Monica Sandler Oscars Wild: The Impact of Studio Politics on the Post-WWII (1946-1950)

Abstract This essay examines the Oscars as a promotional tool within the American film industry in a period that saw Hollywood reach new box office highs followed by extreme turbulence as antitrust lawsuits called into ques- tion the legality of the entire studio system. The Oscars, and the wider Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences organization, faced a similar phrase of crisis, having to consider options for self-funding and indepen- dence from the Hollywood studios in a way it had never before. The postwar period saw the Academy Awards reach new heights of popularity as Hollywood studios expanded movie campaigning exclusively focused on the annual ceremony. This paper examines the role that the event played within the studio system during this tur- bulent moment, while also considering how the Academy sought to utilize its most valuable asset to weather the wider storms occurring across Hollywood.

In December of 1948, just months before the annu- Picture win for Laurence Olivier’s Hamlet (1948) al Academy Awards ceremony, production compa- and a sudden postwar surge in global competition nies across Hollywood announced that they would for Oscar’s most prestigious prizes.4 Whatever the no longer send money to help pay for the event’s actual intentions, the Academy and its awards were production costs. In previous years, roughly thirty suddenly caught in the middle of major industry percent of funding had come directly from the transformations. donations of the big five studios: MGM, Warner The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Bros., Paramount, 20th Century Fox, and RKO.1 Sciences (AMPAS) was founded in 1927 for “the This change sent the Academy into a crisis, cut- welfare, progress and protection of the industry as ting costs at every turn; the event was moved to the a whole.”5 The Academy’s original design was to be organization’s own small theater, leaving many in- a united representative for the entire working-body siders without a ticket come awards night.2 These of the Hollywood film industry.6 An early AMPAS sudden studio cuts emerged from the industry-wide informational pamphlet entitled simply “The Rea- crisis following the Paramount Decision that began sons Why” highlights the organization’s intended the process of eliminating vertical integration with- role in PR: in these corporations. Soon after the ceremony in 1949, it was announced that the cuts to the Acad- For many years, you and we of the cre- emy Awards would become permanent. A joint ative forces in this industry have left to statement from industry leaders including Nicholas others the promotion and protection of Schenck and Albert Warner argued that, “Compa- our interests. Collectively, we have done nies should not be in the position where they can nothing effective either to harmonize and be accused of subsidizing an artistic and cultural fo- correct conditions within our own ranks rum,” despite the previous decades of doing precise- or to cooperate for the welfare of the in- ly that.3 Meanwhile, gossip wires across the world dustry as a whole...We can take aggres- speculated that the move was a response to the Best sive action in meeting outside attacks that

