MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Eastwood's Double Feature

Seeing that Variety went buck wild over the idea – which is still just an idea, according to their one reported story – of Eastwood releasing both Iwo Jima films this year, I wonder what starting gun went off in whose ear.
They have a news story from Pamela McClintock
There is no rule book to follow for the marketing and publicity execs at Warner Bros. and Paramount who are charged with opening his two Iwo Jima films. Even the rollout campaign is still being worked out.
Execs believe it’s critical that the two movies be released within a short time of each other in the U.S. and Japan. However, they don’t want the films to crowd each other out.
“Each movie needs its own space. It can’t be seen as a stunt,” one marketing vet says.
There are also a lot of generals in the mix. DreamWorks and Warner Bros. were the original partners on the films, but once DreamWorks was sold to Paramount, Par became involved.
Par bows “Flags of Our Fathers” (the battle from the American viewpoint) next month in the U.S., while Warners begins opening “Letters From Iwo Jima” (told from the Japanese side and shot entirely in Japanese) in December. Warners is releasing “Flags” overseas, and “Letters” everywhere.

and
The Japanese-language pic bows Dec. 9 in Japan. Warners hasn’t set a U.S. release date, but buzz is that the studio could mount a qualifying awards run in December before going wide domestically early in the year.
Then there is the Peter Bart piece
Clint has two movies coming out before year’s end. That is, two separate movies with the same story. Actually, not the same story; not even the same language. Just the same setting.
and
“Flags of Our Fathers,” a movie about the battle for Iwo Jima 60-plus years ago, will open Oct. 20. “Letters From Iwo Jima,” Clint’s Japanese-language movie on the same subject, but from the Japanese point of view, will open two months later.
Thus, the possibility exists that Clint will be the first filmmaker in history to have two films in awards contention in the same year, in two different languages.

Finally, there is a William Goldman appreciation of Clint
Not ever a career like it.
Not in all movie history.

Anyway…
This all suggests to me that something funky is afoot.
I had heard that the first screenings for any Paramount execs of Flags were to be in the week to come. Perhaps they happened last week. But keep in mind, we’re 7 weeks out from a release. Extremely unusual.
But even more unusual is having two movies like this released by two different studios with two different agendas. Paramount/DreamWorks has – if anyone can have this – too many Oscar contenders. Warner Bros hopes they have one in Blood Diamond and think The Departed could surprise. WHo knows what they think about what they have seen of The Good German? But the first two are considered by some to be more thrillers than Oscar bait and the Soderbergh is in black and white and might also be “just” a thriller… which means that after a disastrous summer, the urge to find a possible Oscar solution could be mighty mighty. And Eastwood’s allegiance is to WB first, Paramount/DreamWorks… somewhere.
The bottom line on Eastwood is that he tells the studios what’s happening. So how this is coming down is hard to read.
There is a range of scenarios.
1) Eastwood could have decided that DreamWorks/Paramount has too many movies and his is going to be de-prioritized by the studio while WB will give it full attention.
2) Eastwood could have simply decided that two people chasing Oscar for him is better than one.
3) Eastwood could have finally been convinced that the show of releasing both films in the same year is a winner for him and the films.
4) Warner Bros could have campaigned with Eastwood for all or any of the above

Be Sociable, Share!

41 Responses to “Eastwood's Double Feature”

  1. mutinyco says:

    He already has his Oscars. Perhaps he’s comfortable with that and is after something bigger: Glory.

  2. EDouglas says:

    Heck, if Eastwood can get a good performance out of Paul Walker, he should be given every single award possible automatically.

  3. Eric says:

    So has the title changed to “Letters from Iwo Jima” here in the US now, too? It’s a lousy title. It sounds like a Merchant-Ivory movie.

  4. All this talk of WB not having an awards contender.
    The Good German?

  5. David Poland says:

    Good point, Kris.
    I am adjusting the piece… though Good German is no lock either.

  6. Josh Massey says:

    “Red Sun, Black Sand” was SUCH a better title, but who really cares? They can call it “Dirty Harry’s Japanese War Movie” if they want; it just depends what’s on the screen.
    So Clint could conceivably get two Best Picture noms, a Foreign Language film nom,… and one director nom, right? I think I remember hearing actors can get nominated twice in the same category, but directors can’t. Is that right?
    And EDouglas: Walker has already surprised me twice this year, with good performances in “Eight Below” and, especially, “Running Scared.”

