This
has been an exciting summer at the movies, full of giant tentpoles and
franchises, with a few original properties staunchly holding their
ground too. Yet, none of these clashes have been as gripping to watch
as the one that happened between two children's films twenty years ago, a
clash that you can still see the repercussions of in how the movie
industry operates today.
In early May of
1995, Warner Brothers released an adaptation of Frances Hodgson
Burnett's "A Little Princess," to huge critical acclaim. It was lauded
by practically everyone who saw it, and several prominent critics got
the behind the movie. The trouble was the Warner Brothers couldn't sell
it. Everything about the film's marketing seemed lackluster, from the
posters to the trailers, failing to capture the film's low-key charms.
There wasn't much marketing either, as Warners opted for a smaller
release, initially only opening "A Little Princess" in about 1300
theaters, with plans to expand later. That expansion never happened.
The
week after "Princess" hit theaters, "Casper" from Universal was
released. "Casper," which had been heavily marketed for weeks as the
big summer kids' film from executive producer Steven Spielberg, opened
to crummy reviews, but raked in $22 million its first weekend. "Casper"
opened in twice the number of theaters that "A Little Princess" did and
completely steamrollered it for the rest of the summer. When all was
said and done, "Casper" had a domestic gross of $100 million. "A Little
Princess" made $10 million, even after an attempted rerelease in
August. And the only reason I know this is because the Los Angeles
Times was documenting all of it.
All through
that summer they published op-ed pieces, analysis pieces, and plenty of
readers' letters speculating as to why Warners couldn't get anyone to
watch "A Little Princess." Again and again people pointed to the
release strategy and the marketing. It looked like a movie aimed only
at little girls. It had "Princess" in the title. It was clearly a
holiday picture rather than a summer one. Nobody knew it existed
because the ads were so sparse. There were no toys or tie-ins to create
extra awareness. This was 1995, when summer movie season wasn't
totally dominated by big event movies, and you could still take risks
with prestige films now and then - but suddenly everything about "A
Little Princess" looked foolhardy.
There were a
few stories featuring interviews with the Warner marketing execs
themselves, who apparently took all of these criticisms to heart. One
even joked that they should have released "A Little Princess" under the
title "Batman 4." What came across, though, is that they believed in
the movie and that everyone at the studio had tried wholeheartedly to do
right by it. And so I always think about them and the fate of "A
Little Princess" whenever I hear complaints about the studios not having
the guts to put out more challenging, more ambitious summer fare. This
is what happens, kids. Your heartfelt, life-affirming masterpiece gets
beaten up by CGI cartoon ghosties making fart jokes.
Twenty
years later, I don't think any major studio would even finance "A
Little Princess," let alone try releasing it in May. Sadly the film has
passed into almost total obscurity, though some of its chief creative
talent has flourished. This was director Alphonso Cuaron's English
language debut, long before "Children of Men" or "Gravity." Emmanuel
Lubezki picked up an Oscar nomination for the film's gorgeous
cinematography - his first of many. I'm also gratified that actor Liam
Cunningham, who plays the title character's father, is getting more
attention these days - you might recognize him as Davos from "Game of
Thrones."
Note that "Casper" has also quietly
disappeared from the public consciousness too, despite several
direct-to-video sequels and a Saturday morning cartoon following in the
movie's wake. The character is reportedly being prepped for yet another
reboot over at Dreamworks, but the 1995 film seems to be remembered
chiefly for James Horner's lovely, melancholy score. Looking at it now,
"Casper" is very much a product of its time, with little that holds up,
though I still have some nostalgic affection for it.
And
what of the summer movie season? Well, we're not getting any more
delicate adaptations of Victorian era children's novels, but there are
still a few studios attempting to try something new and different every
year - Disney/PIXAR's "Inside Out" about the inner world of a little
girl inspires a lot of optimism that audiences can still be drawn to
quality over pandering, even when the subject matter might be difficult.
Provided that the marketing campaign takes no prisoners, of course.
---
No comments:
Post a Comment