The Foreign numbers are also in (up to March 14th only) and this pushes it up over $17mil. Looking in the Foreign Detail though the numbers up to March 21st are closer to $4.5mil - putting the total at almost $20mil.
Confused yet? Yeah... me too.
Source
Posts
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
80 comments:
Yay for Rob, Nick, Will, & Allen..considering just me alone, I've seen it 1 times..and have talked many people into going who would not have gone...
YAY!! TYLER KEATS HAWKINS!!!
The children have spoken-Kid's Choice Award Best Couple goes to Jacob and Bella-and Jacob wins Favorite Actor. I guess Summit's campaign paid off-tweens I know now like Jacob better than Edward. Sure is a good thing he is moving on with more adult roles as, at least the children among us, have moved on. 23 11/12ths and aging fast:)
Remember Me-spread the word!!!
Hey rpg, I think you wrote that wrong! YOu've seen it TEN times! You rock!
I saw it for the 5th time today. It just gets better and better.
KathyS,
You said it sista! All the 5 yr olds and people who think Vampires are the devil have spoken...
I love this Movie and have rec'd it to TONS of people.
Nope...10 times s of last night....I plan one more b4 it leaves which will be this week...
Oh duh Martini...told you I was drunk...YES 10 times, not one...take the booze away from the grandma!
Good for Rob and RM! I've been spreading the word as much as possible!
@KathyS
ITA
@rpg
p.s. Grandma's need a little booze from time to time
It hasn't even opening in some countries yet, right? I saw it again this afternoon and it is soooo good. Even if I was not head over heels in love with Rob Pattinson, it is a really, really good movie. So glad it is doing well.
Kathy S., it is all rigged. The New Moon movie made Jacob look hot and Edward looked like a painted old man. I couldn't believe they could make someone as gorgeous as Rob Pattinson look bad. I hope Eclipse redeams itself. Very disappointed in New Moon. I don't think the majority of fans of Twilight are Team Jacob, however. The Kid's CHoice awards are voted on by preteens. No one over 13 even pays attention to them.
I just watched New Moon - most of it, the Rob parts - with the commentary by Chris.......he talks over all of it........called Rob The Dreamboat when he did the walk across the parking lot and mentioned that when Kristen says I love you when they kiss that that was added later - and she and Rob thought of putting that in.
But most of his talking was technical stuff - not NEAR as great as hearing Rob on the first one talking about his bouffant hairdo and sculpted eyebrows and his giggle about how he just was not scary in his little baseball outfit.
LOVED that commentary on Twilight.
They should have at least had Taylor talking on this one.
And the Italy scene was so not as climatic as it could have been when she ran up and jumped on him. That could have been SO much bigger - and should have been. Oh well, too late now - let's just hope they make Eclipse look good.
well i was FINALLY able to see it a second time and took my husband with me and he really liked it :))
except everytime single time he goes to the movies some dumbass people have to start talking and they started talking at the end and it wasn't teenagers this time it was some old ladies, we cant ever win but he did like it.
I watch New Moon right up to the break up scene and then fast forward to Alice arriving at Bella's. The whole Jacob part in the middle is pointless because I spend the whole time missing Rob.
I am excellent at math but I don't understand the numbers in this box office graph; what is the context? is this considered good? I want to see more positive recognition. I suppose more viewing is good, but so many of us have seen it mulitple times. This was such an excellent film; so different, and so much better than anything out there for ages, and I just don't see it getting the recognition and respect. I don't care that it is an 'indy'; it is brilliantly acted and just a wonderful piece intellectually, emotionally,psychologically and spiritually, and has stimulated so much thought and dialogue and discussion, that respect and attention really must be paid to it.
I thought ROb looked fine and even beautiful in New MOOn, and I cannot for the life of me see how anyone could go for Jacob's character or looks. I know Stephanie said she liked Jacob, and I think Kristen said something about him being the more logical choice, but I don't thnk so at all. He was immature, volatile, and inconsiderate, when you take into the account the imprinting nonsense. What if Bella had chosen him, and he went and imprinted on someone? Yuck. Definitely no choice.
PS--The numbers do tell me that the income has exceeded the outgo. Does this usually happen? Anyone know?
And they haven't even gotten to all countries yet, and still have the DVDs to come!
@Solas-I just don't get it either but then I do believe the twi fangirls-under 17 have all run to Jacob and the ones that haven't don't want to see Edward with anyone but Bella. It is up to the adults-of all ages, among us, NBs (you know who I'm talking to) to see that word of mouth gets this wonderful film seen and talked about.
I actually have 3 copies of New Moon just for the special effects, deleted scenes, etc. I haven't bothered to watched the movie itself, as I see no point. Fast Forward Edward is what I'm talking about. And I agree, ShariG, how the hell did they manage to make make Rob's Edward look like such an old man???? I fear at what they will do in Breaking Dawn-why don't they let us do Edward's makeup???????
It's NOT a Romance~!!!!
Yeah, I have absolutely no idea what those numbers mean. How are they even calculated?
