JD Johannes has a terrific new post up about the failure of “Lions for Lambs” and other such fare to spark the interest of American filmgoers. He theorizes that:
The first block-buster Iraq War movie will be about the battle of Fallujah or another life and death struggle showing Marines or Soldiers as heroes. This movie will follow the traditional monomyth with the heroes confronting a villain with violence and prevailing.ÂÂ
What the entertainment industry seems so far unwilling or unable to grasp, in other words, is that nobody over 30 is buying the idea that their attitudes are themselves heroic, or that their beliefs are heroic. And the funniest part about it is, of course, that the problem must lie with the audience, they think, when their self-worshipping propaganda bombs. It’s true there are people who watch industry awards shows appreciatively; there are also many people who watch them as a kind of freak show.
 I think Amy Winehouse’s “Um” speech ought to be more widely emulated. It went straight to the point with laudable economy.
I’m not sure I like the idea of a conventional war hero movie about a current conflict positively resonating with moviegoers any more better. I mean it’s cool if you can cash in on a war like that, especially while people are still dying and losing feets and other important parts, and if you can get it decided that your movie is the definitive account or something you can bank for years or decades even. But mostly the idea seems sort of like maybe one we should aspire to grow out of.
Don’t think of it as something for patriotic Americans to rally around. Think of it as something for truly enlightened, post-patriotic Americans to rail against.
Just imagine how our betters will react when such a film takes off. I daresay they’ll be…well…gobsmacked.
Good day, sir!
In theory, yes, but good luck getting that made.
I steeled myself this morning and dove into the new Time magazine interview with Meryl Streep, Robert Redford and Tom (shudder) Cruise about this film. After emerging from the narrative, gasping and retching, I came away with a complete contempt for these political poseurs attempting to lecture us about war and stuff.
Two best dumbass takeaway quotes:
Interviewer: “So it’s (the movie) forthrightly political.”
Streep: “I think every movie is political. It’s political in what it doesn’t say, what it chooses to ignore. Every movie we’ve all made has a message.”
(Methinks that message for this one is STAY HOME AND WATCH NCIS!)
Cruise: “Wars never solved anything – that’s my personal belief – but I don’t think that that’s necessarily what the film is about.”
Well. Tom. it’s my personal belief thast you are batshit crazy and anybody who seeks deep socio-political insights from your lava lamp noggin should be medicated, wrapped in bungie cords, and forced to watch the Teletubbies until they are absolutely certain that the purple one is gay.
I will expect about a 50 Mil. gross out of this lecturing turkey along with the fawning attention of Larry King and Olbernoodle.
Also no one has said anything about how they got a closeted homosexual person to play a Republican senator. That’s kind of base I think.
This from JD Johannes is absolutely brilliant:
Boy, Oh boy have I met a number of these people. their contempt for the military and Republicans dripping from their activist language like gravy from an overfull ladle.
They cannot accept that, even if they were younger or had the physical ability to confront a violent villain, they would shrink from the challenge.
The fact that there is no movie about Theo van Gogh is all you need to know about film people. They congratulate themselves on their “bravery” with anti-Christian or anti-administration movies, as if there were any danger in making those. van Gogh died because of the movie he made, and the reaction from Hollywood is a resounding silence.
Ok. Put another way, I so am not getting on board with this yearning for Hollywood to validate my views thing.
I’m grumpy today, but ask me tomorrow and same thing.
Meh.
The failures of these movies are artistic, not ideological — or, really, it’s a failure to be artistic, a craven crowd-pleasing that’s made to be mistaken for ideology. (The audience is not the crowd being pleased, remember.)
No military guy I know dislikes Full Metal Jacket — they love it — and it’s probably the most anti-military film ever made. But it’s not dishonestly so, and it’s not stupid. (And it doesn’t fit any Jung-for-Dummies template, either. Joseph Campbell? What the dumb hell? Do I get a free tote bag for reading this hippie shit?) It made money, it still does, and parts of it have become parts of everyone’s mind, like the lines we all know from Shakespeare that we don’t know are from Shakespeare.
