I was talking recently with an Academy member who shall remain nameless and “The King’s Speech” came up. This is what you’d definitely call a “steak eater” voter, if you will, part of a below-the-line branch, real rank and file type with zero connection to the film. I thought I’d share his feelings on the movie because I think they might offer some insight for those wondering how or why the film is resonating so much:
I watched that movie and it made me understand why I love movies. I don’t know, humanity, I guess, man. Trusting in another human being and your most vulnerable f***ing thing that you’re the most terrified of and give it to somebody else? I mean, I come from recovery. I’ve been sober for 26 years. The idea to say, “Please help me,” is the transformation of a lifetime if you’re willing and can ever get to that place. For me that movie resonated in so many f***ing ways. I came away going, “Well, that’s my movie. F*** everything else.”
Sure, it’s a specific guy’s thought process. But there is nuance built into that heart/head, see/feel debate raging in this year’s race, and I think these comments do a nice job of illuminating some of that.
[Photo: The Weinstein Company]
Comments
142 responses to “Relatability”
Well said, anonymous AMPAS member. That’s exactly why TKS is winning: it gives people something to feel, to be passionate about.
And as a sidenote to Kris: Been a long time lurker but felt the need to tell you that In Contention has officially become my favorite Oscar-related site since TKS became the frontrunner. Other bloggers have resorted to bitter angry whines and shouts that have become incredibly mean-spirited. I’m impressed at how level-headed and objective you have been this whole time, so bravo. Will visit your site exclusively now for awards news.
Kicksotic
I remember it being pretty notable that the lowest grossing best picture winner beat out what would have been the highest grossing winner for the top prize, and a ton of people said The Hurt Locker couldn’t win with that low gross. Obviously it had other things driving its win, but that was still something people talked about.
You’re right. The fact that The Hurt Locker wasn’t raking it in at the box office didn’t hurt its chances for Best Picture.
In looking at the slow and steady deflation of the TSN Awards Balloon over the last two months, I’m pretty sure the first leak of air was its soft opening and the subsequent relatively quiet — relative to its reviews and marketing campaign, I should say — box office.
So, in this instance and quite unlike The Hurt Locker, one could say TSN’s box office has more likely than not affected the strength of its Awards Season chances.
arjecc,
“What proves TSN is the better movie? Unprecedented critical acclaim.”
I’ll agree that TSN has critical acclaim, but are we ignoring the fact that TKS is critically acclaimed as well? Rotten Tomatoes has them only at 2% apart, and in fact, TKS has a higher BFCA rating than TSN. So yes, perhaps more critics prefered TSN, that doesn’t take away the fact that they liked TKS too, a lot. They may have only preferred TSN just slightly?
And no, I don’t believe critics ‘live and breathe’ movies. The ones that make films do, not the ones that watch films. That is why the guilds are far more reliable and credible than critics groups, in my opinion.
I struggle with some of the frustration in the comments that the Academy Award voter’s basing his vote on his “emotional response” on the film is somehow not sufficient criteria. Is not eliciting an “emotional response” from the audience a fundamental goal of a narrative film – whether that response is one of inspiration, fear, horror, a sense of adventure, whatever? And it seems to me, the story, how it’s told – through its direction, filming and its acting – is instrumental in making that emotional connection. So it seems unfair to malign The King’s Speech and diminish Hooper’s achievement because it isn’t as obvious a technical marvel as something like TSN or Inception. The direction served the story it was trying to tell. I suppose that I am projecting my own definition of “art,” but I guess I am of the mind that emotion is a major component.
On a personal level, all things being equal, I would reward the movie that left the biggest impact on me. Of the films nominated those would be The King’s Speech, True Grit, and, to a lesser degree, The Black Swan. As much as I can appreciate The Social Network and Inception, neither stuck with me for very long. It wasn’t because they were cold or dizzying, but because I didn’t connect with them emotionally at all. And I need that to really enjoy a film.
I didn’t understand a lick of Mulholland Drive but few movies have haunted me like that one did. Raiders of the Lost Ark is still one of my favorite movies because it is endlessly fun. I feel good every time I watch it. There’s nothing especially meaningful about it. But that’s not the point. It’s still, I think, one of the best films ever made.
So, I really can’t begrudge an Academy voter who sides with the film they liked the best. Isn’t that kind of what we all do?
