Several major factors contributed to the intricate design of the classical Hollywood studio system. All aspects of film, from the production to the exhibition, were controlled by Hollywood studios, which created a large and demanding oligopoly of a few powerful studios. Contracted talent is one facet of the production side of the studio system. Today, directors and actors are largely their own free agents, working only a few big projects a year, and picking and choosing which projects they are passionate about, but studios in the 1930s and ‘40s had complete control of their ‘talent.’ Studios had actors, directors, editors, and writers contracted in a factory system so that they could be forced into doing any project, and as many projects, as the studio willed. Directors, who today generally make only one or two feature films every few years, could be contracted to direct up to 3-5 films, and actors could be slated to star dozens every year. This created incredibly large filmographies for actors in the classical era as compared to actors today. In addition to being contracted under one particular studio, the ‘talent’ could be, in a sense, loaned out to other production studios to star in or direct even more films. Work in Hollywood at this time could be never-ending for big stars like Humphrey Bogart and Judy Garland, and directors such as Michael Curtiz.
Because Hollywood was churning out films and putting casts and crews on many films every year, many of the films that came out during this golden era had strange and fragmented storylines, poor acting and direction, and were considered ‘B movies.’ Directors, actors, etc., had no input on the plot of whichever film they happened to be making and these movies were more often than not being filmed as it was lighted.
Contracting talent like this caused many films to go through dozens of writers before a film was made, and some even went through rewrites throughout the duration of filming. This caused scripts of the day to have no real author, and as a result, many movies became quite jumbled, with aspects of the plots confusing or unknown to the audience, and perhaps even to the actors reciting the lines. An example of this is the 1942 film Casablanca, which gives credit to three writers (who originally adapted it from a play), yet went through many more writers and rewrites — so many that it was in a race to keep up with the pace of actual production and filming. In addition to this, the director, Michael Curtiz, was given little to no input in the formation of the film, and thus was receiving the story essentially as he filmed it, which caused some effects of the film to be rather melodramatic. The acting, as well, could be seen as melodramatic or stiff, perhaps due to the actors never knowing exactly where their characters were going or how the plot would end. Despite all these inconsistencies, however, Casablanca has gone on to become one of the most beloved movies in the world; however, this is an exception. The studio, the directors, and the actors, and the production team went into the film not expecting to be making anything particularly important. It was simply another movie being churned out by Warner Bros. It may even be that people love this film because it can be so odd and inconsistent at times. But, in the end, whether it is loved or hated, this film, as well as many more like it, is the product of a studio system that involved an assembly line style creation, loaned out stars, and an ‘authorless’ script, all of which are characteristic of the “Golden Age” of film.
No comments:
Post a Comment