From "Top Gun" to "Lions for Lambs"
By John Rohan Posted in Hollywood — Comments (31) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Unless you have been living under a rock for the last 50 years, you know that Hollywood has changed considerably since the Roosevelt era. They are turning out one film after another where the bad guys are not the terrorists, but Americans. This has gone on since Vietnam, but now the movies are coming out while the War in question is still in progress. Of course, Al-Qaeda couldn't be happier, but Hollywood is paying a price for it. Literally. Maybe I shouldn't gloat in their misery, but lately these films are all huge box office disasters. The reviews for Lions for Lambs are particularly dismal. Professional reviewers overall give it a score of 47 (out of 100). Rendition, and In the Valley of Elah have garnered only slightly better reviews and fared just as poorly in ticket sales. The Kingdom's reviews were also sub-par, but while it did a bit better (perhaps more action and less preachy then the others) it still came in way below expectations, making $50 mil on a film that cost $80 mil to produce.
To Hollywood, this must have been quite counter-intuitive. Polls show that the country is disillusioned over the war, and the President's approval ratings are at an all-time low. How could an anti-war film miss?
After all, in the 1980s, when the country was riding a wave of patriotism, you could hardly strike out with a patriotic film. Just throw in some stars, and you had a hit, even with a simplistic script and mediocre acting; movies like Top Gun come to mind, which, ironically, starred the very same Tom Cruise from Lions for Lambs. Essentially in 21 years, Cruise has gone from playing a self-assured jingoistic patriot in one film where he's the hero, to another where he's the villain. Maybe we can assume that pilot Pete "Maverick" Mitchell eventually retired from the Navy, changed his name to Jasper Irving, and ran for Congress. And there you go - an unofficial Bush-era sequel to the Reagan-era film.
I see several potential reasons why these films are not doing well right now. It's probably a combination of several factors:
1) Burnout. The Global War on Terror is still a current event, and saturating the media from all sides. Do people really feel like they need more? Yes, during WWII there were all sorts of films about the conflict, but there was no television or Internet for people to turn to.
2) Perspective. Audiences may be a little leery of films that are critical of the war right now; they know the war should be over for at least a few years to look at it from a proper historical perspective. Once again, there were war films released during WWII, but every single one of them (Casablanca, Destination Tokyo, Why We Fight, Anchors Aweigh, etc) unwaveringly supported the mission of the war. Having a pause of several years also brings a new audience into the mix; I was too young to know much about the Vietnam War while it was happening, but by the time anti-war films like Apocalypse Now or Platoon were released, I was more than interested to go see them.
3) America is far more patriotic than Hollywood. Hollywood may be misinterpreting the results of these polls; just because many Americans are disappointed over the war, doesn't mean they don't believe in the mission. Many of these folks are simply disappointed over the way the war was handled, not necessarily because they believe propaganda that the United States is to blame for all the woes in the Middle East or that we brought 9/11 on ourselves. Jonah Goldberg said:
The public doesn't get to decide what movies are made. As President Bush might say, Hollywood is the "decider." The public determines which movies are successful. Perhaps the studios of yesteryear knew something today's moguls don't. Maybe Americans don't like to see America and her troops run down, even during an unpopular war.
A standard Hollywood formula is to introduce a villain, and then go with a plot twist that shows the United States is either just as bad - or worse, then the villains they were fighting. Need proof? Try Clear and Present Danger, The Core, Apocalypse Now, Platoon, Full Metal Jacket, The Siege, Dr. Strangelove, Born on the 4th of July, Heaven and Earth, Casualties of War, Crimson Tide, No Way Out, Spy Game, Syriana, Manchurian Candidate (the 2004 remake) and of course, Fahrenheit 9/11. And the list could go on and on; these are just a few I came up with after a short reflection.
I'm not saying we need to go back to the days of government-funded propaganda films or outright censorship (some of the above films were wonderful), but why can't Hollywood do one Global War on Terror equivalent to Sands of Iwo Jima, Bridge on the River Kwai, or The Longest Day? Is that too much to ask?
Bruce Willis once mentioned that he was going to make a pro-American movie about the Iraq War. It never got off the ground.
I would have watched it. Heck, right now, I'd settle for "Top Gun II".
Note: I am a captain in the US Army with two tours in Iraq (and lots and lots of DVDs). If you are interested, click here for a quick bio, or here for the original version of this article that appeared on my web site. Godspeed!
From WWI reminiscences to attack dogs in Iraq to Chinese diesel submarines. Impressive.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
Indeed. Have you checked the average age of our fighter fleet?
Please try again.
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill
in Dearborn, San Francisco, and abroad.
A great movie with the great line "Life is tough, it's tougher if your stupid". I don't see this crop of liberals pumping out anything close to that. I'm not sure who Tom Cruise thought was going to be his audience for this movie. They have alienated at least half of their prospective ticket buyers and are left with anti-war nuts, a few elitists and kids whose intellectual capacity pretty much peaks at slasher films.
