Sep 2, 2024

The Wolfs of Venice Canals

George Clooney and Brad Pitt give thoughtful, if diplomatic answers on the future of movie distribution

George Clooney, as it turns out, would make for a great politician. And no, this isn't about his letter to President Biden – though that was a main line of questioning in his press conference. And he gave a good, albeit political, answer on that as well. But more to the interest of this particular site, he was also, of course, asked about his new film Wolfs (in which he stars alongside Brad Pitt), and if he's disappointed that it won't be getting a large theatrical release and instead will see it streaming on Apple TV+ after just a week in a limited number of theaters, Clooney first tries to disarm the audience noting that the "interesting" New York Times article about their salaries for the film (which I linked to here) was inaccurate. How inaccurate? "Millions and millions and millions of dollars less than what was reported."

Of course, when that ceiling was $35M – each – his statement could put, say, $25M – each – in play. Though, as Buchanan notes, Clooney pointed out that he and Pitt "gave some of our salary back to do it," which, assuming that's accurate, might point to a significantly lower salary indeed – though, who knows about the back-end points, of course! And Clooney goes on to note – in a very political way – that he was only bringing that up because he thinks it's important to not set such a high number as the bar for actor salaries or "it will make it impossible to make films". He said this on stage during their film premiere in Venice, Italy.

But actually, his comments on the situation itself are fairly refreshing (video here):

"Yes, we wanted it to be released. We had some bumps along the way. And that happens. I did 'Boys in the Boat', we did it for MGM, and then it ended up being for Amazon and we didn't get a foreign release at all – which was a surprise. There are elements of this that we are figuring out. And you guys are all in this too. You know, we're all in this industry and we're trying to find our way post-COVID and everything else. And so there's some bumps along the way. It is, it is a bummer. Of course it's a bummer. But on the other hand, a lot of people are gonna see the film and we are getting a release in, you know, I think, a few hundred theaters, so we're getting a release. But you know, it would have been nice for it to have a wide release."

Back to Buchanan's report:

Pitt, who was also at the news conference, sounded sanguine about the release change. “We’ll always be romantic about the theatrical experience,” he said. “At the same time, I love the existence of the streamers because we get to see more story, more talent, it gets more eyes. It’s a delicate balance, but it’ll right itself.”

Pitt, of course, is also set to star in what could be a potentially huge hit – in theaters, no less, notably IMAX – in F1 next summer. That film was also produced by Apple, so he's of course even more incentivized to be diplomatic here than Clooney is. Still, it's nice to hear both actors at least say the right things about the future of the business with a dose of humility.

Another reporter asked what could be gleaned from the current state of the industry if a movie starring Clooney and Pitt could no longer be guaranteed a wide release.

“Clearly we’re in decline,” Clooney joked. But he noted that when he and Pitt were younger actors, “there was still a form of a studio system. ‘ER’ broke for me,” he said, referring to the hospital series he starred in. “I was at Warner Bros., and I got a five-picture deal at Warner Bros. You sort of get protected along the way.”

Clooney cracked that his Warner Bros. deal did include the famous flop “Batman & Robin,” but there was still a machinery behind those moves that contemporary actors don’t have access to. Still, he chose to see the upside.

“The democratization of our industry is not a bad way to go,” Clooney said. “Infinitely more people” are seeing movies “because of streamers, and that’s a good thing.”

That is a good thing. And it's also a good thing to leverage movie theaters when appropriate. So does that mean Wolfs is not good enough, not big enough, some combination? Or is Apple really just pulling back spend? Well, the headlines at such events remain hilarious: Wolfs got a four-minute standing ovation, declares Variety. No, it was a five-minute one, says Deadline.

Can I get six? Six minutes, anyone?

Meanwhile, the early reviews are decent but also sort of all over the place. In aggregate, 62 (out of 100) on Metacritic and 73% on Rotten Tomatoes.¹ (I always trust Metacritic more.) Those reviews are still coming in, but so far, they indicate a movie that is pretty good, but far from a home run. And Apple needs a home run. And given that feedback and just the type of movie that it is – yes, even with two of the largest movie stars in the world – they probably have a better shot of making it one on Apple TV+. So that would seem to answer that.

Though I still like my script for how it all went down...