The Hollywood Studio System Film Studies Essay

The Hollywood Studio System Film Studies Essay In the 1930s Hollywood was dominated by The Big Five which included Warner Bros. Pictures, Paramount, RKO,MGM and Fox . There were also a number of smaller studios such as Universal Pictures, United Artists and Columbia Pictures , but in the early 1930s they never got to the same level of power as the others. The idea of a Studio system was set up between 1910 and 1920 and it stems from the fact that the studios had control of every aspect of the film industry. In the late 1800s and the early 1900s when the film industry was just starting out, production, distribution and exhibition were actually controlled by different companies. But by the 1930s the Studios actively controlled all aspects of the film industry from production to exhibition. They did this through a large number of trade agreements and through working together to help their joint issues. While according to records during 1900-1925 there were 64 film studios by the 1930s 95% of all revenue from Film was controlled by e ight studios, The Big Five and the Little Three. The start of the studio system was in 1910 and was started by Adolph Zukor. Zukor used his Famous Players company to make films and then distributed them around the world using his Paramount cinemas. It was Zukor that started the studio system and saw how best to sell film. Zukors aim was to make a stable system for selling and distributing films. Zukor first act was to take a look at the star system that been growing in American theatres, mainly in the Vaudeville theatres which held shows that were made up of a number of different acts. To help sell these shows, they would advertise which stars would be at the show . Zukor was also very interested in the French company Pathe. Pathe was the largest of the French film companies and was the first to have a global film empire and by 1906 they had offices in New York, London, Berlin, Vienna, they also had offices in south-east Asia,South America and Africa. The Pathe company was also the first to set up a system of mass producing films . Being able to create so many films so quickly meant they were able to flood the market with their products. Zukor also created a factory-like setting for the creation of his films, where each bit was handled by a different part of the company such as a set and costume. This allowed him to streamline the movie making process by having a number of movies being worked on at one time. By 1915 Zukor distributed all his movies using his Paramount cinemas. Now Zukor owned every aspect of his films production, distribution and exhibition and the studio system was born but, he still did not have a proper distribution network set up. When World War 1 broke out Pathe and a large number of other European film companies lost a large amount of their power and distribution networks. The war did not stop US companies who did not suffer at the disruption in Europe but actually grew from it. It was during this period that Zukor developed a system for distribution. He created a system based on runs, cinemas would be give a run such as first-run, second-run etc. The larger cinemas in large cities were given first-run status which meant that the film would be shown there first, it would then be shown in the second-run cinemas and overseas. The film would then not be shown for a period of time, which gave the film a chance to build up hype and demand. Without the intervention of Te levision the cinemas were the only place a person could see a film, if you missed the first run you would just have to wait and once there was demand the film would run for a second time. Zukor did this for as many runs as there was demand for. This in essence meant he would be able to get as much profit from the movie as possible. Due to the war many of the European companies could not catch up to the American companies and many such as Pathe sold their US and international businesses and actually left film making. By 1920 Zukor had set up a set of principles in which to govern the film industry. Hollywood was made up of a number of corporations that were able not only to produce films but also to distribute them and present them in a way that would make the maximum amount of profit for their corporation. Their aim was through the studio system to maintain all power in all aspects of the film business through careful strategies. Along with changes to the distribution and the exhibition this new studio system also changed the way these companies made their films. The first change was the sheer number of films being made. Through the new changes to distribution the companies had to make more money due to larger overheads. Before the Famous Players Company had made six to eight films a year but this only gave the exhibition side of