The Link Between Van Gogh and ‘Batman’

What’s behind the explosion of values in art and entertainment?

While other investment assets, even real estate, have become uncertain, Van Gogh and Renoir paintings bring record prices.

And while other industries worry about capital shortages and declining profits, the movie and television industry seems to know no bounds.

Columbia Pictures is on the verge of laying out $32 million to sign the writers of the program “Married With Children” to a three-year contract. They made one hit, concluded Columbia, so maybe they can make another. Columbia--which is owned by Sony--has made a reportedly richer deal to lure James Brooks, producer of “The Simpsons” (and the films “Broadcast News” and “Terms of Endearment”) away from rival Fox studios.

Creativity pays these days. Van Gogh died penniless in 1890. Jim Henson, creator of the Muppets, died suddenly last week but presumably wasn’t penniless. Last year, Henson agreed to sell the Muppets to Walt Disney Co. for about $150 million.

The money raises questions: Does our age put a greater value on creative endeavor than earlier times? And is the movie industry nuts--spending $1 million apiece for film scripts and $30 million to make an ordinary movie?

The answers are: We put a value on marketability, if not creativity; and the movie industry is only half nuts. What we’re seeing is both a trend and a frenzy.

The trend is real. The expanding world market for brand-name products, from Coca-Cola to Pierre Cardin, also extends to movies and movie stars. A world that used to be a collection of isolated communities has become a global village, and everyone in town knows Liz Taylor and Madonna. And that’s increasingly true as technology--videocassettes, satellite broadcasting--brings more stars to more people.

The payoff can be enormous--and quick. Sean Connery brought in $17 million in the first weekend with “The Hunt for Red October,” which has grossed more than $110 million in three months. Tom Cruise, in “Born on the Fourth of July,” has brought in $70 million in less than six months. So now Connery commands a percentage of the gross for his next film, “The Russia House,” and Cruise is guaranteed $10 million for the auto-racing picture “Days of Thunder” before the movie opens.

“The value is paid to the horses who can pull the wagon,” says a movie executive.

In other words, some of today’s big money reflects the star system--Hollywood’s traditional marketing approach--updated to a new era. Which is not a bad idea. The star system can open more markets than a White House trade negotiator, says film industry consultant Arthur Rockwell. Where once local distributors controlled markets in Germany, Hong Kong and the like, and paid Hollywood little for films, now stars give the studios leverage.

The payoff is that movies, TV shows and records are major export earners for the United States--producing more than a $5-billion trade surplus. More movies are made in India, but few outside that country know Indian movie stars--yet--because the image factory remains in Hollywood.

But the big money has also led to a frenzy. Sony, which spent hundreds of millions last year to acquire the services of Peter Guber and Jon Peters--producers of “Batman,” the film that became a $500-million merchandise empire--is splashing money around to buy some new winners. And other studios are anteing up just as much as Sony.

All are trying to capitalize quickly on new “brand names.” Starting this weekend, the industry will release eight blockbuster movies in six weeks--including “Back to the Future III,” “Gremlins II,” “Another 48 Hours,” “Robocop II,” “Die Hard 2” and “Dick Tracy”--a film based on an old comic strip that Disney hopes will be this summer’s “Batman.”

The result is likely to be disappointment. Speculation in Hollywood doubts that “Dick Tracy” will be another “Batman” at the box office; other sequels are bound to include a few clinkers. And that will change the psychology and cool the frenzy. Watch for some lower film company earnings later this year, followed by pledges to cut costs and bring sense to this business.

The basic trend, however, will continue. It’s part of what historian Daniel Boorstin has called the “emotional appeal” of certain products to people all over the world whose awareness is only beginning to transcend national and continental boundaries.

In such a new age, Van Gogh and Renoir paintings are marketable investments for the wealthy, but young French, American or Japanese artists--no matter how creative--are not yet marketable.

No problem. The expanding world market creates a variety of opportunities. Jim Henson’s Muppets were scorned by TV networks for more than a decade, while he created and refined Kermit and the gang on Public Broadcasting’s “Sesame Street”--and through that program his outstanding creations reached 80 countries.

In earlier times, opportunities were fewer. In 1723, Johann Sebastian Bach--already a renowned musician and composer--had to compete with seven others for the choirmaster’s job at St. Thomas Church, Leipzig. The city councilors, who didn’t hand out jobs and money lightly, insisted that the choirmaster also teach classes in the church school. They chose Bach because he agreed to do so--in addition to other duties, such as composing a new cantata every week in 1724.

There’s more freedom, and more money, today. Maybe, in this new wide world, there may even be another Bach.