|
There may be a slogan of freedom of expression in Hollywood, but there is no real
freedom in that community, at least not like there is in literature and in the art
world. Hollywood tends to market formula, invoking the same themes for the audiences
that keep them in business. Hollywood continues to put out remakes, revivals, and standard fare, as they always have, and they will put their finger to the wind to decide on what the audiences would like to see. They will continue their focus groups before releasing any picture, and even change a few things that the audience did not like in those focus groups. What they call diversity is not diversity at all, because all of the films they produce will fall in line with their Hollywood perspective, one which reflects what they try to promote in general. If the only art that one can produce is Hollywood art, then there is no art. Hollywood has a history of disregarding writers. The studios are notoriously bad at doing screen adaptations of novels, many times not even resembling the original, and caring little about the criticism they receive from fans of those same novels who were disappointed in the film adaptation. This attitude goes back to the very birth of the film industry, when movies were made on the fly by a wealthy person with a camera. Motion pictures were indeed that, pictures that moved. Either the subjects were moving, or the camera was moving, or both. The Keystone Cops (sometimes spelled Kops), of course, are a perfect example of moving subjects. You can add trains, planes, and automobiles as well. Put the camera on a truck and the camera can follow the same subjects to provide that complicated effect of composite motion, a captivating illusion for the audience of such a silent motion picture. When sound came along, they needed writers to write dialogue. Yet, they never credited these writers. The same writers who wrote framed dialogue for silent movies were hired to write dialogue for the talkies, and the practice of not crediting them continued. It would take several years before writers were regularly credited as screenwriters. Yet, even then, their words were changed by the producers and actors to suit their own preferences, a type of thespian plagiarism. The history of motion picture production can be viewed in three stages. Those would be the age of the producers and studios, who would dictate what films would be produced and who would act in them; the age of the agents and packagers, who would force a studio to take a group of people as a package to ensure the agency would have some control in producing the picture; and the age of actors and actresses, who really don't care about the story, but really just want to play a role that they covet. This is, indeed still, the star system. Through all three stages of historical development, Hollywood has depended on the stars. The only difference is in the aim of the production. It is true that the studio does control the final cut. That includes the focus group and the final additions or deletions from the director's cut. Yet, the way a motion picture is made today really depends on who wants to be in it, not necessarily what the studio proposes in the beginning. That, of course, is the problem. If a writer has completed a script which is basically an ensemble story of several characters, all it takes is one star to come in who likes a character, and that script goes to rewrite for some immediate changes. This will take away the ensemble and make it a star vehicle, thereby removing the writer from the actual production. Inherently, this changes the entire story on the screen. The original art of the writer has been tampered with by a star, and this will carry over to the studio, and by the time the final cut is prepared, you may not even recognize the production from what it was originally meant to be. A case in point is J.D. Salinger, a writer who did let Hollywood make a movie from one of his stories. The studio changed the story to make the movie, and everyone hated the movie. Salinger vowed to never give Hollywood another chance to ruin his stories. Many people know of how many Hollywood personalities Salinger turned down for "The Catcher in the Rye," which has never been made into a motion picture. While you may see some unique pieces of art in the museum, and you may find some unique books in the library, there are very few motion pictures you can find that stand out as different in the Hollywood collection, whether they are original screenplays not based on any other work, or adaptations of some work. Even books or short stories which are unique in print somehow turn out to be studio fare on the screen. Keeping the customer satisfied, or giving them what they want, has mutated to more of what we know has been successful at the box office. Risk is a four letter word in Hollywood, unless it involves someone's nightmare, or a new view of some LGBTQ+ story out of the underground community which influences film production. What influences film production most is money, and if you have it, you might just get your film made, provided it falls into the general appreciation of what Hollywood desires. If not, you're stuck trying to get independent producers to put the movie together, and your audience will be quite a bit smaller than some Hollywood fare at the multiplex. Otherwise, you use your own money, your own provisions, and you work with actors and actresses who need a so-called break. There is no Hollywood break waiting for you, not unless you fall into the right perspective. That means bringing them scripts or adaptations that will fit into the mechanical production of Hollywood art. END OF ARTICLE Mr. J.V. Presogna has been a published writer, composer, and artist since the 1970s. His first novel, "The Truth About Eden," was published in 1975. His numerous other works include "Starlight," and other nonfiction works. This article was published on this web site in 2024. |