I really think that 'Christine' is one in a million in terms of independent or studio.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
Now when I say Sophie Ellis-Bextor I feel that's not really me because that's become this entity from doing the gigs and the shows and the make-up contracts and whatever else.
But it took me awhile to figure out Christine at this age, you know.
It's a tougher gig than what people think it is. The proper, real, genuine, worldwide movie stars don't get a lot of downtime from the world outside. That's a tougher price, I think, than what people's fantasy of fame account for.
When it comes to the recording and writing, it's still mostly Mickey and I. But now there's this whole live entity that's a whole different thing, and it seems to be where we're gaining the most popularity.
For the most part, studio movies have huge budgets. They don't do anything under 30 to 40 million. When you have that much money at stake, you have so many people breathing down your neck.
When you worked in a studio it was the studio system that you kind of missed because it was a big, big family. I mean MGM had 5,000 people working a day there. You miss it.
There's no room for being a visionary in the studio system. It literally cannot exist.
We're probably close to reaching 2,000 shows, which is more than Julia Child and Jacques Pepin together.
Marlene Dumas is one of the two or three most successful female artists alive, if you judge by prices. I've never reviewed her work, because I find nothing in it to get excited about no matter how hard I look.
You know, independent films have been institutionalized, practically. Every studio has got a boutique arthouse label.