A big debate that’s been raging as we cast up FRENCH FILM has been “How much do names matter in low budget film anyway?”
The typical studio approach to casting goes like this - movies need stars to get audiences, without stars, you can’t get press or attention on posters. In short your movie won’t open…
So if you can’t get proper stars, then get minor stars. If you can’t get minor stars, get recognisable actors, if you can’t get recognisable actors, get somone out of Big Brother or at least someone related to somone who used was in Big Brother.. And so on…
This can be very frustrating for writers and directors and actors who, understandably, just want to cast (or be cast as) the best actor for the job, regardless of fame. And indeed, how many movies have been spoilt by a bad or inappropriate piece of casting.
(One personal bug bear of this type of miscasting: Keanu Reeve’s casting in Ken Brannagh’s Much Ado About Nothing, a cynical, studio enforced decision which was the one false note in an otherwise perfect film)
Surely, the cry goes, getting the right performance will make it a better film, and that will get it good reviews, and that will find its audience.
Certainly, its true that plenty of movies with unknowns in them, end up making lots of money: Full Monty, Bend it Like Beckham, Whale Rider, Blair Witch, Brothers McMullen. Just to name a random selection (and yes, plenty of the people in those movies are now famous - but they became famous because of those breakthrough movies, they movies didn’t break through because they had famous stars…)
Its equally true that cast alone can’t save a turkey. Just ask the cast of The Da Vinci Code; indeed, the question came up at a panel discussion that I was moderating recently, and my friend Todd Huntley, VP of Theatrical Marketing for 20th Century Fox, quoted some recent research that suggested that about the only current star who can open any movie in any territory is Will Smith (hell, he’s even big in Japan)
So does that mean, that if we can’t get Will Smith, we should all feel comfortable casting the best person for the job and to hell if Joe Public could pick them out of a line-up?
If only, if only… The truth about that decision, like every decision in this business, is that its a complex one. The above two extreme scenarios (great movie with unknowns = hit; rubbish movie with stars = flop) are the least likely of all possible outcomes, accounting for at best 20% of all movies. Sure they are the ones that people cite in the argument, in part because they are memorable (the availability heuristic) and in part because it is always more fun to argue using extreme cases.
But they are rare. Most movies, the remaining 80%, are neither great nor awful. they sit someone between them on the curve. And in that grey area where most movies sit, that is where differentiation matters. Choosing between two average films, audiences will choose the one with famous people in it. That’s the terrible truth. But its true. For every Blair Witch Project, there are a thousand horror movies with unknown casts that disappeared into the video discount bin. Ditto Brother’s McMullen and no-cast Romantic Comedy’s, and ditto Full Monty and ensemble struggle tales. We can’t cite those examples, because none of us ever saw them.
And for every flop with stars, there are a dozen average films with stars that do good to great at the Box Office. These we can probably name: any Bruce Willis, Eddie Murphy, Steven Segal, Steve Martin, or John Travolta flick of the last 5 years.
And in that grey area, of the average film, lie the tension between the casting decisions that money men want to make and that creatives want to make. Because creatives believe - and have to believe that it will be great. That it will be excuted perfectly - and good creatives know, that the odds of perfect execution improve if decisions are made based on integrity to the story - i.e. the best person for the job, regardless of fame.
But financiers, can’t be that hopeful. Financiers have to assume that the team won’t execute perfectly. Because no matter how talented, most of the time, most people don’t. No one every sets out to make a bad film - or even an average one - but that’s where most of it ends up.
So financiers want ‘name’ casting for insurance purposes - for the situation where the film is average, because then the name means that some sales at least are guaranteed. With a few names, you can secure your TV sales, your DVD numbers, your average box office. In short you can make back your money without having to count on perfection.
And in that tension, between the financiers needs for insurance, and the creatives desire for perfect execution is potential for a vicious circle. Because casting the wrong person for the job INCREASES the odds that the film won’t be excellent but only average, thus making the whole thing a self fulfilling prophecy.
But of course casting the best person for the job doesn’t guarantee perfect execution, how could it, its just one factor amongst many: the script, the director, the crew, random chance, the alchemy between elements - in short it depends on the movie gods.
The job of the producer, of course, in this as in everything, is balancing between these tensions. Because the producer has to simultaneously believe that the film will turn out excellent and guard against it turning out average or worse. That is his dual responsibility to talent on the one hand and money on the other. Stressed yet? Welcome to my world.
