Media A2 – Theory Bank

Narrative Theorists

Narrative is the art of storytelling, something we all do every day. It is an important part of our lives and something that we value highly. When we watch a film or TV or read we are receiving narratives.

We are going to look at narratives in Film & Broadcast Fiction although there are narratives in ads. and news items.

The narrative begins with the opening of the film or TV drama.

We are used to watching TV and films and getting meanings out of them and working out the plot or story is a key way we do this.

Plot and Story.

In Media Studies there is a difference between the meaning of plot and story.

The plot is what is present (visibly & audibly) in the film and in the order in which you get it.

E.G. Lord Pasta is found dead. Detective Bolognese is called in to investigate. She discovers the murderer was his nephew Douggie Spaggs who was next in line for the title and inheritance.

The story is all the things that happen in the narrative, both the ones that we see in the film and the ones we infer or are referred to. The story includes things that we can assume are happening (like eating and sleeping) which are not shown because they would be boring as part of the plot. It might include things we only find out later, such as Norman’s mental condition in Psycho.

E.G. Douggie Spaggs is short of money and kills his uncle to inherit but is caught by Bolognese of the Yard.

The plot of a thriller might include things in the wrong order – it might include flashbacks for example – and yet we try and work out the ‘solution’. We can only use the evidence in the plot. We would feel cheated if parts of the story were suddenly revealed at the very end that we couldn’t have possibly guessed.

The story of Pulp Fiction would be the film reassembled in the right order.

Think about:

  • Do we (as viewers) know more that the characters in the film or the same? (About some things, irrelevant to the plot, we obviously know a lot less.)
  • In a thriller or detective story, do we know who did it or are we working at the same pace as the detective? Do we try to get to the solution before Morse/Frost/Rebus/Poirot? Do we use the clues in the plot to work out who did it or media conventions? (e.g. the murderer is always the least likely suspect)
  • Give examples of dramatic irony.
  • How is suspense built up in a plot?
  • What is the effect of flashbacks on the building of suspense?

The Voice.

Another part of the construction of narratives involves the ‘voice’ telling the story.

A first-person narration will use “I” as the voice of the teller. Such a narrative cannot give the reader access to events that “I” could not have seen or been told. In a film or TV narrative they will need a voice-over to tell the story from a personal point of view.

A third-person or impersonal narrative is a story which seems to be written by God/Goddess. This is common in film or TV narratives where events seem to be unfolding before us.

  • Blade Runner was made in two different versions – with a voice-over and without (The Director’s Cut) Do you know why?

Narrative theories suggest that stories (in whatever media) share certain features (but particular media tell stories in different ways.)

Narrative theory 1: Propp

Propp looked at folk tales and saw some structures they shared in common. He found 8 character roles and 31 functions that move the story along.

The 8 character roles can also be types of action because they are not the sort of roles which appear in the cast list. One character in the film or play can occupy several of his character roles or types of action. They are:

  1. The villain
  2. The hero (not always good but always carries the story along, the central character and not always male)
  3. The donor (who provides an object with some special property)
  4. The helper (who helps the hero)
  5. The princess (the reward for the hero and object of the villain’s schemes)
  6. Her father (who rewards the hero)
  7. The dispatcher (who sends the hero on his way)
  8. The false hero

The 31 functions include events such as:

The hero is prohibited from doing something

The villain learns something about the victim

The villain is punished, etc.

  • Does this work for your favourite film? A Bond Movie? A news story? Star Wars?

Narrative Theory 2: Todorov

Todorov also saw underlying structures to narratives.

He argued that stories all begin in “equilibrium” when all forces are in balance.

This is disrupted by a problem to cause “disequilibrium”. Then more events take place before a “new equilibrium” is established.

Many film makers today don’t bother setting up the normal world in order to disrupt it with a problem (a killer shark, etc.) and go straight for the problem and disequilibrium. However, there will always be a sense in the film of what life was like before the problem came along and therefore what the characters can return to if they can only sort the problem out.

  • Does this work for your favourite film? A Bond Movie? A news story? Fatal Attraction?Jaws?

Narrative Theory 3: Barthes

Barthes suggested that narrative works with different codes which the reader tries to make sense of. The most obvious is the use of enigma codes. These are little puzzles which the audience needs to solve throughout the plot. This makes us work but gives us pleasure when we solve them correctly. The plot might need the solving a big enigma code but there will be little ones along the way.

Narrative Theory 4: Lévi-Strauss

He argued that all meaning-making, not just narratives, depend on binary oppositions – a conflict between two sides/qualities which are opposites.

E.G. Westerns where there can be many binary oppositions such as:

Cowboys Indians
settlers natives
Christian Pagan
domestic savage
weak strong
garden wilderness
The law outlaws
helpless dangerous
clothed naked
whites redskins
telegraph smoke signals

Ads. also use binary oppositions such as spots/Clearasil

Dirty/Persil, Daz/Brand X, young/old, dandruff/Head & Shoulders, etc.

Myths use binary oppositions all the time such as God/Devil, Good/Evil.

  • Make a grid, as above, for Sci-Fi films

Narrative Theory 5: Syd Field

Syd is a practicing screenwriter and his theory is more of a piece of advice for potential film makers. He is interested in the way one thing leads to another or causality. As you watch a film you should see a structure of events develop as things lead to other things.

Field says a typical Hollywood film can be separated into three separate dramatic sections or acts.

Act 1 is the setup. The first 10 mins is very important to grab the audience. If they like it in the first 10 mins they are unlikely to change their minds later. The film maker should show the audience who the main character is and why they should care what happens to him/her. They should see what style and genre the film is going to use. The next 20 mins show the audience the nature of the problem the hero has to face or this can be left to plot point 1.

Act 2 is the confrontation. The longest act shows us the hero in more and more extreme problem situations. He/she is helpless against the opposing forces. There may be a mid-point where they start to turn things around but not until plot-point 2 will they realise the way to succeed…

Act 3 is the resolution. The hero wins out (often by confronting the opposing forces on their own territory)

Where Act 1 becomes Act 2 and Act 2 becomes Act 3 there is a plot point – a particularly important piece of the plot which turns around the lives of the characters, change their relationships and alter the tone of the film. Films often have a number of plot points like these but Field points to two major ones between the acts and a less important one in the middle of the film.

  • Does this work for your favourite film? A Bond Movie? SpeedFatal Attraction?

Narrative Theory 6: Stanley Kubrick

Director of Dr Strangelove, The Shining, 2001, and others had the theory that all you needed for a captivating narrative was seven Non-Submersible Units. These were scenes, images, actions, sounds or a combination of these that created a strong impression on the audience that they couldn’t ignore, shrug off or forget.

This is similar to the claim of a script writer of The Avengers that he thought of ten really good scenes and then found a plot that would link them up!

 

THEORIES AND THEORISTS

 

LEVI-STRAUSS

He stated that there need to be a binary opposition within a film or programme. This is usually presented through good vs. evil.

BLUMLER AND KATZ

Uses and gratification theory

LIBERAL PLURALISM

Buy into the dominant ideology however accepts alternative represetation

MARXIST/ GRAMSCI

Dominant ideology

STUART HALL

Active/ Passive audience

GERBNER

Mean World theory

GOLDBERG

Racist Culture

STANLEY COHEN

Moral panic

TWO STEP THEORY

Audiences theory – one audience member views a text then passes on to other potential viewers

 

 

 

 

LAURA MULVEY

Male Gaze

BARTHES

Enigma Codes

PROPP

Proppian Hero

MEDHURST

Stereotypes – suggested that stereotypes can be seen as a type of media shorthand that provides an easy point of contact when the text needs to communicate quickly with the audience

TODOROV

Equilibrium in narrative

GAMMAN AND MARSHMENT

Female gaze

RICHARD DYER

Star Theory

TESSA PERKINS

Ways of referring to complex social relationships. She states that there are false assumptions about stereotypes. No single reading of a stereotype

KEY CONCEPTS

CLOSE ANALYSIS

AUDIENCE

Two step theory

Stuart Hall

Blumler and Katz

Moral Panic

Hypodermic Needle Theory

Laura Mulvey

INSTITUTION

Hegemony

Gramsci

Utopia

Mulvey

Richard Dyer – Star Theory

IDEOLOGY

Marxist

Gramsci

Liberal Pluralism

Laura Mulvey

Bogle

Cultivation

Medhurst

Giroux

LANGUAGE

Levi Strauss

Propp

Todd

Roland Barthes

REPRESENTATION

Marxist

Gramsci

Liberal Pluralism

Laura Mulvey

Medhurst

Giroux

 

Audience

 

Ideology

 

Mainstream/Alternative

Mean Girls vs Lilja Forever

Institutions

 

Positive/Negative

Mean Girls –

Cady Heron – Sweet, innocent girl vs

Regina George – Plastic

Lilja Forever –

Seen as a kind, helpful friend by Volodya

Shunned by all adults – seen as a delinquent

Platform/Genres

E-Media – Twitter/Facebook/Instagram/Selfie/Blogs –

Mean Girls – Scheming plans via mobile phone

Easy A – Video Blog through the film

John Tucker Must Die – Advance of technology, ‘boob cam’, web chat

 

Media A2 – The Studio Star System

The Studio System

The studio system is an arrangement of film production and distribution dominated by a small number of “major” studios in Hollywood. Although the term is still used today to refer to the organisation and output of the major Hollywood studios, historically the term refers to the practice of large motion picture studios between the 1920s and 1960s of producing movies primarily on their own filmmaking lots with creative personnel under often long-term contract, and which dominated exhibition through vertical integration, i.e., the ownership or effective control of distributors and exhibition, guaranteeing additional sales of films through manipulative booking techniques.