Anyway, even though the film hasn't officially been released in cinemas, I've seen it once at the premiere Friday, and I'm certain it won't be last.. I'm going again on Thursday and hopefully a few times after that. Can't believe how much that film has affected me, I'm never reading scripts again, nor doubting Rob's taste. When Rob says it's good, it's a pretty safe bet that it actually is.
Haha, me too ShariG, and Eclipse is going to be even harder to watch, I imagine. All of my hopes are for Breaking Dawn, with hopefully one of those high-class directors who can capture the essence of the story.. and put in a whole lotta sexy Edward/Bella scenes.
saw RM again today. every time i see it, it was more intense than before, as if never seen it before. posted in another thread here, that i dont know how this is possible. still analyzing.
bit my lip the entire time, didnt realize it, it was hurting at the end of the movie.
Robert was just superb, am really swelling with all emotions. so proud of him. he knows how to pick films to do.
love seeing his name in the credits. executive producer -- robert pattinson, gush, love his name etched there in the screen.
cant get enough of him. cant wait to see his other movies.
am totally shot right now. normally, would have seen all blockbuster movies that are out by now.
but everytime i go to the theaters, am drawn to RM. didnt have the desire to see other movies. rather spend my money on RM than the other movies.
maybe when RM is no longer playing, maybe then.
I feel bad how the stupid critics trashed such a nice piece of art b/c they hate the guy from Twilight. I'm glad the film is doing ok in spite of them.
However, I hold Summit responsible for the Horrendous marketing job they did promoting that film. They should all be fired. They opened it with two huge Blockbusters Alice and Green Zone. They opened it two weeks after the promos. Helo people here have ADD.
They should have had Pierce and Chris involved in the appearances, & opened the film the same week Rob did all the appearances. They just had Rob and Emily out there trying to pass this film as a chick flick. It is so much more than that. I also heard they cut a lot of sex scenes to get a PG-13. It's so obvious they were tryin to cater to the twilighters. It didn't work anyway cause most of that group didn't show up to support Rob. They should have maintained the R-rating.
Don't even get me started on New Moon and Chris Weitz. I like to pretend I never saw it. I will never forgive Chris Weitz for what he did to Edward in New Moon. I hate that movie. Talk about Killing the romance and chemistry! I didn't think that could be done, but Chris was like Yes It can.
I love you guys for helping Rob, Will, Emilie, Pierce, Chris, Allan, Nick and everyone involved by watching this movie. The rest of the world may never understand but to us Remember me is an amazing piece of work. Hopefully people will look back and thank them for giving us this gift of a movie. I will keep praying for Rob and company's proper recognition.
Yay! The Australian numbers! I've seen it 3 times and hopefully will see it again, before it goes off the cinemas... the more I see it, the more I want to see it, but I have budget constraints, unfortunately... besides I want to see Little Ashes again on Tuesday (there are other screenings here in Sydney, and in Melbourne and Brisbane).
It's good news that it already covered the budget with some extra to spare... and the numbers from Italy are not out yet: it was released this weekend, some more should come from that... we are 60 million!
As for New Moon, I liked it overall, although not as much as I would have liked to, a couple of things were off: the reunion scene was half-botched and once again I lay that to the Goldberg woman's feet Where are the lines from the book??? Where's Edward quoting Romeo??? (Summit! FIRE THAT WOMAN, BEFORE *I* DO IT, LITERALLY).
But I think Taylor did a great job as Jacob, can't fault him.
The NM soundtrack was not overly impressive either. The Twilight soundtrack was better for songs and score.
NM was still better than Twilight for many things, in general, though.
Hi Kat, glad to see someone else is following the boxoffice figures too... I check it daily and noticed the foreign numbers are way out there. It still hasn't opened in some theaters yet. April 7th rings a bell. Rob has made the production costs back so its all profit after that. (been in business, so I follow that) Just wondering why the Twilight teens are not showing up in greater numbers. Guess they're into the Bella/Edward fanasty.
****I am into Robert Pattinson**** the person and actor, not the character he portrays. Guess that's why I'm a fan here....
FILTM
@femroc, I agree, new moon could have been better that it was. Kinda disappointed, but some of the screenplay was better than the book... very confusing. I love Rob no matter what he does. Total fan for life here.
Really would rather have RM DVD now! It has so much Rob in it and he's so cute. My Man-Boy.
Interesting to see the results after next weekend opening in UK... GO Rob!!
I will be a number ;)
Hi! This message comes from Italy!
The movie went out just two days ago. I went to the italian premiere the day before and the theatre was almost empty. I went back with other two friends the first day and again the theatre didn't have the people that usually we have the first days of showing. Now I think that the problem here was the Summit campaign that was almost NOTHING!!! On the other hand on Tv we can see every day the start of the big campaign that is going on for eclipse! (happy for that anyway). I'm so sorry because the movie is so beautiful, intense and touching, and of course he is so .... beautiful! A dream!
I don't know what's going on here in Italy about that ... Maybe here we have just twilight's fan ... maybe the target for this movie is "selected" (I saw many ladies older than 30 like me and very few of younger, and almost no men)... I don't know!!!!!
