Several case studies of flop Hollyood films, very much in the style of Hollywood Hall of Shame only without the wit of the Medved Brothers. Parish only starts with films from 1963 onwards, though he discusses several of the same films as the Medveds - Cleopatra, Paint Your Wagon -while making some prize omissions (no account of Heaven's Gate, for example).
This is a rich field, and Parish has some good films to choosefrom which came out post-Medved: Cotton Club, Ishtar, Battlefield Earth, Waterworld and the Postman, Town and Country, The Last Action Hero.
He also picks a few left-field choices, like The Wild Party (a big flop forAIP - Arkoff doesn't even mention the film in his memoirs), Popeye (which I understand made money - but like Last Action Hero it was more of a "let down" than a flop and it certainly damaged Robert Altman's career in Hollywood), The Chase.
Parish does fall into the same trap as the Medveds - to wit, being over-snide and times and wise after the event. He quotes people saying a few times but never seems to understand himself how close the line is between a flop and hit (Titanic, which is mentioned a few times, is a case in point - but also Jaws, The Godfather, The Robe the second Ben Hur).
Anyway for what its worth my own thoughts on these films and what lessons can be learned.
Cleopatra - massive hit, massive cost. Surely audiences would never have come in such numbers as to the Finch-Boyd version. It needed the Taylor-Burton scandal to push it into the stratosphere. Were Fox wrong to insist on only one film instead of two like Mankiewicz wanted? You can understand why Zanuck did - but I think the Rex Harrison segment was strong enough to stand on its own. Significant factor in the cost blowout I think was the absence of a strong producer - Walter Wagner was kicked off the project, but Fox should have appointed a tough dimes and pennies man to help Mank.
The Chase - Sam Spiegel may have been a rogue but he always backed talent and The Chase was full of it. I haven't seem the film for a long time but I remember liking it - it was quite suspenseful and built to a real climax. Poor Arthur Penn just got knocked over by his producer and star. Lesson to be learned... you know, I think this was still a punt worth taking regardless of how it turned out.
Paint Your Wagon - another rampant producer, Arthur Lerner, plus a director who couldn't stand up to him. Yet another Hollywood musical where the (three) leads couldn't sing or dance (something they still persist in doing today). Lesson to be learned: cast at least one singing/dancing lead. This should have been made on the backlot by MGM in the 1950s - it wasn't popular enough to deserve all the money poured into it. If it had been a stage hit of the scale of say, Sound of Music or Camelot, yes - but not the mid size success the original was.
Lesson: mid size successful source material should equal mid size budget.
The Wild Party - this never would have made it, not as an AIP production directed by James Ivory - the poem which inspired the story would have made good AIP fodder (trashy exploitation about the swinging 20s) or Ivory fodder (searing look at fame and loneliness), but both would have been markedly different movies. Combining them resulted in a mess -Ivory's version of the film doesn't sound any better than the one that AIP put out.
Lesson: hire a director whose sensibility matches what you want from the studio.
Popeye - this made a profit but not what they hoped and Parish probably was convinced to include it because he could incorporate Bob Evans stories. There was much that was magical about this film, notably the set design. But it was a bit of a mess.
Lesson: again worth the risk -don't do drugs - maybe it's too risky to write original songs for a musical (though that doesn't seem to hurt Disney's cartoons).
The Cotton Club - easy: don't start pre production without a script. This had a great topic, talented director - but he "found" the story as he went which is expensive. Oh and if your star wants changes that damage the whole thing (i.e. "I want to be liked", "I won't play a gangster") - get a new one. I know Richard Gere was hot stuff in 1983 but Coppola's Coppola, for crying out loud - surely he would have been able to get a replacement quick smart
Ishtar - this actually was quite funny - it's main problem (on screen at least) was sheer old fashioned miscasting - Hoffman and Beatty were too old for roles that could have easily been filled by a Saturday Night Live/Second City alumni or similar ilk (Tom Hanks, Chevy Chase, Steve Martin, etc). I can vouch personally that to the teenage male population of 1987, the names of Beatty and Hoffman meant nothing. Off screen the main culprit seems to have been Elaine May's shooting methods - with comedy there's no need to act like George Stevens or Stanley Kubrick. What great comedy was made using countless re-takes?