The studio system was challenged under the anti-trust laws in a 1948 Supreme Court ruling which sought to separate production from distribution and exhibition and ended such practices, thereby hastening the end of the studio system. By 1954, with television competing for audience and the last of the operational links between a major production studio and theatre chain broken, the historic era of the studio system came to an end.

The period stretching from the introduction of sound to the court ruling and the beginning of the studio breakups, 1927/29–1948/49, is referred to by some film historians as the Golden Age of Hollywood. (Many modern film historians dispute that this age was so golden in an artistic sense, due to censorship and the mediocrity of many films made by the studio “moguls.”)

During the so-called Golden Age, eight companies constituted the so-called major studios that created the Hollywood studio system. Of these eight, five were fully integrated conglomerates, combining ownership of a production studio, distribution division, and substantial theatre chain, and contracting with performers and filmmaking personnel: Fox Film Corporation (later 20th Century-Fox), Loew’s Incorporated (owner of America’s largest theatre circuit and parent company to Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer), Paramount Pictures, RKO Radio Pictures, and Warner Bros. Two majors—Universal Pictures and Columbia Pictures—were similarly organized, though they never owned more than small theatre circuits. The eighth of the Golden Age majors, United Artists, owned a few theatres and had access to two production facilities owned by members of its controlling partnership group, but it functioned primarily as a backer-distributor, loaning money to independent producers and releasing their films.

Sound and ‘The Big Five’:

The years 1927 and 1928 are generally seen as the beginning of Hollywood’s Golden Age and the final major steps in establishing studio system control of the American film business. The success of 1927’s The Jazz Singer, the first feature-length “talkie” (in fact, the majority of its scenes did not have live-recorded sound) gave a big boost to the then midsized Warner Bros. studio. The following year saw both the general introduction of sound throughout the industry and two more smashes for Warners: The Singing Fool, The Jazz Singer’s even more profitable follow-up, and Hollywood’s first “all-talking” feature, Lights of New York. Just as significant were a number of offscreen developments. Warner Bros., now flush with income, acquired the extensive Stanley theater chain in September 1928. One month later, it purchased a controlling interest in the First National production company, more prominent than Warners itself not long before. With the First National acquisition came not only a 135-acre (0.55 km2) studio and backlot but another large string of movie theaters. Warners had hit the big time.

The last of the “Big Five” Hollywood conglomerates of the Golden Age emerged in 1928: RKO. The Radio Corporation of America (RCA), led by David Sarnoff, was looking for ways to exploit the cinema sound patents, newly trademarked RCA Photophone, owned by its parent company, General Electric. As the leading film production companies were all preparing to sign exclusive agreements with Western Electric for their technology, RCA got into the movie business itself. In January, General Electric acquired a sizable interest in Film Booking Offices of America (FBO), a distributor and small production company owned by Joseph P. Kennedy, father of the future president. In October, through a set of stock transfers, RCA gained control of both FBO and the Keith-Albee-Orpheum theater chain; merging them into a single venture, it created the Radio-Keith-Orpheum Corporation, Sarnoff chairing the board. With RKO and Warner Bros. (soon to become Warner Bros.–First National) joining Fox, Paramount, and Loew’s/MGM as major players, the Big Five that would remain for thirty years were now in place.

Although RKO and Universal were exception, the heads of studios on the west coast, the ‘movie moguls’, had mostly been in place for some years: Louis B. Mayer at MGM, Jack Warner at Warner Bros., Adolph Zukor at Paramount, Darryl F. Zanuck (at 20th Century Fox from 1935), and Harry Cohn at Columbia.

Reign of the majors:

The ranking of the Big Five in terms of profitability (closely related to market share) was largely consistent during the Golden Age: MGM was number one eleven years running, 1931–41. Paramount, the most profitable studio of the early sound era (1928–30), faded for the better part of the subsequent decade, and Fox was number two for most of MGM’s reign. Paramount began a steady climb in 1940, finally edging past MGM two years later; from then until its reorganization in 1949 it was again the most financially successful of the Big Five. With the exception of 1932—when all the companies but MGM lost money, and RKO lost somewhat less than its competitors—RKO was next to last or (usually) last every year of the Golden Age, with Warners generally hanging alongside at the back of the pack. Of the Little Three, United Artists reliably held up the rear, with Columbia strongest in the 1930s and Universal ahead for most of the 1940s.[1]

Hollywood’s success grew during the Great Depression, possibly because films helped audiences escape their personal difficulties. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt said of Shirley Temple, “When the spirit of the people is lower than at any other time, during this Depression, it is a splendid thing that for just fifteen cents an American can go to a movie and look at the smiling face of a baby …” By 1939 there were 15,000 movie theaters in the United States, more than banks; the number of theaters per capita was twice that of the mid-1980s. The cinema industry was larger than that for office machines or supermarkets. While only the 14th largest by revenue, it was second in the percentage of profits that its executives received. Top stars like Bing Crosby and Claudette Colbert were paid more than $400,000 a year ($6,601,914 today).

The end of the system and the death of RKO:

One of the techniques used to support the studio system was block booking, a system of selling multiple films to a theater as a unit. Such a unit—five films was the standard practice for most of the 1940s—typically included only one particularly attractive film, the rest a mix of A-budget pictures of lesser quality and B movies.[4] As Life magazine wrote in 1957 in a retrospective on the studio system, “It wasn’t good entertainment and it wasn’t art, and most of the movies produced had a uniform mediocrity, but they were also uniformly profitable … The million-dollar mediocrity was the very backbone of Hollywood.”[5] On May 4, 1948, in a federal antitrust suit known as the Paramount case brought against the entire Big Five, the U.S. Supreme Court specifically outlawed block booking. Holding that the conglomerates were indeed in violation of antitrust, the justices refrained from making a final decision as to how that fault should be remedied, but the case was sent back to the lower court from which it had come with language that suggested divorcement—the complete separation of exhibition interests from producer-distributor operations—was the answer. The Big Five, though, seemed united in their determination to fight on and drag out legal proceedings for years as they had already proven adept at—after all, the Paramount suit had originally been filed on July 20, 1938.

However, behind the scenes at RKO, long the financially shakiest of the conglomerates, the court ruling came to be looked at as a development that could be used to the studio’s advantage. The same month that the decision was handed down, multimillionaire Howard Hughes acquired a controlling interest in the company. As RKO controlled the fewest theaters of any of the Big Five, Hughes decided that starting a divorcement domino effect could actually help put his studio on a more equal footing with his competitors. Hughes signaled his willingness to the federal government to enter into a consent decree obliging the breakup of his movie business. Under the agreement, Hughes would split his studio into two entities, RKO Pictures Corporation and RKO Theatres Corporation, and commit to selling off his stake in one or the other by a certain date. Hughes’s decision to concede to divorcement terminally undermined the argument by lawyers for the rest of the Big Five that such breakups were unfeasible. While many today point to the May court ruling, it is actually Hughes’s agreement with the federal government—signed November 8, 1948—that was truly the death knell for the Golden Age of Hollywood. Paramount soon capitulated, entering into a similar consent decree the following February. The studio, which had fought against divorcement for so long, became the first of the majors to break up, ahead of schedule, finalizing divestiture on December 31, 1949. By this time, there were 19,000 movie theaters in the United States.[6] The Golden Age was over. Through Hughes’s deal with the federal authorities, and those by the other studios that soon followed, the studio system lingered on for another half-decade. The major studio that adapted to the new circumstances with the most immediate success was the smallest, United Artists; under a new management team that took over in 1951, overhead was cut by terminating its lease arrangement with the Pickford-Fairbanks production facility and new relationships with independent producers, now often involving direct investment, were forged—a business model that Hollywood would increasingly emulate in coming years. The studio system around which the industry had been organized for three decades finally expired in 1954, when Loew’s, the last holdout, severed all operational ties with MGM.

