The Mediocrity Conspiracy within the Film Industry
Have you ever wondered about this recent phenomenon where films are mostly mediocre? Most are derivative of the same overdone formula and are “dumbed down” to be accessible to the lowest common denominator. Too many bad films are actual remakes of old bad films. When you read critical reviews of films lately, it seems as though the critics are lukewarm toward almost everything! I don’t put too much stock in what critics believe. I believe that most critics are just frustrated filmmakers who could not hack it in the industry, so they make their living taking pot shots at those who could. I believe that critics are just frustrated filmmakers who could not hack it in the industry, so they make their living taking pot shots at those who could. Those who can, write and direct, those who can't critique writers and directors. Never can I remember a time in my history as a filmmaker/film buff, when, across the board, positive critical reviews have been this infrequent. Why aren’t there more films being made like Robert Altman’s “The Player”, or “The Usual Suspects”, or “Shawshank Redemption”, genre-defying films, with solid stories and scripts, matched with exceptional acting and direction rather than this increasing dependence upon a blockbuster formula of big name stars and multi million dollar special effects to compensate for a lack of story and script substance.
I enjoy analyzing the movie trailers shown before the main feature at the theater. They’re usually pretty effective in crystallizing the quality, or lack thereof, of a story in about a minute. I can usually predict, by the trailer, whether a film will be a box office success, a critical success, both, or neither. I used to be able, based on viewing trailers, to find at least two promising films between which I would need to choose to see on any given weekend, since I tend to go to movies only once on a given weekend. If I can narrow the choices down to two, I would opt for the film that has been in release for a higher number of weeks, reasoning that the other film would be more likely be still in the theater on another weekend.
Over the past couple of years, however, the frequency my movie visits has fallen off dramatically. I cannot remember a time when I was so lacking in motivation to go to the movies. I opt to see most films on DVD. I know why there is no quality multicultural fare making its way through the studio system. I just never believed that there would be a time when so little quality work of any genre would be produced. Perhaps the time has come to look for answers.
The Origins of the “Studio System” and “Block Booking”
At the dawn of the film industry in the 1920’s, the biggest player was Adolph Zukor, the founder of what would become Paramount Studios in 1922. Nine major studios owned and controlled every element of film production and distribution with an iron fist. The writers and the directors who, in recent times, have garnered so much influence over their films, were but interchangeable hired studio staffers who were puppets of the studio executives who hired and fired them on a whim. Films were a direct reflection of the tastes and desires of studio executives who were either family or close associates of the heads of the studios. The acting talent were virtual indentured servants under exclusive career-duration contracts of adhesion, who could be easily blackballed out of the industry for uttering even a critical word about a studio insider. Stories and scripts were incubated exclusively in house at the studios and there was no free marketplace flow of ideas. The resulting “cookie-cutter” films were exhibited in studio-owned movie palaces. It was not until 1948, the Sherman Antitrust Act and Clayton Antitrust Statutes were finally applied to the studios. The Sherman Act penalized monopolistic practices intended to restrain free marketplace competition. The Clayton Act that penalized price fixing and exclusive dealing contracts that created interlocking control of multiple industry entities. Practically every studio practice of the time was designed to keep insiders in and outsiders out of the industry. Studio control over every industry process from development through exhibition was an example of a vertical integration that effectively prevented any free marketplace competition.
Films were formulaic, repetitive and strictly intended to cater to a homogenous “American Heartland” audience, primarily consisting of mid-western white males. Multiculturalism had not yet been “invented”. Other than the handful of African Americans who were hired as “research subjects”, their mannerisms and speech studied by studio writers to help them to “develop” the very limited number of African American characters that appeared in films, there was no involvement of non-whites behind the scenes nor in the executive ranks of the studios. The studios developed African American characters only in response to the success of the race films of Oscar Micheaux and his contemporaries, and that was only to draw the Black audiences away and destroy race films forever. The recurring African American “themes” that resulted were uni-dimensional shuffling, stammering and subservient cartoonish caricatures, portrayals from which Black folks have yet to fully recover even 80 years later! The studios, in pulling Black audiences into quasi-integrated theaters (balcony seating only) and away from Black-owned venues, derailed any hope of independent competition and succeeded in eliminating race films, Black-owned exhibition venues, along with the careers of a multitude of Black filmmakers, actors and technicians.
