Atom Egoyan : Has Atom Egoyan ever made a successful movie?

I don't mean a movie that a few critics and festival-goers liked. I mean a movie that audiences saw, at least enough that it broke even. It seems strange to me that he spends MILLIONS and MILLIONS of Canadian taxpayer dollars on movies that no one (relatively speaking) goes to see.

I don't claim to know anything about Canadian filmmaking, the money angle, but Exotica and The Sweet Hereafter were critically well received in the U16d0SA. The only aspect I'm aware of is that the director is paid more up front than after the fact, or % of profits, right?

I think the marketing on Exotica was horrific. They made it out to be a sleazy sex movie, when it actuality it was a deep drama, which strangely is my favorite movie. I can see where Egoyan's vision would only reach(in terms of how well received by the audience) an esoteric minority, but to me he's a great filmmaking. The money angle is entirely different than the art. It seems that a lot of Canadians are lampooning Egoyan for his success, but he's a product of the system, and if you see him as a jerk or a waste of time, then you're targeting the system, not the man. It'd be someone else "wasting" your money if it wasn't Egoyan.

There seems to be a lot of derision for this man. I don't understand it.



The world's a hell, what does it matter what happens in it?

"There seems to be a lot of derision for this man. I don't understand it."

It comes down to the millions of dollars off Canadians' paycheques that fund movies that are very boring and nobody goes and sees. For example FELICIA'S JOURNEY (5 million), ARARAT (15 million), WHERE THE TRUTH LIES (30 million). That is 50 million dollars to make films which to call them "mediocre" is being charitable.

Because you are not seeing countless millions being spent off your hard earned paycheques, year after year, to make crappy movies that are neither very good from an artistic standpoint nor crowd pleasers that would make a profit, your lack of understanding is understandable. Especially considering you're not knee-deep "in the know" like I am, watching this disaster close-up for a few years now, watching the best leave Canada in droves and will likely do so myself even though I'm making a comfortable living in the Canadian film "industry".

No it would not be somebody else wasting our money if it were not Egoyan. If Egoyan and Lantos and McKellar the whole "Canadian Film Mafia" were cleared out, and a regular rotation of new talent were funded and given a chance, we'd have a viable home grown film industry like places like Australia. Unfortunately, with Clarkson the new head of Telefilm, we are likely doomed to more of the same hopelessness.

Atom's actually a good director, though.

For a guy who is using millions of Canadian taxpayers moneys who isn't making money and is completely terrible in every way, go see GUY MADDIN.

patronage.

the goverment is his patron. all the great renissance artists had patrons. intelligent govenments want to propagate art. its good for society.

said the shotgun to the head
-Saul Williams

That doesn't make it right, you see. Especially since the government (especially today) is supposed to be disbursing those proceeds of taxation on the part of the people.

Art *is* good. ("For society" is sort of vague so I'll ignore that.) And the government should in a perfect world support the making of art. Whether that means tens of millions of dollars spent on more mediocre Atom Egoyan movies is pretty debatable, though. It could be spent on many more, less expensive filmmakers that haven't proven their tendency toward mediocrity the way Egoyan has. At least they'd have a chance of being good.

he's a proven property. he has distinct talent, and has had movies that made money.

also, its about drawing filmmakers to canadawhich has worked very well and made the investment profitable.

said the shotgun to the head
-Saul Williams

What planet are you living on, straighttovideo? By any reasonable estimate, the work of Atom Egoyan is many tens of millions in the hole for a career. If we were to add them up, he is a failure and wouldn't find the ability to make films anywhere else.

He is a financial disaster. In return for $55 million plus in feature filmmaking budgets, how much return have we seen here in Canada in actual profits? It is incredible how much money has been stuffed into the pockets of Egoyan and Lantos and friends for such disasters as a $15 million dollar ARARAT and junk like FELICIA'S JOURNEY.

And yet, nobody is ever cut off. No hogs are ever pulled away from the public trough. Nobody who makes the decisions are ever fired. Canadians hate their own movies, and are paying for their production with millions out of their own pockets. Pure insanity.

