Fall of Hollywood and its stars

Press, Volume CX, Issue 32406, 19 September 1970, Page 13

Fall of Hollywood and its stars

(From

DON RISEBOROUGH

in New York)

Sad to say 1 , the glittering lotus-land Hollywood that churned out multi - million dollar blockbusters with casts of thousands, is dead. So too, is the million dollar star-system. The reason is simple: Hollywood is up to its ears in debt. Last year five studios lost a combined total of $llO million, the worst year in movie history. M-G-M, historically the greatest of the studios, lost $35.4 million alone. As a result, this year the studio auctioned off the splendour that helped make it—from Clark Gable’s raincoat to Judy Garland’s ruby slippers from “The Wizard of Oz” and Charlton Heston’s chariot from “Ben Hur.” Half out of work More than half the people normally employed by the industry approximately 14,000 are unemployed. Hardly anyone is filming anything —at the studios, which are selling off pieces of their property. When I visited Hollywood earlier this year and wanted to go over the Paramount studios I was told: “There’s nothing in production. There’s not even anyone here to show you over the dead lots.” So there it is. The glamourglossed Hollywood that has been celebrating itself for 50 years is a thing of the past. And yet, there is one shining exception: Disney. Walt Disney productions is the only film company today free of debt. In July, the company announced that its after tax net income for nine months had leaped 40 per cent to $13.5 million. Gross income jumped from $9O million to almost $ll3 million in the same period. Somebody at Disney productions must be doing something right. It’s as simple as this: Disney is still making films rated G—for general audiences. As Card Walker, the dynamic executive vice-president explained it: “We’re just trying to run the shop the way Walt set it up.” The ebullient Walt Disney died almost four years ago, and at the time evetyone predicted that the Disney empire would collapse without his tight reigning hand. “We never got flamboyant," Walker added. “We never went overboard with our salaries, and we’ve always kept a close eye on costs though we’re not afraid to splurge where the expense seems warranted.” Family trade Disney has never paid more than $lOO,OOO for a star. And no-one has ever received a percentage of any Disney film. Other studios, naturally, are envious of the family business that Disney successfully caters to. “Disney has built up the family trade over a period of 40 years,” complained one head of another studio. “There is a vast audience out there, eager to find movies the whole family can see. No-one has been able to

tap that audience except Disney. "Parents know when they see the Disney name above a film they’re not afraid to send their children to it. And the parents might have an enjoyable time by going along.” That’s probably why the most successful top grossing film of 1969 was not a “skin” flick or an "Easy Rider,”' or another "Midnight Cowboy.” It was Disney’s “The Love Bug," starring a lovable Volkswagen. It is expected to bring in about $2B million in rentals. “Jungle Book” was the most successful of all cartoon features in its first run, amassing a staggering $24 million. Disney can also fall back on some of the live-action features such as “Swiss Family Robinson” and “Old Yeller” to take in more money on re-runs. As an example, "Sleeping Beauty,” which made $4.6 million on its first release, chalked up a healthy $3.3 million on its second run. It’s not likely that Disney productions will break out of its family mould and release a film that isn’t rated G. "I hope hot,” said Walker emphatically. “I think we would be betraying our audiences if we did.” Economy plans And the rest of Hollywood studios are not rushing to make family pictures. But being on an economy campaign they are trying to bring out films that the family might go to for less than the incredible millions of dollars films used to cost. Some of the studios have already placed a two-million-dollar ceiling for each picture in future. And this is what films used to cost: $22 million for “Hello, Dolly,” $2l million for “Darling Life,” $2O million for “Paint Your Waggon,” $17.5 million for “Sweet Charity,” $l5 million for “On a Clear Day You Can See Forever,” $l4 million for “Star,” and $9 million for "The Molly Maguires.” ' Realistically, Paramount’s entire 1971 production programme has been set at $25 million about what its recently successful “Catch 22” cost. Hollywood saw the road films were taking when “The Graduate” burst up on the scene several years ago. Made for a mere $3 million, it has become the third highest grosser ($43 million to date) in history. For his performance, unknown Dustin Hoffman was paid a miserable $20,000. “Easy Rider” was made on the “starvation” budget of $400,000, and so far has grossed $lO million.”

