In the sprawling, often unforgiving landscape of Hollywood, where dreams are spun into celluloid and fortunes are won and lost with dizzying speed, the term ‘box-office bomb’ looms like a dark specter. It’s a phrase that sends shivers down the spines of studio executives and filmmakers alike, signifying not just a critical failure, but a catastrophic financial drain that can redefine careers and even shutter entire production houses. But what truly makes a film notorious, and how does one avoid investing their precious time in a movie destined for such ignominious failure?
While the concept of a ‘box-office bomb’ is inherently tied to a film’s inability to ‘break even by a large amount,’ resulting in ‘losing money for the distributor, studio, and/or production company that invested in it,’ the path to such a notorious outcome is paved with a myriad of creative missteps, logistical nightmares, and fundamental misjudgments. It’s a complex interplay of forces, from script development hell to clashes of vision, that can undermine even the most promising projects.
This article isn’t just a list of films to actively avoid; it’s a deep dive into the underlying factors and ‘notorious’ elements of filmmaking that, if left unchecked, can pave the way for cinematic disaster. Drawing insights from the tumultuous, yet ultimately triumphant, production journey of Alfred Hitchcock’s classic ‘Notorious,’ we’ll explore the critical lessons buried within the creative process, understanding how a film can become ‘notorious’ not just for its failure, but for the sheer audacity of its production challenges.
1. **Understanding the ‘Box-Office Bomb’: More Than Just a Bad Movie**The concept of a ‘box-office bomb’ extends far beyond a film simply receiving poor reviews or failing to capture the audience’s imagination. At its heart, it’s a brutal financial reality, defined by the stark fact that a ‘film released in theatres fails to break even by a large amount, thus losing money for the distributor, studio, and/or production company that invested in it.’ This isn’t just about disappointing numbers; it’s about the tangible loss of investment that fuels the very engine of the film industry.
The secrecy surrounding costs and profit margins in Hollywood means that ‘figures of losses are usually rough estimates at best,’ highlighting the opaque nature of industry economics. However, what is undeniably clear is the devastating impact such a financial failure can have. It can deter future investment in similar projects, lead to significant layoffs, and even permanently damage the reputation of those involved.
While critical reception often plays a role, a film can be critically acclaimed and still be a financial flop, and vice-versa. The ‘notorious’ label in this context isn’t merely about quality; it’s about the inescapable, public declaration of a project’s inability to sustain itself financially. Understanding this distinction is crucial to dissecting why certain films end up on lists of the most notorious failures, and why anticipating these pitfalls is key to avoiding them.
2. **The Shifting Sands of ‘Notorious’: From Neutral to Negative Infamy**The word ‘notorious’ itself carries a fascinating history, one that perfectly encapsulates the journey of many films from hopeful premieres to widespread condemnation. Originating from the Latin ‘nōtōrius’ meaning ‘evident, known; famous, well-known; infamous,’ its early English usage could describe something ‘generally or widely known; of common knowledge; famous or well-known,’ even positively.
However, as language evolves, so too do the connotations attached to certain words. Over time, ‘notorious’ ‘shifted to have negative connotations,’ becoming ‘usually associated with negative characteristics.’ While it can still be used playfully or ironically for positive traits, its primary association in modern parlance is with ‘something negative; infamous,’ making it the perfect descriptor for films remembered for all the wrong reasons.
This linguistic shift mirrors the fate of many movies: what might begin as a ‘noteworthy’ project can, through a series of missteps, become ‘notorious’ for its disastrous outcome. It’s a powerful reminder that public perception, once tainted, is incredibly difficult to reclaim, permanently etching a film into the annals of infamy, irrespective of its original intentions.
3. **The Peril of Producer Disinterest: Selznick’s Tepid Start with ‘Notorious’**One of the most dangerous catalysts for a film spiraling towards a notorious flop is a lack of genuine passion or consistent engagement from its key producers. Even for a project that would become a ‘prestige production’ like ‘Notorious,’ the early signs of producer disinterest were evident. Initially, ‘Dozier’s interest rekindled Selznick’s, which up to that point had only been tepid,’ hinting at an underlying coolness from the powerful producer, David O. Selznick.
