A thriller about an American family terrorized by the rise of an authoritarian government that uses drone surveillance, militarized police and internet control to demand obedience opened in 800 theaters last weekend, but you probably didn’t know it.
“Anniversary,” starring Diane Lane, Dylan O’Brien, Kyle Chandler and plenty of other name actors, was financed and distributed by Lionsgate. But with a storyline that may have felt too close to our political reality, it seems to have been buried by the studio in a political climate where government retaliation against media has become commonplace.
The movie had almost no awareness in market tracking, and made a paltry $259,180 over the weekend, just $325 per theater.
“The film was buried because it is incendiary,” said Frank Wuliger, a partner at Gersh who represents the director and was instrumental in getting the movie made. “To me, it’s a sign of the world we live in.”
“I’ve never had a movie that we thought was really interesting that no one was aware of,” producer Nick Wechsler told TheWrap. “It’s hard to market a political film today. People are afraid of them – they don’t know how it will be received emotionally. It’s a weird time.”
Lionsgate declined to comment for this story.
“Anniversary,” by Polish director Jan Komasa (“Corpus Christi”) stars Lane as a professor at Georgetown whose former student, played by Phoebe Dynevor (of “Bridgerton”) writes an anti-democratic political thesis called “The Change” that wins nationwide attention after it is published by a right-wing organization that rises to power. She also marries Lane’s son, who becomes part of the dominant political apparatus and pivots from struggling writer to arrogant power player. As democratic norms evaporate, Lane and her husband (Chandler) and adult children — played by Zoey Deutsch, Madeline Brewer and McKenna Grace — first resist, then cave to the crushing force of the state.
Much of the emotional core of the film happens around the family dining table for birthdays, anniversaries and Thanksgiving, as political beliefs clash between liberal views and those advocating for a (never fully explained) single-party system. Scenes including government census workers demanding intimate details of the family, or neighbors pressuring the family to show their allegiance to “The Change” with the new American flag, play as particularly close to our current reality.
“The events that take place over the course of five years in Jan Komasa’s film would have been summarily dismissed as hogwash just a year or two ago, but now fearfully sounds a bigger alarm than anything in ‘A House of Dynamite,’” wrote Sheri Linden in her review for The Hollywood Reporter.
“Diane Lane Leads Cast of Dystopian Political Thriller That Feels a Bit Too Close for Comfort in Trump’s America,” read the headline for Pete Hammond’s review in Deadline, echoing the mirror image the film holds up to reality.
But those were rare reviews by established outlets. The film was not reviewed by The New York Times, Los Angeles Times or Washington Post or many other outlets, highly unusual for a film with a significant theatrical release. (TheWrap’s critic was unable to screen the film in time for embargo lift and did not review either.)
Only two cast members besides Lane attended the premiere in October, discouraged by their agents and publicists to associate with the project, according to people close to the film. And exhibitors were hardly interested in supporting the movie. In the theaters where the film was booked, there were precious few screenings. On the west side of L.A., it was screened mid-afternoon at AMC Century City and at 10 p.m. in Marina del Rey.
A studio insider said the film had a $3 million marketing budget, and was always intended to be a small release with a bigger life on streaming. The film will play on Hulu, Lionsgate’s streaming partner.
The insider also pointed fingers at the talent for failing to show up for the film, suggesting that the political content was a disincentive. “With the exception of the principal actor, they were largely absent from the campaign,” said the insider.
Representatives for Lane declined to comment for this story. But individuals close to the actress said she was sharply disappointed at the studio’s lack of support for the film, recently asking why the film was not yet on the Academy’s website for awards consideration.
At Lionsgate “they don’t know how to release these kinds of movies,” said an individual close to the cast. “I don’t know if it was a Trump thing.”
But “Anniversary” does feel like a sign of the times. Entertainment and media has been under constant assault by the Trump administration, with lawsuits over television interviews at ABC and CBS News, and federal investigations into DEI at Disney and Comcast. Hollywood has noticeably moved to the right, not only under pressure from the government but in response to the cultural and political pendulum swing.
It’s also not the first project to be caught up in Hollywood’s fear of Trump — the premiere date of Apple’s political thriller series “The Savant” was postponed in September in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s death, as the show follows a woman who infiltrates online hate groups to prevent mass shootings. The show has still not been put back on Apple’s release calendar, a decision that star/producer Jessica Chastain publicly said she disagreed with.
With “Anniversary,” it would hardly be surprising if Lionsgate made a calculated decision to avoid drawing the attention of the Trump and right-wing attack machine.
The film was made in 2023, when then-President Biden was expected to win. Shot for $7 million in Dublin, it was held up for release after Trump won. Lionsgate put the drama back on its slate for this fall, with an eye to releasing the film ahead of the Nov. 4 election and marketing it as a thriller.
But when right-wing activist Kirk was assassinated, the studio grew even more cautious about releasing “Anniversary.”
Still, the film needed to be released on 800 screens in order to fulfill the terms of the studio’s output deal with Hulu, insiders said. Hence, an almost stealth release.
Wuliger said he was deeply disappointed to see the film held up for its initial release, but understands why Lionsgate likely lowered the movie’s profile.
“Do I want this film to be on Trump’s radar and have him attack this film from the podium? … I have sympathy for Lionsgate here,” he said. “They buried it. They could have buried it worse. But they made the movie, and that’s impressive.”
