Editing The Hudsucker Proxy (section)

==Release==

===Commercial reception===
[[Warner Bros.]] held [[test screening]]s and audience comments were largely mixed. The studio suggested re-shoots, but the Coens, who held [[final cut privilege]], refused because they were very nervous working with their biggest budget to date and were eager for mainstream success. The producers eventually added footage that had been cut and also shot minor [[Pick-up (filmmaking)|pick-up]]s for the ending.<ref name=Silver/> ''[[Variety (magazine)|Variety]]'' claimed that the pick-ups were done to try to save the film because Warner feared it was going to be a [[box office bomb]]. Joel Coen addressed the issue in an interview: "First of all, they weren't reshoots. They were a little bit of additional footage. We wanted to shoot a fight scene at the end of the movie. It was the product of something we discovered editing the movie, not previewing it. We've done additional shooting on every movie, so it's normal."<ref name=Silver/>

The film premiered in January 1994 at the [[Sundance Film Festival]] in [[Park City, Utah]].<ref>{{cite news | author = Caryn James | title = Critic's Notebook; For Sundance, Struggle to Survive Success | work = [[The New York Times]] | date = 1994-01-25 | access-date = 2009-04-11 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1994/01/25/movies/critic-s-notebook-for-sundance-struggle-to-survive-success.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm}}</ref> In addition, ''The Hudsucker Proxy'' opened the [[1994 Cannes Film Festival]]<ref name="festival-cannes.com">{{cite web |url=http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/ficheFilm/id/3007961/year/1994.html |title=Festival de Cannes: The Hudsucker Proxy |access-date=2009-08-27|work=festival-cannes.com}}</ref> on May 12, 1994. The film was in competition for the [[Palme d'Or]], but lost to ''[[Pulp Fiction (film)|Pulp Fiction]]''.<ref>{{cite news | author = Staff | url = https://variety.com/1994/film/news/euro-pix-man-cannes-120356/ | title = Euro pix man Cannes | work = [[Variety (magazine)|Variety]] | date = 1994-04-21 | access-date = 2008-11-21}}</ref> ''The Hudsucker Proxy'' was released on March 11, 1994, and only grossed $2,816,518 in the United States and Canada.<ref>{{cite web | url = https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=hudsuckerproxy.htm | title = The Hudsucker Proxy | work = [[Box Office Mojo]] | access-date = 2008-11-17}}</ref> Worldwide, it grossed $11.3 million.<ref name=chumps/> The production budget was officially set at [[United States dollar|$]]25 million,<ref name=Silver/> although, it was reported to have increased to $40 million for marketing and promotion purposes. The film was a box office bomb.<ref name=manner/>

===Critical response===
In addition to the film under-performing at the box office, ''The Hudsucker Proxy'' opened to mixed reviews from critics. On [[Rotten Tomatoes]] 64% of reviews from 53 critics were positive, with an average rating of 6.6/10. The site's consensus states, "Intriguingly strange and visually distinctive, ''The Hudsucker Proxy'' is ultimately almost – but not quite – as smart and absorbing as it needs to be."<ref>{{cite web | url = https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/hudsucker_proxy/ | title = The Hudsucker Proxy | work = [[Rotten Tomatoes]] | access-date = 2024-12-29}}</ref>

[[Roger Ebert]] praised the [[production design]], [[scale model]] work, [[matte painting]]s, [[cinematography]], and characters. "But the problem with the movie is that it's all surface and no substance," Ebert wrote. "Not even the slightest attempt is made to suggest that the film takes its own story seriously. Everything is style. The performances seem deliberately angled as satire."<ref>{{cite news | author = Roger Ebert |author-link=Roger Ebert | title = The Hudsucker Proxy | url =http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19940325/REVIEWS/403250301/1023 | archive-url =https://web.archive.org/web/20070930061200/http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19940325/REVIEWS/403250301/1023 | url-status =dead | archive-date =September 30, 2007 | work = [[Chicago Sun-Times]] | date = 1994-05-25 | access-date = 2008-11-20}}</ref> [[Desson Thomson]] of ''[[The Washington Post]]'' described ''The Hudsucker Proxy'' as being "pointlessly flashy and compulsively overloaded with references to films of the 1930s. Missing in this film's performances is a sense of humanity, the crucial ingredient in the movies ''Hudsucker'' is clearly trying to evoke. ''Hudsucker'' isn't the real thing at all. It's just a proxy."<ref>{{cite news | author = Desson Thomson |author-link=Desson Thomson | title = The Hudsucker Proxy | newspaper = [[The Washington Post]] | date = 1994-03-25 | access-date = 2008-11-20 |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/movies/videos/thehudsuckerproxypghowe_a0b041.htm}}</ref>

[[John Simon (critic)|John Simon]] of ''[[National Review]]'' described ''The Hudsucker Proxy'' as "asinine and insufferable".<ref>{{cite book |title=John Simon on Film: Criticism 1982-2001|last1=Simon|first1=John |publisher=Applause Books |year=2005 |pages=493}}</ref>

Todd McCarthy, writing in ''Variety'', called the film "one of the most inspired and technically stunning pastiches of [[Classical Hollywood cinema|old Hollywood]] pictures ever to come out of the [[New Hollywood]]. But a pastiche it remains, as nearly everything in the Coen brothers' latest and biggest film seems like a wizardly but artificial synthesis, leaving a hole in the middle where some emotion and humanity should be."<ref>{{cite news | author = Todd McCarthy | work = [[Variety (magazine)|Variety]] | url = https://www.variety.com/review/VE1117902311.html?categoryid=31&cs=1 | title = The Hudsucker Proxy | date = 1994-01-31 | access-date = 2008-11-20}}</ref> [[James Berardinelli]] gave a largely positive review. "''The Hudsucker Proxy'' skewers [[Big Business]] on the same shaft that [[Robert Altman]] ran Hollywood through with ''[[The Player (1992 film)|The Player]]''. From the ''[[Brazil (1985 film)|Brazil]]''-like scenes in the cavernous mail room to the convoluted machinations in the board room, this film is pure satire of the nastiest and most enjoyable sort. In this surreal world of 1958 can be found many of the issues confronting large corporations in the 1990s, all twisted to match the filmmakers' vision."<ref>{{cite web | author = James Berardinelli |author-link=James Berardinelli | work = ReelViews.net | title = The Hudsucker Proxy | url = http://preview.reelviews.net/movies/h/hudsucker.html | access-date = 2008-11-20}}</ref>

[[Warner Home Video]] released ''The Hudsucker Proxy'' on DVD on May 18, 1999. No [[featurette]]s were included.<ref>{{cite web | url = https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00000ING2/ | title = The Hudsucker Proxy (1994) | work = [[Amazon.com]] | date = 18 May 1999 | access-date = 2008-11-20}}</ref> It was one of the first [[Blu-ray Disc]] titles released through the [[Warner Archive Collection]] on February 26, 2013, but it still lacked any featurettes.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Disc_Announcements/Warner_Archive_Collection/The_Warner_Archives_Collection_Announces_First_MOD_Blu-rays/10544 |title=The Warner Archives Collection Announces First MOD Blu-rays |website=High-Def Digest |date=November 16, 2012 |access-date=2013-09-08}}</ref>

Two decades after the film's release, Scout Tafoya of [[RogerEbert.com]] praised the film for its stylistic adventurousness and expansion upon the themes and concepts of the films that inspired it. "Whereas the comedies of the 1930s and '40s could talk quickly and move quickly, they couldn't run at a full gallop like the Coen Brothers. Their camera soars, traveling at the speed of progress, gossip, capitalism itself. Everything races at top speed. The production design, the one thing everyone felt comfortable praising, is a marvel. Every frame doubles as a survey of early modern art, from Art Deco to Futurism."<ref>[https://www.rogerebert.com/mzs/the-unloved-part-3-the-hudsucker-proxy-joel-coen-coen-brothers-ethan-coen-1994-review The Unloved, Part 3 : "The Hudsucker Proxy"] Tofoya, Scout. 1 February 2014.</ref>

===Year-end lists===
* 8th&nbsp;– [[Stephen Hunter]], ''[[The Baltimore Sun]]''<ref>{{cite web|last=Hunter|first=Stephen|date=December 25, 1994|url=https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1994-12-25-1994359091-story.html|title=Films worthy of the title 'best' in short supply MOVIES|work=The Baltimore Sun|access-date=July 19, 2020}}</ref>
* 8th&nbsp;– Sandi Davis, ''[[The Oklahoman]]''<ref>{{cite web|last=Davis|first=Sandi|date=January 1, 1995|url=https://oklahoman.com/article/2488350/oklahoman-movie-critics-rank-their-favorites-for-the-year-forrest-gump-the-very-best-sandi-declares|title=Oklahoman Movie Critics Rank Their Favorites for the Year "Forrest Gump" The Very Best, Sandi Declares|work=The Oklahoman|access-date=July 20, 2020}}</ref>
* 9th&nbsp;– Sean P. Means, ''[[The Salt Lake Tribune]]''<ref>{{cite news|last=P. Means|first=Sean|date=January 1, 1995|title='Pulp and Circumstance' After the Rise of Quentin Tarantino, Hollywood Would Never Be the Same|newspaper=The Salt Lake Tribune|page=E1|edition=Final}}</ref>
* Top 10 (listed alphabetically, not ranked)&nbsp;– William Arnold, ''[[Seattle Post-Intelligencer]]''<ref>{{cite news|last=Arnold|first=William|date=December 30, 1994|title='94 Movies: Best and Worst|newspaper=Seattle Post-Intelligencer|page=20|edition=Final}}</ref>
* Honorable mention&nbsp;– Mike Clark, ''[[USA Today]]''<ref>{{cite news|last=Clark|first=Mike|date=December 28, 1994 |title=Scoring with true life, 'True Lies' and 'Fiction.'|newspaper=USA Today|page=5D|edition=Final}}</ref>
*Biggest disappointment&nbsp;– Glenn Lovell, ''[[San Jose Mercury News]]''<ref>{{cite news|last=Lovell|first=Glenn|date=December 25, 1994 |title=The Past Picture Show the Good, the Bad and the Ugly -- a Year Worth's of Movie Memories|newspaper=[[San Jose Mercury News]]|page=3|edition=Morning Final}}</ref>