|
|
Post by topbilled on Aug 3, 2023 16:15:45 GMT
No idea, but it's a shame Laughton didn't do more directing for motion pictures. Sometimes it's something a star of his stature might do to gain additional perspective about acting and how actors can better work with directors...at his core, Laughton was a very serious performer. Sometimes a star who only does one feature film as director (Lew Ayres, James Cagney, etc.) finds he has to deal with the studio executives more directly and it's not a pleasant experience. So why put up with the added stress? It's easier to leave those responsibilities to someone else whose main career is directing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Aug 3, 2023 16:41:33 GMT
That makes sense.
As an actor, I can't say enough good things about Laughton.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Aug 7, 2023 14:40:38 GMT
There were more shake-ups in 1956 at the major studios. Several moguls were either forced out or elected to resign and go into independent production. This included Dore Schary at MGM, who had guided the company on his own since Louis B. Mayer’s exit a few years earlier. But now Schary was gone too, and Joe Schenck was promoted to the position of chairman. At the same time Arthur Loew took full control of Loew’s Inc. Schary returned to writing and producing his own smaller-budgeted films.
At 20th Century Fox, Darryl Zanuck had been continuing as Vice President under Spyros Skouras. But increasing tensions between the two necessitated changes. Zanuck gave up his position and went to Paris, where he made his own films (released by Fox). He also was paid a fee as a studio consultant. Zanuck retained shares of stock in the company he helped build, but under Skouras, things were disintegrating fast.
Part of the problem, which led to Zanuck’s resignation as Vice President, was that Skouras had fired many of the studio’s top writers and directors. Skouras had also dropped several stars (like Tyrone Power and Gene Tierney) that Zanuck built up from nothing.
Film production was down at all the major studios, and the emphasis was now on the production of episodic television series. Because most of the studios were no longer operating at full capacity, workers’ hours were scaled back. The unions had agreed to a 44-hour work week, less than it had been when the studios were doing better.
Meanwhile, the production code had to deal with challenges by director Otto Preminger. Preminger had previously made THE MOON IS BLUE, a comedy that was issued in 1954 without a seal of approval. This was because Maggie McNamara’s character described herself as a virgin. Now, the director was at it again, pushing the boundaries with a story about drug addiction. One of the main reasons Preminger succeeded in circumventing the code was because independent exhibitors had become increasingly indifferent to the code. So films were being shown more often now without a seal of approval.
One of the year’s major film releases was MGM’s science fiction classic FORBIDDEN PLANET. It utilized CinemaScope and concentrated on special effects to create a Utopic environment that borrowed from Shakespeare’s ‘The Tempest.’ Walter Pidgeon portrayed a Prospero-like scientist named Morbius whose daughter, played by Anne Francis, was based on Miranda. The omnipresent Ariel was seen in the form of a futuristic robot named Robby. And Caliban was depicted as an invisible monster that threatened to destroy their planetary paradise. The technological fantasy story did well with audiences, and MGM had a big hit on its hands. |
|
|
|
Post by I Love Melvin on Aug 7, 2023 15:29:31 GMT
One of the year’s major film releases was MGM’s science fiction classic FORBIDDEN PLANET. It utilized CinemaScope and concentrated on special effects to create a Utopic environment that borrowed from Shakespeare’s ‘The Tempest.’ Walter Pidgeon portrayed a Prospero-like scientist named Morbius whose daughter, played by Anne Francis, was based on Miranda. The omnipresent Ariel was seen in the form of a futuristic robot named Robby. And Caliban was depicted as an invisible monster that threatened to destroy their planetary paradise. The technological fantasy story did well with audiences, and MGM had a big hit on its hands. MGM also secured help from Disney for some of the animation, including the "id" monster. I was a fan of sci-fi as a kid but there'd been nothing like Forbidden Planet on the screen before.  |
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Aug 7, 2023 15:51:40 GMT
Great color as always, thank you for doing these year-by-year accounts, Topbilled.
