Early Weekend Box Office Analysis
U can fool most of the people most of the time with their comedy offerings. But with The Wedding Date opening to what looks to be an $11 million weekend – strong Saturday night, but no Sunday, even if pandering to young women – they have shown they can’t fool all of the people all of the time.
I haven’t seen the picture, but I would expect that it might be around the same quality of The Guru, 2003’s January romantic comedy dud… that was terrible, but almost likeable, but unsellable. To give Universal its due – though I have watched almost no network TV in the last two weeks, so I am kinda blind here – I get the feeling that they did not go overboard on P&A for this romantic comedy starring an actress famous for playing a single girl who lives with a gay man and can’t seem to find true love here play a girl who hires a beard for a wedding because she can’t find true love. In other words, it’s easier to sell Ben Stiller and a ferret than a TV actress who is playing the same character she always seems to play.
Debra Messing in a female spin on The Man Who Loved Women… that could be a home run. Grace Buys A Date… no.
Of course, the bigger story, which is going so long now that the Energizer Bunny is envious, is another thriller/horror film opening in the 20s with no cast, no franchise, and no evidence of quality. Boogeyman joins Hide & Seek, White Noise, The Grudge, The Forgotten, Resident Evil: Apocalypse… and Saw came close. (Note that four of the six titles are from Sony… perhaps the wheel greasers that made it possible for Universal and Lions Gate.) Can The Ring Two become just the third January-April opening film in history to start with more than $50 million? It’s looking more than a little possible.
In Oscar box office news, the Million Dollar Baby juggernaut slowed a little on Friday, though it is still the chart topper amongst the five nominees. And Sideways continues to do nicely, but not phenomenally, putting more and more irrelevant room between itself and Finding Neverland. And as expected, The Aviator passed Ray on Thursday to become the high grosser in the Best Picture group.
It looks like M$B is going to need one intense surge of energy in the next week if it is to eek out the win against the now neck-and-neck Aviator.
Though it looks dreadful, I was actually a little surprised by The Wedding Date’s box office. I expected it to do half of what it will end up doing. Only a semi-wide release (in, what, a little more than half the number of theaters as Boogeyman?) and an unproven TV star, plus a very uninspiring trailer and, like Dave said, not a lot of P&A. I’m sure Universal isn’t losing any sleep over an $11 million opening weekend.
Id have to say that Boogeyman surprised the crap outta me, it looked fuckin horrible in the trailer i say and no stars either. kids will really see just about anything these days (except for movies by Uwe Boll). Wedding Date looked cute and horrible, not surprised it did ok its been awhile since a decent date movie came out. Had a good title too. Id have to say that the will smith movie Hitch will probably do a ton of cash based on the reception of this movie. Also – my man Clint’s movie looks like its not gonna be a box office phenom, may do mystic river numbers tho. I think the marketplace is basically telling us that no one gives a shit about Oscar movies right now, they wanna see peoples heads chopped off or cute girl/gay friend movies. Cant say I blame em.
“Hitch” is going to be utterly huge next weekend–30M+–courtesy of Valentine’s Day–look at “50 First Dates” for why. “Wedding Date” will probably hold up next week too, because it’ll get a V-Day bump. While there’s a big gross difference between it and “Boogeyman,” it’s running almost dead even in PSA, and I expect it’ll hold up better, both today and Saturday, and next weekend.
“Boogeyman” did better than I thought it would, but never underestimate the power of promotion on the WB, the “from the producers of The Grudge” tagline, and the PG-13 rating. (I think “Alone In The Dark” might have made some bank with a PG-13 rating.)
InLikeClint, I actually think the Oscar movies are doing good this year! I mean, a small Alexander Payne road movie is going to end up grossing upwards of $50mil. A boxing movie starring non-box office stars (yes, Morgan and Clint are popular but Morgan isn’t known to open pictures, and Clint hasn’t for a while) going to gross around the $75mil mark (or more if it wins) and The Aviator is gonna get to $100mil by Oscar night.
The people who want to see these movies are out there seeing them. It’s just that the Oscars aren’t in that 70’s/80’s phase where popular movies got nominations. If it were The Incredibles or Spiderman 2 would be up for a nod instead of melodramatic claptrap dreck like Finding Neverland.
now that Hilary S has won SAG, I wonder if it matters re. M$B box office.
Overall I liked M$B better than the Aviator as a film, and while Avaitor may make more money maybe from the voyeurism-on-Hughes & celeb guest element, CLint winning DGA and Hilary winning SAG must be a positive-in-their-direction harbinger for Oscars.
poor Marty. Maybe he and the wonderfule Jules Dassin should get lifetime achievement awards before they both die unrewarded for so much fine cinema.
I just got back from MILLION DOLLAR BABY and I hate to say it but I think it’s basically… this year’s ORDINARY PEOPLE. It’s a classically, self-effacingly directed tear-jerker with a lot of “heart.” If it wins best picture over THE AVIATOR, a film that, like RAGING BULL before it, is being criticized for being a directorial tour-de-force lacking in heart and soul, it will just prove… that history repeats itself.
A few years down the road everyone will be amazed that the academy went for the simple little tear –jerker over the true Best Picture of the year. Admittedly, THE AVIATOR has script problems and MILLION DOLLAR BABY has a great script, but all that means is that the former should win best picture and director and the latter deserves a screenplay award.
And not to throw more gasoline on the fire, I’d say that Annette Benning shows more range and, yes, skill, in BEING JULIA than Hilary Swank does in MDB. On the other hand, Morgan Freeman was truly the best thing about the Eastwood film and if he doesn’t get Supporting Actor, considering the level of his competition, I’ll be throwing things at my TV set.
Yeah, a $6500 psa for a Debra Messing vehicle would have to be considered a success.
Watching as much TV as I do. I have to report
that Uni got all sorts of silly promoting the Wedding
Date over the last week. I saw an add for that
on almost every show I watched. Or even just passing
by something there was Debra Messing. She might
be an unproven commodity in the film business, but
Will and Grace has been on long enough to give
her somewhat of a built in audience.
And all of these horrour/genre films doing this
good at the box office proves one thing; the people
want to see horrour/genre films. Which could lead
to a HORROUR film being the top grossing films of
the year. IF one of these studios put out one
that really just kicks the audience’s asses. About
time Horrour started to make some money again.
One last thing: M$B lost some steam this weekend?
YAY! After seeing the Aviator. I am convinced
this flick has to win. It has the stink of OSCAR
FLICK all over it. And whomever says the Aviator
has no heart apparently knows nothing or cares
little about human resilances. How Howard Hughes
lasted as long as he did back in the stone age
of psychiatric medicine is rather astounding.
“In Oscar box office news, the Million Dollar Baby juggernaut slowed a little on Friday, though it is still the chart topper amongst the five nominees.’ What the hell is THAT supposed to mean? It’s still the chart topper? It was the LAST film released, and the last film released wide. OF COURSE it made the most. As far as total box office goes, even if it wins Best Picture it probably won’t surpass Ray or The Aviator. What a weak attempt at converting no news into good news.
Nice analysis by Gombro above. Unfortunately there are a lot of fools who don’t know what the letters in AMPAS stand for. ARTS and fucking SCIENCES, people. Which one of those does Million Dollar Baby excel in? Neither. Give a couple awards to the actors for making you saps cry, but don’t confuse this with the highest effort in artistic achievement for the year. Film is a visual art. When the medium began it was silent and black & white. Take a guess which director would have flourished in that period.
Good night.
Gombo’s right. Many of the things being said about The Aviator were said about Raging Bull in 1980/81. I was around. I remember. Ditto Ordinary People/Million Dollar Baby. Does the Academy want to make the same mistake twice and vote for the middle-brow weepie over a film that’s actually going to stand the test of time?
What gets me riled up, actually, are all these people criticizing Scorsese (both for The Aviator and, a couple years ago, for Gangs of New York) for problems that, as Gombo rightly says, are strictly SCRIPT problems. Now if a hack like William Goldman (who is choirmaster of the anti-Scorsese contingent) can repeatedly say that a director is not the “author” of a film and shouldn’t get credit for the other artists’ contributions, then he should be willing to admit that the director shouldn’t be penalized for the FAULTS of the other contributors. In his famous essay against Gangs of New York, Goldman basically said Scorsese shouldn’t win best DIRECTOR because (get this) the SCREENPLAY for GoNY was so bad.
Goldman repeatedly says, to anyone who will listen, that if a film’s good it’s everyone’s achievement BUT the director’s (who’s just there to “help”–his word), but if a film is bad in any way, the director deserves the rap. What’s wrong with this picture?
Lazarus I completely agree with you. David I found disgusting the way you have been whoring yourself for MDB. For God’s sake do you know anything about box office? Of course MDB topped all the other five BP nominees. It was released one month after. Aviator has been already for over 7 weeks in wide release and it is still around and it just made 5.4 million in its eight weekend. That’s a pretty impressive result. But yeah what should I expect from you. You are the one that declared Aviator as a bomb in its first weekend. Like Lazarus said this was a really weak and ridiculous attempt at converting bad news into good news.
It is just like when you said when the BAFTa nods came out that the movie only movie that could be damaged by it was The Aviator (the movie with 14 nods). Ridculous. Completely ridiculous.
On another note.
Aviator’s worldwide box office – 110.613.000.
It already exceeded its production budget.
I’m so glad that Finding Neverland is doing well…the box office take is well exceeding its production budget and dropping only 6% is the best holdover rate of the Oscar films.
Well the real sign of a hit these days is a movie that makes back it’s budget domestically, not worldwide. And Aviator hasnt even done that worldwide – studios only get about 70% of a movie’s grosses, the rest go to theaters. So worldwide Aviator has made about $75, and if you consider that it cost $100 million to make and another $40-$50 in worldwide marketing, you’re looking at video as it’s place of profitability.
Gombro wrote: “I just got back from MILLION DOLLAR BABY and I hate to say it but I think it’s basically… this year’s ORDINARY PEOPLE.”
BINGO! Give that man a prize.
People who say “The Aviator” is all flash and no substance aren’t paying very close attention. The film very nicely suggests how the qualities that, at a personal level, can lead to unhappiness and destructiveness, are, ironically enough, the things that change history. In other words what’s considered “madness” at the individual level is often considered “historical” and “technological progress” at the cultural level. That strikes me as a much more profound and resonant theme than anything in the other four nominees for Best Picture.
Why is The aviator a good movie?
The very wise Carter Breslen wrote: “In other words what’s considered ‘madness’ at the individual level is often considered ‘historical’ and ‘technological progress’ at the cultural level.”
The film’s final line(s) sums this up quite nicely.
Read the above comment, Jose. Let it sink in a minute…
The idea that I am whoring for M$B is just you projecting. I am reporting. The perception in the Academy world matters, whether you agree with it or not. And I have consistently said that M$B may be too late to push out Aviator, regardless of whether it desevres to.
And to be honest, anyone who would compare The Aviator to Raging Bull would be dillusional. Yes, in comparing the years, okay. Is The Aviator one of the best five Scorsese films? No. I come close to believeing that this is an objective, factual opinion. It isn’t, as no opinion about movie quality can be, but Top Three… be honest… does anyone put The Aviator ahead of Raging Bull, Mean Streets or GoodFellas? I put Kundun and Christ way ahead of it.
Anyway… I have no problem with people bashing M$B… tastes are tastes… but don’t make anyone who is for it – and who is honest about their position – into a target for abuse. It’s poor debate.
Tastes are tastes. But if The Aviator loses, it’ll lose for the same reason as Raging Bull.
In response for Martin:
Miramax only finantiated 50% of its total budget so profit is coming.
David I said you are whoring for MDB cause as each day passes it seems more a fact than anything.
Check MCN’s homepage. You linked several and several articles related to MDB from critics demanding Oscars for it or about its (ridiculous) controversy around the plot twist.
But did you actually link or made any reference to the big article Michael Wilmington from Chicago Tribune wrote some days ago praising Aviator called something like this: “Scorsese has never won and why should Aviator change that?”. No you didn’t.
And yes. MDB topped the chart of all the other BP nominees. But it expanded last week. Aviator expanded on Christmas day. So making those statements are kind of irrelevant and ridiculous.
Wow, David, you say that one shouldn’t make someone who is “honest about their position” into “a target for abuse.” Then, in the same post you say: “anyone who would compare The Aviator to Raging Bull [is] delusional.” Why don’t you practice what you preach, David, rather than call me delusional?
The fact is that many people in the industry are now saying the same things about THE AVIATOR that were said about RAGING BULL, i.e. that it’s a stylistic tour-de-force but ultimately cold, that it’s cinematically dazzling but lacks heart, that it’s beautiful to look at, but about an uninteresting main character. You might not remember 1980, Dave, but I do. That’s what the middlebrows said then about Scorsese’s film and that’s what you’re saying now–that Scorsese’s just “showing off”.
I think all this pro-MDB anti-AVIATOR stuff proves Pauline Kael’s thesis in her essay “Fear of Movies”. She said wimpy audiences go for low-key middle-brow pabulum (her examples included Warren Beatty’s HEAVEN CAN WAIT) while recoiling against real chugging-on-all-cylanders art that like TAXI DRIVER. She wrote: “if you’re afraid of movies that excite your senses, you’re afraid of movies.”
Well, THE AVIATOR excites your senses, ALL your senses, in the way that RAGING BULL, TOUCH OF EVIL, 8 1/2, and DR. STRANGELOVE did.
MILLION DOLLAR BABY is basically an impeccably crafted maudlin B movie with a tear-jerking ending (2004’s TENDER MERCIES, TERMS OF ENDEARMENT, ORDINARY PEOPLE, WHERE THE RED FERN GROWS) and SIDEWAYS is the film equivalent of a short story out of THE NEW YORKER, circa 1984. I just hope the Academy doesn’t make the same mistake now that they’ve made so many times before.
I refuse to debate with someone that uses the word “financiated”.
yeah dude a biopic starring Dicrapio is real risky. your a fuckin moron.
Poor Scorsese. The same thing’s happening to him that happend to Orson Welles before him. Even when Welles made all these directorial triumphs like “The Lady from Shanghi,” “The Trial,” and “Touch of Evil,” everyone compared them to “Citizen Kane” in order to criticize them. Never mind that “The Lady from Shanghi” was still the best-directed film of its year, the fact that it wasn’t as good as “Kane” was used as evidence to say that Welles was a has been. If we’re going to do that, let’s do it to “Million Dollar Baby”, too. Compared to “Unforgiven”, “Baby” is a disappointment.
For my part, I refuse to take seriously anyone who mistakes “your” for “you’re,” as in “you’re a fucking moron.”
…and I think you mean “yea” (as slang for “yes”) rather than “yeah” (which is slang for “hurray”.)
