Fun Flicks and Fabulous Finds

• September 7, 2001, 6pm ET | SCREAM launches
• September 9, 2009, 6am ET | SCREAM rebranded as DUSK
• March 23, 2012, 6am ET | DUSK goes off the air

“How would you like to program a horror channel?”

Those words were spoken to me eleven years ago, and I was probably the first person to ever hear such a question.

Card design -- and logo -- by Nicolas Kadima, original Creative Director for SCREAM

At the time no such service existed anywhere in the world (Monsters HD, Chiller, Horror Channel and FEARnet would come later). It would be like becoming the Neil Armstrong of horror television.

Of course I said “Yes!”

It wasn’t going to easy. There’s a reason why such a channel had never been attempted before — especially a sales-based one. Its appeal was potentially narrow but, more significantly, many advertisers are not cool with having their corporate image associated with chainsaw-wielding psychos and such.

Even a top-rated channel can have trouble attracting ad clients if its content is deemed too intense; a phenomenon I was more than familiar with from my years at Showcase and History Television.

But I was determined to see DUSK (then known as SCREAM) make everyone happy; horror fans, non-horror fans, advertisers and all of its stakeholders, while at the same time staying true to its Condition of Licence. I figured the best way to do that was to build a schedule that had plenty of “safe” and appealing content for advertisers.

Yet content that would also attract as many eyeballs as possible.

And it did.

Right out of the gate — three months later — it was one of the most-watched digital channels. Especially with women. That surprised many who assumed its appeal was limited to horror geeks who lived in basements.

On September 7, 2001, 6pm ET, SCREAM launched with Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Because early digital ratings were sure to be too small to accurately measure specific demographics, SCREAM's early schedules featured a wide range of B&W classics, designed to attract a 50+ audience and boost its overall ranking. The strategy worked but, as the popularity of the channel grew, it became necessary to drop these films so as to attract a larger 18-34 and 18-49 audience which ad clients desired.

The trick was redefining the genre so it included programming almost anyone could enjoy.

That tactic annoyed some of the hardcore fans, but it was suicide to cater to their very narrow perception of the genre 24/7.

Remember, it cost $4-5 million annually to keep the channel going. You need a lot of basement-dwelling slasher-movie fans to cover that nut.

Besides, what’s the point of having a horror channel if it fails to make money and gets cancelled? Then everyone loses. That’s pretty much what happened to Monsters HD in the U.S.

SCREAM's late-night programming included some of the most celebrated horror films, such as Peter Jackson's zombie gore-fest Dead Alive -- arguably the goriest movie ever made. These films rarely made a significant impact in the ratings, but they were most often requested by subscribers.

But, when I left in 2007, SCREAM wasn’t facing that problem.

Sales revenue alone had grown at a rate of at least 95% (up to 267%) annually.

By 2005 it was one of the first digitals to score over 1 million subscribers (in 2010 there were still about 30 that hadn’t reached that milestone)

By 2006 it was not only in profit mode but it’s AMA (Average Minute Audience) — which is its most important measurement for Sales — was solidly in the Top 5 across all demographics, including women (#4 with Women 18-34).

Here is a list of the Top 10 digitals (there were 52 in total) in 2006, ranked by AMA with Adults 18-49.

Included in this is subscriber revenue and program expenses which, in SCREAM’s case, was often lower than its competition. That should have knocked down its ratings strength potential, but didn’t. (Source: CRTC Statistical and Financial Summaries 2005-2009)

A little over a year after I left I spotted a SCREAM Sales page on the internet which said it now ranked in the “top 10 digital channels” and “had consistently delivered strong AMA growth for both Adults 18-49 and Men 18-34″

“Had consistently”? The use of past-tense was a troubling sign — I even sent an e-mail to the Sales rep to suggest they rephrase that — as was its new “top ten” ranking. During my entire tenure I didn’t recall SCREAM ever dropping out of the Top 5, especially with key demographics.

