The Katzenberg Memo, Part 12

In January 1991, Jeffrey Katzenberg, then the head of Disney’s motion picture divisions, wrote a memo that ended up being circulated throughout Hollywood. Even though it is 21 years old, it is remarkably relevant to the current movie business. For example, the United States was in a recession as we are today. The movie industry was confronted by numerous financial challenges tied to technological advances and cultural shifts, also as we are today.

Over the next few weeks, I will be posting the entire memo. If you have any interest in screenwriting or working in the film business, you should read it. Why? Because it gives you a wide-open view of how studio executives think. After all, any script you write and circulate in Hollywood doesn’t exist in a vacuum, rather it funnels through a system, one that operates based upon the business principles and practices of studio heads like Katzenberg.

Today: A Hands-on Haven for Talent

A Hands-on Haven for Talent

One of the ways to combat the high cost of movie making is to create a haven for talent here at Disney. Since we’re not willing to offer talent top dollar, we can offer something no less tangible — a genuine concern for their careers.

This means Disney should be a place where new talent can be recognized, where old talent can be rejuvenated and where current reigning stars can come to be both protected and try something new.

This does not mean offering talent total creative freedom. It does mean offering them a framework in which they can be challenged, nurtured and have a real shot at success.

This means recognizing the needs of individual writers, directors and actors, and addressing them. Someone like Garry Marshall is a tremendous collaborator and wants a constant interaction with others to bring out the best in himself. Others, like Peter Weir, are most successful when they can go pursue their independent vision within understood guidelines that have been established with the studio.

To make it all work requires that we pay maniacal attention to every facet of our operation. This hands-on approach may be a source of irritation to some. But, if it is done in an atmosphere of mutual respect, to most it makes sense.

An example of the positive effects of such a love/hate relationship can be seen in the following comments by Leslie Dixon, who wrote “Outrageous Fortune,” in which she discusses a scene from the film where Shelley Long asks her parents for a handout by talking to the security apartment building’s speaker rather than confronting them in their apartment:

“Disney was too cheap to build a set and hire actors. This provoked me to come up with a more creative scene of Shelley Long never being allowed in her parents’ apartment. That’s rewriting for budget, and good things can come out of it creatively.”

The process works if everyone is committed to making it work, if we provide a focused, directed environment, where the objectives and vision are clear and success is well-defined, talent will respond.

Most talent welcomes a strong, knowledgeable support system that provides a clear context for the thousands of content decisions they must make. This is why it’s worth the $7,500 extra each week to double print the dailies. This is why it makes sense to put extra money in a film’s budget for re-shoots, so that a director doesn’t feel that he has to get everything perfect the first time. This is why we should recognize the needs of a first-time director by providing him or her the best support people possible, such as a top editor or cinematographer, etc.

Most important, this is why we should provide a place where talent has the right to fail. By making long-term arrangements with talent we believe in, we can control costs while they can gain the security that’s necessary for taking creative risks and going in new directions. As the blockbuster mentality rages around us, this can be a place that talent can go to be relieved of the pressure of having to try to make the next “Batman.”

But the best way to attract good talent remains the best way to make a good movie — with a good story. Most great talent will ultimately be drawn to great material since they know only too well that good scripts are hard to come by.

If we can consistently come up with good material, we will find ourselves with a leverage that dollars just can’t buy. To paraphrase a competitor’s film (one that was about as non-formulaic and unexpectedly successful as they get):

“If we provide it, they will come.”

The quote that jumped out at me was from screenwriter Leslie Dixon: “Disney was too cheap.” Just stop right there. Certain studios have reputations. Those reputations can vary depending upon regime changes. However Disney has always been known to be on the thin side of spending. I know this from personal experience. We sold Trojan War as a pitch to Hollywood Pictures. They low-balled us. We took it to Warner Bros. Sold it again for over two times what the Disney studio offered us.

There may be many things in the Katzenberg memo that are no longer relevant at Disney, but the anti-spec script perspective isn’t one of them. In 2011, Disney only bought 2 specs, the lowest of any of the major studios.

Per the Dixon quote, it’s true: Sometimes there is a special type of creativity that can emerge when a film production is faced with financial restraints. In the last 4–5 years, we have seen screenwriters use this to their advantage, writing and selling contained thriller and found footage spec scripts that are crafted for lower budgets.

In contrast to Disney, Warner Bros. has been the most active studio on the spec script front for several years, especially in 2011 when they bought nearly twice as many as 2010. And they have consistently generated more B.O. revenues than Disney.

But then as we saw with yesterday’s post, maybe Disney doesn’t care about B.O. as much as it does ancillary revenues.

To read Part 1 of the Katzenberg memo, go here.

For Part 2, go here.

Part 3, go here.

Part 4, go here.

Part 5, go here.

Part 6, go here.

Part 7, go here.

Part 8, go here.

Part 9, go here.

Part 10, go here.

Part 11, go here.

To read the entire memo, go here.