"2001" references in Oscar ceremony
RAYMBEN
telecast. For one thing, "Also Sprach Zarathustra" was the "theme song" for
the night's event, as they played it going in and out of commercial breaks all
through the show. Then Tom Hanks gave a glowing introduction to Arthur C.
Clarke, who gave a screenwriting award via satellite from Sri Lanka-- and he
commented on SK and their nomination those many years ago.
Morgands1
Jupiter and so on, towards Earth, picking up signals of increasingly more
recent Oscar telecasts -- really, what must an alien civilization tuning in to
see Roberto Begnini jumping all over people think? :)
And of course the notion of having the show intro'd via the International Space
Station. They tried real hard, unwittingly, to remind us that a better film
than this year's nominees was released 33 years ago. And Clarke puckishly
reminded us that he didn't win back then, too.
David
derek
> really, what must an alien civilization tuning in to
> see Roberto Begnini jumping all over people think? :)
mating rituals take many forms ...
> And of course the notion of having the show intro'd via the International
Space
> Station. They tried real hard, unwittingly, to remind us that a better film
> than this year's nominees was released 33 years ago.
successfully so.
> And Clarke puckishly reminded us that he didn't win back then, too.
But I like the consolation prize of having your work honoured at the
ceremony 33 years after it was made. I hardly think that any of
tonights recipients will enjoy any such acknowledgement.
felix tiaka
That was rather cheap, the whole thing, I tuned in at the end because I
didn't want to watch the fuckin thing. The graphics were horrible, I mean
PBS could do better, they had 3D silver lettering? The Also Sprach theme
played into bad lounge music was really the low point of the whole thing.
I'm not even going to mention the nominees and the winners. *Sigh*
FELIX.
Brian Siano
RAYMBEN wrote:
I wonder how much of that was due to Hanks, whose enthusiasm for _2001_ is
well-known. But it really was wonderful to bring Clarke on for that particular
category-- it _is_ his year, after all, and they did have to use satellite
technology to accomplish it...
--
Brian Siano
email: bsi...@bellatlantic.net
Domain: http://www.briansiano.com
Mike Jackson
bsi...@bellatlantic.net wrote on 03/26/2001 11:06 AM:
> RAYMBEN wrote:
>
>> Interesting that the Academy gave nods to "2001" during this evening's
>> telecast. For one thing, "Also Sprach Zarathustra" was the "theme song" for
>> the night's event, as they played it going in and out of commercial breaks
>> all through the show. Then Tom Hanks gave a glowing introduction to Arthur
>> C. Clarke, who gave a screenwriting award via satellite from Sri Lanka-- and
>> he commented on SK and their nomination those many years ago.
>
> I wonder how much of that was due to Hanks, whose enthusiasm for _2001_ is
> well-known. But it really was wonderful to bring Clarke on for that particular
> category-- it _is_ his year, after all, and they did have to use satellite
> technology to accomplish it...
He was 'live' on a pre-recorded tape unfortunately. I think the "via
satellite" technically only applied to how the tape got to LA, which isn't
much of a gee-whiz anymore considering that's how we get almost all our news
footage...
Sir Arthur did look well though. I hope if I live to be a teenage
octogenarian, I will be as well preserved.
-----------------
Mike Jackson
Mental Pictures Photography & Graphic Design
http://guide.net/~mental
(228) 696-2702 Phone/ Fax
(228) 918-4596 Cellular
David Kirkpatrick
I understand he got to keep one of those sleeping tubes after the end of
the 2001 production. ;-)
David
Mike Jackson
wrote on 03/26/2001 2:18 PM:
>> He was 'live' on a pre-recorded tape unfortunately. I think the "via
>> satellite" technically only applied to how the tape got to LA, which isn't
>> much of a gee-whiz anymore considering that's how we get almost all our news
>> footage...
>>
>> Sir Arthur did look well though. I hope if I live to be a teenage
>> octogenarian, I will be as well preserved.
