This past weekend Adam Sandler's most recent foray into drama - Reign Over Me - opened to the underwhelming box office take of $8 million, finishing behind two films that scored in the single digits on Rotten Tomatoes Tomatometer (Premonition and The Hills Have Eyes 2). The movie's box office receipts were also about $32 million shy of his last craptacular hit Click and $39 million behind 2005's The Longest Yard. To put in perspective, the results of Reign are actually below the opening of, yep, Spanglish.
Which begs the question... do audiences really want to see comedic actors stretch into dramatic roles?
It's not a recent phenomenon (although it has picked up considerably in recent years) but there seems to be a need for actors who establish themselves out of the gate in comedies to be taken seriously down the road. Obviously the biggest example of the past decade has been Jim Carrey, but comedians including Ben Stiller, Eddie Murphy, Owen Wilson, Jack Black, Will Smith, Jamie Foxx and Will Ferrell continue to pursue dramatic roles on top of rehashing their natural funny bone time and time again to audiences.
Some (Foxx, Smith, Wilson) seem to thrive in the dramatic setting, following Robin Williams, Bill Murray and Tom Hanks in the past with seemless transitions between genres. Others (Black, Stiller) go back to pandering to the big-money world of the standard comedy feature.
As film fans, I expect that everyone on this site is in favor of these actors stretching their abilities, showing a different side to fans and creating something more meaningful and lasting than your everyday Night at the Museum or Norbit. But on a whole, the box office does not reflect this feeling. Audiences seem to prefer actors who stay within their comfort zone. There's a reason Will Smith's biggest box office flop coincided with his most challenging film to date, Ali (also the actor's first Academy Award nomination), when given the choice the audience is going to settle for the empty-headed comedy. And when a comedian they know they like is involved, it only increases the incentive.
Wild Hogs, Norbit and Epic Movie thank you for your patronage.
In the past, actors like John Wayne and Cary Grant created a persona and they played that persona in practically every role from the time it became popular until they were done in Hollywood. Is that what audiences are asking for today? If Sandler had played Charlie Fineman as an aging frat boy living in New York to his own whims and dropped all of those unnecessary 9/11 overtones and plot points, does Reign Over Me make $35 million this weekend?
I dunno, as a huge fan of The Truman Show and Punch-Drunk Love and The Royal Tenenbaums and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and Broken Flowers and Dead Poet's Society and Good Will Hunting and Ali and Little Miss Sunshine and Lost in Translation and Rushmore and The Pursuit of Happyness and Collateral, ad infinum... doesn't this bother you?
And on the flip side, which has more of a chance for being remembered and revisited 20-30 years from now, Punch-Drunk Love or Big Daddy? Reign Over Me or Mr. Deeds? And because of that, can we take comfort in winning the war while so often losing the battle?
6 comments:
Yeah...this is a tough one to swallow. I remember coming home from my first year at college...having just seen Lost in Translation, which is still one of my favorites, and recommending it to my family. The film is so beautiful and Murray's performance is raw and subtle and just spellbinding. It was hard to believe that this was the same guy who fought the war to end all wars with a dancing gopher. So, my parents watched it while I was at work or something...and I was so excited to come home and have them raving about it...and....they hated it. Just despised it. Meanwhile, I told my sister and her husband, who is an 8 year old trapped in a 30 year old's body, to watch it as well. Seriously, the man can barely sit through a Spongebob episode. I love him to death, but he's definitely the type to prefer a good poop joke to a drama. Yet....he loved Lost in Translation.
It's something I don't think I will ever understand. For me, there's something almost magical about watching a guy, who has made you cry from laughing so hard countless times, actually make you cry. Maybe that's why some of these comedian-turned-dramatists can affect me so. I won't say that they all work. The Number 23 was crap...despite Jim Carrey, who was so incredible in Man on the Moon, The Truman Show, and, especially, Eternal Sunshine.
I think what it boils down to is simple....people would rather laugh than cry. Rather be entertained than challenged. These actors may be excellent at both, but they became famous for their humor. Maybe people just don't like seeing that these "clowns" have more to them than silly faces or voices or dances. I however think it makes them human. Also, seeing them drama it up a bit, really makes me appreciate their humor all the more.
In the end though, maybe I'm a bit happy that so few see these films. It kinda bonds those of us who have together. A club of sorts. It may be selfish...but I like being able to tell if I'll like someone by asking if they've seen Eternal Sunshine or Broken Flowers.
Considering the recent surge in comedian-dramatists, I don't think we have to worry about any of these fine actors turning their back on the more challenging roles for good. Most of them are not getting paid a ton of money for them, they aren't aiming for box-office glory, they're taking these roles for themselves. And, yes, we win in the long-run. It's all those who rushed out to make Wild Hogs such a hit that lose...the real tragedy in all of this is that they'll never know what they're missing.
You know what...Im glad Eternal Sunshine wasn't a hit. I really do feel like Im part of a club,..like the one from the Simpsons where they know all the secrets to the town that normal folk dont have. I feel like on Cloud 9 with that movie and if people don't have that experience, it makes me all the happier that I do. Same goes for Arrested Development. I feel all the better knowing that I can completely judge a entire personality simply by asking them if they know what a "analrapist" is, or if they can't identify my ringtone (thats right it is the Final Countdown), or they can't even make a good stew from a half eaten piece of steak. Because of these movies or shows that the general public ignore, I feel our friendship was generated by alot of those movies. Brian, we first bonded over Eternal Sunshine and History of Violence. Dexter, we bonded over the fact that you don't understand Eternal Sunshine, and for that fact alone I must see that you die a horrible death. Ted, what can I say, so many misunderstood gems, a love for fritters, and general malaise have brought us together. So screw the public. What do they know? They made Fantastic Four a hit, elected Bush twice, and even made Tofu products an acceptable eating habit.
