Amelia grossed about $ 4 million at about 818 theatres this weekend at the box office. Not that good. But the fact that it grossed almost $5,000 per screen even with the bad reviews shows that there is a desperate need for films that appeal to older women (that means women over 25 in movie business terminology). I also believe that the icon Amelia Earhart resonates very strong feelings among women who feel she is a role model for generations of women.
Here’s what Variety said about the box office this weekend:
Searchlight’s “Amelia” was the clear choice among older females, who made up more than 60% of the audience. Film played well across top markets despite generally poor reviews. The studio specialty arm believes the film did well enough to have legs.
I honestly am not surprised that the film did not do better. My feelings for Amelia which I wrote about last week was very, very mixed. I really liked the premise, but a premise does not make a successful film and this one is far from successful. It’s just plain not good. One of the things I struggle with on this site is trying to be supportive of films by and about women when they fall short. I try to see the glass half full when the bottom is staring at me like it was in the crowded theatre last week.
So how did this happen? How did a film with such a great pedigree, great cast, accomplished writers and director make a film that doesn’t work?
I can’t really answer the question I just posed, but to me it’s illuminated in the difference between the trailers. The first trailer was about Amelia, the woman, the icon, the trailblazer, and second trailer put out closer to release trailer focuses more on the romance between Amelia and George Putnam- her backer and husband. If I never see another man say to his wife as she is about to embark on the most important event of her life “come back to me” it will be too soon. That line illuminates to me where the film went wrong. Why did they think a romance between Amelia and George would engage audiences more than a strong female icon in history? NEW THOUGHT: Also their marriage seemed so bizarre with him seeming so needy. I just look to the great, equal marriage between Julia and Paul Child in Julie & Julia as an example of creating a partnership that works in a film.
The minute they decided to focus play up the romance more than the accomplishments of this amazing woman they were screwed because it lost its focus. Check out the difference between the trailers.
Did you see the film this weekend? What did you think about it?
‘Paranormal’ cuts down ‘Saw’ at box office (Variety)
<a name=”3518144155″></a>
I haven’t seen the film and I won’t, based on the trailer and shiteous reviews alone. I LOVE Amelia Earhart, but from what I heard, the movie only focused on her sappy relationships and not on her achievements.
F–k that. I lost all interest in this movie.
Manohla Dargis had a great article in the New York Times this Sunday where she mentions Amelia. See the link below. She called Hollywood’s views on women Antediluvian, which literally means “before the flood” or ancient. Dead accurate and very funny.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/25/weekinreview/25dargis.html?ref=weekinreview
I can see what you mean about the trailers, but it doesn’t really make any difference to me. I was a big fan of Earhart when I was a child, but I lost interest, and respect, when I read that she went off on this round the world trip inadequately prepared. I got the impression that she was trying too hard for some dysfunctional personal reasons, and I really wouldn’t be interested in her story unless it looked at her as a flawed hero rather than an ideal one.
I think the problem with the movie was the generic script. However, I didn’t think the film was as bad as the critics say. The cast is great, especially Hilary Swank as Amelia. They were just given blah material to work with. The script should have gone through some more rewriting to liven the movie up.
Listen to the last few minutes of this interview with Mira Nair on NPR last week where she talks about working with the studio and the constant market research and “all the voices” that she had to listen to while making “Amelia”: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=114003628
I heard it before the film was reviewed and thought “uh oh…”
Also there’s a short story in Creative Screenwriting (Sept/Oct. ‘09 issue) about the screenwriters. Ron Bass, the original writer focused on the “love story – the triangle between her, her husband…and Gene Vidal”. When the original director, Phil Noyce, left and they brought in Mira Nair to direct she hired Anna Hamilton Phelan to re-write the script.
Seems to me this film really didn’t have a chance, just too many fingers in the pie, too many visions, too many voices. A classic case of Hollywood loving something to death.
I’m seeing it tomorrow [my usual movie night with my gay bf]. I too want to like it as you said but if it’s more about the romance and less about Amelia’s accomplishments, that just will not do.
I love that you try to see the best in mediocre movies and be supportive and are at the same time not afraid to voice your honest opinion. It’s one of the many things that makes this blog so inspiring.
