ANTWONE FISHER only cost about $12.5 million to make and the print and ad dollars doled out by its distributor, Fox Searchlight, weren't huge, and therefore, according to producer Todd Black, "it will hit its profit mode very shortly." But it's clearly seen as a movie that stumbled and fell, or at least underperformed.

I called around town on Wednesday and Thursday to get some ideas about what went wrong. My sources came up with five theories:

1. Fox Searchlight shouldn't have opened it around Xmas, when it was competing against a lot of high-profile prestige films, but in October or November.

When it first opened on 12.19, FISHER went up against "a classic glut of upscale films at the end of the year," recalls producer Sam Kitt, a longtime partner of Spike Lee, "and part of the strategy, as with all Xmas films, was to open and wait for the awards and the nominations, except they never happened."

The crucial problem, according to a big-studio marketing expert, is that FISHER opened not to "great reviews, but to good reviews...and the press knew it wasn't going to win awards. At that time of the year, with that kind of movie, you can get lost...and that's what happened here. This was an extremely well-made little movie that got lost in the Xmas rush." The Fox Searchlight people "fell in love with the movie and thought they could compete [in terms of] nominations and awards, and they couldn't."

Black disputes this assessment about lukewarm responses. "With the award-givers we were lost, but many critics embraced it wholeheartedly," he says.

Kitt feels FISHER might have done better if it had opened in October, only a month after the Toronto hoopla, or perhaps in late January of February, but the marketing veteran disagrees. "I don't know that it would have done better if it had opened earlier," he says. "It might have done a little better, but it wouldn't have done $40 million."

2. African-American audiences generally don't support heavy dramas.

"It's very difficult to get a serious drama over to a black audience," says another experienced Hollywood marketer. "It was a very tough picture to market, and it needed special handling...it's a black picture that had to be sold to a black audience, and [Fox's marketing chief] Nancy Utley sold it by the book, and I think she just dropped the ball. Starting with the limited release in December, it was dying on the vine from day one." **

"Try and sell a movie like this to an African-American audience, and you might get the upscale [sector], but the younger audience doesn't want to know about this kid's troubles," says marketing veteran #1. "They have their own lives. The white audience, which you need for crossover, will sometimes crossover and sometimes not. Sometimes when it's all African-American faces [on the screen], it's harder for this to happen."

"All filmmakers feel that if their movie doesn't play, that the marketing people have dropped the ball," says Kitt. "All marketers say that when a movie like this doesn't play, that the reason is that blacks don't support dramas. This is one of Hollywood's dirty little secrets, which is that racial assumptions are still part of studio thinking. It's depressing. Because in Hollywood's mind, there are basically four kinds of movies for black audiences -- social injustice, racial dysfunction, booty calls and shoot-em-ups."

And yet, Kitt admits, "The African American audience of today, and by this I mean the emerging middle class...they don't want to go back to movies about racial injustice and the dysfunction of black families living in the underclass...they want their movies to be aspirational. They don't want, "Oh, God, here we go again...an oppressor, a struggle, a problem."

Then again, the black-dramas-don't-play-with-black-audiences theory is put into question by the $71 million domestic earned by JOHN Q., which starred Denzel Washington.

3. It's not a racial thing -- FISHER was a niche picture from the get-go and dramas are always a tough sell.

"FISHER was a difficult sell because it's a drama and dramas never go over very well," says ex- VARIETY reporter Andrew Hindes, now an executive with Neilsen EDI (i.e., Entertainment Data Inc.), a service which provides Hollywood-based studios with box-office information. "And it didn't have a big-name cast, and it was basically an art-house film. It didn't have exploitation elements -- no action, no spectacle or CGI -- and for a lot of people out there, simple quality isn't enough of a draw.

"The core audience [for a film like this] is older, educated and female...and a lot of those people would just as soon go to see a comedy," Hindes explains. "It's not really a black thing....dramas in general are very tough to sell. There's a very small group of people who go to see movies... 95% of moviegoing is [about] all the other stuff. And remember that Fox Searchlight released this film, not Fox. They saw it as niche movie from the start."

4. The "social outreach" ad campaign, which kicked in with the wide release, was a bust

Kitt feels that "the bigger issue was the ad campaign, which seemed to say, 'See this movie - it's good for you.' But nobody wants to go to the movies for medicine." PREMIERE critic Glenn Kenny agrees, saying " the last thing people want to be told is that a movie is good for them. It's like being told to do your homework."

The social outreach campaign, which used a copy line that called FISHER "the most inspirational film of the year," used blurbs from educators, political people and from NAACP-type people, all commenting about how important and inspirational the movie was.