Eh, you're both right in one sense and I think just slightly missing the point in another.
Absolutely, I love having Eternal Sunshine, Broken Flowers and "Arrested Development" pretty much to myself. If they had become big hits, they would have lost something. They would have been oversaturated. If everyone was quoting "Arrested" in every-other-conversation, I'd have gotten burned out on it and we would have lost the ability to connect with them...
But that's kind of a different topic. Finding a smaller film or TV show like Memento and loving the hell out of it is different than seeing an established star (like Jim Carrey or Adam Sandler) lose their appeal when put in less mainstream films or taking risks with their careers.
That's the real disheartening part. When you stick Adam Sandler in a high-concept comedy it's $ nearly every time (unless you stupidly cast him as the son of the devil). But if you take that same actor - whose been welcomed with open arms by mass audiences in the past - and put him in a dramatic film, it's lucky to earn a quarter of that money.
See, I'm more concerned with the actor who decides that they don't need to do drama anymore. Someone like Eddie Murphy or Ben Stiller, who dabbled briefly and retreated or a Vince Vaughn, who started in dramas and found success by changing over to comedies. Now Vaughn's last film The Break-Up tried to extend his appeal by mixing genres and his next one is a straight drama, but I'm worried about more actors following the Ben & Eddie example. And their box office results defend what I consider to be horrible career decisions, sticking with the film-by-numbers storylines and becoming one-dimensional actors.
Still, you're also both right. I don't like to share. If I can find a gem like Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang and know only a handful of my closest friends have seen it, despite it's pedigree... I'm okay with that.
chachi - P.S. was the "chachi" named on the latest "Watching the Directors" podcasts the one and only... you?
Yes that was my 10 quiz I had sent in to Directors. What did you think of Touch of Evil for Finchers possible remake? Like I said, don't touch it, but as a hypothetical scenario, you know...As for the topic at hand, I of course agree that it is disheartening to see a comedic actor not succeed as a dramatic. Only a very few actors seem to attract an audience from any genre, Tom Hanks and Will Smith being two of the big ones it appears. I gotta to be honest that I don't think it always has to do with audiences in general not wanting to see it, but rather the marketing. There is no doubt that Reign over me wasn't going to pull in Big Daddy numbers, but I do think people would have given it a shot if it was simply put out there. How many ads did you see for it? I hardly knew it was even coming out. I saw the trailer twice, and I see a lot of movies,..multiple times even. So I think the studios are too scared to market their stars in a movie if they are going against their usual repertoire. I just hope it doesnt discourage the stars from trying something different. As bad as the Number 23 was, I was glad Carrey did it, just to see him stretch himself as an actor. Cuz in the end, all these comedic stars are just that,..actors. Im okay with the "do the big budget comedy, then do the little indie pic" tactic. Ill put up with another Dick and Jane, just as long as I know another Eternal Sunshine is out there.
PS Anyone else what to see Mike Myers do another "54?"
I'm going to have to disagree with a point I think I read you both make. And that is that comedic actors don't succeed at drama, because they're dramas don't earn as much money. I think you're both viewing this in the wrong light. I highly doubt that Jim Carrey signed on to Eternal Sunshine expecting it to make Bruce Almighty bucks. And I doubt Adam Sandler signed on for Reign Over Me expecting to duplicate basically any of his other films' successes. I think these comedians do these films for themselves more than they do it for anyone or any amount of money. I'm cool with the system that many actors have admitted to using, and Chachi pointed out in his post, because I really feel, especially with Jim Carrey and Bill Murray, that they'd rather be doing these smaller, more personal and emotional films.
Measuring the success of these films by their box office is dangerous. Eternal Sunshine pulled in somewhere between $30-35 million if I remember correctly. That's not bad for a small indie film; however, it is bad for a Jim Carrey movie. But I don't think any of us would say that the film was less successful that Ace Ventura 2. It's difficult to explain how I would measure the success of a film. IN some cases, yes, box office is important. In others, I think a devote fan base (or cult) is a measure of it. In others, positive critical review can be the judge. However you choose to measure it, I think it's important to consider more than just how much it made.
Which brings to the second part, mass appeal. Something Brian brought up, and something I believe is a true problem. In cases, failure can be career ending (see Chachi's latest post). In others, it can have little to no effect (Ben Stiller did Envy and Duplex in less than a year...and then went on to do the $200+ million hit Night at the Museum). The person that I've spent the most time talking about is also the one I worry about the most, former America's funniest man Jim Carrey. He has taken a big hit recently. Underperformers and a $20 million per film price tag have definitely taken their toll. Right now, the only movie on his IMDB page is Horton Hears a Who. Maybe a short break and some smaller films before he leaps back into the bigtime hit comedies again is all he needs.
I'm going to have to cut this short, but I may post again depending on the replies. I think for those of us who go out and see these films, it is apparent that these stars are making the right moves. I hope that they continue to do so. Money can be a powerful motivator, but as formulaic comedies become less and less successful and more inventive ones, such as 40 Year Old virgin, are becoming more common, hopefully we'll see these talented funnymen take more serious dramatic chances more often.
Dude, Chachi, sorry I ignored the what would you think of a Fincher's Touch of Evil comment. Totally didn't mean to.
I would actually be down with that. I love that Fincher works with new material ever since his Aliens 3 but I wouldn't be picketing a Fincherian Touch either, just as long as he keeps it contemporary. I don't want a shot-for-shot remake. I don't want a remake set in the same time period. I want it updated to the present, because Fincher captures it so well.
And obviously, the darker elements completely coincide with the Fincher landscape.
I say, bring it on.
Post a Comment