Directors and Paychecks

email this story
read comments (31)
post a comment

I need to say one thing about yesterday's Natasha VC Gawker piece about supposed directorial paycheck movies having "ruined" or seriously compromised the reps of David Fincher, Curtis Hanson, Jonathan Demme, Ang Lee and Steven Soderbergh.

As lame and ill-informed as the article is, it at least starts out with a fair and accurate assessment of the motives of certain directors at certain stages in their lives, which is that sometimes they direct certain films because they need to bolster the bank account.

Shocking as this may sound to the likes of David Poland and Karina Longworth, it's true. Not every film is embarked upon because the director (along with his/her creative enablers) has a burning obsession to present some intensely personal vision or statement on a grand canvas. This doesn't mean directors don't apply their filmmaking acumen in every way possible in order to make the paycheck movie play well and reflect, at the very least, solid craftsmanship. This doesn't mean they aren't at least somewhat into the story or theme to some (perhaps even a significant) degree.

But sometimes making a movie -- gasp! -- is just about doing the work because you need to stay on the treadmill. Because you can't paint the Mona Lisa every time you pick up a brush. Because there's a certain honor and dignity in doing a job well, even if the film is essentially crap. Because you love your children and some universities are ridiculously expensive.

I have another shocker to throw out. Sometimes actors do this also. They star, yes, in crappy movies in order to earn money, knowing full well that artistic fulfillment is out of the question. Sometimes screenwriters hold their nose while they're tapping out an adaptation or a rewrite. Sometimes editors whore themselves out because they need to cover the cost of a vacation house. I know -- it's stunning to consider this. But it does happen from time to time.

The Gawker piece was inspired by a Quentin Tarantino quote that appears in an Alex Pappademas-authored GQ interview, to wit: "When you gotta go out and make a movie to pay for the kids' private school and for the three ex-wives, don't talk to me about your artistry. It's their job. I don't want to have to watch the movie I made to pay for my pool."

Except sometimes paycheck movies can turn out pretty well. My understanding from some recent Francis Coppola statements is that he didn't want to direct The Godfather Part II because he didn't want to make a film that was just about trying to cash in on the popularity of The Godfather. Well, look what happened. And then take a look at Tetro, which Coppola wrote and directed from a place of pure enthusiasm and movie love. I rest my case.

Took Long Enough<< previous | next >>Elimination

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on July 16, 2009 at 9:43 AM

comment #1

Terry McCarty says ...

Re the GAWKER piece, I thought the notion of calling THE GOOD GERMAN Soderbergh's "paycheck" movie was rather ludicrous.

Posted by Terry McCarty at July 16, 2009 10:29 AM

comment #2

roquentin says ...

Good piece, Jeff.

Posted by roquentin at July 16, 2009 10:30 AM

comment #3

twicks says ...

Jeff's argument re: Coppola actually goes some way to defending his decision to make Part III.

As in, "Hey, I didn't want to do Part II either, and look how that turned out."

Posted by twicks at July 16, 2009 10:33 AM

comment #4

creepingmalaise says ...

75+% of the movies Michael Caine has made have fallen into this catagory, and Caine himself makes no bones about it.

Posted by creepingmalaise at July 16, 2009 10:36 AM

comment #5

Sabina E says ...

I'm not sure why some people seem *shocked* that filmmakers actually need to make MONEY and are willing to take on mediocre film projects. Some of us are trapped in a dreary, miserable 9 to 5 office job, while others are forced to direct a badly written script with a very poor plot development and a cast of terrible actors.

It's how the world works.

Posted by Sabina E at July 16, 2009 10:36 AM

comment #6

pm123 says ...

People who divide the film world into "art" and "commerce" have never worked in the film world. Every project is a battle between the two. Every project is worked on by many people who do their best to exercise their craft to the best of their ability, limited by the commercial constraints of the project. Some of the greatest works of art ever made in Hollywood were made for purely commercial reasons (the entire careers of most silent film comedians, for example). The trick is to keep your mind working and do the most creative work you can do, not to make a "great work of cinematic art." Try to do the latter and you end up with dreck just as awful as any of the summer tentpole films you all are scoffing at now...

Posted by pm123 at July 16, 2009 10:47 AM

comment #7

jesse says ...