Hughes’s gambit helped break the studio system, but it did little for RKO. His disruptive leadership—coupled with the draining away of audiences to television that was affecting the entire industry—took a toll on the studio that was evident to Hollywood observers. When Hughes sought to bail out of his RKO interest in 1952, he had to turn to a Chicago-based syndicate led by shady dealers without motion picture experience. The deal fell through, so Hughes was back in charge when the RKO theater chain was finally sold off as mandated in 1953. That year, General Tire and Rubber Company, which was expanding its small, decade-old broadcasting division, approached Hughes concerning the availability of RKO’s film library for programming. Hughes acquired near-complete ownership of RKO Pictures in December 1954 and consummated a sale with General Tire for the entire studio the following summer. The new owners quickly made some of their money back by selling the TV rights for the library they treasured to C&C Television Corp., a beverage company subsidiary. (RKO retained the rights for the few TV stations General Tire had brought along.) Under the deal, the films were stripped of their RKO identity before being sent by C&C to local stations; the famous opening logo, with its globe and radio tower, was removed, as were the studio’s other trademarks. Back in Hollywood, RKO’s new owners were encountering little success in the moviemaking business and by 1957 General Tire shut down production and sold the main RKO facilities to Desilu, the production company of Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz. Just like United Artists, the studio now no longer had a studio; unlike UA, it barely owned its old movies and saw no profit in the making of new ones. In 1959 it abandoned the movie business entirely.

The studio system in Europe and Asia:

While the studio system is largely identified as an American phenomenon, film production companies in other countries did at times achieve and maintain full integration in a manner similar to Hollywood’s Big Five. As historian James Chapman describes,

In Britain, only two companies ever achieved full vertical integration (the Rank Organization and the Associated British Picture Corporation). Other countries where some level of vertical integration occurred were Germany during the 1920s (Universum Film Aktiengesellschaft, or Ufa), France during the 1930s (Gaumont-Franco-Film-Aubert and Pathé-Natan) and Japan (Nikkatsu, Shochiku and Toho). In Hong Kong, Shaw Brothers adopted the studio system for its wuxia films throughout the 1950s-’60s. India, which represents perhaps the only serious rival to the U.S. film industry due to its dominance of both its own and the Asian diasporic markets, has, in contrast, never achieved any degree of vertical integration.

For instance, in 1929 nearly 75 percent of Japanese movie theatres were connected with either Nikkatsu or Shochiku, the two biggest studios at the time.

Star driven system:

In the 1950s Hollywood faced three great challenges: The Paramount case ending the studio system, the new popularity of television, and post-World War II consumer spending providing many other leisure options. The industry lost its captive audience, and United States box-office revenue declined. The scale of both successes and flops grew, with what Life magazine described in 1957 as a “dangerous market” in between consisting of films that in the previous era would have made money. A filmmaker stated that “[t]he one absolute disaster today is to make a million-dollar mediocrity. One of those you can lose not only your total investment but your total shirt.” By that year Hollywood was only making about 300 feature films a year, compared to about 700 during the 1920s.

The powerful movie moguls that had led their studios with unchallenged authority were no longer present by the late 1950s.[5] Darryl F. Zanuck, head of 20th Century Fox, had no direct involvement with the studio from 1956 to 1962, and Louis B. Mayer, sacked in 1951 from MGM, died in 1957. The last old-fashioned studio head was Harry Cohn of Columbia, who was reportedly “aghast” at the changes occurring in Hollywood. Cohn informed investors in the studio’s 1957 annual report,[5] the year before he died, that:

We find ourselves in a highly competitive market for [stars, directors, producers, writers]. Under today’s tax structures, salary to those we are dealing with is less inviting than the opportunity for capital gains. We find ourselves, therefore, dealing with corporations rather than with individuals. We find ourselves, too, forced to deal in terms of a percentage of the film’s profits, rather than in a guaranteed salary as in the past. This is most notable among the top stars.

Financial backers increasingly demanded star actors, directors, and writers for projects to reduce risk of failure. The shortage of such talent increased their salaries, while fewer contract players were available because studios had failed to renew many contracts during the 1950s because of declining domestic revenue. The growing importance of the overseas market—40 to 50% of Hollywood’s total revenue by 1957—also emphasized stars’ names as box-office attractions. With their new power, the once-rare “working for nothing”—receiving a percentage of profit instead of a salary—became a status symbol for stars. A top actor could expect 50% of profit, with a minimum guarantee, or 10% of gross revenue. Cary Grant, for example, received more than $700,000 from his 10% of the gross for To Catch a Thief (1955), while director and producer Alfred Hitchcock received less than $50,000. In one extreme case, Paramount promised Marlon Brando 75% of the profit of what became One-Eyed Jacks (1961). (Because of Hollywood accounting, studios still received much of the revenue before any profit sharing; thus, they preferred 50% of profit to 10% of gross.) The larger paychecks also increased the power of talent agents such as Lew Wasserman of MCA, whose office was now nicknamed “Fort Knox”.

By 1957, independent producers like Hal Wallis made 50% of full-length American films. Beyond working for others, top actors such as Brando, Gregory Peck, and Frank Sinatra created their own production companies and purchased scripts. Top independent directors like George Stevens, Billy Wilder, and William Wyler also saw their paychecks increase, to about $250,000 to $300,000 by 1957, in part because their involvement attracted star actors. Studios increasingly provided funding and facilities to independent producers as opposed to making their own films. Hollywood had once viewed television as its enemy, but TV production companies like Desilu and the film studios’ own TV divisions helped save the industry by using otherwise-unused facilities, and executives expected that television would eventually become more profitable than film. While some studios like Paramount had long worked with outsiders, former leader MGM adapted to the new business climate slowly and experts believed that its survival was uncertain. A possible model for the industry was United Artists, which focused entirely on financing and distributing independent productions.

Syndication, television, recession, and conglomerate Hollywood:

At the beginning of the 1960s the major studios began to reissue older films for syndication and transformed into mainly producing telefilms and b-movies to supply TV’s demand for programming. Between 1969 to 1971 the industry underwent a severe recession, due in part to big-budget flops, but soon recovered artistically with such films as The Godfather (1972) and Chinatown (1974).

The onset of George Lucas’s Star Wars (1977) became the prototype for the modern blockbuster. The release of films at hundreds of venues became the norm with hits such as the sequels to Lucas’s Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi, Spielberg’s back-to-back successes with Raiders of the Lost Ark and E.T. The Extra Terrestrial, and the development of home-video and cable television. Meanwhile, the uncontrolled budget of Heaven’s Gate (1980), and its limited box-office revenue, led to the sale of United Artists.

From 1990 to 1995, New Hollywood turned into more of a conglomerate Hollywood and quickly dominating the global entertainment industry. As of 2007, five of the Golden Age majors continue to exist as major Hollywood studio entities, each as part of a larger media conglomerate: Columbia (owned by Sony), 20th Century Fox (owned by News Corporation), Warner Bros. (owned by Time Warner), Paramount (owned by Viacom), and Universal (owned by Comcast/NBC Universal). In addition, The Walt Disney Company’s Buena Vista Motion Pictures Group has emerged as a major, resulting in a “Big Six.” With the exception of Disney, all of these so-called major studios are essentially based on the model not of the classic Big Five, but of the old United Artists: that is, they are primarily backer-distributors (and physical studio leasers) rather than actual production companies.

Sony, in addition to ownership of Columbia, also has effective control of the relatively small latter-day incarnation of MGM and its subsidiary UA; under the Sony umbrella, MGM/UA operates as a “mini-major,” nominally independent of but closely associated with Columbia. In 1996, Time Warner acquired the once-independent New Line Cinema via its purchase of Turner Broadcasting System. In 2008, New Line was merged into Warner Bros., where it continues to exist as a subsidiary. Each of today’s Big Six controls quasi-independent “arthouse” divisions, such as Paramount Vantage and Disney’s Miramax Films (which originally was an independent studio). Most also have divisions that focus on genre movies, B movies either literally by virtue of their low budgets, or spiritually—for instance, Sony’s Screen Gems and Buena Vista’s Hollywood Pictures brand. One so-called indie division, Universal’s Focus Features, releases arthouse films under that primary brand. Both Focus and Fox’s arthouse division, Fox Searchlight, are large enough to qualify as mini-majors. Two large independent firms also qualify as mini-majors, Lionsgate and The Weinstein Company. They stand somewhere between latter-day versions of the old “major-minor”—like Columbia and Universal in the 1930s and 1940s, except Lionsgate and The W.C. have about half their market share—and leading Golden Age independent production outfits like Samuel Goldwyn Inc. and the companies of David O. Selznick

A2 – The Star System

The Star System

The star system was the method of creating, promoting and exploiting movie stars in Classical Hollywood cinema. Studios would select promising young actors and glamorise and create personas for them, often inventing new names and even new backgrounds. Examples of stars who went through the star system include Cary Grant (born Archie Leach), Joan Crawford (born Lucille Fay LeSueur), and Rock Hudson (born Roy Harold Scherer, Jr.)