Shanghai Surprise - I maintain this could have been worked: it was a great idea to do an old fashioned Casablanca-style exotic melodrama set in war-torn Shanghai, that's a great setting. This fell down with plain old miscasting (which people were worried about at the time so it's not hindsight.) Sean Penn was too young for his role which cried out for a Tom Selleck or Harrison Ford - (Penn couldn't even play it now, the role needs a personality star which Penn isn't). Madonna was not suited for a missionary - she wasn't a good enough actor and the only way to get around her experience would be to perfectly cast her, like she was in Desperately Seeking Susan. Playing a lounge singer who pretended to be a missionary, that might have worked.
Last Action Hero -- made some money but for my mind two major problems (a) miscasting (the annoying kid who played Arnie's sidekick) (b) the final bit of the script - I've thought about this and I reckon the last act would have worked if Arnie hadn't played Arnie in the real world,b ut another character - a movie star. Because it's Arnie you know he's not going to die, right? So there's no tension. But if Arnie played an Arnie type actor (you could have some fun with this - like a Rainer Wolfcastle type), you would have more tension because he could die -hey, you could have even killed him off. There you go, fixed the script problems of Last Action Hero for you, all for free!
Cutthroat Island - script, script, script. Total script mess (excellently pulled apart in the book "Good Script Bad Script"), like all those pirate films that flopped. You watch old Errol movies and the scripts are strong (and usually based on history and/or a strong source material, too - why didn't they adapt Da Foe or something). Also I think people didn't care to see Geena Davis kick arse. I think people will go see women in action films, but they have to be the right women (eg Angelina Jolie in Tomb Raider brought them in even though the film was crap, but no one got excited about Halle Berry in Catwoman.) Davis' casting helped kill this, like it did The Long Kiss Goodnight. With Sharon Stone in the lead I think people would have been a lot more excited.
Showgirls - awful film - despite what Joe Eszterhas tried to argue, I don't think Drew Barrymore in the lead would have worked, the main character is too irrational and for all the research Eszterhas and Verhoven did for this, none of it seems real. Would Janet Jackson takeover a strip show? It should be pointed out that Gina Gershon should have become a star with this - she plays it at the right tone. Even though Vegas showgirls is a good topic for a film, this one was just too nasty and confused - might have been better done by Roger Corman (he's probably already done it). (Side point: like many critics Parish says how un-erotic he finds Showgirls. Critics like to say they find such-and-such film not erotic - do they ever admit to finding films erotic? "Yeah, I loved Wild Things went home and watched it with the wife for our anniversary." Danny Peary is the only movie critic I've ever read who does so. (If forced to admit what turns them on most critics cop out and say something like "Lubitsch".) Sorry, but that pool scene was hot.)
Waterworld and The Postman - Waterworld had a great concept for a film.It just had bad luck with the weather, really. And people were getting plain sick of Kevin Costner. (Having affairs helps some careers if it suits their image eg Liz Taylor, Sharon Stone - but it hurt Costner's because it was so contrary to his image). This was reflected by the fact that a fair few people still turned up to see it.
The Postman was different- everyone laughed at Costner for Dances With Wolves (three hours, in Sioux) but he pulled it off so no wonder he ploughed ahead with this one despite anyone's warnings (making a bad film is just the same as a good one - you need blinkers. The trick is at what stage you put the blinkers on).
The Postman's idea wasn't bad - OK, yes, the title sounds lame but these things can work. But people had embraced epic Westerns before - they've never embraced patriotic post-apocalyptic films. Post apocalyptic movies are inherently dark, you don't get that all that whipped up by them. This isn't to say it shouldn't have been made, just it should have been made cheaply.
Battlefield Earth - I remember that hostility towards this film was so extreme I made a point to see it; it seemed motivated by pure religious hatred and thought the poor film needed defending. But no - this sinks on its own. You'd think they would struggle to miss - a sci fi film about humans rising up against their oppressors - that story never fails. But it does here through inadequate handling, mostly the script - the hero keeps getting captured and re-captured, making for a very frustrating experience. And there are massive plot holes. This shouldn't have been made - not without a massive restructure, anyway.
