Distorted Valerie Plame Flick Bombed at the Box Office
You might think that given the abysmal box office record of left-wing movies about the Iraq war that "Fair Game," a highly distorted version of the tired controversy surrounding former CIA non-agent Valerie Plame Wilson, would never have been made.
Of course, since Hollywood is dominated by leftists, economic sanity did not prevail. Economic reality did prevail, though, as "Fair Game" ended up being a total bomb. It grossed just $9.5 million domestically. Add in the international ticket sales and the fiction flick just barely managed to recoup its production budget of $22 million.
My source for those numbers of the St. Petersburg Times which still seems to believe the utter fiction that the Plame "disclosure" was the work of the nefarious Bush White House:
Fair Game was a generally well-regarded movie (it got a good 79 percent favorable rating on the movie website Rotten Tomatoes) that starred big-name actors in Naomi Watts and Sean Penn. It was about CIA operative Valerie Plame (played by Watts) whose cover was blown in Bob Novak's widely read Washington Post political column.
The information was allegedly leaked to Novak by White House officials to discredit her husband, Joseph Wilson (played by Penn), who had written a column in the New York Times in 2003 that said the Bush administration distorted intelligence information to justify the invasion of Iraq.
The staff reporter throws in "allegedly" for good measure but that really doesn't cut the mustard. But don't take my word for it, SPT, just listen to the Washington Post which took the rare move of denouncing a movie (this one) in an editorial last year, as noted by NB's Noel Sheppard:
"Fair Game" also resells the couple's story that Ms. Plame's exposure was the result of a White House conspiracy. A lengthy and wasteful investigation by a special prosecutor found no such conspiracy - but it did confirm that the prime source of a newspaper column identifying Ms. Plame was a State Department official, not a White House political operative.
The Post's conclusion is right on the money as well:
Hollywood has a habit of making movies about historical events without regard for the truth; "Fair Game" is just one more example. But the film's reception illustrates a more troubling trend of political debates in Washington in which established facts are willfully ignored. Mr. Wilson claimed that he had proved that Mr. Bush deliberately twisted the truth about Iraq, and he was eagerly embraced by those who insist the former president lied the country into a war. Though it was long ago established that Mr. Wilson himself was not telling the truth - not about his mission to Niger and not about his wife - the myth endures. We'll join the former president in hoping that future historians get it right.
- Matthew Sheffield's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
My review
Submitted by Rush to Judgement on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 9:53am.
It wasn't a good movie, plain and simple. The characters were boring and it revealed little that the public did not already know. The movie suffered because in an effort to avoid legal issues, characters like Rove had no speaking lines and no end credit. We assumed it was him throughout the movie, but were never TOLD it was Rove. Sneaky.
Hollyweird will commit fiscal suicide
Submitted by johnsonl on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 10:06am.
because it's more important for liberal directors to "realize their dream" than it is to entertain audiences and make money. The MSM is a great example. They will continue to push their liberal agenda until every last liberal talking head is gone. Ask Katie Couric, Dan Rather and Keith Olbermann.
Break Even = Goal Acomplished
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 10:32am.
This movie cost $22 million to make? Really?
When movies like this break even at the box office, they are huge money makers. The production companies charging outrageous fees for their services are the ultimate money makers of films like this. Movies are full of phony accounting schemes where the production companies charge exorbitant fees for the services they provide. And given enough forensic accounting, we would find that the participants in the making of the movie are the ultimate owners of the production companies.
Break-even equals huge success. They'll make this sort of movie all day long.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Creative Financing
Submitted by Diesel on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 11:20am.
I read somewhere recently that the reason that these freaks keep churning out pure crap is due to some real creative funding processes that ensure that they will not lose money regardless if they made a flick that just showed a still pic of dog crap for 2 hours.
On top of that.....
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 11:31am.
Most every state government gives special tax breaks to movie production companies for making a movie inside their state. When I was in Michigan a while back there was a big controversy about how the state legislature had just passed a new bill giving movie companies increased tax credits for making movies in Michigan.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Snyder
Submitted by MichiganMan on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 3:23pm.
The new governor, Rick Snyder, has proposed reducing the movie tax break in the most recent budget.
Creative Financing
Submitted by Blorg on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 1:01pm.
