You will be redirected back to your article in seconds

Playing the Casting Game: Finding the Next Jennifer Lawrence or Raising the Money to Hire Her

Playing the Casting Game: Finding the Next Jennifer Lawrence or Raising the Money to Hire Her

Slated Editorial Director Colin Brown is back with another essay in his series on packaging films.  This one’s a two-parter about casting.  Below is the first part, which serves an introduction to the Catch-22 faced by all indie producers:  the choice between casting a star without the budget to hire them or raising any money for a film that has no bankable stars.  You can check out Colin’s writing on the filmonomics blog, and you can see this post in its original format here.

“More than 90% of directing a picture is the right casting,” suggests Martin Scorsese in the revelatory documentary “Casting By.
Producers might well reach a similar assessment for financing a picture
as well since actors remain by far the most enticing lures to potential
investors. But settling on just who might be “right” for that picture
is another matter entirely – and a source of constant tension as
filmmakers struggle to reconcile the urgent needs of the story with the
erratic tastes of the global marketplace and its appointed gatekeepers.

Casting is rarely a sequential, yes-or-no decision-making process that involves working your way down a long list of actors who have been somehow calibrated according to their creative merits and box office bankability.
That would be too easy. Unless your director’s name happens to be
Scorsese, more than 90% of the time will be spent casting out again and
again into an ocean of uncertainty and inconsistency not knowing which
way the winds will blow. You need good hooks as well as good fortune to
fish in those waters, the tenacity to keep going, an unwavering hand and
eye to thread that needle, and the improvisational skills to react to
what’s constantly changing around you. Not unlike acting itself.

Few career stories capture the anomalies of casting quite so vividly as that of Jennifer Lawrence, the untrained Kentucky-born actress who at 23 is already an Oscar winner and a global box office draw with Hollywood “A-list” credentials confirmed by the fact that she has her own tabloid abbreviation. If tracking reports are correct, J-Law is now three weeks away from enjoying one of the biggest opening weekends for a film release ever. But read the back-story behind her breakthrough role in Winter’s Bone” and
you realize that Lawrence’s rapid ascendancy owes as much to a failure
of the classic independent financing model as it does to her natural
charisma and innate ability.

When producer Alix Madigan first tried to package what was originally
a $4 million book adaptation, the two dozen financiers that were
initially approached gave pretty much the same response: cast the movie
and then we’ll talk. Madigan had teamed up with the same writing duo
that had put actress Vera Farmiga
on the map with “Down to the Bone,” and yet they could not muster the
right level of actor to satisfy the money. There was one investor,
however, who believed enough in the story’s potential to offer up $2
million in equity. Realizing they would be better off abandoning the
well-worn indie strategy of chasing “name” attachments, the filmmakers
changed tack. They slashed the budget in half and chose creative
autonomy over compromised storytelling. Working with casting directors Paul Schnee and Kerry Barden,
mostly unknown actors were chosen that felt as if they truly belonged
amid the poverty-stricken hills of the Ozarks, rather than on industry
wish-lists of thespians that move the needle. A blazing new star was
born.

Well, almost. Even though “Winter’s Bone” would win the
Sundance Grand Jury Prize in 2010 and Lawrence’s performance in that
film would collect best acting nominations for the Academy Awards, the
Golden Globes, the Independent Spirits and the Screen Actors Guild
Awards, it took a while for the industry to latch on to this new
supernova to the point where projects could find backing on the strength
of her involvement alone. “Before THE HUNGER GAMES, I had Jennifer
Lawrence give the best reading for parts on two movies I was casting but
getting her approved by the studio was impossible,” recalled producer Gavin Polone last year. “Now every studio is throwing money at her to get her into whatever they have.”

This infuriating lag between discovering and capitalizing on new
talent will be only too familiar to those who have tried to raise money
from overseas sources. At an informative SXSW festival panel discussion
last year, Troublemaker Studios’ Aaron Kaufman suggested that the
international market is “five years behind” in terms of
validating new talents. That cinematic time-warp means that Jean-Claude
Van Damme – still huge in Eastern Europe, apparently – can remain
meaningful, as are Milla Jovovich and Kate Beckinsale based on the
lingering popularity of their “Resident Evil” and “Underworld” franchises. “There has been a law that Jason Statham has to be in every film,” joked Kaufman, “but that laziness has not produced great films.”

Quality considerations aside, such eccentricities matter when you are
trying to raise foreign pre-sales. This is the business of attracting
advance guarantees from territorial distributors around the world for
projects while still in their development and production phases. Much as
international distributors would prefer to license finished films, the
competitive nature of the film market means there will always be those
who look to steal an early march on prize projects by pre-buying or
co-producing them at heavily discounted prices.

What do these opportunists look for? While directors and the rest of
the filmmaking team certainly factor into their pre-sales calculus, so
much of that advance buying hinges on the yin-yang combination of story
concept and above-the-title actors. Producers complain that this puts an
inordinately high premium on known commodities – that mythical
master-list of superstars in sure-fire vehicles. “You’re always
looking for an actor who is about to break. But the foreign sales people
say: ‘come back when they’re already a star’”, lamented Garrick Dion, development chief at Bold Films, speaking at that same SXSW panel. “My dream cast means nothing to the foreign sales agents.”

Worse, there is remarkably little consensus at the point-of-sale
about which names are blowing hot, cold or tepid at any given moment.
The film-watching planet might be warming as a whole, but few can agree
on the current temperatures even at a localized, micro-climate level.

“The challenge with packaging is that it seems like every foreign
sales company has its own take on who/what will work, so there’s not a
lot of consistency,” Peggy Rajski, the noted producer-director, tells us. “And
it’s reactive by nature; you see what the precedent was and base your
future projections on that so it’s not going to be particularly
forgiving or generous with upcoming talent. I think it’s very
hard for up-and-coming indie filmmakers to get pre-sales without name
talent, and it’s hard to get name talent to work with unknown directors.
All I can say is that it’s a dance.”

When the The Hollywood Reporter asked international buyers and sellers recently which names sell overseas,
the resulting list was an interesting mix of usual suspects, aging
stalwarts, a few surprises and some fresh, predominantly male, faces
with foreign appeal and American, British and Australian accents:
Michael Fassbender, Ryan Gosling, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Joel Edgerton,
Benedict Cumberbatch, Liam Hemsworth, Tom Hardy, Jeremy Renner and Zac
Efron. In its entirety, that’s a list of only 21 names that are
considered international gold – hardly encouragement for the many
thousands of film projects that are being put together each year. And even those 24-carat talents come with caveats. “The trouble with Japan,” says IM Global chief
Stuart Ford of a territory that once worshipped Hollywood stars, “is
they don’t like anybody anymore.” Who can blame them when a Ridley Scott
film featuring Michael Fassbender alongside Brad Pitt, Cameron Diaz,
Penelope Cruz and Javier Barden has trouble catching fire at the U.S.
box office. On paper, a $25 million thriller with that cast ought to
clean up – and it might still on VOD and overseas – but to date “The Counselor” is just another stinging reminder of the market’s confounding
fickleness.

So what’s the answer, especially for indie producers who don’t have
the means or resources to lock down a marquee name with a pay-or-play
deal that guarantees them a hefty salary whether the film ends up
getting made or not? The trick, it seems, is blending exciting new names
with those that are a little more familiar. Part II of this filmonomics
post will look at the various tactics that are used to reel in such
talents including treating bigger stars as investors in the film. But
the good news is that even with the next generation actors on the cusp
of recognition, that window between breakout and payout has been
narrowing of late thanks to the global popularity of lavishly produced
TV dramas. The critical contribution of international markets in
Hollywood’s greenlighting arithmetic also means that more and more
non-American actors, for whom English is not necessarily their first
language, are gaining visibility from supporting roles in high-profile
studio productions. And horror’s recent popularity too has proven a
low-risk springboard for resuscitating names like Ethan Hawke and also
serving up entirely new ones on their chopping boards.

Compare the casts of the films listed on Slated with
so many of the recent compilations of Hot New Stars put out on
news-stands by both business and consumer magazine titles and you will
see they share the names of numerous rising actors whose career
trajectories have been fast-tracked this way. Nikolaj Coster-Waldau, Kit Harington and Hannah Murray
were all in “Game of Thrones,” which has a rabid following and high
visibility in territories such as the UK (where the series is partially
shot). Stephen Moyer is the star of another HBO hit series, “True Blood.” Betsy Brandt is known from “Breaking Bad” and was one of the many actors, including Matt Bomer, who made a splash with “Magic Mike.” Shiloh Fernandez starred in this year’s successful reboot of “The Evil Dead.” Mireille Enos,
who headlined the American remake of the hit international series “The Killing,” was cast as Brad Pitt’s wife in “World War Z.” Both Ukraine’s Olga Kurylenko and France’s Bérénice Marlohe were Bond girls. Sweden’s Alicia Vikander caught the industry’s attention with key roles in “A Royal Affair” and “Anna Karenina.” Australia’s Emily Browning is about to get her big Hollywood break in the $100m Roman epic “Pompeii,” starring opposite Kit Harington. And the list goes on.

The reason such names are important is that you never know who will
be the next Channing Tatum, particularly in a business that revolves
around anomalies. For the record, such uncertainties and incongruities
are not endemic to cinema alone. Just recently, the Royal Swedish
Academy of Sciences saw fit to award this year’s Nobel Prize for
Economics to three academics with sharply divergent views of how
financial markets operate. One of them, Eugene Fama, believes in the
efficiency of free markets to determine the right value of assets on the
grounds that stock and bond prices immediately adjust to all available
information. Another, Robert Shiller, has tried to show how markets can
be subject to extraordinary popular delusions and the madness of crowds.
In what serves as a perfect coda for how the film industry also works
when valuing its acting assets, Nobel’s prize committee defended those
choices by declaring that, together, this year’s winners showed that
markets were moved by a mix of both rational calculus and irrational behavior. It’s the kind of mind-bending paradox that actors themselves might appreciate. As George Burns once noted: “acting is all about honesty. If you can fake that, you’ve got it made.”

This Article is related to: Filmmaker Toolkit and tagged ,


Comments

cam

Interesting article. History has long shown that audiences don't care about star power though, they care more about whether a movie is good or not, and they have a lot more access to reviews and word of mouth due to the internet than they did before. "J-Law" has been in a few box office bombs herself, even after "Hunger Games" and "X-Men" came out; name any "big star" and 'currently hot' actor and they're also likely to have been in a recent box office bomb (Cumberbatch, everyone from 'The Counsler" Harrison Ford, etc.). Yes, a lot of 'big names' are also in blockbusters, but like this article points out, that's more to due with them having leverage to work with the best scripts/directors/biggest budgets/studio support, than their 'star power'.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *