In the case of Bringing Out the
Dead, I was opposed to Nick Cage because the character I had written was
about 27 years old and Nick can't really, plausibly be less than 35 on
the screen. I thought that this was really a young man's thing going on
here.
But it was a very tough story, in terms of Hollywood. Scorcese likes to
take his time. He likes to spend money shooting. Last night they were
doing a shot that I would do in a hour, and they were spending six hours
on it.
That shows up on screen, but it costs money. So, a film that I could
have made for 8-9 million dollars here in New York, they re spending
30-35 million. So financial justifications come into play, because you
have to justify that 35 million dollars. Nick Cage, at the moment, gets
around 20 million dollars a movie and he's one of the highest paid
actors at the moment. He s had a whole series of successes. But Nick
read this and the idea of doing Schrader and Scorcese and a night in New
York again - he agreed to do it for a million dollars.
That protected Marty. He knew that once he had Nick in his pocket for a
million bucks, nobody would touch him. There wouldn't be no studio
interference, there wouldn t be talk about changing the script, talk
about having a different ending, or whatever.
So he opted to go with Nick, so that he could make the movie he wanted
to make. If he went with an unknown, he would have had a lower budget or
he would have had to make some script changes.
Paul Schrader, from interview at
Euroscreenwriters
Some people don't believe me when I tell them that I believe that the only reason Leonardo DiCaprio, the worst "name" actor of his generation, got a certain role was because his name, attached to a project, brings in millions of dollars of investment from the movie studios. Do I seriously think the movie studios would hire a bad actor for a good part in a movie by a great director because they want to ensure a return on their investment? Well, when you put it that way.
It is so common a practice, that I look for it at the beginning of every big, serious Hollywood production, and even some independent films, even when the director is someone like Terence Davies, whose work I generally adore. We just watched his "House of Mirth". Even with Gillian Anderson and Eric Stoltz in lead roles, it's a gorgeous film, beautifully directed and scored; it's thoughtful, delicate, subtle. And it has Laura Linney, a terrific actress, in the part of Bertha Dorset.
I really had no expectations about Gillian Anderson in the lead role. I thought, you never know-- someone famous for her work on a slightly interesting but formulaic TV drama might turn out to be a good actress. Might. But she didn't, and while it looks like she's giving it everything she's got and it looks like Terence Davies does wonders with he's given, she ends up reminding me of Lucy Ricardo, and then you watch Laura Linney for a few minutes and wonder why the hell she wasn't playing Lily, and why Gillian Anderson was even in the movie. And the answer is obvious: Gillian Anderson was a huge star at the time the film was made (2000); she was a celebrity. She brought the money for an expensive movie.
She was at least serviceable in "House of Mirth" and the movie survived her shortcomings. Not so with Leonardo DiCaprio in "J. Edgar" or, ridiculously, "Aviator". How far can Hollywood push the idea of using a celebrity to play parts for which they do not seem remotely suited? DiCaprio as J. Edgar Hoover? As Howard Hughes? Why not Churchill? Why not Jesus?
(Oh my god! I just discovered that they have actually cast DiCaprio as the lead in a remake of "The Great Gatsby". Wow.)
Renee Zellweger as Brigit Jones? Can she even do the accent? Tom Hanks as anything? (Although, he is at least improving as an actor, as evidenced in "Cloud Atlas".)
This is the Hollywood disease. Actors are chattel: an investment, a product to be placed where-ever opportune, and cashed out for as long as possible, even when you have to have a 70-year-old romancing a 20-year-old. God forbid you should have to go through the expense of introducing a new actor, promoting him, getting him onto the talk shows and into the gossip columns, getting his picture out there, his story, his rugged perpetual 5:00 shadow. It's an investment, like fork lifts and aprons and saucers. It's something best left to young, independent directors.