The narnia guy made a pretty educated bet. It's pretty tough to lose money on a movie these days. Add to that Disney's distribution, and it was an even money wager...at least over the long run.
Most successful artists have good work ethics, but that doesn't rule out totally loony behavior. The folks that I know in the arts are a mixed bag in regards to families, though most are on second, third and fourth wives/husbands. But again, the wives/kids aren't important to them in the same way that they are important to a lot of people.
I'm not sure they feel they have a license to be a jerk. It just comes naturally. The artistic community, such as it is, tends to be made up of emotionally immature, unstable, self-centered,and generally speaking, somewhat unhappy people. Happy, well-adjusted people go to work for insurance firms where they are more apt to build the financial security required to maintain house, families, cars, etc.
Probably the best essay on the subject is by Edmond Wilson called the Wound and the Bow.
Edmund not Edmond.
Not so--ask the investors of Return to Oz and Battlefield Earth, to name two big productions based on popular books, if it's tough to lose money on a movie these days. Still, the point was whether conservatives risk money on films, and they do. If, say, The Passion was such a good bet, why did Gibson have to put up the money himself?
Most successful artists have good work ethics, but that doesn't rule out totally loony behavior. The folks that I know in the arts are a mixed bag in regards to families, though most are on second, third and fourth wives/husbands. But again, the wives/kids aren't important to them in the same way that they are important to a lot of people.
I don't know what to tell you. There are plenty of non-artists on third and fourth wives. And as I said, the professional artists I know (one a good friend, one a friend for 25 years, another a woman I dated, etc.) are as normal as anyone. The flakes are scraping by with other jobs and are strictly amateurs. If you read up on the folks who are at the forefront of their artistic fields, you'll find few flakes, though there will be plenty of flakey behavior, something you find in non-artists too. I just find the whole "mad artist" thing a romantic invention of those artists who can't sit down and do their work.
I'm not sure they feel they have a license to be a jerk. It just comes naturally. The artistic community, such as it is, tends to be made up of emotionally immature, unstable, self-centered,and generally speaking, somewhat unhappy people. Happy, well-adjusted people go to work for insurance firms where they are more apt to build the financial security required to maintain house, families, cars, etc.
That's a very broad statement. It's a comforting cliche I guess, but it's just not so. All those art schools are overflowing with people who don't end up in looney bins. Artistic people don't just go to Hollywood, they work in our communities in local TV, magazines, animation companies for industrial work, etc. The artist I know who has won a pile of awards for his work is probably the most normal person I know, period.
Probably the best essay on the subject is by Edmond Wilson called the Wound and the Bow.
I may have read it, I have a couple (aging) copies of Wilson around.