| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| Hix Nix Peacenik Pix: Movies That No One Wants To See |
| 2007-11-13 |
| Roger L. Simon, Pajamas Media Okay, that’s nowhere near as good a ‘hed’ as the Variety classic – Sticks Nix Hicks Pix - made famous by Jimmy Cagney in “Yankee Doodle Dandy”. Perhaps readers can come up with a better one, but you get the point. The public isn’t going to Hollywood’s antiwar movies – and it’s not just the hicks if you look at the amazingly-consistent comments on Breitbart.com beneath the article: “Hollywood is casualty of war as movie-goers shun Iraq films.” It’s everybody and his brother from Tacoma to Tallahassee, not to mention a large number from abroad. As of last Saturday night, the Agence France Presse report had over 500 comments and counting. The article itself, not surprisingly anonymously written, is filled with the usual shopworn explanations for the audience’s disinterest. For Lew Harris of Movies.com, it’s the canard that movies are escapism only. Serious films are just too heavy for the great unwashed. For Gitesh Pandya of boxofficeguru.com, it’s that audiences don’t want to pay for what they already see for free on television (Iraq). Veteran television producer Steve Bocho says it’s hard to gain audience interest in a “hugely unpopular war.” The audience members themselves – that is the Breitbart commenters – are having none of this nonsense. The third one down, “Extremely Bored,” puts it this way: “Let me correct this point - I am not weary of war news at all. I am shunning these movies - and many others- because I am tired of Hollywood’s anti-American stance on absolutely everything. However we got into the war, and whatever mistakes were made up to this point, we are one country. We need to win and we need to remain tough against terrorism. It doesn’t benefit anyone to do otherwise. I will go see a movie that reflects that point.” He is echoed almost immediately by commenter “Lee”: “The real answer - the obvious one that liberals can’t bring themselves to accept - is that most Americans are tired of liberal spinmeisters trashing their country, our soldiers, and our way of life. The Redfords of the world sit in their ivory towers and try to tell us how to think and react based on their own prejudices …” And so it goes down the page… hundreds, soon thousands. Now, admittedly, this is Breitbart.com and many readers come via Drudge – hence some bias – but the box office figures do not lie. These people represent a fair percentage of the (absent) audience. For years Hollywood insiders would joke about the cluelessness of the “flyover people” between the two coasts. But reading these comments, the flyover people, whether foreign or domestic, seem so much more intelligent than the Hollywood wags quoted in the article, it borders on the pathetic. . . . Go read the rest of it. |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #9 Part of it is the INTERNET [read - YOUTUBE, IPODS, etal], other part is mainstream Amer knows the US is in a WAR FOR SURVIVAL/EXISTENCE. They don't want to hear "Amer is NOT at War ergo must tolerate new 9-11 attacks and depend on third-parties for our security"; NOR the opposite "Amer is AT WAR ergo MUST BE THE ONLY ONE TO CONCEDE = MAKE PEACE WHILE BAD GUYS DON'T HAVE TO - you know, FAIRNESS, VICTORY, etc.". |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-11-13 22:51 |
| #8 The killer irony of this is that somebody, anybody, could probably produce a movie right now for less than $1M, with no name actors, heck, use real vets as actors, shoot the movie in Texas, and clear $150M or more. Show the Americans as being the good guys, and show al-Qaeda as being the vicious, evil bastards that they are. Can you imagine a scene of the soldiers or Marines trying to rescue the survivors among burnt and mangled bodies of children at some Iraqi elementary school where they had been blown up? You could have half the audience bawling their eyes out. Sure it would be a rah-rah movie, but it would sell like The Passion of the Christ. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-11-13 21:01 |
| #7 Just clicked on the ad in the sidebar. Thanks, LFL! |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2007-11-13 18:51 |
| #6 The one thing reviewers haven't really touched is that the Tom Cruise criticized what was supposed to be the "good war" - the campaign in Afghanistan. Anyone who's stupid enough to fund a movie criticizing the Afghan campaign and expect a positive financial return needs shouldn't really be in the investment business. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2007-11-13 18:32 |
| #5 You talkin' to me? |
| Posted by: Common Garbage Rat 2007-11-13 18:32 |
| #4 And "300" did pretty well, too. Coincidince? My own take on "critically acclaimed" anti-war movies tanking like the RMS Titanic, here. |
| Posted by: Sgt. Mom 2007-11-13 11:38 |
| #3 They want us to pay money so they can preach to us that we stink. (At least religious services offer the prospect of an eternity in heaven). As consummate liars, they definitely believe in the conman's maxim that there's a sucker born every minute. Except most Americans aren't suckers. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2007-11-13 11:24 |
| #2 Transformers didn't have a downer on the military and didn't do too badly either. Perhaps there's some coincidence? |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2007-11-13 10:22 |
| #1 But reading these comments, the flyover people, whether foreign or domestic, seem so much more intelligent than the Hollywood wags quoted in the article, it borders on the pathetic. . . . Well, considering the average liberal Hollyweird wag has about as much sense and intelligence as a common garbage rat... |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2007-11-13 09:43 |