Body of Lies' sad truth

By Steven Zeitchik

The Onion once declared that the drug war has ended -- and drugs won. We're tempted to make a similar statement after this weekend's poor opening for "Body of Lies," a litmus test if ever there was one between robust commercial appeal on the one hand and the radioactivity of political and terrorism-themed pictures on the other.

Basically, our feeling coming in to the weekend was that if any movie with such elements could succeed, this was it. It wasn't depressing in that evening-news kind of way, it had big stars, great action scenes, fluid direction and delicious plot twists. Many a summer blockbuster has been built on less.

But the movie fizzled to just $13 million at the box-office, and landed in a dismal third place. That's bad news for Warners, but it's also bad news for anyone with this kind of movie in the pipeline. Because the data proves once and one for all that opening a terror-themed wide release is a battle as unwinnable as a Middle Eastern quagmire. Doesn't matter how good the script, how marketable the cast, how exciting the picture -- if it's got Middle East terrorism as a major plot element, it will fail.

That should make Summit, which last month scooped up Kathryn Bigelow's hairtrigger "The Hurt Locker," concerned -- or eyeing a later release date than its planned spring/summer date. Because the truth is that there will probably be a time when these pics are not  eschewed for their take on tough political situations but in fact heralded for them -- even by audiences.

Indeed, the irony is that as taboo as Middle East and terrorism is, it makes for some of the best storytelling source material in film history -- perhaps better than what the Cold War or World War II did for spy pics or the rise of urban crime did for film noir.

It's not like storytellers haven't taken advantage of this moment. Other media have embraced topicality successfully -- look at how "24" has corralled terror intrigue to ratings effect.  Yet in films, somehow, topicality has become a dirty word. But it will pass, and the movies that have been made that are worthy of attention will get their due, if only in hindsight and at a point too late for box-office redemption. These movies have reason to be made -- just at a later date. In the meantime, let's hope no one's writing specs on the economic crisis.

Comments

[RJ]

Steve, I wonder if you haven't missed a key point here. I don't think that it's so much topicality that audiences are afraid of, I think that audiences are tired of the continual drumbeat of anti-Americanism and defeatism that its pervades many of the Iraq-war themed movies that have been released to date. If we use the example of 24, as you yourself mentioned, then topicality is a good thing. If you want to stretch the scope ofwhat constitutes a topical movie, then the movie 300 which could be argued as an allegory for the struggle for Western civilization, did an amazing business. Even relatively pro-American films in the war on terror, such as the Kingdom and Vantage Point did far better than many of the antiwar films that have flashed on theater screens over the past three years combined.

There is a thirst in America for movies about heroes and people acting heroically. The age of the antihero, while not dead, is certainly on life support. If Hollywood were to greenlight a film along the lines of say, Black Hawk Down, following American soldiers in some of the battles in Iraq or Afghanistan, then I wouldn't be surprised if that were to blow away all box office expectations. Unfortunately, Hollywood seems convinced that the only kind of topical movie that audiences want to see is one where America is the bad guy. When a film like Team America does 50 times the business of War Inc., there is a lesson to be drawn there.

[Clif]

When you've been there, when you know people that live there, and when you know people there now, why would anyone pay real American dollars to watch yet another dark anti-American film made by people that have no idea what goes on in the real world.

In recent years Hollywood studios have put out a long string of liberal propaganda films that would make Leni Reifenstein proud. No, that's not correct. Leni Reifenstein had no delusions about the films she made. Hollywood needs a Director like John Ford (1894-1973). If Hollywood made a real war movie, real people would want to see it. I hate to admit it, but the 1994 pro-American Gulf War comedy, You're In The Army Now (Hollywood Pictures), starring Pauly Shore, earned $28,881,266 USD at the box office. PAULY SHORE made a better war movie than Leonardo DiCaprio and Russell Crowe. That should tell Hollywood something. And, what makes it even more amazing, if Pauly Shore made a sequel, I would pay to go see it before I even thought about going to see another dark anti-American film like Body of Lies. That alone should tell the studios something.

As a side note; Pauly Shore did not put me up to this. I've never met the man. But, if there is a movie deal in the future, I do expect at least a t-shirt out of the deal.

[Greg]

Where on earth are people getting the idea that "Body of Lies" is anti-American? Have either of the two posters above even *seen* the movie? As for the posters' claims, I'm sure they'd agree "Fahrenheit 9/11" by the eeeevil Michael Moore as anti-American (it isn't, it's just anti-Bush, but they're forgiven for not knowing the difference. Mmm… fascism.) . Fahrenheit 9/11 was made for a $6 million budget. It grossed over $120 million, for a staggering $114 million profit.

Game, set, and match.

And that was back in the summer of 2004, when people could still delude themselves the war was going well. Clearly there are lots of people who will go and see an anti-war film if it's well made. I'd simply argue that the few films about the war so far weren't.

[FedUp]

The average American makes about $28,500 a year. Leo paid $28,500 for a dinner with Obama in Beverly Hills. I’m tired of spending my hard earned dollars on the rich and famous.

[thecentralop]

FedUp...

I'm not sure if you are you pointing out Leonardo DiCaprio's dinner with Obama in Beverly Hills because of his support of Obama or if he's just that rich... or both? Because there are Hollywood Republicans dropping large sums of cash for John McCain... Stephen Baldwin, Pat Boone, Wilford Brimley, Dean Cain, Jon Cryer, Robert Duvall, Angie Harmon, Patricia Heaton, Lorenzo Lamas, Craig T. Nelson, Kelsey Grammer, Gary Sinise and Jon Voight. Just trying to figure what your point is.

[Bill]

From what I have read of the storyline, this does not appear to be an anti-American film. I could be wrong and if so then the producers are just stupid for spending money to make it. If it is indeed not anti-American, then the failure of this film is entirely on the heads of the producer and writer for giving it a title that suggests that it is. If this is not another anti-American movie, then the producers are idiots for letting it hit theaters with that title.

[Americola - search biographies, high resolution photos and videos]

The Assertive Patient is a blog by Jeanne Sather, a Seattle writer and mom blogging about breast cancer. I hope you find it interesting too!