I have been reading Easy Riders and Raging Bulls by Peter Biskind. I am reading the Chapter entitled Eve of Destruction which elaborates on how cocaine was practically everywhere in Hollywood in the late 1970s to early 1980s. Scorsese admitted to be a drug abuser citing that he needed to "take it to the extreme" since that was the lifestyle of Hollywood. The mantra of live fast and die a beautiful corpse was predominant all over Hollywood.
It is ironic that the heavy intake of cocaine by most in Hollywood resulted in some very good films such as Raging Bull from 1980. Generally speaking, I've noticed that throughout American History it takes a "quirk" to make big things happen. For example, had it not been for his rejection in the sports world of baseball, Fidel Castro may have never became dictator of Cuba. The aggravation and tension that could have been spared by a major league team letting him "play ball" would have been astronomical.
I also find it amazing that sometimes the films that required the most amount of work to produce ends up being a flop. Apocalypse Now (1979) was directed by Francis Ford Coppola and it was this film that caused Coppola's dream of a revamped studio system to be destroyed. After going over budget and shooting in hellish conditions (typhoons, disease) the movie never made up what Coppola's studio, American Zoetrope, put out. All the work and effort Coppola put out and demanded meant nothing but low box office results.
However, it is amazing that a film a director thinks will flop turns out to be a hit with audiences. When George Lucas finished and released Star Wars on May 21, 1977, he was convinced it would flop and that he would "eat the bill" even though production costs were low and he refused to go over budget like Coppola did. Lucas was proved wrong by the American public as thousands flocked to go see a film about droids and lightsabers. Viewers were introduced to characters that would become icons in film history; Luke Skywalker, Darth Vader, Han Solo, etc. These icons became so popular that they enabled a second trilogy to be released to theaters on May 19, 1999. Stars Wars was the founder of what came to be known as "merchandising a film". Star Wars action figures, T-shirts, mugs, etc. leapt off shelves faster than a store could stock them. It was this film that put Lucas "on the map" and established him as not a director of "twerp cinema" as Coppola called Star Wars when he first saw it. Many argue the Star Wars success made Coppola jealous and drove him to write the script for the doomed Apocalypse Now.
What is the lesson to be learned? Success always come from the people or things that one leasts suspects.

A classmate remarked in my last film history class about "how crappy" movies have become in the past several years. He was correct and I agree with him in that Hollywood can do better. While the major studios are now entertainment companies there is n excuse for badly done films such as Dracula 2000 and Gone In Sixty Seconds. Both debuted last year and did not bring in the amount of money that Hollywood wanted it to. So badly done was Gone in Sixty Seconds that I was informed by my brother, who saw it, that the best part of the movie was seeing the cars, not the actors!! I was also told by a friend of mine that the only good part of Dracula 2000 was the chance to see Jeri Ryan's (Seven of Nine on Voyager) "rack".
I think that while the entertainment companies may be just producing movies like a factory assembles automobiles, it is almost impossible for independent companies to get "their foot in the door" or compete with the "Big Guns". I said almost. I think it is possible for small indy film companies to make their mark but it lies with two main ingredients: Promotion and Distribution. The audience must know the film exists and they must have a place to go see it. Without one or the other, I don't think the movie will succeed.
One can see this in the book publishing industry. Traditionally, self-publishing has been for non-fiction books and technical manuals since publishers don't like to get involved with putting them out. Today, publishers rarely hire "the new fiction author" (unless one signs a contract with a literary agent but even that is no guarantee) and would rather spend money promoting certain authors they think will bring them money. Result, many unknown authors are self-publishing their own fiction and promoting it, in some cases promoting it better than companies like DoubleDay or RandomHouse. The numbers of self-published authors are growing so much to the extent that Writer's Digest magazine holds the yearly Self-Published Books contest.
Why have I brought the latter up? Because there is a huge similarity. The entertainment companies (which own the majority of the big name publishers) and the big name publishers want to manufacture creativity, not find it or cultivate it. After a while, I think the public may get tired of films like Gone in Sixty Seconds and vampire novels. While the philosophy of "go with what works" is sound, it can not apply to the ever changing tastes of the American public. For example, if a teenager from 1980 was to hear Limp Bizkit for the first time he would probably say it is garbage. The same goes for a teenager in 2001 who would hear The Police for the first time. I also doubt that thirty or fifty years from now that Limp Bizkit will still be number one on the charts.
I think the entertainment companies should take a long, hard, objective look at what films they are producing and why the bulk of them, are very bad. Again, it is impossible to manufacture creativity. One must find the talent or develop the talent. I don't think being familiar with film history would hurt either. I think it would be a plus. Personally, I find myself going to the theater less and renting less. I love the movies but if it is a flop then why should I spend my money?
A wise person once said, "It is not failure, but low aim, that is crime". If Hollywood continues to aim any lower then they will sink their own ship.

