Studio System

I was reading up on the old Hollywood studio system back in the 30’s and 40’s and realized how strange it was that it was such a tiny community that was essentially children building a tree house. As new as it was, the people who came to make movies designated them titles and away they went.

Back in those days, everyone who served on a crew were steadfastly focused on their duty. You had to be, since you were contracted to be. The union of those days broke things down so specifically that it churned movies out the way you would say…designing a car. Every one was responsible for one duty. And you were hired for that purpose. In those days, a producer actually meant something. Because of the specific contracts, most laborers were assigned tasks rather than people hustling to find their next gig. Essentially, you were an employee of a studio and they told you where to go next. In this system, many people felt very secure in having normal lives and raising families without fear of where the next job would come from.

This system was so very controlled that a director on a movie then was nothing more than a foreman that made sure nothing derailed. And to be a go-between the producer and the crew. Directors sometimes didn’t even cast actors. Producers just shuffled a bunch of headshots together and away they went. The actors were assigned roles. Which is how you got so many Humphrey Bogart pictures. Nowadays stars choose their material. Or their agents do. Or some bug in the ear. Money talks. Material could be horrid, but if there’s enough on the table, no one turns that down. Back in those days, you were set up on a regular gig. An actor was a laborer, just like  an orange picker. Which may’ve tied their hands to creative choices, but honed their skills in molding a role for themselves. Yeah, not so glamorous.

The delineation of roles in movies back then also meant no one could step on each others toes. A cinematographer back then dealt mostly with editorial. The complete look of the movie was up to the production designer. They were responsible for the ENTIRE look of the movie. They trumped even the director when it came to the “style” of the movie. Even back in those days, an editor answered to the producer. NOT to the director. Their union held them to some basic policies that if stepped on by director, would be reported to the producer. As stringent as these lines were, think of the great movies that were made during this time. Was it a better system? Not for creative types, I guess.

It wasn’t until the 60’s where the lines were broken. Well, fully stepped over. Having felt the chokehold of limitations with the studio. The bosses were getting old or dying. These idiots never trained their predecessors in the system, and the baby boomer (think Millenials now…entitled dicks) grew their hair long, smoke weed and just made grooooovy movies.  Were there good movies made in this era? You betcha’. With lack of charm, came an unwashed lot that prided themselves on breaking the system. A director and cameraman sometimes were one. The editor did insane cuts. Camera angles went canted (a massive no-no in the studio days). Even up until the 90’s Michael Bay had been fined multiple times for breaking the editor’s union of how something should be edited (as I mentioned in a past post, use to be union editor’s had a pretty strict guide book on editing that had to be followed by studio movies, this was to ensure the editor’s decision on a cut, if delineated from the “standard” would not be held responsible for erratic edits caused by director, preserving the editor’s integrity). But that’s when the director could be the writer, editor, musician whatever. This era sometimes referred to as the auteur movie maker. They went against the tenants of studio world. Except, that was fine for people who were established, lousy for people trying to break in.

There is something similar occurring now. With digital cameras in the hands of every kid, everyone thinks they can direct. Which, in essence they can. They call this the democrazation of cinema. This “evens” the playing field. When I was a kid, we did have access to VHS camcorders. I’d make backyard movies but always wondered why my projects didn’t look like the ones in theaters. Not so anymore. The kids today can own a camera they use to shoot features. To today’s Hollywood, this is the death of craft (which I’ve whined about incessantly). It means no one trains properly anymore. It seemed like back in the day, you had to earn the right to be behind the camera. Today, most younger people would not understand this concept of working up the ranks. Impatience and opportunity are dangerous partners. When you don’t earn your way, you rarely value it.

This pretty much muddies up the rest of the media world for those really serious about working in the movie industry. You can sense the eye rolls whenever someone talks to you about their project because EVERYONE has a movie going on. I could go to the deli down the street from me, and he’d more than likely have a YouTube channel (at least an account). He’s a filmmaker. So, if everyone’s unique, no one is.

The fact is, it is a job. A job you have to craft if you want to survive. Most quit, or try to prove “the industry” wrong. That isn’t a bad attitude. You really should make movies you like and see how it plays out there. When I look at the studio system of the bygone era, what strikes me is the simplistic way you could live. Clock in, clock out, do your work and go home. Everyone had a purpose, but also aspirations for other things in life. I’ve often said, I gained my most freedom when I had a full time job. I could plan the downtime to do what I aspired to. That ‘aint a bad way to go.