Award winner, boxoffice bomb

Tammy Bruce* claims to have the answer for Hollywood's worst boxoffice receipts in 15 years. The author and radio host says films appeal more to award judges than ticketbuyers. She has some advice for the movie industry.

... take your gay sheepherder, noble communist supporting reporters, big-business is evil, Americans are hopelessly and inherently corrupt and violent and unfaithful movies and go to Cannes where at least the Parisian set will love you.

(HT: Ace of Spades)

Update: I orginally called Bruce conservative, but to better put her ideology in perspective here is a portion of her bio: "Tammy Bruce is an openly gay, pro-choice, gun owning, pro-death penalty, voted-for-President Bush progressive feminist."

Comments

[seeker]

This begs the question, what if people want crap? Should we make such movies? And should we stop making quality movies?

The answer is, we should make both ;). But who wants to finance "good" movies that no one sees? The answer is, if it is truly good, it should find an audience. People want good, not just crapola.

[Aaron]

I agree make both 30 sequals to popular movies if people want to see them and make your artsy movie that only 17 people will go to see.

But if the vast majority of what you are making is artsy or lowest common denominator movies, don't complain about sinking box offices.

[Louis]

There are many factors in the current supposed downturn of box-office receipts besides crappy product (since when has the general public ever gone for quality film with artistic merit?). But injecting a political agenda into the debate is a non-starter. Just because certain films don't follow one's political bent doesn't mean they aren't good or can't have a decent box office. Tammy Bruce is hyper-political and a motor-mouth radio personality more interested in her ratings than an even-handed analysis of the situation, and, as usual for a radio shock-jock, simplifies for effect. Not all Americans (or world citizens, for that matter) mind films which aren't approved by Focus on the Family or the right wing of the Republican party. And there were plenty of films with no appreciable political viewpoint which also bombed.

btw - if Bruce is a "progressive" I'm a xian.

[seeker]

In the end, the movie indudstry has made two errors, IMHO

First, for fear of alienating liberals, and out of plain bias for the liberal and disdain for the people of faith, they have ignored the market power of the evangelicals. That's where The Passion succeeded.

Second, I think there is a culture out there that supresses real artistry, and studio execs want to follow formulas, which we are all tired of.

Which is why, if you want quality, in general, you'll have to pick and choose for the few good films from the MSM studios, and watch more indie and foreign films.

[Louis]

Agreed - a plan which I follow.

Film-making is about making money. What artistic quality comes through is accidental or sneaks in. As to your contention that they "fear" alienating liberals - I disagree. Again, the main point is making profit: all else is secondary. Generally, xian themed films suck - "The Passion" was just bad film-making. Art cannot be harnessed to any political or religious agenda. Perhaps there is a market for "religious" film for the evangelical market, but don't confuse it with artistic excellence.

Artistic taste is such an individual affair that I hesitate to make any judgments. A friend of mine hates the "Lord of the Rings" films! I pity him. But, again, how to judge?

I don't think we can judge the problem as liberal vs. conservative - this is a tired and boring argument. Many factors have come into play - the internet, dvd's, video-games, poor viewing experiences at theaters, high prices, etc. Let's leave politics out of it, okay?

[Sam]

Where are you on Saved Seeker? That was a DEFINITELY Christian themed movie which featured both criticisms of the church - the lack of any appreciable sex education, ahem ahem, the horrid treatment of gay Christians, AHEM AHEM - and the redemption of the girl at the end who has her child.

Is that Hollywood Liberalism run amok?

Also, which are the Liberal films again?

[seeker]

I did not see Saved, but based on the reviews and the snippets I saw, it was definitely not a pro-Christian film, any more than Dogma was. My impression of that film was yes, that was an overly simplified, one-sided charachature of the pettiness and bigotry that often accompany teenagers and superficial religion. But then again, I didn't see it. I'm sure it brought up some valid criticisms.

My point was that pro-family, overtly pro-faith and pro-christian pictures are something that Hollywood has shied away from. But that's just conjecture on my part ;).

Liberal films? The list could go on forever.

[Sam]

I don't understand Seeker - Saved was a pro-Christian movie, albeit not necessarily pro-your-Christianity. Why wouldn't you go see it? Isn't one of the ways to promote your idea that we need more pro-family movies, especially about Christians, to go and see the movies that ARE made?

[seeker]

My impression of Saved was not positive. Take, as a reference (which I do) the CT Review of Saved:

For over a year, evangelicals have feared Saved! would harshly attack them all as hypocritical, judgmental, and intolerant. The truth is, the movie is ultimately pro-faith and does make some perceptive criticisms of evangelicals. But not all is well.

