NPR: Iraq War, Terrorism Seem to Dominate the Big Screen

Iraq War, Terrorism Seem to Dominate the Big Screen

Reese Witherspoon in Rendition, one of several films this season dealing with post-Sept. 11 themes.

Sam Emerson/New Line Cinema

There seems to be as much "coverage" of the war on terror and its various themes in theaters these days as there is on television and radio and in the papers. But as All Things Considered noted Tuesday, none of these films with post-Sept. 11 themes have been doing well at the box office. The Kingdom, an action thriller about terrorists and FBI agents set in Saudi Arabia, has done the best of the bunch so far, but it has brought in only $44 million and cost $70 million to make.

Last week's entry was Rendition (not to be confused with Brian DePalma's Redacted, due out soon). Even though it stars Reese Witherspoon and Jake Gyllenhaal, it took in only $4 million its first weekend.

So is it just that America is not ready for a spate of movies about terrorism, torture and the Iraq war? Not necessarily.

NPR film critic Bob Mondello says October is the month when "serious" movies tend to move center stage (can you say Oscar bait?), but these films are not designed to be blockbusters. If you check out box office totals, top-grossing movies tend to make around $15 million in their opening weekend this time of the year, Bob says. (Sure enough, this weekend's top-grossing movie, 30 Days of Night, made just a tad below $16 million.)

Bob also points out that many of the films with post-Sept. 11 themes have not gotten great reviews. For instance, The Kingdom was rated just 52 percent positive at RottenTomatoes.com, and Rendition only 43 percent (that means both are ranked "rotten") at last check. In the Valley of Elah did better at 63 percent (but still barely made the "fresh" category).

So it may be that Americans aren't turned off by these themes so much as that these movies aren't intended to be big moneymakers or just aren't good. But what do you think? Bad movies or bad subject matter?

4:10 PM ET | 10-24-2007 | permalink

Comments (Send a comment)

No one wants to watch a movie covering the same subject matter that has been front and center in the news for the last 6 years. Plus all of these films are incredibly bleak and heavy handed. Nothing turns off an audience like being lectured. Mondello is correct, this year's crop of geopolitical films generally suck.

Sent by Jefferson | 4:43 PM ET | 10-24-2007

For one thing these films have horrible, confusing, un-compelling advertising campaigns. It seems this time of year a bunch of these "serious" films come out, with boring, un-expressive, un-impressive trailers.

Why waste money on making these flops, marketing them unsuccessfully, and then hiding truly great films like "Children of Men" and "Pan's Labyrinth"? Why? Because the shot callers in Hollywood have no idea what they are doing, but think they do.

Sent by Jody Sol | 4:52 PM ET | 10-24-2007

i have to agree with the earlier comment. we've had enough of this crap. the public does not want too much reality. bring on Mr. Magoriums Wonder Emporium.

Sent by tym cornell | 5:09 PM ET | 10-24-2007

You will notice thought that genre films (comedies, horror etc) that use metaphor to allude to the themes of 9/11 have been much more compelling and have made much more money.

probably because they are more interesting.

Sent by Sierra | 5:32 PM ET | 10-24-2007

My guess is that most Americans don't want to see something they don't agree with, as well as the rest of the world. This is a very unpopular so called Irag war, and America started it. It's a reminder of how bad our leadership is. I bet the these films will do better in other countries who didn't support this so called war in Irag.

Sent by Bill | 5:36 PM ET | 10-24-2007

some 'serious' movies are worth their weight (The Queen comes to mind, with Helen Mirren's phenomenal turn as ElizabethR) but I think most people are beaten to distraction already by the very things portrayed in these post 9/11 movies. Why pay money to see a mediocre portrayal when we live it, in one form or another, every day?

Sent by Anita Berlanga | 6:16 PM ET | 10-24-2007

Should have invested the money wasted on making these crappy films in feeding poor people. We don't need more mindless entertainment.

Sent by hiwattage | 6:38 PM ET | 10-24-2007

This the best way to keep people in fear!

Sent by Alex- the astronomer with a cosmic glow | 9:46 PM ET | 10-24-2007

I'd like to think if we didn't have all this mind trash to wade through in order to get to earlier mentioned treats such as "Children of Men" and "Pan's Labyrinth" then maybe we'd become jaded with that too. Let the ad men running Hollywood continue with myopic offerings and hope to god they don't discover true artistic vision. Given enough time and dollars they'll find a way to stuff it in a bottle and brand it.

Sent by G. Gekas | 8:49 AM ET | 10-25-2007

Most people watch movies because they are fun. What is fun about watching the United States fighting a "forever war" and throwing its civil liberties away step-by-step?

Sent by Nick Leggett | 10:23 AM ET | 10-25-2007

"No prince should mind being called cruel for keeping his subjects peaceful and loyal. Punishing a few, and thus averting disorder, is better than allowing troubles to develop that will hurt many. New rulers cannot avoid seeming cruel, because their states are insecure. Still, a prince should not be too rash or too fearful.

If you cannot be both loved and feared, then it is better to be feared than loved. Men are generally fickle, afraid of danger, and greedy. When a prince benefits them, they will do anything for the prince, but when trouble comes, they will desert the prince. People will break ties of love if it is to their advantage, but fear of punishment they will never transgress. A prince must be careful not to make himself hated, even though he is feared; to do this, he must keep his hands off his subjects' property and their women. People will sooner forget the death of a father than the loss of an inheritance. However, when a prince commands an army, he must be cruel in order to control his troops.

In conclusion, people love at their own wish, but fear at the prince's will, so a wise ruler will rely on what he can best control." from The Prince, by Niccolo Machiavelli, 1513 ce.

Sent by John R. Otten | 6:20 PM ET | 10-28-2007

Send a Comment

Comments are reviewed and edited by NPR prior to display. All comments will be read, but not all will be posted.

NPR reserves the right to read on the air and/or publish on its Web site or in any medium now known or unknown the e-mails and letters that we receive. We may edit them for clarity or brevity and identify authors by name and location. For additional information, please consult our Terms of Use.

E-mail this Page

Recipient's e-mail address:	» Up to twelve addresses, separated by commas.
Your e-mail address:
Your name:
Personal message (optional, 600 characters max):
Your NPR member station:	» List of local stations (PDF)
Are you a member of your local NPR station?	Yes No
Would you like to receive information from your local NPR member station? (see NPR's privacy policy)	Yes No
May we contact you with information about NPR programming and services? (see NPR's privacy policy)	Yes No

(Information collected by NPR will be used solely for internal NPR or NPR member station purposes and only if you selected 'yes' above. See NPR's privacy policy for more information.)

Tom Regan

Blogger

About Us

This year's election cycle has been one of the most exciting in memory. At the NPR News Blog we'll do our best to bring you interesting, informative -- and controversial -- stories from our own reporters and bloggers, as well as the rest of the best of the Internet and blogosphere. And we hope you'll let us know what you think as well.

Want to learn more? Be sure to read our Frequently Asked Questions and our discussion guidelines.