Early DUSK promo, meant to attract a stronger female audience -- and presumably repel male viewers too.

Later, when I saw their more recent financials, it showed that Sales revenue had stalled and started showing negative growth, even before the 2008 financial crisis kicked in (-7.44% in fiscal 2008 and an additional -2.95% in 2009).

Even subscriber revenue started showing negative growth in 2009, losing almost 6%. That fact was especially troubling as digital growth in general was still on the rise, and was reflected in the growth of other digitals.

In light of all this it shouldn’t have been a surprise when Corus (the majority owner of the channel) decided to dump the SCREAM name — and any mention of the word “horror” — and rebrand it as DUSK.

They said its new schedule would target Adults 18 – 49, building on “the growing fascination with supernatural, paranormal-themed films and television series.”

I understood their logic. The big bright spot on the SCREAM schedule at that point was their new series acquisition Supernatural. Series programming is always a great way to boost AMA because it encourages appointment viewing. It was certainly part of my long-term strategy (we had similar success with Millennium), provided I could secure rights to appropriate series that wouldn’t blow the budget. It’s a risky move to put all your eggs in one basket.

But the DUSK strategy regrettably sacrificed a lot of content that made SCREAM a success in the first place.

Prior to all this — at least between 2005 and 2007 — these were some of the most-watched movies on SCREAM amongst their desired demographic, Adults 18 – 49:

The space monster flick Independence Day was easily the most popular film on the SCREAM schedule.

Independence Day
Tremors II: Aftershocks
Die Hard
Die Hard 2
The Road Warrior
Predator
Cliffhanger
Dog Soldiers
Broken Arrow
The Terminator

Even more curious were the films that proved most popular with women (DUSK’s most coveted demographic). They were much the same.

Between 2005 and 2007 these were some of the highest-rated with Women 18-34:

The Frankenstein-themed film RoboCop -- and other "guy flicks" like it -- was a remarkable favourite with Women 18-34.

Gremlins 2: The New Batch
Independence Day
Damien: Omen II
RoboCop
Die Hard 2
Broken Arrow
The Road Warrior
Twister
Cliffhanger
Tremors II: Aftershocks

Of course programming the channel involved more than just buying a bunch of A-grade Hollywood thrillers and throwing them on the schedule. One had to be strategic about when, where and how often they played.

Regardless, most of the above programming no longer suited the new DUSK brand. They had to be abandoned.

There were other reasons why this had to happen too. Let’s just say there are a lot of factors that are key to the operation of a sales-based channel — particularly within a company determined to secure a key demographic.

But viewer ratings were still an important measure if Sales hoped to increases its rates and gain more ad revenue. Sadly, according to this document (See “Digital Specialty Rankings” at the bottom 2 pages), by 2011 DUSK was no longer a Top 10 digital channel.

And now — as of March 23, 2012 — DUSK is going off the air. Little was said about that decision except “after a review of our business we have decided to discontinue DUSK.”

Screen capture from DUSK website, March 22, 2012.

As I said in the beginning, this was never an easy channel to make successful — but that’s what I loved about it. It was always a challenge.

The challenge was trying to please everybody who was a stakeholder — not just viewers. If you fail any of them, the whole thing eventually collapses.

It’s a rare thing to be able to satisfy so many. They often have conflicting needs, desires and demands.

It certainly wasn’t easy to juggle. Of course, to me, that was the fun part — figuring out how to do it.

I’m just glad I was given the opportunity to master a strategy that became my mantra: Please all of the people at least some of the time.

Still, I will miss seeing my baby once known as SCREAM.

Late last year a British education charity known as FILMCLUB issued a list of 20 classic films they insist “should be watched” by children. They urged parents and grandparents to make sure that happens.

