An American Carol: Anybody seen it?

Haven't seen it, yet. I kind of want to, but feel like it's not worth the time invested right now. I'd rather check out "Religulous", which I have equal expectations of disliking but, frankly, feel is a bit more "important" right now -- both because it's getting more attention already (for whatever reasons), but because I'd rather see and write about something that misrepresents MY views (in essence, I lean as far left as I can without falling over) than something that so blatantly, obviously, and talentlessly embarrasses something already beyond the point of self-parody. It's so ridiculously limp and poor handled that anything other than a cursory glance is too much credit.

I saw the trailer, that was enough. It looked like a Uwe Boll's Postal, and if you know Uwe Boll, you don't watch those kind of movies. The only people that would want to watch this are those people who watch Bill O'Reilly yell over lies and logic(in equal amounts) each night. Which isn't a huge assumption since he does make a cameo and I personally know someone, like that, who wouldn't ever get out of their house to see anything that didn't have Clint Eastwood in it(not even if he was only helming it), say "you know I really wanna see that American Carol movie about Micheal Moore and his crap."

The thing about shows like the Daily show and other "left wing" satire is they tend to use the methods of real satirists like Swift.

Tongue in cheek writing, repeating their oponents ideas without the spin, reducto ad absurdum etc. etc.

You rarely see (except in comics written by angry college students) direct attacks on "right wing idiots" or even a "left wing vs. right wing" approach as much as an objective appraisal of politics.

Conservatism as far as I can tell is the idea that we should stick with the status quo rather than untested theories. This is the first time in history where the status quo is even remotely acceptable, Sorry if Im rambling Im pretty damn drunk right now

Yeah I saw it. Interesting audience reaction. It was clear that most of the people in attendance (admittedly only about 15) laughed during the first few minutes. They were clearly primed for some liberal-bashing.

And then the theater grew silent for the rest of the film as its inherent badness became evident.

I saw the movie with my father - a die-hard Republican - and even he admitted it wasn't particularly good. (I think it was one of the worst comedies I've ever seen.)

Interestingly, I ran into the projectionist as I was entering the auditorium. He told me that NO ONE came to see it on Saturday night of the opening weekend. Not one person.

So much for that theory that theaters are diverting ticket sales...

I saw it. I'm a conservative and I thought it was prtty stupid. A few chuckles but some of the stuff goes on forever in the standard Zucker style. Still, I'm glad I saw it, I felt like it was a film that needed to be made even though it wasn't done very well.

Michael Moore is so ripe for parody (his narcissism, his creative editing, his smarmy "ain't I a stinker?" stunts) but David Zucker seems to have chosen the most obtuse angle in which to attack him: he's fat and he hates America. The fat jokes are hackneyed and played out. And the only tangible evidence that Michael Moore hates America are his multiple quotes when speaking abroad regarding the US as the stupidest nation on earth. I am no fan of Moore, but I believe he makes those comments not out of hatred for his home country, but because he's canny enough to know they will play like gangbusters to a non-US crowd. (As did The Dixie Chicks. Natalie Maines knew to bash Bush in London and not Lubbock. And she would have gotten away with it too if it hadn't been for that meddling internet.) Michael Moore is merely giving his audience what they want.

Which is what David Zucker claims he is doing with American Carol. He is not trying to win hearts and minds, but to make a movie that plays to an audience that he feels doesn't often get Hollywood movies tailored specifically for them. But the big problem is this: David Zucker has not been funny for a long, long time. Maybe he never was. Maybe he succeeded in his earlier efforts because he worked so well with his former collaboraters, Jim Abrahams and his brother, Jerry. None of his solo work has been successful. When Universal hired him to make a spoof promotional video for their shareholders his outsourced all the hard work to a couple of college dropouts named Matt Stone and Trey Parker. He cast those same two in his film BASEketball where they sadly realized that their former idol offered little other than lame slapstick sophomoric shtick. They called them "derp" jokes.