But the biggest point here with regards to your delusional, bizarre post is WHAT FILMMAKERS ARE BEING DRAWN TO CANADA BY EGOYAN'S SELF-INDULGANT DRIVEL? All it causes is a continued mass exodus of talented filmmakers to Hollywood because they can't do anything here like the writer of MILLION DOLLAR BABY as a very recent example. It just goes on and 5b4on and on. And will continue unless Egoyan and company are cut off.

That's the way it is. Welcome to reality.

You make some good points. Personally I think Egoyan's films are pretty much unwatchable. Yet he keeps getting the funding to make more. One failure after the next after the next.

And once on the Queen St. E. (Toronto) streetcar he got on and gave me a dirty look for no reason. A very snotty expression. I've always had it in for him after that. I'm glad his films tank.

_______________________________________________________

"I'm running this monkey farm now, Frankenstein!!!"

Most celebrities don't like public interaction, so if this happened, this "snotty expression", I'm sure it's typical of 90% of celebrities, filmmakers, writers, in the entertainment business. My math teacher from a long time ago said to not say hi to her in public, as she wouldn't acknowledge you. She was nice and knowledgeable in class, but outside of that, she was a private person and wanted to keep her public and professional life separated. Strange request by her, I admit.

I expect Egoyan's films to not make a lot of money. His intent is to tell a story, not to make Rocky 18 or Rambo 12. Most people don't take the time to understand his very personal and evocative stories. Anyone who doesn't think EXOTICA and THE SWEET HEREAFTER are masterpieces is seriously dumb, and shouldn't be allowed to watch anything outside of Vin Diesel movies or WWF wrestling aka steroid alley.


"Nice beaver!"
"Thanks, I just had it stuffed."The Naked Gun

Well, Egoyan was hardly a celebrity when he gave me the dirty look. This was probably 15 to 20 years ago. Long before he had made any of his "big" movies and was as well known as he is today. He just acted like a jerk.

As for the other comments, it's fine to like Exotica or The Sweet Hereafter, but don't dismiss those that don't as morons. So anyone that doesn't like these movies is a WWF trailer trash idiot? Come on. I find Egoyan's movies to be insufferable (and so do most people based on his near zero box office), but I love a good story well directed. Mike Leigh's movies, for example (Life is Sweet and Secrets and Lies especially) are absolutely wonderful. Give me one Mike Leigh movie any day over twenty yawners that Egoyan puts out.

___________________________________________

"I'm running this monkey farm now, Frankenstein!!!"

I don't know the circumstances surrounding the infamous dirty look, but get over it. I go to his movies to see the movies, not to see him at home or on a bus sneering at people. Maybe a bad day.

If you stop seeing movies based on someone's private life, or because of a dirty look or bad attitude, you won't see many movies.

I don't think people are going to stop seeing Tom Cruise movies because of his private life. The list goes on.

As for Mike Leigh, yes, he is a great filmmaker as well. Secrets & Lies, Naked, Vera Drake. Great movies.

I came to this message board to see what people had to say about Egoyan's movies, and I'm surprised that some have a lot of resentment for him, and people from Canada!

"Nice beaver!"
"Thanks, I just had it stuffed."The Naked Gun

Ay-yi-yi. You should buy yourself a sense of humour. I mentioned the whole dirty look thing as a joke. I said that I don't like his unwatchable movies and, to make matters worse, THE GUY GAVE ME A DIRTY LOOK ON A STREETCAR! It wasn't meant to be taken seriously. Sheesh.

I suppose that what a lot of Canadians don't like is the fact that Egoyan's movies get some public funding. A good filmmaker should be able to produce movies based on his own talents. If you like his movies, fine. But a lot of people take exception to the fact that Egoyan sucks funding from the public teat and then produces something that the vast majority of people aren't interested in seeing.

There was a good letter to the editor in the Globe and Mail back in August:
__________________________________________

J. McFARLANE

Today's Paper: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 12:00 AM Page A14

Atom Egoyan is worried that the U.S. rating of his movie will "severely limit" its box office in the United States (Is The Naked Truth Too Hot For Censors? Aug. 23). His last two films, Ararat and Felicia's Journey, took in a combined $2.3-million (U.S.) there. I think the only thing that might limit his latest film's box office are the words "directed by Atom Egoyan."
__________________________________________

Amen.

