Granted the ILD film only had a low 11 mill budget, the film has done abysmally in both North America and overseas, but it is on track to making 3 times its budget, so it will make a profit, but Coen bros films have done better.
share[deleted]
Probably because Bud Grossman didn't leap up after Llewyn played for him and exclaim "That was awesome! You're my new client!"
shareThat pretty much sums it up.
The genre convention of the "struggling artist / entertainer" story has it that all the hard work, suffering and indignity will eventually pay off, and the artist will become a big success. Thus neatly conforming to the populist notion that if you want something bad enough and never give up on your dreams, then eventually all your wishes will come true.
Inside Llewyn Davis subverts this expectation by presenting us with a character who is patently not rewarded for his travails, and who will never become a success no matter how hard he tries or what indignities he suffers. The reason being that - although he's not untalented - Llewyn's talent does have a threshold. He can't transcend the limitations of the narrow world of the early sixties folk scene, and he simply lacks that extra, difficult to define ingredient that would allow him to really cross over and connect with a wider audience. As contrasted with Bob Dylan, making his appearance at the end of the movie, who does indeed have what it takes to bust out of the folk scene and make people pay attention, and in grand style.
It's this subversion of audience expectation that makes Inside Llewyn Davis truthful and poignant. Second hand record stores are chocked to the brim with the artefacts of obscure artists with a modicum of talent who were never able to turn their dreams into reality. Many more people will fail in the music business than will succeed, after all. In this sense, Inside Llewyn Davis is brutally honest. It doesn't resort to the cosy lie that wanting something bad enough will turn it into a reality.
But that's also a major bummer as far as general audiences are concerned. It's not telling them what they want to hear. It's confronting audiences with a sense of futility and failure, which is a bit too close to the bone for a lot of people to really want to get to grips with.
you are right
well put
I was a singer and your perspective is accurate
It was a small film that didn't have a wide release, so it didn't make that much money. The Coens probably don't care/are well-off enough that they can pump out a not-too-lucrative film every once in a while, and there are obviously enough folk music fans and Coen junkies out there to toss $30 million at it. Something about the spirit and message of this movie makes me think they didn't really expect or even want it to be big.
Also, it's just not a typical movie. It's hard to sell to a crowd - no easily discernible conclusion, questionable characters, melancholy tone. Compare the story and style of this with those of the highest grossing films of the year and you'll find lots of disparities.
I loved the movie even more so now after watching it for the 6th time. And I'm not a big fan of folk music although I enjoy a folk song now and then.
Why it doesn't do better in bo? Because it's not intended for mass market and it can't be. It may appeal to folk music buffs, critics and those with a thourough knowledge of cinema overall. Great film though. May Coens make more.
my vote history:
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur13767631/ratings
cthulhulurks wrote:
Because it's not intended for mass market and it can't be.I believe a very large majority of people who see the film do so because it is a Coen Brothers film, not because they have read a review and decided it is the sort of film that they like.And, of course, it is not a typical Coen Brothers film, and much of the audience is not getting what they expect. Not getting what you expect — and not knowing how to take the film — seriously interferes with enjoyment.I would suggest that some of the people who don't like the movie would've liked it a lot more if they had not expected a "Coen Brothers" movie.I happen to like slow moving films in which very little happens — they are mostly made outside the United States — but I understand that is a minority position.
Great film though. May Coens make more.I agree. If you can make movies that make money, or at least do not lose money, you can make whatever you want.I am tempted to joke that the movie should have come with a disclaimer that it is not a typical "Coen Brothers" film, but that is not going to happen for obvious reasons. share
Maybe because it sucked?
No, really. This movie was about the travails of an uninteresting and unlikeable main character. I really didn't give two sh!ts what happened to him either way. The supporting characters were completely uninvolving. That chick was supposed to be some great f@ck prize? She was incredibly unattractive, both in appearance and personality.
And folk music? Puh-leez. There's a reason why folk music isn't around. It's the same exact reason why Christopher Guest and Company made fun of it to such humorous effect in A Mighty Wind. Folk music blows.
I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.
[deleted]
$32 Million box office for an $11 Million film is a profitable movie. If you add DVDs,Digital and Pay TV, it's an even bigger financial success. If you are comparing it to a comic book film, you have unrealistic expectations.
shareMoney, money, money ... can't people come up with other more important criteria? It made enough as it was, but this movie will be remembered for the wonderful little piece of art that it was, really and truly endearing with a great surprise twist at the end ... had me laughing to tears ... and the subway ride with the cat was so sublime, incredibly atmospheric and comical ... I felt I was right smack back in 1961 again.
If a movie can do that, it can't be abysmal ...