Last week I talked a little about "per-screen averages," and how they reveal the films that people really want to see, rather than the artificially inflated numbers created by films showing on 4000 screens. Most of the responses I received were from people who claimed that, even if films like Brick or Friends with Money showed on an equal number of screens, they would not perform as well as "dumbed-down" fare like Ice Age: The Meltdown or Silent Hill.
Though we're only talking about
guesses, and there is no proof, I would argue that, if Brick and
Friends with Money were playing on 4000 screens, with all the
accompanying advertising and hype, they would do just as well -- if not better -- than the corresponding stupid films.
Why? For the same reason: if Brick came in at number one on the box
office list due to playing on a high quantity of screens, with plenty of promotion, then it would trigger the same
response in people: "I heard Brick was really good." Only
in this case, Brick actually is really good, and it might actually stick around for a while. My evidence? A little
movie called ...
No, it's easier for studios to "think
dumb," because it's easier to control. In a business that relies on guesswork and artistry and human imagination,
it's comforting for a statistician or an accountant to look at some charts and see that Ice Age made some money, so Ice Age 2 will be a
good investment. For movies like Brick, there are no recent
precedents, no trends to gauge by; that leaves studio functionaries nothing to do. They want to protect their jobs.
They want to be experts at something.
How about further proof of intelligence?
Our "per-screen" champ this week is the seven year-old IMAX film Galapagos, with a whopping
$27,000-plus gross on one screen. (I haven't seen it, but I would
imagine that it probably tries to teach you something.) Think of it; there were four times as many butts in the seats
for that than there were for our #1 top grosser, Silent Hill, with
its $6,887 per screen.
Another astonishing number comes from Sir! No Sir! -- a new
documentary about Vietnam protesters, and specifically Jane Fonda's role in the whole shebang. It raked in $11,900 on
one screen. Even more shocking is Matthew Barney's Drawing
Restraint 9, starring Bjork, which pulled in $7,017 per screen (on three
screens). This is a highly unappealing, long (140-minute) museum installation that has already drawn cries of
"pretentious" from even highbrow publications like the Village Voice and the Chicago Reader.
Like I said before, most box office charts don't calculate these figures, so I've had to comb through
the 125 current releases and do it myself. According to my best guess, these comprise our top three, followed by
Silent Hill at #4.
In the lower
depths, The Notorious Bettie
Page did well on 52 screens with about $3,576 per screen. Amos Gitai's new
film, Free Zone (with Natalie Portman!), came away with $3270 from one screen. A new movie from Susan
Seidelman, Boynton Beach Club (with Sally Kellerman and Dyan Cannon) came up with $1,772 per screen, on 14 screens. And the excellent
adventure film Mountain Patrol: Kekexili did amazingly well on 8 screens with about $2,568 per screen.
Meanwhile, it does my heart good to see that Rodrigo Garcia's Nine Lives is still hanging on in four theaters. It's not exactly making a fortune, but it's had a nice, long life. I very recently caught up with it, and though it may come across like a horrible, drippy chick flick, it's actually a truly amazing film. Filmed in nine continuous shots, it's like a mini-Short Cuts, examining the tiny, painful moments in nine women's lives with searing clarity. Without cutting to ruin the flow, Garcia allows refreshing moments to pause and breathe within each segment. Of course, in those same moments, your heart has time to catch in your throat...