"The social outreach campaign was never aimed at average moviegoers," says Fox Searchlight marketing president Nancy Utley. "It appeared only in the L.A. TIMES, the NEW YORK TIMES and the trades. It was aimed at the Academy and the guilds, as we needed a message for these groups since we weren't hitting with the critics awards or the Hollywood Foreign Press."

"The irony is that the movie was genuinely uplifting and not a downer," says Kitt. "Derek Luke had this kind of loopy naturalness...and what has happened with black audiences not supporting this film is bad. The Fox people are surprised. They had seen quality, and thought that the movie would speak for itself."

Young white males may have also felt hesitant about the campaign. Early-30ish talent manager Tom Denko of Hofflund-Polone says, "I just kind of thought the whole heart-stringy thing might be a bit too much...definitely. It seemed very, very talky."

"The problem wasn't the marketing campaign as much as they're not using a grass-roots publicity campaign," says marketing veteran #2. "They needed to reach out to people in the black community and build support from the ground up, and they didn't."

A Fox Searchlight spokesperson contends this is precisely what was done. Among other initiatives, Derek Luke and Antwone Fisher "each did personal appearance tours for a month separately, which extended our black media campaign," she said. "Our ANTWONE FISHER campaign in this respect was no different than the ones we did for BROWN SUGAR and KINGDOM COME, which we considered successful."

5. Even without the critics awards, it still might have punched through if it had won one or two Golden Globe awards...and this didn't happen because HFPA members don't "get" movies about African Americans and their culture

I wasn't even allowed to run a non-attributable quote about this one, but one of the marketing guys told me way, way off the record that the Hollywood Foreign Press is generally regarded as not being "receptive" to movies about black subjects starring black actors. This view was seconded by a FISHER insider who also didn't want to vent a sticky racial issue.

It's real, though. Since a film is generally perceived these days to be dead with the Academy if it strikes out at the Golden Globe awards, FISHER was essentially Oscar toast the minute the HFPA nominations were announced.

Another theory, says Utley, is that the HFPA "isn't responsive to films about the military, as the American military isn't terribly popular in foreign countries."

"We made a small-budgeted, wonderful film," says Black, who deserves the last word. "I'm thrilled beyond belief that I got the movie made after almost ten years. We made a promise to Antwone that we would make his movie, and we made it and made it well. It will make back its money, and it will make back its marketing costs. We were the least expensive-to-make film that was released over Xmas, and with all the markets down the line we're going to make a good profit. We'll be fine.

"I never went into this movie thinking we were going to win an Academy Award and make $100 million dollars," Black adds. "Fox Searchlight did a tremendous job and I don't fault any of them for the marketing. It was a courageous decision by Peter Rice to greenlight this film, because it was a tough sell. We did exceedingly well for a film that we all knew was going to reach only a tiny, tiny audience."

I don't buy that one entirely -- in their dreams the FISHER team thought they might have a home run on their hands. But I have no trouble believing in their general feelings of satisfaction, given how well the film turned out.

[** Box Office Mojo's Brandon Gray says FISHER "only averaged $14,000 for that first week end at 15 theatres, which is kind of anemic for a big limited release like that. It needed to average $30,000 per theatre. CHICAGO and ADAPTATION did that, [and] THE HOURS did $30,000 per theatre at 11 sites. From there it mapped out the course of its box-office pattern. They went wide on January 10 at 1007 theatres and averaged $3756 dollars the first weekend...which is definitely modest."]

Apologies to Neil

In Wednesday's article about nutter film critics, NY1 critic Neil Rosen was slammed with a quote from a New York-based critic, and now it turns out he may not be quite the "sniveling coward" he was made out to be. The source claimed Rosen "hated LORD OF THE RINGS: THE TWO TOWERS, but wouldn't say it on his own channel, a Time-Warner subsidiary, and instead unloaded his scorn as a guest on Bill McCuddy's show on the Fox New Channel."

Rosen called yesterday to state that he did, in fact, pan Peter Jackson's film on his own show (he told me a streaming video of his original TOWERS review is downloadable, but I couldn't find the link). He also lists TOWERS on the NY1 website (www.ny1.com) as his #1 choice among the Ten Worst Films of 2002, and this I was able to find. He says McCuddy invited him onto his show to talk about why he didn't like TOWERS because he had already seen/heard his review on NY1.

Rosen was otherwise a good sport about being dissed. His biggest regret was not seeing his face pasted over one of the Beatles in the "Sgt. Pepper" album art that was used to illustrate the piece.

Nutters Forever

"I think it's just as important to talk about what kinds of lives these people have outside the screening room. I've been going to critics' screenings in Philadelphia, Los Angeles and New York for nearly 30 years, and I don't think I've ever heard a conversation about politics, women, the Knicks vs. Lakers, travel, or anything else. These people are totally obsessed with movies, junkets, stars, festivals and basically have no lives. I call them screening-room vampires.

"So if they often appear nutty, or write nutty things, it's because they've been warped by sitting in darkened rooms for 200 days a year, or by going to exotic cities where all they do is see movies. Their perspective just isn't normal. It's like they're suffering from a permanent case of seasonal affective disorder.

"As to some of your nutter choices: (a) Neil Rosen is the stupidest blowhard around -- a true idiot and suckup; (b) Kevin Thomas truly never met a movie he didn't like; (c) Jeffrey Lyons is another idiot with bizarre tastes who often gets names and other factoids wrong in his reviews; (d) Manohla Dargis strikes me as smart, erudite, well-read and totally annoying -- she, along with Armond White, appears to be writing from some Olympian altitude from which Nothing Is Good Enough.

"And I can't see how you missed Amy Taubin of the VILLAGE VOICE -- the East Coast Dargis with nary a good word to say about anything. She totally lost me when she panned CROUCHING TIGER. It was such an idiotic review, and read more like a cry for help." -- New York Film Journalist

"All this talk of nutter critics, and no one mentioned Stephen Hunter of the WASHINGTON POST? The man's a raving psychopath. Go check out his review of X-MEN and watch as a man goes mad." -- Peter Milan

Wells to Milan: Hunter is one of my absolute favorites. I love reading him precisely because he writes with a certain free-form, confessional, this-is-me attitude. He's a real voice and a first-rate writer, so what's your beef? Like Gleiberman said on Wednesaday, it's not what you like or dislike -- it's how well you write and convey what it's actually like to confront this or that movie in a screening room.

"Armond White is off his rocker, but that's why I love to read him. He's runs so against the grain that it's almost revolutionary. I don't agree with much of what he says but he always makes me stop for about five seconds and ponder, 'Am I wrong about this piece of crap???' Even though they're frustrating, I prefer this oddball/tough kind of critic to the easygoing, I-like-everything reviewer. My favorite critic right now is also one of my favorite filmmakers. Guy Madden's reviews in FILM COMMENT lately have sent me rushing to Amazon.com to buy some obscure oldie." -- Larry Karaszewski, producer-screenwriter (ED WOOD, THE PEOPLE VS. LARRY FLYNT)

"Peter Travers is one guy I avoid listening to. If everyone else says something is great, fine, but if it's just Travers talking, I've learned to pass on it. The one guy who was great was Paul Tatara for CNN, but he quit there last year, and haven't really found a critic I can listen to at the moment.

"Tatara was far too cynical to be as mainstream as Ebert, whom I'll never listen to after hearing his review for some shit like THE HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL (or something like that), in which he said the plot/acting was godawful but the set was cool so it gets three stars. Tatara was enjoyable for people who really like movies and like to read. I hope he turns up someplace in the future, but I'm not holding my breath.

"Oh, and can Ben Affleck really be a possible Oscar candidate? The same guy that was in ARMAGEDDON? It's a year away, but it's still Ben Affleck, and he wasn't even that good in GOOD WILL HUNTING." -- Chris Heinonen

Wells to Heinonen: The Ben Affleck I'm speaking of gave one of the best performances of '02 in CHANGING LANES. Did you see it? He really found the heart of despair inside that callow-yuppie thing he's been playing for years. And his character in JERSEY GIRL -- a public relations guy going through some major life crises -- may give Affleck an opportunity to do the same, so we'll see. Affleck's on-screen characters can't get by on "glib" -- they have to suffer in order for Ben-the-actor to connect with the audience. Why? Because deep down, I suspect that Average Joe's believe that the real-life Affleck is a little too much of a breezy, gliding-along type of guy, and that maybe he needs a little hard rain a' fallin' in order to grow some character. This isn't to say he actually needs to experience this -- I'm just speculating on what the hoi polloi may feel about the guy.

"I personally have a group of critics that I read, and part of my fun comes in knowing or learning what their likes and dislikes are, and thus applying it to my own moviegoing experience. Unfortunately, this involves a lot of work, and doesn't always add to my time at the movies. That said, I have to ask if it's even possible to write an ordinary, plain-mouthed review, or does the journalism marketplace demand something biting, mean-spirited and sometimes cruel?

"I gotta be honest, sometimes I just don't know how much I can trust you guys.

