Tuesday, August 31, 2010

100 years (more or less) of "Hollywood"

[Did this - somewhat basic - tribute essay for Business Standard Weekend]

Intro: Whether you love its vitality or hate its excesses, cinema wouldn't have been the same without Hollywood


The early years of film history are so heavily shrouded in mist – especially with many key works from the first two or three decades having been lost forever – that one must be cautious about pinning down dates, or suggesting that a particular studio, industry or director was the “first” to achieve something. One thing is beyond dispute though: a hundred years ago, give or take a few months, some very interesting developments were taking place in a small Los Angeles municipality called Hollywood. Studios like Paramount and Warner Bros were setting up camp and calling in trucks full of unwieldy motion-picture cameras. Artists with names like D W Griffith, Charles Chaplin and Mary Pickford were being drawn towards the region, almost as if by some mysterious magnetic force – as if a nascent art form knew that it had found a space from where it could begin showing itself off to the world, and that it need the right sort of people to get it going.

And show off it did. From the ground-breaking silent epics of Griffith to the inventive masterpieces of Buster Keaton and Erich von Stroheim in the 1920s to an explosion of sound films in a variety of popular genres – Westerns, musicals, screwball comedies, noir – in the 1930s and 1940s, American cinema quickly took the lead in demonstrating the possibilities of the medium. Of course, much pioneering work was happening in other countries at the same time – notably in Russia and Germany – but they couldn’t match the scale on which things were done in Hollywood. So it has remained to this day.

Today, a century after those beginnings, Hollywood is less a tangible place and more a state of mind. Geographical accuracy has never mattered to most people who use the word: growing up in India in the 1980s, for example, it was common to hear any English-language film (even a British one) being referred to as “a Hollywood movie” – even by film magazines, which should have known the difference.

For serious film buffs, “Hollywood” has often been synonymous with a crass, studio-governed style of moviemaking – one that is sometimes seen as the antithesis of art. The very word sometimes elicits knee-jerk negative reactions, partly because popular American movies are considered rude envoys of American cultural imperialism. There’s a stage in the trajectory of most film students when it’s fashionable to be snobbish about Hollywood (even the classics) and learn that the really “worthy cinema”, the cinema of integrity, comes from other countries – Italy, Denmark, Japan, Iran.

This view of things is understandable to an extent, especially when you look at the amount of big-budget cinematic dross that America churns out each year, and consider that many small countries barely have the resources to produce even half a dozen (good or bad) movies annually. But there’s another side to the argument. The fact is, in no other moviemaking industry in the world has commerce and art combined so fortuitously, so often, and with such strong reverberations for the rest of the world, as in Hollywood.

It’s true that for decades the studio regime and the star system led to certain artistic constraints, and there are plenty of stories that testify to this: for example, the rewriting - and compromising - of a script because a character played by a matinee idol couldn’t turn out to be a bad penny (or a "wrong 'un") at the end of a film. But it’s equally true that those same studios, and the talents working under the limitations they imposed, produced a rich and vibrant cinematic legacy that explored the full potential of narrative filmmaking. Directors realised powerful individual visions even while operating under the watchful eyes of their financiers (who, by the way, weren't always philistines; sometimes they were good at reining in artistic temperaments that might otherwise have self-combusted). Star-actors showed tremendous versatility not by submerging themselves in a dizzying variety of characters but by exploring the range of emotions within a certain type of role, dictated by their popular screen persona. And the world responded. When cinema exploded internationally in the 1950s and 1960s with an outpouring of independent, “art”-driven films from countries such as France and Sweden, the debt to the American film was enormous. The new European directors expressed their love and admiration for Hollywood, pointing out the subtle and complex techniques embedded in the best of its movies, and this led to a renewed study of American genre films, many of which had earlier been dismissed (by homegrown critics) as "mere popular entertainments".

American cinema would see a second renaissance in the 1970s, with the flowering of a generation of filmmakers who were students first – deeply knowledgeable about and respectful of movie history – and directors second: Scorsese, Coppola, Spielberg, De Palma among others. And though the decades that followed haven’t been quite as rich, Hollywood, for all its excesses, has always had space for the high-quality “indie” film.

But of course, the ambivalence continues. I remember a discussion with a friend who had just discovered the films of the great Japanese director Akira Kurosawa and was (for reasons that I can’t quite fathom or relate to) smugly proud that this “Asian” filmmaker had been an inspiration to Western directors like Sergio Leone and George Lucas. His face fell when I pointed out that Kurosawa himself had been deeply influenced by the very American films of John Ford. In the 21st century it would be silly to think of “Hollywood” as the be all and end all of filmmaking, but there’s no question that it has been the wellspring for many of the best developments in the seventh art.