__________________________________________________________

"I'm running this monkey farm now, Frankenstein!!!"

I have a sense of humor, as you can tell by my signature. It's just that there is no laugh track on here, so it's hard to decipher what is serious and what is folly, unless it's followed by a "pfffttt" for a farting noise.

I live in the USA, and though Egoyan's and a lot of other foreign directors' movies don't make a lot of money here, they have been critically acclaimed. Also, look at Mamet's movies. Smartly written, but usually box office duds. I saw SPARTAN in a nearly empty theater. What I'm saying is that just because some movies make next to nothing, it doesn't mean that the quality is missing also. Vice versa, some lousy movies make outrageous money. This cannot always be a gauge to base an opinion on the quality of a movie.

I've heard this complaint about public funding before, so you I can understand your point with that, but to me that doesn't determine the quality of his movies, which is, of course, a subjective opinion.

What other Canadian directors besides Egoyan and Cronenberg have achieved as much global acknowledgement?


"Nice beaver!"
"Thanks, I just had it stuffed."The Naked Gun

Look, I'm not saying that Atom is without talent. I'm just saying, man, if there aren't more filmmakers with distinct talent and more of it than him in Canada, then that's kind of sad.

Which of his movies have made money? I'm not denying that some of his earlier ones might have, but not in the lasthow many years. Felicia's Journey? Ararat? This new thing? Nope. But he did spend tens of millions of Canadian film funding dollars making them.

Take a look at Ararat. Not to even get into whether it should've been funded in the first place (most critics who reviewed it consider it clumsy, unfocused, and generally poorly done; I agree), but it looks like a film school senior project.

Drawing filmmakers to Canada? Making the "investment profitable"? You've lost me there.

Someone who equates Egoyan's films with mediocrity has evidently not seen any of them or doesn't have any artistic sensibility. Furthermore, measuring the value of these films by the money they make is ridiculous. As a canadian taxpayer, I am proud to contribute to the making of such inspiring and ground-breaking work.

You could use some intellectual honesty or else go back to seeing Chevy Chase movies.

Great films always make a profit.

The great films of the French New Wave and the 1950's/60's European auteur film phase made money. This is what Canadian film funding is based on for a model, but it fails miserably because it doesn't realize that those auteurs existed only because there was an audience for their work! There is no significant audience for the pretentious work of Egoyan and McKellar and company. None that justifies budgets beyond $250,000. That's that hard fact of life.

The euro-auteur films made money because they were actually good works from an artistic standpoint, cost little to produce, and have stood the test of time. Good art ends up being profitable because an intelligent audience is certainly out there.

Egoyan's vast output at my and the rest of Canadian taxpayers expense is not because he makes good art. Pretentious garbage like FELICIA'S JOURNEY or ARARAT or WHERE THE TRUTH LIES exists as $50 million dollars in wasted money.

If a film is good it is worth the money spent on it because enough people with taste and artistic sensibility will recognize it for what it is and will go to see it. If it is not, they will not support it.

That's the way it is. Welcome to reality.

requiem for a dream

qed.

said the shotgun to the head
-Saul Williams

by - straighttovideo on Sat Jun 18 2005 14:25:14

requiem for a dream

qed.


Yes, great example of what I'm talking about. REQUIEM FOR A DREAM was a very good film.

$4.5 million budget.

$7.39 worldwide box office gross + 5 to 9 million video (figures vary from sources).

So, gross somewhere between $12.5 million to $16 million. Cut that in half for typical net, $6 million to $8 million.

A full return on investment, some sort of profit, Oscar buzz, tons of awards. Aronofsky got sidetracked on various big ticket Hollywood deals gone bust, now working on a much more interesting sounding film and two announced. A great hero for independent filmmakers everywhere to admire.

what about marketing dollars? cost of the dvd and video? the theaters cut? the retaliers cutect ectim not saying youre WRONG, im saying im not sure youre totally right here.

said the shotgun to the head
-Saul Williams

---

Great films always make a profit.