So when you say the article "starts out with a fair and accurate assessment," you basically mean the article "repeats something completely reasonable that Quentin Tarantino said," right? I mean, you're acting like anyone reacting to this article is doing so out of disbelief that sometimes people do things for money. I don't know that's the point of either Poland's or Longworth's reactions. And if this is such a head-slappingly obvious truth, why on earth would you praise the original Gawker writer for coming up with it?Breaking Gawker news: sometimes directors have bills to pay. Scandal! You say that Panic Room isn't as good as Fight Club? Ooh, ballsy!

If she went on to point out even one really good example of what she describes, MAYBE I could give her some credit. It would still be a reductive bit of sniping contributing nothing to a conversation about film, but at least it would have a kind of baseline obviousness. Instead, it somehow becomes a fall-of-the-nineties piece(while including, uh, a prominent director who got his start in the eightes) in the spirit of calling "jumped the shark!! it jumped the shark!!! it's all over now!!!" She manages to take an obvious idea and not even appear to understand it. This isn't just lameness; it's stupidity.

I can see how it appeals to you, though, Jeff, because you do love declaring things "over," a completely uninteresting concept (or tic, really) in 90% of cases.

Posted by jesse at July 16, 2009 11:09 AM

comment #8

corey3rd says ...

the real "paycheckers" are guys who direct commercials between their big projects because they provide quick cash and they don't require you to spend a year making and promoting the film you didn't like that much. You spend a couple days and your name doesn't get mentioned. Think of the Paycheck Cinema of Erroll Morris.

Posted by corey3rd at July 16, 2009 11:22 AM

comment #9

The Playlist says ...

A lot of movie ppl seemed to be outraged over it. It's gawker. Whatever, not worth really getting in a twist over.

Posted by The Playlist at July 16, 2009 11:27 AM

comment #10

Mr. Buckles says ...

Going to Gawker for real cultural insight... don't make me laugh, I might as well hit Star right afterwards.

And there ain't nothing wrong with getting paid, just ask Michael Caine or Gene Hackman.

Posted by Mr. Buckles at July 16, 2009 11:29 AM

comment #11

p.Vice says ...

The fallacy of this article stems not from Jeff's noted lack of understanding the reality of the filmmaking industry, but because none of these filmmakers has even remotely staked a claim on greatness. Pretty much all of their movies have been paycheck movies -- and that each one has managed to make one or two good ones in 20 or 30 year-plus careers is what most would refer to as happy accidents.

That this list of names supposedly defines a "generation" also defines the stench of where this said generation belongs.

Posted by p.Vice at July 16, 2009 11:30 AM

comment #12

TulseLuper says ...

Scorsese does this all the time so it should hardly be surprising to anyone that sometimes you need to do something for the machine in order for the machine to do something for you.

I think some filmmakers are bigger sell-outs than others. Tarantino has quite obviously given up on becoming a master filmmaker after Jackie Brown didn't do as well as he wanted, but I see no evidence that David Fincher made Panic Room and then gave up on art. Did he not see Zodiac? I didn't like Benjamin Button either, but it's by no means a sell-out film.

Whatever, it's the name of the game. As long as the passion is still there, I see no problem with making a commercial film. Anything to help your better work get out there. Otherwise you're simply preaching to the choir.

Posted by TulseLuper at July 16, 2009 11:33 AM

comment #13

raygo says ...

I love almost all of Gene Hackman's paycheck roles. Caine's ... not so much.

Posted by raygo at July 16, 2009 11:37 AM

comment #14

TulseLuper says ...

Sorry, make that "Did SHE not see Zodiac?"

Posted by TulseLuper at July 16, 2009 11:40 AM

comment #15

Mr. Buckles says ...

Raygo, what is not to love about MC's turn as Hoagie in Jaw 15 or whatever that one was. Classic. I mean to take that role takes serious stones.

Posted by Mr. Buckles at July 16, 2009 11:42 AM

comment #16

BurmaShave says ...

Am I the only one who thinks, since THE LIMEY, Soderberghs "one for them" movies have been better than his passion projects?

Posted by BurmaShave at July 16, 2009 12:04 PM

comment #17

larry braverman says ...

Ridiculous. Jeff's points, while to me seem like common sense, are right on.