Another amazing thing about "Forbidden Planet" is how much of an influence it had on the original "Star Trek" series, which came out ten years later.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Aug 7, 2023 15:57:22 GMT
You're welcome. I will be doing these up to 1969. I want to take the 'story' of the movies up through the end of the production code. So much happens in these years, especially with television taking over and the code losing its impact, as well as new styles in filmmaking. Not to mention all the behind-the-scenes politics at the major studios.
|
|
|
|
Post by kims on Aug 7, 2023 18:51:59 GMT
1956 is one of my favorite years for the movies-FORBIDDEN PLANET being one of my favorites. Years later (1979?) Disney released THE BLACK HOLE. I loved it also-the robots, the workers dressed like medieval priests, the music. For me 1956 was the obvious year of transition as TB relates-the end of studio type films and the independents developing their style.
|
|
|
|
Post by sagebrush on Aug 7, 2023 20:27:17 GMT
No idea, but it's a shame Laughton didn't do more directing for motion pictures. Sometimes it's something a star of his stature might do to gain additional perspective about acting and how actors can better work with directors...at his core, Laughton was a very serious performer. Sometimes a star who only does one feature film as director (Lew Ayres, James Cagney, etc.) finds he has to deal with the studio executives more directly and it's not a pleasant experience. So why put up with the added stress? It's easier to leave those responsibilities to someone else whose main career is directing.
Also, it has been noted that the film was pretty much a critical and commercial failure upon release in 1955, and Laughton took it personally. |
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Aug 7, 2023 21:05:31 GMT
No idea, but it's a shame Laughton didn't do more directing for motion pictures. Sometimes it's something a star of his stature might do to gain additional perspective about acting and how actors can better work with directors...at his core, Laughton was a very serious performer. Sometimes a star who only does one feature film as director (Lew Ayres, James Cagney, etc.) finds he has to deal with the studio executives more directly and it's not a pleasant experience. So why put up with the added stress? It's easier to leave those responsibilities to someone else whose main career is directing.
Also, it has been noted that the film was pretty much a critical and commercial failure upon release in 1955, and Laughton took it personally. |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Aug 9, 2023 14:11:08 GMT
More than ever television was dominating the entertainment landscape. Since 3-D turned out to be a relatively short fad, and CinemaScope’s novelty had worn off, studios were desperate for other ways to attract audiences. So strategies to revive national interest in the cinema were developed.
One organization that tried to help was the MPAA. It encouraged catchy slogans and sweepstakes that might stir up interest in new films. The sweepstakes were advertised on radio and TV. Other marketing campaigns were tied directly to the Academy Awards. There were also audience polls, where moviegoers could vote on their favorite stars and give feedback to studios about films.
Another organization that jumped on the bandwagon was the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences (AMPAS). Its suggestions were less about advertising, and more about promoting cinema as one of the nation’s lasting arts. Film festivals were considered, educational foundations were proposed, and a Hollywood movie museum was planned.
But while the MPAA and AMPAS were trying to help studios revive public interest in filmmaking, certain industry practices were sabotaging their best attempts. The unions and guilds had aging members, and they discouraged newcomers from entering the ranks.
This kept salaries up, and it also meant the protection of jobs that were no longer needed. Because it was difficult for newcomers to get hired at most studios, they often started at television production companies. Television benefited from the flow of fresh talent and skill, while movies continued to suffer.
Speaking of suffering, the most popular genre in 1957 was the melodrama. In the past, the most gripping melodramas had been presented as historically-based costume dramas. But director Douglas Sirk changed all that at Universal. His tales of furious emotional impact were told as contemporary dramas that exploited the myths of modern day romance. Audiences had turned out for a remake of MAGNIFICENT OBSESSION a few years earlier; now they were eager to see Dorothy Malone and Rock Hudson in films like WRITTEN ON THE WIND and THE TARNISHED ANGELS.
Audiences were also eager to see some of their favorite new music stars on the big screen. Realizing the potential Elvis Presley had, MGM signed him to make a musical drama called JAILHOUSE ROCK. It premiered in October and did very well at the box office. The dance sequence where Presley gyrated to the title song became one of the most iconic moments in cinematic history.
 |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Aug 13, 2023 20:42:56 GMT
![]() 
The film industry was still losing money in 1958. A slogan that had been developed to lure audiences back into theaters was ‘Get More Out of Life—Go to a Movie.’ But unfortunately, the public thought they could get more out of life staying home and watching television. As a result, several major Hollywood studios were on the verge of bankruptcy.
