From New York

USCCB Office for Film & Broadcasting

March 2, 2006

When it comes to predicting box-office success, veteran screenwriter William Goldman said it best: “nobody knows anything.” Yet with an Academy Award-winning triple threat of director Ron Howard, star Tom Hanks and screenwriter Akiva Goldsman (four Oscars among them) at the helm, Columbia Pictures’ $125 million screen adaptation of Dan Brown’s controversial conspiracy thriller “The Da Vinci Code” looks, at least from a box office perspective, like a sure bet.

But as the novel’s symbologist hero knows all too well, looks can be deceiving.

From the moment plans of production were announced in 2003, there has been much ink and Internet chatter about the film – including a “Newsweek” cover story – which is bound to intensify as its May 19 release nears. With sales of the book 25 million worldwide, many question not whether the movie will make money, but how much?  If recent adaptations of best-selling books with a rabid fan base are any indication – the “Harry Potter” franchise (over $3.5 billion combined), “Lord of the Rings” trilogy (close to $3 billion), and “The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe” ($600 million plus) – the probable answer is: lots. Those films, however, were family-friendly, with the latter two’s ticket sales lifted by the active support of Christian groups, a boon unlikely here.

A bestseller, however, doesn’t always translate into box-office gold. For every “Gone with the Wind” or “The Godfather,” there is a “Bonfire of the Vanities” or a “Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil.” The same holds true for films based on religious-themed novels. To name two classic examples, Lew Wallace’s “Ben Hur” and Lloyd C. Douglas’ “The Robe” – both hugely popular in their day – did well, (the latter was a box-office bonanza twice in its 1925 silent version and then the 1959 remake starring Charlton Heston which won 11 Oscars). Conversely, Martin Scorsese’s “The Last Temptation of Christ,” tanked despite a top-drawer director working from an acclaimed novel (by Nikos Kazantzakis).

The failure of “Temptation” might have served as an omen for Columbia about treading on Christian sensibilities. Admittedly, Kazantzakis’ book was not the cultural phenomena that Brown’s novel has become and which has sparked an entire cottage industry of tie-in books and tours.

But while the potential rewards are obvious, in the capricious and pressurized world of the movie industry, big hype doesn’t always guarantee success. (Just ask “King Kong” director Peter Jackson). And there’s also the possibility of disappointment after the studio unleashes all its promotional hoopla. “Is it really that good?” some might ask.

In any case, “The Da Vinci Code” is Columbia’s “tent-pole” picture, that is, one around which they anchor their entire release slate. In the unlikely event it isn’t a blockbuster, Columbia may face a long, lean summer. (Regardless of how it does at the box office, the movie will make back its money in ancillary DVD sales, pay-per-view, lucrative network television deals and merchandizing.)  

The $100 million mark is generally the gauge of “blockbuster” status, though with big budget films like this one, a minimum of $200 million is the more realistic barometer of success.

With so much riding on the film, Columbia has been aggressive in their marketing strategies, positioning the film’s release in early May (two weeks before the traditional Memorial Day start of the summer movie season) to offset big-budget rivals like Warner Brothers’ “Superman Returns” and Disney’s “Pirates of the Caribbean” sequel. “The Da Vinci Code” will open the prestigious Cannes Film Festival one day prior to its theatrical premiere.

You don’t have to be a Harvard symbologist to decipher Columbia’s maneuvers

to generate buzz  (as if the film needed it). Howard has already appeared on the “Today Show,” exclusive footage in hand, and the studio has released a steady stream of teaser film clips on shows like “Access Hollywood.” In addition to posting the trailer (emphasizing the film's more sensational scenes),

on various Internet sites the studio has also sponsored a Web site – separate from their official site – providing a platform to interdenominational voices critical of the book and film, an option embraced by some Christians as a way to be part of the wider pop-cultural conversation.

In paying a mint for film rights and hiring a director of Howard’s caliber (“Cinderella Man,” “Apollo 13,” and “A Beautiful Mind”), Columbia is committed to giving Brown’s theological page-turner a prestige cachet. Casting Tom Hanks, one the most likable and trusted actors of this generation, was also a shrewd move. All of which will no doubt result in a perfectly fine murder mystery that would be probably be recommendable, were it not for its faith-offending and historically inaccurate underpinnings.

And while Howard and Columbia have taken pains to position the film as “fiction,” promotional clips – including the theatrical trailer – are tagged with provocative injunctions to “seek the truth” which only serve to further legitimize the property’s fatuous assertions about Christianity.

Following the trend set by “The Matrix Revolutions,” “Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith,” “War of the Worlds” and “King Kong,” Columbia is releasing “The Da Vinci Code” all over the world “day and date” (industry speak for on the same day) rather than the more traditional distribution paradigm of opening a film domestically, weeks, and sometimes months, before bowing abroad. The rationale is part perception, part economic. A global rollout makes the film an “event.” It is also the studio’s attempt to minimize the siphoning effect of film piracy and bootlegged DVDs in foreign markets.

Ultimately, even high profile pictures like “The Da Vinci Code” are subject to the Darwinian nature of the movie business, one increasingly driven by opening weekend box-office expectations.

For Columbia chairman Amy Pascal, a disappointing debut would be scarier than being chased through the Louvre by an albino monk, and should that be the case come May 19, the Mona Lisa will not be the only one wearing an uneasy smile.