Eight Middle Eastern films

email this story
read comments (45)
post a comment

My latest tally of Hollywood-funded Iraq-Afghanistan movies -- narratives, not docs -- comes to eight. Well, nine if you count Peter Berg's The Kingdom, which is set in Riyahd. (There may be others I'm missing.) All but one look like chocolate sundaes to me -- dramas about things harsh and seething and generating impact waves as we speak.

allegedly from Brian De Palma's Redacted (Magnolia/HD Net, early '08)

Great rivers of hurt are flowing through these two countries right now (God help the people caught up in it), and this, obviously, is where the dramatic raw material of our time is coming from. But who's interested and who's allergic? Some of these films may have "possible hit" or "potential award quality" stamped on their foreheads, but I'm wondering what the general attitude is among paying moviegoers.

Not long ago I spoke to a big-time journo who thinks without question that very few people want to plunk down $10 bucks to "go" to Iraq or Afghanistan, so to speak, and that the commercial prospects for these films don't appear to be all that great as a result. I'm not so sure. Most people take movies as they come. I'm hoping in any case to get a sense of this from HE readers. Not so much what they them- selves feel about Middle East conflict dramas but what their friends, co-workers and family members may be saying, if anything.

Four of these films are about the Iraq War -- Paul Haggis's In The Valley of Elah (although very little of this moralistic murder-mystery is actually set in Iraq), Brian de Palma's Redacted (a you-are-there combat film, due in early '08), Kathryn Bigelow's The Hurt Locker (ditto, just starting to shoot) and Paul Greengrass's forthcoming Imperial Life in the Emerald City (shooting later this year), based on the book of the same name by Rajiv Chandrasekaran.

And four are about Afghanistan past or present -- Marc Forster's The Kite Runner (DreamWorks, 11.2), Robert Redford's Lions for Lambs (United Artists, 11.9), Mike Nichols' Charlie Wilson's War (Universal, 12.25) and Oliver Stone's Jawbreaker, which is being developed with an idea to possibly shoot next year.

Oliver Stone

I guess I'm just trying to reconcile my own keen interest in seeing these films -- even The Kite Runner looks half-promising, given the source material -- and this idea that "people out there" not only don't share my enthusiasm, and may even be looking to flat-out avoid them. Is this the case? If so, why? If not, why?

I think all the neg-head talk was triggered by the failure of A Mighty Heart, but that film went down because nobody wanted to see a film about an American journalist getting his head cut off by terrorists,.

McCarthy "Ultimatum"<< previous | next >>"Monstrous" doesn't get it

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on July 24, 2007 at 4:06 PM

comment #1

le corbeau says ...

"Great rivers of hurt and agony are flowing through these two countries right now"

Here's what the independent journalist Michael Totten posted today. How long do you suppose we'll wait for Hollywood to make this movie:

Everyone was friendly. No one shot at us or even looked at us funny. Infrastructure problems, not security, were the biggest concerns at the moment. I felt like I was in Iraqi Kurdistan - where the war is already over - not in Baghdad. . . .

"This is not what I expected in Baghdad," I said.

"Most of what we're doing doesn't get reported in the media," he said. "We're not fighting a war here anymore, not in this area. We've moved way beyond that stage. We built a soccer field for the kids, bought all kinds of equipment, bought them school books and even chalk. Soon we're installing 1,500 solar street lamps so they have light at night and can take some of the load off the power grid. The media only covers the gruesome stuff. We go to the sheiks and say hey man, what kind of projects do you want in this area? They give us a list and we submit the paperwork. When the projects get approved, we give them the money and help them buy stuff."

Not everything they do is humanitarian work, unless you consider counter-terrorism humanitarian work. In my view, you should. Few Westerners think of personal security as a human right, but if you show up in Baghdad I'll bet you will. . . .The soldiers were talking and acting like aid workers, not warriors from the elite 82nd Airborne Division.

"Man, this is boring," one of them said to me later. "I'm an adrenaline junky. There's no fight here. It won't surprise me if we start handing out speeding tickets." So it goes in at least this part of Baghdad that has been cleared by the surge.

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001497.html

Posted by le corbeau at July 24, 2007 5:51 PM

comment #2

actionman says ...

i am looking forward to each and every one of the films listed above, but then again, i LOVE political thrillers/action/war films.

I do think, however, that the general movie-going public does NOT want to see movies of this nature. they almost always have a domestic box office ceiling of around $50-65 million. Which is solid, I guess, but not really indicative of mass appeal.

Posted by actionman at July 24, 2007 5:57 PM

comment #3

le corbeau says ...

