Wise Guys: Are Mob Movies Finally Making a Comeback?

What happened to the gangster film? Is it me or are mob movies not what they used to be anymore? It seems as though throughout my entire childhood I was raised on some of the best films, let alone mob movies, ever. From 1990 to 2000, Hollywood saw an extreme surplus of this genre starting with Martin Scorsese’s Goodfellas in 1990, and ending with Analyze This in 1999. In between, we saw amazing films such as Reservoir Dogs in 1992, A Bronx Tale in 1993, Pulp Fiction in 1994, The Usual Suspects in 1995, Fargo in 1996, Donnie Brasco in 1997, and Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels in 1998. Along with many other films such as Jackie Brown, Dick Tracy, and Carlito’s Way, it seemed as though every year in the 1990’s, audiences were blessed with at least one amazing gangster film. With the exception of The Departed, which won Best Picture in 2006, and few others, audiences have not seen many gangster films since 2000. As 2008 comes to a close, and with one more year left in the decade, it appears as though the 2000’s will not be known for its gangster films. However, after some research, I believe the 2010’s could potentially be the decade mob movies come back in full force.

Recently, producers Michael Shamberg and Stacey Sher have acquired the rights to a book written by Joaquin “Jack” Garcia, the title character to the film Making Jack Falcone, which will be produced by Paramount Pictures. The film follows Jack Garcia, a Cuban-American FBI agent who went undercover and infiltrated the Gambino crime family, coming within weeks of being a made man. Steven Soderbergh is set to direct, and he will be working again with a great writer named Peter Buchman, who wrote Soderbergh’s latest project, Che. Buchman was quoted saying that Falcone will be “a perfect vehicle for an actor with shape shifting tendencies; this is a mob man, after all, who moved fluidly not only between scenes but ethnicities.” The Hollywood Reporter also notes, “Paramount has several mob and undercover projects in development, including an undercover prison tale to be penned by William Monahan.” One of these “several” projects includes I Heard You Paint Houses, which be helmed by the master of the modern gangster film, Martin Scorsese, and will star Robert De Niro. This film will mark Scorsese and De Niro’s first partnership in a gangster film since Casino. The film is an adaptation, based on the book of the same name about infamous hitman Frank “the Irishman” Sheeran, who “is reputed to have carried out more than 25 mob murders”, including the death of the Teamster boss Jimmy Hoffa. Steve Zaillian, who is responsible for mob movies such as American Gangster and Gangs of New York, will write the film. I believe that if I Heard You Paint Houses and Making Jack Falcone are successful, which they probably will be, they will be the catalyst that brings back the gangster genre. However, the increase in mob films will not be caused only by audience demand.

In my first post, “2009 Oscars: Why They’re Going to be ‘Revolutionary’”, I briefly discussed what was known as “response films” of the 1930s, which were made as a “response” to something awful in America, most notably The Great Depression. As it so happens, most of these films were gangster films. The 1930’s saw a surplus of gangster films such as Little Caesar in 1930, The Public Enemy in 1931, Scarface: The Shame of a Nation in 1932, and The Testament of Dr. Mabuse in 1933. I believe one of the reasons Hollywood is about to see more and more gangster films is because Hollywood is finally “responding” to the chaos that has amassed in the last eight years. Films have always been a commentary on American lifestyle, capitalism, and the current establishment. However, when the economic or social climate becomes abysmal, particular films are made to distract audiences from their current woes, especially gangster films. Now, one may of course question the validity of this theory, stating that the surplus of gangster or mob films of the 1990s as well as the 1970s (The Godfather, Serpico, Get Carter) were not in response to anything in particular. I happen to agree. The reason audiences saw so many gangster films in the 1970s and 1990s were because these were both decades in which all genres, not just the gangster film, were reinvented. The 1970s marked the beginning of modern films, and the 1990s marked the beginning of what film historians call post-modernism. However, in the upcoming years, the gangster genre, and all other genres, will not be reinvented, and 2010 will not mark a new era in film history. It is this reason that leads me to believe even more that the upcoming increase in gangster films will be because they are in response to the economic and political turmoil that America is currently facing. Audiences simply prefer it, and Hollywood subconsciously responds. Of course, it will be impossible to tell if this theory is true until the next decade comes to a close. However, after Making Jack Falcone and I Heard You Paint Houses are released, I recommend you keep an eye on the gangster films that are being picked up by studios and production companies alike. It’s time for the gangster to make a comeback in Hollywood, and that time is coming incredibly soon.

Cut The Fat: How Hollywood is Adjusting to the Recent Economy

Two posts ago, I talked briefly about the current state of Hollywood in the midst of the economic crisis that we are in, but focused primarily on the split between Paramount Pictures and DreamWorks SKG. This week, I have decided to focus on the larger economic affects on Hollywood, and how the entertainment industry is being shaken up in every sector, from major studios to independent film festivals. As stocks and quarterly figures alike continue to fall, companies are making serious changes in order to counter their projected losses. Jeff Zucker, CEO of NBC Universal (seen right), has decided to cut $500 million from next year’s budget, despite profits in its last eight consecutive quarters. The figure will constitute a total of three percent of operating expenses for 2009, and the major cuts will be in three areas: discretionary spending, promotion expenses, and staffing. Zucker was quoted in a memo stating to his workforce, “We are living in a time of unprecedented economic challenges, and it is increasingly clear that the worldwide economic slowdown will continue into next year.” I agree wholeheartedly with Zucker’s quote, and believe that most of the recent cutbacks in the entertainment industry are due to the grim projections of 2009. In addition, it seems that the cutbacks most companies are making are primarily in the number of projects being produced, especially in the independent film market, and the advertising and marketing campaigns of new or current projects. I believe it is in the best interest of studios and production companies alike to cut the fat on extraneous endeavors and projects for the next few years, and focus on the tent-poles that will bring in enough revenue to sustain these companies through this rough period. Unfortunately, other aspects of the industry may not be so fortunate.

In the past month, several major independent film distributors and production houses have been completely shut down by their parent companies. Warner Brothers eliminated two of their independent, albeit successful production companies, Warner Independent and Picturehouse. Paramount Pictures absorbed most of its staff at its specialty division, Paramount Vantage, as well as terminating fifty of its employees. These businesses were not extraneous ventures started by the studios during some boom, producing small films no one had heard of. For example, Paramount Vantage was responsible for, among many other noteworthy titles, There Will Be Blood and Into the Wild, two of this past year's nominees for Best Picture. Aside from those in the independent film sector, even big studio films that have been slated for a release date have been pushed back in the attempt of conglomerates to minimize losses for 2008. One primary example of this is Paramount’s film, The Soloist (pictured left), starring Jamie Foxx and Robert Downey Jr., which has been delayed to March of 2009, instead of its initial November 21st, 2008 release date. The decision was made because Paramount did not have the budget to support the film’s advertising and marketing campaign, which included an Oscar campaign for the Best Actor and Best Picture category. Research shows that the delays on this film alone will save Paramount $60 to $70 million in prints and advertising costs. Along with The Soloist, vice chairman of Paramount Pictures Rob Moore said last week that it was “cutting costs by reducing the number of films released each year from about 25 to 20.” While Paramount will lose the revenue of these five films, this cutback seems to be a safe, and even timely decision. Moore went on to explain that unless the split with DreamWorks was made, Paramount would have a difficult time reducing its production count to twenty films per year. The split also created the opportunity to make other potentially lucrative deals, including an agreement with Marvel Studios to distribute all four of its films that will be released through 2011. As we have seen with the success of Iron Man in both the box office and DVD sales, the distribution deal seems to be a very smart move for Paramount.

One can imagine that if these major studios and production companies are minimizing costs as much as possible, smaller film festivals around the country, including the Jackson Hole Film Festival and the Santa Barbara Film Festival, are really feeling the brunt of it all. Due to insufficient funds, these festivals have been forced to shut down. According to one studio exec, “Outside of Cannes, Berlin, Sundance, and Toronto we’ve never acquired a film at another festival. And in terms of tracking talent, anything that generates heat comes back to L.A. anyway.” It seems that without celebrity backing garnering enough publicity, many of these events are losing corporate sponsorships, which account for most of the festivals’ budgets. Not only are cutbacks being made everywhere in the film industry, but costs are also being minimized in the television world across the board. NBC’s Knight Rider, ABC’s Private Practice, and FOX’s Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles have all been slated for nine more episodes apiece, despite mediocre to poor reviews and ratings. If this were last year, let alone five years ago, these shows would have been cancelled and a new show would have taken their place. However, “given the cost of producing and marketing a new scripted series,” companies like NBC Universal “might have a greater temptation to give a show like ‘Knight Rider’ more time to find an audience.”

Due to the recent economy, aside from job security, stock-market crashes, and everything else we have to worry about, audiences around the country are going to have to worry about quality of entertainment and media for the next year, as almost all mediums are minimizing their content and rate of production due to the decreasing stock value of the major conglomerates that control the output of entertainment for the majority of the country. Whether it be in film, television, or the independent arena, audiences will not be available to the maximum potential of the industry for the next year. However, this downside is the only option the industry has in a time like this, and Hollywood will bounce back when the time comes. Every industry needs to play it safe these days, and Hollywood should be no different.

