The Fabelmans<\/em> from Steven Spielberg. Thus, an autopsy of the movie itself and its release might be in order.<\/p>\n\n
\tIts protagonist (Christian Bale) is a sort of ravaged doctor-from-hell whose glass eye pops out at inopportune times, much as the film’s narrative leaps across decades.<\/p>\n
\n
\tThe movie’s other stars, Margot Robbie, John David Washington and Robert DeNiro, are buttressed by quirky performers like Chris Rock, Taylor Swift, Rami Malek and Mike Myers who pop up in key moments.<\/p>\n
\n\tAmsterdam<\/em> is not as easy to assimilate as David O. Russell’s earlier hits like American Hustle<\/em> or even Three Kings<\/em>. Its style and pace represent the polar opposite of streaming films now in vogue. It’s a convoluted who-done-it in which no one turns out to be who he or she (or they) represent themselves to be.<\/p>\n\n
\tOne character collects shrapnel from the bodies of wounded soldiers and displays the pieces as a distinct art form. She inevitably connects with Bale’s physician of last resort who tends to the hideously injured.<\/p>\n
\n
\tIn terms of marketing and distribution, Amsterdam<\/em> itself is arguably an injured patient. The project was financed by New Regency \u2014 that’s run by Arnon Milchan and his son Yariv, both combat veterans of the movie business, whose deal was originally with Twentieth Century Fox before its sale to Disney.<\/p>\n\n
\tHence distribution was dispatched to an entity called Twentieth Century, which decided on 3,000 theaters \u2013 not the sort of platform designed for \u201cserious\u201d cinema. Further, marketing was now managed by Disney, which, of course, had owned Fox. \u201cAmsterdam<\/em>shall we say, is not exactly a Disney movie,\u201d commented one Disney executive.<\/p>\n\n
\tThe conventional wisdom on films like Amsterdam<\/em> would mandate a festival opening plus successive screenings aimed at celebrities and influencers leading to a careful platform release.<\/p>\n\n
\tNo one seems ready to explain why none of this happened with Amsterdam<\/em>. Nor has anyone stepped forward to pin Amsterdam’s<\/em> limp performance to its marketing strategy, or lack thereof.<\/p>\n\n
\tThe silence is intriguing given Arnon Milchan’s contentious but superbly successful history in the business \u2013 films ranging from The Revenant<\/em> to Pretty Woman<\/em> to LA Confidential<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n
\tRobert Altman’s reaction to all this would have been high decibel. Altman’s 1975 classic, Nashville<\/em>, had a busy plot that focused on a populist outsider who ran for president. He likely would have relative Amsterdam<\/em> and its basic theme \u2013 a plot to take over the American government through a secret coup by Trump-like <\/strong>power players.<\/p>\n\n
\tMy suspicions is that Altman, who died in 2006, would be distressed by the state of cinema today \u2014 and how it is (or is not) effectively distributed and marketed \u2014 identifying Amsterdam<\/em> as a symbol of its disarray.<\/p>\n\n
\t\u201cAs a filmmaker, I conducted myself with the conviction that the money people are always wrong,\u201d he once intoned. I suspect David O. Russell would endorse <\/strong>his point of view.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n