"Sometimes films are just okay. They're pleasant enough diversions, and while you don't regret forking over your ten bucks, you don't anticipate waiting for the DVD release either. Films like that - the 2 or 3-star, 5 to 7 out of 10 movies -- are rarely reviewed as being 'just okay.' But I have to ask, isn't there a certain amount of showmanship going on in criticism? Isn't there a fear that the readership might dry up unless the critic shows some acid personality and acts just a wee bit bitchy??

"Also, while we're on the subject of critics and their art, shouldn't more attention be paid to time and circumstance? With the passage of time, perspective is added and views change.

"I remember when GLADIATOR came out, I genuinely liked it. It was a fun summer popcorn movie. Then, it started generating Oscar talk, and my opinion of it started to wane. Now that it's a Best Picture winner, I can't stand the thing. (Too late - I've already bought the DVD.) I wish that more critics would have and/or take the same opportunity to do the same thing. Let them revise their opinions more and make some of those changes of heart known. I get the feeling that a lot of critics feel they have to stay hardasses, otherwise their reputation will be ruined." -- Malcolm Johnson, Burbank, CA.

Wells to Johnson: The journalism marketplace demands film criticism that's smart, knowledgable, succinct, sometimes amusing and has a personality. "Bitchy" is neither here nor there.

"I go to a lot of all-medias in NYC and often find myself sitting next to some of your 'nutters.' On more than a few occasions, I have had to listen to Jeffrey Lyons loudly declare his love for ARLI$$. I mean he loves it and seemed astonished by its cancellation. Not that I cared much before, but his opinions on anything after that ceased to matter.

"But don't forget web-based critics -- a whole 'nother kind of nutter. I loved Harvey S. Karten's baffling quote on the poster of the feminist French thriller, CHAOS: "It's better than MY BIG FAT GREEK WEDDING." Well, yes, but...what? It did cause me to go read his review, which didn't clarify things much. He too seems to love just about everything.

"Glen Kenny and Matt Zoller Seitz are my two favorite critics, hands down. Please don't use my name if you print this. I'm an extremely small fry and enjoy my anonymity. -- Anonymous

Wells to Anonymous: I like ARLI$$. Who doesn't?

"Owen Gleiberman belongs on the nutter list. I'll admit he's gotten behind some great movies, and I agree with him about 40% of the time, but he's a total madman. His writing is incredibly pretentious, often inane, and always infuriating. Dammit -- I talk about him and I start writing like him! There's something significant in the fact that I never read a review by him before I've seen the movie. One of the most wonderful things I've ever seen was Gleiberman visiting THE O'REILLY FACTOR to talk about BLACK HAWK DOWN, and when he started sputtering on about how it was "an excercise in racism", O'Reilly told him where to stick it. His editors should start doing the same." -- Calloway Burns, Providence, Rhode Island.

Wells to Burns: Okay, but you obviously haven't stopped reading Gleiberman, and there must be a reason for that. Besides, there was a pretty noticable undercurrent of racism in BLACK HAWK DOWN, wasn't there? All those Somali guys the Marines were fighting in that film -- "skinnies," I think they were called -- were pretty much filmed as if they were little black ducks in a shooting gallery. Of course, military guys have always made a practice of dehumanizing the enemy with racial epithets, and all Ridley Scott was doing, I think, was trying to mirror that.

"I don't think Gleiberman, is that much of a nutter, per se. I think his publisher (AOLTW) makes him one. Time and time again I have seen his and Lisa Schwarzbaum's pans of Time Warner pro duct, or pf movies highlighted on the cover, buried in EW the week after the film's opening weekend.

"I discussed this a few months ago with Dave Poland regarding SCOOBY-DOO and he got a response from Schwarzbaum (who reviewed it) stating that the reason there was no review at press time as that the film was not available to her. To which I can only say it's a real shame, not to mention very curious, that a critic that can't get a screening of a movie made by the same company that writes her checks. I'm not saying this is the magazine's fault, but I'm sure Disney doesn't withhold films from Ebert.

"A conglomerate shouldn't play these kind of games. If your movie sucks, take your medicine." David Adams

Wells to Adams: You sure about that "time and time again" stuff?

"Never forget that Gleiberman gave THE MOD SQUAD, the PLAN NINE FROM OUTER SPACE of the '90s, a C grade. That is a near-rave, in my book." -- Sean Griffin

Wells to Griffin: You have to keep in mind that a C grade in ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY is like a D or even a failing grade in the real world. They always give kinder grades that the ones movies actually deserve. If I were handing out grades (hmmm....perhaps I should start doing that), you would see lots of D's and E's and F's....lots. You would see a lot of I's for "incomplete," and you would see an occasional FS grade (i.e., firing squad). I guess I'm kind of a hanging-judge type, while Gleiberman and his EW colleague Lisa Schwarzbaum are more liberal. They seem to believe more in slapping a criminal's wrist, and sometimes even giving him a hug or a peck on the cheek, in order to encourage a better effort next time.

