July 28, 2003

The Historic Summer of 2003 continues to make history, in more freaky ways…

This weekend, we had the first-ever weekend with five $20 million movies, at least according to the estimates, which could well end up changing on Monday… though I can’t imagine that the good folks at Universal are going to allow Seabiscuit to be “the one that fell out of the 20s.” 

In point of fact, there was a lot of jockeying for position this weekend, if you’ll forgive the pun.  Everyone has the race going to Spy Kids 3D, followed by Pirates of the Caribbean.  But after that, things get blurry.  Bad Boys II, Tomb Raider 2 and Seabiscuit are all within $480,000 of one another by “studio estimates.”  Movie City News’ Len Klady not only has them spread by $2.1 million, each one no less than $400,000 apart from the others, but also estimates that Lara Croft finished in third, ahead of the Bad Boys.  Perhaps this is because the estimates on both Bad Boys II and Seabiscuit are based on rather optimistic Sat-Sun drops of less than 20%. 

And just to show you that winning isn’t everything, Spy Kids 3D is also suspiciously high, also betting on a stronger than likely Sunday despite a $10 million margin of victory.  Plus, as much as Pirates is the agreed #2, it, too, is estimated to be only $100,000 to $400,000 ahead of #3, so that slotting may change too. 

When the finals come in tomorrow morning, expect more tap dancing in the numbers.  The illusion that the “finals” are “actuals” is, well, an illusion.  Often, the numbers are completely honest and without manipulation.  Often.

Beyond all that, the story of this weekend is Tomb Raider 2’s gimpy launch.  I’m not sure how to pump up the 159th best opening of all time… according to Klady’s higher estimate.  I suppose that Paramount could point to the 158^th best opener of all time, another Paramount movie, The General’s Daughter, which went on to pass $100 million. Maybe The Princess Diaries would be a good example.  Or maybe they will just lick their wounds and start praying that Marci X, Dickie Roberts or Jack Black can give the studio a positive spin before Timeline or Paycheck gives them to some action to enjoy.  It is not a pretty question, but a $22 million start and the trajectory of the first Lara Croft film makes one wonder, will this film cover its P&A costs at the domestic box office, forget about its production costs.

Universal has been taking the position that it is not in the same race as the other pictures and that is fair.  Last year’s entry in the Serious Summer Movie Derby, Road To Perdition, also started on relatively few screens (1797 to Seabiscuit’s 1989) and opened to $22.1 million on its way to $105 million domestic.  So even if Seabiscuit turns out to be more like $19.4 million, let’s not bury the thing, regardless of how I feel about the film personally.  Audiences will tell the story next weekend. 

Lost in all of this is a decent second weekend drop for Bad Boys II.  It’s not Pirates of the Caribbean, but it ‘s no 2 Fast 2 Furious either.  It is pretty much walking the same road as T3, which has a lot better scenery than a lot of box office analysts are acknowledging.  The film will pass the $100 million mark next Friday and looks to top out at around $150 million domestic.  It is not a great mark for either film, but in both cases, it should be enough to get to black and a little more if the DVD sales are up to expectations.

WHITHER FILM STUDIES?:  There has been a bit of an inside filmball discussion brewing regarding David Weddle’s July 13 article for the L.A. Times Calendar Section entitled, “Lights, Camera, Action. Marxism, Semiotics, Narratology.”  The piece was a bit of a crankfest about his daughter’s misadventure at UC Santa Barbara’s Film Studies program.

According to the UCSB literature, the program is, “devoted to the study of film as a multicultural phenomenon and a humanistic discipline, the primary emphasis is on film history, film theory, and film analysis.” 

In fact, Weddle acknowledges, “(My daughter) wants a career in film. She chose UC Santa Barbara because we couldn't afford USC and her grades weren't lustrous enough for UCLA. Film programs at those schools have hard-core theoreticians on their faculty, as do many other universities. Yet no other undergraduate film program in the country emphasizes film theory as much as UCSB, and the influence of those theoreticians is growing. We knew that much before Alexis enrolled. (emphasis added by me) In hindsight, we had no idea what that truly meant for students.”

Well, I’m not sure that the argument that UCSB emphasizes film theory more than any other film program in the country is true.  It seems unlikely.  And the suggestion that “influence of those theoreticians is growing” is actually scoffed at throughout his article.  Most importantly, knowing that the film focused on film theory ahead of time and complaining about film theory after the fact seems… well… stupid! 

 

Let me say right now, I hate film theory.  I find it far less instructive than, say, a real philosophy or sociology class, the information from which could be transferred to other film studies.  In fact, if you want to make or understand films, it would be in your best interest to learn about a lot of disciplines that demand critical thinking.  But for me, film theory is on a long, long list of intellectual pursuits that I am happy to live without. 

