Money.
It seems to be the one word on the mind of every film studio executive.
Every year we see movies of every sort you can imagine, all vying for your money.
Some succeed in doing so, while others don't . It's the nature of the beast, and there
are many people working in Hollywood trying to understand what makes a winner, and how
to avoid a loser.
But what I'm interested in, is what can make a movie like Synecdoche, New York, a brilliant
film, fail.
Let's go back in time a bit, the year is 2008.
The American economy has found itself in a slump, the worst slump the nation has seen
since the Great Depression.
People are losing their homes, their jobs, their sense of security has been completely
shaken.
Here's the top 10 highest grossing films of that year.
Three super hero movies, three mega franchises new release, three animated kids movies, and
a feel good musical.
There's a common thread between all of them.
They all serve as escapism.
Film can be many things for many people, for some it's just a form of mindless entertainment,
for others a deep well for self exploration, but escapism has been a part of all forms
of storytelling since stories have been told.
But it always seems to grow more popular as the quality of life of the average citizen
lessens.
Look at the timing of the Superman comic books, nestled between two World Wars, first published
right on the precipice of World War 2.
Escapism serves to distract us from the struggles of every day life.
So it's fitting that during an economic downfall we'd see so many escapist films perform so
well.
Movies are expensive.
Even the “low budget” films typically cost millions of dollars to produce.
And with the economy where it is studios want to make absolutely sure that they're going
to make their money back, and as we all know the best way to do that is through ticket
sales in theaters.
It's not uncommon for movies to make back their entire budget in the opening weekend
alone , so the typical strategy, certainly with a bigger budget film, is to put it in
a few thousand theaters, let it run for a few months and pray that it does well.
So where does a film like Synecdoche, New York fit into all of this?
Let's go back to 2008.
The film was distributed by Sony, who also happened to be the distributor of one of the
highest grossing films of that year, Hancock.
The film was met with a mixed response but what it didn't achieve in acclaim it more
than made up for in box office revenue.
Domestically(in the United States), Hancock pulled in $227,946,274.
Synecdoche, New York?
$3,083,538.
Looking at those numbers alone, it's easy to see why Hollywood consistently pushes out
these huge blockbusters, film is a business after all, and businesses need to make money.
And to make money you've got to spend some, right?
The more theaters the better.
Take Hancock, during the height of its exposure it was playing in nearly 4,000 theaters.
Now given the fact that Synecdoche, New York is an arthouse film, not a big budget super
hero movie, we can't expect it to get the same sort of exposure, that would just be
naive.
But what would your guess be, half the exposure?
Maybe, twenty percent?
Try three.
Three percent of the same exposure.
Only playing in 119 theaters during its peak.
And if that doesn't hurt enough on its own, here's a shortlist of some of the films that
saw a wider release that year.
Including these lovely films Sony thought you would rather see than Synecdoche, New
York.
Yes, it's confusing.
It's weird, some might find it boring and nonsensical.
It's experimental and just outright different from almost anything else we see, it's not
a film for everyone, I get that.
But neither is You Don't Mess with the Zohan.
But that's the climate of cinema right now, that's the kind of movie that Hollywood thinks
you'd rather see.
And I don't know about you, but that is something I can't just let slide.
They'll take one look at one number, total box office gross, and are satisfied to speak
for us, assuming we'd rather see some awful Adam Sandler comedy than the genius work of
Charlie Kaufman.
These aren't movies that will be cataloged into the Library of Congress.
They won't be listed as one of the 1001 Movies to See Before You Die or crack the IMDb top
250.
They'll exist in the collective conscious for as long as they're being advertised to
us, and then are immediately forgotten.
But maybe you're still not satisfied, just because Synecdoche, New York was in less theaters
doesn't mean it would have miraculously made a ton of money just by getting greater exposure
right?
Wrong.
Again, using Hancock as an example, after doing some easy calculations you can find
that the weekly average per theater for Hancock was was $6,121.
Synecdoche, New York?
$4,173.
Obviously that is a smaller number, but keep in mind, Hancock had a $150 million budget
to recoup, Synecdoche, New York only had $20 million to recover.
Which means that if it had kept a consistent theater average, and ran for say, 11 weeks(the
same amount of time Hancock was in theaters) even on just 500 screens, it would have made
its budget back, and even a small profit, imagine how it could have performed if you
put it on 1,000 screens.
What I think may be even more compelling data to look at is the audience retention.
Hancock opened 4th of July weekend to $62,603,879 domestically, which accounts for 27.5% of
its total domestic gross.
By comparison Synecdoche, New York had a much smaller opening weekend($172,194), but that
represents just 5.6% of its total domestic gross.
Clearly showing that while many people went and saw Hancock opening weekend, the audience
attendance died way down in the following weeks.
Seeing a 50% drop in ticket sales in its second week alone.
Meanwhile Synecdoche, New York didn't see a drop like that until it was 9 weeks into
its run, and as a matter of fact it saw an increase in sales in its 3rd, 4th, and 5th
weeks.
What this data illustrates to me is that if this film was shown in more theaters, based
on the performance it had in what theaters it was shown in, that it could have seen exponential
growth at the box office, which, at the end of the day, is what these studios care about.
They're sabotaging these films before they even have a chance, and they're ignoring important
data in favor of the final total, disregarding the fact that you can't possibly reach the
same numbers without the same exposure.
