The WireTap Interview: Producer Mark Johnson on 'Narnia's' budget, Eastwood, Cruise and "landmine" films
By Josh Young
Mark Johnson may be the quintessential modern Hollywood producer. Clean-cut, politically savvy and known for diverse projects, Johnson is equally comfortable talking shop with a studio chief and hanging out with movie stars as he is parsing a critical scene with an independent film maker or giving advice to a twentysomething assistant.
He is deeply involved in movies at every level. For instance, he serves on the board of directors of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences as well as that of of the Virginia Film Festival.
Johnson made his name producing for Barry Levinson, and he won an Academy Award as the producer of “Rain Man.” He has gone on to produce such films as “A Little Princess,” “Donnie Brasco,” “The Notebook,” and “The Rookie.”
These days, Johnson often finds himself producing movies at opposite ends of the cinematic and budgetary scales. “Lake City,” the recently wrapped film with Sissy Spacek, was financed by an individual investor for less than $2 million, and the film won’t even be screened for distributors until it’s finished.
“The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian” is the sequel to a blockbuster that reportedly cost $180 million and grossed more than $745 million worldwide. It begins shooting on February 12, 2007 in New Zealand and then moves to Prague before ultimately finishing production next August.
Somewhere in the middle of those two films is “Spring Break in Bosnia,” which stars Terrence Howard and Richard Gere and will be released by The Weinstein Company.
Currently, Johnson has a production deal with Walden Media to make G and PG-rated movies (from which has come the “Narnia” franchise and “How to Eat Fried Worms”). He is free to take his other movies anywhere. We reached Johnson in Prague, where he is deep into pre-production on the “Narnia” sequel.
HWT: “The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian” is the kind of movie that Walt Disney has said it will focus on in its new plan to make 10 or branded films a year. Has this new strategy trimmed your budget or given you more financial freedom?
MJ: We are having big budget discussions with Disney right now, but I think we would’ve had them two years ago. When you start making a movie on this scale, everything becomes scrutinized and questioned.
HWT: Sequels to successful movies always cost more than the first. Is that the case with the second “Narnia”?
MJ: I cant comment on that but it’s a good assumption.
HWT:You produce movies at every budget level, mixing it up between intimate dramas and massive event films. What are you looking for in a project?
MJ: Primarily, it’s characters that interest me, followed by relationships. I’m usually less interested in the big, bombastic stuff than I am in the smaller, more intimate stuff. Look at movies I’ve done like “A Little Princess,” “Donnie Brasco,” “The Rookie” or for that matter “The Notebook.” They are all smaller, more intimate character relationship movies. I would maintain that “Narnia” is that movie. For me, the heart and soul of the movie is the relationships with the kids. If I had an underlying theme of my movies, I would say it’s family. All of those films have to do with families, families you are either born into, like “Avalon”, or families that you create like “A Little Princess.”
HWT: You hear constant complaints from producers that movies are harder and harder to get made. Now that studios have all but abandoned the mid-level dramas, how difficult is it to make these smaller, more intimate films?
MJ: What happens when you make a movie like “In the Bedroom,” which I’m a big fan of, it’s got to work perfectly. Every element has to work. Otherwise, it becomes one of 30 odd movies that get made that year that are well intentioned but (that have) no compelling reason for an audience to see them. You’ve got to hit them just right, whereas if you go off and do a big action movie, you can have a performance that doesn’t work or an action scene that’s not as good as the others, but the total makes up for it. I call those smaller films “landmine films,” because any false step and the whole movie blows up.
HWT: Are independents more eager to work with established film makers who are willing to work on a smaller scale, or do they want fresh talent?
MJ: It depends. But there more established directors and actors today have quite frankly priced themselves out of the market. A lot of studios big and small say, “We can’t make those deals any more. We would rather go with somebody and take a chance on them, whether or not he or she is a first or second time director.
HWT: A somewhat analogous situation was when Disney drew a line in the sand over the Russell Crowe/Ron Howard/Brian Grazer because they wanted $37 million against 37.5 percent of the gross, and then you produced the movie with John Lee Hancock directing Billy Bob Thornton and Jason Patrick. Is that more commonplace at the studio level?
