[Marxism] Hollywood economics

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>]

New Yorker Magazine, Issue of 2005-02-07
GROSS POINTS
by LOUIS MENAND
Is the blockbuster the end of cinema?

The people who make the popcorn basically know what they?re doing. The 
people who make the movies basically don?t, at least not until the product 
is out there, and then it?s too late. Moviemaking is a business almost in 
spite of itself. No film company was willing to invest in ?The Birth of a 
Nation.? Everyone said that David O. Selznick would lose his shirt on ?Gone 
with the Wind.? When he didn?t, various parties determined to repeat the 
formula, and made ?Mutiny on the Bounty,? ?Cleopatra,? ?The Greatest Story 
Ever Told,? ?Waterloo,? and ?The Bible.? They lost their shirts. Universal 
and United Artists turned down ?Star Wars?; Twentieth Century Fox, the 
studio that distributed it, gave George Lucas the rights to the sequels for 
nothing. After Steven Spielberg finished shooting ?Jaws,? he believed that 
his career was over. Almost the entire industry was certain that ?Titanic? 
would be a financial black hole; it took in $1.85 billion at the box 
office, more than six hundred million dollars ahead of the 
next-highest-grossing picture of all time. The history of Hollywood is a 
comic routine of bad guesses, unintended outcomes, and pure luck. Half of 
the failures were well-intentioned, and half of the successes were, by 
ordinary standards of fairness and decency, undeserved. People do get rich 
making movies; more often than not, they?re the wrong people. That?s why 
moviemaking is so much fun to read about. Unless, of course, it?s your money.

The cinema, like the novel, is always dying. The movies were killed by 
sequels; they were killed by conglomerates; they were killed by special 
effects. ?Heaven?s Gate? was the end; ?Star Wars? was the end; ?Jaws? did 
it. It was the ratings system, profit participation, television, the 
blacklist, the collapse of the studio system, the Production Code. The 
movies should never have gone to color; they should never have gone to 
sound. The movies have been declared dead so many times that it is almost 
surprising that they were born, and, as every history of the cinema makes a 
point of noting, the first announcement of their demise practically 
coincided with the announcement of their birth. ?The cinema is an invention 
without any commercial future,? said Louis Lumière, the man who opened the 
world?s first movie theatre, in Paris, in 1895. He thought that motion 
pictures were a novelty item, and, in 1900, after successfully exhibiting 
his company?s films around the world, he got out of the business. It seemed 
the prudent move.

Of course, ?death,? in this context, does not mean ?extinction.? What it 
means depends on the speaker. If the speaker is the president of the Motion 
Picture Association of America, the condition of the movies is a function 
of the variable that drives all consumer culture (including the publication 
of novels), which is the return on investment. If the speaker is the film 
critic of the Times, on the other hand, it?s a function of the return on 
critical attention. What is good news on one method of accounting is not 
necessarily good news on the other. Since 1992, the entertainment industry 
has been America?s second-largest export business, after aerospace; the 
television audience for the Academy Awards ceremony is said to be a billion 
people. It is still perfectly possible that, from any creative point of 
view, rigor mortis has set in.

David Thomson?s ?The Whole Equation: A History of Hollywood? (Knopf; 
$27.95) is a coroner?s report. The title is misleading. The book gives 
roughly two hundred and ninety pages to the first fifty years of Hollywood 
and about eighty pages to the last fifty, and the true scope of its 
interest is even narrower. Thomson thinks that Hollywood had only two 
phases of first-class product: from 1927 to 1948, ?The Jazz Singer? to the 
Paramount decision (the Supreme Court case that broke the studio system by 
forcing the studios to divest themselves of the theatre chains they owned); 
and from 1967 to 1975, ?Bonnie and Clyde? to ?Jaws.? He considers silent 
film to be, essentially, pre-cinematic, because, in his opinion, the full 
movie experience requires sound; and he considers the contemporary 
blockbuster to be beneath critical regard. ?I have nothing to say,? he 
says, ?about ?Star Wars.? ?

(clip)

One of the merits of ?The Whole Equation? is that it avoids isolating a 
cause of death. It maintains a kind of analytic deep focus; it tries to 
take in everything. Thomson thinks that some of the explanation for what 
happened to the movies has to do with the movies and the people who make 
them, but some of it has to do with the audience. ?It?s not so much that 
movies are dead,? he suggests at one point, ?as that history has already 
passed them by.?

Many readers besides Tom Shone will find all this snows-of-yesteryear stuff 
exasperating. Thomson is particular about the movies he loves most: they 
are the movies of the nineteen-forties, ?an exquisite mixture of a lifelike 
dream world explored through the most refined and elaborate camera 
styles?with vast sets, insinuating tracking shots, and lighting that throbs 
with inner life?with the fabrication of music in the air, day-dreamy 
situations and indulged fantasy.? There was nothing very admirable about 
the industry that produced these films; it was an oligopoly designed for 
the enrichment of the oligarchs. But the greed and the philistinism didn?t 
matter, because something about the medium, and the talents it attracted, 
put the movies, Thomson says, ?on the cusp of feeling for an entire society.?