the company less than a new film a month. It soon rose to 30 films a year giving the exhibition side two and a half new films a month. There was also a change in the actually size of the films themselves. When Zukor started in film he was fascinated by the larger films coming out of Europe. His goal was to change the image of film and make it more for the middle class. Before the studio system most films where one or two reels long. When Zukor tried to get The Passion Play (1910) shown he was told people who not sit through films that were more that two reels long. By 1914 many film such as Wraith of Gods (1914) were reaching around six reels. Maybe the largest change to film production was the film stars themselves. Zukor himself had actually foreseen the star system when he had hired James Hackett, a famous theatre star at the time. Zukor created the base for the star system when he signed Mary Pickford to work for his Famous Players company. He saw the need to contract stars , meaning if people wanted to see those stars they had to watch his films. By the 1930s the idea of movie stars had taken off. Films could be sold to theatres just by telling them who was staring in it. RKO was in fact saved by the selling power of two of its stars, Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers. Due to the selling power of stars the companies made sure they put there top stars in as many films as possible, Shirely Temple was in around four films a year. With the cost of stars and the increase in the reel length of the average films and the invention of sound the cost of actually making a movie vastly increased. With this came a greater need to make profit on each film. The studios soon found out that the narrative films made the most money, the only time this was not true was in the case of Max Schmeling versus Joe Louis where the short of the boxing match was a bigger draw than the feature films that where shown after it. The key for the Hollywood studios was to create a system to make as many profitable narrative film as possible , they needed to make a narrative style which was formulaic and therefore easy to reproduce. If they where able to standardize they would have greater control over the qualities of the film and the standard of the product. They had already created a factory-like setting in the early 1900s and were able to create large numbers of one-reel films. While the streamlined manufacture did allow them to standardi ze things such as the quality of stars, sets, locations and create films quicker its main draw was it was able to keep the costs of films down. Due to its formulaic nature it was much easier to predict how much a future film would make. One of the key aspects of Classic Hollywood narration was the invention of the moving camera and while this greatly helped the filmmakers, it was actually created due to economics. With the invention of sound, cameras had grown larger and heavier, It was therefore a lot harder to move them around the set. So the studios created cranes and dollies to carry the camera, this made them a lot easier to move around the set. This actually saved money for the companies, as the cameras were more mobile it meant less time was taken moving them around meaning more of the days time could be done filming. The production side of the industry was always the most public and what many people think of when they think of the studio system. But the studio system was born of the need to control the market. It was primarily led by the exhibition and distribution side of the business. When Zukor started to develop the studio system he was mainly interested in finding a way to distribute films with out having to get approval of the Trust, who were the primary distributors of the period . The studio system created by Zukor was created to make sure that the studios got the most about of profit as they could from their films. The runs and clearance were set up with this in mind. They made sure a film would only stop being shown once the maximum amount of profit had been gained from it. The star system was also just created for economical gains, with stars being contracted to studios the only way to see that star was in that studios films at there cinema. The production side of film was also changed to help maximise profit. The factory like system of creating films in the 1920s was set up to not only keep production values constant but to keep cost down. Many of the changes to the production side such as the change to cameras or the classic Hollywood narrative where created to help keep costs down or to help create more movies in a shorter time. In 1910 Zukor had wanted to show longer films of 3-5 reel but could not, he saw that to show the films he wanted he would have to control the distribution and exhibition side of the film as well as the production.