This isn’t really about awards, but you’re losing me here, Kicksotic:
“And, honestly, the $200M overseas is a non-issue. Studios bank on films doing better overseas than domestically, so it’s the domestic numbers they point to when they want to beat their chests and claim success or dominancy. Sony/Columbia, with TSN posting those numbers, can’t do that.”
Maybe foreign box office is a “non-issue” in terms of Oscar success, but it’s a bit strange to leave “studios bank on films doing better overseas” as the last word on TSN’s international pedigree. Talky films and films with heavily American subject matter rarely outgross the domestic number overseas: compare The Social Network to Up in the Air (talky & American & led by a big international star) or The Blind Side (American subject) or Precious (talky, popular American source and subject), to give examples from last year.
The Social Network is an exception to this rule, and to write it off suggests that you’re just in the business of writing the film off, period. Which is fine; you’re entitled to. But it doesn’t jive with your pose of industry cred and objectivity.
Yeah, but a lot of times, “emotional response” is really just another way of saying “easiest to handle” or “most pleasant.” If the Academy based their support on the emotional power of a film, Blue Valentine would have been a shoo-in for a Best Picture nomination this year, and The Blind Side wouldn’t have edged out The Messenger for a nomination last year.
Kicksotic
I doubt the gross/soft opening had much to do with The Social Network’s award hopes deflating. It cleaned up everything up to the PGA, and that’s the point where we started seeing any weakness at all. By the time TKS won the DGA, it was all over, but that took place over the space of a week.
What it comes down to is just that the Academy likes The King’s Speech more, but I doubt that has anything to do with The Social Network’s disappointing gross or soft opening weekend either.
I’m pretty sure I’ve made this point, but I’ll make it again just in case.
TSN’s soft opening made it possible for a movie like TKS to sneak in and do what it’s done. Had TSN had a strong opening and a strong run — think True Grit which sits at $140M domestically –, TKS or any other film wouldn’t have had the chance to be the alternative it’s been.
As for foreign box office — and I forget who addressed this –, a movie about an international phenomenon like FaceBook, something most people in most countries are familiar with, is poised to do very well overseas. To attempt to lump it in with movies that are more America-centric like The Blind Side or Up In The Air is to pretend TSN is, itself, America-centric.
In light of the main theme of the movie — the battle over the creation of something that was to become legendary, game-changing, and impossibly profitable on a world wide level –, it is anything but.
Oh hey it looks like King’s Speech just passed The Queen in international box office. I wonder how far it’ll get in the end.
Kicksotic
I don’t really see how that was how The King’s Speech became the alternative. I don’t think one’s success really impacted the other one (though had they been released at the same time, the story might be different).
Kicksotic — I think you’re unintentionally giving TSN too much credit as a more-modern-than-thou film about globalization and the communication revolution. While Scott Rudin thanks you for rehashing that narrative, I’m not sure how you (or the critics who agree with you, and there are a lot) see it as primarily the story of a battle for a game-changing what’sit, when the “battle” is minimized at every turn in the actual film. TSN presents itself as first, a fairly conventional American outsider-seeking-in narrative, ala Gatsby, complete with a young Jewish man seeking WASP approval (then surpassing it while never winning his Daisy–alas), and second, a film about a ruined college friendship couched in a courtroom drama.
You’re free to disagree, of course, but I see it as being firmly steeped in the tradition of liberal Jewish-American pop-culture about the outsider making good on the American Dream among WASPs that permeates everything from Superman comics to Funny Girl to Kavalier and Clay. I don’t see this as “pretending” TSN is America-centric — this is simply the tradition Sorkin is coming from as a writer, and it’s in a lot of his other work, too.
As for The King’s Speech “sneaking in,” I think treating its recent success — does that include *its* phenomenal box office? — as a consequence of TSN underperforming at the box office is a fairly reductive take on both films. It’s not like TKS just accidentally came out now; Weinstein et al, knowing they had a film people loved, took a calculated risk to let TSN ride first and save their game for January. And it worked.
