However, the smiles in movie posters don’t tell the struggle of Black talent to have their spot and then see some of their peers climbing to the top in an industry that wasn’t built for them and still is ruled by invisible grabbing hands, obstacles and glass ceilings that dictate the roles for Black people in a rigged game.

To tell this story, which recounts the uphill battles, failures, successes, and funny anecdotes, come the two companion documentary features, ‘Number One on the Call Sheet,’ which are produced by James Foxx, Kevin Hart, Datari Turner, and Dan Cogan. Academy Award nominee Reginald Hudlin directs ‘Black Leading Men in Hollywood,’ and NAACP Image Award-winning Shola Lynch directs ‘Black Leading Women in Hollywood.’
The Leading Men Row features interviews with Foxx, Hart, and other heavyweights like Denzel Washington, Eddie Murphy, Will Smith, Dwayne Johnson, Idris Elba, Morgan Freeman, and Quentin Tarantino, among others. The leading women’s chapter has interviews with Viola Davis, Halle Berry, Angela Bassett, Cynthia Erivo, Whoopi Goldberg, and Tessa Thompson, to name a few. Although “siblings,” both pictures have a distinct feel and use the best that Hudlin and Lynch offer, all in favour of the Black history in Hollywood and the interviewees.

The expression ‘Number One on the Call Sheet’ marks the first actor to appear on a sheet with the cast’s names and what is to be shot. Being the number one shows that the actor is the subject of the narrative and not the object, as Tessa Thompson says in the doc. It is the top cat spot, the protagonist, and, on many occasions, the one with the higher paycheck. It is also a responsibility. In the end, it shows the talent, which is their status in the movie business.

‘Black Leading Men’ has a bold attitude, reflected in how the interviewees tell their truths. They share stories in which you can see them fluctuating from boldness to doubt and back to the mindset that led them to the top of their fields.

The documentary’s strength is its interviewee selection, which includes leading men with different levels of success. It showcases different archetypes and their pioneers to open roles that weren’t thought for men of colour in their original concept. Men like Washington, and before him Sydney Poitier and Harry Belafonte, are society’s standard bearers of Black masculinity, and within time, few Black actors crossed this barrier.

A welcome addition is Tarantino who has a vast knowledge of Hollywood, not to mention that he has created so many Black characters. Although employing crass and controversial humour, the director can translate to the screen nuances of the Black experience; therefore, his presence gives more gravitas to ‘Black Leading Men in Hollywood.’

Nevertheless, those who give Hudlin the most are Denzel, Freeman, Foxx, and Smith. They sit at a table of rarefied air for Black artists and the whole of Hollywood. Their stories of overcoming the struggles are vital to the picture; between the lines are those moments when they talk about their climb, seeing what they had to overcome and the modern challenges of being in the elite squad.
Reginald Hudlin appears as one of the interviewees. A mover and shaker of Black Hollywood, his presence is like that of a historian who has not only seen the events but also been part of them.

The emotional, deeper parts come from Denzel Washington’s interview. His lines make us understand why generations of actors from all ethnic backgrounds look up to him and even more why Black men look up to him. He is a paradigm of confidence and morality in a not-always-ethical landscape.

‘Black Leading Men’ uses a light and bright, colourful palette to tell a story and it highlights the skin tones of the interviewees, showing the consideration Hudlin and team had with the technical aspects that not only enhance the visual language but also further the narrative, which is contrasted with candid moments of vulnerability by these men and it prepares the terrain for its “sibling” documentary.

Mammies and watermelon women opened the path for the trailblazers of modern-day Black female Hollywood

Although it is a companion piece, ‘Black Leading Women’ has an identity of its own, given by Shola Lynch, staff, and her group of interviewees. There are fewer victorious smiles because, as Halle puts it, Black women are really at the bottom of the societal hierarchy, and not only in Hollywood.

Here, women discuss their career paths, those who came before them, and those who will come after. When it turns back to Hattie McDaniel and her 1940 Best Supporting Actress Academy Award win for playing Mammy in ‘Gone With the Wind’ (1939), there is a moment of pride which later turns into a sincere recounting that the talented McDaniel was pigeonholed to playing Mammies for the entirety of her career which is also a grim visage on how many in the industry perceive the very same interviewees of this documentary even after decades of McDaniel’s win where she couldn’t even celebrate among her peers for being Black.

The recount of the ‘mammies,’ nurses, sidekicks, and other stereotypical roles, testify to the fact that many producers can’t (or don’t want to) see these talented women due to their colour, and how they end up dying horrific deaths in horror movies to further the narratives of the white protagonist reminds the classic indie film ‘The Watermelon Woman’ (1996) by Cheryl Dunye where a young Black lesbian filmmaker research the life of The Watermelon Woman, an early 20th Century Black actress who played a set of ‘mammies’ before falling into oblivion.

Shola uses sombre colours and shy lighting to portray the interviewees so that they come naturally on the screen. This is how such capable women should be embraced by the industry, critics, and fans. They can interpret leads who are in love in a romantic role or psychologically demanding characters that are often relegated to white actresses. For example, Viola Davis is in the same league as Meryl Streep, Julianne Moore, Jodie Foster, and Annette Bening because Davis can go from complex dramas such as ‘Fences’ to epic pictures as seen in ‘The Woman King.’ Nevertheless, it feels that the world is only looking at her now. The fact that Black women are going strong in the Academy Awards Best Supporting Actress shows that the industry needs to take huge and courageous leaps to give them lead roles and match the grit these actresses have in a mechanism that wasn’t built to receive them properly.

Apple TV+ has an important documentary in both pieces because it documents Black Hollywood and how it interacts with Main Hollywood and other branches. It is of historical value considering the position cinema holds in American society and its influence around the globe.

‘Number One on the Call Sheet’ should be studied in universities as it is a recorded piece of history and testifies to Apple TV+’s commitment to cinema culture and its acceptance of people from different backgrounds.

The companion piece also opens Apple TV+ to explore other corners of Hollywood, like Latinos, Asians, foreigners, and queer community. For instance, a documentary with a similar format with interviewees like Colman Domingo, Andrew Scott, Hunter Schafer, and Guinevere Turner would serve as a historical document of the LGBTQIA+ artists in Hollywood. These communities are the backbone of cinema and entertainment, and these voices, such as those from ‘Number One on the Call Sheet’, are necessary to a healthier society than the one we live in today.

Rating: (4 / 5)

‘Number One on the Call Sheet’ premieres March 28th on Apple TV+.

The post Number One On the Call Sheet: Unveiling the Untold Journey of Black Hollywood Icons appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

What Is An Audio Drama?

Audio dramas are podcasts that are fictional and tell a story. Similar shows have obviously existed on the radio since the dawn of that medium and at one point were one of the major cultural touchstones. BBC Radio 4 show The Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy would be a good non-podcast example of this sort of show.

There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of these podcasts and leaving aside any quality control enough to keep Hollywood going for decades. In fact, there are several that have already been made into TV shows. Limetown an early masterpiece of audio drama podcasts was made by Apple TV, Archive 81 appeared on Netflix, and development hell, rumours and failed projects have stalked many of the more popular podcasts.

So will are the good and bad parts of focusing on audio dramas as the next source of Hollywood inspiration:

Pro: Quality

To be absolutely clear in any medium the gamut of quality runs from terrible to brilliant but there are truly sensational audio dramas out there. Given the relatively low costs and easy accessibility to the medium, virtually anyone can make a podcast and this has given voice to talented writers, directors etc who may never had the opportunity to make a tv show or film. Within The Wires, for example, is a continuing source of originality, drama and genuine beauty, depicting a possibly dystopian future or alternate timeline with each series told via an ingenious delivery method.

Con: Story Structure

Most fiction podcasts tell long stories. WtNV has almost three hundred episodes, The Magnus Archives around 200, and often part of the point is the long drawn-out nature of the story. Now how do you take WtNV and its 300 episodes full of characters, organisations, monsters etc and make a film about it? Inevitably stuff will be cut out, fans will be disappointed and perhaps the spirit of the show won’t be captured. And then the very nature of some podcasts – the above-mentioned Within The Wires in the second series each episode is framed as an audio guide around an art gallery…who is going to adapt that? The answer of course would be the long awaited Christopher Nolan-Denis Villeneuve co-director project.

Con & Pro: Fame

Fiction podcasts are not well-known. Even the most popular are niche. Sometimes when adapting a book or play the filmmakers see that the source material is brilliant regardless of how successful it was. Sometimes people adapt other works simply because there is a large existing audience. You will not attract a large audience simply by adapting podcasts, but by the same token, it’s probably going to be a lot cheaper to buy the rights than a bestselling novel.

The only deciding factor will be whether it is successful. If Iron Man had failed spectacularly there wouldn’t be decades of movies following in its wake. If someone adapts The Bright Sessions audio drama (therapy for people with superpowers) and it is a huge success then there will be more.

Also Read: Five Great Film Podcasts To Listen To Right Now

The post Audio Dramas: Hollywood’s Next Frontier for New Stories? appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Today, we will look at Hollywood’s early years and what drew people to the area. Along with this, we will look at the first major studio to set up in the area, as well as the factors that led Hollywood to dominate world film.

Hollywood Begins

In the early 20th century, film production companies sprang up in big cities across America. However, soon a de facto monopoly was created by several big studios (headed by the Edison Company). They, along with Eastman Kodak, then the biggest film stock supplier, joined forces to create The Motion Picture Patents Company or the Edison Trust in 1908. This company effectively controlled camera patents, exhibition theatres and film stock, meaning they controlled who could use their cameras, who bought the film to shoot on and the cinemas that could show films. The story goes that many independent filmmakers fled to the West Coast (particularly California) to escape the Trust’s heavy enforcement, which is when filmmakers discovered Hollywood.

Some have disputed the claim’s accuracy as one of the first films shot around Hollywood, D. W. Griffith’s In Old California, was shot for an Edison Trust member, Biograph. Additionally, several Trust studios would soon set up their facilities in and around Los Angeles, though the patents might have been less easy to enforce.

Regardless of the Trust’s role, California offered manymotivations for filmmakers to move there. Namely, it had constant sunny weather, which allowed for regular outdoor filming, and the varied terrain provided great settings for different film stories. Los Angeles also had a lot of anti-union laws, which allowed productions to exploit cheap labour. 

As this influx was happening, a small Los Angeles neighbourhood known as Hollywood soon began letting property to movie producers to help boost the local economy. But this small area would soon balloon into something much greater.

Hollywood’s First Studio

At the end of 1911, several studios had a presence in or near Hollywood. Like the aforementioned Biograph, as well as other big names like Selig and Essnay. But the first studio to set up permanent operations there is credited to the Nestor Film Company.

Nestor was established in 1909 as a production unit for the Centaur Film Company, owned by brothers David and William Horsley. It was known for making short comedy films. The company would soon, along with several other studios, merge to create Universal, which is now one of the world’s oldest functioning film studios. 

Growth and War

In the years following the first film productions set in Hollywood, the film industry would change the small village into a sprawling industry of studios. The Edison Trust was disbanded. Plus, progenitors of other major studios were born during this time. Famous Players (Paramount’s precursor) and the first Warner Bros operation were established. But these years also saw the outbreak of WWI.

WWI resulted in almost the complete destruction of Europe’s film industry. The American industry was left relatively untouched. Many stars and directors active in Hollywood at the time were also approached by the government to aid in war efforts by creating pro-war propaganda and war bond promotions. Thereby resulting in healthy returns and the stars of the time becoming the faces of films exported across America and Europe.

All of this meant that after the war, Hollywood had economic, artistic, cultural and public image strength that was unrivalled across the world. 

Toward A Golden Age

The years after the war would see the influenza outbreak contribute to the decline of independent theatres, which were then bought up by Hollywood studios. The Hollywood sign was erected, creating a firm association in viewers with the idea of Hollywood and scale. More major studios were established, such as Disney and MGM, and Hollywood would begin pushing the boundaries of film itself with the introduction of sound. Some historians mark this as the start of Hollywood’s golden age, when Hollywood showed itself as the undefeatable titan of world cinema, forever cementing itself as the filmmaking capital of the world.

Also Read: Deep Brain’s AI: Transforming Hollywood’s Landscape in 2024

The post How Hollywood Started appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

The History of Stage Names

Stage names were popular in the early days of the film and television industry. Performers wanted to choose names that were memorable, so they would stick in the minds of casting agents and audiences. They chose names that reflected the image they wanted to project. Some performers chose names to hide their nationalities, because they experienced racial and ethnic bias in auditions. 

Stage names also extend to theatre actors and musicians. Many of these artists chose stage names for the same reasons as actors. They also craft alter egos to have a distinct medium for their creativity.  

Reasons Actors Choose Stage Names

Some actors choose stage names to draw a line between their private and public personas. Since the entertainment industry can be a small world, actors can change their names to separate their talent from family connections. Some entertainment institutions, like the Screen Actors Guild and Equity, have rules that performers may not use the same name.   

Actors may choose to adopt a stage name if their given name sounds too similar to another famous person. Similarly, if performers haven common names, they may select a stage name that helps them stand out.  

Some entertainers select names that reflect the public image they are trying to create. Performers may select a stage name if their given name is difficult to pronounce, which would give them more marketability. Many actors choose stage names that honor important influences in their lives.   

Iconic Examples

There are many iconic examples of entertainers choosing a stage name to craft a public persona.

• Marilyn Monroe was born Norma Jeane Mortensen. This glamorous starlet chose a flashier stage name to reflect her public image.
• Emilio Estevez decided not to use his family’s last name, Sheen. He wanted to separate his talent from his famous family’s name. 
• American rapper and comedian, Awkwafina, chose a single stage name that reflected the playful character she wanted to build. 
• Old Hollywood actor Rock Hudson was born Leroy Harold Scherer Jr. He picked a stage name that exuded strength and masculinity because he wanted leading roles. 
• The Vampire Diaries actress Nina Dobrev shortened her name, Nikolina Kamenova Dobreva, to make it easier to remember. Diane Keaton was born Diane Hall, but had to change her name because another actress had the same name.

Stage Names Allow Actors to Transcend Stereotypes

Stage names allow actors to transcend racial and ethnic stereotypes. In Old Hollywood, stage names allowed actors to get in front of casting agents where they could showcase their talent, instead of being sidelined by prejudice. In the 1930s, Margarita Cansino became starlet Rita Hayworth. The name led to an erasure of her Spanish ethnicity, which helped her secure more roles because of the unfair racial and ethnic prejudice in Hollywood. 

Stage names widened the net of opportunities for entertainers who did not want to be put in stereotypical roles. Bruno Mars revealed in a 2013 interview with GQ that he chose his stage name because he did not want to be stereotyped as a Latino singer. 

While Hollywood still has a long way to go regarding inclusivity, some actors use their birth names to honour their heritage. In a 2021 interview, Riverdale actor Jordon Connor revealed he chose his stage name because he was stereotyped as an Asian actor in early auditions. He has since embraced his last name Yuen, to honour his Chinese background.  

Also Read: Shattering Stereotypes: The Rise of Women in Action Cinema

Your contribution to Big Picture Film Club will allow us to continue to produce content. No matter the amount your contributions are greatly appreciated.

The post Behind the Name: The Origins and Reasons for Actors’ Stage Names appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Wait, What’s the WGA?

The Writer’s Guild of America (WGA) is used to refer to the joint operations of two affiliated labour unions founded in 1954; Writer’s Guild of America, East (WGAE) and Writer’s Guild of America West (WGAW). These two labour unions represent writers in television, film, radio and online media in America. They have headquarters in New York City and Los Angeles respectively, each administering its respective side of the United States. Although they are separate entities, they share certain functions like hosting The Writers Guild of America Awards, negotiating contracts and launching strikes.

So Why Are They Striking?

There is a common misconception that everyone in the film industry is rolling in money. It’s understandable, considering that Hollywood is often depicted as the land of glitz and glamour with films and TV shows raking in billions.

The thing is, not much of that actually goes to writers.

Of course, there are a select few screenwriters out there making big bucks but many of the brains behind your favourite shows are living paycheque to paycheque. This hasn’t always been the case, though. Writers simply aren’t being paid as much as they are used to.

One of the main reasons is the disappearance of residuals in the era of streaming. Residuals are a percentage of the profit received when media a person works on is syndicated, re-run or re-released. For decades, residuals have been an important part of a writer’s long-term income. However, the laws that governed residuals applied to traditional TV, not streaming. With most TV shows moving to streaming and studios grinding the minimum payments down to the ground, writers are making close to nothing. Writer Valentina Garza recently shared a tweet in which she received a residual cheque of only three cents (yes, three cents!) for her work on the hit show Jane The Virgin.

Another sticking point is the emergence of mini-rooms as opposed to fully-staffed writers’ rooms. Basically, many studios are hiring almost half the number of writers they used to on a short-term basis to bang out the structure of TV shows. Fewer and fewer writers are retained on long-term payrolls, and it’s making screenwriting as an industry shift from a full-time career to almost exclusively gig work.

Bottom line; the average Hollywood screenwriter can win an Emmy but still not know when next month’s rent is coming from. All of this is going on as studio execs are making increasingly obscene salaries. The strike is a direct result of the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP) aka the union of America’s biggest movie studios, refusing to meet WGA’s reasonable conditions during negotiations.

What Does the Future Hold?