In 1928, after a seven-year investigation, the Federal Trade Commission took action against the ten major studios for their anticompetitive business practices, the principal defendant being Famous Players-Lasky Co., which later evolved into Paramount Pictures. In 1930, Block booking, the common studio practice of requiring exhibitors to accept packages including multiple “B” films in order for them to be allowed to exhibit the “A” films, was declared illegal. After a series of lower court cases that resulted in a judgment against the studios, a subsequent depression-era reprieve granted by Theodore Roosevelt, delays by consent decree and by World War II, it would take another 18 years and pressure from an emerging independent film movement, who would work to revive the landmark case of U.S. v Paramount, et.al., which was argued before the Supreme Court in 1948 after a Justice Dept. suit that had been initiated by the Roosevelt Administration in 1938. The Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Paramount lead to the enforcement of the Federal law abolishing Block Booking which forced the studios to divest their theater chains.
This was too late to save the “race” film industry. Of course, we are very often our worst enemy because but for the mass defection of the African American audiences, this discussion probably would not be relevant. Contrary to what most choose to believe, we do control our own destiny and someday perhaps we will outgrow this notion of “his” ice being colder. I have a recurring question on this issue. Where would the separate “race film” industry be today, had its audiences not been pulled away by the illegal anticompetitive practices of the studios and had that industry been allowed to grow and develop over the past 80 years? I guess this question will always remain a rhetorical one.
The Modern Studio System
According to a Feb. 9, 1999 report by CNN, the Justice Dept. initiated a probe into the anti-competitive practices by the major studios. Subpoenas were served.
“Those notified included Time Warner Inc.'s Warner Bros., a sister company to CNN.com; Viacom Inc.'s Paramount Pictures; Walt Disney; Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc.; and two of the country's largest theater chains, Loews Cineplex and Regal Cinemas.”
This is happening very quietly, but it appears that nothing much has really changed in the past 80 years. It is still the tacit and largely unchallenged policy of major studios to “Block Book” and quash any free marketplace of ideas, although nobody with any desire to make their living in the entertainment industry would dare to take the studios to task. As long as the studios remain in control over production, distribution and exhibition, most independents are relegated to low budget, play now and maybe pay later, home video deals, which are also becoming increasingly difficult to get. It is still nearly impossible for a true independent filmmaker to get an even handed contract with an exhibitor. I use the term “true” independent because most independents today are de facto studio subsidiaries and independent in name only. Studios have a practice of farming out some of their productions to their “independent” subsidiaries over which they maintain no control (yeah, right!) in order to circumvent union participation. Some other independents are, themselves, mini-studios. Steven Spielberg and Jeffrey Katzenberg and I are all independent filmmakers much in the way that Bentleys, Rolls Royces and Toyotas are all cars. Insiders work harder at keeping outsiders out and dealing only with other insiders than they do at making films, which is a fact reflected in the mediocre level of film story telling being accomplished. Outsiders are prevented from even contacting name talent without agents or established entertainment attorneys, who normally only deal with insiders. Without name talent, gaining distribution commitments becomes difficult and without distribution, financing is nearly impossible!
The studios are all subsidiaries of mega conglomerates. Paramount Pictures is a division of Viacom, which also owns Paramount Home Entertainment, CBS Television, the United Paramount Network (one of the television networks with all of the “lowest common denominator” Black shows), as well as most of what we see on cable television, i.e., MTV, Nickelodeon, BET, VH-1, Showtime, Sundance Channel, to name but a few. Infinity owns 180 radios stations and Viacom owns Infinity. Interestingly enough, Viacom, as of this time, owns Blockbuster Video and the 1,700 screens of United Cinemas. Blockbuster has swallowed most competing smaller video stores that might place some independent titles on their shelves. I suppose that since U.C.I. is not a major exhibition player with only 1,700 screens, the Justice Dept. is not concerned about vertical integration. Compliance with the Clayton Act’s ban on interlocking directorates should probably be reviewed, however.
