Tag Archives: Paramount Pictures

“Rat Race” movie review

Posted on by
Reply

RatRaceTalk about a throwback movie this week! Ordinarily, most Mondays each week are reserved for Macabre Movie Monday with some friends of mine. We screen a horror movie and talk about it. It’s a tradition that began with an American Horror Film graduate class I took as part of my M.A. at the University of South Florida. However, my roommate is not terribly fond of horror movies and I know he grows tired of them week after week. Haha. So, we agreed to watch a comedy this past Monday. I cannot remember how, but when we thought of a fun comedy to watch, my friend Dani and I almost in unison shouted Rat Race. Such a star-studded comedy. And other than SmashMouth, it really still holds up today. Well, SmashMouth and the fact that airport security is vastly different than it was when this was shot. Although I watched it when I was a kid, it’s amazing to look at it now and wonder why my parents allowed my sister and I to watch it. Well, I am glad they did because I have always thought of this comedy as one of my favorites. If you have never seen it, and enjoy watching comedies for which you can turn off your brain and laugh until you cry, then definitely watch this one. Let’s go back to 2001 and talk about Paramount Pictures’ Rat Race.

What do you get when you combine greed, money, Las Vegas, manipulation, the ticking time bomb plot, and a star-studded ensemble cast? You get Rat Race! Eccentric casino tycoon Donald Sinclair (John Cleese) selects 6 ordinary people (and by extension, their families) to race against each other for great fortune in Silver City, New Mexico. $2Mil is stashed in a locker in an old train station and there is only one rule for the lucky 6, “no rules.” Unknown to the lucky six, Sinclair is monitoring their every move with some of the biggest high rollers in the world who love to bet on any and everything. From the famous Venetian to Silver City, this group of people will stop at nothing to get their respective hands on the money first. Whether it’s commandeering a rocket car or crashing a WWII memorial service dressed as Hitler, there is little that will come between a contestant and the fortune that awaits!

Ensemble cast films are nothing new. They’ve been around as long as the medium itself. So, the fact that Rat Race is an ensemble movie is nothing unique or special; however, the fact that it is so incredibly successful in combining the subplots and individual adventures of the six racers with the main plot is something to be admired about this film. Each of the six (and their families) have a story within the main story of the film. The writers did an excellent job at spending just the right amount of time with the individual stories without sacrificing time spent with the main plot of the film. As I have mentioned in reviews before, whether film or television, no story exists without conflict; likewise, no comedy exists without “drama.” Many film scholars and writers describe the comedy genre as drama in disguise. Let me clarify a little bit. When the casual movie-goer thinks of drama, they typically think of a film that is rather heavy, primarily dialog driven, and mostly serious. Those same casual movie-goers would likely describe comedy as funny movie with lovable characters, witty dialog, lots of laughable moments, with little degree of seriousness about it. Well-developed and written comedies are those films who integrate humor into the conflict-driven drama between two or more people. In other words, a drama is primarily focussed on the drama of a situation whereas comedy is primarily focussed don the humor of a situation. The best comedies are those that have prolific conflict between characters, but a humorous twist is added to the mix. Why did I say all this? Because in order to understand the brilliance of Rat Race it is important to recognize that it holds up so well because it’s full of drama that has irony, satire, and facetiousness thrown into the mix.