>> -----------------
>> Mike Jackson
>
> I understand he got to keep one of those sleeping tubes after the end of
> the 2001 production. ;-)
>
> David
You know people still think I sleep in one of those with a chimp...
Right name, wrong freak...
Corey3rd
- last year they had tons of clips.
Bill Conti is an orchestra hack.
Ulrich Verspohl
(Life achievement or Thalberg)?
It愀 really sad that the academy never acknowledged SK愀 achievements.
I hope I chose my words right, I惴 from Germany.
Corey3rd
@daft.de Reimar Goldbach
>Clarke, who gave a screenwriting award via satellite from Sri Lanka-- and he
>commented on SK and their nomination those many years ago.
I missed the live show - i saw only a German commented replay about 2
1/2 hours long but no ACC in this replay :-(
Does someone recorded the scene and is able to place it somewhere on
the net or could send it me by e-mail ? rei...@gon.de
Thank you very much !!!
Reimar
--
www.gon.de - Meine Homepage
www.ishtar-ray.de - Mythos oder Wahrheit ?
www.arthur-c-clarke.de - Alles über den SF-Autor
RGlukov
would someone mind telling me what this Erwin Thulberg did that was so great
that we have to remember him for something he did from 1918-1936.
Ulrich Verspohl
The Irving G. Thalberg Memorial Award is voted by the Academy's Board of
Governors and is presented to "creative producers whose bodies of work reflect
a
consistently high quality of motion picture production."
It was named in honor of the man who became head of production at the Universal
Film Manufacturing Co. at the age of 20 and three years later vice president
and head
of production for Louis B. Mayer. A year later, Mayer's studio became part of
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) with Thalberg assuming the position of vice
president and supervisor of production. Over the next eight years MGM became
Hollywood's most prestigious film studio, with Thalberg personally supervising
the
studio's top productions. Thalberg died of pneumonia in 1936 at the age of 37.
The
following year, the Academy instituted the Irving G. Thalberg Memorial Award.
The award is a solid bronze head of Thalberg, resting on a black marble base.
It weighs
10 and 3/4 pounds and is nine inches tall. The trophy design was supervised by
Cedric Gibbons, and was executed by sculptor Bernard Sopher during the fall and
winter of 1937/38.
The award is not necessarily given each year. Recipients of the Thalberg Award
are:.
1937 DARRYL F. ZANUCK
1938 HAL B. WALLIS
1939 DAVID O. SELZNICK
1941 WALT DISNEY
1942 SIDNEY FRANKLIN
1943 HAL B. WALLIS
1944 DARRYL F. ZANUCK
1946 SAMUEL GOLDWYN
1948 JERRY WALD
1950 DARRYL F. ZANUCK
1951 ARTHUR FREED
1952 CECIL B. DEMILLE
1953 GEORGE STEVENS
1956 BUDDY ADLER
1958 JACK L. WARNER
1961 STANLEY KRAMER
1963 SAM SPIEGE
1965 WILLIAM WYLER
1966 ROBERT WISE
1967 ALFRED HITCHCOCK
1970 INGMAR BERGMAN
1973 LAWRENCE WEINGARTEN
1975 MERVYN LERO
1976 PANDRO S. BERMAN
1977 WALTER MIRISCH
1979 RAY STARK
1981 ALBERT R. BROCCOLI
1986 STEVEN SPIELBERG
1987 BILLY WILDER
1990 DAVID BROWN RICHARD D. ZANUCK
1991 GEORGE LUCAS
1994 CLINT EASTWOOD
1996 SAUL ZAENTZ
1998 NORMAN JEWISON
1999 WARREN BEATTY
IMHO I still think SK would be a great addition to this list.
M4RV1N
writes:
>Wouldn愒 it have been nice of the academy to give SK a posthumous price in
>2001
>(Life achievement or Thalberg)?
>It愀 really sad that the academy never acknowledged SK愀 achievements.
You must understand that the members of the Academy would have no understanding
of Kubrick as anything other than an eccentric who took too long to make
baffling films that just were never blockbusters. We got a sense of
contemporary Hollywood's appreciation when Hanks mentioned "2001" and there was
a mild smattering of "golf course" applause.
Furthermore the awards themselves have generally no relation to quality in film
art other than what can be attributed to pure coincidence. The last time I was
really pleased about Oscar winners was 1978 (an extraordinary "hiccup" in
Academy voting custom) when Woody Allen won for Best Director and Best Picture.
Allen, even though he knew he had a good chance of winning something, quite
rightly refused to attend and instead played clarinet at a small jazz clud
instead.
Most of this last year's Hollywood product would have me agreeing with Allen's
remarks about TV ("How can they give out awards for that stuff?"). "Erin
Brockovich" and "Traffic" were good, but certainly not great. Two films I like
more, "American Pscyho," and "Requiem for a Dream," got very little attention,
of course.
Kubrick has good company in that the Academy has felt that Orson Welles and
Alfred Hitchcock were also "not up to snuff."
>I hope I chose my words right, I惴 from Germany.
You did fine. Welcome.
Mark Ervin
Peter Tonguette
>Furthermore the awards themselves have generally no relation to quality in
>film
>art other than what can be attributed to pure coincidence. The last time I
>was
>really pleased about Oscar winners was 1978 (an extraordinary "hiccup" in
>Academy voting custom) when Woody Allen won for Best Director and Best
>Picture.
> Allen, even though he knew he had a good chance of winning something, quite
>rightly refused to attend and instead played clarinet at a small jazz clud
>instead.
I was glad to see Soderbergh win this year (although his two best films, "King
of the Hill" and "The Limey" were both completely ignored by the Academy), but,
like Mark, the last time I agreed with the Academy's selections across the
board was in 1978, when "Annie Hall" 'sweeped.' This seems most likely a
fluke.
>Most of this last year's Hollywood product would have me agreeing with
>Allen's
>remarks about TV ("How can they give out awards for that stuff?"). "Erin
>Brockovich" and "Traffic" were good, but certainly not great. Two films I
>like
>more, "American Pscyho," and "Requiem for a Dream," got very little
>attention,
>of course.
Contrary to popular belief, I felt this was a very good year for American film.
Cameron Crowe's "Almost Famous" was a wonderfully subtle and charming film;
its treatment of adolescence at times recalled Salinger and early Truffaut. I
was glad to see Crowe pick up Best Original Screenplay.
My hands-down favorite film of the year, David Gordon Green's "George
Washington," failed to pick up any nominations - this extraordinary film's
failure to receive anything resembling a decent commercial distribution is
another indicator of the sorry state of the 'independent film' world at the
current time. Terrence Davies' remarkably well acted, deeply nuanced
interpretation of Edith Wharton, "The House of Mirth," another favorite, was
also overlooked completely. And I'm not even touching on non-American films
here; in the year of "In the Mood for Love," "Beau Travail," "Time Regained,"
and "POLA X," the skillful and entertaining but highly conventional "Crouching
Tiger, Hidden Dragon" wins for Best Foreign Language Film. Why is this not
surprising...
The bottom line is that what the Academy selects to nominate and reward is no
indication whatsoever of what represents the best in film during a given year.
>Kubrick has good company in that the Academy has felt that Orson Welles and
>Alfred Hitchcock were also "not up to snuff."
Lest we forget Howard Hawks, Robert Altman, Jean-Luc Godard, Robert Bresson,
Yasujiro Ozu, Richard Lester, Sam Fuller, Arthur Penn, Kenji Mizoguchi,
Terrence Malick, Nicolas Roeg, and the list goes on...
Kubrick couldn't be in better company.
Peter
Midlhoy
>Lest we forget Howard Hawks, Robert Altman, Jean-Luc Godard, Robert Bresson,
>Yasujiro Ozu, Richard Lester, Sam Fuller, Arthur Penn, Kenji Mizoguchi,
>Terrence Malick, Nicolas Roeg, and the list goes on...
>
>Kubrick couldn't be in better company.
>
Scorsese has never been recognized by the Academy either. The list
continues...
Kevin
felix tiaka
Here's the list from the beginning, the first was held in 27. I'm not sure
what happened, but the General did not get any nominations. Buster Keaton
never received any nominations. Nor were any of his films on the afi list.
29-30 wasn't much, I don't think they even had a place for best foreign
picture. Shows more that it was just an award to be given in Hollywood.
European cinema dominated through this time though.
30 had All Quiet on the Western Front, which is pretty good.
31 was really bad. Cimarron got best picture. 31, for us releases had City
Lights, Frankenstein, Lugosi's Dracula, Monkey Business, Cagney's Public
Enemy and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. However, in Europe they had Lang's M.
32 wasn't very interesting, there was Freaks ofcourse.
33 had Cavalcade win, but there was King Kong and Duck Soup. On the Afi
list, they both were, I think, but way down in the bottom, below 'star
wars'.
34 was pretty good, It Happened One Night won, The thing man was pretty good
though. And the man who knew too much was from England. so that didn't help
any.
35 had Mutiny on the Bounty win. I never really got into the whole thing
anyway, I just want to live on the Pitcairns. Bride of Frankenstein, Night
at the Opera I liked better, though Hitchcock's 39 Steps was best, it was
from England, thus no nomination or anything.
36 had Great Ziegfeld win, a large studio production and all, Chaplin's
Modern Times wasn't even nominated. Hitchcock's Sabotage.
37 had Life of Emile Zola win, not much in the states, but Grande illusion
was done the same year.
In 38 they had Grande illusion nominated for best picture, but it lost to
You Can't Take It with You. Bringing Up Baby was a major bomb anyway.
Cagney's Angels with Dirty Faces was not nominated. In Europe, Eisenstein's
Nevskii.
39 was pretty big, and I guess the most popular film won, Gone with the
wind, same year had Stagecoach, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington and the Wizard
of Oz.
40 had Rebecca win, which was a pretty good choice, however Hitchcock lost
best director to Ford for Grapes of Wrath. Anyway, we had Rebecca, Grapes of
Wrath, The Great Dictator, His Girl Friday, Philadelphia story, Fantasia.
41 was probably the greatest mishap, for Citizen Kane lost to How Green Was
My Valley. I think Citizen Kane got away with best original screenplay.
Maltese Falcon
42 had Mrs. Miniver.
43 had Casablanca
44 had Going My Way, which won to Double Indemnity. Arsenic and Old Lace
wasn't nominated for anything.
45 had the lost weekend, I rather proffered Ivan Groznyj, or better yet,
Children of Paradise. Hitchcock's Spellbound was pretty good though.
46 had Best Years of Our Lives, which is still pretty good, I liked It's a
Wonderful Life more though. There also was the big sleep and Notorious.
Cocteau's Beauty and the Beast and Lean's Brief Encounter were really good.
I think Open City was nominated for something. Was it?
47 had Gentleman's Agreement win, though some prefer Lean's Great
Expectations.
This is way too exhausting, anyone want to continue?
I'll just go through Kubrick's films now -
56-57 - The Killing was not nominated for anything, Around the world in 80
days won. The Searchers and Forbidden Planet were ok.
58, Paths of Glory was not nominated for anything, it wasn't on the afi
list, however Bridge over river kwai was and it mostly swept the Oscars the
year. 12 angry men, Seventh Seal and Fellini's Nights of Cabiria were of the
same year. I really do prefer Paths of Glory to anything else then. I think
it was Kubrick's first show of true genius.
Funny how Gladiator won best picture and best actor and so on. Were the
Academy Awards more artistic when they ignored Spartacus, which, with it's
flaws and all is still a heck of a lot better than Gladiator, and the 40
year difference doesn't help much. Anyway, in 1960's The Apartment won, it
was pretty good. I still can not, for the love of god and all how Psycho was
totally ignored. ARGH!
Lolita was too controversial and all.
Dr. Strangelove was nominated in several categories in 65, but it lost to
none other than My Fair Lady! That's got to really hurt.
Onto 2001: A Space Odyssey, 69 it wasn't even nominated for best picture. It
lost to Oliver!. Oliver!. And I guess Funny Girl, right along with Pauline
Kael works pretty good.
in 71, Kubrick got his first best picture nomination, for ACO, but it lost
to The French Connection. Argh!
75 was a pretty good year, but nothing could match Barry Lyndon. Not many
agree though, and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest won. Jaws, Nashville and
Dog Day Afternoon were also nominated.
In 1980, the Shining was only nominated for a Razzie. That makes you want to
cry. Ordinary People won that year, Coal Miner's Daughter, Elephant Man,
Raging Bull and Tess were nominated, Elephant Man and Raging Bull were
pretty good, and one should have won, but still I don't think they come to
the brilliance of the shining.
88, Last Emperor won, I thought it was rather dry, but since it had epic
proportions and so on, it won, Hope and Glory, Moonstruck (Moonstruck!),
Fatal Attraction (Fatal Attraction!) and Broadcast News were nominated.
Fatal Attraction and Moonstruck! Argh!
And, lastly, in 99, Eyes Wide Shut was ignored by all, and that includes all
the art-eeest awards, such as Cannes and so on. Funny thing is, the most
ridiculous of the crop, the Blockbuster Entertainment awards had Kidman win
Favorite Actress. That's so ironic it goes beyond comprehension.
Felix "Oliver!" Tiaka.
Potzdorf
wrote:
>>Kubrick has good company in that the Academy has felt that Orson Welles and
>>Alfred Hitchcock were also "not up to snuff."
>
>Lest we forget Howard Hawks, Robert Altman, Jean-Luc Godard, Robert Bresson,
>Yasujiro Ozu, Richard Lester, Sam Fuller, Arthur Penn, Kenji Mizoguchi,
>Terrence Malick, Nicolas Roeg, and the list goes on...
Martin Scorsese and David Lynch...
Peter Tonguette
>Scorsese has never been recognized by the Academy either. The list
>continues...
And yet Mel Gibson has... :)
I should mention that there was at least one other selection I agreed with last
Sunday - Bob Dylan, for Original Song. Who'd have thought?
Peter
No1Yanks23
Didnt he get nominated a lot though? its a shame he never won... and Rebecca
(which I believe won best picture, the only hitch film ever) was very good but
ceartinly not his best. And being a diehard De Niro fan...can someone tell me
why Raging Bull didnt win in 1980 and Goodfellas didnt win in 1990?
Matt Reyes
New York Yankees: The most successful and greatest franchise in sports history.
26 World Championships, 37 AL Pennants.
No1Yanks23
>Sunday - Bob Dylan, for Original Song. Who'd have thought?
>
Why couldnt Dylan win it last year for Hurricane which is a far better song and
one of his post 60s classics...is it because the song originally came out in
the 70s?
SLB
>>least one other selection I agreed with last
>>Sunday - Bob Dylan, for Original Song. Who'd have thought?
>>
>
>Why couldnt Dylan win it last year for Hurricane which is a far better song and
>one of his post 60s classics...is it because the song originally came out in
>the 70s?
That's exactly why. Original Song has to be not only a song from a
movie but a song written for that movie. I'm not sure of the exact
rule, but it's something like that.
slb, who is a huge Dylan fan and is glad that he won this year
Ulrich Verspohl
like SK never won a Best Picture or Director award the Academy still could have
given him some prize for all the excellent movies he did during his life. And 2001
would have been a wonderful year for this. They missed a chance.
And to all the other members of this newsgroup who pointed out that the Academy in
most years lost sight of the really good films. I agree with most of the comments
regarding films that were not nominated or didn愒 win. But I still had hope that
the Academy would finally acknowledge what a wonderful director SK was.
Uli
Angel C. Little
news:20010331205537...@ng-bd1.aol.com...
Sting should of won, not Dylan. But aw well... I'd rather see Dylan win over
99% of the crappy so-called "musicians" that are popular today.
--
Angel C. Little
"I'm glad to be working with you again." -HAL 9000
gh
no1ya...@aol.com (No1Yanks23) wrote:
> >Alfred Hitchcock were also "not up to snuff."
>
> Didnt he get nominated a lot though? its a shame he never won... and
> Rebecca (which I believe won best picture, the only hitch film ever) was very
> good but ceartinly not his best. And being a diehard De Niro fan...can someone
> tell me why Raging Bull didnt win in 1980 and Goodfellas didnt win in 1990?
> Matt Reyes
>
Because the best picture doesn't win, the most popular picture does.
George C. Scott was right: it is a meat parade.
GH
--
Corey3rd
Washington," failed to pick up any nominations - this extraordinary film's
failure to receive anything resembling a decent commercial distribution is
another indicator of the sorry state of the 'independent film' world at the
current time. >>
I think Cowboy booking did an OK job with the release fo George Washington. The
film made it into theaters in the major cities, but ultimately, the box office
never went up from week to week.
The failure of "George Washington" at the box office has nothing to do with the
sorry state of the indepedent film world. The movie gets a full page write up
in Time magazine, 20 minutes with the director on the Charlie Rose show, praise
from Roger Ebert and the NY Critics giving it a big award - not to mention all
the Indie Spirit Awards. But the festival darling hasn't been able to catch on
to the masses. You can't get better press for a film that has no real names,
faces or plot. The film has yet to clear $200,000 in nearly 5 months of
release.
Peter Tonguette
><< My hands-down favorite film of the year, David Gordon Green's "George
>Washington," failed to pick up any nominations - this extraordinary film's
>failure to receive anything resembling a decent commercial distribution
>is
>another indicator of the sorry state of the 'independent film' world at
>the
>current time. >>
>
>I think Cowboy booking did an OK job with the release fo George Washington.
>The
>film made it into theaters in the major cities, but ultimately, the box
>office
>never went up from week to week.
>
>The failure of "George Washington" at the box office has nothing to do with
>the
>sorry state of the indepedent film world. The movie gets a full page write
>up
>in Time magazine, 20 minutes with the director on the Charlie Rose show,
>praise
>from Roger Ebert and the NY Critics giving it a big award - not to mention
>all
>the Indie Spirit Awards. But the festival darling hasn't been able to catch
>on
>to the masses.
Clearly it hasn't. Where we differ is that I don't think that the reason it
hasn't caught on commercially is because audiences are a bunch of idiots and
can't handle anything without names, faces, or plot, even if that apparently is
the thinking of the studios and distributors who choose to bury these films
while flooding the multiplexes with the latest idiotic shoot-em-up.
The simple fact is that these films aren't given half a chance >to< succeed. I
don't have the numbers right in front of me, but here in Columbus, "George
Washington" played for exactly three shows on three consecutive evenings at
Ohio State University's film center. (The evening I saw it, btw, the house was
packed, and not just with college students either.) To my knowledge, it has
received no other commercial distribution in central Ohio. A friend who lives
in New York City reported to me the other day that the film opened and closed
there within weeks also. Now whose choice is it that "George Washington" and
films like it play for three nights at a local university while fluff like
"Chocolat" ends up on 1,000 screens? The consumers' or Hollywood's? The
reality is, publicity aside, audiences simply are not being offered these
films.