We can already see the immediate effects of the strike. Several productions have completely shut down as writers lay down their pens. This isn’t the first time a strike has interrupted Hollywood productions; the 2007 strike had Conan O’Brien spinning his wedding ring on The Tonight Show to fill airtime. A great deal of the Californian economy also relies on these shows to keep running.

But the short-term losses have potential for positive results for both writers and viewers. Not only will it give writers some semblance of financial stability to writers, but it will also probably lead to better TV. With fully-staffed writers’ rooms and regulations to curb use of AI to write scripts, we could see a drastic improvement in the quality of the TV shows produced. We’re all tired of dozens of Netflix shows that are cancelled after one season and look like they were written in the dark.

Want to Help?

Follow the hashtag #WGAStrong or join the picketing.

Also Read: Equal Writes: Why We Need More Female Writers

Your contribution to Big Picture Film Club will allow us to continue to produce content. No matter the amount your contributions are greatly appreciated.

The post WGA Strike and the Future of Television appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Who was Barbara Stanwyck?

Born Ruby Stevens in Brooklyn, New York in 1907, Stanwyck’s childhood was not easy. Her mother died when she was four and her father subsequently walked out on the family. She was then placed in several foster homes. After quitting school at 14 she found work as a dancer and a chorus girl. Then in 1926, she was cast in the broadway play The Noose which brought her into the spotlight. Afterwards, she starred in the show Burlesque before moving to Hollywood. There she had some minor film roles but she received her big break by being cast in Ladies of Leisure. She went on to work with many great directors (Howard Hawks, Billy Wilder, Douglas Sirk) and stars (William Holden, Henry Fonda, Gary Cooper) across film and TV until her death in 1990.

Why is She Underrated?

As mentioned above Stanwyck’s name seems to be lost in general conversation when it comes to the great Golden Age actresses. Like Malcolm McDowell, if she is mentioned often it is only for one film (Double Indemnity). And many seem to view Stanwyck as a star rather than an actress.

But across her nearly 60-year career, there are many aspects to appreciate. Stanwyck was always a professional who was committed to getting the best from her costars and herself. She acted across many genres including, westerns, romance, comedy, noir, melodrama, and more. And at a time when many actresses could only inhabit certain stereotyped roles, Stanwyck played a variety of strong and determined women who felt real. Unfortunately, she received comparatively little high-profile recognition for much of her work outside of nominations and honorary awards. So today we are going to direct you to some great Barbara Stanwyck projects, to help more people appreciate her contribution to entertainment.

5 Great Barbara Stanwyck Performances

1. Stella Dallas – Stella Dallas

As Stella, Stanwyck showcases the working-class toughness that would define much of her career. But she also gets to demonstrate her emotional range. While we follow Stella’s journey through marriage, separation, and motherhood we laugh and cry equally because of Stanwyck’s wonderfully reserved and agonisingly authentic performance. For me, this is Stanwyck’s best work.

2. Sugarpuss O’Shea -Ball of Fire

Undoubtedly Stanwyck’s best 1941 role (that year she also starred in The Lady Eve and the underrated Meet John Doe). Her comedic delivery as the brash nightclub singer who captures the attention of researchers and gangsters is pitch-perfect. Her chemistry with Gary Cooper is enthralling and her screen presence magnetic. This movie truly demonstrates Stanwyck’s star power.

3. Phyllis Dietrichson – Double Indemnity

Stanwyck is unforgettable as the femme fatale who manipulates hapless salesman Walter Neff (Fred MacMurray) into killing her husband for a massive insurance payout. Stanwyck and MacMurray’s chemistry is electric, and her performance is so good that you are never sure if Phyllis is being sincere or lying. It’s the role she will forever be remembered for.

4. Norma Vale – There’s Always Tomorrow

Barbara Stanwyck and Fred MacMurray reunite in their fourth collaboration. This time Clifford Groves (MacMurray) longs to escape his stale marriage to be with the more exciting Norma (Stanwyck). The actors’ chemistry is still amazing in this more tender outing. But Stanwyck stands out. She invests Norma with a sense of longing, making the couple’s intimacy feel natural and the ending even more tragic.

5. Victoria Barkley – The Big Valley

While many of her contemporaries looked down on TV Stanwyck used it to show that, despite her increasing age, she could still be as tough as anyone else in the industry. As the ranching Barkley family matriarch, she commanded authority and respect. And her character became an icon to many.

With so many great roles it was hard to narrow it down to simply 5. So please check out some of Stanwyck’s other work and let us know your favourites.

Also Read: Underrated Actors: Malcolm McDowell

Your contribution to Big Picture Film Club will allow us to continue to produce content. No matter the amount your contributions are greatly appreciated.

The post Underrated Actors: Barbara Stanwyck appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

All this sounds a little like Amy’s “Cool Girl” monologue from Gone Girl; an impossible set of standards that seem incredibly flattening. Of course, the images of how women “should” be are far more pervasive and often sit in relation to capitalist agendas, as chronicled well in Jia Tolentino’s 2019 essay “Always Be Optimizing”. Still, the image of the modern man is continually pushed and then pushed against, especially by conservatives who have a vested interest in tradition. Take, for example, Harry Styles wearing a dress on the cover of Vogue in November 2020, which prompted right-wing commentator Candice Owens to tweet, “no society can survive without strong men”. Yet the act also drew criticism from the progressive left and queer community, who, you might imagine, would surely celebrate the blurring of gender lines. Actor Billy Porter told the Sunday Times he was unimpressed that Styles was the first man to wear a dress on the cover of Vogue, given that he had been doing it on the red carpet for years. The sentiment was echoed online, with people criticising the collective celebration of Styles, given that the act of wearing a dress is far less radical than anything queer people have been doing for decades. 

Last week, for Halloween, Styles dressed as Dorothy from The Wizard of Oz and created a somewhat similar backlash. One user posted a photo of Styles in the costume next to a screenshot of another tweet: “Bitches be like “HARRY STYLES ENDED TOXIC MASCULINITY” and it’s the ugliest outfit you’ve ever seen.” The aesthetic value of the costume is irrelevant here. Instead, it seems that the underlying message is quite conservative; that straight men should remain within a straight aesthetic, and any attempts to merge with a queer one, or anything that crosses gender boundaries, ought to be met with hostility. 

THE IDEA OF THE MODERN MAN CAME BACK TO ME A FEW WEEKS AGO when I saw Dune and The French Dispatch in the space of two days. At the centre of both movies was Timothée Chalamet, who, like Styles, often draws attention for the way he dresses and is regularly discussed as a symbol of modern masculinity. As critic Guy Lodge put it in The Guardian last weekend, Chalamet’s image presents “a new kind of Hollywood leading man, rejecting macho stereotypes in favour of a kinder, more wholesome delicacy.” As a Hollywood leading man, Chalamet is often compared to Leonardo DiCaprio given, as Interview Magazine put it, “their similar career trajectories and the schoolgirl crushes they inspired during their respective rises to fame”. But perhaps this comparison doesn’t quite fit anymore.

If DiCaprio’s boyish good-looks were his gateway to fame, the one-two-punch of Titanic and Romeo + Juliet leading him to be on almost every girl and gay boy’s mind in the 1990s, he no longer has that vibe. In 2021 he is, perhaps, closer to an older idea of masculinity, especially if one is to analyse his apparent penchant for younger women, his life lived on yachts in sunny locales, and his choice of roles that retain his image as the classic heterosexual leading man. While Chalamet’s role in Dune may push similar buttons as something DiCaprio might have played in his youth, his political activist in The French Dispatch is far from it. 

In looking for this straight male linage—one that has been thrust upon Styles too—the idea of a modern movie star is difficult to comprehend in relation to the “modern man”. Chalamet, to my mind, doesn’t fit in the mould of DiCaprio but, instead, feels closer perhaps to Anthony Perkins, both in body type and in the air of sensitivity that he could portray. He, too, feels closer to the quiet brooding of Montgomery Clift, whose tender presence in films like From Here to Eternity mirrors Chalamet’s in, say, Call Me By Your Name or Lady Bird. In this respect, there is a sense of James Dean, too, with Chalamet often embodying an emotional teen looking to be understood.  What connects these men beyond a particular type of style is their queerness. Perkins and Clift were both gay men while Dean, it is often rumoured, was bisexual. It seems that drawing these lines has the effect of making stars like Chalamet and Styles make more sense within the Hollywood system, that their version of stardom is not wholly new but built upon older Hollywood stars, whose queerness was hidden. That is not to suggest that either Chalamet or Styles are hiding queerness, although it is entirely possible. 

I AM FAR MORE INTERESTED IN A LEFTIST AND QUEER CRITIQUE OF THE “MODERN MAN” than I am in anything right-wing pundits might want to say. Those arguments are hollow and only work to uphold long-standing power dynamics that rely on the diminishment of freedom. Yet the queer and leftist arguments are more complex to unpick and are fascinating when they run close to conservative lines, albeit from a different direction. 

