James Gray on "the struggle of the middle-class filmmaker," or why Marvel is ruining everything

[Guestx]

I just found this article yesterday and I thought it was pretty interesting:

http://www.vulture.com/2017/04/lost-city-of-z-and-the-decline-of-middle-class-films.html

Most of you probably don't recognize the name James Gray, but he's the director of the recent film The Lost City of Z and he also has directed some fairly high-profile films in the past, such as The Yards with Mark Wahlberg and We Own the Night and Two Lovers with Joaquin Phoenix.

Those are all at least somewhat well-known movies with big name actors. So considering that, this excerpt from the article surprised me:

Just like in the rest of the American economy, Gray’s class of filmmakers is more economically precarious than ever.

“You know, people assume that because I’m a director, I make tons of money. I am struggling financially,” Gray says. “Now, I’m very lucky I get to do what it is I want to do. I’ve made, good or bad, very uncompromising movies, the movies exactly that I wanted to make, and that’s a beautiful gift, so I’m not complaining about that. But I struggle. I have a hard time paying my bills. I’m 47 years old, I live in an apartment, I can’t buy a house. If I were coming of age in 1973, I would be in Bel Air. The whole reason for this is exactly what we were talking about, where the middle is gone. So now you have franchises, and you have, ‘I made a movie on my iPhone.’ This is the economic system in a nutshell, right? Five directors make Marvel, and then there’s the rest of us who are trying to scrounge around to find the money to make films. And it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: If the audience only gets to see Marvel, then they only want Marvel, and then if they only want Marvel, only Marvel is made. I don’t even have a problem with Marvel. The problem is not the specifics of each movie, the problem is it’s the only movie you can see now in a multiplex, and when it’s the only game in town, you’re looking at the beginning of the death throes of an art form.”

That makes me wonder just how much money he's making per picture. Considering the talent involved, you would think each movie would be a good payday for him.

But more to the point, is the people's penchant for big summer blockbusters destroying the viability of filmmakers working on smaller pictures? Have we reached a point--or perhaps I should say, has the public pushed the movie industry to the point--to where if you're not making a $100+ million CGI shitfest then you can just forget about your movie actually making any money?

 

[Chesten_Hesten]

True until the next breakout low budget money maker comes out.


Those are usually harder to do, because there's no formula to doing them....

 

[Guestx]

True until the next breakout low budget money maker comes out.


Those are usually harder to do, because there's no formula to doing them....

The interesting thing is that usually even the movies that are low-budget and break out big tend to be genre pictures. Look at something like The Blair Witch Project or something like The Visit. Both are horror films.

Occasionally you'll see a small, relatively low-budgeted drama get some critical acclaim and perhaps even Oscar buzz, but even then to actually watch one of those films you often have to find a independent theater that's playing it.

 

[The Diplomat]

I don't know, there are still lower budget movies that make more than twice their budget in box office sales, and that's not including DVDs and merchandising. But it's more rare, and he's correct in that companies like Disney kind of own the movie landscape right now. Between Star Wars and Marvel, they are killing it at the box office.

It just takes more finesse to get that lower budget movie to make bank. There's always that Paranormal Activity (15k budget, 193M box office) that comes around and destroys expectations. Movies like The Purge, Slumdog Millionaire, Little Miss Sunshine, even the King's Speech were lower budget films that made hundreds of millions at the box office, and won many awards.

Inflation is a bitch though, and affects everything. What was once "lower budget" and "big box office" in the 70s, 80s and even 90's is now completely inflated to the point that $50 million is considered low budget, for a movie like Deadpool. So i understand his point about living in Bel Air in the 70's.

On the other hand, there are a ton of $100 million+ CGI shit fests that do horrible - in America, atleast. China is a big emerging market and is changing the international box office landscape.

 

[Law Talkin’ Guy]

If I had to guess I'd say his income would be $150,000 - $250,000 per film, but that won't go far in LA (assuming he lives there) nor will it go far if you only make a movie every two years.