The star system put an emphasis on the image rather than the acting, although discreet acting, voice, and dancing lessons were a common part of the regimen. Women were expected to behave like ladies, and were never to leave the house without makeup and stylish clothes. Men were expected to be seen in public as gentlemen. Morality clauses were a common part of actors’ studio contracts.

Just as studio executives, public relations staffs, and agents worked together with the actor to create a star persona, so they would work together to cover up incidents or lifestyles that would damage the star’s public image. It was common, for example, to arrange sham dates between single (male) stars and starlets to generate publicity. Tabloids and gossip columnists would be tipped off, and photographers would appear to capture the romantic moment. At the same time, a star’s drug use (such as Robert Mitchum’s arrest for marijuana possession), drinking problems, divorce, or adultery would be covered up with hush money for witnesses or promises of exclusive stories (or the withholding of future stories) to gossip columnists.

Beginnings of the Star System:

In the early years of the cinema (1890s–1900s), performers were not identified in films. There are two main reasons for this.

Stage performers were embarrassed to be in film. Silent film was only considered pantomime. One of actors’ main skills was their voice. They were afraid that appearing in films would ruin their reputation. Moguls such as Adolph Zuckor, founder of Famous Players in 1912, brought theatre actresses such as Sarah Bernhardt into the movies however audiences wanted movie stars. Early film was also designed for the working class. Film was seen as only a step above carnivals and freak shows.

Producers feared that actors would gain more prestige and power and demand more money.

Thomas Edison and the Motion Picture Patents Company (MPPC) forced filmmakers to use their equipment and follow their rules, since they owned the patents of much of the motion picture equipment. The MPPC frowned on star promotion, although, according to research done by Janet Staiger, the MPPC did promote some stars around this time.

The main catalyst for change was the public’s desire to know the actors’ names. Film audiences repeatedly recognized certain performers in movies that they liked. Since they did not know the performers’ names they gave them nicknames (such as “the Biograph Girl,” Florence Lawrence, who was featured in Biograph movies).

Producer Carl Laemmle promoted the first movie star. He was independent of the MPPC and used star promotion to fight the MPPC’s control. Laemmle acquired Lawrence from Biograph. He spread a rumor that she had been killed in a streetcar accident. Then he combated this rumor by saying that she was doing fine and would be starring in an up-coming movie produced by his company, the Independent Moving Pictures Company (IMP).

The development of film fan magazines gave fans knowledge about the actors outside of their film roles. Motion Picture Story Magazine (1911–) and Photo play. They were initially focused on movies’ stories, but soon found that more copies could be sold if they focused on the actors.

The creator of the star system in any form of entertainment was P. T. Barnum in the mid 19th century, a system of promotion he developed for his Museum of Freaks and later his Greatest Show on Earth circus. Barnum’s biggest stars were Jenny Lind, Tom Thumb and Jumbo.

Also, precedents set by legitimate theatre encouraged film to emulate the star system of the Broadway stage. Broadway stars in the late 19th century were treated much like film stars came to be treated by the middle of the 20th century. The main practitioner of the star system on Broadway was Charles Frohman, a man whom Zukor, Laemmle, Mayer, Fox and the Warner Brothers emulated and who later perished in the Lusitania sinking.

Star System in American cinema:

The cinema operates from three eyes: the eyes of the director and the cameraman, the eyes of the protagonists, and finally, the eyes of the audience. The secret of the star system comes with the second one. In movies, the most efficient way to show the emotions of a certain character is by inserting a shot of him reacting to a specific action (generally, the action is placed just before or after). This is what is called a reaction shot.

The reaction shot is a substitution; a mimetic transfer of the spectator’s feelings that brings him to identify himself in the star. It is like a mirror or a double, but with a sublimated image. Marilyn Monroe is a great example of the use of the reaction shot. In many of her films, the audience can appreciate many long close ups of her face reacting. At this point, the spectator has a privileged relationship with her; something even better than being her friend or a member of her family: for a moment, the viewer is Marilyn Monroe. In the Hollywood system, an actor can never really become a character: he is a star, no matter the quality of his performance.

Myths and Dreams of a society:

Another important aspect of the Hollywood star system is the stars’ ability to convey the myths and dreams of their society, such as the myth of the “self made man”, which for many viewers represents the belief that everyone has a chance of happiness in America. For a consumer of the star system, looking at these stars is a way to continue believing that anything is possible, regardless of class or money. Thus, the star system creates hopes and preserves the ideals of a still young country. The film industry is more than aware of this, and puts all of its power into the stars.

 

 

Decline of the Star System:

From the 1930s to the 1960s, it was somewhat regular for studios to arrange the contractual exchange of talent (directors, actors) for prestige pictures. Stars would sometimes pursue these swaps themselves. Stars were becoming selective. Although punished and frowned upon by studio heads, several strong-willed stars received studio censure & publicity for refusing certain parts, on the belief that they knew better than the studio heads about the parts that were right for them. In one instance, Jane Greer negotiated her contract out of Howard Hawks’ hands over the limp roles he had been foisting on her. Olivia de Havilland and Bette Davis both sued their studios to be free of their gag orders (Davis lost, de Havilland won). After completing The Seven Year Itch, Marilyn Monroe walked out on 20th Century Fox and only returned when they acquiesced to her contract demands. The publicity accompanying these incidents fostered a growing suspicion among actors that a system more like being a free agent would be more personally beneficial to them than the fussy, suffocating star system. The studio-system instrument Photoplay gave way to the scandal-mongering Confidential. In 1959 Shirley MacLaine would sue famed producer Hal Wallis over a contractual dispute. This suit was another nail in the coffin. By the 1960s the days of the star system were numbered.

The conspiratorial aspect of the studio system manipulating images and reality, eventually began to falter as the world and the news media began to accept the dismantling of social boundaries and the manufactured virtue and wholesomeness of stars began to be questioned; taboos began to fall. By the 60s and 70s a new, more natural style of acting (“the Stanislavski Method”) had emerged, been mythologized and enshrined; and individuality had been transformed into a treasured personal quality. With competition from TV, and entire studios changing hands, the star system faltered and did not recover. The studio system could no longer resist the changes occurring in entertainment, culture, labour, and news and it was completely gone by 1970.

Contemporary stardom:

The phenomenon of stardom has remained essential to Hollywood because of its ability to lure spectators into the theatre. Following the demise of the studio system in the 1950s and 60s, the star system became the most important stabilizing feature of the movie industry. This is because stars provide film makers with built in audiences who regularly watch films in which their favourite actors and actresses appear.

Contemporary Hollywood talent agencies must now be licensed under the California Labour Code, which defines an agent as any “person or corporation who engages in the occupation of procuring, offering, promising, or attempting to procure employment for artist or artists.” [8] Talent agencies such as William Morris Agency (WMA), International Creative Management (ICM), Creative Artists Agency (CAA) and many more started to arise in the mid-1970s. CAA represented the modern agency, with new ways of marketing talent by packaging actors, agencies are able to influence production schedules, budgeting of the film, and which talent will be playing each particular character. Packaging gained notoriety in the 1980s and 1990s with films such Ghost Busters, Tootsie, Stripes, and A League of Their Own. This practice continues to be prominent in films today such as Big Daddy, Happy Gilmore, Waterboy, and Billy Madison. The ease of selling a packaged group of actors to a particular film insures that certain fan groups will see that movie, reducing risk of failure and increasing profits.

Media A2 – The Golden Age

The Golden Age

Between late 1928, when RCA’s David Sarnoff engineered the creation of the RKO (Radio-Keith-Orpheum) studio, and the end of 1949, when Paramount divested its theater chain—roughly the period considered Hollywood’s Golden Age—there were eight Hollywood studios commonly regarded as the “majors”. Of these eight, the so-called Big Five were integrated conglomerates, combining ownership of a production studio, distribution division, and substantial theater chain, and contracting with performers and filmmaking personnel: Loew’s/MGM, Paramount, Fox (which became 20th Century-Fox after a 1935 merger), Warner Bros., and RKO. The remaining majors were sometimes referred to as the “Little Three” or “major minor” studios. Two – Universal and Columbia (founded in 1924)—were organized similarly to the Big Five, except for the fact that they never owned more than small theater circuits (a consistently reliable source of profits). The third of the lesser majors, United Artists (founded in 1919), owned a few theaters and had access to production facilities owned by its principals, but it functioned primarily as a backer-distributor, loaning money to independent producers and releasing their films. During the 1930s, the eight majors averaged a total of 358 feature film releases a year; in the 1940s, the four largest companies shifted more of their resources toward high-budget productions and away from B movies, bringing the yearly average down to 288 for the decade.