People who live in glass houses shouldn’t act like fucking morons.
Memo to anyone who wishes to bring Pauline Kael into this discussion: Take care. The late, great Ms. Kael was most certainly NOT a fan of “Raging Bull.” To quote one of more scathing comments: Scorsese “aestheticizes pulp and kills it.” Oh, and by the way: She, too, thought it was a cold-blooded exercise in style.
I hardly think the fact that Kael didn’t like RAGING BULL invalidates the applicability of her thesis in “Fear of Movies” to this discussion. Throughout her career, Kael argued that most upper-middle-class audiences (like the Academy) regrettably prefer movies with self-effacing styles and SATERDAY EVENING POST themes to real, great, larger-than-life films (which she tended to love). Kael loved DePalma, Bertolucci, Welles, early Coppola, and a good deal of Scorsese, and I’m guessing she would have loved THE AVIATOR.
By the way Kael HATED Eastwood and called him a “hack” on more than one occasion. She also hated most of the films one could compare to MILLION DOLLAR BABY, like TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD, THE CHAMP, STELLA DALLAS, TENDER MERCIES. Her famous assessment of TENDER MERCIES could easily apply to MILLION DOLLAR BABY: “It used to happen that you paid to see a movie and you got back your weight in homilies. A lot of people miss this; tired of the new junk they want the old junk. Audiences appear to be deeply moved by this barebones picture, which is said to be about honest and real people…” That’s M$B to a tee.
By the way Kael HATED Eastwood and called him a “hack” on more than one occasion. She also hated most of the films one could compare to MILLION DOLLAR BABY, like TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD, THE CHAMP, STELLA DALLAS, TENDER MERCIES (her famious assessment of TENDER MERCIES could easily apply to MILLION DOLLAR BABY: “It used to happen that you paid to see a movie and you got back your weight in homilies. A lot of people miss this; tired of the new junk they want the old junk. Audiences appear to be deeply moved by this barebones picture, which is said to be about honest and real people.”
The academy isan extremely middlebrow institution, so soorry but anythimg that gets nominated there must have a middlebrow side. So it isn’t fair to try to turn M$B in a simple tearjerker (while ignoring the film more dark implications) while turning The Aviator into some sort of big highbrow art film. 3/4 or more of the M$B academy votes in the nominations certainly come from people that take it as a simple tearjeker, but I’m pretty sure that 3/4 or more of Aviator’s votes come from people that take it as simple epic biopic complete with lots of Hollywood nostalgia (BTW, Scorsese early films may be better but they certainly got their noms thanks to their more awards friendly qualities like DeNiro’s tour de force performance in RB, which, before someone throw a stone on me, I’m not criicizing). The Aviator (the mostly hand-made fo Oscar film of the year) is more than it’s more obvious oscar-friendly aspects and the same is true for M$B (but not of Finding Neverland, which sort of explain why almost no one is crazy about it).
Also, it’s fair for critics to criticize Scorsese for the script problems, sorry but in the way filmmaking usually goes, a director do works on the script. He may not be writing it, but he must ask for rewriting till he believes the script is fixed. You can be sure that John Logan (or someone else) did rewrite a lot of stuff after Scorsese came aboard including adding ideas by Scorsese (and probably some by the producers). Gangs of NY is a even more complicated case since Scorsese was in for the beggining and it’s very unclear if the script “problems” are really on the writing or were due to the complicated editing process.
BTW, it’s completly unfair to compare Scorsese and Welles. I’m a huge Scorsese fan, but he just did his second 100m superproduction and people seem very forgiving about he never being very profitable. At the same point in his career Welles was working in Europe (because nobody in Hollywood want to have anything to do with him) in films whose shooting take years because he never had money to shoot for more than a few days in a row (and most of the money he raised himself by working as an actor in whatever crappy film that was willing to pay). Around this point on his career he was doing Chimes at Midnight in Spain, a film (from whom GONY draws heavyly with mixed results) whose battles had less than 200 extras (but look better staged than the majority of the big epics of the time) and in which giving the lack of money he ennded up doing stuff like painting the sets himself. And when those Welles opened they not only were barely distributed but got awful reviews (the few people who liked them were often ridicularized). So sorry but try to make Marty look like a victim is ridiculous, most filmmakers doesn’t get in their late career the sort of power he current has, and he never had the two-punch of Gangs and Aviator before were both movies got a real wide audience (doesn’t matter if they turn a big profit or not) and mostly very positive reviews (Taxi Driver was fallowed by BO/critical flop NY, NY; RB by BO/critical flop King of Comedy; Goodfellas by BO hit but mixed reviewed Cape Fear).
Filipe, you’re right about the fact that a director does have some control over the script, etc., but still… There’s a reason there are two separate awards, one called “Best Director” and one called “Best Picture”. One can’t just conflate the two, which is what a lot of people tend to do. Scorsese, via his ususally brilliant direction, often makes his films greater than the sum of their parts. Eastwood on the other hand tends to make films that are NOTHING more than the sum of their parts.
Can anyone doubt this? MDB is as good as it is because of the script and the great acting. All Eastwood can be credited with doing is not fucking it up (which IS an achievement, of course, of sorts.) Same goes for “Mystic River.” If Eastwood were such a great director, why weren’t “Bloodwork” (2002), “Absolute Power” (1997) and “Space Cowboys” (2000) better than they were? Simple. Eastwood’s only as good as his cast and his scripts. Period. If you love MDB so much, give the screenplay, Freeman, and Swank the Oscar, but don’t make the mistake of thinking it was brilliantly directed and that Eastwood deserves another Oscar.
And I’m NOT comparing Welles and Scorsese to each other in terms of victimhood. I’m just saying that in Hollywood there’s an undeniable suspicion and envy of strong, visionary directors who really shake up the medium. It’s no accadent that Welles, Hitchcock, Kubrick, and Scorsese (not to mention Bergman, Fellini and Kurosawa) have never won Best Director Oscars.
Good pt, Jon. When people want to diss Scorsese, they tend to make snide comments about Bringing out the Dead or Cape Fear. How about pointing out that Eastwood’s career includes a lot of real hack jobs like True Crime, Heartbreak Ridge, Sudden Impact.
Two comments:
1. “Space Cowboys” opened to mostly favorable reviews (79%, according to Rotten Tomatoes) and earned $128 million worldwide. (Budget: $65 million.) So if you’re trying to dis Eastwood, either artistically or financially, you’d do well not to cite that film as an example of a failure. Or even an under-achiever.
2. Unless you’re somehow in contact with the spirit world, I don’t see how you can say with any degree of certainty whether Mr. Kael would have liked “The Aviator.” The Great Lady was rather notorious for eventually turning on directors she once championed. (Just ask Robert Altman — and make sure you’re standing far away when he starts venting.) She was also infamous for her indefatigable attacks on Eastwood, who,in her eyes, commited some kind of unforgivable mortal sin by starring “Dirty Harry.” Please don’t misunderstand: I’m neither tearing down Ms. Kael, nor presenting her as an unimpeachable authority. All I’m saying is, it’s a risky thing to use her as ammo in any debate. Almost any point you try to make by quoting her can be refuted by something else she said.
Is it just me, or does Joe Buck (on the Fox Sports coverage of Super Bowl) look like the Toad character in “American Graffiti”?
Okay…. (And by the way, thanks for your comments, Joe. I really do like debating you. You’re the kind of person one comes to these blogs hoping to talk to.)