  7. David Poland says:

    I assume “foreign language” was a joke… but to be clear… no, he can’t…. it’s not a foreign language film made by a foreign country… unless they tried some scam to get Iceland to decalre it theirs… but that won’t happen…

  8. Josh Massey says:

    That’s what I thought – I remember looking into it around “Passion” time.

  9. jeffmcm says:

    I think it’s the other way around, Josh, remember that Soderbergh was nominated as Best Director for both Erin Brockovich and Traffic – and didn’t split his own vote enough to lose.
    Paul Walker is showing better taste in projects, and his Running Scared performance was probably the best he’s ever done, but he was still stiff as a board.

  10. Josh Massey says:

    Yep, you’re right Jeff – I do have it backward. I’m going to go back to sleep…

  11. The only thing really giving me pause on Good German is the black and white. But even then, you’re right, it could end up “just” a thriller.

  12. Martin S says:

    It’s audience interest more than Oscar.
    Why would an American audience, 6 months or a year later, care to see the Japanese bookend to a story they’ve already absorbed from the American perspective? Sub-titles, unknown actors, and the depressing perspective of already knowing what fate exists for the Imperial soldiers…I spent a year on a Japanese perspective WW2 docu, and Iwo Jima is a literal nightmare. Villagers commit mass suicide because of the fear they’ve been indoctrinated with about Americans, Flame throwers in caves, teenage girls thrown off cliffs to protect Japanese purity, so on and so forth. It’s not Midway and kamikazes.
    If Clint is going to be his usual honest self as a director, Red Sun will be the most depressing film released. WB knows this and probably wants to hit the market while the good vibe from Flags is still resonating. Give people enough time to think about what Red Sun is going to cover and you’ll get half the turnout of FoOF.

  13. Josh Martin says:

    Pretty sure you’re thinking of Okinawa there…Iwo Jima was uninhabited except for military personnel (still the case today, in fact).

  14. Dave says:

    >>Why would an American audience, 6 months or a year later, care to see the Japanese bookend to a story they’ve already absorbed from the American perspective?
    It isn’t a ‘bookend’ and it isn’t the same story.
    >>Sub-titles, unknown actors, and the depressing perspective of already knowing what fate exists for the Imperial soldiers…I spent a year on a Japanese perspective WW2 docu, and Iwo Jima is a literal nightmare.
    My, all that & Ken Watanabe too. Sounds like powerful drama to me & if we’re talking about audience interest then let me remind you that the bleak, dark subject matter of Mystic River & Million Dollar Baby didn’t exactly deter audiences either. With Eastwood’s name attached there’s no reason to think these will perform any differently.

  15. jeffmcm says:

    Mystic River grossed $90m, Million Dollar Baby grossed $100m, domestic. I can imagine Flags getting to those levels, but not both movies. It seems like the Japanese version, whatever it’s called, would have a ceiling of around $50-60m under the best circumstances. This would still be enough to make it the 3rd highest-grossing foreign language film of all time, which I’m sure WB would be happy with.

  16. Dave says:

    >>It seems like the Japanese version, whatever it’s called, would have a ceiling of around $50-60m under the best circumstances.
    Possibly, although WB has got to be hoping that a sizable proportion of the audience for Flags will also turn out to see Letters along with the arthouse crowd that supports world cinema stuff. And Letters would appear to have more of an organic connection with Flags than perhaps anybody realised. At least if this excerpt from Peter Bart’s article is anything to go by:
    ‘Clint’s grand design is for the two films to complement, but not repeat, each other. Hence, one scene in “Flags” shows American soldiers chatting in their foxhole, when suddenly one of them disappears, having been yanked into a tunnel by the Japanese. The Japanese film does not show the Americans, but rather the Japanese who are pulling down the American soldier.’
    Personally I find that interesting and maybe things like that’ll pique the curiousity of other viewers. The other point here is that audiences trust Eastwood and trust him to the extent that they’ll at least entertain the idea of going to see a Japanese-perspective movie about the battle of Iwo Jima in a way they wouldn’t had the movie been directed by, say, Oliver Stone.

