>Narrative filmmaking has been inherently tied to >profit-making from the very beginning. >
The film industry has always been about profit. I'm not denying that, and I wouldn't want us to get too nostalgic about the "good old days" of hollywood filmmaking either, because the influence of profit was always there.
But in the middle of all that profit-hunting in old hollywood, there were still many fine filmmakers who were able to turn in some amazing work.
Where are the comparable figures in today's hollywood? Where are the artists as strong as Fritz Lang, John Ford, James Stewart, Marlene Dietrich? They're totally absent!
So we're dealing with two related problems. The growing influence of the people who own the cameras over the people who use them, and the general artistic weakness which is so prevalent in today's film industry.
What kind of social climate has produced so many underdeveloped or downright pitiful artists? It's a point worth studying. I don't know if we could do it here.
>Filmmakers weren't always beholden to Wall Street, but as >soon Marey got bored with motion pictures (because >"interesting as they are, are of little advantage to >science") in the 1890s, the medium was dominated by people >in search of a buck. I can't see any way around that.
The way around it is to get the means of producing these movies out of the hands of just a few wealthy corporations and into the hands of the actual filmmakers.
Like we've been saying. In old hollywood, there were great artists making some important films. But while signing up with these giant studios gave them the access to all the tools and necessities for making those films, it also limited them by forcing them to conform to certain restrictions and influences from the higher-ups.