Saturday, November 23, 2024

From “Conclave” to “Challengers,” “middlebrow” movies might be back

For all its serious subject matter, there’s something deeply comforting about a movie like Conclave. Edward Berger’s new mystery thriller, about a cardinal (Ralph Fiennes) assigned with overseeing the election of a new pope, is surprisingly juicy and a lot more fun than many of the standard, austere Catholic dramas Hollywood has churned out in recent years (The Two Popes, Spotlight, Silence). Imagine the last 20 minutes of Survivor, when contestants switch up alliances and do their most aggressive politicking before Tribal Council, set in the Vatican.

In this fictional election, heavy matters are at stake, mainly whether the Church will embrace progress or maintain its conservative values. Scandals emerge. Chaos ensues. At its core, though, Conclave is a straightforward and arguably silly movie. The characters are all written in the same generic voice and announce what’s happening in every scene. Stanley Tucci plays a man named Cardinal Bellini. It ends with a twist that you’ll either find genius or bonkers. Most notably, it has a quality that’s been missing from the box office lately. From its $20 million budget to its accessible story, Conclave is firmly middlebrow.

We’re used to hearing “middlebrow” used as a pejorative, a knock on overly accessible, “normie” content. But as a third path between “highbrow” and “lowbrow,” it doesn’t get nearly enough credit. It’s a relief to occasionally watch a film that doesn’t insult or overly challenge our intelligence; accessibility with some standards isn’t always a bad thing.

In our current movie landscape, “middlebrow” has become lost between the poles of big-budget IP films drowning in CGI, and Oscar bait-y, indie fare mainly discussed on Letterboxd. Worse, within this dichotomy, it’s become increasingly difficult to find movies with a wide appeal that also contain interesting, human stories. “For me, a middlebrow movie is something that I can recommend to everyone — a parent, a friend,” says Los Angeles Times film critic Katie Walsh.

While Hollywood executives continue to bet on big franchises to turn huge profits, the past few years have seen the mid-budget movie make significant gains at the box office. This year alone, midsized projects like Conclave, Challengers, Trap, and It Ends With Us have generated either significant fanfare or big bucks at the box office. After a decade-and-a-half of narrowing movie choices, could middlebrow films finally be making a comeback?

Marvel killed the “middlebrow” movie

Following the explosion and eventual drop-off of blockbusters in the ’80s, modest films made a comeback in the ’90s. In particular, Harvey Weinstein’s former production company Miramax gave the latter half of the decade some of its highest-grossing medium-sized hits. Movies like Good Will Hunting, The English Patient, Shakespeare in Love, and The Talented Mr. Ripley, for example, over-performed at the box office and went on to either be nominated or receive Academy Awards.

Even then, however, midsized movies didn’t need “prestige” to justify their existence. In the 2000s, for every Oscar-winning tear-jerker, you could check out an even larger number of crowd-pleasing comfort movies — many that might even be categorized as “junk” — from soapy romantic dramas like The Notebook to bro comedies like Wedding Crashers.

While midsized films don’t necessarily guarantee quality, they did give grown-ups a wide range of stories and genres to choose from when going to the multiplex. Think “chick flicks,” sports movies, legal thrillers, domestic dramas, capers, and whodunits during the ’90s and aughts. Up-and-coming filmmakers got to experiment with interesting concepts — or stick to more conventional fare — with decent budgets, ranging from $10 million to $60 million. As is the case with IPs now, studios could largely count on movie stars to lure audiences to the movie theaters and take a chance on original or newly adapted stories. During the era of physical media, studios could also rely on the profits from VHS and DVDs — as Matt Damon explained on an episode of Hot Ones — giving these medium-sized films a longer tail and more chances at profitability.

Actors Ryan Gosling and Rachel McAdams in the 2004 Nick Cassavetes-directed film “The Notebook.“

Ryan Gosling and Rachel McAdams in the 2004 film The Notebook.
Melissa Moseley/Courtesy of New Line Cinema

While middle-range movies used to occupy much of a studio’s yearly slate in the 2000s, blockbuster franchises like Spider-Man and Transformers were also a part of the mix and proved to be a worthy investment. Suddenly, even impressive earnings from mid-budget movies were starting to look like chump change compared to the hundreds of millions of dollars franchises could turn in with the promise of sequels.

In 2009, a year after the release of Iron Man, journalist and film producer Peter Bart reported on the growing skepticism in Hollywood toward these sorts of in-between films (i.e., moderately budgeted movies geared toward adults) because they lacked built-in audiences. Instead, Hollywood executives were turning their attention and dollars to splashy franchises they could connect to “a maze of ancillary promotions,” like toys and video games.

