View From ‘Titanic’: Oscars on Horizon, Profit Hard to See

Once upon a time, desperate to win a Super Bowl, super-lawyer Edward Bennett Williams hired George Allen to coach the Washington Redskins. Given an open checkbook, Allen signed costly free agents, built a lavish new training facility and negotiated a princely seven-year contract for himself, complete with a chauffeured car and a new house.

The more money Williams gave Allen, the more the coach spent. Finally, the exasperated owner complained: “I gave George an unlimited budget, and he has exceeded it.”

When a studio executive hears that anecdote, he catches on right away. “Don’t tell me,” he says. “You’re doing a story about Jim Cameron.”

Since shooting officially began in July 1996 on “Titanic,” Cameron’s epic excesses have been Hollywood’s great crash ‘n’ burn cautionary tale. Blinded by his quest for perfection, the obsessive director became Captain Ahab, his film a bloated White Whale, months behind schedule and wildly over budget.

The film made news with each new turbulent event: In a still-unexplained episode, the cast and crew’s food was laced with PCP. Crew members complained of sweatshop-like working conditions. Actress Kate Winslet bemoaned Cameron’s autocratic behavior. Rumors flew of multiple stuntman injuries (later found to be grossly exaggerated). Filming lasted an epic 160 shooting days. The film’s budget ballooned past $200 million. Cameron missed his initial July 2 release date. A very public feud erupted between 20th Century Fox and Paramount, the two studios sharing the film’s financing, whose bickering over a release date was so fractious that studio executives were forced to deny reports that they came to blows during an acrimonious meeting at the Cannes Film Festival.

With “Titanic” finally arriving on 2,500 screens this Friday, buoyed by largely enthusiastic reviews, the story has taken a new twist, emphasizing the film’s artistic achievement. Oscar watchers have dubbed “Titanic” a serious contender; critics are praising the film as a return to old-fashioned Hollywood movie-making.

That still leaves the small question of how 20th Century Fox, the film’s primary investor, plans to turn a profit on a picture that, when marketing costs are factored in, will have to gross $350 million to break even. Even Fox Chairman Bill Mechanic has acknowledged that the studio can’t make “a justifiable return” on the film. (In an apparently unprecedented move, Fox has decided to sell actual props from the film as collector’s items, in hopes of helping to pay off the debt.)

And there lies the heart of the matter. Who would have dreamed that a film conceived as a sleek Hollywood hit--the ultimate high-tech disaster epic--would end up with a better chance of winning an Oscar than of turning a profit? What does it say about today’s movie business that, after all the Sturm und Drang of the past 18 months, Fox could probably make more money by putting its share of the “Titanic” budget in a Cash Maximizer account at Bank of America? If nothing else, the film’s tumultuous history illustrates several key Hollywood Laws of Gravity:

1.) Talent Is a Magnet

Put simply, 20th Century Fox made “Titanic” with Jim Cameron for the same reason Edward Bennett Williams hired George Allen--because they’re winners. Of the handful of extraordinarily talented directors in Hollywood whose big-budget projects have been consistent moneymakers, Cameron brings something extra to the table: He writes his own scripts, providing investors with a tangible blueprint for the film’s scope and story line. (This may already have paid off for Fox; the Hollywood Reporter reported Monday that Cameron has already decided on his next project, a remake of “Planet of the Apes” for the studio.)

“This is all about talent,” says one studio chief. “When you make movies, you want to fall in love with a project. And you have so few opportunities to be in business with someone like Cameron, that when he brings you an enticing story, and presents it in a dazzling way, it’s hard not to get swept away. Jim is not just a brilliant director, he’s a terrific salesman. And no matter what the rational side of your brain says, the gambler’s side says, ‘If you’ve got to believe in someone, you want to believe in Jim Cameron.’ ”

2) Creativity Is Uncontrollable

There are two schools of big-time directors, fiscally responsible filmmakers like Steven Spielberg, Clint Eastwood and Ron Howard, who pride themselves for coming in on budget, and combative perfectionists like Cameron and Jan DeBont, who feel their loyalty is to making a stupendous-looking film, no matter what the eventual cost.

Fox had been in business with Cameron before, so the studio knew hiring him was a high-stakes gamble. He’d narrowly averted disaster with “The Abyss,” and struck pay dirt with “Aliens” and “True Lies.” Eager to hedge its bet, the studio went looking for a partner, but Cameron’s reputation scared away most of the obvious candidates. Even Universal, which was initially tempted, having made a sizable profit on the foreign rights to “True Lies” by putting a cap on its budget commitment, backed off, convinced that Cameron couldn’t stay within the film’s original $110-million budget. Paramount finally made a deal, insisting on a $65-million cap for its investment.

Fox lost control of the movie the day it started shooting, since firing Cameron was never an option--who else could have finished the movie? As one former studio chief put it: “Would you want to be the guy to look [studio owner] Rupert Murdoch in the eye, two months into shooting, and say, ‘We’ve shut the movie down and we’re going to take a $32-million write-off?’ ”

3) The Carrot and the Stick

What would happen if studios treated hard-to-control directors like home contractors, offering them a fat check if they finished on time--or holding back money if they lagged behind schedule? In fact, studios have built-in penalties for directors and producers, withholding their back-end percentage of the film’s grosses if the movie goes significantly over budget. When “Titanic’s” budget went overboard, Cameron voluntarily gave up his director’s fee and profit participation in the film.

One studio, now making an expensive action film with a strong-willed young director, is tempting him with a juicy carrot. If the director finishes on time, the studio will pay him a hefty bonus on top of his director’s fee. “So far he’s on schedule,” says the studio’s chief. “In fact, he’s out there making sure the extras go to lunch on time.”

Few believe that approach would work with Cameron, even if you promised him a Gulfstream 4 jet. To him, filmmaking is a battle, worth winning at any cost. “He puts you through hell making a movie,” says one executive of his past experience with the director. “You feel like you’re running in front of an avalanche. Jim needs to feel as if things are on the brink of disaster--it makes him feel alive.”

4) Think Ahead

Whatever their private agonies, the Fox brass has refused to publicly criticize Cameron, persuaded that their support has earned a commitment from Cameron to make his next several films at the studio. The juiciest carrots: a Cameron-penned “Spiderman” script and, once feuding parties settle their differences, “Terminator 3.”

“Fox isn’t in the ‘Titanic’ business, it’s in the Jim Cameron business,” says one former studio chief. “There’s no ‘Titanic’ sequel. The sequel was a long-term relationship with Cameron. Whatever his flaws, he’s an exceptionally loyal guy and by supporting him, Fox expects him to make his next films with them, which is where they could see a real return on their investment.”

5) Hollywood Never Learns

Even if “Titanic” doesn’t make money or win an armful of Oscars, you can still expect to see Cameron at the helm of another action spectacular. “He’ll always work because he’s so good, and because we all have big enough egos to think we’re the ones that can tame him,” says one prominent producer. “If he was on the market, I’d be at his house, going down the chimney, hoping I beat everyone else down.”

Studio executives say they expect “Titanic” to be just the first $200-million movie. Any sobering effect will be temporary. In a business geared to blockbuster bonanzas, there are too many gamblers ready to roll the dice again.

Could someone actually spend $250 million on a movie someday? “Sure,” says one studio chief. “What’s Jim Cameron doing next?”

* BUOYING ‘TITANIC’

20th Century Fox is selling artifacts from the film. F8