For roughly 30 years the blockbuster era of Hollywood has seen holidays serve as the apex of major film releases. Hollywood has, quite logically, figured out that horror movies like \The Ring"" generally do better released in October. Thanksgiving, or the week before it, has been the best release date for large, usually family-oriented productions like the first two ""Harry Potter"" films. That leaves Christmas, which serves as the major studio outlet for films like ""Cold Mountain,"" which will hopefully become both box office draws and Academy Award winners. However, 2004 has seen many deviations from this schedule.
""The Passion of the Christ,"" currently the third highest-grossing movie of the year, was released at the end of February just in time for Ash Wednesday. Its release date has more significance than most other films, though usual Hollywood strategy might have pushed it back for a Christmas release since Ash Wednesday (or Easter) falls in a film release period that results in few winners, critically or commercially. Perhaps some wouldn't want to spend Christmastime seeing the most violent film ever made, but keep in mind that ""The Exorcist"" opened Dec. 26, 1973 and did phenomenal business. Still, it's hard to argue with success, as the performance of ""Passion"" exceeded almost everyone's expectations, probably even Mel Gibson's.
Though ""Passion"" managed to succeed independently of any holiday association, this proved to be the exception and not the rule. Perhaps the stupidest move in holiday movie history, this October saw the DreamWorks premiere ""Surviving Christmas"" just in time for Halloween, competing with such holly jolly fare as ""The Grudge"" and ""Saw."" It's not hard to imagine why the studio abandoned any hope for the film, as it has garnered reviews that make ""Gigli"" look favorable by comparison. But when you have a Christmas-themed movie, you have to release it after Halloween if there is to be any chance for recouping expenses, yet alone a profit. But if nothing else, Ben Affleck's most recent attempt at career suicide provides us with an extremely interesting, perhaps unanswerable question: Who is more foolish-the filmmakers of ""Surviving Christmas"" or the studio executives who decided the release date for it?
And then there is last weekend's ""The Polar Express."" On paper, it seems as if the film has all the ingredients to be a huge success: animation, good source material, a Thanksgiving release, Tom Hanks, etc. Yet ""The Polar Express"" opened in second place with a total of $23 million, lagging far behind ""The Incredibles."" $23 million is no small sum for an opening weekend, but big budget films with a holiday release usually shoot for an amount at least double what ""Polar Express"" did. Reviews and word of mouth don't seem likely to help, as the film has been labeled lukewarm at best, signaling that Robert Zemeckis' latest film probably won't become a big hit.
So what is keeping audiences away? Are people finally sick of Tom Hanks, as the so-so performances of this year's ""The Terminal"" and ""The Ladykillers"" would reconfirm? Hardly. Even the biggest stars have an off year. What is happening, or at least what I hope is happening, is that people are weary of another great children's book being turned into potentially mediocre cinema (Who wouldn't be scared after not one, but two dreadful Dr. Seuss adaptations?). But it's only been one weekend.
Perhaps ""The Polar Express"" will match the success of last year's ""Elf."" Or maybe next weekend will see it all but disappear from theaters. The questionable future of ""The Polar Express"" shows that even though Hollywood would like them to be, holiday releases are not a sure thing. Film is an art, not a formula, and there are numerous factors at work beyond anyone's foresight. Maybe there is even a hit film in Ben Affleck's future, though I do not look forward to swatting away flying pigs on my way to the theatre to see it.
ddmarfield@wisc.edu.
