“All the King's Men,” “Catch a Fire,” “Death of a President,” “Marie Antoinette,” “The Queen,” “Man of the Year”: It's probably no coincidence that Hollywood has unleashed a rash of politically themed films leading up to the national election next week.
Columbia Pictures
"All the King's Men" and "Man of the Year" (below) drew poor crowds despite the presence of stars Sean Penn and Robin Williams, respectively.
|
The plethora of current campaign ads must seem like free cross-promotional marketing to the movie studios. The last-minute smear tactics, the accusations, the election bickering should all work as rabble rousers for audiences, driving them to theaters to watch tales of idealistic heroes, cynically corrupt manipulators and elite overlords.
Yeah, you'd think so. But ... no.
The plain fact is that despite all the hoopla and media attention they get, comparatively few people go see politically driven films. You have to wonder if such movies have any impact on real politics at all.
This doesn't include thrillers in which Harrison Ford plays a president who socks terrorists on the chin. Good old-fashioned violent heroics are always in style, but not so much movies about elections, government, oppression and elitism.
Universal Studios
|
Gauged by the media, of course, political films are often major events. This probably has to do with many in the media making their living from politics. They may not know that the latest James Bond movie is coming out while they're fully obsessed with an obscure movie about Iraq.
When “Death of a President,” a fake-documentary about the assassination of President George W. Bush, debuted at the Toronto International Film Festival in September, newspapers and cable stations and talk radio shows across the nation were filled with stories and discussion about the British import.
It was huge.
Or at least the hubbub was. When “Death of a President” debuted last weekend in a limited number of American theaters (it didn't open in many cities, including San Diego), it pulled in a decidedly underwhelming $281,778. That probably wouldn't cover the catering bill for the first reel of an “X-Men” movie.
Compared with the weekend's big hit “Saw III,” which made $33.6 million during the same period and yet received little play in papers or over the airwaves, it was downright laughable.
Yet “DOAP” isn't even the biggest recent political dud.
The corruption tale “All the King's Men” cost an estimated $55 million to make, according to boxofficemojo.com and has earned only $7.2 million. The revolution-inspiring “Marie Antoinette” is already plummeting after earning back only $9.7 million domestically of its $40 million cost.
Even the Robin Williams-starring “Man of the Year,” about a comic who runs for president, has only scraped together $28.8 million in three weekends. That's less than “Saw III” made in three days.
And the parade of political movies hasn't stopped by any means. Today, the global-miscommunications epic “Babel” opens locally. On Nov. 10, there's the documentary “Shut Up & Sing” about the Dixie Chicks after they publicly criticized President Bush (whether it will open or not in San Diego remains uncertain). Then on Nov. 17, there's “Fast Food Nation,” about the politics of immigration and food safety, followed by “Bobby,” the story of Robert Kennedy's last day, on Nov. 23.
Look over a list of the top-200, domestic box-office films, and there is not one politically driven film.
So why does Hollywood keep making and distributing this stuff? Because it can be profitable. Occasionally, there's a studio trade-off with talent who want political views aired. And, mostly, it's just plain bad judgment.
In terms of trade-off, witness the two lauded but clearly political films “Syriana” and “Good Night, and Good Luck” that George Clooney directed for Warner Bros. last year. For all the publicity and Oscar buzz, they made respectively $50.8 million (on a $50 million budget) and $31.5 million (on a $7 million budget), hardly qualifying as blockbusters.
But Clooney's 2004 Warner Bros. film, “Ocean's Twelve,” brought in $125 million and is part of a key Warner's franchise. It's worth letting George do his political films as long as he keeps doing the cash cows.
Although political films can be cash cows, too.
Michigan-born documentary filmmaker Michael Moore struck gold before the 2004 election with “Fahrenheit 9/11,” the biggest political documentary hit ever, which cost about $6 million and made $119 million.
The second-biggest political hit was this past summer's global warming warning, “An Inconvenient Truth.” Consisting of little more than a taped version of an Al Gore slide show, it has made more than $23.8 million.
Both hits, along with the vast majority of modern political films, are unabashedly liberal. But then the American tradition of political films is somewhat inherently liberal. Playing off the strong American sense of individualism and support for “the little guy,” even early political filmmaking – think “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” – often railed against the establishment.
Since the '60s, the politics of paranoia and cynicism has infiltrated film. From 1962's “The Manchurian Candidate” to 1964's “Dr. Strangelove” to 1972's “The Candidate,” the political process and government as a whole were being viewed with a caustic eye.
Not surprisingly, “All the President's Men” in 1976 seemingly confirmed the disillusionment the Watergate scandal had bred. Ever since, with a few dewy-eyed exceptions such as 1995's “The American President,” politicians and government are more likely to be bad guys than good in a movie.
And this may be the one way that political films have, over time, affected real politics in America.
A sense of systemic hopelessness and high-level corruption has become commonplace in narrative and documentary films since the late '70s. Whether this is the reason more than a third of Americans chose not to vote in the last national election is hard to prove.
Some things are for sure, though: The anti-Bush “Fahrenheit 9/11” made a bundle of money in 2004, but Bush still won the election.
“An Inconvenient Truth” raked in bucks this past summer, but the polar icecaps are still melting.
And none, absolutely not one, of the current films about politics can be considered a major hit, while most are outright flops.
Any tie between the ballot box and the box office is tenuous at best. America escapes to the movies. And politics is something people feel like escaping.