14 comments:

  1. Interesting, and it leaves me yearning for more on Hollywood's history. For instance, a hundred years ago how did the market for movies evolve (given the absence of cinema halls in the beginning)? And what about the culture of 'Going to the cinemas' ?

    Any book recommendations on these themes?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Interesting information and history. Priceless!

    ReplyDelete
  3. I've been into films for only the last 3-4 years. And I'm yet to go through that phase where one snobbishly condescends towards Hollywood films.

    The main virtues of Hollywood genre cinema are a directness of style and a modesty of vision. Ofcourse, these virtues may be absent in the bloated studio epics Hollywood is often associated with. But they're the chief characteristics of genres like noirs, thrillers, screwball and the family melodrama.

    I think the "modesty" aspect is the key. The Hollywood craftsman, in general, is less bothered with his personal vision and more aware of the audience than Continental auteurs. Which is probably why I react viscerally to a film like Suspicion in a way I can't possibly react to an "art" classic like Rashomon.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Parmanu: I highly recommend David Thomson's The Whole Equation, a somewhat rambling "history" of Hollywood.

    what about the culture of 'Going to the cinemas' ?

    An interesting tidbit. According to Thomson, in 1946 the average weekly attendance in movie houses was 100 million! That's practically the entire adult population of US at the time I think. The figure should be much, much lower now despite the doubling of population

    ReplyDelete
  5. I've been into films for only the last 3-4 years. And I'm yet to go through that phase where one snobbishly condescends towards Hollywood films.

    Shrikanth: I was talking about film students - the ones who do an extensive, formal course on cinema with the aim of working in a related field someday. But of course, there will always be exceptions in that group too.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The Hollywood craftsman, in general, is less bothered with his personal vision and more aware of the audience than Continental auteurs.

    Shrikanth: interesting you say that. I'd like to be able to disagree, because I'm a big endorser of artists realising their personal visions rather than catering to a hypothetical audience and risking going down the "let's try to please everyone" route. But you have a point. It puts me in mind of many interviews I've read of the Golden Age directors, where they were often at great pains to undermine their own status as artists and to claim that they were really just hired workmen. Of course, one doesn't have to take this at face value. Their films speak for themselves. But the attitude is revealing and suggests a deep-rooted dissatisfaction with the conditions they worked under, in a large, money-driven industry.

    By the way, Satyajit Ray has this description of meeting Billy Wilder in Hollywood:

    "The first thing he said to me was 'You won a prize at Cannes? Well, I guess you're an artist. But I'm not. I'm just a commercial man and I like it that way.' I mumbled a word of protest and said I thought he was rather good at mixing art and commerce...But Wilder would have none of it."

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'm a big endorser of artists realising their personal visions rather than catering to a hypothetical audience and risking going down the "let's try to please everyone" route.

    Jai: I'd like to think that "being aware of the audience" is a virtue. When I watch a film like Suspicion, it's quite evident that the director has thought hard about audience reaction before shooting most scenes. In fact, Hitchcock has said quite often in interviews that the primary difference between his British and American work is that his Hollywood films exhibit a greater awareness of the audience.

    To draw a crude analogy, Hitch's British films are akin to excellent blogposts whereas his American masterpieces are akin to articles in a peer-reviewed journal.

    Ofcourse, in some cases, we're probably better off without the disciplining influence of a studio. Some of Powell & Pressburger's brilliant and wildly eccentric films like A Canterbury Tale or even Colonel Blimp could not possibly have been made in Hollywood.

    ReplyDelete
  8. To draw a crude analogy, Hitch's British films are akin to excellent blogposts whereas his American masterpieces are akin to articles in a peer-reviewed journal.

    Shrikanth: if you're implying that articles in a "peer-reviewed journal" are automatically superior to excellent blog-posts, well then I'd have to say that's a very crude (and inadequate) analogy.

    I don't disagree that being aware of the audience can be a virtue, but it definitely hasn't been one of the top 2 or 3 considerations that have gone into the making of great art over the centuries.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Jai: I didn't imply automatic superiority. Nevertheless, the habit of proactively anticipating the reaction of the audience is very useful.

