“The Quiet American”
What is it? A Phillip Noyce-directed, Christopher Doyle-shot adaptation of Graham Greene‘s famous espionage novel from a screenplay by Christopher Hampton, the film stars Michael Caine as a jaded expat reporter, Brendan Fraser as the mild-mannered American gradually revealed to be a ruthless CIA agent, and Do Thi Hai Yen as the Vietnamese woman they are both in love with, complicating political differences with romantic rivalry too.
What the hell went wrong? In a word, timing. What more do we need to say than that this handsomely mounted, well-acted prestige film that presents a scathing view of U.S. interventionist policies abroad and features a series of terrorist bombings, had its first preview screening on September 10th, 2001? In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, Miramax got understandable, if not exactly admirable, cold feet about releasing a film whose central moral ran so precisely counter to the prevailing mood in George W. Bush‘s America, reeling after that epochal event, and teetering on the verge of a new international war. Ironically, one of the things that the film set out to do was redress the liberties taken with the source novel in the 1958 version, directed by Joseph L Mankiewicz. In that film, the attacks are wholly enacted by local communists, and are not carried out by the Americans to make it look like local communists, thus inverting the moral of Greene’s novel and turning it into, in the author’s own words “a real piece of political dishonesty.” Needless to say, that storyline would probably not have caused the same headaches for Miramax execs that Noyce and Hampton’s more faithful one did.
How did it all shake out? Essentially, Miramax sat on the film, which had not been cheap to make at about $30 million, for a year, and quietly let slip word that they were slating it for a 2003 release, presumably in the fallow early half of the year. However, following positive reviews out of its TIFF 2002 bow, Michael Caine stepped forward and forced Miramax’s hand. Wanting a release that would make the film, and therefore a performance of which he was justly proud, eligible for the 2003 Oscars, Caine threatened to pull out of promotional duties for his next Miramax film, “The Actors,” unless “The Quiet American” came out before the end of 2002. Miramax, for once, were the ones to blink and despite a crowded Oscar slate for them that year (“The Hours” and “Chicago” would go on to win big, while Noyce’s other 2002 title, “Rabbit Proof Fence,” was also in the awards frame at that point), they released the film in November. It grossed a little under $13 million nationally, and little more than that again worldwide, so it didn’t make back its production budget, but it did net Caine an Best Actor Oscar nomination. One that we bet you’ve forgotten all about (he lost to Adrien Brody).
Bitterness Level: 2/10, not a lot, as who is there to be bitter at? Al Qaeda? George W. Bush? The post 9/11 screening audiences whose reactions were so markedly different from the original ones? Everyone involved seems to have enough perspective to know that delay at least was probably inevitable, and it’s even a little surprising it wasn’t buried entirely. When the film finally got its release in November 2002, however, screenwriter Hampton told the Telegraph, “All the reasons Miramax were nervous about it are the very reasons it should be released now. It’s a way of saying, ‘Think twice before getting involved in a foreign country you know very little about.'”
“Tears Of The Black Tiger”
What is it? A completely bonkers, deeply retro, Thai western from debut director Wisi Sasanatieng, “Tears Of The Black Tiger,” an homage to the country’s classic action and melodrama films that simultaneously homaged Leone, Peckinpah, Sirk, Woo, and more, was the first Thai film ever to play Cannes. It tells the story of the romance between a poor outlaw and a wealthy woman betrothed to a police captain.
What the hell went wrong? In the early ’00s, in the wake of the success of Jackie Chan imports and “Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon,” Asian action cinema was big news. Weinstein started putting a lot of faith in these pictures, and was often proved right (“Iron Monkey,” a Donnie Yen vehicle released in Hong Kong in 1993, was put out by Miramax eight whole years later and made $14 million). A beneficiary, it seemed to begin with at least, was “Tears Of The Black Tiger,” which the company picked up after it proved a smash in Un Certain Regard at Cannes in 2000, with Weinstein loudly proclaiming that it was, “the campiest thing you’ve ever seen.” “Everyone was excited,” Sasanatieng told the LA Times later. “It was the first time a Thai film had been sold to a big U.S. company.” Harvey’s reputation preceded him, but the director said, “We were too innocent. We believed that they would respect our work. They told us again and again that everybody at Miramax loved the film so much.” The director even gave them a shorter version of the movie, but Weinstein had his own plans, with the director saying, “They didn’t allow me to re-cut it at all. They did it by themselves and then sent me the tape. And they changed the ending from tragic to happy. They said that in the time after 9/11, nobody would like to see something sad.”
How did it all shake out? Miramax screened their re-cut version at Sundance in 2002, which Sasanatieng called “horrible,” but seemed to forget about the film after that, and it languished on a shelf for years without sign that it would see the light. But eventually, Magnolia, having managed to rescue Kiyoshi Kurosawa’s “Pulse” from the studio’s vaults in a similar manner, picked up the movie after the Weinsteins left Miramax, releasing it in theaters in March 2007, nearly seven years after the Cannes premiere, to rave reviews.
Bitterness Level: 2/10 Given the impact it arguably had on his career (he’s made three films since, none of which have had much interest outside Thailand), Sasanatieng is remarkably sanguine, probably because of Magnolia’s rescue of the film. “It’s strange to have people only now seeing and talking about my first film,” he told the LA Times in 2007, “but it also makes me happy. It’s like a rebirth.”
“O”
What is it? An adaptation of William Shakespeare’s “Othello” relocated to a high school, Tim Blake Nelson’s “O” recasts the Moor as Mekhi Phifer’s star basketball player Odin, Iago as Josh Hartnett’s Hugo, jealous that his father/coach (Martin Sheen) pays Odin more attention, and Desdemona as Julia Stiles’ ill-fated Desi.
What the hell went wrong? Penned by young African-American writer Brad Kaaya, and directed by actor/director Tim Blake Nelson, who was coming off his directorial debut “Eye Of God,” the film was picked up by Bob Weinstein’s Dimension Films two days before production began, production went smoothly, and the helmer was underway on the edit when the Columbine massacre took place in the spring of 1999. “It made me want to finish the movie more quickly,” Nelson would later tell the Hartford Courant. “The film is meant to be part of a dialogue about why this is happening.” But when he screened the film to executives a month later, it was clear they didn’t share his views, with Nelson later saying, “You could just tell in the room that they were thinking, ‘What are we going to do with this now?’ The company pushed the film back, saying “we felt the responsible thing was to postpone the release due to the sensitive events occurring at that time.” But a new release date never emerged, and in the Observer Nelson blamed the “facile rhetoric” that has sprung up in the aftermath of Columbine about the effect of movie imagery, rhetoric complicated by Harvey Weinstein’s backing for the presidential campaign of Al Gore and Joe Lieberman, which was targeting on-screen violence. Producer Eric Gitter would later sue Miramax and the Weinsteins, saying that due to “potentially controversial” violence, Dimension wanted to offload the movie, and if Gitter didn’t agree, Harvey “would see to it that the film was released on 1,000 poorly venued screens at inopportune times with no public relations support.”
How did it all shake out? The lawsuit was reportedly settled, and Dimension found a suitor, with Lionsgate Films acquiring the movie, eventually putting it out at the end of August 2001, over two years after originally planned (and ironically, less than two weeks before 9/11). Reviews were mostly positive (“a serious and well-acted drama,” said the New York Daily News), though box office topped out at $16 million.
Bitterness Level: 4/10. For all the film’s problems, Nelson didn’t feel interfered with, telling The Observer, “The stories about the Weinsteins coming in and re-cutting a film never came true on this movie.” That said, he wasn’t delighted by the film’s treatment, either: asked if there was any lingering bitterness by the Hartford Courant, Nelson replied, “Certainly not that I want to talk about.”
“One Chance”
What is it? A sort of baffling-from-the-outset biopic of Paul Potts (James Corden), the downtrodden shop assistant/amateur opera singer who became a minor celebrity after winning the “Britain’s Got Talent” TV contest show. Directed by David Frankel (“The Devil Wears Prada“) written by Justin Zackham (“The Bucket List”), and co-starring Julie Walters and Colm Meaney.
What the hell went wrong? Not to belabor a point, but it’s possible to have lived through the entire “One Chance” ‘phenomenon’ — from hearing the project announced, through casting and financing and production, through to actually watching it and finding it a perfectly amiable, formulaic crowdpleaser — and still not really have any idea why on earth anyone made this movie, let alone why the Weinstein Company would throw their considerable clout behind it. But despite the constant feeling that someone somewhere was being punked, the film got itself made, Taylor Swift was even prevailed upon to add a song to the soundtrack, it debuted in a gala slot in TIFF to predictably moderate responses, and opened in the U.K. to an okayish total of just under $4 million. So, all this happened, and the whole package was ready to go for its February 2014 U.S. date before somebody experienced a sudden crisis of faith and the release was pushed back, first by a month, then to August, then finally to October.
How did it all shake out? It’s not the most dramatic delay in history, nor even on this list, but one thing makes the “One Chance” case unusual — in mid-2014, before the final date had even been settled on, TWC announced it would be partnering with Yahoo to make it available via their viewing platform before its theatrical release. In this way, it’s a more dramatic version of the “Snowpiercer” and “Margin Call” examples, with the former being successfully released VOD just weeks after its theatrical bow and the latter apparently profiting from a day-and-date schedule. “One Chance”‘s advance Yahoo deal, by contrast, feels distinctly tepid, and while we can’t know if it would have done better without it, the film only grossed $100k from its eventual 43-theater release.
Bitterness Level: Publicly? -20/10! Everyone’s just suuper delighted about this film! No one has a bad word to say about anyone, despite the fact that it didn’t break even, and even those people who liked it immediately forgot it existed. Why is that exactly? Here’s a potential reason, from this hard-hitting interview with director Frankel: “I’m hoping to do another movie with Harvey Weinstein. He’s a great collaborator, a remarkable man, and someone who is so important to the movie business worldwide. He has a great eye for storytelling and for talent. It’s been a great collaboration this past year and I’m hoping to repeat it.”