40 The System Beyond the Studios Luci Marzola, editor, Spectator 38:2 (Fall 2018): 40-49. SANDLER

are unjust...We can adopt such ways and event’s history. means as are proper to further the welfare My research expands on and combines several and protect the honor and good repute of strands of scholarship on American filmmaking our profession.7 post-WWII. Canonical texts such as Tom Schatz’s Boom and Bust: The American Cinema in the 1940s ex- Many of these listed objectives emerged direct- pose the enormous changes during a period of three ly in response to a growing movement of right-wing years from when Hollywood reached its biggest box groups that were denouncing Hollywood as amoral; office in 1946 to the 1948 Paramount decision that AMPAS was to serve as the united front against prohibited vertical integration in Hollywood.10 As those national attacks. If the Academy’s intention Schatz notes, this was an era in which the American was to serve as a major PR venture for Hollywood, film industry faced extreme ups and downs, end- its Awards for Merit certainly were one of the orga- ing with studios in crisis as they were forced to do nization’s biggest successes in this arena. The event away with long-term practices like block-booking brought together the industry’s best and brightest and vertical integration. The Academy Awards also to celebrate the creative accomplishment of movie changed forever, directly as a by-product of these making, annually glorifying the craft of Hollywood wider studio issues. productions to American film-goers. My discussion of the awards in relation to With AMPAS seemingly a unified publicity 1940s history, however, goes beyond merely what wing for the movie studios, what happened when was happening in the Hollywood system, examin- the studios’ and the Academy’s interests were in op- ing the growth of the Academy Awards as a global position? Through an analysis of Academy in-house phenomenon in wake of a rise in international dis- records and trade articles, I examine the compli- tribution during the era.11 The core of my argument cated dynamics of this relationship. During the considers how the awards fit within economies of post-WWII period the original contract between prestige and the role that the Academy Awards AMPAS and Hollywood was reconsidered in the played in setting those standards as both a PR de- face of global competition and economic turmoil. vice and a tangible way of itemizing Hollywood’s Suddenly, AMPAS’s goals began to move away top filmmaking. Chris Cagle’s recent work Sociol- from defending the will of the American movie ogy on Film: Postwar Hollywood’s Prestige Commod- distributors towards protecting and further devel- ity considers how the notion of prestige changed oping the organization’s own interests and its big- following the war, focusing in on the movement gest commodity, the Academy Awards. towards lower budget productions that featured Little has actually been written on the Acad- pressing social issues and more emotional perfor- emy Awards during this era. Pierre Norman Sands’s mances.12 He notes examples such as The Best Years A Historical Study of the Academy of Motion Pictures of Our Lives (William Wyler, 1946), The Lost Week- Arts and Science (1927-1947) provides a wider con- end (Billy Wilder, 1945), and Gentlemen’s Agreement text of issues facing the organization through its de- (Elia Kazan, 1949), all of which went on to win Best velopment and has been an invaluable resource for Picture. This paper expands on Cagle’s argument by scholars regarding the early phrase of the Academy articulating the role that awards contention played as a whole. Sands, however, ends his study at 1947, in bolstering this new distinction in prestige picture emphasizing how this year was a turning point for productions. the institution.8 Furthermore, the essay, “Oscar’s My purpose is to examine how the awards, and Close-up: Producing the Live Television Broadcast therefore the Academy as a whole, fit within these of the 25th Academy Awards” by Dimitrios Pavlou- issues of production, globalization, and distribution nis describes the production of the first television as a vital public relations fixture. At the same time, ceremony in 1953.9 Pavlounis, with his focus on the I extrapolate a new understanding of the event’s organization from 1946 to 1949, provides context relationship to filmmaking by looking at its wider for many of the economic circumstances that lead organization’s budgeting, branding, and its often- to this first televised celebration and emphasizes complicated association to the industries around it the importance of this transitional moment in the that it claimed to serve. By doing so, I show how

THE SYSTEM BEYOND THE STUDIOS 41 OSCARS WILD this event, often seen as frivolous or extraneous, was ultimately received mixed reviews at its release, the central to the reconfiguration of the system. movie’s ad campaign focused on Frank Capra’s pre- vious victories at the ceremony positioned the film Oscar Season and Postwar Hollywood as a prestige release. The Oscars celebration itself had become one By the end of World War II, the Academy Awards of the most central function of the Academy of had earned its title as Hollywood’s biggest night. Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences by this time. Starting as a small banquet event in 1929, over the In 1946, the second listed goal of the organization course of its first two decades the event had proven for the year was to “recognize outstanding achieve- itself to have a vital role as a PR platform both to ments by conferring annual Awards of Merit, serv- individual films and the American movie industry ing as a constant incentive within the industry and as a whole. By the postwar period, the end-of-year focusing wide public attention upon the best in mo- movie season prominently featured ads announc- tion pictures.”15 World War II had seen the event ing Awards potential. One review in Modern Screen reach new heights of national popularity, predomi- explained of future Best Picture nominee The Year- nantly due to the development of its live public ra- ling (Clarence Brown, 1946): “They have made it dio broadcast. While there were radio broadcasts as into an Academy Award picture--a work of such early as the second event, they were irregular during honest beauty and shining tenderness;” the movie’s the 1930s because of AMPAS’s budget restrictions quality is summed up simply through the reference in the height of the Great Depression. The 12th cer- to the ceremony.13 Other ads sought to capitalize emony in 1940 saw the start of a partial broadcast of on previous wins: one ad for It’s a Wonderful Life the event, with the first full live national broadcast (Frank Capra, 1946) proclaimed: “It’s a Wonderful in 1945. This 17th Academy Awards marked a gen- Life! How could it be anything else...when it tops eral turning point in the event’s production, which even Capra’s three great Academy Award Winners: moved the ceremony from a smaller banquet format It Happened One Night, Mr. Deeds Goes to Town that had taken place at locations like the Millenium and You Can’t Take it With You.”14 While the film Biltmore Hotel to the Chinese Theater, an audito- rium that could more fully accommodate the radio equipment. The ceremony in 1947, the first event fully or- ganized in the postwar climate, was the biggest Os- car night in history. The celebration was moved to the Shrine Auditorium, which houses 6,700 seats, more than six times the size of the Chinese The- ater venue from the year before. Held on March 13, 1947, it featured “35 Oscars, 16 searching lights (crisscrossing shades of white, blue, red, and or- ange), a 66-piece, orchestra, 250 policemen, 90 ush- ers, 50 stagehands, 6 parking lots and 125 parking lot attendants.”16 This giant-sized Oscars was also the first ceremony that sold tickets to the general public. Roughly 3,500 tickets were available for purchase at $3.60 or $4.80, depending on seating location.17 The move was lauded for creating a gold- en opportunity for fans to join in on Hollywood’s most monumental of spectacles. The biggest Oscar night to date in many ways reflected Hollywood’s position in the post-WWII landscape. Between 1945 and 1946 “the studios’ year-end gross revenues rose from a record $1.45

42 FALL 2018 SANDLER billion in 1945 to just under $1.7 billion in 1946.”18 in the end saw little of the fiscal revenue. Cinema As the Awards season expanded, the financial ben- Magazine noted that, “Publicity on the awards had efits of PR campaigns centered around the ceremo- given a tremendous profit to the industry, but the ny were enormous. After The Best Years of Our Lives Academy itself had not profited financially from the took home Best Picture at the 19th ceremony, The presentation.”23 Jean Hersholt, AMPAS president Film Daily declared: “now that Best Years has added from 1946 to 1949, noted in the annual report: the Oscar to its awards, it’s a clinch to run at the Astor until Labor Day.”19 The profit benefits are Even with the large seating capacity of clear when you look at the highest earning films of the Shrine and the high ticket prices, the year. Of the top films in 1946, three films, The the Academy derived no financial profit Razor’s Edge, The Yearling, and The Best Years of Our from the evening. The stage setting alone Lives were major contenders and later winners dur- cost $7,000 and the orchestra more than ing the ceremony. The Best Years of Our Lives, the $12,000. Other items such as the film, year’s Best Picture winner, was the second highest which necessitated a completely new in- grossing movie of the year, just behind Song of the stallation of sound and projection equip- South, a children’s film.20 ment, parking service, policing, etc., ac- Many of the year’s most successful pictures, counted for thousands of dollars more.24 however, were in fact released wide at the start of 1947. That year AMPAS had updated its rules to Money losses over the awards ceremony were a allow films to open widely in January provided that huge issue, especially given that Academy expendi- they play a minimum of seven times before the end tures on the event made up about thirty-four per- of the year.21 The wider movie releases would keep cent of the organization’s total budget. In additional the awards, and those films building awards cam- to the studio funding, the awards cost AMPAS paigns, front and center up until the annual event, about $53,000 to put on, while the total annual costs which was generally held in late February or early to run the organization were about $154,000.25 In- March. In this way, awards season seemed to create deed, selling tickets to the public that year occurred a mutually beneficial relationship for both studios out of necessity for the Academy to break even. and AMPAS alike. Highlighting their codepen- Ticket sales brought in $52,595.20, still under the dent dynamic, the giant-sized Academy Awards total costs put into the event’s production.26 ceremony was funded partially by annual donations As AMPAS struggled to profit from its an- by the top eight studios, essentially paying for their nual awards, Hersholt spent much of his AMPAS marketing tool. This had been the general practice presidency working to reconsider the organization’s since the event started in 1929; production compa- money management, an effort that continued un- nies together put about $30,000 into the AMPAS der his successor ’s rule into the per year, with most of those funds going directly to 1950s. Much of Hersholt’s financial work spe- the ceremony.22 In this way, the Academy Awards cifically focused on the Oscar ceremony which he and the studio system in Hollywood seemed infi- argued needed to become “more clearly an Acad- nitely tied together; the Oscars had become one of emy presentation and less of an industry publicity the studio system’s most powerful, intentionally- stunt.”27 AMPAS, at this time, was structured such organized public relations platforms. that it often featured conflicting interests debating over who the organization should serve. Jack War- Changes to the Academy Landscape: New Methods in Member- ner was AMPAS treasurer and head of the finance ship, Voting, and Branding committee, meaning a studio executive was the pri- mary person handling AMPAS’s funds and assets.28 This co-dependent relationship between Oscar and In this way, money distribution was to some extent industry, however, was not necessarily the perfect producer controlled. marriage it appeared to be. While the ceremony was Jean Hersholt’s presidency focused on AM- heralded by countless media outlets and listened to PAS’s autonomy, prioritizing how the organization’s live by millions of fans across the country, AMPAS activities could be transformed to benefit specifi-