What the hell is going on out here? - Vince Lombardi
Ha! I think I'll put it on my blog. I don't remember the movie terribly well; I saw it on TV many years ago. Incidentally, some of the famous "flag-raisers" on Iwo Jima (the same ones depicted in Flags of our Fathers) starred as themselves in Sands of Iwo Jima.
website: The Shield of Achilles
"Dirty Harry" (screen name) is the bane of liberal moonbat Hollywood!
John, if you hsven't already, check out his
site. http://www.libertyfilmfestival.com/libertas/
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
The Kingdom was a liberal anti-war film. But to each their own.
Personally I think that some in Hollywood are so determined to make political points that they are simply making bad movies.
I haven't seen Lions for Lambs yet but even liberal critics have jumped on it for being preachy and biased. Redacted, from what I've seen, looks like it's trying to be a political commentary first and a movie fourth.
Rendition may have been a good movie but the issue is still raw for people to digest right now. Even if the film were a 100% accurate a lot of Americans aren't going to want to see a film which indicts our country so harshly for contemporary actions.
There is nothing wrong with movies having political messages. But if the film is more about the message than being a good film it is rarely going to do well.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
It's certainly not as much as the others (which is probably one reason why it did a little better in sales); but according to Jonah Goldberg:
The Kingdom, more exciting than most, deals with an FBI team's attempt to investigate a terrorist attack on Americans in Saudi Arabia. Its antiwar credentials come from suggesting that the sworn lawmen (and women) investigating the slaughter of families playing softball are no better than the murderers.
Maybe audiences stayed away thinking it was another "Syriana".
website: The Shield of Achilles
--
We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.
SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.
But as I recall, didn't "Live Free or Die Hard" do well?
And speaking of Bruce WIllis, I would love to see him do a film about the event that got that SEAL the CMH. That would be a hell of a movie.
You have to admit that the ad agency did a good job with Lions. They make it look like the movie could go either way. Unfortunately, Tom Cruise kinda tips off anyone who's paying attention...
Carlos: "What? Were they [Democrats]?"
Seth: "They look like [Democrats]? Is that what they looked like? They were vampires.
"[Democrats] do not explode when sunlight hits them."
An anti-Vietnam myth making piece about baby killers find conscience after suffering hugely.
certainly earned his right to voice his opinions. And I do appreciate and respect his service to our country.
One thing has always puzzled me and that is he volunteered for two tours in Vietnam.
To put this in a personal perspective, in 1971 I had been home from Vietnam for a couple of months and was driving home from work one day. I never thought that I would consider re-upping, but I did that particular afternoon.
I was 22 years old and was finding out just how hard it was to make decisions on my own. Also, I missed the friends I had made in the Army. They were some of the finest people I have ever known.
The thought of going back to Vietnam, to be frank, scared the hell out of me. So after about five minutes I no longer entertained these thoughts.
I continue to have strong feelings about the war. This is the result of having spent a year in-country.
With due respect to Ron Kovic, if I ever had the chance, I would ask him why he volunteered for a second tour.
By the way, I never saw Born On The Fourth of July. So maybe that question was addressed.
...to me.
"You never need a firearm,until you need it BADLY!"
Hollywood is dead to me, too. Too many anti-American actors to name. If the movies don't turn me off, the idiots in them do. I'd rather read, surf and listen to music.
You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.
I'm trying to think of the last Hollywood movie that showed the US armed forces in a decent light. I remember Heartbreak Ridge, which climaxed during the war for Grenada as being favorable. I didn't think Saving Private Ryan was, to be honest. Liberals hated The 300 because they saw it as pro-Bush, but this is hardly a modern war movie. I did not see Flags of our Fathers to know how that spun things - nor Letters from Iwo Jima. I objected to the very start of Pearl Harbour, but I think that was mostly pro-armed forces.
Pearl Harbour to me was a typical Hollywood fiasco using movies that have been made before. Take "Tora Tora Tora", add "Thirty Seconds over Tokyo" Throw in the typical love story overtones and Hollywood has effectivly destroyed two great movies with one fell swoop. The sad part is that people who saw "Pearl Harbour" would probably not like the other two I mentioned. After all Thirty Seconds over Tokyo was in Glorious Black and White. Show me a young person today that like s Black and White movies.
The only film I can think of that was set in the modern era and showed Americans in a favorable light was probably Blackhawk Down.
Letters from Iwo Jima scarcely portrayed the Americans, and the few times it did it was mixed good and bad; Flags of our Fathers was very patriotic - it was a little mixed in its portrayal; the soldiers were all good guys, the politicians and generals were far less sympathetic (and sometimes racist), but overall I had no problem with it because the story was very true as far as I could tell, and even though they disagreed, everyone was doing what they felt was the right thing by the war. It was literally ordinary people stuggling under extraordinary circumstances. Both of them were outstanding films overall. Highly recommended.
website: The Shield of Achilles
there have been some recent ones that portrayed the US military in a positive light...
When We Were Soldiers, Black Hawk Down, Saving Pvt. Ryn, Pearl Harbor
Letters from Iwo Jima and Thin Red Line maybe more neutral...
