Who We Are
Advertisement
The Tribal Mind: Hens just want to have fun
To discuss the best lines ever written for Australian television, go to The dialogue.
by David Dale
A movie currently playing around Australia is being advertised with this quote: "Bonneville has the unmistakable feel of a tearjerker. It has been a long while since an older female demographic had a film to make them laugh and cry in the manner of Steel Magnolias or Fried Green Tomatoes."
Would that make you want to go and see Bonneville? It doesn't work for me, but then, I am not the target audience. The ad is aimed at the hot new niche in moviegoing: mature women. This is the year of the Henflick.
Yes, I realise that a few weeks ago, this column declared it to be The Year of the Brainy Blockbuster. That was because of the extraordinary performance of The Dark Knight, which has so far sold four million tickets in Australia and replaced Harry Potter and The Philosopher's Stone as No. 7 biggest moneymaker of all time.
But if you look at this year's box office chart, you see an even more unusual phenomenon: 1 The Dark Knight $44 million; 2 Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull $29.5m; 3 Mamma Mia! $29.5m; 4 Sex and The City $27m; 5 Kung Fu Panda $26m.
Until this year, the top 50 moneymakers of all time included only two chickflicks: My Big Fat Greek Wedding, which earned $28 million in 2002 and Moulin Rouge, which earned $28 million in 2001 (unless you count Titanic, which made $58 million by combining elements of the chick flick, the action thriller and the epic fantasy).
The advent of Mamma Mia! and Sex and the City has doubled the chick flick quota in the list, which includes 25 epic fantasies (such as the Lord of the Rings trilogy, the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy, and the Harry Potter quintet), 14 family comedies (such as Shrek 2, Crocodile Dundee, Babe and Finding Nemo) and, as of this month, four chickflicks (for details on the all-time moneymakers, go to The films Australia loved).
You can see where there's room for growth, at relatively low cost. Filmmakers are rushing to fill the gap, except that their present targets are not the teenage girls who went to see Titanic four times each, but women over 30 -- the tearjerkees nominated by the advertisers of Bonneville.
Not all the new henflicks thrive -- Baby Mama, about a 37 year old woman who craves a child, has made only $1.8m in 2 weeks, as fans of Tina Fey discover she's not nearly as funny as in her TV series 30 Rock. Bonneville made only $81,000 in its first week, which won't even cover the cost of the newspaper ads. The mature chicks may not like being analysed, compartmentalised and patronised.
The next big push for their attention will be Australia, which is Baz Luhrman's attempt to hit the Titanic trifecta. But at the risk of making a fool of myself with another prediction, I reckon the year end box office chart will show Mamma Mia! (soon to be re-released in a "singalong" version) ahead of Australia. Unlike Luhrman, it does not take itself too seriously.
Give us your prediction at Comments
David Dale is the author of Who We Are -- A snapshot of Australia today (Allen and Unwin). To discuss Australian attitudes, go to http://blogs.sunherald.com.au/whoweare.
COMMENTS
I'm right in the elderly henflick demographic - mid 60s, retired, love movies - but frankly the advertising for Bonneville turns me right off. For my money it would take a lot to beat Barbarian Invasion for a flick that clicked my age-group's buttons.
Rangdalion
- by Heleanor Feltham on September 08, 2008 at 10:52 AM
I'm right in the demographic, and I was turned off Baby Mama by the trailer. I thought it made the movie look like a complete dog, something I would cross the road to avoid.
That said, going to the movies this year has been downright FUN. Sex in the City and Mamma Mia - I'm in no danger of mistaking them for Citizen Kane, but they were fun and frivolous escapism, and great for a night out with friends... with husbands happy to say "Just go, have a great time, I'll take the kids (anything, just please don't ask me to come and see it with you!)" - in my demographic I couldn't tell you when there was last a movie that we "all" went to (unless you count the kids' movies we endure each school holidays!).
May there be many more.
- by Hermione on September 08, 2008 at 02:09 PM
Wow, The Dark Knight is absolutely killing it. As for 'Australia' I did hear fox were hoping this would become our highest grossing movie. 60mill is a bit of stretch but if it's quality it could have a chance.
- by seanie on September 08, 2008 at 07:08 PM
I'm predicting Big Stinker for "Australia" ... Nicole killed-it-dead Kidman peaked with BMX Bandits and has gone south since then. Apart from Dead Calm and (sort of) Bangkok Hilton, everything she has done has reaked. I don't get the success of this woman - she's a nobody, who then marries Tom Cruise and becomes a gossip mag star, gets a heap of lead roles and bombs almost every one of them. There are so many to think of:
Golden Compass, Stepford Wives, Bewitched, The Human Stain (now there's a top name for a movie you want to bomb out quickly), Peacemaker, Batman Forever...the list goes on. I think as the freckles and ginger afro disappeared, so too did the acting talent.
Plus, the sweeping beauty of Australia's landscape looks great in the preview, but I don't think the storyline will really ring true with international audiences, or younger viewers, and that's where the money is for blockbusters.
- by NK on October 17, 2008 at 06:37 AM
Re Mamma Mia, TM wrote: "Unlike Luhrman, it does not take itself too seriously."
And that is precisely why Australia will flop. The man could turn a ingrown nail into a three hour drama and about as many people would be interested in watching it. I was mildly curious about the film until the title was announced and then I realised that it would be another example of Lurhman trying to establish exactly how far up his own ..... he could get. It is a pity because I like Hugh Jackman and normally I would be tempted. Now I would only go if I could organise a group of friends so we could go to the pub after and do our own version of the reviews doctors do when a patient dies in their care.
- by Cat on October 17, 2008 at 07:42 AM
Re the movie AUSTRALIA - I would really like the film to do well - not so much for KIDMAN and JACKMAN who's pockets are already cash injected BUT for the AUSTRALIAN FILM INDUSTRY - and our tourism industry - that would be a positive.
My biggest fear is for a movie to make more than 100 million (and this has to to break even) it needs to do well in the US and I just don't think the americans are going to like it - a period piece set in a country they know little about with a couple of leads that are a bit on the nose - didn't russell crowe bail on the movie because of scripting issues - maybe a bad omen to start with!!
Even the title AUSTRALIA is kinda off putting and a tad 'self indulgent' -I cant predict whether audiences overseas will be that interested - if it does well here and in Britain then maybe it will do ok in the US. Remember Nicole Kidman and period pieces generally aren't goood money earners at the box office - think FAR AND AWAY with Tom Cruise - it didn't go far and simply got swept away at the box office!!
- by GJ on October 17, 2008 at 09:24 AM
As one of the 4 people on the planet who has never seen Titanic (I'm ideologgically opposed to it - the movie coincided with the murder of the NRL by News Ltd/Super League, and Titanic was a Fox movie) I'm no judge of big movies. It'll flop here, not just because of the crappy movie name, but because of the poor timing of release. 5 days before the start of summer, and 3 weeks before the start of school hols.
What 7.26 year old in his right mind would be dragged kicking and screaming to still still through a 3 hour movie?
There's not only Hugh bringing the pretty. David Wenham's not bad either! But their combined prettiness and possible shirtlessness won't convince me.
- by Bereft Skerrick on October 17, 2008 at 09:28 AM
Bereft Skerrick, I'm one of the other 3. I had no ideological objection, except that spending three hours watching a ship sink (sorry to spoil the ending) was a waste of life. And at the time Leonardo DeCaprio was being described as resembling a 13 year old anorexic lesbian (not my words). Didn't tickle my fancy. Or float my boat.
As for 'AUSTRALIA!!!!!' (why do I picture Oprah Winfrey shouting that title?), I think the line between Movie and Tourism ad has been well & truly blurred and getting blurrier (Channel Nine & Seven seem to have adopted it which does not bode well in itself). It'll be like sitting through three hours of Lara Bingle-Clark saying "Where the bloody hell are ya?". Not appealing.
Although it should appeal to 'Sunrise' viewers.
- by darren on October 17, 2008 at 10:50 AM
If Moulin Rouge could do so well in Australia back in the day, I can't see Austraila being a bomb here (box office amount, not compared to budget). It will get >$15m for sure.