Town and Country - this sounds like it should have been a play at the National rather than a movie - or at least a British film. Not an expensive film. How does Warren Beatty keep bamboozling all these execs as to his drawing power? This was a turkey at inception.
He also picks a few left-field choices, like The Wild Party (a big flop forAIP - Arkoff doesn't even mention the film in his memoirs), Popeye (which I understand made money - but like Last Action Hero it was more of a "let down" than a flop and it certainly damaged Robert Altman's career in Hollywood), The Chase.
Parish does fall into the same trap as the Medveds - to wit, being over-snide and times and wise after the event. He quotes people saying a few times but never seems to understand himself how close the line is between a flop and hit (Titanic, which is mentioned a few times, is a case in point - but also Jaws, The Godfather, The Robe the second Ben Hur).
Anyway for what its worth my own thoughts on these films and what lessons can be learned.
Cleopatra - massive hit, massive cost. Surely audiences would never have come in such numbers as to the Finch-Boyd version. It needed the Taylor-Burton scandal to push it into the stratosphere. Were Fox wrong to insist on only one film instead of two like Mankiewicz wanted? You can understand why Zanuck did - but I think the Rex Harrison segment was strong enough to stand on its own. Significant factor in the cost blowout I think was the absence of a strong producer - Walter Wagner was kicked off the project, but Fox should have appointed a tough dimes and pennies man to help Mank.
The Chase - Sam Spiegel may have been a rogue but he always backed talent and The Chase was full of it. I haven't seem the film for a long time but I remember liking it - it was quite suspenseful and built to a real climax. Poor Arthur Penn just got knocked over by his producer and star. Lesson to be learned... you know, I think this was still a punt worth taking regardless of how it turned out.
Paint Your Wagon - another rampant producer, Arthur Lerner, plus a director who couldn't stand up to him. Yet another Hollywood musical where the (three) leads couldn't sing or dance (something they still persist in doing today). Lesson to be learned: cast at least one singing/dancing lead. This should have been made on the backlot by MGM in the 1950s - it wasn't popular enough to deserve all the money poured into it. If it had been a stage hit of the scale of say, Sound of Music or Camelot, yes - but not the mid size success the original was.
Lesson: mid size successful source material should equal mid size budget.
The Wild Party - this never would have made it, not as an AIP production directed by James Ivory - the poem which inspired the story would have made good AIP fodder (trashy exploitation about the swinging 20s) or Ivory fodder (searing look at fame and loneliness), but both would have been markedly different movies. Combining them resulted in a mess -Ivory's version of the film doesn't sound any better than the one that AIP put out.
Lesson: hire a director whose sensibility matches what you want from the studio.
Popeye - this made a profit but not what they hoped and Parish probably was convinced to include it because he could incorporate Bob Evans stories. There was much that was magical about this film, notably the set design. But it was a bit of a mess.
Lesson: again worth the risk -don't do drugs - maybe it's too risky to write original songs for a musical (though that doesn't seem to hurt Disney's cartoons).
The Cotton Club - easy: don't start pre production without a script. This had a great topic, talented director - but he "found" the story as he went which is expensive. Oh and if your star wants changes that damage the whole thing (i.e. "I want to be liked", "I won't play a gangster") - get a new one. I know Richard Gere was hot stuff in 1983 but Coppola's Coppola, for crying out loud - surely he would have been able to get a replacement quick smart
Ishtar - this actually was quite funny - it's main problem (on screen at least) was sheer old fashioned miscasting - Hoffman and Beatty were too old for roles that could have easily been filled by a Saturday Night Live/Second City alumni or similar ilk (Tom Hanks, Chevy Chase, Steve Martin, etc). I can vouch personally that to the teenage male population of 1987, the names of Beatty and Hoffman meant nothing. Off screen the main culprit seems to have been Elaine May's shooting methods - with comedy there's no need to act like George Stevens or Stanley Kubrick. What great comedy was made using countless re-takes?
