The French Studio System
Last night I watched “Mesrine”, the 4 hour film on the life of the notorious French gangster of the 60s and 70s, Jacques Mesrine. It was very good, but not great, suffering from some of the problems many bio-pic faces, primarily the need to stuff a lot of different incidents into the movie in order to follow the complexities of a real life. Being far, far better made than your standard Oscar-ready American studio bio-pic, it was still very enjoyable and a fine entry into the gangster film genre.
I have a question though that perhaps readers can help me answer. Like so many big-name French films, it had a huge number of the most prestigious actors in France–Vincent Cassel, Cecile de France, Ludivine Sagnier, Mathieu Amalric, Gerard Depardieu. What, no Juliette Binoche? Sadly, no proper role for a woman of her age or I’m sure she would have made an appearance too.
I’m curious about why most of the prestige films from France with international distribution tend to have the same actors in them. I know the French treat their best actors (and especially actresses) like deities, but is there something institutional about it? Does the French studio system choose a film or two a year and make sure all the A list names are in it?
This is as opposed to the U.S., where George Clooney might headline a film, but the rest of the actors are essentially character actors. The American equivalent would be to have Clooney, Streep, DeNiro, etc., in every American prestigious film. And then also essentially choosing which of the younger generation would be the next Streep. Because de France and Sagnier basically became the chosen next Deneuve and Binoche by the age of 24.
Hollywood seems to prefer using all star casts for the fun movies rather than for the prestiege film. This is because more people see the blockbusters, which generate more money and its what Hollywood is known for.
The French film industry is known internationally for prestiege films more than fun movies, which they also produce in varyign qualities. My guess is that the top French talent is ensembled for the prestiege films because its what the French film industry is known for.
It’s not that big a country.
Yeah, the relative small size of the French market seems like the best explanation. Their stable of actors might not be as large.
Do the actors you mentioned get compensated anywhere near as handsomely as Clooney typically does? My guess would be that they don’t, which might make it easier to get all of them on one film from a budget perspective.
Seconded.
I don’t buy the size of the country as being the issue here. Sure France isn’t as big as the U.S., but film is also a significant portion of the national psyche. The actors chosen as the leading French actors are all pretty well amazing and I have trouble believing there aren’t a lot more very talented people in France to choose from for these roles.
You’re not appreciating the problem. The US churns out loads of movies each year. What do you think the annual gross revenue for Hollywood is? Probably multiple billions of dollars a year. That’s going to support a pretty damn big employee base. You are probably right that there are plenty of people in France who could be awesome actors. The same is true of the US. It’s not the supply of potential actors that is the issue. The question is, how many of them can be supported by the studio system as well paid career actors? I’m thinking the international market for French films is pretty damn slim compared to Hollywoood’s market. These people need regular work so if France’s studio system is only producing 1 or 2 big budget films a year, then most of your best actors are going to be in each one. And the other people who could have become good actors are never going to have the chance to develop (or at least demonstrate) their talent. I’ll bet the studio system in France is pretty conservative, much like in the US. And the people making the financing decisions can’t really evaluate talent, but still have to approve casting decisions. In that system, you are going to be consistently picking known actors for rolls, not rolling the dice on potentially talented unknowns. So the set of available actors is limited to those making films regularly.
Not quite true in the senses you mean, I think.
1. There is a comparatively large pool of actresses and actors in France because of the theater community, which is both much more prominent within French culture and also better funded. In the sense you mean, I don’t actually think the French acting community is that much significantly smaller.
2. France produces relatively few big budget pictures in the sense you mean. Many years there are no such pictures – i.e., France produces no big-budget action blockbusters at all many years.
3. A prestigious “big budget” film in France is instead usually a costume drama with leading actors and director. These, on the other hand, are not rare. Even Mesrine is, in some sense, a costume thriller, with much attention given to authentic 1950s through 1980s fashions, architecture, vehicles, etc.
4. Don’t assume there are necessarily much fewer acting opportunities in French film than in American film. There are certainly kinds of acting opportunities that are near impossible in French cinema, but there are also careers in French cinema that are either impossible or very difficult in American cinema.
Think about the career of Gena Rowlands in terms of her roles in her husband John Cassavetes’ films and what her career would have been without Cassavetes. Meanwhile, many similarly placed French actresses of that time had much less difficulty pursuing a career in their middle age and late middle age, even though they were not married to a great director, who gave them a lead role in nearly every film he made (as Rowlands was).
Wait, you’re saying there’s tons of talented actors and actresses doing stage, so French movies could easily pick them up? That’s not how casting works. Stage and film are completely different mediums. TV and film are different mediums, for that matter. You very rarely see crossover. It’s not so much a matter of talent as opportunity and doing your dues in the industry.