---

An extraordinarily dubious assertion. It might be true in the long run - say, 50 years or more - but there are many great films that were box office failures upon first release. You can start with Griffith's Intolerance - easily one of his greatest works (and one of the most important films of early cinema), yet he spent much of the rest of his career trying to pay the debts incurred during the process of making the film.

People with "taste and artistic sensibility" sometimes simply aren't reliable enough to guarantee a profit for quality films. And sometimes a film isn't marketed enough or it only gets released in a tiny handful of theaters. And sometimes a film is so esoteric or revolutionary that it takes a long time for audi2000ences and critics to appreciate it. To suggest otherwise is only an expression of your own naivete.

With all that said, I agree that Egoyan's output over the last 10-15 years hasn't been very good - but quite a few of his 80s and 90s films range from very good to great. The Sweet Hereafter and Exotica alone prove that he is capable of great things - and then there are other high quality films Speaking Parts and The Adjuster.

I suppose on a clear day you can see the class struggle from here

What an asshat you are! I'm Canadian and I love Atom's films. You may find his work mediocre, and of course, you're welcome to your opinion, but you do not speak for all of us and your views are not absolutes.

I don't mind my tax dollars being used this way. At all.

This is a very valid question. Perhaps the most valid question that can be posed for who gets funded in a socialized system of filmmaking.

Remembering that socialism is, by its nature, for the society who is paying. If it's not serving the society who's paying measurable and observed clearly by their response in box office receipts when it comes to film, than it is obvious, beyond any speculation, that the film funding agency and the filmmaker is not serving any significant cultural and socialist function. It's like medicare. People go crazy in Canada at mention of a two-tier system of medicare afterall it's a socialist system that serves the people. It's there for society as a whole, and it makes sense in a civilized society. Unfortunately, most Canadians just write off Canadian films as garbage and look the other way to the millions thrown away for film that's really subpar and that they don't want to see and isn't for them! Film which isn't for them, but rather very pretentious drivel for who again? Oh, yeah, a group of poseurs in other countries living off trust funds who finance various film festivals and hand out awards which really mean nothing much.

Atom Egoyan has not, in the conventional sense, made a financially successful movie. Period. But that is not the way the score cards work in Canada. Rather, the money from the Canadian funding agencies that made up most of the budgets of SWEET HEREAFTER and EXOTICA, the only two films he made which anyone ever claims were anything like a financial success, was simply written off. Here's what the box office gross were for those films and their budgets:

Sweet Hereafter. Budget $5 million. Box Office Gross Total $4.2 million

Exotica. Budget $4.2 million. Box Office Gross Total $5 million

Now, that doesn't include video. But, honestly, how much do you think the video sales could have been for either of these? A very optimistic guess would be half of each for video gross. So, total gross Exotica $7.5 million. Sweet Hereafter $6.1 million. Cut those figures in half for a ballpark "net" and you get:

Sweet Hereafter net box office $3.05 million MINUS $5 million budget = in the hole $1.95 million (minus a half million in advertising or who knows how much)

Exotica net box office $3.75 million MINUS $4.2 million budget = in the hole $450,000 (minus a half million in advertising or who knows how much)

So his two "hits" were not really hits at all judging by available internet box office stats. BUT, because they dwarfed other Canadian films in tak1908e, they made him look pretty good to the people who hand out all that government money (which isn't their own). Exotica was marketed as something it was certainly not an erotic thriller so a lot of people were tricked into going to see it. Boy, they must have been ticked when they were bored senseless. But it was a success/failure.

So now we get a string of ever increasing financial disasters.

ARARAT 15 million dollar budget what was the worldwide take on that? $1.2 million? SOmething like that. And now a "crime thriller" boring Egoyan-style (it's laughable) staring washed-up Kevin Bacon that costs $30 million bucks! How much is this one going to lose? Will it top Ararat? I think it might. Especially when we consider the enormous advertising budget Telefilm will likely throw away along with the distributor who foolishly was hoodwinked into putting up a few million of the budget.