Sight and Blindness in Shakespeares King Lear - Lack of Vision Essay

Sight and Blindness in King Lear      Ã‚  Ã‚   In King Lear, the recurring images of sight and blindness associated with the characters of Lear and Gloucester illustrate the theme of self-knowledge and consciousness that exist in the play.    These classic tropes are inverted in King Lear, producing a situation in which those with healthy eyes are ignorant of what is going on around them, and those without vision appear to "see" the clearest. While Lear's "blindness" is one which is metaphorical, the blindness of Gloucester, who carries the parallel plot of the play, is literal. Nevertheless, both characters suffer from an inability to see the true nature of their children, an ability only gained once the two patriarchs have plummeted to the utter depths of depravity. Through a close reading of the text, I will argue that Shakespeare employs the plot of Gloucester to explicate Lear's plot, and, in effect, contextualizes Lear's metaphorical blindness with Gloucester's physical loss of vision.    When the audience is first introduced to Lear, he is portrayed as a raging, vain old man who can not see the purity of his daughter Cordelia's love for him from the insincerity of her sisters Goneril and Regan. In his fiery rage after disowning Cordelia, Lear commands to Kent, "Out of my sight!" (1.1.156). Kent fittingly implores the aging king to "See better, Lear; and let me still remain / The true blank of thine eye" (1.1.157-8). Kent recognizes love in its most noble form in the person of Cordelia, and is able to see through the hypocrisy of Lear's other two daughters. In beseeching Lear to "[s]ee better," Kent is, in effect, asking Lear to look beyond his vanity and inward pride to see the honesty of Cordelia, who refuses... ... Consulted:    Bevington, David, "Introduction to King Lear."   The Complete Works of William   Shakespeare.   New York:   HarperCollins, 1992.    Elton, William R. King Lear and the Gods.   San Marino, California: The Huntington Library, 1966.    Halio, Jay.   " King Lear's Blinding." Shakespeare Quarterly 67 (1999):   221-3.      Hoover, Claudette.   "Women, Centaurs, and Devils in King Lear."   Women's Studies 16 (1989):   349-59.    Jackson, Ken. "Review of Judy Kronenfeld, King Lear and the Naked Truth." Early Modern Literary Studies 6.2 (September, 2002): 10.1-5 Available: http://purl.oclc.org/emls/06-2/jackrev.htm>.    Leggattt, Alexander.   King Lear.   Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1988.    Shakespeare, William.   King Lear.   The Complete Works of Shakespeare. Ed. David   Bevington.   New York:   HarperCollins, 1999    Sight and Blindness in Shakespeare's King Lear - Lack of Vision Essay Sight and Blindness in King Lear      Ã‚  Ã‚   In King Lear, the recurring images of sight and blindness associated with the characters of Lear and Gloucester illustrate the theme of self-knowledge and consciousness that exist in the play.    These classic tropes are inverted in King Lear, producing a situation in which those with healthy eyes are ignorant of what is going on around them, and those without vision appear to "see" the clearest. While Lear's "blindness" is one which is metaphorical, the blindness of Gloucester, who carries the parallel plot of the play, is literal. Nevertheless, both characters suffer from an inability to see the true nature of their children, an ability only gained once the two patriarchs have plummeted to the utter depths of depravity. Through a close reading of the text, I will argue that Shakespeare employs the plot of Gloucester to explicate Lear's plot, and, in effect, contextualizes Lear's metaphorical blindness with Gloucester's physical loss of vision.    When the audience is first introduced to Lear, he is portrayed as a raging, vain old man who can not see the purity of his daughter Cordelia's love for him from the insincerity of her sisters Goneril and Regan. In his fiery rage after disowning Cordelia, Lear commands to Kent, "Out of my sight!" (1.1.156). Kent fittingly implores the aging king to "See better, Lear; and let me still remain / The true blank of thine eye" (1.1.157-8). Kent recognizes love in its most noble form in the person of Cordelia, and is able to see through the hypocrisy of Lear's other two daughters. In beseeching Lear to "[s]ee better," Kent is, in effect, asking Lear to look beyond his vanity and inward pride to see the honesty of Cordelia, who refuses... ... Consulted:    Bevington, David, "Introduction to King Lear."   The Complete Works of William   Shakespeare.   New York:   HarperCollins, 1992.    Elton, William R. King Lear and the Gods.   San Marino, California: The Huntington Library, 1966.    Halio, Jay.   " King Lear's Blinding." Shakespeare Quarterly 67 (1999):   221-3.      Hoover, Claudette.   "Women, Centaurs, and Devils in King Lear."   Women's Studies 16 (1989):   349-59.    Jackson, Ken. "Review of Judy Kronenfeld, King Lear and the Naked Truth." Early Modern Literary Studies 6.2 (September, 2002): 10.1-5 Available: http://purl.oclc.org/emls/06-2/jackrev.htm>.    Leggattt, Alexander.   King Lear.   Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1988.    Shakespeare, William.   King Lear.   The Complete Works of Shakespeare. Ed. David   Bevington.   New York:   HarperCollins, 1999   

Explain what Jean-Paul Sartre meant by the statement “Man is condemned to be free”. Essay