Also, FWIW for every actor in French theater who’s brilliant and amazing, there’s an American actor washing my car or getting my omelette who’s equally talented and amazing doing theater work in LA. There’s hundreds of productions all the time. But they can’t get work b/c they aren’t known in the film or TV industry.
That’s part of the point, actually. You’re taking an American point of view and applying it to France. Stage and film are not perceived to be as disparate in France as they are in the US.
Examples:
1. There are relatively few major actors/actresses in France who did not come from live theater, while there are quite a few in the US who have had no substantive experience in live theater at all.
2. Many French film directors actually move back and forth between cinema and live stage frequently. (as well as TV) A stage actor who’s becoming well-known on the Paris stage is going to get noticed by directors. And it’s directors who drive the industry in France more so than in the US.
3. French cinema genres are much closer to the stage than are American movie genres. The stereotyped French movie is, say, about the romance of a man and a woman, while the stereotyped American movie is about a muscled hero killing mobsters / Nazis / aliens / drug dealers / [fill in the blank].
That’s not to say there’s no barrier, or a French film producer wouldn’t prefer actors who have made known films. The two worlds are just much closer in France than in the US.
The distinctions aren’t that hard and fast here, either. There are plenty of examples of US movie stars, directors, and writers got their start in theater or television. One of the things that made the New York version of Law and Order such good viewing for so many years was the ready availability of skilled character actors from the NY stage.
There is a big difference in prestige. To this day Jack Nicholson will not appear on TV shows or movies (and his professional position is sufficiently privileged for him to hold to that).
We have season tickets to a local theater, and we make a point of checking the actors’ bios for L&O credits. Nearly all of them have at least one.
Well I’m no expert on French cinema so your posts have been very informative and interesting. But your explanation doesn’t really address Erik’s original question, which is not only why so many French films have multiple star casts, but why it always seems to be the same set of people. Based on your story, I would expect different films to pull different sets of prestigious actors/actresses depending on the roles, the director’s preferences or the interests of the actors themselves. Maybe this is a anecdote not= data kind of thing, but that was the original question.
I don’t think it’s just that the size of population has that much to do with number of actors or availability of training.
The US film industry makes around twice the number of films a year than the French film industry, and has a huge domestic market and an international market for both prestige and non-prestige movies. The only countries that really match that level of production and those kinds of markets are China, India, and maybe Japan. You see a lot more interchangable character actors in those movies. (Though character actors work a lot, and as in Hollywood appear in a huge range of movies.)
France has a large film industry – or it wouldn’t have a list of internationally famous actors to pack exported prestige films with. It’s in the range of England, Germany, South Korea, where you also see exported movies packed with the same set of name actors. It’s not the only arrangement possible, but it seems like one that a number of countries which have a sizable but not huge film industry have settled on (for the moment anyway).
Metropolitan France: 63M.
U.S.: 312M.
That’s what I was thinking. The U.S. is huge, and France might better compare to film artists from New York, or something similar, than to Hollywood as a whole.
I saw Mesrine at the cinema last year. If I remember correctly, there were two separate Mesrine films (not just one four hour film), and I saw both films in a double feature. I liked it. Go see it.
As to your other question about seeing the same actors/actresses in all French films, I noticed the same thing with the British “Masterpiece Mysteries.” If you watch enough Mystery, you will see the same actors crop up all the time. So, this isn’t just a French thing.
Right–it was conceived as a single film but marketed as 2 films.
Contracts, Erik. An American film might have a budget of $45 million, but Clooney will end up with a big portion of that (let’s say $10, altho my instinct is its higher), leaving $35 mil for ancillaries like, you know, sets, script, and studio profit (the single largest element).
In France, a) actors don’t command nearly as much per film, mostly because French films can’t crack the American blockbuster market (District 13 might be an exception) and b) the studios don’t raid the budget so they can afford more actors.
British films are also produced along similar lines: you’ll see some big names in small films (e.g. Wild Target, a superb small film starring Bill Nighy, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint which I doubt could even be *cast* in the US despite a really terrific story)
Grrr, not Emma Watson. Emily Blunt. Sorry.
Same with Hong Kong action cinema. The actors aren’t paid so much, and they often scrounge for mattresses that have been thrown away to use as crash pads. They work hard, and work often. You might see an actor or actress who have played significant supporting roles in some movies, with a very small role and only one scene, it seems that no part is too small for actors/actresses in Hong Kong.
It seems that I see a lot of the same actors and actresses in Asian horror, as well.
Is this even true in the first place? Or just one of those “seems like it” kinds of things?
Much of it probably has to do with the fact that France, unlike many European countries, doesn’t require English as a second language, so there’s a limited number of actors who are fluent enough in English to be able to think and react in English and therefore portray emotional depth.
The films I am talking about are in French so I don’t think the language thing matters.