Among the significant characteristics of the Golden Age was the stability of the Hollywood majors, their hierarchy, and their near-complete domination of the box office. At the midpoint of the Golden Age, 1939, the Big Five had market shares ranging from 22% (MGM) to 9% (RKO); each of the Little Three had around a 7% share. In sum, the eight majors controlled 95% of the market and all the smaller companies combined had a total of 5%. Ten years later, the picture was largely the same: the Big Five had market shares ranging from 22% (MGM) to 9% (RKO); the Little Three had shares ranging from 8% (Columbia) to 4% (United Artists). In sum, the eight majors controlled 96% of the market and all the smaller companies combined had a total of 4%.

1950s–1960s

The end of the Golden Age had been signaled by the majors’ loss of a federal antitrust case that led to the divestiture of the Big Five’s theater chains. Though this had virtually no immediate effect on the eight majors’ box-office domination, it somewhat leveled the playing field between the Big Five and the Little Three. In November 1951, Decca Records purchased 28% of Universal; early the following year, the studio became the first of the classic Hollywood majors to be taken over by an outside corporation, as Decca acquired majority ownership. The 1950s saw two substantial shifts in the hierarchy of the majors: RKO, perennially the weakest of the Big Five, declined rapidly under the mismanagement of Howard Hughes, who had purchased a controlling interest in the studio in 1948. By the time Hughes sold it to the General Tire and Rubber Company in 1955, the studio was a major by outdated reputation alone. In 1957, virtually all RKO movie operations ceased and the studio was dissolved in 1959. (Revived on a small scale in 1981, it was eventually spun off and now operates as a minor independent company.) In contrast, there was United Artists, which had long operated under the financing-distribution model the other majors were now progressively shifting toward. Under Arthur Krim and Robert Benjamin, who began managing the company in 1951, UA became consistently profitable. By 1956—when it released one of the biggest blockbusters of the decade, Around the World in 80 Days—it commanded a 10% market share. By the middle of the next decade, it had reached 16% and was the second-most profitable studio in Hollywood. Despite RKO’s collapse, the majors still averaged a total yearly release slate of 253 feature films during the decade.

The 1960s were marked by a spate of corporate takeovers. MCA, under Lew Wasserman, acquired Universal in 1962; Gulf+Western took over Paramount in 1966; and the Transamerica Corporation purchased United Artists in 1967. Warner Bros. underwent large-scale reorganization twice in two years: a 1967 merger with the Seven Arts company preceded a 1969 purchase by Kinney National, under Stephen J. Ross. MGM, in the process of a slow decline, changed ownership twice in the same span as well, winding up in the hands of financier Kirk Kerkorian. The majors almost entirely abandoned low-budget production during this era, bringing the annual average of features released down to 160. The decade also saw an old name in the industry secure a position as a leading player. In 1923, Walt Disney had founded the Disney Brothers Cartoon Studio with his brother Roy and animator Ub Iwerks. Over the following three decades Disney became a powerful independent focusing on animation and, from the late 1940s, an increasing number of live-action movies. In 1954, the company—now Walt Disney Productions—established Buena Vista Film Distribution to handle its own product, which had been distributed for years by various majors, primarily United Artists and then RKO. (Disney’s 1937 Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, released by RKO, was the second biggest hit of the 1930s.) In its first year, Buena Vista had a major success with 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, the third biggest movie of 1954. In 1964, Buena Vista had its first blockbuster, Mary Poppins, Hollywood’s biggest hit in half a decade. The company achieved a 9% market share that year, more than Fox and Warner Bros. Though over the next two decades, Disney/Buena Vista’s share of the box-office would again hit similar marks, its relatively small output and exclusive focus on family movies meant that it was not generally considered a major.

1970s–1980s

The early 1970s were difficult years for all the majors. Movie attendance, which had been declining steadily since the Golden Age, hit an all-time low in 1971. In 1973, MGM president James T. Aubrey Jr. drastically downsized the studio, slashing its production schedule and eliminating its distribution arm (UA would distribute the studio’s films for the remainder of the decade). From fifteen releases in 1973, the next year MGM was down to five; its average for the rest of the 1970s would be even lower. Like RKO in its last days under Hughes, MGM remained a major in terms of brand reputation, but little more. MGM, however, was not the only studio to trim its release line. By the mid-1970s, the industry had rebounded and a significant philosophical shift was in progress. As the majors focused increasingly on the development of the next hoped-for blockbuster and began routinely opening each new movie in many hundreds of theaters (an approach called “saturation booking”), their collective yearly release average fell to 81 films during 1975–84. The classic set of majors was shaken further in late 1980, when the disastrously expensive flop of Heaven’s Gate effectively ruined United Artists. The studio was sold the following year to Kerkorian, who merged it with MGM. After a brief resurgence, the combined studio again declined. From the mid-1980s on, MGM/UA has been at best a “mini-major”, to use the present-day term.

Meanwhile, a new member was finally admitted to the club of major studios and two significant contenders emerged. With the establishment of its Touchstone Pictures brand and increasing attention to the adult market in the mid-1980s, Disney/Buena Vista secured acknowledgment as a full-fledged major. Film historian Joel Finler identifies 1986 as the breakthrough year, when Disney rose to third place in market share and remained consistently competitive for a leading position thereafter. The two contenders were both newly formed companies. In 1978, Krim, Benjamin, and three other studio executives departed UA to found Orion Pictures as a joint venture with Warner Bros. It was announced optimistically as the “first major new film company in 50 years”. Tri-Star Pictures was created in 1982 as a joint venture of Columbia Pictures (then owned by the Coca-Cola Company), HBO (then owned by Time Inc.), and CBS. In 1985, Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation acquired 20th Century-Fox, the last of the five relatively healthy Golden Age majors to remain independent throughout the entire Golden Age and after.

In 1986, the combined share of the six classic majors—at that point Paramount, Warner Bros., Columbia, Universal, Fox, and MGM/UA—fell to 64%, the lowest since the beginning of the Golden Age. Disney was in third place, behind only Paramount and Warners. Even including it as a seventh major and adding its 10% share, the majors’ control of the North American market was at a historic ebb. Orion, now completely independent of Warner Bros., and Tri-Star were well positioned as mini-majors, each with North American market shares of around 6% and regarded by industry observers as “fully competitive with the majors”. Smaller independents garnered 13%—more than any studio aside from Paramount. In 1964, by comparison, all of the companies beside the then seven majors and Disney had combined for a grand total of 1%. In the first edition of Finler’s The Hollywood Story (1988), he wrote, “It will be interesting to see whether the old-established studios will be able to bounce back in the future, as they have done so many times before, or whether the newest developments really do reflect a fundamental change in the US movie industry for the first times since the 20s.”

1990s–present

With the exception of MGM/UA—whose position was effectively filled by Disney—the old-established studios did bounce back. The purchase of Fox by Murdoch’s News Corp. presaged a new round of corporate acquisitions. Between 1989 and 1994, Paramount, Warners, Columbia, and Universal all changed ownership in a series of conglomerate purchases and mergers that brought them new financial and marketing muscle. Paramount’s parent company Gulf+Western was renamed Paramount Communications in 1989 and was merged with Viacom five years later. Warners merged with Time Inc. to give birth to the conglomerate Time Warner. Coke sold Columbia to Japanese electronics firm Sony also in 1989. And Universal’s parent MCA was purchased by Matsushita. By the early 1990s, both Tri-Star and Orion were essentially out of business: the former consolidated into Columbia, the latter bankrupt and sold to MGM. The most important contenders to emerge during the 1990s, New Line, the Weinsteins’ Miramax, and DreamWorks SKG, were likewise sooner or later brought into the majors’ fold, though DreamWorks and the Weinstein brothers are now independent again.

The development of in-house pseudo-indie subsidiaries by the conglomerates—sparked by the 1992 establishment of Sony Pictures Classics and the success of Pulp Fiction (1994), Miramax’s first project under Disney ownership—significantly undermined the position of the true independents. The majors’ release schedule rebounded: the six primary studio subsidiaries alone put out a total of 124 films during 2006; the three largest secondary subsidiaries (New Line, Fox Searchlight, and Focus Features) accounted for another 30. Box-office domination was fully restored: in 2006, the six major movie conglomerates combined for 89.8% of the North American market; Lionsgate and Weinstein were almost exactly half as successful as their 1986 mini-major counterparts, sharing 6.1%; MGM came in at 1.8%; and all of the remaining independent companies split a pool totaling 2.3%.