Sorry about the corrupted characters. Here it is minus those things, more readable I hope:

Everyone was friendly. No one shot at us or even looked at us funny. Infrastructure problems, not security, were the biggest concerns at the moment. I felt like I was in Iraqi Kurdistan--where the war is already over--not in Baghdad....

"This is not what I expected in Baghdad," I said.

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001497.html

Posted by le corbeau at July 24, 2007 5:57 PM

comment #4

actionman says ...

well...on second thought...The Kingdom takes place in Saudi Arabia...but the flavor is all the same.

Posted by actionman at July 24, 2007 5:58 PM

comment #5

MrThompson says ...

From that same article:
"GrayaÃ¢â‚¬â„¢atÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s streets are quiet and safe. It doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t look or feel like war zone at all. American soldiers just a few miles away are still engaged in almost daily firefights with insurgents and terrorists, but this part of the city has been cleared by the surge."

Ahh, so an isolated part of the most important city in Iraq is safe. Everyone in Iraq must be so happy, no hurt or agony in that country at all.

Posted by MrThompson at July 24, 2007 6:07 PM

comment #6

le corbeau says ...

"Ahh, so an isolated part of the most important city in Iraq is safe."

Which is exactly why I included this sentence:

"I felt like I was in Iraqi Kurdistan--where the war is already over"

Ah, so an entire third of the country is in a postwar state.

Posted by le corbeau at July 24, 2007 6:11 PM

comment #7

T. Holly says ...

They're saying they've tuned out the news and their President is irrelevent, so I think these movies could fill a gaping hole if they're well marketed.

Posted by T. Holly at July 24, 2007 6:24 PM

comment #8

MrThompson says ...

The only reason to quote Jeff's statement at the beginning of your post is to demonstrate that you're refuting what he wrote with that article. Even with 1/3 of the country being in a postwar state, it doesn't come close to proving what he wrote is demonstrably false.

Posted by MrThompson at July 24, 2007 6:27 PM

comment #9

mutinyco says ...

I'm not really aware of any good movies having been made about wars while those wars are still taking place.

Posted by mutinyco at July 24, 2007 6:30 PM

comment #10

MrThompson says ...

"I'm not really aware of any good movies having been made about wars while those wars are still taking place."

What about the Green Berets? Haunting, with its poetic metaphor of the sun setting in the east over the Pacific Ocean at the end of the movie. Either that, or they knew fuck all about geography... and war.

Posted by MrThompson at July 24, 2007 6:34 PM

comment #11

le corbeau says ...

I'm sorry, are we in a courtroom? Cuz you're sure coming at me like Perry Mason. Back off, Raymond.

Jeff is asking if red-state mouthbreathers with fat asses and low thread counts will line up to see what's REALLY going on in Iraq-- which is, by definition, misery and bloodshed. My point is, who the hell says pampered Hollywood filmmakers know anything more about what's going on in Iraq than all those red-staters do? (The red-staters are certainly far more likely to know an actual soldier who's been in Iraq than Hollywood directors are, or the editor of The New Republic, for that matter.)

I then proceeded to quote from someone who is there right now, quoting what they wrote today. Did I say it was the be-all and end-all on Iraq? Did I say it invalidated all other viewpoints?

No, but because it presents a point of view that doesn't support the Iraq-is-hell-Bush-is-Satan viewpoint which is the be-all and end-all, which must be upheld at all cost, you must attack it, you must suppress it, you must invalidate it.

Meanwhile, those who don't want to be spoonfed the war by elderly Vietnam-era fossils like DePalma and Stone can read Michael Totten, and Michael Yon, and many other independent voices for themselves. To judge by how well Jarhead did, that would seem to be nearly everybody in America.

Posted by le corbeau at July 24, 2007 6:39 PM

comment #12

erniesouchak says ...

Maybe "Mighty Heart" went down because people didn't want to see the journalist's wife standing around the house for an hour?

Posted by erniesouchak at July 24, 2007 6:48 PM

comment #13

MrThompson says ...

I dont think its unreasonable to ask for support and clarity in regard to argument. Might be unfashionable on blogs, but I still value it. I obviously did not understand the point you elucidated in your last post, which may be my fault. Not a matter worth further prolonging.

I will agree that the mainstream media is hardly a good source for in-depth reporting in regards to the war... media including feature films. Cinema certainly is powerful, but since it is art form, those who helm its features are rarely the most informed individuals; they're far more likely to capture the zeitgeist than reality. That said, I'm still looking forward to the Greengrass movie.

Posted by MrThompson at July 24, 2007 6:57 PM

comment #14

gruver1 says ...

