Flickgrrl

gulfwarsailor: Why did "Stop-Loss" fail to attrack an audience? P.T. Barnum said it best. "Never underestimate the intelligence of the American public."

Carrie, I'm so glad you brought this up and set the record straight re the film's grosses. I have a theory on the Iraq films and why audiences have been seemingly resistent to them.

On the one hand, you have those who are against the war - liberals (count me in) - who are understandably disturbed by it. Consequently, even though these films are preaching to the choir, the choir doesn't necessarily want to see them. It's bad enough reading about this war and hearing the attention-addicted pundits debate it. For that reason, even I had reservations about seeing "Stop-Loss." (But I'm glad I did.)

On the other hand, you have the hawks - conservatives - who are so gung-ho about the war that they conclude that any Iraq film will be anti-war propaganda, something with a left-leaning agenda. So they stay away, too. I mean, even a film like "Grace Is Gone," which has a conservative bent (at least, from where I sat), failed to find an audience.

Consequently, there is no audience for them - or seemingly so.

I did see this movie; in fact, I saw it on opening day. I agree with everything Joe, above, is saying about why people might not see the film -- I think these reasons are why I've been a hard sell on several of the earlier Iraq-related movies, "Rendition" in particular.

I went to see "Stop-Loss" in part because the marketing seemed to be pointing toward a somewhat apolitical plot -- at least in terms of the "why are we fighting" question. Because, I don't know, I guess I'm tired of seeing that particular question asked and answered on the news every day, and I've made up my mind on it. But the human cost at home feels like a story that both sides should be interested in hearing about.

Maybe the problem is simply oversaturation? We aren't far enough away for fiction to seem romantic, yet. I saw Stop-Loss and it reminded me of a few CNN specials I'd seen and pieces in the newspaper.

Thinga are so miserable in this country right now that unless the movie is a Reese Witherspoon comedy, I'm not getting off my ass to go see it.

Saw the film at sneak preview in LA and Kinberly was the guest speaker/ I fully agree wth your review. I found it extremely well done and delivered a strong anti-war message.I thought the actors were perfect for their parts. More McCain supporters should see it. After the film, a group of Iraq veterans were in the audience and authenticated the stop loss situation. I must tell you that Kimberly was terrific speaker and very, very interesting. She related that the co-writer was a conservative so she attempted to present a "middle of the road" scenario. She did indicate that was not sure of the ending but decided the primary reason, he returns was to be with and watch over his ":brothers". Know it did not do well for first weekend at the box office but hope word of mouth helps. A film very worth seeing.

The reasons Americans won't go see this type of movie is that they don't want to be preached to by the Hollywood Limousine Liberals.

I haven't seen this movie, but I know when there is a movie coming from the Hollywood group-thinkers in the Democrat-Media Complex, odds are that it will not be "middle of the road" at all. It's going to be on the left shoulder, anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-conservative, anti-Republican, anti-Christian, pro-Muslim, sympathy for the terrorists - just more of the same-old same-old that we get every night from ABCCBSNBCCNNMSNBC. Yawn. I don't need to pay money for it.

I don't need the Hollywood holier-than-thou, smarter-than-thou left looking down their noses at me trying to convince me that I'm wrong under the guise of "entertainment".

Actually, these kinds of movies would do better if you actually got a mix of points of view in movies from Hollywood - but instead we get some that vary between a little left wing and a lot left wing. And that's preachy to me and my first reaction to anything from them is to just ignore it and stay away.

Dear No LimoLiberal,

I think you'd be very surprised by Stop-Loss. So much so, that if you go see it and you come out confirmed that it was made by limousine liberals, I'm prepared to refund the price of your ticket.

As I said in an earlier blog, people in general don't want to see this kind of film -- or at least, what they perceive it to be. Liberal or Conservative. The only thing that will get movie-goers en masse in the theater would be a comedy/farce/satire.

When Stanley Kubrick was researching to write the screenplay that would become "Dr. Strangelove," it was initially going to a serious film, like "Fail Safe" would be. However, he realized everything about the situation was madness. So, he ultimately made it farcical, and about the insanity of the situation, and by extension the people involved. (Compare the box office of Strangelove versus Fail Safe) Someone today needs to do the same thing.

So who is today's Kubrick, Robert Altman (MASH) or Mike Nichols (Catch-22)? Besides Nichols himself, of course. Soderbergh? The Coens?

Excellent question, Eric. With "Charlie Wilson's War," Mike Nichols tried the satiric route -- and that didn't attract many moviegoers. The Coens are pretty oblique, though one could view "No Country for Old Men" as a parable about the futility of violence. Apart from Aaron Sorkin, I can't think of any writer who's doing topical satire. Can you?

Carrie,

Aaron Sorkin is a good one. David Mamet, maybe? Tina Fey? Maybe if Al Franken loses his Senate race? (Except I think he'll win). Michael Moore wrote "Canadian Bacon," but of course, too many people would refuse to see any movie he's attached to. Christopher Guest?

If we could just get the Pythons back together one last time....

I saw this movie Thursday night with my wife and we really liked it. There were only two other parties with us in the movie, a group of young guys and a group of young nannies (from Germany I think). So unfortunately I don’t think as many are seeing it as I would hope.

http://www.tomhcanderson.com/2008/04/05/21-superhero-movie-run-fat-boy-run-and-stop-loss-marketers-battle-over-gen-y-18-24-year-olds-on-facebook-and-myspace/#respond

Hey, noted Hollywood liberal Charlton Heston just kicked. Too bad we don't have his view on this flick. "Get your filthy hands off me, ape!"

You know, I think No Limosine Liberals pretty much hit the nail on the head. Intelligent, critical thinking viewers, whether they be liberals, centrists, or conservatives, have been so inundated by the debate over the war that they're not interested in watching a movie that they see as nothing more than a vehicle for some producer's politics, leaving the onus on the marketing to prove that the movie has great merit in its own right, something incredibly difficult given just how many there have been lately.

This pretty much leaves two groups as the target audience for such films, highly partisan, idiot liberals who just want to see their views reaffirmed, and highly partisan, idiot conservatives who want the same. And the former group really doesn't need to pay $10+ to watch bloody depictions of war to reaffirm their unchanging politics, because every news channel--hell, even Fox has trouble insulating us from the less glamorous aspects of the war--is already giving them plenty.

And the latter group, comprised of people like NLL, who not only have a preconcieved notion about their politics, but also of what all liberals are--rich Hollywood hippies who hate Jesus and America and want to destroy our government so that the brown people can come take over. So any time they see a movie come out of Hollywood, they automatically assume it'll be offensive to their politics, unless they actually see Bruce Willis blowing away some Muslim in the trailer, they assume its pro-Muslim. Hell, they probably assumed that just because they came from "them Liberal Hollywood cabal", Saving Private Ryan and Black Hawk Down were anti-war hatchet jobs until 3 or more reviewers with proper conservative credentials assured them otherwise.

More importantly, both conservatives and liberals of these groups secretly worried that they'll be swayed. Deep down, they realize they didn't put much thought into their positions, and stubbornly ignore anyone who disagrees with them because they realize they'd be easily swayed by a good propaganda piece. Most people like NLL sit in the comfort of their middle-class homes, working out the best tax-shelters they can legally use, utterly convinced that because they vote Republican, they are infitely more American and more patriotic than the career NCO serving his second tour in Iraq who happens to vote Democrat.

Watching anything that depicts war as anything other than a glorious away game is an uncomfortable reminder of that delusion, so they shield themselves in the idea that the priviledged types disagree with them.

And back on topic, you've definitely changed my mind about skipping this movie.

Send our troops home NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

World War II was a war supported by the majority of Americans. The films made during that period were largely pro-involvement movies, which made them somewhat palatable for the viewing public. So then let's look first at films about Vietnam, a "conflict" (it was never announced as an official "war", though it was a full-on, balls-to-the-walls bombs-away mess) that was never fully supported by the majority of Americans. I did have friends and family serve in Vietnam, and it was painfully real, tragic, and enormously difficult. The first film about Vietnam premiered three years after the last troops were pulled out of Vietnam--that film was The Deer Hunter--and it was deemed a financial and critical success. People were ready to see an intelligent story about a time and circumstance that had divided us as a nation. Those three years had allowed the filmmakers and the audience to gain some insight and perspective. I recall seeing immense coverage of the Vietnam conflict on television while the war was ongoing--much, much more coverage than we get now on television or in the newspapers or via internet. So it's not burnout that keeps audiences away from films about Iraq. The hard fact that Iraq is still occupied by a large force of American soldiers, sailors and civilians makes it extremely difficult for audiences to attend any film about that war--pro OR con. It's still a gaping wound, physical and emotional, one that has had no time in which to even begin to heal. Wives, husbands, daughters, sons in the military are serving two and sometimes three tours of duty in the Middle East. All of us here in America have had either a family member or have known people who served or are currently serving over there. Of course we shouldn't dictate the kinds of films creative people ought to make, but now doesn't feel like the time to be reflecting on this war in a fictional way. At this point, it feels like a job for the documentarians. If I had a close family member serving overseas, the LAST thing I'd want to go see at the movies is a film about Iraq. It would be more painful, stressful, and fear-inducing for me. Finally, it's a vital truism that we cannot look forward until we have looked back: once this war is over and our men and women have come home, give us a few years--we'll be receptive to intelligent, creative, fictional films about the war in Iraq, its aftermath and consequences.