 

[JosephDredd]

I just found this article yesterday and I thought it was pretty interesting:

http://www.vulture.com/2017/04/lost-city-of-z-and-the-decline-of-middle-class-films.html

Most of you probably don't recognize the name James Gray, but he's the director of the recent film The Lost City of Z and he also has directed some fairly high-profile films in the past, such as The Yards with Mark Wahlberg and We Own the Night and Two Lovers with Joaquin Phoenix.

Those are all at least somewhat well-known movies with big name actors. So considering that, this excerpt from the article surprised me:



That makes me wonder just how much money he's making per picture. Considering the talent involved, you would think each movie would be a good payday for him.

But more to the point, is the people's penchant for big summer blockbusters destroying the viability of filmmakers working on smaller pictures? Have we reached a point--or perhaps I should say, has the public pushed the movie industry to the point--to where if you're not making a $100+ million CGI shitfest then you can just forget about your movie actually making any money?

The movie industry has worked like this for decades: most movies don't turn a profit and companies rely on the massive blockbusters each summer.

I would like to learn more about how he's saying Marvel turned this paradigm even further.

 

[CoolB]

My guess is he is struggling because of his lifestyle. I'm not being a dick and assuming he's wasting his money but he probably has a lifestyle he wants to live and can't afford that.

 

[Organic Damage]

While I'm sensible to this guy's complaints, how can he expect to live in Hollywood making a low budget movie every few years and expect to earn enough for a comforable living?

That must have been true even before Marvel turned profitable blockbusters into an assembly-line process.

That's why they're passion projects -- you don't make them to get rich.

 

[Guestx]

It just takes more finesse to get that lower budget movie to make bank. There's always that Paranormal Activity (15k budget, 193M box office) that comes around and destroys expectations. Movies like The Purge, Slumdog Millionaire, Little Miss Sunshine, even the King's Speech were lower budget films that made hundreds of millions at the box office, and won many awards.

I kind of feel like horror is, and seemingly always will be, a special case. The genre has a long history of producing low budget films that make bank at the box office. Look at something like Ouija from a couple of years ago. It had a $5 million budget and made over $100 million. Shayamalan's The Visit was almost identical, with a $5 million budget and just under $100 million in box office receipts.

Little Miss Sunshine is a good example, but I also can't point to very many of those at all. I mean, how many films like that can you name?

Inflation is a bitch though, and affects everything. What was once "lower budget" and "big box office" in the 70s, 80s and even 90's is now completely inflated to the point that $50 million is considered low budget, for a movie like Deadpool. So i understand his point about living in Bel Air in the 70's

I think there may have been even more to the Bel Air in the 70s comment. The 70s were the era of emerging auteurs like Scorsese, Spielberg, Lucas, De Palma, etc. So I believe he's also saying that if he could've gotten started during that same era, he would've ultimately been more successful financially and his movies would've gotten more attention.

On the other hand, there are a ton of $100 million+ CGI shit fests that do horrible - in America, atleast. China is a big emerging market and is changing the international box office landscape.

There are. But I have to tell you, I've talked to a LOT of people who have said to me that since they now have 50"+ TVs and easy access to movies both old and new, they are not making nearly as many trips to the theater as they did a decade ago. The phrase "that's not one I feel like I need to see in the theater" is repeated frequently, and what that means is, "I don't see how this film is really going to benefit from the big screen and surround sound." So they just wait to watch it in the comfort of their own home (often pirating it when they do).

 

[Guestx]

If I had to guess I'd say his income would be $150,000 - $250,000 per film, but that won't go far in LA (assuming he lives there) nor will it go far if you only make a movie every two years.

Out of curiosity, are you basing that estimate on anything?

 

[Guestx]

The movie industry has worked like this for decades: most movies don't turn a profit and companies rely on the massive blockbusters each summer.

I would like to learn more about how he's saying Marvel turned this paradigm even further.

To reiterate something I just said a couple of posts above, I think more and more people now are staying home to watch things that don't take advantage of the big screen and surround sound at the theater, especially now that movies are on home video within just a few months of hitting the theater. I know I've done this and I've talked to other people who have done the same.

We're no longer living in the age of the average TV being 25" and standard definition. We have these big HD monsters that turn our living rooms almost into a home theater unto itself.

So I think it's becoming more and more common for people to see a trailer for a small drama and just go, "I think I can wait to watch that one at home."

 

[Guestx]

My guess is he is struggling because of his lifestyle. I'm not being a dick and assuming he's wasting his money but he probably has a lifestyle he wants to live and can't afford that.

I was wondering about that too, actually. The part about having to live in an apartment is kind of shocking. He can't afford a house . . . where?

We should pressure him to release his financial statements.

 

[CoolB]

I was wondering about that too, actually. The part about having to live in an apartment is kind of shocking. He can't afford a house . . . where?

We should pressure him to release his financial statements.

Good point. I read right through the part of living in an apartment.

Question though, does it look like this;

or like this;

 

[Guestx]

While I'm sensible to this guy's complaints, how can he expect to live in Hollywood making a low budget movie every few years and expect to earn enough for a comforable living?

That must have been true even before Marvel turned profitable blockbusters into an assembly-line process.

That's why they're passion projects -- you don't make them to get rich.

Well the benefit of making a low-budget picture is that even a modest return should yield a decent profit. I mean, if the movie only cost $5 million to make then it doesn't need to make Captain America money to do well. So it should all even out, but that only works when people actually spend their money for a ticket.

In any case, I think that Lost City of Z feels like a fairly big adventure film and it really should be doing better in the theater than it is.

 

[Hitmandn]

What he is saying is basically true. The vast majority of movies fall into two categories: The Big Blockbuster movies or the small independent films. There's really no movies being made that have say like a $70-80 million budget. Steven Soderbergh is a good example of a middle class director. He had to go to TV because it was hard to get financing to make his kind of movies he wants to do.

 

[TrippleOG]

Sick of superhero garbage.

 

[JosephDredd]

To reiterate something I just said a couple of posts above, I think more and more people now are staying home to watch things that don't take advantage of the big screen and surround sound at the theater, especially now that movies are on home video within just a few months of hitting the theater. I know I've done this and I've talked to other people who have done the same.

We're no longer living in the age of the average TV being 25" and standard definition. We have these big HD monsters that turn our living rooms almost into a home theater unto itself.

So I think it's becoming more and more common for people to see a trailer for a small drama and just go, "I think I can wait to watch that one at home."

I think you're right, but I don't know how that would apply to Marvel. I'm not sure what this guy meant.

I also don't understand how he's scraping by, barely making ends meet. It must be the context that he's living in one fuck-ass expensive neighbourhood in one fuck-ass expensive city and has made more money than the vast majority of Americans.

 

[Guestx]

Sick of superhero garbage.

I'm starting to openly revolt.

I only go see a superhero movie if it's something I REALLY want to check out (which is a minority of them) and I avoid ALL the TV shit like Gotham, Agents of SHIELD, all the Netflix stuff, etc.

 

[TrippleOG]

I'm starting to openly revolt.

I only go see a superhero movie if it's something I REALLY want to check out (which is a minority of them) and I avoid ALL the TV shit like Gotham, Agents of SHIELD, all the Netflix stuff, etc.

It's just becoming way too cheesy , like characters for kids. We want deep and dark.

 

[Tamriel Terror]

I do agree with him that its massive blockbusters (star wars, superhero movies, fast and furious, animated movies, etc. movies that costs 100s of millions quite often that are killing it right now), then there are the smaller budget movies that seem to squeak by. Its gotta be tough for directors that aren't working on the blockbuster films.

@shadow_priest_x hit another point, most people have great tvs at home and wont go out unless its a blockbuster movie (I'm the same way). If i seee star wars is coming out? Hell yes I'll go see it, but if its a small/mid tier budget movie that isn't a well known franchise? Ill probably wait till it hits netflix or can rent it cheap.