It's just simple logic.
Imagine you and a friend each recorded their own album.
Imagine their album gets into big retail chains like Wal-Mart or Best Buy.
Imagine seeing it on Spotify, iTunes, Amazon.
Seeing constant ads pop up on YouTube or Facebook.
Now imagine your album sitting on a shelf in some mom and pop music shop.
When you're limiting exposure on such a huge scale like that, sales are not an accurate
reflection of the quality of art, nor a reflection of audience demand.
It's a reflection of audience awareness.
How many people pay to see a movie they know nothing about?
Hell, let's assume they have heard of it, let's assume they really want to see it.
Are they willing to drive a hundred miles or more to do so?
Look at the theater attendance for Synecdoche, New York within that context and tell me the
demand isn't there.
Studio executives just aren't interested in taking that risk.
Because they can pretty safely assume that you'll pay to see their new big budget blockbuster,
and very rarely are they wrong.
But in their eyes it's this shot in the dark with something unique like Synecdoche, New
York, and obviously there's plenty of potential for box office disasters with a film like
that even with proper exposure.
So how do you know which arthouse will make money and which won't?
It's pretty simple, the movie has to be good.
But that's precisely the problem, most of the people in charge of getting movies made
are business minded, not film minded so they have no idea what makes a good movie.
They could compare the scripts for The Dark Knight and Batman Forever and genuinely not
know which of the two was the better script, or which would make a better film.
Too often when they try and push something arthouse, it's just not a very good movie,
and when it under-performs in theaters they blame the fact that it's an art-house film
and that people just aren't interested, when in reality it's just a bad movie.
So what we get are movies that appeal to the lowest common denominator, they play things
as safely as possible and just make sure to include a likeable cast and some decent special
effects.
Perhaps the most recent example that stands out to me is The Force Awakens, which basically
gives us a carbon copy of the plot of A New Hope.
Seriously, if you missed it the first time, watch the two back to back and tell me it's
not almost identical in terms of story.
Every Frame a Painting released a brilliant video on this subject, discussing the Marvel
films use of music, and how they consistently choose what's unobtrusive and safe over what's
memorable.
It's not to say all of these movies are bad, just that they're forgettable.
And that's a problem, not just for people like me who are passionate about cinema, but
for the industry itself.
To shift the focus back to Synecdoche, New York.
The film was a commercial failure, and because of its poor box office performance it took
Charlie Kaufman seven years to get another film made.
“Because it lost a fortune, and because it happened in 2008 when, you know, the economy
tanked.
And the movie business changed, completely instantly, into superhero garbage.”
“Did you need a break, or you just couldn't get somebody to-” “No I was desperate
to get things made.
I mean, it was a really difficult time for me, and I'm still in the middle of it.
I still can't get things made.
Nothing has changed.
I mean, Anomalisa, the movie I just made only got made because, you know, we Kickstarted
it and then we found money from a guy who wanted to finance it.
There was no studio involved.”
People want good films.
We want to see movies that inspire us, fill us with wonder.
Because stories matter, they help us better understand ourselves, they help broaden our
world view, and open our minds to empathy.
And when we see the same story regurgitated over and over we're not gaining anything new.
Just another distraction amidst a sea of nothing but.
You'd be hard pressed to find a film analysis of Hancock, or Twilight, or almost any of
the other huge films released that year.
But you'll see something like Adam's four part series “The Genius of Synecdoche, New
York” or my own “Looking Through Caden's Eyes” (wink wink, click click).
Because that's the kind of movie that will stand the test of time.
And that's the kind of movie we need more of.
I'm not saying we should banish the blockbuster altogether, in that same year we saw the release
of The Dark Knight, Wall-E, and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, all of which had
pretty sizable budgets and wouldn't exist in a world without blockbusters.
But as long as almost every movie that gets made has a huge budget, they're going to have
to make concessions to appeal to the biggest audience possible to recover the cost of making
the film.
And the more people go and see those sorts of movies, the less room there is for a film
like Synecdoche, New York to exist in the first place.
So how can we change this?
With the election fast approaching, voting is on everyone's mind.
So next time you go to the movies, think of it as a voting booth.
Your wallet is your ballot.
Even though it may not seem like it, the film industry is a democracy.
Studio executives may not listen to much, but they do listen to money.
So when the money rolls in and they consistently see huge numbers for their blockbusters, they
see that as your sign of approval to keep them coming.
Imagine fervently opposing Trump but donating to his campaign, it just doesn't make any
sense.
If you don't want more sequels, remakes, or reboots.
If you're sick of all of the style without substance, stop donating to their cause.
Be conscientious with your money at the theaters just like you would with your vote, it quite
literally is what decides what films get made.
So next time you're at the movies, maybe get a ticket for something a little more off the
beaten path, it's the equivalent of supporting your local businesses which is something I
think we can all agree is a good thing, and if you want to see more memorable and unique
films get funded, understand that you have to put your money where your mouth is.
If you enjoyed this video and would like to support this channel you can support me on
Patreon, or you can like and share this video to help more people see it.
Any help is always greatly appreciated.
If you're interested in more industry discussion my video on Death Proof discusses some of
the film vs. digital debate going on, and if you're interested in more about Synecdoche,
New York I think my most recent video may be worth your time.
And as always, thank you for watching, and I'll see you next time.