Innovation and the film oligopoly
Innovation in Hollywood is best defined by what it is not. It does not have a roman numeral behind it (Star Wars III), it is generally not based on a comic book (Spider Man 2) or an older movie (Amityville Horror) or a former TV show (Scooby Doo). It is normally not based on a blockbuster novel (Harry Potter) and it is normally not a biopic of some familiar "great" person (Ray) or a history saga with bad dialog (Troy, Alexander).
It's harder to define what it is, since that's the whole point of innovation. It may be technical innovation (Ghost World), narrative innovation (Memento, Pulp Fiction), an exploration of a truly unusual character (Ed Wood), genre (Moulin Rouge), or subculture (Sideways). You may like or dislike these films, but they are based on a different calculus than the usual search for $100+ million dollar box office killers..
In eth US, we've seen a fair number of such films over the years, whether foreign or independent. They have generally been developed and/or marketed by small studios, usually ones like Miramax, Fox Searchlight, and Sony Classics that are parts of the big studios. But the availability of such small films may be diminished, according to an article in the International Herald Tribune ("As costs soar, studios make fewer movies", 3/31/2005).
The article sees the departure of founders Bob and Harvey Weinstein from Miramax as the end of an era. That studio, founded in 1979, was purchased by Disney in 1993 to be its "artistic" wing, and while Miramax has been forced to get more commercial over time, it was far more likely to produce innovative and acclaimed films than any other Hollywood studio. The new, diminished Miramax will have its budget reduced from $700 million to $350 million, and is slated to release fewer films.
This kind of cost cutting is going on throughout the industry, according to the article, One expert sees around 30 fewer movies being made next year and a 10% drop off over the past two years, with cuts at all studios. And the films that tend to get cut are the ones that are lass likely to bring in blockbuster receipts, and those are generally considered to be the most unusual ones.
The reasons for the cutback are several: growing marketing costs, a leveling off of movie-going, a slowdown in international expansion, and (what has been the savior over the last decade) DVDs. According to the article: "studio executives also lament the fact that release dates are cluttered by too much competition. And the studio-owned specialty divisions created to capture the market for independent films could feel the pain first."
In other words, the studios will invest in ever bigger marketing campaigns and ever more expensive bankable stars, in movie vehicles that look a lot like the ones that did well last year. Furthermore, recent transactions like Sony's purchase of MGM and NBC's (GE's) acquisition of Universal Studios means that there's less money available to risk on even mildly innovative films. Oligopoly thinking makes companies converge in strategy and makes them disdain small successes in their search for blockbuster triumphs. It's bad news for anyone who likes good films.
10:44:43 PM 
|
|
