Company Town : Stark Finds Little Nostalgia for Old Idea

With movies such as “Speed” driving a strong summer box office, look for plenty of upward mobility in Hollywood this year. It usually takes just one hit, or even one widely acclaimed piece of work, to move someone’s salary into the fast lane these days.

The most celebrated recent case involves comedian Jim Carrey, whose asking price rose from about $450,000 to $7 million after he starred in the sleeper hit “Ace Ventura: Pet Detective.” Carrey may get another boost from “The Mask,” which comes out soon. Others likely to benefit from their roles in summer sensations include Keanu Reeves of “Speed” and John Goodman of “The Flintstones.”

That’s great for stars and their support teams, but it’s enough to make others nostalgic for the days when salaries were more managed under the old studio system. Producer Ray Stark (“The Way We Were,” “Steel Magnolias”), for one, has quietly lobbied for a modified version of that system, only to discover that Hollywood is not a very nostalgic place.

Stark’s appeal began five years ago when he broached the idea with Motion Picture Assn. of America President Jack Valenti. In a letter obtained by The Times that has not surfaced publicly before, Stark argued that spiraling salaries were throwing Hollywood’s economy out of whack and damaging performers’ long-term careers--because they worked less often and rarely established definitive screen personas, other than as action stars.

As a solution, he suggested that the studios embrace an updated contract system that would permit them to nurture talent as they did in the days of Clark Gable, Katharine Hepburn and Cary Grant.

*

Under Stark’s detailed plan, each major studio would put up $250,000 to begin funding an “actors’ school.” Some 12 students would be accepted to the school each year. The students could be represented by traditional agents and lawyers. But in return for training and guaranteed employment, they would agree to work under a seven-year personal services agreement, with per-picture salaries capped at $2.5 million.

Stark told Valenti he had discussed the plan with most of the major studio chiefs at the time and that they were receptive, even encouraging. But it died there, although the producer recirculated the letter two years ago. Stark, confirming that he wrote the letter and still favors the idea, recalled that the industry never responded. “Valenti said, ‘Yeah, let’s do something,’ ” Stark said. “But no one ever took on the project.”

It may not take a Ph.D in logic to figure out what happened. In Hollywood, it’s a given that the balance of power has shifted from the studios to talent, which explains why stars such as Arnold Schwarzenegger can command $15 million a film. Sources say most executives would be frightened of supporting such a fundamental change, because it could touch off a holy war with big stars and their phalanx of powerful agents, managers and lawyers.

It’s possible that those studio chiefs who expressed interest in Stark’s plan were doing so only hypothetically. But the plan also seems to raise antitrust issues, which are alluded to in the letter. The issue remains so sensitive that even now, no one but Stark will openly discuss it.

*

Valenti failed to return telephone calls for comment after a copy of the letter was faxed to his Beverly Hills hotel at his request. Three of the studio chiefs named in the letter also declined to comment, with one saying he’d just as soon shoot himself in a particularly sensitive area.

Stark, one of those rare people in Hollywood who is successful and powerful enough to speak his mind, said he’s never made a crusade out of the idea. But as someone who started as an agent representing actors such as John Wayne and Lana Turner, he said he honestly believes that the old system did a better job of building careers. “In the old days, personalities were built--you went to see Clark Gable no matter who he played,” Stark said. “But the studios don’t build talent anymore. They build buildings.”

*

Unity in numbers: As Europe lurches toward a new entertainment trade policy, the American Film Marketing Assn. is lobbying against the formation of a pan-European movie distributor.

In a letter to the European Audiovisual Conference, which begins discussions in Brussels on Thursday, AFMA President Jonas Rosenfeld argues that a subsidized pan-European company would turn into a bottomless money pit. Rosenfeld says national distributors are already doing a good job of fostering multinational productions and other types of joint ventures.

European Union officials are heatedly debating how to revive the group’s troubled entertainment industry. The most nationalistic representatives have argued that the answer lies in limiting the number of American movies and TV shows allowed in Europe. Those forces also succeeded in excluding entertainment from last year’s General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

But Rosenfeld said the most vociferous complaints are coming from those involved with the creative side of the industry, with business interests going “frequently unheard.”