Take, for example, Porter’s discussion of casting during the 2019 Drama Actor’s Roundtable for The Hollywood Reporter. “If ‘flamboyantly…’ wasn’t in the description of the character, no one would see me, ever. For anything,” he said. “Which wouldn’t be so enraging if it went the other way,” he continued, “because straight men, playing gay, everyone wants to give them an award” as if to say, “Thank you for gracing us with your straight presence.” This is a valid argument (one I have made before), one that feels even deeper when, as Porter puts it, you are a person of colour and a “queen”. Gay men, especially gay men of colour, rarely get leading roles in major movies and never get straight parts if they’re openly gay. When you open that out to lesbians, trans, and non-binary folk, the numbers get worse still. 

What made this moment even juicer, at least in the eyes of Twitter, was that he said this in front of Hugh Grant and Richard Madden, two actors who had recently played gay in A Very English Scandal and Rocketman, respectively. In fact, during the short video clip, the camera cuts to Madden looking oddly uncomfortable as if the editor wants to suggest it is him Porter is addressing. In response, some drew attention to rumours of Madden’s sexuality, which has seen him linked with actress Ellie Bamber as well as actors Brandon Flynn and Froy Gutierrez. What followed, then, was a discussion about disclosure of sexuality, the right to privacy, and if sexuality can ever be private. Madden, in 2019, told The New York Times he would not discuss his sexuality or personal life, but, culturally, it raised questions about the regard sexuality is given during these types of discussions. This idea recurred recently with The Morning Show actress Julianne Margulies saying that those debating her role as a lesbian season two of the Apple TV+ series are “making assumptions” in presuming her casting adds to the debate of straight actors playing gay. 

In all this sits the complexity of the “modern man”. Not the one GQ wants you to be, but the one people have been asking for when they talk about ending “toxic masculinity”. That buzz phrase, which has slithered through the past decade to the point it has become almost entirely meaningless, is what fans of Chalamet or Styles claim they are putting an end to. However, this often means crossing into what has often been considered a queer aesthetic, one that exists beyond rigid gender binaries. This, perhaps rightly so, makes some queer people feel uncomfortable, that they might question their intentions. After all, the “metrosexual”, which has included the likes of David Beckham, Cristiano Ronaldo, and Zac Efron as its symbols, was a capitalist co-opting of queerness to make it palatable, and more importantly, sellable, to the straight male consumer. It is not, then, unjust for queer folks wanting those who engage with a queer aesthetic to have some connection to it beyond the superficial. In short, it is not an irrational fear. Yet it seems prudent that queerness often positions itself as something that breaks down barriers and binaries, something that, in theory, would liberate straight folks from oppressive gender regimes too. In practice, though, as “straight” men break free from a personality defined by Lynx Africa and bootcut jeans and into something akin to visual queerness, it is met with hostility or mocking.

Next year, Styles will appear in Don’t Worry Darling and My Policemen, the latter a film in which he plays a gay man in the 1950s. He, too, if rumours are to be believed, has on the horizon a relatively significant role in the MCU (his first appearance is in the end credits scene for The Eternals, which coincidentally also stars Madden, though just how he will fit into the franchise’s future is unclear). As for Chalamet, up next for him is Wonka, a musical exploring the campy chocolatier’s origins, Dune Part II, and a supporting role opposite his supposed predecessor DiCaprio in Netflix’s Don’t Look Up. It would seem that, as the profiles of these two actors grow and more like them begin to spring up, we can expect more discussion of what a “modern man” truly is. I am not sure, however, that we are entirely ready for it.

Also Read: How The “War On Terror” Changed Hollywood

Your contribution to Big Picture Film Club will allow us to continue to produce content. No matter the amount your contributions are greatly appreciated.

The post How Film Changed Me: On the “Modern Man” appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

In short, it’s been a rough year for those working in Film and TV. But even in years without a global pandemic, it’s not the easiest job. Long unsociable hours, low pay, and little time for things like meals or sleep are commonplace. That’s a lot of the reasons the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE) has voted with a 98% majority to go on strike. This is the first time in the alliance’s 128-year history that strike action has been authorised. With so many workers part of the union, what does this mean for Hollywood?

2007-2008 Writer’s Strike

The last big Hollywood strike was the Writers’ strike. As streaming platforms began to take off, writers demanded fairer treatment for their work, as well as residuals from sales of DVDs. The cost of producing DVDs had reduced dramatically since the original agreement, and digital viewing, either through download or streaming, was becoming popular. As writers often rely on residuals from past projects via reruns or sales, these are important sources of income that writers felt was being unfairly distributed.

Without writers, most film and TV productions were forced to shut down, with many laying off several other production staff as a result. Many TV seasons were cut short, and networks scrambled to replace them with reality TV. The industries lost millions of dollars, and many actors showed their support. The strike was successful, as writers got a new deal ahead of the big streaming boom, and a more even share for residuals. So there is a precedent for these strikes to be successful.

2021 Strike

Members of the latest strike include cinematographers, set designers, hair and makeup artists, animators and many more across big filmmaking hubs like New York, LA and Atlanta. After Covid-19 brought productions to a standstill, many are working overtime on top of 12-hour days in an effort to catch up. In some cases, this is leading to accidents, either on set or off, and exacerbating medical conditions. Often these hours are for low pay if their overtime is paid at all. In short, it’s understandable why. The pandemic has caused many to lose their jobs, and others to re-evaluate their careers and priorities. After months of uncertainty, it makes sense that workers would be less willing to put up with this.

Despite a deal being reached to prevent the strike, many are reportedly unhappy with the results. The new deal offers a 54-hour weekend and 10-hour turnover time, but many already have that in their contracts, so nothing changes. While some workers said they would need information before making a decision, others are underwhelmed.

It’s possible this could change the way Hollywood works forever. The industry is infamous for its long and unsociable hours. Changing them would undoubtedly benefit all those working there. But it would likely affect production times. With shorter days and weekends, it would likely take longer for a project to wrap, and even longer to edit. With these restrictions in place, the traditional 22-episode season most US shows enjoy would likely suffer. Either in episode count or gap between seasons. Likewise, many films would likely have longer production times. Marvel’s Phase 4, for example, would likely be delayed from its current timeline. On the flip side, it may allow many new talents to enter the industry that were previously unable or put off by the long hours.

Whatever happens with the strike is sure to be very interesting and have long-lasting effects on Hollywood and TV/film production.

Also Read: Is Hollywood Starting To Take Video Games Seriously?

The post How Will A Possible IATSE Members Strike Affect Hollywood Productions? appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

When the discussion turned to the prevalence of sexual assault and harassment, one by one, each of us disclosed the details of various things that had happened to us. There were stories of unwanted advances on work-nights-out, reassessments of consent in light of this new movement, and a lot of self-blaming regarding how things had all played out. While our experiences all differed, we all had one distinct thing in common: we had told no one. We had not sought out workplace protocols, or been to the police, or reported our experience in any other way that might have presented itself. Instead, we all decided that it was our personal burden to bear. 

Now, as those once disgraced stars return to work or get out of jail on a technicality, I have been wondering about that night. At the time, it seemed to illuminate all we had been discussing in the news; the power dynamics at play and the ideas of shame or guilt were so strong that none of us had reported it. And yet, now, around four years later, nothing has changed; those actions we spoke about that night remain just as horror stories told between friends. 

Thinking back to the night and the sense of promise in those early stages of the Me Too movement, I began to wonder about something. In the 1980s, the devil himself, Ronald Regan, introduced a new economic policy that came to be known as “trickledown economics”. It has since been widely discredited as a viable solution but, under his plan, the wealthiest received tax cuts on the incorrect assumption that those rich folks would then invest that money into jobs or society, and it would “trickle-down” to help the poor. In actuality (as most rational people might have guessed would happen) they did not spend it but rather hoarded it for themselves. This policy pushed as a way of helping more impoverished communities did not affect them in the proposed way. Instead, it meant that, with less money being paid in taxes by the wealthy elite, services and programmes that the poor in America relied on were cut or severely underfunded.

Essentially, this same idea can be applied to Hollywood—only without one specific Republican figurehead. Instead, mainstream feminists suggest that Hollywood is the perfect battlefield in the fight for equality, but fail to consider what that really means for the average person. 