  17. jeffmcm says:

    You mean like Stone’s Heaven & Earth.

  18. EDouglas says:

    David, you don’t think that WB will try to get Hugh Jackman in as Best Actor for The Fountain? I think considering his past year, it would be an easy lock with the Academy’s acting division.

  19. Adam says:

    pshaw, Edouglas, fantasy and scifi aren’t allowed at the academy, remember how lord of the rings never won anything? they’re all snooty bums in the academy, and they never like popular appeal quality cinema.
    I figure if both films are damn good they’ll both pick up equal support, but if flags of our fathers hits a strong chord (ala Million Dollar Baby) it will probably be more likely to garner nods despite an earlier release. On the nomination cards I can see a lot of 1 and 4 votes or 1 and 3 votes for these films possibly a lot of 2 and 3 votes (though probably not as as many 1 and 2 votes), and that could easily add up to nominations for both films, rather than splitting the vote.
    I mean the academy has shown us in recent years they don’t base how they vote on what statistics and precedents say they should. I remember how cold mountain was a statistical mortal lock for best picture nomination, but the academy respected it for crafts but didn’t like the overall movie. Same thing with Aviator, ‘supposed’ to win according to all the markers and predictors and even going into the night it won all the respect/craft awards but it didn’t resonate as the most powerful movie going experience. Or remember how the academy couldn’t possibly nominate or let lord of the rings win because two towers and return of the king were sequels (that was more rings detractors than actual oscar prognosticators though)? Then there was every indication that Brokeback Mountain was the film everyone was supposed to (and would) vote for, but the academy voted how they wanted to vote not how they were supposed to vote.
    This is a tumultous heterogenous mass of people here, voting in a fairly democratic fashion and that really pisses off a lot of arties that want their ‘sophisticated’ favorite to win, and it pisses off a lot of joe six packs that want their blood and nostalgia power-ballad-of-movies money maker favorite to win. The academy often ends up in between both, which is why no matter where you go on the internet everyone hates the academy and talks endlessly about how they almost always ‘get it wrong.’
    I can almost predict the endless firestorm this season of people raging at the academy from both sides of the fence if the two movies are embraced and championed by separate groups rather than by everyone.
    I remember hearing a lot of people saying last year that the best thing that could happen to make Brokeback Mountain’s reputation was to lose to Crash because it would immediately make Crash the bastard spit-upon outcast of virtually every cineaste that posts on the web. That’s just ridiculous; the kind of vitriol spilt over who gets crowned makes me sick of the aftermath of oscar night.
    It would be a shame if the divisiveness Poland’s pushing in his article continues for the rest of the season because I think Clint made two films to unify, not to divide; and if the awards races spawns division from these films’ separate releases that’s an enormous disgrace upon the journalists everywhere because although studios will jockey for position (this _is_ a competition) the journalists will undoubtedly promulgate the division and expand it to magnificent and nasty proportions; rooting around in it happy-as-pigs-in-shit.
    Dave, your ‘analysis’ is the start of what I see to be a very nasty process by the journos to create ‘a stunt’ upon which they can hang every single oscar piece written this year. It will undoubtedly be a hook in most coverage of the oscars. You claim “it will be seen as a stunt,” well you’re the first one throwing the concept out there, who else is saying ‘stunt’ except for Dave Poland right now? but in the next four or five weeks, as print fall previews come out we’ll start hearing a lot about the term ‘stunt’ and that could be as damaging as telling the academy they they’re obligated to vote for a more ‘important’ movie like Brokeback Mountain because it’s ‘good for them’. I’m not saying Dave’s got a patent on the concept, I’m just don’t like the writing I’m seeing on the wall for cheap ‘journalistic’ coverage of the coming oscar season and Eastwood’s films places in it. It cheapens both movies to write or think about them as nothing more than pieces of a stunt, there’s no need for that kind of simplication, you’ve shown how potentially complex the situation will be, why generalize it down to a soundbite?

  20. Aladdin Sane says:

    Releasing both this year would be the right thing to do. Stunt or not, I’ll be seeing both.

