26 Comments

1. bogie wheel:

I saw “An American Carol” on opening weekend.

Alas, it just wasn’t that funny. There were more and better laughs in the 10-minute SNL presidential debate sketch the other night. (Best part was when the guy playing McCain kept randomly wandering into the shot.)

I *wanted* to like AC, really, but it just flopped on the funny part. Errr, not good for a comedy. (Voight *was* spooky-good as Washington, though. A role not intended for laughs. Hmmmm.)

I’ve been reading a lot of Klavan lately. He has a small archive of articles in City-Journal, too, if anyone’s intersted.

Oct 12, 2008 - 5:44 pm 2. bogie wheel:

Roger –
I think it may have bombed or performed sub-par too, but the recent “Swing Vote” with Kevin Costner was, I thought, one of the best political-subject movies I’ve seen in quite a while. And it was actually FUNNY. (Which is good, since it was a comedy.)

That Kelsey Grammer got to play the Republican president was very refreshing. I’ve been accustomed to being forced to watch a completely incredible Alan Alda or James Cromwell in that kind of role.

Best aspect of the movie was that it satirized both sides without demonizing either, and it ultimately laid the finger of responsibility on the person who votes — or, in this case, who doesn’t bother to, and then whines about how the system is all FUBAR. Nobody was a hapless victim or arch-fiend in this movie. In its generosity of spirit I found it rather … Capra-esque. Again, something I haven’t seen in a long while.

Oct 12, 2008 - 5:54 pm 3. srlucado:

When will they ever learn?

Never, when they can get other people to pick up the tab for their bad decisions:

“…Louisiana, where residents are financing a hefty share of Brad Pitt’s next movie — $27,117,737, to be exact…”
http://tinyurl.com/3j4c4r

Heads, I win, tails, you lose.

Hooray for Hollywood.

Scott

Oct 12, 2008 - 6:40 pm 4. Hanoi Paris Hilton:

Stop-Loss seems to be routinely batched with the sleaze “antiwar” pix nixed by the hix. Not so, in my view. Director Kimberly Pierce’s only other feature was Boys Don’t Cry (1999), which won an Oscar (best leading actress), deservedly so, for Hilary Swank. I’m not unfamiliar with the prototype characters and content in Stop-Loss and I didn’t think there was a Hollywood lefty cheap shot anywhere in there. Maybe somebody else out there has a similar. I’d much want to her Roger’s hit on Stop-Loss, if he can bear to give it an un-prejudged viewing.

Oct 12, 2008 - 7:34 pm 5. Ruth H:

I would go see it if I could find it. I haven’t been to many movies in the past few years but the closest place I can find that one is 45 miles from my home. My daughter a librarian is planning to order 3 DVD’s of it to make sure they present all sides of an issue, that is right versus left.

Oct 12, 2008 - 8:02 pm 6. Barry Dauphin:

Don’t forget that Oliver Stone’s latest doobie induced high, “W”, comes out this week.

Hix nix Hans Blix.

Oct 12, 2008 - 8:21 pm 7. Paul:

As I understand, because there’s a strong appetite for it overseas, Hollywood isn’t terribly concerned when their anti-American films bomb in the US.

Once you get over (if you can) how truly loathsome it that American film-makers are so happy to stoke anti-Americanism for a profit, it starts to look pretty surreal. If you see a film about terrorists, you can be sure that the perpetrators are American businessmen or the CIA.

Oct 12, 2008 - 8:23 pm 8. Akiko:

Hi, this is the first time to visit. Good luck with your job.

Oct 12, 2008 - 8:27 pm 9. D:

Saw Body of Lies today – other than a line or two on torture, it really wasn’t terribly political. It was fairly entertaining if not without a plot hole here and there. Eagle Eye, to my surprise was more political. It started out very entertaining but then turned out to be about a supercomputer created to spy on everyone and everything (including terrorists) suddenly turns on the DoD and tries to kill a lot of people.

Oct 12, 2008 - 9:50 pm 10. Lightnin' Hopkins:

Promotion for “W” hit a new low with the “Sitting President” web ads. You guessed it; he’s pictured on the toilet.

Meanwhile, make a positive, well-written film about today’s military and you’ve got a license to print money. But hey, what do I know?

Oct 12, 2008 - 9:59 pm 11. Ad Noctum:

An Open Letter to the leftist idiocracy of HollyWeird:

Shutup and dance, sing, act or whatever it is you do. We the People will do your thinking for you.

