Why do studios keep making Iraq films when they all bomb?

[EnlightenmentHK]

Yeah, I wouldnt describe movies like Apocalypse Now or Full Metal Jacket as positive - however you also have to understand that those movies came out some years after Vietnam was over. I am also not so sure I would list those movies as poltically motivated considering that fact.

No political motivations in Apocolypse Now or Full Metal Jacket? Are you serious? Basic training in FMJ depicts marines being broken down and built into remorseless killing machines. And in the end half their unit dies and all they accomplish is the killing of a single sniper, that's about as clear a metaphor for the pointlessness of war (and that war in particular) as you'll find. And Apocolypse Now was making political statements back in its original book form as Heart of Darkness. It was certainly doing so in its film/Vietnam version.

And how does 'coming after the war' equal 'no political motivations'? You'll have to explain that one for me.

Dr. Strangelove, not strictly war related but pretty damned close. Anti-all of it. And it came out at the height of the Cold War.

Yeah, MASH was is technically set in Korea, but it doesn't take a genius to make the connections to Vietnam. And it out while Vietnam was still in full swing.

Both with political motivations. Both essentially anti-war. And both coming out during the conflict.


And John Wayne last war movie (Green Berets) that I recall was a laughably bad propaganda piece. I wouldn't be surprised if it was bankrolled by the government to some extent. And it was in fact a direct, politically motivated response to the widespread, negative views of that war. Geriatric icon, old school type of war film in the new and unpopular war. It was a clumsy mix to say the least. And looks thoroughly out of place next to any other Vietnam war film.

Uhm. Nope. People most certainly fought and died in those films.

There wasn't a single cynic, coward, naysayer, addict, or maniac anywhere in John Wayne's 'Green Beret' unit. Everyone was a courageous, virtuous hero. The VC and NVA were outright evil. The locals loved the Americans. The Americans would never harm a hair on their head. Even the hippie reporter was cheering them on by the end. How anyone can watch that and not bust a gut laughing at all the unintentional comedy I don't know. Naive, propagandic, clear political motive during the war.

 

[MobBoss]

@Mobboss: you mention John Wayne, which is a perfect example of a shift in the audience after WWII: he tried to do with "Green berets" what he'd done in the 40's, but the sense of righteousness one got from fighting the Nazis simply wasn't there.

The Green Berets was a box office hit for John Wayne and it actually made quite a decent profit.

So I have no idea WTH you are talking about.

 

[Rossiya]

Both, as far as I'm aware.

I heard it was just Iraq.

 

[MobBoss]

No political motivations in Apocolypse Now or Full Metal Jacket? Are you serious? Basic training in FMJ depicts marines being broken down and built into remorseless killing machines. And in the end half their unit dies and all they accomplish is the killing of a single sniper, that's about as clear a metaphor for the pointlessness of war (and that war in particular) as you'll find. And Apocolypse Now was making political statements back in its original book form as Heart of Darkness. It was certainly doing so in its film/Vietnam version.

Yes, I am serious. Apocalypse now makes more references to the absolute chaos of war and how it affects people, but that in of itself is not a political statement. Such themes are often simply a reality of war, and in Vietnam in particular due to the nature of how that war was being fought. The film was meant to be surreal....not essentially political.

Dr. Strangelove, not strictly war related but pretty damned close. Anti-all of it. And it came out at the height of the Cold War.

I wouldnt call Dr. Strangeglove a war-movie in the traditional sense. Its a parody of a war movie if anything.

Yeah, MASH was is technically set in Korea, but it doesn't take a genius to make the connections to Vietnam. And it out while Vietnam was still in full swing.

And? So it shows people doing a needed job in a place they would rather not be and trying to make the best of it.

How is that political?

Both with political motivations. Both essentially anti-war. And both coming out during the conflict.

Funny, I dont see those films as political films, or even essentially anti-war.

And John Wayne last war movie (Green Berets) that I recall was a laughably bad propaganda piece. I wouldn't be surprised if it was bankrolled by the government to some extent. And it was in fact a direct, politically motivated response to the widespread, negative views of that war. Geriatric icon, old school type of war film in the new and unpopular war. It was a clumsy mix to say the least. And looks thoroughly out of place next to any other Vietnam war film.

