Posted By Thomas E. Ricks Share

Best Defense reader Malcolm Johnson, a suit at a Warner Bros. (home of my favorite cartoons) subsidiary, 'splains why terrorism films die at the box office:

I write this to you today from my cubicle at Warner Bros. International Television. You may say that I am writing to you from the belly of the Hollywood Beast.

We don't do ‘thoughtful.'

I originally wrote this as a joke, but realistically. . . we don't. Bloody Sunday remains one of my favorite films of 2002, but it's something I'm always guarded to watch because of how much it makes my blood boil.

(I must add, that my boss is Irish. I remember telling her about the film, and that it was called Bloody Sunday, and she asked me "which one?" The 1972 Bloody Sunday, or the 1913 one where the British Army opened fire at a packed soccer stadium in Dublin? -- which even for a young woman like her is still pretty fresh in her memory.

In truth is, the films you are watching, the so-called "thoughtful terrorism films" . . . don't make any money. Now, part of the reason is, of course, recent circumstance. Your local cineplex, or by extension, the neighborhood Blockbuster, is supposed to be a means of escape, or at most. reflection. Since the interesting times we are living in haven't yet ended, how can we realistically ask an audience to "escape" by putting money down for Lions for Lambs, or Body of Lies when frankly, all it is going to do is remind them of what they're getting for free on CNN.

I'm actually, by trade a screenwriter, and even though I had not yet generated a sale, I was known in town for doing "military action." That all but ended on September 11th. All of the sudden, the word came down: no action films, no violence. The studios wanted confection, escapism -- a usual signal for musicals and fantasies. That lasted a year or two. Then action and violence became okay, so long as it was over-the-top and cartoonish, and centered in on getting revenge (sound familiar?). Slowly, after the Iraq War was waged, then relegated to our back pages, Hollywood attempted to do Iraq films, like Lions, like Stop Loss, like In the Valley of Elah, and like The Hurt Locker. So far, of the bunch of them, The Hurt Locker has been the most successful, raking in $12 million. It cost $11 million.

Body of Lies at least attempted to explain the complicated dynamics at work in the terrorism fight. In fact, the dynamics were so complicated that not even Leonardo DiCaprio could save it at the box office. Instead of a white knuckle thrill ride (which the audiences were promised in the trailers), they got a sedate, gorgeous examination of ethics and brutality. It wasn't a fun time at the movies. It wasn't even necessarily that realistic (though I'll defer to your expertise on that one). I could see why it bored audiences to tears.

So, the long and the short of it: We don't do thoughtful because it makes our heads hurt. When we do thoughtful, it winds up making the audience's head hurt, and no one makes any money that way.

Kantenflimmern/flickr

 
Facebook|Twitter|Reddit

GRANT

2:58 AM ET

January 8, 2010

It might be true that

It might be true that audiences don't like thoughtful movies (or at least the audiences that do don't watch action movies anyway) but I'd say it was a massive failure in reading the market that led them to avoid action/violence. If memory serves, an article for the New York Times after 9/11 pointed out that rentals of movies with terrorists in them actually went up. Of course these films probably featured perfectly stereotyped Arabs being improbably massacred in combat by a muscle bound white lead with no acting talent, but the point is still valid.

 

SMCI60652

3:01 AM ET

January 8, 2010

Avatar

I can't believe nobody mentioned this one yet.

It was mind-numbingly stereotypical, but still... it's there.

 

SOLDIERSDIARY

5:14 AM ET

January 8, 2010

Avatar

The following review from Gregg Easterbrook sums it up the best...

"Millions for defense, not a sixpence for tribute," Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, once a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, said in 1796. "Millions for special effects, not a Starbucks gift card for writing," might be the motto of modern Hollywood, at least if "Avatar" is the exemplar. "Avatar" should have been marketed as a cartoon and best animated feature of 2009. The special effects were great -- though yours truly increasingly finds computer-drawn special effects boring, since they are so obviously fake. The script was as dull and predictable as the special effects were flashy. Maybe the dialogue sounded better in Na'vi.

Hardly anything was explained -- so let's start with why the whole plot was set in motion in the first place. Sinister humans are bent on removing peace-loving blue aliens from a point on Pandora above some minerals the sinister humans want to strip-mine; the peace-loving natives won't move because the place is sacred ground. Reader Bryan Law of Independence, Ohio, notes: "Even today, horizontal drilling means you don't have to destroy the surface above a resource to obtain it. So why wasn't the problem on Pandora solved by horizontal drilling? Don't tell me that 150 years from now, humanity has become capable of interstellar travel, yet forgotten a basic mining technique."

The mineral is an anti-gravity substance that floats. Midway through the movie, we learn there are entire mountains of it floating above Pandora. So why not mine the floating mountains, where no Pandorans live, rather than go to war with the natives? The clichéd super-heartless corporation that wants the mineral is depicted as obsessed by profit. War is a lot more expensive than mining! If profit is what motivates the corporation, war is the last thing it would want.