I think the facebook part may have actually hurt it’s box-office. Most of my friends, and I’m sure most others around my age, were writing the movie off fast as they thought it was a way to cash in on facebook phenom, which it wasn’t. It also wasn’t opening in the same number of theaters as most blockbusters do ( i.e. 3,000 +), so anyone expecting a 30 or 40 million opening from something as dialogue heavy as social network was setting themselves for unrealistic expectations. If anything, the thought of it being a “soft-openning in hollywood’s eyes,” when Sony themselves, as well as more reliable BO prognostication sites like boxofficemojo projected it to open with 20-25 million…that just sounds like a lame excuse to ambiguoulsy call the film a failure. Especially after achieving 30% drop-offs, which is practically unheard of in this day and age.
I don’t believe I called the film a failure. I said quite clearly that by industry standards it was expected to do better. Even Sony execs were confident of a $100M performance at the end, something they’re still short of.
Of course they personally and publicly were going to set their target at $20 to $25 for an early-October opening. All studios shoot low so if they hit high, it looks like a bigger success than it was and it gives them boasting rights. It’s kind of How To Release A Movie 101.
But others, based on the buzz and the hype and the FaceBook connection, were anticipating something in the range of $28M or even $30M.
That it hit $23 — basically echoing Eisenberg’s opening with ZombieLand the year before — was a disappointment. Even a cursory search will reveal that was the shared sentiment with USAToday calling it an “unspectacular opening”, Hollywood Wiretap saying the debut was “softer at (the) box office than buzz would suggest” and TheWrap adding: “There is no ‘sorta like’ button on Facebook That’s too bad, because the country could use this feature to describe its collective feeling about” the film.
The media was echoing the belief in Hollywood that it could have and perhaps should have had a better opening. And this “unspectacular opening’ opened the door for other films like The Fighter, True Grit and TKS to gain some buzz and get some traction.
Really, that’s all I’m saying.
I said the TKS was a good movie, just not the best, in my opinion, the opinion of the overwhelming majority of critics, and those who follow these races, because I can’t recall this debate going on as intense when TSN was winning everything. Not many were saying TKS was being robbed of anything.
For the record, I did not reduce TKS to TV standards, kicksotic did that, replying to my post, about the TSN. I replied back because I thought funny that had been said by someone who “supposedly” had a weight in their opinion, when a lot of people are saying that about TKS and not TSN. If anything is being universally lauded about TSN is its screenplay, so a screenwriter that made that comment didn’t seem to me as a valid opinion to trust.
My post in a nutshell was to express how I disagreed with the guilds about which film was the best of the year. I believe voters of the Best Picture should not necessarily vote based upon which film is their favorite, my favorite was not TSN, it was 127 hours, however, I do believe it to be best of the year. Citizen Kane is not by far my favorite film nor do I get an overwhelming emotional impact from it but yet I realize why it is such a landmark film.
I don’t agree with Mr. Tapley that critics are meaningless. TSN did get a nomination for Best Picture and all the buzz and momentum that a film builds up before the guilds weigh in is based on the critical acclaim. Do critics determine winners? Of course not, but they are not meaningless as they’re a lot of the reason why guild members pick and choose which movies to watch.
kicksotic,
I didn’t appreciate the condescending tone about my comment of mentioning “priests and historians”, I have the freedom of relating any matter to my personal beliefs. I clearly stated that was my personal views and not of anyone else. At least I’m not making hasty, and somewhat absurd, generalizations. It is obvious academy members don’t vote based on box office. “It underwhelmed the studios financially and so it doesn’t deserve my vote”, reduces the academy’s mentality and besides it has been proven in the past and most notably last year when THL beat the greatest BO hit of all time. We can debate on what a vote for Best Picture should be based on but BO is irrelevant to bring up.
Another issue that came up was about TSN trying to “send a message”, which I didn’t understand because I thought that was a welcomed act for all filmmakers.
In the last analysis, We all can agree to disagree because we even make up some time to share our thoughts about the movies we love. Thanks to everyone who shares their thoughts, this is awesome.
The fact that your bringing up box-office is what’s honeslty kind of ridiculous. Social Network wasn’t a failure, as I, and a few others on here have said before, nearing the 100 million mark is impressive for a film of it’s kind. If you want to fault anyone for it;s “underperformance” I would lay the blame at the media outlets who made it into a non-story. TSN only opened with a little less than Benjamin Button and that had much more going for it. But to say it’s underperforming is kind of like saying that Toy Story 3 underperformed because it didn’t reach 500 million in the U.S. or that Avatar had a weak opening because it failed to set the December opening and that HTTYD was a disaster cause it didn’t reach a 50 million OW. And you still manange to ignore it’s holdovers, which hollywood would call impressive as the film had made more then 4 times it’s opening. And like others have said, it’s irrelevant considering that the last three BP winners didn’t reach the all important 100 mill with one exception due to the timing of it’s release. So bringing it up, let alone engaging with you in an argument is futile. By the way, what exactly do your friends do in the industry that gives you such an expert opinion?
