Jeffrey M. Anderson's 400 Screens, 400 Blows - Flickers from the Unheralded Nadir
Filed under: Columns, 400 Screens, 400 Blows
Last week I talked a little about "per-screen averages," and how they reveal the films that
people really want to see, rather than the artificially inflated numbers created by films showing on 4000 screens. Most
of the responses I received were from people who claimed that, even if films like Brick or
Friends with Money showed on an equal number of screens, they would not perform as well as
"dumbed-down" fare like Ice Age: The Meltdown or Silent
Hill.
Though we're only talking about
guesses, and there is no proof, I would argue that, if Brick and
Friends with Money were playing on 4000 screens, with all the
accompanying advertising and hype, they would do just as well -- if not better -- than the corresponding stupid films.
Why? For the same reason: if Brick came in at number one on the box
office list due to playing on a high quantity of screens, with plenty of promotion, then it would trigger the same
response in people: "I heard Brick was really good." Only
in this case, Brick actually is really good, and it might actually stick around for a while. My evidence? A little
movie called ...
... Inside Man, my pick for the best American film I've seen so far in 2006, and one of the year's biggest hits. Despite what the studios and the box office charts would have us believe, people are still fairly smart.; there are movie buffs living in the boonies that would like to see a good movie from time to time. Look at the IMDB's list of the Top 250 films; judging by the comments posted on that site, these voters are average, everyday moviegoers, and yet they appreciate films like City of God (2002), Fight Club (1999), Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004), Hotel Rwanda (2004), Downfall (2004), Donnie Darko (2001), Magnolia (1999), The Straight Story (1999), Spirited Away (2001), Talk to Her (2002) and many more (not to mention all those classic titles and foreign films). Few of these titles burned up the box office charts or rated a mention on "Entertainment Tonight," but those average moviegoers still hold them in high regard.
No, it's easier for studios to "think
dumb," because it's easier to control. In a business that relies on guesswork and artistry and human imagination,
it's comforting for a statistician or an accountant to look at some charts and see that Ice Age made some money, so Ice Age 2 will be a
good investment. For movies like Brick, there are no recent
precedents, no trends to gauge by; that leaves studio functionaries nothing to do. They want to protect their jobs.
They want to be experts at something.
How about further proof of intelligence?
Our "per-screen" champ this week is the seven year-old IMAX film Galapagos, with a whopping
$27,000-plus gross on one screen. (I haven't seen it, but I would
imagine that it probably tries to teach you something.) Think of it; there were four times as many butts in the seats
for that than there were for our #1 top grosser, Silent Hill, with
its $6,887 per screen.
Another astonishing number comes from Sir! No Sir! -- a new
documentary about Vietnam protesters, and specifically Jane Fonda's role in the whole shebang. It raked in $11,900 on
one screen. Even more shocking is Matthew Barney's Drawing
Restraint 9, starring Bjork, which pulled in $7,017 per screen (on three
screens). This is a highly unappealing, long (140-minute) museum installation that has already drawn cries of
"pretentious" from even highbrow publications like the Village Voice and the Chicago Reader.
Like I said before, most box office charts don't calculate these figures, so I've had to comb through
the 125 current releases and do it myself. According to my best guess, these comprise our top three, followed by
Silent Hill at #4.
In the lower
depths, The Notorious Bettie
Page did well on 52 screens with about $3,576 per screen. Amos Gitai's new
film, Free Zone (with Natalie Portman!), came away with $3270 from one screen. A new movie from Susan
Seidelman, Boynton Beach Club (with Sally Kellerman and Dyan Cannon) came up with $1,772 per screen, on 14 screens. And the excellent
adventure film Mountain Patrol: Kekexili did amazingly well on 8 screens with about $2,568 per screen.
Meanwhile, it does my heart good to see that Rodrigo Garcia's Nine Lives is still hanging on in four theaters. It's not exactly making a fortune, but it's had a nice, long life. I very recently caught up with it, and though it may come across like a horrible, drippy chick flick, it's actually a truly amazing film. Filmed in nine continuous shots, it's like a mini-Short Cuts, examining the tiny, painful moments in nine women's lives with searing clarity. Without cutting to ruin the flow, Garcia allows refreshing moments to pause and breathe within each segment. Of course, in those same moments, your heart has time to catch in your throat...
Is Taylor Lautner Our Next Superhero?
100 Greatest Films Beyond the Canon
'Entourage' Movie in the Works?
Spielberg Backs Out of 'Harvey'
Discuss: Should Gay Actors Stay in the Closet?
_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
4-27-2006 @ 2:51AM
Dan said...
Ummm... No. You can't use a $50 million budgeted movie starring Denzel Washington and Jodie Foster as evidence that with proper publicity and a wide release pattern a movie starring Joseph Gordon Levitt -- who I respect to no end -- would be as big a hit as "Silent Hill." That fails every logic test known to man. "Inside Man" didn't succeed because it's a smart movie and that's what people want. It succeeded because it's a Denzel Washington/Jodie Foster movie and that's what people want.