Jean-Paul Sartre was a French existentialist philosopher and was one of the leading figures in 20th century French philosophy. His major philosophical work, â€Å"Being and Nothingness† and his famous talk, â€Å"Existentialism is a Humanism†, is where he emphasised the statement â€Å"Man is condemned to be free†. The statement appears to be a juxtaposition of language because ‘freedom’ often has positive connotations while ‘condemned’ provides the opposite feeling. Sartre used the term ‘condemned’ as he believed we have no choice in the matter of being free, and being free (even if against our will) means we are responsible for all our actions. Being responsible for our actions – without having a choice about being free to choose – is a form of condemnation. Us having to accept full responsibility for our actions includes us not being able to blame those around us – such as family, teachers and the gov ernment – for our situation. In summary, man is condemned because â€Å"he did not create himself, yet is nevertheless at liberty, and from the moment that he is thrown into this world he is responsible for everything he does† (Kaufmann). In the face of this responsibility, many humans turn to religion. This allows us to feel answerable to a higher being. However, Sartre was not a believer in God; this could be because of the atrocities he witnessed first-hand during the Second World War while serving in the French army. His experiences taught him that â€Å"God is silent in the face of absurdity and horror. Because of this we are condemned to face life alone and with this comes absolute freedom and the chilling responsibility that comes with it.† If God truly doesn’t exist then our actions aren’t really limited by His prophecies, commandments and morals; God cannot legitimise our behaviour, or justify it, or cause it. We are ultimately responsible for our actions with no one to answe r because we have chosen them on our own, out of our freedom. Traditionally, freedom is seen as ‘good’. Sartre on the other hand describes freedom to be a kind of  burden because as God does not exist we are â€Å"without excuse† and we â€Å"can’t find anything to depend on†. Sartre illustrates his belief using the example of the paper cutter. When considering a paper cutter, we would assume that the creator had a plan (an essence) for it. Due to there being no creator of humans, we have no essence. This means that our actions and behaviour cannot be explained by referencing human nature, instead we are necessarily fully responsible for our actions. The essence or nature of a paper cutter is to cut paper; this is the purpose the maker of it had in mind. However, there was no maker or creator of human beings so we can’t refer to what we are meant to do. There is only what we choose to do. â€Å"We are left alone, without excuse.† To decide whether we are or are not â€Å"condemned to be free† it makes sense to decide whether our actions are truly free or if they may in fact be determined. Psychologists such as Sigmund Freud believe our early years have an impact on our future actions. Freud claimed that our moral actions are often caused by repressed or subconscious memories or feelings stemming from childhood. Also, B.F. Skinner said that we cannot be held morally responsible for behaviour determined by our psychological makeup because we could not have chosen to behave differently. Other thinkers, including Thomas Sowell, argue that our actions are in line with our social conditioning. We then follow a sociologically determined path set by our upbringing, education and social groups etc. Libertarianism has the major flaw of not taking into account our experiences when making decisions and when forming our morality. For instance, it is arguable that Sartre believed what he did because of the experiences he had during the war, not because of his freedom. Another valid argument is that genetics determine physical and behavioural aspects of humanity. All of these viewpoints state that humans are not free to choose and our lives and personalities are already determined (by our past experiences, psychological makeup, socialisation and genetics). There is truth in these theories and so they take credit away from Sartre’s belief that â€Å"man is condemned to be free† because they show that there are aspects of our lives where we aren’t free to choose. This means, in addition, that our responsibility is lessened somewhat as some of our actions are already determined for us. On the other hand, Sartre’s ideas are potentially credible. We have all had experiences where the need to choose between multiple actions has caused us emotional turmoil. It is  unlikely that in these s ituations we can avoid having to come to a decision. Although we are free to make this choice, we are in a way forced to make it. So, Sartre’s claim of humans being condemned or damned to be free does not appear so ludicrous. Even when we ask someone for assistance with an ethical dilemma it is not their answer that determines our solution and consequent action. It is our choice to ask them in the first place and usually we already know what they are going to say; we then decide whether to follow their advice. This again shows the extent of our freedom of choice and the lack of determining factors to suppress this ‘condemning’ freedom. In conclusion, Sartre examined the daunting nature of decision making and unlimited freedom. The moral responsibility we have in the case of absolute freedom is crippling and causes great despair. However, this approach could be incorrect because there are aspects of our lives and makeup that influence our behaviour. If an action is determined by factors outside our control, we may no t have the moral responsibility for it. From this viewpoint we are not condemned to freedom but it instead allows us some input into our behaviour and therefore our lives.

