For the last two years or so it has perplexed me that, for all of their filmmaking and marketing prowess, Hollywood seems utterly incapable of selling movies that touch, directly or tangentially, on the United States government's infamous "war on terror." I'm not speaking as any kind of entertainment insider and in fact, this topic was discussed in Time Magazine with probably a lot better insight than I could hope to give, but at the time the article was written, yet another work touching on the controversial conflict, Ridley Scott's Body of Lies, starring Leonardo Di Caprio and frequent Scott collaborator Russell Crowe, was just about to hit theaters. It was speculated at the time that it could finally end Hollywood's losing streak with the war, but at the end of the day, it didn't, failing to even open at number #2 on its opening weekend.
So as it stands Hollywood now has a zero batting average when it comes to selling feature-length films touching upon the war on terror. From Oscar winners like Reese Witherspoon (Rendition) to Jamie Foxx (The Kingdom) to Hollywood royalty like Tom Cruise (Lions for Lambs) and the aforementioned Crowe and DiCaprio, Tinseltown's efforts to lure moviegoers into the seats with their take on the war have been received with, at best, tentativeness and at worst, complete and utter indifference. Meryl Streep, it should be noted, starred in not just one but TWO flops on the war on terror: Rendition and Lions for Lambs. She has the track record to show she can sell a film, so she definitely isn't the problem. It isn't even much of a stretch to predict that the upcoming film Green Zone, from the tried and tested box-office duo of Matt Damon and Paul Greengrass of Bourne fame, will suffer a similar fate at the tills. Universal Pictures, the film's distributor, has apparently yet to announce a release date despite the fact that the film was in the can several months ago. The widespread interest in Hollywood types to have their say on the war seems to have been tempered by the widespread rejection of audiences of just about every single movie thus far released on the topic.
The lingering question, really, is how does one explain the aversion of Joe Moviegoer (a very distant cousin of Joe the Plumber) to any and every take on the war on terror?
I don't buy that America isn't receptive to criticism; one need only look at the sensational box-office returns of Farenheit 9/11, which was essentially one long diatribe against the Bush Administration and its war on terror.
I don't even really have any ideas on what's behind the almost unanimous rejection of these movies, whether left OR right-leaning, but it's definitely some kind of sociological phenomenon considering the pedigree and box-office clout of filmmakers who've thrown their hats into the ring. I've never even actually seen any of these movies so I can't speak about their merits or lack thereof, but seeing such widespread rejection I can't help but take notice. Is the problem that the movies themselves aren't any good, or that their target audience just aren't ready to digest their subject matter?
It's a question Hollywood should be asking itself before bankrolling another project set in Iraq or even discussing, let alone critiquing, the war on terror. It's a shame because all things considered, it's a discussion that really should be encouraged.
No comments:
Post a Comment