Besides the writing, this film also successfully continues to cause uncontrollable laughter because of the fantastic cast. Just look at this list of leading talent: Rowan Atkinson, John Cleese, John Lovitz, Whoopi Goldberg, Cuba Gooding Jr, Breckin Meyer, Seth Green, and Kathy Najimy. In addition to that amazing list, you also have a great group of chief supporting players and an A-list cameo: Amy Smart, Wayne Knight, Dave Thomas, Dean Cain, Vince Vieluf, Paul Rodriguez, and Lanei Chapman, and special appearance by Kathy Bates as the squirrel lady. There were also many others extras and atmospheric players that helped pull together this brilliant comedy including the performance by 90/2000s hit band SmashMouth. All the elements are here for a successful comedy! Between the writing, directing, and this phenomenal cast list, how could this movie not do well??? On that note, the movie did not fair so well with critics then and even now; scores poorly on MetaCritic, Rotten Tomatoes (no surprise there), and IMDb. However, I argue that any comedy that can still hold up and significantly create a room full of laughter over and over, is a successful comedy. Comedies are seldom going to win awards, significantly contribute to the world of the arts, or serve as inspiration for someone; but Rat Race offers an escape from the doldrums of reality and whisks you away to an over-the-top world of money, hookers, gambling, crazy exes, a buss full of Lucys, and Nazis. It offers an incredibly entertaining journey that still has a heartwarming ending.

I think it’s the utter unashamed ridiculousness of the whole plot that keeps me entertained. Furthermore, it does such a good job of telling a funny story that is both clever and well-paced. One of the best parts of watching this movie is getting to feel like at least one of the leading or supporting characters. Each have a unique set of traits that can identify with someone of a similar personality. You’ll probably also see some of your friends as one or more of the characters. These characters are so much fun to watch and just when you think it can’t get anymore ironic, unfortunate, or satirical, it surprises you. Trying to remember the first time I watched it, and even to some extent this time, I remember thinking that it really isn’t that predictable. Not predictable in that it is so ridiculous! But that’s what I love about this comedy film. It sticks to a tried and true ticking-time-bomb plot with characters that are unconventional and unpredictable in every way. Well, mostly anyway. Haha. I think my favorite part of the movie is the Pear family crashing onto the stage at the WWI Vets convention in Hitler’s car with Randy (Lovitz) trying to speak but the cigarette lighter burnt his tongue and he has a Hitler mustache caused by Eva Braun’s dark lipstick. I know, right?!?

If you are ever looking to just kick back and enjoy a comedy that is guaranteed to make you laugh hysterically, then check out Paramount Pictures’ Rat Race (2001). Whether you just want to see some of your favorite Oscar, Golden Globe, or Emmy winners in an over-the-top comedic race to the finish or just a fun movie that will keep you entertained, this one is a winner!

License to Create: Theme Parks and Intellectual Property

Posted on by
2

ThemeParkHighAngleLicense and registration please. With 20th Century Fox, Sony Entertainment, and Paramount Pictures entering the themed entertainment game as potential heavy hitters, and to some extent Warner Bros. as well, questions about cinema, television, and video game intellectual property (IP) begin to rise. Only having really had two main players in the industry for the last couple of decades, unless you count CBS/Paramount before selling off the amusement park investments to Cedar Fair, Disney and Comcast (parent company to NBC Universal) utilize their own respective IP libraries as well as licensed properties from other media companies. Not having as vast an IP library as Disney, many of Universal’s theme park properties have come from companies like TimeWarner, Viacom, and Fox. Whereas Disney primarily uses their own extensive library, they too have licensed other companies’ IP such as MGM Holdings, 20th Century Fox, and CBS. Although some of the once-licensed properties by either Disney or Universal have now been officially procured (i.e. Disney’s LucasFilm and Universal’s DreamWorks Animation), a common practice in the themed entertainment industry is to license, borrow, barter, trade, etc. But, with these new players demanding a slice of the hospitality and tourism pie, could we see more original television programming or movies?

