MovieChat Forums > Torn Curtain (1966) Discussion > The stars' fees?!

The stars' fees?!

posted 11 years ago by toshguy
6 replies | jump to latest

These two entries in the film's Trivia section really baffle me:

<In the documentary "Plotting Family Plot", Actor Bruce Dern (who worked with Alfred Hitchcock in Marnie and Family Plot) revealed that Hitchcock was very upset that he had to pay Julie Andrews and Paul Newman $750,000 apiece to do Torn Curtain.>

<One of the reasons Alfred Hitchcock did not want to use Paul Newman and Julie Andrews was their very high fees.For the rest of his career Hitchcock would never hire performers with the same sort of fee or above.>

They infer that Hitchcock paid the actors from his own pocket, which seems absurd to me. There are plenty of other Trivia entries that are about how Universal Studios required this or that from Hitch, including the casting of Andrews. Those entries indicate that it was the studio - not the director - putting out all the money, as was common back in those days.

What's the deal with Hitchcock supposedly deciding all of a sudden that he didn't want to use high-paid actors anymore (after directing the likes of Grant, Stewart, Fonda, Clift and Connery who were all very expensive stars when they appeared in his movies)? Is there any substance to such a claim?

I know that Hitch didn't get along with Newman and Andrews during filming, but I'd always thought it was because their egos clashed with his, not because of money.

[–] MyMovieTVRomance 11 years ago

The way I interpret it, although Grant and others Hitchcock had used were high-paid, they weren't as high-paid nor were they as inconstant on a certain far-reaching amount. That's what it seemed to mean, to me. Though, if true, I am rather disappointed in the stars for being so rigid in their insistent greed---esp. Andrews, as I expect better of her...

As far as whether Hitchcock paid the actors out of his own pocket, it's possible, considering the time in which the movie was made---a time in which the studios were assuming less and less responsibility for the films.

Please excuse typos/funny wording; I use speech-recognition that doesn't always recognize!

[–] hisgrandmogulhighness 11 years ago

He may have referring to the fact that the high amount of money being paid did not deliver a high return . . .

[–] MyMovieTVRomance 11 years ago

Good point.

Please excuse typos/funny wording; I use speech-recognition that doesn't always recognize!

[–] paulmurphy42 11 years ago

I think you'll find that, yes, he really did have to pay the actors from his own pocket. Although the film was produced by Universal Studios, he probably had to put up some money himself, probably not all of their $750,000, but certainly some of it.

Think of it like this - the studio gives you the use of their facilities and some of their know-how, but it is still you who are responsible for getting the film made, and that means putting up some of the money yourself, i.e, you must "raise it" yourself.

[–] hisgrandmogulhighness 11 years ago

It depends on the production unit involved . . .

[–] ecarle 11 years ago

Star fees are always iffy to pinpoint.

I've read that though Paul Newman got top billing, Julie Andrews got paid more. So she probably got more than $750,000.

When Hitchcock made Torn Curtain, he was coming off three movies that had been very cheap in the "star casting: Psycho(the top pay was to Tony Perkins off an old Paramount contract: $40,000.) Then The Birds and Marnie, which didn't require paying much to newbie Tippi Hedren. Stars like Rod Taylor and the new young Sean Connery weren't that expensive either.

So Hitchcock had been used to lowish pay for stars and suddenly he had TWO big salaries.

These fees were paid by Universal, but evidently -- contrary to today's practices, where stars get you a BIGGER budget -- Universal cut some of the Torn Curtain budget to afford the stars.

In the fifties, Hitchcock really had only one expensive star to contend with -- Cary Grant. He gritted his teeth and allowed the studio to pay the great Grant his money. James Stewart was pricey but took back end deals.

One thing that bugged Hitchcock about Grant, Newman, and Andrews is that with their deals, they got bigger cuts of the profit than Hitchcock himself -- they took their cuts FIRST.

But I think the main thing that bugged him was that in having to direct these stars who got so much more than he did(he was getting $250,000 around this time), his ego was stung when working with young stars who he felt were "above his pay grade."

---

Its odd. After "Torn Curtain" underperformed and got poor reviews, Hitchcock got his wish: he didn't have to have the studio pay "big star salaries" because no big stars would work with him ever again. Unknowns like Frederick Stafford, Karin Dor, Jon Finch, Barry Foster and Barbara Leigh-Hunt were hired for peanuts to be in Topaz and Frenzy. The cast of Family Plot (Bruce Dern, Karen Black, Barbara Harris, William Devane) were better known, but affordable.

In a recent(2014) interview, Bruce Dern says he asked Hitchocck on the set of Family Plot, "Why did you hire ME?" and Hitchcock replied, "Because Mr. Packinow asked for one million dollars, and Hitch doesn't pay one million."

A confused Dern soon realized that "Mr. Packinow" was Al PACINO. So Hitchcock still resented star salaries, even though Pacino, Jack Nicholson, and Robert Redford evidently all were offered roles in Family Plot, and all commanded one million. Perhaps Hitch thought one of them would cut his pay to work with him. (Bruce Dern at that time got a few roles that his pal Jack Nicholson turned down; they were of the same countercultural drawling type.)