First, Are you saying SPACE COWBOYS is a great movie worthy of awards? I can’t speak for jon, but I think his point was that it didn’t transcend it’s modest goals. it was just an okay summer movie. I liked it too.
Second, my point in bringing up the “Fear of Movies” essay is just to apply it on its own (irregardless of other Kael essays) to the situation of this year’s Oscar race. The academy, and other middle brow audiences, tend to like safe middle-of-the-road cinema made in self-effacing styles: TERMS OF ENDEARMENT, THE STING, GANDHI, on and on and on. And they tend to recoil from real upsetting or stylistically adventurous art like TAXI DRIVER, LAST TANGO IN PARIS (for which Bertolucci and Brando should have gotten Oscars), NASHVILLE. That’s the point of Kael’s essay, and I think that THAT POINT, on it’s own, applies to this discussion. By the way, I’m also not saying that THE AVIATOR is upsetting, but it is stylisitcally adventurous, and Scorsese does suffer from the rap of being too violent and controversial a director in general.
So once again, we have a three way race for best picture with two safe choices, and one more full-throttle all out piece of cinema in there. I hope it goes to the latter. If it does’t, then I’d say SIDEWAYS would be my second choice. But MDB, really is just a male weepie.
Yeah, I agree with some of the first comments on this post (before it turned into another Oscar rager)– $11 million for The Wedding Date is pretty impressive. I saw no estimates that went into double digits, and I personally thought it would do about half of what it actually grossed. Maybe that’s an indication it could’ve gone even higher, but really, the TV-ready cast and nondescript trailer did not bode well. $11 million on 1500 screens or so is a win.
Also, with all of this talk about Oscar box office being relatively low, I think the *average* gross is going to turn out to be more solid than usual. Isn’t there usually a movie that doesn’t even make it to 40 until after it wins a few Oscars? Right now, it’s possible that all of the Picture contenders will hit $50 million or higher (and the lone possible holdout, Neverland, will at least get to 45 or so).
And speaking of which, I’m *really* confused about why Finding Neverland is the lowest-grossing of those five. It seems like the most conventionally crowd-pleasing, and when I saw it in late October, I was convinced it would be a fairly big “surprise” hit.
Well, at least it’s an interesting race for once. It’s been awhile since The Best Picture Oscar winner wasn’t somewhar known from the start. It’s been, what, since Gladiator or so (And I’m being generous to Traffic in that account, since the buzzing about that was centered on the directer and Del Toro)? Sure, the other awards have had variable degrees of predictability, but even with A Beautiful Mind, there’s been a feeling that Best Picture winner was known since the nominee announcements.
I still have a feeling the favorite, The Aviator, will come out on top, though. When looking at the Ordinary People fad, that was the EIGHTIES, when movies like Ordinary People and Terms of Endearment were winning. Now, we have “bigger” movies with broader strokes. Recently, we’ve had (in no particular order) Gladiator, Titanic, Chicago (Not huge, but you have to grant that the driving force behind it was spectacle), and even a character study like A Beautiful Mind dealt with everything in big emotions and large imagery (the codebreaking, the stars scene). MDB may be too minimal, and The Aviator is the only “showy” movie in this year’s nominations. Sideways, I’m just not seeing it.
I just hope Charlie Kaufman gets on Oscar for best screenplay. It won’t be as interesting as what might’ve happened if him and his “brother” got it two years ago, but there is nobody in the field save Marty who deserves it more.
Looking at the early weekend estimates, I think even more that “Wedding Date” has got to be seen as a substantial success. Budget for the film is estimated at 15M (and I think Universal only had a relatively small piece of that), P&A was probably not gigantic, helped by a relatively limited release, cutting back on the prints budget. PSA was almost even with “Boogeyman,” and its genre and timing indicate that it’s likely to hold up well, both during the week and next weekend, putting it around 35-40M domestic theatrical. It’s also likely to do decent business in the UK and Europe, and especially with DVD, will turn a nice profit.
A few more comments, many (but not all) directed to Gombro:
1. The Academy might have given Brando an Oscar for “Last Tango,” but Brando indicated the year before (when he sent a proxy to pick up his “Godfather” prize) that he really didn’t want an Oscar. So I don’t think you can be too hard on the Academy for deciding, hey, if he doesn’t want it, let’s give it to somebody else. Incidentally, Jack Lemmon won the Best Actor prize for “Save the Tiger” that year (1973) and, you know what? He really was better in that movie than Brando was in “Last Tango.” (For that matter, runner-up Jack Nicolson was better than both of them in “The Last Detail.”)
2. I don’t think Eastwood meant “Space Cowboys” to be an Oscar contender — any more than I think Alfred Hitchcock meant “Psycho” to be an Oscar contender. (Don’t take my word for it, go back and read any book on Hitch in general or the making of “Psycho” in particular: Hitch made “Psycho” primarily as an experiment, to prove he could make a movie as cheaply and quickly — in B&W, no less! — as his TV shows of the era.) The thing to remember is, not every great filmmaker sets out to make a great film every time at bat. Hitchcock didn’t, Howard Hawks didn’t, Francois Truffaut didn’t — and Eastwood doesn’t. Sometimes, it’s more than enough to create, as author Graham Greene might put it, an “entertainment.” With “Space Cowboys,” Eastwood more than succeeded in reaching his goals. He made an “entertaining” movie (that, by the way, recorded a bigger domestic gross than anything Scorsese — another great filmmkaer — has ever made).
3. “Tender Mercies” was, is and always will be a great movie. It was truly an inide movie that just happened to be released by a major studio. Pauline Kael just didn’t get it, primarily because she didn’t understand the territory. When I go back and read her review, I have to laugh out loud at some of the assumptions she makes about Texas. (Funniest bit: She can’t understand how the female lead makes a living with her motel in the middle of nowhere. Honey, there are motels like that EVERYWHERE in Texas.)
4. Sometimes, the “minor” works of a great filmmaker are viewed, in retrospect, as masterworks. If you want proof, read the reviews Arthur Penn received for “Night Moves” ( which was supposed to be a mjaor disappointmnet after his “Bonnie and Clyde” and “Alice’s Restaurant”) and then see how highly it’s regarded NOW.
5. Clint Eastwood is held in such high esteem as a director for two reasons, I think. One: He’s one of the last filmmakers around who’s working in an almost “classical” style, unconcerned about trendy notions regarding pacing and flashy stylistics. (Much the same could be said about the late, great Sir David Lean in his later years.) Let other filmmakers worry about playing to the MTV generation. To put it bluntly, if you think his films are too slow, or too downbeat, or too — horror of horrors! — sentimental, well, he doesn’t give a damn. He tells a story at his own pace. Two, Eastwood is at an age where he doesn’t think he has to follow any trends, where he feels he can make any damn movie he wants. You may not like “Bridges of Madison County,” “True Crime” (which, given its anti-death penalty stance, is a fairly nervy movie to make in this conservative day and age), “Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil” and “Mystic River,” but you know what? I defy you to name me another director of his stature who’s willing to tackle such diverse subject matter.
6. So “M$B” is a “male weepie,” eh? Like, say “Brian’s Song,” maybe? So why are so many women so fond of Eastwood’s picture?
Don’t have time to respond to all your good points in detail, Joe, but I will quickly say two things:
Hitchcock may not have been aiming for Oscar gold with PSYCHO, but he did end up getting the last of his nominations for that film and deservedly so. And I think you’d have to agree that most people would consider PSYCHO a classic now, but by the same token, not many would put any money on SPACE COWBOYS being considered at the same level of greatness as PSYCHO.
Finally, you’re right, women aren’t so fond of MDB that’s why I call it a MALE weepie! =)
I just realized I read your last comment incorrectly. I personally don’t know any women who liked MDB much, but I know men who do. I’ll take your word for it, though. So let’s just call it a “weepie.”
Of course “Psycho” is a better movie than “Space Cowboys.” But, then again, I’d argue that “Space Cowboys” is a better movie than “Topaze.” Or “Torn Curtain.” The points, no great director hits it out of the park every time at bat. The important thing is to keep working, to keep trying to reach your audience — and, hopefully, to keep entertaining your audience.
And BTW: To keep with the original intent of this thread: “Boogeyman” is surprisingly good. Don’t be too quick to dismiss it just because it’s a genre flick.
Looks like I missed a lot of good discussion today. But I’d like to add in this point: Without sounding too pretentious, you would find it hard to argue that Eastwood’s lesser efforts fall under the heading of capital-A Art. They are entertainments. In Scorsese’s case, even a genre excursion like Cape Fear is still Art in the way it is constructed and shot, and the themes that it explores. Has Eastwood made artistic films? Sure. I think High Plains Drifter, Unforgiven, Bird, and maybe a couple others fit that bill. But let’s not pretend that the man is an artist on Scorsese’s level. You want to compare him to Howard Hawks, that’s fine. Hawks made some great films and he ain’t on Marty’s level either. Space Cowboys was enjoyable. But it wasn’t even Apollo 13. And Torn Curtain, while a minor work of Hitchcock’s, still has more creativity in it than Eastwood’s effort. You should have gone with Family Plot, though I would have argued that one too.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Film is a VISUAL medium, and the Academy is for Motion Picture ARTS and SCIENCES. Shouldn’t technique and creativity be given a little bit more weight than storytelling when it comes to Best Picture? Certainly it should with the directing award. Writing has its own category; there’s no reason to force the other ones under its umbrella.
One last point, Filipe said that The Aviator was the most tailor-made for Oscar out of the nominees. I find that insulting. Finding Neverland reeks of Oscar bait, but just because Scorsese gets big money to make an epic doesn’t make it a whore for awards. You’re looking at it backwards. A big production with great actors by one of the industry’s most talented artists is likely to receive awards on merit. It’s not devised with the intention of getting those awards. Maybe Harvey Weinstein looks at it that way, but he’s a studio head and producer. It’s not why Marty is in the game. Also, which film was finished quickly and rushed to theatres so it could qualify for this year’s Oscars? Oh yeah, that would be Million Dollar Baby.
>>You want to compare him to Howard Hawks, that’s fine. Hawks made some great films and he ain’t on Marty’s level either.<< I seriously doubt that even Martin Scorsese would argue that Howard Hawks is not on his level. But, then again, maybe that's because Marty has a sense of film history.
>>Shouldn’t technique and creativity be given a little bit more weight than storytelling when it comes to Best Picture?<< In a word, no. Storytelling always trumps technique. "Casablanca" is rather ordinary in terms of technique -- or in terms of creativity, for that matter. Yet it has endured for more than a half-century, because it's a great story. Without great storytelling, cinema is merely technology. With great storytelling, it is art.
Funny you should mention Casablanca, Joe–Michael Curtiz is one of the biggest hacks that ever came down the Hollywood pike. Wasn’t it Orson Welles who said he was the exception to the auteur theory? The guy made a handful of great films like Casablanca, Captain Blood, Adventures of Robin Hood, but only a fool would call him a great director, let alone an artist.
And no, Scorsese wouldn’t put himself above Hawks. Because he’s HUMBLE. But anyone who has studied film theory or film technique could tell you Hawks wasn’t some kind of genius. He got handed some great scripts, may have selected some, and had a great knack for storytelling and getting good perfs from his actors. That doesn’t make him an artist. I LOVE Hawks. The Big Sleep, Bringing Up Baby & Rio Bravo are a few of my all-time favs. But I’d say Eastwood is a better director, even though I don’t enjoy his films as much.
And you have completely distorted the argument here. You said cinema is merely technology without great storytelling. That’s bullshit. While storytelling sure helps, there are plenty of films that surpass being just about technology because of the ARTIST behind that technique. Malick’s The Thin Red Line isn’t a great work of storytelling. It’s a piss-poor adaptation of the novel when it comes to character and plot. But it sure was faithful to James Jones’ feelings about warfare and its effects on man and nature, in a brilliantly artistic manner. Much more so than From Here To Eternity, which SURPRISE, won best picture and was directed by another hack, Fred Zinneman. We won’t get into other visionaries like Godard, or modern artists like Lynch who aren’t too hot in the storytelling department.
Now here’s some education for you: The first Oscars were handed out in 1927. The award for Best Production was given to Wings. A separate award for Artistic Quality of Production was won by F.W. Murnau for Sunrise. Would you care to guess which one of those two has stood the test of time as a landmark film from a great director?
Laz: I could spend time arguing with you about whether Howard Hawks is an artist, and cite arguments to that effect by everyone from Quentin Tarantino to Andrew Sarris (who was the commentator, not Orson Welles, who made the remark about “Casablanca” in “The American Cinema”). I could spend more time pointing out that I never claimed Michael Curtiz was a great director. I could even spend time noting that cinema was more or less a mere novelty until narrative — yes, storytelling — was introduced by people like Edwin S. Porter and Melies and Alice Guy But I’m afraid that whenever someone describes a mind-numbingly pretentious movie as being “piss-poor” when it comes to such niceties as “character and plot,” yet at the same time praises it for being presented in “a brilliantly artistic manner,” I’m dealing with someone who speaks a different language than I do, and there’s really no point in trying to attempt a dialogue. A long time ago, critic Judith Crist warned me that you could divide all critics and cineastes into two catgeories — Truffauts and Godards — and that the twain rarely meet. I’m a Truffaut. You’re a Godard. That’s that. Have a nice life.
who cares what pauline kael thought of eastwood. she had her own agenda and obviously hasn’t been alive enough to see his classics.
Joe, that is the very first time you have said something that made me spit put my coffee. Boogeyman is abysmal. Easily the worst movie I have seen this year and I can’t imagine it not staying that way as the year progresses. Doesn’t have a single redeeming quality. Kay’s overdirecting is atrocious, the editing and sound effects are obnoxious and the screenplay, well, was there one? Throw in some horrible CGI and weak performances. And I am a huge horror movie fan. 86 painful minutes.
who pays to see boogeyman? its ur own fault u wasted 10 bucks.
Oh, come on, Joe. I don’t think Lazarus is quite the Marxist, deconstructonist you claim him to be. As I said before, there are separate categories for Best Picture and Best Director, and one might as well mention that there’s a third category (also split into two) for Best Screenplay. Do you argue with the logic of that? If not, then I think you have to take seriously my contention (and this goes back to Andrew Sarris, too, I think) that their are directors who transcend their scripts (good bad or in between) and those whose films are only about as good as their scripts, no better/no worse. It’s the difference between great craftsmen (like Eastwood, Arthur Hiller, Sidney Pollack) and great film artists (like Scorsese, Bergman, Altman).
Most noted directors fall somewhere in between, and the distinction doesn’t quite hold (Polanski, Ridley Scott, Coppola). But one couldn’t ask for a better comparison of the two extremes than Eastwood and Scorsese.
