The first time I interviewed Martin Short (one of my "SCTV" idols) in 1987, he told me an anecdote about his experiences in Hollywood. A typical encounter with studio executives would begin with something like, "Wow! We love you! You did this and you did that and we think you're great!" Followed, almost immediately, by, "And now that we've hired you, don't do that stuff anymore because that's not what we want from you. Just do it our way."
Here's director Kimberly Peirce on why nearly ten years elapsed between her last feature, "Boys Don't Cry," and her latest one, "Stop Loss":
... After "Boys Don't Cry," Hollywood came and offered me some very expensive projects, some very good stuff.... I had one project that I got almost to fruition, "Silent Star," about the unsolved murder of [the silent movie director] William Desmond Taylor in the 1920s. It was wonderful - the story of how Hollywood was built on an unsolved murder and a cover-up. We had it cast and ready to go, and the studio ran the numbers and they said, "We want to make it for x amount of money." And I said, Uh, all right. But then they said, "We don't want to spend that much, we want to spend 10 million dollars less." I said, Well, I don't know if that's a good idea, but I'll go ahead and make the adjustments I can. And they said, "Well, we don't want to see the version of the movie that we're prepared to pay for. We want to see the version we're not willing to pay for."Perfectly circular bureaucratic logic -- so beautiful in its impeccable shape that Franz Kafka and Joseph Heller must be laughing so hard they're crying....
I think you hit the nail on the head, Mr. Emerson. A major problem is bureaucratic procedures, which are inevitably Kafkaesque, irrational, and, as you make clear, schizophrenic. The Hollywood studios of today are bureaucratic and, by their desire to make money, democratic. They mold their resources to fit what their imagined audience is imagined to want, even when they know it will result in rubbish their embarrassed to produce. It leads to the schizophrenia you presented. The Hollywood studios of the past were monarchies, with warlords like Cohn, Goldwyn, or Warner deciding matters on their own personal tastes. It still produced a lot of rubbish, but at least the thought processes behind the rubbish decisions were coherent and comprehensible.
A 1920's murder mystery about an obscure silent film director? I can't believe the studio even let it get cast
That is perfect. I used to be disgusted that so few truly amazing films were made each year. As I grow older, and hear more stories like this, I'm more and more amazed that so many great films get made each year.
What's so frustrating about situations like that is that if studios would just let filmmakers make the films their way for reduced budgets, they're more likely to turn a profit in the end after foreign sales, dvd, pay-per-view, and TV distribution than they would by making a compromised, bloated, studio-manhandled film that nobody wants to see. No Country for Old Men was a better investment than most of the $100 million dollar pieces of garbage that gross $200 million worldwide. It cost $25 million and grossed over $150 million world-wide, and that's without the $40 million advertising campaign that the big budget films have.
"Silent Star"...It must have been after the success of "The Cat's Meow"(?)
You always wonder if a film could have been better if the studio had backed off and not been so oppressive with their illogic.
Budgeting. Really. Sucks. Look at "Leatherheads", a film that should have been made for half the price it was made for, while some movies are left with nothing that deserve more. There's hardly a logical business model that anyone follows in Hollywood, except give the stars more money to work with and let everyone else fight for the rest. Most of the time they make more money on the smaller films. What is it? If they make one hit in a year they can afford to make 10 flops, something silly like that. If it's all numbers like this, they could care less about the stories. If a trailer can hold three or four interesting, effects heavy, beats they know they have a potential hit. To some degree these days they're starting to find better directors to play with their bigger budgets. The string of Bruckheimer "commercial" directors like Simon West have fallen by the wayside for people like Jon Favreau and Louis Leterrier who at least have some sense of storytelling.
Sinbad (the comedian and actor who seems to always be rumored dead) once said that the Hollywood machine seeks out original performers and then tries to make them like everybody else. Sad to see that he's mostly fallen victim in his career to that very attitude, but it seems a true statement nonetheless.
