The Money Post

We're coming off the biggest Thanksgiving weekend box office of all time, thanks to the crowds who showed up for "Breaking Dawn: Part 2" and "Skyfall." However, what's really heartening is the success of two of the major awards season contenders, Steven Spielberg's "Lincoln" and Ang Lee's "Life of Pi." Both of them performed better than expected, bringing in over $30 million apiece. 2012 is proving to be a great year for quality movies, and I've been happily keeping tabs on how other potential Oscar nominees have been doing. Hits include "Moonrise Kingdom," "Argo," "Flight," "Magic Mike," and "End of Watch.

However, before we get carried away, it's important to remember that for every prestige picture that made money this year, we've had some pretty heartbreaking flops. "Cloud Atlas," directed by Tom Tykwer and the Wachowski siblings, had an independently financed budget of over $100 million and barely made a quarter of that back domestically. "The Master," directed by Paul Thomas Anderson, cost $35 million but has only made $15 million. If either gets any awards attention, those totals may go up, though it's far from certain. Say what you will about their relative merits, but these are clearly among the most ambitious and most original films of the year, and it would have been a real vote of confidence for this kind of daring material if they'd seen more support at the box office. Both were also examples of films made outside the Hollywood system, which is becoming increasingly difficult. In fact, every independent film these days seems to have a financing story as dramatic as the whatever we see on the screen.

"The Master" is an interesting case, as it's one of four major titles to have come from Megan Ellison's fledgling Annapurna Pictures, which is also behind John Hillcoat's "Lawless," Andrew Dominik's "Killing Them Softly," and Katherine Bigelow's upcoming "Zero Dark Thirty." Annapurna was founded a few years ago in order to make the kind of auteur-driven, artistically uncompromising movies that the studios usually balk at. It's currently one of the last real independent film financiers left standing after several major labels folded in 2008. Ellison is the only reason why some of these films exist, and she's consistently produced quality pictures that get glowing reviews, but her returns have been only so-so. "Lawless" did decent business, and "Killing Them Softly" should turn a profit based on the numbers it's already done overseas, but the numbers have been very modest. On the other hand, Annapurna now holds the rights to "The Terminator" franchise, so they may not stay focused on grown-up art house fare for long. Part of me thinks it's a shame, but another part finds it all too understandable.

The financing model for "Cloud Atlas" was also unconventional. After being turned down by every major studio, and with domestic funds scarce, the filmmakers went international. Funds came from a patchwork of different investors from around the globe, including the German government, a Hong Kong distribution company, and individual financiers. As it's extremely unlikely that the film will ever make its money back, I doubt that we're going to see an independently funded film on this scale attempted again for a long, long time. There's something to be said for the fact that the project got off the ground and the movie did get made, proving that it could be done, but the daunting challenge is one I'm not sure many filmmakers will be eager to tackle. If the film had been a financial success, the viability of this approach would look a lot stronger right now. Instead, at the time of writing, "Cloud Atlas" looks like it's may end up being one of the biggest bombs of the year alongside "John Carter" and "Battleship."

It's good to remember the success stories of this year. Steven Soderbergh and Channing Tatum financed the $7 million budget of "Magic Mike" themselves, which went on to a domestic gross of $113 million. FOX risked over $100 million on Ang Lee and "Life of Pi," with no major stars, and it looks like it's going to reap major rewards. However, these are models that we're familiar with - studios risking big money and individuals risking smaller sums. A film like "Cloud Atlas" had a chance to really shake up the paradigm, and it didn't happen. Annapurna is still a story very much in progress and its business model is still in flux. However, it's been clear for some time now that it's getting harder and harder to raise the money to make the most creative and challenging American films. 2012 has been a banner year for them, but I can't help worrying about the future, and how much time our best filmmakers are going to have to spend wooing investors instead of actually making their films.
---