private fianciers outside the mainstream Hollywood machine who make them. “Redacted”, for example, had a budget of $5 million. Between foreign and DVD sales, plus whatever it makes when it finally goes wide, odds are it will be in profitif not break even. Same with “Valley.” “Lions for Lambs” cost 35 million dollars, and has grossed worldwide 44 million. Add in DVD and secondary markets and it is ALREADY well into profit. (They all suck, by the way. Hard. But that’s not the point of this discussion)
There’s something further here — there’s a REASON those movies have such tiny production budgets. It’s precisely because “Leftist Hollywood” doesn’t want to make them. 99.9% of Hollywood is in the business of making the 100 or so mainstream movies a year that many millions of people pay to go see. There’s no political agenda. None. Every now and then a very powerful person within Hollywood, working out some personal crap, wants to make a mvie that has the potential to have the sort of controversy which mainstream Hollywood loathes and fears. At that point, such individuals go out and raise the cash themselves and make the movies, (being the good capitalists they are).
I do find it fascinating, too, that Stephen Spielberg has somehow become symbolic of the troop-hating Hollywood Left who thinks ” American atrocities are not only desirable, they’re bankable”. So “Saving Private Ryan” and “Band of Brothers” (and producing “Transformers” btw) don’t get him a pass from the treason train. Damn, people.
There’s a further discussion to be made that all war movies are fundamentally bad investments — PRIVATE RAN was made by literally the most famous director in the world starring literally the most beloved American star at the time at the very height of WW 2 nostalgia. Most other war movies, arguably pro OR con, don’t do well over the last thirty years. I think the previous poster had a better point about whether movies are advertised with the violence implied a s”fun” or “adventure” as opposed to “real”. But that’s a far longer post and heck, it’s late.
I hope those numbers inform further discussion, and thanks for your time.
As the raving loony leftie who would be the butt of many of these comments, let me give a different perspective.
I don’t want to go see depressing movies about Iraq because I hear from people whose friends and relatives are there, and because every single day I read and hear and watch a tremendous amount of news about it. When I want to break away from life and work and go see a movie and pay $10, I mostly go see the movies I want to see, not the movies I ought to see.
I put it to you that a movie which explored cheerful, heroic exploits in Iraq would also suck at the box office, because it’s not the escape people seek in movies.
Unless it takes place in Baghdad and a long-lost treasure map or alien spacecraft is found, etc., then maybe.
Morning Boys,
So Mr. Spielberg made “Private Ryan” and I weep at the end every time I see it. But when someone you regarded as a friend kicks you in the jimmy its very hard to stay focused on the nice thing he did for you ten years ago. One “oh shit” wipes out a hundred “attaboys.”
That Hollywood would make even ONE film, much less a continuous succession, who’s essential premise is that America is bad, evil, corrupt, or callous, leaves me fumbling to understand the logic.
Seems to me that “Redacted” ought to be viewed more as a symptom of national malaise than for its cinematic or economic qualities. If nationalism is not yet dead in America then it will be “stone dead in a minute.” (Apologies to the Pythons.)
Even the term “nationalism” has accrued negative connotations (if not outright denotation). A sense of pride and love for one’s country, people, and governance is more often belittled or scorned than it is embraced. Whereas actively unravelling the national fabric is seen as a sort of “new patriotism.” The nation IS divided over the war in Iraq and further divided over the threat to the republic. Hollywood does its damndest to ensure that no clarity or unity of purpose should ever bridge that division.
“A house divided against itself can not stand” said Mr. Lincoln in 1858 on the issue of slavery in the U.S. He also predicted in that speech that the agitation over the issue would continue until it reached a crisis and that crisis passed. I can not help but believe that as the wedge between right and left in America is driven ever deeper by agitators, both right and left, that we will reach yet another crisis in the Republic. There are just far too many really, really pissed off people for it to be resolved peaceably.
Cheers,
Chief B.
jonrog1, that’s a very insightful viewpoint. Thanks for stopping in. Just a question: why is that there’s redacted, valley, grace, lions, rendition and a heck of a lot of smaller films that are essentially anti-war (at least the current one) but not a single flick that shows the courage of our troops nor the perfidy of the enemy in this conflict? The problem I think is the complete lack of diversity in viewpoints from a group of people who pride themselves about how much they value diversity and the rest of the country doesn’t. Heck, even Letters from Iwo Jima put a positive spin on the Japanese role in World War II. But no one in Hollywood seems to be able to see the positive actions of our troops in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere nowadays. Perhaps you can break the mold. If you need a script, contact Michael Yon. He’ll help.
jonroj1: I think your attitude is why Hollywood is putting out so many poor movies…WRITERS WITH NO TALENT.
Poor writers rely on cliches. If you think a WAR film script has to rely on “unravelling a mystery” or soldiers being “sent into a screwed up situation by their superiors”, then perhaps you are in the wrong line of work.
Cliches, cliches, cliches…that is Hollywood at this moment. Corporate writuing that tries to hit all the demographics makes for insipid pablum, not inspired art.
Step away from youself, pop a pre-1970 war film (or almost ANY type of movie)into the DVD player, and see how far you have fallen.
if you’re looking for a smug, holier-than-thou attitude, you don’t need to travel to hollywood … it’s right here on defense tech.
I think it’s somewhat silly and a disservice to paint “Hollywood = anti-military”. There are a multitude of perspectives illustrated by movies in recent history, pro-military actions, against and everything in between.
Want to know why these anti-war movies aren’t doing well? Because Iraq freaking sucks. And no one wants to hear about that terrible tragic thing that no one who wants to change, can. Painting this as the public being pro-war or anything is silly. They are just sick and tired of war. Pretty much the most positive thing you can take from it is just not knowing anyone who has been wounded or killed in action.
Fantasy sells. Not being in the shitty world you’re in sells. Hard tragedy with no answer, does not. As jonrog1 said, this is money, pure and simple.
jonrog1, those are some interesting insights on script writing. It’s a field I have little knowledge about. It’s interesting to see movies like lions who are written by scriptwriters who have little knowledge about my field of expertise, the military.
You make the point that, “Again, these are all issues that can be overcome by talent and hard work, but with the added issues of lack of marketability and the fraught emotional landscape of the country’s culture, it’ll be a while.”
But I have to ask, why not now? Why is it ok for someone in hollywood to make all of the other movies I listed earlier versus making the difficult effort to produce such a movie?
DePalma’s effort = Providing aid and comfort to the enemy.