12 Years a Slave

[DUKIECB]

I wanted to start an individual thread for this movie since no one has mentioned it in the Captain Phillips/12 Years combo thread.

Has anyone seen it? Wide release is this Friday and it is getting rave reviews. 95% on Rotten Tomatoes and a 96 Metacritic score. Critics are salivating over it but I haven't heard or read about what us average folks think about it

[Mike Corey]

Eager to see this one, as well. Looking forward to the wider release, as it didn't reach me in the hinterlands of Columbus when it was initially released.

[A-Tex Devil]

Eager to see this one, as well. Looking forward to the wider release, as it didn't reach me in the hinterlands of Columbus when it was initially released.

Chiwetel Ejiofor should be a star. He's unbelievable in everything he has been with a significant role. I hope this is as good as it appears to be.

[weezie]

Another plus, Michael Fassbender, my serious crush. Even as a bad guy, I'm nuts for that Irish fellow.

[Mike Corey]

Chiwetel Ejiofor should be a star. He's unbelievable in everything he has been with a significant role. I hope this is as good as it appears to be.

Completely agreed.

His performance in the largely unknown Kinky Boots, to Inside Man, to Children of Men and American Gangster--all memorable roles.

But now people won't forget him.

[throatybeard]

The following article on this movie in the NYT yesterday, among other things, explains why the incredibly destructive obsession with box office take (so prevalent on this board and so prevalent in our culture) generally results in very few films with extensive minority casts getting made, or widely released if they do get made.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/29/bu...case.html?_r=0

[JasonEvans]

The following article on this movie in the NYT yesterday, among other things, explains why the incredibly destructive obsession with box office take (so prevalent on this board and so prevalent in our culture) generally results in very few films with extensive minority casts getting made, or widely released if they do get made.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/29/bu...case.html?_r=0

Action and, to a lesser extent, comedy (especially child-focused animated comedy) generally translate really well across language and culture barriers. Those are the films that do well internationally. Dramas, especially ones that require a unique cultural understanding, are always going to be tougher sells and less popular on a global basis. This is not some unique problem for the African American film market. It is true of other films that are based on local themes (local being an entire country in many cases).

The question is -- does your film merit the budget of a global boxoffice picture or is it designed for just a few markets? The reason studios will fork over $150+ million for sci-fi fantasy/comic book/action films is that they will play as well in the US as anywhere else around the globe. The reason a film about something uniquely American rarely gets more than a $50 mil budget is because the themes won't translate well around the globe.

It is worth noting that there is a very robust and successful Af-Am focused film market here in the US. Tyler Perry is worth hundreds of millions of dollars from making films that cater to that audience.

-Jason "I am going to see 12 Years this weekend... have high hopes!" Evans

[davekay1971]

The following article on this movie in the NYT yesterday, among other things, explains why the incredibly destructive obsession with box office take (so prevalent on this board and so prevalent in our culture) generally results in very few films with extensive minority casts getting made, or widely released if they do get made.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/29/bu...case.html?_r=0

Again, to go free market capitalist on this subject, if a movie is being made with the motive of making a profit, box office appeal has to be a factor. If a movie studio (or smaller investor group) makes movies without any regard to box office, that studio or investor group will be out of the movie making business before long. As Jason pointed out, the budget for a movie has to be calibrated to expected income of the movie. It just doesn't make any kind of business sense for people spending money to make a movie to not consider the expected revenue of the movie they're making. Sometimes we do see studios or wealthy investors make passion projects without any concern about the revenue of the movie. But that, by necessity of economics, has to be a minority of movies.

The more "destructive obsession", imho, is the tendency of people to gravitate toward entertainment that is centered on their own demographic. It would be wonderful to see people (both in America and around the world) take the chance to see a movie that is about people who don't look like them. When we do that, we frequently get exposed to great entertainment...and learn something. Movies, like literature, can be wonderful cross-cultural bridges. Unfortunately, audiences tend to like to play in familiar sandboxes. I can't blame the movie making business for wanting to make profitable movies...but I can blame the public for continuing to make good movies about cultural issues unprofitable.

[brevity]

You can look at Hollywood as having two development tracks. The first is primarily geared toward box office, with the creation of franchises and tentpoles, and with a steady eye on ancillary markets and merchandising possibilities. The second (and lesser) track is for prestige pictures, where the budget and paychecks are usually smaller, and the attention is limited to a three-month winter period.