Most publications reprinted their call to action without comment or criticism. Here’s what they recommend:

TEN CLASSIC MOVIES FOR PRIMARY SCHOOL CHILDREN (ages 6 to 12)

1. The Red Balloon (1956)
2. Duck Soup (1933)
3. The Wizard of Oz (1939)
4. Oliver Twist (1948)
5. The Lavender Hill Mob (1951)
6. The Kid (1921)
7. Miracle on 34th Street (1947)
8. Singin’ In The Rain (1952)
9. The Thief of Bagdad (1940)
10. La Belle et La Bête (1946)

TEN CLASSIC MOVIES FOR SECONDARY SCHOOL CHILDREN (ages 12 to 18)

1. 

   Screen capture from filmclub.org

   North by Northwest (1959)
2. A Matter of Life and Death (1946)
3. Metropolis (1927)
4. It’s A Wonderful Life (1946)
5. The Great Escape (1963)
6. Twelve Angry Men (1957)
7. The Night of the Hunter (1955)
8. Kind Hearts and Coronets (1949)
9. Seven Samurai (1954)
10. The Ladykillers (1955)

Malcolm McDowell in the Stanley Kubrick film A Clockwork Orange

Typical reader responses include “I can’t argue with any of those choices. They are all, deservedly, classics.” Others pleasantly debated about what should be added to the list, and what should stay. Most seemed to agree at least one Stanley Kubrick film should have been included — like Dr. Strangelove or 2001: A Space Odyssey.

But nobody seemed particularly concerned about the kids, and how they might take to this. If you think about it, it’s a bit like shoving a stock of broccoli in a child’s mouth and insisting “It’s good for you, now eat it!” Either kids will swallow it — willingly or not — or they’ll spit it out.

Let me be clear — I am 100% in support of children discovering the world of classic cinema. But the key word is “discovering.” Not subjecting them to the Ludovico Technique.

It’s not easy, but it is possible for kids — in sufficient numbers — to discover vintage films they might truly enjoy and find relevant, thus triggering a prolonged interest. The trick is to let them find their own path. Not dictate one to them. Such an autocratic approach tends to generate only one of two responses: conformity or rebellion.

Didn’t anyone see if….?

But FILMCLUB’s dictatorial methods already shows signs of both which, to me, is depressing because a much more constructive approach is not only feasible but immensely more rewarding for all.

“I hate black and white movies so I hate this one!”
- 9-year-old Joe after watching The Lavender Hill Mob

Let’s look at Duck Soup, for example. It’s arguably the strongest comedy on this FILMCLUB list, but the humour is mostly verbal — the kind adults tend to “get,” and kids don’t. Looking at the comments section, a curious pattern emerges that seems to prove this tendency. When the youngsters — especially pre-teens — articulate what they specifically like about the film, they always highlight the physical comedy (e.g. “the bit where he kept swapping the hats” gets mentioned a lot). Not the verbal gags.

They especially liked “the person who couldn’t speak.” I’ll give you a hint: it wasn’t Groucho.

The following seems to sum it up best:

“I really enjoyed this film because it was very funny, especially the mirror bit. The only thing that I didn’t like about it was that I didn’t understand it all.” – Oliver, 7 years old

Groucho Marx wonders why young kids prefer watching his silent brother over him in Duck Soup.

For the most part the remarks about Duck Soup are incredibly kind compared to what youngsters say about some of the other recommended titles. Singin’ in the Rain, for instance, tended to provoke complaints that it “broke into song every five minutes.” And the predominant descriptors for The Lavender Hill Mob were “boring” and “not funny.”

Of course, there were others who said they loved this Ealing comedy, but their write-ups were often a laundry list of production details, such as 10-year-old Matthew who says “A cool Charles Crichton film with Alec Guinness and lots more crazy people a great plot and a good finish to this silly story lasting a full 81action minutes superb!!! Everyone watch THE LAVENDER HILL MOB.”

I was a bit puzzled by Matthew’s enthusiasm and detail — and others like it — until I discovered the “FILMCLUB Guides.”

