Gambling and Hollywood

email this story
read comments (36)
post a comment

Gambling is an addiction -- a high-dive fever trip that people with wired, aggressive natures enjoy because (and I'm not trying to be facile or judgmental about this) it offers a brief respite from the dutiful, methodical, nose-to-the-grindstone rigors that are necessary in order to lead a life defined by at least some degree of honor, dignity, consistency, responsibility and consideration for others. Gambling is, I've always believed, about tempting disaster and flirting with self-destruction. It can take you down as surely as alcohol or cocaine or debt or anger. But there's still something about it that I like.

The willingness or at least the readiness to gamble is, of course, a necessary element with any creative person who dreams of making it big, and certainly with any producer or screenwriter or director. It's been said over and over that the lack of hot gambler nerve is what ails the film business more than anything else these days. You can't hedge or calculate your way into a hit movie. The biggest Hollywood cliche of all is that movies are a crap shoot, but over the last 25 years or so the purse strings have become increasingly constricted by more and more nervous-nelly corporate types, which has often been a key factor in bad big-studio movies and the much-bemoaned corporate addiction (unfortunately necessary within the realm that big studios are obliged to operate) to franchises.

The vast majority of creative people in this town are not problematic casino gamblers, although a lot of them are in regular poker games with industry friends. I know a few actors and at least two director-writers who enjoy playing the tables in Las Vegas and Atlantic City, but I wonder if anyone has ever written a piece about the overlap between gamblers of whatever delineation and the type of films they tend to dream up or pitch or try to make?

Gambling addicts are people looking to lose, but is there something in the character of people who, under the right circumstances and with the right idea or inspiration, have the brass to throw the dice on a script or a concept that has a tendency to spill over into Vegas-y gambling (or horses or dogs) to some extent? All the legendary producers have been tenacious with thick skins, but don't you also need a little of that "crazy guy still playing craps downstairs at 4 ayem" spirit?

I've never been into gambling of any kind. I've played in less than ten serious poker games in my entire life. I hate losing money. But there's something about that side of my nature that has also led, I suspect, to not having had the brass or the drive to push harder at other ventures like scriptwriting (which I tried and failed at, possibly because I didn't have the talent but also because I may have lacked the moxie to keep at it and theoretically improve as I went along). I'm very happy with what I do, but deep down I've always admired the gamblers, or at least the thing they have that leads them to an occasional belief, as James Caan's character puts it in James Toback's The Gambler, that "two plus two equals five."

"Brave One" on Sunset<< previous | next >>Foundas on N.Y, Film Festival duties

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on August 21, 2007 at 9:43 AM

comment #1

York "Budd" Durden says ...

"It don't mean a fuckin' thing." Last line of Altman's California Split--but readers of this blog knew this already...

Posted by York "Budd" Durden at August 21, 2007 11:45 AM

comment #2

berkguru says ...

great post

Posted by berkguru at August 21, 2007 11:54 AM

comment #3

Rich S. says ...

New Line gambled almost $300 million on a little-known director from New Zealand who wanted to do a trilogy of films based on books deemed virtually unfilmable. That appeared to turn out all right. But we don't say nice or admirable things about that 'round these parts.

Posted by Rich S. at August 21, 2007 11:54 AM

comment #4

Dixon Steele says ...

Interesting post.

A shrink friend insists that most people who get into showbiz have a gambler's mentality, as the odds are really against them succeeding. But they plunge in anyway.

Posted by Dixon Steele at August 21, 2007 12:00 PM

comment #5

ratskiwatski says ...

That is a great fucking post.

It's funny, I was inner-fulminating about that the other day, the sheer lack of verve and balls on display in commercial moviemaking. Probably due in the main to the risk-averse bullshit of being arms of publically traded companies, but still... there's just so little *acumen* shown - how many greenlighters actually step out and read an assload of scripts and see everything from all angles and are truly individually decisive without disappearing in the fog of hall mice and screening cards and blahblah... and the worst part is, writers are totally complicit in all this in their writing down to the market. "Idiocracy" was a mess, but one line pretty much describes the whole fear-based contraption to me, from the top of the parentcompanies all the way down to the audiences who lack any cultural referents beyond last night's episode of "So You Think You're A Spree Killer?"...

"Fuck off, I'm 'batin."

Posted by ratskiwatski at August 21, 2007 12:01 PM

comment #6

Rod32303 says ...

so, this addiction is sexy, but fat asses like me you show disgust for...though you've also indicated that those who are "obese" are also addicts.

Beautifully written, though, Jeff.

Posted by Rod32303 at August 21, 2007 12:02 PM

comment #7

ratskiwatski says ...

