Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« The Death of an American Newspaper | Speaking of the Genius Awards... »

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Film Re: Robert Zemeckis and Motion-Capture: A Brief History of My Feelings

Posted by Paul Constant on Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 12:39 PM

Oh, Lindy, Lindy, Lindy. Of course the new motion-capture A Christmas Carol movie starring Jim Carrey didn't do well. But it's not because the motion-capture stuff is creepy, as you say.

No, conservative entertainment blog Big Hollywood knows that it failed because of a Chicago Tribune interview with Jim Carrey where he "makes the latest film version sound like a ham-fisted socialist diatribe, hardly a strategy for drawing middle American families in great numbers." To wit:

“I was thinking about it this morning, how this story ties into everything we’re going through,” says Carrey, who, thanks to the technology, plays Scrooge as well as the three ghosts haunting him. “Every construct we’ve built in American life is falling apart. Why? Because of personal greed and ambition. Capitalism without regulation can’t protect us against personal greed.. . ."

As Big Hollywood says, America does not want "any kind of brief for socialism," and that's why A Christmas Carol failed. If motion-capture Jim Scroogey taught Tiny Tim how to invest his meager savings in the stock market at the end of the film, rather than just giving him socialist health care like Obama wants, the Teabaggers would have come out in droves for this movie.

Comments (10) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

jim carrey is one to talk

Posted by I'm 85 Years Old on November 11, 2009 at 12:41 PM

Um, the movie hasn't "failed", yet, unless you mean creatively, in which case it was over the second Carrey and Zemekis' signatures dried on the contracts.

Even the crappiest Christmas movie still sells gangbusters on DVD for decades, and this 3D IMAX digital movie will reappear like a bad memory each season for years to come...

Posted by Peter F on November 11, 2009 at 12:48 PM

#2 has it.

Doesn't matter if it only made $3.95 opening weekend, it'll be out every year in IMAX, on DVD and TV every year for decades to come.

So Disney gets the last laugh. And they knew that going in.

Posted by LovesChoad on November 11, 2009 at 12:52 PM

Yes, that's why A Christmas Carol is such an obscure little curiosity of 19th century literature, and why it has never before been adapted for the stage or screen: Because its themes of generosity and social engagement triumphing over selfishness and greed fails to resonate with Americans.

Posted by Proteus on November 11, 2009 at 12:54 PM

Don't you know that Scrooge was showing his progressive bona fides long before it was fashionable?

He cares so much about the impact of anthropomorphic global warming that he steadfastly refuses to let Cratchit befoul the air by burning a lump of coal for his own mere creature comforts. He supports public assistance and welfare by noting the progressive tax system he participates in and the workhouses they fund. He cares deeply about the pressing Malthusian problems of overpopulation and wishes those who would die to get on with it. Also, he rejects the crass consumerism of the holiday and espouses his own version of "buy nothing" day, that is before the evils of religiosity and spirits of loved ones crush his enlightened outlook on life.

Scrooge should be heralded as a stalwart champion of progressive causes.

Posted by chunkstyle on November 11, 2009 at 1:13 PM

Funny, during the most recent Simpsons' Treehouse of Horror there was a commercial with Mr Burns introducing this movie. I was pretty lit that night but, to paraphrase, he said something like 'this movie stars a hard-working businessman whose well-earned rest is disturbed by three socialist ghosts.'

Har-dee-Har-Har-Har :-D

Posted by merry on November 11, 2009 at 1:14 PM

anthropomorphic s/b anthropogenic

Posted by chunkstyle on November 11, 2009 at 1:15 PM

I think it just came out too early.

Posted by crazycatguy on November 11, 2009 at 1:19 PM

yup, there's no message about excessive greed and the evils of money in the Dickens. not a bit.

achem.

Posted by singing cynic on November 11, 2009 at 3:09 PM

if anything i'd say it's because him and his girlfriend are creepy anti-science assholes on the level of creationists (but far more harmful to the public health.)

Posted by undead ayn rand on November 11, 2009 at 10:03 PM