Britain v Hollywood: Content
* Hollywood started taking risks in the 1980s, producing massive thrilling, special effects driven adventurous films. By contrast, British films tended to be more conservative drawing on history and literature.
* British film makers tended to go down the path of 'gritty' social realism exploring social issues like homosexuality, drug taking, poverty, racism, class, religion etc. whereas Hollywood tended (and still tends) to avoid this in favour of glamorous escapism/fantasy that supports dominant social groups/ideologies (e.g. as Medhurst (1997) summarised "straight, middle class, able bodied white males" are in the staring roles etc.) - this obviously helped Hollywood films remain more lucrative because the majority of people in their target audience felt represented by this.
* Hollywood grossed more profit/had more investment therefore could afford to continue affording the latest technology for special effects/filming/editing and the most talented people in the industry - this made British films look cheap in comparison (hence why UK cinemagoers began to prefer USA films and why British films found it hard to break into the international market place).
Britain v Hollywood: Production/Distribution
* British films do not attract as much investment as Hollywood films and do not gross as much profit meaning Britain has less money to spend on the production of new films.
* Britain's film industry went down hill after two World Wars where Hollywood saw the need for escapist films and profited from this (the UK was harder hit as it was actually bombed but it also continued to make social realist films that did not cater for the post-war audience as well as the escapist films the USA was producing).
* Hollywood had always been good at production, vertical integration accounts for a lot of this because big conglomerate studios work together to produce films and this means the resources (financial, equipment and people) are always there allowing for continuous improvement. Britain does not have the same set up making it a lot harder to produce films.
* Hollywood has had better 'business sense' in terms of production (vertical integration conglomerate set up) and distribution. In terms of distribution, Hollywood has developed a system that allows films to be exported around the globe in a way that ensured cinema exposure and profit. Britain has not manage to do this, even in the UK they often rely on USA distributors who have the right connections with multiplex cinemas etc! It is important to note that a number of multiplex chains are owned by USA companies (and have been since the 1980s - the point when British films hit an all time low) and this obviously has had a negative impact on the British film industry because it makes it harder to get British films in the cinemas without a USA distributor (see article below)...
Major USA Production/Distribution Companies
As Hanseen (2007) summarised, 'The Hollywood studio system era' of vertical integration that impacted production, distribution and exhibition (because the major companies owned the cinemas) came to an end in 1948; "when the USA Supreme Court issued its famous Paramount decision. The Paramount consent decree required the divestiture of affiliated cinema chains and the abandonment of a number of vertical practices" (Hanseen, 2007 www.montana.edu/econ/seminar/Archive/hanssen8222007.pdf
What this meant, in theory, was that the five major conglomerates (Fox, MGM, Paramount, RKO and Warner Brothers) and the partly integrated companies (Columbia, Universal and United Artists - N.B MGM have now bought out United Artists) who had made up the Hollywood studio system had to compete on a more level playing field with other companies. However, these companies did still have an advantage over independent studios because vertical integration could still take place at production and distribution levels - the court only ruled against cinema ownership (exhibition).
No comments:
Post a Comment