March 7, 2006

Reverse Overanalysis is the process of attempting to discover the technical principles of the film world through analysis of the structure, function and operation of certain occurrences in the film business. In Reverse Engineering, this analysis is usually done with the intention to construct a new device or program that does the same thing without actually copying anything from the original. In R.O., it is usually done with the intention of explaining something irritating and to offer a construction that will be less irritating, even exhilarating.

But at the core of it is the notion that the result must be somehow have been corrupted because the "right answer" was determined long ago by the posessor of the correctness.

2005 was a big year for Reverse Overanalysis thanks to "The Slump." Critics love to do Reverse Overanalysis in the eternal pursuit of the question of "Why aren't the movies as good as they used to be?" And the Best Picture win for Crash is this week's masterpiece of Reverse Overanalysis.

In a semantic argument, you cannot claim that there was a slump at the box office last year.

Main Entry: slump
Pronunciation: 'slump
Function: intransitive verb
Etymology: probably of Scandinavian origin; akin to Norwegian slumpa to fall
1 a: to fall or sink suddenly b: to drop or slide down suddenly: COLLAPSE <slumped to the floor>
2: to assume a drooping posture or carriage: SLOUCH
3: to go into a slump <sales slumped>

There is a lot of wiggle room in that definition. The difference between a sudden drop and a drooping posture is significant. It is the difference between fact and fiction.

However, a drooping posture and a major anomaly (Passion of The Christ) was not the story the media wanted to tell. And before too long, the fiction was repeated so often that it became ensconced as fact. But this was only the beginning of the process of Reverse Overanalysis on this issue. The Slump evolved from a fiscal issue to a moral one. Hollywood was a bit down at the box office… to no one is going to the movies… to why is Hollywood is such terrible trouble?

The question was fallacious on its face. But the acceptance of it, without too much analysis, allowed critics, journalists, and guys hanging out at the 7-11 to pursue an answer with abandon. But instead of challenging their theories, most people, professional and civilians, simply found answers that fit preconceived notions.

For instance, there is a notion that more and more the public is overwhelmed by the crap coming out of the studios. ("Crap" is a hot niche!) Well, how do you measure that notion? It occurred to me to wonder how dominant the top grossing, often less challenging, films are. In 2005, the Top 28 films accounted for just over half the total domestic gross. The same was true in the record-breaking year of 2004. That is the Top 5% of films released in a year generating more than 50% of the total domestic gross.

The blockbuster mentality is really eating up the business, huh? Well 20 years ago, in 1986, the Top 20 movies represented 50% and change of all the domestic box office revenue. Denser. More top heavy.

Now, you could argue the quality of 1986's Top 20 (Top Gun, Crocodile Dundee, Platoon, The Karate Kid II, Star Trek IV, Back To School, Aliens, The Golden Child, Ruthless People, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Down & Out In Beverly Hills, The Color of Money, Stand By Me, Legal Eagles, Cobra, An American Tail, Police Academy 3, Heartbreak Ridge, Peggy Sue Got Married, Poltergeist II) are being better than 2005's Top 28.

But what jumps out at me is that 2005's list of big hits is loaded with films really targeting kids, while I see, maybe, three in 1996. So does the existence of Harry Potter, Narnia and Charlie & The Chocolate Factory suggest a problem in the film business?

In terms of spread, I note that 72 films in 1996 grossed more than $10 million domestic… and in 2005, there were 90 that grossed more than three times that, $30 million.

Some like to discuss the new Dependents at the studios, that have somehow freed major studios of making more challenging movies. In 1996, two of the top six domestic grossers were from true indie company Orion. Cannon, New World, Cinecom and the then tri-owned Tri-Star all had movies in the Top 50. And three of the five Best Picture nominees were from Orion and Cinecom.

There was a lot of talk about home entertainment centers, but back in 1986, it was two years before the home video sell thru revolution kicked off in a big way by Batman.

And then, of course, there is this year. Have you seen a single headline yet this year noting that, according to Box Office Mojo charts, 2006 is ahead of last year, the year before, and, as of this date, any year in box office history?

I doubt it. Because it doesn't fit last year's endless story. And please note, this is without a single big hit like Hitch or The Passion of The Christ, which had grossed over $170 million by this date two years ago. So where does that put the "blockbusters only" theory?

I'm not saying that there are not some truths in the Reverse Overanalysis of last year's box office situation, just that none of the popular, oft repeated rationalizations stand alone as The Truth. And the main reason for this is that there is no one answer to all of the films that make up the sample.

More to come…

EMe.