If the recent success of Ang Lee's "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" proves
anything at all, it's that, if given the choice, American audiences will come
in droves to see a subtitled film, without any American stars and completely
devoid of gunfire, just as the commercial success of "Schindler's List" nearly
a decade ago seemed to disprove the widely held opinion that people won't sit
through black and white movies. The key phrase in that sentence, however, is
"if given the choice." Unfortunately, far too films are and a great one like
"George Washington" (and I could name a dozen others from the past year) falls
through the cracks.
Peter
Holy Name
was also a Jean Hersholt award that is now or was one of the awards
given during the non-televised ceremony that is for the more technical
awards that they quit having during the tv show I guess because it got
so long. I actually saw a TV show host complaining that one of the short
categories was too obscure!!
www.icoc.org
www.trianglechurch.org This is a Thomas Coleman email.This is a Thomas
Coleman email. <BR><a
href="http://community.webtv.net/hname/HolyNamePage">Holy Name Page</a>
Corey3rd
hasn't caught on commercially is because audiences are a bunch of idiots and
can't handle anything without names, faces, or plot, >>
I have a lot of connections to George Washington. To be honest, it's less a
movie and more of an excuse. It's rather comical to read the reviews and hear
the critics read into the film. It's like a bunch of kindergarteners
describing clouds.
It's a parody of a Malick movie. Did you really see any depth into the two
minutes of Paul on the motorbike riding up and down the same road while the
music on the soundtrack changes. Do you know why that scene is in the film?
Cause David Green thought it was funny. And the part where the kid talks about
how his mama would sing him the theme to Blazing Saddles before he went to bed.
Deep profound moment?
My pal Steve did an amazing job cutting the film down from it's nearly 3 hour
running time to 86 minutes. It's a shame his contribution to the film is
somehow tossed by critics into the realm of Green's work.
It played in New York City at the Screening Room for more than a few weeks -
the guys who run Cowboy Booking run the Screening Room. Do you think a movie
that was the "toast" of the NY Film Festival and receiving such a rave in the
Times would only play a few weeks if it truly had the ability to attract a real
audience - one that has to pay $10 for an evening's entertainment? If the film
was packing them in, the movie would be held over for weeks on end like a
Broadway show.
Yeah the movie did well at one of the largest universities in America. How
many seats is the theater? Do you really think the movie would play in Toledo?
Sure there's an audience for Crouching Tiger, but it's being sold as a kick ass
action film with a heart. The fact that Sony Classics didn't screw up the
release like they've done with nearly every other great film they've put into
the theaters.
Why does Chocolat end up on 1,000 screens? Cause it was able to move $40
million plus worth of tickets? And it has two Oscar winners along with Johnny
Depp? And it's an easy story to sell. And a little kid isn't killed and left
in a bathroom stall to rot.
<< The
reality is, publicity aside, audiences simply are not being offered these
films. >>
The public of New York City and Los Angeles was offered George Washington and
the masses shrugged and saw "Spy Kids" and "Hannibal" and "Rat Catcher"
instead.
Right now Memento is packing them in during its limited release.
At least the masses didn't flock to see "Tomcats."
Peter Tonguette
Are you seriously saying "George Washington" received a similar level of
promotion/distribution as "Spy Kids" and "Hannibal"?? Or even "Rat Catcher"?
Well, the fact is that it didn't and we really have no way of knowing how well
it would have done had it been given a real push by the distributor. The film
didn't pack anyone in because most people didn't even know about it - the only
publicity the film received locally was one paragraph in the newspaper; if you
missed that, you were out of luck. Why do you think "Chocolat" was able to
move $40 million plus worth of tickets? I guarantee you it wouldn't have if it
hadn't been released on hundreds of screens with a Miramax-level marketing
campaign behind it.
I grant you that GW is a difficult film dealing with difficult material, but
the idea that the general public can't handle intelligent cinema strikes me as
being largely a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Peter