The Moviegoer: Losing the Battle for Box Office

Moving to L.A. from San Francisco threw off my movie viewing -- or, rather, temporarily reduced it from the ludicrous to the merely insane; I saw a few things during the process of relocating, but there were plenty of things I skipped. One of the films I missed was Stop-Loss, Kimberley Pierce's first film after the excellent Boys Don't Cry, starring Ryan Phillippe as a soldier home from Iraq who's called back to the front thanks to the loopholes and legalities of his service agreement. I could have gone and seen it at any time its opening weekend -- it was screening less than two miles away from my apartment -- but I didn't. Too depressing. Too flashy-looking. Too much like homework. Whatever. I had things to do.

And, in doing so I helped make sure that a well-reviewed film about the central political issue of our time came ranked, at the box office, in eighth place behind a group of card-counters, a talking elephant, a superhero parody, Tyler Perry's latest, a kid-bodyguard comedy, a Japanese-horror film remake and a wildly inaccurate historical epic. I also helped continue a trend: Other films about Iraq or Afghanistan -- Redacted, In the Valley of Elah, Lions for Lambs -- have also made little to no money.

So why are the Iraq movies failing? A few possibilities:

1) It's Too Soon

At Nikki Finke's Deadline Hollywood, an unnamed studio source explained Stop-Loss's low opening week box office in no uncertain terms: "No one wants to see Iraq war movies. No matter what we put out there in terms of great cast or trailers, people were completely turned off. It's a function of the marketplace not being ready to address this conflict in a dramatic way because the war itself is something that's unresolved yet. It's a shame because it's a good movie that's just ahead of its time." Following this logic, I guess we can't expect an Iraq or Afghanistan movie to do well at the box office for the next ... what, 8-10 years? This argument also raises why people would pay at the box office for what they could watch at home on the news for free. (This suggests, of course, that people watch news reports from Iraq. ...) Of course, there were plenty of films made about World War II during World War II, and they did okay business. So, maybe it's not too soon. Maybe it's because ...

2) They're Not Good

Redacted: Preachy, clunky and over-the-top, with De Palma recycling one of his own films. Lions for Lambs: Painfully earnest and talky, with Redford shooting everything with the cheap, clammy look and feel of an incredibly self-righteous production by the Max Fischer Players. In the Valley of Elah: Riddled with junk storytelling, belabored coincidences, obvious symbols and the creepy intimation that everyone who goes to Iraq and is lucky enough to return winds up a permanently-damaged sociopath -- plus, some of the worst writing imaginable. ("They shouldn't send heroes to a place like Iraq," one character notes, mournfully. Aaah, the mark of Paul Haggis: If you worry about the audience missing the subtext, just make it text.) Stop-Loss? Haven't seen it. And while a few interesting fresher talents are warming up to shoot stories about Iraq (Kathryn Bigelow, Paul Greengrass, Ed Burns & David Simon) it's worth noting that Redacted, Lions and Elah are all made by directors whose best years may be behind them or (in Haggis's case) never happened. Maybe people aren't rejecting Iraq movies; maybe they're just rejecting bad Iraq movies. But the public sees bad movies all the time -- I call on Optimus Prime as a witness -- so that can't be it, either. Wait, what if it's because ...

3) It's Too Late

If you're against the Iraq war, why see a movie about it that only rakes up all your anger and resentment about being lied to? If you're in favor of the Iraq war, why would you see a film that suggests it's a horrible thing? And if you have family actually serving in Iraq (and if you do, please let me note firmly and fervently that my thoughts and best wishes are with you and them), why would you go see an actor -- Ryan Phillippe or Derek Luke or whoever -- going through a fake version of the real mortal danger your loved ones face all the time? But people don't only go to the movies to see things that are pleasant, or solely to hear positions they agree with; what if it's because ...

4) Buying a Ticket Would Be Buying In

We're at war, and yet we're not paying higher taxes. We're not being asked to ration vital material. If you don't have a loved one or friend in service in Iraq or Afghanistan, there's no reason to think about the war -- we're deferring paying for it on the national equivalent of a credit card, and the American economy is humming along with plenty of tax cuts to encourage us to keep shopping. (Of course, the fact that those tax rebate checks will probably be used solely to pay off credit card debt or buy things made abroad means that the slight cough under that hum is just going to get louder, but never mind. ...) As Tommy Lee Jones pointed out in a surprisingly blunt interview with the Harvard alumni magazine 02138 recently, "We had the draft in '68, we had a bullshit war, and it ultimately ended. And there were terrific repercussions throughout the government. The Bush administration has escaped those repercussions because the American people have a way to turn their head and say, "It doesn't really affect my family. My daughter is in no threat of having her legs blown off. My son is in no threat of coming back with no face, no ears, no nose --- because he didn't volunteer." If somebody were making them incur those risks, the votership might change radically." If you haven't been asked to pay for a war with money or blood, why would you pay at the box office for the simulation of it? I'll probably go see Stop-Loss -- at some point, a matinee when I can fit it in my schedule -- and the ugly reality is that'll be the most money and the most time I'll have invested in the Iraq war in a long time, and the most money and time I'll have to put toward the Iraq war for a long time. That's not merely sad; it's shameful. And the only cold consolation I can apply to my sad, shameful misery is the undeniable, inescapable fact that I have plenty of company.

