This is from memory and others may correct me, but films credited at the
time of release as the most expensive ever made, besides the ones you
mentioned (although I'm actually not sure about THE ROBE) were GONE WITH
THE WIND (Selznick, 1939; at 4 million), WILSON (20th-Fox, 1944; at 5.2
milion), DUEL IN THE SUN (Selznick, 1947), THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
(Paramount, 1956; at 13.5 million), BEN-HUR (M-G-M, 1959; at 15 million),
MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY (M-G-M, 1962; over $20 million). CLEOPATRA
(20th-Fox), at over 40 million in 1963 dollars, was so out of line for its
time that it stood as the most expensive , when adjusted for inflation
until, I believe, the last decade. This meant that some of the wildly
over-produced epics of the late sixties, such as DR. DOLITTLE (20th-Fox,
1967; 19 million), HELLO DOLLY (20th-Fox, 1969; 20 million), PAINT YOUR
WAGON (Paramount, 1969; 20 million), and TORA, TORA, TORA (20th-Fox, 1970;
20 million) did not qualify as most expensive, although they did bring
their studios close to the brink, from which the studios were rescued by
selling themselves to larger parent companies, followed by a
belt-tightening that was maintained through most of the seventies, when
box-office blockbusters such as THE GODFATHER and JAWS were produced
comparatively cheaply. In the nineties, CLEOPATRA has finally been
surpassed and nearly every year, it seens, brings a new "Most expensive
film ever made," from TERMINATOR II to TRUE LIES to WATERWORLD to TITANIC.
The tag itself may be without much meaning, except as a statistic for the
film trivia books. There are so many ways now for films to make money
that even these expensive films of the nineties all broke even, if they
didn't actually turn a profit. TITANIC itself seems an aberration in the
"most expensive" genre simply because in its way it seems perfectly tight
and controlled, whereas virtually all the films on my list--and others I
could have named (the '79 STAR TREK; 42 million and HEAVEN'S GATE in 1980
at 36 million)--are defined by a look and feel of excess, and an
impression of disproportion and waste. The audiences who have been coming
out of TITANIC shaking and crying (based on anecdotal evidence from
over the weekend) don't care what it cost and really aren't reminded of
it by the film. It may be the first anti-materialist blockbuster.
Dennis Bingham
Indiana University Indianapolis
On Mon, 29 Dec 1997 [log in to unmask] wrote:
NO CARRIER
> In light of the promotion of "Titanic" as the most expensive movie
> ever made, I've been wondering about earlier films that would also
> qualify (i.e., the most expensive movie ever made, up to that point).
> "Birth of A Nation" and then "Intolerance" come to mind, and I think
> I've heard the same about 20th-Century-Fox's "The Robe" in the 50s.
> Of course, I recall the same hype from "Terminator II" and
> "Waterworld." I think the fascination is revealing--both of the
> close tie between technological innovation and filmmaking (special
> effects) and of the grandness of scale of mass media (the most
> expensive film will attract the most people). My question is: are
> there other films that merited the title "most expensive fim to
> date"?
>
> Thanks for your help,
>
> Chris Ames
> Dept. of English
> Agnes Scott College
> 141 East College Ave
> Decatur, GA 30030
> [log in to unmask]
>
> ----
> Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite
> http://www.tcf.ua.edu/screensite
>
----
To sign off SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]
|