Box Office: Newbie 'Detropia' Strong, While Oldies ('Sparkle,' 'Madea,' Others) A Mixed Bag

12 Comments

• | Reply

• CareyCarey | September 10, 2012 10:34 PMReply

  @ Charles, since I have probably read every one of your comments and posts here at S&A, I would love to collaborate with you on an article that focuses on Film Analysis vs The Movie Watching Experience. See, I've never bought into the notion that the black audience do not support certain genres. I mean, that's simply not true. However, in respect to films written by and containing a black cast, I believe many are missing why those films do not capture the hearts of today's black audience. For instance, I think I know why championed films (enjoyed by some African Americans) like I Will Follow, Pariah, Medicine For Melancholy, etc, were not supported by "us" and why I believe they are mediocre films. When those films are "analyzed" and "assessed" I seldom "hear" the voice of the viewer. However, over and over I hear ambiguous rhetoric about the significance of the story or some ambiguous purple prose about the relevance of the film's messages. Anyway, again, having read your insightful comments, I would love to have a meeting of the minds. We may not totally agree, but I believe we are somewhere in the middle... if you know what I mean?

• CareyCarey | September 11, 2012 12:45 AM

  There it is --> " It's rare to stop thinking during anything and it's much more difficult to reach a point of pure emotional interaction with any film, unless it's one that already speaks to those things that you already agree with." That's a big thought which needs a little more conversation. And here's another one ---> "We underestimate, overestimate, mischaracterize and dismiss how emotionally and intellectually we watch movies." EXACTLY! Then we have the most pressing problem--> "The strongest writers really understand when they need to engage their audience on an emotional level and when they need to hit them with facts." The problem is, many writers do not know HOW to engage the audience on an emotional level, and do it throughout the movie. For instance, one can be engaged emotionally while being giving facts. It's about stimulating the mind which in turn stimulates an emotional reaction/response. Many writers get caught-up in telling the story. They forget about engaging the viewer's emotions. And it's not always about words. Also, all emotions have a different "half life". That is, some emotions stay with the viewer longer than others. For instance, a viewer can only be "surprised" for a moment, then that emotion is gone. I've also noticed that the right music/sound behind a scene can enhance the emotional impact of a scene. On the surface that appears to be a given, but seldom do we pay attention to those small but important aspects of a scene's or a film's "success". We merely experience it without analysis. Yes Charles, we can talk.

• Charles Judson | September 10, 2012 11:20 PM

  I think it's an important conversation to have. We all analysis films to an extent. Experience is on a continuum of using your knowledge, experience and gut. It's rare to stop thinking during anything and it's much more difficult to reach a point of pure emotional interaction with any film, unless it's one that already speaks to those things that you already agree with. The strongest writers really understand when they need to engage their audience on an emotional level and when they need to hit them with facts. Especially when that fact may or may not have impact on a scene later in the film. It's what can make your first viewing of a film emotionally powerful and your second one blunted as you notice the cracks. It's what Hitchcock understood, his films had to stand up to second viewings. It's what makes it hard for doctors to watch a show like GREY'S ANATOMY or E.R. when they can't help but focus on the facts of the scene and not the drama. It's why one my friends could never watch movies about gangs in the 1980s because they were so often multicultural when that was clearly not the case in real life. During 1980s and 1990s fan dubs of animes started coming over seas and one of the things they started doing was explaining key moments and words at the beginning of the episodes. It's a subtle thing that helped those shows make sense and allow a viewer to enjoy an episode without being taken out of the film. There are films made in the 1970s and 1980s that are satires or comments on repressive regimes, but are so subtle that unless you lived in that country, you wouldn't fully understand what's going on. That being said, there are films that still grab people and like any great text, they're rich enough to revisit. It's also what makes learning about Hong Kong/Chinese cinema fascinating. You recognize how much of it is either about the split between Hong Kong, Taiwan and China (i.e. THE HEROIC TRIO) or based on folk legends and the filmmakers assume you already know the legend so in some movies they don't explain a damn thing or have a character arc. So yes, I definitely would love to talk about film analysis and the movie watching experience. We underestimate, overestimate, mischaracterize and dismiss how emotionally and intellectually we watch movies.

• Ken | September 9, 2012 4:26 PMReply

  The box office of SPARKLE really confuses me. It opened solidly and it got an A Cinemascore, which is very good. Why did it fall of so much? Why did it gross less than even a poor-performing Tyler Perry movie? Why much less than FOR COLORED GIRLS and PRECIOUS? Why do audiences not support this type of Black movie? It reminds me of THE FIVE HEARTBEATS years ago and its terrible BO performance. I hope S & A does an in-depth article about this.

