Death of “Redacted”
I blame the “leave us aloners” for blowing off the Iraq-themed films willy-nilly, especially the really good ones like In The Valley of Elah. But I can’t blame anyone for passing up Brian DePalma‘s Redacted, a very difficult sit that died a pauper’s death this weekend.
good riddance!
Michael Medved? Really?
Even here in Lefty SF, “Redacted” is already dead dead dead. It spent 5 days at Landmark’s downtown showplace and then was shunted off to the smallest theater in town to be on a double bill with “Across the Universe”. Talk about a fate worse than death.
So if you liked the movie, it’s the fault of the “leave us aloners”, but if you hated it, it’s just the movie gods keeping order in the universe?
I think it’s more likely that other more coplex forces are at work here. For starters, Elah wasn’t that good. Certainly not good enough to overcome any of the other factors that may have been working against it.
Why aren’t the “surrender now” libs going to see this in droves? Why aren’t they each paying for 10 tickets, and driving up the flick’s box office? For that matter, where were they during “Rendition,” “Elah” and “Lions for Lambs?” Did ALL of those movies simply suck too much?
As a longtime De Palma fan this is sad, but then again, Redacted is probably the worst “film” he’s ever done. Kind of like watching a drug addict plumb further depths of dependency that you never even knew existed.
I don’t know, Jeff, considering there’s yet to be a halfway decent film made about the current war in Iraq, I don’t know you can really blame anyone except the short-sighted filmmakers cranking this stuff out. The films about World War 2 produced during the 1940s are less interesting than the films made afterwards. And think of it this way: everyone always thinks of the perfect comeback after the conversation has ended. In the moment you don’t have the luxury of clarity, which is usually pretty important when it comes to war movies.
This isn’t an original explanation from me, but I think it makes sense. These films are bad for the same reason most Christian outreach films are bad. The message comes before the art. Sure, the film makers are earnest, but that just makes the preaching more grating.
Good point, CJ, on that paradox.
Millions of Americans were right to avoid Elah, which is not a good movie.
Stephe96: I know you’re asking a rhetorical question and not expecting an answer, but what’s your point?
How well did Bubble do? The film has already shown on television, the theatrical release was a pittance, and it’s a shock that this film did poorly Thanksgiving weekend? The film tried to court the controversy, but that was all it had.
I would argue the value this film will have will be most apparent when America is ready to accept the disaster that is Iraq. We’ll see if America is ready for a feel-good Iraq film with Charlie Wilson’s War, but it’s fair to say so far all the films on the subject matter have underperformed. Then again, if The Untouchables prequel doesn’t get off the ground pre-strike, it’s going to be a while before we’ll have De Palma to kick around again.
“even the really good ones like In The Valley of Elah”
So what would be at least one other that could plausibly be “a really good one”?
Jeff…poor box office for Iraq movies and docs isn’t a rejection of the war, it’s a rejection of Hollywood, both politically and economically…
Hollywood is about as objective as Fox News…the public knows this and doesn’t want to pay to confirm it. You may swallow everything that’s draped in tinsel but the general public is more cynical, and good for them.
Now before I give the general public too much credit, there’s an even bigger reason these films have failed to attract large audiences. If we’re strictly talking economics, it’s your JOB to watch these things…do you really expect the people to pay to see these two hour op-ed pieces one after another after another? Factor in the endless barrage of Iraq exposure from other sources–tv, radio, newspapers, periodicals, and you have what’s called a saturated market…there are enough serious, qualified and free sources of information that leave your pay-for-politics cronies at a competitive disadvantage and somewhat unnecessary. You don’t have to dig much deeper than that.
i think ‘perfect tommy’ nailed it.. and it seems obvious that no audience will gather for what is percieved to be a ‘sand movie’…
People want to see Harrison Ford kicking ass in FALLUJAH, they dont want to see left wing ‘Iraq is a tragedy’ movies.