Yes, but the actors who appear in them have name recognition here because they can speak English. A little.
Look at Marion Cottilard, as an example. Great actress, keeps showing up in these weird American films like Inception. Meanwhile, you rarely see Emanuelle Beart in anything anymore. I’m thinking it has something to do with marketability here.
Well, I think the ability to crossover is obviously very important and has certainly helped some actors. Cassel is a great example. But I can’t think of anything that Sagnier has done in English for instance. Maybe part of Swimming Pool. But I don’t think it has much connection to who gets cast in these high-end French films. And isn’t Depardieu’s English horrible?
No, Depardieu’s English is OK, but he has a reasonably thick accent.
Not sure how that applies to my question.
What I’m asking is if Erik’s premise even holds water in the first place. For example, despite his assertion that “films from France with international distribution tend to have the same actors in them”, the Mesrine films are the first time that Vincent Cassel has worked with any of the other actors from the film that he named.
Yes, it’s quite true, actually. And there’s a very long tradition of French movies that have large casts with numerous noted actors in them.
The cast of Carne’s Children of Paradise includes Arletty, Barrault, Pierre Brasseur, Maria Casares and many others. The Grand Illusion includes Jean Gabin, Marcel Dalio, Pierre Fresnay, Erich v. Stroheim and Dita Parlo. Most noted French directors have a certain cast that they often bring from movie to movie: Renior with Gabin, Dalio, Michel Simon, Pierre Renior, etc. Truffaut with Leaud. Melville with Delon and Belmondo. Resnais with Fanny Ardent, Andre Dussolier, Pierre Arditti and Sabine Azema. Godard with Anna Karina. And quite a few others.
Hollywood has “a very long tradition of movies that have large casts with numerous noted actors in them,” too.
But that’s not what Erik’s saying. He’s saying that, “films from France with international distribution tend to have the same actors in them.”
No, it’s not just that. Many French directors will use the same cast (with minor variations) over and over. It’s not just one director liking one star – Alain Resnais is just one of the most prominent examples in that Fanny Ardant, Sabine Azema and Alain Dussolier will appear over and over in most of his movies over the past 30 years. This is so common that quite a few directors have a recognized informal “company”. That this practice is close to a rep theater company was emphasized when Renoir made a film with his “company” that was simply four short plays back to back.
I’m trying to think of US directors who’ve done that. Ford, Sturges, early Woody Allen . . . any others?
US directors within the Hollywood system ultimately did not have final power over their casts – directors (especially successful ones) had a lot of influence, but at the end of the day, they were far less powerful than the producers who had often entirely different considerations besides acting ability.
There is no American comparison to the most extreme example of this, which is probably Ozu.
Makes sense. And that would explain why the American examples are mostly at the level of supporting actors, npot leads (except for John Wayne and Woody Allen, and I never expected to see them in the same parenthetical).
…which is still not what Erik is talking about.
1. There are no large French movie studios in the sense of the large US studios or the large Japanese movie studios of the past. The TV network, Canal+, is the next best approximation. Gaumont, the largest French movie studio, is tiny compared to any US major.
2. The French movie industry has always been very close to the Parisian theater. Most French actors and actresses will come to prominence in the live theater (at least initially), not through film or television. That is, they’re more focused on doing the things that get you fame in a theater world (working with the best theater directors, getting interesting parts, etc) rather than Hollywood career paths.
3. All French films are essentially like American independents. French actors and actresses are primarily driven by perceptions of prestige – even a major star like Depardieu will actively want to work with a hot director and/or with a really great cast as opposed to concentrating on headlining action blockbusters (of which there aren’t that many in French cinema anyway) with himself as the only star.
4. No, it is not perception only: French cinema has a long tradition of large casts in which many noted stars will appear together.
5. There are only a few examples, historically, of French movie stars who were nearly exclusively movie actors who played primarily action roles: Jean Gabin, perhaps. While many American movie actors, especially male action leads, often have extremely limited acting abilities.
Now this is the kind of information I was looking for. Very interesting.
This seems to be all elements of “France isn’t a big country” offered above which you found so troublesome.
France is not a small country. It’s that French film-making is organized and conceived of in a different way – and this was true even in the 1920s and 1930s, when the German film studios (particularly UFA) and the Japanese film studios organized themselves similarly to the large US studios, while the French cinema industry never was organized in that way (even though Gaumont certainly tried to do so).
But isn’t it true that, although France is not a small country, its film industry is pretty much, these days, limited to the French speaking world. I notice very few French movies distributed in the US and much fewer that actually seem to attract a big American audience (The Little Sparrow and the Triplets of Belleville being notable exceptions). Very different from the situation of thirty years ago where films by Godard, Truffaut, Rohmer, etc were regularly distibuted here. For whatever reason, it seems that the French film industry is much more insular these days.