Bye!
i wonder what the german numbers will be i saw the movie now 2times i will go again this week the first time i draged 10 people with me the second 8 and the on the second the theater was sold out i did a happy dance lol
I knew absolutely nothing about the mysteries of box-office and how everything worked but since RM
came out I've tried to figure it out and now I check it everyday! It's interesting actually to
follow the trends, and yet I'm the kind of person who hates maths.
Anyway, you can easily follow RM's daily progression on this Web page:
http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=daily&id=rememberme.htm
It's very clear and easy. Each day in each cell of the table you get 5 figures from top to bottom :
- the first number is the rank of the movie (this Friday RM is #10)
- the second number is the Daily Gross
- the third number is the Change Y/L*, it is very interesting : the first percentage is "the
change since yesterday", the second percentage is the comparison with the same day of the previous week. This allows you to see how the movie is doing, if it has weekly/daily increases or drops, etc.
- the fourth number is the number of theaters / the average per theater (it's also an important
number : a movie released in a small number of theaters can sometimes have a higher average per theater than one with a wider release, i.e be more profitable)
- the fifth number is the domestic (USA) Gross-to-date
Some figures can change over the week-end. The Friday numbers you can see here are estimates, it
might turn out to be more or less. Actuals are posted on Monday once the week-end is over.
The RM daily chart shows that the movie has a global drop of about 50-55% this week compared with
the previous week.It's still going at its own steady pace on a daily basis but it's also going to
decrease steadily from now on. This is quite normal (for all movies), the variable is the % of
decrease.
The foreign numbers are not updated regularly on the Box office mojo and are still not very
accurate. If you look at the numbers for Russia, though, you will see that Russia rocks: $1824000 in only 3 days, and I saw on another site that RM was released in only 290 theaters in Russia, which means an enormous average per theater (over 6000 $!)
Sorry for the long post - that's my new mania - box office numbers !! Hope this helps.
I've been looking at the foreign box office and says that the foreign total is 1.?m yet if you add up the figures given it amounts to more than that, am I missing something here?
wow Rob have 1,860,534 fans on facebook!!
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Robert-Pattinson/9200825837#!/pages/Robert-Pattinson/9200825837?v=wall
Solas: Don't forget the marketing budget, which is not included in the $16 M production cost. RM has not broken even yet but is almost there.
Spoiler alert ahead: the Boston Globe has an excellent article on why the RM ending has rankled so many viewers and kept people out of the theaters. No matter which side of the issue you fall on, it's a very insightful analysis of why the throngs have stayed away.
http://www.boston.com/ae/movies/
articles/2010/03/28/coasting_on_the_
fumes_of_a_common_cultural_response/?page=1
cricila--thanks for the informative explanations!
prc--I agree the promotions were not done well, and the timing wasn't great either. Wasn't it supposed to have been out in cinemas before it actually was? And having only Rob and Emilie do the promos just reiterated the wrong idea that this was a romance, or romantic drama, or, as you say, 'chicflic.' This was the root of the the horror of a lot of people viewing the film, thinking it was a nice thing to see on a date, a little saturday night fluff perhaps.
@Loisada: well, I read the article. I find it ironic that what he hates most about the film is exactly what determines his own response. “Remember mine” rather than “Remember Me.” Does his personal experience of the event outweigh others, including my own? He would seem to think so. He obviously felt very manipulated, and disliked Rob’s performance, so not much chance he could identify in any way. I also don’t see the ending as a ‘twist,’ but to each his own.
Loisada--I jsut read that piece and didn't like it all; just another critic really not getting it. It doesn't explain to me at all why people kept away from 'remeber Me', except for their paying attention to critics like that.
You know, for the amount of theaters RM is released in that isn't a terible number. RM has vanished from the theaters near me. That sucks!
@KathyS- I think it personally sux that the Diary of a wimpy kid beat out the Twilight series. I guess the fans of Twilight are growing up. And dont get me started on the whole Jacob and Bella thing. That made me shudder. Eclipse will redeem Edward. From the photos Summits released, Robward is looking hot!!!!!
Exactly Ap--I don't get this repeated incorrect mantra of it being a twist. It reminds me more of '4 legs good, 2 legs bad.'
My favorite fan site, Twitarded, had a negative response to RM as well, which shocked the crap out of me. They liked the Runaways. Go figure. I just dont understand it. I was personally effected by 9-11 but you dont see me running from the theaters shouting "manipulation!" I thought it was a very poinient ending. It brought the message home in a way that say, Tyler being clobbered by a runaway bus, couldnt. I think some people are too stupid, or self ritcheous, to understand that 9-11 effected us ALL. Some more then others. But to purposely take it upon themselves to poopoo the movie is a misuse of their position as movie critics. Shame on them.
@Solas: yes, it's strange they call it a 'twist' because I keep wondering a twist on what? Usually an ending earns that description because one is expecting something else. I don't think they tried to mislead at all - in fact, I think there are clear if subtle signposts that are obvious if one thinks about it, or sees the film more than once.
