comment #1

btwnproductions says ...

Whatever its flaws, Redacted is an arthouse picture all the way, completely distinct from the pack. It'll be lucky to play 25 theaters in its entire run, and will I hope attract viewers receptive to its fascinating multimedia presentation (who are also willing to cope with its admittedly crude dialogue and performances).

comment #2

Mr. Muckle says ...

I don't really get this take, Jeff. Are you trying to tell us the studios are making some kind of altruistic effort to educate us mopes about a corrupt government and its wars, but we just refuse to hear it? And they've forgone their usual profit motive? And therefore, we are wrong to be cynical and NOT amused? And there is nothing questionable about making profit (and suspect entertainment) out of ongoing tragedy?

What differentiates this genre from a TV movie-of-the-week where somebody's cousin gets a disease? Will immersing ourselves in the minutia of the disease hasten a cure? And do these kinds of films do anything more than paint in broadstroke emotionalized generality, of which we've had quite enough over the years, thank you, and which can reasonably be identified as "part of the problem?"

With Bush at 24% approval, and a good part of the 76% opposing him hoping for impeachment, I don't think the case against the administration requires much additional persuasion. But there is a mystery as to what can be done about it, and unfortunately (or not) the movies themselves are not a practical solution and they don't seem to be presenting any, either.

comment #3

Josh Massey says ...

Rendition did $1.4 million yesterday.

That whooshing sound you hear is every Against All Enemies script hitting trash cans at the same time.

comment #4

Caustic712 says ...

All true. But I think it's a deeper problem than that.

If Elah were a story (told in the same style) about a non-military father investigating the mysterious death of his non-military son, who found himself considering bigger questions (about his parenting, The Way We Live Now, etc.)... would that have found a bigger audience? If Grace Is Gone (told in the same style) were about the family of a woman who died while traveling, would its commercial prospects be that much brighter?

No matter how strong the storytelling, grief, sorrow, the re-examined life, examinations of misguided patriotism, aren't appealing for most ticket-buyers unless there's some sugarcoating. (My government lied to me? Don't want to hear it. But Jason Bourne's government lied to him?)

Spare time (and that's what movie-watching represents to most people) is precious. Some of us are interested in a broad range of stories (essentially anything well-told). Some of us need fighting robots or animated critters learning lessons.

comment #5

arch451 says ...

I completely disagree with the assessment that 9/11 or the war in Iraq pushes away viewers. Fahrenheit 911 made a lot of money. These types of films (heavy drama, documentaries, or arthouse films) don't generally attrack a lot of viewers anyway. This year there are perhaps a dozen or more movies of this type all on the broad subject of the U.S. fight against terrorism. The motion picture industry is over-saturated in this genre right now, and most of the films share a similar liberal standpoint. Most Americans hate the war in Iraq so why should we all be going out to watch one movie after another that will just reaffirm our contempt for it?

I'm looking forward to The Valley of Elah on DVD, where it will probably be before the end of the year. I don't care what it is about, I just want to see if for it's performances. Ebert likes to say that it doesn't matter what a movie is about, just how it tells the story. (He's says it much more eloquently.) I'll see any movie that gets excellent reviews regardless of the subject matter.

comment #6

Joe Leydon says ...

As much as I admired In the Valley of Elah -- and, albeit to a much lesser degree, Redacted -- I am afraid Caustic712 has a point. For the vast majority of folks in this country -- and in the rest of the world -- moviegoing is a hobby, and pasttime. And because of that, most people want to be entertained when they go to the movies. It's like, on a week to week basis, more people read People and US Magazine than Dostoyevsky, or even Charles Dickens. I'm not saying that's a good thing or a bad thing. I'm just saying it is.

comment #7

Tim says ...

As depressingly cynical as this post is, Jeff's assessment is on the money.

Ironic that folks won't see "sand" movies but would love nothing more than to bury their head in it.

comment #8

dre says ...

Serious films in general aren't making money.

http://www.film.com/movies/story/aremoviewatcherstiredoffilmsthatmatter/11597472/16958496

comment #9

arch451 says ...

It is not the subject, it is the tone. Most people don't like depressing movies. There are plenty of other depressing movies out there not making any money that have nothing to do with the war.

comment #10

George Prager says ...

No interest in Rendition, Redacted, Rectum, etc.
Saw The Kingdom, would like to see Elah. American moviegoers will go see an Iraq War movie if it is nominated for an Oscar. A rave from a movie critic is not enough, since most people don't read movie reviews (I don't) and are weary of their bitchy nonsensical raves and pans, which say more about the reviewer than the film. People have always needed to be told that a movie is good, and award nominations still have some weight to them.

comment #11

George Prager says ...

GRACE IS GONE will have problems because of MARTIAN CHILD. The commercials make look like the same movie.

comment #12

Clark Perry says ...

After Vietnam and Watergate, many Americans were curious why and how these things happened and what it meant about the core principles of this great country. When Hollywood made ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN, COMING HOME, THE DEER HUNTER, and APOCALYPSE NOW, audiences flocked to see them. They didn't always agree with what they saw, but it sparked debate and national soul-searching.

The failed war policy in Iraq echoes sharply the failed war policy of Vietnam. Most Americans feel like they've been here before and it doesn't make them happy. Too many of them, blinded by fear, voted for or supported the failed war policy of George W. Bush. They feel guilty as hell and it hurts less to look away.

We're not as brave or honest a country as we once were. The neo-cons exploited that fatal flaw in the worst way possible.

comment #13

Caustic712 says ...

I think to some degree, this perspective (no matter how sad it might be) also explains why Warner gave up on trying to market Jesse James. It may be a terrific film, but how many of these average moviegoers want to see a movie about (spoiler alert) a dead guy and the coward who killed him? (I'm sure some marketer made a push for "Killing Jesse James.")

comment #14

rocco says ...

it's not just the "red-state" soccer moms and war hawks who are ignoring these movies, Jeff, it's also the liberal anti-war crowd...do some simple math and that becomes readily apparent.

In my case, I'm simply waiting for the dvds. There's enough Iraq-war/Bush-is-bringing-about-the-end-of-civilization media to consume that doesn't cost $12 a pop. No need to psychoanalyze...the entire industry is in a free-fall, it's not endemic to these types of films.

comment #15

Hunter Tremayne says ...

In these days of affordable sophisticated home theater systems you have to have a picture that will be a more entertaining prospect than something a person can watch at home. Sure, junior will go and see "300" and "Knocked Up" and other pictures he can see with his friends and daughters will go and see whatever teen movie takes their fancy and both will go to a good date movie, but adults? They will go and see a family picture or something they just find too exciting not to wait and see, which is why "American Gangster" will be a big hit. After that, the only two pictures coming out this year that might bring them off the couch. depending on reviews, are maybe "Beowulf" and the big family films "Enchanted" and "The Golden Compass."

comment #16

Larry says ...

Depressing stories about unpleasant subjects have always had trouble making money in any country anywhere. (In Ancient Greece, where their standards were higher than ours, they fined a playwright for making people feel bad about a recent war.) Having a glut of such films makes it worse. A film can have a tough subject and make money if it's done smartly and marketed well, but few of these films coming out now have this going for them.

In fact, Hollywood went two steps further, guaranteeing failure. First, the audience correctly smelled that these were films by pampered Hollywood millionaires trying to lecture us about the truth, which is unbearable in any case. Second, the filmmakers believed the lies and propaganda that all the uncurious people who hate the war believe--it's bad enough being lectured at, but being lied to is worse.

comment #17

J. Huff says ...

Prager, thanks for pointing this out. I saw the preview for Martian Child (not having heard about it) and when they got to the title, I thought, "Did they change the name of the movie or something?" Having two Cusack movies out in roughly the same time frame will likely kill both of them. And considering how much we've seen of him lately, I wonder if there isn't some fatigue. (1408 was supposed to be pretty good, by most reports, but The Ice Harvest was just plain bad.)

comment #18

J. Huff says ...

Oh, and more title confusion..."Gone Baby Gone" and "Grace Is Gone" have too many similarities not to wind up being thought of as the same movie. Boy, how annoying for those filmmakers...killed by a title.

comment #19

vansmith says ...

all these movies would have played better in the 70's before star wars, now kids are the dominant ticket buyers adults stay home for the most part..and wait for Dvd's. american gangster will get kids and adults..subject matter dictates whether you can get the combo at the theater...

comment #20

arch451 says ...

