Independent Exhibitors Film Bulletin (1962)

Wfoi Hey'te About □ □ □ In the Movie Business □ □ □ MOSTLY PRODUCTION 'INSURANCE'. Vhat are the factors behind Hollywood's piraling cost of production? And where is it wading the American movie industry? The major tudios' policy of turning out fewer and fewer nd costlier and costlier films has created a ituation that is steadily becoming more azardous for the entire business, and inducing Ipprehensive speculation about the industry's iture among observers in Wall Street and 1 the press. Murray Schumach, Hollywood orrespondent of the New York Times, discussed [ns trend in a recent dispatch, and made 3me keen observations that are worth speating here: o The key word in Hollywood today is 'insurance.' >ut the movie industry's conception of insurance lay be short sighted to the point of suicide, 'or Hollywood's premium may turn out to be igher than its total insurance. The process of this lsurance is quite simple. And many observers ay it is proof of the lack of judgment among top lovie executives, or the fear of exercising adgment. The 'insurance system' of making lovies, which developed from a lack of creative alent, has begun to affect even the most reative men in the industry. Hollywood's insurance system starts with the urchase of the story. The idea is to buy Iroadway hits and best-selling novels or, failing lat, to acquire plays that are less successful and ovels that did not quite make the best-seller list, ince the competition for these properties is keen, le price is very high. Tied in with this sort of behavior is the next step 1 the insurance process — the acquisition of a )p star or two. Stars, the studio executive or roducer generally believes, are another good form f insurance. And stars are more likely to work i a prestige play or novel than on an unknown riginal story written for the screen. The original bory may be a better subject, but it does not have rhat Hollywood calls 'penetration.' it is not 'pre-sold.' Now that the studio executive or producer has insured himself with expensive property and stars, the next form of insurance is unavoidable: the lavish production. One does not stint on sets or costumes under these conditions. The result is a very expensive movie. o "There is an entirely different kind of insurance: the spectacle. The huge success of 'Ben-Hur' is greatly responsible for this. But 'Ben-Hur' was not dependent on an expensive property, nor did it, at any time, have topflight stars. The subsequent reasoning is, however, if 'Ben-Hur' can be so successful without big stars, how much more lucrative would a spectacle be with stars? This brought about 'Spartacus' with Kirk Douglas, Laurence Olivier, Tony Curtis and a host of others. It led to a remake of 'Mutiny on the Bounty' with Marlon Brando and to 'Cleopatra' with Elizabeth Taylor. Only one of these films, 'Spartacus' has been tested by the public. Universal now thinks it will come out ahead on this picture. "But one thing all three of these so-called insurance projects already have in common: they greatly exceeded their original budgets. 'Spartacus' cost about $12,000,000. But that no longer seems very much, compared with 'Mutiny on the Bounty' and 'Cleopatra.' 'Mutiny on the Bounty' has probably exceeded $17,000,000 and 'Cleopatra' is in the $20,000,000 area, having acquired, although far from completed, the dubious honor of becoming the most expensive movie in history. 0 "It is generally estimated that a movie must take in about twice its cost to break even. This is somewhat less than in the case of spectaculars where the distribution methods are different. Even so, 'Mutiny on the Bounty' will probably need at least $30,000,000 to be considered profitable, and 'Cleopatra' may need $40,000,000. The movies that have earned this much can be counted on one hand. "Why, then, do the banks put up money for these ventures? Because the bank, since it is making the loan to a studio, figures that it has good collateral in the studio properties and in the film library that can be leased or sold to television. Moreover, a star means more to a bank than a script does. "Artistically, what does this insurance approach to moviemaking mean? Hollywood still turns out an occasional good movie for about $2,000,000 or $3,000,000. But Hollywood has virtually abandoned to Europe the low-priced movie of ideas and artistry. Hollywood is swapping its arts for insurance that is about as reliable as roulette — perhaps Russian roulette." Film BULLETIN May 14. 1962 Page 5