Money is the answer to all problems... or not

Recent discussion with fellow directors and producer (and even friends) brought me into a very interesting discussion.  As my recent production is at risk of over-budgeting.  Money is often raised in many of my conversations.

1)  With good money, you'll get good actors... or not.

2) A smart director will never put his own money in the film... really?

3) A director must have a commercial sense in order to make good money from his projects (or 

   be successful).

I have always kept a loose guard on how much I spend on actors.  I mean I don't pay a hollywood salary to my staff (but for an indie project, I think I am quite generous), and there are no trailers and caterers, but I think that in general I am good to my actors.  I've never considered not paying my actors well (well even if I did, they must accept the terms as well right?).  For most of the non-professionals that work with me (not professional actors as in commercial film or professional stage play actors) they are paid in accordance to what they are paid (if not, very close) outside with commercial projects.  The thing is with expensive actors they do have a degree of experience that I would not have to worry about.  For example, I would not have to tell them how to do a same act for an close up and how it would be different if it was shot wide.  Also they are generally better with scrīpt memorization.  So... The answer to good actors... get expensive ones.  But that isn't true is it?  I mean some of the most passionate people in film I have worked with don't really care about how much they are getting, and if I am honest about my budget (rather trying o rip them off and keeping a low budget) they have always been considerate an have always been willing to bend a little.  A good actor's true incentive in his/her work is the performance or the opportunity to be in a certain project.  The money is second.  Money always came after a great performance.  For example, Zhang Ziyi was paid what a B film actor would have been paid in "Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon".  What is she getting from L'oreale now. I bet a lot more than what she did from Ang Lee.  Their interest in the scrīpt is what is considered and not the payroll.  If an actor would consider a roll simply for the payment and disregard how poorly a film or a scrīpt was, then what different is he or her from a pornstar.  So yes, I don't like to negotiate with actors.  I usually give them an offer.  If they like the scrīpt they will take it.  If they don't, there is no point in paying them more. 

From my experience in the field, many of my elders have taught me "Never put your own money in a production."  HMMMMMM is that true.  I mean if you truly believed in something, why wouldn't you put your money in it.  Nevermind the term investment.  But, just the fact that you have contributed to your very own respresentable peice of work, now isn't that worthwhile already?  If you were a painter, wouldn't you invest in a great brush for yourself.  I mean who'd want to use J.A. Henkels to cook when you can afford GLOBALS?  There are many directors that don't use personal money in there projects.  I am sure you can name many.  But directors like Francis Coppola, George Lucas, and James Cameron have.  Now aren't these the biggest names in film in terms of wealth made from films and status (James Cameron is still living off of the big peice of royalty he got from studio execs when he traded his director's fee for points from the film Titanic.  George Lucas" success (over $300 million in personal assets) is simply due to emptying his own pocket for every single episode of Star Wars in the very beginning (Return of the Jedi, Empire Strikes Back.  Francis Coppola almost got bankrupt filming Apocolypes now but the film has now rolled in enough money for the director to sit back and relax for the rest of his life.)   So investing your own money in a production of yours that you truly believe in.  Good or Bad, up to you to decide.

Commercial sense...  What is that?  The ability to smell acceptance from your target audience?  The ability to make money from his/her project?  Well people always said to me.  In order for you to be successful as a director.  You must be able to make a good film that the audience is more than willing to watch.  Now what is a good film?  What?  Dark Knight did well, so if I came up with a sequel and got Daniel Day-Lewis to play Joker it should come out similarly as successful as the previous?  I think not...  So what is a good film.  If you asked me if I had any good films to recomment, it would be films that I've watched and that have touched me in such a way.  But this is subjective.  It's stupid to guess what is a good film.  If you base what is a good film on the success of a film and then base your work on that.  Well, trust me the project you work on will be truly cliche.  The thing is something that is successful to others and have already made a statement or impression to the audience will not work again.  Simply because a good film must be based on the directors true beliefs and what he/she has to say and not what someone already have said.  Commercial sense?  If you have such commercial sense go work in marketing films.  Film is like art.  It's an expression.  That's why I am arrogant in the sense that I don't care what you think.  I don't care if you think my dialogue is weird.  I don't care if you think my track shot is jumpy.  I like it that way.  I would never complete a shot for the sake of completing it.  It's done when it's done.  What need to be paid needs to be paid.  If I don't have enough money for it, I'll raise it.  What I say in my films represent me.  Would I say that I believe in scientology if I don't know.  So that is no different for me when I make a film.