Posted on 05/10/2005 10:08:55 AM PDT by GulliverSwift
Hollywood worried, "Kingdom" a dud Posted by: McQ on Tuesday, May 10, 2005
Sharon Waxman of the NYT tells us that Hollywood is worried about the recent decline of box office sales:
Now Hollywood is starting to get worried.
The poor box-office performance last weekend of the first major film of the summer, "Kingdom of Heaven," released by 20th Century Fox, made for 11 weeks in a row of declining movie attendance and revenue compared with last year, adding up to the longest slump since 2000 and raising an uncomfortable question: Are people turning away from lackluster movies, or turning their backs on the whole business of going to theaters?
I'd go with the "lackluster movies" choice. From what I've read, "Kingdom of Heaven" is one heck of a revisionist history dud. Ridley Scott, apparently, felt it necessary to tell the story of the Crusades from a point of view that favors the Muslim version instead of the Christian version (or just the historic version).
Not a smart business move in today's political atmosphere, but it should do well when released in the Middle East. One reviewer even noted that it would appear that "Kingdom of Heaven" is Scott's attempt at attonement for "Black Hawk Down" from which he caught a lot of grief from Muslims. One critic (Jonathan Riley-Smith)labeled it the "Osama bin Laden version of history".
James Pinkerton at Newsday said:
Scott can make any kind of movie he wants, of course, but in the middle of a war in the Middle East, he might have been wise to make his tale more fair and balanced.
But more importantly, I think Tom Neven gets to the heart of this film's problem:
Neven lamented that "distinctly 21st century views on religion" had been imposed on the film. Thus much of the historical-religious context of the film was leached away. As Neven explained of the Christian and Muslim combatants, "as for the distinctiveness of their respective faiths, you'd never know what they were fighting about."
That point brings us to a good discussion in the Pinkerton review about revisionist history and the 'good/evil' dichotomy in movies:
Show/Hide
That was a big mistake, commercially as well as historically. By contrast, the three "Lord of the Rings" movies were huge successes, because they presented a sharp moral worldview, of good pitted against evil. Gandalf and the Hobbits vs. Sauron and the Orcs: You knew which side you were on. Yes, the "Rings" villains sometimes possessed a dangerous dark-side appeal, but the trilogy kept a distinct moral voice that audiences appreciated-indeed, yearned for.
It's easy to preserve the good-evil dichotomy in a work of complete fantasy such as "Rings." The task gets tougher when real historical events are being envisioned, and revisioned. Once upon a time, Hollywood could blithely make cowboys-and-Indians movies in which white people massacred red people, as audiences - white ones, at least - cheered.
But then came a revised history, and the general sense that Native Americans were the victims, not the enemy. That historical wheel had turned completely by 1970, when Hollywood released "Little Big Man," in which the red men were saintly, while the whites were either comical, or, in the case of Gen. George Custer, genocidal.
A similar process has been at work in regard to U.S.-Mexican history. The 1960 version of "The Alamo" starred John Wayne as an unabashedly heroic Davy Crockett. The 2004 "Alamo," on the other hand, so muddled the historical-political backdrop that there was nobody to root for - and so nobody bought a ticket.
Nowadays, historical revisionism and political correctness - and also, maybe, fear of Muslim reprisals - might make it impossible to film an epic in which "good" Christians vanquish "bad" Muslims. In which case, moviemakers will probably have to drop the whole genre, at least for American audiences. So it will be interesting to see how Hollywood handles flicks about the Iraq war.
It will indeed be interesting to see how they handle the Iraq war movies. Hopefully much more truthfully than the cartoons they did about Vietnam.
Anyway, the lesson in all of this? If you want to make an epic, quit revising history and show both sides as they were, warts and all. And quit worrying about offending people. Do you suppose Mel Gibson would have made "The Passion" if he was worried some might be offended?
Last but not least, understand that while, as Pinkerton says, you're entitled to make any kind of movie you care to make, we, the movie going public are free to reject any movie you make for any reason. One of those reasons might be we're just not interested in Hollywood's politically correct version of history.
Let 'em blow their money. It goes to hard-working capitalists who built their sets and edited their movie.
"the story of the Crusades from a point of view that favors the Muslim version instead of the Christian version."
GOOD GRIEF!
Did they really believe that people would flock to see this crap?
and to spoiled overpaid liberal actors.
But they already have so much money that it makes no difference whether their films fail or not.
No, movie companies have actually gone broke over poor, wasteful movies. Their profit margins are actually pretty slim, except for the big blockbuster hits.
Political correctness has completely displaced intelligent film making. We're not likely ever to see the likes of "Lawrence of Arabia" again.
Does anyone besides me suspect that mainstream Hollywood is just a money laundry for the porn industry?
I could see a good movie that portrays both sides in heroic and unheroic lights. But how stupid is it to favor the moslems when we are at war with Islamic terrorists and people's kids, dads, husbands are dying in the Middle East? Liberals are very sick people and many times they don't care if the movie bombs, they would never want to make anything but left wing crap.
I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that so many of these movie stars, directors, and producers were so rabidly anti-Bush during the last election campaign.
Movies promoting homosexuality, anti-Christian, pro-Communism views aren't selling? Okay! Okay! We'll make movies about how unhappy homosexuals are, how a Christian world-view promotes happiness, and how Communism has destroyed millions of lives. Maybe those movies will sell better. Let's wait and see...
But, of course, Hollywood is not an actual business enterprise, and so you won't see those movies get made. Hollywood is an agenda-driven propaganda machine. They won't change the kind of movies they make. But the movies will get smaller.
Hollywood is like the dumb blonde. "I, like, don't get it."
This was a complete flush of investor money...I doubt that anyone gets more than what they put into the money...if they are lucky. You have to laugh about the expectations on this movie...the public isn't into mid-ages crusades...and since this didn't have Tom Cruise...most folks aren't going to waste their money on a joke.
When they lose enough money they may figure it out. Or the new producers and studios that replace them will.
Ask me that same question when I'm waiting in line to see Revenge of the Sith.
I'm still conflicted about seeing this. I think I'll buy a ticket to another movie then sneak into the 'Kingdom' auditorium.
Gotta give Mel a lot of credit for putting his own money and reputation on the line, and yes, a lot of people were offended, calling him anti-Semitic and much worse. Ridley Scott on the other hand has made a film which tries not to offend anyone and as a result is a bomb (no, I have not seen it. I think he did an excellent job with Black Hawk Down.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.