There has long been an idea that narratives played out by celebrities, not unlike Greek Gods for ancient men, represent something about how we, the ordinary people, live our lives; that some lessons are to be learned, or that somehow it will shift the culture. When the news explains that celebrities are fighting for equal pay, speaking out against sexism, homophobia or transphobia, or commenting on experiences of sexual harassment, it feels as though the suggestion is that a trail is being blazed, that the fruit of celebrity labours will be borne for us all. And yet, increasingly, these actions seem further and further removed from the reality of most people. Recently, when Scarlett Johansson filed a shocking lawsuit against Disney, mainstream feminists online lorded the power move of a woman demanding what she’s worth. However, while the essence of the politics at the centre of that suit may be the same as that of other equal pay disputes, the practicalities are not; one millionaire suing a corporation does not a feminist movement make. In fact, those affected by the gender pay gap are not those in the corporate world or Hollywood, but they are primarily black and brown women who stand to earn, on average, around 40% less than their white male colleagues and approximately 20% less than their white female ones. These women will not see the rewards of Johansson’s feminist stance. 

In her book The Right to Sex, Amia Srinivasan writes on the nature of this problem; when intersectionality is merely performative or a buzzword to be thrown around to suggest “wokeness”, feminism fails. She writes: “To reduce intersectionality to a mere attention to difference is to forgo its power as a theoretical and practical orientation.” Meaning that feminism which focuses only on the commonality between oppressed groups—instead of explicitly considering the experiences of queer, disabled, and black and brown folks, as well anyone who sits at an intersection between those things— only allows the least oppressed to benefit; typically rich, white, cisgender women. 

To consider this in relation to the #MeToo movement is to think about the benefits of such a movement and who was rewarded from it. For example, many mainstream feminists found retribution in men being outed as predators and celebrated if any charges were brought against them. I can understand this impulse; I even felt it myself occasionally as someone who has experienced assault. Yet to cheer for carceral punishment as a kind of win when those structures—the law, the courts, prisons, the police—are institutions riddled with sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and racism feels like murky water to wade in. #MeToo may have encouraged many people to speak up as a social movement, but only those with the privilege to enter into systems without the fear of prejudice will have seen results. If you have spent the past few years watching people who look like you be murdered by police, are you going to go to them to report a rape? If you have seen a legal system wrap itself in knots about whether your gender identity or sexuality is valid, do you think you’ll feel that that same legal system—made for and by cisgender men—will come down on your side? If you have felt unsupported by a system that sees your disabled body as a burden, would you feel safe reporting the violation of that body? 

It all interestingly ties together with a sense of the political upheaval of 2020; what is the role of carceral punishment when, for so many, those systems oppress more than they liberate? What use is police reform when forces refuse to accept the racism within their ranks is systematic? What use is reform when “1500 accusations of sexual misconduct, including sexual harassment, exploitation of crime victims and child abuse, have been made against police officers in England and Wales” between 2012 and 2018? 

This is all the stark reality for most people who do not exist within those certain privileged classes, or Hollywood, but the jeering and excitement at men being brought to task by those same institutions that abuse so many women and trans folk feels like an odd feminist stance—celebrating the hand of state power being wielded against someone you dislike is often recourse that leads to that same hand being wielded against your own. 

This criticism is not a new one. In the early days of the movement, prominent black feminists like Roxane Gay and Ava DuVernay pointed out the racism at work already in the selective outrage and the tunnel-vision regarding the end goal. The idea that Me Too was to focus explicitly on sexual harassment and how to, legally, seek justice was to remove all sense of intersectionality and act as though everyone was on the same playing field and had the same protections. Srinivasan again: “he problem with Me Too as a mass women’s movement isn’t just a lack of ‘consistent’ application of concern and outrage across racial lines.’ Instead, the “fundamental problem is the presupposition that any such movement should be grounded in what women have universally in common.” Where Hollywood feminism falls short is in its refusal to see lines of race, class, sexuality, and disability. 

In that pub in 2017, my friends and I hadn’t felt we could seek help. For some of my friends, it was for fear of losing their job and having nothing to fall back on; for others, it was a sense of societal shame that wasn’t erased from their families or friends in the way people in the movement were suggesting it could be. As for myself, I was among the 85% of gay or bi men (at the time of my assault, I identified as male) who had not reported to a police force that has a long history of homophobia and violence against queer people; not to mention a stunning lack of awareness when it comes to sexual assault between men—something Michaela Coel’s I May Destroy You highlighted so excellently last year. 

It cannot be denied that the Me Too movement has had its benefits in terms of discussion and consciousness-raising as well bringing to light just how prevalent these types of actions are; but enough time has passed now that we can see the holes—the very ones Kevin Spacey, Bill Cosby, and Louis C.K. are slipping through. Given that the focus was on legal justice, what do we do now that it hasn’t been served? 

Also Read: The Journey of Black Widow

Your contribution to Big Picture Film Club will allow us to continue to produce content. No matter the amount your contributions are greatly appreciated.

The post How Film Changed Me: On The Hollywood Trickle-Down appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Every state (in the U.S) has its own set of laws intending to protect children in this industry, but most seem to be centred around child labor laws, not protecting the kids on a personal level. California law states both how long child actors can act per day and how long they can be at the place of employment. For example, CareerTrend.com states:

• Infants <6 months: can be at work 2 hours maximum, acting 20 minutes/day maximum and only between 9:30 a.m. and 11:30 a.m. or 2:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.
• Age 6 months to 2 years: can be at work 4 hours maximum, acting 2 hours/day maximum
• 2 to 6 years: can be at work 6 hours maximum, acting 3 hours/day maximum
• 6 to 9 years: can be at work 8 hours maximum, acting 4 hours/day maximum during the school year and 6 hours/day maximum during school breaks
• 9 to 16 years: can be at work 9 hours maximum, acting 5 hours/day maximum during the school year and 7 hours/day maximum during school breaks
• 16 to 18 years: can be at work 10 hours maximum, acting 6 hours/day maximum during the school year and 8 hours/day maximum during school breaks

As great as it is that these children have protections in place to keep their labor from being exploited, they seem to have little or no protection against the predatory manipulations of agents, producers, directors, even parents.

Some young performers (like Lindsey Lohan) are the primary breadwinners in their families, which can create an unnatural power dynamic between them and their parents. Sometimes parents quit their jobs, and travel around the country to audition their children, many times leaving spouses and other children at home. This can be isolating and guilt-inducing to the child, who many times feel as if they are commodities, and unable to quit. They also have to deal with the resentment of the rest of their family, who may not understand why they lost a parent/sibling to this new lifestyle.

The Good, The Bad, The Ugly

Although there are a few great examples of child stars that made it through relatively unscathed, for every hard-won success are ten more tragedies. Some of the lucky ones are Ryan Gosling, Jake Gyllenhaal, Mila Kunis, Tia & Tamera Mowry, and Brandy Norwood; I’m sure they have their own stories, as all performers do, but they seem to have traversed the minefield of stardom relatively well.

Not everyone is so fortunate. Hollywood darlings like the Olsen Twins, River Phoenix, Drew Barrymore, and Macaulay Culkin have pasts riddled with alcohol and drug abuse, a self-destructive side effect of growing up too fast, too soon.

In addition are those who have come out as advocates for survivors of sexual abuse, such as “Matilda” star Mara Wilson, who was constantly sent “rape fantasy fanmail”; Todd Bridges of “Different Strokes” fame, who was molested by his publicist; Gabrielle Union from “Bring It On”, who was raped at a young age, and “Bill & Ted” star Alex Winter who says he left with ‘extreme PTSD’ after surviving sexual abuse as a child.

On an even darker path are those who died by suicide, like “Talledaga Nights” star Houston Tumlin.

All in all, the general consensus is, child actors are placed in many dangerous situations with no guidance, no protection, and many times, zero support. As Rachel Evan Wood (Westworld) states, “being an actor in Hollywood just becomes a contest of who can take the most abuse… because there’s always someone ready to take your place if you don’t.” With that being the case, although this is definitely against the grain, I think it would be best for everyone involved to just let children be children, and leave the work to the adults.

Also Read: Hollywood & The Military: A Special Relationship

Your contribution to Big Picture Film Club will allow us to continue to produce content. No matter the amount your contributions are greatly appreciated.

The post It’s a Hard-Knock Life: The Dangerous World of a Child Star appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Hollywood. Technically just another district in the city of Los Angeles, with barely 150 thousand people. It covers roughly 30 miles in a city of more than 500 square, but the myth and reach of Hollywood stretches a lot farther. Although people have settled there since 1853, what we call “Hollywood” didn’t spring up until 1902– And the first film wasn’t made there until 1908: The Count of Monte Cristo. Ever since “Hollywood” has become the chronicler of North American culture – and with that comes great power. You know the line: with great power comes great responsibility. Intended or not, Hollywood holds the reins of history and decides who will be revered, who will be remembered, who will inspire fear… and who will be left out entirely.

