The Truth is in the Pudding...

For a few years now I've decried the Hollywood studio system for its increasingly-bloated method of doing things. Its like studio executives and producers nowadays like the torture of mind-boggling legalities, union regulations, and the excessive spending thereof, to the point that any one individual can't possibly know much about the entire operation at hand, even in hindsight. The New York Post managed to get its hands on the
film budget (a highly-guarded tome of documents) for the film Sahara (2004), a budget which is in legal dispute right now. It reveals a mind-boggling excess that is so typical of the modern Hollywood-funded product.

Here are some random examples of the exorbitant costs associated with a film that ended up costing the studio nearly $100,000,000 in deficit:



$34,000 for Matthew McConaughey's stand-in. (Note: this isn't a stunt double. This is a person that merely steps into the shot for a few moments so the Dir. of Photography can assess proper lighting levels for when the real Mr. McConaughey steps forward, so he's not to be bothered any more than he has to, despite his own $8.2 million salary). This stand-in got paid a college-degree holder's yearly income to stand around for three months.

$8 million was spent merely to build sets, when pre-existing locations were surely good enough.

Over $2 million was spent on wardrobe alone (!)

$180,000 was paid for Mr. McConaughey's friends to come hang out with him. $228,000 was spent on Penelope Cruz's friends to come hang out. Ms. Cruz required SIX bodyguards during the shoot, which each got paid an average person's yearly wage for only 3 mos. work.

Mr. McConaughey's makeup artist was paid $150,000 for three months' work, on a picture not requiring more than standard pancake powder. $800,000 was spent on makeup period.

And Steve Zahn, a co-star most people have never even heard of, required 'a "first-class bump-out trailer with first-class amenities," a private dressing room, an exclusive car and driver and a rental car for his wife and nanny.'

Counting the $61 million spent on advertising and making prints of the film for theatres, the grand total was $281 million, for a film that basically did "okay" for its story source, calibre of actors, and tentpole production.

I've been researching the model Hollywood studios used on their films in the 1930's and 1940's to discover why it is that modern studio systems can't return to a simpler, more bare bones age of filmmaking, thus restoring profitability, a sense of wonder and excitement, and an output of 4 times as many films per year than the current model.

Here's an example: Gone With the Wind, the most profitable film ever, would cost $53 million in today's dollars, including prints and advertising costs, and counting for inflation. So why does any studio ever have the wherewithal to make a $200,000,000 film today, when its obviously unjustified and such a gamble?

The reason for this quadrupling of budgets has to do with one thing: An everly more complicated society. Every person, down to the spoon boy who stands there at the end of the craft service table to ladle a teaspoon of sugar into your coffee in the morning is organized with his/her job's specific union, which each has dozens and even hundreds of restrictions in place.

"Sugar Boys can only work 10 hrs. a day and no more, or distribute 200 teaspoon-fulls of sugar a day, which ever comes first. Unless of course she/he is distributing Sweet-n-Low, in which case he/she may distribute 30% more due to product placement on pictures produced by Universal Pictures produced after Jan. 7, 2008. However, this dependency clause is void if there is any smoking in more than two scenes (or 1/21st of the film, whichever is more), unless cigarette brand is Parliament, in which case a report must be filed using a 2056 C form within three weeks of production start date."

Now that studios think that any given film requires an army of 2,000 people, imagine the absolute insanity it is to take all these puzzle pieces into account, for roughly 50 different departments, depending on the picture. BLEH! TOTALLY UNNECESSARY!

In the 1930's, a studio could crank out dozens of high-quality films, all within a reasonable running-time (80 minutes each). Nowadays we get a small handful of films each year, all with the same tired, modern "realistic" acting styles, all moodily-lit (save for the sunshiny comedies that all look the same), with exorbitant running times (2 hrs. + for comedies, which is madness), and ten-minute ending credits (even after having credits up-front)! Don't get me started on how pro-scripted the order of those credits have to be in order to satisfy the myriad unions and guilds!

Long story short: I'll take the occasional studio directing job when it comes eventually, but I intend to retroactively reduce all the insane modern politically-correct red-tape down to nil in leading by example. And the studio heads will marvel as to why it works when its so simple, so cheap, and so much better than the method they choose to induce coronaries over. And to think they wonder why Sahara tanked financially...