I’m guessing a lot of this spreads through the town, and he did mention his dad is or was a member of the PGA. I suppose this stuff spreads in viral terms?
As far as wondering where the “heat” is …. I actually wonder if ‘True Grit’ and ‘The Fighter’ are actually getting more votes than ‘The Social Network’. Of course, ‘TSN’could just win. No one knows. But it’s on my mind.
Hi Drew,
I’ve said it before and I’m going to say it again: TSN had what was considered a soft opening and has yet to hit $100M domestically. This fact — and it is a fact — turned it in the minds of the studios and other potential contenders from a roaring lion to a somewhat slowed but maybe not quite limpy gazelle.
If that were NOT true, TKS — or any other film, for that matter — would not have had a shot at the PGAs, the DGAs, or the SAGs nor would they have led in nominations. Because of TSN’s opening and subsequent performance (remember, True Grit hit $100M in its first two weeks and it’s a Western!), the perception was that it was now vulnerable. To argue otherwise is to ignore the obvious, i.e. unexpected losses at the Guild Awards despite being buried in critics’ awards.
Understand that I’m not saying the film was a failure. In fact, I’m not sure I ever said that. What I AM saying (or have tried, perhaps clumsily, to say) is it was — and still is — considered vulnerable.
In a separate thread in response to a specific question, I mentioned the various Guilds my family is in, but I’ll briefly recap for you. Oh, and I had also said I was second generation, but my mother sternly reminded me — sorry Mom — that her mother was an English actress who was part of the English wave that came to Hollywood during the war and my dad’s dad shifted from real estate to producing in his last years, both meeting with success. So I’m third generation, not second.
My father (who’s still working) is AMPAS and PGA, my mother, my sister and I are all SAG, and one of my brothers is WGA. I have an aunt who is AMPAS and used to be SAG (or at least more active in SAG) and an uncle, my dad’s brother who is AMPAS and very active DGA. Among my family we have producers, actors, directors, screenwriters, cinematographers, and a lot of other behind-the-scenes stuff, people who may or may not be in various guilds. As my sister says, Thank God for awards season or we’d never see any of them! From January through, well, it used to be March, but now it’s February, it’s like one, huge, roaming family reunion and the only time we really have the chancce to hang out during the year.
Now, none of the above makes me an expert nor would I ever claim it does. What it does afford me is the opportunity to come to this discussion having grown up listening to — and taking part in — discussions just like this. So when I say phones rang off the hook and cells lit up like Christmas the morning after TSN’s opening, I’m speaking from experience.
I hope that exhaustive — and exhausting! — response answered your question. :^)
I guess we can agre to disagree, but you could clearly apply this argument to other films, and it still wouldn’t work. Like I’ve mentioned in previous posts, if the film felt short of it’s opening goal then bringing up it’s final total should have been in the eyes of some is pointless when it isn’t far from that mark after a soft opening. Think Inception’s box-office, some prognosticaotrs predicted a 70 million opening which studio had it in the 55 to 65 million range. Guess which number it openend with, and no it isn’t considered an unperformer. And as we’ve mentioned box-office would’ve had little merrit on it’s awards prospects. King’s Speech was going to win guild prizes regardless of box-office because it played better. If Social Network had opened in November and tanked the way that 127 Hours did, then that would’ve affected it’s award chances. The fact that film rebounded from a “soft-opening,” something you blissfully ignore, doesn’t make any less of a success story than the other films mentioned. If anything Black Swan, King’s Speech, Fighter and True Grit (I was probably the only person predicting 100 million for the latter) were all in better positions to profit than Social Network was.
We seem to be having two different arguments, Drew.
To begin with, I’m not blissfully ignoring TSN’s performance. But the opening, rebound or not and just-shy-of-$100M or not, was the first chink in what was supposed to be some pretty fierce armor. I also hesitate to compare its performance to Inception, a special-effects laden movie released during the summer blockbuster season. Two different animals on two totally different continents maybe even in two completely different times in history as far as Hollywood is concerned.
