Why Movies Suck

Have you ever wondered about this recent phenomenon where most of the films

being released seem to be mediocre? Most are derivative of the same overdone

formula and are “dumbed down” to be accessible to the lowest common

denominator. Too many are actual remakes of old films. When you read critical

reviews of films lately, it seems as though the critics hate almost everything! I

don’t put total stock in what critics believe. I used to believe that critics are just

frustrated filmmakers who could not hack it in the industry, so they make their

living taking pot shots at those who could. Actually, I still do believe that in some

instances, but never can I remember a time in my history as a film buff, when

across the board, positive critical reviews have been this infrequent. There are

not enough films like “The Player”, “Usual Suspects”, “Shawshank Redemption”,

“The Green Mile” which feature solid stories and scripts, matched with

exceptional acting and direction rather than depending upon this blockbuster

formula of big name stars and multi million dollar special effects to compensate

for a lack of story and script substance.

I like the movie trailers shown before the main feature at the theater. They’re

usually pretty effective in crystallizing the quality or lack thereof, of a story in

about a minute. I can usually predict, by the trailer, whether a film will be a box

office success, a critical success, both, or neither. I used to be able, based on

viewing trailers, to find at least two promising films between which I would need

to choose to see on any given weekend, since I tend to go to movies only once on a

given weekend. If I could narrow the choices down to two, I would opt for the
film that has been in release for a higher number of weeks, reasoning that the

other film would be more likely be still in the theater on another weekend.

Over the past couple of years, however, the frequency my movie visits has fallen

off dramatically. I cannot remember a time in my past when I was so lacking in

motivation to go to the movies. I opt to see most films on DVD. I know why

there is no quality multicultural fare making its way through the studio system. I

just never believed that there would be a time when so little quality work of any

genre would be produced. That time has arrived, unfortunately, and perhaps it is

time to look for answers.

The Origins of the “Studio System” and “Block Booking”

In the dawn of the film industry in the 1920’s, the big player was Adolph Zukor,

the founder of what would become Paramount Studios in 1922. Nine major

studios owned and controlled every element of film production and distribution

with an iron fist. The writers and the directors who, in recent times, have

garnered so much influence over their films, were but interchangeable hired

studio staffers who were puppets of the studio executives who hired and fired

them on a whim. Films were a direct reflection of the tastes and desires of studio

executives who were either family or close associates of the heads of the studios.

The acting talent were virtual indentured servants under exclusive career-

duration contracts of adhesion, who could be easily blackballed out of the

industry for uttering even a critical word about a studio insider. Stories and

scripts were incubated exclusively in house at the studios and there was no free

marketplace flow of ideas. The resulting “cookie-cutter” films were exhibited in

2
studio-owned movie palaces. It was not until 1948, the Sherman Antitrust Act

and Clayton Antitrust Statutes were finally applied to the studios. The Sherman

Act penalized monopolistic practices intended to restrain free marketplace

competition. The Clayton Act that penalized price fixing and exclusive dealing

contracts that created interlocking control of multiple industry entities.

Practically every studio practice of the time was designed to keep insiders in and

outsiders out of the industry. Studio control over every industry process from

development through exhibition was an example of a vertical integration that

effectively prevented any free marketplace competition.

Films were formulaic, repetitive and strictly intended to cater to a homogenous

audience, primarily consisting of midwestern white males. Multiculturalism had

not yet been “invented”. There was no involvement of non-whites behind the

scenes nor in the executive ranks of the studios. The studios developed African

American themes only in response to the success of the race films of Oscar

Micheaux and his contemporaries, and that was only to draw the Black audiences

away. The recurring African American “themes” that resulted were uni-

dimensional shuffling, stammering and subservient cartoonish caricatures,

portrayals from which Black folks have yet to fully recover even 80 year later!

The studios, in pulling Black audiences into semi-integrated theaters and away

from Black-owned venues, derailed any hope of independent competition and

succeeded in eliminating those Black-owned venues, along with the careers of a

multitude of Black filmmakers, actors and technicians.

3
In 1928, after a seven-year investigation, the Federal Trade Commission took

action against the ten major studios for their anticompetitive business practices,

the principal defendant being Famous Players-Lasky Co., which later evolved into

Paramount Pictures. In 1930 Block booking, the common studio practice of

requiring exhibitors to accept packages including multiple “B” films in order for

them to exhibit the “A” films was declared illegal. After a series of lower court

cases that resulted in a judgment against the studios, a subsequent depression-

era reprieve granted by Theodore Roosevelt, delays by consent decree and by

World War II, it would take another 18 years and pressure from an emerging

independent film movement, the Society of Independent Motion Picture

Producers, who would work to re-initiate the landmark case of U.S. v Paramount,

et.al., which was argued before the Supreme Court in 1948 after a Justice Dept.

suit that had been initiated by the Roosevelt Administration in 1938. The

Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Paramount lead to the enforcement of the

Federal law abolishing Block Booking and forced the studios to divest their

theater chains.

