MovieChat Forums > Me and Orson Welles (2009) Discussion > Why was this not distributed properly?

Why was this not distributed properly?


I frankly adored this film... It was one of the most charming films I've ever seen, and the performance of Mr McKay cannot be undervalued. But in addition to that, a movie with Claire Danes and Zac Efron, directed by the guy who did School of Rock, about one of Hollywood's most iconic and influential figures should have been handled with much more respect, and given a proper shot to succeed; it's opening weekend was less than 100,000 dollars for chrissakes.

In a world where Clerks II (Which I also loved, for the record) can take in 10 million dollars on opening weekend, someone explain to me why this wonderful film couldn't have done at least that if not more were it properly marketed, based solely on the people involved.

It just makes no sense that a film this good was seen by absolutely nobody.

-"Everybody get down! No one follows us, or I kill myself and then her!"

reply

I was gonna say, I'm surprised it had problems being distributed. It has a lot of box office appeal! Ridiculous.

just sayin.

reply

Basically the distributor didn't have the money to give it a proper release and so it was essentially buried.

It's a real tragedy too since I agree that this is a wonderful film that deserved a lot more attention than it received.

reply

Linklater has explained the situation in interviews when he was promoting M&OW. 2008 was a terrible year for getting indy films distributed. The economic decline had scared all the distributors who didn't want to take any risks. Apparently, there are a lot of added costs in distribtion, cost of prints, cost of advertising, etc. Despite good reviews at the Toronto Film Festival, no one was willing to risk $15-$20 million to give this movie wide distribution. Efron didn't add any push in the distributors' minds because this movie wouldn't appeal to his teen fan-base. So the original financers, CinemaNX, basically paid for distribution to selected theaters, 180 in U.K. and 130 in U.S. $67K on opening weekend wasn't bad for an art film on just four screens.

Thank God for cable. Millions of viewers have now had a chance to see this movie, one of the most remarkable of 2009. Hollywood should be ashamed of itself for its failure to provide some way to distribute this fine film and for its failure to recognize McKay with at least a nomination or two.

reply

I don't know. I mean it had Efron for starters, but besides that, the tone of the film would work well with audiences. It's a shame really...




Best Ending: 1996 http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000007/nest/188267329

reply

Linklater has basically told the story. 2008 was a terrible year for selling indy films to distributors, because the economic downturn scared them and no one was taking any risks (it actually costs a lot of additional money to distribute a movie, cost of prints, cost of promotion, etc.). M&OW didn't fit any of the standard commercial categories, and they didn't think Efron added any push because this movie didn't appeal to his teen-fan demographic. So, even with good reviews from Toronto Film Festival, etc., no one would risk $15-$20 million to provide wide distribution of this movie. The investors (CinemaNX) basically paid the cost themselves to get it screened in UK (about 180 screens) and US (130 screens). Advertising was naturally limited. $67K from four screens on opening weekend wasn't that bad for an art film. Let's all thank God for cable and DVDs, especially cable. M&OW has been seen by millions of viewers who didn't get a chance to see it at a neighborhood theater.

reply

I don't remember seeing this movie on any of the cable channels and I have almost every pay cable channel out there.

reply

I agree. One on the most charming films I have ever seen. A real pity that it was buried. Wonderful story, dead on performances. McKay's perfomance was awesome. What a gem of a film!

reply

Agreed. It was a charming film that was well cast about an amazing man that many people today have forgotten.

reply

This film was a tough sell at the time of release mainly because Zac Efron had not yet fully transitioned from teen hearthrob star (High School Musical, 17 Again) to romantic drama leading man (Charlie St. Cloud, The Lucky One).

Lack of a more well known actor playing Orson Welles also hurt the movie. I can't deny Christian McKay was the right man for the role and gave a phenomenal performance, yet he simply isn't a household name.

Third reason is the concept was an overall very tough sell.

reply