A “vanity project” isn’t always a bad movie- but typically, it’s a movie made SOLELY for one of the following reasons:
A major star or director has an obsession with the subject matter or source material.
A major star or director is trying to “prove” something by making a movie that’s completely unlike the movies he’s known for and has been successful in.
Most mainstream action or comedy films are made with the intention of raking in money. But occasionally, a big star will become fixated on a book or an ideology or religion, and will do everything possible to make a movie that has little hope of attracting a crowd. Nobody thought Battlefield Earth was a good idea except devoted Scientologist John Travolta- and it WASN’T a good idea! Nobody thought ***The Razor’s Edge would be a hit except Bill Murray (who loved the novel)- and it wasn’t! Nobody thought Passion of the Christ ***would succeed except ultra-Catholic Mel Gibson- and… whaddya know, it was a smash. Go figure.
MANY movies are complete and utter turds and flops, but we can usually see why those movies were made. Like him or not, Adam Sandler’s comedies have made a lot of money; so, when he asks a studio to bankroll a new comedy with a moronic premise… well, it may make sense to give that movie the green light. Dumb Sandler comedies usually recoup their initial investments.
BUT… what if Adam Sandler suddenly gets it into his head that he wants to be a serious artiste and wants to earn the respect of the Hollywood community? Suppose he then buys the rights to an acclaimed novel and decides he’ll be both the star and the director? THAT would be a “vanity project.”
MOST of the time, a star who wants to branch out or change his image will take a few chances by taking roles in small, interesting-sounding films by independent writers or directors (Jim Carrey in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. But every so often, that star will go overboard, trying to prove he’s a Serious Important Artist, and end up making not just a flop, but an incredibly EXPENSIVE flop!
Indeed, she had to go out of her way to convince the production team to use her. She made the music video Take a Bow to prove to them she should get the part. The music video was a vanity project, Evita wasn’t.
In the same way Eternal Sunshine was not a vanity project. Jim Carrey didn’t cast himself.
I think people are confusing movies that spotlight an actor or which they think the actor was ‘over the top’ is a vanity project. That’s not the definition of a vanity project. That’s a ‘star vehicle.’ And star vehicles can be great or awful. And the star could be taking the job as a challenge or out of vanity… but that’s not a vanity project in which they cast themselves.
Right, not a vanity film. It was a stage play for 18 years before it was a movie. Several actresses were considered over the years, with Karla DeVito the supposed frontrunner.
I don’t remember that, but I do remember Goin’ Coconuts with Donny and Marie. Or at least, I remember when it came out. I missed it myself.
Would movies that seem to only be made in order for the cast/crew to spend large amounts of time in a desirable location (as seems to have been the case with the movie “Just Go With It” w/ Adam Sandler and Jennifer Aniston, filmed mostly in Hawaii) count as a vanity project?
In one sense, every indie movie is a “vanity” project. The difference is, while John Cassavetes certainly had a big ego, certainly made films HIS way without caring whether they had mass appeal…
Cassavetes was a working actor, but never a big star. He didn’t have the stature or clout to get studios to give him tons of money to make big movies. He appeared in a few big movies, but when he was making his own movies, his was a small, low-budget operation. He didn’t make epic films about big events- he made intimate movies that focused on people and relationships.
I think that in the case of After Earth, a third category applies:
A major star wants to showcase one or more of his children. Supposedly, not only did Will Smith pretty much singlehandedly produce the remake of The Karate Kid for Jaden, but the upcoming remake of Annie for Willow (before she decided that she would rather be a tweenager than a movie star, at least for now).
After Earth may or may not be a good movie, but it doesn’t strike me as a “vanity” project. Will Smith has made several sci-fi movies that have made a lot of money (Men in Black, I, Robot,*** I Am Legend***, et al.) So, when WIll Smith approached studios with an idea for a big-budget sci-fi that he’d star in with his son, that DIDN’T seem like a huge stretch. It SEEMED like an established star trying to make precisely the kind of movie he’s best known for.
Now, if Will Smith had tried to get a $200 million dollar for a musical version of Othello, or for an epic biography of Ramses the Great, THAT would have been a vanity project.
She was in the news this week on a domestic violence charge for scratching her 16 year old son’s ear and attacking her husband and 32 year old stepson. (Her current husband is a former cop; the old gazillionaire she used to be married to who bankrolled her awful movies is now married to somebody younger.)
Hearst famously bankrolled several films for Marion Davies. She actually had talent and got good reviews even from non-Hearst papers for her light comedy roles, but he insisted in casting her in period pictures and bad musicals that were totally wrong for her. When somebody later told him that there was a fortune in motion pictures he said “I know. Mine.”
In his defense, I thought it was a solid film that removed the worst narrative excesses of the book and kept the meat of the story. Admittedly it was a film without a target audience and ironically might have done better without Bill Murray in it (who was certainly not thought of a serious actor pre-Lost in Translation), but it was still a good film.
Bob Ducca is right. It would be one thing if it was actually starring Smith, or if it was Smith and a young actor chosen for his talent and and experience, like one of the kids from The Wire. But since it’s starring Jaden Smith, with Will Smith as a supporting actor that makes it a vanity film. I haven’t seen the film, or anything else Jaden has been in, but from the reviews he doesn’t sound like a natural movie star. If he wasn’t related to Will Smith, he would have never had received this role.
That’s what I heard, too- and considering how much money Ghostbusters made, it was probably a good investment to let Murray make The Razor’s Edge.
It’s still a safe bet that NOBODY ilvolved in the making of The Razor’s Edge (including Murray) thought it would be a hit.
So, does that make it a vanity project (for which we should mock it) or a labor of love (for which we should admire it)?
Sometimes there’s a very fine line, isn’t there? Should we applaud big stars who try to branch out and do something VERY different, or ridicule them for doing that?
A few months before ***Dances With Wolves ***came out, everyone in the press was calling it “Kevin’s Gate” and saying it was an incredibly expensive bomb. Early reports said that James Cameron’s ***Titanic ***was a hundred million dollars over budget and a financial disaster.
Were those “vanity projects”? Nobody seems to think so now, since both won Oscars and earned a lot fo money. But at the time, they sure LOOKED like vanity projects.
I think a necessary fourth component for it to be a “vanity film” in the pejorative sense is that in addition to number 3, that showcasing has to come at the expense of other vital elements of good storytelling.
This. There are film professionals out there who create works that highlight their own talent, but the work is not ABOUT their talent, if that makes sense. Telling a good, compelling story is the first and primary goal; using your own talents to do that is a means to that end, not an end in itself.
It can often be a fine line to walk, but some have done it successfully. In a vanity film, the story exists solely to serve the writer/director/star (and I’ve had the misfortune of working with someone like this, and yes, the script was terrible). In a self-produced project of the non-vanity variety, the talents of everyone involved serve the story.
I’m having trouble coming up with one that isn’t just a “Casting Vanity” project. Like Sofia Coppola in Godfather III, or Madonna in that Guy Ritchie flop Swept Away.
Aaand while I was just typing that I came up with two. Gigli and Hudson Hawk.