The Hyper-Façade of Hollywood: Singing in the Rain, the Player, and Runaway Productions
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
The Hyper-façade of Hollywood: Singing in the Rain, The Player, and Runaway Productions Kimberly Lewis Known to many as tinsel-town, Hollywood has long been a place known for its glamour. From its initial creation in the early 1900s, Hollywood has been the bedazzled section of Los Angeles County, drawing in millions of tourists every year. The names of large production studios like Universal, Paramount, MGM, and Warner have inspired numerous hopefuls to move to California, eager to make their mark in the world of film and television. But few know the truth behind the scenes. Television production is at an all-time high in California (“Production Incentive Map”), but the film industry is in danger of extinction. Part of this dilemma is due to the outsourcing of production in the entertainment industry, otherwise known as runaway production, which is threatening the world of film entertainment. Scholars, such as Chris Lukinbeal, Greg Elmer and Mike Gasher, have critiqued the negative effects of runaway production on Hollywood—a process that has lasted for more than 100 years. The Screen Actors Guild (SAG) defines runaway production as “those productions ‘which are developed and are intended for release/exhibition or television broadcast in the U.S., but are actually filmed in another location [outside the US]’” (Lukinbeal 338). The title runaway production calls into question the “complexity and hints at the stakes involved. In the United States, and especially in California, [runaway production] clearly suggest[s] something lamentable: a flight, a loss, an escape— fugitive film shoots making off with millions of dollars and thousands of jobs that rightly belong to Californians” (Elmer and Gasher 2). Production types are vast, ranging from film, to independent production, to television. For the sake of this paper, I will be focusing on the film industry, specifically from the 1920s through the 1990s, and analyzing two films: the 1952 musical comedy Singin’ in the Rain, directed by Gene Kelly and Stanley Donen, and the 1992 satirical film The Player, directed by Robert 58 Kimberly Lewis Altman. Singin’ in the Rain is set in the midst of the shift from silent film to “talkies” while The Player showcases the world of Hollywood and the effects of economic pressures on the film industry. Both films I will be analyzing are not runaway productions themselves but rather reveal the effects of runaway production on the film industry at certain times in history. Singin’ in the Rain and The Player serve as examples of times when technological advances in the film industry brought down a system of control and gave way to a new, expanded Hollywood as well as when economic factors gained jurisdiction over the artistic view. The power of Hollywood film is often tied to formulas, placing more artistic films in a precarious economic position in an increasingly profit- driven industry. The old idea of Hollywood, a center of entertainment and extravagant delight, has become a façade. According to Lukinbeal, a shift in Hollywood has been occurring for over a century, with runaway production contributing to key changes in Los Angeles. Lukinbeal argues that there have been three waves of runaway productions: the shift from east to west, the demise of the Studio System, and the economic hardships of the 1990s. However, I argue that Lukinbeal is missing a key element to the threat runaway production poses on Hollywood: the changes in technology in the 1920s. History of Runaway Productions There are two sides to runaway production: creative and economic. The creative aspect deals with productions leaving California because of issues in the setting of a story that “cannot be duplicated for other creative considerations” (Lukinbeal 339). Basically, if a production needs a certain setting that cannot be duplicated in a studio then it will move filming to a proper location. With the rise in computer generated technology the need to move productions now has a lot more to do with cost. However, as one studio executive, with over forty years of experience in the entertainment industry, noted, films like Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit are unusual exceptions to the runaway production issue because Peter Jackson wrote the script for the scenery around him; normally it is the other way around (Anonymous). The economic side of runaway production deals with productions that leave LA County for monetary reasons, The Hyper-façade of Hollywood 59 such as tax incentives or cheaper production costs. This source also claims that with cheaper costs for labor, production, and even post-production, studios are turning to these more cost efficient methods in hopes of gaining a better profit after the movie is released (Anonymous). Ironically, the first stage of Lukinbeal’s runaway production