War films, what are they good for?

By Steven Zeitchik

War and Middle East films like "In the Valley of Elah" and "Rendition" fizzled last fall when they debuted in Toronto and unspooled later in the fall. So what's happening this year? Well, the Middle East-inflected films are back...just don't call mention the Middle East.

"'Iraq' is a dirty word in film marketing right now," said Howard Cohen, whose Roadside Attractions is distributing one of these non-Iraq Iraq movies, "The Lucky Ones," the Tim Robbins-Rachel McAdams road dramedy about soldiers recently returned from the Gulf.

So while the pictures are set in Iraq, center on people who've fought in Iraq and take on issues raised by the war in Iraq, they're not political movies, according to the producers and publicists positioning them. They're just action pics, comedies and universally-themed dramas.

Nearly a half-dozen movies with Iraq overtones or undertones will unspool in Toronto this next week. "Lucky Ones" looks at soliders who've just come home. Kathryn Bigelow's "The Hurt Locker" examines those still there (trying feverishly to defuse a bomb). The Australian pic "Three Blind Mice" focuses midshipmen who were there, have a one-day respite and are going back. "The Stoning of Soraya M.," a dramatized version of real-life events from from the producers of "The Passion of the Christ," is about injustice next door, in Iran....you get the idea.

But despite the fact that many of these movies moved into production because of their social relevance, those behind them are taking pains to distance themselves from any political reality.

"Locker" producer Nic Chartier said that his film is "an action movie, not an Iraq movie." Both the producer and writer of "Stoning" said that the film deals with injustice generally and described their movie as "universal." Cohen said that "Lucky Ones" is a movie "about American society and how we treat people," also calling it a smart, upscale comedy.

Quite frankly, we're not sure one has to go so far out of the way to avoid the I word. Just because movies use Iraq as a backdrop or device  doesn't mean they have to be doomed, not at this post-Bush, pre-election moment, and not when the films clearly are trying to tell more personal stories in which a war in the Middle East is simply a given like any other. In fact, it would be weird to do an action war movie like "Hurt Locker" and not set it in the Middle East (though that hasn't stopped one well-known writer we've heard from being asked by execs to relocate his action movie from the Middle East to Latin America).

But we also understand why nervous execs and filmmakers are taking no chances in emphasizing the differences of this new wave. We'll see soon enough in Toronto ("Hurt Locker" is actually for sale) if the industry and consumers go for the softpedal or would've preferred the straight talk -- in other words, whether the new wave is what we've been waiting for with war movies or whether we'll have to wait for a new new wave.

Comments

[Dan Zee]

I think the lesson learned from Vietnam is that audiences need some distance from the war before they can start seeing war movies. Even though producers are trying to dress movies up as action pictures or thrillers, you can't take away from the fact they're set in Iraq or Afghanistan. It's just too close to home for a lot of people. Plus Hollywood seems unable to keep political commentary out of the storytelling, which irks a lot of people. How many more "war" pictures have to die at the box office before producers give up on this particular genre?

[Ted Heumann]

The GREAT war movies of the past (Bridge Over the River Kwai, Guns of Navarone, Dirty Dozen, Saving Private Ryan, Black Hawk Down, etc) are NOT political. They are good stories that tell it straight without a lot of "preaching". They don't make the government out to be the bad guy, and they make the US solider out to be the good guys.

[john]

Blackhawk Down was a modern war movie that certainly didn't make war pretty or appealing but it didn't make the U.S. out as the source of all evil in this world either so it worked. I knew Redacted and other films like it would fail before they were ever released. Americans can stomach a film that isn't pro-America or even one where the US may have the right intentions but they are misguided, but when America and it's leaders are made out to be bad/evil/ stupid etc. the film makers are limiting their potential audience to the Michael Moore crowd. Most people will reject the films outright. These actors and directors should go on making whatever film they like, but shouldn't be surprised if people continue to ignore them.