I've been reading Easy Riders and Raging Bulls by Peter Biskind. The first chapter of the book is about Warren Beatty and his "bad boy" image. Biskind informs the reader that this image almost ended Beatty's career. Between telling directors that their work was "crap" and sleeping with every woman he could get his hands on, to say Beatty was an interesting actor is an understatement.
I wasn't surprised by Beatty's antics or cynical attitude towards Hollywood. Actors after him have done the same or far worse. I think that promiscuity among the talent in Hollywood will always be there. What amazed me the most was that for all his recklessness, Beatty came up smelling like roses when Bonnie and Clyde debuted in 1967. The film intially was called trash and it was only through Pauline Kael, and others of her kind, that saved the film. Kael and co. were tired of the old Hollywood and wanted the New Hollywood, with its violence and wanton sex, to succeed.
I doubt that another Hollywood Revolution will come again and one can argue that the Hollywood we have today are aftershocks of that Revolution that began back in 1967. A revolution, that in my opinion, was for the best.

While I didn't have time to watch the Oscars I caught a few clips of the ceremony on the news. This Oscar ceremony was different in that there was a new master of ceremonies, Steve Martin, and the production itself had a more slick yet classy feel to it.
Ceremonies such as the Academy Awards contrast such vile incidents in Hollywood such as Robert Downey Jr's run-ins with the law. Hollywood glamour hides the ugliness of an industry.
Hollywood scandals such as affairs, murders, and even fights on set make for newsworthy items on shows such as Talk Soup or The Drudge Report. Some have even been made into movies themselves! I'm not saying Hollywood is the only industry guilty of crime and immorality. The sports industry is littered with corruption and scandal as well as the U.S. Government.
I think singling out Hollywood as the sole reason for the loss of morality in America is wrong and does not make sense. Children learn from their parents and tv has little, if anything, to do with teens committing crimes or killing one another. To argue that 1999's "The Matrix" led to the Columbine High School massacre is unrealistic. Actors wearing trench coats and carrying firearms have been around for years. They appeared in early Westerns and even reappeared again in 1989's Tombstone starring Val Kilmer. I am tired of this ridiculous tradition of "blaming Hollywood." Yes, some of what the actors/actresses do is wrong but an argument can be made is that all they owe us is a good performance...That's it. However, a counter-argument can be made is that the reason the "stars" lives are on parade is because they sacrifice their own anonymity so to attain money and recognition. Americans won't admit it but we crave tabloids, smut, etc. because it strikes at the heart of our curiosity. I myself don't mind watching a tabloid news magazine and hearing about stars who have "slept around" or been caught smoking things they shouldn't.
I think the main observation that can be made about ceremonies like the Oscars and tragedies like Robert Downey Jr. is that people love the spotlight... .for better or worse.