Time Warner is another major player-conglomerate in the film industry that owns Warner Brothers Entertainment, i.e., Warner Brothers Television, the WB Television network (the other television network with all of the “lowest common denominator” Black shows), Castle Rock Entertainment, an “independent” film production entity, Warner Home Video and International Cinemas, to name but a few. Time Warner also owns “independent filmmaker” New Line Cinema, which owns New Line Distribution, New Line Television, New Line International Releasing, Fine Line Features New Line New Media, Merchandising/Licensing and Music. Time Warner also owns HBO, Cinemax, America Online, Time Warner Cable and Turner Broadcasting, among others, which gives Time Warner control over acquisition, conception and distribution of programming that is disseminated into almost every household in the U.S, and worldwide, but I’m sure that there is no ill effect on free competition here!
Sony Pictures Entertainment is a major player in movie production and distribution, television and home entertainment. Sony Pictures Entertainment, a subsidiary of Sony Electronics, owns Columbia TriStar Motion Picture Group which releases about 22 films per year. They also own Columbia Pictures and Columbia Pictures Classics, Sony Pictures Classics, Screen Gems, Sony Pictures Television Group and Sony Pictures Studios, among others.
In 2002, according to the Motion Picture Association of America 2002 U.S. Economic Review 2002 M.P.A.A. Market Statistics, MPAA member conglomerates, Disney, Sony, MGM, 20th Century Fox, Universal and Warner Brothers, their production and distribution arms and subsidiaries, released a total of 467 films onto 34,630 movie screens in 5,635 venues worldwide. Each feature film averaged $89.4 million in theatrical cost, which included $58.8 million in negative cost and $30.6 million in P&A and marketing expenses per feature.
Technically, it cannot be said that competition is being completely eliminated by this cabal of interlocking directorates and commonly-owned entities, because the competition still does exist between the mega-conglomerates. Realistically, however, there is no effective way for any true independents to compete against such an avalanche of high-priced and widely marketed product. This makes it nearly impossible for independents to get their novel and inventive stories into the marketplace and before audiences.
The men at the top management positions of these conglomerates, with the exception of Richard Parsons of Time Warner, are Caucasian men of very similar cultural origin, life experience, tastes and biases, as are the officers who they hire to oversee the operations of their subsidiaries, as are those who actually operate these subsidiaries. It cannot be easily argued that a diverse range of ideas flows freely in the marketplace. The hierarchy of Viacom, for example, may argue that Paramount is independently managed, but let’s see what happens when Paramount releases product that rubs against Viacom’s corporate philosophies, likewise Time-Warner with New Line or Castle Rock and likewise Sony with Tri-Star or Columbia. The point is made, so there is not even a need to discuss Rupert Murdoch and his Fox conglomerate or Metro Goldwyn Mayer.
The executives and officers who make the daily operational decisions involving project development, finance and distribution are few in number industry-wide and they typically play a game of musical chairs, moving from company to company within and between the conglomerates. As a result, it is, as it has always been, the mandate of a very incestuous and homogenous brotherhood to decide for all of the world’s diverse races and cultures, how their experiences and their history are to be portrayed, if at all. There have been many discussions about the benefits and liabilities in connection with corporate ownership of multiple media outlets. One of the liabilities, aside from the obvious damage to the free market flow of ideas, is that these corporations are strictly bottom-line oriented. Since corporations exist strictly for profit and their officers must answer to boards who demand maximum profit for maximum share value, their decisions, understandably, become not creative, but strictly fiscal. It is of supreme importance that the product, whether it be an automobile, a toaster, or a feature film, return maximum profit. To the extent that the product is not profitable, it, and or those who were responsible for making it profitable, are interchangeable with more profitable products or executives with more effective approaches toward turning profit. Under those circumstances, it is totally understandable if no film executives care to put themselves out on a limb for the sake of creativity or innovation. The formula that has shown results in the past is not to be deviated from! That is an effective approach for selling cars or toasters, but not films. The creative process must be allowed to evolve. The proven formula would normally become obsolete once a novel approach is introduced and provides the new benchmark, but if those who dominate the market, eliminating market competition, have agreed not to “rock the boat” the introduction of any new approaches into the marketplace becomes a near impossibility.