Selznick’s wavering enthusiasm wasn’t just a personal quirk; it had tangible impacts on the film’s trajectory. He later ‘was losing faith in a film that never really interested him,’ expressing concerns about plot devices, characters, and, crucially, the ‘drain on his cash reserves imposed by the voracious Duel in the Sun.’ When a producer’s attention and resources are divided or disengaged, a project can suffer from a lack of decisive leadership and vital financial backing.
This divided loyalty and flagging interest can prove fatal, leading to compromises, delays, or even abandonment. For ‘Notorious,’ Selznick’s eventual sale of the ‘package to RKO: script, Bergman and Hitchcock’ was a crucial turning point, freeing the project from his ambivalent oversight. It serves as a stark lesson: a film needs committed champions at every level, especially from those holding the purse strings, to avoid becoming a casualty of divided focus.
4. **MacGuffin Mayhem: When Plot Devices Confuse and Confound**Even the most brilliant cinematic minds can stumble when it comes to crafting a compelling and comprehensible plot. In the case of ‘Notorious,’ a key narrative element became a source of significant contention: the ‘MacGuffin,’ a ‘cache of uranium being held in Sebastian’s wine cellar by the Nazis.’ This seemingly straightforward device was anything but, causing considerable confusion for the formidable David O. Selznick.
‘Selznick had trouble understanding its use as a plot device,’ a critical issue when the very engine of your thriller is opaque to a primary decision-maker. At the time, ‘it was not common knowledge that uranium was being used in the development of the atomic bomb,’ making Hitchcock and Hecht’s forward-thinking plot choice a potential liability. This obscurity highlights the risk of introducing elements that might be too far ahead of their audience or too complex without proper contextualization.
Despite ‘Hitchcock later claimed he was followed by the FBI for several months after he and Hecht discussed uranium,’ the atomic bomb’s dropping on Hiroshima and the subsequent ‘release of details of the Manhattan Project’ ultimately ‘removed any doubts about its use.’ For many films, however, such a serendipitous external event doesn’t rescue a confusing plot device, leaving audiences bewildered and critics disengaged, a notorious pathway to failure.
5. **Scripting Scuffles: The Grueling Battle for a Coherent Story**The script is the backbone of any film, and its development is often a battleground of ideas, egos, and creative visions. The journey of the ‘Notorious’ screenplay was a prime example of such ‘scripting scuffles,’ showcasing how a lack of harmony in this crucial stage can foreshadow a notorious flop. After Hitchcock and Ben Hecht delivered what Hitchcock ‘thought was a first class script,’ Selznick’s ‘profound annoyance’ led to late-night ‘story conferences’ focused on his ‘roiling problems of his western epic Duel in the Sun.’
Selznick’s continued ‘dissatisfaction with the script’ even after the sale to RKO prompted him to bring in playwright Clifford Odets for a rewrite. Odets ‘tried to bring more atmosphere to the story,’ ‘heightened the passion of Devlin and Alicia,’ and ‘added a soupçon of high culture.’ However, ‘his draft did nothing for Selznick,’ who still felt ‘the characters lacked dimension’ and worried about Alicia being ‘cheapen[ed] in the eyes of the audience.’
Ultimately, Odets’ efforts were dismissed, with Ben Hecht’s handwritten appraisal damning it as ‘loose crap.’ This protracted struggle, with multiple writers and clashing opinions, illustrates how a project can get lost in the shuffle of revisions, risking incoherence or blandness. A truly notorious flop often begins with a script that, despite numerous attempts, fails to find its footing or establish a clear, compelling narrative, a pitfall ‘Notorious’ narrowly avoided thanks to Hitchcock’s clear vision.
6. **Casting Conundrums: When Producers Push for the Wrong Star**Casting is an art, a delicate balance of talent, screen presence, and audience appeal that can make or break a film. A notorious misstep in this area often stems from producers prioritizing personal preferences or contractual obligations over the best fit for a role, as was nearly the case with ‘Notorious.’ Even after the film’s sale, Selznick, despite his reduced influence, ‘tried to oust Cary Grant from the cast in favor of his contractee, Joseph Cotten.’
