Oscar nominations have finally come out, and the big winner was The Curious Case of Benjamin Button,"" with 13 nominations. The film, starring Brad Pitt as a man who ages backward, has been earmarked for year-end awards shows from its inception. ""Button"" has a seemingly perfect storm of ingredients for awards-show success.
Sprinkle in two parts star (Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett), a teaspoon of acclaimed director (David Fincher), a dash of legacy (the film is based on an F. Scott Fitzgerald short story) and a heaping spoonful of budget (the film cost over $150 million to make) and you've got a recipe for success. Yet people in the industry seem more likely to produce a sequel to ""Paul Blart: Mall Cop"" than try to take on another movie of ""Button"" proportions.
It's not that ""Button"" has done poorly at the box office; it has earned over $100 million already and is certain to pick up more with the recent nominations and a timely release in international markets. Yet $100 million isn't enough for a film that cost over $150 million to make, $135 million to market and distribute and close to $10 million to promote for Oscar contention since the film's opening on December 25.
Given the costs that go into making a film like this, industry insiders are reporting that there will likely be a trend of moving away from the big-budget, A-list artistic films.
Spending lots of money on a film like ""The Dark Knight"" is a safe bet because it has a built-in audience. Spending money on films like ""Button,"" however, can prove to backfire. This year, Baz Lurhman's epic ""Australia"" was an epic failure at the box office and was completely shut out of the awards shows after a ho-hum reception from critics.
Even a film that I called a can't-miss prospect, Sam Mendes' ""Revolutionary Road,"" has earned less than $10 million domestically and received only three Oscar nominations, a pittance compared to what producers were expecting. If the reunion of Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet can't produce a bankable movie, I don't know what can.
Instead of wasting time on the big-budget Oscar films, it seems more likely that studios will spend their money on summer flicks and leave the small art-house studios to produce the films for awards season. Fox's smaller art studio, Fox Searchlight, scored a big hit this year with ""Slumdog Millionaire,"" a film which cost very little to make and features no recognizable stars. Despite this, the film has made almost $50 million and will continue to make more, as it won the Golden Globe award for best picture and was nominated for 10 Oscars.
This news is devastating for people who enjoy quality films. Now we will see more films like ""Paul Blart: Mall Cop,"" which has topped the box office two weeks in a row now and has made over $60 million. Now people will have to seek out small theaters in major metropolitan areas to see the best films of the year, as none of the major theater chains will carry low-budget indie films. Now we will see more money invested in 3-D films like ""My Bloody Valentine,"" rather than any films which have real depth.
Think Kevin needs to stop complaining and embrace the subtle nuances of ""Paul Blart: Mall Cop""? Email him at kevslane@gmail.com