So a writer/director of a comedy not being funny is going to sink to movie, no matter what the political bent of it is. I haven't seen it for myself, but know a few people who have. Most of them hated it. The two people who did like it, conceded it was more due to the fact that Hollywood made something for them, not that the movie itself was good. So ultimately, it seems the problem with American Carol is not that it's right-wing propaganda, but rather that its sole focus is "giving the audience what they want" as opposed to making a solid, funny comedy. There have been no shortage of bloggers citing this movie (and the mercifully short lived FOX News series "The 1/2 Hour News Hour") as proof that "conservatives can't be funny". I don't know if I buy that. But I do know this, they need to be funny first, and then weave their point into the humor.

Not if you paid me.

I'm one of those people who, when I find out that the critics are panning a film for whatever reason, I try to see that movie because as far as I'm concerned movies are all about entertainment - not every movie has to be great film of artistic ingenuity, blah, blah, blah. What scared me the most about "An American Carol" is hearing in the news how movie theaters were fudging their results on the weekend it opened so that it appeared to be not as popular, and some were even changing the rating to "R" from "PG13" so that families couldn't take their kids. In a supposedly "freedom of speech" kind of country am I the only one who thinks it's a little scary???!!!

its a lousy premise. if your going to spoof someone like Michael Moore do it right and you laugh at bill O'Reilly not with him.

At work last Friday this lady fired up her Internet Explorer and conducted a MSN search for An American Carol, and went on to tell the gaggle of grandmas sitting around her about how it was supposed to be one of the funniest movies ever made (apparently she hadn't seen Expelled [heyo!]). The last movie she saw was The Passion of the Christ. I was going to ask her if she saw it but I like to remain bipartisan.

Sort of. I was having a mild, courteous conversation with a coworker on Wednesday, she had overheard me saying something about Obama and was completely baffled that I (or anybody, for that matter) would support such a guy. I laid it out in three or four sentences (not confrontational in the slightest) and she could barely contain herself, she laughed in my face. Whatever, I walked away.

She wasn't in yesterday, but today she stopped me as I was walking out the door and she confronted me about our little talk. Apparently, after our conversation she went home sick. And I made her so sick she couldn't come into work yesterday (she's a goddamn receptionist, for Christ's sake). Her reasons for not voting for Obama: she "just doesn't trust him" and, get this, "Fara-fur-firri-um, I can't say his name, you know who I'm talking about..." apparently Obama's house was paid for by Farrakhan. And, of course, she loves Palin because "she's just like me." Yeah, lady, that's all the qualifications she needs, huh?

I work at an insurance company, by the way, so I'm surrounded by this nonsense all the time. Strangely, people were alot more vocal about their support of Bush in 2004. Nobody even really mentions politics around here anymore. It's all baseball and worker's compensation. I keep telling myself I'm gonna quit, but it's almost too delightfully absurd to get out of here.

Have you heard of Zucker's allegation of a ticket fraud conspiracy? Someone call Roeper.

http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2008/10/carol_truth_squ.php

That link contains the text of his message, which has been taken off the movie's website.

Over on Roger's blog a while back I made a comment about the nature of most modern-day 'satire': that it tends to "preach to the choir"- whichever choir, right or left, that happens to be. What I said would happen has come to pass; the Rightwingers are crowing over how AMERICAN CAROL is outgrossing Bill Maher's RELIGULOUS, while leaving out that insignificant detail about being on three times as many screens, and that other trifling matter of only averaging about a third as much per screen. I'm expecting Oliver Stone's W to do similarly disappointing business, owing to our increasing political fatigue - in other words , the same reason as CAROL. I think this could be the reason that all the Iraq-themed flms have done little business. If John Milius or Lionel Chetwynd were to make a pro-Iraq-war film, with Selleck, Willis, or Voight in the leads, it would do just as poorly as the anti-war films, and for the same reason. Unless, of course, they were to include a talking chihiahua or two...

I'm all for calling a spade a spade, and I don't think a Zucker movie has been consistently funny since Naked Gun 2 1/2. He works for the "Scary Movie" franchise. QED.

It's just sad that critics can easily spot a right-leaning stinker, but have been hogwashed by Moore for so many years. He starts tickling that sanctimony bone and critics are too busy agreeing with him to notice the strings (I almost used an "Emperor's New Clothes" reference here, but *urp*). Moore is a propagandist, not a film-maker, and certainly not a documentarian. If critics were as honest about his films as they are about "American Carol," we may have been spared "Michael Moore's Uprising."

Are you saying that the categories of "propaganda" and "documentary" are exclusive?

