50 replies to this topic

[SDG]

Jeff, when you say that your feelings changed as a result of the director's talk, am I right in thinking that you wound up more impressed (with the film's achievement) rather than less impressed (as a result of the director laying it on so thick)? The former seems to be the thrust of most of your comments, but I wasn't entirely sure.

FWIW, I also had the experience of liking the film more over time, and especially after seeing the film more than once. I agree with you, Jeff, that Nina's monologue on the beach is trying too hard, but Blanchard's work in that scene is so stellar that for me at least it turns a potential soft spot into a high point. (I also like the way it ties into the beginning and ending scenes on the beach.)

Edited by SDG, 28 October 2007 - 09:44 PM.

[Peter T Chattaway]

Jeffrey Overstreet wrote:
: And the idea that this film is in any way promoting the Pro-Choice agenda is nuts.

Eh? Has anybody actually claimed that? Or did you mean "Pro-Life"?

[Overstreet]

Well, I'd come across one person who was arguing that the film is dressed up as a Pro-Life film, but that the overall impact is to inspire more sympathy for those who choose and support abortion. And I don't know how they could get there from this film.

Steven, yes... it was a case of admiring the film more after meeting the director... primarily because I was amazed to learn that he made THIS film with so few resources, and under so much pressure.

Still, I can't let that affect my assessment of how the film measures up to other films. As a film, it's a fairly decent drama as dramas go, but not a great film by any stretch of the imagination. As an example of Doing Much With Very Little, though, it is a towering achievement. You know... by "The Five Obstructions" standards...

Edited by Jeffrey Overstreet, 29 October 2007 - 01:51 PM.

[SDG]

Still, I can't let that affect my assessment of how the film measures up to other films. As a film, it's a fairly decent drama as dramas go, but not a great film by any stretch of the imagination. As an example of Doing Much With Very Little, though, it is a towering achievement. You know... by "The Five Obstructions" standards...

I think that's a very reasonable assessment.

[Overstreet]

If it is as the director claims, and the butterfly kite that floats into the frame during the final moments of the film really was a total surprise, an accident, something nobody planned or provided... that ranks among one of the great onscreen accidents ever filmed, don't you think?

I mean, the way he worked the butterfly through the film as a motif, the most predictable thing in the movie is that we will float away on the wings of a butterfly at the end. But no, the director claims that he was just filming the characters, and lo and behold... there was this butterfly in the sky...




Sometimes, the SPOILER blocks can turn posts into Mad Libs.

[mrmando]

I seem to have found my way onto Wolfington's address list. Here's part of an e-mail from him:

Today is our film "Bella's" national release, we are selling out
nationwide, ranked #2 in box office sales, second only to "SAW 4", yet some elitist
critics are attacking" Bella" for its positive portrayal of life, family, and
friendship - calling it "un-realistic and cliche."

Attribution, please? Not that I doubt you, but exactly whom do you consider an "elitist" critic? Barbara Nicolosi?

There is another film being released today that critics are raving about - "
Before the devil knows your dead."

Funny, I thought since you mentioned Saw IV, you'd be venting your spleen in that direction. Does torture-porn get a free pass if it beats you at the box office?

This movie is about two men who kill their parents and critics are praising
this film as:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"a realistic portrayal of the human condition".

"Family, and the core ideals that hold them in place, are blown to
smithereens by the ravaged heart of Sidney Lumet's scalding new thriller." -Newsday

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I got into the Movie business after finding out that the Columbine massacre
was inspired by a film the murderers watched over and over, "Natural Born
Killers", which got rave reviews when it came out.

It was hearing this on TV that convinced me to - Stop complaining about the
effect of the media, and do something about it.

OK, you did something about it. But obviously you haven't stopped complaining. Did you really think people would stop making violent, bleak films just because you made a wholesome one?

By the grace of God, "BELLA" won the Toronto Film Festival, was honored by
the Smithsonian Museum, the White House, got positive reviews from Ebert, NY
Times, etc,....and sold out all across the country opening night (tonight).

Yet......92% of the critics gave "Before the Devil knows your dead," (that
glorifies hatred and the murdering of someone's parents) a nearly unanimous
thumbs up.

"Glorifies"? Are you losing perspective, Mr. W?

64% of critics give Bella a thumbs down.

But why should you seek their favor when you obviously disapprove of their other choices?

The good news is that 92% of audiences have given Bella a thumbs up online:
but if enough people don't show up at the theaters we will be kicked out of
theaters.
We need your help!
Fortunately some of the biggest and most credible critics have given Bella
great reviews, like Roger Ebert ("Bella is Warm, sweet & funny."), but a
fraternity of elitist critics have launched an attack on Bella because it, and I
quote:
"Ends like a TV show, and everyone has learned a neat little lesson. Phooey,"
said one critic.

Again, attribution?

Why are they against people learning a lesson? Why are they against people
being inspired? Why don't they want to see humanity portrayed in a positive
light?

Why are you inferring critics' motives for them?

Why are these critics celebrating a film that "blows to smithereens" the "
core ideals that hold a family together" while aggressively attacking a film
that celebrates the power of faith, family and friendship to help people rise
above life's difficulties?
I do not know the answer to these questions but we hope to light a candle
rather than to curse the darkness.

Or, you could do both.

It goes on from there, but you get the point. I guess I don't see how all this whining about elitist critics and other films is going to help this film, particularly. I'm disappointed that a scorched-earth campaign against the naysayers is seen as an appropriate way to promote a sweet-natured, positive film.

Edited by mrmando, 29 October 2007 - 04:05 PM.

[Overstreet]

I got into the Movie business after finding out that the Columbine massacre
was inspired by a film the murderers watched over and over, "Natural Born
Killers", which got rave reviews when it came out.

Hmm.

Well,

by that standard...

I'm going into the Bible-burning business, because various texts in the Holy Scriptures have, when misunderstood, inspired atrocities.

[SDG]

Interestingly, when I asked Wolfington about the artistic failings of many Christian-produced films and the reasons for the trend, he refused to play, saying that he wanted to keep it positive. He also said he was glad to see people trying, even if they didn't always succeed. I respected his attitude. I would have respected it even more if he'd kept it positive in the face of criticism of his own film and avoided taking shots at another film. Oh well, it's his first film. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Today is our film "Bella's" national release, we are selling out nationwide, ranked #2 in box office sales, second only to "SAW 4", yet some elitist critics are attacking" Bella" for its positive portrayal of life, family, and friendship - calling it "un-realistic and cliche."

Heh. "And yet." Like: The irony. Second only to "SAW 4," and they call it "unrealistic and cliche."

[MattP]

I seem to have found my way onto Wolfington's address list. Here's part of an e-mail from him:

Today is our film "Bella's" national release, we are selling out
nationwide, ranked #2 in box office sales, second only to "SAW 4", yet some elitist
critics are attacking" Bella" for its positive portrayal of life, family, and
friendship - calling it "un-realistic and cliche."

It's becoming clearer and clearer that this sort of complaint is becoming the Christian filmmaker equivalent of playing the race card. (witness The Last Sin Eater, et al)

[Peter T Chattaway]

Wolfington wrote:
: Today is our film "Bella's" national release, we are selling out nationwide, ranked #2 in box office sales, second only to "SAW 4" . . .

Well, in terms of per-screen averages among the Top 40 films that played in theatres this past weekend, at any rate. In terms of gross earnings, it was #17 for the weekend.

: There is another film being released today that critics are raving about - "Before the devil knows your dead." . . .

Which was #44 for the weekend with a per-screen average of $36,918, based on two screens. That's over four times the per-screen average of Bella.

Meanwhile, if anyone is interested in OTHER films that had higher per-screen averages than Bella did this past weekend, there are: Blade Runner: The Final Cut, #46 with an average of $9,914; Wristcutters: A Love Story, #56 with an average of $10,506; Pete Seeger: The Power of Song, #73 with $11,945 on one screen; and Lagerfield Confidential, #75 with $11,477 on one screen.

: This movie is about two men who kill their parents . . .

Wrong. It's about one brother who persuades the other brother to rob their parents' jewelry store, and how the other brother hires a friend to do the actual robbing for him, and how things go wrong and the friend (not knowing whose store it is) kills the brothers' mother, and then...

And without giving too much away, suffice to say that if ANYONE kills the father, it AIN'T the brothers.

: Yet......92% of the critics gave "Before the Devil knows your dead," (that glorifies hatred and the murdering of someone's parents) . . .

Huh? Glorifies? What? Is he kidding? Has he SEEN the film? (Oh, wait. No he hasn't.) (I admit I'm making an assumption there. But if he HAS seen it, then he has extremely bad memory, or extremely bad eyesight. The most charitable assumption, then, is that he is judging the film and spreading misinformation about it without having seen it.)

[mrmando]

It's becoming clearer and clearer that this sort of complaint is becoming the Christian filmmaker equivalent of playing the race card. (witness The Last Sin Eater, et al)

Ha! Yes, later in the email he quotes somebody saying Bella has more momentum than any film since The Passion of the Christ. But in terms of how the filmmakers are responding to criticism, Sin Eater seems like a more apt comparison. Unless, of course, Wolfington gets pulled over in Malibu for driving drunk and proceeds to deliver an anti-Semitic rant.

By all accounts, though, it's a much better film than The Last Sin Eater, and you'd think this kind of response to its mixed reviews shouldn't be necessary. It makes Wolfington look desperate.

: Yet......92% of the critics gave "Before the Devil knows your dead," (that glorifies hatred and the murdering of someone's parents) . . .

Huh? Glorifies? What? Is he kidding? Has he SEEN the film? (Oh, wait. No he hasn't.) (I admit I'm making an assumption there. But if he HAS seen it, then he has extremely bad memory, or extremely bad eyesight. The most charitable assumption, then, is that he is judging the film and spreading misinformation about it without having seen it.)

The violent deaths in BtDKYD are presented as the tragic consequence of greed and manipulation, are they not? I wouldn't say such a film glorifies violence any more than The Green Mile or Dead Man Walking glorifies capital punishment.

[Tim Willson]

Mando, your comments on Wolfington's email (which I also received) mirror my own feelings. My heart sank when I read the email (subject line: 'I am outraged!'), since it smacked of stirring up controversy as a tool of motivation to Christians to rise up in defence. What a cheap, tired approach.

The release strategy for this film has been puzzling to watch, and a bit discouraging. For one thing, to highlight "From a Producer of The Passion of the Christ" in the advertising is baffling. No-one knows Steve McVeety, and any comparison between BELLA and TPotC is meaningless -- they are almost as dissimilar as any two films can be. And there have been other mis-steps, too.

My hope is that they will abandon a 'go negative' approach (to borrow that phrase from the world of politics), and take an approach more along the lines of My Big Fat Greek Wedding, selling the film on the simple sweetness of the story rather than inflaming an us vs. them mentality.

[Peter T Chattaway]

Barbara Nicolosi notes that some food company in New York bought 10,000 tickets to the film and gave them away, and wonders how this might affect our perception of the much-bragged opening-weekend per-screen average:

How do we feel about this? Do you suppose this fact was also 'boasted' to Nikke Finke? Does it bug you that you are being told that this movie's vaunted high per screen average was actually inflated by, um, Goya Foods? Suppose George Soros bought a million dollars in tickets to the latest anti-America movie and this made it look like the movie was a hit, how would you feel about that? When the secular industry finds out, do you think they will see this as Christians trying to rig the game?

Personally, I wonder how different this is from churches buying out entire theatres for The Passion and giving the tickets away as evangelism tools -- and then pointing to the movie's box-office success as a sign that there is a "market" for those kind of films.

[Crow]

I thought it was a genuinely moving film. There are some flaws, to be sure. The direction and pace are slow and plodding, which can be attributed to a first-time director. The film could have benefitted from a lighter directorial touch and a more energetic pace in some places. But the film does offer a strong sense of place, and the performances by the lead actors were good enough that I was able to relate to these characters. They had to be, since with so many extreme closeups, they carried the film. But they pulled it off, especially Tammy Blanchard. And I liked that the film didn't delve into political and intellectual pro-life arguments, but instead demonstrated love and kindness in a more practical way.