It has always been the role of the independent filmmaker of diverse background and experience push the envelope, introduce the novel story telling approach and to give voice to those diverse audiences who have traditionally been neglected by the “cabal” of the “Hollywood” studio system, while debunking the stereotypes that are perpetrated within that system, much in the way that Oscar Micheaux and his contemporaries responded to debunk D.W. Griffith’s 1915 “cartoon” entitled Birth of A Nation. Oscar Micheaux portrayed us as so many of us were at that time, i.e., dignified teachers, doctors, lawyers, entrepreneurs, etc. But for Micheaux’s “race” films, one would never know today that any of us were so positioned during that time. Likewise, without any independent knowledge to the contrary, it would not be hard to believe, based upon film portrayals, that today’s African American males are all entertaining and athletic, comics, thugs, buffoons, singers and dancers who are big and strong, quick-tempered and sex-crazed animals, who seem to lack judgment or positive family liaisons and who kill each other and disrespect our own women to whom we are incapable of expressing love. We like to serve the white man and we often display a talent for mystically and magically solving his problems. We are very often rescued from our predicaments by sympathetic and paternalistic Caucasians, who, for the most part, are portrayed onscreen as being quite noble. African American women are sassy, overweight, highly sexual (“make me feel good”) and quick-tempered (especially toward Black men). They are exotic temptresses who sing, shake booty, and otherwise entertain and who seem to have a talent for helping Caucasians raise their children. Other than the “banditos” (mostly played by white actors), Latinos were not a presence in film 80 years ago, but today appear to be lazy, hot-tempered, hot lovers and good singers and dancers. Asians appear to be enigmatic and mysterious, good with math and computers and experts at the martial arts.
Without an available opposing view to compete for the limited availability of box office dollars and with the ability to create profitable films, not by virtue of their content, but by sheer force of will and millions in marketing dollars, there is no real need for the studios to spend their time and effort to develop challenging stories to bring to movie-going audiences. That being the case, movie-going audiences, without the availability of more challenging fare, will settle for what is made available to them if they absolutely must attend a movie. The traditional studio line has been that audiences, particularly African American audiences, will not turn out to see dramas, that southern and heartland audiences are uncomfortable with more substantively dramatic portrayals of African Americans, that overseas audiences do not wish to see us onscreen at all unless we are named Eddie, Samuel or Denzel, so studios do not invest as much to produce and promote dramas unless big names are involved. If that is true, then from a fiscal standpoint, their reasoning is sound. I would submit, however, that the studios create a self-fulfilling prophecy by investing major advertising dollars to support the films that they believe to be the most profitable, and given sufficient advertising support, any film of any genre can be profitable. Audiences decide whether a film is deemed to be worth seeing by the number of television ads they see. Without a strong advertising campaign, any film is guaranteed to draw low numbers.
Any manufacturer that is able to monopolize their market will not deem it necessary to spend any more than necessary to improve their product. Why should they? If you are guaranteed to sell most or all available product inventory whether you spend 1% or 10% of gross income on product research, development and quality control, would you spend 10%? That’s why movies suck. I am not suggesting that the studios owe us anything. It would nice however, if the studios would follow federal law and allow some healthy market competition. Don’t give us anything, just get out of our way!
With the advent of the more mass-accessible digital production and exhibition technology, there is an opportunity for independents to get their product to some audiences. Perhaps, given this small window of opportunity, our films can begin to reach audiences in our independent digital venues, which may be schools, churches and any auditorium into which a digital projector, screen and seats can be placed. It worked for Oscar Micheaux, his contemporaries and their captive audiences, but will modern audiences, who are free to pay to view movies anywhere, pay to see challenging and novel storylines in independent films with talented, but unfamiliar faces and no special effects? History has told us that given the choice, Black audiences will not go to see mediocre Black films just because they are Black films. Enough audiences just want good product and will go anywhere within reason once that they learn it is consistently available there. I may be right or wrong, but if I am right, beware of a repeat of history. The number of M.P.A.A.-affiliated digital screens increased from 45 to 124 between the years 2001 and 2002. Once 2003 and beyond numbers are released, I would predict an even more dramatic climb in the numbers until all screens are digital, given the potential millions of dollars to be saved per film in production costs, film prints and film print shipping to exhibitors. Knowing history, I would not be surprised that if audiences were to display interest in our no-name digital films in more intimate venues, the studios will act as swiftly as they did in the 1920’s and quickly monopolize that market, eventually degenerating the films back to the same mindless fare that is offered today. History is nothing, if not repetitive!
