The Hollywood Reporter - 21.08.2019

THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER 38 AUGUST 21, 2019

Analysis

The Business

Illustration by Matt Collins

L

et me be frank: Megan

Ellison is a pain in the neck.

From a reporter’s point of

view, she’s aloof, unconcerned

with branding, as secretive as the

Kremlin. She’s that worst of all

creatures when it comes to deal-

ing with the press: someone who

has no desire for press. Then why

do I admire her so much?

Because there’s no executive

now who has a greater passion for

film — and not just the medium

but a particular kind of movie-

making that’s becoming an

endangered species: the specialty

release, the thoughtful, charac-

ter-driven drama that the majors

long ago turned their backs on.

There aren’t many who share

her devotion: a few execs in the

art house world (Sony Pictures

Classics’ Michael Barker, Fox

Searchlight’s Nancy Utley) and

even the occasional studio suit

(Amy Pascal before she got booted

out of Sony, and Tom Rothman,

the man who replaced her).

Why Root for Megan Ellison to Fail?

As her Annapurna Pictures faces financial headwinds, the producer should be praised for

her commitment to critically acclaimed films instead of facing skepticism about a turnaround

pictures like Tr u e G r i t, Worl d

War Z and Mission: Impossible

— Fallout, good pieces of enter-

tainment but none of them

life-changing. Still, his relative

immunity to criticism, in con-

trast to his sister, means sexism

has to play a part.

It’s still unclear how perilous

Ellison’s finances are, though

the vast amount she’s lavished

on production, marketing and,

since 2017, a distribution arm,

doesn’t seem remotely justified

by the box office of her films. If

her company’s financial situa-

tion causes her to make fewer or

less ambitious films, that would

be a shattering loss. This is the

woman who greenlit films from

The Master to Zero Dark Thirty,

from Spring Breakers to American

Hustle, from If Beale Street Could

Ta l k to this summer’s excellent

Booksmart; who’s allowed such

auteurs as David O. Russell, Barry

Jenkins and Kathryn Bigelow to

work free of constraint; who’s

financed some of the most inter-

esting and challenging projects

of the past decade. She follows

in a long tradition of maver-

icks who put their money where

their mouths were, from Sam

Goldwyn to Sam Spiegel. These

weren’t just gamblers, they were

zealots, no matter how bullying

and belligerent, regardless of

their flaws.

Maybe the time for zealots has

passed. Maybe we just don’t trust

people who sacrifice their soul

for their passion, much less those

who sacrifice their wallet. But

that’s what Ellison has done. In

an era of algorithms and the ano-

dyne, she’s a reminder of what

loving movies is all about.

In another time and place, we

wouldn’t just admire Ellison’s

commitment, we’d revere it.

She’s not just an investor, she’s

a patron, and if her patronage

were lavished on a different art

form — say, subsidizing sculp-

tors or bestowing gifts on the

Metropolitan Opera — she’d

be lionized. But because her

obsession is movies, people are

skeptical — as if, deep down, we

still don’t consider film equal to

all those other art forms, as if

show business should be the oper-

ative term. And so the strangest

of phenomena is taking place:

People are rooting for her to fail.

When THR reported Aug. 7 that

Ellison’s company, Annapurna

Pictures, has retained a law firm

to explore a possible bankruptcy,

some felt a kind of glee rather

than sorrow — not anyone who’ll

go on the record, of course; but

among the 1 p.m. lunch set in

Beverly Hills and Burbank, there’s

a veritable thrill at rumors of

Annapurna’s possible demise.

Admittedly, part of this emanates

from resentment at the source

of Ellison’s funding: It comes

from her dad, Oracle co-founder

Larry Ellison. And so skepticism

about her bona fides abounds,

just as it does about all those

other rich-kids-made-good, from

the Murdochs on down — some-

times unfounded, sometimes

legitimate. Only it’s that much

worse for Ellison because she’s

a woman.

Her brother, David, gets none

of the same flak. His Skydance

has had better fiscal results with

MOGULS | STEPHEN GALLOWAY

STEPHEN GALLOWAY is executive

editor at The Hollywood Reporter. Source: Comscore; worldwide grosses

$76.1M

Vice (2018)

$17.5M

Sorry to Bother You (2018)

$22.6M

Booksmart (2019)

$16.6M

Missing Link (2019)

$5.5M

Destroyer (2018)

$47.8M

Phantom Thread (2017)

$16.8M

Detroit (2017)

$20.5M

If Beal Street Could Talk (2018)

$13.1M

The Sisters Brothers (2018)

$1.6M

Professor Marston and The Wonder Women (2017)

Ellison has boasted acclaimed

films that have underperformed:

Vice’s box office may look

like a big number on paper, but

it cost at least $60 million

to produce before marketing.

Annapurna’s Swings