The only argument I’m making and have made is about the shift in perception due to TSN’s opening. Had it opened stronger and sailed over that magic $100M mark a la True Grit, it could have easily built on its critical acclaim momentum and picked up some Guild awards. It was supposed to, it was expected to, it was a heavy favorite to. But it didn’t and that tells us something about how the film, as good as it is, was perceived by those who make films.
That TKS was able to slip through that crack, pick up momentum and then pick up hardware that wasn’t critic related indicates there was a perception shift when it came to TSN.
That’s all I’m saying and, yes, we can respectfully agree to disagree. No harm done.
On a brief side note, I will take slight issue with your assertion that Black Swan, TKS, The Fighter and True Grit were all better positioned to profit than TSN was. With the FaceBook connection (something everyone knows or has at least heard of), the critical acclaim, the hype and breathless marketing and deafening din of praise that preceded its opening — a din that wasn’t as deafening with any of the other pics you mentioned (art house/ballet, BBC talkie, Rocky redux on a shoestring budget, and a remake of an iconic Western) –, TSN was poised to do well and could have easily done better.
It was an interesting point to make, but, again, we’ll have to agree to disagree. No biggie.
I would hope that academy members and guild members do not measure box-office over the quality of a film as you relelntlessly suggest with what feels like a meaningless agenda given how many times you bring it up. By that logic, Alice in Wonderland should’ve seen it’s awards campaign pay-off. And with the Inception comparison, that film was in a better position to profit than social network was and it still had an underwhelming opening by “industry” standards. And your logic about facebook being the the key marketting tool that should’ve allowed it to “sail past that 100 million mark” is ridiculously flawed, because trust me, people around my age had doubts about facebook being done as the partial subject for a film. Look at how most topical features perform. Then you’ll get the idea. True Grit opened during christmas and was a remake, those tend to do pretty well now, Black Swan was a thriller, little bit of a broader audience there, and Speech is riding a wave of acclaim in the middle of awards season and was bound to feed the adult audience bit by bit. As Kris mentioned above, Social Network was a talky drama that opened in October, it was not going to reach the expectations that many had set for it. What you’re saying honeslty sounds kind of like the hyperbole that comes from competing studios as the ones who probably set those expectations to make the film look like an “undeperformer.” If you go to most articles regarding the film now, not the ones from back in October, they mention the film impressive box-office. By the way didn’t The Fighter open with a pretty slim figure and that’s held over pretty well, where was the mention for that?
Forgive me, but with a producer father and an actress mother, being relentless is in my blood. Swimming with sharks, and all that.
Although there are some articles from early-October mentioning “impressive box office”, there were also those — a few I referenced in a post above — which didn’t, with one even going so far as to call it an “unspectacular opening”.
As for people in the Guilds and Academy and such taking box office into account, it is — once again — a PERCEPTION thing. TSN’s opening was a crack in the critical acclaim facade. And Alice in Wonderland was a dreadful film. It wasn’t destined to clean-up during awards season.
When it comes to the FaceBook angle, you can also find interviews with people who were wondering how FaceBook’s international appeal (it being in the daily lives of hundreds of millions) would affect its performance. There was potentially a huge audience of FaceBook users who would see the film, the doubts of you and your friends aside.
And, to close, The Fighter didn’t have a $40M budget nor was it being borne on the wings of its many ecstatic reviews upon release (though reviews were very good). It wasn’t expected to sweep the critics’ awards, take Best Picture, or sweep the Academy Awards. For many it’s performance and those of Bale and Leo are a nice surprise. Something they were allowed to discover.
I’m talking about articles as of late which mention how well the film has held over. Fighter was, like the other Oscar contenders in a better position to profit despite recieving an uneven level fo critical acclaim next to TSN. It still opened below expectations and has made close to 70 million so far. Just like Social Network it underwhelmed yet swtill prevailed. 200 million world wide, is pretty imressive for Social network, so it kind of negates your argument in regards to how international figures are almsot meaningless. How exaclty was the movies acclaim some kind of facade? How many people were anticpating to become a critical darling before release? To use a better example, Dark Knight was a critical and commercial giant that didn’t recieve BP, or BD, so again box-office is meaningless aside from the few who make it into some non-issue.
