Advertisement
Conservative film blogger Dirty Harry is often best ignored when he’s aggressively railing against the liberal Hollywood elite, but when he offers a faux-populist view of filmgoing that’s so obstinately limited in scope that it’s actually potentially dangerous, I have to say something.
The gist: the cursed Hollywood elite is once again pushing movies with purely elite appeal for awards, and audiences are not responding to these films because after years of reading reviews written by partisan elitists who are out of touch with What The People Want, they no longer trust film critics. Also, elitism! An excerpt:
From early predictors, it looks as though the ever-widening disconnect between Hollywood and their audience will reach into 2008. The Visitor, The Wrestler, Slumdog Millionaire, Vicky Cristina Barcelona, Rachel Getting Married… Any of these on your radar? Any of these captured your imagination?…what a sad statement that the films the industry are most proud of are met with almost complete indifference at the box office.
Dirty Harry’s commenters take it from there; the basic consensus is that if any of the above named films get the Best Picture nomination that should rightfully go to The Dark Knight, why they’ll … become really indignant about the tyranny of the liberal media? Not watch the Oscars? Boycott movie theaters? So, pretty much status quo, right?
Anyway. First things first: that Variety story he bases the post on is three weeks old, which is a lifetime in the prognostication game. And let’s leave aside the fact that neither Slumdog nor the Wrestler have opened anywhere yet, and that only a very small percentage of the population would admit to having their “imagination captured” by a Woody Allen film, even though Vicky is still on almost 100 screens almost three months after its release and is currently about a million dollars away from being Allen’s highest-grossing film in 22 years.
Regardless: Dirty Harry chooses to extrapolate two films named in that story as evidence that “the films the industry are most proud of are met with almost complete indifference at the box office”: Rachel Getting Married and The Visitor. I’m far more of a fan of one of these films than the other, but Harry’s assessment of audience “indifference” is misleading for both. As is common for him, he willfully refuses to acknowledge that expectations and accounting are different for films that open on 3 screens and then expand, than they are for films that roll right out into 3,000.
So, some numbers:
(All of these statistics come from Box Office Mojo)
In the five weeks Rachel has been in theaters, its release has grown steadily from weekend to weekend, but has not yet expanded above 133 screens (a little less than what The Dark Knight has dropped to after 16 weeks in release). The film opened to an extremely high per screen average (9 screens, $32,597 on each), and actually saw significant increases in total gross from weekend to weekend during its second, third and fourth weekends in release. On Halloween weekend, Rachel’s fifth in theaters, most widely released films saw drops from 30-60% from the previous weekend, because nobody goes to the movies on Halloween; Rachel dropped just 14%.
Like the film or hate it (and your lean one way or another could very well be partially ideological), you’d have to be insane to look at numbers like this for a limited release film and read “indifference.” Likewise, The Visitor’s $9.5 million domestic gross was the product of a slow build over 26 weekends in theaters (never more than 270 at a time); the film undoubtedly benefited from peer-to-peer word-of-mouth, which means it must have captured somebody’s imagination, even if it wasn’t mine.
Even if you buy Dirty Harry’s argument that no one cares about these films because they haven’t made $100 million dollars, such an argument opens up a new can of worms: what is the purpose of awards, and what is their rightful relationship to, on the one hand, commercial success, and on the other, critical praise? To say that a movie which built an audience via word-of-mouth over half a year in theaters was met with “indifference” by audiences because it never played a multiplex (and thus was never seen by non-curious film goers) is illogical at best. I don’t even like the movie, but I can’t deny that The Visitor has been one of the biggest hits of a year from a truly indie perspective, and that its success has been entirely dependent on capturing the imagination of a certain audience.
The Dirty Harry argument is based on the philosophy that the job of a critic is to affirm popular tastes rather than try in good faith to expand them, and that the role of the Oscars is to salute movies that captured the momentary zeitgeist rather than to reserve a place in history for films and roles that have the potential to capture imaginations not all in one massive opening weekend burst, but slowly and steadily for years to come. Critics have not always been good at influencing audience tastes for the better, and the Oscar voters haven’t always made the best decisions in the interest of posterity (cough, Million Dollar Baby). But if an Oscar nomination (or even a win) ensures that a couple of films a year which didn’t have the benefit of Dark Knight-sized distribution and marketing budgets will be found later on DVD, how is that a bad thing?
Kevin Buist
FLAME + CITRON Review
Christopher Campbell
Happy Halloween Links. Today in Film...
Brandon Harris
5 80s Literary Adaptations Worse Than...
Kevin Kelly
John Krasinski, Brief Interviews With...
Karina Longworth
SpoutBlog, Now Available in Book Form
Paul Moore
October 31, Karina’s Last Day
Lauren Wissot
Sasha Grey Interview
We’ve had a bit of trouble getting this episode to go through the iTunes feed, so we hope this re-post will fix the problem. The original post, with episode description and embedded player, is here.
filmcouch-114
Hey… first I just want to say that this was a great post. I have only followed The Academy Awards for a few years, and like everyone else, have noticed how it seems the indie films are dominating the Best Picture category.
