Is it true that the market does not like controversial films?

H

harmonica44

I have two feature scripts written, one almost finished, with some tweaking needed. I was thinking making one of those into my first feature. They are both thrillers, and one I feel is much stronger and more dramatic. I was thinking of opting both scripts for funding after I have shot a couple of more shorts, to see if I can get funding. Their is a good chance I won't but it still doesn't hurt to try.

My friend said I am less likely to get funding on the more dramatic one cause it's much more controversial in societies eyes, and the market usually doesn't feel like taking on something risky and would rather do something much more conventional, and 'safer'. The first script, although not near as controversial in subject matter, is still much more violent in some of the plot twists, by comparison. My friend says that the market probably will be more willing to accept something violent and gory as long as the subject matter, isn't as risky.

But this doesn't seem to follow logic why the market would want to bank on something safe. I mean most controversial movies are hits, simply because they are controversial. Not to sound shallow about it, but that's how they make money. For example, if Brokeback Mountain, had switched the genders around in it's romance, it wouldn't have gotten near as much attention, not near as many audiences, and it would not have been nominated for Best Picture.

So is it true that most people in movie funding would rather take on a 'safe' project even though they know that by playing it safe, they are not going to draw in near as much attention, as oppose something more controversial?
 
Would you rather put money into a project that has a 1 in 10 chance or succeeding, or a project that has a 1 in 100 chance?

Controversy can work two ways but you should never make a movie with the intention of it being controversial. There needs to be a level of honesty in your filmmaking and if, like someone like Tom Six, you set out to be controversial then there's a ceiling to the success that you can achieve. Look at directors like John Waters and Lars von Trier: their success derives from the fact that controversy emerges from the art, rather than the other way round.

And if you think that Brokeback Mountain is only successful and notable because of the fact that it's a gay romance, you might want to watch it again and keep an eye out for Rodrigo Prieto's stunning cinematography, Ang Lee's Oscar winning direction, a beautifully poised script, superb acting and, above all else, the emotional clarity of the plot.

Just sayin'...
 
Controversial movies are often very good, but that is when they are done by experienced and skilled directors. It seems unlikely that people would take the same risks and offer the same liberties to a first time director, even if his shorts or scripts are very good. Save it, make a solid film and then hopefully you will get the opportunity to make an even better one with the stronger , controversial script
 
A track record of past productions is more important for funding than contraversity.

Mel Gibson became very rich from his contraversal film, THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST. But, Mel had a great resume of successful movies before THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST to get the funding to make the contraversal movie. Mad Max and Lethal Weapon were already out there.
 
Last edited:
I can see audiences not liking controversial films if the films have big names in, but in my case, where I would be doing one with no stars, usually those types of movies don't succeed unless of controversy. Someone mentioned Tom Six who did the Human Centipede. There's a film that got off the ground because of controversy. Other indie films include say, Hostel, A Serbian Film, and Hard Candy. Now look at movies like say, Stryker, Bare Witness, The Ex, and Target. Have you heard of those movies? No, because they didn't do go outside the controversial envelope at all.

I can see audiences liking mainstream with big budget, but cannot think of many examples of microbudget films with unknown actors in that got as noticed and that everyday people have heard of. Three of those movies have known faces in, and most haven't even heard of them, compared to the controversial examples.

I know that Brokeback Mountain and other films were not successful based on controversy alone, but it is the icing on the cake of a good film, that seems necessary for a newcomer to succeed.
 
Last edited:
Was Reservoir Dogs controversial? I haven't seen it in years and don't recall any particular controversy surrounding it. That said, it did seem like there was an over abundance of indie films in the early 90s trying to be as controversial and different as possible. It got really tiresome really quickly. It's not so much that a controversial film is BAD, but when you set out trying to make one, you end up being "different and unique"...just like everyone else.

And as far as controversy==big bucks, let's look at "The Last Temptation of Christ". An amazing film on all counts, with huge controversy (people picketing theaters). Made for around 7 million, made a little over 8 box office-wise. That's with an amazing cast, top-tier director and screenwriter, score by Peter Gabriel at the height of his popularity.
 
There is nothing in "Resevoir Dogs" that makes it a "controversial" movie...

The reason why it might seem to you that controversial movies do well, is that if you have a regular movie and a controversial movie doing well at the same time, people tend to talk more about the controversial one, because it sparks conversation and subjects.

But you then don't see all the controversial movies that fall behind, because they often just aren't good enough to be seen and talked about.

I'd much rather make a movie that people will see and enjoy, than take a gamble on a controversial movie that just might net me a less than lottery ticket chance of anyone ever seeing it.
 
"There is nothing in "Resevoir Dogs" that makes it a "controversial" movie..."

By "mainstream" cinema standards (especially at the time of it's release) it's VERY violent. Not in a cartoonish way, in a disturbing/real way.
 
The other extreme is film that is ONLY a success because of the "controversy", a classic exploitation ploy of selling the sizzle not the steak. See Human Centipede.
 
Duckforceone said:
But you then don't see all the controversial movies that fall behind, because they often just aren't good enough to be seen and talked about.

I'd much rather make a movie that people will see and enjoy, than take a gamble on a controversial movie that just might net me a less than lottery ticket chance of anyone ever seeing it.
Click to expand...

Okay but it seems that in order to make a movie audiences enjoy, you have to spend more money on it. If it's a thriller, audiences will demand more money be spent on a 'popcorn thriller', where as a controversial thriller, you can get away with much lower budget, cause the material is more dramatic. Is that true, cause it seems that way, by hit movies out there.

There is such thing as a mainstream controversial thriller though, isn't there? I mentioned Hard Candy (2005), and almost everyone I know who saw that movie liked it, accept for one. So it seems to me that would be an example of being controversial but still being mainstream to audience's likings in the process. The thriller I wrote is probably more controversial than Hard Candy, but it is more higher budget too, with more action/suspense sequences. If that helps. Another good example is The Chaser (2008). Controversial, with a climax darker than most, but a lot audiences loved this film, and everyone I recommend to did as well. Had it not had that dark climax and controversial subject matter, I don't think anyone would be talking about it, and it wouldn't get around.

The original Girl With the Dragon Tatoo, with no known stars, also was a hit, and big enough for Hollywood, to want to remake it. If Stieg Larson stripped all of the controversial material out of the novel and played it safe, I don't think it would have gotten near enough attention to be made into a movie.

Word of mouth also helps a lot, but when I ask friends and relatives if they have seen any good movies lately, they will only name controversial indie films. They will not name any popcorn ones. The only popcorn ones they name are big budget big star Hollywood films.

So how is it that indie movies that play it safe, make money if this is the case?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top