Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Have you ever wondered about this recent phenomenon where most of the films
being released seem to be mediocre? Most are derivative of the same overdone
denominator. Too many are actual remakes of old films. When you read critical
reviews of films lately, it seems as though the critics hate almost everything! I
don’t put total stock in what critics believe. I used to believe that critics are just
frustrated filmmakers who could not hack it in the industry, so they make their
living taking pot shots at those who could. Actually, I still do believe that in some
instances, but never can I remember a time in my history as a film buff, when
across the board, positive critical reviews have been this infrequent. There are
not enough films like “The Player”, “Usual Suspects”, “Shawshank Redemption”,
“The Green Mile” which feature solid stories and scripts, matched with
exceptional acting and direction rather than depending upon this blockbuster
formula of big name stars and multi million dollar special effects to compensate
I like the movie trailers shown before the main feature at the theater. They’re
about a minute. I can usually predict, by the trailer, whether a film will be a box
viewing trailers, to find at least two promising films between which I would need
to choose to see on any given weekend, since I tend to go to movies only once on a
given weekend. If I could narrow the choices down to two, I would opt for the
film that has been in release for a higher number of weeks, reasoning that the
other film would be more likely be still in the theater on another weekend.
Over the past couple of years, however, the frequency my movie visits has fallen
motivation to go to the movies. I opt to see most films on DVD. I know why
there is no quality multicultural fare making its way through the studio system. I
just never believed that there would be a time when so little quality work of any
genre would be produced. That time has arrived, unfortunately, and perhaps it is
In the dawn of the film industry in the 1920’s, the big player was Adolph Zukor,
the founder of what would become Paramount Studios in 1922. Nine major
studios owned and controlled every element of film production and distribution
with an iron fist. The writers and the directors who, in recent times, have
garnered so much influence over their films, were but interchangeable hired
studio staffers who were puppets of the studio executives who hired and fired
them on a whim. Films were a direct reflection of the tastes and desires of studio
executives who were either family or close associates of the heads of the studios.
The acting talent were virtual indentured servants under exclusive career-
industry for uttering even a critical word about a studio insider. Stories and
scripts were incubated exclusively in house at the studios and there was no free
2
studio-owned movie palaces. It was not until 1948, the Sherman Antitrust Act
and Clayton Antitrust Statutes were finally applied to the studios. The Sherman
competition. The Clayton Act that penalized price fixing and exclusive dealing
Practically every studio practice of the time was designed to keep insiders in and
outsiders out of the industry. Studio control over every industry process from
not yet been “invented”. There was no involvement of non-whites behind the
scenes nor in the executive ranks of the studios. The studios developed African
American themes only in response to the success of the race films of Oscar
Micheaux and his contemporaries, and that was only to draw the Black audiences
away. The recurring African American “themes” that resulted were uni-
portrayals from which Black folks have yet to fully recover even 80 year later!
The studios, in pulling Black audiences into semi-integrated theaters and away
3
In 1928, after a seven-year investigation, the Federal Trade Commission took
action against the ten major studios for their anticompetitive business practices,
the principal defendant being Famous Players-Lasky Co., which later evolved into
requiring exhibitors to accept packages including multiple “B” films in order for
them to exhibit the “A” films was declared illegal. After a series of lower court
World War II, it would take another 18 years and pressure from an emerging
Producers, who would work to re-initiate the landmark case of U.S. v Paramount,
et.al., which was argued before the Supreme Court in 1948 after a Justice Dept.
suit that had been initiated by the Roosevelt Administration in 1938. The
Federal law abolishing Block Booking and forced the studios to divest their
theater chains.
This was too late to save the “race” film industry. Of course, we are very often our
worst enemy because but for the defection of the African American audiences,
outgrow this notion of “his” ice being colder. I have a recurring theme on this
issue. Where would the separate “race film” industry be today, had its audiences
not been pulled away by the illegal anticompetitive practices of the studios and
4
had that industry been allowed to grow and develop over the past 80 years? I
probe into the anti-competitive practices by the major studios. Subpoenas were
served.
It appears that nothing much has really changed in the past 80 years. It is still
the tacit and largely unchallenged policy of major studios to “Block Book” and
quash any free marketplace of ideas, although nobody with any desire to make
their living in the entertainment industry would dare to take the studios to task.
exhibition, most independents are relegated to low budget, play now pay later,
home video deals, which are also becoming increasingly difficult to get. It is still
with an exhibitor. I use the term “true” independent because most independents
today are practically studio subsidiaries and are independent in name only.
themselves, mini-studios. Steven Spielberg and Jeffrey Katzenberg and I are all
5
independent filmmakers much in the way that Bentleys, Rolls Royces and
Toyotas are all cars. Insiders work as hard at keeping outsiders out and dealing
only with other insiders as they do at making films, which is a fact reflected in the
Television, the United Paramount Network (one of the television networks with
all of the “lowest common denominator” Black shows), as well as most of what
Sundance Channel, to name but a few. Infinity owns 180 radios stations and
Viacom owns Infinity. Interestingly enough, Viacom owns Blockbuster Video and
the 1,700 screens of United Cinemas. Blockbuster has swallowed most competing
video stores that might place some independent titles on their shelves. I suppose
that since U.C.I. is not a major exhibition player with only 1,700 screens, the
Justice Dept. is not concerned about vertical integration. Compliance with the
however.