Social Network wasn’t even considered to be a front-runner until it swept the critics awards. Most were expecting that feat to go King’s Speech initially. I think most were even expecting it to take the NBR award. There was huge buzz on that film since it premiered at the festivals back in the fall.
Drew, TSN was from the beginning — even before its release — the Dominant Elephant in the Awards Room. The Goliath with all these little, albeit interesting and good, Davids nipping at its heels. To pretend there wasn’t any buzz and hype and excitement (and I’m not saying you are, mind you) surrounding this film is a tad bit disingenuous (which I’m not accusing you of).
And I only used “facade” because I got tired of writing “armor”, but it’s the same idea. The anemic (tired of writing “soft”) opening was the opportunity those Davids needed to make contact, draw a bit of blood, and build momentum.
Furthermore, it’s nearly impossible to put every film on a level playing field. The “logic” that works for one doesn’t necessarily work for another.
TSN came to the party in a position of anticipated strength with a respected, recently nominated director, a strong and successful screenwriter, and a whole lotta lotta buzz. Crazy, kooky buzz. The Fighter, Black Swan, True Grit, and TKS came to the party with different strengths and weaknesses but nothing approaching the excitement and anticipation that accompanied TSN. Even TKS with its festival strength or Portman with her acting chops or The Fighter with its “took nearly five years to get made and then shot it in 33 days” back story didn’t have the kind of buzz TSN had.
So, it’s not something you can kind of lump all together and say “well, if it doesn’t work for this film, why does it for this?” or vice versa.
But what surrounded TSN in its early days did not surround on really any level the other films we’re discussing, a fact which made TSN’s eventual opening performance news.
Drew- It is worth noting that although 100 million is just a number, around half of the ampas/pga 10 have or will cross that mark. Maybe that underscores,idk, a disparity between critics and others on the movie. TDK did get nods from PGA and DGA.
And before I forget, in general, if a studio is pointing to its International numbers as a measure of success, it’s because the Domestic haul isn’t what it’s supposed to be and they’re attempting to create the perception of box office strength.
When it comes to gauging performance and claiming bragging rights, the focus is almost exclusively domestic.*
*blockbusters or special effects-heavy films are a totally different, summer-oriented animal where they do broadcast loudly their International numbers in order to increase expectation and, therefore, business. But they also lead with their Domestic numbers.
If Hollywood put a lot of stock in international numbers, Tom Cruise would still be considered box office.
Apparently this must be another perception thing, because all I remember reading or hearing about from this site and other like it was that hoew King’s Speech was the one to beat coming out of the gate. But whatever apparently to you The Social Network was some epic goliath that couldn’t be conquered and should be rightfully knocked down. Sorry….gonna mention the holdovers yet again, because if it really had lost momentun from it’s “soft opening” it would not have won countless critics prizes.
The logic I was talking about was that the following BP nominees are more accessible and have a wider appeal based on the types of the films they are as opposed to the built on factor of facebook. You can make the social media argument all you want, at the end of the day Social Network is not a film that’s ideally going to make a shit ton of money. And once again, despite the soft opening it did very well. You seem to constantly obfuscate it for what reason, I’m not even sure of anymore. King’s Speech, Blakc Swan, had months of festival buzz building up there limited openings. True Grit had the Coen brothers brand name, The Fighter had been in the wokrings for a while and had more star power behind it than Social Network did. TSN debuted at the NY fest about a week before it opened.
Dark layers, that was point about TDK, it had huge grosses, astronomical aggregation scores as well as guild support and look what happened.
I mentioned that because or your satatement about how they were counting on international numbers. So trying to underscore or disregaurd it later was just beyond me.
I’m positive I didn’t mention them “counting on international numbers”. In a thread as long as this, it may have been said by someone but it wasn’t me. The only time a studio turns and points to international numbers (especially when it comes to movies released during awards season) is when the domestic isn’t doing what they expected it to do.
And with all due respect, Drew — and I mean that in all sincerity –, just please don’t even try to sell me the idea that a movie about a ballerina losing her mind made by a director who’s not yet a household name has more BO appeal in America than a movie about the fight over the beginning of a site on nearly everyone’s computer screen and was lauded as the movie to see and the movie to beat at awards time.
It’s not like the average American viewer is judging what to see that weekend based on what the Cannes Film Festival liked.