Fifteen years and 33 Marvel movies later, this would prove to be true. Year after year, it seems like audiences can only count on comic book movies (and their endless sequels), live-action Disney remakes, video game adaptations, and reboots of other classic films to feature buzzy stars and be mass-marketed — with a couple of indie films slipping through the cracks. Still, the billion-dollar success of last year’s Barbie signaled the prolonging of our time in kid-friendly IP hell, with a slew of movies inspired by Mattel products reportedly coming down the pipeline.

Investing in blockbusters hasn’t been a foolproof plan, though. With bigger budgets, the expectation for box-office success has risen to astronomical numbers. According to Mitchell Beaupre, managing editor at Letterboxd, this has created a “feast-or-famine landscape” where movies are either “gargantuan hits or colossal failures.”

Studios “need to put up $200 million in order to make a mammoth blockbuster,” Beaupre says. “They only turn a profit if it makes $500 million or more. Otherwise it’s a disaster.”

Middlebrow” movies have a communal value, especially when they hit theaters

It’s not that “middlebrow” movies have completely fallen off the radar, but theatrical runs and robust marketing campaigns are largely a thing of the past. Rather, the bulk of these movies are dropped on streaming platforms with little to no promotion. For instance, Netflix took advantage of the rom-com-sized hole in the movie landscape and began releasing a slate of original films, many of them geared at teens, in the late 2010s. Hulu, Prime Video, and Max are also where you can find most romance flicks, family comedies, and small action films nowadays — if you even know they’re there in the first place.

This year, several “middlebrow” movies that would’ve been marquee theatrical releases in a previous era were quickly dumped onto streamers, including the Apple TV+ movie Wolfs, starring George Clooney and Brad Pitt, and the Glen Powell vehicle Hit Man. The latter film’s quick arrival on Netflix, after a limited theatrical run, was especially perplexing, given the recent box-office success of Powell’s previous film Anyone But You in 2023. Not only did the studio rom-com (made on a $25 million budget) earn over $200 million worldwide, it showed that well-liked actors could still drive people to movie theaters.

Hit Man, I think, would have done great,” Walsh says. “I saw it in the theater in Los Angeles, and it was packed with middle-aged people. My friend was like, ‘Oh, this feels like a real movie.’”

In the same vein, the thwarted release of Clint Eastwood’s latest film Juror #2, another firmly “middlebrow” movie, is currently confusing critics and supporters of the film online. Eastwood’s 40th film was given a limited release on November 2 with no plans to expand, according to Variety. Sources also told the Hollywood Reporter that the drama would arrive on Max “over the Christmas holidays.”

Actor Nicholas Hoult as Justin Kemp in the 2024 Clint Eastwood-directed film “Juror #2.“

Nicholas Hoult as Justin Kemp in the 2024 film Juror #2.
Courtesy of Warner Bros/Everett Collection

“Juror #2 is a perfect example of something that easily could have made $100 million if it was in theaters,” says Beaupre. “But for whatever reason, [Warner Bros. Discovery CEO] David Zaslav has decided to barely release it. Even reliable investments like Eastwood, who has had three of his last six movies crack $100 million worldwide, aren’t worth putting their resources behind to studios.”

Still, when “middlebrow” movies have stuck around in movie theaters long enough the year, they’ve felt like special cultural events. This year’s Luca Guadagnino film Challengers felt the most reminiscent of the classic midsized movie buoyed by a beloved movie star (Zendaya). While the film contained artistic elements and a more “non-traditional” subject matter than a typical mainstream movie, it quickly became a populist favorite through viral memes and fans recommending it to other people.

“Every time I went back to see it again, the theater was busier than the last time,” Beaupre says. “That was a massive word-of-mouth hit that had people filling up theaters a month after it came out.”

Ultimately, it seems that the desire for original or at least new movies that adults can enjoy and, namely, discuss with other adults has never gone away. Whether viewers appreciated it or not, the ending of Conclave has at least given moviegoers something to talk about. Amid months-long marketing campaigns and cross-promotion tactics à la Barbie and Wicked, it’s refreshing to see moviegoers spreading the gospel of Conclave in an organic fashion. It also seems to be working. While the movie has yet to break even, it’s already passed a $15 million milestone, despite a relatively limited release.

“There’s definitely a desire to go see Deadpool and Wolverine or Twisters and be with a crowd and have that big-screen sensation,” Walsh says. “But I think people also want to feel like they’re watching a movie and have something to think about and something to say afterward.”

While Hollywood’s franchise mania continues to confound, there’s hope that the industry will bend to the needs of moviegoers eventually. Just like blockbusters briefly lost their magic at the end of the ’80s, this moment could be a trend, rather than fate.

Filmmakers are also becoming restless about the lack of mid-budget offerings themselves. At this year’s Oscars, American Fiction writer and director Cord Jefferson suggested that Hollywood executives make “20 $10 million movies” instead of one “$200 million movie” during his acceptance speech for Best Adapted Screenplay, drawing loud applause from the audience. His plea immediately begged the question: What’s so hard about that math?

Related Articles

Latest Articles