The Business of Making Movies

A subforum to discuss film culture and criticism.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Scharphedin2
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 7:37 am
Location: Denmark/Sweden

#1 Post by Scharphedin2 » Tue Nov 07, 2006 9:19 am

Although I have been absent from the forum for a couple of months, I have not been idle in my film viewing. Specifically, I have found myself viewing and re-viewing a number of films from the ‘30s and ‘40s as a result of the lists project here in the forum.

Moving leisurely from films like Grand Hotel, Camille, Young Mr. Lincoln, Goodbye Mr. Chips, and on to forties films like Key Largo, Criss Cross, The Song of Bernadette and On the Town, stirred my interest in the Hollywood studio system of the period, and as a result I brought David Thomson's “The Whole Equationâ€
Last edited by Scharphedin2 on Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Fletch F. Fletch
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:54 pm
Location: Provo, Utah

#2 Post by Fletch F. Fletch » Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:07 am

I find it interesting how the '70s saw the rise of the director in Hollywood with all sorts of daring films being produced and then in the '80s it was all about the producer and the movie star and you had a return of blustery titans like powerful producers Joel Silver, Jerry Bruckheimer and Don Simpsons making all of kinds of big budget action films. Peter Biskind's Easy Riders, Raging Bulls book touches upon this briefly towards the end but I always thought it would be an interesting topic to explore.

User avatar
Lino
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:18 am
Location: Sitting End
Contact:

#3 Post by Lino » Tue Nov 07, 2006 6:11 pm

Scharphedin2 wrote:My hope with this thread is to hear from other forum members, their thoughts and insights on the classical Hollywood system(s) of producing movies. What are the thoughts on the role of the producer in film production past and present, in Hollywood and in the film industries of other nations?
First of all, a big welcome back to you, young sir! And to succintly answer your query, I would like to add that yes, producers can be a little pain in the neck of a striving and daring director but they can also be one of the main strengths and inspirations behind the making of a great movie.

Just take the case of Val Lewton. A classic example of a producer that did wonders with so very little. He employed various directors, groomed a few and inspired a bunch of them to this day. His series of 9 horror movies really had his trademark all over those B/W chiaroscuro frames. You can look at one of his movies and see his keen eye for mood and dread stamped from the very first frames. Naturally, this was from a time when the producer was still the main man where moviemaking was concerned.

But flashforward some decades and you got another classic example: Sam Spiegel. Here is a man whose life would make one incredible movie. Forget Scorsese's The Aviator -- I'm personally waiting for someone to tackle this bigger than life man story and bring it to the big screen. His resume is impressive to say the least and I really love this quote from him:

"Hollywood has always been full of bartenders and waiters who want to be directors. Trouble is most of them have achieved their ambition."

That really sums it up, doesn't it? :wink: His fights with David Lean are now legendary but you can't fault the final results, can you? Spiegel was a movie mogul in the full Hollywood sense of the word and one of the very last ones. Did he hurt in some way how some of the movies turned out? Maybe, but he could always put the blame on the director, right? :wink:

User avatar
Scharphedin2
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 7:37 am
Location: Denmark/Sweden

#4 Post by Scharphedin2 » Wed Nov 08, 2006 10:08 am

Both Lewton and Spiegel were fascinating characters, and your reply, Lino, just serves to fuel my excitement about how much there is to "study" further on this topic...

From what I know, Lewton had quite a lengthy career prior to his stint with RKO as unit producer. He worked as screenwriter and doctor on many films in the thirties. He was associated with Selznick, and I remember reading, how he would be the guy dispatched by Selznick to deal with the MPAA at the time, which was run by a notoriously conservative Minister. Lewton apparently presented treatments and scripts prior to their submission to the films being shot and actually submitted for assessment in order to ensure that a project was not offensive at the outset, and thereby avoid expensive retakes and recutting to have a film passed at a later date.

Given Lewton's past, I wonder how his work relationship was with Robert Wise, Mark Robson and Jacques Tourneur, once he found himself in the producer's chair...?

The thing that I did not manage to elaborate on in my initial post, but which I find extremely interesting, is the way that the studio system worked. In the beginning, there was one studio head, who would oversee all aspects of production on pretty much every picture made by a studio (aided by a handful of "supervisors"). Thalberg was the classic example and model of this type of figure. Interestingly, he never took any screen credit on any of the films, but in many instances had greater impact on the final shape of a film than even the director.