I guess the review got up my nose because he intimated that Adam Sandler, through his performance, earned credibility and the right to 'use' the situation in his film, whereas Rob, with his 'bad' performance, did not. Seems unfair to blame it on the actor, and I have to own to feeling defensive on Rob's behalf... ;)
@Kerri: I agree re your take on the situation in the film - but you might want to reword your comment a little as it is a bit 'spoilerish' and this isn't a spoiler thread. Some still haven't seen the film yet... :)
Wow the Greek mumbers are great, so happy. It is on in 22 theaters only. Like I said pll loved it here and showed the love. They found Rob the actor as well which is even better than numbers themselves.
My granddaughter who just turned 15 went with her girlfriends to see RM. She lives in Kentucky and called me in North Carolina and asked me if I had seen RM. Yes, I told her, four times. She said she and her girlfriends really liked the movie. See, the big age difference, so all ages are going to see RM. I am so happy the movie has made production cost, now it needs to keep on esculating upward and upward. I am so happy ram so happy Rob wanted to do this movie. A movie I will never forget.
Solas, I understand that many people don't agree with this writer, but I don't think he's being snidely critical and in my view his points are well taken, even if they don't all fall in line with my own opinion.
I also don't believe the "average" movie goer let's her/himself be led around by the nose by "critics." After all Roger Ebert is much more influential with the masses than Manhola Dargis, and he praised both RM and Rob. I think people shunned this movie for other, deeper reasons, and it behooves us to try and understand them.
AP: You're right, he talks about Rob being twitchy and full of tics (sounds like Twihards describing KS!), and was obviously bothered by this part of a performance he didn't find "real" enough.
I would counter that Rob made great strides in this movie, and was very moving in the scenes with Ruby, for instance. But in all honesty I would have to agree that Rob has yet to dig right down to his core and bare his soul on screen. That said, I think he is willing to do so, and is working hard to that end. And I have great faith he will get there with time. After all, he has very limited experience and is learning his craft on camera.... a very brave and risky endeavor that I laud him for.
In good news I saw this today, which means RM has now recuped its prod/ marketing budget and is turning a profit. That's important news for Summit and for producers who will bankroll Rob's future films.
"RememberMe worldwide total inc domestic through 3/28 + foreign through 3/21 = $22,427,889"
@Loisada: I agree the ending is divisive but I think this reviewer started from the premise that it was purely manipulative on the part of the filmmakers, because it did affect him. He didn't think the film was 'worthy' enough to use the event. I agree that without the original premise about Michael, it isn't as thematically woven throughout, but I really think it was still thematically sound. The review certainly explains why critics were not generally positive, especially since it is a controversial subject, but I don't know if it reflects the movie-goers take.
I agree with you saying Rob is learning his craft 'on screen' but I am really tired of the James Dean tag being used superficially - if only because it reflects laziness on the part of some reviewers. I actually did think he was being 'snidely' critical about Rob but I also understand that you didn't think so.
One reminder about box office figures - the film recoups only half of the receipts, in general. However, with the foreign presales and int.boff, it is definitely heading for profit.
I hate to say this, but RM was not an especially wise choice for Rob Pattinson after the Twilight films. It's just not a very good film, and it showcases the weaknesses in his acting, which I'm hoping are due to inexperience rather than a straight-up lack of talent. If I were Pattinson, I'd be taking a lot of lessons privately and really trying to hone his craft before he loses this opportunity. In my opinion, he would draw lots of fans to any movie he makes--but he can't carry a weak movie like this alone. He needs to act in something that's more intelligently done, thereby earning better reviews, as well as seriously training for whatever role he takes; he's a charming, immensely appealing young man, but you need more than that to survive in the business with the kind of career he'd like to have. Maybe Bel Ami or Water for Elephants will be better films and do better.
Rob may be learning his craft, but I have to say his emotions and expressions were spot on for this film. I would not have changed anything in his performance, nor in anyone else's, in Remember Me.
I am not sure if I have seen every James Dean film; He was killed before I was born and so I have been viewing him on TV or via netfliex. But I have to say not everything he did was brilliant or spot on.
I am also tired of the 'brooding' adjective for Rob. He does a whole lot more than 'brood.' I might use the word 'thoughtful,' and that is one reason he is not understood or appreciated-- most people are not used to thinking thoughtful individuals anymore, either as a character or in real life.
Loiada, I agree we ought to understand why people might have shunned this film; I just don't think this critic was accurate, nor was he writing with integrity.
I honestly think the major fault was in the marketing; people were expecting a romance, a date film, and so felt as if the rug was pulled out from beneath them at the end. If it had been marketed as a drama, a drama of life and love and loss, a drama of individual life or family in 2001, or, using Rob's words, a drama that is both heartwarming and heartbreaking, both viewers and critics might have been on the right page.
wow sweets- I honestly found it to be an excellent film, something I have been hungry for for so long and just have been starved by what is out there, 'til this film.
Rob loved the script and wanted this film done, plus as a little film, an independent film, he probably thought it WOULD be a vehicle to work on his craft more.
