Over my waffles this morning I stumble across this piece of total malarkey:
The wave of recent films set against the backdrop of war in Iraq and post-9/11 security has failed to win over film-goers keen to escape grim news headlines when they go to the movies, analysts say.
In a break with past convention, when films based on real conflicts were made only years after the last shots were fired, several politically-charged films have gone on release while America remains embroiled in Iraq.
Almost without exception, however, the crop of movies have struggled to turn a profit at the box-office and in many cases have received a mauling from unimpressed critics as well.
"Rendition," a drama starring Reese Witherspoon and Jake Gyllenhaal about the CIA's policy of outsourcing interrogation of terror suspects, has taken just under 10 million dollars at the box office, a disastrous return.
Oscar-winning director Paul Haggis's latest film "In the Valley of Elah," about a father investigating the death of his son in Iraq, earned favorable reviews but less than seven million dollars following its release in September.
Even the action-packed "The Kingdom," starring Jamie Foxx and Jennifer Garner, fell well below its 70 million budget with around 47 million dollars in ticket sales.
The poor returns do not augur well for more war films due for release in North America later this month, notably the Robert Redford-directed drama "Lions for Lambs" and Brian De Palma's hard-hitting "Redacted," based on the real-life rape and murder of an Iraqi schoolgirl by US soldiers.
Lew Harris, the editor of website Movies.com, said the films have struggled to be successful because the subject matters of Iraq and 9/11 remain too close to home. And in many cases, the films have not been entertaining enough.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the reason these movies are box-office flops have little to do with not being entertaining enough or that matters of Iraq and 9/11 remain too close to home. I'll go so far as to say instead it has everything to do with most Americans not caring to see the United States Military maligned or their intentions and purposes redefined by a bunch of Hollywood leftists who pretty much hate anything this country stands for (except their ability to make oodles of money in it).
Flopping Aces puts it this way:
What these liberals don't get is that the public is not shunning films about the Iraq war. They are shunning films that denigrate America and its fighting men. There are dozens of books out now about the heroics of our soldiers over there, Hollywood hasn't paid attention to one of them. They flock to any Jessie Macbeth they come across while ignoring the real heroes, and then they can't figure out why no one wants to see there POS movies.
Americans are not idiots. The Europeans may spew that kind of rhetoric as they try to douse the flames from burning cars, but in the end we all know Hollywood is fighting on the liberal front AGAINST the War On Terror. It would take real courage from people in Hollywood to make a movie exalting American Values, courage we all know they don't have anymore.
It takes some pelotas grande to take a story like this and spin it into some sort of anti-war rant. Muy grande. But that's what I've come to expect from our progressive friends and man, did they meet that expectation here.
Amazing.
UPDATE: More are starting to weigh in on the idiocy of the perspective being put forth by the original column. Robert Bidinotto opines:
Read that article in its entirety, and observe that, in all the reasons offered for why these films have met with public indifference and scorn, the 800-pound gorilla in the room is ignored:
These films are all anti-U.S.
In each of them, America is portrayed as the Bad Guy, the Great Satan, the source of all Evil on earth.
Tell me: How does Hollywood expect general American audiences to ratify, with their entertainment dollars, movies that essentially spit in their own faces, blaming them for being a malignant force in the world?
The lameness of the excuses put forth in the article by various industry "analysts" and "insiders" is wondrous to behold.
The films haven't been "entertaining enough," says one. Well, sure: Would you find entertaining a film whose proposition is that you and your country are guilty of nothing but war crimes?
...
No, ye card-carrying members of the Hollywood left: All your "explanations" are dead wrong. You just don't want to come to grips with the fact that you hate America but your audience doesn't.
And they aren't willing to pay you to insult them.
AGAIN: J.D. Johannes adds to the discussion:
Every morning I go to the gym and run on the treadmill.
Every morning I am subjected to at least a dozen commercials for the new anti-war movie 'Lions for Lambs.'
Despite spend several million dollars on advertising and marketing, 'Lions for Lambs' will flop--just like 'Rendition' & and 'Valley of Elah.'
They will flop because the human psyche, especially the American variety, prefers real heroes--like the original hero of the Valley of Elah, a young shepherd named David who killed Goliath then cut off the giant's head.
In the latest round of war movies the heroes are not the Soldiers and Marines who every day fight and defeat a vicious and barbaric enemy--the heroes are reporters, lawyers and activists.
And since every story requires a villain, the real enemy--Mohammedan Jihadists--are replaced by neo-cons, politicians, Soldiers and Marines.
This substitution of the traditional mono-myth away from a hero who faces physical danger and conquers an enemy is a result of cowardice of the modern story tellers.
There's more. All good.
Comments