Only one of the major studios changed corporate hands during the first decade of the 2000s, though it did so three times: Universal was acquired by Vivendi in 2000, then by General Electric four years later, and finally by Comcast in 2011. More developments took place among the majors’ subsidiaries. The very successful animation production house Pixar, whose films were distributed by Buena Vista, was acquired by Disney in 2006. In 2008, New Line Cinema lost its independent status within Time Warner and became a subsidiary of Warner Bros. Time Warner also announced that it would be shutting down its two specialty units, Warner Independent and Picturehouse. In 2008 as well, Paramount Vantage’s production, marketing, and distribution departments were folded into the parent studio, though it retained the brand for release purposes. Universal sold off its genre specialty division, Rogue Pictures, to Relativity Media in 2009. Disney closed down Miramax’s operations in January 2010, and sold off the unit and its library that July to an investor group led by Ronald N. Tutor of the Tutor Perini construction firm and Tom Barrack of the Colony Capital private equity firm.

The eight Golden Age majors

The eight major film studios of the Golden Age have gone through the following significant ownership changes (“independent” meaning customarily identified as the primary commercial entity in its corporate structure; “purchased” meaning acquired anything from majority to total ownership):

Columbia Pictures

  • independent as CBC Film Sales, 1918–1924 (founded by Harry CohnJoe Brandt, and Jack Cohn)
  • independent, 1924–1982 (company changes name as Columbia Pictures Corporation; goes public in 1926; changes name in 1968 to Columbia Pictures Industries after merging with TV subsidiary Screen Gems)
  • Coca-Cola, 1982–1987 (purchased by Coca-Cola; Tri-Star Pictures, a joint venture with HBO and CBS initiated in 1982—CBS drops out in 1985)
  • independent as Columbia Pictures Entertainment (or Columbia/Tri-Star), 1987–1989 (divested by Coca-Cola; also in 1987, HBO drops out of Tri-Star, which merges with Columbia)
  • Sony, 1989–present (purchased by Sony)

20th Century-Fox

 

 

 

Warner Bros.

Paramount Pictures

Universal Pictures

  • Independent, 1912–1946 (founded by Carl LaemmlePat Powers, Adam Kessel, Charles Baumann, Mark Dintenfass, William Swanson, David Horsley, and Jules Brulatour)
  • independent as Universal-International, 1946–1952 (merges with International Pictures)
  • Decca, 1952–1962 (purchased by Decca)
  • MCA Inc., 1962–1990 (MCA purchases Decca)
  • Matsushita Electric, 1990–1995 (Matsushita purchases MCA)
  • Seagram, 1995–2000 (purchased by Seagram from Matsushita)
  • Vivendi, 2000–2004 (Vivendi purchases Seagram)
  • General Electric/Vivendi, 2004–2011 (jointly owned by GE (80%) and Vivendi, S.A. (20%) and merged with NBC to form NBC Universal)
  • Comcast/General Electric, 2011–2013 (Comcast purchases 51% of redubbed NBCUniversal)
  • Comcast, 2013-present (Comcast bought the remaining 49% from GE)

 

 

 

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer

  • Loew’s Incorporated, 1924–1959 (founded by Marcus Loew; controlling interest in Loew’s purchased by William Fox in 1929; Fox forced to sell off interest in 1930; operational control ceded by Loew’s to studio management in 1954)
  • independent, 1959–1981 (fully divested by Loew’s; purchased by Edgar Bronfman Sr. in 1967; purchased by Kirk Kerkorian in 1969)
  • independent as MGM/UA, 1981–1990 (United Artists purchased by Kerkorian and merged into MGM; purchased by Ted Turner in 1986; repurchased by Kerkorian seventy-four days later; purchased by Giancarlo Parretti in 1990)
  • Crédit Lyonnais, 1992–1997 (foreclosed upon by bank after Parretti defaulted)
  • Tracinda Corporation, 1997–2005 (repurchased by Kerkorian)
  • MGM Holdings
  • Sony/Comcast/4 private equity firms, 2005–2010 (purchased by Sony, Comcast, and private investment firms—Providence Equity Partners, in fact, currently owns the greatest number of shares—and privately held as a minor media company independent of Sony/Columbia)
  • Credit SuisseJPMorgan Chase, other former bondholders (2011-present) including Carl Icahn (2011-2012)

United Artists (merged into MGM)

RKO Radio Pictures (defunct 1960–80, dormant 1993–97)

  • RCA, 1928–1935 (founded by David Sarnoff)
  • independent, 1935–1955 (half of RCA’s interest purchased by Floyd Odlum, control split between RCA, Odlum, and Rockefeller brothers; controlling interest purchased by Odlum in 1942; controlling interest purchased by Howard Hughes in 1948; Hughes interest purchased by Stolkin-Koolish-Ryan-Burke-Corwin syndicate in 1952; interest repurchased by Hughes in 1953; fully purchased by Hughes in 1954)
  • General Tire and Rubber, 1955–1984 (purchased by General Tire and Rubber—coupled with General Tire’s broadcasting operation as RKO Teleradio Pictures; production and distribution halted in 1957; movie business dissolved in 1959 and RKO Teleradio renamed RKO General; RKO General establishes RKO Pictures as production subsidiary in 1981)
  • GenCorp, 1984–1987 (reorganization creates holding company with RKO General and General Tire as primary subsidiaries)
  • Wesray Capital Corporation, 1987–1989 (spun off from RKO General, purchased by Wesray—controlled by William E. Simon and Ray Chambers—and merged with amusement park operations to form RKO/Six Flags Entertainment)
  • independent, 1989–present (split off from Six Flags, purchased by Dina Merrill and Ted Hartley, and merged with Pavilion Communications; no films produced or distributed from 1993 through 1997)

Other significant, formerly independent entities

 

 

 

Media A2 – How is the text constructed so that the audience sympathy lies entirely with the teenager? – Lilja Forever

How is the text constructed so that the audience sympathy lies entirely with the teenager (Lilja)?

 

“Lilja Forever” is a Lukas Moodysson, Swedish and Russian collaboration film in which tests the dystopian theme of communist Russia, conveying the isolated, derelict desolation of a society, proving the harsh way of life, due to the austere conditions and unquestionably indisputable reality of the dichotomy within the totalitarian state.

The establishing shot of the film introduces the main character of Lilja, whom is clearly a young and innocent girl, portrayed in a vexing panic, running for what appears to be her life, immediately setting up the audience’s analytical, heuristic enquires as we instantly become concerned for this young girls safety. Moodysson has captured the majority of this scene using a handheld camera, in order to create a shaky effect, allowing the audience to view this representation through the eyes of Lilja herself, thus rapidly constructing a more worrisome atmosphere as we promptly feel empathy towards Lilja. This is supported through the final shot of this scene, in which we appear to be presented with Lilja, gravely positioned on a bridge, provoking the audience’s horror as a response to her possible contemplation of executing her own self destruction.

An alarming choice of non-diegetic music is delivered, dramatizing the scene perilously, due to the connotations it occupies regarding danger and adrenaline, conveying a menacing uncertainty, sustained through Lilja’s facial expressions of desperation and her body language of vulnerability; arguably prefiguring the lack of hope in which she is encompasses, due to the final shot of the scene, holding undertones of an ostensibly fatal atmosphere. This is where the scene ends, transitioning to a simple black screen, generating the audiences desire to continue watching the film in urgency, in order to answer their essential perturbed queries regarding Lilja’s survival.

Moodysson then presents a littered, categorically conclusive low income society through the use of the dull colour palette, connoting a negative atmosphere, using the grainy, almost greyscale hue to intensify the isolated surroundings, in order to increase the contemporary audience empathy felt towards the characters living in the neglected, barren location.

The first paramount landmark event we are presented to in the film is the abandonment from Lilja’s mother as she leaves Lilja due to the lure of a promised “better life” in America with her current boyfriend, immediately shocking the audience as we are made aware that the character of Lilja is only 15 years of age, in which her mother is illegally dismissing her underage daughter, consequently breaking the trust in which Lilja had for her mother.  The occurrence of this incident is hard hitting upon a contemporary audience, in turn directly constructing the sorrow in which we feel towards Lilja, for the clear lack of love in which her mother obviously felt for her, drawing the audience in through the heightened emotion within the scene. Although Lilja acts languid and temperate before her mother’s desertion, once the realisation hits her, she races towards her mother whom remains uncaring and unemotional, detaching herself from a distraught Lilja, proving to the audience her mother’s callousness. Moodysson deliberately presents Lilja as an inconsolable young girl, in order to convey the height of vulnerability in which Lilja is facing, proving that this unloved underage girl is not ready to be on her own.

