Tweet
FacebookWhen life gets too busy or I have nothing to complain about, I just reach back and find something I wrote earlier but never posted (usually because it was uninteresting or poorly written…or maybe even both). This is one of those stories.
I watched “District 9” last night. I didn’t see it in the theater because I knew the movie was shot on handheld cameras and I figured there was a really good chance of me getting sick (at least at home, I can turn it off when I get queasy). I’ve been thinking about the movie since I saw it, so that must mean I thought it was pretty good. What I find most remarkable about the movie is that the movie was made for a meager $30 million (how jaded we’ve become where $30M is considered meager; in 1975, “Jaws” cost an outlandish $7M to make). “District 9” was a phenomenal-looking move. The special effects were outstanding–and a completely crucial part of the film. The majority of shots in the movie contained CGI effects–complicated ones at that. The alien creatures looked real and life like. In fact, I wasn’t even sure they were CG until I looked it up after the movie.
How does a movie with a $30M budget look like a movie that cost five times that? Seriously–watch it! The special effects look like something you’d see in a $200M, big-budget, popcorn movie. I don’t know how much money was put into effects or where it was done (maybe they got some illegal immigrants to do it for below minimum wage), but it seems impossible that a movie could look that good for that little money.
Which got me thinking: how much do actors’ salaries drive up the budgets of movies? We all know the big stars like Jim Carrey, Denzel Washington, and Bruce Willis cost around $20M to make a picture. That’s $20M without factoring any other expenses. And most movies gotta have a big-name, recognizable costar: how much money does it cost to cast a Don Cheadle or Amanda Peete in a movie? Even the smaller character actors–people whose names you don’t know but faces you recognize (Bruce Davidson, Wallace Shawn, or James Rebhorn)*–how much do sidekicks get to make a movie? No one goes to see a flick because Dan Hedaya is in it–but many movie fans probably think he’s funny.
I guess the point to all this is exactly what I’ve been saying for years: some people get paid too much money. While good actors are tremendously talented and bring us a great deal of entertainment, no actor should be getting even a million dollars for a movie. A film shoot is typical seven weeks–is that really worth the $25M Tom Hanks gets paid to do it? Brad Pitt is one good-looking dude–but a perfect chin isn’t worth that much.
I also saw “Couples Retreat” recently. I found it to be good for a few laughs and entertaining. I consider these two movies to be excellent comparison for the point I’m trying to make. “Couples Retreat” cost twice as much as “District 9;” however, the special effect alien movie looked way more expensive than the simple comedy. “District 9” was full of nobodies while virtually every speaking role in “Couples Retreat” had a face you’ve seen before. From the shaved head guy who kept hitting the gong (Temuera Morrison from the “Star Wars” franchise) to the therapists (Ken Jeong from “The Hangover,” John Michael Higgins from Christopher Guest movies, and Amy Hill from every time an large Asian woman is needed), the movie made an obvious effort to use familiar faces. I wouldn’t call these cameos because cameos are done by famous people–these were just familiar faces. Even the costars of “Couples Retreat” are actors with long resumes. How much did it cost to cast Jon Favreau, Jean Reno, and Jason Bateman? These are all established Hollywood actors. I highly doubt they earned as little as Joe Nobody would if he was cast for the same role.
But was it money well spent? These roles weren’t particularly challenging and I’m fairly certain there are plenty of unknown actors in Hollywood who would have done just as well while working for scale. How people out there decided to go see “Couples Retreat” because Kristen Davis was in it? I don’t see how her presence would make the movie any more money than if my mom was cast in the same role. And yet, I’m sure Davis was earning far more than my mom would have.
So why go with an expensive cast? How much of a movie’s budget is “wasted” on casting? If more movies were made for the price that “District 9” cost, maybe it wouldn’t cost 12 bucks to see a flick. We live in a celebrity-driven society and somehow that leads to sports stars and actors making ungodly sums of money. But the truth is their salaries are completely unjustified. If anything, “District 9” shows how much money is wasted when making a movie. It has a bunch of nobodies in it and still made more than $100M at the box office. People went to go see it because it was a good movie. I guess the lesson here is that a good movie is a bigger draw than Luis Guzman.
* If you don’t know any of the names I mention, Google pictures of them: I’m sure you’ll recognize them.