What? Another war movie?
In 1957 the Ford Motor Co. began marketing a new car called the Edsel. It was so ugly that one wag described it as “an Oldsmobile sucking on a lemon.”
Within a couple of years Ford shut it down. That’s what the smart money does when nobody wants to buy your product.
Hollywood is facing a similar situation, but apparently there is no smart money.
Moviemakers keep producing films about the war on terror. And nobody — well, almost nobody — goes to see them.
You’d think that Hollywood would have gotten the message by now. But Friday we’ll see the arrival of “Body of Lies,” Ridley Scott’s film about the war on terror and malfeasance/incompetence in the corridors of power.
The folks at Warner Bros. are betting that the powerhouse combination of Leonardo DiCaprio and Russell Crowe will be so alluring that we’ll slap down our hard-earned money for a ticket.
Maybe. But if recent history proves anything, it’s that moviegoers are looking for mindless escapism, not a lacerating wallow in real-world anxiety.
Oh, they don’t mind hearing about terrorism as long as it’s wrapped up in metaphor. “The Dark Knight” was proof of that. But a film that names names and feels real? No thanks.
I don’t blame filmmakers for being drawn to this subject. War is inherently dramatic, and when you have a population divided over the rightness of the conflict (or at least the manner in which it’s being prosecuted), the dramatic potential is only heightened.
And while some of these movies were forgettable, I’m glad to have seen many of them. The documentaries “No End in Sight” and “Taxi to the Dark Side” are essential viewing for Americans who want to know how and why we’re in this situation.
“Gunner Palace” (a documentary) and “Stop-Loss” (fiction) are highly effective and well-rounded examinations of America’s fighting men and women.
A good movie doesn’t cease to be good just because it was a disappointment at the box office.
But you’ve got to wonder what’s in Hollywood’s drinking water. What studio executive in his right mind would greenlight a movie about the Iraq war after looking at the track record of other films on the subject?
Is it an ego thing? A sense of invulnerability and a belief that we can turn into gold material that has crashed and burned for other studios?
Maybe there’s a feeling in Tinseltown that the war on terror is so important a subject that it must be explored cinematically, even if it loses money.
Whatever. I’m beginning to think they’re going to keep churning out war on terror flicks until we start paying attention.
hollywood’s war on terror
Recent movies listed by their total U.S. box office (according to imdb.com):
“Fahrenheit 9/11” (2004): Michael Moore takes on the Bush administration’s war effort. $119 million.
“Syriana” (2005): Drama links war on terror to oil industry. George Clooney, Chris Cooper. $50.8 million.
“The Kingdom” (2007): FBI investigates terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia. Jamie Foxx, Chris Cooper, Jennifer Garner. $47.5 million.
“Traitor” (2008): FBI agent infiltrates terrorist cell. Don Cheadle. $22.9 million.
“Lions for Lambs” (2008): Three tales examining war on terror. Tom Cruise, Meryl Streep, Robert Redford. $15 million.
“Stop-Loss” (2008): Fresh from tour in Iraq, soldier is sent right back. Ryan Phillippe. $10.9 million.
Next page >
Join the discussion
Share your observations and experiences about news. Lively, open debate is the goal, but please refrain from personal attacks or comments that are racist, vulgar or otherwise inappropriate. If you see an inappropriate comment, please click the "Report as violation" link to notify a KansasCity.com editor. Thanks for your feedback.