Bright Young Things discussion

You were having such interesting conversations in our May film nominations thread about the effect the Studio system had on film production and quality of output so I thought I'd set up a thread to further that discussion...it will be such a shame to lose all your thoughts when the nominations thread is eventually deleted so I'd encourage you to re-post.

(...I'm looking into whether Goodreads has/can add the functionality to allow moderators to split topics but it may not be a quick investigation!!!)

^ I'm pretty sure you can't split up threads Ally. If you can I've never worked out how to do it either.

What I said about Studios on the other thread....


Some would argue that television is the more creative medium these days.

There's usually 10-15 films a year, from across the world, that I really rate. That hit rate hasn't changed much for me over time.

I tend to avoid blockbusters and big budget stuff - though not exclusively, and I try to avoid multiplexes. I also enjoy a lot of documentaries which is a thriving genre.

There's usually quite a bit of good low budget stuff too if you dig around.

Check out Ben Wheatley if you haven't already - a local (to me) boy and a great example of where imagination, a cinematic sensibility and low budgets can get you.

excised and moved over to this thread:

I feel that perhaps "The Wizard of Oz", along with "Gone With The Wind", did a great deal to bolster the monolithic "Studio System" which valued showmanship over creative and artistic freedom for the next thirty years. The studios only reluctantly loosened their grip when an insignificant, low budget, exploitation film (one "Easy Rider") unexpectedly became a blockbuster.

I would never argue that the films of the 1950's aren't superior to what's on display at my local Cineplex right now. However, there's a general consensus that the 1970's, after the collapse of the studio system, produced more iconoclastic, as well as popular motion pictures than any other decade in American film history. After the initial euphoria and ambition exhibited in that decade, I agree that the results of the new found freedom has become tepid.

I blame this not on the absence of a strong, centralized studio system, but the increasing reliance on marketing research to pitch a film toward a particular demographic, or "in-built pre-existing" audience. This rationale has lead to a preponderance of sequels, prequels, re-makes, spin-offs, adaptations, biopics, star vehicles, and pop-culture tie-ins. What the current industry needs is original stories, concepts, and ideas.

(There's also the issue of studio system casualties to consider, Orson Welles and Francis Farmer to name but two.)

That's one reason the Wizard of Oz is a good one to start with. Judy Garland was one that they virtually worked to death at an early age.

She was a prime example of their "Be here! Go there!" Attitude. And, of course, most of the women had a potato clause - Don't you dare gain weight. This was a problem Thelma Todd ran into. Of course, she did die young; possibly at the hands of Lucky Luciano, possibly just fell asleep in a garage with her engine running. She can be seen in Animal Crackers and some other Marx Brothers movies and a light comedy series she did with Patsy Kelly.

Oh, gosh, Jan. I think that weight issue was more than Old Hollywood likes to admit... :(

Anyway, I cannot lie that the films from the studio system had great scripts. However, they truly destroyed developments in film. As TA acknowledged, the studio system destroyed many actors/directors careers, in fact a majority of them who didnt abide by some rules... Magnificent Andersons was destroyed because the studios thought it was useless.

Would like to add, re: disintegration of studio system, Bette Davis was the first high profile actress (as far as I know) to sue out of her contract, she lost. By lost, her career was relegated to B-list horror films, despite being second to Meryl in noms. Olivia de Haviland later sued in 1944, and won. I am generalizing a bit, but in America that is when the industry changed. A lot. I can elaborate if you want.

Val wrote: "I read somewhere about Charlie Chaplin and other established stars forming United Artists in an attempt to have more control over their films.
I don't think the 'studio system' was such a problem i..."

Tis true regarding United Artists. That's where the phrase, "The lunatics are taking over the asylum" came from. Even Chaplin didn't have the "star power" to achieve complete artistic freedom without his own studio, and he still had to answer to the Hayes Code and other censorship, including attempted interference by J. Edgar Hoover and The House on UnAmerican Activities, even after achieving the autonomy United Artists provided.