THE SYSTEM BEYOND THE STUDIOS 43 OSCARS WILD cally Academy interests. One such policy change The awards must be “held above studio affilia- involved AMPAS membership. At the beginning tion, industry politics or high pressure of high-sala- of December 1946, the Academy reported that its ried publicity specialists.”34 These statements about numbers had reached over sixteen-hundred mem- partisan or manipulated voting often emerged from bers, nearly doubling from the previous year’s totals fan magazine gossip, but still consistently were a part of roughly eight-hundred members.29 The expanded of the annual conversation following the ceremony membership grew most directly out of an award as people debated whether or not the right winners voter policy change. Since 1937, Hollywood unions were chosen. Partisanship and voter manipulation, and guilds had been allowed to vote for the award however, would always be difficult to conclusively nominations and final winners. This voting policy prove because once voters received their private bal- was originally conceived in an attempt to restore lots their choices were entirely their own. Academy membership at the end of a five-year span Voting controversies were ultimately bad for fighting in the middle of labor disputes between the Academy Awards brand, a brand that the or- unions and producers. Each of the guilds had equal ganization under Hersholt’s presidency sought to representation on the nominations committee and broaden, rearrange, and further monetize. In 1946, everyone was allowed to decide the final winners. In AMPAS launched The Academy Awards Theater, a total, more than fifteen-thousand people took part regular radio program that recreated scenes from in the final balloting. However, in 1946 it was an- Oscar-winning films such asJezebel (William Wy- nounced that while nominations were still allowed ler, 1938), The Maltese Falcon ( John Huston, 1941) throughout the unions, final voting was only for and My Man Godfrey (Gregory La Cava, 1936). Academy membership.30 This led to a sudden rush Hersholt explained in a membership report that the at year’s end for anyone who could be eligible to join program featured “pictures which had won or been the organization to do so, or lose the privilege of nominated for an Academy Award during the 18 voting in the final awards tabulations. years of our existence.”35 The broadcast was spon- The open voting policy that began in 1937 sored by E.R. Squibb & Sons and aired on CBS. was supposed to symbolize “the friendly acclaim of This was one of the largest occurrences to date where those who are devoting their efforts to the creation AMPAS made money independently from studios. of the greatest entertainment in the world, the mo- The program brought in a total of $58,500.00 be- 31 tion picture.” The rule had instead lead to nearly a tween October 1, 1945 to March 31 1946, roughly decade of accusations of voter manipulation. With thirty percent of the organization’s total income.36 thousands throughout Hollywood voting, there While the series only lasted one season, it was was concern that the largest studios, with the most 32 the start of a period of experimentation as AMPAS voters, had an advantage in winning. As ballots looked for additional ways to capitalize on its big- were released to members in early 1947, Academy gest commodity. This included the production of leadership did their best to combat in-studio cam- the “Academy Awards” watch from 1949 to 1950. paigns. President Hersholt sent a statement out to Promotions for the timepiece revolved around the Academy membership: trophy’s prestige. One ad proclaimed, “As a screen Each year there is a criticism of our star takes pride in possessing an Academy Award, awards and there have been complaints so will you take pride in owning a magnificent that studio politics influence the voting. Bulova Academy Awards Watch.”37 Six different I am sending you this personal letter to timepieces were created through Bolova Inc., cost- urge that when you receive your ballot you ing between forty-nine and seventy-one dollars. will realize that you have a responsibil- According to the AMPAS annual report for 1950, ity to the Academy ideal that individual the deal with Bolova brought in roughly $120,000, achievement comes ahead of studio affili- about a third of the annual budget, highlighting the ation. Please remember that the Academy potential earning the awards could make for the reputation for fair dealing and honest wider organization.38 The Oscars could not only be selection of the best achievement of your a Hollywood money maker but an AMPAS money fellow-craftsmen rest in your hands.33 maker too.

