Columbia wasted a lot of money on this
Isn't that insane? I can't believe how much money and free reign Sofia Coppola actually got. Has any other auteur director ever gotten this much money? I wonder how that happened.
shareAccording to IMDB:
Budget: $40 million - a lot of money, but not that much for a studio-financed movie
Gross, worldwide (at 2007): $60 million and change.
Add in marketing costs (which I don't think are in the budget figure?) and revenue from licensing to cable, streaming, DVDs, and I think it was profitable, though only modestly.
What's an "auteur director"?
That gross is wrong, this movie flopped big time. Auteur cinema? How do you say it?
share[deleted]
I don't have any independent information on the gross.
Actually, I think the math I cited would make it moderately unprofitable, after you figure everything in. Not the worst ever, but still a loser.
I'm having a hard time figuring out what defines one movie director as an "auteur" and another as "not an auteur." If it's someone who has a large degree of control - e.g. one who writes his or her own screenplays - I'm pretty confident James Cameron gets hefty budgets. If it means someone who makes movies with a low budget, it's kind of self-proving (or, in this case, self-negating). "The largest budget ever provided to someone who makes movies with smaller budgets"?
That's so strange that you don't know what auteur is, I'm talking about filmmakers like Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick, Pedro Almodovar who have a signature style that is easily recognizable and it often becomes intrusive. Pedro Almodovar's movies are no longer tolerable, he is basically screaming with his cinematography because it is so intrusive, it is very annoying. Sofia Coppola is an auteur but less annoying than others I guess.
From what I remember from back in the day when this was released, the movie lost a lot of money.
I - like everyone - know what "auteur" refers to.
What I'm having trouble figuring out is what it means in this context. Having a signature style that remains the same from movie to movie isn't what I'd normally consider the criterion. A filmmaker who has control of the style of each of his movies, but changes what he feels like doing from movie to movie, is the "auteur" of each of his movies, even though he chooses to use that control differently from film to film. Or, a director who's recognized as the source of movie greatness (rather that screenplay, or acting, or whatever) might be considered more of an "auteur" than others. Or, a director who makes the projects he likes without paying attention to commercial concerns might be termed an "auteur." This last one seems vaguely applicable here, but it's just circular in this context (back to "biggest budget for a low budget movie").
Why would a director with a signature style get smaller budgets, anyway? A director who insists on total control might - on the theory that the financers trust their money on bets over which they have more input - but that's not born out in practice (see James Cameron, mentioned above). Of course the directors who get credit for their movies' success are more likely to get bigger budgets, rather than smaller ones.
Moreover, I don't think Sofia Coppola really has a signature style that's easily recognizable. At least not any more so than a good 40-60% of movie directors.
Terence Malick is far more recognizable than she is (indeed, people notice his style when it briefly pops up in other people's movies ... like this one, for example). The Thin Red Line had a bigger budget than this movie. Same for Quentin Tarantino and Django Unchained.
On the "what people thought" thing:
- It did lose money, I think (anyway, the figures would suggest that).
- People who make observations about movies' business (at least American movies) often ignore foreign box office.
I don't know why you are confused, she is definitely an auteur. They get big budgets when they've had a string of hits, she never got that, that's why the budget for Marie Antoinette is unusual, at least in my opinion.
share