Has anybody noticed that “Sideways” is now the biggest-grossing title for Fox Searchlight? A high-water mark as that imprint comes up on its 10th anniversary.
Also, Universal has US rights only for “The Wedding Date”; indie Equinoxe Films released it in Canada.
I didn’t pay to see Boogeyman, and even if I had, it wouldn’t have cost me $10. Should people only pay to see high art bob? I’m sure you only pay to see the best of the best, and nothing else.
Stella’s Boy: Maybe it’s because I walked in with such low expectations that I was pleasantly surprised. It’s a bit like the time I saw “Waterworld” — I expected something so bad, the projectionist would have to handle it with tongs. Instead, it didn’t suck, so I was relatively happy.
Gombro: Sure, there are directors who transcend their scripts. Certainly, other directors are only as good as their scripts. And no, I don’t think Michael Curtiz belongs in the same exalted circle as Bergman, Fellini, etc. On the other hand: I don’t think your division of directors into artists and craftsmen allows for enough X-factor variables. For example, I don’t think there’s any way to overstate the importance of a director’s ability to create and sustain a work environment that’s greatly conducive to creativity. Put it another way: I’ve never heard of an actor who didn’t sing Eastwood’s praises as a director after they worked for the guy. Apparently, he is sensitive enough to the needs of individual actors to be able to bring out the best in them by creating the right atmosphere on a set. In my mind, that alone is enough to earn him the label of artist. I’m not saying that Scorsese doesn’t possess the same ability, or that he might possess even more of it. But when you consider that no less a giant than Orson Welles praised Eastwood’s work as a director (specifically, in “The Outlaw Josey Wales”)I think maybe the guy is more of an artist than you give him credit for being.
If technical achievements in cinema defined the Best Picture category, we’d be in a world where Star Wars is the best film ever made. Which of course is insane. Ideally, the best films are judged on a number of levels, coming down to the basic notion: is it a story worth telling and a story well-told? Just because a movie costs $20 million and isn’t visually evocative doesn’t mean that it is poorly-told. And just because a movie costs $100 million and is visually evocative does not mean that it is well-told. The best films work on any number of levels, to say that they should solely be judged on their mastery of the visual storytelling is very ignorant.
Joe, I think you’re right, there’s not much point discussing this further. If you see Terrence Malick as simply pretentious cinema, there isn’t much middle ground. This guy was recognized by the Academy for his work, so I’m not the only one who thinks his work has merit. Or perhaps you saw the botton of your argument drop out, and can’t think of anything else to add.
You said film without story is just technique. I provided an acclaimed example disputing that. I guess it ends there then.
As far as Eastwood’s concerned (the original thrust of this argument), The Outlaw Josey Wales is a great film. There’s a lot of artistic worth there. But every film of his does not aspire in that direction. I wouldn’t put Million Dollar Baby in that category, and that’s why I don’t think it deserves Best Picture, let alone the directing Oscar. Scorsese, on the other hand, approaches each film as an artist, and The Aviator, while not on the level of Raging Bull, is no different.
Joe, you wrote: “I don’t think there’s any way to overstate the importance of a director’s ability to create and sustain a work environment that’s greatly conducive to creativity.” I agree. But I disagree that “that alone is enough to earn him the label of artist.”
Aren’t there great bosses in the corporate world who are justly praised for their ability to “create and sustain a work envirronment that’s greatly conductive to creativity?”
I don’t think that makes a manager at an advertising firm, or a vice president of marketing somewhere an artist by any reasonable definition.
P.S. I like Godard and Truffaut. What does that make me?
>>This guy was recognized by the Academy for his work, so I’m not the only one who thinks his work has merit.<< Er, gee, I don't have to tell you this, but Terence Malick has never been "recognized" by the Academy. I mean, unless you call getting nominated twice, but never actually winning, being recognized. I mean, if merely being nominated is your idea of "recognition," then what do you call the Oscar they actually gave to Clint Eastwood for "Unforgiven" -- canonization? And if Eastwood gets another award this year, what will that be? Deification? Oh, wait, I forgot, the Oscars are meaningless, right? That is, unless you want to use them to support a dubious argument, correct? Well, if "Thin Red Line" failed to win any Oscars, and "Pillow Talk" won an Oscar for Best Screenplay (beating, among other movies, "Wild Strawberries" and "The 400 Blows"), I guess the Academy has given more recognition to a Doris Day movie than to anything ever written or directed by Terence Malick. Yes, that's right: If "recognition" by the Academy is so important, then Russell Rouse, Clarence Greene, Stanley Shapiro and Maurice Richlin (writers of "Pillow Talk")are greater artists than the auteur of "Thin Red Line." And as for this whole argument that the Academy is supposed to stand for Art and Science, I'll let D.W. Griffith have the last words: What art? What science?
I think Eastwood is a great filmmaker. Unforgiven and A Perfect World are two of my favorite films of the ’90s. I just had a lot of problems with Million $ Baby and believe that he has done much better work.
So what is the Acadamy “supposed” to stand for, Joe? And to be very clear, what’s your definition of “supposed”?
One more time: The Academy is nothing more (or less) than a trade organization, a private club in which members honor other members (or member wanna-bes) for reasons that often have more to do with log-rolling, score-settling and image-buffing than truth and beauty and art. The Academy of Bathroom Tile Cleaners might vote EZ Duz-It as Best Mildew Remover of 2005, and that title might carry some prestige because, hey, the award was voted by experts in the field. But that doesn’t mean I must accept that judgment call. I might prefer to buy Takes-It-Off mildew remover instead, especially if my neighborhood Grocery Megaplex store is running a triple-coupon special. Likewise, if you think “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” is infinitely better than the five finalists for Best Picture honors, well, are you wrong? Or, perhaps more important, are you going to change your mind because a few thousand Hollywood insiders say you’re wrong?
I think there’s a difference between what the Acadamy is (and you’re right, Joe) and what it’s “supposed” to be or “ought” to be. A lot of us idealistic saps think it IS “supposed” to be about the art and about the science. Hence the debates on what “ought” to win.
My two cents on Eastwood is that even a good craftsman-director ought to have seen what a sentimental cliche the mentally retarded character at the gym seemed to be and should have cut him out. His inclusion in M$B would have made Dickens blush. Likewise, even though I “bought” the red-neck family, I thought their shifty lawyer was about as beliveable as the “I can’t believe it’s a law firm” lawyer on “The Simpsons”. Without uttering a word, his body language, oily hair, and shifty-eyes made it one of the worst characterizations of the year and hurt an otherwise powerful scene.
Once again, to paraphrase Lenny Bruce: There is only what is. What could be or should be or is supposed to be is a lie.
they couldn’t pay me to see boogeyman. thats what separates us stellas girl. besides ur lack of taste in films
malick is as pretentious and boring as it gets. only he can take a war movie with an all time cast and make it a 3 hour snooze. hes got an eye for talent too. how he completely cut adrien “oscar” brody from the film. keep in mind it wasn’t just some supporting role either.
Malick is a talented cinematographer but he has yet to show me any kind of talent as a storyteller. TRL is a hypnotic film, but it can also be incredibly dull and obvious. I’d hate to call Malick a bad filmmaker, but to compare him to some of the great storytellers of our time is simply ignorant of what a filmmaker does. He should really be working as a DP, not a director.
You think your movie taste is any better than anyone else around here bob? Get over yourself man. So what if I like a wide array of genres? I like movies of all kinds. And since when you do have impeccable taste? Seriously.
