If there's someone who, after transitioning from an actor to a director, had the sharpest eye for the market, it would undoubtedly be Mel Gibson.
As a second-tier male actor stepping into Hollywood, it seemed like he could reach the threshold of A-list stardom with just a little effort.
At the age of 34, which was quite suitable, he chose to step behind the scenes and become a director. He even co-founded Icon Productions with a close friend. His debut film in this venture was the niche arthouse film "The Man Without a Face", which he directed and acted in. It didn't make much of a splash, mainly serving as practice to familiarize himself with the filmmaking process.
His second film, "Braveheart", depicted English court politics, perfectly timed around 1995 when epic historical dramas were thriving. The plot was captivating, and Sophie Marceau, the female lead, possessed astonishing beauty, which attracted a lot of attention. The film received ten Oscar nominations and won five major awards, including Best Picture and Best Director.
In other words, it was highly profitable.
Mel was undeniably intelligent. Perhaps because he had been an actor himself, he had a clear understanding of what audiences liked to see. Many plot developments were unnecessary from an artistic perspective, but he forcibly added them for entertainment value.
For instance, the film "The Passion of the Christ".
He was well aware that a film with a subject like Jesus might not have a significant market, but as long as it was made, there was no need to worry about a lack of audience.
And regarding reviews, they certainly wouldn't be terrible. Just like "Braveheart", with such a heavy subject matter, who would dare to say the film was bad? Not giving it awards?
As for casting, he emphasized good looks. Monica Bellucci was chosen to play Mary, and James Caviezel was cast as Jesus. They even explicitly stated that they had faithfully recreated the story of Jesus in the last 12 hours before his crucifixion.
The press releases were all about praising how authentic the film was. In any case, they leveraged the blurred line between religious faith and the film's content to generate maximum buzz.
As expected, with an investment of $25M and a release date in mid-February when there wasn't much competition, they held all the right cards—timing, location, and a great story.
They crossed the $100M mark in just one week.
Unfortunately, controversies about the film had never ceased from the day it was released.
Why?
In simple terms, from an artistic perspective, this film couldn't compare to the one Pasolini made on the same subject, "The Gospel According to St. Matthew". The plot was too Hollywood.
Although Mel was a person with some integrity, he didn't excessively incorporate commercial elements, or the backlash would have been worse.
This time, he included even more private elements than in "Braveheart", using brutal scenes to portray the disciples who betrayed Jesus and the cruelty of human nature.
Unfortunately, he forgot that he was depicting Jesus, a figure countless believers could empathize with. There wasn't much room to play with this aspect, and yet, he chose to emphasize the part about Jesus's suffering, going so far as to highlight it.
Especially when many people came to watch the film with a supportive attitude, they found the director indulging in the unrestrained use of violence and bloodshed to depict the holiness and loftiness of Jesus, reaching a level of vulgarity that was off-putting.
On websites such as the Yahoo Community, IMDb, and Rotten Tomatoes, under the page for "The Passion of the Christ", countless people ranted and the rating couldn't even reach a 7, despite the content's potential.
The American-published The China Press even ranked it as the most controversial of the top 25 films, securing the top spot.
Even after its release, it sparked debates between Catholics and Jews. The reason was anti-Semitism.
But the more they cursed, the more the arguments raged on, and the film continued to make money.
And then, Lyman's "Effervescent" premiered.
Mel had heard of Lyman, but they were by no means acquainted, only vaguely aware of each other's existence. After all, box office markets are quite forgiving. He knew that it might pose a threat, but he never expected the consequences to be this significant.
...
March 20th, the distribution department of 20th Century Fox.
At nine in the morning, as usual, they held a small internal meeting.
Angel walked into the conference room with a smile on his face, as per usual.
After all, "The Passion of the Christ" was the film he was responsible for distributing, and its market performance was excellent. Could he not be happy?
In the conference room, quite a few people had already arrived, whispering to each other.
When they saw Angel, they fell silent.
"What's going on? Is there something wrong?" He took a seat at the head of the table, puzzled.
Angel might have been the deputy, but privately, he handled most of the distribution work.
"Don't you know yet, boss?"
"Know what?"
"Our film, "The Passion of the Christ", has been surpassed in the weekly box office rankings."
"What?" He genuinely had no idea about this. He had gone to bed quite early last night. "How much did we make yesterday?"
"'Effervescent' made $37.56M, and we only made $16.32M."
Hearing this data, Angel couldn't stay seated.
"Why is this happening? Didn't we make over $24M the day before yesterday? How could we drop so quickly?"
It was normal for a film's box office to decline as it continued to screen, and it was also normal for a new film to outperform it. However, the extent of the decline was astonishing.
"Moreover, the theaters are planning to reduce our showtimes and screens."
This news was even worse.
Angel thought for a moment and then looked troubled.
The owners of these theaters were the most straightforward people. If the film hadn't performed so poorly, they wouldn't have made such a decision.
But facts were facts. They had to strive for it.
"Contact them immediately, and I will go negotiate with them. Also, cut down on the advertising budget."
Yes, the distribution company was also pragmatic.
When they saw that things couldn't be done, they thought of working harder first and then preparing a way out. They were quite skilled at it.
But why had the theaters reacted so strongly?
Over the weekend, "Effervescent" had directly earned $35.52M and $37.56M.
In four days of release, the total box office in North America for "Effervescent" had exceeded $140M.
With such achievements and performance, how could they remain unmoved?
Besides, Paramount wouldn't just sit idly by.
As soon as the results came out, they immediately contacted the theaters and requested additional screenings.
Although there had been some tension recently between Paramount and Lyman, couldn't they make good use of this opportunity?
After all, for them, as long as they marketed it well, it was practically making money while lying down. They had every reason to be motivated.
The only unknown was how much they would ultimately earn from operating "Effervescent".