Bette Midler

Follow Bette Midler Updates:

. . .

The Katzenberg Memo [Part 6]

By Scott Myers on | From gointothestory.blcklst.com

In January 1991, Jeffrey Katzenberg, then the head of Disney’s motion picture divisions, wrote a memo that ended up being circulated throughout Hollywood. Even though it is 21 years old, it is remarkably relevant to the current movie business. For example, the United States was in a recession as we are today. The movie industry was confronted by numerous financial challenges tied to technological advances and cultural shifts, also as we are today.

Over the next few weeks, I will be posting the entire memo. If you have any interest in screenwriting or working in the film business, you should read it. Why? Because it gives you a wide-open view of how studio executives think. After all, any script you write and circulate in Hollywood doesn’t exist in a vacuum, rather it funnels through a system, one that operates based upon the business principles and practices of studio heads like Katzenberg.

Today: Betting on Talent

Betting on Talent

We started out in 1984 as the most cost-conscious of all studios. One of our primary means for controlling costs was by avoiding the reigning stars of the moment. Instead we featured stars on the downward slope of their career or invented new ones of our own. Robin Williams suggested to Newsweek magazine that we recruited talent by standing outside the back door of the Betty Ford Clinic.

The first instance of this approach to movie-making was “Down & Out in Beverly Hills,” a film that re-ignited the careers of its three stars, Bette Midler, Richard Dreyfuss and Nick Nolte. We have maintained long-term relationships with all three, especially Bette Midler.

But, it would be an extreme understatement to say that a Bette Midler movie today is not the same thing as a Bette Midler movie was then. In 1984, we paid Bette only for her considerable talent. Now, we must also pay her for her considerable and well-earned celebrity.

This is what might be called the “celebrity surcharge” that must be ante’d up when hiring major stars. And, more and more, we’ve been working with the biggest stars in the industry. It’s hard to say “no” to the likes of Steve Martin, Bill Murray, Dustin Hoffman and Sylvester Stallone. But, when we say “yes” in the future, we need to develop these relationships in a way that works both for them and for us.

These are the kind of luminaries who are said to be “bankable stars.” But, 1990 should have demolished for once and for all this notion. This concept of the “bankable star” maintains that there are some stars whose very presence guarantees a certain level of box office performance. If this were true, then how can one explain what happened to 1990’s vehicle for 1989’s “most bankable star,” Jack Nicholson, to say nothing of the heralded return to the screen of Robert Redford?

The fact is that “bankability” places too much of a burden on the star. He or she is expected to open the movie as well as to carry it. Dustin Hoffman, who is perhaps the most talented actor of our time, has never “opened” a film with a blockbuster first weekend. But his talent has been instrumental in making a number of films phenomenally successful.

And that’s what it’s all about. Talent. It is a performer’s talent that can make a film a success. Celebrity can be an important bonus, but celebrity is really all about timing. It comes and goes and sometimes comes back again. A performer’s talent endures. This is what we should be betting on.

This is why we must try to blaze a path away from unreasonable salary and participation deals. These kinds of deals can only make sense if a star’s presence can absolutely guarantee monstrous success for a film. And, as we have seen, there are no such guarantees.

Unreasonable salaries coupled with giant participations comprise a win/win situation for the talent and a lose/lose situation for us. It results in us getting punished in failure and having no upside in success.

We have to find ways to make deals with major stars that work for everyone. And we have to summon the energy to go out and find the new people who have just as much talent and will be the stars of the future.

If the idea and story are strong enough, a movie shouldn’t be dependant on any particular performer to be a success. This is why we should be aggressive on all fronts — at the bargaining table with major stars, at the comedy clubs searching for future stars, and at the back door of the Clinic picking up the stars that once were and can be again.

It’s almost an anachronism nowadays to think that an actor could be thought of as powerful enough to guarantee a movie’s success. In twenty years time, due to massive technological changes, most notably CGI [in terms of movies] and the web [in terms of all forms of entertainment and social media, actors, while still important are only one piece of the movie studio's puzzle when putting together a movie production.

For a reality check, go here to Box Office Mojo's list of the 2011 box office results. Can any of the top 20 movies be thought of as deriving their success primarily due to the actors involved? I think the answer has to be no. So in a very real way, Katzenberg was prescient: If the idea and story are strong enough, they are not dependent on a particular performer to be a success.

However that is something of a Pyrrhic victory. On the one hand, the current situation reduces the clout actors and their reps have to make aggressive, participation-rich deals [unless they are tied to a franchise and seen as an indispensable part of the films]. On the other hand, that means one less strategic element Hollywood can rely on to lower their risk assessment of any potential project.

What this translates into as far as a screenwriter is concerned is an increased importance on the story concept to sell the movie to an audience.

To read Part 1 of the Katzenberg memo, go here.

For Part 2, go here.

Part 3, go here.

Part 4, go here.

Part 5, go here.

To read the entire memo, go here.