By the way, my loyal readers, how about that CHILDSTAR disaster? hahahhahaha did I call that one or not?

no, but youre missing my point. the billions by this point that canadas made by attracting hollywood films. the canada film subsidey (im sure i misspelled that) was created to show that films could be made of quality, and cheaply in canada.


its worked, huge amounts of entertainment business now work in canada. at least a third of the films i see are made there.

its also, paying it forward as it were. see, the films might not make money now, but they are setting a future precedent. its pretty wise when you think about the long term. canada already has a large cut of hollywood, but they dont want to just be parasitic, they want to out and out create their own film industry. movies are big money, they are setting the ground work to be hollywood north. or, possibly take the place of hollywood totally in time.

remember that NY was where all the films were made untilwas it blacklisting? i dont remember what, but mass amounts of filmmakers were forced out, and some just left and moved out west, so its happened before.

it can, and eventually will happen again. canada is just preparing for that.

said the shotgun to the head
-Saul Williams

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Let's back up. I don't want to get all internet-message-board you're-so-wrong on you here, but:

- Canada hasn't made all that many *billions* by attracting Hollywood films. And they attract far less in what's called "service work" (making films that don't originate here) than they used to, thanks to the anti-runaway production movement spearheaded by Governor Schwarzenegger.

- Canadian film subsidies have *not* demonstrated that films of quality can be made cheaply in Canada: that's the whole point! These films that we're talking about are not *cheap* in any sense of the word, especially when you look at what you get for the millions spent. Millions spent on Ararat, of all things? Twice that spent on Where The Truth Lies? Not to mention other films like the MuchMusic movie (0% on RottenTomatoes! In the States it's brilliantly been rebranded as *National Lampoon's* Going The Distance) and Foolproof: $1.5 million apiece *on marketing alone*!! Plus another few million each on development and production. For movies that grossed $1.4 million and $460,978, respectively. Yes, that's less than five hundred thousand dollars *in total*. Oh, wait. Foolproof was produced by Egoyan. Small world. Bet he got paid well enough. That $8 million budget had to go somewhere2000.

- Most people in the industry are fairly agreed on the fact that the Canadian industry hasn't been "built up" at all. In fact, to give just one example, the major Canadian production player Alliance-Atlantis, after years of benefiting from millions upon millions of dollars in government production funding (as Alliance-Atlantis as well as individually as Alliance and Atlantis before that) and buying another independent producer (Salter Street) just to get their IFC Canada digital license, have given up on production altogether. Total gain to the Canadian production scene? Zero. Total loss? Millions and millions of tax-dollar funding. Oh, but Robert Lantos (Egoyan's producer: small world again) made off pretty well as head of Alliance before he cashed out. The prime example of a Telefilm/taxpayer-made millionaire.

heyi like muchmusic! ive got all sortsa fuse swag!

i was number 45 out of 500,000+ players in IMX


anyway, its a long term investment, and from where i stand, i think where truth lies was exellent, and looked like a 15-20 million dollar film, so it was made to look much more expensive than it was to make.


that said, there is a strong likelyhood here that you know socio-economics and such much better than i as i am sixteenand youare canadian an adult and closer to the issueso yea.

said the shotgun to the head
-Saul Williams

At least the Canadians aren't paying for a war nobody wants. In the UK about a billion pounds (sterling) has been spent. I'd have much rather used it on producing films. All I'm saying is it could be worse.

-It's envy you know. Dudley is consumed with envy.
-That's one of the seven Dudley sins.

You're all talking about Canadian $$$ am I right?.

because Canada has such a small population, the financial income for these Films is fairly small.

Canada's P7ecopulation is 32.000.000 and therefore the Audiance is small as well.

_______________________________________________

And now a "crime thriller" boring Egoyan-style (it's laughable) staring washed-up Kevin Bacon that costs $30 million bucks! How much is this one going to lose? Will it top Ararat? I think it might. Especially when we consider the enormous advertising budget Telefilm will likely throw away along with the distributor who foolishly was hoodwinked into putting up a few million of the budget.
_______________________________________________

According to www.rottentomatoes.com Where the Truth Lies took in a grand total of $753,158 at the box office. Egoyan knocks another one out of the park.

Well, maybe he'll make up for it with $50 million dollars in DVD sales. Yessiree. Uh-huh. That's the ticket.