6
Television network (the other television network with all of the “lowest common
production entity (yeah, right!) , Warner Home Video and International Cinemas,
to name but a few. Time Warner also owns “independent filmmaker” New Line
Cinema, which owns New Line Distribution, New Line Television, New Line
America Online, Time Warner Cable and Turner Broadcasting, among others,
which gives Time Warner control over acquisition, conception and distribution of
programming that is disseminated into almost every household in the U.S, and
worldwide, but I’m sure that there is no ill effect on free competition here!
which releases about 22 films per year. They also own Columbia Pictures and
Columbia Pictures Classics, Sony Pictures Classics, Screen Gems, Sony Pictures
Disney, Sony, MGM, 20th Century Fox, Universal and Warner Brothers,
7
their production and distribution arms and subsidiaries, together, release an
average of about 467 films onto 34,630 movie screens in 5,635 venues worldwide.
Each feature film averages $89.4 million in theatrical cost, which includes $58.8
making it nearly impossible for independents to get their novel and inventive
stories to audiences. Moreover, when one considers that the men at the top
cultural origin, life experiences, tastes and biases, as the officers who they hire
to oversee the operations of their subsidiaries, who are similar situated as are
those who actually operate these subsidiaries. It cannot be easily argued that a
diverse range of ideas is allowed to flow freely in the marketplace. The hierarchy
of Viacom may argue that Paramount is independently managed, but let’s see
what happens when Paramount releases product that rubs against Viacom’s
corporate philosophies, likewise Time-Warner with New Line or Castle Rock and
likewise Sony with Tri-Star or Columbia. The point is made, so there is not even
a need to discuss Rupert Murdoch and his Fox conglomerate or Metro Goldwyn
Mayer. The executives and officers who make the daily operational decisions
number industry-wide and they typically play a game of musical chairs, moving
8
from company to company within and between the conglomerates. As a result, it
all of the world’s diverse races and cultures, how their experiences and their
history are to be portrayed, if at all. There have been many discussions about the
outlets. One of the liabilities, aside from the obvious damage to free market
corporations exist strictly for profit and their officers must answer to boards who
demand maximum profit, their decisions become not creative, but strictly fiscal.
toaster, or a feature film, return maximum profit. To the extent that the product
is not profitable, it, and or those who are responsible for making it profitable can
for the sake of creativity or innovation. The formula that has shown results in the
past is not to be deviated from! That is an effective approach for selling cars or
toasters, but not films. The creative process must be allowed to evolve. The
competition have agreed not to “rock the boat” the introduction of any new
9
As was the case 80 years ago, and without any foundational knowledge to the
contrary, it would not be hard to believe, based upon film portrayals, that African
American males are entertaining and athletic, comics, thugs, buffoons, singers
and dancers who are big and strong, quick-tempered and sex-crazed animals,
who seem to lack judgment or positive family liaisons and who kill each other and
disrespect our own women. We like to serve the white man and we often display
a talent for mystically and magically solving his problems. We are very often
African American women are sassy, overweight, highly sexual and quick-
tempered (especially toward Black men) exotic temptresses who sing, dance and
otherwise entertain and who seem to have a talent for helping Caucasians raise
their children. Latinos were not a presence in film 80 years ago, but appear to be
lazy, hot-tempered, hot lovers and good singers and dancers. Asians appear to be
enigmatic and mysterious, good with math and computers and experts at the
martial arts.
It has always been the role of the independent filmmaker of diverse background
and experience to give voice to those diverse audiences who have traditionally
been neglected by the “cabal” of the “Hollywood” studio system and to debunk
the stereotypes that are perpetrated within that system. When one considers the
sheer avalanche of films that saturate all available exhibition venues, television
and home video, the natural question that arises is “how and where are
compete for the limited availability of box office dollars and with the ability to
10
create profitable films, not by virtue of their content, but by sheer force of will
and millions in marketing dollars, there is no real need for the studios to spend
audiences. That being the case, movie-going audiences, without the availability
of more challenging fare, will settle for what is made available to them if they
absolutely must attend a movie. The traditional studio line has been that
audiences, particularly African American audiences, will not turn out to see
dramas, so studios do not invest as much to produce and promote dramas unless
big name casts are involved. I would submit, however, that the studios create a
that they believe to be the most profitable, and given sufficient advertising
support, any film of any genre can be profitable. Without a strong advertising
Any manufacturer that is able to monopolize their market will not deem it
necessary to spend any more than necessary to improve their product. Why
should they? Why do today’s movies suck? If you are guaranteed to sell most or
all available product inventory whether you spend 1% or 10% of gross income on
product development and quality control, would you spend 10%? I am not
suggesting that the studios owe us anything. It would nice however, if the studios
would follow federal law and allow some healthy market competition. Don’t give
us anything, just get out of our way! Perhaps we, as independents, can serve to
push innovation and quality in films. Perhaps our films can refine the tastes of
11