In 1972, Francis Ford Coppola's "The Godfather" became the highest grossing movie to date, making $150 million dollars, a staggering amount at that time. In 1975, Steven Spielberg gave the world its first gigantic summer blockbuster, "Jaws." It made a shocking $260 million dollars in the U.S. alone. Then, in 1977, "Star Wars" blew every record out of the water, grossing $322 million.
Before these movies hit the scene, studios had radically different expectations for grosses. Now everyone wanted their own Spielberg/Lucas size blockbuster (Coppola proved unreliable in the years after "The Godfather" and its sequel). None could approach the success of the duo's films for years to come, however, and they retained top spots in the record books of grosses.
Why were these films so successful? At the risk of sounding simplistic, it was because they were incredible movies. These three masterpieces (not to mention later gigantic successes like "E.T." or "Raiders of the Lost Ark") reached incredible levels of perfection. They featured fascinating stories, memorable characters, beautiful shots, talented actors, perfectly matched scores and, yes, convincing visual effects. These factors compelled audiences from all backgrounds and types to see these movies again and again.
At a time when word-of-mouth was absolutely crucial, these films received raves from all sides. Marketing was primitive by today's standards (although Lucas's prescient purchase of the merchandising rights to the Star Wars trilogy have netted him quite a bundle), with studios relying on print reviewers and the general public to get others into the theaters. Television advertising was rare. McDonald's wasn't putting little sharks in everybody's Happy Meal. It was a different time and quality counted.
Now, I'm not naive. These movies were certainly commercial films. Coppola knew it and hated it. Lucas had tried putting his artistic vision on film in the dismally received "THX 1138," and decided to make a movie for 9 to 12-year-olds in the hopes of making some dough. Spielberg had never really subscribed to the pretensions of the majority of the 1970s filmmakers. He knew his films wouldn't be considered art, but he made them to entertain.
But only the most pretentious of cinephiles could dismiss their work as undeserving of their spectacular success. Everyone from Joe Six-pack to the haughtiest of reviewers could see that these men were making some great movies.
Flash-forward 20 or so years and we find ourselves in a morass of hype-induced mediocrity. The 1990s have brought us the age of the "event movie." More and more, the success of a film depends more on marketing than any other factor. How soon can we get the teaser on TV? How many fast-food outlets can we blanket with images of our monster-of-the-week? These are the crucial questions that determined the success of the highest grossers of our decade.
Characters? Who needs 'em. We got twisters and volcanoes and dinosaurs and city-destroying aliens and comets and men who wear black and, yes, we have Godzilla. We have New York exploding/underwater/stomped on. The world can be destroyed in a million ways and, dammit, those effects cost money! Get us no-name actors! Who needs a coherent script? We're spending $50 million on marketing, we don't need no stinking script!
Whew. Glad I got that out of my system. More calmly, I think we all must wonder what's wrong with the world when a formulaic characterless wonder like "Independence Day" is one of the top ten highest grossing movies of all time. Even Spielberg has spent much of the 1990s churning out forgettable flicks like "Jurassic Park" and its even more forgettable sequel "The Lost World." "Twister" is 15th on the all-time list. It starred Bill Paxton, for God's sake.
Tirades aside, the last year has brought us some hope. Despite egregious successes like "Batman and Robin" (which actually made money), the aforementioned "Lost World," and depressing undeserved box office failures like "L.A. Confidential," Hollywood may be returning to its senses. If it does, it will be largely due to the American public, an unusual impetus for the improvement of mass entertainment.
The two major lights at the end of the tunnel (and this will be controversial) are the success of James Cameron's "Titanic," and the (relative) failure of "Godzilla." Other contributors are the success of character/script/plot oriented films like "Good Will Hunting" and "As Good As It Gets."
Some would call "Titanic" the most flagrant offender of the long list of high-grossing crap. I disagree. In some ways, it is the ultimate in event movies. A $200 million dollar budget, largely spent on effects. Actors who were then no-names. A script with some pretty silly lines. But "Titanic" is more than the sum of its parts.
The failure of "Godzilla" is even sweeter than the success of "Titanic." For almost a full year, trailers have run for it. And for almost a full year, I anticipated success on the level of "Jurassic Park" and "Independence Day" combined. As the release date drew closer and the buzz grew worse, I anticipated quality to be even lower than these films. What I did not ever think would happen was that audiences would actually respond. It looks like size might not be the only thing that matters.
With far lower than expected opening numbers, and a puny $18 million second weekend, it looks like "Godzilla" will be counting on the overseas market for enough money to make any significant profit.
Perhaps studios will finally sit up and take notice that American audiences are starved for quality. Perhaps they'll realize that a movie can make far money when it succeeds on more than one level rather than merely wowing with effects.
If they look at their own track record, the evidence is clear. After all, "Batman" made twice as much money than its 1997 sequel, and that was in 1989. The "Star Wars" re-release made incredible amounts of money of the quality-starved public. Hopefully this summer's "Truman Show" and "Saving Private Ryan" are the vanguard of the new blockbuster, critically acclaimed films that make money on their merit, not their marketing.