This attempted interference highlights a common, yet dangerous, trap in film production: allowing external pressures or non-creative agendas to dictate crucial casting decisions. Cary Grant was an ‘ascendant star’ who would contribute significantly to the film’s ultimate success, and replacing him with a contract player, however talented, purely due to studio mandates could have irrevocably altered the film’s chemistry and box-office appeal.
While Selznick’s efforts were ultimately unsuccessful, the sheer possibility of such a significant miscasting underscores how quickly a project can veer off course. A film becomes notoriously remembered when its casting feels forced, ill-conceived, or simply wrong, failing to connect with audiences and robbing the narrative of its essential spark. The resilience of ‘Notorious’ to overcome this particular challenge speaks volumes about the conviction behind its ultimate artistic choices, setting it apart from films that succumb to such executive interference.
Continuing our deep dive into the ‘notorious’ elements of filmmaking, we now shift our focus from the early, often tumultuous pre-production phase to the equally challenging, yet creatively fertile, period of principal photography and post-production. Here, the true mettle of a production is tested against strict industry codes, the unpredictable currents of human emotion, and the perennial battle for artistic integrity. Once again, the remarkable journey of Alfred Hitchcock’s ‘Notorious’ provides invaluable lessons, illustrating how a film can navigate these complex hurdles to achieve not just success, but lasting acclaim. These are the kinds of stories that separate the legends from the infamous flops.
7. **Battling the Production Code: The Infamous Kiss**The stringent morality of the Hollywood Production Code, often referred to as the Hays Code, cast a long shadow over filmmakers for decades, particularly when it came to depicting intimacy on screen. Rules dictated everything from how much skin could be shown to the duration of a kiss. Many a film found itself notorious for clashing with these codes, leading to scenes that felt forced or diluted, but Hitchcock, ever the master manipulator of audience perception, found ingenious ways to circumvent these restrictions in ‘Notorious’.
One of the film’s most iconic moments, a two-and-a-half-minute kiss between Ingrid Bergman and Cary Grant, directly confronted the infamous “three-second rule” which banned kisses lasting longer than a fleeting embrace. Hitchcock, with his signature blend of defiance and cleverness, broke this seemingly endless kiss into a “string of short ones,” interrupting it just enough to stay within the letter of the law while completely ignoring its spirit. This created a sustained, passionate sequence that felt utterly groundbreaking.
The actors themselves were initially perplexed by Hitchcock’s unconventional direction. Biographer McGilligan notes that “Walking along, nuzzling each other with the camera trailing behind them, seemed ‘very awkward’ to the actors during filming, according to Bergman.” Yet, Hitchcock, confident in his vision, simply “assured her. ‘It’ll look right on the screen.'” His innovative approach ensured the scene conveyed the intense romance vital to the plot without incurring the wrath of the censors, preserving its artistic integrity.
This episode is a powerful reminder that notorious hurdles can often be overcome with creative ingenuity. While many films might have settled for a less impactful portrayal of intimacy to avoid conflict, ‘Notorious’ used the restriction as a springboard for innovation. It’s a testament to how pushing boundaries, even within restrictive frameworks, can result in cinematic moments that are not only memorable but also contribute to a film’s enduring legacy, rather than its notoriety for censorship-induced blandness.
8. **The Impact of Personal Dramas: Hitchcock’s Infatuation and Bergman’s Affair**Beyond the scripted narrative, the human element—the personal lives and relationships of those behind and in front of the camera—can profoundly shape a film’s ultimate texture. Sometimes these personal dramas derail a production, leading to widely publicized conflicts that overshadow the final product, rendering it notorious for its off-screen troubles. However, in the emotionally charged environment of ‘Notorious,’ two significant personal turmoils actively informed and elevated the film.
During principal photography, two intense personal situations were unfolding simultaneously on set. The first was Hitchcock’s “growing infatuation with Bergman,” a palpable connection that permeated the working atmosphere. Simultaneously, Bergman was immersed in a “torturous affair with Robert Capa, the celebrity battlefield photographer,” adding another layer of complex emotion to her performances and interactions.