Later, and apparently inspired by producers like Selznick (who felt that it was too much for one person to oversee the entire output of a studio and maintain quality), several of the big studios went on to a unit production mode of operation, where there were several unit producers (like a Selznick), who each took charge of a certain number of productions a year, and had a team of technicians and talent working more or less exlusively for them. Often these units specialized in specific types of films that were proven forumlas -- biopics, backstage musicals, literary adaptations, etc.

Selznick eventually went independent, but used/rented the resources of the studios, and distributed his films through the big studios, which at the time of course also possessed their own chains of theatres. His penchant for extremely large productions, and insistence on controlling every apsect of production, led to an extremely limited output of films as time progressed. Exhaustion after Gone With the Wind and Rebecca even kept him out of the movie business altogether for several years. Later in the forties he began to sell packages to the big studios consisting of scripts, development materials, and key stars/director. Several major stars and directors were under exclusive contract to him (Ingrid Bergman, Joan Fontaine, Alfred Hitchcock), so this was good business for him, as he coulc capitalize on the increased value of these stars, which he had helped create, even when he had no projects for them himself.

Whichever shape the studio system took in those early years, the system was based on talent being under contract to the studios. I am not sure, what the consensus on this system is, or if there even is one. As with most things there were pros and cons. Stars, writers, directors, everyone were ensured consistent work, even if they did not have much control in the projects that they worked on. Depending on the savy of the individual, salaries could be great, or they could be hopelessly unjust. The latter would often happen, if a player entered into a long term contract at an early stage in their career. Their star might rise quickly (and also wane quickly), but if their contract was based on their value at an early stage in their career, it was often very difficult to renegotiate a more favorable deal, if their market value went up.

However, there must be something to be said for the idea of working consistently (and for all intents and purposes comfortably) as an artist. Many of these people (whether actors or technicians) worked on multiple films a year, and thus they became true professionals at what they did. I wonder how many directors (for example) make a decent living in Hollywood today? Many are lucky if they direct a film every two years. Very few direct more than one a year... Would it be fair to draw a conclusion that directors have generally become "less adept or professional" as a result?

In the seventies, Coppola set up his American Zoetrope outfit. I have not had a chance to look into the thoughts and practices that he employed as head of his own studio. Probably, not much of a structure ever took root, as Zoetrope did not produce that many films, but from what I remember reading, the ideal for this company was to create a modern studio on the template of the old Hollywood studios. Would it be inconceivable for a studio today to operate the way the big studios did in the first half of the twentieth century? Does anyone know of any present day independent studios that employ a similar structure in a common quest between actors, directors and producers to create films?

And, I am really curious about the film industries in other countries at the time that the Hollywood system thrived... How did things work in France, Germany, Italy and Japan?
Last edited by Scharphedin2 on Thu Nov 09, 2006 6:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Scharphedin2
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 7:37 am
Location: Denmark/Sweden

#5 Post by Scharphedin2 » Thu Nov 09, 2006 6:19 am

Thanks for your insight on the French film industry, David. The great shame is that it is so difficult to get to see a sizable portion of the films made in France at the time (with subtitles). From the few films that I have managed to see, I would tend to be impressed that such a consistent aesthetic quality pervaded many of the films of the period, given that the filmmaking environment was as fragmented as you suggest.

Every time you begin to go on about the brilliance of Gremillon, I begin to tear my hair out that I can't see these films :D Based on your comments, I would love to see this director's work.

I wonder if anyone else could contribute some thoughts on some of the other major national film productions at the time ('30s/'40s). It would seem to me that Japan had a "system" in some ways similar to Hollywood with several bigger studios, and talent and technicians under contract. In Japan there was also the tradition of younger talent serving "apprenticeships" with older established directors and technicians. I am not sure how the industry developed in Japan. Did the Japanese studios undergo similar transformations in their internal structures as the Hollywood studios? How does the system work today?

I am likewise curious about Germany (UFA) and Italy (Cinecitta)... How did these studios operate in their heyday? How did they change and adapt to the times. Obviously, the war played a much greater role in the histories of these national cinemas, then it did in Hollywood, which by and large thrived and prospered during the war.

If anyone has good suggestions for books to consult on these topics, I would be thankful for the recommendations.

