The Downfall of the Studio System: Emergence of Independent Cinema (2024)

"I pity the French Cinema because it has no money. I pity the American Cinema because it has no ideas."

Jean-Luc Godard

December 28, 1895, marked the beginning of cinema history. The LumiÃ¨re brothers, Auguste and Louis, surprised the people of Paris by showing the first film in history - "Workers Leaving the LumiÃ¨re Factory." The brothers' invention of the cinÃ©matographe set the stage for a new art form and introduced a new economic market for entertainment.

After World War I, in the 1920s, American director Thomas Harper Ince, while producing films for his studio in the Santa Ynez Canyon, created the foundational outline for the studio system of film production. In the next 40 years, Hollywood and film studios worldwide followed the production pattern of having "[a] central authority over multiple production units, each headed by a director who was required to shoot an assigned film according to a detailed continuity script." Film studios hired many directors and producers to maximize the efficiency of film production. In turn, studios generated high profits by following the studio production system. However, a majority of these industrialized studio-produced films were of low quality. Given budgets with small margins for impromptu creativity, directors produced assigned scripts quickly because the next studio production began right after. Moreover, directors often lacked creative freedom as studios primarily held creative control over all productions. Regardless, the studio system was a very efficient and effective method to mass-produce films for entertainment. Despite its inconsistent production qualities and monopolistic characteristics, the studio system brought about Hollywood's 'Golden Age.'

Ince's studio production system provided insights into a new filmmaking business model. Soon, many investors utilized Ince's film production method and expanded their studio companies. These studio companies quickly grew into a monopolistic power, controlling Hollywood's entertainment industry and worldwide. So, how did the Studio system decline? Although the Paramount Decrees from 1948 ironically resulted in an even more monopolized market of film studios, independent film production slowly took over market shares.

Following Ince's studio production process, studios produced plethoric, successful films. However, according to famous auteur filmmaker Jean-Luc Godard, although successful at the Box Office, these blockbuster films were not "artistic" but purely "commercial." Still, studios used profits from their films' financial success to expand market influence. Around the 1930s, small film studios gradually merged into fewer major studios, which rose prominently in the film industry. Five major studios (known as the 'Big 5') - MGM, Paramount Pictures, Warner Brothers, Twentieth Century Fox, and RKO Studios - controlled most of America's film industry. The 'Big 5' and three smaller studios controlled over "95 percent of all American [film] production." This monopolistic control tremendously affected diversity in the film industry. Furthermore, to secure their industry positions, these studios purchased control of major theater chains throughout the US. The studio Warner Brothers, in 1929, by acquiring the Stanley theater circuit, gained control over "nearly all the first-run houses in the mid-Atlantic states." The studios vertically integrated top-tier national theater chains to exhibit their production films regardless of the films' quality. Therefore, nearly all of the studio's films would be guaranteed financial success. Because of the prominent monopolistic characteristics these mega studios displayed, the US government, in 1938, filed an antitrust suit against eight of the biggest film studios in Hollywood.

The Paramount Decrees, passed in 1948 by the Supreme Court, stated that the eight studios - Paramount Pictures, Twentieth Century Fox, MGM, RKO, Warner Brothers, Columbia Pictures, Universal Pictures, and United Artists Corporation - were inhibited from performing monopolistic actions such as "block booking (bundling multiple films into one theater license), circuit dealing (entering into one license that covered all theaters in a theater circuit), resale price maintenance (setting minimum prices on movie tickets), and granting overbroad clearances (exclusive film licenses for specific geographic areas)." These decisions of the Supreme Court, ultimately aimed to prevent an increasingly monopolistic film industry, had ironically spiked further monopolistic strategies. On the surface, Hollywood film studios have stopped seeking control over theater film exhibitions. However, the studios turned to an even more prevalent source of exhibition - television. The dominance of theater exhibited films as the major leisure activity for people continued until the 1940s when television broadcasting technologies rose in popularity due to the convenience of playing "movies in the home." The public was more attracted to watching films and programs on their TVs at home rather than traveling to theaters. Consequently, the introduction of television devastated movie theaters across the world. While the major studios of Hollywood were the principal stockholders of theater chains, studio executives sought ways to compensate for their losses. With significant financial capability, major studios like Paramount altered their strategies and began taking over the newly risen internet television industry. By 1944, 6 years after the US government filed for the antitrust allegations, Paramount had "owned and operated television stations in Los Angeles and Chicago." In addition, a high executive in Paramount, Paul Railborn, distributed Paramount's programs to "forty-three stations," acquiring the studio a "fifty percent interest in a subscription-television firm." Hence, studios quickly resolved the new competition of internet television.

The Paramount Decrees, although aimed to dissemble the growing film-studio-monopoly, backfired and devastated competitors of these major studios. Surprisingly, RKO, one of the 'Big 5's, filed for bankruptcy soon after the passing of the Paramount Decrees. Apparently, RKO had been "struggling for financial stability" since its founding in 1928. Originally, RKO would have been able to salvage itself by merging with bigger studios. However, after passing the Paramount Decrees, the US government nearly forbade any merger between studios to ensure a competitive market.

Similarly, in 1929, the US Department of Justice intervened in a proposed merger between "Paramount's [and] Warner Brothers and divorc[ed] Fox from Loew's." The government scrutinized any possible merger or integration between studios and between studios and theaters. As a result, smaller film studios such as RKO were forced entirely out of the industry, and fewer studios held market shares. After the Paramount Decrees, the film industry was left with minimal diversity or competition, while the remaining formidable studios maintained monopolistic status. The Paramount Decrees ultimately backfired and eliminated smaller studios, leaving major studios without competition and opportunities to flourish from the newly risen internet television technology.

However, the major studios did not stand firm against the rising influence of independent filmmaking. As technology advanced, more versatile camcorders were available to filmmakers with lower budgets. The film industry, which experienced a period when shooting film was highly immobile due to the sheer size of cinema cameras, grew into an era of "movable-production" because of the "technological developments." As technological developments lowered the barrier to entering the film industry, talented filmmakers like Jean-Luc Godard had the opportunity to use the 'Ã‰clair Cameflex CM3 35mm camera to shoot one of his most famous works - Breathless. The Ã‰clair Cameflex was a small, versatile camera that could be easily handheld, and, more importantly, the price was low. Compared to studio production cameras, the newly developed handheld cameras were much more appealing to independent filmmakers with little to no film crew members. Nonetheless, independent filmmakers still often faced the problem of insufficient financial sources to produce their cinematic pieces; their funding usually came from "personal funds," "pools of individuals," or "not-for-profit organizations." Independent filmmaking really meant 'making a film all on your own out of nothing.' On the contrary, film studios' primary strategy for production revolved around cooperating with Hollywood stars who financed the movies, and, in return, the stars got to credit themselves as film producers. These films strictly limited directors' creative control because they had to favor the collaborating Hollywood celebrities to ensure their production budget.

In the late 1960s, after the glorious era of Hollywood's Golden Age, more and more independent production films entered the industry. The cinema industry shifted towards independent film production rather than the original studio system. The studio system production after the 60s declined into disarray as new individual filmmakers, inspired by European art cinema, "stormed the studios" and salvaged the American cinema with their "independent visions."Allowing their imaginations to blossom, filmmakers were no longer subject to big studios that assigned them scripts to direct or scheduled tight deadlines to follow. In Italy, following their surrender in World War II, Neorealism movements greatly impacted directors into producing films more "[committed] to portraying the lives and experiences of 'ordinary' people in contrast to the glossy star vehicles of Hollywood." Likewise, filmmakers from France and the US gradually produced more auteurist films as they shifted away from the studio system. While major studios became "less involved" in the film industry, French New Wave filmmakers such as FranÃ§ois Truffaut interpreted that films should be "more personal" rather than how Classical Hollywood often portrayed lifestyles of the upper class or celebrities. Additionally, Truffaut argued that the film production studio system heavily hampered directors' interests. He believed that because producers get paid based on a percentage of the budget they can acquire from sponsors, producers will make films' budgets cost "$600,000 when they should cost half that amount." Therefore, Truffaut suggested that filmmakers should be their "own producers" so no conflicts arise between directors' "artistic interests" and the films' "commercial" interests. Moreover, Federico Fellini, a well-known Italian neorealism filmmaker, experienced trouble while "finding a producer for La Dolce Vita" because nobody thought the film would succeed financially. However, once Fellini proved himself capable after his massive success with La Dolce Vita, producers "wanted [him] to make the same film again." In search of their artistic interests and personal ideals, filmmakers produced more auteurist films. These auteur films expressed distinct characteristics of directors throughout multiple films, not just a single production. For instance, auteur filmmaker John Cassavetes, who used his acting salary to fund his films, parted ways from the studio system and produced some of his most iconic pictures. His extraordinary artistic pursuit of realism made him one of the most successful scriptwriters in film history. Cassavetes's movie Opening Night made "real life and art seem like the same thing" because his scriptwriting is "as inefficient and rambling as real speech." Meanwhile, Hollywood studios, in contrast, still relied on dramatic "stock lines" to carry forth the story plot.