Hollywood has all kinds of title problems this year:
Reservation Road, Revolutionary Road,
Rendition, Redacted

...and Michael Clayton is a horrible title.

comment #21

KeithNYC says ...

Has anybody considered that maybe people are staying away because of the general consensus that Hollywood will not be objective about Iraq, 9/11 or anything else? Like the poster said above, even liberals are staying away.

Is this not an outgrowth of "Fahrenheit 911"? A movie that made money but in the end was exposed an inacurrate, manipulative propaganda?

Is "moral relativism" not in vogue right now? Take "Redacted" for example, does anybody really want to see a movie that equates American soldier's behavior with Al Queda extremists? Perhaps Americans are tired of this kind of narrow minded "tunnel vision".

This may be the real issue, the public is skeptical about Hollywood at this point. I didnt see "Elah" but many of the reviews I read for the film expressed its lack of objectivity and most of these critics would probably be considered "liberal".

I think an objective Hollywood film about these issues could do well. Perhaps "Charlie Wilson's War" will fit the bill.

comment #22

George Prager says ...

I long for the days of "objectivity" in films. You know like the movies back in nineteen--fift....oh wait...movies aren't "objective" about anything and are supposed to be "objective," and to make an "objective" movie is impossible and should never be encouraged and have never existed so, in fact, "objective" movies are a myth, like unicorns and that time when Rod Stewart collapsed and they pumped 12oz. of a certain viscous substance out of his stomach. So what is KeithNYCBusyBody talking about?

comment #23

Josh Massey says ...

"all these movies would have played better in the 70's before star wars"

Go check out the box office statistics of the 1970s, pre-Star Wars. Most of the dramas we herald today were not box office successes, while the Towering Infernos of the world raked in the money.

comment #24

bmcintire says ...

As far as war movies go, CWW has the same benefit that the 70's-era Vietnam flicks had: they are about a war that is not happening right now. And yes, I know the blunders we made in Afghanistan directly affect what is happening right now, but most moviegoers will see the "1980" sur-title in the trailer and immediatley distance themselves from the current conflict. But I don't think it's just the war-themed simlarities that are killing these movies. It is the fact that they are guaranteed to be depressing. Witness THINGS WE LOST IN THE FIRE. That one died a much harsher death than RENDITION (which made nearly three times as much as TWLITF on less than twice as many screens. You might as well call all of these serious minded belly-flops this year's LITTLE CHILDREN.

comment #25

D.Z. says ...

Jeff: Is it really that bad that Ellah is tanking, when its owner, Time Warner, was responsible(and still is, to a certain extent) for brain-washing the public into thinking the war was legitimate?
And United 93 bombing just means less weapons of mass destruction for General Electric. I have to agree with Muckle that the studios are probably just trying to exploit public sentiment for cash as much as when pro-war flicks like Black Hawk Down were being released.

Clark: "After Vietnam and Watergate, many Americans were curious why and how these things happened and what it meant about the core principles of this great country. When Hollywood made ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN, COMING HOME, THE DEER HUNTER, and APOCALYPSE NOW, audiences flocked to see them. They didn't always agree with what they saw, but it sparked debate and national soul-searching."

But those movies had other factors which helped them: 1) They stood out from one another, 2) They had big-name actors and directors, and 3) They didn't spell out exactly what you were getting in the trailers.

Larry: "Second, the filmmakers believed the lies and propaganda that all the uncurious people who hate the war believe--"

So General Sanchez and Alan Greenspan are liars, too?

Keith: "Is this not an outgrowth of "Fahrenheit 911"? A movie that made money but in the end was exposed an inacurrate, manipulative propaganda?"

So what part was inaccurate again?

"Is "moral relativism" not in vogue right now? Take "Redacted" for example, does anybody really want to see a movie that equates American soldier's behavior with Al Queda extremists? Perhaps Americans are tired of this kind of narrow minded "tunnel vision"."

No, Americans probably agree with Redacted. They just want something done about it.

comment #26

otakuhouse says ...

I think there is a causal connection between a new apathy and the lack of public engagement in examining our situation in culture.

It's such a different climate than the 70s, sure.

Most Americans are already paying through the ass for a war that no one really wants any longer, and yet it continues onward. They probably don't want to pay any money to learn any more about it. Despite a majority in Congress the Democrats have accomplished nothing. I know so many people who are opposed to the war in Iraq and yet there's no activism. Why hasn't there been a 5 million person march on Washington over this war? The numbers are there to support it, but no organiziation, no immediate feel of being involved. You've also got - which Redcated apparently tries to use as an influence - the youtube age. Marines post videos from their cellphones of combat onto youtube.

The news still doesn't show coffins coming home, or atrocities, or say what the aftermath of the recent MERCENARY action taken in our name with our tax dollars which killed civilians.

People who suggest - like Naomi Klein in her damning new book The Shock Doctrine - that profit is a motivator for Iraq and the poltiics of reconstructing New Orelans, are dismissed as conspiracy nutcases whereas in Europe her book has spawned a healthy debate.

Klein recently discussed the pointlessness of the Bono solution - the nexus of celebrity do gooding and its failures. The Red campaign has made people feel that there's a safe comfortable way to express their disatisfaction, when it obviously is not enough to wake up the politicans who must effect change as our representatives. Furthermore, internet activism leads to people venting and bitching about politics online instead of protesting - the only thing that has ever really truly made the government afraid of its people and act accordingly so their asses aren't guillotined.

My good friend's husband - formerly conservative and gung ho - returned from his second tour as a Marine in Iraq with PTSD and bad employment options. I don't think he's ready to go see a movie about what he took part in and the lingering soul searching questions it's opened up. I think it's going to be a good ten or fifteen years before he's ready to confront it in works of art that address his experiences.

We are living in an age of incredible apathy concurrent with some of the largest crises our nation has ever faced. It should be no surprise these movies are failing. People can't even be bothered to do anything about the situation in actuality.

The way to deal with what's going on right now as a filmmaker has to be subversive smuggling, like in the Bourne films.

I hope ten to fifteen years from now someone makes the damning film about Pat Tillman that would encapsulate everything wrong with our period.

Before then I hope there's some sort of flashpoint and people wake up and do something about this absolute inconscionable disaster we've allowed to pereptuate through our inaction.

comment #27

Larry says ...

DZ: So General Sanchez and Alan Greenspan are liars, too?

Yep, they did. What they said was this war wasn't fought for oil, that it's worth fighting, that we can win, and that the media is doing a terrible job reporting it. You didn't know that? That's because of the last point.

DZ: So what part [of Fahr 9/11] was inaccurate again?

All of it. I think it's the people who defend it to show us any single major point in that film that's correct.

DZ: Americans probably agree with Redacted. They just want something done about it.

Yeah, I think Americans are opposed to our soldiers raping and killing civilians. What does that have to do anything. On the other hand, since you want to talk about what Americans want, I guarantee you they favor rendition but not Rendition.

otakuhouse: People who suggest - like Naomi Klein in her damning new book The Shock Doctrine - that profit is a motivator for Iraq and the poltiics of reconstructing New Orelans, are dismissed as conspiracy nutcases whereas in Europe her book has spawned a healthy debate....We are living in an age of incredible apathy concurrent with some of the largest crises our nation has ever faced. It should be no surprise these movies are failing. People can't even be bothered to do anything about the situation in actuality.

When you run out of arguments (like Robert Redford has in his latest movie) you start talking about apathy. I'm certainly opposed to apathy, otakuhouse, because the more people know, the faster they'll see through your arguments. Anyone who takes someone like Naomi Klein seriously is dangerous. I only regret that so many actual thinkers have had to waste time taking apart the obvious folly in her new book. The debate across the Atlantic over her laughable ideas just shows, once again, how so much discussion over is that odd yet unmistakable European mix of decadence, bigotry and naivete.

comment #28

KeithNYC says ...

"I long for the days of "objectivity" in films. You know like the movies back in nineteen--fift....oh wait...movies aren't "objective" about anything and are supposed to be "objective," and to make an "objective" movie is impossible and should never be encouraged and have never existed so, in fact, "objective" movies are a myth, like unicorns and that time when Rod Stewart collapsed and they pumped 12oz. of a certain viscous substance out of his stomach. So what is KeithNYCBusyBody talking about?"

I think you are completely missing my point. Any filmaker can express their point of view. I am just offering an explanation as to why these movies have not been successful. I think when people see a movie to perhaps be "educated" about politics or the state of the world they would appreciate a more "objective" POV. If they see a documentary I expect they think the documentary to be responsible and not lie or manipulate things (hence the term "documentary"). Again, "Fahrenheit 911" is another example and I hate to pick on that film as there are many others like it. For example that film used an image of kids flying kites in Iraq and then cut to a US bombing to imply that the US is intentionally killing little Iraqi kids flying kites (an absurd notion to anybody with a logical and open mind). There are hundreds of well reasoned arguments to be against the Iraq war yet Moore tried to manipulate things to trick the audience into his view. What he did was the very definition of "propaganda" NO different then the propaganda videos about Jews used by Hitler in WW2. Once Moore actually showed up to debate someone intelligent about the film, he withered away. His film has all but become a joke which is a shame since other parts of the film has merit. So I think the audience is resistant to this type of filmaking. Like I said, you missed my point. Any artist can make any type of film that they want (that is free speech) but NOBODY has to go see it if it is closed minded.

comment #29

frankbooth says ...

Like Mr. Muckle said, most of the country is already convinced, and can wait for the DVDs. The dead-enders aren't going to budge no matter what.

It's a done deal now, anyways. Where were these movies a few years ago, when they would actually have been brave and/or controversial?

And The Ice Harvest, while flawed, is a much better movie than 1408, which is horror for people who don't like to be scared.

comment #30

dre says ...

Josh Massey, which films are you talking about?

All the President's Men - $51 mil (adjusted for inflation ... $140 mil)

Apocalypse Now - $79 mil (that's a hit even without inflation)

Coming Home - $32 mil ($88 mil with inflation)

Network - $23 mil ($63 mil today)

Taxi Driver - $21 mil ($58 mil today)

Deer Hunter - $50 mil ($138 mil today)

Serious movies had a chance pre-Star Wars that I'm not sure they have today.

Again, the movie going public has no interest in serious films these days. The big dumb entertainments will always outgross the serious films, it's always been that way. But it's getting more and more stark.

comment #31

George Prager says ...

This "war" isn't worth the death of one American soldier. It's a complete waste. Bush knew that going in.

comment #32

christian says ...

"these were films by pampered Hollywood millionaires trying to lecture us about the truth"

As opposed to trailer trash preachers like Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes, Ann Coulter or Bill O'Reilly?

If Iraq films are perceived as something special, they might get an audience. General apathy is the culprit along with a culture of inclusion. It's the perfect way for the Bush administration to run roughshod over the constitution. Many Americans can't believe a government can be as corrrupt and incompetent as the present.

Two years ago the name "Blackwater" was a conspiracy theory.
Now it's another black mark in this wretched war. And we have to listen to lectures from the wrong-is-right elite like Bill Kristol or the President's favorite spokes-creep, Rush Limbaugh, whose moral and factual failures are so vast they beggar reason.

Americans are weary and confused. They need to get mad.

comment #33

jeffmcm says ...

Shut up, DZ.
In the Valley of Elah was a welcome failure because it was not thrilling but rather was drab, ponderous, illogical, and heavy-handed. Jones was good in it but one good performance isn't enough to redeem a movie as condescending and soap-boxy as that.

comment #34

George Prager says ...

All you have to do is look at Tommy Lee Jone's face in the publicity stills and you know that this movie is going to be about as enjoyable as that first shit after a hernia operation.

comment #35

otakuhouse says ...

You want to talk apathy? How much time did Harry Reid waste in a pissing match with Rush Limbaugh when he could've been asking Joe Lieberman why the fuck he isn't exercising his authority as the senate chair on oversight to find out what happened to the missing 9 billion dollars in iraq?

All those talking heads do nothing but distract people from the real problems. All the Reillys, Coulters, Olbermann's... it's just invective pissing catfights against one another while nothing gets done for real.

comment #36

Joe Leydon says ...

Dre and Josh: Actually, you're both kinda-sorta right. Serious movies did prosper during the pre-Star Wars era. It's just that, even then, more people went to popcorn flicks.

comment #37

dre says ...

You're right Joe. More distractions today. Video Games, cable, cable-sports, DVD etc. I still think the contrast between serious films that got coin versus today is pretty sad though.

comment #38

D.Z. says ...

Larry: "Yep, they did. What they said was this war wasn't fought for oil, that it's worth fighting, that we can win, and that the media is doing a terrible job reporting it. You didn't know that?"

Huh? Greenspan never said oil wasn't a factor, and Sanchez didn't say the war was worth fighting.

"All of it. I think it's the people who defend it to show us any single major point in that film that's correct."

So when are we turning the corner? Why are billions being diverted to the war, while depriving us of safety at home? Why are our troops being denied proper health care?

"Yeah, I think Americans are opposed to our soldiers raping and killing civilians. What does that have to do anything."

I think the connection is that they are raping and killing civilians?

"Anyone who takes someone like Naomi Klein seriously is dangerous."

Yes, because supporting the nuclear bombardment of Iran is safe...

"The debate across the Atlantic over her laughable ideas just shows, once again, how so much discussion over is that odd yet unmistakable European mix of decadence,"

Yes, those rich assholes have the audacity to let their children be covered by health care.

"bigotry"

Not like hanging a noose on a black professor's door, huh?

"and naivete."

Um, our country is younger than the ones there...

comment #39

Gaydos says ...

Three reasons these movies are failing:

1) Bush approval rating 24%

2) Congress approval rating 11%

3) Audience approval rating of these films: 7%

I keep reading about how so many movies this year are infused with, inspired by, reminiscent of, Hollywood in the '70s. Sadly, I think that absence then, and abundance now, of development "experts" may be part of the difference. These days, the edge is hitting the sanders before the films are hitting the audiences.

For instance: Has anyone seen NETWORK lately?

That was a hit back then and it certainly had something on its corrosive dark mind.

I have a funny feeling that if someone made a movie as sharp, bracing, funny, audacious, brilliantly scripted, acted, directed as that, it would work today. Even with a leading man in his late 50s, if that leading man had the chops of William Beadle.

Less we all get depressed, ran into my colleague Robert Koehler today and he told me he likes Lumet's NEW film even better than NETWORK.

It is pretty damn good, make that brilliant, but better than NETWORK? Hmmm....

In any event, our country and our film industry may both be falling apart, BUT NOT SIDNEY!

So, in the words of Carl the Groundskeeper, at least we have that going for us....

comment #40

Joe Leydon says ...

I seriously doubt that anyone under the age of 40 can fully appreciate the impact Network had when it was first released. But, then again, I don't think that's the fault of younger audiences. It's because, by this point in time, Network seems less like a satire, and more like a documentary.

comment #41

christian says ...

Anytime I see NETWORK in a theater, the audience laughs at how fucking prophetic the film is.

comment #42

dre says ...

Gaydos, and how much money do you think Sidney Lumet's new film is going to make. I'm willing to bet it makes nothing, nada, zilch. It's doomed to be a critical favorite and nothing more. I'm basing this on the fact that adult oriented films, regardless of quality have an uphill battle from jump.

comment #43

Gaydos says ...

Every fall, a whole bunch of "adult oriented films" compete for awards and many, many of them fare well financially. I think "The Hours" was a pretty bleak, serious, well-executed film and I recall it winning awards and making money.

I suppose we could make a list of dozens of films like this, just in the past decade. "Brokeback Mountain," "Syriana," "Capote," "Good Night and Good Luck," "The Queen," "Babel," "Pan's Labyrinth," "Talk to Her," ad infinitum, etc?

So I hesitate to believe the sky is falling.