The movie "Shakespeare in Love", while fictional, has a lot of truth in it. Here are some lines regarding the possible beginning of creative financing:
Hugh Fennyman: How much is that, Mr Frees?
Frees: Twenty pounds to the penny, Mr. Fennyman.
Hugh Fennyman: Correct.
Philip Henslowe: But I have to pay the actors and the author.
Hugh Fennyman: Share of the profits.
Philip Henslowe: There's never any.
Hugh Fennyman: Of course not.
Philip Henslowe: Oh, oh, Mr. Fennyman. I think you might have hit upon something.
I agree Kingfish 17
Submitted by ahusser on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 10:42pm.
All the actors, key grips etc ad infinitum get gainful employment and are paid. The 'capitalists' who put up the cash break even or even make money. I wouldn't have the slightest idea how the voodoo accounting works. For all I know everyone makes money. Any flick, no matter how crappy, untruthful etc keeps everyone employed, useful and not rusty waiting for the blockbuster that pays for it all many times over. Look at Oliver Stone's lefty propaganda movies. Movies such as Platoon made wads of cash for what was a twisted, lying lefty version of Vietnam or his tinfoil hat movie, JFK probably made enough money and rep to last through many bombs.
"Somehow, I told you so, just doesn't quite say it." Will Smith in 'I, Robot.'
Phony Accounting
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 11:25pm.
Phony accounting happens when a production company, owned by the cousin of the associate producer, charges $500 for a chair that they bought themselves for $10. And that''s just the start.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
When even the Washington Post says it sucks....
Submitted by NeoKong on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 10:16am.
You know it was a stink bomb. But hey...why should the truth get in the way....?
Chronology is off
Submitted by Arminius on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 10:22am.
"There’s a slight problem with this myth: the chronology is off. According to Newsweek, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage told Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward about Plame’s identity three weeks before talking to Robert Novak. Armitage met with Novak on July 8, 2003—'just days before Novak published his first piece identifying Plame.'"
"Armitage spoke with Woodward in mid-June 2003. However, the New York Times did not publish Wilson’s column until July 6. Therefore, how could revealing Plame’s identity to the media be retaliation for Wilson’s column? How could have Armitage known in mid-June that the New York Times would publish Wilson’s column three weeks later, let alone know the content of that column?"
From Kevin Groenhagen's "What Really Happened: The Story of Clinton Inc.’s Efforts to Rewrite Bill Clinton’s Record on Iraq and Terrorism"
This once again proves
Submitted by motherbelt on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 10:26am.
This once again proves conservative commentators like Michael Medved and Brent Bozell right.
Hollywood makes the kind of movies it wants; not what people want to see; and they don't care if they lose money doing it.
This movie wasn't made to make money; it was made to make a "statement."
A false statement to be sure, but that doesn't bother them. They wanted to get "their" version of the story out there, and in that they succeeded.
What they apparently hope for is that, down the road, thanks to public education, people will view this movie as a documentary, just as a lot of today's younger generation think Oliver Stone's JFK is true.
Follow the money
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 10:33am.
Break even = Huge success
See my post above
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
money loser
Submitted by Catoi on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 11:05pm.
Sorry, Kingfish17, but you're wrong. Studios generally garner about 60% of the domestic box office receipts, and less than half from overseas box office. (An oversimplication but in the right ball park, for our purposes.)
In addition, the costs are much higher than just production. For a movie like this the studio probably dropped another $20-30 million in marketing alone. And they no longer recoup that on DVD sales like they used to. DVD sales have totally tanked in the past couple of years. State tax credits alone can't make up for this. And New York and DC, where most of Fair Game's shooting took place, are hardly the most generous tax regimes.
The real rule of thumb is you need to make at least double your production budget on total box office receipts to even approach breaking even. This movie lost a ton, believe me.
You didn't read
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 11:21pm.
You didn't read my post from above. Even if the movie iteself loses a ton of money, the real money is made in the production of the film itself. The production companies involved in putting together the film are the winners. The studio and the shareholders are the losers.
If you read my post from above, you would see I'm not talking about the studio. They may have very well lost a ton of money. But the production companies involved in putting together this piece of junk, and charging the phony prices for goods and services that added up to 20 million dollars, are the real winners.