I am happy Remember Me is doing better, I have personally seen it 3 times. As for Teen Choice voting B/J as best couple, I am not surprised, Rob is a man and I am sure the pre-teens just don't get it and I agree that they made Rob look bad in most of the movie, too red lips and chalk white except in Italy - he looked yummy even when asking the Volturi to kill him. I am looking forward to seeing him move on in Bel Ami, something more grown up
Remember Me was supposed to come out the same weekend as Valentines Day (Taylor's movie) - was Summit favoring Taylor's movie over Rob's, don't know what that movie's competition was but it was not Alice in Wonderland! They (and Steph Meyer) like Taylor better because they think he is well behaved while Rob is not - just the way we love him
Solas--I don't entirely disagree with you about RM; I thought there were parts of it that had a lot of potential. My point is that it wasn't the right follow-up, post-Twilight film. I don't know if it was the director, the editing, the fact that it was over-ambitious in taking on so many plot lines...whatever the reason, it comes off as a film--to me, anyway--that doesn't quite manage to pull it off. It's not as bad as some reviewers say, but it's not great, either. And for this reason, it was bound to get so-so reviews. It would have been better for Rob if he had been in a film that was more carefully managed. (I'm no expert, but the film was going in too many directions, with no one to really pull it together into a cohesive whole.) Not the best choice for someone who is trying to prove his talent after getting the Twilight break. That's all I am trying to say.
@sweets: wise choice in the light of what? I take it you mean in the light of a 'career in the biz he'd like to have?' Well, I'm glad he's not primarily thinking in terms of 'a career' -which I think he already has - but in terms of projects he's interested in and would like to do - whether they are viewed as successes or not. I'd rather see him do a 'weak movie' - your words - with integrity than make purely calculated choices based on some game plan to please critics and/or audience. The more he learns to trust his own instinct and believe in his choices, the better actor he'll also become. Yes, training helps, but you can't 'buy' or 'study' that unique relationship Rob has with the camera. There are a hundred good-looking, talented actors who won't 'pop' on screen as he does. Some just have 'it'... Archie Leach was one who did, and who learned on the job..
AP, I am not referring to a "calculated movie." Quite the contrary. Hindsight is 20/20, of course, but I think what Rob needed was a film with a strong director who could have really brought out his talent, a film with better writing, maybe more coherence all around. RM isn't it. I do believe, however, that Bel Ami and especially Water for Elephants have greater potential.
@Solas: I wasn't around either, during James Dean's lifetime, but I have seen all his films, and some of his early tv work - which was amazing...he really was 'electric.'
I can't help wondering if Keats was a choice for Tyler because Dean's middle name was Byron....lol
@Sweets: Well, you said he should make a better choice 'for someone who is trying to prove his talent after the Twilight break.' I'm saying I don't think it was that calculated, nor should it be. If he makes choices based on 'this will showcase me better than that' and not material that he responds to with a gut reaction, whoever is directing etc., then its a losing proposition.
I understand you didn't like RM and think he shouldn't have done it. I agree Bel Ami and WFE are challenging projects I look forward to seeing.
@AP. We agree to disagree...
but one more thing before I shut up: it's not that I didn't like RM. There were parts of it that appealed to me. I'm a New Yorker, and it's filmed in my neighborhoods (I live in the Village, literally a few blocks from most of the scenes, and I work on Wall Street, right next to that red cube). I actually liked the New York angle, which a lot of ppl have skewered, maybe because it's something I experienced first hand. I liked the premise of the film and the fact that, according to an interview I read, it was inspired by the vignettes the NY Times ran after 9/11. I liked other things about the film, but I won't bore you with a list. And honestly, I admire Rob Pattinson for taking a chance on the film, even if I think it wasn't the right choice.
And you are right, he does have a unique relationship with the camera, which definitely likes him. But let's face it, for the non-Robsessed types out there, this film was a bit of a test. I think a better director could have brought out a lot more of Rob's talent, and this film needed a lot more editing than it got.
It's just an opinion, and I'm not trying to start an argument. Please take the comment in that light only.
sweets--you are too negative and it pisses me off. Get off the blog and let us Rob fans say only good things. Give the guy a break. He is very young, let him get to Leonardo, Pitt, Clooney's age and they his criticism will be more on target for they also had to start somewhere. Remember Me made me feel good and that is what counts. It felt like a "real" movie.
@Shirleegirl, what do you mean when you say (Steph Meyer et all) likes Taylor bettter? He's 17-18... while Rob is 23 and all he's doing that I can see is working, going to concerts, enjoying his friends and having a few drinks... They are even papping him coming out of his parents house for gosh sakes...
And now on to the topic... Two of my friend saw the movie and thought RP was excellent... they just thought the sl was depressing... one of them told me that when Tyler's life starting getting better... love, p'rent on good term and BOOM!!! That was the only part she didn't like... and I think that ppl are not into RL drama in their films anymore... look at the crop of films out there that making big bucks. I like that movie and want to see it for RP's sake... but, when you get into the story, you are so caught up in it that you forget who your watch and are very invested in all the characters. and when you leave the theatre... you are thankful that your life is like theirs. I also don't think that kink of movie are blockbuster. JMHO
@Sweets: Glad there were things you liked and I do so much agree about NYC. I've spent some time there, and that aspect of the film appealed to me a lot. Lucky you to live in the East Village. I miss the indian restaurants on 6th St. Great food...Well, I felt we were having a discussion - not an argument - or maybe it was? But only the '5 min and not the full half-hour.' lol However, I've exhausted what little intellectual capacity I have for the day, so will shut up, too. :)
In my country(Poland)this movie is not currently in a sufficient number of copies so that the whole of the north western part, RM even in large cities has not been shown.
