Films by well-regarded international auteurs such as Michael Haneke rarely receive the critical drubbing afforded to Funny Games. Haneke’s scene-for-scene remake of his own film did actually earn high praise from a few major critics (Owen Gleiberman and Scott Tobias among them), but most critics concurred with J. Hoberman: “Haneke is pretty much a humorless pedant,” the Village Voice critic wrote. And then, the antithetical poster quote: “Professional obligations required that I endure it, but there’s no reason why you should.”
So you know things are bad when the one story that makes an effort to rehab your film’s rep from “atrocious” to “polarizing” is itself something of a trainwreck, boasting quizzically misread facts and apparently rushed to publication before its time.
I’m particularly troubled by the effort within this Variety story to make excuses for Games‘ disappointing opening weekend performance. Diane Garrett writes: “The pic did resonate with a certain aud, generating $520,000 at 289 theaters for a $1,799 per-screen average in its opening weekend.” How many screenings do you get from Friday-Sunday––say, 15? So $1,799 divided by 15 is about $120. Assuming the average ticket price is $8, that means 15 tickets were purchased for each screening. Is that the kind of number that passes for “resonance” these days? We know it’s Variety’s job to tell the studio’s side of the story (at least, apparently), but isn’t this a little extreme, even for them?
But it’s also pretty clear that this version of the story was not meant for our eyes. I screen capped the story at 1pm EST (see below the jump), after waiting five hours for a glaring editorial note to be removed from the online version. As of this writing, it hasn’t been. See my screencap, with the gaffe marked in red, after the jump.
UPDATE 3:45 PM: Variety has fixed the error highlighted below, and I have fixed the error pointed out to me in the comments below. See, the internet is fact checked in real time!
11 Comments
Hmm. Maybe they’re being, like, meta. As in the movie, itself, no?
Probably not.
Karina — thanks for alerting me to the production gaffe, which our web folk have now fixed.
I must take issue with your interpretation of my item, however. Saying something resonated with a certain aud is hardly casting a pic as a niche hit; there’s a big reason for that qualifier.
The fact is, some people LOVED the movie, and I’m not ashamed to say a dear friend is one of them. His description of the heated response at a Pasadena screening last weekend prompted me to write the item.
It certainly wasn’t a studio flack.
Anyway, thanks again for the heads up.
Hmmm… maybe before we jump all over Variety for editorial gaffes, people should be a little more careful with their headlines, don’t you think? Haneke has 1 N, not 2. Please post a correction. Thanks!
By the way, I’m not ashamed to admit I really liked the movie, although I watched the original the night before and definitely preferred it. My roommate hated it. It’s a divisive film. It is polarizing audiences. Some argue it’s trash, others say it makes a statement and takes an interesting position on American moviegoers’ obsession with violence. To each their own. I’m watching Benny’s Video this weekend on Netflix. Haneke may frustrate the viewers but his films always have meat to chew on, which is more than I can say for this week’s new releases.
It’s true “saying something resonated with a certain aud is hardly casting a pic as a niche hit”, but it’s not casting a film as a stiff either, which Funny Games certainly seems to be.
Also, do you guys talk in Varietese like that when you’re just standing around the watercooler shooting the shit?
I think I’m done being a jerk now. You may carry on about your business.
Silly me, I thought the BO numbers would make that point perfectly clear. Maybe that’s why I put them in the very next sentence. But now that you’ve pointed it out to me I see the error of my ways: Always better to bludgeon.
I’m not going to tell a person who gets paid to write how to write, but I found the sentence misleading and I don’t think clarifying it would’ve required the use of a bludgeon.
I can see I’ve already shut the door of discourse with my earlier snippy comment so I’ll just leave it at that.
Message received. I’m just saying: There’s more than one way to read between the lines.
Yeah, really. I mean, who do think this stuff is written for? Just because you get it on-line doesn’t mean it’s *for* you.
Wow, that was angry; who do *you* think…
Don’t make me come over there T.
First Law of The Center of the Universe: If I’m reading it, it’s for me.