Remarkably, these deep, simmering emotions, rather than causing chaos, were channeled into the film’s artistic depth. Biographers highlight that “to accomplish the deepest logic of Notorious, Hitchcock did something unprecedented in his career: he made Ingrid his closest collaborator on the picture.” This symbiosis led to moments of profound artistic collaboration, such as when Bergman, sensing something was amiss in a close-up, confidently told Hitchcock, “‘The girl’s look is wrong… You have her registering [surprise] too soon, Hitch. I think she would do it this way.'” And, to the astonishment of the crew, Hitchcock, who rarely tolerated actors’ suggestions, conceded, “‘I think you’re right, Ingrid.'”
This extraordinary instance of an actress influencing a scene, born from a unique “simpatico connection,” demonstrates how personal dynamics, when managed with respect and artistic purpose, can enrich a film. Unlike productions that become notoriously entangled in scandal, the personal dramas surrounding ‘Notorious’ appear to have fueled its emotional realism and deepened its thematic resonance, solidifying its place as a triumph of psychological suspense. It underscores that sometimes the most intense human experiences, when artfully woven into the fabric of a story, can elevate it to unexpected heights.
9. **The Struggle for Creative Autonomy: Hitchcock as Producer**One of the most enduring battles in filmmaking is the struggle for creative autonomy, the director’s vision constantly vying with the producer’s commercial imperatives. This tension often culminates in films that are notorious for their compromises, patchwork narratives, or lack of a cohesive artistic voice. For Hitchcock, ‘Notorious’ marked a crucial turning point in this perennial struggle, finally granting him the control he craved.
Initially, ‘Notorious’ began life under the ambivalent eye of David O. Selznick, who, as we’ve seen, was preoccupied and losing interest. The sale of the “Notorious package to RKO: script, Bergman and Hitchcock” was a game-changer. Crucially, this deal “freed [Hitchcock] from Selznick’s influence,” allowing him to take on the role of producer for the very first time. This was more than just a title; it was an opportunity for unprecedented control over his artistic output.
As his own producer, Hitchcock relished the chance to demonstrate his executive capabilities, “supervising everything from the polishing of the script to the negotiation of myriad post-production details.” This newfound freedom meant he could implement his precise vision without external interference, ensuring that every element—from camera angles to costumes and sound cues—aligned perfectly with his artistic intent. This level of comprehensive oversight is often what distinguishes a singular directorial vision from a committee-driven project.
Despite the sale, Selznick, still holding a “50% stake in the profits,” attempted to exert his influence, dictating memos and even trying to replace Cary Grant. However, the shift in production power meant these attempts were largely unsuccessful. The triumph of ‘Notorious’ against such lingering executive interference highlights that true creative autonomy, though hard-won, is paramount in crafting a film that is remembered for its artistic merit rather than the notorious tales of its production battles. It truly allowed Hitchcock to craft a “consummate Hitchcock film.”
10. **The Crucial Role of the Musical Score: Roy Webb’s Understated Genius**Often an unsung hero, the musical score of a film plays a pivotal role in setting its tone, enhancing its emotional impact, and guiding the audience’s experience. A score that feels mismatched, manipulative, or simply forgettable can contribute significantly to a film’s notorious reception. In ‘Notorious,’ the music, composed by Roy Webb, achieved a subtle brilliance that perfectly complemented Hitchcock’s aesthetic, largely because of the director’s newfound creative freedom.
Before the film’s sale to RKO, Selznick, ever keen on commercial success, had tried to dictate the musical direction. Miffed by the lack of a hit pop song from ‘Spellbound,’ he considered a list of “gooey, sentimental songs” for ‘Notorious,’ pushing for a score that prioritized marketability over artistic synergy. Such executive demands frequently lead to scores that feel out of place, creating a notorious disconnect between visuals and sound.
However, “Hitchcock was glad to be out from under Selznick’s thumb,” ensuring there would be “no sudsy violins in big love scenes, no more recycling of Selznick’s favorite cues from past movies.” He instead collaborated with Roy Webb, a “reliable, but unglamorous” staff composer at RKO. Webb, a “Herrmann fan” who valued “the best music in Hollywood, with the fewest notes,” shared Hitchcock’s preference for atmosphere and tonal nuance over broad, orchestral gestures. For scenes in Rio, Webb skillfully incorporated “tambourines, guitars, drums and Brazilian trumpets swinging into Brazilian dance music,” adding sensuous energy that still felt authentic.
