Former Houstonian Randy Quaid, the fine character actor who is a product of Sidney Berger‘s outstanding theatre department at the University of Houston, is making news these days in the courtroom — he is suing the producers of the recent hit movie Brokeback Mountain for $10 million in damages for misleading him to contribute his talent to the film in a supporting role. Here is the Variety article on the lawsuit.
According to Variety, Quaid — the grizzled ranch boss character in the movie who brought the tragic lovers Jack and Ennis together — alleges that the Brokeback producers misled him into thinking that the movie was just an “art” film with little chance of generating any profits:

Defendants were engaging in a ‘movie laundering’ scheme designed to obtain the services of talent such as Randy Quaid on economically unfavorable art film terms for a picture that, in reality, had studio backing and would be exploited using traditional studio marketing and distribution techniques,” the lawsuit states. […]
Quaid is asking to be awarded $10 million, the amount the lawsuit suggests he would have received had Focus been upfront about its intentions for “Brokeback,” which has grossed nearly $160 million worldwide.
“Randy Quaid is an instantly recognizable household name and much-admired actor on the world’s stage with a worldwide box office total of nearly $2 billion. His likeness, talent and name are worth millions of dollars and are solely his property,” the lawsuit states. […]
According to the suit, Lee told Quaid during a meeting that “we can’t pay anything, we have very little money, everyone is making a sacrifice to make this film.

Meanwhile, the NY Times article reports that Quaid’s lawsuit is focusing unwanted attention in certain Hollywood circles on how talent is being paid for working in features produced by the so-called “mini-majors” — the arthouse divisions of huge studios that claims that low-budget films wouldn’t be made without casts and crews drastically cutting their fees. Now, prominent actors such as Quaid are contending that they are being hoodwinked only to have the studios spend huge amounts on marketing in order to generate huge returns:

“It’s a complicated question, and it is both the genius and the nefarious nature of these mini-majors,” said Linda Lichter, a lawyer who sells films in the independent world. “The purpose of those mini-majors is to try to make movies that the major studios can’t afford to make, for less money. But they don’t make those movies unless they get big players who are willing to cut their price.” […]
“Good Night, and Good Luck,” from Warner Independent, cost a mere $8 million to produce, with the actors earning the lowest permissible union fee, known as scale, an executive involved in the film said. Warner Brothers spent about $25 million to promote the film for the Oscars and in its general release, so while the movie took in $51 million around the world, there will be no profit to share in, the executive said. (Distributors share box office revenue with theater owners.)

Gee, imagine that. Who would have thought that Hollywood — which regularly misrepresents and bashes business in films — regularly misrepresents its business to others within its own industry? ;^)