Hollywood is giving people way too many COMING HOME’s and CASUALTIES OF WAR when they should be giving them THE GREEN BERETS.
Besides the best Iraq movie so far has been the Green Day video WAKE ME UP WHEN SEPTEMBER ENDS – and people got that for free on tv – 4 minutes of everything that ever needed to be said about Iraq – rousing and heartfelt.
Can any filmmaker beat that?
Hollywood made $210million on a rousing Iraq War movie this last March, it just happened to take place a couple thousand years ago.
“So what would be at least one other that could plausibly be “a really good one”?”
I think The Kingdom can be thrown in there. It was the best of these movies this season, probably because it didn’t focus on politics, and when it did, it got 90% of the politics right.
Plus, to quote ol’ George Patton, “Americans love a winner.”
“Why aren’t the “surrender now” libs going to see this in droves?”
You mean like William Buckley? But maybe, just maybe, libs aren’t as simplistic as a Medved insight.
“Hollywood is about as objective as Fox News”
Funny statement that considering the connection. But is “24″ as objective as “Valley of Elah”?
“I think The Kingdom can be thrown in there. It was the best of these movies this season, probably because it didn’t focus on politics, and when it did, it got 90% of the politics right.”
Yet, The Kingdom flopped as well. And the politics of that movie were just as simple-minded and naive as the recent movies against the war. Just because a movie re-affirms your political beliefs doesn’t mean it was done with any complexity.
Grace is Gone and the Afghanistan (not Iraq)-set Charlie Wilson’s War have my attention. But after seeing, and pretty much hating, both Elah and The Kingdom that was enough Iraq/Afghani/war on terror feature film cinema for me. I gave at the office (and, as a bonus, I’ve also seen, and sort-of liked, The Kite Runner).
Redacted was never going to get past a few screens at the arthouse. It’s this year’s high buzz/low attendance Death of a President in that regard. But it has merit, and is worth consideration.
The main problem with these films — besides the fact that their level of suck only varies by degrees — is that each is premised on a lie. Whether your movie is set in Oz, space, or back in time among the dinosaurs, your first job as a storyteller is to get the audience to buy into your premise:
A Mighty Heart & Rendition said America is worse than the terrorists.
Redacted and Elah said all of our troops are animals. And I do mean “all.” Even Tommy Lee Jones was portrayed as a racist — a moment that’s really the last straw of getting hit over the head by the hack of our time Haggis.
Lions For Lambs said the War on Terror isn’t worth fighting.
Southland Tales said — well, who knows what the hell that piece of shit said…
Even your most hardened anti-war type doesn’t really believe what these films are premised on and it keeps you from buying into them. And the true America-haters can sit home and watch MSNBC for free.
I saw Lawrence of Arabie yesterday at the Cinemtheque and was reminded of just how VERY political that film is. But every side of the struggle and all of the individuals in it are given full dimension. It’s about real people dealing with real issues in a way that makes you think and make up your own mind.
Today’s filmmakers are so insecure about their own arguments and audiences buying into them that they have to demonize the other side to the point of creating truly ridiculous characters and posturing that naturally evolves into embarrassingly bad films premised on absurd and unbelievable extremes.
Hollywood has enough new problems with blogs, talk radio, and FOX News warning people who would normally go opening weekend to a Cruise or Jolie film to watch out. But for these filmmakers to make utter crap on top of it is just too funny.
Though wretched, “Redacted” will be fodder for film theory wonks for years to come. I give De Palma points for constructing it with some imagination (and making plain what he thinks of pompous European documentaries). I also think given the way it was shot, home video is its natural home.
Well said, Dirty Harry.
