Posted on 11/26/2005 3:46:50 AM PST by voletti
HAVING amassed a fortune when still young, many businessmen turn their attention in later life to charitable works for the benefit of society. Few, however, have as ambitious a vision as Philip Anschutz, a religious billionaire whose aim is no less than to uplift American culture. Mr Anschutz has set up a studio to make moral films for families of a kind he says Hollywood neglects. His most expensive effort yet will be released on December 9th: “The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe”, a $150m adaptation of a book by C.S. Lewis.
He reckons that making family fare free of sex and violence is a shrewd business strategy too, and a way to cope with the notoriously hit-or-miss nature of the film industry. Of the top 50 moneymaking films of all time, he points out, only five are rated for adults only—but Hollywood has made only 389 films open to all the family, out of the 2,146 produced since 2000.
Mr Lewis's book describes Christ's crucifixion in an allegory, through a lion who dies and returns to life. Mr Anschutz's production company, Walden Media, has brought in Disney to share half of the cost and profits from “The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe” and to do its marketing. To get church congregations out to see it, the two companies have hired Motive Marketing, a specialist promotion company whose efforts with churches helped make “The Passion of the Christ” a hit.
Now churches are waiting to see how religious the film will dare to be. It is possible, after all, for a child to read the book and not spot its message. The English actress who plays the book's evil witch, Tilda Swinton, said the book is based as much on ancient myth as on the story of Christ.
(Excerpt) Read more at economist.com ...
"He reckons that making family fare free of sex and violence is a shrewd business strategy too, and a way to cope with the notoriously hit-or-miss nature of the film industry. Of the top 50 moneymaking films of all time, he points out, only five are rated for adults only—but Hollywood has made only 389 films open to all the family, out of the 2,146 produced since 2000."
Quite a telling statement. I would love to hear the left's spin on these particular statistics. There should be a spirited defence of Hollywood's "artistic" expression, forthcoming.
LWW is going to be huge!!
Her interpretation of the books is without merit. She obviously doens't understand that both Lewis and his friend Tolkien regarded myths as reflections of the one true myth...sort of "through a glass, darkly." The books Lewis wrote are to be enjoyed on many levels, neither solely as allegory nor solely as storytelling.
Swinton made other comments about her view of the role, but since I consider her a flake I will not burden this movie with weierdo political interpretations.
Everything I have seen indicates to me that this is a movie true to the book, well done, and will be well worth seeing.
I am ALSO interested in the free newspapers this guy is establishing. Very interesting article about the backer of the film, of whom I didn't know much.
If I was a billionaire making pictures I would know the politics of the participants and would have a form of "non-disclosure" of political idiocy for some period surrounding the release with penalty of fortfieture of pay and maybe other damages,too.
To me, this is the biggest failing that movie industry has now.
Once the baby-boomer Hollywood Lib elites are dead and buried, the next generation seems to be headed for a more conservative route.
The money is in morals and family.
The peer rocognition, however, comes from making movies that other Hollywood Libs deem Oscar or Emmy caliber. That means money losing pictures celebrating their perverted sense of morals and taste.
While I am encouraged at the tie-in of books and movies (my grandson raised his reading level two grades in the determination to read "Harry Potter"), I would point out that in many instances the movie does not follow the book, and the "book" that is released concurrently with the movie IS the movie and not the original book. I had a terrible time finding a copy of "Tuck Everlasting" in the original autograph, which was significantly different from the flop movie made leaving out all the really important concerns that were in the book, changing the ages of the people, and otherwise tarting up a very good story). My kids read "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" after seeing the cartoon version of the movie and both wondered why "They didn't make a movie about this instead." The version of "A Little Princess" made recently was awful, as was "The Secret Garden", both of which were yanked out of their historical period (the 19th century) and into "modern times" and tarted up with rubbish that had nothing to do with the original story. By contrast, the versions filmed in the 1930s were marvelous. Finally, I am sure that if Heinlein hadn't already been dead when the dreadful "Starship Toopers" movie came out, that would have killed him.
IMO, either you make a movie based on a book, or you make a movie based on some book you would have written with the same title. But don't confuse the two.
Well, it would seem that playing a witch isn't much of a stretch for then, is it? I mean, she's been there, done that...
What is your impression of the Lord of the Ring trilogy?
I found it amazingly close in spirit and context to the books. While it could not be 120 hrs long and left out many of my favorite themes (Gandolf: "Expect me when you least expect me.") it was true to the characters and plot.
I felt similarly.
Doesn't hurt if you own a chain of theaters, either. Think Regal Cinemas.
See this with your son.
Well put! A fine rant!
I was worried about LOTR when I went to the first one (having seen what they did to "Dune") but all in all they did a pretty good job of keeping the story on point. My objection, and it's pretty much the only one, was their treatment of Arwen Evenstar; by making her into Xena, Warrior Princess, including giving her an assertiveness she in no wise had and that was not even part of the entire universe of LOTR, they warped an essential story line -- for heaven's sake, Arwen was made more macho than Eowyn! Other than that, and disappointment that we didn't get to see Tom Bombadil, I enjoyed it and my grandson and I went to see each part at least four times.
We shall see it.
bump
IIRC, director Peter Jackson said he didn't agree with some of the
themes of LOTR...but decided to stay true to Tolkein's viewpoint.
You'd think other film moguls would take note of that...as most of them
do want successful films.
Especially a franchise like LOTR.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.