If we just take a quick recap, last year’s highest grossing Best Picture nominee was Juno, which really was an exception when it comes to low-budget independent films. But basically, all of the films were independent. The Departed won in 2006, but the rest of the nominees grossed an estimated TOTAL of $163 million (yes, not even half of what The Dark Knight has made this year). Even the year before that, two independent films were battling it out for the big award: Crash and Brokeback Mountain.
All you keep hearing is how viewership for The Academy Awards is down. Down down down. Why aren’t people watching? Is it really because the films nominated for Best Picture are ones that no one has watched? That makes sense, but it’s hardly The Academy’s fault. I don’t believe High School Musical and Transformers deserve the Best Picture Oscar. But quality is down for the big blockbusters… that is until this year.
The Dark Knight is what everyone has been waiting for. The movie that smashed box office records AND was great. This is what The Academy has also been waiting for since Lord of the Rings. This is the chance for viewership to shoot upward for this year’s Oscars. This is why I really think The Dark Knight will be at least nominated for Best Picture this year.
But there was a time when big box office hits were consistently fighting for the Best Picture Oscar. That time has passed. Even if The Dark Knight is nominated this year, it’ll still be surrounded by significantly smaller films. But hopefully TDK is a sign to studios that a film can make a lot of money AND be really good at the same time.
Good post. This Dirty Harry guy’s argument is so deeply flawed, there’s almost no point in arguing with him.
Like last year’s Oscar a list of unknowns (except Juno) who box office sucess was marginal. With the winner being a movie of blood and violence with little story. Should the Oscar’s become a peoples choice award. No! But it should be more relevant to what is actually popular. What it needs is A Best Picture for Drama and a Best Picture for Comedy. Since most comedy movies will out score the dramas in the box office and as it is now have no hope of winning.
“But there was a time when big box office hits were consistently fighting for the Best Picture Oscar. That time has passed.”
It’s not that the Oscars have started to ignore those big films, it’s that the audiences have started to ignore them. The Oscars have always nominated films like Atonement and Michael Clayton and Capote, but back in the ’70s, for example, the audiences were watching those kinds of films as well, so the nominees invariably also did big numbers at the box office.
Kramer Vs. Kramer was the biggest film of the year in 1979, and audiences flocked to see it in the theatre. However, nowadays a film like that would be lumped into the “Oscar nominee that didn’t capture the audience’s imagination” category.
Let us be clear about something. The Oscars credibility and the credibility of boxoffice are *both* fatally flawed.
Clearly box office doesn’t mean a movie is good. Many felt Spiderman III was a let down despite pretty good boxoffice, and the list could be drawn out in lengthy style.
Not so clearly to some, the Oscar is extremely tainted. In the last ten years I have disagreed with almost every best picture winner, but I certainly didn’t think the award should have gone to the “boxoffice giant” of the year.
As for the Oscars, there are two really blatant examples that most people point to as evidence of problems. First, and quite common, individuals point to “Citizen Kane” and the politics that surround it. Think we are free from such politicization? Then why to production houses lay out a lot of money to actually campaign? The second example I point to occurred in 1994 (1995 awards). That year “Forrest Gump” won best picture honors. With due respect, “Forrest Gump” is a fine film. Just fine as far as I measure. Whereas few people acknowledge that “Forrest Gump” is a better film than the Shawshank Redemption, which will stand as one of the greatest films ever made in my opinion. Further, I feel that the following three films that year were also better films than “Forrest Gump”. “Hoop Dreams”, “The Last Seduction”, and “Pulp Fiction”. One may certainly disagree with all three of these, but consider that critics commonly hailed “Hoop Dreams” as the best film that year! But, then again, they are “elitist”, right?
I think these point out the pitfalls of choosing a “best film”. Basically, it will always be flawed. I suggest thte better test is time, which has born out for “Citizen Kane”, and should bear out for similarly high quality films.
-Steve
there are those of us that actually found “Million Dollar Baby” to be a work of art! Was it 1996 when the majority of films were indy faves, ie, “The English Patient, Fargo, Secrets & Lies?” Gotta’ admit that “The Dark Knight” was entertaining, however, because it was/is a big budget, it should get the same resepct of the smaller films! All a matter of taste.The Oscars are just fun! Granted they tend to be the benchmark award to strive for, however, 99% of the winners are forgettable. Great movies are lasting!
Let’s face it… if we took 14 year olds out of the equation… how many films would gross over 100 million?
Can someone please explain to me why Shakespeare in Love can beat out Saving Private Ryan?