Wells to readers: I need to re-ask for the same thing I asked for in the piece. I'm asking for indications, quotes, hints and tossed-off comments from anyone you know who isn't an uber regarding the Iraq-Afghanistan movies -- as a genre or about one particular title, or two or three or whatever?

Posted by gruver1 at July 24, 2007 7:01 PM

comment #15

SpinDozer says ...

Reader to Wells:

I'm not really all that interested in theatrical films about the curent conflicts in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Charlie Wilson's War, yeah. My expectations are that theatrical films are unlikely to be sources of hitherto unknown truths during the conflict. That's not to say its not possible, just not real likely.

Posted by SpinDozer at July 24, 2007 7:15 PM

comment #16

caslab says ...

I can only speak for myself, but the sole must-see for me is the Greengrass film. Jeff, your review of Elah made me think about it (I loathed Crash, so I'm still on the fence) and Bigelow, DePalma and Stone have been crap factories lately.

Posted by caslab at July 24, 2007 7:19 PM

comment #17

Pelham123 says ...

Personally, I want to see these films, though I don't think the straight up Iraq war films will reach a giant audience until the war/occupation is over. Like the Vietnam-era war films, I think it will take a little distance between the pain (& everything else) of the real event before a mass audience embraces the art. And, it may take some time before the artist can understand the event, and put it into proper context as well. So, the movies that kind of deal with Iraq/Afghanistan and terrorism in a less direct manner, like "Charlie Wilson's War" and "The Kingdom" have a better chance than a Iraq war film from DePalma. With all these films being produced how come no one is adapting Colby Buzzell's great war memoir, "My War: Killing Time in Iraq"?

Posted by Pelham123 at July 24, 2007 7:21 PM

comment #18

Joe Leydon says ...

For what it's worth: A few years ago, I interviewed Michael Caine for the NY Daily News prior to the release of The Quiet American. At one point, the conversation turned toward his real life experiences during the Vietnam War era:

"[H]e occasionally found himself cast in movies of the period that were intended as anti-war statements. In James Clavell's The Last Valley (1970), he gave one of his finest yet least-known performances as a cold-blooded mercenary who seeks respite from the Thirty Years War. And in Robert Aldrich's Too Late the Hero (also 1970), he was a sarcastic British soldier on a suicide mission in the South Pacific during World War II. Neither film was a commercial success, and Caine thinks he knows why.

"'In each case,' Caine says, 'I walked in thinking, "Why the hell am I making a war film in the middle of the Vietnam War? The last thing that Americans will want to see right now is a story about the Thirty Years War in Germany, or the Second World War in the Pacific." And in each case, it turns out, I was right.

"'This really hit home for me when I went to Los Angeles to shoot some interiors for Too Late the Hero. I thought, "They've got this on their newscasts every evening. With their own relations dying, not bloody actors."'"

Posted by Joe Leydon at July 24, 2007 7:23 PM

comment #19

erniesouchak says ...

My hunch is the general public will avoid these movies. And to be honest, it's my inclination as well. There is a constant diet of this very depressing subject on TV, radio, web and in print...why pay for it in theaters? Why pay to see "reality" in third-world shitbox countries when I can pay to see escapist entertainments like "Bourne Ultimatum"? Really, I yearn for the days when I didn't know or care about the differences between Shia and Sunni Muslims. (Actually, I still don't care.) The fact that this is now relevant to my life on the other side of the globe is irksome and offensive to me.

Posted by erniesouchak at July 24, 2007 7:23 PM

comment #20

Nate West says ...

I have no interest in seeing recreations of the terrorist attacks. Thus, I skipped "United 93" and "A Mighty Heart."

The Redford film seems clunky and didactic. The Nichols film has the cartoonish feel of "Primary Colors." "In the Valley of Elah"--it's a coin toss, depending on Tommy Lee Jones, who pretty much can do no wrong. Peter Berg, nope. Bigelow and DePalma, wait and see.

The only surefire go-to film I see on this list is "Imperial Life in the Emerald City." It has the story, the attitude, the title and the director. That's the one.

"If you donâ€™t join us now, when Saddamâ€™s regime falls and Iraqis cheer the US Marines, you are really going to feel like a jackass. And your jackassery will be exposed beneath klieg lights for all to see." - Michael J. Totten, January 8, 2003

Posted by Nate West at July 24, 2007 7:39 PM

comment #21

le corbeau says ...

"That said, I'm still looking forward to the Greengrass movie."

Yeah, but that'd be true if he was making The Princess Diaries 3. (Because it'd be the only Princess Diaries movie with 14 cuts per minute.)