___________________________________________________________

"I'm running this monkey farm now, Frankenstein!!!"

That's what I love about Canadian Films. Canadian Film Producers really don't give a sh_t if there is any Box Office Potential. theses films are only made to find an audience big or small.

Thank you "Josh Strapp"

Apart from "Exotica"b68; and "The Sweet Hereafter"
(according to imdb, "The Sweet Hereafter made over 4 million in the US alone, "Exotica" over 5 million),
it's true that Egoyan's films don't make a lot of money.
But since when has the box office been a valid criterion for judging the quality of a film?
Here are the names of various films that have flopped at the box office:
"Apocalypse Now", "Heaven's Gates", and just about every film by Orson Welles
(and this is just in Hollywood).
while here are the names of some of the biggest money-makers:
"Titanic", "Star Wars", etc.
Cheers

So, what's the criteria for receiving funding? Does a director have to have a great box-office track record? Are there any "Canadian" directors that have one? So, we shut out Egoyan because his films tank - seems 5b4a bit odd to base that kind of decision on box-office returns alone - especially when critics and festival-goers are still giving positive reviews. I mean, the TIFF isn't exactly tiny in terms of world-wide recognition.

And, is Kevin Bacon really washed up? Wow - I had no idea. Guess because his box-office returns have tanked lately. Anyone remember "Mystic River"?

---

Are there any "Canadian" directors that have one?

---

The French-Canadian film industry is a massive success, but there are no English-Canadian directors that I can think of; there are, of course, the people who go to the US to work there, but much of the attraction there is the massive budgets that no Canadian film could ever have.

porky's is the biggest indie canadian success story of all time right?

his films cust too many money for such limited circuit, it's not like godard films that cust 1,5 million dollars but play on 25 countries at least or in some different case , the brazillin film carandiru that cost 12 million BRL (1 american dollars - 2,15 BRL) so 5,6 million dollars (in the yeart that the film has been made was more expensive the dollars i think ) but in brazil 4,5 millions people see the film on the movie theather

That's SO Canadian, eh? You say "millions and millions" like that was a lot! In the U.S. $15M is considered a low budget indie!
This $15M also wasn't shipped offshore in a trunk, by the way. It was paid in salaries and invoices TO CANADIANS who, for the most part, spent that money IN CANADA!
Besides, who cares what these films cost? Egoyan is a GREAT ARTIST! The films he is making are among Canada's GREAT CULTURAL TREASURES! They'll make their money back, eventually.
And, finally, we are all wondering
What the F is it to you? It's not your money, anyway.
Sheesh! You remind me of Judas Iscariot griping about the cost of the Last Supper taking food out of the mouths of the poor. Give it a rest!

---

This $15M also wasn't shipped offshore in a trunk, by the way. It was paid in salaries and invoices TO CANADIANS who, for the most part, spent that money IN CANADA!

---

This is what I don't understand. It's not like the money goes anywhere but through the Canadian film industry.

they had to have made money off the sweet hereafter it grossed a couple million in the us alone and it still making money on dvd sales.

If you're not watching his films, go ahead and start. If you're funding something why not engage it? It's your loss if you don't. Like with anything. If one pays for something but leaves it to rot, it's lost.

Several say Egoyan's films are too boring. Well as Bukowski put it, "mostly, boring people get bored."

The guy is just a great director and definitely talented, to say that he's mediocre is your own personal opinion when most of his films are critically aclaimed.
About his mo1c84vies being box office hits, I don't think the intention was to create that. If Hollywood took his under their wing and he had to make a commercial "hit", then we'd see the commercial potential. Right now this question is very irrelevant.

Just because a couple of his failed to turn a profit doesn't not make him unsucessful. 'Exotica' made more than double its production costs in the US alone and I'm sure it made far more money in European counties and Canada as well, plus it did well on VHS when it was initally released.

He's the best Canadian filmmaker today other than David Cronenberg. The Sweet Hereafter is one of the best films ever made IMO. Exotica was also brilliant. I do wish he would make a film as good as those soon. I wasn't crazy about his last few films. But I for one hope Canada keeps giving him money.


Perfection is a road, not a destination