Just as the disapproval ratings of Congress and Bush indicate that incompetence, corruption and political grandstanding ain't going over well, the public indifference to movies that are dramatically haphazard, strident, incoherent, indulgent, meandering treatises just means, they aren't automatically buying something because it's "serious."

The public regularly supports (ie, helps to recoup) movies that are serious, but also well-crafted, emotionally compelling, compact, stirring, thoughtful.

If these pictures are made for the right budget, they have a chance to recoup, maybe even cash in.

I would put the extremely wonderful "Devil Knows" in that category.

comment #44

dre says ...

brokeback, yes. Good Night and Good Luck made 31 mil. Not a hit. We're talking HITS here. Not "eh, they did all right for that type of movie". Hits. Syriana barely broke 50 mil. Capote made 28 mil. Babel made 34 mil. Pan's Labyrinth made 37 mil. the queen made 56. You named a slew of movies and only one of them broke the 80 million dollar mark (brokeback).

we have to wait until the fall for a serious film to be a hit? there were plenty of quality adult-oriented films this year (zodiac, reign over me, eastern promises, michael clayton, jesse james) etc that have stars, got the reviews but the audience fit for these films are staying home. this is the point.

I am not saying these movies are not making their money back. A million dollar movie making 12 mil is great for that movie. I'm saying I believe most of these movies would have fared a lot better, variance-wise in the 70s, maybe even the 80s.

i don't believe I said the sky is falling. I said it's a problem.

comment #45

Gaydos says ...

dre, you should be running a studio! u r one tough businessman!

good night cost 7 million and grossed 54 globally, throw in another 40 million in home ent. capote cost 6 million and grossed 50 globally, throw in another 35 million home ent. pan cost 19 million and grossed 83 million, throw in another 65 million home ent.

and we haven't even discussed farenheit 911, supersize this and the other uber recouping docs on serious topics.

anyway, if any of that's a "problem," cut me in!!!!!

comment #46

dre says ...

Farehnheit 9/11 was a real hit. Among the relatively few adult-oriented films in the last few years to be a legit hit. And you clearly are missing that I am not speaking for a business standpoint since I mentioned these films making their money back is another issue. I'm talking about movie audiences attitudes towards these films and their decreasing tendency to give them the time of day.

If you're point is (I'll make if for you) that these films are reaching the same number of people, just not in the theater, we may be in agreement. I'm not sure how many people watched Capote on DVD. And I'm not interested in global numbers. I'm interested in the American attitudes towards these films.

But none of this takes away from my point: the box office numbers tell me less and less Americans are interested in seeing serious films, at least in the theatre. Why should only popcorn films be legit hits? What happened to our sense of taste/art?

comment #47

Gaydos says ...

Well, dre, I do admire your zeal for americans to turn off "dancing with the stars" and tune into something a bit weightier. But if "network" made $63 million in adjusted dollars and "The Queen," "Little Miss Sunshine" and "Good Shepherd" each made almost that, in a year when a foreign language (dead one at that) film with no stars like "Apocalypto" does $50 million and aa breathtaking foreign language film like "Pan" does almost $40 million, I'm not as pessimistic. Also, I think our little debate here misses a larger point: smart comedies. "The Devil Wears Prada" is pretty damn good and "Talladega" is a brilliant modern parable about the madness of the American competition culture, while "Borat" broke a dozen rules of what could be a hit and as the Judd Apatow comedies are also smart and reaching to express serious concerns in the guise of comedies. I don't think that the only films indicative of the public's openness to ideas, provocative views and adventurous filmmaking are the so-called "serious" films.

comment #48

dre says ...

Again, I didn't say there weren't any films that were successful. I just would think there should be more of a percentage of adult-oriented hits. Obviously, the comedies you mentioned are great. You make a good point about fresh ideas, i just would still like to see a little bit of a larger percentage that bring in real coin. It's gotten to the point where I'm actually surprised that The Good Shepherd made some decent money.

In any event, good show m'boy!

comment #49

Gaydos says ...

yep, we violently agree. But to buoy your spirits, someone needs to send you the Netflix numbers, to see the wide range of challenging films rented every day by Americans who DON'T live in LA or NYC. Film literacy is alive and well and being largely ignored by newspaper and magazine editors.