Have you ever wondered about this recent phenomenon where films are mostly mediocre? Most are derivative of the same overdone formula and are “dumbed down” to be accessible to the lowest common denominator. Too many bad films are actual remakes of old bad films. When you read critical reviews of films lately, it seems as though the critics are lukewarm toward almost everything! I don’t put too much stock in what critics believe. I believe that most critics are just frustrated filmmakers who could not hack it in the industry, so they make their living taking pot shots at those who could. I believe that critics are just frustrated filmmakers who could not hack it in the industry, so they make their living taking pot shots at those who could. Those who can, write and direct, those who can't critique writers and directors. Never can I remember a time in my history as a filmmaker/film buff, when, across the board, positive critical reviews have been this infrequent. Why aren’t there more films being made like Robert Altman’s “The Player”, or “The Usual Suspects”, or “Shawshank Redemption”, genre-defying films, with solid stories and scripts, matched with exceptional acting and direction rather than this increasing dependence upon a blockbuster formula of big name stars and multi million dollar special effects to compensate for a lack of story and script substance.
I enjoy analyzing the movie trailers shown before the main feature at the theater. They’re usually pretty effective in crystallizing the quality, or lack thereof, of a story in about a minute. I can usually predict, by the trailer, whether a film will be a box office success, a critical success, both, or neither. I used to be able, based on viewing trailers, to find at least two promising films between which I would need to choose to see on any given weekend, since I tend to go to movies only once on a given weekend. If I can narrow the choices down to two, I would opt for the film that has been in release for a higher number of weeks, reasoning that the other film would be more likely be still in the theater on another weekend.
Over the past couple of years, however, the frequency my movie visits has fallen off dramatically. I cannot remember a time when I was so lacking in motivation to go to the movies. I opt to see most films on DVD. I know why there is no quality multicultural fare making its way through the studio system. I just never believed that there would be a time when so little quality work of any genre would be produced. Perhaps the time has come to look for answers.
The Origins of the “Studio System” and “Block Booking”
At the dawn of the film industry in the 1920’s, the biggest player was Adolph Zukor, the founder of what would become Paramount Studios in 1922. Nine major studios owned and controlled every element of film production and distribution with an iron fist. The writers and the directors who, in recent times, have garnered so much influence over their films, were but interchangeable hired studio staffers who were puppets of the studio executives who hired and fired them on a whim. Films were a direct reflection of the tastes and desires of studio executives who were either family or close associates of the heads of the studios. The acting talent were virtual indentured servants under exclusive career-duration contracts of adhesion, who could be easily blackballed out of the industry for uttering even a critical word about a studio insider. Stories and scripts were incubated exclusively in house at the studios and there was no free marketplace flow of ideas. The resulting “cookie-cutter” films were exhibited in studio-owned movie palaces. It was not until 1948, the Sherman Antitrust Act and Clayton Antitrust Statutes were finally applied to the studios. The Sherman Act penalized monopolistic practices intended to restrain free marketplace competition. The Clayton Act that penalized price fixing and exclusive dealing contracts that created interlocking control of multiple industry entities. Practically every studio practice of the time was designed to keep insiders in and outsiders out of the industry. Studio control over every industry process from development through exhibition was an example of a vertical integration that effectively prevented any free marketplace competition.
Films were formulaic, repetitive and strictly intended to cater to a homogenous “American Heartland” audience, primarily consisting of mid-western white males. Multiculturalism had not yet been “invented”. Other than the handful of African Americans who were hired as “research subjects”, their mannerisms and speech studied by studio writers to help them to “develop” the very limited number of African American characters that appeared in films, there was no involvement of non-whites behind the scenes nor in the executive ranks of the studios. The studios developed African American characters only in response to the success of the race films of Oscar Micheaux and his contemporaries, and that was only to draw the Black audiences away and destroy race films forever. The recurring African American “themes” that resulted were uni-dimensional shuffling, stammering and subservient cartoonish caricatures, portrayals from which Black folks have yet to fully recover even 80 years later! The studios, in pulling Black audiences into quasi-integrated theaters (balcony seating only) and away from Black-owned venues, derailed any hope of independent competition and succeeded in eliminating race films, Black-owned exhibition venues, along with the careers of a multitude of Black filmmakers, actors and technicians.