44 FALL 2018 SANDLER

wider issues that the American film industry faced with greater international competition. Hersholt describes why he felt in influx of foreign competi- tors was important to the American film industry as a whole: “To the commercial side of the industry, these pictures may have presented the rude visage of competition; to the creative branches, and that’s what the Academy represents, they come as a re- freshing wind.”43 Additionally, these issues of inter- national cinema were becoming widely discussed in media publications and by Hollywood’s executives. Samuel Goldwyn spoke candidly in Film Daily:

I think [British films] may provide the threat that Hollywood needs to stir itself out of its fat-cat complacency…They have applied a viewpoint that is broader and more international than ours, yet they are getting closer to the people by reflecting the intimate universality of everyday liv- ing… Hollywood must set aside the old formulas. It must find honest stories, sto- New Players in the Awards Game ries with something important to say, sto- ries that reflect these disturbing times in Thus far in my analysis, I have considered the com- which we live.44 plicated relationship between AMPAS and the Hollywood studios, but the 1946 awards featured Goldwyn’s statement here highlighted the the largest selection of international film nomi- threat that British pictures embodied; the allure of nations than had ever been seen at the ceremony. foreign competition would require American film- Great Britain received eleven nominations in total makers to focus in on storytelling and producing for Laurence Olivier’s Henry V (1944) and David quality pictures. Goldwyn, of course, ended this Lean’s Brief Encounter (1945). Other European statement with a push for future Best Picture win- countries were also represented, with Children of ner Best Years of Our Lives, arguing that his film em- Paradise (Carné, 1945) and Rome, Open City (Ros- bodied those attributes Hollywood needed to move sellini, 1945) receiving nominations in the best towards. writing categories.39 While none of these films As British and other European industries were ultimately took home trophies in their respective gaining new revenue in America, Hollywood stu- categories, their nominations were an indicator of dios were forced to cut back costs, in part due to things to come.40 At the 20th Academy Awards in legal court rulings limiting the power of produc- 1948, the British entries Black Narcissus (Powell and tion companies. After the heights of 1946, from Pressburger, 1947) and Great Expectations (Lean, thereafter to 1949 profits decreased rapidly within 1947) also received nominations and swept many of all of the major studios. Total box-office receipts the technical categories between the two of them.41 throughout Hollywood “fell from an all-time high That year also marked the first time that a trophy of $1.7 billion to $1.45 billion, a drop of about 14 was given out specifically for foreign film achieve- percent; meanwhile profits plunged from a record ment, with Vittorio De Sica’s Shoeshine (1947) tak- $120 million to $33.6 million, a three year drop of ing top honors.42 over 70 percent.”45 Thus, studios quickly began to The Awards, with their embrace of these over- tighten production costs and cut employees, as for- seas contenders, inadvertently became a part of eign competitors were just gaining momentum.

