SCREEN-L Archives

February 1999, Week 3

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

Options: Use Proportional Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Mime-Version:
1.0
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Date:
Thu, 18 Feb 1999 23:23:06 -0600
Reply-To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Darryl Wiggers <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To:
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
8bit
Sender:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (83 lines)
>As in the US, nominations give films extra "legs" in Canada. Last year's
>Oscar nomination for best screenplay meant that Atom Egoyan's _The Sweet
>Hereafter_ re-opened in several Canadian cities and Egoyan was lionized by
>various media. Generally speaking, the better a film does elsewhere, the
>better chance it has of getting noticed here.

Here are some numbers to consider (my apologies, in advance, to those who
have heard me sing this tune before).

In late 1997 there was a little Quebec film called LES BOYS. It grossed
half a million dollars on its first weekend in Quebec alone. It later went
on to make about $5 million in that province. I don't have the figures for
its international gross, but its safe to say that it made back its $3
million investment.

Recently another Quebec film -- C't'à ton tour, Laura Cadieux -- grossed $2
million within weeks of its release. Again, only in Quebec. Budget: Again,
about $3 million.

Also, in 1997, a Canadian-made family film called AIR BUD made at least $25
million in North America alone. Budget: About $3 million

Now, THE SWEET HEREAFTER starred internationally known actor Ian Holm, had
a budget of $5 million, and won an award at Cannes. Hence, even before the
film opened in Canadian theatres in October '97 it received strong press
coverage in the Canadian media, including an endorsement from the Prime
Minister of Canada! By the end of 1997, virtually every critic in the
continent placed the film on their Top Ten List of best 1997 films. Then
came the two Oscar nominations. Media explosion. In short, THE SWEET
HEREAFTER received more ink than any other Canadian film. That year or any
other. By miles. It stayed in theatres for a total of 6 months (from
October to April). So, no, it never "re-opened." It stayed in major cities
the whole time. And can you guess what it's total gross in Canada was by
April 1998, after 6 months on continuous play?....

About $1 million... Canadian dollars that is, which is worth less than 70
cents U.S. now. Previous to the Oscar nominations, THE SWEET HEREAFTER had
earned about $6-700,000. Extra "legs"? I don't think so.

The film opened in the U.S. in Christmas 1997 with much of the
above-mentioned hype behind it, and an agressive marketing campaign. Close
to $1 million was spent just promoting it for the Oscars nominations. That
campaign helped garner its 2 nominations, and generate $4 million at the
U.S. box office. About $5 million more was collected from the rest of the
world. The politicians loved it. The producers and distributors were
thrilled. The media raved. And the rest of Canada snored.

The original post to this thread included the question: "Does it seem like
only particular kinds of films are eligible for such a nomination." In
Canada, yes. As Markus put it: "sweet, toothless melodramas." That's why
David Cronenberg will never be officially supported by this country, or
critics in general. His films divide audiences (his latest, "eXistenZ", is
already pissing off people at the Berlin Festival). You either love him or
hate him. Egoyan, on the other hand, is so harmless and nice -- both
personally and professionally -- and deliberately tries to makes
critically-acclaimed, award-winning "art" films that the industry (in its
never-ending search for respect) can't help but revere him.

So why support an "art" film that few people want to see? The reason for
this is complex, but it's not unlike other countries which often choose to
promote similar, bland movies. The downside is that those who aren't into
"art" films (the majority) are subsequently denied (through lack of
distribution) or disinterested in seeing (because they watched one of those
"critically-acclaimed" films) some of the more daring and interesting films
each country produces. And every one suffers for this.

Amongst them are Canadian taxpayers who watch millions of dollars disappear
into a void every year. This country could easily be producing money-makers
like they have in Quebec (see above) or straight-forward thrillers like
POUVOIR INTIME and UN ZOO LA NUIT, and then using the profits from these to
finance as many "art" films as one can stomach (sort of like lawyers who
overcharge rich clients in order to provide free legal services to poor
clients). But, instead, English Canada blows its entire allotment on
audience repellents and, occassionally, produces a shiny award or two for
Atom Egoyan to wave around.

No wonder people like Ivan Reitman and James Cameron left the country....
and it IS a tragedy. As a taxpayer, I would rather invest in their movies.

----
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2