All in all, a promising debut, and a better-than-average low-budget indie film that has some nice small pleasures. It's not the greatest thing since sliced bread, and it's unfortunate that people are trying to hype this film as something more than it needs to be. It should be enjoyed on its own merits.

[Christian]

Interesting:
Sunday, usually a weaker box office day for most films, was "Bella's" best.

"Bella's" second Sunday box office was almost as profitable as its first Sunday box office, which is not the way box office figures usually go. Usually, new movies drop 50 percent or more from Sunday to Sunday.

But last Sunday, "Bella" made $441,000, a 1 percent drop from the previous week.

For the second weekend in a row, box office intake topped $1 million.

"It was a resurrection," Wolfington said. "It was a miracle. It's really surreal."

Here were last weekend's final numbers: "Bella" was released in 186 theaters and made $1,071,150, bringing its two-week total to $2,658,782.

That article was published Nov. 6. I had noticed earlier that the movie's box office this past weekend box office had also crested $1 million, thanks in part to the addition of 90 screens. I could be wrong, but a $3,644 average in its third weekend is a nice hold.

Edited by Christian, 12 November 2007 - 11:26 AM.

[Denny Wayman]

And I liked that the film didn't delve into political and intellectual pro-life arguments, but instead demonstrated love and kindness in a more practical way.

I'm trying to think that one through. There was a lot of on-screen explanations of why an abortion "takes care of it." But only symbolic language in why we save the life of a child. Powerful symbolic language to be sure - but not a word about any of the moral processes. It could almost be argued that this film presents only an exception to the abortion solution because it is an act of atonement on the part of Jose for the little girl he killed. This is especially true since it was a little girl he saved.

But I can appreciate your position, Crow. Perhaps everyone has heard the strident call to not abort a child and we need to move the discussion into heart-language, symbolically presented.

On another area I would have really liked at least some dialogue of where Nina was, for years, while Jose raised her child.

Denny

[Darrel Manson]

Story in LA Times today about grassroots campaign for Bella. I often wonder how grassroots these things are, but...

What caught my eye in the story (and in some of the things I've heard about Bella) is the description "small budget, family oriented movie with an anti-abortion story line . . ." [emphasis mine]

I don't view this film as anti-abortion. Indeed, I see it as very much a matter of choice. Nina doesn't have an abortion because there is anything wrong with that -- in fact, she makes a case for it being the right thing for her to do. Rather, she is presented with an option that is acceptable to her. She mentions that Jose is the only person she can trust, and it is he that offers her another way. She chooses not to have an abortion because she sees that one other option - an option that isn't there until moments before she's going to abort.

Those who may have interpreted my discounting of the film because of a perceived stance on abortion (and I don't think anyone has said that they think that) would be mistaken. My problems with the film is that I'm not really sure how that trust in Jose came to be. I don't think there is enough leg work into the relationship to be believable.

[SDG]

I don't view this film as anti-abortion. Indeed, I see it as very much a matter of choice.

FWIW, B. Nicolosi agrees with you.

And, depending on how the term "anti-abortion" is parsed, I might not necessarily contest the first sentence. As for the second, depending on how "choice" is parsed, I probably disagree. It is true that Nina is pro-choice both in theory and in practice, and we don't see her undergo any special conversion in that regard. But Nina's opinions and actions are one thing, and the film's worldview is another. I would say that the film is "pro-life" in a sense that does exclude abortion, even though it doesn't articulate principles of a moral case against abortion.

[Darrel Manson]

Yes, I would agree that the film is "pro-life" as you've described it. Of course, the problem with that is how often that term is parsed as "anti-abortion". They need not be equated, just as pro-choice is not necessarily pro-abortion or anti-life.

[Christian]

The campaign against the Bella nay-sayers claims another scalp.

EDIT: The complainers did this only indirectly; it's the publication's editor who's chiefly to blame.

Edited by Christian, 07 December 2007 - 05:34 PM.