Barbarella and brands

I'm not sure Barbarella is a brand name. The Jane Fonda version isn't so bad. It's got style and entertainment value. But I think it is an artifact of its time (of production). The 1980 Flash Gordon movie also has a sketchy reputation, but I think it's the better film. Despite that, I'm not sure why its box office failure enthuses the 90-year old Dino De Laurentis to announce his remake of the similarly stylized and unusual Barbarella.

When Drew Barrymore announced that she would be producing and starring in a new Barbarella, I could take it or leave it. She is cute and she is Gertie, so I'd wish her well, but the Charlies Angels reboot was just okay and felt like a wasted exercise except for the pressence of Bill Murray and Crispin Glover.

When "D." dropper her project and Robert Rodriguez announced that he had written his own Barbarella which he would direct and which had been storyboarded as a "sexy Star Wars tone," there was a movie on my must see list. The only downer was that he planned to cast his talented girlfriend Rosie McGowan (machine gun leg chick in Planet Terror) as Barbarella. Had Grindhouse been more of a hit, that might have been allowed. But generally for an American studio to bankroll a big sci-fi movie they might demand -- Drew Barrymore? Likely not. Angelina Jolie with her activist reputation might be am interesting new Jane Fonda.

The project is being poorly reported in "entertainment news" blurbs but I think the way it breaks down is this:

Rodriquez did finally find investers overseas who would accept McGowan but he would have to shoot and edit in Europe.

His public announcement was that he didn't want to spend months away from his children, which may be true. But is also means that Troublemaker Studios which he runs virtually through his own house in Austen Texas would not be shooting it or serving it for effects and the Rodriquez method of working would be compromised.

This means that there is a written and storyboarded Robert Rodriquez movie of Barbarella that will sit in limbo. Maybe De Laurentis and his family think failed versions have had enough publicity that any movie called Barbarella will generate interest. Speaking as a genre movie fan, a little older than the key demographic, I'd have to say Rodriguez has the project I'm interested in and I can't even remember the name of the director De Laurentis has in mind for his version.

On the one hand, Sin City shows that Rodriguez can use big names and there are plenty of women who can pull off Barbarella as a part. On the other hand I'm sure it would strain his relationship with McGowan if after all these years he goes ahead with Barbarella played by someone else. I have nothing against McGowan, and the real star would be the whimsical Rodriquez diretorial personality.

What needs to happen is McGowan needs a gimmick or stunt in a major film that makes her a name brand star. Cameron Diaz can thank the accidental use of sperm as hair gel, Meg Ryan thanked her ability to fake orgasm in public, neither of which represents either actress' body of work to follow. McGowan has already dated Marilyn Manson in real life, so I don't know what she does to shock an audience into making Rosie McGowan a household name. But frankly I hope the De Laurentis version doesn't happen. I won't see it.

I'll see the Rodgriguez version. I might not have seen all of his kid-friendly movies. I may have missed one. But his other films are fun and his version of Barbarella might be the big gesture he needs to make his own name a bigger brand in the eyes of a studio. It's too bad we never got to see his version of Zorro. His (then) wife had bought the rights for him, and he brought in Antonio Banderas, and then the Dreamworks machine came in. They believed in him for being cost efficient, said the budget was $30 million and then later he found out $15 million of that was going to the Holy Dreamworks Trinity (Spielberg/Katzenberg/Geffin) as their fee and the remaining $15 million was what he had to make the film. Not much more than the total budget of his previous film, s not much of a step up and not much of an endorsement of his talent - just his efficiency. He would be in a position of appearing to exploit his crew and cast because of his low-budget reputation. When he then quit the project, Martin Campbell who had enjoyed a hit with Goldeneye was given $60 million dollars. I don't know how much of that went to the Trinity. And nothing at all against Spielberg and his friends. If I have a favourite director it is likely Spielberg, and I've taken a lot of heat for that. But the money aspects are funny. Value and perceived value are so strange. Is Martin Campbell a better and more talented director than Robert Rodriguez? Is Judd Apatow a better director than Kevin Smith? Or is it more likely that you can give each person the same budget and come up with similar production values? There is no question that Rodriguez was under-valued on Zorro - if for no reason than he had been preparing to make it by any means necessary when there was no outside big money interest. We lost the chance to see a Latino director get a proper (middle-range for the time) action movie budget to handle THE big mexican hero brand name. After that, Rodriguez did a couple of years under the radar doing second unit on other people's movies keeping his skills active while his own company could be built. So if there is a Barbarella movie at all other than one produced at Troublemaker and directed by Rodriguez I'm just not interested.