A movie as stupidly pro-war as the current crop is stupidly anti- will also fail.
They just suck. Adding to the suck won’t make anything happen.
Hi, Dan.
How’s the Bronx North?
I agree that this movie will probably tank, but, unfortunately, I don’t think a movie about our “hero’s” (and they are true heros) triumphs would do all that well either – unless Speilberg did it (maybe. Ha Ha! Fat Chance!)).
This war has been so misrepresented by the MSM, that people have become plain old beffuddled. They don’t know what to think about it, so they DON’T think about it.
By the way…Where the hell is the “Italics” tab on this goofy new poster? And how do I make my name appear in red?
Anyway, I think that, in general, Americans have burned out on “message” movies are now turning more to PG entertainment. I mean, right now (because I have a young son who watched it eighteen times), my favorite movie is “High School Musical” Laugh if you want, but the actors are beautiful, incredibly talented, and the music is un-fucking-believeably good.
About the third time I had to see it because that was what was on my TV, I started to sit up and take notice. “High School Musical” makes “Jarhead” look even worse than it actually was.
I think if Clooney, Penn, Sarandon, et al. had stayed out of puublic politics, they would have a much better chance of attracting an audience.
As it is, these “thespians” will only have an audience of KosKids. They are loud, but, for the most part, there are not as many of them as their high volume screeching would portend,and I doubt if most of them have enough money to afford a movie ticket.
“I think every movie is political. It’s political in what it doesn’t say…”
I guess that makes Cocktail about the heaviest movie ever made, then.
Happyfeet:
Actually, I agree with you if for no reason than the answer to this question:
Who’s going to make it?
Is there anybody in Hollywood capable of making a pro-American, mission and hero oriented entertainment piece? Bruce Willis? Who writes it and directs it? What studio would finance it?
Nah, the days of John Wayne kickin’ ass for the good old U.S.of A are pretty much gone.
If Hollywood wants to make a war movie that comments on the current war, they’d be better off making a movie about an older war, one that is over and done with, they way they commented on Vietnam with M*A*S*H or the way Shakespeare commented on current politics by reframing old ones.
Or maybe they could look to the old Soviet Union for some good material. Gulags anyone?
Both Luttrel’s Lone Survivor and Bellavia’s House to House could spawn a classic screenplay.
What are the odds of seeing those movies made?
Heh. One reason I don’t go to movies in theaters anymore, except on very rare occasions — aside from the crowded theaters, the high ticket prices, the expensive refreshments, the endless procession of previews, and now the ads — is that too damned many movies these days try to “make you think.”
And unfortunately they all succeed. Mostly they make me think the people who made them are stark raving looney.
I’ve been waiting for the opportunity not to see that movie. Glad the moment is finally here.
“Who’s going to make it?
Is there anybody in Hollywood capable of making a pro-American, mission and hero oriented entertainment piece? Bruce Willis? Who writes it and directs it? What studio would finance it?”
Sounds like a good hobby for W when he retires, turn Crawford into the new Hollywood.
Blackhawk Down is a good example of a movie that could be done well, and honestly, with heroes, goats, and enigmatic results. More like that!
Sheesh I keep coming back to the Time interview and I still can’t believe that I didn’t suffer an aneurysm.
Redford: “…but as a kid in California, I experienced the Second World War. My uncle died. My cousins died. I remember their deaths.”
Conclusion: Experiencing the death of others who served in a war gives one the proper feelings to comment about war in general and the Iraq war in particular. (friggin’ pompous tool.)
Redford: “What the film tries to do is dramatize issues to allow you to see the struggle within these people on an emotional level. and what you see is potentially yet another repeat of what went on in every single war. We seem to have a penchant for letting this happen over and over again.
WAR! HUH! WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR?
Why examine the socio-geo-political realities when we can delve into our feelings about war and project those feelings on made up characters who struggle but fail to stop that war.
Man, oh man does my head hurt.
Cruise: “Wars never solved anything ”
I thought he was a bit nutty with the psuedo-religion and all, but I had no idea he was this stupid.