SpyroThink about it for a moment. Let’s look at some of the most well-known IPs from Sony, Fox, Paramount, and Warner Bros. Although there is a mild to moderate degree of subjectivity in what constitutes “well known,” I am going to go with commonly thought of properties. Starting with Sony. In no particular order, some of the most popular Sony properties include: James Bond (formerly MGM), Spider-Man, Men in Black, Smurfs, Terminator, Silence of the Lambs, Hotel Transylvania, Spyro, The Nanny, Wheel of Fortune, Jeopardy, Price is Right, Final Fantasy, and Crash Bandicoot. Switching gears to Fox. Some of the most well-known Fox properties include: Avatar, The Simpsons, Rocky Horror Picture Show, The X-Men, Bones, New Girl, American Horror Story, Alien, X-Files, Die Hard, Futurama, and Family Guy. Although not well known in the US, Warner Bros. operates a theme park in Australia and what is now called Movie Park Germany. Some of the most popular Warner Bros., IP are: Harry Potter, Game of Thrones, Looney Tunes, DC Entertainment, Lord of the Rings, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th, and Lego Entertainment. Viacom, parent company to Paramount Pictures, is one of the original Hollywood studios and owns IP such as: Mission Impossible, Titanic (partnership with Fox), Star Trek (films and TV shows), Forrest Gump, and the valuable Nickelodeon. Obviously the aforementioned lists are not exhaustive, but I wanted to try to paint as brief but effective a picture as possible to understand why IP is a hot topic.

JamesBondLogoRecognize some of those titles? You probably recognize most, if not all of them. Unfortunately, these companies have already licensed out some of those properties to Universal, Disney, and Six Flags. Avatar and Alien are licensed by Disney. Marvel Entertainment, Harry Potter, and Nintendo are licensed to Universal, DC Entertainment and Looney Tunes are licensed to Six Flags Parks, and the Nickelodeon IPs are split amongst different entities. Of course, when the licensing agreements were drawn up, it is unlikely that either Sony, Fox, Paramount, and to a lesser extent Warner Bros., thought that they would enter or re-enter into the themed entertainment industry. Now that this part of the tourism and hospitality (and live entertainment) is exploding, Sony, Fox, Paramount, and Warner Bros. need to rethink how to play catchup–and FAST. But, when you have licensed out some of your most valuable properties, how do you make up for it? The short answer is (1) refuse renewal when the license expires or (2) develop original content. Since some licenses run for decades, the former isn’t really an option unless the license is coming up for renewal in the next few years; so, we are left with one logical conclusion: pump out original content that is adaptable to a live experience. This is where research like mine comes into play since I have studied the relationship between cinema and theme parks, and moreover how to successfully translate a movie or TV show into an attraction. It’d be nice if one of these companies would snatch me up. But, I digress.

Film Strip BoardIt is entirely possible that Sony, Fox, Paramount, and Warner Bros. will be forced to generate new ideas for movies, tv shows, and video games. More specifically, original creative media content that can and needs to be able to be translated from the screen into a theme park near you. When developing original content that has the ability to be translated to a live experience, companies need to keep in mind that a high-concept plot with unique settings, characters, and action sequences are necessary for a movie turned attraction. There is a lot more to it than that, but at least this gives you an idea what is required and backed by empirical evidence. Although blockbusters are typically the sourced content for theme park attractions, not every blockbuster is appropriate. Take Titanic for example. It is a movie about the 20th century’s worst and most infamous maritime disaster. So, I don’t think Paramount or Fox will add “Titanic: Ride it Out” to its parks. The ability to cross-promote intellectual property is of great importance for the strategic exhibition and integration of movies, tv shows, or video games. One of the reasons why the Disney parks are so successful is because the Disney movies can be (1) seen in the cinema (2) character meet and greets in the parks (3) the platform for a video game (3) used in theming on the cruise line (4) A-list artists can record covers of the songs from musicals (and broadway musicals can be produced) and (5) the platform for attractions in the parks. Sony, Fox, Paramount, and Warner Bros. need to concentrate on producing movies and TV shows (and by extension video games) that can be used in strategic and creative cross-promotion.