Just the facts, Ma’am

Around the time that Hollywood was making its first pictures, the United States was taking its thirteenth census, and surprise: The U.S. was nearly 89% White. That had a huge impact on the way Hollywood would develop over the next one hundred and thirteen years. The country was about 11% Black, 0.9% Hispanic, 0.3% Indigenous, and 0.2% Asian. Fast forward to 2021: The country is around 59% White, 18.5% Hispanic, 13.4% Black, 5.9% Asian, 1.5% Indigenous, and about 2.8% Mixed Race. Very different numbers. Yet, the films and shows coming out of Hollywood haven’t changed with the pace.

In 2011, American diversity in film was tracked for the first time. Most films fell into the lowest diversity bracket– less than 11%. In 2020, however, nearly 29% of all American films had a cast diversity level of 50% or more—- Quite an improvement. But all in all, that still means that 71% of American films were hardly diverse at all. And if you consider that for many Hollywood films “diversity” means the minority characters are glorified extras or so whitewashed themselves you’d be hard-pressed to even notice their minority status, even that 29% starts to look suspect.

The one with the all-White cast

Only in the most recent of the last eleven consecutive decades has diversity been a real goal in “Tinsel Town”; before then you’d get the occasional multi-cultural hit, such as ‘Rush Hour’ (Jackie Chan, Chris Tucker), ‘Lethal Weapon’ (Mel Gibson, Danny Glover), and ‘Men in Black’ (Will Smith, Tommy Lee Jones), but more likely you’d get movies like ‘Back to the Future’ and ‘Dirty Dancing’, and tv shows like ‘Seinfeld’ and ‘Friends’. I could easily list one hundred movies and Tv shows that somehow make the United States appear magically one race. Shows like ‘How I Met Your Mother’ depict New York City—- one of the most diverse cities in the world—- as completely one-note. As someone who spent over a decade living in Manhattan, I can tell you many tourists are genuinely surprised when they realize that nearly 6 of the 8 million people in NYC aren’t White. Lee Atwater coined the famous phrase, “Perception is reality”. Which means with representation in the U.S.A. being what it is, American minorities are marginal… or don’t exist.

Show me the money

Every studio swears they are committed to providing diverse film casts, but something tells me their newfound commitment isn’t completely altruistic: Movies that were made up of 41% to 50% minorities had the highest median global box office receipts; Films with less than 11% minorities performed the worst. In recent years projects such as Black Panther (Grossed $1.3 BILLION, Budget $200m) and Crazy Rich Asians (Grossed $238m, Budget $30m) have been turning the heads of Studio executives, and a tidal wave of diversity may be coming. A clear sign of change lies in the fact that people of Color made up 39.7% of film leads in 2020 – a substantial leap from just 10.5% in 2011. However, there’s still a lot of room for growth behind the camera: Across 886 directors from the top 800 grossing films from 2007 to 2015 (excluding 2011), only 5.5% were Black and 2.8% were Asian. 

Houston, we have a problem

Aside from diversity issues in general, lies the problem of the true re-writing of history: Whitewashing. From the nearly all-White cast of ‘Gods of Egypt’ to Angelina Jolie playing an Afro-Chinese-Cuban-Jewish woman (‘A Mighty Heart’), some minority roles have been literally appropriated by White performers.

In The Human Stain, Anthony Hopkins plays an African American professor that has apparently been passing for White since college. Yes, the argument could be made that if he could pass for White, why not get a famous White actor to play him? Why indeed, aside from the fact that it’s not remotely believable that Hopkins comes from a Black family, and there are plenty of light-skinned Black actors that would have done justice to the role. Passing as White does not indeed make you White, and there was no part of Hopkins performance that conveyed any level of Blackness.

Even when it’s inspired by a true story, such as in Stuck, based on the story of a Black woman who hit a homeless man, but was cast as White in the film, or Ring of Fire, the story of Johnny Cash in which his Black Italian first wife was played by the same woman who portrayed Snow White on the tv series Once Upon A Time, minority characters are unapologetically replaced by White ones. Here’s a quick sample, but the examples are countless:

Tom Cruise, ‘Edge of Tomorrow’: The Japanese character Keiji Kiriya was changed to Major William “Bill” Cage.

Rooney Mara, ‘Pan’: The Indigenous American character “Tiger Lily” is played by White actress Rooney Mara.

Ben Affleck, ‘Argo’: Ben played the part of Tony Mendez, based on a real-life Hispanic CIA agent.

Bye, Felisha

Throughout this article, each section is prefaced with an old movie or tv quote, all of which has come from a traditionally “White” film; This last one I pulled from a Black movie just to make a point: Many of you won’t know it. This film (‘Friday’) had some of the best comedic actors of their time— Chris Tucker, Bernie Mac, & John Witherspoon to name a few— but until now “Black” movies & shows are considered for Black people only, while “White” films are thought to be for everyone; This way of thinking created one of the biggest cultural divides in our country. After nearly 530 years of sharing this country with each other, White America still hasn’t bridged the cultural divide. Everyone says that America is a melting pot but until now, it’s been more like oil and water. But if we continue this trend of diversity, easing the (sometimes unintentional, sometimes not) grip White Supremacy has had on Hollywood, if we open our eyes to each other, and welcome each other’s stories into our lives and our living rooms, I think that we would suddenly realize that what they say is true— There is only One Race: The Human Race.

Also Read: BLACK to the Future: The Rise of AfroFuturism

Your contribution to Big Picture Film Club will allow us to continue to produce content. No matter the amount your contributions are greatly appreciated.

The post The History of Whitewashed Hollywood appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Let’s take a trip through history and the current media landscape and see if we can begin to understand what led to the decline of the old studios and the rise of the streaming giants.

Where They Are Now?

In Hollywood’s Golden Age (between the 1920s and 1960s) there were eight studios that made up the biggest movie production houses: MGM, Paramount Pictures, Warner Bros, 20^th Century Fox, RKO Pictures, United Artists, Columbia Pictures, and Universal Pictures. These companies were responsible for producing some of the greatest films, both of the golden age and of all time. However, after the golden age, these studios had many varying fates.

RKO Pictures was largely folded by the late 1950s. The company was later revived, but it had little success. Its most recent film was 2015’s Barely Lethal. Along with this the other iconic studios are now all owned by other companies. Sony bought Columbia Pictures in 1989; ViacomCBS has owned Paramount since 1994; Comcast owns Universal; Disney purchased 20^th Century Fox in 2019 and rebranded it as 20^th Century Studios; AT&T controls Warner Bros; MGM acquired United Artists in 1981. And despite facing bankruptcy in 2010 MGM survived and is currently being purchased by Amazon.

Several things have contributed to the current Hollywood landscape. For example, the loss of studio control over cinemas and the prevalence of television were major factors in ending the golden age. This left many studios floundering financially and needing to be saved through buyouts. Many of these production houses have managed to recover thanks to buyouts, cinema box office, and distribution deals. But a new market is providing huge competition for them.

The Streaming Wars

Movie streaming platforms have emerged as a huge market force in the past decade. This is because streaming and VoD services offer more flexibility for viewers, allowing them to view a wide range of movies from home for reasonable prices. Which has led to a huge audience frequenting these services.

And with the Covid-19 pandemic forcing cinemas to close, over the last year streaming sites were able to rob big Hollywood studios of their control of the market. Allowing these platforms to effectively become the new Hollywood studios, bringing out big new movies weekly (both original and distributed on behalf of other companies) that captured attention.

The most prominent players in the western world of streaming are Netflix, which has 208 million subscribers worldwide and earned around $25 billion in 2020, Amazon Prime, which has 200 million worldwide subscribers, and Disney+ with over 100 million subscribers. All these companies provide wide catalogues of films and TV shows, new and old, while also having their own brands of original content. However, the way these companies acquire said content is very different.

Netflix and Amazon Prime get their originals through producing and acquiring the distribution rights to various projects. Disney+ similarly produces and has distribution rights for many IP’s. But they also have their own film production studios. Meaning Disney is fully capable of making their own original content to put on their streaming sites. Thus ensuring they keep 100% of the revenue, which makes Disney+ much more like a traditional film studio. This makes it a huge threat to other film companies because of its ability to pivot effortlessly between streaming and cinematic distribution for its movies.

Those that Survived

Streaming has transformed Hollywood and movie production/distribution over the last few years. And even with cinemas reopening big studios will need to take steps to mitigate the financial damage done by the pandemic. This means that studios are now, more than ever, having to consider pivoting to streaming to recoup their losses.

Comcast entered the streaming wars last year with Peacock, made to showcase films from Universal. ViacomCBS also replaced their streaming network, CBS All Access, with Paramount+. But other studios are going to larger lengths to win over audiences.

Through its $8.45 billion purchase of MGM, Amazon hopes to boost the content it can offer. In addition, some also speculate that Amazon will use MGM to produce content for Prime, rather than letting it remain a standalone entity. Similar to what Disney is doing with its studios. And recently AT&T announced that it will merge Warner Media and Discovery into its own streaming platform. This will put the back catalogue of Warner Bros, CNN, Turner, and Discovery (as well as the streaming services HBO Max and Discovery+) into one place. These moves have the potential to really shake up the market.