Cruise’s next role is that of a German officer who attempted to assassinate Hitler in WWII.
Wars never solved anything?
He was probably talking about War of the Worlds.
I think, psychologiser, that people go to movies to be entertained not lectured. Redford’s ‘A River Runs Through It’ was entertaining. ‘Havana’ not so much. If I want a lecture I’ll take a class, or piss off my mom.
Wasn’t it a war that sent all the thetans to earth? Or something.
I can’t let this “wars never solved anything” BS go by without quoting Heinlein on the topic:
Hey! If they ever made a movie about the debate Cruise could, quite fittingly, play the Dodo.
Best movie I’ve seen in a while:
I can’t remember what it was called, but it was about the President of France telling the American congress how great America is. Golden Irony I think was the title.
Wasn’t it a war that sent all the thetans to earth? Or something.
I think Xenu sent them here in DC-8s, then blew them up in volcanoes. Because that was the most cost-effective means of killing off his excess population.
Man, they’re loons.
I think the difference between Full Metal Jacket and Lions for Lambs is that Kubrik wanted to make a film about war and to follow the subject wherever it went, regardless, almost in spite, of his own feelings and politics. He showed something real because he was unconcerned with pleasing a particular political viewpoint.
This is not the case with Redford, who, it seems to me, is more concerned with seeming. Seeming to hold the correct point of view and appealing to partisan prejudice rather than the objective examination of unpleasant facets of human nature that are brought to the surface by the extreme situations such as war.
It is the difference between artistic vision and the hack who works toward the “Oscar Speech” moment when his peers will congratulate him for the fidelity of his reflection of their own living room quarterback analysis of world events.
I’d pay to see Pat Dollard’s Young Americans if he ever gets it done and manages to get it on a movie screen somewhere. I’m not really holding my breath for that, though.
And Full Metal Jacket? Dead-on depiction of Marine Corps bootcamp. I love to watch it just for the nostalgia evoked by Gunny Ermey as the drill instructor.
When Hillary Clinton decides to invade Iran patriotic movies will be a dime a dozen. To the person that posted the common sense Heinlein quote; don’t you know that he flirted with fascist idealism?!!!
GASP!
My favorite war movie is Catch 22 and it is about as anti-war as you can get. But it’s good. These anti-war movies now just aren’t good. They are preaching and dull.
In the 19th century, actors and whores shared the same socio-economic niche. For me, nothing has changed.
“The first block-buster Iraq War movie will be about the battle of Fallujah or another life and death struggle showing Marines or Soldiers as heroes. ”
There’s already been a blockbuster Iraq War movie.
“They cannot accept that, even if they were younger or had the physical ability to confront a violent villain, they would shrink from the challenge. ”
People have other priorities.
Like speaking truth to power. Stop the gulags!
“Like speaking truth to power. Stop the gulags!”
They could blog. That is true. But even that not everybody is into.
Fahrenheit 9/11? What were we just saying about preachy and dull?
People have other priorities.
Yeah. The Latest Threat To Civilization From The Forces Of Barbarism rises, but hey, we’ve got better things to do. Like this and this to help ensure that the bad guys never overwhelm the good guys.
Whoever they are, right?
“Like this and this to help ensure that the bad guys never overwhelm the good guys.”
See, its fun to blog! Its like doing your part.
I think I’ve already covered that, andy.
“The studios decide what gets made, but the public decides what’s successful.”
— Somebody or other. Sounds like Louie B to me.
Sure andy, sell it brother!
BTW – I just started active duty, today, as part of OIF. So, am I “doing my part” by serving as Deputy Commander of an RSU, training the Iraqi Army?
“See, its fun to blog! Its like doing your part.”
It is also fun to project, way more fun than looking in a mirror.
“BTW – I just started active duty, today, as part of OIF. So, am I “doing my part†by serving as Deputy Commander of an RSU, training the Iraqi Army?”
Absolutely! Its just that not everyone has your priorities, see.
Like for example, trolls who pop in every so often to post inane, baiting comments that are just-not-quite-beyond the edge of “CHICKENHAWK!!!!1!!!”
http://iraqpundit.blogspot.com/2007/11/when-good-news-is-bad-news.html
How would you assess this gentleman’s priorities, andy?
Especially this part:
“Frankly, I don’t understand why so many mock us for wanting a future for Iraq. Is your hatred for George Bush so great that you prefer to see millions of civilians suffer just to prove him wrong?
It really comes down to this: you are determined to see Iraq become a permanent hellhole because you hate Bush. And we are determined to see Iraq become a success, because we want to live.”
How much of the budget would you be willing to dedicate to help see this dream come true? What kind of priority would you put on that?
They had an ad for the coming Redford flop during the WVU-Louisville game in ESPN that portrayed it as a straight war movie. Had two positive critical blurbs from some chick at “The Movie Minute” – curiously the raves from DailyKos that have been part of the ad campaign in other markets were absent. Part of an effort to salvage some box office by hiding the intent of the movie, perhaps?
I agree with the argument that the movie will fail largely due to its heavy handedness more than the politics. Even if you agree with the Redford spin on reality, are you really willing to pay 8 bucks and 2+ hours of your life to have your opinion reinforced? The fact that it’ll fail either way still warms my heart, of course.
“How much of the budget would you be willing to dedicate to help see this dream come true? What kind of priority would you put on that?”
How can one budget dreams? What can possibly take priority over that? Not much. Not much at all. But the world will dream on.
But, we are spending too damn much money in Iraq, right andy?
You are a fucking joke.
“But, we are spending too damn much money in Iraq, right andy?”
Or really, not enough in the whole rest of the world. Ah! Sweet dreams of liberation!
Major John,
“Comment by andy on 11/8 @ 8:36 pm #
“BTW – I just started active duty, today, as part of OIF. So, am I “doing my part†by serving as Deputy Commander of an RSU, training the Iraqi Army?â€Â
Absolutely! Its just that not everyone has your priorities, see.”
Yup. Some people have their first priority as stealing other peoples money and giving it away so that they can feel “compassionate” (i.e. – jealous and morally superior). I say, why don’t they give them their own money?
Their second priority is BDS – or vice versa.
BTW, once again, I thank you for you, and your compatriot’s “priorities”, and wish you Godspeed. Doesn’t it amaze you that so many people are willing to flush twenty eight milion people’s lives down the drain because they hate George Bush? It boggles the mind…
“”How can one budget dreams? What can possibly take priority over that? Not much. Not much at all. But the world will dream on.”
There you go again, revealing more truth than you understand.
No, the world will not go on dreaming, because most adults wake up in the morning and leaven their dreams with a bowl of the reality that surrounds them. When people repeatedly tell you that they want to kill you, and then start killing people, most of us take that seriously.
We all have a dream of peace, but you just can’t – well, apparently you can – ignore the reality of human nature.
I don’t think most of us want to work our butts off and then give the money to you so that you can feel special for stealing everybody else’s stuff and then giving it away in your name.
Definitely a dipshit idea.
“How can one budget dreams? What can possibly take priority over that? Not much. Not much at all. But the world will dream on.”
You sound like a show-tune andy. Does this have anything to do with Barney Frank’s recent passage?
Andy = lightweight.
“You sound like a show-tune andy. Does this have anything to do with Barney Frank’s recent passage?”
Of course. I’m having a celebratory shaving. That completely changes the priority calculus too.
I still can’t figure out why Andy dropped his “actus” nom de comment – is it some kind of ABA requirement or something?
Obtuse: Thy name is andy/actus.
You know what I find most infuriating about the “Chickenhawk†rubric?
The fact that it is employed after years of running down the military as some kind of repository for retards, psychopaths and fools. The academy, print/television/film media, etc. tell you – incessantly – that the military is not for you, because you’re “too smart†or “have other options.†Then they speak of a “peace dividend†and cut whole divisions.
You just might listen to them, and your time for enlistment or officer candidate opportunities come and go.
Then there’s a war, and you get criticized in some non-sequitur, oblique way because you listened to them in the first place.