For somewhat tough sells like the subject matter of 12 Years a Slave*, the first track is irrelevant. But here's where it gets interesting: there is an entirely separate capitalist game when it comes to the second track, which is also measured by box office, but in terms of per-screen average rather than total take. (That would be a fun prediction contest if we wanted an alternative.) As the NYT article mentions, studios can be very calculating as to how best to handle a limited release, and those early numbers pretty much seal a film's fate. You'll see a glut of prestige films in the next 2 months volleying for attention with varying degrees of exclusivity among major cities. The studios are gauging overall demand based on painfully small sample sizes, and some films will essentially bomb before 80 percent of the audience has even heard of them.

It would be interesting to see how studio marketing budgets compare between first and second tracks. How does pushing for $200 million compare to pushing for 10 Oscar nominations? I'm guessing they're not that different.

*I'm not sold on the idea that 12 Years a Slave, with co-star and producer Brad Pitt on the global circuit, is the great test case that the NYT thinks it is. I also would posit that co-star Michael Fassbender is currently the most powerful man in Hollywood. "Yeah, I'd like to do a character study about a shady lawyer. But I want the guy from Blade Runner and Gladiator to direct it, and I want the author of No Country for Old Men to write it. Let's put Brad Pitt and Oscar-winner Javier Bardem in there, provided they both are made to look uglier than me. Oh, and I get to sleep with Bardem's Oscar-winning wife."

[lotusland]

Again, to go free market capitalist on this subject, if a movie is being made with the motive of making a profit, box office appeal has to be a factor. If a movie studio (or smaller investor group) makes movies without any regard to box office, that studio or investor group will be out of the movie making business before long. As Jason pointed out, the budget for a movie has to be calibrated to expected income of the movie. It just doesn't make any kind of business sense for people spending money to make a movie to not consider the expected revenue of the movie they're making. Sometimes we do see studios or wealthy investors make passion projects without any concern about the revenue of the movie. But that, by necessity of economics, has to be a minority of movies.

The more "destructive obsession", imho, is the tendency of people to gravitate toward entertainment that is centered on their own demographic. It would be wonderful to see people (both in America and around the world) take the chance to see a movie that is about people who don't look like them. When we do that, we frequently get exposed to great entertainment...and learn something. Movies, like literature, can be wonderful cross-cultural bridges. Unfortunately, audiences tend to like to play in familiar sandboxes. I can't blame the movie making business for wanting to make profitable movies...but I can blame the public for continuing to make good movies about cultural issues unprofitable.

I don't dispute any of your points but result of market forces is that movies are unwatchable. Fortunately television is fantastic so there is no need drop $35 on bad popcorn watered down soft drinks and watch an hour and a half of crap.

[throatybeard]

Action and, to a lesser extent, comedy (especially child-focused animated comedy) generally translate really well across language and culture barriers. Those are the films that do well internationally. Dramas, especially ones that require a unique cultural understanding, are always going to be tougher sells and less popular on a global basis

This seems to me exactly completely, 101% backwards.

Comedy is incredibly culture-dependent and context-dependent. Americans are constantly deciding that any comedic work older than X years old **in their own culture** isn't really that funny anymore. Even the things that stand the test of time in the medium-term (Seinfeld, say) aren't as funny as they were during the first go-round. I thought Seasons 6 and 7 of Seinfeld were the funniest thing I had ever seen in 1996. Now I know I needed to slow my roll a little.

You're talking about language translation...I've seen all these French comedies, and my English-speaking butt can't get them to save my life.

Tragedy is timeless. Take Shakespeare's four biggies. Hamlet is about the dissolution of a family. King Lear is about the dissolution of a family. R&J is about the dissolution of two families. And Othello is about the dissolution of a marriage. All four are still intensely more powerful than, I don't know, The Merchant of Venice.

Comedy brevis, tragedy longa.

[throatybeard]

It is worth noting that there is a very robust and successful Af-Am focused film market here in the US. Tyler Perry is worth hundreds of millions of dollars from making films that cater to that audience.

This pretty much proves my point. Thanks for walking into that, Evans.

Either a film with a lot of Black people in it has to be a "Black film" and make a lot of money (AKA "Af-Am focused," as Jason puts it with his movie-biz language), or it doesn't get made, or it's a tiny release like the amazing Ballast in the MS Delta. It can't be just "a film" and get into a really wide release in which everybody is reasonably expected to see it. It has to be "focused" on one demo, in order to make the "robust...AfAm focused film market."

This obsession with box office take is complicit in reinforcing prejudice in the USA. Sorry to get so close to PPB territory. But it's true.

I should say, I don't have any delusions of hope. I don't expect American people in general to ever, ever subvert the profit motive to artistic truth. But anybody who measures the "success" of a film by $$$ has already thrown art under the bus, the train, the tank, and Krakatoa.

