Yuck. The slow process of dumbing down and selling out.
https://www.indiewire.com/2022/04/the-northman-robert-eggers-viking-dialogue-script-edit-adr-1234718797/
Where have you been? Studios have always done this. There was one period where directors had a pretty much entirely free hand, to make the movie as they wanted, with little to no interference from studio-enforced directives, that was the 1970s, the so-called "auteur era" of film making. And it came to an end when one of those artistic directors delivered a movie that went so enormously overbudget, and bombed so thunderously hard at the box office that it essentially bankrupted United Artists, and ensured that studios would never be so hands off again.
And you really can't blame them. Movies cost a lot of money to make, and this one cost about 90 million. The studios want to make the money they invest back, and then earn a profit on top of that. (Quel surprise!) If the director makes a movie that is too esoteric, and too confusing to audiences, not enough people will go to see it, and it will lose money, and the director gets a black mark against his name with the studios. One too many of those, and no one will finance his movies, no matter how artistic they are.
With the budget this movie had, it simply had to appeal to a general audience. That's reality. We shouldn't let best become the enemy of good.
I've been right here, and I know how studios and financing works, so no need to explain the process or history that I already know -- but the director doesn't have to go bigger. And by "slow process" I'm referring to how someone like Eggers shifts from the indie thing to go bigger, but makes concessions along the way. That's the "selling out," and not everyone does that. I'd rather see The VVitch or The Lighthouse, as it is, than more expensive, big studio versions of the same, where all that's unique is stripped away, leaving another riskless clone as a result. I'm not naive, I just have a preference, and an Eggers Viking movie is far more compelling to me than studio notes, and test screenings, turning it into Gladiator.
shareHe couldn't have made this movie and still done it the indy way you prefer. The Witch and The Lighthouse were manageable on the small budgets he had because he had tiny casts and single, remote locations that didn't need expensive elaborate sets, etc.
For this story, he had to have towns, farms, ships, a Norse temple, weapons, armor, period-accurate clothing, jewelry, tools, utensils, etc. That meant a bigger budget, that meant a bigger studio investing, that means a more general appeal to make the film profitable. And with Eggers's demand for extreme, painstakingly researched, accurate detail, he was never going to be satisfied with an inaccurate film done on the cheap. I think he would never have made the film at all rather than have made it in a way that failed to live up to his exacting sensibilities. I for one have no problem with this, and I'd rather have the film we got rather than no film at all, which I suspect was the only alternative. I quite like the film as it was shown, and I think Eggers managed to put plenty of his own unique style into the movie, making something other than just another cookie-cutter action flick.
What you just described is the concession I mentioned --ie, I need more of your money, so I'll apply your notes even when I'd prefer not to. This one ran over, so their leverage over him increased. When it's supposed to cost 65mil, but ends up being 90mil, that's quite a difference.
"I think he would never have made the film at all rather than have made it in a way that failed to live up to his exacting sensibilities."
And that would be not selling out. There are those who just don't make the film unless they can do it as they want. They wait for years, putting it aside for other projects, revisiting when/if they have more muscle. Do you think the dialogue that he had to change in post was part of his "exacting sensibilities"? Of course it was. That's why it was there in the first place. I'm sure The VVitch and The Lighthouse too could've been made more palatable and popular, with a greater ROI for the financiers, but exacting sensibilities left them intact. He took the money to go bigger with this one and lost some leverage (including final cut). That's a choice. And that's all I'm saying.
"I think he would never have made the film at all rather than have made it in a way that failed to live up to his exacting sensibilities."
And that would be not selling out.
Sneering? That's rich coming from someone whose first reply began with "Where have you been?" as though he was oh-so-sure of how unaware I must be of the contents of the essay on film and commerce he was about to write. I guess I should be happy that it didn't cover Louis Le Prince to the present. But thanks for yet another unnecessary art history lesson, born of the same assumption, and with a Straw man at its core. Nothing arrogant about that at all...
Can I ask you - have you seen the movie?
Because it is one helluva movie. It’s Shakespeare. Ingmar Bergman. This is not the Vikings on the History channel.
Yes, you can. And no, I haven't.
I hope my reaction is the same as yours, and I hope it's Eggers all over. I've never seen Vikings on THC, so I can't compare.
Was there a big crowd?