Control. That was what Hollywood was about in regards to making and producing films. Thalberg, Selznick, and their like were maestros of a large orchestra called the Hollywood studio. They were able to produce hit after hit but only through organized, sometimes dictatorial, control. Thalberg and co. set up systems that could not only create and preview films for future release but systems that could run without their presence. In short, their systems were so full proof that anyone could be in the driver's seat.
I found it amazing how the actors, directors, etc. were either treated like cattle or manipulated into thinking they had control in making and producing the films of the 1930s and 40s. Thalberg and co. were not evil or immoral in what they did but believed they could make more movie hits than the directors, actors, etc. were capable of. I think that this type of "system" still exists today. Films that are touted "Jerry Bruckheimer Production" or "Ivan Reitman Production" hark back to the days of Thalberg and when the "system" was in full control. I still believe film is a collective art and that many individuals, large or small role, contribute to making a film a success. It is my humble opinion that Hollywood is the only industry that I know of that benefited from dictatorship.

It was not until I read Celluloid Mavericks by Merritt that I realized how haphazard the movie industry was and still is. The haphazardness I'm speaking of is lack of experience in film making by the mavericks noted in Merritt's book.
For example, Roger Corman went to Stanford college and graduated with an engineering degree. Who would have thought that he would have had such an impact on the movie industry. Corman not only became the "Drive in Diety" but discovered and employed such talent as Robert Towne and even Martin Scorsese. Corman started "low man on the totem pole" and eventually worked his way up to become an influential person in Hollywood even if he was King of the B-movie.
Corman, Thalberg, Zukor and their like had no real experience with film and weren't even educated on its nuances. Most of them blazed their own trail and learned by trial, error, and experience. I find it amazing that they made films without any training or education. I think the true celluloid maverick is the one who has the intelligence, passion, and the marketing suave to make a film no matter what obstacle may come in his or her way. The most recent example of this spirit was 1999's Blair Witch Project.
As Celluloid Mavericks proves, a great idea can not be suppressed by social or class status. Many of the mavericks were just people who loved to watch and make movies. Most of the mavericks wanted to make a profit but it can be inferred that money wasn't the reason why they wanted to make the films they did. They made them because they wanted to.
Upon finishing the first half of Celluloid Mavericks I can't help but be reminded of a popular marketing quote put out by a large sneaker company---"Just do it."

I recently watched a video on HUAC and its devastating effects on the careers of Hollywood actors and directors of the late 1940s and early to mid 1950s. I wasn't suprised by the persecutive tactics of McCarthy nor the ultra-paranoid fever known as McCarthyism. I think that HUAC did more harm than good and really didn't have any idea what it was talking about. For example, they made individuals testify because they were suspected of Un-American activities. What are Un-American activities? Better yet, what is an American? Ask these two questions to the American masses and one will probably end up with a myriad of answers.
Americans eventually grew to hate McCarthy and it was his own lust for political power that led to his demise but there is something to be learned about the period of the "Red Scare."
Americans love to be told what to think and say instead of thinking for themselves. The American masses feared a Russian communist takeover but no one bothered to ask what communism was? Also, how would they achieve a feat such as converting America to communism? The mentality, in short, was shoot first and ask questions later. Just as humanity is the ultimate self-deceiver we are also the most paranoid. We are so obsessed that we will lose our identity or possessions that it overtakes common sense. Paranoia, if nothing else, if the assassin of common sense. It deludes, perverts, and even misleads but worst of all it does not discriminate on whom it wishes to corrupt.
I think the first lesson that can be learned from HUAC is one should know what one is talking about before one opens his or her mouth. Secondly, if a monumental change is going to occur politically or economically then it will happen no matter what. The arrogant notion that humanity is master of its own destiny is an untrue, overused cliche'. If one disagrees with me then look to the 1929 stock market crash in the U.S. Everyone thought they had the economy figured out until the foundation was pulled out from under them. I'll admit, we can try to combat change or try to maintain the status quo but sometimes that may not work. Sometimes "rolling with the punches" may be the only option for surviving mammoth change.
The 21st century should be interesting.