In my head I replaced 'directors' with 'internet film bloggers' and 'pool movies' with 'pool posts' and I enjoyed it much more.

Posted by larry braverman at July 16, 2009 12:16 PM

comment #18

Circumvrent says ...

Burma, I completely agree. I'm sure he'd hate to admit it, but his "for them" movies are much more successful aethestically, artistically, narratively than his "for me" projects (LIMEY notwithstanding).'

Fuck the Gawker article; that GQ piece is really wonderful. Makes me love and hate Tarantino all at the same time. He devotes his live completely to movies, so all he can makes are movies about movies, and not about anything resembling real life. I know he shies away from Jackie Brown, but didn't he make that during his relationship with Sorvino, which seems to be his longest and most committed?

Though I'd still take Tarantino over Rian Johnson, who is making movies about movies about movies, but that's neither here nor there.

Posted by Circumvrent at July 16, 2009 12:29 PM

comment #19

Butters says ...

Really, how can anyone be surprised by this. Actors and directors have to pay bills like everyone else. So it stands to reason this would happen. I have friends who HATE their 9 to 5 jobs but stay there simply because the money is good. They realize they have become accustomed to a certain lifestyle and like that they can afford to do whatever they want. So, they suck it up and take the money. Hey I am sure John Cusak go a nice paycheck for 2012. He can't pay the bills being in "hip" indies all the time. It is just how the world works. It is what it is.

Posted by Butters at July 16, 2009 1:00 PM

comment #20

Rich S. says ...

Saw the incomparable Bruce Campbell at a panel discussion once. Someone in the audience asked him how he could lower himself to do something like Alien Apocalypse or one of those other Sci Fi original movies he's done dozens of.

He replied, "I needed a new water heater."

Posted by Rich S. at July 16, 2009 1:25 PM

comment #21

TulseLuper says ...

Circumvrent: I'd be lying if I didn't find Tarantino endearing as a person. Have you heard the commentary he did with Edgar Wright on Hot Fuzz? It's seriously one of the most enjoyavle commentaries I've ever listened to. He's the kind of friend any film fan would want, not least because his taste seems to reach across the board to every era, genre, and style you can think of.

And that's what's so frustrating! I want to embrace him as a filmmaker but I just can't endorse the direction he has taken. I respect the fact that he makes movies on his own terms but that didn't make Kill Bill or Death Proof any more enjoyable for me, and the more clips I see for Inglourious Basterds, the less open-minded I am about his future.

Posted by TulseLuper at July 16, 2009 1:29 PM

comment #22

chris7crows says ...

One of the things I've always liked about Michael Caine is his attitude: He's an actor, and his job is to act as well as he can, regardless of the part. This is, after all, the same guy who picked up his Oscar for "Hannah and Her Sisters" the same year that he appeared in "Jaws: The Revenge."

Posted by chris7crows at July 16, 2009 2:46 PM

comment #23

sumo-pop says ...

Curtis Hanson hasn't done a paycheck movie since River Wild. What was Fincher's paycheck movie? Panic Room? I guess. Ang Lee made the Hulk and then followed with Brokeback and Lust, Caution. And aside from the Ocean's pics, Soderbergh is taking risks every time out. What a moron. Oh and you're Right about Coppola. Maybe he needs to make paycheck movies because what's in his head ain't all that interesting.

Posted by sumo-pop at July 16, 2009 3:59 PM

comment #24

Steven Kar says ...

Not that he needs the money, but weren't Jurassic Park 2 and Indy 4 paycheck movies?

Posted by Steven Kar at July 16, 2009 4:36 PM

comment #25

Caliban_Man says ...

When it comes to acting, older British actors know from where they came - so they just take the jobs.

it's a working class life, you don't hold your nose when someone offers to PAY you to ACT. If someone offers to pay you to act then that's a job, and if it doesn't conflict with your schedule, and your haven't got a holiday planned, then you take the job - who knows when it might all stop happening.

If you are an office worker, you are almost ALWAYS doing strictly pay check jobs. Giving crap to actors and directors for doing the same reeks of jealousy.

Posted by Caliban_Man at July 16, 2009 5:44 PM

comment #26

The Winchester says ...

Chris7crows, remember that Michael Caine couldn't actually accept his Oscar for Hannah and her sisters BECAUSE he was making Jaws IV in Jamaica.

