Snapshot: November 13-15, 1992
By Joel West
January 30, 2009
The box office performance of a film these days is almost as important as the film's quality itself. As unfortunate as that may be, the facts are the facts. So while your movie may be as good as It's a Wonderful Life, Citizen Kane, or even The Shawshank Redemption (all box office disappointments in their own right), if the marketing, release date, and apparent quality don't resonate with audiences, its commercial success could suffer. As with everything in history, time produces clarity. This column will take a look back at a specific time at the movies and try and determine the factors that led to a movie's success or failure.
Now that Twilight has gone on and become the highest grossing vampire movie ever ($185 million), it is time to take a look back at the film that proved the genre could be highly profitable in the modern era after a lull in the late '80s and early '90s.
Vampire movies have always maintained relevance in film, as a column on the subject would not be complete without mentioning the iconic vampire portrayals of Max Schreck (1922's Nosferatu), Bela Lugosi (1931's Dracula), Christopher Lee (1958's Horror of Dracula) and Klaus Kinski (1979's Nosferatu the Vampyre). To an extent, these films harbored a social significance during their respective eras, and the '80s were certainly no exception. With the onslaught of AIDS throughout the '80s and early '90s, it was hard to not see vampire films as a metaphor for society's anxieties. Since the content of the genre's films would be more than some pale schmuck biting women on the neck, filmmakers took novel approaches to reflect society's fears without sacrificing an entertaining time at the movies. In return, some of the genre's best films came out of the '80s (1983's The Hunger, 1985's Fright Night, and 1987's Near Dark and The Lost Boys). Treating vampirism as a disease mirrored the era's trials with AIDS and drug addiction and their impact resonated with filmgoers and critics alike. After The Lost Boys' modest run ($32 million), however, vampire films hardly made a sound at the box office. In the summer of '92, a high school comedy disguised as a vampire film was building buzz as a potential breakout for the genre. While Buffy the Vampire Slayer would provide the concept (and name) years later for one of the best TV dramas ever, a box office sleeper it was not ($16 million). Clearly the genre was not translating very well in the '90's.
On the other hand, anyone that went to the movies in the summer of 1992 did see the subtle marketing for a vampire film that would soon turn the genre on its head.
Prior to the Internet age, movies could up and surprise you and Bram Stoker's Dracula was no exception. In July of 1992, posters started popping up in theater lobbies featuring a gargoyle's head with the words Beware over it. Not long after, the very meaning of teaser trailer started playing before the summer's blockbusters. Puddles of blood were seen running together (very reminiscent of the special effect used in the previous year's blockbuster Terminator 2) with quick cuts to the film's cast. Wait a minute, was that Winona Ryder? Oh my God, did I just see Anthony Hopkins? What the hell is Keanu Reeves doing in this? Then, Francis Ford Coppola's name is revealed and audiences knew they were in for a treat (please note, this was before Coppola wrecked his artistic credibility with Jack and The Rainmaker). Suddenly, Bram Stoker's Dracula's release date, aptly the Friday the 13th in November, was marked on everyone's calendar.
Continued:
1
2
3
Print this column