If you had mentioned the box-office four months ago then maybe I would have agreed with to an extent. But you have to admit that it’s incredibly rare for any film to open wide with 20 million or so to go to close in on the 100 million threshhold. That “chink in it’s armor” was patched up pretty quickly. You mentioned how they were counting on the facebook appeal (which they overstated) that would lead them to stronger foreign sales. So mentionining that point, that studios were expecting better overseas and then to say that they don’t matter as much is a little goofy to me.
That ballerina film features an actress who is a house hold name and has a better box-office track record than mostly anyone who was involved with TSN. And it’s genre does have a broader audience then a bunch of guys sittting around a computer all day. Which film do you think audiences would have mor interst in? A film with site that is a prt of their daily lives that would likley find to be a superficial premise or a horror film with greater female appeal?
Toronto, Telluride, etc. was featured films this season that were primed for the oscar race and were, once again, getting the kinds of release dates that would give them a better shot at financial achievement then a film that opened in October after only one screening at one festival.
Okay, Drew, I need to walk you back here for a minute. Natalie Portman wasn’t exactly a household name when she was cast in Black Swan. A good actress, yes. A name that could open a film? No.
Of course she had the Star Wars films — which are never about the actors anyway, exist in their own universe as far as BO is concerned, and she was hardly the star –, but she hadn’t made any kind of waves at the BO since 2006 when V for Vendetta grossed only $7oM or so domestically.
Between ’06 and now — an eternity in Hollywood –, she worked steadily in films which never found an audience. The Darjeeling Limited hit with $100M, I think. But, again, she wasn’t the star. It wasn’t a Natalie Portman film.
Point is she had yet to open a film on her own with any financial success. To say that people were going to flock to the theaters — forgive me, I’ve been wanting to use that Black Swan pun forever — because of Natalie Portman is a bit of a reach and not reflected in any of her past films’ BO performance.
And to imply she carried a strong female appeal is also not reflected in her past BO (The Other Boleyn Girl, right up that demographics alley, tanked a few years ago). There was no history indicating she had appeal to any demographic let alone female.
Now, having said that, the reviews for her work are driving people to the theater. Natalie Portman is NOW a name BECAUSE of Black Swan. In her case — unless you can go through and find a hit in the last five or so years I’m missing –, Black Swan made her a BO success. It wasn’t a case of people saying “oh, can’t wait to see Natalie Portman’s new film”. It was “I heard Natalie Portman is surprisingly good in this. Let’s check it out”.
When it comes to TSN’s BO, it had the opening it had, stayed #1 for two weeks and then played pretty steady in the Top 10 for several weeks, inching solidly toward its current $96M total. I think some Katherine Heigle (sp?) rom-com nipped surprisingly close at TSN’s heels the second week, but had to settle for a close #2. TSN eventually dropped to #3 in its third week behind Jack-ass and Red, I think. A respectable showing, but at odds, in Hollywood’s eyes and certainly Sony’s, with its critical acclaim and marketing dollars.
I can not close this without mentioning your perhaps offhand assertion that TSN had only one screening at one festival so therefore the other pictures, with their festival success, had a better shot at BO success.
You say that — and allow me to respectfully place a few words in your mouth in order to make something of a point — as if TSN was some struggling film looking for a bit of attention with no one knowing it was being released. Therefore, in light of its struggles and lack of festival buzz, it’s eventual BO take was really, really good.
TSN had almost unprecedented buzz, nearly $55M in marketing, and hysterical critics comparing it to Citizen Kane and calling it a “work of art”. (see ad on InContention below)
I’m thinking, I’m thinking, I’m thinking … and, nope, none of other films mentioned had THAT kind of attention showered on them. Very favorable reviews and festival adulation? Check and check. Film of a Generation, Citizen Kane, Work of Art, Best Picture Oscar? Nope.
And it was Sony’s idea to release it wide in early-October. If that ended up hurting their buzz or the BO, they have only themselves to blame. Don’t think Harvey would make that same mistake.
Star wars made her a household name just the way that the Batman’s made Chriustian Bale a name. Whether or not she could open a movie after that is beside the point. She was and has been more visible in film than most of the unknown actors who filled the social Network’s ensemble. Her visibility was only going to attract more attention to the film. Oh and so was that lesbian sex scene. Other Boleyn girl was period with minimal critcal support, Black Swan is contemporary and accalimed and more accessible then her other art-house credts. Think about that for second.