 

Would, as Manohla Dargis posits in her L.A. Times response to Weddle, film editing be notably different today if Eisenstein was not interested in film theory?  I doubt it.  No more than we would never have seen any of Orson Welles’ innovations come to be standard were it not for Citizen Kane. 

 

That said, Weddle does seem to be preaching to the anti-intellectual choir.  I have no interest in microbiology, but I am glad that someone else is.  Do I really need to be able to understand why E=MC² in order to respect Einstein?  And do I really need to know anything more about Munsterberg than that I like his cheese in order to appreciate every single element of Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle?  Is Arnheim really relevant if Veronica and Jughead aren’t around? 

My point?  Different strokes for different folks.  I skipped out of Northwestern’s film school because it was too criticism oriented for my tastes.  I was able to figure that out for myself at the age of 17.  David Weddle couldn’t figure this out for his daughter at the age of “over 35.” 

And if this is of any interest to you, read Manohla’s article.  She is more interested in film theory than I and less than Baudry… a stroke of her very own.

READER OF THE DAY:  FREYED KNOT writes:  “I consumed Seabiscuit, the book, in about two days.  It was written so beautifully.  The bonus being that all I knew about Seabiscuit was he was a famous racehorse from way back when and Bugs Bunny referred to him a lot.  I had no idea which races he won or lost, much less who owned/trained/rode him.  I was hooked hooked hooked.  The race scenes she wrote had my heart pounding, my eyes welling up, I didn't want to skip a word in case I accidentally found out sooner what happened!  Oh it was a good two days.

I was excited about the movie being made, then thought, well, it can never be as good as the book.  And of course, it is not.  Especially the race scenes.  My problem with them is that they were too short and always interrupted by something.  In the race against War

Admiral, the tactics are discussed more than we see the actual race (it seems), and once that starting bell goes off, I was so pissed off at the black and white stills of people around their radios!  "Let's see the race through every furlong you bastard!"  Is what I wanted to yell out to the screen.  Did Gary Ross ever see The Black Stallion?  Did he understand he was making a movie about horse racing? And at the final race in Santa Anita, I was again so annoyed that the race was interrupted with Red's voice over before the race was actually over.  I wanted to see Red and Seabiscuit win that race, give the characters their shining comeback moment from start to finish.  Then after the finish line, do the final voice over/tag line.

It felt like race-us interruptus both times...so frustrating.

I didn't mind the concept of framing the story with the country's history at the time.  But the term "Framing" is what is important here.  There is a good film in there, it just seems confused.  Am I a documentary with really great reenactments?  Or am I a narrative with too much information?

I want the film to do well because the story is good, the actors are good and there are no drug dealers, Cubans or explosions.  Not that there is anything wrong with drug dealers, Cubans or explosions, I like a good summer flick, but it’s nice to have a break at the Cinerama Dome.”

EL CROW writes:  “You are off here (on Seabiscuit) simply because with all the bitching we all do about the studios only making sequels and kids crap, when they do make a good one, they need help, not a kick in the balls... sorry.  I read you enough to know you're one of the big whiners on this subject. Ross took chances here and made a smart movie. It's a lot harder to do these than the CA Full Throttle junk. We need guys like Ross, and guys like you should be supportive.

It's like when Richard Schickel has the balls to say twenty years later that he was wrong about MODERN ROMANCE and LOST IN AMERICA and shouldn't have trashed them they were good comedies. Albert Brooks’ reaction is 'that's nice but back then those reviews from him cost him me my office on the lot and the studios belief in the movie.”

DAVID RESPONDS:  We obviously disagree on many levels, but the one I want to address here is the comparison of Gary Ross’ situation on Seabiscuit to any Albert Brooks project.  I’d say that it is a rather specious bit of spin.  It's also vaguely insulting to Brooks, who has never had this much money to make a movie nor has he ever had this much publicity behind him. 

The thing about Brooks is that he has always been a quality play for studios, like Woody Allen.  His films have never made a lot, never lost a lot.  Studios are just proud to have him around.  And I guess that Richard Corliss' sense of humor could have a real influence on whether he remained a good emotional investment at Geffen Pictures.  Gary Ross is not an indie working inside the machine.

Albert Brooks is one of my favorite filmmakers.  Why?  Among many reasons, he is smarter than his audience, but he respects them enough not to condescend.  Given $80 million to make a movie, he would make at least two.  I don't really think that Brooks has the visual skills for a movie like this - he's never pushed in that direction - but I bet he would have come up with a much better screenplay.  Why?  He understands the idea of heightening drama, as opposed to repeating it.  And even more importantly, he understands how to stay on point.  His films stories take wild turns, but they are always on theme. 

E ME:  Did you back a Biscuit, raid a tomb or see in 3D this weekend?

 

Back to Top

The Matrix Reloaded. Reloaded.
Read Part One
Read Part Two