Nero The Selfish And Cruel - 843 Words

Nero: The Selfish and Cruel Rome is considered by many to be one of the greatest empires in the world. Many great rulers like Augustus and Trajan made Rome the great nation we know of today. Some rulers, however, were not great leaders and were more focused on their own interests. The empire was in danger while under the rule of these cruel men. One of these men had the name of Nero. Nero was born in A.D. 37 and died in A.D. 68 when he committed suicide (â€Å"Nero,† par. 1). Nero originally had the name Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus and was born to Cnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus and Agrippina the Younger (History.com Staff, par. 2). When she married Claudius I in A.D. 49 she persuaded him to adopt Nero, making Nero next in line to rule instead of his son Britannicus (History.com Staff, par. 2). Nero was an unsuccessful ruler. Nero focused too much on his own interests, didn’t handle tragedy well when it hit, and he killed many people to gain and keep power. Nero is well kno wn for his love of music and acting. He was not, however, known for being a good ruler. Nero was too focused on his own interests to rule his empire. He left that job for three crucial advisors: Seneca, Burrus, and his mother, Agrippina (History.com Staff, par. 3). Nero also did not have any experience leading an army. Nero relied heavily on his competent military generals Gnaeus Domitius, Gaius Suetonius Paulinus, and Titus Flavius Vespasianus to lead in battles (Sienkewicz, par 8). Nero had to, by law, put toShow MoreRelatedThe Twelve Caesars : What Makes A Good Leader?1345 Words   |  6 Pagesthe eastern and western halves of the Roman Empire ( 51) and greatly expanded Romes territory (53). Augustus â€Å"showed not only skill as a commander, but courage as a soldier† in the eyes of his contemporaries (47). On the other hand, both Caligula and Nero, considered poor leaders by Suetonius, had very limited military success and aspirations. Only once did Caligula initiate a military exploit, and it was rife with his madness. His campaign into Germany was on a whim and all he accomplished was receivingRead MoreThe Roman Of Gladiatorial Games1369 Words   |  6 Pagespolitical ploy to gain citizen support, pay tribute to Roman gods, and feed the human craving for death and destruction. The Roman citizens saw the games as a way to improve social status, gain wealth, and provide punishment for those who deserved a cruel death. Gladiatorial games were therefore predominately supported by Roman society with the exception of Christians and a select number of philosophers. Though the philosophers and Christians objected to the games on the same grounds, the philosophicalRead MoreColosseum of Rome Essay2347 Words   |  10 Pageshad many choices of what to do during their spare time, such as ball games, board games, and watching gladiatorial fights in the Colosseum; this was the most popular type of entertainment. To many people today, Roman entertainment wa s classed as cruel. However, not all forms of entertainment involved such violence as within the Colosseum. There was also poetry reading available, although most people enjoyed the fights. The Colosseum was like our football stadiums, to provide entertainment forRead MoreKindred by Olivia Butler - Rufus Evil and Inhumane Nature2090 Words   |  9 Pages_Kindred_ unfolds, it becomes clear that Rufus turns in to a stereotypical slave owner and abuser. With every trip that Dana makes back to Rufus, there is a clear distinction of changes in his personality. He becomes more evil, over-obsessive and cruel as he gets older. In fact, he becomes very much like his father Tom Weylin, which in his childhood he never wants to be. However, this does not excuse the horrible actions that he commits towards his black slaves. Although at his time some white men