Showing posts with label box office. Show all posts
Showing posts with label box office. Show all posts

Monday, March 28, 2011

The Woody Allen Conjecture

You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger limped into British theatres just over a week ago, seven months after a not-particularly-illustrious release in the US, and no one really cared. Commercially, Woody Allen has recovered somewhat in recent years - both Vicky Cristina Barcelona and Match Point cleared $23 million in the US, and I bet you'd be surprised to learn that Scoop scooped $10 million - but critically he seems to be stuck in stagnation, beyond those two $23 million-ers, which undoubtably benefited from the "Woody Allen's made a good movie again!" cries (however true you may find them). Still, he attracts fine rosters of acting talent, but he's been managing that for so long while still releasing excreable products that he manages to make the union of five A-listers an exercise for trepidation rather than joyful hand-clapping. And yet, his next film, Midnight in Paris, is the opening night at Cannes - so a sense of excitement remains somewhere.

And I, too, can't really let go of all hope that it won't finally be a return to form for the workaholic filmmaker - even if, by my measure, the last time he made a film really worth anyone's time and thoughts was 1994's Bullets Over Broadway. Is the percipacity and wit that he used to display so gloriously really gone from the man? Not content to rest my current feelings toward the man on one film alone, I finally screened Whatever Works (which took over a year after its UK release to appear on UK screens) and found a little more to laugh at, but an equal amount to not be impressed by. These films are lazy. These films are thin. These films are full of caricatures - not necessarily a problem, but they do not exist beyond the kind of motifs that have been wrung out years ago. Allen sets up relationships between characters and then reduces key scenes to voiceover sentences, as if he just can't be bothered to script and shoot a scene of such emotional import. He wants these things over just as much as you do.

Larry David doesn't understand why his character marries Evan's. Neither do we.
Whatever Works preaches as its title suggests - no prejudices, just live your life according to whatever works for you. But if you expect me to believe that you're completely accepting of homosexuals, you might want to throw in more than one scene where a man suddenly, quite easily, bursts forth from years of repression. Or perhaps show a little physical affection between the young woman and crusty older man if you want me to believe she's so in love with him. Somewhere along the line, Woody has lost his belief in relationships. He's lost his understanding of how people interact, how they love and fall out of love and merely co-exist. Even New York doesn't seem like New York...

You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger opens with a line from Shakespeare, excusing itself as "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing". By now, that reads as an astonishingly honest cue to get the fuck out of the theatre. I stayed, though, and what played out was one of Allen's very worst films. One of his worst tendencies lately is the use of a novelistic narrator, a disconnected, monotone figure who fills in the gaps in the narrative - and, more criminally, fills in the gaps in the characters. Motivation, feeling, decision - the narrator tells us them all. One of the film's few moments of emotional clarity is gifted to bit-part player Anna Friel - while scene partner Naomi Watts, the film's most central character, watches with probable envy, remembering that all she gets to do is shout and fail at a convincing British accent.

Gemma Jones and Naomi Watts look for direction...
The problem, it strikes me, is this: Woody doesn't want to invest in his characters as more than caricatures or pawns for his vague thematic threads. You can still sense his personality behind Larry David's character in Whatever Works, but it's a bitter, ruder character than Woody himself (which is likely why he doesn't appear in his own films of late), or at least the Woody we knew. Even if you'd never been to New York, Allen's films used to be pregnant with a vibrant sense of the city, and, even watching his classics now, they're alive with the period and the culture and the people of the time. Whatever Works was first written over thirty years before it was made into a film, and the May-December romance at its centre is reminiscent of that in Manhattan, but the attitude shift between the two really demonstrates how badly Allen has changed. The tenderness and difficulty between Allen and the poignant Mariel Hemingway in Manhattan is worlds away from Larry David's apathy and physical disinterest towards Evan Rachel Wood. You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger is edited so scattishly that believability in supposed familial and spousal relationships is destroyed - it feels more like a collage than a coherent narrative.

Allen's incredible work rate - since Bananas, in 1971, there have been a grand total of 3 years where he hasn't made a film, two of which were in the 1970s - only seemed to be flagged up as a problem since the returns have become so diminishing. The break from New York isn't simultaneous with the decline, since his current nadir, Anything Else, likely (or should have) caused the geographical shift. But will he ever lose that cinematic cache, that "legend" status, that keeps attracting the stars to subpar material and Cannes to invite him to lead their red carpet? Or, more importantly, will he ever recover his talent for funny, perceptive human insights, or even the romantic visual sense that was once so palatable? We can only wait and see.