So....IF the movie breaks even, or loses money for that matter, it's still a success for the owners of the production companies.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
By that line of reasoning,
Submitted by Catoi on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 2:59pm.
By that line of reasoning, even if this movie didn't make one penny at the box office, it's still a success. Now, it is true that those who got paid to work on the movie could consider it a personal success. But that's not what we normally think of as a successful production. Just as we wouldn't call a start-up that went bankrupt a success just because it raised enough money to pay its employees for a few months. In both cases, the investors got hosed.
By the way, when you look at the production company credits for Fair Game on IMDb, two names stick out: Participant Media (which was partially funded by George Soros) and Imagenation Abu Dhabi FZ. Don't let anybody fool you into thinking that this movie wasn't a political act.
Exactly My Point!
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 5:05pm.
Even if this movie never made it to the box office, it would have been a huge success for Participant Media and Imagenation Abu Dhabi FZ and the myriad of other sub contractors they used who have dubious connections to the producers and their relatives.
Where did the actual money come from to make this film in the first place? Those people would have been the real losers. But even that may not be the case. Movies have always been used as a vehicle to launder dirty money into legitimate money. So if the original "investors" got 40 cents on the dollar, in their eyes, they are also winners.
The forensic accounting for Fair Game would be fascinating.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
True...history books vs.
Submitted by Beukeboom on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 10:41am.
True...history books vs. "historical" movies. Which has the most lasting impact? Hands down -- movies. A not-so-new form of propagandizing but more easily accessible which makes it quite disturbing.
It seems consistent that
Submitted by Beukeboom on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 10:39am.
It seems consistent that politically-based movies with an extremist liberal slant which take huge liberties with the facts bomb at the box office but there are those in Hollyweird willing and able to invest millions of dollars financing these bombs (and then probably writing it off on their taxes -- ironic).
SPT
Submitted by jaywl on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 12:12pm.
I vacation in St Pete and just can't wait to read the rag...quality newspaper. They are very thorough and I'm sure base this story on historical facts. Why, there was a book written about the the whole affair. And now a movie. Before the NYT made Plame the latest Mata Hari they sent their reporters to root around the muck to find the truth, and those reporters have specially designed flattened noses with amazing olfactory senses to divine the truth from their own pigsh*t and the slop fed to them by their liberal keepers. And don't forget, Elliot Ness from Chicago spent millions even after he knew what really happened to convict that guy of forgetting something. What's not to believe? Someday it'll be on The History Channel and that will forever put it into the textbooks for our children to read! I just can't wait until it's on the late show.
All true....
Submitted by JLin on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 12:26pm.
Like they say, history is written by the winners. We need to ensure they lose. Speaking of Elliot Ness, he had enough evidence to nail Blago and Obama both but what happened? Nothing. Curious. He got a conviction on Libby while straining gnats, but somehow the Chicago Syndicate is impenetrable?
Plame is a fraud, a back office clerk. Period. Next please.
Submitted by JLin on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 12:21pm.
The Left thought she was a sexy left-wing kitten and believed that she would be a box office draw. Epic fail. Thinking people know what she is, and more importantly what she isn't.
Lost $11 Million!
Submitted by circusstorm on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 12:21pm.
The Studio and the Theatre's do a 50/50 split on the Ticket sale's or Total Gross. So this movie lost 11 million. You can go to boxofficemojo.com and see how bad reality is for all the leftwinger flics and stars!
But they still thow the cash away.
Submitted by JLin on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 12:28pm.
I guess they will write it off as a Democrat advertising expense.
With the CIA hiring quota-fillers like Valerie Plame...
Submitted by Dave. on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 12:36pm.
...(after all, this is government we are talking about), is it any wonder Leon's best intel on Egypt was coming from the idiot box?
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
IT's all about entertainment... period
Submitted by rgr11 on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 1:54pm.
Has anyone considered that this movie bombed because Sean Penn is in it?
When has he ever performed in a movie that was a commercial success? Even his oscar winning (ha, ha) performance as Harvey Milk was far from a blockbuster.
Why would anyone waste 20 bucks to see that bum?
Only one movie comes to mind...
Submitted by Beukeboom on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 4:31pm.