These “guides” are meant to be read by the kids before they watch a particular film, and are unquestionably designed to influence a positive response (sort of FILMCLUB’s version of “Serum 114“). Check out this one for Kind Hearts and Coronets, which follows the same format as the others.

The plot summary — or “What’s it about?” section — is loaded with subjective remarks such as “astonishing lead performances” from Alec Guinness, and that “the result is a masterclass in great acting – and a darkly hilarious movie to boot.” But the editorializing doesn’t stop there.

Screen capture from filmclub.org

At the end they tack on a “What We Think” section. The one for Kind Hearts reads: “Featuring more funny performances than you can count, Kind Hearts and Coronets more than deserves its reputation as possibly Britain’s best ever black comedy.”

In between, the guides predominately include nothing but positive, glowing review quotes — not a single dissenting opinion amongst them (even though a number of the selected films were critical and/or box office disappointments when originally released).

But what is most unusual is they also include a section called a “Review Starter.” They actually feed students opening lines for positive reviews they are expected to write.

Yes, they literally tell them what to say.

Screen capture from the "FILMCLUB Guide" for The General

Instead of coercing children to write fawning reviews of the films they’re made to watch, why not let them be honest with us? Why not let them articulate what they like — or don’t like — and encourage them to explain why? Speaking as someone who usually analyses Nielsen data, I can assure you their honest insight would be invaluable.

As is, it’s difficult to decipher which opinions are genuine versus those that merely ape what’s being programmed into them. To me, a great opportunity for learning — on all fronts — is being blown here.

FILMCLUB insists the objective for their 20 “should be watched” films is to give children “a better understanding of cinema” — but they seem to be forgetting a few things about the true history of movies.

For one, a lot of early cinema wasn’t meant for kids in the first place — including many of their “should be watched” titles. They typically dealt with adult characters, concerns and stories because that was their primary audience.

Naturally some succeed in appealing to children anyway, such as It’s a Wonderful Life (story of a father contemplating suicide, and being brought back from the brink by a guardian angel), but at a running time of 130 minutes, it did provoke complaints that it was “long and i didnt understand the plot.”

Another fact FILMCLUB overlooks is that early films were meant to be seen in a theatre. It was a place where young and old would gather — remember, they had no ratings system — and it was not uncommon for the scene to get a bit chaotic and noisy. Below is a scene from a film called Nitrate Base which gives a hint to its atmosphere.

In just about every way, recreating an old-fashioned, theatrical experience would be preferable over dvd (most FILMCLUB screenings happen in classrooms, with kids sometimes having to sit on the floor). The means are certainly available to make that happen, and it’s a great way to bring film history to life.

At the very least, if showing something like a silent film in a classroom, how about letting the kids add their own music and/or sound effects (similar to what the children did in that Nitrate Base clip)? It’s not only a great opportunity to get goofy, but inspire creativity and social interaction.

FILMCLUB, on the other hand, aims for a high-brow film festival-like experience with introductions, after-film discussions and everyone wearing VIP access passes.

But they insist it provides “some film fun.”

Adult audience watches the 3D film Bwana Devil in 1952, while FILMCLUB kids are given a modern-day film festival-style experience that includes wearing VIP access passes.

Wanna know what else is fun? Watching The 5,000 Fingers of Dr. T. in a theatre with a raucous crowd, and hearing them go “Hissssss!” every time the villain appears (in this clip it would sound at the 0:29 point). It’s a great socially binding experience which I’ve personally witnessed a few times. Unfortunately FILMCLUB doesn’t even list this film in its entire 3600+ title library; a curious omission considering it’s the only feature written by legendary children’s author Dr. Suess.

A midnight screening of The Rocky Horror Picture Show is an especially good opportunity for audience participation. Almost every city has one (in the UK, a pro sing-along is scheduled this month in London). Believe me, that’s an experience no teenager will forget — or likely regret.

NOTE: I don’t recommend watching Rocky Horror on dvd. As the clip below should demonstrate, home viewing is nowhere near as enjoyable.