I mean interest of people that would love to go to theatres is certainly significant but also a huge obstacle against them.
I hate it.
@Solas: you may not be about but in case you return – wanted to address the comment you made about ‘thoughtful.’ One of the hardest things to do in acting, particularly on film, is to be ‘thoughtful’ or show a character being reflective, especially if its not simply reactive. You can notice how often its replaced by montage sequences, heavily underscored by music or is ‘physicalized’ instead. Aside from your observation, which also refers to the increasingly faster pace of life, it has always been a huge challenge. It is an internal process that somehow has to be made external, and more demanding in film because on stage you have language – poetic or otherwise – to do it, and film is still predominantly a visual medium. I agree – it’s not simply ‘brooding’ in RM at all – but it will be taken that way. It’s why one critic mentioned him being ‘opaque,’ I think, but I hope Rob becomes one of those actors who can hold the screen with ‘thought’ alone. There are a few who can do it. I was discussing this with some thesp friends of mine which is why I'm going on..and on...about it... :)
THR lists international box office at $9.9 mil. currently.
@papagaj: that must be very frustrating for people who want to see films like RM in Poland...
Thanks Ap--i so appreciate your explanations and clarificatons. As I have said before, I am neither sophisticated nor knowledgable as far as film, and really so many other things in the secular world, are concerned. But aside from the fact I know what I like in art of any form, and I like myself very well, surely enough to respect my own likes and dislikes no matter what the pundits, critics, or masses say, I DO know human behaviour and signs and signals, even very subtle. It is with this 'eye' I see Rob, and I see him as being very talented in bringing to life some difficult psychological and emotional challenges. I remember in an interview he remarked he did not really know how to act, that he could not cry on command, or have a sudden scared face on demand, etc. It appears to me what he CAN do is internalize the character so well, that he expresses the emotions as if he is that character, as if he were typecast to that character even though he wasn't, by deeply understanding the facets of a character to the point where he intuitively knows, as if it his himself, how that character will act and react. It could very well be at this point that he cannot relate to every type of character yet, and so will only take on roles he can understand and internalize, but I am already impressed with what he is doing.
I'm one of those people who just don't care about critics of any kind be it music, art, movies etc. Why? b/c it's all subjective. My sister may think a song is fantastic and I think it's crap. So to me they are just a bunch of self-important freeloaders. They're not very original either. A lot of the reviews sound so similar you'd think the same person wrote them. I mean Seriously! After seeing Little Ashes there was no doubt in my mind RPatz is talented. I researched Dali saw some clips of him. I mean the guy was a genius but he was also very eccentric and Rob did a wonderful job. He and that Javier made one hot couple on screen. I'm just sayin' (Ok I laughed at the entrance scene and the moustache, but that was Dali; very out there.) He was brave to take that on. In Remember Me He was spot on. The entire cast was very good. My only issue with the Film was pace. I felt the intro took too long. The reunion with Ally totally escaped me. The editing there confused me. So I can see the point of the poster who said the film was not brought together well. Rob is young and he'll get better with more projects. I still hate New Moon though.
One more thing all this crap about them exploiting 9/11. Give me a break. It was done in the most subtle way. I lived in Brooklyn, worked on Wall Steet. My Friend and sister worked in World trade. It was horrendous. So those critics can spare me the FAKE outrage cause most of them didn't live it and didn't almost lose family members to it. Exploitation is using 9/11 to invade Iraq and murder 1.2 million iraquis and cause 4.5 of them to live in refugee camps. THEY NEED TO GET UPSET ABOUT THAT.
Sweets.... this thread is long dead, but if you do ever stroll back in, just brush off that jibe.
Most of us are true Rob fans here. i.e. we don't blindly fawn all over him, but appreciate the blooming artist that he is, warts and all. Constructive and respectful analysis is always welcome, even when we disagree!
AP: that's a good comparison. My thought is simply that Rob has never had the time to thoroughly learn his acting "scales," so he can put them behind and simply "be" in the moment. He has reached that point in music, but not in his acting "chops." He is learning on screen, which puts him in a terrible vulnerable position.
I wish him excellent directors and co-stars who can help speed the process along in a positive direction. The loveliest gem in the world needs to be shaped by a master craftsman to become a jewel!
@Loisada: I agree - still learning and it is harder to do it 'out there' - but I'm afraid the Twilight phenom gave him no choice. He can't 'backtrack' at this point. I,too, wish him the best of company, and the best of scripts - and the chance to pick 'em. I hope he and Donnellan have a good working relationship. It could be really productive. And there is time - Rob is not even 24 yet....:)
AP_-thanks--I find this all so interesting, having had no background or information in any of this. (I do have a brother of a brother in law who is an 'actor', but not very good as far as I can tell, and his whole life he has been wanting that big break to make it big, but I don't see it.)
ANyway--I understand the world (and your comments, as part of it!) through the lense of my own experience and reference; what you wrote reminded me of what I call the 'knowing' phenomenon, based on the biblical word of 'knowing.'
WHen translated into English, a couple 'joining' in a certain way physically is called 'knowing'-- Adam 'knew' Eve, etc. Yet that same verb in Biblical Hebrew is rightly used in the usual sense of knowing as in, she knew something was wrong, or she did not know what was happening. People either don't think of this odd commonality of seemingly disparate words at all, or they dismiss it as a quaint euphemism, when actually the common bond of both meanings (knowing sexually and knowing a fact) is: becoming at one with someone/something, skill, fact; absorbing someone/something, skill, fact, into a unit of self, into the self. When you really know something, it is part of you, you don't think about it anymore--like knowing how to walk, read, ride a bike-- once you really KNOW it, you don't think about it or practice it anymore, it flows in your brain and your blood, it is one with you. Knowing in the biblical, sexual sense is forming a unit--not just a physical joining, since there is another ancient Hebrew word for just having sex-- lying, as in using someone as a mattress, or pleasure mechanism alone-- and is surely on a lower plane than knowing--becoming as one.
That is what I see with ROb, and I suppose anyone I consider a really good actor instinctively, even before the skill classes or directors: that they KNOW the character, have become one with him, at least for a time, and therefore can just BE the character, and every conversation, action, subtle look or movement, are all expressions of BEING because of becoming one with ane absorbing the character.
Does that all make sense?
@Solas: Want to respond, and think I 'get' it, but have to run out for a while. Will be back with lengthy reply - will try to be brief, however - later...
I look forward to your response; make it as lengthy as you need. :-) I will not be online from before sundown this evening (around 6:45 daylight time) until Wednesday night after about 8:15, but I will look for your response. As always, you can email me and I will check when I am able (in this case, after 8:15 Wednesday evening).
@Solas: Ah, of course, Passsover. I will leave this for you to read on your return - if you are still interested, and can find it. :) Yes, I'm afraid it is lengthy after all - but this is my last missive on acting, I promise. lol
Interesting – I knew about the biblical sexual definition, but not the deeper connotation. Yes, that kind of ‘being’ or knowing you describe is what Donnellan refers to as the ‘invisible work’ – what you know about your character, and also what you don’t know, but you don’t ‘play’ any of it – it just invests the actor/character, and has hopefully seeped into the bones. What I really like about Donnellan’s book and approach is that he regards acting as our ‘first instinct.’ His book is about how to get out of the way, or to unblock, the obstacles actors put in the way of allowing that instinct to work as freely and simply as possible. He sees the better actor as being not the more talented, but the more ‘unblocked.’ To repeat, boringly so - more important than Being is Doing. To Act, above all, means literally to Do. And you must be doing something TO someone or something. That is the visible work. There are many different words to describe that someone/something/abstract idea – object, action&objective, the other, or the target. Essentially it must be external, it changes, it motivates and above it must be specific, as must your objective and action. Most acting training will have this mantra in some form or other. It’s what is meant by “acting is reacting.” Stanislavski, Meisner, Hagen, Lewis, Morris, Michael Chekov and many others have written such treatises on acting, and acting classes worldwide are based on their work. Of course then you also have someone like David Mamet who takes on the Method/acting class world and says – pfft. Actually, being Mamet, he’s more likely to say f* that. His mantra is more - be rested and fit, turn up on time, know your lines, and have an objective, breathe properly, speak clearly, and above all – respect the audience. Be heard, seen and communicate the play. Bit like Noel Coward’s infamous quote “Learn the lines and don’t bump into the furniture.” Classical training was more of this ilk. Of course, they are foremost playwrights, not just directors, and don’t/didn’t want actors ‘messing about’ with the script/play. I think all of the above is sound advice. Lol
You might find Donnellan an interesting read, because what he covers is as much about psychology and human behavior, as it is about acting. As far as your family member is concerned - getting a break is often pure luck, however hard you work, network, or how much you hope. As Rob well knows…
AP--thanks for your response; very interesting and informative on several planes. I have at least a dozen books on queue to read right now; else if I had the time I think Donellan WOULD be an interesting read, even though I personally have no desire to go into acting, but because what he said (as you quote him or paraphrase him)is so on target psychologically: acting IS our first (nonbioligical) instinct, and so many do not realize this at all. Babies learn very quickly if adults run to them when they cry, to make themselves cry to get attention. Then they giggle and turn off the waterworks as soon as the adults come running! ANd this is VERY early on! Babies watch and mimic adults--their sounds, verbal expressions. At first, much of what a baby does in gross motor skills is very gross, random, flailing, not controlled, kind of hit or miss, but when they are reinforced--say by a smile that was not really purposeful at first, they very soon learn to smile purposefully, to get the reinforcement from adults. And so on. Little chldren are wonderful manipulators if they can tap into this very early instinct of acting, learning ot master whch faces will get them what they want, or out of trouble. The problem comes when acting to please others, or to get reinforcement, dominates the child and the child loses sense of self, or development of self. That is where early childhood negative stages (like terrible 2s, saying NO!) and adolescent rebellion (even against wonderful parents, sometimes SPECFICALLY against wonderful parents)come in and are so neccessary, but, sadly, even then, so many--even a majority-- are still 'acting' at this point, following a script to please, or to belong, rather than to develop self.
