Hollywood and The Artist
Is the Creation of Art Still Possible In a Profit Obsessed Industry?
Feb 26, 2008
There has always been some sort of conflicting argument over the essence of art and commerce in the land of Hollywood. Art, for all that it desires to be, realistically does not guarantee any sort of financial profitability and thus is, more often then not, deemed expendable by Hollywood. However, one must remember that, first and foremost, Hollywood is a business and that it only succeeds on the basis of profitable income. Respect and critical acclaim will very rarely permit the continuing distribution of films from a particular studio. As a result, tensions are accumulated quicker then the closure of ones’ own eyelids. According to Peter Biskind, author of ‘Easy Riders and Raging Bulls’, at the center of most conflicts is the relationship between the director and the producer.
The Director Versus The Producer
The director is an artist in his own right. Much like the writer, the director strives to create a visual palette, broadly stroking scenes of expression and vision. His goal, as an artist, is to convey a story that is about something real and true. Most directors, not employed by the studio systems, desire to create an art form that will speak to audiences around the world.
The producer is typically a capitalist, employed by the studio system, to ensure that a film is marketable enough to guarantee a financial profit. There are some producers, who do believe in film as an art-form but, in most cases, the producer is there to assure a director will not strive too deeply into ‘artsy’ territory. Generally, the producer wants to have his films embody mainstream appeal.
The Conflicting Nature of Art and Commerce
The producer normally places a great amount of time and effort into the creation of a film product. He is involved in every aspect of the film, from financial investments to the hiring of most crew to overseeing the final product. Frankly, they are the boss. However, in most cases, the producer answers to a higher boss, the studio head. If the studio head is uncertain of the box-office potential of a certain film, then he/she will usually order changes to the finished product. No matter how beautifully shot the film may be, a film may be altered over concerns of its financial future. This can have dire consequences for the filmmaker’s piece of art.
In light of it all, the producer cannot be solely blamed in this matter. Sometimes the director will become too immersed in his own self worth and create a film that teeters on the verge of self-righteousness. It is a very thin line which separates art and commerce. Directors want the freedom of self expression whereas producers desire financial success from the film. As a result, a truly volatile relationship often commences.
Is there a Chance For a Compromise?
Since the 1990s, the film industry has undergone tremendous change. The importance and acceptance of independent film has risen to such a degree that it has allowed a bridge to form between the artist and capitalist. According to Sharon Waxman, author of ‘Rebels on the Backlot’, most of the major studios, Sony, Warner Brothers, Paramount and so on, have created art-house production houses to create and distribute independent films. Independent film is where the artist is usually free to express himself in every imaginable way. These films are typically inexpensive to produce and, as a result, cause minimal tension for that particular studio.
It is only when the budget and expenses begin to rise that the role of filmmaker/artist vanishes and the job of hired, contractual director emerges (who has usually had some sort of financial film successes in the past). As a result, studios will rarely permit the director to perform anything that may jeopardize the overall profitability of a film. The director must follow the script to a tee. As one can clearly see, this is a very thin line to walk along. However, if a director does decide to perform any sort of alteration (not green-lit by the studio), then he faces the risk of termination and blacklisting from the industry.
Conclusion
It is regrettable that films cannot always be made the way they were meant to be. But, it also makes sense that when millions of dollars are at stake, a studio will do everything in its power to secure its investment . Films should be artistic but they should also strive to entertain. There are many people who enjoy ‘films’ and others who enjoy ‘movies’. Audiences have the right to choose what they want to see.
In the long term, as long as financial success remains the most important element of a Hollywood production, there may never be a solid camaraderie formed between the director and the producer. Truthfully, these are two job titles that desire completely different things.