Salary cuts “Goodbye, Columbus” was produced for $1 million, and has raked in $9 million so far'and “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid” produced for $6 million (which opened early this year) has so far brought in about $9 million. And with money as tight as it is, no studio is sticking its chin out and doling out $1 million to a star—no matter who they are. “I don’t know of any star who’s worth $1 million,” says a producer, Arthur Jacobs, of “Planet of the Apes” fame.

“They should be on a percentage basis. Nobody’s paying Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton a million anymore. “I still believe- in the star system, but no star is a guaranteed box office attraction. “Charlton Heston was smart in his deal with me. He took only $25,000 against a percentage of the gross. “It paid off. He will end up with $2 million on ‘Planet of the Apes’.” Besides Taylor and Burton,

Marlon Brando, Rock Hudson, Frank Sinatra, Shirley Maclaine, Rex Harrison, Burt Lancaster, Julie Andrews, Jack Lemmon—just to name a few who used to demand $1 million plus a percentage and an expense account—are today unwanted at any price. "I will never pay a million dollars to any star,” said the successful producer, Ross Hunter. “I came close to paying that much for Julie Andrews for ‘Thoroughly Modem Millie’ and Burt Lancaster in ‘Airport.’ "They are now going to gamble with the rest of us, or we’ll make new stars. "Deborah Kerr, Doris Day and Lana Turner gambled with me on profits and made fortunes.” Mike Frankovich, a former production, chief at Columbia, recalled how "Universal failed three times with Shirley Maclaine, yet still gave her $BOO,OOO plus a percentage for ‘Sweet Charity.’ ” They’re tired "Sweet Charity” failed and Shirley has not been swamped with offers. Similarly, Peter Sellers, who has commanded up to $1,000,000, got $50,000 and a small percentage for his last picture. Billy Wilder, noted for such films as “Some Like It Hot,” “Witness for the Prosecution,” “The Apartment,” and “The Seven Year Itch,” says of the present trend: “In today’s market, familiar star-faces keep audiences away. They know what’s coming from these people. “They’re tied of the same old characterisation. The element of expectation has died. “Today’s audience no longer cares about spectaculars or production values. « Nobody in Kansas City says ‘Let’s go to see such and such a film; it has a cast of thousands and it cost $2O million.’ “They couldn’t care less. “What counts most in films today is quality. If you can’t make a film of quality, forget it.” As Gregory Peck, president of the Motion Pictures Academy (and also said to have been a million-dollar star said recently: “I think it’s time for a change. We’re dealing with a factual situation. So many big pictures have failed it has crippled the studios. “As an economic reality, actors must go in with more reasonable money up front and a percentage.” Hollywood today, as one columnist described it, is a disaster area—a sad community rife with failure, depression, near despair and bewilderment. It will never again be the same. Neither will its stars. Interpreting Inca ‘symbols Contrary to the long-held belief that the Incas were the only civilised nation not to have its own writing system, the German ethnologist. Dr Thomas Barthel, has now come to the conclusion that the first inhabitants of Peru did have such a system. A colleague from Peru sent the German specialist for deciphering old writings— Barthel deciphered the Easter Islands writing and worked on the interpretation of the Maya writing—all the documents that he had collected are to prove that the geometric ornaments (tocapus) on the clothes and drinking sacrifice containers (keros) of the Incas contained information.

Barthel examined 150 keros and 20 pieces of material for two years. Keros with picture representations and tocapus offered the first pointers; he found connections in content. Today, Barthel believes that he can interpret 50 out of some 400 figures and can read 24 of them.