THE SYSTEM BEYOND THE STUDIOS 45 OSCARS WILD

The biggest blow to the studios was the Para- ent of our industry can strive.”48 The statement mount decree. On May 3, 1948 the United States v. here notes the rise of new awards shows, like the Paramount Pictures, Inc. declared that Paramount Golden Globes which were first presented in 1944, and similar film production companies in Holly- and seems to imply that producers no longer felt wood were participating in monopolistic practices, they needed to fund the Oscars because there were including owning the creation, distribution, and ex- other options to utilize. Trade magazines, however, hibition mechanisms for their film products. Verti- quickly began to speculate that the decision was a cally integrated companies like Paramount, MGM/ response to Hamlet’s recent Best Picture victory. Loews, and Warner Brothers were thereafter re- Motion Picture Daily soon after wrote, “Local quar- quired to break up the theatrical and production ters [in London] unfriendly to the American film branches of their companies. The move also banned industry, are making a great play of the withdrawal the practice of block booking, which for decades of financial support by major companies from the had sold movies to theaters as groups rather than Academy Awards ceremonies, attributing the action based on each film’s individual merit.46 Frequently, to the Academy’s generous recognition last week of the kinds of movies that ultimately became Oscar the British-made Hamlet and Red Shoes.”49 As the contenders, the A-picture productions, could only Hollywood system began to topple, producers did be shown in independent theaters with a cluster of not want to fund an event giving a promotional other movies of often less interest. Hollywood stu- boost to its international competitors. dios were now forced to entirely restructure com- In the midst of this industry turmoil, the suc- panies, forever altering the system through which cess of an international film entry forever altered prestige pictures were made. the interdependent relationship between Holly- The Academy Awards soon became a part of wood and AMPAS. As producers withdrew fund- a series of rapid studio cutbacks. In December of ing, the organization’s constant struggle with the is- 1948 the big five studios, MGM, Paramount, War- sue of voting integrity played a decisive role in these ner Brothers, Fox, and RKO, announced that they sudden changes. The inclusion of so many global would not subsidize the Academy Awards ceremo- movies starting in 1946 combatted the public as- ny for the coming year. The announcement required sumption that Oscar voting was biased. Columnist AMPAS to scale back the scope of that year’s event, Red Kann wrote, “If this indicates nothing else, it moving it to the Academy’s own theatre in Hol- indicates impartiality and an evidence of fair play lywood. Due to seating restrictions only “award at the hands of the Coast colony.”50 While ultimate nominees, the press, and personnel conducting the control over nominations was at the hands of the ceremonies” were permitted to attend.47 Further- broad spectrum of AMPAS membership, the orga- more, and perhaps as a result of this soured rela- nization as a whole benefited from these new in- tionship, the 21st awards were again dominated by ternational additions. It appeared that Hersholt’s British entries. Laurence Olivier’s Hamlet swept the changes to voting policies that year had been effec- event, taking home Best Actor, Art Direction and tive. And yet, the will of the voters who chose the ultimately Best Picture. utilize their secret ballets ultimately had lasting ef- Following the ceremony, producers including fects. The statement explaining producer’s decision Nicholas Schenck (Loews/MGM), Barney Balaban to withdraw funds in 1949 specifically commented (Paramount), Spyros Skouras (20th Century Fox), on this issue: and Albert Warner (Warner Brothers) made the of- ficial statement that they would no longer fund the We are heartily in accord with the prin- event going forward. One of the main reasons was ciple of individuals in the industry dem- cited as follows: “The artistic standards of our indus- ocratically selecting the best in artistic try are not dependent on this annual competition. achievement...and it is in the interest of The integrity of the artist is the determining factor, this principle that we take this step to and there is always the safeguard of the demands of remove one source of accusation...We public taste and critical standards. There are many believe these selection should be free of awards by many groups for which the relative tal- any suspicion of company influence or of

46 FALL 2018 SANDLER

particular consideration that might sway continued to prove to be a difficult feat. Brackett the balloting.51 later wrote: “To be President of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences for a year means, They argued that no longer backing the Acad- even to one who has been closely connected with emy Awards ceremony would help finally put to rest it before, to see it in a new light... Suddenly one lasting concerns over voter manipulation, a matter knows the stupendous, back-breaking effort that that most felt had already been resolved following goes into those awards.”56 AMPAS would not Hamlet’s victory. Whether through the best inten- achieve its financial independence until 1953 with tions or the worst, as a consequence of this new era the first Academy Awards television broadcast. of integrity and the new players in the Oscar game, Hersholt’s idea to find a prestige sponsor ultimately AMPAS was thrust into a new phase of indepen- prevailed; the event was funded after the organi- dence, struggling in the years to come. zation partnered with NBC and sold ad time as a means of paying for the celebration.57 Going for- Towards the Future: The Continued Connections between Oscar ward, AMPAS was free of its dependency on the and Industry Hollywood studios, just as the industry moved into a new phrase of more independently produced mo- As Hersholt ended his presidency, his mid-1949 tion pictures. annual report listed “secure the Academy’s financial As we have seen, the relationship between the future in every way possible” as the highest priority Oscars and the producers of the movies that the for the organization going forward.52 The Academy event was designed to celebrate was complex and was at a crossroads and now needed to support it- interconnecting. The postwar period heightened the self alone for the first time. Hersholt made a very gap between the Academy’s interests and its origi- specific suggestion for how he felt AMPAS could nal intended goal to serve the Hollywood studio become financially secure: “In the past we have system. As that system began to falter, the invasion avoided commercial tie-ups, but I have come to be- of foreign outsiders seemingly severed these official lieve that we would be justified in seeking a prestige ties. This moment, however, had a lasting impact sponsor for the Awards broadcast, and also in ac- on the organization, setting the financial incentive cepting other commercial connections, if through that lead to the first television broadcast in 1953. such a policy we could acquire funds to expand our The recently published article “Oscar’s close-up” by general program.”53 As Charles Brackett assumed Dimitrios Pavlounis, in fact, describes a hostile at- the presidency, he sought to accomplish this most titude that many producers had over the prospect of urgent of goals. Ventures like the Academy Awards an Oscar telecast, at a time when many still viewed 58 Watch, which was organized and launched in 1949 TV as a rival medium to theatrical releases. In this after he took over, were a part of this movement. way, cutting economic connections during the post- Come the following year, the Academy could war period helped to bring the Academy Awards to not find the resources to organize the ceremony television. As AMPAS experimented with its own after producers “reaffirmed their decision not to branding, the broadcast brought the event closer to support financially the annual awards.”54 A month audiences than ever before and finally allowed the before the ceremony, the Motion Picture Associa- organization to profit off its top commodity. -Ul tion of America, which was funded by the studios, timately, this era helped transform AMPAS away donated a $75,000 appropriation to put on the from an organization fixated on Hollywood inter- event, an amount higher than the average donations ests into a more independent and global institution in previous years.55 Funding the Academy Awards going forward.

