A Word To Hollywood: In Recessionary Times, Smaller, Better Films, Please -- And More Of Them!
Speculation abounds as to how various industries will weather and adapt to this deepening recession. The financial industry remains under a magnifying glass, as the word "bonus" gets swiftly erased from our collective lexicon. In the manufacturing realm, pundits speculate on how soon the big three auto manufacturers may dwindle down to two.
In the media arena, print seems to be going the way of the dodo. As to television, the New York Times wonders whether network television is becoming irrelevant as tough economic times increasingly force them to offer little more than news, award shows, and reality-based dreck. That nimble upstart known as cable television now represents the pre-eminent source for original programming. Bill Paley must be spinning.
But what about the movie business? Given the old studio bosses' success in adapting to the Great Depression, and the integral role movies played in the lives of struggling Americans desperate for escape, one would now expect more scrutiny on this industry that has contentedly wallowed in its own excesses for so long.
I'm happy to lead off. Very often bad times offer silver linings, forcing both individuals and businesses to re-assess their strategies in light of new conditions, and in effect, reinvent themselves. Hollywood should seize this opportunity, and fast.
My first piece of free advice: make smaller, better films, and more of them. Easier said than done, I know, but why not try? Why is bigger so often thought to be better?
Ever since the soggy "Waterworld" (1995) busted through the 200 million dollar budget mark, nine figure productions no longer raise many eyebrows. "Titanic" was close to $250 million, and the "Spiderman" franchises, along with the disastrous "Terminator 3" (2003), "King Kong" (2005), and "Superman Returns" (2006) have all approached the same astronomical figure.
Adjusting for inflation, the only films in movie history that have exceeded these absurd numbers are: first, the bloated "Cleopatra"(1963), undoubtedly the most cursed production in history, whose succession of well-documented mishaps ballooned its budget to over $40 million over a three year period (by comparison, "Lawrence of Arabia", just as epic and filmed at roughly the same time, cost $15 million); and second, the leviathan Russian production of "War and Peace" (1967), which took over seven years to shoot and in its final form runs the length of four movies.
While the aforementioned comic-book entries have been particularly pricey, let's not forget those other two fantasy franchises: the price tags for each of the "Harry Potter" and "Lord Of The Rings" installments have topped $100 million.
As these titles suggest, more and more the movie business has focused on drawing the critical 12-24 year old demographic into theatres. These younger consumers tend not to read reviews, yet are marketing-sensitive. And of course they need a place to go on Friday and Saturday nights. Bingo!
Of course, adults like movies too, but they may ask a little more from what's up on the screen than explosions and special-effects. Back in Hollywood's Golden Age, the industry made literate films for grown-ups because they wanted to build the prestige of the medium with high-quality, thought-provoking entertainment. The focus was as much on content as style. Wouldn't Hollywood benefit from adopting this approach again?
It could certainly help broaden and expand their production slate. While this year's gimmicky "Benjamin Button" cost $150 million, the superlative "Milk" cost just $15 million. Why not fund ten more "Milk" type films and forego one "Button"? You'd employ more people (good for the economy), get more people in theatres (good for the bottom-line), and win critical raves (good for morale).
Several of my favorite films over the past two decades were modestly budgeted vehicles: "American Beauty" cost $15 million, while "Pulp Fiction" and "Little Miss Sunshine" each came in at $8 million. (My favorite foreign film, "The Lives Of Others" from 2006, cost just $2 million- what does that tell you?).
Finally, the thorny issue of star compensation arises. The idea that top names can command $20 million dollars a picture, plus a percentage of the upside, and then complain about the paparazzi, is beyond infuriating. In the thirties and forties, stars made an extremely good living- no doubt- but the highest annual salaries, adjusted for inflation, would have approached roughly $4-5 million in today's dollars. And as public figures, these people had to earn that money on and off the set: when a photographer approached, they were expected to smile.
Does Tom Hanks or Jim Carrey really need another $20+ million plus expenses for six months on location? Shouldn't some of that money go to fund more productions so that some of their under-utilized colleagues can get work more often?
The standard excuse is that Hollywood is purely a business; any cultural impact, positive or negative, is purely incidental to the single-minded goal of making money. Particularly in these times, this seems like an irresponsible and arrogant attitude for an industry that can skirt quality for one reason only: they only need to make you buy their product once.
True, in most other civilized countries, you'll find greater government support for the arts, which tends to reinforce the idea that film has a dual role to play: to earn money for its makers, but also to reward, entertain, and quite often, enlighten its customers. These two goals need not be mutually exclusive, but Hollywood's prevailing attitude makes it seem that way.
To be sure, it is exceedingly hard to make great films, and just a change in attitude won't guarantee they get made. But as in the early thirties, Hollywood now has a compelling reason to re-think how they operate, and rise to a higher standard, working to provide more varied, intelligent entertainment for viewers who are, once again, in urgent need of diversion.
For close to 2,000 outstanding titles on DVD, visit www.bestmoviesbyfarr.com.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I don't want to be unpatriotic but the $100 million plus spent on 'Australia' could have been better used on a dozen Aussie films. There is no doubt that we have the talent on the production and talent fronts to do so. And the mega payments to Hugh Jackman and Nicole Kidman are hardly needed by either of them. Perhaps the next Oz story should be a depression story. Could go slumming for much less money. My views and reviews are at 'Cinema Takes' http://cinematakes.blogspot.com/
NEEDS GIANT ROBOTS.
Just remember that little mantra--and your Cinema-going experience will improve. I'm looking fowards to Mikey Bay's little Art-house Opus of Big Robots(Hitting Each Other) II: Tonka Boogaloo just because I'm like that and it's sure to clean up at Cannes.
The enormous success of Slumdog Millionaire and The Wrestler should open the door for other independent filmmakers- it is an encouraging development in an otherwise disappointing movie season. www.awardsandhonors.com
See John Farr's Profile
the key is making sure that door opens.
from your mouth to god's ears.
As a budding indie filmmaker I completely agree with your post John.
One can trace the corporate takeover of Hollywood to "Heaven's Gate"
superb fiasco. ("Final Cut.Art,Money and Ego", Steven Bach. A must-read).
An edifying account of the era when creative people used to have the upper hand
in the filmmaking production process.
After that in came the MBAs and other corporate 'geniuses" who rationalized the
whole process, as if cinema is just another assembly line. Since then, they have
been after finding the market-proof formula to 'fabricate' hits.
In my opinion, a good film attracts audiences, either art lovers or popular
audiences, and if you are an excellent andor lucky director, you pull out both.
There is this big part of unknown in this process, called luck that many people
of the industry don't want to factor in because everybody is too busy nurturing
their ego and make people believe that they know how to make a good film.
Lol it is a joke, until the audience watch and react to your work you don't what
you have, it is simple as that but do you really believe that a linear-thinking exec
will get this?
I like the current economic climat where one can be really creative because
necessity is mother of creativity
See John Farr's Profile
thanks for your revealing comments. it reminds me of what the late John Gregory Dunne said about Hollywood:
nobody knows anything. and you are right about the role of luck in this tricky, mysterious process.
I would love to see a new movie every week or several times per week. The prices are getting reasonable with bargain matinees and early bird pricing. Now just put some solid interesting product in the mix.
Another idea would be to crack open the vaults and start showing some of the classics. I would even pay full price to see Double Indemnity or Chinatown on a big screen.
I actually agree with this article, unfortunately. After seeing Dark Knight and the most recent James Bond movie (obviously not so memorable, since I cannot even remember the name) it was so obvious that all people care to see are special effects, explosions, and superheros. For many of us, intreresting characters and thought provoking dialogue are what draw me to the movies that I want to see. But this is not the case for the typical American. Unfortunately, most people in the US would prefer to sit through eye candy as opposed to being inspired to think. It is really a shame, actually, because give me American Beauty, Little Miss Sunshine, Happy-go-lucky any day of the week.
My only glimer of hope, however, is that difficult financial times are usually what brings about great creativity - from music to movies to theater, etc. I havent heard or seen anything just yet, but I keep this little bit of hope. And who knows - maybe a new thought provoking movie will also feature great new creative music. One can only wish!
See John Farr's Profile
you express my sentiments exactly...great art often comes out of hard times, when we have to look deeper and strive harder in what we create. But it's no guarantee. Viewers should start voting with their wallets!
I am not sure that people just want to watch special FX and surperheroes.
That's what Hollywood wants to believe so they can be rationalize their
decisions in prod so they based their marketing on the bling-bling.
I love the last Batman but do you know why? Mainly for the depth of
the scenario. I think unconsciously people are fascinated by the character
of the Joker and they are right...