So What Should We Do?

The question inevitably remains: Don’t we need to give the children some guidance?

The answer is easy. Just listen to what they’ve already told us.

Image from LIFE Magazine, July 1, 1946

Of course, FILMCLUB’s comments section — our best source of intel on what the kids like — is not entirely reliable or trustworthy. Some of the opinions — especially those from conformist-prone children — are sure to pay lip service to the FILMCLUB Guides. However, if the volume is large enough, the film’s genuine appeal is easier to glean.

We also must be mindful of the screening conditions, which seem damn uncomfortable (classroom settings, with blacked-out windows, and children having to sit on the floor). This would surely diminish the effectiveness of a screening, particularly in how well kids respond to it.

Plus, FILMCLUB’s inventory is missing a lot of titles such as the entire filmographies of Martin and Lewis, The Three Stooges, Hammer Pictures, the Andy Hardy series and Our Gang.

This leaves us with Disney films, Laurel and Hardy and the Carry On movies, which have historically had youth appeal.

Only four Carry On movies are present in the FILMCLUB inventory, but these consistently garner positive response. For example, Carry On Screaming has 50 comments, and I only spotted two that were negative.

The Three Stooges (Curly, Larry and Moe) in Healthy, Wealthy & Dumb. (Unavailable in FILMCLUB's inventory)

Same goes for Laurel and Hardy films. Sons of the Desert has over 200 comments, and the vast majority are favourable. 10-year-old Yasmin’s comment about the film seems to nail it best: “This film was good because the men were really silly and acted like children.”

Bravo to Yasmin for figuring that one out. This important quality about the characters is often overlooked by critics and scholars, and is never mentioned in the associated 2-page FILMCLUB Guide. They instead describe it as “Tom and Jerry-esque tomfoolery” which is wholly incorrect.

The listed Disney titles also consistently attract high praise, especially with the younger kids, though the remake of The Parent Trap seemed more enthusiastically received than the original. 12-year-old Sanjana — one of the few to write anything negative about the original — appears to have identified the weakness:

This film did not keep the audience engaged, and after seeing the newer version I can safely say it did not live up to the modern film. The pace was a bit too slow and it dragged on a bit, but the ending was very abrupt. The modern film was more romantic. In this film, the characters were annoying and not very believable.

Many FILMCLUB kids say the 1970 WWII action/adventure/comedy film Kelly's Heroes, starring Clint Eastwood, was "boring"

What I especially like about Sanjana’s comment is that it focuses on the three things which most often concerns kids: pacing, story and characters. Plus, it addresses the audience’s reactions (“did not keep the audience engaged”) — not just the reviewer’s. I rarely see that mentioned in the reviews or comments.

Paying attention to your audience — and understanding their reactions — is, to me, the most important thing a programmer can learn, or anyone interested in the visual arts. Unfortunately, there’s zero evidence FILMCLUB encourages this tactic.

But identifying the elements that work, and which ones don’t — and figuring out why it is so — is one of the best forms of learning there is. Besides, isn’t one of FILMCLUB’s stated objectives to nurture “intellectual development” and “open their minds”?

For example, children complain about films being in black-and-white — a lot — but when they see one they enjoy, it rarely comes up as an issue. Why do you think that is?

If you can figure that out, and make more such titles available, the more likely your audience will expand their thinking and explore more. Especially as they mature and grow older.

Sadly, FILMCLUB’s current system of imposing a narrow list of adult-selected “should be watched” titles, and pressuring young impressionables to parrot a positive review of them, robs kids of a valuable self-discovery — and the rest of us of a rich insight.

Children — like Yasmin and Sanjana — are often smarter than we give them credit. They certainly deserve more in this circumstance.

That all being said, I think the overall idea of FILMCLUB — students programming films for their friends and classmates — is fantastic. If you listen to your audience, you ultimately learn so much from them, and people in general. It’s a great thrill figuring out what makes them applaud.

