Hit & Miss: How the Recession is Affecting Hollywood Even as Ticket Sales Rise

With the unveiling of the new School of Cinematic Arts building that I discussed last week and the continuous on campus construction projects it would appear that USC is recession proof. Unfortunately despite an increase in ticket sales, Hollywood is not. In the last few days the economic crisis and its long term effects have been the hot topic among entertainment bloggers so it is with much consternation that I turn my focus back to the industry. As with most Americans, I am worried about the situation and the impact it is having on my career choice and my ability to make a living after graduation. Even though there have been several hit films released since January, including this week’s The Fast and The Furious 4 which far surpassed expectations, companies continue to lay off employees and scale back production schedules. However during my search of the blogosphere I came across one writer who was less concerned about the viability of the film and television business than what certain hit movies are currently representing to studio executives in this time of strife. In a post entitled “Down Economy = Dumbed Down Movies/TV? Stop the Inanity!” Mark Harris, the author of The Final Cut blog on Entertainmentweekly.com, dissects the industry’s definition of escapism, the dangers lurking behind the box office boom and why producers are underestimating their audiences. Elsewhere in the blogosphere, Kim Masters, a contributor for The Daily Beast delved into how the recession is affecting actors' salaries and perks in a post entitled “Haggling With the Stars.” Both articles analyze the recession as it applies to a particular facet of Hollywood rather than trying to broadly cover its affect on the whole industry. I responded to both blogs on their individual sites (linked above) but for convenience I will include my comments below.

“Down Economy = Dumbed Down Movies/TV? Stop the Inanity!”
Comment

Thank you for your comprehensive post regarding the general effects the recession is having on the entertainment business and specifically its impact on the quality of films that are being produced now and in the future. I agree with your assessment that the industry is using the success of recent undeserving “comfort food” movies, just to further the “Hollywood agenda — a desire to shun challenging material in favor of easily replicable formula product — disguis[ing it], offensively, as a capitulation to popular demand”. I also concur that contrary to what insiders think and have deduced from recent box office returns “pop culture has more of a responsibility to be stimulating, exciting, engaging, and even challenging, not just anesthetizing” during these times of economic hardship. People desire a break from the stress of their daily lives but this does not mean they want to see bad entertainment. All films are a form of escapism but does that justify low rent humor and gag jokes? How is simplicity or stupidity a means of coping with our problems? Today in the age of technology, with the internet enabling communication at lightning speed and the expansion of the public vs. private sphere via a myriad of social networking sites I believe people have a greater capacity for knowledge, it takes more to shock them and they are better able to understand complicated plots and multiple story arcs. In order to really engage viewers you need to keep current and reflect this greater breath of information and technology. As you so aptly point out the depression era boom in ticket sales was partly a result of the addition of sound. This new ambitious technology attracted viewers because it added a new dimension to film, enhancing the subject matter and enriching the storyline. As I mentioned in a previous post, 3-D has been this recession’s new addition but its high price tag has impeded its success as exemplified by Twentieth Century Fox, who is refusing to contribute to the cost of 3-D glasses for its upcoming releases.

However if it is true that audiences want more out of their pop culture offerings, how does one explain the recent success of Paul Blart: Mall Cop(pictured above) and Knowing? You say that there will always be audiences for the “mindless crap” but the large turnout for the above mentioned movies seems to indicate there may be another phenomenon in play. Do you think it was the lack of options at the box office that boosted these numbers or is there more to this story? If audiences are indeed becoming fonder of the mindless, where does that leave the more sophisticated viewers? Is there no longer pop culture content that can satisfy them? I contend that there are still talented directors like the Coen Brothers, Sam Mendes and Quentin Tarantino who continue to explore exotic stories, breach the mainstream, and push boundaries. However in the face of high costs and R ratings and the seeming success of inexpensive to produce slapstick will there be continued demand for and funding of the type of innovative and insightful films they make?

“Haggling With the Stars”
Comment

Thank you for your interesting article about the effects of the recession on actors, their salaries and their celebrity perks. For years it seemed outrageous the amount of money, and additional benefits i.e. private planes, massages, personal chefs etc. that were being demanded by stars and “after years of impotent promises to choke off rich deals with talent, the studios are finally making it happen.” As you correctly assess “the global financial crisis has given them the lever to do it” and it also gave them the urgency. Even so, I am actually surprised at how swiftly and thoroughly this transformation has occurred. This time last year Scarlet Johansson refused to attend the Cannes Film festival to premiere her project Vicky Christina Barcelona because the studio was not willing to meet her demands to stay in a separate hotel, have a private chauffeur and pay for her private makeup artist. Perhaps it was because no one missed Scarlet at this particular event that she herself got a wakeup call to tone down her own antics. However, I am still aghast that both she and Mickey Rourke are making far less money for their roles in Iron Man 2 than one would expect for actors of their stature. Even with price cuts being made throughout the industry, Scarlet Johansson(pictured alongside and image of the Black Widow which she will be playing in Iron Man 2) is a very famous actress and Mickey Rourke was the it-boy of Hollywood this year, nominated for best actor at almost every awards ceremony for his role in The Wrestler. Even if their parts in Iron Man 2 “buff up their images” and secure “possible future roles in films featuring their characters” it is hard to imagine them taking these roles for so little money when they have the Hollywood clout to be fielding bigger offers every day. But perhaps that is the problem. While the movie business is still doing well in this down economy, the corporations that own the studios are suffering tremendously. Given these financial woes, less films are going into production, which means fewer roles are available for actors. Do you have any information on whether Johansson or Rourke have been receiving offers to do other movies or is the competition too fierce and their prices too high that most producers are turning elsewhere? Do you believe that more parts are being offered to unknown actors to save on expenses? Although newcomers do not have the same box office draw as well established celebrities, they can be hired at a much cheaper cost. Lastly, do you think these substantial cost cutting measures will affect the various genres of film or do you think it will be limited to this type of comic-book movie, where studio heads “feel like whoever they put in a part is fine?” In the case of the latter the Studio has a stronger advantage in negotiations versus in smaller movies where the actors, rather than long beloved characters, are the audience draw and therefore will be better positioned to demand a higher salary.