Ratskiwatski,

That has got to be the most pretentious shit I've ever read on HE. Take it elsewhere, Junior.

Posted by ratskiwatski at August 21, 2007 12:06 PM

comment #8

DavidF says ...

Rich S. - Amen, brutha.

Wells doesn't have to love Jackson or the Rings movies if he doesn't want too but you HAVE to admire to the balls of Jackson, WETA and Bob Shaye for even conceiving of how it could be done. (And by balls, I mean artistic integrity.)

They had a rabid fanbase just waiting to be alienated, lots of money to lose and a zillion ways it could have gone wrong. All they ended up with was like $1 billion+ in box office, like 50 Oscar nominations, and a whole bunch of jealous people scratching their heads.

Posted by DavidF at August 21, 2007 12:17 PM

comment #9

buckzollo says ...

I am a gemini, no I'm not, yes I am. Though not at all into astrology, yesterday my horoscope read as follows: To be truly successful you have to be able to ignore that fearful little voice inside that says,"You can't do it." With enough practice you can shut it off entirely.

Posted by buckzollo at August 21, 2007 12:20 PM

comment #10

T. Holly says ...

me too zollo. It's risky just being here at work for me, but I consider it an addiction I'm better off with.

Posted by T. Holly at August 21, 2007 12:33 PM

comment #11

le corbeau says ...

You know who the great addicted gambler among filmmakers was, right?

DeSica.

Apparently he lived on the edge of perpetual ruin, and the fact that he had more of an acting than a directing career later on is due to the fact that it was easier money. (Still, that got us Madame De and General Della Rovere, so it's not all bad.)

Posted by le corbeau at August 21, 2007 12:54 PM

comment #12

Jack Price says ...

Insightful words, very true.

Just curious, but didn't you also have some involvement in the "Flight of the Phoenix" remake, back when it was still being pitched as "Deliverance in the Gobi Desert"? I could be completely off-base about that, but if so I'd love to hear any stories you are free to discuss regarding your experiences in screenwriting.

Posted by Jack Price at August 21, 2007 1:21 PM

comment #13

christian says ...

and i just finished watching IDIOCRACY today -- a truly radical and subversive albeit flawed piece of genuine satire. it's easy to see why fox buried it as there's never been a more concise and accurate recent summation of the end result of a consumerist culture amuck.

or like the carl's jr. ad says in the film:

fuck you -- i'm eating!

Posted by christian at August 21, 2007 1:24 PM

comment #14

Rothchild says ...

Idiocracy is a flawed masterpiece.

Posted by Rothchild at August 21, 2007 1:29 PM

comment #15

T. Holly says ...

I guess Harvey can't be considered a gambler because CHUD (Jeremy Smith) thinks he highjacked the covers of the NYTimes and Variety today. What a dope, please keep us posted about your "inconveniently relevant questions" that you get to ask Harvey later, when it's your turn. Oh sure, right, puh-leeze, grow up or some; show us what you got when you get it, in the mean time, shut up.

Posted by T. Holly at August 21, 2007 1:41 PM

comment #16

Lloyd Dobler says ...

Depends on the gamble. The people that can tell which gambles are +EV compared to the ones that are neutral or -EV are the ones your looking for.

Posted by Lloyd Dobler at August 21, 2007 2:24 PM

comment #17

Devin Faraci says ...

I did a phoner with Toback once and he stopped to buy lottery tickets in the middle of it. That was pretty cool.

Posted by Devin Faraci at August 21, 2007 3:45 PM

comment #18

T. Holly says ...

You just had to get the link in because CHUD is so badass, so inconveniently relevant.

Posted by T. Holly at August 21, 2007 4:12 PM

comment #19

Devin Faraci says ...

Somebody woke up on the wrong side of the spooge sock today.

Posted by Devin Faraci at August 21, 2007 4:16 PM

comment #20

T. Holly says ...

You should be kissing my ass that I sent people your way to read Jeremy's boo-hoo, nah-nah, "Harvey talks to traditional media and I steal from it but don't link it, because no one reads me anyway and will know whether 'loyal stenographer' fits the bill or not."

Posted by T. Holly at August 21, 2007 4:52 PM

comment #21

buckzollo says ...

Need to cool off?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=eR6ntGJllNc

Posted by buckzollo at August 21, 2007 5:05 PM

comment #22

Ju-osh says ...

^^^^^^^^
M. Madsen's making after school specials?!

Posted by Ju-osh at August 21, 2007 5:17 PM

comment #23

The Movie Man says ...

To Jeff: Great post.