Trailer for Valley of Elah suggested there was exactly one reason to see it: a soulful performance by Tommy Lee Jones. Otherwise, it's a murder mystery on an army base. Like The General's Daughter or High Crimes.

The rest... I pretty much don't care about anything Oliver DePalma or Brian Stone do ever again; only if Woody Allen was making an Iraq movie could I care less. On any subject, Robert Redford has a 1 in 3 chance of making a movie whose slow pace is not totally asleep at the wheel but actually has some gravitas; I would say those odds go down when politics are involved. (All of Redford's best movies are autobiographical. That doesn't seem to be the case here, as opposed to, say, Quiz Show or A River Runs Through It.) Charlie Wilson's War is the one that could be really good, or could be the Wrong Is Right of our time.

Posted by le corbeau at July 24, 2007 7:56 PM

comment #22

le corbeau says ...

The problem with Caine's theory is that the same year he was making The Last Valley, Patton became one of the biggest hits of the 70s.

Posted by le corbeau at July 24, 2007 7:58 PM

comment #23

BurmaShave says ...

I think we have to acknowledge between Iraq and Afghanistan, and how the latter is a great success story we are now fucking up by focusing too much on Iraq. God help us but at this rate half the country will soon again be occupied by the Taliban, meanwhile Al Qaeda is tanned, rested and ready in the hills of northen Pakistan. Why exactly did we bother fighting these wars?

By the way, my dream would be STUFF HAPPENS, a Rumsfeld movie starring Jon Voight. Seriously.

Posted by BurmaShave at July 24, 2007 8:12 PM

comment #24

Pelham123 says ...

Yeah, "Patton". I think it is a super film and one that manages to be, without black and white obviousness, both "anti" and "pro" war. I mean after seeing "Patton", you come away with the understanding of the need and/or thrill for war and the absolute soul killing waste of it. By no means is that an easy artistic line to walk.

Posted by Pelham123 at July 24, 2007 8:14 PM

comment #25

The Winchester says ...

Neither me, nor my friends or coworkers have been talking much about any of these titles.

Of course, our thread counts are rather low...

Posted by The Winchester at July 24, 2007 8:14 PM

comment #26

source188 says ...

I'm not sure exactly what all those films can point to about the conflicts and turmoil in that part of the world that we don't already know.

These are just filmmakers trying to get their ideas across about the current state but who doesn't already get it.

In the end, the conflicts in the middle-east will long out-live everyone of those films.

Posted by source188 at July 24, 2007 8:19 PM

comment #27

uboman says ...

I've served in the military over there and to be honest, I don't care to go back, even if it's only involving watching a movie.
Too many bad feelings and memories.
I'm reminded of one of my brothers (Jim-deceased). He was a veteran of Vietnam. After that war, he could not stand to watch a movie where he knew the hero died.
He never finished watching Carlito's Way.

Not to equate our curring global conflict with Vietnam, but...

Posted by uboman at July 24, 2007 8:47 PM

comment #28

DeadPool says ...

There's also RENDITION, Morgan Spurlock's WHERE IN THE WORLD IS OSAMA BIN LADEN? (which will both premiere at TIFF) and Ridley Scott's BODY OF LIES/PENETRATION.

Posted by DeadPool at July 24, 2007 8:50 PM

comment #29

Nate West says ...

Woody Allen is making an Iraq movie? In Iraq? Is his funding situation so dire? I'll definitely see that.

Errorl Morris is making a documentary about Abu Ghraid. That one I will see, too.

Posted by Nate West at July 24, 2007 10:29 PM

comment #30

Nate West says ...

d=b

Posted by Nate West at July 24, 2007 10:30 PM

comment #31

joncro says ...

Anyone know where I can order a harsh and seething chocolate sundae? One that generates impact waves?

Posted by joncro at July 24, 2007 10:45 PM

comment #32

source188 says ...

RENDITION deals in Africa, not the mid-east.

Posted by source188 at July 24, 2007 11:24 PM

comment #33

Buzz Fledderjohn says ...

What about Stop Loss? Wouldn't that count?

Posted by Buzz Fledderjohn at July 25, 2007 2:24 AM

comment #34

BurmaShave says ...

Actually I'm pretty sure RENDITION deals with an Egyptian, which is very much still part of the Middle East despite being in Africa. If we wanted to be honest, we would say "The Muslim World", but that would be wrong.

Posted by BurmaShave at July 25, 2007 2:48 AM

comment #35

BurmaShave says ...

By the way, for the love of God I hope they call it BODY OF LIES, not PENETRATION.

Posted by BurmaShave at July 25, 2007 2:50 AM

comment #36

BurmaShave says ...

