$100 million dollars. A director you may be more familiar with their work than their name. Two renowned lead actors. No connection to an existing brand or franchise. How on earth did Le Mans 66 get made in 2019?
It is no secret that Hollywood is struggling. Streaming and the monumental rise in television quality (as in the shows, not the object) has shaken the onscreen entertainment industry. Audiences are more selective, only turning up in droves for the films they know they will enjoy; the Marvel extravaganzas, the Star Wars behemoths and the Disney live action remakes: films with already established universes and characters. Studios pour their blockbuster budgets into these tent poles, and, minus a few bombs, it is a seemingly smart move. Films hitting the billion dollar mark was a big thing back in the early 2010s, now it means nothing (unless you're Joker). But whilst the market is swamped by these universe and character-centric films, it means a certain era of Hollywood is over: that of the movie star.
Risks are few and far between these days among the studios. $100 million and upwards is generally only reserved for films with established audiences, promising at least some people to turn up to its release. The mid-budget film has all but vanished; what once dominated cinema in the 1980s and 1990s, with films like The Negotiator and Heat being made on modest $40-70 million budgets, allowing another effects and action but without being a massive financial risk. Those two films in particular also had star power: Kevin Spacey and Samuel L Jackson in the former and of course Al Pacino and Robert De Niro in the latter. These are actors who can put audiences in seats. Or, they once could. There is an argument to be made that star power has gone: Dwayne Johnson films aren't always hits (Skyscraper) and neither are those A listers that make up the bulk of the Marvel franchise ensemble. Do audiences watch Avengers films for Robert Downey Jr. or do they watch it for Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man?
There is resistance, notably with people like Leonardo DiCaprio, who has had an immensely strong commercial decade (Inception, The Wolf of Wall Street, The Revenant and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood), and then with directors such as Christopher Nolan and Quentin Tarantino who have established themselves as brands despite their largely original and fresh stories they tell. This means companies like Warner Bros. can provide Nolan with $160 million to make a heist film about dreams within dreams: people will turn up because they expect (and get) consistently impressive slices of cinema.
But back to Le Mans 66. If you ignore the recent efforts of Tarantino and Nolan on the basis that they are 'event' cinema, when was the last time a studio put a nine figure sum into a non-franchise film that had a powerful movie star in the lead? Off the top of my head it seems like 2015's The Revenant. Whilst its original budget was $65 million, it ballooned to $135 million and then went on to do over half a billion worldwide. That was directed by a talented filmmaker (though not a household name) and had a vaguely true story narrative acted out by two popular actors (DiCaprio and Tom Hardy).
There is an argument for Ready Player One but that had the novelty of its mish-mash of 80s and 90s pop culture, but The Meg is another good example. Yes its adapted from a book, but it was sold as Jason Statham vs a giant megaladon, and it made half a billion worldwide. A worthy risk. But three films off the top of my head from the last five years or so is an awful ratio. Luckily Ad Astra and Le Mans 66 gave us two in a month.
Le Mans 66 is without a doubt a star driven film. Without leading actors Christian Bale and Matt Damon you would only have petrol heads going to see this film. But with these two popular and (largely consistent) actors, you have a broader appeal for audiences. Throw in director James Mangold who has made some solid films (Logan, 3:10 to Yuma, Walk the Line) and the inspiring and thrilling true life story and you have vintage Hollywood. Perhaps to be even more specific, when was $100 million given to an original film that is not a CGI driven blockbuster? Mangold's direction and immersive sound design makes this feel authentic; like you can feel the heat of the engine and the smell of fuel. It hasn't been marketed as a must-see cinematic experience, but it certainly is.
One of the supporting characters, Leo Beebe (Josh Lucas) is a stereotypical senior management man. His heart is not in the racing, it is in the money and image. Throughout he harbors a disdain for the risky and seemingly uncontrollable individual Ken Miles (Bale). Beebe feels like a current Hollywood executive: what they want is safety for their company and their business, even at the cost of others' individuality and freedoms. The film raises and answers the question about taking the skilled over the unskilled, even if they can be stubborn and hard to work with. Risks are worth taking and this film is a perfect demonstration of that: Le Mans 66 received a rare A+ CinemaScore, showing that audiences absolutely loved it. Hopefully its box office sees it turn a profit, as Ad Astra (on an estimated $80-100 million budget) has failed to do so, despite its brilliance. Le Mans 66's potential success could see a few more risks, a few more star driven stories that are best told with a hefty budget behind them. It is a crowd pleasing enough film I think to secure a Best Picture nomination, and that at least should signify its importance. Brilliantly acted, funny, inspiring and technically faultless. Le Mans 66 is old school filmmaking roaring back onto the big screen.