User avatar
tryavna
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 4:38 pm
Location: North Carolina

#6 Post by tryavna » Thu Nov 09, 2006 12:39 pm

Scharphedin2 wrote:I wonder if anyone else could contribute some thoughts on some of the other major national film productions at the time ('30s/'40s). It would seem to me that Japan had a "system" in some ways similar to Hollywood with several bigger studios, and talent and technicians under contract. In Japan there was also the tradition of younger talent serving "apprenticeships" with older established directors and technicians. I am not sure how the industry developed in Japan. Did the Japanese studios undergo similar transformations in their internal structures as the Hollywood studios? How does the system work today?
As David suggests, Michael Kerpan or someone else can probably provide better insights into the history of Japanese film production, but you can definitely learn a lot about just by reading Kurosawa's Something Like an Autobiography or even by watching his long interview on the new SEVEN SAMURAI release. It appears that Japanese directors did work their way up the ladder like many directors in Hollywood. The main difference is, as you say, they tended to apprentice under a single older, more established director. There's also the Mizoguchi documentary on UGETSU which talks a lot about the early days of Japanese film studios. It has always sounded to me like the Japanese film industry mirrored the Hollywood film industry in its development of various studios -- though of course on a much smaller scale. What were there originally? Three big studios? Toho, Daiei, and Shochiku?
I am likewise curious about Germany (UFA) and Italy (Cinecitta)... How did these studios operate in their heyday? How did they change and adapt to the times. Obviously, the war played a much greater role in the histories of these national cinemas, then it did in Hollywood, which by and large thrived and prospered during the war.
Don't know much about Cinecitta either. But it's always struck me that Germany's film industry was heavily guided by individual producers. If you look at most of UFA's greatest films -- METROPOLIS, FAUST, BLUE ANGEL, VARIETE, MICHAEL, etc. -- Erich Pommer was involved in them in some way or other. And Pommer also nutured Lang and Murnau and Joe May before the UFA years. (Of course, Thea von Harbau also exerted considerable control over the scripts at UFA, since she seems to have had final say in the writing department.) And then there was Seymour Nebenzal, who ran Nero-Films (where Lang worked during his sound period in Germany and where Pabst made PANDORA'S BOX and THREEPENNY OPERA, etc.). In other words, it strikes me that the German film industry (before Hitler, at any rate) was dominated by maverick film producers -- almost as if Hollywood had been run entirely by people like Selznick and Walter Wanger. Under the Nazi regime, of course, everything was organized under Goebbels.

User avatar
Michael Kerpan
Spelling Bee Champeen
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Contact:

#7 Post by Michael Kerpan » Thu Nov 09, 2006 3:43 pm

Following the Kanto earthquake of 1923, Japan's industry began rebuilding itself on the Hollywood model. Shochiku founded its film division around that time -- and explicitly modeled itself on Hollywood's methods. The older studios took longer to adapt. PCL (which became Toho) started out in the 30s -- also as a very much Hollywood-inspired studio.

Because the industry was so new, many of the great directors were hired at a young age -- as complete novices (though most were great movie fans in their youth).

At Shochiku, would be directors had their own track -- in which they started as assistant directors and were also required to turn out scripts as quickly as possible. typically, people in this system moved up to directing fairly quickly. Ozu actually tried to delay his entry into directing -- perhaps feeling not quite ready. Poor Naruse, who was hired in his mid-teens as a prop boy, never got much love from Shochiku's studio boss -- and his progress was appallingly slow.

User avatar
Steven H
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:30 pm
Location: NC

#8 Post by Steven H » Thu Nov 09, 2006 4:12 pm

There's a lot of great information about the studio aspect of the Japanese film industry in Anderson and Richie's The Japanese Film. There's much to be said about Noda Koga's involvement in shaping the shomingeki films of Shochiku, and there are many fascinating tidbits about the aspect of their Director/assisstant Director, that in some ways mirror the 40s/50s Hollywood Producer/Director. I need to study more to go into more detail about this, but it would make for an interesting comparison.

The studio politics of pre-war, post-war, post-occupation, and then television fallout years are all worth reading about if you're interested in the stories behind the stories in Japanese film. Again, I suggest Anderson and Richie's book (though you may have to take notes to follow along, many names and dates are tossed around.)

User avatar
Gordon
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 8:03 am

#9 Post by Gordon » Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:58 am

How Mosfilm operated in the post-Stalin era is something that I don't have knowledge of, but it fascinates me as to how the managed to produce such lavish, rigorous and powerful films for over twenty years. War and Peace (1964-1968) is, of course, something that still blows my mind and is one of the few film productions that goes way beyond even the most inconceivable ideas of what film production is.