But while this influx of new streaming platforms from movie studios and the move towards studios making content for streaming may be financially beneficial and offer consumers more content, it also shows that streaming services are slowly moving towards offering content produced exclusively by them and their affiliates. Thus customers may soon have to subscribe to various sites to get everything they want. Rather than having a diverse range of material on various sites.

What do you guys think of the effect the streaming wars is having on the American film industry?

Also Read: The History of Paramount Pictures

Your contribution to Big Picture Film Club will allow us to continue to produce content. No matter the amount your contributions are greatly appreciated.

The post The New Hollywood: Streaming Giants appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

We know the names: Cynthia Erivo (Harriet), Daniel Kaluuya (Get Out), Thandiwe Newton (Westworld), Idris Elba (The Wire), Gugu Mbatha-Raw (Game of Thrones), David Oyelowo (Selma), Ruth Negga (Preacher), John Boyega (Star Wars), and dozens more. They’ve played comic book characters, civil rights activists, sci-fi heroes, inner-city drug dealers— The entire gamut of Black American cinema and tv. Some of my AfrAm brothers and sisters take exception to that. And I understand why.  But hear me out. And stay ’til the end. 

The Americans

Since the moment we set foot on the American continent, Black Americans have been inundated with accusations of inferiority. This issue isn’t unique to us; However, no other country was built around that concept. Each generation has inched along, fighting the destruction of our self-esteem and our bodies by White America, as well as generational poverty, injustice, and erasure. And after centuries cut off from our roots, from global “Blackness”, we’ve developed in a vacuum. Everyone is other. We are surrounded on all sides. We will not be erased. 

With that in mind, Black British actors, in a sense, are seen as performing “American Blackface”. Someone outside of ourselves, “… that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more…” From our perspective, British actors swoop in, are granted coveted roles, then disappear with accolades. It’s just another case of outside exploitation.

There’s also a feeling of loss: In the film ‘Black Panther’,  the antagonist Killmonger says, “Just bury me in the ocean with my ancestors that jumped from the ships, because they knew death was better than bondage.” That line was added by Chadwick Boseman, who played the titular character. A British actor would not think to add or change lines to better reflect the Black American experience, nor would they fight for those changes, even if they occurred to them. Although David Oyelowo and Carmen Ejogo, who played Martin Luther King Jr. and Coretta Scott King respectively, did excellent jobs, their performances came across as sterile, and exact, as a concert pianist trying to capture “the Blues”. Technically correct, yet missing the “flavor” and “heart” of Black America.

The British

In contrast to the isolationist viewpoint of Black Americans on this topic, Black British performers seem to take the view that, although not always as explicit, the tendrils of racism have stretched far and wide– and touch Black Britons as much as anyone. Perhaps more so, as the insidiousness of the systemic racism they’re entrenched in is a quiet, creeping thing: Hard to suss out and defeat. When George Floyd was killed in May of 2020, marches sprang up around the globe. Like Superman’s death cry in the opening scene of Zack Snyder’s ‘Justice League’, the pain of Black America sent piercing ripples throughout the world. And when those self same people appear to reject the British experience of Blackness– there’s a sense betrayal. The knife cuts deeper.

Theirs is the same quest for opportunity. The same desire for Black stories to be told. The same drive to give a stellar performance. Only to be told you’re the wrong kind of Black.

My Thoughts

Are Black British actors more prepared, and better trained? Perhaps. When you’re coming to a topic from the outside, you don’t coast. You don’t take it for granted. American actor Brian White is quoted as saying: “I have not seen one British actor that hasn’t trained in theatre show up in an audition.” Pair that with the dismantling of the arts in America, and you may have a point.

But is that really the core issue? This river has two heads: The lack of opportunities for Black performers… and the need for unification amongst the Diaspora. United Artists, currently doing business as United Artists Digital Studios, was founded in 1919 by Charlie Chaplin et al on the premise of empowering actors to control their own interests, breaking dependance from commercial studios. I propose Black Americans put suspicion and offense aside, and take the long view: The more we embrace and reconnect with our allies in the Diaspora, the more of an empire we build around the world. It’s time to abandon the internal skirmish mentality, and embrace the Big Picture: We’re stronger together. As they say, “United We Stand, Divided We Fall”.

Also Read: The Rise of Nigerian-British Filmmakers

Your contribution to Big Picture Film Club will allow us to continue to produce content. No matter the amount your contributions are greatly appreciated.

The post Bridging The Divide Between Black Brits and African Americans appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

The Undisputed Champion of Film Awards

I think most people in America and the UK see the Oscars as the film awards. Winning Best Picture at the Oscars is probably the closest we have to declaring what was the best film of that year. After all, there are many film awards that are specific to the host country; indeed, in South Korea, they have the Blue Dragon and Grand Bell awards, both specifically for South Korean films. But I don’t think that’s how the Oscars present themselves. For a start, films from all over the world can, and do, win awards; they are not limited to American or English-language films. There is an unspoken rule that every film – or at least every film that had a release in LA – is in contention. Last year’s Best Picture winner, Green Book, not only beat every American film but every Dutch, South Korean, Mexican and every other country’s film as well.

Awards Around The World

It does seem that a lot of countries have film awards that are specific to their country, and the Oscars (and the BAFTAs in the UK) are somewhat an exception in ostensibly being worldwide. But I’d argue that for many countries, it’s not their national awards but their film festival that is the big deal. France’s, and perhaps the world’s, most famous film festival is the Cannes Film Festival, with its biggest award being the Palme d’Or. Just glancing over the winners of this award since 2000, nine of the winners had some French involvement; if we eliminate co-productions, that goes down to two French films. Using the same criteria, The Golden Bear from the Berlin International Film Festival only has two films where Germany was involved in co-production. Without prior knowledge of the geography of Italy, I don’t think someone could work out any bias in the Venice Film Festival to its host country, since 2000 Iranian, South Korean and Venezuelan films have won the Golden Lion, with only one Italian film winning that award in that time.

10 Billion Reasons Why

So why do films from outside America fare so poorly at the Oscars? Well, most Oscar voters are US-based, so perhaps there is a bias there. But also, the American film industry is huge, making over $10 billion in 2017, and it would make sense that the biggest and most successful country would dominate awards. Again, like no other country, American films are watched around the world. In Britain and America, to even consider watching a film, not in English, is considered a signifier of high-brow intellectual tastes, whereas to like American films in other countries is the norm. However, it can’t simply be that America makes more films; if nothing else, India actually produces more. Parasite is only the twelfth film that isn’t in English to be nominated for Best Picture – and the first to actually win – and I think it is impossible to argue that such a list represents the best films ever made.

Another very interesting point in all of this is that for all of Parasite’s success at the Oscars, it received no acting nominations. The same was true of Roma last year, a film not in English that did well at the Oscars, and Slumdog Millionaire, which won eight, including Best Picture, but featured a cast of non-white actors who, when compared to typical Oscar nominees, weren’t at all famous. To me, it seems bizarre that a film that was considered the best of the year would not contain a single-acting performance worthy of an Oscar nomination. Is this bias towards American actors (and admittedly British actors who seem to be at no disadvantage), or is it simply that Kang-ho Song and Sun-kyun Lee do not have the name recognition as Brad Pitt and Renee Zellweger? As a case in point, I could rattle off the stars of Once Upon A Time In Hollywood or The Irishman, but had to look on IMDb to find the names of Parasite’s stars.

I think it’s clear that the Oscars are not really a competition without bias, but despite this, a foreign film can still win big. And, of course, even being nominated for an Oscar will raise the profile of a film that lacks the marketing power of something like Joker. If pushed, I feel that most people would admit the bias towards America and would see that as perfectly natural.

The post Parasite Director Bong Joon-Ho Once Described The Oscars As “Very Local” Does He Have A Point? appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Today we are going to explore a recent study and see what conclusions they have come to about how to make a successful film. We will look at the purpose of the study, highlight their findings, their methodology and highlight examples of where their findings can be seen today and places where the study falters.

Purpose & Method

The paper we are looking at is called, The Data Science of Hollywood. This study was made to see how certain emotions can affect the types of media that people want to watch. And how production companies can customise their products to meet the preferences of audiences.

To accomplish this the authors compiled 6174 feature film scripts and charted the emotional journeys presented in each. They did this by analysing the sentences used within the script, declaring them as either emotionally negative, neutral or positive and then charting their use over the course of the script.