brought the film industry to California. Influenced by the creative and economic aspects of runaway production, the American Film industry traveled from the east coast to the west coast in the early 1900s. The film industry started on the east coast, in New Jersey and New York (Lukinbeal 340), but soon came to California. Not only is the weather in California ideal, with lots of sunshine for better production, but also the film industry discovered that filming on open land could be much cheaper than renting a stuffy and poorly lit studio back east. Referring to this move as the first wave of runaway production, Lukinbeal claims that, aside from the sunshine, the popularity of the Western genre was another major influence for this geographical shift, although I suspect that the early Western could also have easily been made in the stuffy studio back east. He also asserts that there were two more waves of runaway production: the second being the demise of the Studio System in the 1940s and the third being in the 1990s, when studios expanded outward to multiple markets (340-41). Lukinbeal is correct about the second wave being caused, at least in part, by the demise of the Studio System. The Studio System refers to the commodification of actors, when the studios “owned” actors through contracts, with each contract being seven years long. Contracts favored the studios, with actors having little control over their personal lives or careers; production choices were determined by the studio, not the actor, and actors could even be “rented out” to other studios for a fee (DiNello). Not only was this difficult for the actors, who could lose their job if they did not make the studio enough money and who could not control which films they worked on, but it was discouraging for smaller studios trying to compete in the entertainment industry (DiNello). The Majors (MGM, 20th Century Fox, Warner Brothers, RKO Radio Pictures, and Paramount) not only had control of the star actors but also had jurisdiction over the entertainment business (DiNello). With the passing of the Paramount Act in 1948, the 60 Kimberly Lewis Studio System disintegrated. The Paramount Act restructured the world of Hollywood, declaring an “antitrust ruling [which] forced the Majors to get out of the film exhibition business and [ . ] the movie business lost half of its market between 1946 and 1956” (Elmer and Gasher 7). Without a monopoly, the Majors faced increased expenses, including the cost of back lot production; thus, the Majors resorted to outsourcing. LA and the Majors still remained the “core” of the industry however (Lukinbeal 341). While I agree with most of Lukinbeal’s statements, I argue that the second wave of runaway production was also seriously affected by the changing technology. In the 1920s the Vitaphone talking picture was introduced to the world of cinema. Twenty years before the Paramount Act, the introduction of talking movies started a major change for the world of cinema—affecting big and small studios. While they still could not obtain major actors for their films because of the Studio System, smaller studios benefited from this rise in new technology, for they, gaining greater autonomy over the production of their films, could set up in warehouses all across the country. In 1952 Gene Kelly and Stanley Donen introduced the world to what would be one of the most famous musicals of all time: Singin’ in the Rain. This film showed the transition movies made from silence to sound, mixing in real life trends with fictional narratives. Set in 1927, the film follows the movie’s main character and movie star Don Lockwood, his co-star Lina Lamont, his best friend Cosmo Brown, and his love interest, Kathy Selden, as they traverse the world of Hollywood film just as a key shift in technology is occurring. Technology Shifts: Silence to Sound in Singin’ in the Rain and the Demise of the Studio System From the start of Singin’ in the Rain, the so-called glamour of Hollywood is highlighted. Opening with the view of Grauman’s Chinese Theater, famous for movie stars’ hand and foot prints being ever immortalized in cement, the film depicts Hollywood Boulevard lit up with spotlights, cars, and a giant sign announcing the premier of a movie called The Royal Rascal. The names Lockwood and Lamont can be seen in large letters above the film’s title, giving the audience an indication of who is The Hyper-façade of Hollywood 61 most important in the scene to come. A news reporter, Dora Bailey, announces the stars as their cars pull up in front of the theater. From the pretty flapper girl on the arm of a so-called “forever bachelor” to the exotic Olga and the Baron, “married two months already but still happy as newlyweds,” the stereotypes of Hollywood actors and actresses are showcased. Not only is this scene a commentary on the importance of those who earn the studios big money, but it also reveals the criteria to become one of those big moneymakers.