User avatar
Scharphedin2
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 7:37 am
Location: Denmark/Sweden

#10 Post by Scharphedin2 » Mon Nov 13, 2006 8:12 am

Steven H wrote:There's a lot of great information about the studio aspect of the Japanese film industry in Anderson and Richie's The Japanese Film. There's much to be said about Noda Koga's involvement in shaping the shomingeki films of Shochiku, and there are many fascinating tidbits about the aspect of their Director/assisstant Director, that in some ways mirror the 40s/50s Hollywood Producer/Director. I need to study more to go into more detail about this, but it would make for an interesting comparison.

The studio politics of pre-war, post-war, post-occupation, and then television fallout years are all worth reading about if you're interested in the stories behind the stories in Japanese film. Again, I suggest Anderson and Richie's book (though you may have to take notes to follow along, many names and dates are tossed around.)
I have been travelling for work since last Thursday, and just saw your recommendation Steven. Funnily enough, I picked this book off my shelf to bring with me on my travels. I have had it for years, and made several false starts on it, but never made it cover to cover, primarily because the writing is (as I think you suggest) not as elegant as later of Richie's work.

I am deep into it now, and it is a small treasure of information, although it is "director"-centric (which is even stated in the dedication).

One interesting point (in extension of Michael Kerpan's notes above) is that the Japanese government forced a merger of all existing Japanese studios in 1941. There were at that time some 10 "major" studios, and they were merged into Toho, Shochiku and Daiei.

More, when I am back home...

User avatar
Steven H
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:30 pm
Location: NC

#11 Post by Steven H » Mon Nov 13, 2006 10:28 am

The book doesn't really break ground on redefining the Director/Producer relationship, but I can't think of much else about Japanese film that would enable one to have a fresh perspective on that sort of thing (except for maybe The Emperor and the Wolf, which I confess to not having read yet). In the back of the book there's a chart (though far from complete) detailing the Assisstant Director/Director relationships, and following the exploits of Koga Noda throughout, and is, again, worthwhile. About the 1941 industry challenge, it won't be the last time the Japanese government steps in and makes some changes, and I would dearly love to see some translation of books and interviews to find out more about this wartime merger and it's effects.

It would also be interesting to note the actual meaning of the word "producer" in Japanese, as I think it's closer to "planner", which might just be semantic, or it might point to something more quality oriented and supportive, rather than aggressively managerial. I suppose we'd have to get someone fluent in the language to help with this.

As a side note regarding The Japanese Film, I met Joseph Anderson not too long ago (chance meeting) and got to hear a bit more about the actual making of films in the thirties (for instance apparently it was cheaper to higher a bunch of people to hold lights on the set, constantly running around between shots and improvising, which though "primitive" by Hollywood standards, led to the ease in which they predated the neo-realists by using location shooting, especially promoting Shimizu's use.) I got to pick his brain for more details, but don't remember much.

User avatar
Scharphedin2
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 7:37 am
Location: Denmark/Sweden

#12 Post by Scharphedin2 » Mon Nov 20, 2006 10:14 am

Steven H wrote:It would also be interesting to note the actual meaning of the word "producer" in Japanese, as I think it's closer to "planner", which might just be semantic, or it might point to something more quality oriented and supportive, rather than aggressively managerial. I suppose we'd have to get someone fluent in the language to help with this.
I would be very inclined to think that this is not merely semantics, and it very likely accounts for the absence of the more creatively involved (Hollywood-style) producer type in Japanese film. Although I love Japanese film, my viewing experience is still very limited, so I write the following, knowing that I am probably being presumptous: Is it possible that this alleged lack of producers with a strong involvement in the creative process and style of the films themselves account for the apparently very strong stylistic and thematic throughlines that seem to run in the work of so many of the Japanese directors of the period up to the '50s/'60s?