X-Men TASReturning to the present state of IP in the parks. Fortunately, some of those companies still–at least to the best of my knowledge–retain the theme park licensing for a few of the properties that were mentioned earlier; but for the most part, the most well-known movies, video games, and TV shows are already licensed by other companies. Viacom/Paramount operates the Nick Hotel near Disney in Orlando, so it still retains some licensing to its Nick IPs. However, since other parks use some of the Nick characters, there is probably some red tape to go through in order to fully use them in the Paramount park in the United Kingdom near London that is under development. Just like Disney wants to get their hands on Universal’s Marvel properties, Fox really needs to work on getting the X-Men back. On that note: since The Avengers is Disney’s heaviest of hitters and the same for Fox and the X-Men, perhaps eventually we will see that Disney has access to The Avengers and Fox the X-Men. Disney doesn’t really need The Avengers as much as Fox needs the X-Men. The X-Men is arguably Fox’s most successful film franchise in the last couple of decades and it is still going strong. Another Fox property that is licensed by Disney is James Cameron’s Avatar. As for Sony, they have not licensed out as many of their properties to themed entertainment companies, with the obvious exceptions of Terminator and Men in Black. Another area to explore is the reason why non Disney and Universal parks are mostly being built overseas. But that is the topic for another article; however, it is directly linked to IP and copyright.

maps_game_of_thrones_a_song_of_1024x1024_wallpaperfo.comCurrent IPs that would make for great attractions in a U.S. Sony, Warner Bros., Paramount, or Fox theme park would be Game of Thrones, American Horror Story, X-Files, James Bond, Lord of the Rings (but that is a whole other discussion in and of itself), Hotel Transylvania, Spyro the Dragon, Maze Runner, Hunger Games (need to be licensed from Lionsgate), Ice Age, or Mission Impossible. Content is king. More innovative and original content from the big studios who also have theme park investments means that there will be more movies to see each year!! It will also open the door for new ideas from comics, literature, history, and legend. Instead of reboots and remakes, you will enjoy new ideas and narratives. So, the long and short of it is that media conglomerates with movie studio and theme park investments are at a crossroads. They can either not go full-force into themed entertainment and play around with the current IP in their respective libraries or can rise up to the challenge to develop original movies and tv shows that can also find their ways into theme parks in the U.S. and around the world.

“10 Cloverfield Lane” movie review

Posted on by
Reply

10CloverfieldExtremely suspenseful and enigmatic! Within minutes of the beginning of the movie, you will be sucked into the twisted and claustrophobic subterranean world at 10 Cloverfield Lane. Not directly connected to Cloverfield (2008), this film quite possibly takes us to a moment concurrent to or just before/after the events in New York City caught on the handicam. Director Dan Trachtenberg and Producer J.J. Abrams work together to shock the audience with a movie that will keep you guessing right up until the end. Brilliantly cast and written, 10 Cloverfield Lane is an excellent old-school feeling horror film that you have got to experience in IMAX. Just when you think you have it figured out, you will immediately begin to second guess yourself. Probably the most brilliant part of the film is the fact that three principle characters can keep your interest and attention the entire time without ever a feeling of boredom or annoyance. From the writing to the cinematography and visual effects, this film is sure to keep you on the tip of your toes.

Following a car accident, Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) wakes up with an IV in her arm and chained to a wall [wait, is this Saw?]. With no cell reception and no recollection of what happened, she begins to fear the worst. Upon meeting her capture Howard (John Goodman), she fears for her life. Not buying his story about saving her and keeping her from the hard during the fallout from the attack, Michelle attempts to escape. Failing to overcome Howard, she slowly begins to accept the worst. To her surprise, she is not the only one in Howard’s fallout shelter. Michelle meets Emmett (John Gallagher Jr). Thinking that Emmett’s injuries are from escaping, she learn that his broken arm is from fighting to get INTO Howard’s shelter. With this new revelation, Michelle begins to settle into life with Howard and Emmett. Still, something just isn’t right. From car noises to sunshine, Michelle has doubts of the alleged apocalypse and must solve the mysteries, puzzles, and covertly plan her escape.