Also, let's not forget Neil Burger's THE RETURN, with Rachel McAdams and Tim Robbins, which is slated for a release this December. I know I almost did.

Posted by BurmaShave at July 25, 2007 5:55 AM

comment #37

SaveFarris says ...

I'm not really aware of any good movies having been made about wars while those wars are still taking place.

Apparently mutinyco has never heard of Casablanca.

Posted by SaveFarris at July 25, 2007 6:36 AM

comment #38

le corbeau says ...

Well, Casablanca doesn't count as a war war movie, I suppose, despite the presence of Yvonne the second front. There are lots of good spy movies and so on made during the period, but it's tougher to make a war movie during the war without skewing it in some fashion to serve the cause. Real battle movies that are pretty darn good-- I suppose you could say In Which We Serve, Air Force, Guadalcanal Diary (pretty much forgotten now but a tough, very grim movie), and They Were Expendable for WWII. Some might add some of the WWII documentaries, the British ones or things like Battle of San Pietro. (Does Colonel Blimp count as a WWII movie? Only technically, it's mostly set before then.)

The problem I see with so many of these movies is that they will be Vietnam movies. That's the prism all this is seen through which, in many ways, is as out of date as seeing WWII as an extension of the colonial wars of the turn of the century (about the same distance in time). Jarhead was based on a book by a GI but it still screamed "My director wants to make Apocalypse Now" from every frame. Part of the reason Greengrass's movie is the only one that appeals to everybody is this instinctive sense that he's the only one making 2007 movies on the list-- everyone else (Stone, Redford, DePalma) is a child of the 60s, if not earlier (Haggis is solidly in the Stanley Kramer vein).

Posted by le corbeau at July 25, 2007 7:38 AM

comment #39

le corbeau says ...

"Jarhead was based on a book by a Gulf War veteran but it still screamed "My director wants to make Apocalypse Now" from every frame."

That's what I meant that sentence to mean. Wish we had an edit function!

Posted by le corbeau at July 25, 2007 7:39 AM

comment #40

erniesouchak says ...

The "Rendition" storyline is set in Egypt, and you could certainly say it's an oblique reference to the Iraq/Afghanistan quagmire, but it's more explicitly about the post-9/11 global picture: the America of the Patriot Act, and the radicalization of young Muslims. Unfortunately, despite its busy-ness and the promise of its director, the picture isn't very interesting: it's like someone took the New Yorker's opus on extreme rendition, added water, and mixed. And it gets way too bogged down in one particularly storyline that left me feeling "So what?" The movie has too much on its plate, but not enough of the right things.

Posted by erniesouchak at July 25, 2007 7:52 AM

comment #41

Ms. M says ...

As a rule, moviegoers don't go see dark and depressing films in large numbers. And that is what most films about Iraq or Afghanistan would be right now. That's not to say that these films can't find an audience, but I doubt that the majority of these films will gross over 50 million. Perhaps more for the ones that are action-oriented or that become major Oscar contenders.

I'm not sure if many of these movies are a good idea. If the majority are outright failures, which could well happen, it may strike a blow against ambitious films dealing with contemporary issues for years to come. This seems like a trend coming from filmmakers and actors wanting to make a statement about the current fighting instead of a reaction to what moviegoers want to see.

Posted by Ms. M at July 25, 2007 11:46 AM

comment #42

christian says ...

"red-staters are certainly far more likely to know an actual soldier who's been in Iraq than Hollywood directors are"

unlike a hollywood director like stone who received a purple heart for his wartime service --unlike the red-staters in current charge who all had "other priorities."

Posted by christian at July 25, 2007 12:07 PM

comment #43

Rich S. says ...

Wow, mgmax, wow. Wrong is Right. I had totally forgotten about that movie. I now remember loving it when it came out and discussing it ad nauseum with my friends in college. But, of course, home video was limited to those with more money than we had, so it was impossible to find it.

I think the comment someone made about these films being made by the Vietnam generation and thus really being about that conflict is very perceptive. Many of the people I know get that same vibe and probably won't see these films for that reason.

Posted by Rich S. at July 25, 2007 12:14 PM

comment #44

le corbeau says ...

"unlike a hollywood director like stone who received a purple heart for his wartime service --unlike the red-staters in current charge who all had "other priorities.""

You make my point-- that he'll refract it through his (genuine, but long ago and very different) Vietnam experience, and make a Vietnam movie the way John Wayne made a WWII movie out of Vietnam. (Yes, I know Wayne didn't actually fight. The point is, generals fight the last war-- and moviemakers make movies about it.)

Posted by le corbeau at July 25, 2007 2:01 PM

comment #45