In October 2022, acclaimed writer-director David O. Russel released his latest effort,Amsterdam, a film so star-studded that the one-sheet was designed as a block of names. It looks more like an end credit crawl than a movie theater poster:
“Christian Bale, Margot Robbie, John David Washington, Chris Rock, Anya Taylor-Joy, Zoe Saldaña, Mike Myers, Michael Shannon, Timothy Olyphant, Andrea Riseborough, Taylor Swift, Matthias Schoenaerts, Alessandro Nivola, with Rami Malek and Robert DeNiro.”
With a cast that mighty,Amsterdamwas a shoo-in. How could it possibly fail? Yet,fail it did. Even with that ridiculously impressive cast, the studio couldn’t wrangle the film’s multitude of tones into a marketable genre. And with losses near $100 million,Amsterdambecame one of the biggest box office bombs of all time.
Critics were also unimpressed with Russell’s latest film. Many citedAmsterdam’s convoluted narrative as its crucial flaw. But curiously, the cast received praise, especially its star Christian Bale, Judy Becker’s production design,Emmanuel Lubezki’s cinematography, and Daniel Pemberton’s score. Let that sink in for a moment. Critics liked the way the film looked, they liked how it sounded, and they liked who was in it. But they still didn’t like it. What kind of consensus can be drawn from a discrepancy like that? ThatAmsterdammay be a mess, but at least it’s a beautiful mess?
Since criticsfound plenty to like inAmsterdam, it’s almost like they didn’t want to discard the film entirely. Just its screenplay by David O. Russell. And its direction — again, David O. Russell. Clearly, it was Russell’s head on a spike that critics wanted. At least, that’s the takeaway you might have gotten from the vulture-like tone of the headlines that circled in onAmsterdamduring its opening weekend.
Those headlines spurred comments from Martin Scorsese whocondemned Hollywood’s “repulsive” box office obsessionwith how much money theatrical films make in their opening weekends and overseas. Scorsese does make a fair point — opening weekends aren’t everything.
Other Box Office Bombs Have Attained Cult Classic Status
The Shawshank Redemption(1994) is currently thehighest rated film on IMDb, a spot it has held for years. But when it comes to the highest grossing films of 1994, the film is all the way down at #95. It made less money thanMy Girl 2(1994) at #83. Come on. More people went to seeMy Girl 2thanThe Shawshank Redemption?
Even theLittle Women(1994) adaptation with Winona Ryder and Christian Bale (inthe role that Timothée Chalamet playedin Greta Gerwig’s 2019 remake) made more money thanShawshank. This includes opening weekend and overall grosses.
Related:Why David O. Russell Should Direct Television
Given that critics had mixed feelings aboutAmsterdam, will it eventually be dusted off and reconsidered? Will it one day sit among cult classics likeShawshank,Rocky Horror Picture Show(1975),Blade Runner(1982),The Princess Bride(1987), andThe Big Lebowski(1998)? Or isAmsterdamdoomed to be ignored by audiences of the future, even when it is inevitably dumped onto one of their streaming subscriptions?
Good Characters Make or Break a Cult Classic
While it may be too soon to know for sure whetherAmsterdamwill become a cult classic, there is another film from another acclaimed auteur filmmaker which faced remarkably similar criticism for its convoluted narrative. Ever since it bombed at the box office in 2014, Paul Thomas Anderson’sInherent Vicehas gained traction as amodern cult classicfor its quirky humor, ensemble cast, and incredible centralperformance from Joaquin Phoenixas Larry “Doc” Sportello; the hippie P.I. pitted against a conspiracy as half-baked as the real-life one that the fictional protagonists uncover inAmsterdam.
In a Q&A at the Lincoln Center forInherent Vice, Anderson admitted that he was so impressed with his cast that he often discarded traditional scene coverage, relying instead on slow push-in shots for many long dialogue scenes. For the director, these long and uninterrupted shots killed two birds with one stone: they trudged through the film’s dense plot while allowing the viewer more time to “hang out” with the characters. Like Anderson did onInherent Vice, Russell leaned heavily on long and uninterrupted shots withAmsterdam. During Q&A forAmsterdamat the DGA, Russell said:
“We’re always trying to capture something that’s alive. If it doesn’t feel alive, it’s not interesting. One of the goals is to attempt to do it in one [shot]. To have it all happen like a play, in one. So it’s an unbroken reality. As often as possible, how can something play in one?”
The trajectory ofInherent Vicemight just be Russell’s last glimmer of hope forAmsterdamto eventually find its audience, which it very well could. That’s because cult classics live and die by the strength of their characters. Be itShawshank,Rocky Horror,Blade Runner,Princess Bride, orLebowski, cults are formed around people, not plots, andAmsterdamis full of them.
That strength may ultimately have less to do with how well those characters are integrated into the plot and more to do with whether viewers simply enjoy spending time with the characters. Steve Buscemi and John Turturro’s characters have no bearing on the plot ofThe Big Lebowskiwhatsoever. Yet, Donny and Jesus Quintana, respectively, have become two of the actors’ most iconic roles.
The Characters in Amsterdam Are Fun to Hang Out With
Funny enough, this question of character likability is similar to the real-life phenomenon of American voters often choosing their presidential candidates based on who they’d rather “grab a beer with,” rather than their qualifications for the job.
Related:Why Amsterdam Should Have Been a Miniseries
Let’s face it. The critics are right that the plot ofAmsterdamis an enormous mess. All the same, the film has a wonderfully colorful cast of characters that aren’t just quirky. They’re good company. According to Christian Bale, this “grab a beer” likability factor was one of his and Russell’s original intentions for his central character, Dr. Burt Berendsen. Speaking to BBC radio announcer Simon Mayo on an episode of theKermode and Mayo’s Takepodcast, Bale said:
“[Russell and I] wanted to create a character that we just really wanted to be friends with ourselves.”
Whatever else critics might throw atAmsterdam, Russell and Bale did at least succeed in their attempt to bring a central character to the screen that the viewer would want to be friends with. Next to Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt’s Oscar-winning performance inOnce Upon a Time In Hollywood), Burt is one of the most fun characters to hang out with in modern cinema. It’s a shame that Burt is trapped in such a disappointing film. Bale’s character deserved to be in a hit.
With box office profits of $1.4 billion and universal critical acclaim,Top Gun: Maverickfaced the exact opposite reception asAmsterdam. Structurally, the plot ofMaverickis lean and whittled down to perfection, the exact opposite ofAmsterdam. But which lead character would you rather have a beer with? Tom Cruise’s Maverick, a world-class fighter pilot who looks eerily like a male model in a beer commercial? Or Christian Bale’s Burt, a disheveled, pill-popping doctor with a heart of gold and a Columbo-style glass eye? Depending on how people answer that question,Amsterdammay be buying the next round.