When we want your opinion, we’ll give it to you.

When we want crap from you, we’ll squeeze your collective heads.

How’s that for a division of labor, hmm?

Oct 13, 2008 - 2:02 am 12. srlucado:

Speaking of “W,” does anyone care to predict how it’ll do?

I suspect it’ll be boffo at the B.O. in the tradition of “Alexander,” which, as I recall, Stone said was a flop because the American public was too stupid and homophobic to understand it – and he blamed Bush, too.

Who’s he going to blame when “W” drops to oblivion? (Everyone but himself, of course…)

Scott

Oct 13, 2008 - 3:47 am 13. bogie wheel:

[i]I suspect it’ll be boffo at the B.O. in the tradition of “Alexander,” which, as I recall, Stone said was a flop because the American public was too stupid and homophobic to understand it – and he blamed Bush, too.[/i]

The hideous blond wig on Colin Ferrell couldn’t have had anything to do with it, either.

[i]My eyes! Aggghhhh, my eyes![/i]

Oct 13, 2008 - 5:28 am 14. Webutante:

Hollywood Chihuahua is on top of my to-see list soon too. Without doubt we’re going to need more silly comedies in coming months, so get back to work! Your greatest non-collaterized asset is your cleverness and SOH.

Oct 13, 2008 - 5:33 am 15. ky6th:

At our local theatre it is only shown once a day at 10PM, so these statistics don’t surprise me.

Oct 13, 2008 - 6:23 am 16. hermie:

Of course, ‘Swing Vote’ was a rip-off of the John Barrymore minor classic ‘The Great Man Votes’.

Oct 13, 2008 - 6:26 am 17. Judith:

So USA does not want to pay to see anti-USA movies….is this why our politicians are now voting to have us subsidize hollywood?

Oct 13, 2008 - 7:44 am 18. hermie:

They spend $40, $50, $60 million on a piece of propaganda because its always someone else’s money. Those in Hollywood who parrot the lines about being so ‘concerned’ about ‘fairness’, are the first to rip someone off with accounting practices that would’ve made Ken Lay blush, or contracts which are suppoesd to ensure that those who should be compensated fairly are the ones who get the least.

Oct 13, 2008 - 7:49 am 19. LSD:

There is a great interview with Andrew Klavan over at the Hoover Institute’s ‘Uncommon Knowledge’ series. It reveals intelligence, integrity and style.

Oh, and I think “W” will do well in Europe.

Oct 13, 2008 - 7:55 am 20. irishlad317:

I agree with D. I saw Body of Lies, and it didn’t strike me a particularly harsh on America. It actually showed the Islamofacist threat as real, and showed that we have people taking actions to stop them. The actions are unpleasant, and there’s double dealing, but it isn’t trying to make the point that there is no real problem.

Eagle Eye and the implied threat that the government is watching and controlling everything (or may be capable of working toward that point) has a more anti-government point of view. On the other hand, it also showed heroic people stopping the rogue computer to save the sitting government. So… not too bad.

Oct 13, 2008 - 9:26 am 21. myna:

Wow! We are subsidizing Hollywood, Wall Street, Banks and next time New York Times and MSNBC?

Oct 13, 2008 - 10:34 am 22. Andrew X:

Point worth noting about how many of these films are made with overseas money in mind (either earning it or financing it, or both).

Consider that Hollywood types are some of the loudest wailers and teeth-gnashers over how Bush et al has “terribly damged our ‘image’ in the world”, how ” people don’t love us any more”, etc etc.

Confront them with the strange and bizarre idea that maybe THEY have as much of a role to play in that being the case as Bush, IF NOT MORE, given so much of their work. Watch them then look at you as if you are some sort of bug that started speaking all of a sudden.

They “mean well”, thus can do no wrong. Bush’s fault, Bush’s fault, Bush’s fault.

Putzes.

Oct 13, 2008 - 12:31 pm 23. Andrew X:

I should add that the comments above defending “Body of Lies” should be noted. Ridley Scott is one of the better big timers out there, ‘Black Hawk Down’ earned him mega-bonus points in my book, so BoL may not be worth lumping in with ‘Redacted’ and such drivel.

I am most interested in how ‘W’ does. It is kind of sad, as the trailers made me aware, that one could actually tell a really interesting and compelling story, warts included, about GWB and his Presidency, but the idea that Oliver Stone could ever be that someone is absurd. So every one of us, from conservatives to drooling Michael Moore groupies, knows what to expect, and will be right. I think conservatives will not spend dime one on ‘W’ obviously, and Bush-haters have other things on their minds right now (Bush is so passe).

Also, let us watch for that cute thing of people going to OTHER movies that weekend, being sold tickets to ‘W’ and told “Oh, don’t worry, it doesn’t matter, just go to the theater you want”.

Yeah, real cute, people. Watch for it.

Oct 13, 2008 - 12:39 pm 24. Elaine:

As bogie wheel said, a big part of the problem for “An American Carol” was it just wasn’t all that funny. Further, the whole “Christmas Carol” plot has been done… to death. Yes, aAC had the twist of it being about 4th of July instead of Christmas, but, that’s not a big enough difference to really matter.

Further, I’m not sure that the Christmas Carol format lent itself well to a comedy vehicle. The whole point is to convince someone of the error of their ways, but so much of what was presented was as stereotypicl of the left as the left uses against the right.

Second point: whoever did the distribution deal for aAC did a piss-poor job. I live in a city of about 150,000, with a surrounding metro area of about 600,000. There were, I think, 2 theaters in town showing the film, and three out of town (the nearest of those being 10 miles away) showing it, While “Beverly Hills Chihuahua” was on countless screens in town as well as out. So, in that situation, of course aAC isn’t going to do very well. (Compare it with “Body of Lies,” which had a much better distribution, and you begin to see that aAC didn’t do very badly…)

Bottm line: if we want alternative media to work, we have to give it support, it needs better distribution, and the material has to be better.

Oct 13, 2008 - 12:52 pm 25. LarryD:

Rendition made ~64% of its box overseas. For a grand total of $26.6 million.

The Kingdom made ~45% of its box overseas. For a total box of $86.6 million.

Alexander made ~79% of its box overseas, for a total of $167.3 million.

Neither The Kingdom nor Alexander made even $20 million box over their production costs (Rendition’s production cost isn’t listed).

Hollywood’s propaganda movies aren’t even a financial success overseas.

Iron Man, however, boxed $571.8 million, with ~44% of that coming overseas. With a production budget of $140 million.

And The Dark Knight’s gross is $990 million, ~47% from overseas.

The theory that Hollywood can blow off the US audience and live off of overseas audiences, doesn’t hold up. Too often a movie that dies here, dies overseas too. Conversely, a movie that succeeds here will usually be a success overseas as well.

Oct 13, 2008 - 2:38 pm 26. david levavi:

…The people who do have power are the executives and directors… the reviewers…and the elite opinion-makers…they’re all part of the Hollywood left-wing establishment…

…in real life, filmmakers routinely outsource their productions to places… where they can avoid paying union premiums…when the Writers Guild struck last year, we saw studio liberals turn into corporate hard-guys in the blink of an eye…

Klavan’s accurate take on wealthy and powerful “liberals” needs to be continually repeated. These obscene posers represent a dominating class that controls (and continually degrades) American culture.

What screen writers experienced with the studios last year was experienced more brutally decades ago by editors, book designers and production people when they attempted to unionize the publishing industry. Macmillan, as I recall, was particularly vicious but Random House, S&S and others were little better. And this was before the German takeover of American book publishing.

That political films fail is only natural. Satire requires audacity, brilliance and genuine sophistication, each individually rare. And satire doesn’t allow for partial success. Satire either succeeds brilliantly or it flops miserably. The writer is either a genius or a jackass.

That’s why writers who advertise themselves as satirists—Christopher Buckley comes to mind—are inevitably mediocrities trafficking in insider sneers and arch chuckles to the politically like-minded. Christopher Guest’s spoofs beginning with This Is Spinal Tap have been consistently amusing but what else is there? The only great film satires that come to mind are John Huston’s, The Man Who Would Be King on British imperialism (from Kipling) and Preston Sturgiss’s, The Great McGinty on American politics.

What amazes me is that an industry which can’t manage to produce one worthwhile drama or one genuinely funny comedy a year would even attempt satire.

Lack of good scripts, the oft heard excuse, is just that and nothing more. Hollywood blows it even when supplied the best of print sources. Consider the reverse alchemy–gold to lead–performed on Tom Wolfe’s, Bonfire of the Vanities. (Incidentally, the only novel that could have predicted the rise of a Barack Obama to the presidency.)

Klavan thinks a regime change is in order. Funny notion. What’s required is a revolution. Pitchforks and torches. Hanging ropes and firing squads.

Oct 15, 2008 - 10:26 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: