According to LA Weekly's Nikki Finke, Warner Bros. studios will no longer be producing movies with female leads. apparently due to the underperformance of The Brave One and Invasion.
Now, I haven't seen either of those movies. I avoided Invasion because of the behind-the scenes, multiple-director brouhaha: I figured the best it could be with that many cooks peeing in the broth* was a wait-for DVD screening. As for The Brave One? That's just fallen victim to me not seeing as many movies as I'd like to see anymore. It and 3:10 to Yuma are high on my list, honest, but I don't know if I'll get to them while they're still in theaters.
But all that's beside the point, innit? What it really comes down to is that this is an extremely, almost comically shortsighted decision by WB head Jeffrey Robinov, that will earn WB studios a lot of ill will and make them exactly zero dollars. I am possibly the outsideiest of Hollywood Outsiders, but even I can tell you how this will play out:
- A lot of blog posts and opinion columns get written, talking about what a stupid decision this is. Some of them call for a boycott.
- A WB movie underperforms. Speculators wonder if the boycott is having any effect. (It won't have a noticeable one, but that won't stop people from wondering.) No big deal. Robinov keeps his job.
- WB continues to make movies, passing up scripts with female leads.
- One of those films passed up under the Robinov directive goes on to make crazy bank for another studio.
- Robinov rescinds the directive, but the damage to his career, and WB's reputation, is done. He leaves with scads of money...but he leaves.
- The next guy (and yeah, it'll still likely be a guy) picks up the pieces.
I could be completely off base here. But boycott or no boycott, I think what'll bring Robinov down is success of a property that he could've had, if only he weren't a sexist moron.
Here's hoping it comes soon.
Rob
*Am I mixing metaphors? So be it.
11 comments:
Wow.
Where do I begin?
WB does not *get* women.
They think they can put any woman in the lead of any kind of movie, and people will flock.
Guess again.
No offesne to Foster and Kidman, but both of these actresses having been playing it safe for a long time. They used to take chances with their roles and their acting, but I can't imagine either of them carrying an action film -- they've become too stiff and coiffed within the last few years. And that behavior isn't going to attract younger audiences to a theater.
And it's not a question of age. Johhny Depp isn't afraid to get down and dirty for roles and that's why he has staying power. You need actresses who have that same sort of up-yours attitude to carry an action film.
And the films themselves -- mediocre scripts that don't really understand women at all. The titles are even worse -- generic and uninspiring.
That's why those movies didn't do well -- it's that mindset studio brass have. They seem not to want to have female lead films and it shows.
Their loss.
Hmm. Not sure I agree about Foster and Kidman "playing it safe for a long time." At least not Kidman. Foster has been rather flatlined for a while; her best work in the past decade has been in smaller, supporting roles rather than in the very different challenge of dignifying thinly-written leads in films like Flightplan and Panic Room. Since the split with Cruise, however, Kidman has done more risky roles than she did in the years between her "big break" in Dead Calm and Eyes Wide Shut. Sure, she's also made some groaningly bad calls, like Stepford Wives and Bewitched. (Hint: stay away from remakes, Nicole. Maybe that remake of The Lady from Shanghai isn't such a good idea... ) But I certainly wouldn't call the sum total of her recent work "stiff and coiffed."
That said, the fact is that producers are blindingly dumb when it comes to figuring out why a film succeeds or fails at the box office, much less why good movies are good.
That said, this WB thing is astonishingly stupid even by as stupid producer=think goes.
I think the era where Kidman took those big risks began to slide with Cold Mountain. Bewitched, Stepford Wives, and the Interpreter.
I miss the To Die For and the Moulin Rouge kind of films she tackled before. I can't think of any recent effort where she just kind of "let go" like that. I honestly thought she'd make Johnny Depp look staid with the film choices she used to make.
I dunno, Alex -- I'm leaning toward Greg's POV on this one. Last year she gave us Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus -- that's certainly not a safe choice. A couple of years before, she was in Birth (which has some sort of romantic tension between her and a 10-year-old boy who might be her dead husband) and Dogville, a Lars Von Trier film... and that sounded like a pretty touch movie.
I haven't seen any of these movies, but none of them seem like safe choices to me. But they get drowned out in the Bewitched and Stepford Wives marketing juggernauts... even in our memories, I think.
(And strangely enough, IMDB says she did uncredited work in Panic Room!)
arrgh! "pretty tough movie"!
We'll just have to agree to disagree, Rob. Fur was precisely the sort of drama I would expect Kidman in now -- and once upon a time I couldn't guess what she'd do next.
It's not the "What the--" she could do and pull off. There was daring flamboyance vibe to her for a long time, which I sorely miss. She could be larger-than-life, which is what an action hero or heroine needs to be.
Sometimes I think winning that Oscar is more a curse than a blessing.
Well, if you saw Fur, you're one up on me. (Or one down; I've yet to hear anything good about it.) But whatever its quality, it seemed like a pretty daring choice to me.
(For those who are curious about the Kidman-"Panic Room" connection... she was originally supposed to play the lead, but was recovering from a knee injury sustained on "Moulin Rouge." So Foster filled in... and when her character calls her ex-husband and reaches his new wife, it's Kidman we hear on the phone.)
And as I see it, the problem comes down to what studios are willing to pay for in the first place. Once someone wins an Oscar, their quote goes up, and they get more offers... and few can resist taking the big paydays ("Catwoman", "Aeon Flux", "Hulk", "Bewitched", "Maverick", "Tomb Raider", etc.). And then their quotes don't drop right away.
But there just aren't that many female-driven "commercial" (or "escapist") scripts being produced... so actresses don't get too many shots at the big money, or at getting their own favored projects made. And when one or two underperform, suddenly that's evidence of a trend. (For that matter, all those I named underperformed relative to cost.) If an actress can't establish a great commercial track record right away, it's cheaper to just hire next year's model, right?
I don't know what's going to solve this double standard problem (which is not new, after all)... short of people making good female-driven movies and audiences making them hits. But in this year of sequel after sequel, when the only female-led sequels (that I can think of) are Elizabeth (hardly a blockbuster) and Resident Evil (so bad even I don't want to see it), the immediate future's not looking too bright.
Good points, Chris. But I'd add that the crows have eaten the infected flesh, and how can you not want to see that?
(And I thought Tomb Raider did well... but then again, there hasn't been a Tomb Raider II, so I'm probably mistaken.)
According to IMDB, "Tomb Raider" grossed $131 million on a budget of $80 million... not a failure, but given the popularity of the games, not as successful as hoped. It was internationally successful enough to spawn a sequel two years later, which few remember ($65 million on a budget of $90 million)... possibly because many of us who saw the first one found it incomprehensible, and wouldn't consider seeing another one.
And yes, the Resident Evil crows have eaten the infected flesh... but I can always find a copy of Beaks if need be. (Or can I?)
So there was a TR II? Huh.
As for...that other movie... how dare your bring that up for the second time this month. It's such a bad movie that I think we need to treat it like the Candyman. Say its name three times and it'll show up in your Netflix queue.
And I ain't risking that.
Post a Comment