While I think its undeniable that the Academy is biased towards certain types of films (though I think it has as much to do with star-power as political ideology; look at Clint Eastwood, who happens to be a republican) his argument is really rather flawed. In a perfect world the awards would be given to the best
But honestly, The Dark Knight doesn’t deserve to win Best Picture. Keep in mind this comes from the mouth of a guy who saw it three times. Superb blockbuster that actually makes you think? Definitely. Best superhero flick of all time? Sure. But a perfect movie? Not with the awkward beginning and the ending where the characters basically read stilted philosophical monologues instead of letting the action of the film speak for itself. It will probably make my top ten list and Ledger certainly deserves any awards he receives, but the script is too flawed to warrant a Best Picture award.
I think you two have more in common than you might think: “This isn’t an argument on my part that Best Picture picks should in anyway be based on popularity. That would be stupid.” taken from Dirty Harry’s post— did you read it?
Ian, he says that, and then he spends the rest of the post making the opposite argument.
In total agreement with Huff, well articulated. Although the bank heist was great, The Dark Knight had the most awkward beginning ever (Harvey Dent’s introduction, the warped Hong Kong subplot, etc).
1997: LA Confidential or Titanic? How can we pay any attention to the Academy after that.
[...] Willen unter Beweis zu stellen? Ist in Ordnung, aber vorher lesen Sie bitte noch diesen Artikel im Spout Blog. In den USA diskutiert man gerade darüber, ob elitäre Filmkritiker und Blogger dem Publikum immer [...]
The fact that Paul Thomas Anderson has yet to win a Best Director Oscar is evidence that the Academy is backasswards. They’re going to do him dirty like they did with Martin Scorsese for so long. I mean really, Oridinary People over Raging Bull?
Ridic.
Wow, all of you guys that spoke out on this page including Longworth are in for a rude awakening. The age of films being important in the way they are now is coming to an end. The long debated question of art either being for the people or the artist is about to be answered.
What nation has produced more wonderfully inspiring art in the form of film? Does society and government have a part to play in that? What elements allow an artist to create their best work? If any of you can answer these questions without mixing in personal beliefs or agendas, then maybe we could have a true conversation and not a self-flattering spew-fest on how much better one is from the so-called dimwit American culture.
by the way, here’s a history lesson for those who obviously need it.
Did hollywood change or did we change? hmmmm
Year Movie Gross
1939
(won) Gone With the Wind $198,676,459
1973
(nominated) The Exorcist $232,671,011
1975
(nominated) Jaws $260,000,000
1977
(nominated) Star Wars $460,998,007
1981
(nominated) Raiders of the Lost Ark $242,374,454
1982
(nominated) Tootsie $177,200,000
(nominated) E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial $435,110,554
1988
(won) Rain Man $172,825,435
1990
(won) Dances with Wolves $184,208,848
(nominated) Ghost $217,631,306
1993
(nominated) The Fugitive $183,875,760
1994
(won) Forrest Gump $329,694,499
1995
(nominated) Apollo 13 $173,837,933
1997
(won) Titanic $600,788,188 (highest of all time)
1998
(nominated) Saving Private Ryan $216,540,909
1999
(nominated) The Sixth Sense $293,506,292
2000
(won) Gladiator $187,705,427
2001
(won) A Beautiful Mind $170,742,341
(nominated) The Lord of the Rings:
(The Fellowship of the
Ring) $314,776,170
2002
(won) Chicago $170,687,518
(nominated) The Lord of the Rings:
(The Two Towers) $341,786,758
2003
(won) The Lord of the Rings:
(The Return of the King) $377,027,325
Funny how you had to skip 34 years in order to make your unnecessarily hostile argument.
Wow, really… 34 years is what you focused on. Well, since the oldest reference on this page is from 1979, I think I’m ok. I’m also ok in the fact that even though you feel my comment was hostile I still fit right in on a page that’s filled with unnecessarily hostile arguments over ONE mans opinion. Also, my point was that over the last 30 years box office hits have been in the mix in a big way. Shouldn’t that say something? Plus, the films I listed aren’t your run of the mill blockbuster, they are of the 150 top grossing films of all time but, since my journalistic integrity is being questioned, here ya go.
Movies that hit double digits since 1944
1972
(Won) The Godfather 268 million
1971
(Won) The French Connection 41 million
1970
(Won) Patton 62.5 million
1969
(Won) Midnight Cowboy 44 million
1967
(Won) In the Heat of the Night 24 million
1966
(Won) A Man for All Seasons 28.3 million
1965
(Won) The Sound of Music 163 million
1964
(Won) My Fair Lady 72 million
1961
(Won) West Side Story 43 million
1960
(Won) The Apartment 24.6 million
1957
(Won) The Bridge on the River Kwai 33 million
1956
(Won) Around the World in Eighty Days 42 million
1953
(Won) From Here to Eternity 30 million
1952
(Won) The Greatest Show on Earth 36 million
1946
(Won) The Best Years of Our Lives 23 million
1945
(Won) The Lost Weekend 11 million
1944
(Won) Going My Way 16 million