This may seem a little like saying that music was never the same after 
swing?a matter of taste, and when you were born. One of Thomson?s favorite 
movies (he wrote a book about it for the British Film Institute) is Howard 
Hawks?s ?The Big Sleep,? with Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall, which came 
out in 1946. In ?The Whole Equation,? he calls it ?sublime.? What?s mainly 
noticeable now about ?The Big Sleep? is the cynical incoherence of the 
plot?during the filming, Hawks called Raymond Chandler, from whose novel 
the movie was adapted, to ask him to explain who killed one of the 
characters; Chandler didn?t know?and a lot of double entendres that seem on 
the verge of camp. But you don?t have to love ?The Big Sleep? to take 
Thomson?s point, which is only that people no longer respond to movies the 
way they once responded to ?The Big Sleep.? This is not simply an argument 
from nostalgia; it has an empirical corollary. In 1946, weekly movie 
attendance was a hundred million. That was out of a population of a hundred 
and forty-one million, who had nineteen thousand movie screens available to 
them. Today, there are thirty-six thousand screens in the United States and 
two hundred and ninety-five million people, and weekly attendance is 
twenty-five million.

And what is the main cinematic experience? The tickets, including the 
surcharge for ordering online, cost about the same as the monthly cable 
bill. A medium popcorn is five dollars; the smallest bottled water is 
three. The show begins with twenty minutes of commercials, spots promoting 
the theatre chain, and previews for movies coming out next Memorial Day, 
sometimes a year from next Memorial Day. The feature includes any 
combination of the following: wizards; slinky women of few words; men of 
few words who can expertly drive anything, spectacularly wreck anything, 
and leap safely from the top of anything; characters from comic books, 
sixth-grade world-history textbooks, or ?Bulfinch?s Mythology?; explosions; 
phenomena unknown to science; a computer whiz with attitude; a brand-name 
soft drink, running shoe, or candy bar; an incarnation of pure evil; more 
explosions; and the voice of Robin Williams. The movie feels about twenty 
minutes too long; the reviews are mixed; nobody really loves it; and it 
grosses several hundred million dollars.

The standard explanation for this is economics. About ten or fifteen years 
ago, it became dogma in the movie industry that you could make a movie for 
ten million dollars or for a hundred million dollars, but there was no 
profit in anything with a budget in between. One reason for the Hollywood 
budget gap is above-the-line expenses?that is, the cost of the talent, as 
opposed to the cost of the crew, sets, travel, promotion, and so on. There 
are famous exceptions??Independence Day? is one?but the safe thinking is 
that only a handful of stars can open a movie worldwide. These stars 
command a healthy portion of the budget, and they usually take their money 
in the form of an advance against a percentage of the gross. If the movie 
doesn?t ?make back,? the star gets to keep the advance; if the movie is 
profitable (and the star has a deal based on ?first-dollar gross,? rather 
than on a figure reached after other profit participants have been paid 
off, which is often never), then the star?s income can continue to grow, 
and at the expense of everyone else waiting in line for a slice. The risk 
of opening without a name is too great to take. The actors who provided the 
voices for the animated characters in ?Shrek 2??Mike Myers, Eddie Murphy, 
and Cameron Diaz?were paid ten million dollars each for a few days? work in 
the studio. No prosthetic attachments; no early calls. Stars are brands. 
So, of course, are names from the pop-culture universe?Hulk, Spider-Man, 
King Kong?and sequels, such as the ?Die Hard?s, the fourth of which is 
scheduled to shoot this summer. These are all ways of preselling the 
picture, before the reviews can unsell it.

The key to the system is marketing. In 1975, the average cost of marketing 
for a movie distributed by a major studio was two million dollars. In 2003, 
it was thirty-nine million dollars. The aim of promotion is ?unaided 
awareness??in other words, ?buzz,? a diffused sense in the public that the 
movie is on the way. Those previews are one means of buzz development; 
another is the ?coverage? of forthcoming movies on television news 
programs, on entertainment-news shows, and in newspapers, media outlets 
that often are owned by the same conglomerate that owns the studio.

The all-consuming desire is to get as many ticket buyers as possible into 
the theatre on the first weekend, and, amazingly, people oblige. The crowds 
at the opening of a blockbuster are a fascinating window on mass 
psychology. If people just wait a couple of weeks, they can have their pick 
of seats. But when they get back to school or to the office no one will 
want to hear what they thought of the picture. That was last week?s 
conversation. This is why the primary target for the blockbuster is people 
with an underdeveloped capacity for deferred gratification; that is, kids. 
Kids need to see things right away. Deals are therefore made with the 
theatre chains which give the studio a large percentage, sometimes ninety 
per cent, of ticket sales in the first week, with a rapidly declining 
percentage in subsequent weeks. The theatre gets to deduct the ?house nut,? 
the cost of keeping the theatre running; more important, it gets to keep a 
hundred per cent of the income from sales of popcorn, soda, candy, video 
games, and anything else it can cram into the lobby. Concessions account 
for thirty-five per cent of the revenue in the major theatre circuits. This 
explains the three-dollar water.

full: http://www.newyorker.com/critics/atlarge/?050207crat_atlarge

--

www.marxmail.org


_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism