|
What's Buzzin'? … Slicin' and Dicin' the Crowds
New Line's
remake of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre proved to have the
kindest cut of the marketplace as it arrived with an estimated
$29.8 million in its debut. It was a slightly better than anticipated
bow and propelled weekend business to a record level for the month.
And while
Fox's Runaway Jury was commercially disappointing, the
national expansion of Mystic River was formidable and the
anticipated slice in Kill Bill Vol. 1 was not as severe
as had been anticipated.
Overall business
approached $118 million for a 6% improvement on last weekend and
a significant 32% expansion from 2002. A year ago The Ring
entered the marketplace at $15 million and My Big Fat Greek
Wedding did $7.1 million in its 27th week.
TCM was a
clear frontrunner entering the weekend with pundits predicting
it would perform comparably to last weekend's $22 million debut
of Kill Bill and that the latter film would be trimmed
by as much as 60%. However, Chainsaw proved more resilient than
expected and, unlike recent R-rated genre fare, actually saw business
improve slightly on Saturday from opening day. It virtually decimated
second weekend business on House of the Dead.
Kill Bill
Vol. 1 took a 43% downturn to rank second with $12.6 million
and appeared to stave off a more radical plunge by attracting
a slightly older, hipper crowd than the incoming power tool wielding
maniac. As a result its commercial prospects have been adjusted
upward. That unexpected strength ate into Runaway Jury's
opening which ranked third with $12.3 million.
Jury was tracking
strongest with an older crowd but wound up competing with the
critically acclaimed Mystic River. The Clint Eastwood
directed social thriller still has to tough it out as its subject
matter remains an obstacle. Four star reviews have been an asset
and awards from critic's groups may make a significant difference
to its on-going vitality.
Mixed to negative
reviews pretty much put the kibosh to Buena Vista's Veronica
Guerin with a dull $640,000 opening at 462 theaters. The company
obviously was not expecting great response but hoped to generate
a screen average better than $2,000.
The frame's
limited releases had fair returns but fell short of the type of
business that presages real commercial momentum. Focus's bio Sylvia
grossed a little better than $50,000 from three venues and, like
Mystic, has the hurdle of overcoming grim content. MGM's Pieces
of April with a $47,200 weekend looks like a film that might
easily get lost in the shuffle of product flow despite positive
reviews simply because it lacks the sort of easy marketing hooks
that make a difference. IDP's The Returner is simply the
latest Japanese anima title not to breakout with box office of
$31,500 from 13 screens.
Among holdovers,
The School of Rock is ample proof of the potency of a crowd
pleasing comedy and more than suggests audiences aren't giving
the thumbs up to Intolerable Cruelty which dropped by close
to 50% in its second weekend. It also appears that Lost in
Translation has hit the wall and will have a tough time just
holding on until award's season. Meanwhile, Miramax's first expansion
of its Sundance-prized The Station Agent was promising
and Vitagraph's slow roll out of the very offbeat Bubba Ho-Tep
is holding its own against mainstream and niche competition.
Liberte, Fraternite,
Screeners!
First disclosure:
I am a card-carrying, dues paying member of the Los Angeles Film
Critics Association.
Not surprisingly,
the subject of the screener ban was on the agenda of Saturday's
meeting of the L.A. film critics. Discussion began with a modest
proposal of drafting a statement and soliciting support from fellow
critics nationwide. Then a member astutely noted that such a path
was conventional and if we truly wanted to make a difference,
the appropriate action was to assail the process. The loudest
noise we could make was to cancel the organization's annual exercise
of award giving.
There is of
course danger in responding by taking extreme measures. Many within
the industry will view the action as little more than a means
to grab headlines by a group composed of pampered, petulant and
vindictive people. That thought immediately crossed my mind and
forced me to examine my motives and whether to support such an
action.
There's no
debating that such a course is intended to stir up the pot just
as the action by the Motion Picture Association of America was
a loud, bold move to send a clear message to Capitol Hill that
the country's major movie producers were ready to stop up leaks
in its fight against piracy. LAFCA members are affected by the
MPAA decision and bristle because it was done without consultation
and by implication implies we are part of the problem.
Now, a friend
at one of the studios invoked the old saw about one bad apple
…and I'm not insensitive to that observation. Still, I fail
to see the wisdom of the MPAA's extreme measure being made in
a partial vacuum. Those seeking to ban screeners had to be aware
that the move would be disruptive to members of the Academy of
Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and other organizations that
give awards of merit. There appears to be little doubt that its
members felt they had to make an immediate preemptive strike rather
than seek out allies - particularly those that would feel the
effects of the fallout.
The question
is why right now?
Theoretically,
one might justify alacrity in the face of a clear and present
danger. However, to date no one has presented a case that includes
a new wrinkle on piracy as a rapidly growing and venal virus.
What has been stated is that the film industry cannot afford to
see revenues decline in the manner that has occurred in the record
industry.
Piracy is
obviously not a new concern and I would have to say that the MPAA
has been quite diligent about curbing its growth for decades.
Impact studies indicate that as a percentage of overall business,
losses from illegal activity have remained constant for more than
20 years. At current levels, estimates of $2 billion to $3 billion
annually in piracy amount to no more than 7% of the total picture,
very significantly less than the double-digit erosion that's hit
the record companies.
At the same
time, MPAA members continue to experience annual revenue growth
for their theatrical releases, particularly in ancillaries and
especially in DVD sales.
For a certain
type of entertainment, critical acclaim and awards play a major
part in the marketing and promotion of those films. It has evolved
strategically that serious awards contenders are advantaged by
a commercial release in November or December and that's created
a fiercely Darwinian environment for the closing weeks of the
year, any year. So, about 15 years ago, the majors and independents
began to send out video copies of award consideration films as
a hedge against exclusion.
In the subsequent
decade and a half two significant things have altered the awards
landscape. The number of films released annually in the U.S. has
increased by more than 30% and those prestige films that used
to open in September and October have occurred less often as more
and more have migrated into the last eight weeks of the calendar.
I doubt very
seriously whether a studio bean counter accurately weighed the
potential money diverted from pirates to legitimate dealers as
a result of the MPAA action. And, by implication, no accounting
was made of the revenues lost by films that were likely to benefit
from award recognition but, in the absence of exposure and accessibility,
will get lost in the shuffle.
Personally,
I cannot truthfully claim that the absence of screeners will mean
that come the middle of December, I will be unprepared to vote
for the best film achievements of the year as a LAFCA member.
However, listening to the situation of other members, I believe
them when they assert that without screeners they cannot meet
that deadline.
Certainly
in the past decade I've fallen into a routine that begins right
about now in which I examine all the films that have been released
commercially. Invariably, there may be as many as a dozen movies
that I missed in theaters but based on reviews and recommendations
feel compelled to see for possible voting consideration. The next
step had been to phone distributors and request screening copies
and, in the past, it's happened with dispatch. But, as of this
writing, I will have to change my routine.
From my perspective,
the MPAA has had a great triumph. It has brought the issue of
intellectual piracy into the consciousness of the industry and
public. It's also managed to simultaneously bend the noses of
many potential allies out of joint. The final test of its mettle
is whether it will be able to arrive at a Solomon-like decision
that continues to address the concerns of casual or even unintentional
theft and satisfy the real and emotional needs of people to see
the important films of the year in a timely fashion.
The dialogue
continues, so stay tuned.
- by Leonard
Klady
|
