July
1
Soderbergh and Mann: Too Smart for the Room?
As much as I want to see the Steven Soderbergh/Brad Pitt version of Moneyball, reality needs to return to the movie business. Soderbergh himself occupies a strange nexus within Hollywood. He once told me that he didn't want to direct movies out of the back seat of a limousine. And he is willing to play studio ball or indie ball, as he sees fit. At the same time, like all gifted directors, he wants to push himself, and the art form. But he often loses interest in what movie audiences might want. (UPDATE: On Soderbergh's upcoming Warners' agro-business comedy The Informant!, starring Matt Damon, which is set to debut at September's Toronto Film Fest, the director was eager to be "audience friendly," says co-financeer Groundswell CEO Michael London.)
Sony chief Amy Pascal (who explains herself to the LAT's Patrick Goldstein) has every right to pull the plug on a movie that started to look too risky for a $57 million starter budget. Add marketing costs and the movie would have to score at least $100 million theatrically, and the DVD cushion isn't there anymore. (The NYT reports its Moneyball analysis here. And the WSJ reports on Paramount's efforts to outsource some home entertainment back office operations.)
That's the real reason that reality has set in. Soderbergh has also stated that the economics of the movie business are out of whack. He's right. A correction is long overdue. But I hate to see worthy movies going by the wayside. It would make sense for more filmmakers to step into the "specialty" side of the business and make these risky movies for a price.
Of course the Soderberghs and Michael Manns of the world want to express themselves as artists. And ride the studio gravy train. But the studios are not going to indulge their whims anymore at high budget levels. I'd hate for Public Enemies' mixed reception to give the studios an excuse to not make movies like this anymore. I also don't want Universal execs to abandon their willingness to try out-of-the-box movies that sometimes work (Wanted, Mamma Mia!) and sometimes don't (State of Play, Duplicity). The last thing we want is for them to make more movies like Land of the Lost!
Kim Masters examines Mann's movie m.o..
Because it's only going to get tougher for smart movies for adults to get made, moviemakers who land a chance at bat need to hit these films out of the park--and connect with audiences. Now is not the time for navel-gazing and experimentation at big-budget levels. That's the deal.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
I find the situation with "Moneyball" and how that all went about absolutely fascinating and I agree with all the sentiments expressed in this post. I think a well-executed marketing partnership with ESPN to promote the film and aggressive pursuit of that demographic combined with a late Spring release date would guarantee they'd make their $100 million back, but I digress. Spot on as always, Ann.
The poor performance of "State of Play" being used as an example of "mature and sophisticated" films being unable to draw is another one of those arguments that drives me mad.
Know why I think that movie didn't do well? Well, considering what we see in/learn from the trailer:
- "How'd you know he was murdered?" "I didn't...you just told me."
- All these cameras and the crime is committed in a "blind spot"
- "This was the work of a pro."
- A tense, thrilling parking garage sequence.
I think people skipped this one because they had this weird feeling that they'd seen it all before. Maybe that's not fair to the movie, but that's how it was marketed - as an atypical conspiracy drama.
Adult fare can make money. It just has to have something that adults want to see, hasn't been done to death, and makes them willing to plop down $10.
Posted by: Kevin Marshall | July 01, 2009 at 12:12 PM
Being a huge baseball fan, and someone who actually read Moneyball, I thought it was a strange choice for a film option. It would make a wonderful documentary, but what are the narrative stakes? Are we going to follow the career of a quintessential Moneyball player, one with an undervalued talent, or are we going to follow the career of a genius GM?
Discussions of sabermetrics are fun to read, and I own a number of Bill James-esque discussions of my favorite sport, but can you imagine how dull the average audience member would find discussion of BPS on screen?
Imagine the tension of a Billy Beane vs. Paul DePodesta debate over the economic value of a potential draft pick? Ahh, now that's excitement.
Additionally, if the movie focused on the A's it would invariably end with the post-season loss. No one wants a baseball film about "the smartest man in baseball" to end with the team losing.
A much better character to focus a GM movie on would be Paul DePodesta. He came to LA, began structuring a team, and was fired before his vision could be realized. There are stakes in that narrative.
Posted by: Christian Lindke | July 01, 2009 at 02:05 PM
I agree. State of Play was NOT a good film. It was a tepid, tired, cliched movie that we're seen before 1000 times with a lame implausible twist ending. The only reason why it got the kind of rave reviews that it did was because it dealt with an investigative newspaper reporter and a lot of critics were nostalgic for world which they see slipping away.
But Anne is dead on in her analysis of the situation. However has there ever been a right time for "navel gazing and experimentation at big budget levels" at any time for Hollywood? There have been similiar films like that in the past that have bombed as well. I recall, for example, movies like Coppola's One from the Heart which was about as navel gazing and experimental and as expensive as they come, but which was absolute torture to sit through.
Posted by: Sergio | July 01, 2009 at 02:16 PM
Didn't Soderbergh's 'Ocean's 11' trilogy give him the right to do whatever the hell he wanted for a few years??? Either way, I really like both of these directors. Sure, they have their hiccups (as we all do) but I'd rather go see a Soderbergh or Michael Mann film than a freaking Marc Foster movie any day of the week! Still, the studios seem like they want these guys to be more like Ridley Scott...
Posted by: jeff k. | July 01, 2009 at 03:43 PM
A musical that had already made millions on the stage is out of the box?
Posted by: John Pecod | July 01, 2009 at 03:56 PM
I happen to be a fan of State of Play and Duplicity, at the same time that I would have preferred the indie versions of both films. The smarter, grittier, more interesting lower-budget models could have been marketed and nurtured more carefully and slowly. Etc.
It's hard to remember how much less expensive movies used to be, how much less stars used to get paid, how many fewer theaters movies used to play in, how much word of mouth was used to sell movies. Hang out in a theater for a while and good buzz would send people to a movie.
As for Soderbergh earning his right to make challenging flicks with the Ocean series, yes, absolutely. He makes micro-budget movies I heartily admire, as well as the $60 million Che, which Wild Bunch financed via foreign pre-sales. Soderbergh thinks about Cannes and Europe as well as America, which is his right. But if he wants to continue to make big budget studio movies, he's wise not to bite the hand that feeds him.
Posted by: anne Thompson | July 01, 2009 at 04:39 PM
As for Mamma Mia!, you are right that Universal was banking on the global popularity of the show to make it work. But the studio bet on an untried film director, a female-friendly cast, and had NO IDEA the movie would break out as big as it did. Female-driven musicals are NOT standard-issue studio summer tentpoles.
Posted by: anne Thompson | July 01, 2009 at 04:43 PM
I'm not sure 'Wanted' is exactly 'out-of-the-box' for Hollywood either... Nevertheless, the disappointing box-office takings for the more mature, sophisticated films this year puts even more interested in how Scorsese's 'Shutter Island' will be received. Naturally, it will be highly praised by critics (the novel was wonderful, and Scorsese's track record is arguably the best of any director in film history), but it's definitely gritty, psychological, 'weighty' material that, unless marketed properly, might be a tough sell (even with DiCaprio) for the moron 'Transformer 2' fanbase.
Posted by: Scott | July 01, 2009 at 06:06 PM
Meryl Streep: an amazing, amazing actress. Mamma Mia: a horrible, horrible film - it's success a testament to worldwide ignorance & bad taste. Transformers: unspeakably worse. Keep texting and twittering, you 21st century morons!
Posted by: Crystal | August 29, 2009 at 02:00 PM