"When has he ever performed in a movie that was a commercial success?"
Fast Times At Ridgemont High?
Hahaha yeah....
Submitted by Ozconservative on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 7:13am.
I kinda feel sorry for Naomi Watts......having to kiss Spicoli all the time must have really sucked
I would like to think that
Submitted by AngryInOhio on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 6:13pm.
I would like to think that Penn's politics have finally made him box office poison.
That... or maybe just his [rapidly aging] ugly face.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 6:22pm.
I'd guess that Mr. Average Moviegoer isn't aware that Penn's two current BFFs are commies by the names of Fidel and Hugo.
Can you imagine a bunch of teenagers...
Submitted by brutony1 on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 2:31pm.
wanting to go see this? Yeah, the gang will pile into the vista cruiser, and all go in to watch this POS! Naomi is ok, but unless Plame was doing on film what she must have ben doing in real life for the CIA-and it aint paperwork, lol-all the guys will do is snore! And are that many guys-or esp girls-going to see ugly, whiny lib Sean Penn? THERES your reason, and us old farts arent interested in either of them, let alone the subject matter! And, BTW, this is what libs told me, so if THEYRE not seeing this, then who would?
When will liberals WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE! -Me
Film Critcs
Submitted by lukey on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 3:15pm.
Sadly, most film critics are liberal idiots as well. Look at the reviews for this film, Al Gore's movie and anything by M Moore. Movies with conservative themes rarely score well, especially since 2000. Not a surprise given that most come from journalism schools.
Characters
Submitted by genethemachine on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 4:30pm.
What's amazing is that with 50 or so characters in the movie, the person who actually "outed" Valerie Plame, Richard Armitage, is nowhere to be found!
Making awful money-losing
Submitted by JPTSO3 on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 4:36pm.
Making awful money-losing leftist driven, statement movies in Hollywood is considered a civic duty. To the bonehead leftists dropping these turds on the public is the cost of getting their message out. Shareholders should sue the studios because the studios know they’re going to tank, but they make them anyway.
Imagine if GE produced product after product it knew would not sell, but because a clique of dumbasses in the company thought they would be "cool", it makes them anyway… GE would get sued.
Plame movie
Submitted by alvin on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 10:24pm.
The errors in the Post editorial are pointed out in the 253 comments that go with it. The movie that really bombed was the right wing American Carol. It cost 20 milion and took in 7 million. The Plame movie actually did quite well - as mentioned earlier.
American Carol was indeed a
Submitted by Catoi on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 11:15pm.
American Carol was indeed a bomb, but so was Fair Game. See my correction to Kingfish above. And Fair Game had the advantage of a more glittering cast and tons of free sympathetic press, plus a bigger marketing push.
As for any "errors' in the Post editorial, they don't overturn the fundamental conclusions. See also FactCheck.org, created by the Annenberg Center, hardly a right-wing group: http://factcheck.org/article222.html The objective facts belie much of the false and self-serving narrative pushed by Fair Game.
The Spy Who Knew Too Little
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 5:11am.
The good news is that following her success at fiction writing, Ms Plame has been paid a large advance to write actual fiction in the form of "spy novels."
I can reveal an early draft:
VALERIE BLOND: Do you expect me to talk Blofeld?
BLOFELD: No, Ms Blond. I expect you to diet.
VALERIE BLOND: But I can't stop talking, especially about ME ME ME, and my very secret spy work for the "company." which no one but me and 500 of my closest friends knew about until I was outed by George Bush.
BLOFELD: Exactly, I learned all I need to know about that from the New Yorker, so STFU already blondie. Or should I call you Agent 38-32-38, Licensed to Spill?
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
Speaking for myself, I don't even watch the good movies...
Submitted by jawebster1 on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 11:52am.
when they come out, so why would I watch a lousy movie when it comes out? I'll watch some of the good movies and none of the bad movies when they come on TV. I think I'll pass on this movie. Guess I have plenty of company.
Hey...wait a minute.
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 5:23pm.
Liberallies informed me earlier that the Washington Post derives its entire research product from scouring the archives of HuffPo, MediaMatters, and dKos. So how did it result in that editorial lambasting the movie?
Very confused here.
Jer