  21. Martin S says:

    Dave – feel free to play the high-minded snob all you want. I’m laying this film out from a general audience perspective and if you don’t think the marketing is going to make people believe this movie is a bookend, then you’re not considering the hurdle A&M has before them.
    I personally may love what Eastwood has done, but I’m not going to blind myself by trying to compare “powerful dramas” – one starring Penn, Bacon and Robbins, the other has Eastwood, Freeman and Swank – while the third has the guy people *might* recognize from Last Samurai, subtitled. Yeah, that’s parity.

  22. oldman says:

    With all due respect for Clint, I don’t believe the Japanesse version will do $15 mil bo. A movie about zealots willing to fight to the death killing Americans wont have much bo. Ever heard of Iraq?

  23. David Poland says:

    Where did that come from, Adam? What did I write that you consider divisive, much less pushing divisiveness?
    I am, in most cases, a big fan of Eastwood and am happy to see both films, however they are released. The notion that there is only purity on the filmmaker’s side and journalists (or me, one journalist) looking to attack the movies on the other is, at best, naive.
    Strategy exists. And Clint has his strategies that he works with, just like everyone else. In fact, he has more control than all but a few filmmakers.
    And the phrase

  24. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    I still just can’t get over the feeling of just not caring. I mean, I want to see these movies but I’m so sick of war movies. If these two are released this year then the number of war films will be upwards of 10 released and that’s just crazy.
    I do find it odd that two different studios are releasing these movies.
    “David, you don’t think that WB will try to get Hugh Jackman in as Best Actor for The Fountain? I think considering his past year, it would be an easy lock with the Academy’s acting division.”
    The mere fact that it’s a genre movie eliminates the word “lock” from preceedings.
    Can we officially outlaw the word “lock” from this year’s Oscar proceedings?

  25. jeffmcm says:

    What the hell is a ‘1 and 2 vote’ or a ‘1 and 3 vote’ or a 1 and 4 vote’?
    Regarding the boxoffice chanches of the Japanese movie, whatever it’s called, I don’t think “A movie about zealots willing to fight to the death killing Americans wont have much bo. Ever heard of Iraq?” means anything to a normal audience. It suggests that the writer doesn’t know much about how movies actually work. If a story is conceived and focussed in such a way to tell its story, and to avoid the kind of context that might be distracting, then it will be successful. If Eastwood has made a movie about Japanese soldiers who we like, fighting for a cause that makes a certain amount of sense within the movie’s framework, people will buy it. I’m not saying that that’s a good thing or not, just that it’s how audiences work.

  26. Lota says:

    People might be worn out from war in general, none of my friends with spouses etc in Iraq or Afghanistan can bear to see anything about war at this point, even the news.
    However, with the Veteran’s memorials that occur in November-December, it might be something serious for older people to see–I can’t see the under 25 groups having any interest, but then doubtless they are not the target audience.
    Clint does whatever he wants and he usually does it fairly well.

  27. Dave says:

    >>Dave – feel free to play the high-minded snob all you want. I’m laying this film out from a general audience perspective
    Martin, you’re not laying anything out – merely posing a rhetorical question, e.g., ‘Why would an American audience, 6 months or a year later, care to see the Japanese bookend to a story they’ve already absorbed from the American perspective?’ The facts are that Letters from Iwo Jima is neither a ‘bookend’ nor even the same story. As Peter Bart says in his article, ‘Different story, different language, same setting.’ As for why audiences would want to see it there’s the organic connection between both films, the Eastwood factor, the intense curiousity at what he’s doing here and the fact that both films are telling personal human stories.
    I think the two biggest factors in getting audiences to see Letters rest on how big a hit Flags is (in that the bigger it is the more interest there’ll be in LFIJ and personally I think Flags will be a hit) and the inevitable resistance there always is to foreign language material.
    >>and if you don’t think the marketing is going to make people believe this movie is a bookend, then you’re not considering the hurdle A&M has before them.
    If WB decides to mount an Oscar campaign for Letters then clearly they won’t be advertising it as a ‘bookend.’ Anything but. And if they decide to back off altogether and let Paramount make the running with a major sole Oscar campaign for Flags they’ll still want to position Letters as a ‘can’t see just one -must see both’ experience. Either way WB will not market the second film as a ‘bookend.’
    >>I personally may love what Eastwood has done, but I’m not going to blind myself by trying to compare “powerful dramas” – one starring Penn, Bacon and Robbins, the other has Eastwood, Freeman and Swank – while the third has the guy people *might* recognize from Last Samurai, subtitled.
    Yeah, instead you’re going to twist my own words into a debate about star power which is something I never said. What I DID say was that Letters from Iwo Jima sounded like powerful drama and that Mystic and Baby boasted similarly bleak and dark subject matter but that didn’t deter audiences from seeing them. I mentioned Watanabe in passing since he’s a popular actor but nowhere did I infer, much less suggest, that Ken Watanabe was as big a box office draw as Eastwood, Freeman, Penn, etc. That’s your doing. For godsake, Martin, learn to read.