Shifting completely back to Hollywood, I viewed The Razor's Edge this week. It is out on DVD from Fox, and is a lavish studio production of W. Somerset Maugham's novel, directed by Edmund Goulding and produced by Darryl Zanuck, with an excellent cast that includes Tyrone Powers, Gene Tierney, Anne Baxter, Herbert Marshall and Clifton Webb. The story is fascinating, concerning the search for understanding and meaning in life by a young American veteran of the Great War. He decides not to marry the rich girl and settle down to a successful business career, and instead travels to France and India in search of experience and enlightenment. There are amazing sequences in the film from a filmmaking perspective. Look at the sequence early in the film when Powers and Tierney go out for a night on the town in Paris. They frequent a series of restaurants and nightclubs, and each one is depicted in sweeping crane shots that reveal a plethora of little stories in the crowds of people inhabiting each locale. The action is integrated with dancers, beautifully choreographed to make it all seem completely incidental to the actual scene. There are cat fights breaking out in the periphery of scenes between characters unrelated to the story, who, then move past the camera and pick up with other characters later in the shot. The flow of the picture will stop to ponder the performance of an African drummer kicking off a jazz song, then the camera sweeps over the crowd of dancing people, briefly catching a glimpse of Powers and Tierney, and then continues to glide across the room filled with people, and as the shot fades, we just manage to witness the beginning of a brawl between a number of sailors far in the background of the scene.

There is another scene of Powers entering a small cafe on a rainy evening, with throngs of miners returning from work in the pouring rain outside the window of the cafe. Powers has a conversation with a defrocked priest about India, then exits the cafe and is seen pausing in the now deserted street outside the café with the rain still hamering down, before he then moves on (by implication on to seek knowledge in India). The mood of the scene; the way in which the street scene is orchestrated, and then tucked away in the background of the shots, is just fantastic. There is no way to reason or really intellectualize these scenes, and they are almost thrown away in the film -- certainly they are not necessary to the plot as such -- but they make all the difference in the experience of viewing the final film.

In a post above, I mentioned the extent to which Irving Thalberg was involved in the creative genesis of Grand Hotel -- another big studio (MGM) production of its day, again directed by Goulding. I do not know much about Goulding as a director, and have seen few of his films, but my impression is that he must have been very competent in staging scenes and directing actors. That much is clear, even if we know that Thalberg and Zanuck had great input on the shape and form of these two films. Thalberg and Zanuck appears to have had a very strong influence on the screenplays of both films respectively, they clearly also decided on the scope of the productions. As to the actual involvement on the set, I am uncertain -- Selznick was famous/notorious for directing over the shoulder of his directors on several of his pictures (notably Gone With the Wind and Duel In the Sun), was this also the case with Zanuck? and Thalberg (not to the same degree as far as I can tell)? Would it be possible to ascribe to these producers a particular signature, the way critics have done with directors for the past half a century?

User avatar
Gordon
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 8:03 am

#13 Post by Gordon » Mon Nov 20, 2006 12:40 pm

The 1946 production of The Razor's Edge is pretty good, but I feel that the Bill Murray version has a sharper edge to it, thanks to Theresa Russell. I think I am probably alone in saying this, as the '46 film is highly respected and the Bill Murray film seems to have a rep for being goofy, which it isn't. Frankly, Maugham's story seems dated now, even though the themes are timeless and universal, due to the WWI milieu - perhaps if the Bill Murray version had been set during the Vietnam War, it would have had more impact, but audiences expected another Stripes from Murray and people leaving the initial screening were said to advise, "Don't go see it - it isn't funny," and so it flopped badly and Murray was deflated as it was a tiring, but rewarding labour of love that only got made when he agreed to do Ghostbusters for Columbia, also. It plays very well today, I feel, but whether you feel the same will have to do with how you feel about Bill Murray.

In the '46 version, for once the gorgeous black and white cinematography is detrimental, as it removes us from reality somewhat and the India sequence with the Llama seems phoney and his platitudic wisdom seems trite and unrepresentative of Buddhism, though the same scene in Murray's version is also unrepresentative of Buddhism, ie. it has nothing to do with "salvation", but avoiding suffering through renunciation of egotistical desires. Christian ideas are made of stern stuff! :wink:

User avatar
Scharphedin2
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 7:37 am
Location: Denmark/Sweden

#14 Post by Scharphedin2 » Wed Nov 22, 2006 9:23 am

Gordon, you have me sold on the Murray version. I had clean forgotten about this remake, which I remember coming out and then sinking without a trace, before I had a chance to see it. Murray, I almost always enjoy, and Russell is rarely less than mesmerizing (I am assuming that she plays the Tierney part, although I could well imagine her being excellent in the Baxter part as well). How do the two films compare otherwise? My impression was that Zanuck & Co. worked quite hard with the original text to make it more friendly for film adaptation. Is the Murray version a more "faithful" adaptation?