Another point that may or may not be brought up through Kimberly Pierce's anecdote is responsibility...specifically the avoidance thereof. There is no explicit mention in her quote, but I suspect that each time Ms. Pierce suffered a monologue from a studio representative, it came from a different person. In a system where money and reputation are paramount (no pun intended), taking responsibility for anything that is less than profitable, sexy, and popular is anathema. The bureaucratic nature of the current studio system is an antidote to this. Should a movie fail, nobody within the studio has to take responsibility for it, nor incur the consequences (except for the poor schmuck left hanging at the end), because there was never one or two consistent individuals committed to it from beginning to end. If one is free of responsibility and its consequences, one has job security.
Thank Christ, "Silent Star" never got made. It sounds like a dreadful TV movie of the week. It would have lost millions. Film directors need to acknowledge that while its great to make your own films, they need to consider whether there is an audience for the film outside of their family and friends. One noted director, when asked about who his target audience is for the film, he proudly claimed "I don't make films for audiences. I make them for myself." Therein lies the problem.
Wake up. That's not bureaucracy, that's negotiating out of a deal they didn't want to have her on in the first place.
JE: And, if so, that's the classic passive-aggressive bureaucratic paradigm for dealing with it, so nobody has take the responsibility of saying "no" at the beginning of the (futile) process. By dragging it out like this, the death of a project becomes a fait accompli, and it can be easily abandoned (for whatever the real reasons) by saying: "We just can't find a way to make it work for us," or "We've decided to go in a whole different direction." Similar to the "starve the beast" approach favored by libertarians and some conservatives in government: Rather than take the political heat for cutting popular programs (like Social Security), whittle them down with a thousand tiny cuts until they can't work anymore. THEN you can say they're no longer doing what they were supposed to do, so they should be abandoned. Brilliant!
Um, the link is linking back to this blog. Appropriately circular, but yeah, you might want to fix that.
JE: Thanks. I did. Wish I could say I'd done it on purpose to illustrate bureaucratic futility, but it was really just my own ineptitude.
Jim, this post reminds me of a stand-up bit by Mitch Hedberg. The bit went something like “I’ve been approached by some people in Hollywood who say ‘We like your stand-up routines. Can you act? Can you write a script for us?’ Come on man, that’s like saying ‘You’re a good chef, can you farm?’” That’s the first thing that popped into my mind when you relayed the Martin Short story.
There’s also a really great singer/songwriter named Ray LaMontagne who said one time something to the effect of “The industry wants you because you do your own thing and they like it, but once you’re in there with them you have to fight to do your thing because they want you to do something else. So that’s the biggest struggle I have being in the music business.”
Dr. Seuss: If Silent Star were well done, of course it could find an audience. Just not a large one. The true life story is a great murder mystery set in a fascinating historical era. If done on a modest budget and blessed with some good reviews and an awards push, it might do pretty well (don't forget all the post-theatrical ancillaries). I hope you're not suggesting that filmmakers should produce only films with the potential for Transformers-size grosses. The studios wouldn't mind, I'm sure, but our culture would sure be the poorer for it. At any rate, I'm not sure that Peirce's inability to get the film made is an occasion for thanking Christ. I mean, it's not like you'd have been obligated to see it.
Jim, have you read "Pictures at a Revolution" by Mark Harris yet? It's womderful and touches on some of the issues you mentioned in this blog. No studio wanted to touch "Bonnie and Clyde" or "The Graduate," yet "Dr. Doolittle" cost more than the other 4 best picture nominees combined.
That reminds me of a joke aimed at producers, but could be applied to this:
A producer is approached by his son. The son says "Dad, can I borrow twenty dollars?" The producer replies "Ten dollars?! What do you want five dollars for?!"
After working in Hollywood for a couple of years now, just in administration, I'm appaulled at how much money gets thrown away. I see various books and stories that are optioned simply because they either have something similar or a similar idea worked for another studio. Most of those will fester for years and will just suck up money. And the notes some of these people give are absurd, redundant, and often contradictory. This is not only the product of Hollywood buearacry and marketing run amok, it's also the result of creative inbreeding. The guys calling the shots are almsot always from the same social groups or families. Kind of like politics, and like in politics the average person just gets used to it like a frog in slowly boiling water.
