Open Forum Friday: Why Aren’t People Interested in Iraq War Movies?
Among the many flicks playing at TIFF this year were a handful of Iraq war movies, including Kathryn Bigelow’s much-lauded The Hurt Locker starring Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie, Brian Geraghty, Guy Pearce and Ralph Fiennes. The movie was just acquired by Summit Entertainment this week, but many people have expressed concerns that it could fall victim to the same box office curse as movies like Stop-Loss and In the Valley of Elah. This got me thinking… is it really true that people aren’t interested in seeing Iraq War movies? Or have they just not been given the right ones to choose from?
After watching HBO’s Generation Kill, I can safely say that there are some amazing stories to be told from this war, political or not. Considering the success of many classic war movies over the years (Apocalypse Now, Platoon, Saving Private Ryan, Black Hawk Down), I don’t see why this should be any different. The problem with movies like Stop-Loss is that they aren’t really war movies — they just look like dull human dramas that are trying to force a message down your throat. The Hurt Locker, on the other hand, is being promoted as “an action-adventure movie that happens to be set in Iraq”, which is a pretty key difference. Still, it may be that this is a subject that hits close to home for many Americans, and perhaps it is, in fact, too soon. What do you think? Are you interested in seeing more movies dealing with the war in Iraq? Why have these kinds of movies failed to catch on thus far? Give us your thoughts here on Open Forum Friday.
Comments (16)
I think to be honest it’s just too soon. Most of these war films work best as a reflection and a somewhat objective historical take on the events in question. When you go out to make a propaganda film with a mission and a message and you’re doing it while battles are going on IRL it can be in poor taste. It’s very hard not to have that connotation placed on a film talking about an event that is happening since it’s more like a docudrama, a dramatization of the current news.
Posted by Ian on September 12th, 2008Flooding the market.
Posted by Mitch on September 12th, 2008I think it’s a combination of things–
One– we hear a lot about the war every day, and a majority of people go to the movies to take part in a form of escapism. They don’t want to go watch more about the war.
Second– you have to consider the source. A lot of the viewing public don’t share the same political ideals as the people making these films. Let’s face it– DePalma, Haggis and the like are more or less painting Americans as the bad guys. People don’t like to hear that, and won’t spend their money on films that say that.
Finally, people don’t want to go to the movies to be preached at– regardless of the topic. They just don’t. If you have a message, you need to present it in a more sophisticated way (as I personally thought the Dark Knight did.) When you wear an openly pro or anti American stance on your sleeve, you’re bound to alienate about half of the audience right off the bat (in America, that is.)
Posted by Jon Rocks on September 12th, 2008Jon Rocks,
Posted by Matt on September 12th, 2008I don’t know what filmmakers you are referring to as having an “Anti-American stance on their sleeve.” I think because of your personal ideology, you’re confusing Anti-War sentiments with anti-Americanism. But I do agree with you that people don’t liked being preached to (at, whatever.) And the pro-war side must definitely feel that way, from the point of view these movies seem to have taken.
And the rest of the people who don’t like the war (like me) the Iraq war makes people feel depressed and all around shitty. People are dying, and killing, for an unclear purpose, with unclear success. And all of that is happening right now as we speak, which is very soul-crushing. Furthermore, nothing seems to be told to us in those that we haven’t seen before, even if you agree with the message.
These movies just hit so close to home, and are so polarizing that people would rather not have anything to do with them.
And I vehemently disagree that George Bush is the Dark Knight.
Well, I think it’s obvious why these Iraq War movies aren’t successful–there aren’t any elves, hobbits, boy witches, talking lions, hulks, iron men, spider men, bat men, wolverine men, Norbits or Dane Cooks in any of them.
Give me a group of Norbits, boy witches and Dane Cooks going on a quest through Iraq, and then I’ll watch your Iraq War movie.
Posted by Joel on September 12th, 2008“And I vehemently disagree that George Bush is the Dark Knight.”
I didn’t say that. I just think the movie definitely broaches the topic of the war on terror in a novel way.
And the directors I was referring to were branded as having an anti-American stance my some in the media… not that I think they necessarily all do.
Posted by Jon Rocks on September 12th, 2008Maybe the sheeple realize that the whole is full of stink….especially when it comes from the pro-war parties/peoples/reptilians.
Jarhead seemed pretty realistic though.
Posted by Baychuk on September 12th, 2008I don’t understand what you mean, Baychuck.
And “Jarhead” was okay, I guess, for a movie that essentially had no plot.
Posted by Jon Rocks on September 12th, 2008They’re depressing and make me feel bad for not going there myself.
Posted by Paul on September 12th, 2008Well, “they” cannot justify the invasion of Iraq without being laughed at. Many “sheeple” are starting to wake up and smell the carcss. Many know that it is a farce. Don’t forget, if you show Iraq, you have to include Afghanistan as well. Oh, and eventually Iran and Georgia. See a pattern here? And someone would try to tell me these are just causes of the American powers and their shadowy ally who is never ever mentioned.
Wow. Don’t get me started on this crappola.
Posted by Baychuk on September 12th, 2008- I don’t generally like violent movies, especially ones where violence is glorified & used for entertainment and/or shock/propaganda purposes (a distinct possibility in many war films).
- The war in Iraq is still ongoing. You know before the film starts that there’s no “ending” to the story being told yet, which isn’t always a bad thing, but – well let me use this example: a friend of mine made a comedy album about the upcoming U.S. election in fairly short order, and released it in June 2008. Now a bunch of stuff has happened since, i.e. the psycho ship-sinker that is Palin. Sometimes it’s better to wait a while. Though I readily agree there are many personal human stories to be told there, in the here and now.