MJ: Everybody is pointing at these movies that aren’t getting made or struggling to find a home. Look at “Ripley’s Believe It or Not” (the Tim Burton/Jim Carrey film that fell apart at Paramount). Look at “Used Guys” (the Jay Roach/Jim Carrey/Ben Stiller comedy that Fox pulled the plug on over its growing budget). At one point, there was a hugely successful director interested in directing “The Notebook.” The New Line people ran the numbers and realized that at $100 million of box office gross, that director would make somewhere (above) $20 million and the studio would be just slightly past the break even point. They said, “It’s not worth it.” Subsequently, we made that movie for under $30 million with Nick Cassavetes directing Ryan Gosling and Rachel McAdams. Nick Cassavetes was more than competent, but he was hardly the hottest director in town. The arithmetic backed us into making the best version of that movie.
HWT: Marketing is king studios these days. Many studios like Universal are now run by former marketing chiefs and others give the marketing department veto power over movies in the green light process. How has this effect you as a producer passionate about telling a story on film?
MJ: Even before marketing people started taking over as production heads, the marketing guy had a huge say in what movies got made. I’ve been hearing for a long time now things like, “On this particular movie they are waiting to see what the marketing people say.” I had a project at a studio I recently worked with. The production executive loved the project and was completely embracing of it, but he said, “You know what. Don’t even do it here. Our marketing guys will never be able to sell it, so why ever bother. Why go through the heartbreak of getting your hopes up and not having it get made.”
HWT: Is the situation at studios “If we don’t know how to sell it, we can’t make it—despite the fact that it might be a great movie?”
MJ: Somewhat and by the way, I sort of get it. We all do movies in the pure sense to tell a story and to work out whatever kind of artistic ambitions and demons we have, but anybody who says they don’t want as big an audience as possible to see their film is lying. So who wants to break their back, spend a year and a half of their life making it, and then have it not be able to be sold. Right now, “A Little Princess” is a an incredibly satisfying achievement. I am very proud of it. I wouldn’t have changed anything. But I have to tell you, for a year and a half after that movie was released and couldn’t find an audience, it was heartbreaking. It was just crushing.
HWT: The definition of a producer has changed over the years, but so have the number of people often credited on a film. The producer’s branch of the Academy has ruled that no more than three individuals per film can be recognized. On “Crash” last year, there were five producers but only two received the Oscar. As someone who does the producing, do you support this crackdown?
MJ: Yes. Producers have to show that they did the producing. What happened in terms of producing credits that was scandalous was that people were getting producer credits for everything, not for actually producing, and it doesn’t make sense. Audiences had completely devalued the role of the producer because they see all these producers listed—line producer, co-producer, executive producer—and they have no idea what any of them did.
HWT: What about giving a director a producer credit. Is that acceptable?
MJ: As you know, I did “A Perfect World” that Clint Eastwood directed. It was something that I had developed and brought to him, but Clint was probably a better producer on that movie than I was. First of all, Clint does everything. He’s the best production manager, the best assistant director. He does it all. But he decided not to take producing credit on that movie, but he was producer in every sense.
HWT: In recent years, the Academy has been more willing to honor one film as best picture and the director of another film. In the case of “Gladiator,” director Ridley Scott didn’t take a producer’s credit and it cost him an Oscar because he did not win best director. Do you think directors on Oscar movies will seek that producer credit to hedge their bets?
MJ: I think what they realize is that, to be totally selfish in many ways, 'What if I direct a picture that wins the Oscar for best picture but doesn’t win best director? That means that I don’t have an Oscar, so if I can, let me increase my odds (by taking a producer creit).'
HWT: The last movie that Tom Cruise did for United Artists was “Rain Man,” which you produced. Now, he and Paula Wagner have a deal to run the studio. What’s your take on that situation?
MJ: On the surface, it sounds pretty exciting. It’s a new idea and fresh blood, but I just really don’t know how it’s going to work. Paula and Tom are very bright and like good movies, so if they are buying, I’m going to be on their door step.
HWT: Lately, established producers have begun raising large sums of money from outside investment funds without studio ties. Do you have any such deal?
MJ: No, but I’m certainly exploring it. It’s the new trend and it makes total sense. It sounds like the Joel Silver situation is ideal. It’s so hard to get movies made today, and quite frankly, the idea to have a real say in what you produce, how it gets made, how it gets sold, and to share in a meaningful way in any success is hugely attractive.
HWT: Finally, you’re currently working on a “Lake City,” which cost less than $2 million, and on the “Narnia” sequel, a behemoth tentpole. Is there something you can point to that shows the different skills required?
MJ: On the small films, you are struggling to make sure you get a half way decent caterer. On the bigger films, you’re not worried about the caterer, but you have somebody questioning why you have 733 people eating that caterer’s food.
