Whither THE ISLAND?
Now Playing: Buck-passing and the Hollywood blame game
SPOILERS contained herein- some which are mentioned, others implied.

So THE ISLAND is a flop. I didn't care for the movie all that much, but that doesn't really matter now. The big story coming out of Hollywood this summer is that box office receipts are down, and the movie the armchair QBs are pointing to is THE ISLAND. Some have called it Michael Bay's HEAVEN'S GATE, but that's a huge stretch- Cimino's film was hugely ambitious, made on a budget that was massive by 1980 standards, but Bay just made a slightly-philosophical chases-and-explosions movie, no big deal in this post-MATRIX era. Hell, even the budget of $120 million is no longer all that newsworthy compared to, say, WAR OF THE WORLDS. But THE ISLAND, as we know, is a box-office disappointment- "the movie that ruined Dreamworks," according to some. And now the film's producers, Walter Parkes and Laurie MacDonald have come out and placed the blame on the film's stars, Ewan McGregor and Scarlett Johansson, for the film's failure. In particular they've singled out Johansson for being subpar, stating that (I'm paraphrasing) any TV actress could have done as well or better than she did.

Um, what? As I said, I'm hardly an ISLAND apologist, but when I think of the film's problems the lead performances don't rank highly on the list. I'd say that McGregor and Johansson did as well as they could have under the circumstances, given Bay's less-than-actor-friendly shooting style (choppy editing makes it tough to sustain a cohesive performance). The characters aren't all that deep, but they sell the superficial stuff convincingly enough. And if Parkes and MacDonald are complaining about their leads' lack of star charisma- hey, you're the producers. Shouldn't you have expressed concern about them BEFORE NOW???

No, I think that what went wrong with the film has less to do with the stars than with the studio selling the film. Simply put, THE ISLAND isn't a movie that people are talking about. Working at the exhibition level, I deal directly with the people who are buying tickets, and there isn't a great deal of awareness of THE ISLAND among the ticket-buyers who come to my theatre. Sometimes people come to the multiplex without knowing what they want to watch, and when people are standing at the box office deciding on a movie, the title they seem the least sure of is THE ISLAND. Everyone knows what MR. AND MRS. SMITH is, likewise FOUR BROTHERS. But when it comes to THE ISLAND, they draw a blank. Which leads me to believe that someone should have changed the title somewhere along the line. Say what you will about utilizing abstract titles, but most people would prefer if the title of a movie actually, you know, said something about that movie.

The obvious example this summer is BATMAN BEGINS. What's it about? Well, it's about Batman's beginnings. Oh, cool.

All right, what about THE ISLAND? Um... (crickets chirping). OK, does it take place on an island? No. Are they going to an island in the movie? Not really. What does the island have to do with THE ISLAND? It's the place where they're supposedly going to go, except that there (SPOILER) isn't really an island, and the island is all a lie made up by SPOILER so that they can SPOILER our heroes. Oh.

You see a moviegoer's dilemma. Strange as it seems to a guy like me, most people out there aren't hyper-aware of every movie that's playing, and at the end of a hard work week, they want something they can settle into like a warm bath or a heaping plate of meatloaf- the cinematic equivalent of comfort food. And when the title confuses people, they'll more than likely think, why bother?

Which leads me to another major problem with THE ISLAND- the story. See, when people out there are looking for a fun night at the movies, they need what's called a "hook" to grab them so they'll get interested in what they're seeing. Sometimes that hook comes from the genre- MUST LOVE DOGS is doing well at my theatre because it's the only romantic comedy we have. Other times it's the film's premise. MR. AND MRS. SMITH isn't a hit simply because of its tabloid-ready stars and its big-budget action. What was unmistakable in the ads for the film was the premise- namely, the fear shared by anyone who's married or in a relationship that his significant other may be hiding a huge secret.

On the other hand, what is THE ISLAND's hook? That the heroes are really just clones of people, being hidden in a secret bunker, waiting to be harvested for spare organs? Not exactly what I'd call a universal fear. Hell, even BATMAN BEGINS has a better hook than that, and it didn't even need one, being a BATMAN movie.

It seems to me that what finally sunk THE ISLAND at the box office was that no one knew how to market the film to the public. Let's examine the most rudimentary visual marketing tool at the theatre, the mylar sign that adorns the box office marquee. Because the studio only has a small space to work with, they're only able to place a few elements on the sign, preferably the elements that would make the movie distinctive and appealing to the undecided ticket-buyer. The signs for SKY HIGH and HERBIE play up Disney, FOUR BROTHERS focuses on the poster image of the bi-racial siblings striking a badass-looking pose, and THE DEVIL'S REJECTS trumpets the name of writer/director Rob Zombie. But THE ISLAND... well, it's basically a futuristic-looking title adorned with the names of its not-quite A-list stars. No "from the director of THE ROCK", no images from the film, no tagline, nothing else. Hollywood's answer to this would no doubt be that THE ISLAND is "a tough sell." Given the convoluted story, how could they possibly boil down the movie into an easily-digestible image for ticket-buyers? Well, this is a lesson they'll have to learn, and quickly, lest they risk more mega-budget flops.

As I said before, I'm no fan of THE ISLAND, and indeed I welcome its flopping as a sign that maybe audiences are fed-up with routine Hollywood dreck, and possibly bring about a new renaissance like in the late 60s and early 70s. But I was also at a preview screening, and I know that, my feelings aside, the film plays well with an audience. What I fear then is that Hollywood will learn precisely the wrong lessons from this, that they'll pour an even higher percentage of studio money into "sure things"- remakes, sequels, TV adaptations- rather than actually learning to sell some trickier movies. Because honestly, if they can't even sell a Michael Bay movie, what chance does a real visionary have of connecting with an audience?