In 1928, after a seven-year investigation, the Federal Trade Commission took action against the ten major studios for their anticompetitive business practices, the principal defendant being Famous Players-Lasky Co., which later evolved into Paramount Pictures. In 1930, Block booking, the common studio practice of requiring exhibitors to accept packages including multiple “B” films in order for them to be allowed to exhibit the “A” films, was declared illegal. After a series of lower court cases that resulted in a judgment against the studios, a subsequent depression-era reprieve granted by Theodore Roosevelt, delays by consent decree and by World War II, it would take another 18 years and pressure from an emerging independent film movement, who would work to revive the landmark case of U.S. v Paramount, et.al., which was argued before the Supreme Court in 1948 after a Justice Dept. suit that had been initiated by the Roosevelt Administration in 1938. The Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Paramount lead to the enforcement of the Federal law abolishing Block Booking which forced the studios to divest their theater chains.
This was too late to save the “race” film industry. Of course, we are very often our worst enemy because but for the mass defection of the African American audiences, this discussion probably would not be relevant. Contrary to what most choose to believe, we do control our own destiny and someday perhaps we will outgrow this notion of “his” ice being colder. I have a recurring question on this issue. Where would the separate “race film” industry be today, had its audiences not been pulled away by the illegal anticompetitive practices of the studios and had that industry been allowed to grow and develop over the past 80 years? I guess this question will always remain a rhetorical one.
The Modern Studio System
According to a Feb. 9, 1999 report by CNN, the Justice Dept. initiated a probe into the anti-competitive practices by the major studios. Subpoenas were served.
“Those notified included Time Warner Inc.'s Warner Bros., a sister company to CNN.com; Viacom Inc.'s Paramount Pictures; Walt Disney; Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc.; and two of the country's largest theater chains, Loews Cineplex and Regal Cinemas.”
This is happening very quietly, but it appears that nothing much has really changed in the past 80 years. It is still the tacit and largely unchallenged policy of major studios to “Block Book” and quash any free marketplace of ideas, although nobody with any desire to make their living in the entertainment industry would dare to take the studios to task. As long as the studios remain in control over production, distribution and exhibition, most independents are relegated to low budget, play now and maybe pay later, home video deals, which are also becoming increasingly difficult to get. It is still nearly impossible for a true independent filmmaker to get an even handed contract with an exhibitor. I use the term “true” independent because most independents today are de facto studio subsidiaries and independent in name only. Studios have a practice of farming out some of their productions to their “independent” subsidiaries over which they maintain no control (yeah, right!) in order to circumvent union participation. Some other independents are, themselves, mini-studios. Steven Spielberg and Jeffrey Katzenberg and I are all independent filmmakers much in the way that Bentleys, Rolls Royces and Toyotas are all cars. Insiders work harder at keeping outsiders out and dealing only with other insiders than they do at making films, which is a fact reflected in the mediocre level of film story telling being accomplished. Outsiders are prevented from even contacting name talent without agents or established entertainment attorneys, who normally only deal with insiders. Without name talent, gaining distribution commitments becomes difficult and without distribution, financing is nearly impossible!
The studios are all subsidiaries of mega conglomerates. Paramount Pictures is a division of Viacom, which also owns Paramount Home Entertainment, CBS Television, the United Paramount Network (one of the television networks with all of the “lowest common denominator” Black shows), as well as most of what we see on cable television, i.e., MTV, Nickelodeon, BET, VH-1, Showtime, Sundance Channel, to name but a few. Infinity owns 180 radios stations and Viacom owns Infinity. Interestingly enough, Viacom, as of this time, owns Blockbuster Video and the 1,700 screens of United Cinemas. Blockbuster has swallowed most competing smaller video stores that might place some independent titles on their shelves. I suppose that since U.C.I. is not a major exhibition player with only 1,700 screens, the Justice Dept. is not concerned about vertical integration. Compliance with the Clayton Act’s ban on interlocking directorates should probably be reviewed, however.