Webb’s score for ‘Notorious’ is notable for its “fragmented musical architecture” and “unresolved harmonies,” mirroring the film’s “blocked passions.” It’s a “deftly designed score” that weaves “a unique spell,” often appearing “at unpredictable times” or even being conspicuously absent, such as during the famous two-and-a-half-minute kiss. This deliberate understatement and “atypical use” of music, including replacing expected suspense cues with Latin dance tunes, proved a masterful choice. It elevated the film’s atmosphere without ever becoming a notorious distraction, highlighting how a thoughtfully crafted score is integral to cinematic success.
11. **Practical On-Set Challenges: Height Differences and Controlled Environments**Filmmaking is a complex logistical undertaking, fraught with myriad practical challenges that can test the patience and ingenuity of any crew. From unexpected weather to technical glitches and even physical disparities among actors, these on-set hurdles can, if not skillfully managed, notoriously derail schedules and budgets. Hitchcock, however, was renowned for his meticulous planning and ability to overcome such obstacles, ensuring a smooth production for ‘Notorious’.
One amusing yet significant practical challenge involved the height difference between Claude Rains and Ingrid Bergman. Rains, who was “three or four inches shorter than Ingrid Bergman,” presented a visual dilemma in scenes where they were meant to walk hand-in-hand. Hitchcock, displaying his characteristic resourcefulness, “devised a system of ramps that boosted Rains’s height yet were unseen by the camera.” He even light-heartedly suggested Rains try “elevator shoes: ‘Walk in them, sleep in them, be comfortable in them,'” a suggestion Rains adopted for future roles.
Hitchcock’s control extended to every aspect of the physical production. He preferred “almost all shooting done indoors, on RKO sound stages,” even for seemingly “exterior” scenes, which were achieved with “rear projection process shots.” This methodology gave him “maximum control of his filmmaking through the day,” minimizing the variables that could lead to delays or unforeseen problems. The only scene requiring outdoor filming was brief, shot at the Los Angeles County Arboretum, with second unit crews handling establishing shots in other locales.
This preference for a “stage-bound” approach, coupled with his foresight in problem-solving, meant that production for ‘Notorious’ was “smooth and problems were few, and small.” It stands in stark contrast to many notorious productions plagued by ballooning budgets and schedule overruns dueens to uncontrollable external factors or poor planning. Hitchcock’s approach demonstrates that rigorous preparation and creative solutions to practical difficulties are vital in preventing a film from becoming infamous for its chaotic on-set environment.
12. **Navigating Notorious Hurdles to Critical Acclaim: The ‘Consummate Hitchcock Film’**Ultimately, the measure of a film’s true success lies not just in its box-office performance or the lack of notorious production anecdotes, but in its lasting critical and cultural impact. For ‘Notorious,’ despite facing an array of challenges that might have sunk lesser projects, it emerged as a shining example of cinematic artistry, proving that navigating a tumultuous journey can sometimes forge a masterpiece.
As we’ve explored, ‘Notorious’ battled numerous ‘notorious’ elements: a producer’s initial disinterest, a confusing MacGuffin, contentious script rewrites, a studio’s attempt to impose a less suitable lead actor, the restrictions of the Production Code, and even the intense personal dramas of its stars. Any one of these could have derailed the film, casting it into the abyss of forgotten flops or infamous failures.
Yet, through Hitchcock’s singular vision, his newly won creative autonomy, and his shrewd ability to transform obstacles into opportunities, ‘Notorious’ transcended these difficulties. His collaboration with Ben Hecht on the script, his openness to Ingrid Bergman’s artistic input, and his partnership with Roy Webb on an unconventional score all contributed to a coherent and compelling narrative. It was this meticulous crafting, born from resilience, that allowed the film to achieve such profound artistic unity.
François Truffaut famously declared that ‘Notorious’ “gets a maximum of effect from a minimum of elements,” praising its “perfect correlation between what you are aiming at and what appears on the screen.” He lauded the “ensemble [as] perfect as an animated cartoon,” highlighting the film’s precision and impact. This enduring acclaim proves that while many films become notorious for succumbing to their challenges, ‘Notorious’ became legendary for conquering them, solidifying its status as a “consummate Hitchcock film” and a timeless classic that filmmakers can learn from for generations.