Because hardly anything in the movie is explained, we never find out what nation or organization has built a huge base on Pandora, then brought along an armada of combat aircraft. The Earth characters all look, act and talk like Americans -- in fact, slang hasn't changed in 150 years! But does this project have some kind of government approval, or is it an interplanetary criminal enterprise? It's hard to believe that 150 years from now, humanity's first interaction with another sentient species would be conducted without any public officials present, but that's what is depicted.

And who are the gun-toting fatigue-clad personnel commanded by the ultra-evil Colonel Quaritch -- are they regular military, mercenaries, private security contractors? Audiences never find out. They're just a bunch of trigger-happy killers who want to slaughter intelligent beings, and all of them but one do exactly what Colonel Quaritch says, even once it's clear Quaritch is insane. The colonel must work for somebody -- for the Pentagon, some government agency, for the corporation. So why isn't he subject to supervision? No organization would entrust a project costing trillions of dollars -- a town-sized facility has been built five light-years away -- to a single individual with unchecked power. You'd worry that the single individual would commit some huge blunder that wiped out your trillion-dollar investment, which ends up being exactly what happens. I found the colonel with absolute authority a lot more unrealistic than the floating mountains.

Then there's director James Cameron's view of military personnel. If I were a military man or woman, I would find "Avatar" insulting. With one exception, the helicopter pilot played by Michelle Rodriguez -- her character is twice referred to as a Marine, suggesting the military personnel are regular military, not mercenaries -- all the people in fatigues are brainless sadists. They want to kill, kill, kill the innocent. They can't wait to begin the next atrocity. It's true that the U.S. military has conducted atrocities, in Vietnam and during the Plains Indians wars. But slaughter of the innocent is rare in U.S. military annals. In "Avatar," it's the norm. The bloodthirsty military personnel readily comply with the colonel's orders to gun down natives. No one questions him -- though in martial law, a soldier not only may but must refuse an illegal order. Plus the military personnel are depicted as such utter morons -- not a brain in any of their heads -- that none notice the TOTALLY OBVIOUS detail that Pandora's unusual biology will be worth more than its minerals. Yes, movies traffic in absurd super-simplifications. But we're supposed to accept that of the deployment of several hundred, every soldier save one is a low-IQ cold-blooded murderer.

What does "Avatar" build up to? Watching the invading soldiers -- most of whom happen to be former American military personnel -- die is the big cathartic ending of the flick. Extended sequences show Americans being graphically slaughtered in the natives' counterattack. The deaths of aliens are depicted as heartbreaking tragedies, while the deaths of American security forces are depicted as a whooping good time. In Cameron's "Aliens," "The Abyss" and his television show "Dark Angel," U.S. military personnel are either the bad guys or complete idiots, often shown graphically slaughtered. Cameron is hardly the only commercial-film director to present watching evil U.S. soldiers slaughtered as popcorn-chomping suburban shopping mall fun: in the second "X-Men" flick, U.S. soldiers are the bad guys and graphically killed off. Films that criticize the military for its faults are one thing: When did watching depictions of U.S. soldiers dying become a form of fun?

 

HUNTER

1:25 PM ET

January 8, 2010

Not sure who Easterbrook is...

...but he is an idiot. Hey we all have opinions, and most think that only the other guys stinks. I can abide that, but when it becomes clear that the reviewer of the movie hasn't even had the good sense to pay attention - well that makes him criminal (exaggerated) in his execution of his duties as a reviewer and an idiot.

Avatar is not a genius movie, and the story has been ripped off from a couple different sources. Cameron admits as much. But the story is much clearer than Easterbrook offers, and it is entertaining. His critique of the effects is hilarious because to see this movie is to see the future of movie-making. That aspect is damn near undeniable. The effects are as immersive as any you have seen, and only the clear knowledge that there are no such things as giant 10 foot blue cats can take you out of the world that has been created. It is fully formed, completely thought out and hyper-realistic. It really is that good. (see it in 3D is a must, IMAX if you can).

But Easterbrook complains that nothing is ever explained. Please, you have to be mentally deficient. If anything the movie has too many slices of bald exposition. And he makes stupid judgements that make it clear this reviewer didn't pay attention to the movie. Unobtainium (which is a funny in-joke to engineers like myself) doesn't float, it is being held in a container where it is being 'floated' - the mountains in the sky aren't made of the mineral, they are something else otherworldly. The corporate shills show quite clearly in a number of different scenes where the mineral of their desire is - and the biggest spot is right under the natives 'urban' area. Easterbrook must have been busy with his Blackberry at the time. (this is just one of many examples where Easterbrook gets it wrong).