Hollywood Finance: Surviving In The Midst of A Meltdown

On September 19th, DreamWorks SKG and sibling company Paramount Pictures inked finalized a negotiation ending a long, two-year partnership. Steven Spielberg (that’s where the ‘S’ comes in, in ‘SKG’) signed a deal with India-based Reliance Big Entertainment ensuring $500 million in equity, as well as securing $700 million in credit through JP Morgan to back a new, $1.2 billion film company. This new venture is just one of many recent deals in Hollywood that have guaranteed billions of dollars in financing over the next few years. But wait. One minute I’m reading about the suffering economy, and the “impending doom” and “horrible reality” that awaits me, and the next minute I’m reading about the $230 million budget for just one movie, (the upcoming 007 sequel Quantum of Solace), along an entire slew of films that have just been slated for the next couple years that will no doubt have budgets that exceed $100 million. How can this be? Where is this money coming from? After yesterday’s stock market “meltdown” as only one of the more recent events that have threatened the very possibility of a functional economy, one must wonder: If every industry in America is failing right now, how is the film industry still finding the capital it needs to not only survive, but thrive?

This week, I’ve chosen to explore the blogosphere, and comment on two separate, but related posts that explore not only the recent split between DreamWorks and Paramount, but also other financing negotiations and how today’s economy is affecting the film industry. The first article, “Surreal Separation: Why Did DreamWorks Say Bye Bye to Par?” examines the DreamWorks-Paramount split and the repercussions of that negotiation, and was written by Editor in Chief of Variety magazine, Peter Bart. The second article, “Wall Street Finance ‘Banking’ On Hollywood?” which was written by Julia Boorstin, writer for both cnbc.com and Fortune magazine. For your convenience, I have copied both of my comments below.

“Surreal Separation: Why Did DreamWorks Say Bye Bye to Par?”
Comment:
Thank you Mr. Bart for clarifying so simply the reasons for why DreamWorks and Paramount Pictures have decided to end their partnership. While many people may be confused as to why these companies would want to sever their ties, it makes complete sense that a company which has put out very successful films believes they could operate much more successfully with their own financing. I can understand your comment about DreamWorks setting up a new distribution deal with Universal, but I don’t really understand why the most likely candidate for setting up a distribution deal with DreamWorks is Universal. How did you come to that conclusion for a studio instead of a studio like MGM? Has either DreamWorks or Steven Spielberg commented on a possible distribution deal with Universal or is that merely speculation? The only other question I was left with after reading your post was ‘Who came out the victor?’ Will DreamWorks be able to sustain itself over a long-term period on its own? Will Paramount experience the reduction in overhead through losing DreamWorks like they projected? And finally, if neither party came out the victor, but this was a win-win for both parties, and both parties wanted out of their relationship, why didn’t this deal occur months and months ago? While I understand your posts are not intended to examine an issue in depth, I think some explanation on these issues would really help clarify a lot of questions that readers have.

Overall, I really enjoyed the post, and I especially like your overall conclusion about Hollywood and its role in our economy, that it really doesn’t make sense, and we shouldn’t always demand that they do, especially in the film industry. When has the film industry ever really made sense? I also agree, that no matter what happens to our country, people will always want to go to the movies. While you have no answer now, is this an issue that you see yourself re-visiting? Thank you again for your explanation.

“Wall Street Finance ‘Banking’ On Hollywood?”
Comment:
Thank you Ms. Boorstin for your article explaining the financial role in Hollywood today. While I do believe the economy is in a state of shock right now, I do also believe and agree that “the entertainment industry is having no problem securing bank-financed credit.” Your explanation of the DreamWorks-Paramount negotiations was fairly brief, and on strictly a financial based approach, which is completely understandable for cnbc.com. However, I think a little bit more financial information, or possibly future projections could help readers gain a broader scope in the issue. Which big titles over the next year or two is this deal really affecting? Now that DreamWorks is on their own per se, how many films will they be able to produce each year with their secured financing? Also, what were the financial repercussions of this deal? Were there any at all? I also think your reference to Ryan Kavanaugh’s company Relativity Media and Relativity Capital is a very good example showing the outrageous capital that is being created in Hollywood these days. However, I think if you included some of the other studios or players that Relativity will be working with, readers can get a better idea of what possible films, or where in general the billions of dollars that Relativity has generated is going to go.

Aside from your explanations of recent financial booms for Hollywood, I was especially interested by your overall theory that Hollywood is counter-cyclical. While I did somewhat agree with blogger Peter Bart in that there really is no obvious explanation to anything in Hollywood, I believe that a counter-cyclical cycle is very possible. Hollywood does seem to act differently than any other industry, throughout its existence. While we may be in the midst of a possible depression, it does amaze me to see so much advertising and marketing for new television, video games, and movies. However, I think some other reasons as to why Hollywood is counter-cyclical would really help readers understand your view. Thank you for your take on the entertainment industry and the economy.