I agree with what was posted earlier, the great art that comes from a major world event usually comes well after the event is over. People need time to realize just home importantly that event has affected things. Vonnegut was a POW during WW II but he didn’t publish Slaughterhouse-Five until 1969. Stephen Crane wasn’t even born during the Civil War. When the first of the 9/11 movies came out people cried “Too soon”. I realize they were mostly referring to the wounds of 9/11 being too fresh for films to be made (though apparently nobody had a problem with Springsteen recording “The Rising” in 2002). But it is probably too soon for anybody to really understand how the Iraq war will affect the world. It may take 20 or 30 years to really get the enormity of our actions in Iraq.
dh—’lawrence of arabia’ is a very pretty film but your saying that ‘individuals in it are given full dimension’ and ‘it’s about real people dealing with real issues’ just goes to show that you have no idea what you’re talking about….
i do think, however, that the omission of certain things does make it very political….
Scooterzz — I’m talking about within the framework of the film — not as it applies to whatever yours or mine worldview might be of that struggle. Is there a quota for nit-picky, myopic idiocy on this site?
Rather than demonize or make heroic either side, all are portrayed as flawed but noble, heroic and self-defeating — in other words “human.” You can actually watch the politics of that film play out because it’s not premised on making the British your standard white villains or the Arabs barbarians. They’re people struggling for position in the world. Actual, real, three-dimensional human beings.
And to dismiss LOA as “pretty” and then tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about is hilarious.
my comment had nothing to do with the ‘worldview of that struggle’ but rather the sanitization of the central character …… to say the film depicted ‘real people dealing with real issues’ is, itself, myopic idiocy….but folk like you tend to see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear…..
Spicer — I agree to a point. Keep in mind a lot of great WWII films were made during that war or soon after. CASABLANCA is a perfect example of how truly talented filmmakers can use a current event to inspire a masterpiece if it comes from the right place and is based on a sincere belief. THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES was made in 1946 right at the end of the war.
There’s a difference between anger and hate. Anger can be a muse to a great film, hate cannot because hate is irrational. All of these anti-war films are coming from hate; hate of America, Bush, our soldiers and marines, Western values, etc… They’re not for anything, they’re only against.
None of these film talks about an alternative solution or what they would do different. For all Redford’s preening about “Where Do You Stand?” on the Lambs posters, that movie sure isn’t about what he stands for, only against — which is fighting the war on terror.
But you are absolutely right that it will take 20-30 years to understand the enormity of our actions in Iraq — it’s been the same for Vietnam and as the consequence of our abandoning the country are finally getting a hearing the anti-war crowd isn’t looking as just and noble as they did even ten-years ago. John Kerry sure wasn’t ceded the moral high ground as he and his defender expected.
Scoterzz and Dirty Harry, about “Lawrence of Arabia”, as Homer says to his kids, “You’re both right”. The film does sanitize Lawrence, but that doesn’t make Bolt’s script simplistic. Like Shakespeare, the history isn’t all trustworthy but the characters are textured and the moral issues are wonderfully complex.
And hey, it sure is pretty. Seeing this in 70, especially taking my kids to see it at the Castro in SF is one of my favorite movie experiences.
Yeah, that’s what I meant Scooterzzz — that every character and event was dead-on historically 100% accurate.
You mean a movie changed characters, events, facts, and made things up…??? My jaw just hit the floor. You mean they combine characters, compress timelines, and use allgory and metaphor??????
Thank you for enlightening me scooterzz. Gee, you know, you’re right LOA is just “pretty.” Nitpicky idiot.
Don’t forget that Redacted premiered on HDNet 2 weeks ago. A lot of people (like me) saw it at home for free.
“All of these anti-war films are coming from hate; hate of America, Bush, our soldiers and marines, Western values, etc… They’re not for anything, they’re only against.”
Harry, you are so completely full of shit it blows my mind sometimes. I wish I was in your presense just to watch you keep a straight face while you tell me being “anti-war” means you’re for hatred and that you’re only against things.
What fucked up dictionary are you pulling your definition of “war” from?
You and Pat Robertson need to get together and go bowling sometime.
dh — your posts are shrill… your website is a joke —- you are a fool — and loa is a very pretty movie…..
I just don’t get DePalma! Never have, never will.