Whatever Works: C-; You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger: D

Tuesday, September 02, 2008

Stupid Screen International...

I got a little excited when the BBC put up their usual story about this past weekend at the UK/Ireland box office... mainly because they were reporting that Step Brothers, that dreadful-looking Will Ferrell-John C. Reilly (what happened to you, Mr. Cellophane?) "comedy" had come in at the superb flop positioning of number 7. 'Really?', I thought. 'Have people finally had enough? Is the epidemic coming to an end?' Sure, Mamma Mia!, which is hardly quality itself, had apparently returned to the number 1 spot, but I'd rather people see a celebration of ABBA (who, in case you didn't know, are completely and utterly brilliant) and embrace the tradition of the musical rather than encourage subpar frat brother juvenile humour (I expect- you don't really expect me to subject myself to that, do you?). And even better is the fact that The Strangers- which, well, yes, could be rubbish, but I am actually going to discover that for myself- was second and had made almost as much as Mamma Mia! despite being in about half the number of cinemas.

But then I see that they've updated their article and Step Brothers was the winner after all. So that was the end of that.

Tuesday, June 03, 2008

Men Always Win, Even When Women Beat Them


Diverse opinions on how the new Sex and the City film fits into today's culture are causing a furore, but I've got a different bone to pick here, and it has to do with the British media and their response to the British box office. As in America, the fourth Indiana Jones film opened here on May 22nd, and the Sex and the City film followed a week later. But while reports of the box-office results in the U.S. are all 'surprise: women do go to the cinema!', the UK media seem to be playing a very odd trick. What do headlines like 'Sex fails to match Indiana in the UK' and 'Sex and the City? We'd rather take a trip with Indiana Jones' suggest to you? Because when I first read them, I assumed that Indiana had held onto the top spot and the New Yorkers had taken second place. But no. If you can work around the bizarre narrative of the articles, you'll discover that this week's box-office champ was actually Sex and the City, which grossed about £8.7 million to Indiana's £5.5 million (figures here).

So why are these articles so focused on the fact that Sex and the City's opening weekend doesn't match Indiana Jones' opening £12 million? Why does it matter so much? Quite frankly I think it's quite amazing that a film based on an American television show that surely can't have had that large an audience (Channel 4 is less widely watched than other channels, and American imports, much as I love them, aren't generally watched by too many people) has made so much money. Seriously, £8.7 million is a huge haul, and I hardly think it's fair to compare it to a big action-adventure family franchise comeback. The two films are completely different, appealing to completely different audiences- and aren't some of Sex's audience going to be the ones dragged along by partner/children to see Indiana as opposed to the other way around?- and such a comparison is, quite frankly, ludicrous. Both have been hugely successful- so why slam one's success?

p.s. Apologies for the horrifically rudimentary graphic. I only have Paint, but isn't it more exciting than just the posters?

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Offending Sensibilities

From IMDb's page for Gone Baby Gone:
The film's UK release, scheduled for 28 December 2007, has been postponed indefinitely because of the film’s similarity to the real-life case of four-year-old Madeleine McCann who disappeared from the holiday apartment where she and her family were staying in Praia da Luz, Portugual, on 3 May 2007.
Now, I don't want to get shot at by people saying I'm being insensitive. I feel for Madeleine's family, I really do, it's a horrible thing to happen to a child. But how is releasing an American film with a similar story that probably won't even be shown in more than three cinemas going to make any difference? If people don't want to see it then they don't have to. It's not as though Ben Affleck was searching to exploit this case, is it? If the media hadn't blown this case up so much in the first place there'd be no problem. (Because no other children were kidnapped this year. Just this one.) These people seem to think that everyone'll blow up at the slightest thing... do they give us no credit at all? I think we can separate life from the cinema screen. It's probably more about the fact that they think no one'll go and see it if they release it now. Newsflash: people who care now will still care in a year. So unless you're never going to release it at all...

In other Casey Affleck-related news, I finally saw The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford today and thought both he and it were excellent, though it's still settling in my head as to any coherent thoughts. But I was glad to see that the film had actually moved up a place on the UK box office charts... until I looked closer and saw that it had still gone down 33%. Still, that's twice better than most on the chart... except Fred Claus, for some horrifying reason. Thankfully, most people were off seeing The Golden Compass. That's a rare family outing scheduled for next week for me... before then, I'll be checking out We Own the Night and either Beowulf or Enchanted (still hoping for a family viewing of the latter, too, but the jury's currently out on that). As for blog activities, I'll be bringing you my review of the year's music very soon...