So now you’ve resorted to arguing semantics, Joe? I’d say being nominated is equal to recognition. The opposite would be “ignored”, which is what Paul Giamatti was this year. Winning is winning. But a nomination is still being recognized for your work. And considering Malick has only made three films, I’d say two noms ain’t bad.
I also am a big fan of Godard and Truffaut. They aren’t mutually exclusive. I would argue that Truffaut is far more than a storyteller; you only need look to Jules and Jim to see his abilities as a technician and artist.
Also, if you’ve trying to say that Godard means less to cinema than Eastwood, then I think we’re all lost here. While JLG has plenty of films that are full of shit, he blew the medium wide open for many artists.
I’m not sure I want to get into a game of deciding who’s had the bigger influence on cinema. I mean, how do you measure? If you want to list the directors who have had the biggest infleunce on CONTEMPORARY filmmakers, for example, I would argue that, strictly in terms of style, Ridley Scott, Claude Lelouch and Quentin Tarantino are more obvious and important (a relative term, I’ll grant you) influences than D.W. Griffith or F.W. Murnau. Hell, you could argue that, looking out over today’s movie landscape, Martin Scorsese, Clint Eastwood AND John Hughes are more direct and relevant influences than Malick OR Godard. I’m not necessarily saying that’s a good thing, mind you. (In fact, in some ways, it’s scary.) And I’ll certainly agree that, in terms of his initial impact, Godard’s contribution to cinema is incalculable. But, hey, “Breathless” and “Weekend” were a long, long time ago. I see MTV videos all the time that “quote” Godard — but, really, aren’t those videos more influential on tomorrow’s filmmakers? I mean, look, trust me on this: There are college students majoring in Communication and/or Film Production who have never seen a Western in their lives. (How do I know this? Because some of them pop up in my classes at University of Houston and Houston Community College.) Now, can you say these guys and gals were ever influenced by John Ford? I would say yes, in a roundabout way (Ford’s “The Searchers” by way of Lucas’ “Star Wars”), but I’m not sure whether they’ll ever recognize or accept that. I know, I know: It’s my freaking job to make sure they grasp this. But with some people, if they don’t know, you can’t tell them.
With all due respect to those who’ve posted in favor of Scorsese, I must say that none of you has really made the distinction between a work of art and the work of an artist. Scorsese is undeniably an artist, but I find it fairly alarming that anyone strongly feels “The Aviator” rises to the level of masterful cinematic art. Despite all of the convenient comparisons to under-awarded masterpieces like “Raging Bull” by some of the contributors here, to me “The Aviator”‘s most striking feature is its non-descript ordinariness. It plays like extremely standard big-budget studio fare, absolutely nothing in its soulless depiction of its central character surprised me, and all of it felt like it was put together via the conventional biopic playbook. No element of this paint-by-numbers film stayed with me after the credits finished rolling. Especially shocking to me is how usually erudite contributors here can staunchly defend “The Aviator”‘s ridiculously banal depiction of Hughes’ complex psychiatric problems. There was far greater psychological and emotional depth in the shallow, now often-belittled “As Good As It Gets.”
Sorry, you can throw around the pointless term “hack” all you want, but IMHO Taylor Hackford’s direction of “Ray” was infinitely more compelling, insightful and artful about its subject than anything Scorsese had to offer about Hughes. Just because an artist’s name is above the title does not make “The Aviator” a work of art.
Chester, I toast your insight and honesty. You’re absolutely right: Not every film by a great filmmaker is a great film. (Did I hear someone mention Spike Lee’s “Girl 6”? Or Roman Polanski’s “Pirates”?) I obviously liked “The Aviator” a great deal more than you, but I agree that it’s not up there with “GoodFellas,” “Taxi Driver” or even “Casino.” In fact, I must admit I have a softer spot in my heart for “Bringing Out the Dead.”
And yet, having said all that… and all the while insisting that “Sideways,” “The Life Aquatic,” “The Incredibles” and “A Very Long Engagement” are better films… I must admit I think “The Aviator” is going to get the Best Picture award. For what it’s worth. Which, as I’ve already indicated, isn’t much
Stella. I’m thinking if you ignore bob, he’ll go away. Maybe not, but with people like Joe, Gombro, and Chester around, the level of discourse has really shot up. Lately, as soon as I see the all-lower-case sentences and the u and ur in the sentences, I just skip to the next post.
Hey Joe et al. What about Antonioni? He was recognized by the Academy, both with nominations (best director for BLOWUP and a lifetime achievement award). He would be considered terrible in the story-telling dept. But he’s a master filmmaker and a great artst due to his visual style and the themes he conveys through them. Same with Mallick. There’s a great new book from the BFI called FORMS OF BEING that offers a brilliant explanation of what THIN RED LINE was doing.
I, for one, adore The Thin Red Line. I think it’s a beautiful, haunting movie (and the score is magnificent).
I’ll always have kind words to say about “Blow-Up,” because it’s the first movie I ever saw that had full-frontal female nudity. (I was in high school when the movie was released, and the “revealing” scene was a big deal at the time.) But I would argue that his best films also have strong narratives — even “Blow-Up,” but also “Red Desert” and “L’Avventura. ” The trick is, Antonioni’s genius lies in his ability to subvert narrative by upending our expectations and denying closure. I mean, we never do find out what happned to the missing girl in “L’Avventura.” And the reason we don’t is, that mystery is not nearly as important as we initially assume it is.
The Thin Red Line was a supreme waste of talent and time. I wish Spielberg or someone had a chance at that story and not Malick. There is a reason he hasn’t directed in 20 some odd years.
Stella, did you find Boogeyman to be every bit as good as She Hate Me?
Mark, so the rumors are true. You really can’t read. Cause I already posted my thoughts on Boogeyman here. Maybe you can get someone else who isn’t illiterate to read you my post. Then you’ll know what I thought of it. Spielberg directing Thin Red Line? Didn’t he already make a WWII movie?
At the risk of really, REALLY peeving the Malick fans out there: I much preferred the low-budget, no-frills B&W adaptation of “Thin Red Line” that was filmed in 1964, with Keir Dullea and Jack Warden directed by Andrew Marton, who started out as a second-unit director on “Ben Hur,” “Cleopatra” and “55 Days at Peking.” To put it charitably, he wasn’t what you’d call an outstanding artist. (His later directorial credits include “Birds Do It” with Soupy Sales and “Clarence the Cross-Eyed Lion.”) But his “Thin Red Line” (available on DVD, by the way) has a grungy immediacy and vitality that Malick’s film lacks.
…maybe we could make a pact to ignore Mark too. I’m here to talk to you S.B. Why waste your key-strokes on angry, anti-art, anti-intellectual, right-wing yokels? =)
All you liberals need is a stiff cock in your ass and a cereal box to read and your set for the night. fuckin morons.
Barry: It’s “you’re” (as in “you are”), not “your.” And it’s “fucking,” not “fuckin.” If you cannot even spell your favorite obscenity properly, you are worse than a moron.
I don’t think anyone here is trying to argue that The Aviator is some supreme artistic achievement. But I’d argue you could say the same about GoodFellas, which many people feel was worthy of Best Picture & Best Director back in 1990. As much as I love that film, it isn’t Raging Bull or Taxi Driver either. Stylistically, I’d say Cape Fear was more artistic an exercise than GoodFellas. Kundun certainly was, and I’d argue The Age of Innocence as well.
