This past weekend, "The Green Zone" was released in theaters. Pitched as an intense and gritty action film, "Zone" marked the reunion of actor Matt Damon and director Paul Greengrass, the dynamic duo behind "The Bourne Supremacy" (2004) and "The Bourne Ultimatum" (2007). The film seemed destined for success, but its opening weekend gross came in at a paltry $14.3 million. The box office receipts may have come as a surprise, but there is one obvious reason the movie failed: It was about the Iraq War.
Movies concerning the Iraq War are about as popular as the war itself. There has yet to be a financially successful film about our time overseas in Iraq. Sure, "The Hurt Locker" (2009) cleaned up at the Oscars, but critical acclaim by no means implies financial success, not to mention that the Iraq War as a political machine was never explicitly referenced. The two other big films about Iraq of last year, "Brothers" (2009) and "The Messenger" (2009), failed to earn big bucks, even though "The Messenger" wowed, with Woody Harrelson's performance just as Oscar−worthy as Christoph Waltz's in "Inglourious Basterds" (2009). Year in and year out, Iraq films get made, but to no avail. Think of "The Kingdom" (2007), "Body of Lies" (2008) and "The Marine" (2006). These films all featured strong actors, by which we mean to say that Jamie Foxx and Russell Crowe were great in "Kingdom" and "Lies," respectively, whereas "Marine's" star — WWE behemoth John Cena — is just freaking ripped.
Our question: why do these films do so poorly financially? Some people blame the unpopularity of the Iraq War with the American public, but we disagree. After all, the Vietnam War wasn't popular, but it made for some blockbuster films. Think of "Platoon" (1986), "The Deer Hunter" (1978), "Apocalypse Now" (1979) and "Full Metal Jacket" (1987). These films did well financially, despite the unpopularity of the war.
It all comes down to the timing. They say, "Time heals all wounds." They also say, "Time is money." Well, the aforementioned Vietnam films heeded these warnings and came out long after the Vietnam War ended. This pause gave people time to take a chill−axative and reflect. We get bombarded with news on Iraq all the time, so the last thing most people want is to watch a film concerning the atrocities of the war. Because, at the end of the day, average moviegoers go to the cinema to forget about their worries; they want escapist entertainment.
To that end, we've noticed that some directors have succeeded in applying themes of the war in film. By obliquely referencing topics related to the war, filmmakers have been able to comment on current events while also maintaining the appeal of the film. Think of "Avatar" (2009), a film that concerned a pugnacious, mercenary United States going after natural resources on a foreign land. Sound vaguely familiar? Other films, like "Planet Terror" (2007), have playfully referenced current events. Imagine a decomposing, zombified Bruce Willis waxing poetic about capturing Osama bin Laden as his head swells to elephantine proportions and try not to laugh. We dare you.
Now, this column strictly deals with movies. We Bad Samaritans care only about war as it relates to cinema. We won't opine as to the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. All we're trying to say is that a good war movie and a financially successful war movie are two different things. To combine those into one epic film takes true genius. Studio execs behind "Delta Farce" (2007), take notes. How dare you squander the manly tandem of Larry the Cable Guy and DJ Qualls.
--
Zach Drucker is a sophomore majoring in International Relations, and Chris Poldoian is a sophomore who has not yet declared a major. They can be reached at Zachary.Drucker@tufts. edu and Christopher.Poldoian@tufts.edu.
