As the end of August quickly approaches, there are a handful of major stories popping up. The most noteworthy is that students are returning to school, dealing with the adjustment struggles of a Post-Coronavirus world. Every day presents a new struggle where even getting in the door (quite literally in the case of some digital sign-in programs) is not that easy. Nobody knows what The Fall will look like, though there has been one place that prognosticators are likely to get some idea what spending time together in a confined space will ultimately look like: the theater.
Unless you’re Marvel or M. Night Shyamalan, the chances of you standing out at the box office are very slim. Dozens of movies have come out this summer that in any other year would be considered a success. However, because of circumstances, films like In the Heights (2021) are considered “bombs,” dropping out of theaters in less than a month. It’s understandable from a profit margin, but at the same time, one has to wonder what their expectations are in a time where COVID-19 infection rates are going up and death is ticking to its highest rates in several months. Who really wants to sacrifice their lives seeing Free Guy (2021)?
Though the one thing that’s been interesting to ponder over is the bigger question: In 2021, what is considered a box office hit? There definitely have been a few. Even supposed films that have “bombed” like Space Jam: A New Legacy (2021) currently sit in the Top 10 highest grossing for the year. Blockbusters, predictably, still draw a crowd. However, indies have suffered for the most part, relying more on home video to make back any profit. What even is the future of film, especially now that students are back in school and they aren’t likely to emerge often, save for maybe something like Dear Evan Hansen (2021)?
This reminds me of a debate from only a few years ago that sounds painfully relevant in this context. In the scheme of expectations versus reality, few films feel as confusing to discuss as Booksmart (2019). I’m not talking about it from a critical standpoint. As far as I can tell, the film won the long-term game by constantly being brought up in conversation. It has escaped the trap of simply being “The female Superbad (2007)” and is reflective of a new era of teen comedies, not unlike Blockers (2018), where women are allowed to express themselves in more ambitious and three-dimensional ways. I’m more talking about the idea that Booksmart is still considered to be a box office bomb.
The message was being peddled at the time that it was a failure. From a distance, director Olivia Wilde’s complaints make sense. It opened on over 2,500 screens and only earned $25 million worldwide. Considering that companies like A24 knew how to spin low-budgeted works into hits, it doesn’t make sense why one of the most publicized and acclaimed teen comedies in years wouldn’t make $100 million, sparking dozens of catchphrases, and turning Kaitlyn Dever and Beanie Feldstein into giant stars (again, like Superbad). Sure everyone was sharing memes with Billie Lourde looking fabulous, but why wasn’t the omnipresence enough? It even had J.J. Abrams of all people complain that the public was letting Booksmart down, that its downfall was somehow going to keep female directors from getting to make original stories.
Sure, this sounds horrible. One can argue solely based off of opening weekend that this was true. $2.2 million is far below what most films with any name recognition would hope for. Add in a few factors and soon you’ll realize that this is merely optics on par with calling Space Jam 2 a “flop” despite being one of the more successful films of 2021. Booksmart being considered an underdog is something that should be worn as a badge of honor. Being called a flop is just false advertising.
Let’s start by answering a question: What determines success? For a studio film, this is often reduced to a simple fact: did it earn a profit? This margin is often determined by whether it made back double or even triple its budget. For example, a film with a budget of $25 million would need to make back $50 or $75 million to be considered a success. Breaking even is fine, but given that money is the game that determines what projects get greenlit, it’s best to have a little on the backend. That is how films with ballooning budgets can be both seen as successful but from a profit standpoint are failures. If you’re an indie film, the standards are much more flexible and sometimes longevity is the best result (fun fact: Wes Anderson didn’t have a consistent rate of releasing profitable films until Moonrise Kingdom (2012)).
So where does that leave Booksmart? I understand Wilde wanting the film to succeed at all costs and her desire to raise awareness is admirable. However, the notion of labeling the film a failure in this context becomes more frustrating. People will be left asking whether it was released at the wrong time or promoted in the wrong way, but in all honesty, it did very well. For starters, R-Rated comedies start at a disadvantage. Given that neither Dever nor Feldstein were necessarily box office draws and the story didn’t have any major hook… there wasn’t much of a reason to expect this to be more than a modest success.
But here’s the kicker… Booksmart based on public information did well for itself. Not only did it make back its budget, but profited nicely. For starters, the film was said to have a budget of $6 million and would gross $25 million, which is just shy of over four times what it started with. Yes, one would expect a film with 2,500 screens to have more of a presence, but these numbers are downright enviable in some respect. I’ve seen so many indies that would love to make back four times their budget, to have so much positive buzz around it that people are still singing its praises two years later. Also, maybe Dever hasn’t become a household name YET, but there’s still time to see if Dear Evan Hansen will turn things around.
I know that comparing a film from 2019 to a Post-Pandemic world seems unfair. Booksmart had far more opportunities to reach an audience than half of this year’s theatrical releases. There weren’t restrictions or even that much paranoia that health conditions will worsen. It’s honestly a life I miss, but one that feels important when asking ourselves what is deemed a “success” in a modern lens. More importantly, why was the hook of Booksmart’s failure the idea that MAYBE every female director would lose opportunities because of Wilde?
It’s a bit unfortunate to have this outlook for a whole host of reasons, let alone that nobody knows what type of movies will be greenlit when budgets are adjusted for modern audiences. Maybe indies will be scrapped altogether if they continue to “fail.” This year is a fascinating if uncertain time for the future of cinema. With most turning to streaming options like HBO Max and Disney+ Premium, what is the incentive to even go to a theater?
The market is changing. The world is changing. It may be years before I’d expect audience attendance to return to a familiar structure that could produce a billion-dollar movie. For the time being, I don’t fault those who choose to stay home for fear of personal safety. While it looked like Coronavirus cases were going down at the start of summer, things have only worsened. States have reinstated mandates. Having sat in a crowded theater when I saw Old (2021), I personally don’t know that I’m eager to sit shoulder to shoulder with anyone again anytime soon.
The reason that I choose to address Booksmart in this context is not only because it’s a back to school period, but to highlight an egregious new trend among film fans. With every week presenting new releases, there have been complaints that films have performed poorly, that The Suicide Squad (2021) didn’t live up to its standards. Of course, the numbers considered don’t include HBO Max viewership. It doesn’t consider that people’s income isn’t always the most expendable, especially with cheaper options at home. While Disney+ got flack for selling Black Widow (2021) at home for $30, few considered that this was cheaper than a party of three going to see it WITHOUT any concessions or additional fees.
Basically, there is a need to not being hung up so much on a broad idea of what defines success. Maybe ask what defines it within the given factors. For Booksmart, it would be a miracle if it ever was the big hit that everyone wanted. I’ve supported enough indies to know that breaking even is sometimes the best you can hope for. For a film without much of a hook or name recognition in its stars, it did amazingly. It continues to do so as word of mouth keeps it in the conversation. Making back four times your budget is not a failure. In fact, it’s arguably a bigger hit from a profit standpoint than some of the Top 10 box office hits from this year who earned even 20 times what Booksmart made in its original run.
It is all about optics. Plain and simple. While it’s true that most films that are labeled as “bombs” have earned that title correctly, it is important to look at the numbers and honestly ask why each film performed the way that they did. This is less of an issue for studio films that have wider appeal, but for those without name recognition… what makes something rise or fall? Why do we call Space Jam 2 a failure but Free Guy a success when they made roughly the same amount on opening weekend? In all honesty, I think scrutinizing this in a pandemic is foolish. If you do, however, maybe realize that there’s much more going on than simply missing whatever magical bar you’ve placed for films arbitrarily.
Comments
Post a Comment