I can't think of one that's come out since Afghanistan or Iraq which has been positive. And of course these films are often positive towards the grunts but may depict the upper brass in a neutral or negative light.
The one movie that has portrayed America's soldiers in a positive light, since the beginnings of OEF and OIF, is "Transformers."
Yeah.
That's saying something.
If there is a bias regarding the military, particularly the soldiers, it is a positive bias.
Band of Brothers, The War by Ed Burns, Independence Day, Black Hawk Down, Flags of our Fathers, Hunt for Red October, Crimson Tide. Heck even a movie like Courage under Fire was primarily about the heroism of our soldiers.
Truth be told contemporary Hollywood is very hesitant to portray the military in a negative light. Unless the film really demands it, they will shy away from attacking the military.
Heck I suspect that even films like Redacted, which is very anti-Iraq War, portray the soldiers in a very positive light.
And the more money spent on a film the less likely they are to be critical of the military.
There was an interesting article in this month's Atlantic regarding the upcoming film, The Golden Compass. Apparently the original book is VERY hostile towards organized religion. However New Line spent 150 Million on the film and is not willing to anger people with the anti-religion stuff so they pulled most of that out(Not that this has stopped the Catholic League from calling for a boycott). OTOH, Narnia was largely proud to display it's Christian message, not because of any secret agenda though. It was fine with keeping the Christian messages because that wouldn't offend most people.
Hollywood is primarily concerned about making money. We shouldn't forget that.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
they say they support "soldiers" but hate Generals. MASH is a great example, they rarely insulted soldiers (once in a while they took shots at Marines), but they like to portray these soldiers as victims, pawns whose lives are wasted by their leaders.
BTW, I disagree Hollywood is not anti Military, look at all the anti Iraq War busts they are putting up now. Sure, they will once in a while give the market what it wants, to make money. But do not kid yourself, their greatest dream is to move the country to the left AND make money doing it. Luckily, they have a poor record at this.
Molon Labe!
belief based on speculation.
Of course there are lots of people that are hard core Lefties in Hollywood. And there are quite a few righties as well. Hollywood certainly is Liberal on the whole but the guys that decide which movies get made are basing their decisions on what will make money. They will slant whatever direction will make them money.
So in Hollywood you see a lot of small low budget films that make all sorts of crazy Liberal points. But the big movies that people see are almost unerringly supports of the status quo.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
and Tom Cruise's movies keep getting made with such support and (in the case of Cruise) big budgets...
...Last I checked, Cruise hasn't been in a movie that actually Netted anything since... Um, has it really been as long as Top Gun?
Carlos: "What? Were they [Democrats]?"
Seth: "They look like [Democrats]? Is that what they looked like? They were vampires.
"[Democrats] do not explode when sunlight hits them."
was an example of a movie not living up to the book on which it was based. Hollywood could have gone much further in portraying what took place at LZ X-ray.
Not long after the movie came out, I was attending Veterans Day events in Washington, DC.
Each year, I met with a friend who had served as a 1st Lieutenant in the Mekong Delta with the 9th Infantry Division as a Forward Observer.
This friend worked for a Vietnamese travel agency and had many contacts with the Vietnamese Embassy.
He told me an acquaintance, who worked for The Vietnam News Agency, was interested in interviewing American Vietnam veterans who had seen the movie, We Were Soldiers.
My friend went on to say that the Communist reporter felt strongly that the North Vietnamese Army had been unfairly portrayed by the film. I was glad that my friend had inadvertently tipped me off to the reporter's point of view.
The reporter and I stood not very far from the Vietnam Memorial. I watched as he scribbled down basic information about where and when I served, etc. It was a strange experience for me to be standing face to face with this former NVA soldier.
When he asked if I thought the NVA was treated accurately and fairly in the movie, I asked a question of my own. I asked him if he had read the book. He said no.
I said, "If you had read the book you would have found that the NVA killed wounded Americans. Many of them received head shots. The movie did not deal with that, so I would say that the NVA was treated more than fair."
Needless to say, our interview did not last much longer.
I did not read the book but the movie makes me cry like a baby every time I see it!! It is a favorite of mine. I can't imagine what you have been through, most of us can't. Thank you for your sacrifice, you are a true patriot.
Still today fighting the honorable fight with that NVA reporter punk. Thank God it was a war of words this time. You make me proud!
NeoCon by Nature
The title was from a quote out of the First World War. From the Germans, who admired the Tommys deeply, but thought that their leaders were inexperienced, incompetent fools. --- Kinda like the fools who insist on having troop ride around in humvee-jeeps, instead of MRAPs. Same fools who put Abu Risha in a humvee-jeep, too, and lost our #1 Sunni asset. --- BTW: what does "patriotic" mean ? We could never get enough good dogs in vietnam to do effective tracking. In Iraq, during the Surge still, the dogs are few and never get enough time in an area to make themselves fully effective. -- Winning wars is what matters. Not buying useless fighter planes and a $3.2-BB attack sub to go after China's diesel-electrics. Fools lose.