A better piece of evidence would involve the preciptiously diminished Per Screen Averages for both "Friends With Money" and "Thank You For Smoking" when both films went from limited to wide release. Neither movie was exactly a bomb when it went from 200 to 1000 screens, but despite rave reviews and recognizable stars, neither movie had sufficient juice to break through as a bona fide hit in wide release.
And the reason why "Brick" would have difficulties going wide regardless of the amount of promotion you put behind it or the number of theaters you put it in isn't that it's a smart film. It's that it's a film with an aesthetic and language that's nearly foreign to mainstream filmgoers.
You're just overreaching...
Reply
4-27-2006 @ 8:48AM
Christine Chapman said...
Mr. Anderson,
How much does something need to make to get on your radar? Must it have 'name' actors, director, etc.? Must its engagement be for the entire week, or can it be a day? Check your stats for this month, and for next month for 'Horrors Of War' and see how it stacks up. It is my understanding that it sold out a recent Columbus showing and is gaining nationwide momentum.
I looked on cinematical in vain for a way to email you directly and must have missed it, so I post here in hopes that you can answer these questions. Thanks!
Reply
4-27-2006 @ 9:27AM
Christopher Campbell said...
I think Friends With Money would have a better chance than Brick because of Jennifer Aniston, though her major releases haven't fared too well. I think that if Brick was to get 4000 screens, it would have to definitely redo its marketing. The multiple posters are badly designed and confusing. The trailer makes the dialogue seem even less natural than it is. I think both things would turn off multiplex audiences. I also am one of the few critics who thinks Brick doesn't completely work, and I doubt that mainstream audiences would get it or enjoy it at all.
Reply
4-27-2006 @ 9:34AM
Richard von Busack said...
I'm in accord with Jeff Anderson's premise, that the intelligent audience isn't dead, and that word of mouth is the only saviour for these small films that he plugs here (Mountain Patrol and Brick are both excellent, and can't be plugged enough). I don't know what the per-screen on Drawing Restraint 9 proves, either--apparently, Matthew Barney is such a big noise in NYC that they even had an underground mini-fest in his honor, though here is an emperor (of performance art) who literally has no clothes.
Actually, it's been instructive to watch how the publicists have tried to sell Brick, with those anti-posters showing the characters as torn-out templates; Brick is the kind of movie that makes the average publicist turn pale with fear.
As for the stars selling Inside Man--Denzel Washington has had more than his share of flops, and ask anyone if they think Clive Owen is a star. (He isn't yet, though he's going to be.) Inside Man's slickness, plus a generous word of mouth and good reviews, might have all contributed to the film's success. (INMHO, there's something cheating about a movie that starts out with the lead saying "I'm not going to repeat myself" and then they run the speech again at the end of the film.)
Reply
4-27-2006 @ 12:28PM
Jarett said...
" Even more shocking is Matthew Barney's Drawing Restraint 9, starring Bjork, which pulled in $7,017 per screen (on three screens). This is a highly unappealing, long (140-minute) museum installation that has already drawn cries of "pretentious" from even highbrow publications like the Village Voice and the Chicago Reader."
Okay, isn't this counter to your argument? It's pretentious, long, and unappealing, yet pulled in a lot per-screen when on three screens. What do you think would happen if it was on 100, much less 1000? I think it's true that wide-release movies are ridiculously dumbed-down, and that many good, smart, films get insufficiently distributed. But I'm not sure the per-screen method is entirely accurate either.
Reply
4-27-2006 @ 10:02PM
TBN said...
I think that while average per screen grosses aren't
particularly accurate (these films are, of course, in limited release and in urban areas), it does show that audiences are not as dumb as conventional
wisdom would have it.
One of the main arguments for the "modern moviegoers are dumb as hell" school of thought is overall box
office gross. While that argument is generally reasonable (b.o. does, to a certain extent, reflect a film's popularity or lack thereof), it has its share of shortcomings. Such an explanation, for one thing, is too reductive - it fails to take into account for the fact that studios benefit not only from lavish amounts of money allocated for marketing and promotions (which is crucial to spreading awareness),
but the fact that with all the heavy PR, it isn't that big a gamble to release films in 2,000+ theaters opening weekend... Smaller films, on the other hand, can't afford to do it. (Regardless of what others
might say, it's ain't WOM that drives the b.o., anymore - it's more about OPENING weekend turnout... droves who people who want to see what the pre-release hype is all about. Audiences check out the
brainless "movie of the moment" they've likely seen all the ads and spots on infotainment shows and rags, one week. And then check out another heavily hyped fluff film the next. That's how it goes in
today's short theatrical exhibition shelf-life.)
On the topic of marketing, yes, smaller films with less appealing taglines do benefit from stars
(i.e. Friends with Money). This is partially why foreign films have no chance in hell of crossing over (well, that and subtitles).
I'm not sure that Jeffrey Anderson's argument is flawless (it may be a tad bit too idealistic). But I do think he brings up a great point about marketing. It affects b.o. figures a great deal. Films are treated like any other pre-packaged product these days: they're the "IT" thing one moment, and "passe" the next.
btw, I'm not sure why this kind of reasoning is considered overreaching. Jonathan Rosenabum's book "How Hollywood and the Media Limit What Movies We Can See" reportedly addresses these similar issues.
Reply