I used to do something similar (program festivals at York University) and one of the things I learned was never to program The Night of the Hunter again (one of FILMCLUB’s “should be watched” titles). That was my biggest disaster. Try it yourself with a youth audience. See if you experience the same reactions I did, and let me know. I’d be curious to find out if what I witnessed 23 years ago at Nat Taylor Cinema still holds true today.

I’ll admit this much: it wasn’t the black-and-white cinematography that had them snickering and walking out.

And if you’re one of those doing the programming, you might also find some good tips in this document which was written and refined over a period of years. It’s based on a number of proven formulas for success.

Though the article is quite dated now — it was prepared back when film societies still used theatres and projected in 35mm — it makes a lot of good suggestions that are still applicable today.

Most important is Suggestion #7: “Get to know your audience… listen to what they have to say.”

——–

Special thanks to Leo Enticknap who originally brought this Daily Mirror article to my attention. Also thanks to Suzan and The Wife for their feedback.

UPDATE: This topic later became the inspiration for Enough Already: The Wonderful, Horrible Reception of Nancy Meyers; an essay I wrote that was published in Cineaction. It is available at Amazon, or you can read a text-only version here. It is worth noting that, after doing more research, the conclusions I arrived at were not entirely the same as those I highlight here.

The other night The Wife wanted to celebrate her birthday by going to the movies. Her pick was Julie & Julia. It seemed a safe bet. Written and directed by Nora Ephron, best known for her work on When Harry Met Sally, Sleepless in Seattle and You’ve Got Mail, this had the promise of being a good relationship story.

When the trailers appeared, I saw something else that looked promising; a new film from Nancy Meyers called It’s Complicated. Some years ago Street Eats creator Tess Loyson told me how much she loved her films, highly recommending two I hadn’t seen yet — Something’s Gotta Give and Baby Boom. At that point I was only familiar with What Women Want and The Parent Trap. The latter I enjoyed immensely. After watching the rest of her films — including the ample amount she’d written, co-written and produced — I knew I had to keep an eye on this woman.

Myers came out with The Holiday in 2006 and, to me, it just confirmed she’s a masterful filmmaker. Rarely had I laughed so heartedly, and been so charmed. My only quibble was with the super-syrupy New Year’s Eve ending. It wasn’t needed — at least not as played, with such overbearing cheer — and she should have had the confidence to know that. Granted, people like Spielberg have made bigger missteps than that.

So now she’s coming out with It’s Complicated, and it’s sure to be worth watching. But it got me wondering. Why couldn’t I remember her name appearing in any of my reference books about great directors? Or Nora Ephron’s. After the movie I went home and checked.

Just as I thought. No listings. Couldn’t find Penny Marshall either. Until Meyers and Ephron came along, Marshall brought in more box office dollars than any woman in Hollywood.

Some of the books in my collection have over 500 directors named, and it’s not just a boy’s club listing. Kathryn Bigelow could be found. Even relative newcomer Sofia Coppola shows up too. Leni Riefenstahl, of course (the final scene of Star Wars was inspired by her Triumph of the Will, after all, but you’re better off checking out Walter Grauman’s 633 Squadron. The Death Star battle is almost shot-for-shot from the climax of that film). Doris Wishman? What’s she doing there? Have any of you seen a Doris Wishman film? Check out the trailer below for Dildo Heaven. It’s a good example of the quality you can expect (NOTE: The content is very PG).

The first assumption for this oversight might be that it’s disdain for popular Hollywood cinema. But that’s nonsense. Much has been written about the mega-hits of Spielberg, Lucas and James Cameron. More recently there is already tons about the Batman movies, the Lord of the Rings trilogy — certainly anything based on a comic book or fantasy tale. All have been releases from major Hollywood studios, just like the films from these ladies.

No, I think the big problem is that most of the so-called experts out there are men. Guys who dream of being in the shoes of the masters they worship. Unless the ladies flash some big breasts, or show a lot of macho action, you’re not likely to get a film geek’s attention. Even if a woman excels in a genre tradition most often associated with the established “greats.”

