Terry Gilliam is a talented director, and I’m really looking forward to seeing The Brothers Grimm. I also generally think that a director should have 100% authority over a picture that he (or she) is directing. After all… one ship… one captain. Too many people pulling the strings of a puppet makes a mess of things.
So when Harvey and Bob Weinstein started pulling rank on Gilliam in his new project Brothers Grimm… Terry got right pissed off (which is understandable. The good folks over at M&C give us this:
The powerful pair first ditched Gilliam’s plans to cast Samantha Morton in the lead role in favour of lesser known actress Lena Headey, and then further enraged the former Monty Python star by sacking his cinematographer Nicola Pecorini for working too slowly.
Tensions escalated to the extent that Gilliam refused to shoot for two weeks as he was so staggered by what he viewed as the Weinsteins’ constant interference.
Wow… that’s pretty intense. Now, before we (including myself) all start getting all outraged at Bob and Harvey for sticking their noses in Terry Gilliam’s business… keep this in mind. It is THEIR money that is on the line. Gilliam didn’t pay for the film… Harvey and Bob Weinstein did. So you’ve got to at least give a little leeway to some guys when it’s their money on the line. They do get to have a say. But I think they should also be VERY careful about when they do it. Directors are pretty damn territorial… and for good reason.
One only has to look at the two versions of Brazil to understand why Gillium would want the studios to just but out.
Brazil by Gillium is one of the best films ever made.
Brazil cut down to 90 minutes with a happy ending (studio version) one of the worst.
Monty Python and the Holy Grail, Time Bandits, The Meaning of Life, Brazil (I can’t say enough about this film), The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, The Fischer King, 12 Monkeys and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.
Gillium has more than proved himself as a visionary director, which is the reason the Weinstiens hired him. They should trust his vision of the film. He earned it.
Herby
Good point, James. You took the words right out of my mouth (or is it off my keyboard?). I am very much looking forward to this film, either way.
OK, I’m going to make a very large assumption here and say that neither Gilliam nor the Weinsteins are not idiots. Consequently:
1) I further assume they were familiar with Gilliam’s previous work;
2) I further assume they knew he has a particularly filmic vision;
3) I further assume they specifically hired him because of that vision (i.e. if they thought anyone could do the job and it didn’t matter who, they’d have got any old hack to do it) and that they trusted his judgement.
4) I further assume they were familiar with Gilliam’s track record of previous production problems.
5) I further assume Gilliam knew what he could be in for allowing the Weinsteins to produce his film.
To both parties all I can say is “What else did you really think would happen?”
The role of Director and Producer.
Here is what I was told by a development executive at Warner Bros. what the ideal “rule” about this should be:
The Producer is responsible for building/putting together the “sandbox” (the movie production) in which the Director is in charge of the activity that goes on in the sandbox.
The Producer should not be involved on the set, and should not be making creative decisions while on the set, for the most part. That’s the Director’s job. The Producer needs to stay out, because otherwise it confuses people on the set.
The Producer is responsible for, first and foremost, the MOVIE itself — he or she does not answer to the Director. The Producer discusses creative issues/concerns with the Director OFF THE SET, AWAY from the crew and talent.
The Producer watches over the Director, but should do so subtly and in a supportive/encouraging way.
Remember: the Producer’s role is supposed to be behind-the-scenes for the most part.
A Producer only starts taking over if the Director starts screwing up bad to the point where it jeopardizes the movie. (And remember: The Producer has to be looking out first and foremost for the movie — not the director.)
The Director’s responsibility is also first and foremost for the movie.
The fact is, every good Director has to have an equally good Producer backing him up.
In many ways, the hierarchy and responsiblities that go on within an actual film production is similar to that of a military operation.
Gilliam schizzes out too much. he’s a drama queen, and I got frustrated so many times during ‘lost in la mancha’ where he’d ruin so many opportunities to get things right because he needed a timeout, or just got uppity and walked off.
anyways, i’m an illustrator. i work with ‘art directors’ who choose illustrators/photographers, and usually play a large hand in designing the publication.. still, at the end of the day, its the editor who has final say.
likewise, in movies, i think people assume too much that the ‘director’ is the be-all end-all number one honcho of a movie. sure, its nice when producers keep their hands off, and a lot of times we get better movies because of that, but a director losing his shit because there are people who are over their head either needs to leave the studio system entirely or quit directing.
if you watch any of the making ofs Gilliam is involved with, it seems he’s way more into the production design than directing. he seems to love one thing and loathe another. maybe this should be his cue to step back some. i bet though, he’s one of those people that thinks anyone else would screw up his vision, so will put himself through his own torment to get it done. he himself is as much his own enemy as any Weinstein brother.
People are going to bitch at me for saying this: Gilliam’s movies have all been artistic genius but flawed in several little ways. It’s like EVERY ONE of his movies have had production, budget, creative and final-cut difficulties (many of his movies feel overlong, meandering, unfocused, pretentious — like an American who pretends to be English — Baron Munchausen is one unfortunate example of this), and he has worked under various studios and producers.
The Weinsteins probably decided they would have none of that if Gilliam started schizing out, so they are reigning him in, getting him to stick to schedule, budget, and the original screenplay. And they may have final say in the final cut, too.
Actually, it would not surprise me if Brothers Grimm turns out to be Gilliam’s most audience accessible, critically adored, and financially successful film, beating 12 Monkeys (the one big movie of Gilliam’s in which the producer and studio kept him on a leash).
