Kristin here–<\/p>\n
Coincidentally, the day before I was planning to see Flushed Away<\/em>, the latest feature from the brilliant English animation studio, the new Variety<\/em> arrived with a relevant story. \u201cAn Aard-Knock Life,\u201d reveals that \u201cAfter the second commercial disappointment in as many years from the quirky British claymation studio, insiders say DreamWorks Animation is unlikely to put any more Aardman toons on its sked. Instead, the Blighty company is believed to be looking for a new theatrical partner\u2014likely one that doesn\u2019t have \u2018Shrek\u2019-sized expectations for its releases.\u201d<\/p>\n If that happens, maybe Aardman should also make sure that its next studio knows how to sell a movie.<\/p>\n The first \u201cdisappointment\u201d for DreamWorks was Wallace & Gromit in the Curse of the Were-Rabbit<\/em>. That film was so disappointing that it won the 2005 Oscar as best animated feature and was a hit virtually everywhere in the world except the USA.<\/p>\n I\u2019m irresistibly reminded of Disney\/Buena Vista\u2019s releases of a few films by Hayao Miyazaki<\/a>. Not really knowing what to do with these complex, poetic masterpieces, they essentially gave up on the first, Princess Mononoke<\/em> (American release, 1997), doing almost nothing to publicize it and letting it play to nearly empty theaters in a relatively limited release. Spirited Away<\/em> (2001) got a lackluster release from Disney, who at least had the decency to make both dubbed and subtitled prints available. Once the movie won the 2002 animated-feature Oscar, the studio gave it a half-hearted re-release. Howl\u2019s Moving Castle<\/em> (dubbed, 2005) must have gotten most of its business as a result of sterling reviews rather than publicity.<\/p>\n One thing DreamWorks and Disney have in common in these cases: both of them seem not to have noticed that they didn\u2019t make these films. That does matter when you\u2019re trying to find an audience for them.<\/p>\n You could argue that three of the greatest sources of animation, at least theatrical feature-length animation, are Pixar, Aardman, and Studio Ghibli, Miyazaki\u2019s company. (On this level of brilliance, it\u2019s hard to choose among them.) Buena Vista distributes both Pixar and Ghibli films. Pixar films clean up at the box office; Ghibli films pick up rave reviews and awards. (Outside North America they set box-office records.) Distributing Aardman films has been an iffy undertaking for DreamWorks. Chicken Run<\/em> succeeded, Curse of the Wererabbit<\/em> didn\u2019t, and, if Variety<\/em> is right, DreamWorks hopes for no better from Flushed Away<\/em>.<\/p>\n Why the disparity, when these three studios have walked off with the past four best animated picture Oscars? I\u2019d suggest it\u2019s because Disney and DreamWorks have made no attempt to make their imported films into recognizable brands. They sell them as if they were their own products. Then they wonder why people are mystified when they see \u201cDisney\u2019s\u201d Spirited Away<\/em> or \u201cDreamWork\u2019s\u201d Flushed Away<\/em> and find that these films are not what they\u2019re used to from those studios.<\/p>\n Pixar, on the other hand, succeeds in the U.S. partly because it\u2019s a brand. These aren\u2019t Disney films, they\u2019re Pixar films, with the cute little lamp that jumps around in the logo. Even now that Pixar has been bought by Disney, you can bet that the films will go out under the name \u201cPixar\u201d and have that little lamp.<\/p>\n Disney has never really tried to establish Ghibli as a brand. I think Miyazaki\u2019s films are awkward for the American market. They\u2019e too grown up for the kids who usually go to animated features, too much \u201ccartoons\u201d for adults. Still, given Miyazaki\u2019s reputation\u2014the reviews, the awards, the success in other markets\u2014I suspect Disney could succeed by stressing the Ghibli name and reputation and marketing them as art-house films. They get trampled in the multiplexes.<\/p>\n Similarly, DreamWorks keeps trying to market Aardman films as DreamWorks films. Flushed Away<\/em> is, according to the ads, \u201cFrom the creators of Shrek <\/em>and Madagascar<\/em>.\u201d If you lure people into the theaters with that claim, of course they\u2019re going to be baffled when they get sophisticated, witty tales instead of broad, obvious comedy. (I enjoyed Shrek<\/em>, but it\u2019s been considerably overrated. That it rather than Monsters Inc.<\/em> should have won the first best animated feature Oscar shows why hype and box office can do.)<\/p>\n If DreamWorks instead had made any effort to make Aardman into a brand as recognizable here as in Britain (well, nearly as recognizable), these films would undoubtedly have a bigger success here in the States. Releasing the three Wallace & Gromit shorts as a feature-length program, as was done in Europe, could have won a devoted following for them and things Aardman. Such a release would have cost very little and could have prepared the way for Curse of the Wererabbit<\/em> and others.<\/p>\n So, back to Flushed Away<\/em> and its supposed failure. From my reading of the box-office figures over the mere 12 days the film has been in release, it looks like a moderate success. If DreamWorks is ready to write it off already, then Hollywood really has become so focused on opening-weekend grosses as to be blinkered to all other indicators.<\/p>\n As everyone noted, when Flushed Away<\/em> opened on November 3, it split the family audience with The Santa Clause 3: The Escape Clause<\/em>. With Borat<\/em>\u2019s \u201csurprise\u201d success (a surprise only to Twentieth Century Fox and a few pundits), taking in $26 million in 827 theaters and grabbing the Monday infotainment coverage, the Santa Clause<\/em> came in second at $19, 504,038 and Flushed Away<\/em> a close third at $18,814,323. After 12 days, those two are still bringing in similar grosses: Santa Clause<\/em> totaling $42,312,847 and Flushed Away<\/em> $41,017,254.<\/p>\n