- Unfortunately, I can’t help but get the feeling that most films (not all, but most) made on this subject right now are bound to be pretty propagandic, in either direction. Life may be long, but it’s too short to waste on propaganda.
- Lastly, even if none of the above were involved, the truth is I don’t particularly want to be bummed out by a depressing documentary involving something that I personally can do really nothing about.
That’s why I’m not interested in Iraq War movies.
Sincerely,
Rachel
Posted by SolesGirlRachel on September 13th, 2008Rachel…you just hit the nail on the head with your second last comment; “Lastly, even if none of the above were involved, the truth is I don’t particularly want to be bummed out by a depressing documentary involving something that I personally can do really nothing about.”
That is the problem with why society is the way it is and on a downhill slide: People don’t want to know or care! The zionist/nwo take over just makes it easier with more people like you! The less aware, the better.
http://i34.tinypic.com/14cchtx.jpg
http://i33.tinypic.com/2v85sg6.jpg
Posted by Baychuk on September 13th, 2008I think its as simple as it is still happening…and all the problems that stem from that (the public deals with it outside of the theater, there is no ending, depressing and imediate…etc.)…Vietnam is over…it can be depressing, but in a different way because there is a sigh of relief knowing its not happening anymore in the world which you are standing on the moment the end credits role. A film release about an ongoing war has no sigh of relief, just a tremble of fear, annoyance, worry, and anger. Who wants that when you can watch Bruce Willis beat a murderer up?
Posted by Bob the Slob on September 13th, 2008All those successful war movies you named were released after their wars were over.
Posted by Glendon on September 13th, 2008Oh Joel, you shame the memory of all the elves and hobbits who gave their lives at Helm’s Deep. They are heroes who made the ultimate sacrifice for Middle Earth.
As for Iraq films, well it is too soon. The war aspect was short and swift and the occupation phase, however deadly, is not very glam. Generation Kill was a success because it showed the invasion and war phase.
As a veteran of that theater, let me tell you, most Americans were for it at the time. I was there the first go around too and saw the damn chemical weapons bunkers myself. They got rid of them, threw them in the sea, gave them to Syria..whatever, all’s that genocidal ass had to do was let the UN inspect.
The US wasn’t the only nation involved and a lot of hands are bloodied..maybe that’s why. Also, most Americans don’t like being lectured by countries with longer, bloodier legacies than ours, especially ones that less than 50 years ago either had global empires, were genocidal conquerors, or not democracies.
I know I’m gonna get hit for all that, so let me say, I thought Iraq was justified and hope the a-holes of the world have taken notice. Looks like North Korea, Libya, Algeria and a host of others have. As for Iran, I am ready whenever they are. If they continue what they are doing, they will be attacked. If not by us, then by Israel and that will be far uglier than most can imagine.
Let me take a moment to praise and thank our allies and my fellow brothers who have fought and bled with us in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places around the world. I hope the sacrifice and effort they made is appreciated in their homelands and that the world is a safer place because of it.
I know this isn’t the place for this crap but there are so many uninformed opinions from those that never set foot in the lands they speak of. That is another reason why Generation Kill was a success, it was written by a reporter who “walked the walk” with Marines in the actual land of Mesopotamia. Stories made up by soft, rich guys just guessing what it is like and what it is all about doesn’t ring authentic to most people.
Many of these films had palpable contempt for the protaganist soldiers. Soldiers in some of these films were shown to weak of heart, weak of character, and berift of morals. A more honest portryal I think is good decent people caught up in impossible or imperfect situations, trying to do the best they can with what they are given. Even films like “Platoon” hold the men up for the most part, and the war is chastised.
Some filmakers, namely the hateful Brian de Palma, make blatant propaganda films: “Casualties of War” and “Redacted”, that portray situations that were either fictional or isolated in nature. De Palma even stated that he didn’t care about the safety of soldiers in Iraq when it was pointed out to him that his film may be viewed as “truth” by fundamentalists and used for propaganda.
The American people, even liberal ones, aren’t really for killing our youth for the sake of a political agenda. “Rendition” turned out to be poorly made and sucked anyway. I heard not one good review of the film. You can tell De Palma never wore a uniform and has never been in harm’s way. Not only that, but it seems he didn’t even consult anyone who had. The film did not feel authentic in any way, and it is very hard to enjoy a film when you can feel the hate the director has for the characters. De Palma is good at making films glorifying cocaine lords and is 0-2 with films about soldiers.
Soldiers are just a reflection of the society they serve, maybe that’s why even the anti-war crowd has packed the theaters.
Posted by Lord Dungbeetle on September 13th, 2008I disagree that it’s “too soon”, especially for a war that people continually forget is still going on and for a war that a lot of people now oppose (even if they didn’t in the beginning). (On that note, I’d actually like to see some movies about Afghanistan.) I think it’s great that Hollywood is in a position to make movies about something that is happening right now and be critical of it — I can’t think of any movies off the top of my head (although perhaps they do exist) that were openly critical of the war they were depicting while the war was still going on.
I also think it’s important to note that a lot of the stories appearing in the recent onslaught of Iraq movies are ones that regular Americans and their families are struggling with on a daily basis that are directly related to the war but take place outside of Iraq and on home turf. Perhaps this is why the movies have been unsuccessful: they bring the war home with them rather than keeping it at a distance several thousand miles away.
That, and most of the movies have sucked; however, I don’t think their suckiness explains their poor box office showing because there are a lot of sucky films that do okay. I saw The Hurt Locker at TIFF, though, and it was a pretty amazing film, but if anyone goes to see it because it’s an “action-adventure” that happens to be set in Iraq, they’re going to be sorely disappointed.
Posted by Liz on September 14th, 2008Leave a Reply