On the 1946 version, I am not sure that I agree that the B&W detracts from the reality of the story... I am trying to imagine the scenes that I describe above in color, and, well, maybe my imagination is poor. For me the beautiful B&W photography adds the necessary grittiness in those sequences dealing with Powers' life in Paris amongst the poor and lower classes. The photography also helps to transport the viewer back to the period between the two wars.

I was not so concerned about the details of Powers' spiritual journey. It would be interesting to see how Maugham tackled this in his book. Relatively rare are the instances, when spiritual epiphany is rendered convincingly in either books or films (or, maybe I am just too cynical). To me, I went along with the idea that Powers was on this journey, and that whatever he discovered in terms of insights, it helped him in his relations with other people, and in finding his way in life. We see the effect of his growth as a human being in his decisions in life, and in the way that he handles and treats other people, even if this growth in him is only rendered obliquely. In a way, he becomes like a prism through which the other characters are seen, and, really, it is in the other characters' life stories that the film finds its dramatic thrust (to me at least). Another touch that I really liked was the insertion of "Maugham himself" (played by Herbert Marshall) into the flow of the story at key points.

User avatar
Gordon
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 8:03 am

#15 Post by Gordon » Wed Nov 22, 2006 7:06 pm

The Bill Murray-John Byrum adaptation is more laid-back and has an altogether different tone to it, but it is, nevertheless, more serious and I found it easier to relate to. It isn't perfect, but it has a curious power and indeed it is strange for a film such as this to have emerged in the mid-80s - the Age of Me. It was a fairly big budget film, though and it has sumptuous production design and authentic locations (England, Belgium, Ladakh, Jammu, Kashmir, Paris, Switzerland) unlike the '46 film. The great Peter Vaughan has a memorable part as an enlightened working-class pit miner ("You 'aven't read the Upanishads?!"). There is a stronger verisimilitude in the '84 film, though the '46 is still a powerful film, but as it was a personal film for Murray - a long time proponent of Buddhism and Zen worldview - and was very much a catharsis after John Belushi's death.

As I recall, in the book, Larry transformation into an enlightened, esthetic-minded gent is a bit trite and goes overboard - he becomes a bit spaced-out - and in both '46 film, that is scaled back drastically, but the '84 shows us more of Larry's journey purely through montage and it gives the film more vigour.

Bill Murray gives one of his best performances and the film is his best-kept-secret. As I say, it sunk at the 1984 Box Office, went straight to video in Britain (1987 VHS) and languished for over two decades in pan and scan (from 2.35:1 Panavision) and so the DVD release was very welcome and it is a film that deserves reappraisal. Enjoy.

User avatar
Scharphedin2
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 7:37 am
Location: Denmark/Sweden

#16 Post by Scharphedin2 » Wed Dec 20, 2006 11:22 am

Sorry to have created such an unruly and meandering thread.

I came across a couple of statements in Anderson and Richie's book (mentioned above) that explains some of the differences between the American and Japanese studio systems of the era up to the '50s. The edition of the book that I own is from 1959; I have a feeling that there may be a more recent (updated) edition. In any event, here are a couple of quotes pertaining specifically to the discussion earlier in this thread.

page 259 (chapter on 1954-59):

... The two main ways in which the industry sought to safeguard its financial position were, first, by introducing a production-line method of film-making and second, by staking off sections of the market as a company's private territory and fitting production plans to that particular audience.

Richie and Anderson proceed to include a rather long quote from Lewis Jacobs' "The Rise and Fall fo the American Film," stating that although Jacobs is of course describing the American studio system of the '20s, he could just as well be describing the Japanese system in the late 1950s.

A few pages later, they make a statement to the effect that, although the objectives and framework of the Japanese cinema may have been similar to the American studio system, the division of labor and responsibilities within the industry were quite different:

page 347 (chapter on "directors"):

... The Japanese industry operates under what it calls the "director system" rather than under the "producer system," which is so common in the West. What the Japanese mean by "producer system" is that the responsibility for both the type and conception of a film is delegated by the company to an individual who selects the story, director, and cast, and who is in general responsible for the final shape of a given film. This system has been tried in Japan several times, notably by Toho, but never with success. The "director system" was found much more congenial to Japan.

