G Whiz

Anschutz hasn't given an interview in 30 years, but in 2004 he did tell students at a Christian school in Florida why he decided to get into the film business: "I decided to stop cursing the darkness. . . . I had been complaining about movies and their content for years. . . .

"Why can't movies return to being something that we can go and see with our children and our grandchildren without being embarrassed or on the edge of our seats? I don't think they understand the market and the mood of a large segment of the movie-going audience today."

Anschutz pointed out that G and PG movies are historically far more profitable than R-rated movies, but said Hollywood continued to ignore those economics until recently.

"Is this preponderance of R-rated films simply -- as we hear so often -- a response to the market?" he asked. "I would say not, considering that of the top 20 moneymaking films of all time, not a single one is rated R, and of the top 50, only five are rated R -- with the remainder being G or PG."

Fithian points to 2006 as a good example of Anschutz's thesis. Ten family pictures, most of them animated, earned more than $50 million each, bringing in a total of $1.3 billion: "Cars," "Ice Age," "Over the Hedge," "Happy Feet," "Open Season," "Eight Below," "The Santa Clause 3," "Monster House," "Barnyard" and "Flushed Away." The recent releases "Charlotte's Web" and "The Pursuit of Happyness" (rated PG-13, but very uplifting) are expected to join the list.

"And still the studios put out many more adult or late-teen films than family titles," Fithian notes. "And still the average box office return is smaller across the board for R-rated films than any of the lesser, more family friendly ratings.

"Is it just not cool to direct family titles and then hang out at the party circuit in Hollywood?"

Granat thinks that's exactly the problem in Hollywood: arrogance and the pursuit of cool. Many producers and directors try hard to stay relevant by being on the cutting edge -- as they perceive it -- and believe that the rest of America shares their worldview.

Anschutz has anointed himself the anti-Hollywood movie mogul. He's based himself in Denver, pointedly avoiding the Hollywood social scene, and donates generously to conservative Christian causes, including the think tank at the heart of promoting "intelligent design."

As a result, he has been accused of trying to "Christianize" pop culture. Observers have noted that, like the studio bosses of old, he owns not only movie production companies -- Bristol Bay Productions in addition to Walden -- but a distribution system as well. Regal Cinemas, a subsidiary of Anschutz's film group, operates more than 6,000 screens across the county, more than any other chain.

Add to this empire the tabloid Examiner newspapers he owns in San Francisco, Washington and Baltimore, and Anschutz is beginning to resemble a multi-platform Citizen Kane, with the clout to push American culture significantly rightward. (Anschutz also owns several sports franchises around the country, including the popular D.C. United soccer team.) But Granat dismisses such talk as conspiracy theory. Business associates close to Anschutz see his move into movies as more of a business decision than religiously motivated.

"He's a dollars-and-cents guy," says Neil Westergaard, editor of the Denver Business Journal. He cites Anschutz's uncanny knack for "seeing around corners," anticipating the next big wave in an industry, whether it's in movies, telecommunications or oil.