It’s probably more correct to say the American movie distribution system is more insular today.
I think we’re saying the same thing. The insularity of the American movie distribution system has the effect of making the French movie industry more insular since the chance of a French movie reaching an American audience (and most likely an English speaking audience anywhere) is remote.
Another factor to note is that there are comparatively few French action blockbuster movies (Mesrine being somewhat of an exception). (Note: that doesn’t mean there aren’t numerous French thrillers – they just aren’t over the top action blockbusters).
The action blockbuster has a pretty limited cast: superhero, possible superhero buddy, superhero romance interest, superhero’s boss, supervillian, supervillian’s main sidekick, supervillian romance interest. Everybody else is innocent bystander, faceless supervillian minion, etc. More or less disposable red shirts, in other words.
There’s only 7 real roles even possible, and many blockbusters don’t even have that.
I think the potential cast list is bigger than that outside pure action movies (but still within the realm of potential crossover successes) — look at “Un prophete”, which is basically “Goodfellas”.
Tangent: When a work gets made into an American movie with a big star, there is the risk that the star will have to be in about every scene. (Otherwise, the thinking goes, why pay them so much?) It’s often to the detriment of the story.
I’m reminded of the Evita film where Madonna poached “Another Suitcase in Another Hall”, which gave me visions of her in some green-screening, playing every part and musical number in the story.
Does this happen in the French industry?
I am so sincerely sorry that anything reminded you of Madonna in Evita.
The unintended entertainment we got was wondering how knowingly or unknowingly she realized playing someone like Eva Peron was practically preordained for her.
It approached levels of Gloria Swanson-as-Norma Desmond. (Too bad the rest of the movie wasn’t more like “Sunset Boulevard”.)
I knew Depardieu was in this when I saw it; when he first appeared I thought “wow, how’d they get him to wear all that makeup?” Then I realized he wasn’t wearing any makeup. Eeeeeesh.
Yeah, Binoche is an age-ed hag in the world o’ cinema. Then again, is it that much of a loss to all and sundry that yet another great actor be wasted playing somebody’s mom-nurse-girlfriend-biggest fan ever-bauble to be fought over? There is notoriously little space carved out for women in the Serious Manly Gangster Films genre (see: many more genres, besides). Better to treat them like they don’t exist then to cast them as decorative armwear for the dudes.
Actresses seeking gainful employment and visibility might disagree with you on that. In fact, Marion Cotillard was the best thing in the recent Dillinger picture, bringing real depth to the role of The Girl. (She was also excellent in “Nine” in the same year, which bombed.) She could break the curse that afflicts most French actresses in Hollywood.
“Anonymous” in the previous post is me,BTW.
What would be ungainful employment? Theatre?
The Girl. One’s life’s fondest wish realized, to play a gender rather than a person. Boy am I in the wrong business, and so forth.
Uh, the point, Saurs, which I had thought was clear enough,was that a job is a job and many actresses would consider that a second rate part in a big movie is a decent tradeoff in visibility, not to mention good money in the bank.
The other point was that Cotillard did an exceptional job with a conventional role.
You can save the arch “uhs,” bub, for somebody who missed your… erm, “point.”
Aw, the poor dears are getting paid, so surely there’s no inequality going on here.
I’ll spare you the ‘uhs’ if you omit the ‘erms,’ Saurs. I can agree with you that you are probably in the wrong business, at least if it requires reading comprehension.
This whole premise is flawed. How can you say, “a huge number of the most prestigious actors,” when Jerry Lewis is not among them?
This has been mentioned by others above, but I have to think that comparative pay rates for “A-List” actors between the two countries is a huge part of this. In the US, you’re talking about starting at $5 million up to $20 million for actors capable of “opening” a film. I couldn’t find much recent information on pay rates for French film actors, but Marion Cotillard was reportedly the highest paid French actor in 2010 — earning 2.35 million euros total for the year. Based on her filmography for 2010-2012 on IMDb, that was earned for working on probably somewhere between 4 to 6 films, suggesting that she’s making roughly 500,000 euros or $650,000 per picture. If Holywood could cast A-List talent at under $1 million per actor, you would surely see a lot more “all star” pictures.
Three main reasons, IMHO:
1. Yes, market and country size;
2. The French movie scene, like most industries in France, is very much a closed-circle kind of industry. I.e. the same people work together over and over again, and it’s very difficult for outsiders and newcomers to find a spot under the sun;
3. Thirdly, and also like most French industries, the French movie industry is much more risk-averse than its US counterpart. Most movie projects receive huge government subsidies and most studios heavily depend on those, and as a result they tend to try and stack up as many big names as possible into each project in order to get the public funds necessary for completion.
Hope I helped.
I don’t get it. This guy Mesrine was twice as sexist as even Sam Pekinpah. Where’s the outrage?