To some of the posters: I like LOTR too, but can we accept that Jeff doesn't and just get off it? He doesn't like them, we do, differences of opinion happen all the time.

To Christian: I thought IDIOCRACY was a wonderful idea with a really half-assed (pun intended) execution. Some great jokes (love the energy drink as water thing) have to compete with large, unfunny, badly acted, boring segments (even though its less than 90 minutes). I think its overrated in certain circles because we so badly need a state of things satire right now, I understand that need, but Idiocracy ain't it. Maybe Judge got screwed by Fox, but then again Office Space was another potentially incisive satire that gives way to an obvious, mundane third act. Idiocracy is a great conversation piece though.

Judge's best work is still the very underrated television show King of the Hill.

Posted by The Movie Man at August 21, 2007 5:28 PM

comment #24

Devin Faraci says ...

T Holly: Jeremy linked to both pieces. Learn how to use the internet for something other than meeting Chris Hansen.

Posted by Devin Faraci at August 21, 2007 5:30 PM

comment #25

buckzollo says ...

Jeff
Poolside at the W you revealed yourself to be as tenacious of a gambler as most indie producers. Weren't you hired and fired enough to be dissauded from striking out on your own? You gambled that this would work even when you were beat down. Still it takes nuts to admit that you may not have 'em.

Posted by buckzollo at August 21, 2007 5:41 PM

comment #26

foxnewsisfake says ...

Working on your own, this blog, takes stones. Don't sell yourself short.

Posted by foxnewsisfake at August 21, 2007 6:15 PM

comment #27

T. Holly says ...

You could run roll over ads like CHUD and sell your soul without dumbing things way, way down.

Posted by T. Holly at August 21, 2007 6:27 PM

comment #28

romeoisbleeding says ...

excellent read Jeff. Whoa.. keep this up ok! this is kind of like an inside the park homerun!

Posted by romeoisbleeding at August 21, 2007 6:46 PM

comment #29

christian says ...

i agree IDIOCRACY is a mess, but it's an audacious important one. i know most satire dies a dog's death, but it's a very brave, unusual and funny (love the fox news spot) film that will be more prescient than satirical. i'm more interested in how the corporation buried it for purely ideological reasons.

Posted by christian at August 21, 2007 7:07 PM

comment #30

arch451 says ...

Jeff, I think you should write just two posts like this per week and nothing else.

Posted by arch451 at August 21, 2007 7:21 PM

comment #31

buckzollo says ...

arch I totally agree with you except for the part about and nothing else. The format of this site, a smÃƒÂ¶rgÃƒÂ¥sbord if you will, is a recipe I am assuming is an ongoing success.

Posted by buckzollo at August 21, 2007 7:43 PM

comment #32

BurmaShave says ...

"Learn how to use the internet for something other than meeting Chris Hansen."

Owned. Well played.

Posted by BurmaShave at August 21, 2007 8:36 PM

comment #33

buckzollo says ...

stinging ditto.

Posted by buckzollo at August 21, 2007 9:37 PM

comment #34

Silverscreenvideos says ...

It's ironic but the movies that Hollywood producers SHOULD be gambling on do not represent nearly as big a financial gamble as the ones that they ARE gambling on.

It's easier to "gamble" $200 million on a creative brain dead piece of CGI crap than it is to "gamble" $20 million on a well-written, well-acted small scale comedy or drama like Superbad or 1408.

Release a small scale film that bombs and you still make back most of your investment once ancillary sales are taken into account. And, if it takes off, like Wedding Crashers, profits of 100 to 500% or more aren't unheard of. Transformers is going to do very well, but it's not going to make nearly as much in terms of return on investment as Knocked Up will.

Posted by Silverscreenvideos at August 22, 2007 12:37 AM

comment #35

Arizona Joe says ...

Yes, Wells, gambling is an endogenous narcotic, just as deleterious as alcohol or drugs.

But I am not sure what the film industry needs is a gambler's mentality. It needs the intelligence, wisdom, good taste, and chutzpah of the old moguls and directors.

The suits with the MBA's don't have that. And the directors who care more about blow and women than reading don't have it either. (Female directors all seem indie to me, in the main.)

And obviously, the market for films is much more segmented than in yesteryear. The brand name films that play more like roller coaster rides than dramas do more for a corporation's stock and an executive's bonus. Scatological humor for pimple-faced schnooks are huge profit centers also. It is difficult to move that kind of inertia.

Everybody, everything is about the pecuniary. We all work for Wall Street or a hedge fund. There's no JFK or FDR in the White House, and there's no Willie Wyler or Frank Capra making movies.

Posted by Arizona Joe at August 22, 2007 1:44 AM

comment #36