$78 million of red ink?

Wednesday, April 18th, 2007

$78 million of red ink? That’s how much money Sahara lost, according to some highly confidential documents that have come out:

  • “Sahara,” an action-adventure based on the bestselling novel by Clive Cussler, has lost about $105 million to date, according to a finance executive assigned to the movie. But records show the film losing $78.3 million based on Hollywood accounting methods that count projected revenue ($202.9 million in this case) over a 10-year period.
  • About 1,000 cast and crew members worked on “Sahara.” The highest-paid was McConaughey, who received an $8-million fee, or $615,385 for each week of filming, not including bonuses and other compensation. Cruz earned $1.6 million. Rainn Wilson, who since has raised his profile through roles in “Six Feet Under” and “The Office,” was paid $45,000 for 10 weeks of work.
  • “Courtesy payments,” “gratuities” and “local bribes” totaling $237,386 were passed out on locations in Morocco to expedite filming. A $40,688 payment to stop a river improvement project and $23,250 for “Political/Mayoral support” may have run afoul of U.S. law, experts say.
  • Ten screenwriters were paid $3.8 million in fees and bonuses — highlighting the increasingly common practice of hiring and firing numerous writers on big-budget features. David S. Ward, who won an Academy Award for “The Sting,” received $500,000.
  • The production firm owned by Denver billionaire Philip Anschutz got $20.4 million in government incentives to film and edit parts of “Sahara” in Europe.
  • Unlike most financial failures, “Sahara” performed reasonably well, ranking No. 1 after its opening weekend and generating $122 million in gross box-office sales. But the movie was saddled with exorbitant costs, including a $160-million production and $81.1 million in distribution expenses.

An interesting bit of legal trivia:

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act prohibits U.S. companies from paying any foreign official to secure an “improper advantage” or influence a decision. The act permits small “grease” or facilitation payments for routine services such as the provision of visas, licenses and permits.

The “local bribes” probably would fall under the “grease” exemption because of the routine nature of the payments, said Alexandra Wrage, president of TRACE, an anti-bribery business association in Annapolis, Md.

Leave a Reply