But all of this is beside the point. We’re talking 2004, and we’re talking these five nominees. Some people think it’s a tour-de-force. Some people think it’s just a entertaining flick. My argument is that if we’re going to measure the artistic worth of each film, The Aviator has more of it, even if the whole is less than the sum of its parts. In addition to Scorsese’s usual superlative shot compositions, the “art” rears its head more proudly in places, such as the red carpet or screening room downward spiral scenes. It’s in the lines of string tied all over Hughes’ house when Ava Gardner comes to rescue him. And while future film students may not be studying this film as some seminal work (although if they’re taking a class on Scorsese it will definitely be there), they would certainly learn more about the aesthetics and technique of filmmaking with The Aviator than something like Sideways or Million Dollar Baby. And while it might not be an award worthy screenplay, it’s still engrossing, with good dialogue (great at times). It’s not like Titanic, which had a SHITTY script with terrible dialogue and characters ranging from one to two dimensions. Go rag on Cameron.
Laz, at last I can say we are in TOTAL agreement on something: The “Titanic” script bites big time. I laughed out loud when, upon seeing and hearing the iceberg do its initial damage, Leonardo had to deliver this immortal line: “This is bad.” Amazingly, however, I was apparently the only person in the premiere audience who found this amusing. Go figure. I was rooting for “L.A. Confidential” that year.
There are many good things about TITANIC, I think. Even the screenplay is brilliantly STRUCTURED. But God in Heaven, someone should have given that baby a dialogue polish! If you compare it to WINGS OF THE DOVE, which came out about the same time, has some of the same “class” themes, and is–most importantly–set at roughly the same time, you know which one actually gives an accurate account of how people back then would have talked.
On the other hand, all those teens who went over and over again might have been put off by dialog to which they couldn’t relate.
“Martin” and “Barry” are clearly the same person. Under both names he likes to call people “morons” while using “your” for “you’re”, “fuckin” for “fucking”, and “yeah” for “yea”. The irony is fuckin[g] BEAUTIFUL!!!
Ty: Fuckin’ A, mac!
Leydon is obviously Smith. You can spot a Liberal a mile away. Just look for the ugly mob, spewing hate.
You really want to meet a prententious film fan, find one that loves Terry Malick. His only fans are film school dropouts who think every movie released nowadays is pure shite. Basically elitist wannabee’s.
i think we can all safely say the aviator isn’t even in marty’s usual league of great films. its good. not great.
People who bitch about Malick or Scorsese not being a storyteller like Eastwood would bitch about Keats not writing prose like Hemingway. They would also bitch about a painter like Velazquez not illustrating comic books.
With all due respect to Joe, I do NOT think people watch Antonioni films for the narratives. When audiences approached M A’s films in terms of narrative, like the first audience that saw L’AVVENTURA at Cannes, they BOOED it! Antonioni is a visual (and to some extent aural) artist who deals with intangible themes like estrangement and alienation.
Speaking of Velazquez, whenever I think of Antonioni, I’m reminded of the Godard quotation from PIERROT LE FOU about Velazquez that goes something like “then Velazquez stopped painting objects, deciding to focus instead on painting the spaces between the objects.” You can’t get at ideas like that through narrative, but you can create great cinema with a theme about that if you’re a great cinematic artist with full command of the tools of the director.
Was Godard talking about Las Meninas?
Picasso was obsessed with that particular painting.
Much like future artists will be obsessed with Scorsese’s work.
Sorry, Bicycle Bob, what “usual” league of great films are you talking about? In my opinion (one shared by others defending it here), it is a great film. It’s just not a masterpiece. I don’t divide films into great, good, and shit. Most directors NEVER make a film as good as Taxi Driver or Raging Bull; is that the league you’re talking about?
Some people may feel The Avaiator even falls short of Last Temptation or Age of Innocence. Fine. I’d probably agree. But that doesn’t render it simply “good” in my mind, or unworthy of awards.
laz
martys usual great, classic films. taxi driver, mean streets, goodfellas, raging bull. those are all time, top 30 classics. is the aviator in that class? no. is it good? yes.
u can’t compare malick to marty s or eastwood. he simply doesn’t have the output or the work to even be considered in their class. we can’t look at movie he did in 1978 as a career. beautifully shot but lets not go overboard calling malick a great storyteller. maybe if he didn’t take 2 decades off and only made 3 movies in 30 yrs he could be talked about as an important filmmaker.
If you say Terry Malick is as good as you say then it is a giant waste of talent that he has not made more than three films. A disgrace really. But I haven’t seen anything in those three films to say he’d be in Scorsese’s league. Nothing.
Malick can be thought of a great filmmaker precisely because he hasn’t had time to fuck up his career by making I’m-only-in-it-for-the-money movies. He’s the John Cazale of directing and thus so far batting 1000. (i.e. John Cazale never made a bad movie). He’s doing alot of producing.
I love most Scorsese movies, I love Malick’s pictures. they needn’t be mutually exclusive in any way.
and yes it is a giant loss of talent that Terry malick was on the disappeared list for so long, but he did what he had to. Plenty of young filmmakers have been influenced by Malick style of beautiful alienation.
hes made 3 boring, no story flicks. why do u celebrate him?
Hey, Lota, speaking of Malick producing, I just saw David Gordon Green’s UNDERTOW a couple weeks back. It was produced by Malik and was a nice little indie flick. Green is one of those many directors who has been influenced by Malick in profound ways, much to the good of contemporary independent American cinema. I can hardly wait for the new Malik-directed film, THE NEW WORLD, to come out.
I’m a huge David Gordon Green fan. Can’t wait to see Undertow. Or The New World for that matter. Looks great to me.
how can anyone be influenced by malick? from days of heaven back in the 70’s? it is really too bad he doesn’t have a more comprehensive library of films. i think people are still in the theatre waiting for the third act to start from a thin red line. the never ending movie
“how can anyone be influenced by malick? from days of heaven back in the 70’s?”
You’re likely joking at least a bit, but come on. By the time DGG was making “George Washington,” Malick had made three films. Many, many filmmakers were influenced by Tarantino based solely on 3 films (and really just hist first 2).
Tarantino’s a perfect example, C, for how quality, not quantity, should be the gage of success. I personally think it would be better if our great film artists only made a film when they were able to offer up something worthy of their gifts.
I think Woody Allen would have ended up making better films had he not kept himself to this crazy “one film a year no matter what” work ethic. (Same might go for Eastwood.)
Tarkovsky, Bresson, Tarantino, Kubrick, all had the right idea by refusing to work just to work.
Having said that, I’m sure someone will respond that not working is a kind of laziness. But the fact is that even when they’re not directing their own films, Malick, Tarantino, etc., have worked their asses off helping youger filmmakers get their films out there (Malick with DG Green, Tarantino with Wong Kar-Wai), teaching and doing other valuable things.
There is a huge difference between QT and Malick. QT has made five films in ten years. Malick three in thirty years. That is a huge void. What did Terry do in those years he didn’t direct? Even when QT wasn’t directing he was writing, appearing on shows, giving interviews, making himself available.
I hope QT decides to make a good movie again. It’s been too long. Jackie Brown was what, 1998?
You mean Pulp Fiction right?
No. I love Jackie Brown.
so ur saying that we should be happy if a director makes only one movie a decade? what happend to output and challenging an audience? what happend to a real portflio of work? look at marty s. even his misses are watchable and we can discuss them. malick doesn’t have that. hes not a genuis. hes a loser for wasting whatever talent he may have had.