Waxing Hysterical: How come Cinderella Man kinda bombed?
Filed under: Universal, Critical Thought
There are a bunch of Chicken Littles out there in entertainment reportage land, who have been running around proclaiming that the Hollywood sky is, like, totally about to fall on their heads. And, you know, it could be - but that doesn't mean we can't hold the most hyperbolic little chickens up to the light for a little scrutiny. So whereas the title for this sporadic new feature might seem to stem from one New York Times reporter with the first name of Sharon, trust us - no one with a "movies are over" drum to beat, from well-meaning reporters to idiot rumormongers, is totally safe.It always startles me, the things Sharon Waxman is able to type with a seemingly straight face. In writing of a meeting held in Universal City yesterday, designed to brainstorm possible reasons for Cinderella Man's thus-far unspectacular performance, Waxman seems entirely serious about reassuring us that the associated executives "did not see any serious damage from the phone-throwing antics that led to [Russell] Crowe's arrest in New York shortly after his film's release." Phew. Consider that elephant tackled!
So why didn't a serious picture involving three of the most
The whole scene, as Waxman describes it, eventually devolves into a coffee klatsch of grown men in almost-tears. Source after quoted source describes succumbing to the suspicion that audiences don't actually want good movies, or if they do, they only want them between September and May. "Despite all protest to the opposite, that audiences are clamoring for an alternative, I guess what they're really looking for is what their behavior shows," says Universal Vice Chairman Marc Schmuger.
What's most baffling about all of this, is that everyone involved seems truly baffled. Waxman, Schmuger, Grazer, Sony's Amy Pascal - each speaks of this situation like what happened to Cinderella Man was heretofore inconcievable, like they've never even thought about it before, and like it's this huge existential lightning bolt that's going to not only cause financial problems for the studio, but will be equally devastating on a personal level.
This is just insane. The major movie companies figured out long ago that huge movies tend to make huge profits - but they also necessarily take up huge space in the zeitgeist. Universal, et al, then set to work learning how to conquer the necessary mass-mind real estate that makes something like Mr. and Mrs. Smith's opening weekend possible. Why doesn't it make sense that there's only so much of that cultural space to go around? If the gross on Cinderella Man is making Brian Grazer cry, it's not anyone's fault but his own.
Tom Cruise and J.J. Abrams Reunite for 'Mission Impossible 4'
'Big Top Pee-Wee': The Original Benicio Del Toro Wolfman
Spin-ematical: New on DVD and Blu-ray for 2/9
Watch This: Brilliant Oscar-Nominated Short 'Logorama'
Chris Nolan to Lead 'Superman' Reboot!?
_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
6-15-2005 @ 3:12PM
mick du russel said...
Timing is everything when it comes to releasing a movie. Summertime audiences want to be thrilled, frightened and amazed. Look at past summer blockbuster movies. The pattern is there to see, as plain as black and white. Anyone who is baffled truly baffles me.
Adventure sells in the summer....point blank.
Reply
6-15-2005 @ 4:01PM
karina said...
I think it's a little more complicated than just "adventure sells." I don't think it's really a question of genre at all. Over the course of 25 years, the studios have created a situation in order to accomodate massive franchise investments. Once a movie becomes an event, its sucess is supossed to be a foregone conclusion. The problem comes in when the same studio tries to drop a smaller, serious and/or subtle film into the climate that they've molded to specifically render such films impotent.
I also think it's shortsighted on the part of the execs to suggest that because CM bombed, audiences don't want serious dramatic fare. *I* want serious dramatic fare, but I wouldn't have paid money to see Cinderella Man because, based on the way it was marketed, it looked boring as hell. But I'm a tough crowd. I think, bottom line, this summer is so loud with spectacle that I don't know how anyone could expect an Oscar-bait drama to make a noise.
Reply
6-15-2005 @ 4:38PM
cel said...
perhaps a part of CM's flop is explained by the fact that, serious or not, wonderfully acted or not, the subject matter (a film about a currently declining "sport" that hasn't captured the collective imagination in years) doesn't pull in viewers . . . even viewers that might otherwise be interested in a serious film.
cel
Reply
6-16-2005 @ 11:20AM
Shone said...