Under the "director system," the task of selecting the material and assembling the filmmaking team rested with the director, and the director had a very free hand to make these decisions. However, the authors hasten to point out that this "director system" did not pertain to absolutely all directors, but only to those with a proven track record. Minor directors would seem to have been under at least the same amount of studio control (possibly even more so) as their colleagues in the west.

User avatar
Gordon
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 8:03 am

#17 Post by Gordon » Wed Dec 27, 2006 10:09 pm

I have a million screwy ideas about approaches to filmmaking and the 'business' of it all, but for once, I won't bore you all with my ramblings. But one thing I do wish to say, is that the more silent films and films of the 30s and 40s I see, the more I feel that those eras were as experimental and adventurous as anything that went on in the 70s and beyond. Also, I feel that the general quality of the photography in those eras was superior - especially once deep focus came to be used frequently. The mid-50s and early 60s seems to be the least experimental in America in my eye, when mono-pack color stock and widescreen began to be overused. Generally and very, very broadly speaking, I find American Cinema from 1955-1964 to be the least interesting period in Cinema History, save the present state of affairs. Cinema in the 80s used to hold that dubious title, but many films of that period are slowly working their way into my mind as very interesting films - Peter Weir's, Witness being the latest film to greatly impress me after years of dismissing it as 'quaint'. An unusual, beautiful and unsentimental film.

User avatar
Scharphedin2
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 7:37 am
Location: Denmark/Sweden

#18 Post by Scharphedin2 » Thu Dec 28, 2006 3:50 am

Gordon wrote:I have a million screwy ideas about approaches to filmmaking and the 'business' of it all, but for once, I won't bore you all with my ramblings.
Please do ramble on... I can only imagine that it will be interesting reading!

I think every decade has its interesting and excellent films, and I have found it fun and gratifying to see your ongoing reappraisal of the '80s in recent weeks (Star 80, Christmas Story, Razor's Edge, Witness, etc.) Many of these films were among the first that I was excited about (growing up in the '80s), but in recent years I have felt that the decade was bereft of value and substance. Clearly I was being unfair.

However, Hollywood in the pre-1950 era with its various permutations of the studio system did afford directors and every other kind of film talent to work consistently, and thus many more films bear the imprint of true professionalism and quality. Surprisingly, considering the hyper-marketing-oriented state of the world today, old Hollywood also seemed to have mastered the art of branding. Every studio had a style that was very clear, and my impression is that they cultivated this in their marketing toward the public. It is unfathomable that this appears to have fallen completely by the wayside in recent decades.

Gordon, please "ramble," OK...

User avatar
Gordon
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 8:03 am

#19 Post by Gordon » Thu Dec 28, 2006 2:39 pm

Ramble on, sing mah song... :wink:

Don't get me wrong, there are many fascinating American films from the mid-50s to the early 60s, but generally speaking, the Big Studios put on lot of strain on themselves in trying to compete with the television boom - and I mean, look at it, there were hundreds of historical films, adventure films and whatnot shot in color, CinemaScope, VistaVision and 65mm and most of them are not well known anymore - a lot of them have been completely forgotten, in fact. But that was not the track that Hollywood had laid down for itself in the late 40s and I think that we missed out on a lot of powerful or at least more interesting films in the mid-50s because of the battle that was waged against TV.

User avatar
Scharphedin2
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 7:37 am
Location: Denmark/Sweden

#20 Post by Scharphedin2 » Tue Jan 16, 2007 5:44 am

Concerning the Italian film industry, has anyone seen Scorsese's Voyage To Italy documentary (listed here at DVDEmpire)? I have not, but it is available from Buena Vista, and if it resembles Scorsese's Personal Journey Through American Cineam, then it should be a both entertaining and informative view.

Additionally, it would probably answer some of my questions above concerning the structure of the Italian film industry, and the director's role vs. that of the producer, etc.

Anyone seen this and can comment?

User avatar
Oedipax
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:48 am
Location: Atlanta

#21 Post by Oedipax » Tue Jan 16, 2007 8:41 am

I highly recommend Scorsese's documentary. While most of the films shown will not be new to seasoned cinephiles, the main draw here is Scorsese working through his own personal connection to these films.

I would say though you might look elsewhere for a history of the Italian film industry's workings and that of the roles of producer and director - Scorsese spends less time on that side of things in this film than in the Personal Journey Through American Cinema. It really is mostly Scorsese showing clips of his favorite films and speaking about the meaning these films had to him growing up, and later on once he began making films.

Post Reply