And why does making left wing polemic mean you're not a filmmaker? Whatever one thinks of Moore's works, they're definitely movies- they consist of images projected in sequence, they're about a couple of hours long, there are cameras involved, etc.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned TEAM AMERICA: WORLD POLICE, which was anti-liberal and anti-Michael Moore, but also funny (sporadically) and did OK at the box office. Especially for a puppet film.

Actually, that one kinda flopped in theaters, though it's built a following since. It's much better regarded, though, arguably because it has at least a degree of nuance to its satire and doesn't rely entirely on "liberals r fat and stupid" for its jokes. (For me, the high point of the entire flick was the attack of Kim Jong-Il's trained panthers.)

C. Jerry,

It's amusing that you could refer to TEAM AMERICA: WORLD POLICE as sinply 'anti-liberal and anti-Michael Moore'. If you didn't see any anti-conservative jokes in TA:WP, you weren't paying attention. This seems like the typical 'South Park Republicans' delusion (Wikipedia the term - one that Trey & Matt think is stupid). Trey and Matt have been described as Libertarians and hate the far right AND the far left. They skewer both sides in their movies and on South Park regularly. Unlike the flailing Zucker, they've remained consistently funny and entertaining even while offending people on BOTH sides of the aisle.

I also find Zucker's box office conspiracy theory quite ridiculous. Anyone who has ever worked in a movie theater can tell you how hard it would be for a theater to coordinate something like the ticket swap among their employees, much less for enough theaters to be involved to make a serious dent in the numbers. Zucker is in denial that years of making unfunny movies does not add up to big box office takes forever. Even the lame Seltzer/Friedberg 'parodies' seem to be finally losing steam.

Team America comes from a libertarian persoective.

You can have very progressive views and still find the whole liberal scene really wimpy and annoying

Republicans arent funny, not even the 98 year old "noted humorist" ones

Did anyone notice the film "Proud American" that came and went quickly last month? Don't worry if you didn't. Like everyone else, I didn't see it, but from what I have read it was aimed at a conservative audience. It just set an all-time record for worst all-time opening weekend for a wide release. In 750 theaters, it did $96,000, a mind-boggling average of $128 per venue.

There simply isn't nearly as much of an audience for conservative-targeted movies, unless they are overtly religious (the recent Kirk Cameron movie has done rather well on a per screen basis.)

The funniest thing to me is that (while I haven't seen the movie) it sounds like it could've been a Colbert Report type satire. General Patton shoting ACLU members, the ghost of George Washington (played by Jon Voight!) tongue lashing Michael Moore at the rubble of Ground Zero. These all sound like he kinds of scenes a liberal woud write if assigned to script a "conservative movie". Sort of like those spoof fairy tale books by Jim Garner.

The funniest thing to me is that (while I haven't seen the movie) it sounds like it could've been a Colbert Report type satire. General Patton shooting ACLU members, the ghost of George Washington (played by Jon Voight!) tongue lashing Michael Moore at the rubble of Ground Zero. These all sound like he kinds of scenes a liberal woud write if assigned to script a "conservative movie". Sort of like those spoof fairy tale books by Jim Garner.

The problem is, Chris, that these movies you mention get little or no promotion compared to the liberal alternative. I would never have known "American Carol" existed had Rush Limbaugh not mentioned it on the air. The one you mentioned, "Proud American", I have never heard of. They don't have the luxury of major movie studio backing, and thus no ability to advertise. And unfortunately, most of the really good directors and actors out there are flaming liberals, so it's hard to find top TALENT to fill out the rosters as well. You end up with a group of well-intentioned but untalented people bumbling around with scripts and video cameras, and you get something that might as well have been produced by the local youth group.

Jacob-I saw plenty of TV spots on ABC after the Biden-Palin debate. And a poster at the multiplex. It had a $20 million budget, so it did have money for advertizing.

Jacob,

As Dan said, American Carol got plenty of promotion and a relatively wide release - 1600 screens, I think. Proud American was a documentary and got as much promotion as most docs get - none. Yet it opened in way, way more theaters than any non-Michael Moore documentary has.

Both of these films opened in a diverse array of markets. Proud American was playing in Erie, PA on opening weekend of all places. And not in Philly. I guess the reasons are obvious, and I suspect it is the start of a new strategy from conservative-oriented producers/distributors.

I saw American Carol a few nights ago and loved it as did the rest of the audience. We were laughing throughout most of the movie. It was one of the few movies where I never looked at my watch. I lost track of time. My knowledge of Christmas Carol was the only thing that clued me in on how far along the movie was.

Yes, there were only 10 people in the audience, but considering how slow things were at this theater, it had a decent audience. I think there were 20-30 cars in the parking lot of this 16 screen theater in a shopping center. ...which makes me wonder how long this shopping center is going to last.

I find it interesting that no theater in Scottsdale, AZ currently has it. I had to drive to Mesa, AZ (south of Scottsdale). It's also playing in the western part of Phoenix - including a first run drive-in.

Evan- One requires both connotation and denotation to use language for effective communication. If one holds, as many do, that a "documentary" is an attempt to document reality as it exists, as opposed to creating a fictional reality, then Mr. Moore's films need not apply. I like to reserve the term "propaganda" for this current crop of films, which present a one-sided view of reality intended to influence public oppinion, not to document as the other term implies.

And yes, Mr. Moore is a "film-maker," just as my stringing words together in this comment makes me a "writer". Neither of us are practicing the art implied by the terms.

Josh,

I agree with you that Moore's films are propaganda, but you are grossly mistaken if you think this somehow disqualifies them as documentaries. There has never been any requirement of "objectivity" in the documentary field from the very start. Documentaries merely make a claim to the real, i.e. that they are referring to real world events/people/etc., not fictional ones. That claim can also be a dubious one at times (as Werner Herzog proves time and again.) Beyond that, documentaries can and usually should be "biased" - just like an essay, it expresses a point of view, makes an argument. It doesn't have to form an argument either: a documentary can be primarily poetic, intended to celebrate its subject... or excoriate it.

Michael Moore most certainly is a documentarian. He is, IMHO, a fairly talented one as well, but nowhere near the best in his field.

That definition of "documentary" sure as heck wasn't around for the early days of the medium.

And how is he not practicing the art of filmmaking?

Josh,

That Moore's work inspires hate from the right is the only proof of his filmmaking prowess you need. Why would you have strong feelings for a mediocre filmmaker? Does he have a point of view? Undoubtedly ... so do all documentarians. But his ability to handle the tools of his trade, to edit, put scenes together in a manner to move audiences, that is absolutely legitimate. You prove it yourself in your critiques of him.

I work for a movie theater, as I have since I was in college, and I have to tell you, all that stuff about diverting ticket sales is crap. Our largest audience for this flick was about fifteen people, and I live in Columbia, SC, where there have been relentless plugs on our local television stations for this dreck.

And before you go off and say "people could be walking into the movie after someone sold them tickets to something else," let me just say that I'm a projectionist, and in probably 80% or more of the shows, NO ONE is in them when the movie starts, or fifteen minutes later, when we shut off the bulb to preserve its lifespan.

No one came to see this during both our 7:00 and 9:00 p.m. sets opening weekend (Saturday or Sunday, some Friday). Sometimes people just know something is terrible, whether it's "for them" or not.

I saw the film. Full disclosure: I am politically pretty conservative. The film was not as funny as I had hoped, marred by untimeliness (I think the bloated cat is out of the sweaty, sanctimonious box on Mr. Moore) and, curiously, a rather benign attitude. Also, it needed more funny jokes. Always a must in a comedy.

However, I do think this would have been a good one for the South Park guys. It needs their particular scorched earth mentality. The film was just too damn nice.

You libs need some of the hate mongering, acidic venemous vitriol you've been spewing right back in your self-righteous faces. Reading Ebert's political diatribes gives me the exact same vibe I felt watching Al Davis's press conference. What a sad, depressing thing for such a great person and presence.

I really wanted to like the film but it just isn't relentless enough. There are too many dead spots and cringe inducing jokes without the excellent payoffs we see in Airplane or the 1st Naked gun film.

I think he wanted to make the film so bad that he didn't give the script the re-write it desperately needed.

About Team America. I am from Miami and Rene Rodriguez should have put Team America in as the best political satire film made in the last 20 years. An all out assault on the hollywood elitism, the film is hilarious, relentless and better acted than this film.