The first two seasons of Vikings were fucking awesome. You should check it out.
shareAll the seasons were fantastic. I thought when Ragnar left, it would not be the same. But this was the best series. Ever.
shareI thought the show really lost something in S2 when Athelstan's character started to disintegrate and then was killed off. He was the heart of the show in the first two seasons and was a huge selling point for me.
Then they made the seasons twice as long and it felt like the writers didn't really know how to sustain that and a lot of the episodes felt like filler.
And finally Ragnar was killed off.
I tried to carry on after that but just couldn't do it.
I think I disappeared around this time too but came back to it in the 4th season, then watched later what I missed. My favorite was when Ragnar becomes addicted to this hallucinogenic berry drug and then his relationship with Yidu - I thought it was so different and I became glued to the series. Then, Ragnar goes but in a really compelling way. Going forward he had six sons - the sons of Ragnar. And then the games began. Ivar the Boneless, who couldn’t even stand, becomes the most feared and brilliant Viking. He was fascinating and then they go to Russia and that’s another story. And some go to what is now Greenland or Iceland where it is barren and I think some end of up in what is Newfoundland today. It is just a fascinating series. It’s not too late to watch it again. The writing is fantastic. No one character takes up the series because of popular demand like other series. They have their moment and their ending.
shareI have seen your postings on other topics, and I like them. You always research things and I love your links to articles that are worthy and great source material. I really liked your sharing of Luke Jennings’ opinion in The Guardian of Killing Eve’s finale. But I am so amazed at all the postings on this website from people who have opinions or just say things who haven’t actually seen the movie. It seems counterproductive. These guys Robert Eggers and Sjon probably worked night and day poured their hearts out for this movie. This is not a commercial movie. So, if there were concessions they had to make to the studios, it doesn’t show. This is not GoT or The Vikings - it is visceral, brutal and a rather simple tale. Ingmar Bergman’s Virgin Spring comes to mind. Shakespeare’s Hamlet. The cast, other than the leads, do not include tall striking blond people with tattoos and braids but rather ordinary, unkept, dirty, dark and light lank haired, short and tall, fat and thin, motley almost hippies in a barren commune. There are languages that I think are Ukrainian because the slaves are from the land of Rus and then there is the Norse. This movie is very real. I think critics will like this movie more than the audience. I felt like I saw a very raw powerful movie. My experience was positive. Who knows this may become a classic. BTW, I loved The Vikings on THC - I watched every season. But this is definitely not that series.
No hardly anyone at 1:15pm showing. But no one is coming to theaters anyway. At least in the afternoon. That is why I liked that you can’t stream this. That was a brilliant move. Because that would ruin this movie.
I've read all about Eggers work on this project, as well as the pressure he was under from the studio, and the ballooning budget b/c of various factors. I liked his other movies, and he's on the short list of directors of whom I eagerly await their next offering. But the reason I like him is b/c of the meticulous, uncompromising vision. His other films didn't remind me of other movies, and that's rare. Some other directors I've liked have followed a similar path, small indies, then they get a bigger studio film -- but something is lost in that cooks-in-the-kitchen process. (See Chloe Zhao as a recent example. The Rider was my favorite of that year. Eternals? Not her lane, and it showed.)
I didn’t study it so you may have more expectations. The more I think about the movie, I think it could become a classic. Nicole has her moment too. There is an actor in this I find really compelling. I think he’s Danish. He was in Riders of Justice - a movie that I really liked with Mads. I think Eggers used a lot of actors that were in his other movies. For some reason, I haven’t seen The Lighthouse or Witch, but I will see them. Rider looks great so I will look at that too. I watch a lot of foreign movies and TV series and I really like them. I’ve been a fan of indie movies forever. Currently South Korea makes excellent movies and TV series. But my favorite for last year, was a French movie called Titane. I loved the director, Julia Ducournau. I love the cast with Vincent Lindon and Agatha Rousselle. The French have a lot of great female directors. At the French film festival we discussed this move, and many people hated it and wanted to walk out, but I loved it. I think it won a Palme d’Or.
shareI liked Raw, but I still haven't seen Titane. It's on my long list of films I need to get to.
shareIt still was quite Shakespearean and semi-archaic. Not to the level of The Lighthouse but still...I do wonder what the dialogue was originally like if this is the watered down version.
shareHe said that it was cut down a lot as well, but we'll never know, b/c he said there will be no director's cut.
shareAccording to the article that OP's article barely references, language was ADDED for clarity, not removed.
Yuck. The slow process of dumbing down and selling out.