United Artists was in the process of restructuring its business model. The UA management team decided to buy out Mary Pickford. She was the last of the original partners, and with her exit, the company went public. It quickly diversified into television and the music field. This strategy kept UA solvent and from shutting down. But other companies were not so lucky. Herbert Yates was stepping down over at Republic, and his studio which had been in existence since 1935 was ceasing all operations.
Meanwhile, RKO Teleradio turned out some new films that were remakes of old titles. But soon the practice discontinued–the RKO lot closed, and everything was put up for sale again. Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz, who first met at RKO in 1940 while they were making TOO MANY GIRLS, used the profits from Desilu to purchase the studio’s facilities which would now be used for television production. There were a few unreleased RKO movies that were handed over to Universal for distribution.
But Universal was having problems of its own. It was a million dollars in the hole by the end of July 1958 and facing bankruptcy. Universal would be given a reprieve; it was bailed out by the Management Corporation of America (MCA). Until now, MCA was known as an organization that brokered deals for independent producers and stars.
MCA was in a financial position to take over Universal, where many of its deals had occurred in the 1950s. MCA’s increasing power proved that production was passing from old-time studio moguls into the hands of agents and individual artists who could package lucrative deals.
As for the old-time moguls, 1958 was the year Columbia’s Harry Cohn passed away. His death occurred in the middle of production on BELL, BOOK AND CANDLE. This film reunited one of the studio’s top actresses, Kim Novak, with her recent costar from VERTIGO, Jimmy Stewart. Most of Novak’s films made money at this time, but Columbia did experience a slight downturn in the wake of Cohn’s death. One thing that helped the company stay afloat was its investment in the British production THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI, which became one of the year’s most successful motion pictures. |
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Aug 13, 2023 21:36:24 GMT
There are so many similarities between what happened to the studios owing to the competition from television in the 1950s and, today, with streaming, it just reminds us how so little is truly new.
One thing I've been thinking about is how everybody enjoys cord cutting, ranting about overpriced and unfair cable packages (guilty as charged) and hopscotching around the streaming options, but that money saved has to come out of somewhere, which seems, right now, to be coming out of a combination of the "studios" and the actors (which is part of what the strike is about).
In the end, we might wind up with less content at a lower cost with lower profits for moviemakers and lower salaries for actors and industry workers. My Econ 101 would argue that is the more-efficient outcome as the older models forced "excess profits" out of the consumer. I wonder if we, the consumer, are really going to be happier in the new model, but it looks like we're going to find out.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Aug 13, 2023 21:42:03 GMT
There are so many similarities between what happened to the studios owing to the competition from television in the 1950s and, today, with streaming, it just reminds us how so little is truly new.
One thing I've been thinking about is how everybody enjoys cord cutting, ranting about overpriced and unfair cable packages (guilty as charged) and hopscotching around the streaming options, but that money saved has to come out of somewhere, which seems, right now, to be coming out of a combination of the "studios" and the actors (which is part of what the strike is about).
In the end, we might wind up with less content at a lower cost with lower profits for moviemakers and lower salaries for actors and industry workers. My Econ 101 would argue that is the more-efficient outcome as the older models forced "excess profits" out of the consumer. I wonder if we, the consumer, are really going to be happier in the new model, but it looks like we're going to find out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Aug 13, 2023 21:55:07 GMT
There are so many similarities between what happened to the studios owing to the competition from television in the 1950s and, today, with streaming, it just reminds us how so little is truly new.
One thing I've been thinking about is how everybody enjoys cord cutting, ranting about overpriced and unfair cable packages (guilty as charged) and hopscotching around the streaming options, but that money saved has to come out of somewhere, which seems, right now, to be coming out of a combination of the "studios" and the actors (which is part of what the strike is about).
In the end, we might wind up with less content at a lower cost with lower profits for moviemakers and lower salaries for actors and industry workers. My Econ 101 would argue that is the more-efficient outcome as the older models forced "excess profits" out of the consumer. I wonder if we, the consumer, are really going to be happier in the new model, but it looks like we're going to find out.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Aug 13, 2023 22:02:01 GMT
Another thing, which people fail to realize, is the unions are driven by communism. Those Hollywood union activists think everyone should be paid equally. That's really nice in theory, but unfortunately that is not how capitalism works. The owners are always going to enjoy more of the profits than the hired hands. |
|