"anything can be funny as long as it is in good, bad taste" John Waters, speaking on David Letterman. This film needed more of the anarchy and malevolence of Team America. There is catharsis with the kind of utter disregard for good taste in that kind of film. One feels like he has just undergone primal scream therapy. When I saw Team America, I wanted to yell, "finally!" at the screen.

I wanted this film to have the courage of its convictions. It did not.

The last time DZ injected politics into a comedy it was Naked Gun 2 1/2, which was dismally unfunny but liberal. So it's not a question of right-wing-itude.

"You libs need some of the hate mongering, acidic venemous vitriol you've been spewing right back in your self-righteous faces."

Might want to check in with Kathleen Parker on that first.

Or Michelle Malkin, or Jonah Goldberg, or Anne Coulter, or for that matter whoever wrote Sarah Palin's keynote address.

I hadn't even heard of this movie until my parents came back from the screening. They are virtually the most pig-headed, sanctimonious, deliberately ignorant religious conservatives I have ever met, and they couldn't muster more than a "... Umm, it was okay" when I asked them how it was. These are people who I am sure were sure they were going to LOVE every moment of this film as soon as whatever hate-puking pundit advised them to contribute to it's grosses. They've (obviously) never watched a Michael Moore film, but I don't think their indifference was the result of unfamiliarity with it's targets. I think it's probably just relentlessly unfunny.

I saw the movie. It was more serious than I hoped, but it was also funny. I agree with about 90% of the political views that are promoted, by the movie.

I haven't watched the movie "American Carol"
but it is still biased that you didn't review this movie, but reviewed The Bill Maur movie "Religulous". Makes me wander sometimes how political left winged not just our political system, but hollywood.I just think things should be fair. Since it hasn't been screened I'm sure you can go in the theatre and see it yourself.

For those of you who believe "Hollywood" is biased and, more importantly, think this is a situation that should be remedied by--I presume--outside forces, please include your prescription for said remedy.

I saw it. It was not as funny as I'd hoped. I think Zucker discovered he couldn't do a Capraesque satire of American ideals and also make it "Airplane!" style. Like dipping a teabag in a cup of coffee. I think one of Ebert's flaws is that he subconsciously injects his politics into his reviews, which more often than not, are otherwise cogent, insightful and very readable. His intentional omission of "American Carol" (even on his 'Still Playing' list, when it was actually playing) was a bald statement to anyone willing to acknowledge it. Look carefully at Ebert's photo on his website; look into his baleful eyes – he is, in secret, a typical leftist – championing the causes that all liberals champion, while in his heart-of-hearts, not really caring whether his fellow Americans go broke, go homeless, or die. He doesn't care. As long as he never has to do anything for his living besides WATCH MOVIES. I admire his talent, but loathe his life ethic. Like most "reviewers." Ebert cannot qualify to be a "critic" of films, having never actually made one himself.

Bobbar:

I agree that Ebert's political leanings often unduly influence his film ratings, but I don't think it's really subconscious. He is upfront about his political leanings, and brings them up when he feels relevant. And as the recent "Tru Loved" controversy proved, he's willing to give strongly negative reviews to movies whose (sociopolitical) messages he agrees with, if he thinks they're bad.

And Roger himself said this about "An American Carol:

I wanted to review "An American Carol" (not "Tale"), a satire about Michael Moore. I enjoyed the anti-Moore doc "Michael and Me." When the distributors announced a policy of not screening "An American Carol" for the press, I requested a DVD. They declined. I would have gone to a theater to see it but am running as fast as I can to cover the flood of new releases.

Now it has failed at the box office and looks like a dead letter. Reviews, even negative reviews, would have helped it. Since it opened nationally without (as far as I can tell) a single review on opening day, didn't that send a loud "no confidence" message from the distributor?

One could argue that Ebert could have tried harder to see this movie, but why should he? He already went above and beyond by requesting a DVD screener; why do we not hold him accountable for every single film in theatres he failed to see? The fact of this movie's politics should not earn it special privileges any more than left-wing political movies should be given a free critical pass. If this movie were screened for critics, then *gasp* Ebert would have reviewed it. And he doesn't put movies in his "still playing" list that he didn't review. That is the way the site operates.