Monica Sandler is a Doctoral Candidate in Cinema and Media Studies at the University of , Los Angeles. Her research focuses on the history of American film industry policy, labor, and financing. Her dis- sertation examines the cultural and economic history of the Academy Awards, exploring development of the event’s role in public relations and in the cultural production of the Hollywood “prestige” film market.

THE SYSTEM BEYOND THE STUDIOS 47 OSCARS WILD Notes 1 “Academy Annual Report, 1945-1947,” May 1947, 13, Academy History Archive, Library Digital Collections, (hereafter Herrick Digital Collections). 2 “Academy Awards is Switched to Theatre,”Motion Picture Daily, January 17, 1949, 2. 3 “‘Oscars’ Still Have Majors’ Moral Support: Deny Commercialism, Say Awards Need Not End,” Motion Pic- ture Daily, March 30, 1949, 4. 4 “British Hit Ending of Academy Support,” Motion Picture Daily, April 1, 1949, 6. 5 “Organization Banquet, the Reasons Why,” 1927, 1, Herrick Digital Collections. 6 The early period of AMPAS history was perhaps most defined by its work as a labor relations forum. From 1927 to 1937 the organization maintained a “Conciliations Committee” wherein employees could file direct complaints against studio employers. AMPAS conciliations was ultimately considered a failure and was much maligned until it was dissolved in 1937. For additional information on the role that the Academy Awards played within these early AMPAS labor relations efforts see: Monica Sandler, “PR and Politics at Hollywood’s Biggest Night: The Academy Awards and Unionization (1929–1939),”Media Industries Journal, 2, no. 2 (2015), 1-20. 7 “Organization Banquet, the Reasons Why,” 1927, 1, Herrick Digital Collections. 8 Pierre Norman Sands, A Historical Study of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (1927-1947) (New York: Arno Press, 1973). 9 Dimitrios Pavlounis, “Oscar’s close-up: producing the live television broadcast of the 25th academy awards,” Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television (2017), 1-20. 10 Tom Schatz, “The Hollywood Studio System, 1946-1949,” inBoom and Bust: The American Cinema in the 1940s (New York: Macmillan, 1997), 329-352. 11 Ian Jarvie, Hollywood’s Overseas Campaign: The North Atlantic Movie Trade, 1920-1950 (Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press, 1992). Jarvie describes the policies and protections that many countries added to help bolster their own film industries or embrace incoming American cinemas. 12 Chris Cagle, Sociology on Film: Postwar Hollywood’s Prestige Commodity (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Uni- versity Press, 2016). 13 Dorothy Kilgallen, “Dorothy Kilgallen selects ‘The Yearling,’”Modern Screen, January 1947, 6. 14 Ad found in: Motion Picture Daily, December 17, 1949, 4-5. 15 “Bylaws of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences,” December 6, 1949, 3, Herrick Digital Collec- tions. 16 “Cinema: The Oscars,” Time Magazine, March 24, 1947. 17 “Open Door Policy at Academy Event,” Motion Picture Daily, December 24, 1946, 4. 18 Schatz, Boom and Bust, 290. 19 The Film Daily, March 18, 1947, 4. 20 Box office records found through boxofficemojo.com. 21 “Academy Ruling Delays ‘Best Years,’” Motion Picture Daily, November 29, 1946, 4. 22 “Academy Annual Report, 1945-1947,” May 1947, 13, Herrick Digital Collections. 23 Cinema Magazine, June 1, 1947, 19. 24 “Academy Annual Report, 1945-1947,” May 1947, 9, Herrick Digital Collections. 25 Ibid., 13. 26 Ibid., 13. 27 “Academy Seek Awards to be ‘Less Pretentious,’” Motion Picture Daily, May 12, 1947, 10. 28 “Academy Annual Report, 1945-1947,” May 1947, 2, Herrick Digital Collections. 29 Sands, A Historical Study, 74. 30 Ibid., 7. 31 “Rules and nomination ballot, 1937 (10th) Academy Awards,” 1938, 2, Herrick Digital Collections. 32 Sands, A Historical Study, 103; “Award Rules,” Motion Picture Daily, March 14, 1947, 12. Motion Picture Daily wrote that the change was “made by the board of governors in an endeavor to end long reiterated charges that the major studios enjoyed an advantage in balloting due to the numerical superiority of their employees eligible to vote.” 33 Statement from Jean Hersholt, quoted in Motion Picture Daily, February 6, 1947, 2. 34 “Academy Bulletin,” February 1947, 3, Herrick Digital Collections. 35 “Academy Annual Report: 1945-1947,” 1947, 9, Herrick Digital Collections.

