I have more than a little queasiness about how The Passion of the Christ and Fahrenheit 9/11 are being use (both by those on the Right and the Left) as emblematic of their “cause,” of their supporters, as what “those folks” believe, and stuff like that. It feels simplistic, a scosh blasphemous, and way too pop-cultural — as though someone couldn’t find both films of interest, or which film one preferred was somehow meanigful (akin to asking whether one prefers a rare steak or chocolate cake).
Still, there’s an interesting article in the NY Times about the differences on where each movie “played” well.
Nielsen EDI Inc., which tracks ticket sales, compiled data showing the 50 theaters around the country where each film earned the most money. Both movies have been wildly successful: “Passion” is the year’s top-grossing film, with $609 million in worldwide ticket sales since its February release, and “Fahrenheit” is the most popular feature-length documentary ever, with sales in North America of $80.1 million (the film is just beginning its international run) in just three weeks. But the data show a sharp geographical divide in the films’ popularity.
The top theaters for “Fahrenheit” have been in urban, traditionally Democratic strongholds, including Manhattan, Los Angeles, San Francisco and the Bay Area, Chicago and Boston.
The highest grossing theaters for “Passion” were typically more suburban and far more widely dispersed, from Texas and New Mexico to Ohio, Florida and Orange County, Calif.
[…] For both films, the top theater was Empire 25 in Times Square, and theaters in Greenwich Village and West Nyack, N.Y., were in the top 50. But even in the New York metropolitan area, the ticket buyers’ profiles make for sharp contrasts.
The area’s other top theaters for “Passion” were in Elizabeth, N.J., and in Whitestone and Astoria, Queens. For “Fahrenheit” the other top local theaters were on the Upper West Side and the Upper East Side and in Midtown Manhattan.
It does make me wonder whether the concentration of F9/11’s success in major media centers (NYC, LA, Chicago, Boston) is one reason why it’s received some of the attention it has.
I doubt it; it’s received the attention because it’s good and makes a hard case against Bush.
One reason, Scott, not the only reason.
I mean, reporters and media critics are people, too. If, indeed, the general prediliction of folks in NYC and Boston and Chicago and LA and SFO is to find the movie good, then that reviewers and commentators and op-ed writers are among that number is going to give it better press than if it “only” played well in Texas and New Mexico and Ohio suburbs.
It seems to me that the majority of the press reviews of F9/11 — which has, indeed, done well financially — have been that “it’s good, and it makes a hard case against Bush” Whereas the majority of press reviews of The Passion — which has also done very well financially — have been, “Huh, isn’t that weird, wonder why all those other people like it?” That those most prominent reviews have also come from those area where F9/11 did well and The Passion did not (as much) would seem correllated.
They are very different movies which appeal to very different audiences. It’s like comparing an action high budget film to a French romantic comedy.
The reason why the two moviews get lumped together is that they are both polarizing. Those in the middle are not allowed to be indifferent to the movie by either the proponents or detractors of either movie.
The following conversation could happen for either movie (and a form of it happened to me with respect to Farenheit 9/11):
“Have you seen X?”
“No”
“Do you plan to?”
“No”
“What’s wrong with you? X is the greatest movie and raises so many important points.”
“Can’t I just see some other movie instead? Can’t I ‘engage’ the debate by reading the Bible/reading the newpaper and then discussing it with you?”
“Whatever. You are really missing out, man.”