"A film critic who's obviously one short of a shot of Lithium has to be David Elliot of the SAN DIEGO UNION TRIBUNE. He gave THE MANGLER ( remember that masterpiece about a posses sed laundry machine?) three -- count 'em, three! -- stars and gave the same endorsement to WILD WILD WEST. San Diego is a very nice place to live but we have the worst critics here! I sat behind Elliot once during REQUIEM FOR A DREAM and I swear the man got up out of his seat at least ten times. I wasn't sure who was a bigger tweeker, him or Ellen Burstyn." - Surfbrat, a.k.a. Jason Trenton.

About Fisher

"It seems that the notion of ANTWONE FISHER being a 'niche' picture is right on. I've got three words for you: THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION. I remember hearing about it when it was released and being unsure if I wanted to watch it. It never made it to profitability (I don't think) before getting yanked from theaters, but it became one of the biggest rental/purchased videos. Maybe FISHER will find it's audience in the rental world through word of mouth." -- Thad Brink, Chicago, Illinois.

"ANTWONE FISHER has been playing in my hometown of Bismarck, North Dakota, for over a month and is doing steady business. For a state that doesn't have a large minority population, that may seem surprising. But both BARBERSHOP and BROWN SUGAR did well here. I think it depends on the content. The movie may be a quality piece, but the ad campaign did nothing to encourage me to think of it as a "must see" event. I saw it as a DVD rental, suitable for viewing at home in the comfort of my living room. Same with THE HOURS and FAR FROM HEAVEN. CHICAGO seems like an event movie that needs to be seen on the big screen, while ADAPTATION feels like a toss-up." -- Eva Huggett, Bismarck, N.D.

"Here's a possible reason people ignored ANTWONE FISHER. Maybe people saw the utterly ridiculous way 'Antoine' was spelled and they got turned off, thinking the filmmakers were as out of their minds as the people who created the phonetically misspelled name of the title." -- John

Wells to John: This was my own first reaction when I first saw the title spelled out. If you want to devise an Ebonics version of "Antoine," I would think you'd spell it "Antwan"...no? But "Antwone" looks like you're supposed to pronounce it "An-TWONE" (rhymes with "own"), so I don't know. I guess I got used to it regardless.

Role Playing

Rajana Murthy was first to identify Wednesday's cast. They appeared together in Alexander MacKendrick's THE LADYKILLERS ('53).

Today's cast: Clint Eastwood, Victor McLaglen, Eduard Franz, Leslie Bradley, George Nader, Maureen O'Hara, Rex Reason, Torin Thatcher

What's That Line?

Kurt Horstmann of Raleigh, N.C., was first to identify Wednesday's dailogue. It's from Stephen Frears' HIGH FIDELTITY ('00), which was written by John Cusack, Steve Pink, DV DeVincentis, and Scott Rosenberg. The sales guy is played by Jack Black.

Four executives are discussing a change in their company's policy.

Executive #1: (who is standing) I don't believe this! I don't believe the top brass of a national television network are sitting around their Caesar salads --
Executive #2: The top brass of a bankrupt national television network, with projected losses of close to a hundred and fifty million dollars this year.
Executive #1: I don't care how bankrupt! You can't seriously be proposing and the rest of us seriously considering putting on a [very different kind of program]! The FCC will kill us!
Executive #2: Sit down, [name]. The FCC can't do anything except rap our knuckles.

(Executive #1 sits.)

Executive #3: I don't even want to think about the litigious possibilities, [name]. We could be up to our ears in lawsuits.
Executive #1: The affiliates won't carry it --
Executive #2: The affiliates will kiss your ass if you can hand them a hit show.
Executive #1: The popular reaction --
Executive #2: We don't know the popular reaction. That's what we have to find out.
Executive #1: The New York Times...
Executive #2: The New York Times doesn't advertise on our network.
Executive #1: (stands again) All I know is that this violates every canon of respectable broadcasting.
Executive #2: We're not a respectable network. We're a whorehouse network, and we have to take whatever we can get.
Executive #1: Well, I don't want any part of it. I don't fancy myself the president of a whorehouse.
Executive #2: That's very commendable of you, Nelson. Now, sit down. Your indignation has been duly recorded, you can always resign tomorrow.