One of the most intriguing elements of the movie is personally feeling the claustrophobia that the principle cast is experiencing in the movie. That is thanks to the excellent cinematography, production design, and lighting. That additional experiential element is not terribly common in films, even horror cinema. But it was very instrumental in generating the feeling of suspense, anticipation, and intrigue during the movie. Much like Super 8 and in the vein of other J.J. Abrams’ Bad Robot productions, the movie begins with a fantastic and blood curdling accident. Just like a rollercoaster, once that car accident hits the screen, the movie will take you up and down thrilling hills on a track that you will struggle to see 10 feet ahead. It’s difficult to talk about how the movie keeps you guessing and second guessing yourself without giving away a lot of what makes the movie thrilling. So, you will just have to take my word for it. Like with any good horror/suspense movie, it is necessary to include strategic comedic relief or lighthearted moments. And writers Drew Goddard, Daniel Casey, Matthew Stuecken, and Josh Campbell weave together a brilliant combination of terror and humor to keep the movie alive and dynamic.

John Goodman is absolutely brilliant in the film. Not that he has anything to prove. He is one of those actors who, with the slightest tweak of the face or shift of the eyes, can have you laughing one second and terrified the next. His ability to turn his character’s emotion on a dime makes him equally weird/quirky and frightening all at the same time throughout the story. Is he a weird old man who, in his own awkward and bizarre way, is keeping Michelle and Emmett from hard or his is a sadistic serial killer who forms inappropriate intimate bonds with his “guests”? That is for you to discover in the movie. Both Mary Elizabeth Winstead and John Gallagher Jr were perfect choices for their respective roles as well. Winstead brings that independent spirit and look to the character of Michelle and Gallagher provides the audience with a country boy charm. The ability for an actor to capture the emotion of extreme terror and sell it as a legitimate, believable emotion is tough. Selling that acute and powerful emotion can make or break a horror film–if the director’s intent is to make the story as real as possible and not a parody or satire of itself.

You may be wondering how this film is even loosely connected to 2008’s Cloverfield. And that connection isn’t really made until the end of the third act of the movie. Unfortunately, I cannot go into too much detail without giving away the climactic and over-the-top ending, but I can say that it does a great job of being connected just enough that it can essentially stand on its own but when you think of how it is or could be connected to Cloverfield, then the movie becomes all the more intriguing. Interestingly, the manner in which this installment in the Cloverfield universe was directed and produced, it definitely could begin a franchise with movies that are never directly connected to the previous film or even Super 8, but are taking place at or near the same time, each with it’s own respective story.

It isn’t often that I watch movies that are best seen in IMAX, but this is definitely one that is best appreciated and experienced in IMAX; however, if you want to take the old-school feel of the movie to a who other level, then you may want to consider watching the movie at a local drive-in. However you choose to watch the film, you are going to definitely enjoy the adventure.

“Whiskey Tango Foxtrot (or WTF)” movie review

Posted on by
2

WTFQuite the unexpected surprise from comedienne Tina Fey! Paramount Pictures’ Whiskey Tango Foxtrot is one part self-reflexive film on television news production and one part self-discovery. Unlike the feel of the previews, WTF is not really a comedy–not in the traditional sense anyway. There certainly are moments throughout the film that are funny and will cause you to chuckle, but it is definitely more of a drama. The brilliance of Fey’s acting in this movie is truly showcased by her ability to display that she can do serious just as well as funny. Most of the funny parts are given away in the previews, so don’t think you’re going to get more laughs during the movie. Based on actual events, WTF takes you behind the camera and behind enemy lines to depict what it is like for television news foreign correspondents in a war zone. Although the movie was not what I expected at all, I am very pleased with the story, all be it, slow burning. Beyond the self-reflexive subplot in the movie is the foreground story of self-discovery. Fey represents so many of us who just feel like we are spinning our wheels, treading water,  or even moving backwards. The inspirational elements of the movie come from her willingness to take chances, make mistakes, and get dirty (as the Magic School Bus‘s Miss Frizzle would say).

