March of the Penguins Tops Box Offices

Zinside writes "Yahoo News is running a story stating that March of the Penguins may become the No. 2 documentary of all time at U.S. box offices." From the article: "The film, which follows a pack of Emperor Penguins during an arduous mating season, had grossed $18.4 million by Wednesday and was poised to surpass the $21.6 million for Michael Moore's anti-gun documentary Bowling For Columbine. For 13 months, Jacquet and his crew braved Antarctic temperatures as low as 70 degrees below zero - and winds up to 150 mph - to capture astonishing images of thousands of emperor penguins engaging in a mating and child-rearing ritual that is nothing short of astonishing. The Penguins are a miraculous species, capable of extreme heroism, self-sacrifice, sorrow and unshakable love."

Comments

What does it say about the mainstream audience?

[ReformedExCon]

I am fascinated that a nature documentary is garnering this much attention. I'm not sure if it is saying something about the audience, or if it is saying something about the quality of this season's Hollywood crop.

There is a meme in certain circles that G-rated films gross higher than R-rated films. Could this kind of flocking (hehe) to see a documentary about penguins be indicative of a trend towards a silent audience demand for wholesome, informative movies rather than violent and crass fare?

An astonishing and moving film. Evokes emotions...

[loggia]

This film evokes emotions that are hard to put into words.

Simply put, it is truly astonishing and moving -- and leaves you with a feeling that stays with you long after you leave the theater. I guess that feeling is: life.

Just saw it tonight

[circletimessquare]

Pretty good. It makes you forget your problems as the hardships facing penguins just trying to raise their chicks makes your problems seem completely insignificant.

So, strangely enough, I would not qualify this movie as a nature documentary. For me it is genuine bona fida "escapist entertainment": 90 minutes to gawk at something so alien to your existence that it puts everything else in perspective when you emerge blinking from the theater.

And that is exactly what movies and entertainment are supposed to do. And that explains this movies success.

Bonus item: this movie teaches us that hundreds of thousands of years of evolution in the harshest terrestrial environment on earth has left the penguin with large rolls of belly fat as a major and important adaptation for survival (to protect the chick/ egg from the harsh cold). So eat your popcorn and drink your soda guilt free. ;-)

Anti-gun?

[skingers6894]

I'm not sure "Bowling for Columbine" was simply "anti-gun". I seem to remember that it went a little deeper than that. If I remember correctly the movie asked why the per capita gun-related murders in the U.S. were higher than Canada even though the per-capita gun ownership was lower.

Something like that. While it was a gun related documentary I don't think it was imply "anti-gun".

Anyway, no such controversy with the penguin movie - it's pro penguin alright.

Re:Anti-gun?

[OSXCPA]

Bowling for columbine was not, in my opinion, 'anti gun'. The thing I got from the film that I think transcends anything Moore has caught hell for, is the sheer magnitude of the effect fear has on a culture. Those of you who spent adolescence in a state of hormonal turmoil whipped by abject fear, you know exactly what I mean. American media subscribe to the 'it bleeds, it leads' and as a result, despite decreasing rates of violent crime (go google it) from 1970-2000, reporting on crime went way up. Consequence - we don't let our kids play outside unless there is a fleet of adults around, because 'something bad' might happen. And it might, but it is no more likely today than it was in 1975, when I was running around outside alone. A kid today would be safer than I was, but fear doesn't let us (Americans) accept that. I'm curious what expats living in the US think.

Re:Not #2 yet, and no chance for #1

[Gactaculon]

I don't know about you, but I think that when I look back on my life many years later, I'll consider it much more important to have spent time watching something emotive and novel than consuming political propaganda. The films I've seen, the art and music I've enjoyed, and the places I've explored either in person or by proxy will be very much valued, when all is said and done. I can't say the same for Fahrenheit 9/11, for example. Perhaps it is important for the number of people it reached for whom its ideas were new, I'll grant that. But to the informed and interested viewer, it was little more than a rehash of world events through the prism of Moore's crazed psyche. I mean, seriously, the argument that seeing one man's inherently biased and un-countered rant rendered on film is prerequisite to making important choices is total bullshit, assuming you bother to read once in a while. Yes, I'm being a bit overzealous with the critique of Fahrenheit, but I can't see how anything like it can be considered truly enlightening and significant on a personly level.

So I guess what I'm saying is that I think you may have your priorities severely confused. Yes, there are important and momentous events and conflicts happening in the world. There always are. They oblige us to become involved and to form our own opinions and to seek truth, but more obsession does not mean more effect. The truly important things are the things that happen in the midst of constant turmoil that make life worth bothering with. Nobody and no philosophy is going to force us to seek these things out and partake in them, and it's up to us to make sure they don't pass us by. That's the uglier truth.

I don't know whether this documentary is really any good or not, or whether it warrants this sleep-deprived, starry-eyed rant at all. But to rank works like this to be *by definition* of lesser importance than political discourse reveals a very narrow point of view.

(And please stop with the mouth-frothing. It's very unsanitary.)