MCN Blogs
Ray Pride

By Ray Pride Pride@moviecitynews.com

Kenneth Branagh: Charity case?

Kenneth Branagh‘s adaptation of Mozart’s The Magic Flute, writes Variety’s Adam Dawtrey, was not greenlit with the expectation that Mr. Branagh’s work could make a profit. “You might think a $27 million movie of [it], updated to the First World War, wouldn’t stand much chance of making a profit… The producers… want to make absolutely certain it doesn’t… The Mozart movie, conceived and directed by Kenneth Branagh with a libretto by Stephen Fry, is being bankrolled by a grant from the Peter Moores Foundation. As a charity, it’s not allowed to make profits.” But Producers-like, did they examine Branagh’s filmmography and find a history of failure? Dawtrey jokes that possibility away in his opening graf.
KBBM3m.jpg
Deeper in, he explains, “The film has been set up to ensure that any upside flows to the distributors, rather than to the foundation… Sales agent Celluloid Dreams is offering buyers an unusual deal—the better the film performs, the bigger their share of the backend. Once the distrib recoups its minimum guarantee and [other] costs, overages are initially split 50/50 with the production company, rising to 90/10 in favor of the distrib. “In my 20 years of experience as a producer, it’s the first time I’ve seen a film financed that way,” says the pic’s French producer Pierre-Olivier Bardet. In this way, the foundation hopes to recoup some of the production cost without actually slipping into the black.” $25 million of the budget comes comes from the Littlewoods retail and gambling concern, and “the charitable intent of Sir Peter Moores, the 73-year-old Liverpool-based patron of the arts… is to bring opera to the masses. Over the years, his foundation has funded roughly 50 recordings of operas in English.”

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments are closed.

Movie City Indie

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon