MovieChat Forums > Darling Lili (1970) Discussion > Paramount's role in the film's failure -...

Paramount's role in the film's failure -

posted 13 years ago by mikwalen
12 replies | jump to latest

I've read on another post by a very knowledgeable aource that Paramount deliberately held this film back from release and even when it did release it, the did not promote or market it too strenuously.

My question - after spending 25 million on a movie, WHY would you have a death wish for it? Didn't Evans (the studio chief) realize that he was only hurting himself and his studio?

"I'm the only person here I've never heard of" - Charity Hope Valentine, SWEET CHARITY

[–] milliedil 13 years ago

It's not at all unusual for a new studio regime to effectively "sink" the product of its predecessors (it happens in politics all the time, doesn't it?), especially since the failure can be used as a tax write off. Evans raised the value of his own stock by undercutting his predecessors'.

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

[–] mikwalen 13 years ago

Wow. It just seemed to me that they'd be cutting off their nose to spite their face!

But when you bring up "tax write-off", that explains a lot!

"I'm the only person here I've never heard of" - Charity Hope Valentine, SWEET CHARITY

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] markedjuan 13 years ago

Paramount also did the same thing to On A Clear Day You Can See Forever. Minimal advertising and no roadshow presentation.

[–] milliedil 13 years ago

Comparatively little of Darling Lili was actually filmed in California, and all of it interiors. About 70% was filmed in France, 15% in Ireland (all aerial combat footage), and 5% in Belgium, which was used only because the 1968 student riots in Paris had caused so many disruptions and delays that the studio was eating cost overrages for breakfast.

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

[–] robert4770 13 years ago

I thought this was a roadshow?

[–] InherentlyYours 9 years ago

usually studios will do this when they have a turkey on their hands and don't wish to throw good money after bad. Both this film and STAR received very mediocre reviews.

[–] Paris1975 8 years ago

STAR! actually received a raft of absolute rave reviews in Britain (it made money there), where everyone still knew who Gertrude Lawrence was. It received a few positive reviews in the USA but most reviews were indifferent or negative, in part because American film audiences generally didn't know who Lawrence was or care about her. It also wasn't FUNNY GIRL, which had caught fire at the box office and made Barbra Streisand a movie star shortly before STAR! was released. STAR! was originally scheduled to be released a few months before FUNNY GIRL but was, for some reason, delayed. One wonders if an earlier release would have made for a better reception at the box office. Once FUNNY GIRL was out, STAR! was essentially doomed.

DARLING LILI got some good reviews stateside (Richard Schickel loved it in Life magazine), but mostly pans (Rex Reed called it "a floating dinosaur" on The Dick Cavett Show). Both films were lovingly made and beautifully produced but they were, unfortunately, seriously out of synch with what was happening culturally and, as a result, neither found an audience for what had become old-fashioned and irrelevant.

"What do you mean I have no signature?"

[–] InherentlyYours 8 years ago

The film was doomed with or with or without Funny Girl, due to the mediocre director, and his wife. Then baby Blake went on to cry and whine over Hollywood's reaction of him.

[–] Paris1975 8 years ago

Mediocre? You must certainly be absolutely correct, for I suspect you well understand every facet of mediocrity from the inside out. Please come back and tell us more about it all when your box office totals exceed $2 billion globally.

"What do you mean I have no signature?"

[–] InherentlyYours 8 years ago

My box-office need not be high, since I am not a director; the board is for self-absorbed Edwards, as if I have to explain that.

If Edwards is so superlative, why so many universal critical bombs? Bad luck? I never said he didn't direct some good films. His late 60's films with his wife were not just failures due to the times, but also critically. (read up on them) Even SOB/"10" were so-so received, regardless of box-office. You have the problem with your lame hostility.

Oh, wait you're with the millidill crowd--no wonder.

[–] Paris1975 8 years ago

And you're still quite clearly unrecovered from your MGH botched surgery, Jimellis. And have you stopped (finally) also bashing Patty Duke? Caught you. Called you out.

"What do you mean I have no signature?"