The movies were then grouped into one of six categories:

• Rags to Riches – A film that continually builds positive emotion

• Riches to Rags – The film is about a continual emotional decline

• Man in a hole – The film follows someone falling emotionally before rising out of it

• Icarus – The film charts an emotional rise followed by a fall

• Cinderella – This film begins building positive emotions, before declining and then rising again at the end

• Oedipus – This film begins with an emotional decline, followed by a rise and finishing with a decline

They then compared this data with various sources to see how successful these different journeys were with audiences. They looked at box office takings, IMDb audience and critic ratings, award nominations and wins and number of viewers. So, what did the researchers find?

Findings

Of the six narrative categories, the researchers found that the Man in a hole stories tended to have a higher average box office gross ($37.48 million). Cinderella was the second highest ($33.63 million on average) and Oedipus being third ($31.44 million on average).

Particularly successful examples of the man in a hole story from the past year include Black Panther and Halloween (2018). Both were among the top 25 highest grossing films of 2018 and began with the characters leading relatively normal lives before something turns their existence upside down. But they eventually fight to reclaim their happiness.

The Other Side

However, there are less successful films in this category, such as Mortal Engines. Which charted the journey of a privileged citizen as he is exiled from his city and eventually destroys its corrupt government with the help of the rebellion. It was one of the biggest box office bombs of 2018. And garnered an IMDb audience rating of 6.1 and a critical rating of 44/100. Halloween (2018) also did not perform greatly with IMDb users and critics, only garnering a 6.6 from users and 67 from critics.

On average the study found that Man in a hole films received the lowest average ratings from IMDb users and critics. IMDb Users usually rated Rags to riches stories highest. Successful examples include Avengers: Endgame, which charts the emotional rise from the low point of Infinity War, and is both the most successful film of the year and currently ranked as the 19^th best film of all time on IMDb. This shows that films associated with positive emotions tend to work well with general audiences.

Meanwhile, movies with higher critical ratings tended to be Riches to rags stories. Showing that critics favour tougher emotional journeys. Examples include Jordan Peele’s Us. Which charted the continual emotional decline of its characters and has an 81/100 rating from IMDb critics compared to a 7.1 from regular users. But still managed to gross $175,005,930.

The Studies Failings

There are however several areas where this study opens itself for criticism. Firstly, relying on IMDb ratings to gauge public opinion can cause problems as people only tend to leave feedback/reviews if they’ve had a negative experience which can slightly skew the results. And IMDb scores are usually given by a different audience than those who see the movie in theatres. Meaning that an IMDb score doesn’t necessarily measure the satisfaction of people who saw the film in cinemas and contributed to its box office.

And the oversimplification of the emotional arc categories is very confusing. For example, The Shawshank Redemption is given as an example of the rags to riches story which supposedly continually builds positive emotions, but the film still has several emotional low points throughout. Meaning that the categorisation of these films is somewhat flawed.

Successful?

From this research we can conclude that the words of William Goldman hold true, “Not one person in the motion picture field knows for a certainty what’s going to work”. A film’s success at the box office does not guarantee audience or critical satisfaction. The use of IMDb as a method for gauging public opinion is also flawed. And the categorization is oversimplified and there are continual examples that prove the study wrong on an individual basis.

But this study did raise interesting points with its research. Showing that the most successful films may not be aimed specifically at critics or general audiences. Instead, they are the ones that generate the most discussion. And the mixture of positive and negative emotional arcs ensures the box office success of the man in a hole films because they appeal to the preferences of critics and audiences.

Also Read: Spoiler Etiquette: To Spoil Or Not To Spoil…

The post The Formula For A Successful Film appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

One of only *three* directors to have screened two of their films at our Film Club events, we catch up on what he’s been up to since. Diving right into it, we explore the process of making feature lengths, the importance of cinema and his top 5 favourite sci-fi films.

Read about Mark’s Top 5 favourite sci-fi films here. Listen to the full podcast here.

The post Episode 008 The Big Picture Film Club Podcast ft Mark J. Blackman appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Not a great deal actually apart from the fact that the above-mentioned department, also known as The Pentagon, worked closely with Michael Bay on 2007’s Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, which LaBeouf also starred in. The term “worked closely” might be a slight understatement as, in exchange for the use of military grade weapons and real personnel as extras, the Pentagon had a huge influence on the final script.

This isn’t a new phenomenon. In fact, the Pentagon and US Military have been backing productions since the beginning of Hollywood itself. The very first Academy Award in 1929 was won by Wings, a movie heavily supported by the Pentagon. But is this influence a positive one? Despite the fact that production companies are paying for the use of military equipment and locations, the Pentagon still gets the final say on which films get the go-ahead. Dr Strangelove or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, unsurprisingly, did not get Pentagon approval. Perhaps they had an issue with the General’s “unorthodox” way of getting a nuclear attack organised!

When you consider that military provisions are technically “owned” by the tax-paying public, surely the military should not get this level of control and a degree of impartiality should remain?

Unfortunately, this doesn’t seem to be the case. In David Robb’s book Operation Hollywood he highlights both the humorous and disturbing elements of the military’s special interest within the film industry. One such instance is the nationality of an Admiral in the James Bond Movie GoldenEye changing from American to Canadian because he was perceived as too incompetent. Laughable, right? However, this level of influence gets more sinister as Robb shows when he discusses the film Thirteen Days. This movie focused on the Cuban missile crisis but was rejected by the Pentagon due to its depiction of Generals being in favour of invading Cuba. The issue? This depiction was based on actual taped discussions from within the White House at the time. In this instance, the director, Kevin Costner, refused to make the changes but it is frightening to consider how many directors have accepted the Pentagon’s ‘revised’ version of events simply to get their movie made.

With the development of special effects, directors are not as reliant on the military backing as they used to be. Independence Day was denied Pentagon funding because Will Smith’s character was dating a stripper, something that was simply unacceptable for a member of the military (*cue eye rolls*) The production company’s response? They just did it themselves; technology had developed to such a point that the backing was not needed.

So what does the military get out of this financial backing of Hollywood blockbusters other than a mention in the end credits? It is said that recruitment in the Navy went up by 400% after the release of Top Gun (another backed film). Yet, now the films being given funding are largely aimed at children (Transformers, Iron Man and G.I Joe.) Is this an attempt to make war look fun? A new way of upping those recruitment figures? It is alarming and does not present the idea of special interest groups in a positive light.

Perhaps it is interesting to note the positive outcomes from the lack of involvement from a particular interest group. Gabriela Cowperthwaite intended to document why SeaWorld was so successful and how it kept families returning time and time again. However, when SeaWorld refused to be involved in her project so began their downfall as it led to her uncovering ‘the dark side of SeaWorld’ in the hugely successful 2013 documentary Blackfish. Many positive changes have occurred since the release, most recently top UK travel agent Thomas Cook have said they will no longer sell tickets to the park.

Of course, there can be positive outcomes from outside influences in the film industry. Slowly, but surely, there are more LGBTQ+ voices being heard in Hollywood, along with people of colour. Gay rights activist, Ronald Nyswaner wrote the 1993 film Philadelphia which was seen as groundbreaking at the time in its portrayal of the homophobia surrounding HIV/AIDS. Oprah Winfrey, who can be considered an institution in herself, became involved in the 2014 film Selma as producer and Ava DuVernay, a woman of colour, as director who had to allegedly rewrite 90% of Paul Webb’s original script.  Although these aren’t outside ‘groups’, their influence and experience had a positive impact on the productions.

Special interest groups tend to want a particular image to be projected, the military is an apt example of this. Unlike product placement which aims to reach new audiences but not necessarily influence their viewpoint, the involvement of special interest groups can have a suffocating effect on the creativity that the film industry should ultimately inspire. While the influence of activists and minority groups can definitely bring a positive contribution to a production, perhaps the military should stick to what it knows rather than wading into Hollywood. But don’t expect them to loan anyone their fighter planes!

The post Hollywood & The Military: A Special Relationship appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

The country felt the impact of being culturally and societally left in the dark, isolated from the rest of the world, with Western culture banned during dictator Nicolae Ceaușescu’s rule. Chuck Norris Vs Communism tells the story of how the banned American films were smuggled into 1980’s Romania during a time when free speech and access to media was controlled by the government.

Irina was a film translator for Romanian State Television, a censorship committee that decided what to broadcast, translating their communist ideologies. The role was never suited to her, so when a colleague asked if she could translate films for a friend, she leapt at the opportunity, risking her freedom by single-handedly dubbing every line of every character in over 3000+ bootlegged movies.

There was a desire to learn about a forbidden society and underground film clubs soon became popular. Watching these films became a matter of survival, and classics such as Rocky and Dirty Dancing eventually became tools for imagination, growth and development.

Truly a remarkable woman whose contribution to film has impacted history and the world over, her iconic voice became a symbol of hope and freedom. The revolutionary role of movie-smuggling helped liberate the people of Romania, and at this year’s SXSW, Irina will be discussing how the same could be done for the people of North Korea.

The post Bootlegged VHS & The Romanian Revolution appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.