I wonder. The book was very controversial when it came out. I just find it incredible that a film with the number of young stars in it as there are -- Sam Riley, Garrett Hedlund, KRISTEN STEWART, KIRSTEN DUNST, AMY ADAMS -- would become _so_ invisible.
I simply don't buy that it's been "marketed poorly" ...
A SINGLE TWEET on Kirsten Stewart's twitter page would make standing room only lines form outside theaters across the country. (All the more so, since she is topless in the film).
Instead, I honestly see conspiracy here. Kristen Stewart is already a star and Garrett Hedlund will become a GENERATIONAL GOD after this film gets finally released.
And yet IMHO there are people who probably prefer posters of "Dick Cheney" in their bedrooms rather than EITHER Stewart of Hedlund who are trying REALLY HARD to keep tens of millions of young people from seeing this film.
And honestly THAT IS WRONG. Yes, it's an R-rated film but COLLEGE AGED KIDS HAVE A RIGHT TO SEE THIS FILM. Because it deals with MORE than "just sex."
PS - I've already seen the film and read the book. I've been waiting for the film to FINALLY be released here in Chicago to put up my review of it. Faced with the possibility that the film (despite ALL THOSE STARS) won't be released (generally) in the U.S. at all, I'm going to have to write-up a review before (IF EVER) it comes here. Sigh ...
I don't buy it. One doesn't make a film with THAT MANY STARS IN IT and then just show it two cities declare it "a failure" and walk away from it.
It just doesn't make sense. IFC's people would certainly know how to write a single tweet with #OnTheRoad and #KristenStewart in it ... (especially since one could add the single word TOPLESS to it).
It makes far more sense to believe that there are folks who want this film quashed.
The poster has a good point. Producers don't expand unless the film is well received critical in its limited release and if they themselves are capable of a successful role out plan. It's part blame on IFC for ditching the movie and part blame on the movie failing to gain anything more than mixed reviews.
>>It makes far more sense to believe that there are folks who want this film quashed.
Get a grip.
2013 Most Anticipated - Stoker, The Spectacular Now, Frances Ha
I agree 100%! Ive posted on here also about this. I finally get to see this in Seattle on Mar 22. I dont get why it has not resonated or has not been more proudly been promoted. Some sort of " indie band" mentality when only a few people know of a great band and want to keep it that way so as to be part of special cool group? Lol. It is about freedom and rebellion and living life alive. Are kids today really not into that and although politically liberal, conventional and status-quo content?
Hi, well that's good news. If it's going to play in Seattle on Mar 22, then perhaps it'll make it out here to Chicago as well.
Then, I'm not sure one could make a judgement of whether the movie "resonates" with today's young people if it's ONLY BEEN SHOWN IN TWO (or THREE) theaters in New York and Los Angeles. I lived in Los Angeles for 8 years, that would not necessarily be the best place for a film like this to "catch on." New York may be better, but COME ON. ONLY NEW YORK? Further, did they at least e-mail the "Occupy Wall Street" folks? (after all, those young people, "under the radar" did help re-elect Barrack Obama).
Now to be sure, UNLESS ONE READ KEROUAC'S BOOK beforehand, the film COULD BE VERY DISORIENTING. That would be because though the story (semi-autobiographical) is set in the late 1940s (in the years after WW II and before Korea) MANY OF THE CHARACTERS BEHAVE AS IF THEY LIVED TODAY.
I wish to tell ANYONE who reads this that Kerouac's BOOK REALLY WAS JUST LIKE THAT.
Yes Dean Moriarty (based on the real person Neal Cassidy) played in the film by Garrett Hedlund was both sexually agnostic ("bi") and confident. Marilou (Kristen Stewart's character) was a randy late teenager. Keruoac did know Allen Ginsberg (Carlo Marx in the story played by Tom Sturridge in the film). And Allen Ginsberg was gay. And Camille (Kirsten Dunst's character is AGAIN as portrayed in the book, and again existed as a real person).
So even if the story feels at times almost like a "Will and Grace" episode THIS REALLY WAS THE WAY KERUOAC FIRST WROTE HIS MANUSCRIPT BACK IN 1951 (!!!!).
Further, there are OTHER ASPECTS of ON THE ROAD that feel like they're straight out of a story by John Steinbeck or Ernest Hemmingway. AGAIN, THAT'S EXACTLY LIKE KEROUAC'S BOOK WAS:
This story, On the Road, provides us a bridge LIKE NO OTHER between the pre-WW II world of John Steinbeck/Ernest Hemmingway and TODAY'S WORLD of "Will and Grace" and "Modern Family"
PERHAPS and with great difficulty, one COULD seek to explain HOW we as a culture moved from "Of Mice and Men" and "Cannery Row" to today's world, but if KERUOAC'S BOOK EXISTS IN OUR UNIVERSE THEN IT IS _A STRAIGHT LINE_.
That ALONE, for its SELF-EVIDENT capacity of explaining how our culture made that jump from Steinbeck to today, ON THE ROAD is IMPORTANT.
Anyway, I honestly do hope that this film does finally get released (outside of NYC and LA) in the United States, because it will help MILLIONS OF AMERICANS (young and old) understand WHO WE ARE and HOW WE BECAME WHO WE ARE. Otherwise, our culture will continue to exist with an ENORMOUS GAPING HOLE IN IT existing from the late 1940s through until the 1960s.
>>This story, On the Road, provides us a bridge LIKE NO OTHER between the pre-WW II world of John Steinbeck/Ernest Hemmingway and TODAY'S WORLD of "Will and Grace" and "Modern Family"
You're right - we became spoiled, "as long as it makes you happy" self entitled brats who sucks on the tit of the government for milk. It kinda reminds of Kerouac and Ginsberg in their time of wandering.
>> understand WHO WE ARE and HOW WE BECAME WHO WE ARE. Otherwise, our culture will continue to exist with an ENORMOUS GAPING HOLE IN IT existing from the late 1940s through until the 1960s.
Gosh, I know, right? America is missing the bridge that's "LIKE NO OTHER." Whatever shall this country do?
2013 Most Anticipated - Stoker, The Spectacular Now, Frances Ha
I don't know much about marketing, but this has been an epic fail. Why not market it to GLADD? Why not push it at college campuses? This film has been invisible to the average movie goer. If I were not a fan of Garrett and Kristen, I would have never heard of the film. I don't know why a real effort was not made.
Well the film was finally released in the U.S. -- in "art house" theaters on the same weekend as "Spring Breakers" was released basically everywhere.
"Spring Breakers" may be more current, but "On the Road" was arguably more positive. Still, there are a lot of fairly powerful people (Fox News / the "Cheney types") who just hate the 60s...
Yet after seven weeks of release, the film has yet to crack the $1 million mark--or even half that amount.
Last weekend, On the Road drew a per-screen average of $1,538 in 77 theaters, a figure trounced by similarly limited releases like Ginger & Rosa and The Gatekeepers.