The problem is a lack of balance between hypocritical, judgmental Christians and loving, accepting Christians. In fact, the movie almost exclusively shows two kinds of people—hypocritical, judgmental Christians who cause problems, and loving, accepting non-Christians who make things right....

The problem, though, is in the satire's messiness, mostly resulting from poor filmmaking. It is pro-faith, but three miscues confuse things and undermine its messages.

First of all, it's the non-Christians who exclusively provide all the lessons....
Second, Hilary Faye is so exaggerated—without an equal foil—that the unintended message is, "All evangelicals are like this."....
The third problem is that while spoofing Christians for not being tolerant enough, the movie's alternative is simply this: If God let it happen or if you are happy, then how can it be wrong?

This movie may be good for discussion, but I don't know if I'd call it a "good" movie, or one that is pro-faith and accurate.

Do you understand now? This is like me picking some schlocky movie that sort of agrees with my concept of atheism, and wondering why you don't buy a copy for everyone you know.

[mynym]

Saved was a pro-Christian movie, albeit not necessarily pro-your-Christianity.

What kind of Christianity was it, then?

Ironically, the high point of the whole movie was that it didn't go with the Left on abortion and instead the girl chose life with the support of her family. According to the Left that almost never happens and instead teenage girls should not have to notify their parents so that the abortionist can influence them instead. The capacity for choosing life isn't a cultural script that one hears from the Left very often, if ever, yet it showed up in the movie script. Is that the type of Christianity you're writing about, the redeeming characteristic of the film?

If it had been a true tie-dyed-wool type of Leftist movie then the baby would have ended up snipped and sawed apart with its little body parts left in a dumpster, instead of being wondered at for Life.

[seeker]

It may have had Christian sentiments in parts, but even a "Christian ending" (by an atheist's opinion?) may not redeem a film that plays up obtuse negative charicatures of christians througout, while having the unbelievers be the source of wisdom throughout.

Just because it wasn't *entirely* an ode to hypocritical xianity doesn't mean it was xian. It just means it was a movie that attempted to balance it's anti-christian sentiment with a pro-life ending, which doesn't make it a movie consistent with xianity, nor does it make it a good movie.

One of the best secular movies with a pro-xian theme, and one of my favorite movies, is the Color Purple. It has a nice prodigal return, plus a missionary sister as a side story. Not to mention a compelling main story and great acting.

Another movie that appears to have anti-xian content, yet turns out to be a great movie with a balance and a "pro-faith" ending is Leap of Faith with Steve Martin. I think all xians should enjoy this movie - great gospel music plus a great story.

But Saved? *You* might think that Christians should hail this movie, but I think that the balanced but not necessarily favorable review from xianity today is the most you are going to get, unless you want to quote some liberal, cultural (read "in name only") christian who thinks xianity is just some moral code that is the same as any other.

Did the movie bring up valid criticisms of xianity? Probably. Was it well done? Arguably. Did it entice me to see it? No. Was it a xian movie? Atheists think so! Heh.

[seeker]

BTW, in case you are interested, there *are* xian sex-ed materials

But you may be right, sex ed may not be well taught in xian schools. I have no idea, having attended only public.

[Louis]

"Saved" was a film which parodied the more extreme and absurd segments of fundamentalist/evangelical xianity. Good for it.

[Sam]

For the millionth time Seeker, I am not an Atheist. Atheists care deeply about the lack of God. I couldn't care less about God. If s/he exists or not, I honestly don't care. I don't confuse you with a Muslim; don't confuse me with an Atheist.

[seeker]

Sorry, thought you were an atheist. I have more intellectual respect for you now ;)

Does that mean you are an agnostic - something like "i don't know, and don't care"? :D

[Sam]

I know that I don't care. I passionately don't care, if that's even possible.

[seeker]

So do you not even have an answer for how you see God or belief in God? Do you believe but don't care, do you disbelieve?

How would you answer the question, do you believe there is a god, and if so, what is god like?

[Louis]

Can't you read? He said that he couldn't care less about God. How could he be any more clear?

[seeker]

Um, not caring less doesn't tell me what he *believes* - i mean, if he believes that god is a mythical creation of superstitious people, that's ok, but "i don't care" is an answer to a different question, like "do you care about faith."

But I already figured that out ;). What I am interested in is what he actually does or does not believe.

[Sam]

Geez - I never should introduce my own lack of beliefs.

I have no idea what's going on Seeker, and I don't care. Honestly, I've got bills due next week. I can't spend the time worrying about the possible existence of a God. (That said, if there is a God, I can't rectify all of the stuff I've heard about God creating everything and then being pissed about homosexuality. I don't think s/he cares.)

[seeker]

OK, can I categorize you as antagonistic agnostic? ;) I promise I'll try not to abuse my stereotype of you 8-)

[Sam]

That's a PERFECT way to describe me.