• CareyCarey | September 10, 2012 9:44 PM

  Charles, I believed you killed. In essence, it simply did not engage today's audience. The music, the stars, no "brand" and the message of "hope" was absent. Consequently, nothing tapped into the hearts of today's audience. Not to mention the poor acting and the non-bankable "stars". And yes, Whitney of old is not or was not the Whitney of 2012 (I caught that). Also, I believe there's too much emphasis on "what bootlegging does to the box office". Pure poppycock. It had a minuscule effect on total box office numbers. Is Tyler not bootlegged? Is Think Like a Man not bootlegged? Besides, one errs when they compare FOR COLORED GIRLS, PRECIOUS and even THE FIVE HEARTBEATS to Sparkle 2012. Granted, comparison is a needed tool, but there's obvious reason Sparkle is not in the class with any of the above. The only similarity is the cast's skin color. Now, I will continue to say this, movie watching is about instantaneous stimulation. Film analysis is a completely different ball game.

• Charles Judson | September 10, 2012 8:40 PM

  You have a film that had: Middling reviews. A plot that's been recycled since at least 1937 with A STAR IS BORN. A soundtrack that didn't have a song that could match anything Curtis Mayfield created for the original film. And a film and marketing that was too similar to DREAMGIRLS, a film that only came out 6 years ago (which also benefited with AMERICAN IDOL's still high popularity), and included a much higher profile cast. In retrospect, it's really surprising that the producers didn't move the story up to the 1990s. What I think is dismissed most is that DREAMGIRLS story is ultimately more than a melodrama and it boldly attempts to encapsulate a time period, here's what I wrote about it back in 2007: "Without Hudson’s performance, Dreamgirls doesn’t work. We as the audience have to believe that what she—and by extension Black America—loses is valuable enough to fight for. Even now, Black America is still trying to work out how to balance success and social responsibility. How to define love in a world that often values upward mobility over family stability. And how to inoculate Black culture from the corrupting influences of money and power, while using that same power and money to uplift Black culture. Dreamgirls isn’t perfect. But it is the right movie for an imperfect time." The original SPARKLE, which I personally still love, flaws and all, is a film that captures a specific feeling of hope and skepticism that a lot of other very flawed films (COOLEY HIGH as another example) captured at the time. There's nothing in the new SPARKLE trailers that even hinted that it, or the marketing, had higher ambitions than being a melodrama aimed at the niche Black markets of Women, Church Goers and those over 50. Period films have always been hard sells. Period films built around music particularly so. As with THE FIVE HEARTBEATS, it's a film that had the same marketing problems as WHY DO FOOLS FALL IN LOVE?, I WANNA HOLD YOUR HAND and virtually every other film like it. Without any broader themes or messages, without the kind of event movie DREAMGIRLS like build up, or a breakout performance, there's no hooks on why the film should appeal to folks not overly familiar or emotionally attached to those periods or musicians to come out and see the film, or the basic messages. Oh, and the original SPARKLE and DREAMGIRLS musical came out at a time when Diana Ross and Motown were still a major force. Its sucks to say it, but Whitney in 2012 is a pale shadow of her own career which once matched Diana Ross's in 1976 and 1981.

• Nadia | September 10, 2012 8:35 AM

  What everybody else has said. I think word of mouth was really weak and that killed the film after opening weekend. Bootlegging probably had some effect, but probably not to affect it so badly. Like Sergio said in another post, who was the audience for this movie? I'm not sure if the studio and filmmakers really knew the answer to that question. They were probably hoping black people would just blindly support it just because. I guess now they'll use this as an excuse for why they don't make many black films.

• Miles Ellison | September 9, 2012 9:23 PM

  Maybe it was extensively bootlegged. Or maybe it was just bad. Word of mouth travels a lot faster now. It takes less than a minute to put out the message "this film sucks" to literally thousands of people from a smartphone before the end credits roll.

• B | September 9, 2012 8:57 PM

  Perhaps it just wasn't a well-made film (and, just like the original, it was not a well-made film at all, imo) and the people who saw it the first weekend spread this assessment to all of their friends, who subsequently and as a result chose not to go see the film. That's my first guess as to why Sparkle dropped ever so dramatically at the box office. Perhaps people just thought the idea of watching Jordin Sparks try and epically fail to act was not worth the 9+ dollars. That's my other guess.

• Troytopia | September 9, 2012 8:40 PM

  They might think Sparkle is trying to exploit Whitney. Or the fantasy may be over for many seeing that her star has went out. Or maybe they didn't do. Good job marketing the movie.

• FYI | September 9, 2012 3:31 PMReply

  Just because a movie (made by white folks) is about a place where Black people live does not make it a film "with people of African (i added the 'n' since you missed it) descent at the center of their narratives".....meaning IT AIN'T BLACK! If it ain't good for Black people....meaning advancing Us in this twisted reality means it ain't good!

• JMac | September 9, 2012 3:54 PM

  A film with people of African descent at the center of their narratives means a film with people of African descent in their narratives. The statement is neutral and does describe Detropia. If you want to argue over whether it's good or not, then do so. Don't need to pull something out of the air first to discuss it.