Anti-War Movies Having Trouble at the Box Office

I have a different take on this. Hollywood is notoriously far left of center, and I don't believe its inhabitants want the US to win this war or support the troops. On the other hand, most Americans who believe the war is a mistake still hold out hope that America will win and believe that our soldiers behave honorably in their efforts to protect us back at home.

As a result, moviegoers are not lured by the prospect paying to see American leaders depicted as blood thirsty animals seeking to boost their fortunes by colonizing foreign lands where the "people don't look like us" or American soldiers portrayed as rapists and murders. That crap doesn't sell.

Here is some pontificating from that other group of armchair intellectuals: journalists and "analysts.

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.

True enough. Most people like a little perspective before they pronounce a situation an abject failure, and having learned from Vietnam, they aren't interested in denigrating soldiers currently serving in harm's way.

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.

I hope they lose their shirts. Particularly De Palma. No one will excuse bad behavior, but to make a movie during an ongoing conflict about an isolated atrocity is about as tin-earred as it gets. I haven't seen, nor will I see, Mr. De Palma's production, but I'm betting it is an effort to show how "the effects of war can lead ordinary men to commit heinous acts of violence."

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.

"These movies have to be entertaining," Harris told AFP. "You can't just take a movie and make it anti-war or anti-torture and expect to draw people in.

Yeah, you have to add some humor to that anti-torture film where the soldiers rape the little girl. Jerry Seinfeld has some free time after the flop of his Bees animated feature; perhaps he can lend a hand.

"People want war movies to have a slam-bang adventure feel to them ... But Iraq is a difficult war to portray in a kind of rah-rah-rah, exciting way.

Arnold is not going to make your anti-American rant film a success. People don't want to see their country depicted negatively when the results haven't yet come in. Try making a positive movie about the heroism of our troops. There are plenty of opportunities to do that. Perhaps you can show some footage of American troops building schools or protecting little Iraqi children or building infrastructure in Afghanistan. There is plenty of evidence of that if you read something other than the New York Times.

"But here for the first time you're seeing things that you're reading about in the newspaper or seeing on television in movie theatres. I'm not sure that's something that people want. A lot of people go to the movies to escape."

According to Gitesh Pandya, an analyst with website boxofficeguru.com, cinema-goers were unenthusiastic about spending money for movies about subjects they see on television at no cost.

"I just think it's something that people are not willing to pay top dollar to see, especially when we get so much coverage at home for free," Pandya told AFP. "At the end of the day it's not content people are willing to pay for."

No. People don't want to pay $12 to see mediocre talent trashing their country and their armed services in second rate films by communist directors.

Veteran television producer Steven Bochco, whose 2005 television series "Over There" about a platoon of soldiers fighting in Iraq ended after just one season, said it was hard to engage audiences in a "hugely unpopular war."

You're right Steven. I'm sure it was no reflection on your talent as a producer.

Why didn't the writers go on strike 6 months earlier and spare us all this nonsense.