And yet for all that the film was a success. /shrug.

 

[GenMarshall]

Why do studios keep making Iraq films when they all bomb?
Because they are filming a war that is unpopular to the Americans

 

[West 36]

I've got to say that even though most war movies since Vietnam have seemed decidedly anti-war, it's not as if they don't appeal to hawks. They get their explosions and see Nazis and Charlie getting chewed up, and that seems to satisfy them, despite the message the filmmakers may have intended. Stop-loss doesn't seem to be that kind of movie though.

 

[h4ppy]

john wayne is the past, people are now generally too educated to buy this kind of naive "war! isnt it great" glorification crap.

Which is why all these new Iraq movies that just came out recently are doing great...

 

[EnlightenmentHK]

And yet for all that the film was a success. /shrug.

And so was Armageddon, what's your point?

Funny, I dont see those films as political films, or even essentially anti-war.

Behold the powers of self-delusion.

Altman was absolutely making a political statement. He even removed any and all reference to the Korean War from the film hoping that viewers would mistake it for Vietnam. (The studios later forced him to reinstate several references) I believe he's outright called it an anti-war film and most viewers and critics consider it to be so.

 

[ParkCungHee]

They see all the cool movies that came out of other wars and foolishly think they can do the same.

Fifty, I spent a good fifteen minutes mulling over how to express my view on this matter. You just expressed it better then what I had written in a sentence.

 

[Slobadog]

The problem with John Wayne is that he stars in different films but seems to stay John Wayne in each one.

 

[JtheJackal]

I find it strange that here is thread with people thinking Hollywood is being stupid or politically motivated for releasing a film all about message but is not expected to do well, when Hollywood is often criticized for not being about story and messages and all about money and special effects.

 

[EnlightenmentHK]

I find it strange that here is thread with people thinking Hollywood is being stupid or politically motivated for releasing a film all about message but is not expected to do well, when Hollywood is often criticized for not being about story and messages and all about money and special effects.

I'm sure you and most everyone else will agree that Hollywood is about money. If they firmly believe that a film about war and America hating heroine addict transvestites will make money, they'll make that film and a thousand like it. Hollywood has no scruples. If the populace does, they'll align their 'scruples' to offend the least number of the populace.

Of course the the money-men are inherently conservative on most things and are slow to recognize changing tastes and times. They'll be a while to catch on to new sentiments and trends, but once they do find one that takes off they'll copy it into the ground. That is what Hollywood does. They have their own little 'conventional wisdom' and bubble logic that sometimes applies, but usually doesn't.

But what we must understand is that the large budget studio films are Democracy in action. Their job is to appeal to the widest audience possible and that means the lowest common denominator, dumbing it down for the 'everyman' audience. And the result tends to be alot of high production value, but . .. .. .. . written and often . .. .. .. . acted/directed films.

Of course I'd place Hollywood above any other national film industry in a second. Quite frankly because bean counting aside, Hollywood still attracts the best talent, has the highest budgets, and gets more creative and talent people who might have occasional success against the 'system' in getting their artistic vision to the screen.

But its still pretty sad how neutered this crap gets because they MUST get that PG-13 rating or they MUST ensure they're not 'too smart' for the brainless audience. Its really quite annoying.

But you're right. Hollywood doesn't care about the political message. The actors, writers, and directors might...but the people footing the bill don't. If they think that message or concept will make money, yeah they're on board. But if they expect significant resistance + a lack of popular appeal, your project is either altered or done unless it has a budget small enough to go Indie. (or unless you lead or director is Big enough to sell on that alone.)

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

They should make a musical about the start of the war, prelude and all. I think there could be some great songs for the minister of information.

Seriously, when a war is still going on people don't really want to go to a movie when they see the same thing on the news. Once it is over, and it isn't plastered on screen every single day on telly, they will go and see them. Going to the movie is a couple of hours of escapism for a lot of people.