I agree with the sentiment that the American public doesn't really like boxing movies. Hollywood loves 'em, but ever since Rocky they have all gone bust. (Million Dollar Baby was a modest hit on the strength of Clint Eastwood, not boxing.) Other reasons CM bombed, I think, is because the film felt too manipulative. Ron Howard is a pedestrian filmmaker at best, and I would agree with Turin's review in the LA Times. Plus, the marketing of the movie was stupid, repetitive and boring. The implication was that we, Americans now, are down on our luck and should respond to this by-the-numbers story like Americans did in the 1930's. Only it's 2005 and it's not the Depression. Hello?!
Reply
6-16-2005 @ 1:17AM
Sean McCarthy said...
So Mr. and Mrs. America refused to let "A Beautiful Fist" be shoved down their throats?
I'd like to believe that they've had enough of Howard's relentlessly wholesome sensibility...of the colorless, sexless, and passionless world he creates in his films.
More likely, however, is that they simply walked away from a movie whose ad campaign was built around the word..."DEPRESSION".
I swear...I've read blurbs which were little better than this:
"Cinderella Man does what your lecturing grandfather never could. It brings the 1930s to life. Feel the boredom, taste the guilt."
This movie failed, because the only thing worse than poverty...is poverty described.
Reply
6-16-2005 @ 4:53PM
Mike Zeidler said...
When CM was rolling out a couple of weeks ago, my boss and I had a discussion about why it was going to flop.
The movie was originally going to be Oscar bait during last year's holiday season, but Russel Crowe seperated his shoulder while filming and was out of commision for a number of months while it healed. This pushed back the release date to the middle of the summer blockbuster season, which is the completely wrong time for the movie to be released.
My boss then wondered why they couldn't hold off the release until the forthcoming holiday season. If they did that, then people would be wondering why they sat on the film for so long, so they're damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Reply
6-16-2005 @ 11:43AM
Michael Stevens said...
"Cinderella Man" is actor Russell Crowe as real-life boxer 'James Braddock', in a plucky underdog performance that puts the bite on the fight comeback film, without pulling any surprise punches.
Unlike Stallone's pugilistic-punk in "Rocky", Braddock is a regular fella, a soft-spoken 'Popeye' contender who climbs into the ring, only to go from riches to rags in a few short years.
But with an earnest "I Yam What I Yam" demeanor, Braddock and his 'Olive Oyl' wife 'Mae' (Renee Zellweger) survive as lovers in a dangerous time, the 1930's depression-era howling hungrily outside their family shack, while they live hand-to-mouth in a 'Thimble Theater' community peopled by the roughest-looking background performers working in Toronto today.
Actor Paul "Pentagon Papers" Giamatti as Braddock's gruff manager/trainer 'Joe Gould', worms his way throughout the entire film, his shmoo-like caterpillar-countenance providing sarcastic relief from the many ringside bouts of slo-mo bone-crunching.
Actor Craig Bierko, towering over Crowe like a goofy Tony Robbins, is suitably arrogant in an obnoxious below-the-belt performance as real-life 'clown/killer' 'Max Baer', a playboy fight champ, worthy of his own big screen treatment.
"Cinderella Man" is a sentimental picture, presenting genuine affection between leads Crowe and Zellweger, while re-creating the Dirty Thirties in nostalgic, Norman Rockwell-inspired lensing, wardrobe and production design.
And they all lived happily ever after ...
Reply
6-16-2005 @ 11:48AM
Michael Stevens said...
Don't know about the 'star system' on these posts, but I give this film 7 out of 10.
Reply
6-16-2005 @ 11:54AM
karina said...
The star system is for comments. We - the Cinematical staff - give out stars to useful/constructive comments.
Reply
6-16-2005 @ 6:18PM
Darcy said...
First of all, this film hasn't 'failed'. The reviews are excellent, the audience who saw it when I did wept, applauded, and cheered. It's a definite Oscar contender, so the only thing it doesn't have going for it is box office, which is of course, the most important thing as far as the studio is concerned.
So why aren't people going to see Cinderella Man? My opinion? The dumbing-down---no, make that numbing-down---of America is finally catching up to us. Why see a film that inspires, moves, uplifts if there are no explosions and gun battles? Where are the drug lords and the cops? Where are the lame-ass jokes and the new snappy catchwords? Where is Paris Hilton and a suitably ridiculous paramour?
We are reaping what we've sown during the past decades of spoiling our children and making them think everything is fun and easy, because they are after all, just kids. We've corrupted their taste until all that pleases is junk food movies. The studios must take a major portion of the blame for this onto themselves, for it was they who produced that junk food. And now, when they ask audiences to come to a feast, they're dismayed when they head to McDonald's instead.
Reply