Despite her mother’s promises to write and send money, this does not happen; prefigured to the audience through the lack of respect her mother has for her as she carelessly has sex in the room next to Lilja’s soon after a betraying talk regarding Lilja and her lack of a future in America, although Lilja has previously told her friends about her move, consequently crushing her dreams. Lilja in range then tears up a picture of her mother, making the audience feel empathy as she has been betrayed, then in order to construct a sense of hope, she glues the picture back together, creating a sense of hope for her mother’s return within the audience too.  Her mother then abdicates from her parental role, renouncing all her maternal duties in which she owes Lilja, where upon Lilja burns the photograph she carries of her mother, proving to the audience that her mother is never returning, foreshadowing her lonely and unsafe life in which she must live on her own.  This creates a huge sense of empathy in which the audience feels for Lilja as her mother is meant to be the one character within her life whom won’t delude and follow to abandon her, proving her collapse of trust within the adult figures in her society.

The brief scene involving Lilja at school carries some thematic significance also, in that the teacher is another adult who has little regard for Lilja, dismissing her poor test results with sarcasm and mockery. The point here, as in many representations of teenagers, is that delinquency contributes to vulnerability, as even the most apparently trustable adult figure within authority will undoubtedly let you down in this dichotomy of a society, which, married with her mother’s neglect, portrays a dystopia in which all adult characters are insensitive and unloving. Moodysson subverts the natural stereotypes and expectations regarding a schooling atmosphere, conveying Lilja’s school as an oppressive, adverse location of authority where upon they offer no prospects for Lilja’s future, whilst the alleged trusted adult abuses her power through the use of malevolent mockery upon Lilja, constructing a contemporary audience’s sympathy towards Lilja’s struggles. The lack of a parental role in Lilja’s life constructed by Moodysson proves the scarcity of her incentive to attend school; conjoined with the teacher’s lack of respect for Lilja thus creating the delinquency of an abandoned hopeless girl, amplifying a sense of audience empathy towards her, justifying her censurable behaviour.

Lilja’s low quality parental experience and sense of ridicule from her school immediately creates a means of showing a path concerning the rise in sex trafficking and prostitution of young women and girls across Europe due to the collapse of communism in Soviet Russia. Lilja is primarily pushed into prostitution by her “friend”, however upon their first outing we immediately see the difference in temperament’s between Lilja and Natasha, as Lilja acts reserved, not prostituting herself, where as Natasha clearly enjoys doing so. However after being accused of the taking part in the previous, Lilja decides that prostitution is her only option left due to her desperation to eat; emphasising the corruption of the society, and the barbarity of the economy where upon a 15 year old girl is led to violate her body, in order to pay for her basic necessities that we as the audience take advantage of. This creates an enormous sense of shock upon a modern day audience, as Moodysson employs Stanley Cohen’s 1977 theory of moral panic, deliberating around this taboo subject, breaking boundaries in which causes a horrific impact upon the contemporary viewers, amplifying the empathy we feel towards the tragically treated Lilja.

We see Lilja attempt to sell her belongings before agonisingly submitting to prostitution, proving her distaste for her loss of dignity, also supported through Moodysson’s use of a handheld camera, in order to allow the audience to feel the pain in which Lilja feels, conveying a completely unpleasant, non gratifying scene regarding a 15 year old Lilja and a complete juxtaposition of an older man, in order to emphasise Lilja’s virginity, and with this, her innocence.  This morally repugnant act continues, however Lilja dons a hair extension piece and applies makeup in order to make a physical transformation, in a bid to distance herself from girl to woman, in the hope of believing within herself that this is an essential act needed in order to live.

Although Lilja lost her virginity to her prostitution act, it is not until now where upon she loses her pride, exploited by a group of delinquent adolescents whom are only out to cause trouble due the prostitution rumours in which they look down on. The audience once again feel sympathy towards Lilja as she has again been damaged and is unsafe, due to her lack of parental or guardian figures, and is only in this position  due to her transferral of apartments as her Aunt reallocated Lilja for her own selfish gain; thus portraying another vindictive authoritative adult negatively affecting Lilja’s life.

Lilja meets a young adult male whom both the audience and Lilja immediately judge as another danger regarding her life, however after he introduces himself, appears kind and gentle, therefore a simply mild and helpful character. Andrei offers help and support towards Lilja which we originally see as a trap, however we are also enlightened into how happy he makes Lilja, therefore we feel the need to like him as we empathise with Lilja and her feelings. Lilja seems to distrust everyone for obvious reasons of her previous let downs, however she trusts Andrei due to his lack of motivation to sleep with her, as she believe she has no other incentive.

Everything appears to be running smoothly, as Lilja prepares to live her new life with Andrei, however as rapidly as it began; Andrei immediately lowers in our expectations through his admittance that he will not be joining her to Sweden until after he has ‘visited his ill grandma’, in which we all know means he will not be joining her altogether. This then creates a dangerous situation as it arises that he was a ‘false hope’, seen originally as a ‘miracle’, as he preys on her vulnerability, regardless of the fact that she takes little advantage of him and respects and trusts him to such an extent that she will do anything for him; prefiguring the later events in Sweden, when she is sold like meat.

Once Lilja is transferred to Sweden, we immediately see how it juxtaposes her life in Russia, initially making it seem superior to Russia, as she believes it will enhance her chances of an improved lifestyle. However this changes when she is locked in her new apartment by Andrei’s ‘boss’, then worsens when she is raped when he walks in on her in the bath, as we connect with the idea that we had from the beginning that this was a trap. Then it is presented that he sells her to the first ‘client’, we immediately know that he is a ‘Pimp’ and she will be forced to prostitute herself to be rewarded with a McDonald’s meal afterwards. This is completely unacceptable to a modern day contemporary audience, married with the fact that we are no longer in a dystopian society, amplifying the sense of danger for Lilja within the dichotomy.

We are presented with many shots of Lilja being sold for sex over and over again, being beaten and raped until she loses all self respect. The rape scenes are never titillating as it is always angled from her point of view, connoting a hyperbolic sense of disgust towards her boss’ actions, conveying her in many unfair situations, using gang rape to present a really overt condition in which we entirely sympathise for her. Moodysson also conveys a repulsive fantasy in which Lilja is forced to play along with between her and presumably a father, as he attempts to re-enact a father and daughter sex scene, which is inappropriate in any situation. Lilja however refuses to act submissively and go along with this scenario, instead shouting repetitively in Russian, in which the audience see as her way of protesting against her poor treatment. Although Lilja is hopeless and alone, she refuses to be silenced in a way of maintaining her dignity. Here we see Moodysson’s refusal to conform to Mulvey’s male gaze theory, through the montage of disgusting and abusive mise on scene sex scenes.

Although we see themes of imprisonment and entrapment, Lilja’s isolation forces her to be dependent on her boss, as he is her source of accommodation, consequently her supply of sleep and food, whilst being exploitative through the common of the time sex trafficking issue.

Sweden presents our view of the male gender as a collective, representing them as opportunistic and voyeuristic rapists, ensuring our complete empathy within Lilja as she has to fight for her freedom.

Her freedom however, is shown as impossible and unachievable; therefore she carries out the only task which will ensure her of her freedom as she commits suicide, in order to return to her rapidly stolen childhood. This, although appears to be a sad event, presents that her death has reunited her with Volodya, consequently returning her innocence to her, as she is clearly portrayed to be in a care free, non-vulnerable, happier place where upon she will no longer be harmed. This is a very overt and extreme form of obtaining her freedom; however this appears to be her only choice, connoting her sense of loss and lack of hope, creating a sense of audience empathy towards her as such an explicit event needed to take place in order to gain her lost freedom. We also feel sympathy towards Lilja as she seems to have been let down by every adult present in her life, consequently it seems that her short life has been wasted through abuse, proving that she never had a chance at gaining freedom whilst alive, which; to a contemporary audience allows us to feel compassion for the young girl.

Media A2 – Classical Hollywood Cinema

Classical Hollywood Cinema

Classical Hollywood cinema or the classical Hollywood narrative, are terms used in film history which designate both a visual and sound style for making motion pictures and a mode of production used in the American film industry between 1927 and 1963. This period is often referred to as the “golden age of Hollywood.” An identifiable cinematic form emerged during this period called classical Hollywood style.

Classical style is fundamentally built on the principle of continuity editing or “invisible” style. That is, the camera and the sound recording should never call attention to themselves (as they might in films from earlier periods, other countries or in a modernist or postmodernist work).