Comments

[MercedesGabriella]

I've seen most of those war movies and "Stop-Loss" is the best of the bunch. Go see it, please.

[jazzman]

I think we're ashamed and we harbor a sense of futility about it all. I think that is true whether you were a supporter of the war or not. Everyone pretty much knows by now, whether they admit it or not, that they were conned. Everyone knows by now that the President has pretty much ignored any reality and just plunged ahead. Everyone knows by now the we have descended into the lower depths of our nature by invading a country, slaughtering its people, and torturing prisoners. Everyone knows that the corporations daily are bilking the American people and draining the treasury with their bogus projects.

There was an outcry against this war. It happened in the 2006 elections but after that was over people had to face the fact that nobody was going to stop this fiasco so people have settled into denial and despair. So I think people unconsciously run from facing that despair and sense of powerlessness. Going to a movie about Iraq is depressing. There's nothing that can be done so why bother thinking about it?

[CFAmick]

I can't watch any of these films because this stuff is still going on in real life, everyday. It feels somewhat disrespectful.

[WRPrintz]

You make some excellent points, and then go blow it all with a snark about Optimus Prime?

Don't disrespect the Prime.

[NetParrot]

People aren't going to the Iraq war movies because they're lousy. Have you actually seen any of them?

What's more, most Americans have a hard time taking war movies written and/or produced by the HuffPo Hollywood crowd very seriously. You're against the war. We get it. We don't need to spend $12 on a movie ticket for you to remind us.

[larryfishkorn]

There are three ways to look at why these movies are tanking.

1) Anybody who is well-read about the war doesn't want or need to see fiction to help them understand the war's impact. The peak for all this was a few years ago, when movies were yet another way to understand this fucking war. Now even the war cheerleaders like Bush and Cheney don't give a fuck. They've all checked out, and are doing nothing until they leave office and let someone else clean it up. See, that's what you get when you elect people born into priviledge.
2) Movies that show the true costs of war aren't going to be viewed by those who still cling to the idea that this war was somehow necessary and even noble. It hurts their brain to think they were lied to by their Republican leaders, who used the patriotism tools to get their approval. And, unlike WW 2, the utter lack of public support means that the typical rah-rah war movies of the 40's wouldn't be well receiced either. Sorry, John Wayne!
3) After Vietnam, we had a slew of thoughtful movies (and a few crappy ones) that talked about the issues. What's the point of closure while there's still a war? Why get a divorce while you're still in the same bedroom?
4) People really don't care. They're mostly young, and there's no draft, so let's go see a remake of Prom Night.

[sunu20]

The war is destroying our military and our economy. What's entertaining about that?

[InofTouch]

Seem werid that documentries seem to be ones that don't get bunch of as being Losers in the box office...n­ot alot of money is being spend making these films, there real as it can be and profitling dose occur with these films as well as awards like the film : No End In Site.

It be pretty nice to see the old return of Newsreels on the big screen. movie starts and instead of commericals coming first....w­hy not news to watch before being off into another world.

and Objection toward Optimus Prime labeling

[wayoutleft]

the reason is iraq is an ugly country; whereas viet nam, europe, and the south pacific are beautiful places.

[MicahD]

Personally, none of the fictional movies about Iraq have looked all that interesting. It may be as simple as that. There are some forthcoming movies about Iraq that I believe will do better that the current crop.

[ComicBookGuy]

5) All of the above. Except the part about Optimus Prime. He's awesome.

[fightorleave2]

If you ask me, which I know you didn't but if you did, I would tell you the reason people don't go to the Iraq War movies is the same reason America doesn't pay attention to the war in the first place. They couldn't care less. I really believe that most Americans have no idea what is going in Iraq, or, more importantly, the past 60 years of US foreign policy.

Personally, I've seen many of the Iraq war movies (Extraordinary Rendition, The Road to Guantanamo, The Valley of Elah, etc.) and I find them decent, not great. But, I saw them because I have been following the war pretty closely, but following the war has its drawbacks because it makes one realize (I doubt there is truly another conclusion) that Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld, etc. lied this nation into war (we should really ask ourselves why they needed to do that), that Bush and many others in his Administration are war criminals and need to be held accountable, that Bush and many corporate interests love the way the war is going; in fact, they want to expand it, and, perhaps most importantly, the Iraq War is about natural resources and trade routes. It is not about democracy or freedom. In fact, quite the opposite.