Gasp! Right-wing media bashes 'American Carol'!

David Zucker, the funny man behind the not-so-funny "An American Carol," can't blame liberal film critics for the lackluster opening weekend for his conservative satire of Michael Moore, gays, Muslims and a variety of other favorite conservative targets. As I reported last Friday, Zucker and Vivendi Entertainment, the new distributor that released his movie, made the boneheaded move of refusing to screen the film for critics, under the paranoid delusion that liberal critics wouldn't give the film a fair shake because it made fun of Michael Moore and other lefty icons. But even without any reviews poisoning the well, the film, which opened on 1,640 screens, only managed to take in $3.8 million over the weekend, giving it an underwhelming $2,325 per-screen average.

How bad is that? Even such recent losers as Spike Lee's "Miracle at St. Anna" and "Disaster Movie" all had better per-screen averages in their opening weekends. Zucker can't pin the blame on the film not being able to compete with bigger studio releases, which presumably had heftier marketing support. "Fireproof," the faith-based firefighter drama, had double "Carol's" per-screen average in its second weekend of release, even though it is being distributed by the tiny Samuel Goldwyn Co.

To add insult to injury, "An American Carol" even got bad reviews from--gasp!--the New York Post and the Washington Times, two bastions of the conservative revolution. The New York Post's Lou Lumenick railed against the film's toilet humor and fat jokes, blasted a "spectacularly tasteless scene" in which George Washington (played by Jon Voight) gives Moore a tour of the World Trade Center rubble, and concludes that even Moore's "Sicko" is "far funnier than anything in this desperately laughless farce." The Washington Times wasn't much better, saying that "we're asked to chuckle at routine slapstick far beneath Zucker's best work" that is "all handled with the subtlety of an Ann Coulter column."

What's the lesson here? I'd be the first to agree that there are lots of liberal sacred cows. But Zucker &  Co. bought into the conservative myth that the country is so split by a partisan divide that liberal critics couldn't possibly appreciate a funny conservative movie. Trust me, critics see so few funny movies that they are always dying for a good comedy to champion. This wasn't the one. By refusing the show the movie to the general media before hand, Zucker and Universal lost the chance to get a lot of free exposure for the film, especially with the politically themed film opening a month before a hotly contested presidential election.

Vivendi should study the shrewd marketing plan Lionsgate had for "Religulous," the Bill Maher religious satire that opened last week. It made almost as much money as "Carol," even though it was only on one-third as many screens. Lionsgate screened the movie everywhere before it opened, embracing its controversial topic. What "American Carol" needed more than good reviews was free publicity, but by refusing to show the movie to the press ahead of time, Zucker and Vivendi didn't get either.

Here's a funny promotional trailer for "American Carol," with the one person who doesn't like the movie being--a film critic!

Photo of David Zucker by Luis Sinco / Los Angeles Times

Comments

[Nathan O.]

The movie was bad. But really, was it a failure? It wanted attention; it wanted to expose its conservative ideals, and in a form it’s succeeded. Blogs, articles and bad reviews might shoot it up to potential cult hit. It may have been a failure in the eyes of critics and liberal pundits, but are those really the people who make films infamous?

[Paul William Tenny]

Well this isn't exactly a surprise, conservatives have the wrong intent going in. You can't find the funny when your intention is to mock and hurt people. This was as doomed as the..what was it, half hour news hour? The Daily Show ripoff on FNC.

Same deal.

They went in to score political points instead of pointing out the absurdity of life.

[Big Shaker]

"...under the paranoid delusion that liberal critics wouldn't give the film a fair shake..."

Paranoid delusion? You're kidding, right? You honestly believe liberal critics are capable of objectivity about an openly conservative movie?

[vegasgirl]

I'm what you might describe as one of those dreaded, hateful, commie-loving progressives, and I thought "Team America" (from the conservative-leaning team of "Southpark") was hilarious and very clever -- because the satire transcended the kind of heavy-handed propoganda that Zucker has dumped into theaters. Of course Zucker didn't want to screen this movie ahead of time -- because it looks and sounds like a piece of crap, not because all those evil, liberal critics (many of whom also liked "Team America."
Food for thought, Jerry Zucker!

[Kevin]

Big Shake, the only reason "openly conservative" movies get torn apart, is because they suck. There's no liberal conspiracy poopooing Beer for My Horses, Passion of the Christ, or Larry the Cable Guy's Witless Protection. These movies just suck.
\Thank You For Smoking had a very libertarian message about personal responsibility. That movie received good reviews because it didn't suck.

[Brenda]

I saw this movie and I think it's high time a movie was made that expressed the feelings of the average American, instead of the Hollywood liberals and the artsy high and mighties who think they should dictate every film that is made. Americans are getting fed up with the Hollywood crowd thinking they can just make movies about whatever agenda they are pushing and we will just soak it up. Enough I say! I reject CRAP from now on and I want to see positive, uplifting material. I'm a baby boomer and I have finally decided I've had enough RAUNCHY. I've heard nothing BUT raunchy all my life coming out of Hollywood and I am sick of it. So I am changing my diet. I've stopped watching television shows that contain material I deem unhealthy, which is just about everything except Jon and Kate plus 8 and TCM. TCM has become my new favorite channel - now THOSE are some good movies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not this crap they put out now.

[Terry]

I saw the movie and loved it. Like Airplane or Naked Gun, the story line was only strong enough to be a stage for the comedic moments--and there were plenty.

There were scenes where I honestly couldn't stop laughing. But I must admit, as a conservative, I've been crawling in the desert for so long that once introduced to a film that openly mocks liberalism as conservatives have been mocked, that I didn't really know how to let loose.

It was shocking in a way, to see liberalism mocked so openly.

[Richard]

"only managed to take in $3.8 million over the weekend, giving it an underwhelming $2,325 per-screen average"

Religulous brought in only $3.4 million, albeit at $6792 per-screen average.

Burn After Reading, after 4 weeks, has brought in only $4.1 million at $1719/screen.

[Daniel k]

Richard, for a comedy to only do slightly more than a documentary (okay, a documedy) indicates that the comedy is tanking. A better comparison would be American Carol and the talking chihuahua movie.

Terry, I feel your pain.

[LiberalTarian]

Hey, I could have gone to the movie. It's a free country. I don't want to spend money on a film that tries to substitute browbeating blowhard BS for humor.

I mean, hey, we know conservatives can bring the funny--look at who they elected in 2000 and 2004. Oh wait, I guess running the country into the ground wasn't so funny--but it was definitely conservative. Guess you can't have everything, eh?