On the other hand, I do see some fault with Donellan (at least as you describe):'More important than being is doing.' As far as I can see, for human development as well as for real believable performance as an actor, Being is NECESSARY for Doing; the actor must BE the character, KNOW (internalize) the character to DO what that character would believably realistically do. I don't know most of the directors you name; I am familiar with Mamet. TO me, and maybe this is why I don't like too many movies or consider most stars as actual ACTORS, sayng the lines and not bumping into the furniture is not enough. That is what I see all too often. Perhaps because my favourite genre is drama (especially pyschological drama, literary drama or historical drama)I want to believe the characters; i want to feel them, i want to BE THERE with them. And Hearing and seeing the 'stars' just say the lines and move the moves is not enough for me. I want to KNOW the characters as people. For that, I need real actors to really act, to really KNOW and BE the character, and to DO based on that KNOWING and BEING.
@Solas: exactly....I think you and Donnellan are very much ‘on the same page’ about early instincts and human development, although he has a slightly different variation on the forms of natural ‘acting.’ Yes, it’s me not explaining well about the being and the doing. I think you are talking about the experience of the audience or the viewer, in seeing a fully realized character and accepting that, but an actor can’t play ‘being.’ An actor will be engaged in a moment to moment interaction with other actors, or an externalized idea, or an object, and part of their, and our, understanding of their character comes from that. An actor has to have an objective and tries to make that happen, which usually involves trying to get the other to do what he/she needs. In turn, his response will be changed by whatever he receives from the other actor. Whatever the choices are, they are made by the character within the context of the conflict of the play/script, and ‘how’ the actor does it is all that hidden work, informing who he is in the moment. Sometimes those choices are in the subtext and not the text. Donnellan says it much better than I – so won’t go on. I think what Mamet and others are really trying to say to actors is: don’t overcomplicate. Sometimes the playwright has really done a lot of your work for you – as in Shakespeare, and if you don’t have basic good diction and delivery the audience won’t get the play, and “the play’s the thing…” Same could be said for the arc of a script. Another way of saying, as Donnellan is trying to help actors do - get out of your own way and it will be a lot easier and clear. Sometimes actors forget they are only part of a whole….;) Of course, film carries a whole other aspect – and I could burble on about Pasolini, Godard, and the semiotics of cinema --- but...I won’t...lol
@Solas: I just had to share this because it is obviously in the zeitgeist. Lol Michael Fleming blogged this today: Smuggler Films, the shingle formed by John N. Hart, Brian Carmody and Patrick Milling Smith, have optioned Jean Anouilh's Tony-winning 1960 play Becket and plan to turn it into a film. They've hired playwright/lyricist Ranjit Bolt to write the script. The David Merrick-produced play --the story of King Henry II's decision to appoint Thomas Becket to Archbishop of Canterbury in 1162 to check the ever-growing power of the Church over his subjects, and Becket's risky decision to embrace God over his king--originally paired Laurence Olivier and Anthony Quinn--who alternated roles. The play was turned into an Oscar-nominated 1964 film with Richard Burton and Peter O'Toole, so there is fertile ground for a re-discovery. Bolt, nephew of A Man For All Seasons writer Robert Bolt, has translated classic plays produced by Britain's Royal National Theatre and The Royal Shakespeare Company, including Lysistrata, Tartuffe, Cyrano de Bergerac and The Real Don Juan. Interesting to see who they will cast...
Wow!!! I just was so taken with the 1964 version that I just recently viewed. I am not usually a fan of remakes, although apparently the 1964 version WAS a remake! (I also love the DanielDayLewis version of Last of Mohicans way better than earliers ones I have seen on video, and the latest movie version as well as PBS/BBC version of Prde and Prejudice were way way better than the older ones have seen on TV or video. ANd I think the new Bel Ami will be way better than and I would love to see a better version of Fountainhead. :-) Now as I enumerate, maybe I am NOT so against remakes! ;-)
I think I understand a little better the idea of acting/being/doing: Some actors and certainly some stars make it seem as if they are an island, or the sun with planets or satellites going around it, and when you have a few like that in a film, it is like planets that are not ever interacting or intersecting, just each going about its own orbit. The performance might be brilliant when looked at individually, but if you are viewing a film with several characters, you want the characters engaged, the actors interacting with each other as if it were real life, and the brilliance is not just capturing the character, but breathign life into the character even to the extent of genuine interaction (unless the film is about individuals each in his own world not paying attention to each other!). So each actor's character must be that character and react to, and interact with, the character(s)portrayed opposite himself.
@Solas: Yes, I think you understand the relationship - despite my awkward explanation - well. And even if they are in a world by themselves - they have to be 'actively' so...lol
I think they may plan to put Becket on stage first and then do the film - and yes, sometimes 'remakes' can really 'refresh' the original. Of course, sometimes not! ;) I think it would be great to see Rob play it one day but he's not the right age yet. I hear there are plans to do "The Fountainhead" but don't think it's firmed up. If I hear more I'll let you know... :)
Thanks AP--for everything!
Post a Comment