48 FALL 2018 SANDLER

36 Ibid., 13. 37 Ad found in: Chicago Tribune, March 24, 1950, 19. 38 “Academy Annual Report 1949-1950,” April 30, 1950, 7, Herrick Digital Collections. 39 Dates listed here are based upon when they were released wide globally, due to distribution restrictions dur- ing the war effort many of these films were not released in America until 1946. 40 Henry V did received a special award in 1947 honoring general achievement. 41 Black Narcissus won trophies for Best Art Direction, color, and Best Cinematography, color while Great Expectations won in the Best Art Direction, black and white and the Best Cinematography, black and white categories with additional nominations for Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Director, and Best Picture. 42 This would become the “Best Foreign Film” category in 1956. At that time the trophy for foreign language film was listed specifically as a special award. 43 “Academy Annual Report 1949-1950,” April 30, 1950, 9, Herrick Digital Collections. 44 Samuel Goldwyn quoted in “Goldwyn Says Hollywood Facing Challenge,” The Film Daily, November 19, 1946, 5. 45 Schatz, Boom and Bust, 331. 46 Ibid., 329-352. 47 “Academy Awards is Switched to Theatre,”Motion Picture Daily, January 17, 1949, 2. 48 “‘Oscars’ Still Have Majors’ Moral Support: Deny Commercialism, Say Awards Need Not End,” Motion Picture Daily, March 30, 1949, 4. 49 “British Hit Ending of Academy Support,” Motion Picture Daily, April 1, 1949, 6. 50 Red Kann, “Insider’s Outlook,” Motion Picture Daily, March 13, 1947, 2. 51 “‘Oscars’ Still Have Majors’ Moral Support: Deny Commercialism, Say Awards Need Not End,” Motion Picture Daily, March 30, 1949, 4. 52 “Academy Annual Report 1948-1949,” April 30, 1949, 9, Herrick Digital Collections. 53 Ibid., 9. 54 “MPA Members Will Not Support Awards,” Motion Picture Daily, January 19, 1950, 1. 55 “MPAA Votes Aid for Academy Awards,” Motion Picture Daily, February 1, 1950, 1. 56 “Academy Annual Report 1949-1950,” April 30, 1950, 1, Herrick Digital Collections. 57 Pavlounis, “Oscar’s close-up,” 4. 58 Ibid., 3.

THE SYSTEM BEYOND THE STUDIOS 49