It’s an old Hollywood habit that you shouldn’t put your own money into a movie. But I’ve always had great respect for anyone who does. It’s clearly a sign of their dedication: that they care enough about what they do to have a bit of a role in the game. I also think there’s a heady roll of the dice: if you put your own money into a movie, your investment could hit the jackpot. (That’s what happened with Mel Gibson and “The Passion of the Christ” and George Lucas with “Star Wars.”) And of course there’s the admirable idea that those who finance themselves are trying to market a movie that a corporate studio said no to. That’s one way films can stay adventurous.
So the reckless and committed bravado that Kevin Costner demonstrated by pouring $38 million of his own money into “Horizon: An American Saga” is something I can get behind. Actually, as Costner eventually admitted, it could be closer to $50 million; perhaps he initially felt a little shy about possessing that quixotic level of personal investment, since (to repeat) you’re not supposed to do it.
But of course Costner can afford it. All players who do this kind of thing can do that. They still have plenty of assets left. (Which is one of the reasons I’m surprised this doesn’t happen more often.) Costner has always been the definition of a star who cares, who deals in and directs worthwhile projects, who reveres the art of cinema. There is something pure about the fact that he has put his own money into a sprawling Western magnum opus.
That said, you’d be hard-pressed to think of another example of a movie that proved the old one right as well as “Horizon.”
The box office results are now in on ‘Horizon: An American Saga – Chapter 1’, and taken in the big picture, as an indication of where the saga is going, the numbers aren’t very pretty. I suspected this wouldn’t be the case as soon as I saw the film at Cannes, where I was one of many critics to give it a mixed to scathing review. What made this special is that the three-hour film only makes up a quarter of the total project. “Chapter 2” will be released in August. “Chapter 3” is now being recorded. And “Chapter 4” is a borderline castle in the sky at this point — an idea for a movie hanging on Kevin Costner’s balance sheet.
What this means is that “Horizon,” with a likely $12 million opening weekend and a $100 million price tag (not for the entire saga; just for “Chapter 1”), has the potential to not only be a financial train wreck, but the kind of train wreck that unfolds in slow motion over months. In the case of “Chapter 3” it involves building the train while it is in the middle of a crash. That’s a lot of box office pain to buy for $38 million.
Costner knew what he was doing when he took his gamble, and he’ll be fine. Perhaps the money will even return to him through residual flows. But when a major film opens with this kind of thud, it’s worth wondering what happened and whether there are lessons to be learned. In this case there is an important lesson. It’s this: don’t turn movies into television.
Because that’s what Costner tried to do, and that was his folly. His star had faded somewhat in the 2010s, but returned with “Yellowstone,” Taylor Sheridan’s TV series that began in 2018. Clearly, Costner was basing himself on the show’s extraordinary success when he decided to make “Horizon” as an episodic program. drama, a drama that will (theoretically) last more than 10 hours. It’s not 10 o’clock movie, precisely. It’s a series—or, as I described “Chapter 1” in my review, “the breeding ground for a miniseries.” Because when you watch “Chapter 1,” you feel like you’re being introduced to all these characters, but you haven’t even gotten to the good stuff yet. That kind of thing can work on television. But in the movies it is fatal. I would say that a film has to keep you interested in the first 40 minutes or it’s toast.
Is the problem with “Chapter 1” that it doesn’t better miniseries? Possibly. But I still think it’s a matter of form. The discursive, anecdotal, all-over-the-place drama of “Horizon” feels, at least in the first three hours, like homework, and I don’t think that’s because I’m not enough for a “red state audience.” person” to get it. That’s because television writing is different from film writing. TV episodes, especially in an ensemble piece, are often open-ended. They have a dip-in/dip-out quality. While movies require a sense of resolution. And there is pride built into the four-chapter concept of ‘Horizon’, because as people not standing up for “Chapter 1”, who the hell is going to worry about “Chapter 2”? That audience will likely be even smaller in August.
Of course, it’s always possible that you don’t need to have seen “Chapter 1” to enjoy “Chapter 2,” or that “Chapter 2” will turn out to be better. Maybe in two months that film will take on a life of its own. But I don’t think Kevin Costner envisioned it that way. He wants his audience to be completely involved. And he has always been a relaxed playwright. (The original version of “Dances with Wolves” was five hours long.) Investing your own money in a movie is an honorable and even courageous thing to do, in my opinion, but the problem with the level of investment Costner has poured into ‘Horizon’ is that he has already made the film more important than any film should claim. The drama of whether the audience will come for it now transcends the drama on screen. Sure, “Horizon” is “big” and “sprawling” and “epic,” but so far it’s busy and fragmented rather than grand. I suspect that somehow it will eventually end its journey on the small screen: the place where it was always meant to be.