In the 1930s and 40s, for example, there was a popular film genre called the screwball comedy. Some of the biggest directors of that era took turns with it, including Frank Capra, Howard Hawks and George Cukor. Nowadays, though, the only ones who tend to get praised for the modern-day “screwball” is the Coen Brothers, in films such as Raising Arizona, O Brother, Where Art Thou?, Intolerable Cruelty and Burn After Reading. But the films of Nancy Meyers are clearly more direct descendants of this classic form. They have also made more money.

I Love Trouble (which Meyers wrote and produced) is definitely inspired by the classics Bringing Up Baby and His Girl Friday. Something’s Gotta Give features the slapstick humor and verbal sparring that is often characteristic of the genre. So too is The Parent Trap, with its journey of a divorced couple falling in love again, not much dissimilar from The Awful Truth and The Philadelphia Story. Judging from its trailer, It’s Complicated revisits that premise too. The Holiday directly references the genre often, particularly with Eli Wallach’s explanation of the “meet cute,” plus the one video Kate Winslet is seen watching is His Girl Friday. Cross-dressing men was another popular element in the genre (the most well-known example is Some Like It Hot), and What Women Want took it one step further by having Mel Gibson journey into the minds of women. Not just their clothes.

So it strikes me that Meyers warrants credit along with her fellow, far more respected, great directors. A lot more credit. She knows her film history — certainly it’s most difficult genre, which no one else has mastered as successfully these days — plus she knows how to write, direct and create entertainment people want to see. It’s more than you can say for Doris Wishman.

—————-

Here’s some math on worldwide box office, thanks to Box Office Mojo:

The Parent Trap – $92,108,518
What Women Want – $374,111,707
Something’s Gotta Give – $266,728,738
The Holiday – $205,135,324

Total for four Nancy Meyers-directed films (we’ll leave out those she wrote and/or produced): $938,084,287

Now let’s do some math for the Coen Brothers
Since only domestic totals are available for some — and we want to give them a fighting chance
— we’ll add up everything

Blood Simple – $3,851,855 (domestic lifetime)
Raising Arizona – $29,180,280
Miller’s Crossing – $5,080,409 (domestic)
Barton Fink – $6,153,939 (domestic)
The Hudsucker Proxy – $2,816,518 (domestic)
Fargo – $60,611,975
The Big Lebowski – $17,451,873 (domestic)
O Brother, Where Art Thou? – $71,868,327
The Man Who Wasn’t There – $18,916,623
Intolerable Cruelty – $120,217,409
The Ladykillers – $76,747,441
Paris, je t’aime (”Tuileries” segment) – $17,335,978
No Country for Old Men – $162,113,329
Burn After Reading – $161,128,228

Total for fourteen Coen Brothers films: $753,474,184

And, just for the hell of it, let’s look at the numbers for one of today’s most celebrated directors:
Quentin Tarantino
Again we’ll add up everything he’s directed to help compensate for the lack of foreign numbers

Reservoir Dogs – $2,832,029 (domestic only)
Pulp Fiction – $213,928,762
Four Rooms (co-director) – $4,257,354 (domestic only)
Jackie Brown – $39,673,162 (domestic only)
Kill Bill, Vol 1 – $180,949,045
Kill Bill, Vol 2 – $152,159,461
Grindhouse (co-director) – $25,422,088
Inglorious Basterds – $245,753,357

Total for eight Quentin Tarantino films: $864,975,258

—————-

The success of Marshall and Ephron is equally impressive. To date Julie & Julia has grossed over $90 million. That’s about the same amount the last ten Woody Allen films have made domestically.

I’m just saying.

As for our night at the movies, it was definitely fun. The film’s only weakness was that which is typical of true life stories; no neat and tidy story structure, and a less-than-fulfilling conclusion. Tarantino has committed worst crimes.