What would you do? You’re dissatisfied with your job as a television news writer/producer, have a mildly depressive boyfriend, small apartment, and just need to get away. If you’re Kim Barker (Tina Fey), then you head off to Kabul, Afghanistan to become a foreign correspondent during the early days of the War on Terror. After an expedited visa and passport, Barker embarks on her journey as a representative of the U.S. press in one of the most dangerous places on earth. Armed with her laptop, camera, notepad, and two staff members, she sets out to discover the real stories in Kabul and the surrounding areas. Thinking that she is the only girl in a military barracks, Barker is relieved to meet Tanya Vanderpoel (Margot Robbie) who takes Barker under her wings to show her the ropes of reporting the news amidst a war and hundreds of “thirsty” journalists and military personnel. While covering the stories of the war, Barker concurrently takes a journey of self-discovery that is filled with mountains and valleys.

Let’s be real here. Even if you analyze movies on a regular basis like me, you too were probably thinking that this would be a dramedy (drama/comedy). And yes, comedy is really drama in disguise; but I digress. The previews are certainly cut together in such a way that it looks like a very Fey-esque wartime comedy. I am not going so far as to saying that Paramount pulled a bait ‘n switch–because the movie is of a good quality and enjoyable–but the is no doubt that I went in expecting classic Fey and was presented with her more serious side. Still, through her witty quips and non-verbal dialog, she infuses conventional comedy and self-deprecating humor throughout the narrative. Like many dialog-driven dramas, even ones during a war, this movie has a very slow pace especially in the first act. Some additional comedy probably would have helped in the beginning to hook the audience. Speaking of the hook, that is probably what’s missing from the first few minutes of the movie. I think the studio sacrificed a traditional hook because the hook was Tina Fey herself. Fortunately, the film wastes no times in getting Kim Barker to Afghanistan, and that is definitely a good move. Although we are introduced to several chief characters in the movie, the focus is definitely on the character development of Barker with some minor development and introspect on the other principle players.

There are really two stories here: the foreground story of self-discovery and the background self-reflexive plot. Both are seamlessly married together in order to accurately tell both without sacrificing the other. Although we all know that there are foreign correspondents in war zones, we don’t always get to see what it’s really like to uncover stories, pitch to executives back in the states, and maintain sanity and safety; but through this film, we witness just how hard it really is to be a foreign television news correspondent. From networking, to interviewing, to shooting B-roll and stand-ups, Barker takes us on the journey from concept to delivery of producing news int he middle of a battle zone. Beyond the battle field, Barker is coping with her own personal and professional battles. If it isn’t the cheating boyfriend, it is the network who put her on the hourly plan and gives her no screen time. But, through it all, Barker never gives up and refuses to sit idly by and allow herself to be walked over. Fortunately, Barker does get her big break during the climax of the movie, but you’ll have to watch the movie to see what that is.

If you plan to see just one movie this weekend, I definitely encourage you to see this one. It’s gritty, funny, and inspirational. This is also a great opportunity to watch Fey in a more serious role and decide for yourself if she convinces you that she can play serious just as well as the comedy we all know and love her for. You may have seen other wartime movie, but this one plays out differently in that the focus is truly on the character development of the protagonist with the war merely being the backdrop and conduit through which we see her story of summits and pitfalls.

The Hollywood Studio System: Employment Then and Now

Posted on by
4
One of the last remnants of Hollywood’s Golden Age, Grauman’s Chinese Theatre stands as a tribute to the movies that started it all.

One of the last remnants of Hollywood’s Golden Age, Grauman’s Chinese Theatre stands as a tribute to the movies that started it all.

In light of the recent film Hail, Caesar!, I thought it would be interesting to take a closer look at the old studio system and whether resurrecting some of the practices might actually prove to be a positive affect upon employment in media and entertainment.

The entertainment industry is evolving more quickly than it ever has, and film production companies and distributors are of no exception. Just like the advent of television had a major influence on the sharp decline of movie patrons in the 1950s and 60s, the advent of on-demand and streaming “television” and movie content today is having a major impact on entertainment sources today. But this article does not aim to analyze distribution, production, nor revenue; its aim is to analyze the state of employment opportunities in the film and narrative television industries. What better way to begin to explore this controversial topic than with the studios that started it all.