Gilliam simply needs a trusted, and ideally creatively knowledgeable, production team who understands his strengths but recognizes his weaknesses, and who will not bend to his every fanciful whim. Lucas gets everything he wants and look at what disjointed crap his Prequels have been.
Hey Herby,
I see what you’re saying… but…
You seem to be going on the idea that directors should have untethared power over their films. That’s just not the case… EVER. (Unless you’re George Lucas and pay for your own films).
I don’t think it should ever be the case either.
I think you or I would be too. 10,000 decisions have to be made during a film. I don’t think it’s too intrusive for the guy paying the bills to veto 3 of them if they feel it’s needed.
If I hire a web desinger to rebuild The Movie Blog… then I trust them. BUT… it’s my money… and it’s my future. If I see something that the designer is doing that I think will hurt my vision or the success of my site… then I tell them to change it. That doesn’t mean I don’t trust them… but ultimatly it’s my website. The designer won’t suffer financially if the site doesn’t succeed. I will.
The same is true here. This is not Gilliam’s movie. It’s the studios movie, and Terry is hired to do a job (like a web designer or a interior designer). They left 99% of the decisions totally up to him. But, they decided to change 2 or 3 things out of 10,000 that they felt would help their movie succeed and make money. (remember, GIlliam is the movie art expert… but the studio is the movie Business experts). Can you fault them for that?
I think designers and directors shouldn’t have such frail egos that a little “direction” from the boss should be seen as such a huge deal.
Just my two cents worth.
Cheers!
Lena Headey is hot.
This is not a house, it is a fim. And Gillium makes great films.
He was hired to do a job, to direct the film. Gillium is not a monkey performing tricks. He is a film-maker and should be allowed to produce his vision. Otherwise the Wienstiens could have directed it themselves.
Gilliam has gotten pissed off during so many productions I’m beginning to question whats really ‘interference’ and whats just in his head/unbridled pretension.
dont get me wrong, I love Gilliam… a lot, but after taking so long between movies, and after watching Lost in La Mancha, I wouldn’t hire him to paint my fence, let alone make a feature, without getting involved.
he’s a genius, but he’s a crazy bitch. he eats money and time like Lays potato chips. he EASILY screws up productions, not everything has really been out of his control like he always claims.
does not play well with others.
But would you fire the decorators assistant if you thought they were doing a bad job, while the decorator seemed happy with them?
Hey T-Jax
You make a good point when you say “It’s not JUST a product… it’s also art”. That’s true. But the reverse is true as well. “It’s not JUST an art. It is a product as well”.
The movie (if you want to get litteral) is also not the directors creation. It belongs to the Studio (most of the time), who have a vision for a film and then go out and hire a director. The movie does not just become the property of the director. It’s still the studios (it’s not always done this way… but most of the time).
Back to the house analogy. You have a vision for the house. So you hire the decore expert to bring that vision to life for you. But if you see the decore expert getting away from what you want… then you step in and correct it.
People (including myself) often just tent to demonize “the Studios”. The fact is, most of the time they know what they’re doing.
It’s Bob and Harvey’s money. If they see Gillian doing something that they believe will hurt them and their financial investment… then they have the right to step in and make a correction.
I’m not saying I like or dislike the decisions they made… but they’re the ones who understand the business. Just as Gilliam is the one who understands the art. They need eachother.
Cheers!
From a financial point of view: you want a house built, you are paying for it, you hire a professional decorator. But YOU’RE NOT GONNA LIVE IN IT. You want to SELL it after everything is done. So you shouldn’t mix your tastes with the decorator’s choices, except only if you know what you’re talking about, you have good taste or you know that a certain choice made by the decorator is gonna be really hated by the public.
So concerning the movie, Gillian is not making a movie only for the Weinsteins to see in their private cinema. Is making something they will sell to the general public. They should trust him except when they know for certain that something it’s gonna be hated by the public.
That’s from a financial point of view. Now, a movie it’s supposed to be more than just a product. It’s supposed to be ART. The Weinsteins are supposed to make an investment, and then get their investment back with some profit. At least that’s how I see the things. And they shouldn’t mix with the director’s decisions, as it’s HIS creation.
Terry Gilliam has good reason to be agitated- look at what happened with the Sid Sheinberg “Love Conquers All” version of Brazil or look at “Lost in La Mancha” for what happened to his “The Man Who Killed Don Quixote” project. Given this history I’m not surprised that Gilliam has become even more protective and even more demanding of control over his movies.
Hey there Pudie…
See… for the most part I agree… but let’s look at it this way. If you wanted a house built. And you were paying for it. You decide to hire a professional decorator.
Yes… the decorator is the professional… but it’s still YOUR house. You trust the decorator… but you’d still want a say in it if you see something going on that you REALLY don’t like.
That’s an extreme example… but it does make the point.
Also, Directors are notoriously bad at the movie BUSINESS. their area of expertise is movie ART. And the guys puting up the money don’t just want the film to be an artful sucess… they want it to also be a financial success… so I see directors and studios as needing eachother.
But yes… for the most part… let the director direct… and only step in when you REALLY feel you need to.
Cheers!
Financial backing or not I think studios should let the director does as they please. It’s their vision. Especially in the case of people like Gilliam whos movies are nutoriously imaginative and out there. The only people that should have any affect on the movie making progress are the people directly nvolved like writes and actors. Not studio heads.