Money matters behind the scenes (From Borehamwood Times)

Money matters behind the scenes

10:15am Friday 22nd May 2009

• Print
• Email
• Share
• Comments(0)

Movie-making is a game of budgets, risks and high-stakes deals. PAUL WELSH explains the ups and downs of film fortunes.

There was a time when every studio, including British ones like Pinewood and Elstree, would have a roster of stars under contract.

The system was invented in Hollywood and from the Twenties until the Fifties the majority of major stars would be under long-term contracts to a particular studio.

Of course the studio could “rent them out” to other studios, but the upside for an actor was guaranteed income all year and the company looking after their every need.

The danger was that if you made a hit in horror films, romantic comedies or gangster movies then the studio would tend to play safe and continue to cast you in such parts which could be frustrating for those thespians who wanted to expand their range.

Some were happy to play the game and Thirties hearthrob Robert Taylor spent more than 20 years with MGM, making Knights of The Round Table and Ivanhoe in Borehamwood.

He later said: “I knew I had limited talent although I did grow tired of my pretty boy image, but the studio was good to me and I was very lucky.”

In the Fifties more actors decided to go freelance as the studio contract system collapsed and James Stewart led the way with the idea of sharing in the profits instead of just a straight salary.

Nowadays this is the norm for big stars but it looks like that bubble is beginning to burst. A number of big budget movies have failed to produce big bucks but the stars have still raked it in with “first dollar” agreements.

That means they take a percentage of box office income, plus a salary, before studio expenses are deducted. For instance, it is reported that Mission Impossible III took $400 million at the box ofice which earned Tom Cruise about $95m.

However, Paramount, which had risked the $150m budget only got to see about $10m in net profit. Studios are now feeling the pinch and are reluctant to enter into such deals.

At the same time, audiences are showing that they are not going to see a film anymore just because a certain star is in it. This contrasts with the golden age of Hollywood when cinemagoers would often go to see a Bogart or Gable picture because of the star.

I heard the recent Indiana Jones movie was greenlighted only once Harrison Ford, Steven Spielberg and George Lucas agreed to be paid after the film had taken $400m — albeit they would get most of the takings.

That way the studio protected itself while the “talent” joined in the risk, which seems fair.

Apparently Russell Crowe is being offered something similar for the remake of Robin Hood.

Of course in recent years, actors without star power needed to be wary of percentage deals. Often by the time a studio added overheads, even a successful film could, according to the accountants, failed to have made a profit. Actor Dave Prowse, who played Darth Vader in the original Star Wars series at Elstree, said he had not received his small percentage of the box office receipts of Return of The Jedi as the producers say it has not made a profit.

Lucasfilm decline to comment on such matters. However, Dave admits he has benefited since by touring the world making personal appearances so it’s swings and roundabouts.

Perhaps today’s stars are entering, like the rest of us, an age of realism about money and perhaps the studios are beginning to recover control in the asylum.

I must admit there is no star that would entice me to the cinema unless the subject matter of the film appealed to me. However, I am certain the days of the studio contract system is forever dead and the days of MGM being able to boast they have “more stars than there are in the heavens” under contract is now tinseltown dust.

• Print
• Email
• Share
• Comments(0)