I'm not a fanboy for the movie, I've seen it only once, but it was a damn entertaining flick. My wife, who doesn't go for sci-fi or fantasy and went with me reluctantly, also liked it.

It is certainly allegorical, and it is certainly tied to Green agenda and an anti-empirical agenda but if you don't recognize that going in - you're stupid. Yep you can lift the story from Iraq if you like. But guess what? Most people these days will say going into Iraq for the oil (and even hardbound military freaks like us have to admit as much) wasn't the greatest of ideas in retrospect.

I don't know if Cameron has a hard-on for the military. Don't really care, lots of Hollywood people do. I like to be entertained and The (Original) Terminator, Aliens, and Avatar all do a great job of that - even under repeated viewings. Even Titanic was a cool flick to see once.

Bottom line: Easterbrook's lack of attention to the elements of the movie make me question the usefulness of any of his review. You should see the movie to form your own opinion and to appreciate the fully-formed new world that is created in the flick.

 

KMOODY

5:20 PM ET

January 8, 2010

I think most of his arugments still apply

Easterbrook is probably still an idiot since he failed to catch a few of those mistakes, but he certainly stumbled along a few interesting points. First, it is ambiguous as to who exactly is there. Second, while unobtainium is highly valuable (which makes his argument about mining being more expensive than war an irrelevant point), there certainly is much more to be studied here before everything is blown up. As an engineer maybe you can explain if it is possible for horizontal mining, I know drillin is currently possible, but not sure about mining. Either way, it seems obvious that any military commander would recognize the threat of continued violence even after destroying the stupid tree (ie insurgents).

I felt the entire movie was predictable. Love interest, check. Oh your grandfather united the tribes after he road that giant bird thing? Oh, these GIANT animals have armor so thick that my super awesome high powered rifles can't kill them? I mean people went in knowing what to expect, so fine, whatever. But the script was terrible, and there was zeroooo character development. It wasn't as creative as it could have been either. Wow its a horse. No no, it has SIX legs, instead of FOUR--plus it's in 3D. Just genuis, really.

Really, South Park has the best commentary on this, because it is basically a really expensive and slightly better done Michael Bay movie. "That isn't plot development, those are just special effects."

 

HUNTER

6:22 PM ET

January 8, 2010

OK

I can't argue with many of your points, I guess I found in the total endgame of +/-this movie came out ahead - esp. as an escapist way to spend the day. Most movies you pretty much know how they will end anyway, esp with the overblown ads/trailers we get these days - that's why most of my favorites have crappy endings. Maybe my perspective is colored by the fact it was the first time at the movies with my wife in several years! And I thought it quite beautifully filmed and interesting.

I see your point about the different animals too but then I run into the same roadblock the creators probably did...what can you make to really come up with something truly new and different? Can't go with monopods - they don't move too fast, once you start adding legs it is just a matter of scale! I think the dragons and panther beasties succeeded better.

To your question about mining...sure, most mines are more horizontal than vertical but I am a mech engineer, not civil so caveat emptor.

Well I've forayed off topic far enough. What about Dune as a counter-insurgency? (Now that was a lamentable movie)

 

M WILK

3:55 AM ET

January 8, 2010

Its OK for Audiences to Like Dumb Films But Not Our Leaders

I guess if movie audiences like dumb films about terrorists that's fine since they are the ones buying the tickets. What worries me is when our leaders confuse bad fiction with reality. I found it extremely unsettling when during our recent national discussions on torture that events that took place in the TV show "24" were quoted(The "ticking bomb" scenario). This was despite the fact the the espionage methods and situations described in the show are purely works of fiction no more realistic than those in a "James Bond" film.

 

SMCI60652

4:28 PM ET

January 8, 2010

The Impact of 24

That's a good point. I tried to dig up an article on the NewYorker that I read a few years ago where a few Naval Academy and Post-Graduate instructors were interviewed about their experiences in teaching RoE and POW treatment after 9/11.

All of the instructors expressed frustration with the large number of cadets that referenced 'ticking timebomb' scenarios from 24 to question the appropriatness of constrictive rules governing the treatment of detainees and POWs.

They all also expressed that seldom, if ever, in American history have we encountered 'ticking timebomb' situations that warrant the abuse or torture of prisoners.

