Mbostic's List: Week 3 Discussion

• The second legal barrage came about via the Paramount case in 1948. It proclaimed the vertical integration of the ‘Majors’ a violation of Anti-Trust laws in the U.S and subsequently ruled that the ‘Majors’ be divested of their theatre chains (Eyman, 1991). This meant the ‘Major’ studios no longer had a guaranteed market for their films, but would have to compete with other studios for screening time at independent exhibitors. The decision separated the ‘Majors’ from exhibition but allowed them to maintain the rights for distribution. Dixon and Forster (2008) sustain that this again ultimately favoured the studios, as they were able to dictate the terms of their A class films. The ‘Majors’ maintained a level of power over exhibition by demanding studio blockbusters command enormous guarantees for screen time, or taking 90 percent of the first weeks box office intake (Dixon & Foster, 2008, p.173).
• Under the new laws the Old Studio System began to crack. Studios began producing less B and C films and focused on producing higher quality, bigger budget blockbusters. Furthermore, what were once the studios two greatest commodities, property and people, became their biggest burdens (Mast 1971). The Old Studio System could no longer sustain its chosen path of factory line production and new modes of production would be required if the ‘Majors’ were to remain afloat. This change was eventually modelled on the production and distributional structure of United Artists, who during the era of the Old Studio System was only a minor player (Scott, 2005). United Artists who had never controlled any theatres or studio property had primarily produced films by backing independent filmmakers and then uses its money and power to distribute the final product, taking a large percentage of the box office intake.
• The collapse of the Old Studio System was not merely brought about by legal changes, but by social ones as well. Two major social changes affected audience attendance at movie theatres. The first was the suburbanisation of the American population. Balio (1990, p.3) identifies the recession in Hollywood as being in large due to the “Migration to the suburbs and the baby boom, which focused consumers spending on appliance’s, automobiles, and new housing.” The move to suburban areas meant that families were further away from the city theatres and could not attend the pictures daily. The disbursement of the population also meant that the audience demographics were becoming increasingly segregated.
• The Studios invested large amounts in the development of technologies, stations and networks to insure their monopoly over another arm of exhibition (Anderson, 1994). However this attempt was thwarted by the Paramount decision, which denied Hollywood studios access to the ownership of television stations (Anderson, 1994). Only once Hollywood realised that it could not control the exhibition of its content, and would be at the mercy of others, did it resist the move to television. During the early growth of television the studios “directly apposed television and disallowed the screening of Hollywood films and the use of film actors for television”(Mast, 1971, p.317). Instead it devised alternative gimmicks in the hope that they would entice views back to the picture palaces. These alternatives included, 3-D films, Smell-o-vision, Cinemascope and Cinerama, all of which were only minor success and did little to prevent the growth of television (Ellis, 1979).
• By 1962 the studios had begun to collapse as independent entities. Commercial conglomerates began taking over the studios one by one.  For example Universal was taken over in 1962 by Music Corporation of America, Paramount by Gulf and Western Industries in 1966 and United Artists by Transamerica in 1967 (Eyman, 1971). This signified a changing of the guard form the Old Studio System which was run by movie producers, to the New Studio System of Global corporations who had no prior affiliation with movies but were now running the largest movie-making industry in the world. Where the Old System tried to industrialise movies by producing them in a factory like manner, the New System sort to add movies to a factory line of products. Kristin Thompson (2007, p.4) explains that the franchising of films began in the 1920s, “The popular Felix the Cat cartoons led to stuffed toys and other tie-in products.” However she continues by stating that the “Blockbuster Franchise of modern Hollywood did not begin until the late 70’s”. Hollywood’s new industrialisation of films came in the form of movie franchises.

3 more annotations...