Posted by The Winchester at July 16, 2009 7:10 PM

comment #27

DeeZee says ...

"Remember the 90's? The decade when America ran out of cocaine and was forced to go to the movies instead? Some of those movies were really good!'

If you like being force-fed bullshit hype and boring talk-fests with annoying W.A.S.P.s trying to pretend they're "deep" by cursing a lot, sure.

"So why did those filmmakers turn out to be so disappointing?"

Because their Sundance groupies weren't there to protect them when they were forced to shoot something entertaining?

"Movies like Usual Suspects, Pulp Fiction, Memento, L.A. Confidential, aw hell, even Fight Club were a great mix of pulp and substance."

Um, Memento isn't from the 90s. And as for Pulp Fiction, well, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZKgptV4GmQ

"If you remember all that then you certainly remember the sense of betrayal you felt when you heard something, like, say Robert Rodriguez was directing Spy Kids 2?"

His career started with homages to John Woo flicks. What exactly did you expect?

"David Fincher: Se7en, The Game, Fight Club
Pool Movie: Panic Room"

Actually, I kind of blame Fight Club, since the guy was clearly hoping for his own Deer Hunter with that one; and he got stuck with a limp-dick emo MMA-wannabe instead. Yeah, at the time Fight Club had impact. But can anyone really look at it 10 years later and say it's not become a victim of its own success? At least Seven kept the story basic.

"Jonathan Demme: Silence of the Lambs, Philadelphia.
Pool Movie: The Truth About Charlie"

I'm going to argue that godawful Manchurian Candidate remake, since I don't think anyone expected 'Charlie to make money. If they did, they're idiots.

"Curtis Hanson previous films: L.A. Confidential, Wonderboys, 8 Mile
Pool Picture: Lucky You"

Um, Wonderboys and 8 Mile were the money movies. Lucky You was a misfire.

"Steve Soderbergh: Sex, Lies, Videotape, Traffic, Che
Pool Movie: The Good German"

Replace Good German with Full Frontal, and I'll agree.

"Ang Lee: Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, Brokeback Mountain Pool Movie: The Hulk"

Fuck you! The Hulk was good. And the guy still managed to crank out Brokeback and Lust, Caution, which more than made up for his setback.

Tulse: "Tarantino has quite obviously given up on becoming a master filmmaker after Jackie Brown"

He was never a master filmmaker. He cuts and pastes. Shit, if he had ripped off Clonus instead of Bay, he'd be getting a free pass.

"I didn't like Benjamin Button either, but it's by no means a sell-out film."

It's a feel-good Brad Pitt movie. What part of that doesn't equate with selling out?

"He's the kind of friend any film fan would want,"

He's no friend of Ringo Lam or Chow Yun Fat... http://kissaki.tripod.com/QT.htm

Rich: Bruce Campbell isn't a sell-out, since that would imply that he can land serious roles without looking like a teen Aryan twig, or whomever's popular to cast nowadays. And in that regard, the highest he's gotten up that ladder is in Fargo.

Posted by DeeZee at July 16, 2009 7:12 PM

comment #28

Jonah says ...

Damn P vice

I hope to hell I'm never like you. A (I assume) film lover that hates almost every film.

Must suck.

Posted by Jonah at July 16, 2009 10:08 PM

comment #29

mtgilchrist says ...

I think there's a number of legitimate points to be made in an article of this kind, that is, if it was a list of the paycheck movies these filmmakers (or any others) have done, or if it were about the filmmaker's decline after or as of a certain film. But the article does neither of those things, because as other commenters have observed, many of the films in question are resolutely uncommercial to begin with (seriously - The Good German as a sellout film?), or the filmmakers went into them with at least the intent of doing something artful (Lee's Hulk is flawed but there aren't visible signs of him compromising, at least not in comparison to its sequel), or they did that movie and went on to other, better things.

I think it's supremely naive to ignore the possibility that directors or actors or anyone else in the filmmaking business (or any other industry, for that matter) NEVER does anything just for the money. But that's a different argument than the one the article makes, and I think that Longworth and Poland's reactions are to the stupidity and inaccuracy of starting with a vague and half-formed theory and then populating its defense with irrelevant or even contradictory evidence.

Posted by mtgilchrist at July 17, 2009 4:45 PM

comment #30