HISTORY

The famous entry gate to Paramount Pictures as seen in the 1950 film, all about the studio system, “Sunset Blvd.”

The famous entry gate to Paramount Pictures as seen in the 1950 film, all about the studio system, “Sunset Blvd.”

The rise and fall of the former “studio system” lasted for a period from the 1920s to the late 1960s, with the 1940s to the 1960s being the period of the downfall. During this time, there were five major film studios known as the Big Five, essentially controlling the film industry from production to distribution. The Big Five consisted of Paramount, MGM, RKO, Loew’s, Fox Pictures, and Warner Brothers. Though not as prominent, three smaller studios known as the Little Three, consisting of United Artists, Universal, and Columbia Pictures, were the chief competition. Regarded as the end of Hollywood’s Golden Era, the landmark Supreme Court decision in United States v. Paramount in 1948 marked the delcine of the Studio System. In short, over about a 15-20 year timespan, studios began opening their lots to independent filmmakers–independent of the Big Five (not independent by today’s definition), terminating permanent staff members, and refraining from entering into longerm contracts with performers and movie houses. Although the Walt Disney Company was not part of the Big Five nor the Little Three, it is the only studio today still operating as a studio from the old Studio System.

PRESENT DAY

The Bronson Gate at Paramount Pictures as seen today

The Bronson Gate at Paramount Pictures as seen today

With the major studios today only producing about 20 films a year, the majority of films releasing in first-run movie theatres are produced by independent producers. As stated earlier, this is not independent as we think today; independent by this definition means movies produced outside of the major studios, but often distributed by them (or a subsidiary). Think: Star Wars or Jurassic Park. Since the fall of the Studio System, big banks are more reluctant to invest in or finance films, so producers are responsible for securing their own funding. Less funding means fewer job opportunities for film and television graduates. Most film and television professionals in the entertainment business today are independent contractors–being attached to films and television shows for however long the production time or run-length is. Although a long-running television show provides more employment stability than films do, both are high risk professions. Of course, along with the high risk comes potentially great rewards.

According to Hollywood folk lore, making a wish at the famed Bronson Gate is said to bring good luck. This is me (30lbs ago!) on the Paramount Studio tour in March 2015.

According to Hollywood folk lore, making a wish at the famed Bronson Gate is said to bring good luck. This is me (30lbs ago!) on the Paramount Studio tour in March 2015.

Why would the return of some semblance of the old Studio System be a good turn of events in today’s economy? Simply stated: more jobs and opportunities for budding professionals and college graduates. Why is that? Any first-year film student can tell you that studios keep a low threshold of permanent staff members in administration and production. The majority of talent and crew on each film is independently contracted. And with gaining entry into a union becoming increasingly difficult, it leaves many potentially talented professionals out of work or in low-pay positions on low and moderate budget films. If the Studio System were to return, they would have the collateral that big banks are looking for to invest in films. After all, film, television, and to some extent theatre, are the United States’ largest exports even though they are only recently counted as part of the U.S.’ GDP (gross domestic product) in terms of evaluating the health of the economy. If there were more permanent positions in production with studios and production companies, the unemployment rate would drop significantly in entertainment because budding professionals and college graduates could land positions in which they could grow and excel.