Great metaphor there, Drew. I'm a writer and I've also done lots of coverage for networks and production companies, and a lot of the development process frankly seems like busy-work for all those folks in the middle who have no real power. There does seem to be a certain uniformity in their thinking about what will work and what won't, bolstered by market research and a presumed understanding of the zeitgeist of course. But it's mostly b.s., with little room for simply trusting one's instincts about anything.
Having worked in the trenches of Hollywood for over 10 years, I agree with some of what has been said previously. Yet I do disagree with those who seem to want this kind of lame nonsense produced (Silent Star). Few if anyone would have went to see the finished product, no matter what the reviews said, no matter who was in it, no matter what the marketing. Last I checked, similar movies floped; Hollywoodland, The Black Dahlia and whatever art house crap was in the same vein. If the executive ranks are filled with inbreeding, the creative ranks also suffer the same fate. Filmmakers have become their worst enemies -- as they start to believe their own hype and ask those holding the purse strings to make boring, dry, tepid, silly movies about any old subject that struck their fancy after a day of hobnobbing with their likeminded friends. Again, WHO really would have wanted to see a movie set at the dawn of Hollywood, about a director no one knows about, centered around a crime that happens most every day (murder). The answer is ZERO -- the hidden answer is that its cocktail party banter at best (and cross country driving talk at it's worst). We all need to get over this idea that ANYTHING is ripe for a movie...be it at the cost of $100 or multi-millions.
I defiintely agree that part of the problem is also in the creative sphere. Chew on this for a moment: Last year some of the most talked about directors were from Mexico and Spain respectively.
sammy - of course not everything is "ripe for a movie" but what are you suggesting? That only the most commercial, broad appeal films get made? There are niche audiences, y'know. As long as costs don't get out of hand, what's the big deal? And last I checked, there's no sure thing in the movie business. Plenty of big-budget, supposedly commercial movies flop every year. And by your reasoning, films such as Juno, Little Miss Sunshine, There Will Be Blood, Million Dollar Baby, Sideways, Lost in Translation, ad infinitum, should never have been made, because after all, who wants to see movies about those subjects? Regardless of what one may think of those films quality-wise, I bet the participating studios and producers are pretty glad they invested.
Also, how can you review a film that hasn't been made? Silent Star isn't "lame nonsense" -- it doesn't exist. And citing failed films with similar premises doesn't exactly prove anything.
Dr. Seuss: and that by you makes the director look bad? Hate to tell you this, but market-tested stuff, made "for audiences" and for no other reason, is often soulless and forgettable. On some level, anybody who makes anything good -- not just movies, but novels, music, paintings, etc -- is trying to please himself first.
Didn't STAR WARS get started because George Lucas wanted to be able to go to the theater and see a new Flash Gordon picture, and nobody was doing that? There was no indication that this was what the public wanted to see- as late as 1976 MGM was limiting itself to one science fiction picture a year.
The one consistent trait of Hollywood studios is that they all suffer constant buyer's remorse. They'll pay millions for a property or script and for development before letting it just die because they've now decided that they don't like it, or management changed in the interim.
Jbryant -- No, I'm suggesting that filmmakers need to get out of their esoteric heads a bit, and back to 'reality' of what the marketplace will reasonably support.
When I go back and look at Pierce's statement/experience, I have to laugh...at her. Reason being is, she probably went in with the attitude that she could ONLY make "Silent Star" for lets say $40 million (and not a penny less). The studio/production company probably then said, "...well can't you do it for half?" (this is them 'running the numbers' after she presented her package to them). She probably then re-adjusted her budget a bit, but not much, and then they came back with how they'd like to see her remove $10 million...period, end of story, or this movie will never get made by us. This is when she dug in her heels, as she probably felt she had cut as much as she could from the budget.
Now how I read their final statement before they killed the project, is that they want to see the finished film LOOK as if it cost $30-40 million -- but at a cost of $5-10 million.
This is where everyone is going off track in their thinking. Of course, there are pencil pushers in the great system that is Hollywood. Yet at the end of the day, they want to see movies that either cost a dollar (but look like you spent $100) or you spend that $100 to make a movie that looks like you truly did spend $100. It's pretty simple and not some Kafka-like drama at work.
Furthermore, the films I cited are great examples of my theory from my original post. There are far TOO many movies made each year with very limited appeal (art house, or multiplex).
Filmmakers think that everyone and their mom will be 'thrilled' to watch movies about subjects that they, in their ability to explore rare subjects due to their non-9 to 5 careers, are able to find and read about. The truth of the matter is that, as I stated, not every little subject needs to be made into a film (because not every little subject is able to tap into the current trends in our culture/society).
We go to the movies to be entertained. Not taught a dry history lesson about...well, something such as how (a few) people think Hollywood was founded on a murder no less (and here I thought it was from the artistic ambitions of several people at the dawn of a new entertainment medium!).
A film such as Silent Star is just that esoteric, dry, and yes, lame (very lame) type of 'history lesson' that is hurting Hollywood. Who needs that kind of nonsense?! Not the majority of moviegoers who crave films such as the ones you cited...which by and large, except for There Will Be Blood, were not about obscure subject matter.
Juno -- teenage pregnancy
Sideways -- a buddy comedy, abet an adult one
Little Miss Sunshine -- typical art house 'family in dysfunction'
Lost In Translation -- typical art house 'movie about Hollywood' with the addition of the 'lonely married woman' plot thrown in
Million Dollar Baby -- sports movie as done by Clint Eastwood
All are pretty standard fair, even by art house standards and that's why they were made (and went on to be successful). Even There WIll Be Blood is not so 'out there' on second thought, as it's about the founding of one of the most hated industries in America right now -- Oil. The next time you go to the pump, it's easy to to see why that movie was a hit (critically and commercially).
I dunno, sammy, seems to me like you're extrapolating a lot from Peirce's anecdote. I don't see the part where she "dug in her heels." Unless she's lying, she appears to have been willing to make the film for the budget they suggested.
I still see no point in reviewing a film that hasn't been made. Assuming you haven't read any version of the "Silent Star" script, your inexplicably confident speculations about the hypothetical film's quality don't carry much weight.
As for the films I listed, my point was that they were all calculated risks that performed way above any reasonable expectation. Even "Million Dollar Baby," which is actually as much about the crowd-pleasing subject of euthanasia as it is about boxing, was very hard to get made, even with Eastwood attached. His long-time studio, Warner Bros., turned him down flat at first, only putting up half the budget after Clint found the other half from Lakeshore (and this after several other places had also turned him down). And I suspect "There Will Be Blood" was a commercial hit BECAUSE it was a critical hit and got lots of awards attention. No way the mass audience was clamoring for a film on that subject.
I don't doubt for a second that if "Silent Star" were cast with popular and/or respected names, well-made, well-reviewed and intelligently promoted, it would have a shot at success equal to my other examples. Sure, that's a big "if," but so is most of the movie biz.
I'm not sure why any of this bothers you, actually. It's not as if "esoteric art house films" are squeezing out the blockbusters. And the business isn't driven by the whims of deluded auteurs. In fact, if I read Peirce's anecdote correctly, "Silent Star" was among several projects the studio presented to her, not the other way around.
I agree with much of what Evan said, even though I'm the type who prefers the niche films Evan so steadfastly rejects.
One aspect of Evan's comments I must disagree with though: Sideways. It wasn't sold as a buddy film. It was sold as a comedy about wine connoisseurs. That's not exactly a mainstream idea.
However... I don't really think that anyone actually wanted to see Sideways. I think it was a critic's darling that got lucky, and that it mostly disappointed audiences. I don't know too many people that liked that P.O.S.
Silent Star sounds pretty mundane though. Movies about Hollywood always seem kind of hackneyed to me. Like authors that write about authors. It's just lazy.
Why hasn't anyone made Devil in the White City yet? Now that's a period story that has tons of potential.