"ROADSHOW'S UPCOMING RELEASES - DATE CHANGES AS AT 2.9.09
CHANGES THIS WEEK ARE AS FOLLOWS:
THE REBOUND was releasing October 22 2009, now March 18 2010
LAW ABIDING CITIZEN was releasing May 6 2010, now October 22 2009
THE HURT LOCKER was releasing October 22 2009, and is now straight to DVD
BRAN NUE DAE is the new January 14 2010 "
My reply:
"Dear Claudia,
Is Hurt Locker really going straight to DVD, or was this a typo?
Hear it's doing well at US art house and is a possible Oscar best pic nomination -
http://www.latimes.com/
Roadshow PR's reply:
"Hi LyndenI know, it’s a shame! Not a typo unfortunately – the notice just came through yesterday afternoon. This is DVD’s domain now. It’s a great film!"
My final reply:
Meanwhile the LA Times ran an interesting story today under the headline, "Many theatres refuse to book Hurt Locker despite Oscar win." The problem being that, in the US, it's already on DVD.
16 comments:
Why did Roadshow acquire the film in the first place if they were doing a stright-to-DVD release. I am sure smaller indie distributors would have given it a theatriical release regardless of OScar potential. Roadhsow were very lucky they did not release it to DVD prior to the film gaining end-of-year awards. Just show how clueless these bigger distributors really are.
Who's to say what's going to succeed? Why Hurt Locker? The producers and director seem more shocked than anyone how this small film became so successful (though not at the box office, apparently - some are saying it's the smallest grossing Best Film in the Oscar's history).
And who would have thought that anyone would go see Precious? It's only because that film was championed by Oprah Winfrey. But even having seen it, who would've thought it would win anything at the Oscars? Maybe Independent Spirit awards or similar, but Oscars?
So, the distributors are reading tea-leaves like the rest of us, and have to make decisions based on certain metrics, but mostly guess-work and intuition. Sometimes they get it right, sometimes they don't. It'll be interesting to see how successful The HurtLocker does at the local box office.
gate keepers at it again
Paul: "So, the distributors are reading tea-leaves like the rest of us, and have to make decisions based on certain metrics, but mostly guess-work and intuition."
Good point.It's easy to be wise in hindsight. The fact is that Iraq -themed films have not done well at the box office.
I'd add that "direct-to-DVD" is no longer an insult. Many worthwhile films - even great ones - are now released this way.
Cinema releases are often hard to justify on economic grounds (no matter how much we might regret this) and distributors are businesses, not part of the government-supported arts sector like festivals.
Lets also remember - if someone else hasn't (which I coud have missed) - that Slumdog Millionaire was definitely slated for straight to DVD until Fox Searchlight picked it up. AS they say about Hollywood ... Nobody knows anything
The fact is that Iraq -themed films have not done well at the box office.
And that's a good point, too. They've been one failure after the other, both in box office and in critical reception. The difference with The Hurt Locker is that it's actually a good film. But many good films haven't attracted the audiences they deserve, so the distributor had every reason not to be confident in this title (at the time, of course, not now). It should do well, and it'll be interesting to see how well it does, and also how Greengrass' Bourne in Iraq film will do. Given its stereotypical overt political message, I expect it to go the way of all the others.
I've said this before and I'll say it again, punters don't want overt political messages in a film when the issue is current. People are fed up with the politicisation and don't like to be preached to.
As for Richard's comments, who in their wildest dreams would have thought that film would enjoy the success it did? I certainly wouldn't have. Or Lee Daniels' Precious? It was the blessings of god (well, Oprah really) that got that film seen and acknowledged. I never thought it would win anything at the Oscars.
Good point, Paul, about people wanting obvious politicalising of current events. People don't want to be preached and told what they must think and if you don't, then you're stupid. I think Green Zone is five years too late.
Another vote of support for your view there Paul.
As for Hurt Locker's theatrical result, the screen average has already shot up after Oscars, and I note a full page colour advert in paper today - don't see that too often any more!
At this stage, I reckon it's a $3.5 million plus proposition, not too shabby for a film that was DVD-only a few months back!
Took a look at the EG and glad to see the French Film Festival is on because you would be hard pressed to find a foreign film these days in cinemas. At Cinema Nova in Melbourne, out of 16 films showing there, only ONE is a foreign film. Disgusting!
HA! Just read Slant's scathing review for Green Zone who also thinks the film is five years too late:
"In imagining an alternate reality in which a lone hero uncovers—and exposes to the public back home—that no WMDs exist and that the U.S. military manufactured intel to invade Iraq, Green Zone recalls not only Stallone's Vietnam-conquering army superhero, but also The Kingdom, which similarly treated Iraq as a playground for ludicrous genre-movie crash and booms mixed with political "commentary.".....
Narratively speaking, Green Zone's rage against the U.S. war machine is not only five years too late, but simplistic, its censure screamed with all the subtlety of Shock and Awe and its schematic layout of good and evil (with a miscast Greg Kinnear as the stand-in for the U.S.'s intel-fudging evil) so reductive as to be simultaneously risible and insulting. "
Woody: Possibly true, possibly not. I haven't seen it yet so cant take a position on it.
glad to see the French Film Festival is on because you would be hard pressed to find a foreign film these days in cinemas
Woody, I think you'll find that it's precisely because the French Festival is on. I think the number of tickets sold last year was 180,000 in two weeks. How can foreign films compete with that?
Paul: The figure was 80,000 but it's still impressive and your argument still stands. The more interesting question is why people flock to see foreign titles at festivals and don't go when they open commercially. I'm generalising, of course.
Ah, this is getting interesting, a topic I've been dwelling on for quite some time. That's a useful generalisation, Lynden, and without qualifying the many exceptions, we can work on that basis.
In short, there's a number of reasons that I can think of (why people flock to these festivals). I think the biggest one is social - festivals are a social event that people just must attend. They need to be able to be seen or be able to say they went to such-and-such French film, as if they'd done something sophisticated and culturally edifying. Palace Cinemas, which hosts the screenings in Melbourne are the perfect venues for this demographic, especially the Como where every Saturday evening session (which has the most commercial and mediocre programming) is well and truly sold out.
Now, I like Jean-Pierre Jeunet a lot, but his Micmacs, produced by Warner Brothers, is a very commercial affair. It also has a release just after the festival ends. But every session in Melbourne has either sold out or close to, even at the Kino's large cinema (where I saw it on Monday). I don't think I've ever seen a Kino session sell out, and I've been going there regularly for nearly 20 years. This is the first year that Kino has been associated with Palace and thus the FFF.
Go to the same cinema the next night to see a Christophe Honoré film, and the cinema is back to normal seating levels, and with many faces I recognise from Melbourne Cinémathèque, ACMI and arthouse screenings. There's still more numbers than the Kino would normally get, though.
My point is that by far, the biggest contribution to the volume of ticket sales are people who go for prestige, entertainment and other social-related reasons.
You may notice that films that are getting a commercial release are often those scheduled during peak times, especially Saturday evenings. Films with a release are the most in-demand at the festival, even when they're opening just days after the festival ends. I think there's the prestige thing, a kind of snobbery where people can say they've seen it, or give their critique.
Festivals are like carpet bombing. I know someone who sees 80+ films at MIFF each year, basically seeing 4 or more each day. But then she sees no films again for another year. The rest of the year it's art galleries and the theatre. This gets back to the thing of festivals being an 'event' - it's just something people do.
With festivals, a film will get one or two screenings generally and that's it. So people know that if they want to see a particular film they must attend that screening. With cinema releases, people think "oh yeah, I might see that" but then find by the time they around to it, it's come and gone. Or it's competing with a number of other films that you've gone to see anyway.
People will often see a film at a festival because it doesn't have a confirmed release date. Rather than risk that it doesn't come out, or it goes straight to DVD, or it takes another 1-2 years for a short release, people want to see it while they can. I did that with Haneke's White Ribbon, which is taking nearly a year to get here.
There's probably some other reasons, some that may pertain to
Another social/prestige thing is that to changing patterns, but that's the main reasons I can think of.
FWIW, A Prophet, which is currently in cinemas and has the dubious delight of competing with the French Film Festival, is probably as good a film as you're likely to see at the French Film Festival. My advice is if you haven't seen it, see it while you can. People complain about a lack of good foreign films in the cinemas - well now's your chance.
Post a Comment