This was too late to save the “race” film industry. Of course, we are very often our

worst enemy because but for the defection of the African American audiences,

this discussion probably would not be relevant. Someday perhaps we will

outgrow this notion of “his” ice being colder. I have a recurring theme on this

issue. Where would the separate “race film” industry be today, had its audiences

not been pulled away by the illegal anticompetitive practices of the studios and

4
had that industry been allowed to grow and develop over the past 80 years? I

guess this question will always remain a rhetorical one.

The Modern Studio System

According to a Feb. 9, 1999 report on CNN.com, the Justice Dept initiated a

probe into the anti-competitive practices by the major studios. Subpoenas were

served.

“Those notified included Time Warner Inc.'s Warner Bros., a sister

company to CNN.com; Viacom Inc.'s Paramount Pictures; Walt Disney;
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc.; and two of the country's largest theater
chains, Loews Cineplex and Regal Cinemas.”

It appears that nothing much has really changed in the past 80 years. It is still

the tacit and largely unchallenged policy of major studios to “Block Book” and

quash any free marketplace of ideas, although nobody with any desire to make

their living in the entertainment industry would dare to take the studios to task.

As long as the studios remain in control over production, distribution and

exhibition, most independents are relegated to low budget, play now pay later,

home video deals, which are also becoming increasingly difficult to get. It is still

nearly impossible for a true independent filmmaker to get an equitable contract

with an exhibitor. I use the term “true” independent because most independents

today are practically studio subsidiaries and are independent in name only.

Studios have a practice of farming out some of their productions to their

“independent” subsidiaries over which they maintain no control (yeah, right!) in

order to circumvent union participation. Some other independents are,

themselves, mini-studios. Steven Spielberg and Jeffrey Katzenberg and I are all

5
independent filmmakers much in the way that Bentleys, Rolls Royces and

Toyotas are all cars. Insiders work as hard at keeping outsiders out and dealing

only with other insiders as they do at making films, which is a fact reflected in the

mediocre level of filmmaking being accomplished. Outsiders are prevented from

even contacting name talent without agents or established entertainment

attorneys. Without name talent, gaining distribution commitments becomes

difficult and without distribution, financing is nearly impossible!

The studios are all subsidiaries of mega conglomerates. Paramount Pictures is a

division of Viacom, which also owns Paramount Home Entertainment, CBS

Television, the United Paramount Network (one of the television networks with

all of the “lowest common denominator” Black shows), as well as most of what

we see on cable television, i.e., MTV, Nickelodeon, BET, VH-1, Showtime,

Sundance Channel, to name but a few. Infinity owns 180 radios stations and

Viacom owns Infinity. Interestingly enough, Viacom owns Blockbuster Video and

the 1,700 screens of United Cinemas. Blockbuster has swallowed most competing

video stores that might place some independent titles on their shelves. I suppose

that since U.C.I. is not a major exhibition player with only 1,700 screens, the

Justice Dept. is not concerned about vertical integration. Compliance with the

Clayton Act’s ban on interlocking directorates should probably be reviewed,

however.

Time Warner is another major player-conglomerate in the film industry that

owns Warner Brothers Entertainment, i.e., Warner Brothers Television, the WB

6
Television network (the other television network with all of the “lowest common

denominator” Black shows), Castle Rock Entertainment, an independent film

production entity (yeah, right!) , Warner Home Video and International Cinemas,

to name but a few. Time Warner also owns “independent filmmaker” New Line

Cinema, which owns New Line Distribution, New Line Television, New Line

International Releasing, Fine Line Features New Line New Media,

Merchandising/Licensing and Music. Time Warner also owns HBO, Cinemax,

America Online, Time Warner Cable and Turner Broadcasting, among others,

which gives Time Warner control over acquisition, conception and distribution of

programming that is disseminated into almost every household in the U.S, and

worldwide, but I’m sure that there is no ill effect on free competition here!

Sony Pictures Entertainment is a major player in movie production and

distribution, television and home entertainment. Sony Pictures Entertainment, a

subsidiary of Sony Electronics, owns Columbia TriStar Motion Picture Group

which releases about 22 films per year. They also own Columbia Pictures and

Columbia Pictures Classics, Sony Pictures Classics, Screen Gems, Sony Pictures

Television Group and Sony Pictures Studios, among others.

According to the Motion Picture Association of America 2002 U.S. Economic

Review 2002, M.P.A.A. Market Stats 2002, MPAA member conglomerates,

Disney, Sony, MGM, 20th Century Fox, Universal and Warner Brothers,

7
their production and distribution arms and subsidiaries, together, release an

average of about 467 films onto 34,630 movie screens in 5,635 venues worldwide.

Each feature film averages $89.4 million in theatrical cost, which includes $58.8

million in negative cost and $30.6 in P&A and marketing.