An aerial shot of the Desilu Stages in Hollywood in the 1960s

An aerial shot of the Desilu Stages in Hollywood in the 1960s

But what about exploitation and monopoly? Are those not reasons why the Supreme Court stepped in? Yes. However, there are many reasons why personnel in entertainment today, as permanent staff members, would not undergo the same treatment. The reason: unions. SAG-AFTRA, IATSE, TEAMSTERS, and EQUITY do an excellent job at protecting creative peoples’ rights and opening doors of opportunity. But, it is becoming increasingly difficult to gain access into these organizations. And with the unions being the gatekeepers to opportunity in the industry, where is a budding professional or college graduate supposed to go? If studios produced more in-house movies and television shows, then that would require them to hire permanent staff members. Those seeking a career in the industry would find their place. Some may argue that production companies offer internships to recent graduates; but with lawsuits increasing in the last few years, internships are increasingly being seen in a negative light. One hypothesis is that unpaid internships are taking the place of entry level jobs. With the number of entry-level jobs decreasing since the recession began, the unemployment rate in entertainment is rising.

One way to combat the increased unemployment in entertainment business is to bring back the large studios that have the financial assets to offer and hire permanent positions. This would enable the studios to hire a number of cinematographers, writers, directors, etc. And, those individuals would work on the films produced by the respective studios. If studios were to increase the number of films produced each year, as they once did, then there would be more opportunities for professionals. Regarding the monopoly studios had on movie houses, the present laws on the books would not allow for a studio to have complete control over a particular theatre chain.

There is plenty of room for studios and production companies large and small. Unlike the days of the Studio System, in which outside companies could not shoot films or television shows on another company’s lot, the smaller studios should be allowed to still rent the stage and lot space as they do today. Of course, if Studios were producing more movies on their lots, that may cause the smaller companies to have to look elsewhere for locations. But, that could be a good thing; because if they purchased land for a backlot or sound stages, that would create more jobs for craftsman. In order to combat the rising unemployment rate in the entertainment business, professionals need to get together to develop ideas as to how to hire more personnel. Bringing back the Studio System is just one idea as to how to create more full-time jobs in film and television production.

One of the entrances to MGM Studios (now owned by Sony Pictures) in Hollywood

One of the entrances to MGM Studios (now owned by Sony Pictures) in Hollywood

With studios forced to produce more movies in order to make payroll, that could potentially mean more writers can sell their scripts and perhaps more original ideas will make their way to the silver screen. This action could create human resource databases at the various studios and production companies that would advertise vacant positions. Just like applying for a job at Disney World, you could see what positions are available. Bringing back a new Studio System would allow for studios to advertise full and part-time regular positions. For instance, you could see which studios are hiring cinematographers, directors, composers, etc. Professionals in the creative and technical arts would also benefit from employer provided health insurance and retirement. Although as independent contractors, film and television professionals make more money than working as a regular employee, regular employees benefit from regular paychecks and benefits, and to an extent job security.

Technology is making the production of movies and television shows more efficient than ever, so a major studio could hire permanent staff members to work as producers, directors, screenwriters, cinematographers, etc. Employment opportunity and stability are key elements to the health of an industry–even creative ones. Even though the old Studio System ran unchecked for many years, causing the eventual breakup, carefully constructed and regulated today, the return of a new Studio System could mean more jobs and opportunity for college graduates pursuing entertainment business careers. And just maybe, more movies!

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

  • US adds entertainment and innovation to GDP, Time Magazine, http://entertainment.time.com/2013/08/01/hey-america-entertainment-just-made-you-hundreds-of-dollars-richer/
  • History of the Studio System, Encyclopedia Britannica, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/394161/history-of-the-motion-picture/52153/The-Hollywood-studio-system
  • Paramount Pictures v United States, 334 U.S. 131 (1948)
  • Glatt v. Fox Searchlight Pictures, New York Southern District court, http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/cases/show.php?db=special&id=300
  • US Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://www.bls.gov/ooh/entertainment-and-sports/home.htm
  • Glatt v. Fox Searchlight Pictures Inc. 2013 WL 2495140 (S.D.N.Y.) – See more at: http://blog.legalsolutions.thomsonreuters.com/legal-research/westlaw-topical-highlights-labor-and-employment-july-10-2013/#sthash.J9tcpnM1.dpuf
  • Hollywood Studio System Collection, http://mediahistoryproject.org/hollywood/
  • Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc., 327 U.S. 251 (1946)