Time Warner is another major player-conglomerate in the film industry that owns Warner Brothers Entertainment, i.e., Warner Brothers Television, the WB Television network (the other television network with all of the “lowest common denominator” Black shows), Castle Rock Entertainment, an “independent” film production entity, Warner Home Video and International Cinemas, to name but a few. Time Warner also owns “independent filmmaker” New Line Cinema, which owns New Line Distribution, New Line Television, New Line International Releasing, Fine Line Features New Line New Media, Merchandising/Licensing and Music. Time Warner also owns HBO, Cinemax, America Online, Time Warner Cable and Turner Broadcasting, among others, which gives Time Warner control over acquisition, conception and distribution of programming that is disseminated into almost every household in the U.S, and worldwide, but I’m sure that there is no ill effect on free competition here!
Sony Pictures Entertainment is a major player in movie production and distribution, television and home entertainment. Sony Pictures Entertainment, a subsidiary of Sony Electronics, owns Columbia TriStar Motion Picture Group which releases about 22 films per year. They also own Columbia Pictures and Columbia Pictures Classics, Sony Pictures Classics, Screen Gems, Sony Pictures Television Group and Sony Pictures Studios, among others.
In 2002, according to the Motion Picture Association of America 2002 U.S. Economic Review 2002 M.P.A.A. Market Statistics, MPAA member conglomerates, Disney, Sony, MGM, 20th Century Fox, Universal and Warner Brothers, their production and distribution arms and subsidiaries, released a total of 467 films onto 34,630 movie screens in 5,635 venues worldwide. Each feature film averaged $89.4 million in theatrical cost, which included $58.8 million in negative cost and $30.6 million in P&A and marketing expenses per feature.
Technically, it cannot be said that competition is being completely eliminated by this cabal of interlocking directorates and commonly-owned entities, because the competition still does exist between the mega-conglomerates. Realistically, however, there is no effective way for any true independents to compete against such an avalanche of high-priced and widely marketed product. This makes it nearly impossible for independents to get their novel and inventive stories into the marketplace and before audiences.
The men at the top management positions of these conglomerates, with the exception of Richard Parsons of Time Warner, are Caucasian men of very similar cultural origin, life experience, tastes and biases, as are the officers who they hire to oversee the operations of their subsidiaries, as are those who actually operate these subsidiaries. It cannot be easily argued that a diverse range of ideas flows freely in the marketplace. The hierarchy of Viacom, for example, may argue that Paramount is independently managed, but let’s see what happens when Paramount releases product that rubs against Viacom’s corporate philosophies, likewise Time-Warner with New Line or Castle Rock and likewise Sony with Tri-Star or Columbia. The point is made, so there is not even a need to discuss Rupert Murdoch and his Fox conglomerate or Metro Goldwyn Mayer.
The executives and officers who make the daily operational decisions involving project development, finance and distribution are few in number industry-wide and they typically play a game of musical chairs, moving from company to company within and between the conglomerates. As a result, it is, as it has always been, the mandate of a very incestuous and homogenous brotherhood to decide for all of the world’s diverse races and cultures, how their experiences and their history are to be portrayed, if at all. There have been many discussions about the benefits and liabilities in connection with corporate ownership of multiple media outlets. One of the liabilities, aside from the obvious damage to the free market flow of ideas, is that these corporations are strictly bottom-line oriented. Since corporations exist strictly for profit and their officers must answer to boards who demand maximum profit for maximum share value, their decisions, understandably, become not creative, but strictly fiscal. It is of supreme importance that the product, whether it be an automobile, a toaster, or a feature film, return maximum profit. To the extent that the product is not profitable, it, and or those who were responsible for making it profitable, are interchangeable with more profitable products or executives with more effective approaches toward turning profit. Under those circumstances, it is totally understandable if no film executives care to put themselves out on a limb for the sake of creativity or innovation. The formula that has shown results in the past is not to be deviated from! That is an effective approach for selling cars or toasters, but not films. The creative process must be allowed to evolve. The proven formula would normally become obsolete once a novel approach is introduced and provides the new benchmark, but if those who dominate the market, eliminating market competition, have agreed not to “rock the boat” the introduction of any new approaches into the marketplace becomes a near impossibility.
