This time last year, you could be forgiven for wanting to watch a Kevin Spacey film. With award wins including two Oscars, a Golden Globe, a BAFTA and a Tony amongst many others, and even more nominations, it's clear that he can act. What wasn't clear until recently, however, is how completely a change in one's public image can overshadow decades of recognition.
Since 29th October 2017, allegations of Spacey's sexual misconduct have been emerging in an endless stream. The Old Vic Theatre, at which Spacey was artistic director from 2004 to 2015, set up a confidential complaints procedure which revealed 20 allegations from staff who worked during that time. And the hits to his reputation keep coming; Ridley Scott has dropped him from upcoming award-bid All the Money in the World and Netflix has cut him from House of Cards, the show in which he helped Netflix make their name.
When I first heard the news about Ridley Scott recasting Christopher Plummer in Spacey's role despite the film having wrapped, I was sceptical about the decision. It seemed more like a last-ditch effort to save the film from flopping because of its association with Spacey rather than a moral choice; indeed, with the Weinstein Company sacking Harvey and the public backlash against Spacey, it seemed that everyone just wanted to get as far away as possible from the accused - understandably. Spacey had already been paid for his contribution, in accordance with his contract, so he wouldn't lose out financially this time around, so why go to the extra expense?
Ridley Scott has since opened up about why he made the decision he did. In an interview with Entertainment Weekly, he discussed his moral drive to distance the film from Spacey. Aside from his condemnation of Spacey's actions, he placed great emphasis on respecting his 800-strong filmmaking team:
"We cannot let one person’s action affect the good work of all these other people. It’s that simple." (Scott, 2017)
Although it was not his decision alone, Scott and producers Dan Friedkin and Bradley Thomas appealed to the studios, who automatically wanted to push back release as is usual procedure in the event of a scandal. They argued that they could reshoot Spacey's part, edit it into the film and still make the release date of 22nd December. On 9th November, it was announced that the reshoot would go ahead.
There are many elements which will have been considered when making this decision:
It's highly unlikely that this decision would have been made for a film with a less reputable director, or one with less energy, but given that Ridley Scott was running the show and that funds and actors were available, I'm glad the reshoots have happened. Whether publicity and awards chances were a significant part of the decision or not, the message that this choice is putting out there is an overwhelmingly positive one; we will not tolerate this.
The film is going against the norm and giving a glimpse of hope that change can happen, and that those who hold the power to implement that change will make it happen. And though Spacey was paid for his contribution, he is unlikely to make any financial gain in the near future, in part thanks to the moral stand this film has made against him.
What do you think of the recasting? How about Christopher Plummer's Golden Globe nomination for Spacey's role? Let me know in the comments!
For a future blog post, I'm evaluating audience viewing choices and whether your choices have been influenced by the scandal - I'd love to hear your views! It takes 5-10 minutes and is completely anonymous. Fill out the survey here.
Read more:
- Variety examines the costs involved in the All the Money in the World reshoots
- The timeline of Kevin Spacey's decline, documented by the BBC
- The LA Times discusses Plummer's Golden Globe nomination
See 'Bibliography' tab on home page for all references.
 |
| Kevin Spacey (Zuchnik, 2017) |
When I first heard the news about Ridley Scott recasting Christopher Plummer in Spacey's role despite the film having wrapped, I was sceptical about the decision. It seemed more like a last-ditch effort to save the film from flopping because of its association with Spacey rather than a moral choice; indeed, with the Weinstein Company sacking Harvey and the public backlash against Spacey, it seemed that everyone just wanted to get as far away as possible from the accused - understandably. Spacey had already been paid for his contribution, in accordance with his contract, so he wouldn't lose out financially this time around, so why go to the extra expense?
 |
| Ridley Scott (EW, 2017) |
"We cannot let one person’s action affect the good work of all these other people. It’s that simple." (Scott, 2017)
Although it was not his decision alone, Scott and producers Dan Friedkin and Bradley Thomas appealed to the studios, who automatically wanted to push back release as is usual procedure in the event of a scandal. They argued that they could reshoot Spacey's part, edit it into the film and still make the release date of 22nd December. On 9th November, it was announced that the reshoot would go ahead.
There are many elements which will have been considered when making this decision:
- For a start, the extra filming cost $10 million, a quarter of the film's original $40 million budget. The production companies had to sign off on shouldering that cost - an insurance expert told Variety that this was an "out-of-pocket decision ... [and will be] the production's cost". On the other hand, they would face inevitable box office failure if they released a film featuring Kevin Spacey in the current atmosphere.
- If the film's release were to be pushed back, with or without Spacey in it, it would lose out on this year's awards season. Danny Boyle-directed limited series Trust, made for FX and set for release in January, revolves around the same events and would lose key marketing momentum without the film preceding it.
- The time remaining before release was a third of that which would usually be required for such an overhaul. However, Scott has a good track record for bringing films in on time and complete.
- The press coverage from recasting would rouse interest and potentially make back some of the reshoot money through the box office. Overall, the film would have a much better public reputation with the reshoot, as would the creatives and companies involved.
It's highly unlikely that this decision would have been made for a film with a less reputable director, or one with less energy, but given that Ridley Scott was running the show and that funds and actors were available, I'm glad the reshoots have happened. Whether publicity and awards chances were a significant part of the decision or not, the message that this choice is putting out there is an overwhelmingly positive one; we will not tolerate this.
The film is going against the norm and giving a glimpse of hope that change can happen, and that those who hold the power to implement that change will make it happen. And though Spacey was paid for his contribution, he is unlikely to make any financial gain in the near future, in part thanks to the moral stand this film has made against him.
What do you think of the recasting? How about Christopher Plummer's Golden Globe nomination for Spacey's role? Let me know in the comments!
For a future blog post, I'm evaluating audience viewing choices and whether your choices have been influenced by the scandal - I'd love to hear your views! It takes 5-10 minutes and is completely anonymous. Fill out the survey here.
Read more:
- Variety examines the costs involved in the All the Money in the World reshoots
- The timeline of Kevin Spacey's decline, documented by the BBC
- The LA Times discusses Plummer's Golden Globe nomination
See 'Bibliography' tab on home page for all references.
Comments
Post a Comment