Regarding Box Office


Does anyone have any insight into why this brilliant film musical died at the box office when it openedin 1969? I think this musical reeks of brilliance and cannot understand why people didn't clamor to see it. God, I would love to see this movie in a real movie theater.

reply

I really hate to be one of those people because i love every movie i see, but it wasn't that good of a movie. That's probably why it bombed. the play is so much better.

reply

Could you be a little more specific..."but it wasn't that good of a movie" is kind of a generic answer...what didn't you like about it? I would really like to know.

reply

........maybe it was the long running time for the film.

reply

The movie is long, but I guess I find it so entertaining I don't feel it. If a movie is really good, it can be really long and you don't feel it. Movies like LA CONFIDENTIAL, CRASH, SCARFACE, THE GODFATHER and GOODFELLAS are all long movies but there are so engrossing you don't feel it.

reply

[deleted]

It was made at a time when film musicals were losing popularity. I think that is the main reason.

reply

It was VERY expensive, critics I think weren't sold on Fosse's somewhat experimental style (and as much as I love his direction for the film you can tell he was still discovering how to direct a film and how "out there" he could go--ie the crazy zooms, etc--though personally I love that), it was LONG, musicals were dieing, the film has a very disjointed story which again I love but there's no real central character for the First Act except Charity--and I think that kinda thing works bette ron stage where the spectacle of big production number after another really captures an audience--in a movie they often want a more driven story focus...

E

reply

Many of the above comments are accurate but I think there are other reasons this terrific musical (which I saw in its original roadshow engagement) tanked at the box-office. Yes, the big scale musical was dying. There were five released just months before SC, only two, Funny Girl and Oliver were certified hits. Also Sweet Charity came out in one of the most turbulent, yet very best years for Hollywood movies. Universal spent a lot of money on this picture which recieved some very good notices. However in order to try and reach the biggest possible audience, the movie, despite its rather raunchy subject matter was given a G rating. The conventional wisdom may have been that all big budget musicals should recieve this rating since they mainly appealed to older audiences. However, Universal marketed it to the younger crowd (The Musical of the 70s)and even featured one big number, the Rhythm of Life with Sammy Davis Jr. and a chorus of pot-smoking hippies to go along with the more conventional numbers. With pictures such as Midnight Cowboy and The Wild Bunch in release around the same time, the idea of a G-rated musical just didn't go over with younger crowds. There there was the choice of the stronger bittersweet ending instead of the traditional happy endings of musical comedies. By trying to appeal to both diverse movie audiences, it ended up appealing to neither. It really is a shame the movie didn't succeed at the box-office (which may have also cost Shirley MacLaine a deserved best Actress Oscar nomination) and was for years disowned by Fosse and under-rated by film goers. Luckily, its reputation has grown over the years and stands up well against some of the over-produced whales (Doctor Dolittle, Oliver!, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang) of the era. BTW-the DVD is well worth picking up even though it doesnt include the Exit Music.

reply

Wow you know your stuff. Very good points and probably all true (I'm still a bit amazed it got a G and not a PG though the raunch was toned down *slightly* from the stage original of course...). I didn't realize Fosse disowned it...

Here's one thing I feel liek I may regret admitting though--I actually think the happier ending (the alternate ending on the DVD) works BETTER for the film... While I love the Fairy Godmother ending on stage,a nd I liek the film ending with the flower children--I think for a movie and audiences expectations it may have actually made more sense to go with the originally filmed ending...

Also I think this is an example where th eoriginal roadshow intermission (mirroring the stage intermission) being used makes a lot more sense. Sitting through such a picaresque style story in a musical in the theatre for the whole thign with no break I think kinda leaves the audience tired--the intermission changes that.

E

reply

I think Fosse made a lot of first-time mistakes as director. The cutesy reverse motion shots in "If They Could See Me Now", the repetition of phrases in the same song, the cuts, the slow motion running, and those abominable freeze frames that are used over and over. I'm not talking about the stills indicating the passage of time, those are lovely but the freeze frames at the beginning, and in the "Weddings" sequence where they add nothing to the narrative. It comes across like Fosse discovered a cool camera effect and was playing with it while the scene was shot. And how many times did we need Charity shouting, "He loves me!" while the camera zooed out? Twice would have been enough.

Plus, the film is interminable. Scenes go on for far too long - good lord, how long WAS that stalled elevator sequence? It may work on DVD at home, but I'm sure at the time as films were changing, people may have been restless.

reply

for mp989 -

You're not alone in feeling that the alternate "happy" ending actually works better for SWEET CHARITY. I remember seeing the film with my parents during its initial roadshow engagement; I loved the performances & Bob Fosse's choreography, but my parents (who weren't cinephiles - just normal, everyday folks who caught films now & then) had one criticism: "It should have had a happy ending." Charles Champlain, the film critic for the LA Times, wrote an extremely positive review for CHARITY, but when he was putting together his year-end 10-Best list, he found that he wanted to include CHARITY but had problems doing so because of the film's "down" ending.

I know Fosse was trying to keep to the spirit of Fellini's NIGHTS OF CABIRIA, but the fairy-tale quality of his adaptation ("Once upon a time, there lived a girl who wanted to be loved...") led people to believe there would be a typical fairy-tale ending. And the more I see the alternate "happy" ending, the more I think it suits the film - because it isn't really a traditional "happily ever after" conclusion. Sure, Oscar and Charity have decided to give marriage a try, but he warns her the chances against them are "a hundred to one." However, as far as Charity is concerned, those are the best odds she's ever had - and she's happy to accept them. (I assume the writing for this scene was done by Peter Stone, and I think he did a very good job.)

And with the alternate "happy" ending, the film begins & ends with a plunge into the lake - a symmetrical touch that I like very much.

reply

I saw this too when it was first released but didn't like the ending at all. It works for the Fellini film (a drama) but for a 2 1/2hr musical comedy whose sole reason for existence is to be entertaining it falls flat and is totally at odds with the rest of the movie. I agree with another poster, the flower children felt dated in 1969/1970 when I first saw it, don't know why it did, but it did. I didn't know about the alternate ending until the advent of the dvd. This ending fits in perfectly with the rest of the film, a nice little fairy tale ending ("..and she lived hopefully ever after"). Realists will pick up on the clues in the dialogue that things probably won't be fine, but it's the "right" ending for this production--and MacLaine looking up to heaven with her hands clasped in desperate prayer mode mouthing the words "Thank You" is a wonderful comic exit.

reply

You are so correct. At this time, Fox was bankrupt for financing 3 expensive movies: Dr. Doolittle, Star and Hello, Dolly, to the tune of almost $100 million.
A little movie called MASH saved the studio. Paramount lost a ton on Paint Your Wagon and MGM bombed with Goodbye Mr. Chips. Only Cabaret and Fiddler on the Roof made money during that era. After the dreadful Man of La Mancha, Lost Horizon and At Long Last Love, musicals stopped being made. Chicago pretty much renewed Hollywood's faith in musicals on film. So pleased we're past that dreadful period. Thankfully, too, we have so many classics on disc!

reply

Fox was NOT bankrupted at that time. THE SOUND OF MUSIC was still in release and making money, PLANET OF THE APES pulled in huge grosses, but DOLITTLE, STAR! and DOLLY were massive flops that cost about $58 million to produce (nowhere near $100 million) and only earned, collectively, about $30 million domestically. The studio would lose another huge sum of money on the non-musical TORA! TORA! TORA! but earn really big bucks with both M*A*S*H and PATTON. THE POSEIDON ADVENTURE was another phenomenally successful film for Fox, as was THE FRENCH CONNECTION. There were others as well, enough to keep the studio solvent.

Plenty of other studios were losing vast amounts of investment because musicals were expensive to produce and failing to ignite the box office the way the had been earlier (although, yes--THOROUGHLY MODERN MILLIE, OLIVER!, FUNNY GIRL, FIDDLER ON THE ROOF and CABARET all were big hits). A FUNNY THING HAPPENED ON THE WAY TO THE FORUM, HOW TO SUCCEED IN BUSINESS WITHOUT REALLY TRYING, CAMELOT, FINIAN'S RAINBOW, PAINT YOUR WAGON, ON A CLEAR DAY YOU CAN SEE FOREVER, THE BOY FRIEND, 1776, JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR, GODSPELL, LOST HORIZON, MAME, AT LONG LAST LONG, MAN OF LA MANCHA, DARLING LILI, FUNNY LADY and THE LITTLE PRINCE represented hundreds of millions of dollars in rights and production costs and realized little or no returns on investment, and it had nothing to do with their quality (some were very good, some fair, some poor)--middle-aged and older people stopped going to movies in general, and college &high school kids became the target audience. They didn't give a fig for song-and-dance pictures. That kind of "silly" thing was for their grandparents. The genre lost its appeal, just as westerns and biopics--once the triumvirate staple of all studio production--had. SHE LOVES ME and SAY IT WITH MUSIC, both projects intended for Julie Andrews, were cancelled outright (although she was paid her contractual $1.2 million for SLM because the studio could write off the expenditure and not risk losing another $15-20 million to make it) and few studios were bidding on the rights for even successful Broadway properties of the time period: HAIR wouldn't make it to the big screen until 1979, when it flopped resoundingly; PROMISES, PROMISES and COMPANY were never even seriously considered for movie adaptations.

Musicals are my favorite kinds of entertainment and I am sorry that so many poor versions with no box office success virtually killed the genre. While it has had some intermittent success since CHICAGO and properties are being risked, we will never again see their like. More's the pity.

Thank you, thank you--you're most kind. In fact you're every kind.

reply

PROMISES, PROMISES and COMPANY were never even seriously considered for movie adaptations
A film version of Promises, Promises was indeed being planned around 1973-74. Dustin Hoffman and Liza Minnelli were mentioned for the leads, and Bacharach even wrote a new song for it called "Seconds" (with a lyric by Neil Simon, who also wrote the screenplay). The song was recorded by Gladys Knight and the Pips (after the film was canceled I think).





"You must sing him your prettiest songs, then perhaps he will want to marry you."

reply

First I ever heard of it, but I trust your knowledge and judgment. Liza would have been okay; Hoffman would have been bloody awful.

Thank you, thank you--you're most kind. In fact you're every kind.

reply

I didn't know it failed, but it's a shame it did, though not surprising. The Producers, another brilliant film musical that I found almost similar in tone, also bombed at the box office. However, I think like Sweet Charity, that film will be considered a classic in future years.

"I was born in Düsseldorf and that is why they call me Rolf."

reply

1969 was also the year of another musical disaster, PAINT YOUR WAGON. Yet Hollywood continued with big-budget musical flops such as 1776, SONG OF NORWAY, LOST HORIZON, MAN OF LA MANCHA and MAME. And in-between the flops were two successes, FIDDLER ON THE ROOF and CABARET.

"Somewhere along the line the world has lost all of its standards and all of its taste."

reply

It's less of a musical and more of a dancical. Not as large an audience for that.
There are story problems too, and a tendency to go over the top a lot.

reply