It has always been the role of the independent filmmaker of diverse background and experience push the envelope, introduce the novel story telling approach and to give voice to those diverse audiences who have traditionally been neglected by the “cabal” of the “Hollywood” studio system, while debunking the stereotypes that are perpetrated within that system, much in the way that Oscar Micheaux and his contemporaries responded to debunk D.W. Griffith’s 1915 “cartoon” entitled Birth of A Nation. Oscar Micheaux portrayed us as so many of us were at that time, i.e., dignified teachers, doctors, lawyers, entrepreneurs, etc. But for Micheaux’s “race” films, one would never know today that any of us were so positioned during that time. Likewise, without any independent knowledge to the contrary, it would not be hard to believe, based upon film portrayals, that today’s African American males are all entertaining and athletic, comics, thugs, buffoons, singers and dancers who are big and strong, quick-tempered and sex-crazed animals, who seem to lack judgment or positive family liaisons and who kill each other and disrespect our own women to whom we are incapable of expressing love. We like to serve the white man and we often display a talent for mystically and magically solving his problems. We are very often rescued from our predicaments by sympathetic and paternalistic Caucasians, who, for the most part, are portrayed onscreen as being quite noble. African American women are sassy, overweight, highly sexual (“make me feel good”) and quick-tempered (especially toward Black men). They are exotic temptresses who sing, shake booty, and otherwise entertain and who seem to have a talent for helping Caucasians raise their children. Other than the “banditos” (mostly played by white actors), Latinos were not a presence in film 80 years ago, but today appear to be lazy, hot-tempered, hot lovers and good singers and dancers. Asians appear to be enigmatic and mysterious, good with math and computers and experts at the martial arts.
Without an available opposing view to compete for the limited availability of box office dollars and with the ability to create profitable films, not by virtue of their content, but by sheer force of will and millions in marketing dollars, there is no real need for the studios to spend their time and effort to develop challenging stories to bring to movie-going audiences. That being the case, movie-going audiences, without the availability of more challenging fare, will settle for what is made available to them if they absolutely must attend a movie. The traditional studio line has been that audiences, particularly African American audiences, will not turn out to see dramas, that southern and heartland audiences are uncomfortable with more substantively dramatic portrayals of African Americans, that overseas audiences do not wish to see us onscreen at all unless we are named Eddie, Samuel or Denzel, so studios do not invest as much to produce and promote dramas unless big names are involved. If that is true, then from a fiscal standpoint, their reasoning is sound. I would submit, however, that the studios create a self-fulfilling prophecy by investing major advertising dollars to support the films that they believe to be the most profitable, and given sufficient advertising support, any film of any genre can be profitable. Audiences decide whether a film is deemed to be worth seeing by the number of television ads they see. Without a strong advertising campaign, any film is guaranteed to draw low numbers.
Any manufacturer that is able to monopolize their market will not deem it necessary to spend any more than necessary to improve their product. Why should they? If you are guaranteed to sell most or all available product inventory whether you spend 1% or 10% of gross income on product research, development and quality control, would you spend 10%? That’s why movies suck. I am not suggesting that the studios owe us anything. It would nice however, if the studios would follow federal law and allow some healthy market competition. Don’t give us anything, just get out of our way!
With the advent of the more mass-accessible digital production and exhibition technology, there is an opportunity for independents to get their product to some audiences. Perhaps, given this small window of opportunity, our films can begin to reach audiences in our independent digital venues, which may be schools, churches and any auditorium into which a digital projector, screen and seats can be placed. It worked for Oscar Micheaux, his contemporaries and their captive audiences, but will modern audiences, who are free to pay to view movies anywhere, pay to see challenging and novel storylines in independent films with talented, but unfamiliar faces and no special effects? History has told us that given the choice, Black audiences will not go to see mediocre Black films just because they are Black films. Enough audiences just want good product and will go anywhere within reason once that they learn it is consistently available there. I may be right or wrong, but if I am right, beware of a repeat of history. The number of M.P.A.A.-affiliated digital screens increased from 45 to 124 between the years 2001 and 2002. Once 2003 and beyond numbers are released, I would predict an even more dramatic climb in the numbers until all screens are digital, given the potential millions of dollars to be saved per film in production costs, film prints and film print shipping to exhibitors. Knowing history, I would not be surprised that if audiences were to display interest in our no-name digital films in more intimate venues, the studios will act as swiftly as they did in the 1920’s and quickly monopolize that market, eventually degenerating the films back to the same mindless fare that is offered today. History is nothing, if not repetitive!