See John Farr's Profile
you're correct. it's formula.
as to the latest batman, the joker was by far the most interesting aspect of the picture. I'd have loved it too excpet for everything surrounding ledger...they did not seem to know when to stop.
I think smaller budgets would mean one has to rely on dialogue and fewer locations, which isn't today's theater-going audience wants, regardless of where they are in this world.
Theater-going viewers tend to prefer action-driven movies to character-driven movies. Smaller budgets might mean more projects, but it doesn't mean it'd attract a huge number of theatrical ticket sales. A big-budget movie is supposed to offer an out-of-the-world experience. Horror movie = good scares. Action movie = a series of fast-paced, exciting sequences. And so on. These don't show up well on a typical TV screen. They just want to get what they pay for. $9 for a ticket alone is a lot of money for some. This is one of reasons why Bollywood is so popular in India.
Small-budget movies tend to have slow-burn success through DVD, on-demand sites or TV while big-budget movies--especially action and horror movies--at cinema offer its viewers an instant gratification. This of course fits the demographic, the 18-25 and male group. They don't have financial responsibilities like older groups do.
The only good compromise is a very good mystery or suspense movie with a unique twist in its ending WITHOUT action scenes (usually the sole reason why the budget can be so high). 'Memento' is one example, but finding a good script is like finding a needle in the haystack.
Excuse the messiness and disorganization of this post.
For sure, one needs a certain number of car crashes, gun shots and b00b shots per hour in order to win the masses. My favorite indy film? "A Box of Moonlight." What a great flick!
See John Farr's Profile
you can still provide most of those elements within the framework of an intelligent script without it costing $150 million...
i agree that some of these actors are working on the most insanely bloated salaries imaginable. but still, i think its a little selective to talk about the economy of the depression era studios in the same vein, without remembering that they were extremely exploitative of many of their contract actors (particularly the women).
moreover, i wanted to say that my least favorite by-product of lazy movie production in this era is the re-make. there are sooooo many, lately. they re-make horror movies, they dredge up the same five comic book characters again and again. every time you look in an entertainment magazine its a re-make of something else that should be allowed to stand alone. that's one of my biggest pet peeves.
See John Farr's Profile
the re-make is a scourge, pointing to the lack of creativity in hollywood...what's behind it all? an unwillingness to take creative risks...that unwillingness is deadly.
The greatest repository of material for stories waiting to be told is housed at the National Archives in Washington, D.C. We have a great archivist and historian to help point out the material that would keep all Americans interested in watching. Wouldn't it be great to put to rest the idea that the Revolutionary War was fought over taxation and not religion? In McCullough's book "1776" he writes about some of the stories left untold in our history, such as the guys who pulled a huge gun over a frozen lake to put into service for General Washington. The average age of those heroes was 27 yrs old. Then there's the story of the French girls throwing their panties at the WWII heroes on liberation day..... Our history is fascinating, liberating and downright funny in many ways, what better time to remind us of why we are Americans? Steven Spielberg........where are you? Ken Burns.....come on folks. It doesn't take a fortune to tell a great story. Oh yes, we will gladly pay for a good story, especially if it's real.
See John Farr's Profile
my sentiments exactly. let's send all the top hollywood execs to the national archives- in truth, a great idea, if only it was workable!
I can see where you are coming from. I am a 25 year old aspiring movie maker. And i had to do a host of case studies to understand the concept of finding a target audience, realizing the movie's potential and so forth before even conceptualizing the movie. You have so easily said that it would be better to do more quality films than one big budgeted movie so your spectrum of viewers have more to watch. Do you realize poeple like us who prefer quality drama than superman are just less than 10% of the total movie goers. Like you said - i wouldnt pay a dime for movies like Twilight - i would rather pay $25 to watch 12 angry men with folks who like such movies. But the point is - like any other - movie making is a professional set up - and a lot of thought goes into a movie before making it. Who cares if the IMDB rating for a movie is less than 6... as long as it brings in 200 million...
See John Farr's Profile
I suppose i don't want to accept your 10% figure-it's too depressing. also, I believe that the majority of viewers will respond to quality if encouraged to do so.
Feeding them just the formula that sells is a disservice to the medium and our culture.
Primer, one of my favorite movies of the last 5 years, was shot for $7,000 and won the Sundance Grand Jury Prize.
Yup. I liked that movie. I had to watch it twice with sub titles the second time around to understand the meta physical concepts. Am making a similar movie for sundance 2011 with a budget of 75K.
See John Farr's Profile
good for you! show 'em how it can be done.
Primer - A totally absorbing movie.
Mendelson's response about the box office positives doesn't wash with me. What I believe he is misunderstanding is that there are millions of us who would prefer a small good film and we aren't seeing many of those.
Occasionally an independent film will be made and the "star" will fore go his/her
usual bloated salary, but those films are too few and too far between. Besides it doesn't take a big star to make a movie a success. Substance and a good director can make a great film on very little money. (not to say that $15 million is a small sum but it is peanuts in the industry who thrives on noise, action and chaos.(
It would be nice to see a good movie come to my town (Central,Tx) that didn't have people that can fly
through walls and grow metal arms. (my town is 11k population and we are 35 miles from Austin)
See Scott Mendelson's Profile
I agree with the general thrust of Farr's essay (I wrote something similar a couple months ago, dealing with the success of Taken and Gran Torino), but I was concerned as the examples of 'expensive, poorly received flops' were actually films that actually got good reviews and/or did pretty ok at the box office. It's a pet peeve of mine, when people toss out examples of failure without doing the legwork. IE - I remember that Dennis Harvey of Variety made a reference to Lakeview Terrace making 'so so box office' like Changing Lanes, as opposed to big hit box office like Crash. But had Harvey checked, both films grossed almost identical figures domestically and overseas.
I also responded because I objected to the insinuation that these movies were bad because they were expensive. Benjamin Button was bad because its story structure was a copy of Forrest Gump, and the film meandered and dragged. Superman Returns failed because it turned Supes into a teen boy stalker, unable to let the girl he dumped get on with her life. No amount of special effects could have made up for these fatal story issues. In the end, 'it really is the story, stupid'.
See John Farr's Profile
scott- your last point is something we can definitely agree on. thanks.
Theater chains and theaters don't like independent movies because it usually means fewer bottoms on seats. This is probably why they tend to go for big-budget movies because the audience that tend to be attracted to that type of movies tend to be the ones who spent the most on foods, e.g. popcorn, candy, hot dogs and drinks. The sales of those foods are how theater chains make their money. This is probably why indie movies don't show up often in small towns.
See John Farr's Profile
no doubt- mainstream hollywood seems to have a formula that works...but it also excludes a large portion of the opoulation and undercuts the quality and prestige that Hollywood enjoyed in its glory days. there must be a way to have both quality and profitability at the same time...otherwise, we promulgate a junk-food culture.
I'd love to see beautiful, witty, cheerful movies like they made in the last Depression. Please bring on Fred Astaire and Ginger Rodgers with a strong dose of Frank Capra and Ernst Lubitsch. The last thing I want to watch as my 401K goes down the drain is a movie about Nazis and torture. I used to go see a movie every week, but the choices have been so bad I only go about four times a year now.
Hollywood, you can have my money if you will entertain me instead of depressing me.
See John Farr's Profile
The movies from the '30s took people away from their problems without resorting to the lowest common denominator. It will be interesting to see if Hollywood can rise to the occasion again, and not with talking chihuahas!
Quantity, HMMMM, sounds like a good business plan, if we put out lots of product, maybe we will get a good return on our investment. I wonder why this tried and true tactic went out of favor......oh yeah.....greed. I have found that even watching a mediocre movie can be entertaining and sometimes a person will rise above the production, it is like finding a diamond in the rough.
See John Farr's Profile
you raise a good point. sometimes to justify an indifferent movie, we say, oh but she was good in it...OK, fair enough, but i prefer it when i get the whole enchilada- and it can be done; we've seen it before.
There is too much star power budgeting, giving too much money to some big star to bring in the mass viewers, but ignoring other costs or really creating a good or entertaining film. Look at 'The Love Guru; of last year as Exhibit A of that. You too little acting and too much CGI with it's own costs. You have the ego of producers and studio executives who feel big budgets = big profits. What is bad now is that either too many films are either big budget blockbusters or low budget indies, $100 Million+ or less than $20 Million, and not enough moderate budget films like at around $40-50 Million and maybe making $150 Million. We also need more diversity and influences from a wider range of people, not just those in the Hollywood-NY City center making the decisions as to what to 'green light', more women, more socialy moderates, less into sex and more into character, storylines.
See John Farr's Profile
agree wholeheartedly.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