One of the many reasons for pushing for recognition for women in film, and more opportunities for more women in this industry, is that in spite great ingredients many films still fall short of their potential. In order to achieve the collective magic that sometimes is filmmaking many many films need to be made, and so for women to make great films, we must also be allowed to make the mediocre, the forgettable, and even the downright awful.
I saw this on Friday night because I thought it was important to see opening night. The performances were good and I liked the film but I didn’t like it nearly as much as I thought I would.
To me the film was the clifnotes version of Earhart’s life. It briefly touched upon the high points in her life but I never really understood Earhart’s motivation. And I really could have done without all the time spent on her relationship with her husband. There were just too many other more interesting aspects of this woman’s amazing life that I felt could have been better explored.
The sad fact is that if Earhart was a man, the love story would have been only a minor part of the story, while the real attention would have been spent on the merits of what he did and didn’t acheive.
An open letter to Manohla Dargis regarding her review of “Amelia”:
What has happened to you, Manohla Dargis? Once a hero to women watching as you worked your way to power in the critics circle, do you now feel the need to go for the jugular of women filmmakers to earn your seat at the table? You’d never write the male version of this phrase:
Dargis: “The director Mira Nair, whose only qualification appears to be that she’s a woman who has made others films about and with women (‘Mississippi Masala,’ ‘Vanity Fair’)….”
This sentence is so shocking, it’s hard for me and my friends (male & female) to even get our heads around it.
Imagine the reverse: The director Steven Spielberg/Steven Soderberg/Michael Bay/(and so on so forth), whose only qualification appears to be that he’s a man who has made others films about and with men (name two of their fairly major movies here)…
Not only have you added to a damaging attitude of belittling women in the industry — and what’s more in a high-profile, intelligent newspaper — but, in one sentence, you have undermined not only all of Nair’s work, but ALL female filmmakers’ work.
As you must know, a director is not entirely responsible for the script and finished product of a film, so they deserve neither all the credit, nor all the blame. When dealing with a huge studio budget such as this film Amelia’s, there would be dozens of people involved with creating a mainstream vision of this story, and THAT is what should be criticized here. You may hold Nair responsible for her part, but you have a duty to also bring your knowledge of the studio system and its increasing pressures to create middle-of-the-road films aimed to maximize profit, rather than make a great film. This film’s flaws are not falling only at the feet on Nair; indeed, she would have enormous pressure as a woman simply having the director position of such a large budget feature to bring it in as desired by studio execs. Don’t be naive, Dargis, about the process. It is unbecoming and mean-spirited. I don’t believe you make such personal attacks of male directors that you review. It begs the question: why did you choose to say this about Nair?
Please take a serious look into yourself for this slip, and then write a follow up article calling attention to your own mistake, showing how insidious and subtle (or not so subtle, in your case) that these perceptions and dismissals are… in short, what an uphill battle women have, not just in overt ways, but by being undermined by their own colleagues.
You have shown that not only can women not just be criticized for their work, but they are criticized for WHO THEY ARE.
You, of all people, as a smart person, a thoughtful person, and what’s more, as a female critic!, should know how tough it is for women in ANY industry, and I would certainly not expect you to add to that burden by denigrating a person for her gender. (Would you like it if you were dismissed as a person whose only qualification is that you are a woman who has written reviews about movies with women in them? I can’t even conceive that you would ever like that as your NYT bio.)
Dargis, you write better than this. You should be better than this. I hope to see you directly address this problem in order to regain our confidence that you have lost.
NOTE: The NYT site did not post this or another note from a different reader, I’ve learned, completely unconnected to this reader’s (a short note which said the review was sexist and disappointing). Censorship from the NYT regarding readers comments against sexism? Strange and disturbing.
Great post and fantastic, informed and informative discussion. I am trying to hold on to some excitement about this film (released tomorrow here in the UK), although the “too many fingers in the pie” account of the problems of studio films is both horribly familiar and off-putting. It will be interesting to see if the critical and commercial success of The Hurt Locker changes antediluvian studio attitudes towards female helmers in terms of oversight and focus-grouping.