 

RAY3121970

5:27 AM ET

January 8, 2010

Blooday Sunday

I think you must mean Bloody Sunday in 1920 at Croke Park, a Gealic football (not soccer) stadium in Dublin, at which the "black and tans", the British government's death squads sent to Ireland at the time of Ireland's War of Independence, opened fire on the crowd without provocation and massacred 13 innocent civilians. It was one of many episodes of arbitrary violence perpetrated by the British before they were beaten and expelled from (most of) Ireland.
Tiocfaidh ár lá

 

ALEX MARSHALL

11:50 AM ET

January 8, 2010

Bloody Sunday

What happened to the British in Ireland is what is happening to the Americans in Iraq right now. It was a negotiated settlement, they were not 'beaten and expelled.' And the number of civilians killed by UK armed forces in Ireland is as nothing compared to the number of civilians killed in Afghanistan and Iraq in the more recent past. Ireland is actually a good case study of the ultimate futility and ugliness of imperialism (death squads scarcely remained a British invention), but study of that era is not helped by the numerous myths that have accrued around it. Most notably, the IRA's own 'Bloody Sunday'-the murder of twelve British officers on 21 November 1921-was scarcely the work of genius or careful targeting portrayed in the recent film 'Michael Collins'. Check out an article by Charles Townshend, 'The Irish Republican Army and the development of guerrilla warfare, 1916-1921.'

 

PARVUS

5:31 AM ET

January 8, 2010

Is it just me....

.... or does that new picture of Tom Ricks not make him look a little evil?.... I suppose they were going for the flinty eyed look, but still.....

 

JOBRODY

1:05 PM ET

January 8, 2010

Get yer commas!

I'm sorry to be the grammar Nazi, but doesn't anybody proofread these articles before they go up?

 

HUNTER

1:36 PM ET

January 8, 2010

Kinda like the Captcha comments

Anyone catch that the True Lies 'poster' - it's really for a video game - featured in the picture says:

Babel Fish version "now you become acquainted with Arnold correctly"

My mangled German tells me it is literally "now learn you Arnold right know", I interpreted it to say: "now you'll learn that Arnold knows right"

Amusing in the context of the Governator's new job. eh, YMMV.

 

CHARLIEFORD

2:06 PM ET

January 8, 2010

It's all been said ...

... long ago by Preston Sturges:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0034240/

 

SJH71

3:57 PM ET

January 8, 2010

"thoughtful" or thought-provoking?

I think it's interesting that of all the "thoughtful" movies mentioned, the Hurt Locker was the one that made the most money. Perhaps it was partly due to the fact that Hurt Locker out of all of them was the least preachy, the one that wasn't an example of Hollywood elites imposing their political views on the narrative...

Sure, "thoughtful" movies will never make as much as Titanic. But there might be more room for them if they were done right. But when they are made they are generally made out of a desire on the part of the filmakers to convey their own ideology. Maybe Americans prefer their preaching at church, rather than in a movie theater -- and maybe they would rather think for themselves rather than have the Hollywood types do their thinking for them.

 

HUNTER

5:02 PM ET

January 8, 2010

Thoughtful movies and movie goers

I am halfway through Idiocracy. It is pretty damn hilarious and scary at the same time.

(Spoiler: for those not in the know, two decidely average people are in frozen hibernation and are accidentally awakened 500 years in the future. There they find, to their horror, that everyone is Beavis & Butthead level idiots. This makes them the smartest people in the world. They are expected to fix the worlds self-generated problems...e.g. crops are all dead or dying because the populace has been watering them with Gatorade)

The frightening thing about Idiocracy is that I can totally see it happening. Rome is burning, and Nero is fiddling - or at least surfing TMZ.com to learn the latest about Paris Hilton. We need to get back to some basic education and foster SOME sort of intellectualism if we are going to survive.

 

SQUEEDLE

8:18 PM ET

January 8, 2010

Sorry, no

If "Hollywood" only cared about making money, we'd only ever get G and PG movies for kids. Those films make more money than any others.

People need to be more responsible about their content. I love being entertained, but not at the expense of sound public policy. As other commenters have pointed out, filmmakers' failure to depict real situations realistically encourages viewers to take unrealistic views about those situations. Those viewers then turn to their politicians and demand unsound policies that can fit on bumper stickers, or they join the military and end up hurting people for bad reasons. In an ideal world we would deny responsibility for what other people take from a film, but here in the real world, your stuff on the screen has a big influence and people will take your depictions of real situations as realistic whether you intend it or not.

If you want to make escapist films, there are plenty of topics and genres you can write about: romance, comedy, fantasy, swashbucklers, etc. If you want to make films about terrorism, quit reducing the issues to boneheaded, ignorant black-and-white BS. You're doing real damage.

 

LIAM GORDON

12:48 AM ET

January 9, 2010

Correction: Bloody Sunday

The 'original' Bloody Sunday happened in November 1920, not 1913. It should also be noted that a mix of RIC (police) and Auxiliary Division of the British security forces fired on the crowd at the Gaelic football match- not the "British army" and definitely not a "soccer stadium". Michael Hogan and Jimmy Egan would be turning in their graves at the thought of them playing in a soccer match.

The context is important: the attack was probably in response to the murder of a dozen or so British intelligence officers in the Sunday morning, by the IRA.

 

Thomas E. Ricks covered the U.S. military for the Washington Post from 2000 through 2008.

Read More