The Golden Age:

During the golden age of Hollywood, which lasted from the end of the silent era in American cinema in the late 1920s to the early 1960s, films were prolifically issued by the Hollywood studios.

The start of the golden age was arguably when The Jazz Singer was released in 1927 and increased box-office profits for films as sound was introduced to feature films. Most Hollywood pictures adhered closely to a genre—Western, slapstick comedy, musical, animated cartoon, biopic (biographical picture)—and the same creative teams often worked on films made by the same studio. For instance, Cedric Gibbons and Herbert Stothart always worked on MGM films, Alfred Newman worked at Twentieth Century Fox for twenty years, Cecil B. DeMille’s films were almost all made at Paramount, director Henry King’s films were mostly made for Twentieth-Century Fox, etc.

After The Jazz Singer was released in 1927, Warner Brothers gained huge success and was able to acquire its own string of movie theatres, after purchasing Stanley Theatres and First National Productions in 1928; MGM had also owned a string of theatres since forming in 1924, known as Loews Theatres, and the Fox film Corporation owned the Fox Theatre strings as well. Also, RKO, another company that owned theatres, had formed in 1928 from a merger between Keith-Orpheum Theaters and the Radio Corporation of America.

RKO formed in response to the monopoly Western Electric’s ERPI had over sound in films as well, and began to use sound in films through their own method known as Photophone. Paramount, who already acquired Balaban and Katz in 1926, would answer to the success of Warner Bros. and RKO, and buy a number of theaters in the late 1920s as well, before making their final purchase in 1929, through acquiring all the individual theaters belonging to the Cooperative Box Office, located in Detroit, and dominate the Detroit theaters.

Film making was still a business, however, and motion picture companies made money by operating under the studio system. The major studios kept thousands of people on salary—actors, producers, directors, writers, stunt men, craftspersons and technicians. And they owned hundreds of theaters in cities and towns across America, theaters that showed their films and that were always in need of fresh material. In 1930, MPDDA President Will Hays also founded the Hays (Production) Code, which followed censorship guidelines and went into effect after government threats of censorship expanded by 1930. However the code was never enforced until 1934, after the new Catholic Church organization The Legion of Decency—appalled by Mae West’s very successful sexual appearances in She Done Him Wrong and I’m No Angel —threatened a boycott of motion pictures if it did not go into effect, and those that didn’t obtain a seal of approval from the Production Code Administration had to pay a $25,000 fine and could not profit in the theaters, as the MPDDA owned every theater in the country through the Big Five studios.

Throughout the early 1930s, risque films and salacious advertising, became widespread in the short period known as Pre-Code Hollywood. MGM dominated the industry and had the top stars in Hollywood, and was also credited for creating the Hollywood star system altogether. MGM stars included at various times “King of Hollywood” Clark Gable, Joan Fontaine, Norma Shearer, Greta Garbo, Joan Crawford, Jean Harlow, William Powell & Myrna Loy, Gary Cooper, Mary Pickford, Henry Fonda, Marilyn Monroe, Elizabeth Taylor, Judy Garland, Ava Gardner, James Stewart, Doris Day. Frank Sinatra, Katharine Hepburn, Spencer Tracy, Vivien Leigh, Grace Kelly, Gene Kelly, Gloria Stuart, Fred Astaire, Ginger Rogers, John Wayne, Barbara Stanwyck, John Barrymore, Audrey Hepburn and Buster Keaton. Another great achievement of American cinema during this era came through Walt Disney’s animation. In 1937, Disney created the most successful film of its time, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.

Many film historians have remarked upon the many great works of cinema that emerged from this period of highly regimented film-making. One reason this was possible is that, with so many films being made, not every one had to be a big hit. A studio could gamble on a medium-budget feature with a good script and relatively unknown actors: Citizen Kane, directed by Orson Welles and often regarded as the greatest film of all time, fits that description. In other cases, strong-willed directors like Howard Hawks, Alfred Hitchcock and Frank Capra battled the studios in order to achieve their artistic visions. The apogee of the studio system may have been the year 1939, which saw the release of such classics as The Wizard of Oz, Gone with the Wind, Stagecoach, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Destry Rides Again,Young Mr. Lincoln, Wuthering Heights, Only Angels Have Wings, Ninotchka, Babes in Arms, Gunga Din, and The Roaring Twenties. Among the other films from the golden age period that are now considered to be classics: Casablanca, The Adventures of Robin Hood, It’s a Wonderful Life, It Happened One Night, King Kong, Citizen Kane, Swing Time, Some Like It Hot, A Night at the Opera, All About Eve, Mildred Pierce, The Searchers, Breakfast At Tiffany’s, North by Northwest, Dinner at Eight, Rebel Without a Cause, Rear Window, Double Indemnity, Mutiny on the Bounty, City Lights, Red River, The Manchurian Candidate, Bringing Up Baby, Singin’ in the Rain, To Have and Have Not, Goodbye, Mr. Chips, Roman Holiday, Giant, and Jezebel.

Style:

The style of classical Hollywood cinema, as elaborated by David Bordwell, has been heavily influenced by the ideas of the Renaissance and its resurgence of mankind as the focal point.

Thus, classical narration progresses always through psychological motivation, i.e. by the will of a human character and its struggle with obstacles towards a defined goal. The aspects of space and time are subordinated to the narrative element which is usually composed of two lines of action: A romance intertwined with a more generic one such as business or, in the case of Alfred Hitchcock films, solving a crime.

Time in classical Hollywood is continuous, since non-linearity calls attention to the illusory workings of the medium. The only permissible manipulation of time in this format is the flashback. It is mostly used to introduce a memory sequence of a character, e.g. Casablanca.

Likewise, the treatment of space in classic Hollywood strives to overcome or conceal the two-dimensionality of film (“invisible style”) and is strongly centered upon the human body. The majority of shots in a classical film focus on gestures or facial expressions (medium-long and medium shots). André Bazin once compared classical film to a photographed play in that the events seem to exist objectively and that cameras only give us the best view of the whole play.

This treatment of space consists of four main aspects: centering, balancing, frontality and depth. Persons or objects of significance are mostly in the center part of the picture frame and never out of focus. Balancing refers to the visual composition, i.e. characters are evenly distributed throughout the frame. The action is subtly addressed towards the spectator (frontality) and set, lighting (mostly three-point lighting) and costumes are designed to separate foreground from the background (depth).

Narrative:

The classic Hollywood narrative is structured with an unmistakable beginning, middle and end, and generally there is a distinct resolution at the end. Utilizing actors, events, causal effects, main points and secondary points are basic characteristics of this type of narrative. The characters in Classical Hollywood Cinema have clearly definable traits, are active, and very goal oriented. They are causal agents motivated by psychological rather than social concerns.

Production:

The mode of production came to be known as the Hollywood studio system and the star system, which standardized the way movies were produced. All film workers (actors, directors, etc.) were employees of a particular film studio. This resulted in a certain uniformity to film style: directors were encouraged to think of themselves as employees rather than artists, and hence auteurs did not flourish (although some directors, such as Alfred Hitchcock, John Ford and Howard Hawks, worked within this system and still fulfilled their artistic selves).

The Hollywood studio system was controlled by the “Big Eight” studios, however, the Big Five fully integrated studios were the most powerful. These five studios were MGM, Warner Brothers, 20th Century Fox, Paramount, and RKO. They all operated their own theater chains and produced and distributed films as well. The “Little Three” studios (Universal Studios, Columbia Pictures, and United Artists) were also full-fledged film factories but they lacked the financial resources of the Big Five and therefore produced fewer A-class features which were the foundations of the studio system.

Periodization:

While the boundaries are vague, the classical era is generally held to begin in 1927 with the release of The Jazz Singer. Hollywood classicism gradually declined with the collapse of the studio system, the advent of television, the growing popularity of auteurism among directors and the increasing influence of foreign films and independent filmmaking.

The 1948 U.S. Supreme Court decision, which outlawed the practice of block booking and the above-mentioned ownership and operation of theater chains by the major film studios (as it was believed to constitute anti-competitive and monopolistic trade practices) was seen as a major blow to the studio system. This was because it firstly cleared the way for a growing number of independent producers (some of them the actors themselves) and studios to produce their film product free of major studio interference, and secondly because it destroyed the original business model utilized by the studios who struggled to adapt.

“At the time of the Court decision, everyone said the quality, consistency and availability of movies would go up and prices would fall. Quite the opposite happened. By 1955, the number of produced films had fallen by 25 percent. More than 4,200 theaters (or 23 percent of the total) had shut their doors. More than half of those remaining were unable to earn a profit. They could not afford to rent and exhibit the best and most costly films, the ones most likely to compete with television.