As to overseas, I don't think it will be received that well. Maybe US$50m in America? And a bit more outside Australia/America? Which would still convert well given our shocking exchange rate.
- by arthur on October 17, 2008 at 10:55 AM
Bereft...Make that 6 that haven't seen Titanic (Mrs PJ & me).
Australia - Not for the stars but all the other people in the industry this movie has to succeed. But the flogging it's going to get "marketing" wise it may turn the home market off going to see it. I'm sure I saw banner type adverts on the bottom of the tv screen over the last couple of nights during shows.
- by PJ453 on October 17, 2008 at 11:31 AM
I'm a huge fan of Baz Luhrmann - but I'm wondering how this style of film will suit his style of direction and styling. Moulin Rouge is so bright, a bit out there, stylistically stunning and very theatrical. Australia seems to be down and dirty, so I'm very intrigued to see how it will go. In our little microcosm here at work, I did a little lunchtime survey, and about 15 out of 30 want to see it and will actually go to the cinemas to see it. Mr Beckala will of course come and see it, primarily becaue he loves tv shows and movies that are Australian, and loves the idea of the landscapes being on the big screen. We don't go to the movies that often, so when we do, it's has to be for something that is worth seeing on the big screen (except for when we saw Mamma Mia in London to kill some time before we flew home. He's still complaining about being forced to watch it! I then had to counter back that he forced me to see a Nicholas Cage double at the drive ins, then fell asleep, so I had to watch it alone. The complaints have now stopped!!)
I think (hope?) that it will do really well in the US markets - they love Luhrmann, Moulin Rouge, his version of La Boheme and of course, my fave movie Romeo and Juliet (i'm a school teacher, you have no idea how much EASIER it is to teach Shakespeare thanks to what Luhrmann did with his film). I also think they'd be more interested to see the big landscape style scenes more than we are, because we are able to access that kind of area quite easily - the bush isn't that far away. They will probably lap it up.
- by Beckala on October 17, 2008 at 11:57 AM
I predict expensive dud not making back its expensive budget. Nicole has now topped the least return on salary twice in a row so her box office appeal has waned, Hugh Jackman used to have nice box appeal but after his Vegas show, he may not be able to salvage the movie on his own... the little Aboriginal actor seems great but as an unknown, he may not be able to salvage it. Unlike last summer, the movie also will open during a period of big block busters openings so it will have strong competition.
Tribal Mind asks: LIke to put their money where your mouth is? Go to Australia to make a prediction.
- by Kate on October 17, 2008 at 05:31 PM
POST A COMMENT
Comments Terms & Conditions
When posting comments on blogs you agree to abide by our terms and conditions.
Comments that are offensive, defamatory, unsuitable or that breach any aspects of the terms will be deleted.
Advertisement
RECENT ENTRIES
- The Tribal Mind: the urst shark you can dream
- The Who We Are update: TEN still on top. Who needs Big Brother when there are cooks around?
- The Tribal Mind: Shock to the top
- WHO WE ARE: Holly, holly, holly, oi, oi, oi
- The Who We Are update: Week 24
- The Tribal Mind: It's all fun and games
- The Who We Are update: Week 24
- The Tribal Mind: The diary of all the Joneses
- WHO WE ARE: Healthy, wealthy and wise, or none of the above
- WHO WE ARE: The films Australia loved
ARCHIVES
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
| member centre | network map | mobile | advertise with us | place a classified ad |
Four Criteria for spotting a dud flick in Australia
1. If the film's newspaper advertisements carry no comment from David or Andrea, it's a dud
2. If the film's first-week premiere venues include Imax, its a multi-dimensional dud
3. If an A-list star travels Downunder to promote its release, the movie is a Big Desperate Dud. (EG: Meryl Streep, for Mama Mia)
4. The longer, and louder, the in-cinema-preview; the worser the film it promotes. A three-minute, screaming on-screen essay predicts a stinking, sinking dud.
Addendum:
5. If you choose to see a sequel, make a contract with yourself. "I know this will be a dud, but I choose to go anyway." By using a pre-empting statement, you lessen the pain, and open yourself to the few small good bits that slip out.