While technically, it cannot be said that competition is being quashed by this

cabal of interlocking directorates and commonly-owned entities, because the

competition does exist between the mega-conglomerates, there is no effective way

for independents to compete against such an avalanche of high-priced product,

making it nearly impossible for independents to get their novel and inventive

stories to audiences. Moreover, when one considers that the men at the top

management positions of these conglomerates are Caucasian men of very similar

cultural origin, life experiences, tastes and biases, as the officers who they hire

to oversee the operations of their subsidiaries, who are similar situated as are

those who actually operate these subsidiaries. It cannot be easily argued that a

diverse range of ideas is allowed to flow freely in the marketplace. The hierarchy

of Viacom may argue that Paramount is independently managed, but let’s see

what happens when Paramount releases product that rubs against Viacom’s

corporate philosophies, likewise Time-Warner with New Line or Castle Rock and

likewise Sony with Tri-Star or Columbia. The point is made, so there is not even

a need to discuss Rupert Murdoch and his Fox conglomerate or Metro Goldwyn

Mayer. The executives and officers who make the daily operational decisions

involving project development, finance and distribution are relatively few in

number industry-wide and they typically play a game of musical chairs, moving

8
from company to company within and between the conglomerates. As a result, it

is the mandate of a very incestuous and homogenous brotherhood to decide for

all of the world’s diverse races and cultures, how their experiences and their

history are to be portrayed, if at all. There have been many discussions about the

benefits and liabilities in connection with corporate ownership of multiple media

outlets. One of the liabilities, aside from the obvious damage to free market

competition, is that these corporations are strictly bottom-line oriented. Since

corporations exist strictly for profit and their officers must answer to boards who

demand maximum profit, their decisions become not creative, but strictly fiscal.

It is of supreme importance that the product, whether it be an automobile, a

toaster, or a feature film, return maximum profit. To the extent that the product

is not profitable, it, and or those who are responsible for making it profitable can

be readily replaced with more profitable products or executives with more

effective approaches toward turning profit. Under those circumstances, it is

totally understandable if no film executives care to put themselves out on a limb

for the sake of creativity or innovation. The formula that has shown results in the

past is not to be deviated from! That is an effective approach for selling cars or

toasters, but not films. The creative process must be allowed to evolve. The

proven formula would normally become obsolete once a novel approach is

introduced, but if those who dominate the market, eliminating market

competition have agreed not to “rock the boat” the introduction of any new

approaches into the marketplace becomes a near impossibility.

9
As was the case 80 years ago, and without any foundational knowledge to the

contrary, it would not be hard to believe, based upon film portrayals, that African

American males are entertaining and athletic, comics, thugs, buffoons, singers

and dancers who are big and strong, quick-tempered and sex-crazed animals,

who seem to lack judgment or positive family liaisons and who kill each other and

disrespect our own women. We like to serve the white man and we often display

a talent for mystically and magically solving his problems. We are very often

rescued from our predicaments by our paternalistic Caucasian associates.

African American women are sassy, overweight, highly sexual and quick-

tempered (especially toward Black men) exotic temptresses who sing, dance and

otherwise entertain and who seem to have a talent for helping Caucasians raise

their children. Latinos were not a presence in film 80 years ago, but appear to be

lazy, hot-tempered, hot lovers and good singers and dancers. Asians appear to be

enigmatic and mysterious, good with math and computers and experts at the

martial arts.

It has always been the role of the independent filmmaker of diverse background

and experience to give voice to those diverse audiences who have traditionally

been neglected by the “cabal” of the “Hollywood” studio system and to debunk

the stereotypes that are perpetrated within that system. When one considers the

sheer avalanche of films that saturate all available exhibition venues, television

and home video, the natural question that arises is “how and where are

independent films to reach audiences?” Without an available opposing view to

compete for the limited availability of box office dollars and with the ability to

10
create profitable films, not by virtue of their content, but by sheer force of will

and millions in marketing dollars, there is no real need for the studios to spend

their time and effort to develop challenging stories to bring to movie-going

audiences. That being the case, movie-going audiences, without the availability

of more challenging fare, will settle for what is made available to them if they

absolutely must attend a movie. The traditional studio line has been that

audiences, particularly African American audiences, will not turn out to see

dramas, so studios do not invest as much to produce and promote dramas unless

big name casts are involved. I would submit, however, that the studios create a

self-fulfilling prophecy by investing major advertising dollars to support the films

that they believe to be the most profitable, and given sufficient advertising

support, any film of any genre can be profitable. Without a strong advertising

campaign, any film is practically guaranteed to draw low numbers.

Any manufacturer that is able to monopolize their market will not deem it

necessary to spend any more than necessary to improve their product. Why

should they? Why do today’s movies suck? If you are guaranteed to sell most or

all available product inventory whether you spend 1% or 10% of gross income on

product development and quality control, would you spend 10%? I am not

suggesting that the studios owe us anything. It would nice however, if the studios

would follow federal law and allow some healthy market competition. Don’t give

us anything, just get out of our way! Perhaps we, as independents, can serve to

push innovation and quality in films. Perhaps our films can refine the tastes of

worldwide audiences. Perhaps that’s the problem.

11