Other directors, such as Federico Fellini, chose to pursue and break the limitations of cinematography. Fellini understood that the independent filmmaking platform granted him an opportunity to "follow it[cinema] to its final consequences, without limiting myself to casual and rather external collaborations as a screenwriter." As evident, filmmakers were much more attracted to pursuing producing auteurist films rather than being limited to unrelatable studio industrial films. Regardless of the financial superiority of the studio system, auteur directors had "more control over the source material (as well as a variety of other aspects of production) than most studio directors ever dreamed of having." Unlike studio companies, directors like Fellini did not care about the financial success of their works; instead, their passion was "in the making of a film." In fact, a significant reason why directors fled the studio system was the limitations on creative freedom. To many directors, having creative freedom over their films was critical as the films they produced represented exactly their visions. In an interview with Jean-Luc Godard, he mentioned that Hal Ashby's new movie had not lived up to its potential because it seemed not "[produced] by Hal Ashby but by the Lorimar company or even by the bankers of Lorimar."

Under the influence of the Italian neorealism movement and the French New Wave, many filmmakers expressed their contempt towards Hollywood's expression of the 'bourgeoisie' - "the capitalist class who own most of society's wealth and means of production." Many filmmakers countered Hollywood's "so-called realism" (the portrayal of celebrities, stars, and businessmen rather than focusing on the characters who are more "personal") by expressing their discontent through films. Italian filmmaker Luchino Visconti, for example, primarily expressed society's flaws and historical problems in his films. He would then discuss the deeper underlying meanings of his film, alluding to the "Marxist canon." In Citizen Kane, a film in which RKO granted Orson Welles complete creative freedom and editing decisions, Welles portrayed a story about how the protagonist Kane rose in social and financial power but ultimately lost against corruption, which led to Kane's downfall. Citizen Kane resonated with many themes of Marxist theories, especially the manipulation of media and the criticism of capitalist structures. As the president of a prominent news company, Kane failed to follow his conduct in uncovering the truth and instead manipulated news reports to satisfy his personal agendas.

The migration away from studio film production no doubt opened doors for filmmakers to express creativity, social ideals, and artistic pursuits. These advantages that studio film production could not offer might be the driving factor behind independent films taking over more market shares. As the cinema industry gradually migrated to independent filmmaking, the studio system still managed to strive (but less gloriously). Many studios from the Classical Hollywood era, such as Paramount Pictures, Warner Brothers, and MGM, still exist today. However, the production methods are mainly different from the original studio-style productions. For instance, studios may hold less power over the directors and the general production process. Christopher Nolan, one of the most revered auteur filmmakers today, released his film Oppenheimer through Universal Pictures. However, Universal Pictures did not interfere with Nolan's production process. In this case, Nolan is an auteurist director and producer with freedom over his work.

Interestingly, Christopher Nolan is not in the independent filmmaking business, but most of his works are auteur films rather than studio productions. As is evident, today's studio system has changed much compared to the Golden Age of Hollywood. Despite the unaltering goal of generating profits, studios nowadays focus on investing in independent filmmakers who would likely produce artworks that generate significant revenue. In a certain sense, the film industry is much more tolerant than in the 1950s. Filmmakers like Nolan may categorize themselves as "an indie filmmaker working inside the studio system."

The decline of the Hollywood studio system may be attributed to various factors, including new technological advancements lowering the barrier to independent filmmaking, the rise of Italian Neorealism and French New Wave movements criticizing Hollywood productions, and even the Paramount Decrees inhibiting studios from vertically integrating with theater chains. The emergence of independent cinema during the late 1950s quickly evolved into a prominent pathway for filmmakers who wished to pursue artistic limitations, express personal ideals, and enjoy pure passion in creating films. Technological advancements allowed filmmakers to use lower budgets to produce films of similar technical quality to studio films. The Ã‰clair Cameflex, for example, was used to create one of Godard's most successful films - Breathless. Simultaneously, the worldwide rising popularity of Italian Neorealism and French New Wave movements strongly impacted directors' artistic choices. Under the influence of World War II, the movements primarily focused on expressing content relatable to ordinary people's lifestyles. In Hollywood, however, due to the studio system's particular form of financial resourcing (collaborating with stars to use their investments), directors often focus on portraying the glamorous lifestyle of celebrities and the upper class. Other directors, such as Federico Fellini and Orson Welles, had personal agendas that the studio system could not satisfy. Fellini aimed to pursue the peak limitations of cinema at its basics, while Welles aimed to express his criticisms towards the corrupt media corporations. Furthermore, although ironically enhanced the monopolized power of the 'Big 4' (RKO went bankrupt), the Paramount Decrees forced studios to allocate tremendous resources for producing television programs instead of films. Eventually, studio-produced films became obsolete, while independent films replaced their glory.

The Downfall of the Studio System: Emergence of Independent Cinema (2024)

References