Editorials > A Response to Johnny Wright's "Letter to Hollywood"

Late last week, Johnny Wright of YesButNoButYes wrote "A Letter to My Friend Hollywood," in which he laments the lack of quality in recent Hollywood fare. He offers up a wide range of solutions, some practical, others not, but there was one item on his list of suggestions with which I took issue, and I thought I would air my grievance here. I do this not out of any mean-spirited desire to publicly condescend to the man, but because I think it could be a worthwhile discussion that I'd like to share with FW's readership as well.

Dear Johnny Wright, 

First let me say that I enjoyed your open letter to Hollywood. You’re clearly a movie fan and I respect that. In fact, I agree with several of your beliefs and strategies for “correcting” Hollywood, but you seem to have a distorted picture of history. Allow me to dispel some of the myths on which you’ve built your argument.

Going back to the old “studio system” isn't the remedy to this situation at all. You say that Hollywood is making too many films and that it has diluted the talent. This is perhaps the main hole in your thesis seeing as the old studio system produced many more films per year than the same major studios do today. To see proof of this, look at some IMDb pages for production companies. Paramount produced 10 titles during 2007, and a few of those are “Making of” documentaries (Note: This does not count the dozen or so more films it distributed only). Compare this to Paramount’s much greater number of productions in just about any given year between 1930 and 1950. The same disparity is true (to varying degrees) of Universal Pictures, MGM, and 20th Century Fox. Even if you count their current subsidiaries (Paramount Vantage, Focus Features, etc.) the totals still don’t match.

For further evidence of this trend, look at some filmographies. Alfred Hitchcock made 12 features in the 1940s and 11 during the 50s. Likewise look up John Ford, Michael Curtiz (three films in 1942 alone!), or nearly any other successful director from that era. Then compare that to Paul Thomas Anderson (three feature films in the past ten years), or Martin Scorsese (seven features in ten years) or even the very busy Steven Spielberg (eight features in ten years). Why were those earlier filmmakers so prolific? Because the studio system treated artists like assembly line workers! The studios demanded a financially viable product be made and they wanted it made quickly so they could make more. Subtext and thought were secondary concerns after profitability.

Despite these conditions, those aforementioned directors did some amazing work. But for every Hitchcock there was some third-rate helmer to direct an empty musical, or an unwatchable 1930s-era Buster Keaton comedy (though his 1920s output is unquestionably golden), or a gangster flick with more "bullets and broads" than brains. Though it would be difficult to measure, I would wager a guess that the proportion of hacks to geniuses in Hollywood has stayed more or less the same over the past hundred years.

You also erroneously say that there were fewer cooks in the kitchen under the studio system. Few directors have what is called “final cut” today, but virtually none had it in the days of mega-producers like Darryl Zanuck and David O. Selznick. Think of Orson Welles’ struggles with RKO (then a major studio) beginning with his second notable film “The Magnificent Ambersons.” The studio famously cut and destroyed forty minutes of Welles’ final film and tacked on a happier ending, permanently shredding whatever the director had in mind. To this day we cannot be sure what that film would have been due to overt, unapologetic meddling. Though this is one of the more well-known cases, it was far from an isolated incident.

I think we’re both agreed that there is a glut of bad films being shot down the tubes by our mutual friend Hollywood but the current cinematic climate at least allows for outside voices. Sixty years ago there was no Sundance or Slamdance or TriBeCa or SIFF or TIFF or SXSW or anything that would allow an American movie-goer the chance to broaden his or her horizons with small independent films or international fare. Hollywood had an uncontested strangle-hold on cinema in the western hemisphere, and only since the old system dissolved has that been able to change, however marginally.

In closing, yes, Hollywood seems bent on plaguing us with “Meet the Spartans” and fat-suit comedies because they are unsettlingly profitable, but take comfort in the knowledge that we’ve actually come a long way. I genuinely hope that will make the summer dreck go down a little more smoothly for you, though I’ll admit that it hasn't helped me much.

Best,

David Morgan