In Reply to: Re: That was my reaction as well posted by Victor Khomenko on March 12, 2004 at 16:43:11:
First of all this film soft peddles nothing. Certainly doesn't soft peddle the book.This is no Hollywood film. It's an art film that managed to net a wide audience because of the talents of the people involved.
Here's part of the reason your conclusion of this being a Hollywood film.
1) At the time of release it had 3 central characters with the names Ben Kingsly, Liam Neeson, Ralph Fiennes. Nobody knew the latter because this was his first film. Liam Neeson, also an unknown to audiences, Ben Kingsly may have been remembered as the guy from Ghandi a decade previous and since Ghandi had done nothing the masses would have seen. Heck most of the masses didn't see Ghandi.
2) 3 hours and 16 minute run time in Black and White with an unknown cast about the Holocaust? What exactly in your head could possibly think this movie would be of any interest to Hollywood. There was no interest from Hollywood. The only way this is shown is because the director had the money to get it done. Which explains why there was virtually no advertising prior to the film's release on Christmas Day.
3) The director's purpose was to hope this would be used by schools and Stephen expected it to be a box office flop for reasons 1 and 2. Historical black and white 3 hour films with a bunch of nobodies in the leading roles is hardly something Hollywood is going to bet big money on. No! They're going to put money on a bunch of Orks, Elves, Merlins and sorcery so they can sell lots of posters, dolls, toys, video games, happy meals make it a trilogy so they can nail you three times at the box office and three times fro popcorn. That my firend is a Hollywood film.
Schindler's List...all the money made was donated off after covering costs (which was under 30 million meaning that $350 million give or take was donated to pay for the screenings and put to the Shoah foundation), screens were subsidized by Spielberg for FREE showings to high school kids. Yeah, Hollywood film. This is the one of the most ridiculous arguments I've read for trying to dismiss this film. Most film critics serious or otherwise wouldn't even make this kind of statement.
I don't think you'll ever see an art film gross $350+ million world wide. The fact that Spielberg made an art film gross like a Hollywood blockbluster doesn't mean to say it's a Hollywood film but it sure does say a lot about its director. One of the most underrated directors because he has decided to be a story teller instead of self indulgent wind bag of tripe like Fellini. Spielberg also makes more dreck than the likes of Kubrick. Then again Eyes Wide Shut was ATROCIOUS garbage so nobodies perfect.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: That was my reaction as well - RGA 18:05:46 03/12/04 (15)
- You of course missed the point entirely - Victor Khomenko 05:53:50 03/13/04 (9)
- Umm - RGA 12:04:04 03/13/04 (8)
- Being killed by one's own argument - Victor Khomenko 12:50:40 03/13/04 (5)
- So you don't like - RGA 21:23:33 03/13/04 (4)
- The point of having no point - Victor Khomenko 04:43:03 03/14/04 (3)
- Re: The point of having no point - RGA 20:32:46 03/14/04 (2)
- Re: The point of having no point - Victor Khomenko 04:21:14 03/15/04 (1)
- Re: The point of having no point - RGA 10:00:53 03/15/04 (0)
- Re: Saving Private Ryan bookends - rico 12:45:24 03/13/04 (1)
- Re: Saving Private Ryan bookends - RGA 21:38:18 03/13/04 (0)
- In that case he should've made a film about Raoul Wallenberg. - Dmitry 21:26:35 03/12/04 (4)
- ? - RGA 12:14:56 03/13/04 (0)
- They did! - albee33 09:51:57 03/13/04 (1)
- Yeah... but I presume Dmitry meant Spielberg. (nt) - Victor Khomenko 10:34:34 03/13/04 (0)
- Re: In that case he should've made a film about Raoul Wallenberg. - patrickU 08:37:03 03/13/04 (0)