[davekay1971]

Tragedy is timeless. Take Shakespeare's four biggies. Hamlet is about the dissolution of a family. King Lear is about the dissolution of a family. R&J is about the dissolution of two families. And Othello is about the dissolution of a marriage. All four are still intensely more powerful than, I don't know, The Merchant of Venice.

Comedy brevis, tragedy longa.

Tragedy also translates beautifully across cultures. Ran, for example, is a fabulous Japanese adaptation of King Lear. And I could imagine Hamlet and Othello translating easily into just about any cultural setting you can imagine.

[davekay1971]

I don't expect American people in general to ever, ever subvert the profit motive to artistic truth. But anybody who measures the "success" of a film by $$$ has already thrown art under the bus, the train, the tank, and Krakatoa.

These last two sentences are the only ones I'd debate.

On the first, I'd suggest that it's absolutely right to not expect American (or any) business (in this conversation, movie studio) to subvert the profit motive to artistic truth, except in some rare circumstances, because a successful business requires profit (however filthy that word may be to ex-Mr. Katy Perry). The American people, however, want to be entertained at a movie. While everybody's definition of an entertaining movie may differ, clearly a whole bunch of people are entertained by movies like The Avengers, The Dark Knight, Titanic, etc.

As for measuring success of a movie, box office take is simply one measure. In the business sense, (box office take - costs to make and distribute) is possibly the most important measure (although actually [box office+DVD+netflix+merchandising+etc] -[cost to maek and distribute] is really the most important measure of success to the moviemaking business). But you could also measure success in so many other ways. Award nomitations, awards received, best movie lists, whether a movie had a cultural impact, etc.

Regarding this board and our just-for-fun semiannual polls, domestic box office take is simply a quick, clean, easy guessing game.

Regarding discussions of movie quality and success overall, there certainly is a business emphasis (as there needs to be, for the movie making industry to stay in business and keep making movies), but there are also discussions on this board, and all over the internet, about which movies are best. And from the posts you've made, Throaty, I'd love to hear some of your selections for truly great movies that have inspired you.

[Mabdul Doobakus]

Saw this tonight. Thought it was brilliant. See numerous glowing reviews for further details.

A handful of scenes were very difficult to take in, including a disturbingly realistic lashing of a young girl, which for a couple of seconds shows her wounds as they are being created. It was sickening to watch, but I also find myself wondering how it was done. CGI? I don't know. I guess it doesn't really matter. This was a very physically and emotionally challenging role for Ejiofor, who will deserve whatever awards come his way. Much has been made about how he and McQueen are British, and how that may have allowed them to make this challenging film, and I think there may be something to that.

I think this movie will struggle to make money, and it has nothing to do with the African-American cast. I had a chance to see it this past weekend, but decided I didn't want to darken my Saturday with a brutal movie about slavery. I went to the movie alone tonight because a friend of mine told me he wasn't ready to stomach the movie just yet. We typically go to the movies for entertainment, and though this movie was certainly entertaining, there is something a little perverse about using slavery as a vehicle for our entertainment. A movie like this has to be about more than money and entertainment, and I think this one certainly was...you can't help but wonder, as you watch it, how human beings can treat other human beings like that, and yet even today, all sorts of abuses are committed across the world. Are we really doing everything we can do prevent such acts? The most frustrating characters in the movie were probably those who knew slavery was wrong, but allowed certain abuses to be perpetrated for selfish motives...and you can't help but ask yourself...what if that's us?

[Mike Corey]

Are we really doing everything we can do prevent such acts? The most frustrating characters in the movie were probably those who knew slavery was wrong, but allowed certain abuses to be perpetrated for selfish motives...and you can't help but ask yourself...what if that's us?

This underscores the importance of going to the movies for reasons other than--or in addition to--entertainment.

[Jim3k]

This underscores the importance of going to the movies for reasons other than--or in addition to--entertainment.

Seconded. This movie is a reminder of just how awful slavery was. Almost 150 years have passed since the end of the Civil War. Yet the poison that led to that war is still infecting a large number of us.

This movie is superbly acted and presents the issue in a unique and stark way. It's not entertainment; neither is it pedantic. Still, it serves to remind us of the terrible compromise on which our nation was founded. It is a history lesson that we should all keep in our heart; a mistake to never make again.

This is clearly one of the best pictures of the year. Director McQueen has done a marvelous job, particularly with the cinematography, bringing the reality of slavery closer to us than any previous film.

[SoCalDukeFan]

I thought it was an excellent movie. Hard to watch in spots but one that made you think.

One woman walked out early and my wife, who thought the movie was very good, almost did.

I guess all the plantations were not Tara.

SoCal