  28. palmtree says:

    I think what Martin was saying was the bleak subject matter was helped at the box office by having big stars doing big star performances. Watanabe could get another nomination, but could anyone get it for Flags?
    Ironically, I think releasing Letters first makes more sense. After all, it sets up anticipation for the “more important” movie. It’s a bit anti-climactic to watch the iconic American flag raising and then a few months later watch the Japanese version.

  29. jeffmcm says:

    But one of the reasons audiences were willing to see Mystic River and MDB was because of the starpower. But a bunch of no-names into those movies and the audience shrinks, even with Eastwood’s name and good reviews.

  30. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    Well, it depends if the no-names were as good as the current cast.

  31. jeffmcm says:

    If you replaced Sean Penn with John Smith in Mystic River, and he gave as good of a performance, the movie would have grossed less because who the hell is John Smith.

  32. Joe Leydon says:

    I hate to sound snippy here, but who the hell cares about box-office when we’re talking about (potentially) great movies? Hell, I write for a freakin’ trade paper, and even I get fed up sometimes when hearing supposed film buffs debate the b.o. potential of this versus that film. Excuse me, but as I tell my students: Go back to the ’70s, see what films were b.o. hits, and what films were influential. Anyone out there still talk about “Love Story”? Or “Airport”? But how how many folks still talk about “Taxi Driver” and “Mean Streets”? ‘Nuff said.

  33. Wrecktum says:

    Yes, but how many people still talk about Star Wars, Jaws and The Exorcist?

  34. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    Touche, is what Joe’s response would be, right?
    BTW, I’m sure it won’t interest many people, but the Australian film Ten Canoes, which won at Cannes and Telluride and is playing at Toronto, has been selected as our candidate for the Foreign Language Academy Award. Only our second in history. It’s a great movie so hopefully it can get a nom.
    …moving on.

  35. jeffmcm says:

    Joe’s point is not that there is some kind of inverse relation between quality and box-office (Love Story grossed a lot, therefore is no good) but rather no solid relationship at all (Jaws and Taxi Driver both good, box office divergent)

  36. hcat says:

    I don’t think the war fatigue will have any effect on these two films, but actually the opposite. We are still in the middle of the conflict united93 and World Trade Center are depicting (I know there was no correlation but since that was the major reason given, and a large portion of the country still frightfully believes a connection 9/11 and Iraq are still linked in the public mind). We still have the warm patriotic feelings over WW2 and I think a lot of people would like to experience that again in the theater since they are certainly not getting it in real life. I am sure Eastwood is going to give us flawed and filthy gi’s but he is going to deliver some heroes and people are aching for it. I will be shocked if Flags does under 150 domestically.

  37. palmtree says:

    I would argue that there is a relationship between quality and box office, but the standards of what “quality” means are probably different than what a cineaste would consider a great movie.

  38. jeffmcm says:

    And you are not a cineaste?

  39. palmtree says:

    Yes, but I can appreciate that the film elements that sell tickets are not divorced from quality.

  40. Wrecktum says:

    “Joe’s point is not that there is some kind of inverse relation between quality and box-office (Love Story grossed a lot, therefore is no good) but rather no solid relationship at all (Jaws and Taxi Driver both good, box office divergent)”
    Agreed. Which is why having a box office discussion about these upcoming films shouldn’t get anyone’s dander up.

  41. jeffmcm says:

    Re: dander, the problem is that box office can be used as ammunition in discussions on other topics. For example, last year’s running argument that included such gems as “Brokeback Mountain will never make more than $20 million”. So yes and no.
    Actual quality is a factor in box-office success, but more important is perceived quality and buzz.

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon