First, before I begin, let me apologize. I am about to tell you that I knew 'Grindhouse' would flop. A quick check reveals I said no such thing before the release of the movie and my saying so now is a bit cheap. I admit it. I apologize for being cheap.
However, in my defense I can say that I really don't care about box office performance. I don't mention it when I think a movie will fail. I will say something when I think a movie will succeed. Case in point -- my citing that 'Year of the Dog' will make good money. Nonetheless, it's still cheap to say you knew a movie was going to do poor business two weeks after the movie opens (especially when everyone else was saying it was going to be a hit) -- I'll try to make up for this with a couple proper predictions at the end of this piece.
How did I know 'Grindhouse' was going to do poor business, you're asking. By watching the trailer. Yes, by simply watching the trailer I can tell whether the elements for success are there. What's the most important element? There is only one thing to consider: Audience Appeal. Story does not matter. Plot...nope. Special effects -- no effect. Big movie stars -- yields nothing (not since the 70s, baby). Okay, fair enough. How about Big-Name Directors? No. No. Hell no. The director makes no damn difference.
Thinking the involvement of a given director will affect the box office performance of a movie is antiquated. This might have been the case decades ago but not today. Hitchcock was certainly a draw. Peckinpah -- draw. Bergman, Kurosawa -- had to see it. But, that was yesteryear. Today, the Name Director has no effect on the core audience. (This is where I could reel off a bunch of big name directors that have had recent box office failures, but I'll spare you -- you know the list as well as anyone). If you think a name director guarantees big dollars at the box office then we can agree to disagree, but I would advise you not to choose 'Grindhouse' in support of your argument.
So. Okay then. All that stuff does nothing for the success of a movie and will not guarantee good box office performance. What does? Audience Appeal. What makes a movie appeal to an audience? Three things: 1) Story. 2) Franchise. 3) Novelty.
But, wait! You just said quote, 'Story does not matter'! (You jackass)! Does it or doesn't it?! Okay, allow me to backtrack...
I'll start with franchise. If the movie is part of a series it stands to do much better business than if it is not. This holds true even if the story is weak. Lots of sequels have weak Story but manage to scrape together a profit, once DVD sales/rentals are tallied. So, in these cases story doesn't matter (as much). 'Kill Bill Volume 2' is a good example. KBV1 had no story whatsoever, just plot, but V2 made great money and had excellent DVD sales. In KBV1 The Bride has no arc, that is she does not change in a significant way. She is a killer in the beginning of the movie and a killer in the end. There is nothing significantly different about her. She does deal with obstacles, but this doesn't alter her character (a very common thing in movies). This raises the question: Why was 'Kill Bill Volume 1' a success?
And, that brings us to Novelty. If it's something that's never been seen before (or creates the illusion of same) it may draw an audience. 'Sin City' is a good example -- it had a unique look -- black and white with splashes of color, comic book frames come to life, 2D/3D mixed together -- nice. People went to see it.
Novelty is the main reason 'Kill Bill Volume 1' was a success. We had not seen anything like it before. We didn't care who starred in it, didn't care that it was an homage to Kung Fu movies, (but, we did care that it was directed by Quentin Tarantino). 'So, there!' you say. The big name director does make a difference! (You Jackass)! Well, I beg to disagree. I propose that KBV1 would have been just as successful without Tarantino's name attached. This is a gray-zone hypothetical that you can't get away from in such discussions.
I believe KBV2 was a success because it was part of a franchise (in effect -- KB was meant to be one movie but was split into two features which were released months apart), and 'Kill Bill 1' was a success because it was a novelty. Nobody cared about story (or even plot), they just wanted to see the novelty of an American chick kicking ass with a Samurai sword. That the chick was Uma Thurman and that she was directed by Tarantino made no difference.
The counter-argument is probably valid -- People went to the Kill Bill movies because they wanted to see the camera and editing work of Tarantino. That's fair enough. But, there are a lot of competent directors out there, and the entire generation of new helmers are capable of imitating Tarantino. That weakens the assertion that QT's stamp on KB was so unique people had to see it. Besides, if that's true why then wasn't 'Jackie Brown' a success? So, the argument has logic issues.
'Sling Blade' is another movie that comes to mind which has a unique element. It had a character that talked funny. Remember how everyone was imitating Billy Bob's gravelly-voiced Karl saying, 'Some folks call it a sling blade, I call it a Kaiser blade'? (I would usually switch out sling blade with some common object then add the 'I aim to kill you with it' line and get 'Some folks call it a remote control [or paper clip, tape dispenser, cell phone, or whatever], but I call it a Kaiser blade, and I aim to kill you with it...umm hmmm').
Karl's arc is what gives 'Sling Blade' Story. So, what is Story? This is where I run into a brick wall. How to describe that most elusive quality of movie making? Here is my one-sentence take: Story is how the plot affects and/or changes the protagonist's character and behavior. If a movie's main characters do not change in a substantial way as a result of navigating the plot elements, the story is weak. A good story gives any movie the best shot at making money. Good story is also the rarest thing.
'Sin City' had a unique look but did not have a strong story. 'Kill Bill' had the novelty of a (female) assassin who killed with a Samurai sword (and was American to boot). I think these movies depended on their uniqueness for success -- their movie stars and directors had little to do with it.
'Sling Blade', on the other hand, depended on deep Story for its success. Its writer, director, and star Billy Bob Thornton was a total unknown at the time, yet the movie was a huge success at the box office, at the Oscars, and on DVD. The protagonist, Karl, starts the story as a free man who does not have a family or anyone who cares for him and is indecisive and timid, and ends the story as a man who will spend the rest of his life in prison, but has people who care for him because of his decisive action. That's pretty good arc, delivers Story.
'Grindhouse' has several problems. The first one is not mentioned above, but it's the most obvious, and easiest to fix, so I'll start with it as a preface. 'Grindhouse' is too damn long. It runs over 3 hours. Nobody wants to see a movie that's 3 hours long. (Especially at the movie theater. Add the time it takes to get ready, deal with traffic, show up in time to get the tickets, popcorn (soda, et al), and get a good seat -- you're talking the whole evening. Add to that the knowledge that you will almost certainly miss something during the 2 or 3 pee breaks, and the experience lacks appeal).
Why is it too long? Simple answer: it's a double-feature. This just makes things worse. This movie's core audience is too young to know what a double-feature is (I'm too young and I'm not even close to the target audience's age -- but, I've never seen a double-feature). So, the Weinsteins were selling a very long double-feature to kids. Big problem.
Okay, what's next: lack of novelty. By definition this movie is a throw-back. Way back, to the 50s. To the grindhouse era. Be honest. Did you know what a grindhouse movie theater was before the PR campaign for 'Grindhouse'? Not many did. Have you seen, and more importantly, are you a fan of B-movies from the 50s? I just can't believe that the novelty of a 50s style B-movie is a draw.
What about unique characters? The most unusual character is Cherry (in 'Planet Terror') played by Rose McGowan and this is only because she has a machine gun for a leg. That's cool, but not enough reason to see a 3 hour movie. It just has no depth. Karl talked funny and this seems just as superficial, but the way Karl talks relates to his personality and character -- there's a big difference. That someone shoots zombies with a machine gun leg isn't in the same class.
Okay, now on to the intangibles. Big movie stars. 'Grindhouse' doesn't have them. Kurt Russell is the main draw in Tarantino's 'Death Proof', and I think he's a good actor...not a big star, though. In Rodriguez's half, 'Planet Terror' there are no stars. Net effect: may not hurt, but doesn't help either. Billy Bob Thornton wasn't a big star, but 'Sling Blade' did not have the negatives working against it that GH does.
Name directors. This is the most curious element. I think 'Grindhouse' would have been more successful if it had been directed by a new director(s). While a spoof of B-movies may have been fun and interesting in the hands of a new director, it seems cheap and half-serious coming from A-list helmers like Rodriguez and Tarantino. It's ironic, but these guys may have become too establishment since 'El Mariachi' and 'Pulp Fiction' to pull off a tongue-in-cheek riff on genre pictures from the 50s. GH might have had more appeal if it had been shot by no-names on a shoestring budget.
Then there's the weather, and the fact that GH was released on Easter. 'Grindhouse' hit theaters on one of the first good weekends of the year. Winter was finally over and nobody wanted to spend three hours in a theater watching zombies and car chases. Plus -- it was Easter.
The only worse release strategy I can think of off the top of my head is the one for Spielberg's 'Munich', which was rolled out over the Christmas/New Year's frame in 2005.
The poster I saw showed a guy in silhouette holding an automatic pistol -- not very enticing for a family looking for a movie on Christmas Day.
'Grindhouse' matches the poor timing of the release of 'Munich' by trying to sell the off-putting idea of seeing a movie called 'Death Proof' on Easter. 'Grindhouse' tanked just like 'Munich' did and the release date could not have helped.
Okay. Next is the big S. 'Grindhouse' doesn't have Story. No, I haven't seen the movie but I have seen what the core audience saw -- the trailer. Check it out and tell me what the story is.
In the trailer for 'Planet Terror' we learn that a chemical has caused people to become zombies and a woman with a machine gun for a leg fights them. These are plot elements but there is no story hinted at. We don't have any idea how or if the woman's character evolves as a result of dealing with the zombies.
Same applies to the trailer for 'Death Proof'. We learn that a stunt man meets some women and there are car chases and crashes. There is no story arc at all. In almost every case, when the story can't be determined or at least guessed by watching the trailer, it means there is no story. This is something I noticed a long time ago and it lead to the creation of a simple rule: If you can't describe the story after watching the trailer -- it's a bad movie.
Here is my description, based on viewing the trailer, of 'Planet Terror' and 'Death Proof': Zombies are created after exposure to chemicals and a woman fights them, and, a man drives fast in a car. Based on these descriptions and following the above-mentioned rule, 'Grindhouse' is a bad movie.
So then. Why would a movie like 'Grindhouse' be made and released at such a bad time of year? I don't know why. I don't mean to even try to guess. I just wanted to see if I couldn't delineate the reasons why this movie failed. Taken together, I feel it's because of the above reasons and I'm calling this the 'Grindhouse Effect'. In aggregate, when all the elements of the 'Grindhouse Effect' apply to any given movie, said movie can be expected to fail (at the box office).
The 'Grindhouse Effect' occurs when the following happens:
1) The movie is too long
2) The movie does not have strong character arc
3) The movie relies on a sensationalist plot
4) The producers make too big a deal out of who directed the movie
5) The movie is released during an inappropriate time of the year or during a holiday that precludes the core audience from seeing it
6) The movie does not have a unique quality that would compensate for its other problems
'Grindhouse' meets all these criteria. Net effect: no audience appeal -- bad box office.
Earlier I said I would try to make up for my arrogance in calling GH a failure after the fact. This 'hindsight prognosticating' is of the lowest order, I know. So, here, now, today, I'm saying that 'Grindhouse' will do great business on DVD. It should hit the rental market at number one and I would be surprised if it didn't hold the top spot in DVD sales for a couple weeks. Add to that the revenue from TV, cable, international markets, etc., and Bob and Harvey should make some of their money back.
Oh well, I guess that's it. But, wait! How can 'Grindhouse' be such a failure at the box office but such a success on DVD?! Good question. I could be wrong. 'Grindhouse' could tank on disc, but I don't think so. If and when it tops the charts in DVD sales/rentals I'll take a look at why.
There. That prediction (plus my April 8th prediction that 'Year of the Dog' would do well -- it's averaging $16,000 per on 7 screens as I write this) should serve as redemption.
Some of my points may seem specious or like circular logic. You could, for instance, argue that 'Sin City' was not a success because it had a unique visual quality. Maybe it was some other reason. Could be. I realize it's a can of worms but I didn't have time to fully explore each element of my argument in this write up. For this, I humbly apologize. If that's not good enough then we'll have to agree to disagree.
No comments:
Post a Comment