    While writing a blogpost, one may slip in several unsubstantiated, prejudiced comments owing to a lack of self-criticism. Whereas, when one writes for a journal publication, we adopt a more self-critical approach. The cons is that the latter approach may be at the expense of spontaneity.

    I'm reminded of Vertigo in this context. While making the film, Hitch asked himself the question whether Judy's true identity should be revealed halfway into the film or kept a secret till the very end. I suppose he asked that very crucial question because of the habit of anticpating the audience that he had cultivated in Hollywood. A less introspective director may not have faced such dilemmas.

    ReplyDelete
  10. While writing a blogpost, one may slip in several unsubstantiated, prejudiced comments owing to a lack of self-criticism. Whereas, when one writes for a journal publication, we adopt a more self-critical approach.

    Not necessarily true. Speaking for myself, I'm more meticulous about my longer blog-posts than I am about some of the columns I do for official publication. (Though I realise that the journal pieces you're talking about are probably the long-form ones - not the stuff one sees in mainstream Indian media.)

    I suppose he asked that very crucial question because of the habit of anticipating the audience that he had cultivated in Hollywood.

    Didn't understand your Vertigo argument at all. Hitchcock's decision to give away the mystery two-thirds of the way in (rather than save it till the very end) is in fact the archetypal example of not giving a fig what the average Hollywood audience wanted. It's generally perceived as one of the reasons why the initial response to the film was relatively lukewarm.

    It's also one of the reasons why Vertigo's critical stature today is so high - because critics tend to recognise that this was one of those cases where Hitchcock explicitly forsook the "popular" suspense-thriller route in favour of realising a larger, more intense artistic vision for his film. (Note: I don't necessarily agree with that view - as I wrote in an old post, Vertigo sometimes feels artistically self-conscious to me compared to his other top films.) Maybe I missed what you were trying to say, but Vertigo is the least appropriate film to bring up when we're discussing Hitchcock's concern about his audience.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Jai: I just revisited Bogdanovich's interview with Hitch (available on net). The choice of the timing of revelation in Vertigo is very much a surprise vs suspense dilemma.
    Hitch's preference for suspense over surprise was not a personal quirk, but an outcome of a belief that the audience would be more engaged by a "suspense" film than a "shock and awe" film.

    Now, you may argue that Hollywood audiences typically prefer twist endings over Hitchcock-style suspense. I don't agree with that. We have that mistaken impression because movie makers, until the likes of Hitchcock came along, did not understand the audiences very well and hence kept churning out "surprise/mystery" films

    ReplyDelete
  12. shrikanth: the "surprise vs suspense" dilemma is old news, but I maintain that Vertigo makes for a different case study. Most of the stories that Hitchcock based his films on don't really have a major twist-in-the-tale built into them. (The "suspense-vs-surprise" principle operates on other levels, in suspenseful scenes interspersed through the course of the story.) But Vertigo did have a major twist, and Hitchcock's decision to reveal the mystery early was atypical even by his own standards - it would be comparable to revealing halfway through Psycho that Norman was dressing up as his mother. And at the time, it did puzzle/put off many of the viewers who made up Hitchcock's dedicated fan-base.

    Okay, is there anyone OTHER THAN Shrikanth who has a comment?!

    ReplyDelete
  13. superb post,i wish you would do a similar post on hindi cinema also,like the silent era ,then talkies era,devika rani and himansu rai,start system,prabhat talkies later ftii,40s realistic indian cinema ,neecha nagar in cannes,then 3 superstars in 50s ,guru dutt,color films in 60s ,yash chopra comes with WAQT,dev anand was still young then,then 70s :-angry young man ,salim javed and directors who worked with amitab,80s:- trash from padmalya stuidos,empty cinema halls,90s :-two school of cinema:yash chopra vs Ram Gopal Varma,2000s:- all the graduates from RGV school make their mark ,may be a INDIAN NEW WAVE like 60s french new wave is coming ,

    of course i have missed many things but i find very less material on indian directos on website even on someone like yash chopra or hrishikesh mukherjee or a genre director like raj khosla who made 3 top class thrillers in late 50s and early ,nyways keep writing but i miss your earlier cinema related posts

    ReplyDelete
  14. ...nyways keep writing but i miss your earlier cinema related posts

    Rahul: thanks, but I didn't get this bit - my movie-related blogging has only increased in the past year or so, partly because of the Yahoo column. In any case, I always used to write a little more about non-Indian cinema than Hindi cinema (because my knowledge of those films is stronger). But overall there hasn't been a decrease in posts about Hindi films.

    ReplyDelete