Shanghai Surprise - I maintain this could have been worked: it was a great idea to do an old fashioned Casablanca-style exotic melodrama set in war-torn Shanghai, that's a great setting. This fell down with plain old miscasting (which people were worried about at the time so it's not hindsight.) Sean Penn was too young for his role which cried out for a Tom Selleck or Harrison Ford - (Penn couldn't even play it now, the role needs a personality star which Penn isn't). Madonna was not suited for a missionary - she wasn't a good enough actor and the only way to get around her experience would be to perfectly cast her, like she was in Desperately Seeking Susan. Playing a lounge singer who pretended to be a missionary, that might have worked.
Last Action Hero -- made some money but for my mind two major problems (a) miscasting (the annoying kid who played Arnie's sidekick) (b) the final bit of the script - I've thought about this and I reckon the last act would have worked if Arnie hadn't played Arnie in the real world,b ut another character - a movie star. Because it's Arnie you know he's not going to die, right? So there's no tension. But if Arnie played an Arnie type actor (you could have some fun with this - like a Rainer Wolfcastle type), you would have more tension because he could die -hey, you could have even killed him off. There you go, fixed the script problems of Last Action Hero for you, all for free!
Cutthroat Island - script, script, script. Total script mess (excellently pulled apart in the book "Good Script Bad Script"), like all those pirate films that flopped. You watch old Errol movies and the scripts are strong (and usually based on history and/or a strong source material, too - why didn't they adapt Da Foe or something). Also I think people didn't care to see Geena Davis kick arse. I think people will go see women in action films, but they have to be the right women (eg Angelina Jolie in Tomb Raider brought them in even though the film was crap, but no one got excited about Halle Berry in Catwoman.) Davis' casting helped kill this, like it did The Long Kiss Goodnight. With Sharon Stone in the lead I think people would have been a lot more excited.
Showgirls - awful film - despite what Joe Eszterhas tried to argue, I don't think Drew Barrymore in the lead would have worked, the main character is too irrational and for all the research Eszterhas and Verhoven did for this, none of it seems real. Would Janet Jackson takeover a strip show? It should be pointed out that Gina Gershon should have become a star with this - she plays it at the right tone. Even though Vegas showgirls is a good topic for a film, this one was just too nasty and confused - might have been better done by Roger Corman (he's probably already done it). (Side point: like many critics Parish says how un-erotic he finds Showgirls. Critics like to say they find such-and-such film not erotic - do they ever admit to finding films erotic? "Yeah, I loved Wild Things went home and watched it with the wife for our anniversary." Danny Peary is the only movie critic I've ever read who does so. (If forced to admit what turns them on most critics cop out and say something like "Lubitsch".) Sorry, but that pool scene was hot.)
Waterworld and The Postman - Waterworld had a great concept for a film.It just had bad luck with the weather, really. And people were getting plain sick of Kevin Costner. (Having affairs helps some careers if it suits their image eg Liz Taylor, Sharon Stone - but it hurt Costner's because it was so contrary to his image). This was reflected by the fact that a fair few people still turned up to see it.
The Postman was different- everyone laughed at Costner for Dances With Wolves (three hours, in Sioux) but he pulled it off so no wonder he ploughed ahead with this one despite anyone's warnings (making a bad film is just the same as a good one - you need blinkers. The trick is at what stage you put the blinkers on).
The Postman's idea wasn't bad - OK, yes, the title sounds lame but these things can work. But people had embraced epic Westerns before - they've never embraced patriotic post-apocalyptic films. Post apocalyptic movies are inherently dark, you don't get that all that whipped up by them. This isn't to say it shouldn't have been made, just it should have been made cheaply.
Battlefield Earth - I remember that hostility towards this film was so extreme I made a point to see it; it seemed motivated by pure religious hatred and thought the poor film needed defending. But no - this sinks on its own. You'd think they would struggle to miss - a sci fi film about humans rising up against their oppressors - that story never fails. But it does here through inadequate handling, mostly the script - the hero keeps getting captured and re-captured, making for a very frustrating experience. And there are massive plot holes. This shouldn't have been made - not without a massive restructure, anyway.
Town and Country - this sounds like it should have been a play at the National rather than a movie - or at least a British film. Not an expensive film. How does Warren Beatty keep bamboozling all these execs as to his drawing power? This was a turkey at inception.
No comments:
Post a Comment