Runaway Film Production: a Critical History of Hollywood’S Outsourcing Discourse

View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Illinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship Repository RUNAWAY FILM PRODUCTION: A CRITICAL HISTORY OF HOLLYWOOD’S OUTSOURCING DISCOURSE BY CAMILLE K. YALE DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Communications in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2010 Urbana, Illinois Doctoral Committee: Professor John C. Nerone, Chair and Director of Research Professor James W. Hay Professor Steven G. Jones, University of Illinois at Chicago Professor Cameron R. McCarthy ABSTRACT Runaway production is a phrase commonly used by Hollywood film and television production labor to describe the outsourcing of production work to foreign locations. It is an issue that has been credited with siphoning tens of millions of dollars and thousands of jobs from the U.S. economy. Despite broad interest in runaway production by journalists, politicians, academics, and media labor interests, and despite its potential impact on hundreds of thousands—and perhaps millions—of workers in the U.S., there has been very little critical analysis of its historical development and function as a political and economic discourse. Through extensive archival research, this dissertation critically examines the history of runaway production, from its introduction in postwar Hollywood to its present use in describing the development of highly competitive television and film production industries in Canada. From a political economic perspective, I argue that the history of runaway production demonstrates how Hollywood’s multinational media corporations have leveraged production work to cultivate goodwill and industry-friendly trade policies across global media markets. More critically, I argue that the history of runaway production tells the story of the development of a Hollywood labor diaspora: a globally dispersed labor force bound by a common cultural identity as Hollywood labor, but divided by their unequal relationship to the discursive mythology of Hollywood as the industry’s authentic “homeland.” ii For my husband Rob iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation would not have been possible without the support and generosity of several people. First and foremost, I owe a debt of gratitude to my dissertation advisor, John Nerone. His patience, insight, and humor served as a lifeline throughout the development and completion of this research. It was truly an honor working with him, and I know without a doubt that this dissertation was made the better for it. I would also like to extend a special thanks to committee member and friend, Steve Jones. Among many other things, Steve has taught me the true value and rewards of mentorship, which I will carry with me through the rest of my academic career. And finally, many thanks to James Hay and Cameron McCarthy for their inspiring courses, endlessly useful reading lists, and thoughtful comments on the final drafts of this dissertation. During the course of my research, I visited several film industry archives, and had the privilege of working with some of the best research librarians in the field. As such, I wish to extend my deepest gratitude to Barbara Hall at the Margaret Herrick Library of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, Ned Comstock at the University of Southern California Cinematic Arts Library, Kris Kasianovitz and Julie Graham at UCLA’s Arts Special Collections Library, and the numerous and incredibly knowledgeable research assistants at the California State Archives in Sacramento and the Wisconsin Center for Film and Theater Research at the Wisconsin Historical Society in Madison. Last but far from least are the many family members and friends who have been a constant source of support and encouragement over the years. Much love and appreciation goes to my parents for always believing in me and encouraging me to go after my dreams. I also wish to thank my oldest and dearest friend Cindy Boardman and her sister Mary for opening their iv homes to me on my research trips to California. Their generosity was more important to the completion of this dissertation than they may ever know. And finally, I wish to express my infinite appreciation and love for my wonderful husband, Rob, who willingly endured meager income, relocation, long commutes, and a three-year mantra of “No, I can’t do that—I’m working on my dissertation,” all in support of my graduate studies. Rob also served as an invaluable consultant to this research, drawing on over twenty years experience working in Chicago’s television and film production industries. For these things, and much more, I am eternally grateful. v TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION TO A CRITICAL HISTORY OF RUNAWAY PRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................1 CHAPTER TWO: “HOLLYWOOD AT THE CROSSROADS”: RUNAWAY FILM PRODUCTION AND THE POSTWAR FILM INDUSTRY .......................................................38 CHAPTER THREE: BLAME IT ON THE RUNAWAYS: CHASING CLEOPATRA AND CAPITAL AROUND THE GLOBE IN THE 1960s .....................................................................84 CHAPTER FOUR: TV, ‘TOONS, AND TEXAS: HOLLYWOOD’S FIGHT AGAINST OFFSHORE ANIMATION AND STATESIDE COMPETITION .............................................134 CHAPTER FIVE: SO-CALLED RUNAWAY FILM PRODUCTION: CONSTRUCTING— AND CONTESTING—CANADIAN RUNAWAY PRODUCTION .........................................178 CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSION ................................................................................................220 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................240 vi CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION TO A CRITICAL HISTORY OF RUNAWAY PRODUCTION The natives of Hollywood are not the moving picture industry; they merely serve it. They feed it, they clothe it, they house it, and they make it beautiful. The industry itself is a trouper. If it sees a chance for a better stand somewhere else, it will pull up stakes and move forthwith…Hollywood wouldn’t be the first town to be developed and then abandoned by industry; nor would it be the first expensive ‘set’ that the film folk have built, used briefly, and then demolished. (“Will Hollywood Move to Broadway?” Patterson, 1930, p. 298) PROLOGUE Frances Taylor Patterson of The New Republic couldn’t believe that people would be willing to move to the god-forsaken deserts of southern California in order to work in the newly- developed film production industry. While it was clear by 1930 that the industry was here to stay, where it would stay was still up for grabs. Patterson made her pitch for Broadway, arguing that New York’s world-famous theater district could provide the film industry with the “talking” actors it so desperately needed as it transitioned from silent to sound production. And in addition to a pool of talented actors, Broadway could offer a proven track record—over 100 years of producing entertainment in the U.S. versus less than 20 years in Hollywood. While the lemon groves of southern California would prove to be more fertile ground for cultivating a film production empire than the canyons of Broadway, Patterson’s assessment of the industry was not completely off base. On the one hand, she correctly understood film production to be an industry like many others, with practical considerations to be made and needs to be met in order for it to succeed. Patterson also seemed to recognize that film 1 production was a capricious, excessive, and mobile industry in ways perhaps foreign to stage production, with the production process being a means to an end (a film) rather than the end itself (a stage play). Despite understanding the ways that film and stage productions were fundamentally different, Patterson could not see how this also made Broadway a completely inflexible and unsuitable “home” for film production; she did not see how the self-serving mobility of the industry she noted could also work against Broadway’s bid: if the film production industry and the resources it required could be moved to Broadway as she suggested, then certainly they could be moved to Hollywood away from Broadway as well. And as history would illustrate, no other film production resource was more mobile than people, including Broadway’s stage actors in the 1930s, who gladly hopped on trains headed for the West Coast, some never to return to New York’s theater scene. It is evident that by 1930, a discourse of film industry competition and ownership was underway. And by the standards of the Great Depression, the fledgling film industry must have seemed like an economic gem worth fighting for: roughly 80 million people per week attended movies in 1930, with domestic box office revenues at $723 million, partly bolstered by the introduction of “talkies” a few years previous. As an employment sector, the film industry also showed promise, with 143,000 reportedly working in the industry in 1930 (Show business: It just ain't so, 1980); a number that surpassed employment figures for gas works (115,000), but still paled in comparison to industrial behemoths such as the commercial railroads (1.5 million) (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1930). Eighty years later, the U.S. motion picture and television industry has become its own industrial behemoth, making significant

Load more