September 29, 2003

So, what happened?

As a fan of The Rundown, I have to admit, the estimated $18.4 million opening disappointed me. The figure puts the movie in the 10-spot in the history of September openings. Not a disaster. But it falls between the openings of The First Wives Club and Stigmata… get my drift?

Of course, as I say about every wide release, the opening weekend has nothing to do with the quality of the movie. It is always about the marketing. I don’t think you will find many people who will actually argue that Underworld is a better movie than The Rundown. However… it has a better title (God, why didn’t they find a way to hang on to Helldorado?) and more importantly, a great 1-sheet that was saturating the web for months prior to release. Since the day I first saw it, I knew the 1-sheet for The Rundown was not going to help the cause. And, again, that title!

The funny thing about Underworld’s title is that it really is not terribly representative of the movie. We never spend any time in the “Overworld,” so you never connect the title to the movie. “Vampires, Werewolves & Kate, Oh My!” would be more accurate. But still, the title is a winner.

I can only hope that the quotes, by me and by Richie Roeper, will disappear this week, replaced by some indicator of audience enjoyment and the critical piece of branding that they probably should have been using for a month or two now – “Option A… Option B… There is no Option C.” Kids should have been saying that to each other in school hallways before the movie even opened. What something like that does is to take the weight of the movie off of The Rock’s level of stardom (still building) and vests people with an interest in the movie.

Universal had major success with a similar approach of repeating a few gags from a picture relentlessly this summer. But Jim Carrey is Jim Carrey and The Rock is The Rock. If they are going to reach beyond the core demographic for this movie, the perception of the movie needs to be stretched. And as I wrote before, the 1-sheet didn’t do anything other than repeat the unmemorable title and push The Rock front and center over and over again.

I’m not suggesting a complete about face, like the one Sony tried a week into Hollywood Homicide, turning it from a comedy sell to a drama sell. I’m just saying, where is the plot point that The Rock wants to be a chef… or that he doesn’t like guns… or the gag of Sean William Scott causes the fight with “the little guys” by misinterpreting what The Rock is saying? Sure, these give away some surprises in the film. But these are also the elements that make this more than a bang-bang movie.

Likewise, the good folks at Paramount should be changing up their ad campaign for the massively entertaining The School of Rock in this last week before release. The film is a clear home run. But Jack Black is still not a box office draw on the level that the movie could reach. The key is not focusing just on the star, but on the kids, each of who has a character arc that is wonderfully compelling. Black is terrific in the part, but the kids are the real heartbeat. And you would never know that Joan Cusack is even in the movie from the ads. While it is true that she is not an opener, her character might well be. Again, a beating heart… a feeling of the movies arc… her reactions to Black… all the stuff that makes this movie more than the one-note gag that you might expect from the current ads.

I guarantee that there are people out there who are saying to themselves, “Oh, that Jack Black guy… not for me,” which they clearly said about The Rock this weekend. But we are in a wonderful period in which ideas are showing themselves to be every bit as powerful, if not more so, than the star names attached. This is what critics and movie writers seem to pray for all the time. It's here. Now we have to make sure that they make some money on these movies. (There will be more on this subject in tomorrow’s column.)

But back to The Rundown… Universal faces a challenging 1-2 punch next weekend, with The School of Rock chasing kids and Out of Time chasing the “urban” audience… you know, the folks that a constant parade of stories told us were The Rock’s core constituency back when he and Vin Diesel both seemed hot. I hope they find their way. The Rundown deserves a bigger theatrical audience than it now seems likely to get.

ALSO AT THE BOX OFFICE: “Don’t cry for Diane in Tuscan… the film is the per screen winner. In just 12-50, they did $9 million… they hit their demo, won’t keep their distance…”

I don’t know why I felt compelled to comment in song, much less in Andrew Lloyd Webber, but as long as I’m humming…

“Duplex… all alone in the multis… no one wanted to see it… no matter how they delayed. I remember when Drew’s films were worth 10 bucks every time. To the airplane… once again.”

Okay… one more for the road…

“So you are The Rock, oh the great wrestling Rock. Prove to me that you can draw, smash Rush Hour on the wall. Do that for me and we’ll increase your fee. Come on, king of the ring!”

Thank you… remember to tip your waitresses…

DO CRITICS COUNT ANYMORE?: The conversation is ongoing, but rereading one of my two favorite books on a life in film, “Getting Away With It,” by Steven Soderbergh and Richard Lester, offered one more clear voice on the subject.

In case you haven’t read it… buy it! (You can get the book for $12.60 new or as low as $3.50 used on Amazon.com.) But more to the point, half of the book is a diary by Soderbergh, who was finishing up on Schizopolis and Gray’s Anatomy, getting slowly attached to Out of Sight, and still working in and out of A Confederacy of Dunces, which he continues to be associated with as it has its light flip between green and red every six months or so. The other half is an interview with Richard Lester, the man who brought us A Hard Day’s Night, Help!, Robin & Marian, The Knack, Petulia, parts of Superman II and all of Superman III and a lot more. The core of Lester’s career was a 20-year period from 1960 – 1980, during which he made 19 of 24 films on his C.V.

The book was written/transcribed/complained in 1996, five years after Lester completed his last film (Get Back, a Paul McCartney Doc), seven after his last fictional feature (Return of the Musketeers), and a dozen since his last original project, the flop romantic comedy Finders Keepers. My point is not to denigrate Lester’s remarkable career, but to point out that his intelligent voice comes from a previous generation… which makes the timelessness of his insights on criticism all the more compelling.

He told Soderbergh (in clumps chosen by me):

“I remember going to the morning press screenings and sitting in the back and hiding. And I found the quality of the people there and their attention to and their interest in cinema so superficial that, in essence, there was no surprise. The bulk of reviewers – and I’m sure this is true in America as well – are basically a part of show business as opposed to criticism. Some of these people with Don King hairdos and huge bow-ties would talk about show-off directors!”

“There is a role for a critic and yes we should ignore them. You must go your own way because – ultimately – commerce runs the business and you will be found wanting or not.”

“There’s enough chapter and verso on films that have been roundly despised by every critic – man, woman and boy – and have made $200 million. I suppose criticism existed in a time when there was no other way to approach the public. Maybe I’m wrong, but let’s say in the pre-television days that you never had ads on the radio to say, ‘Go see Snow White, it’s going to be a big hit.’ There were probably ads in newspapers. But in no way was the kind of blitzing campaigns that one now gets to inform people that a film was going to exist. That part has changed, but the critic hasn’t. He is still existing in a sort of pre-television, pre-advertising, pre the whole concept of the way films are sold worldwide. So I think he is obsolete in that way.”

Hmmm…

READER OF THE DAY: NOT THE GENERAL writes: “Something recently reminded me of how important the "invisible" jobs in moviemaking, like casting, really are.

I finally got around to seeing "Matchstick Men" and enjoyed it, but what really stuck out to me was Alison Lohman as 14-year-old Angela. Her remarkable job playing ten years younger than she really is has been lauded before, but it really stands out when an actor can embody the mannerisms of a teenager and deliver their antsy, outwardly cocksure but mostly insecure and needing-to-be-loved-spirit so well. It's easy to forget, but proper casting is as crucial to maintaining the illusion as not including a stagehand in every shot. Which is why it's so frustrating when the majority of "high school kid" roles on TV, and especially in films, seem to go to actors who are well on their way to paying off college loans.

A prime example of bad age related casting is John Hensley in the otherwise well acted, written and directed "Nip/Tuck." The first time I saw him as Matt, Dylan Walsh's 15-year-old son, I thought, "Dude's nowhere near fifteen." A check on IMDb and I see that Mr. Hensley is twenty-six-years-old. The problem, however, is that he looks every minute of those two and a half decades. In fact, he's not much younger than me and I was still listening to A Flock of Seagulls when I was fifteen. But the problem is, unlike Lohman, Hensley brings the spirit of a disgruntled college drop-out to the role, instead of convincing me that he's an adolescent boy on the cusp of adulthood. Every scene with this guy takes me out of the show and destroys my suspension of disbelief.

As a writer who's just finished a novel about teenagers half my age, I'd like to add that writing younger is also very difficult to do convincingly. When it's done well you get Russell Banks convincing you that you're reading the words of a 14-year-old kid in "Rule of the Bone." When it's done poorly you get "Go Ask Alice" which was Beatrice Sparks' insulting attempt to get us to believe that fifteen-year-old girls write diaries in the voice of Nancy Reagan.

Anyway, I understand why casting kids, especially on TV, can be logistically difficult, but geez, when the Beaver has five o'clock shadow as he kisses June goodbye on his way to school, they've lost me. Thank you Debra Zane.”

E ME: Are critics living in a past that few people remember? And what are the worst ever casting choices of actors trying to pass as teenagers?