Social Networks marketing wasn’t that much more massive than any other campaign. I t was agressive but on the scale some seem to delusionally believe. Studios generally spend just as much if not more on marketing then they do producing a film. With a thirty percent drop-off, I believe the fourth or fifth lowest of the year, that is a litte more then “respectable.” It wasn’t even favored the winner in it’s sophmore outing. Anyone who followed the box-office could’ve told you that.
I won’t let you put words in mouth, but Social Network didn’t have the amount of time to build up it’s buzz the way that other contenders did. I t wasn’t taking the easy way out the way that other contenders did. And the fact it is very profitable speaks more to the film than anything else. That was all I said, you can misrepresent that as much as you would like, you would still miss the point completley.
You don’t have to be a condesending, but apparently it’s what you’re good at. Despite critcal acclaim, and I will echo what Kris has said again, because you just don’t seem to comprehend it, it was a TALKY movie, not the kind of film that generally opens big and has legs.
If Sony gave the film a wider expansion today, as in the same number of theaters as the Speech, Swan, Grit, follwing it’s award wins, what film do you think would surge past the 100 million when it is oh so close? Take a guess! At least Sony wouldn’t be crass enough to resort Harvey’s tactics to win an award.
At the end of the day box-office has little to do with it. Explain why 127 Hours got six nominations including best picture? King’s Speech could’ve very well flopped and it would’ve succeeded in the guilds simply because it played well with the academy. If Social Network does win BP, it won’t be because of it’s box-office. It will be because it is an amazing movie.
Interesting note though, referenced from ropeofsilcon (say what you will about the site they do know their shit about box-office) only 12 movies in the last decade have reached the 100 million mark while opening in less than 3,000 theaters during the month of October. Most of whcih have been family films or star driven vehicles. Just thought that might put things in persepctive. Doesn’t sound like that much of an “underperformance.”
You know, Drew, you seem determined to paint me as condescending or as someone who misrepresents the facts despite the fact that during this whole conversation I’ve agreed with you on some points, disagreed with you on others, and called a draw — an agree-to-disagree stance — on a few, all with patience and a sense of humor.
You know, get yourself to an Academy Event, talk to some of the people there, and they’ll echo exactly what I’m saying. And if you want to take that as condescending, go right ahead.
P.S. Despite her being a household name, Portman still had movies opening in the hundreds of thousands and not the millions. Spin that anyway you like, but it’s a fact.
Over and out.
“whether or not she could open a movie is besides the point”
um, it’s EVERYTHING. it’s what every hopefully A-List actor aspires to and, once you can’t do it as a household name (think Julia Roberts), you’re career’s in trouble.
to think otherwise is … well, not exactly correct.
What I was pointing out was that she has more of a name and draw to her than the entire cast of the social network. Let put it this way, do you think with Mila Kunis in the lead role the film have done as well in theaters. I doubt it.
my point was that up until her performance in Black Swan, she couldn’t pull them into the theaters. People are seeing Black Swan BECAUSE of her performance, not because it’s a Natalie Portman film. If Mila Kunis had done the same work as Portman, there might still be similar buzz. Who knows? It’s not like Mila is an unknown actress or anything.
And let’s not forget there was an assumed fan base in casting — and pushing for the Best Support Actor Oscar (yes, there was that conversation, believe it or not) — Justin Timberlake and Eisenberg was still riding high with Zombiland’s impressive numbers last year. It’s not like the whole cast was peopled with complete unknowns pulled out of obscurity, Drew, so that narrative isn’t going to work.
Timberlake Boxoffice track record isn’t that great. And Eisneberg is mostly known for one film that is only a year old. My point with Kunis is that she’s no where near as well know as Portman. Niether of the afforementioned acotrs in The Social Network are better known than the soon to be Oscar winner. The awareness level is no where near the same degree as the Black Swan starlett.
Opening movies is what thespians in Hollywood strive for? What about iconic performances like streep in sophie’s choice or daniel day lewis? They dream about being will smith rather than marlon brando?
I believe that Black Swan has the audience it does because of the trailer.
Then, once people started hearing that it’s actually good and Natalie Portman (known, but not ‘omg’ loved) is great in the role; intrigue followed.
[…] fim, devo compartilhar uma coisa que li no In Contention, sobre um votante não identificado de uma das categorias técnicas da Academia falando sobre o […]