Great film, but no market for it: Sorry...

[steve hyde]

Do more modern economists give us any hope for success, or is it just another iteration of "money makes money".

Well, money is power but it isn't the only kind of power. There is religious power, there is power in the form of peer pressure, there is power in denying access to something that, otherwise, has no real intrinsic value but someone wants. Pot is basically an easy to grow weed that has increased monetary value, ironically, only because of the government's attempts to limit possession. Diamonds are actually pretty common hunks of rock but are kept artificially inflated in price by a handful of families that keep the bulk of diamonds locked up and out of circulation.

Thus, a free market recognizes that real power is in supplying product X to whoever wants it, for whatever reason they may want it, but only in a limited supply. Politicians and religious leaders try to pass laws and doctrines that make the need for product X immoral or illegal but it never really works because the power they seek to create is artificial. You can't legislate human nature. I think that if our governent ever really considered legalizing pot, the biggest lobbiests against it would not be religious or policital leaders but, rather, representatives from the drug cartels whose profits depend on black market economics. Likewise, if film distribution became commonplace and cheap (think internet), the profits associated with it will drop like a rock.

Roger

....briefly, yes the way I read this the logic is fine, but too oversimplified for the contemporary moment under globalized capitalism. Power is exercised in many other ways besides laws imposed by governments. Power is exercised through "cultural hegemony."

See link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_hegemony

[steve hyde]

I think it is fascinating to analyze the ways that subversive cinema, that is any cinema that threatens the staus quo, is silenced. I am in no way suggesting that it is a big business conspiracy.

Perhaps you should. You have NO idea how many guys in Washington have ties to media. Hollywood has its hands in EVERYTHING! Just because there's no longer the big huge studio that have all their own employees anymore doesn't mean that the highly unionized private contactors don't work together to lobby the government and squelch competition.
There's been a huge movement in my area with the underground film community. 6 years ago, there were no non-Hollywood movies being made and in fact only 2 Hollywood movies of which I know were ever made here. Now that we're shooting film and producing full length features that are getting played in theaters, Hollywood is building sound stages here. The unionized contractors will be working here where NOBODY with a union can otherwise get a job. Even the union electricians have to go out of state to get work here. But Hollywood is buiding here and if they do, there will be no way for us to continue doing what we do to any success. The only state funded film festival in Idaho (which might I add we caused to happen) seems to have arbitrarily prohibit Idaho produced films from being shown at the Idaho Film Festival. What does that suggest to you?

This is of course has lots of truth in it, but just not the argument I want to advance. The idea I want to communicate is the idea that Power works through a process of cultural hegemony. That the mass media shapes peoples lives more than we give the mass media credit for. The mass media territorializes common sense. Think about it. Why does common sense become common sense? Through repetition. If the media tells us something is True enough times it becomes true. (not at all times in all places, but frequently enough to matter) We make choices based on our understanding of what is true. This should give us at least a bit of insight into how those who control mass media circuits also control the conditions under which freedom of choice is practiced. Freedom of choice under the conditions of limited choices disguised as too many choices..

Steve

[MovieStuff]

....briefly, yes the way I read this the logic is fine, but too oversimplified for the contemporary moment under globalized capitalism.

I disagree because, to me, it isn't that complicated. Human nature to want the most is pretty basic. Few people are satisfied with "just enough". See below.

Power is exercised in many other ways besides laws imposed by governments. Power is exercised through "cultural hegemony."

Which is exactly how religions exert their power. The whole idea behind making a product "valuable" is to get the buyer to believe they can't live without it; to adopt practices and principles that embrace the need for that product or idea. But here's the catch: Such power works both ways. If a film maker has a film that is really "hot" and distributors are scambling to get in line for it, then HE has the power and can control access to his product, as well. Should there be rules that limit how successful he can be?

Roger

[mattias]

adam smith has been proven wrong a million times, so has most theories based on supply and demand. game theory, increasing returns, assymetry and many other things play a much bigger part. economy is the area of science (?!?) that has changed the most the last 20 years, even more than quantum physics, and it's sad that school books under the graduate level haven't kept up.

That is close to the funniest paragraph I've ever read....

what do you mean? because i'm right or because i'm wrong, and in either case about what? it would be fun to discuss further. i'm a layman but very interested and reasonably up to date with both economy and physics... ;-)

/matt

[steve hyde]

But here's the catch: Such power works both ways. If a film maker has a film that is really "hot" and distributors are scambling to get in line for it, then HE has the power and can control access to his product, as well. Should there be rules that limit how successful he can be?
Roger

I am not arguing for any specific rule. Rules are not my expertise. I am arguing that there need to be rules in an economy that is based on uneven development.

Take the vertical integration of the Studio System as an example. What kind of film industry would we have today if the U.S. federal government had not stepped in to put an end to "Block Booking".

reference link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... res%2C_Inc.



The Supreme Court Ruling revolutionized the film industry and the film industry changed from a large monopoly owned by five studios that also owned the means of distribution to a disaggregated film economy built on small independent producers thus diversifying the *playing field* of filmmaking.

Roger, was this a positive thing for U.S. Filmmaking or would we have been better off with the Studio System? This is a tale of government intervention. Who did it help? Who did it hurt?

Steve

[wado1942]

Isn't it funny, though, that those small independant groups are HIRED AND PAID BY 3 COMPANIES?!?!?!

[steve hyde]

Isn't it funny, though, that those small independant groups are HIRED AND PAID BY 3 COMPANIES?!?!?!

Right. And "Block Booking" still exists in a different form. This is of course the point of this thread... the story of how and why - let's call it -"neo-block booking" exists hangs from a tale of cultural hegemony.... but now I'm into academic jargon. Again, we need new languages. and that is precisely what academic jargon is.. new language.

Reference link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_hegemony















Steve

[MovieStuff]

The Supreme Court Ruling revolutionized the film industry and the film industry changed from a large monopoly owned by five studios that also owned the means of distribution to a disaggregated film economy built on small independent producers thus diversifying the *playing field* of filmmaking.

Roger, was this a positive thing for U.S. Filmmaking or would we have been better off with the Studio System? This is a tale of government intervention. Who did it help? Who did it hurt?

In my opinion, shutting down the studio system was one of the worst things ever to happen to Hollywood films. Nothing was ever more efficient than the studio system. Now, every movie has to "re-invent the wheel" with significant start up costs and the "free agent" mentality has caused budgets for films to go sky high. Was it good for the independent film maker? There has never really been a clear history of independent film makers with good films that were denied distribution prior to the breakup of the studio system. Now indie film makers have to spend even more to compete with the Hollywood machine when, before, the costs associated with film production were more reasonable.

But here's the point that I must not be getting across clearly: There is nothing inherently valuable about something just because it is unique or even rare. "Value" is defined by a demand from the marketplace. The documentary in question is a genuinely good piece of work. It might even be exceptional. But is there a demand for it? To answer this question honestly, one has to not confuse "demand" with "need". Perhaps there is a need for the American people to see this doc but, if they don't want to, then there is no demand. Grocery stores are full of healthy apples and sugary candy. Most kids need the apples but most grandparents will buy them the candy.

The studio system was responsible for producing some of the most beautiful movies in our history. I have seen little in the way of improvement of product since the studio system was abandoned. I see lots of sugary substitutes but nothing of much substance.

Roger

[steve hyde]

The Supreme Court Ruling revolutionized the film industry and the film industry changed from a large monopoly owned by five studios that also owned the means of distribution to a disaggregated film economy built on small independent producers thus diversifying the *playing field* of filmmaking.

Roger, was this a positive thing for U.S. Filmmaking or would we have been better off with the Studio System? This is a tale of government intervention. Who did it help? Who did it hurt?

In my opinion, shutting down the studio system was one of the worst things ever to happen to Hollywood films. Nothing was ever more efficient than the studio system. Now, every movie has to "re-invent the wheel" with significant start up costs and the "free agent" mentality has caused budgets for films to go sky high. Was it good for the independent film maker? There has never really been a clear history of independent film makers with good films that were denied distribution prior to the breakup of the studio system. Now indie film makers have to spend even more to compete with the Hollywood machine when, before, the costs associated with film production were more reasonable.

But here's the point that I must not be getting across clearly: There is nothing inherently valuable about something just because it is unique or even rare. "Value" is defined by a demand from the marketplace. The documentary in question is a genuinely good piece of work. It might even be exceptional. But is there a demand for it? To answer this question honestly, one has to not confuse "demand" with "need". Perhaps there is a need for the American people to see this doc but, if they don't want to, then there is no demand. Grocery stores are full of healthy apples and sugary candy. Most kids need the apples but most grandparents will buy them the candy.

The studio system was responsible for producing some of the most beautiful movies in our history. I have seen little in the way of improvement of product since the studio system was abandoned. I see lots of sugary substitutes but nothing of much substance.

Roger

Obviously I totally disagree with you. So you are saying the break up of the studio system hurt consumers. Nonsense. You say the studio system was more efficient, but you are talking about a Fordist notion of efficiency that is based on quantity and uniformity not quality and uniqueness. Sure some interesting films were made under the studio system, but I have to say contemporary cinema is as interesting now as it has ever been. Cinema is where the renaissance is. Now. As an art form we are living in the era of cinema and in my view - the more diverse the better. The more cultures represented the better.

Do you not think cultural diversity is important? Do you really think one corporate culture should have maintained control of American Cinemas?
This is insanity!

Your views on *value* are ridiculously pragmatic and your understanding of economics comes across as purely quantitative with all this old fashioned law of supply and demand stuff. What about the psychology of demand? Better yet, what about the influences of psychogeography on demand? Is there room for these very real aspects of the social landscape in your supply and demand model?


reference links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychogeography

anyway, let's move beyond supply and demand and not forget that the economy has many human dimensions. There is a reason that we don't have a quantitative cultural science. Cultural phenomena can hardly be measured mathematically. There is a lot more going on out there than supply and demand.



Steve

[MovieStuff]

Obviously I totally disagree with you.

Obviously, which is why you will proceed to prove my point in the following exchanges:

So you are saying the break up of the studio system hurt consumers. Nonsense.

That's not what I said at all. Read again.

You say the studio system was more efficient, but you are talking about a Fordist notion of efficiency that is based on quantity and uniformity not quality and uniqueness. Sure some interesting films were made under the studio system, but I have to say contemporary cinema is as interesting now as it has ever been.

Ah, so films were just as good under the studio system? Or are you saying the films now are better than under the studio system? In either case, you are stating your opinion, which is fine, but the market is driven by personal preference of the masses; not the opinion of one person.

Cinema is where the renaissance is. Now. As an art form we are living in the era of cinema and in my view - the more diverse the better. The more cultures represented the better. Do you not think cultural diversity is important?

Of course. But there was nothing inherent in the studio system that precluded such diversity. Racial divides were a sign of the times. It was present in the arts, broadway, plays, and television, as well. But, ironically, television has been incredibly progressive even though it represents the very type of corporate entertainment monopoly that the studios had years ago when they owned their own distribution and theater chains. If anything, I would say that television has been more progressive, in terms of representing cultural diversity, than the studios have been since their break up because independent films do not have to answer to an ever changing cultural marketplace to survive like television does. If the studio system had survived federal intervention, I think it would have adapted, as well.

Do you really think one corporate culture should have maintained control of American Cinemas?

Sure. The system worked and produced a wonderful product with remarkable consistancy. I can't say the same for today's cinema, which is a crap shoot, in my opinion. When a long established company produces a product that displeases the public, there is singular accountability. When you have a bunch of independent companies that were formed temporarily to provide a protective corporate veil strictly for the sake of one film's production, there is very limited accountability.

But if singular authority is what you are railing against here, then why should your singular opinion weigh more than mine? Why should my opinion be called "nonsense" and supplanted by your opinion? Don't I have the option to choose which concept I prefer to buy into? ;)

This is insanity!

No, it's called "personal preference" which is what drives the free market that you say does not exist.

Your views on *value* are ridiculously pragmatic and your understanding of economics comes across as purely quantitative with all this old fashioned law of supply and demand stuff.

I never said I prescribe to the classic interpretation of supply and demand. I said that one can not confuse "demand" with "need". Just because you feel the public "needs" something doesn't mean they'll bite. You can call such an observation old fashioned, and perhaps it is, but it's also quite correct and has been proven time and again (which is why it's called old fashion, I guess!)

What about the psychology of demand?

See previous paragraph.

Better yet, what about the influences of psychogeography on demand? Is there room for these very real aspects of the social landscape in your supply and demand model?

You can't offer every product ever made to every person on the face of the earth, Steve, and even if you did, they would not have time to browse them all. But, it seems to me you feel that if one man manages to sell his product to a large group through hard work and crafty marketing skills, then that's okay. But if a corporation does it, then that's somehow trampling on the little guy. But, in either scenario, there is always a "little guy" that loses out because he could not get his product in front of his target market while someone else could. Whether he loses out to a corporation or to an individual is academic. A free market means that the public can use presonal prefernce to make their decisions based on the choices presented to them but they will never have access to all the choices. That is impossible not to mention impractical.

anyway, let's move beyond supply and demand and not forget that the economy has many human dimensions.

Agreed. But the one that affects success of a product most is "preference". ;)

There is a reason that we don't have a quantitative cultural science. Cultural phenomena can hardly be measured mathematically. There is a lot more going on out there than supply and demand.

And there you have it! I could not have said it better. Thanks for proving my point!

See, whether you realize it or not, you are involved in 'supply and demand' right this instant. You are "selling" a concept to me that I do not value. This is not meant as an insult. Indeed, your writing is clear, your thoughts are well defined, as always. There is nothing wrong with the product you offer. But, I have no "need" for such a concept. It has no intrinsic value to me. I can respect your position but I can also live quite comfortably without embracing it. Thus, you try to "sell" me on your concept but my own personal value system says "I don't buy it."

To ME, movies were better before the collapse of the studio system. You say that is "nonsense" but that declaration is based on your own personal preference, not quantitative fact, because as you have noted correctly "There is a reason that we don't have a quantitative cultural science. Cultural phenomena can hardly be measured mathematically. "

Roger

[audadvnc]

To ME, movies were better before the collapse of the studio system.

This summer we saw the appearance of "Spider Man 3", "Shrek 3", "Harry Potter 5" and "Pirates of the Caribbean 3". Waddya mean movies were better in the old days? :lol:

But aren't all the above movies actually studio movies anyway? POTC is a Disney feature, and studios don't get much bigger or badder than that.

[wado1942]

the more diverse the better. The more cultures represented the better.

I agree, almost ALL fictional movies are based on ancient Greek theater but with much more rigedly structured scripts. I'm really getting tired of it and would like to see some diversity in Cinema.

[MovieStuff]

To ME, movies were better before the collapse of the studio system.

This summer we saw the appearance of "Spider Man 3", "Shrek 3", "Harry Potter 5" and "Pirates of the Caribbean 3". Waddya mean movies were better in the old days? :lol:

But aren't all the above movies actually studio movies anyway? POTC is a Disney feature, and studios don't get much bigger or badder than that.

This is a very good point. I guess the remnants of the studio system still work. Obviously there are independent films that are quite good, as well. But I have never seen any examples of quality independent films that were produced back in the days of the studio system that were denied distribution or could not find an audience. One thing that is apparent is that, because the studio system was self contained, production costs were more reasonable per picture. Now, marketing demands almost require a huge budget for audiences to even take a film seriously. The budget becomes part of the advertising equation, just as it did for El Mariachi where the figure of $7000 was thrown around like confetti. So either the budgets have to unreasonably huge or ridiculously small but, in either case, the advertising seems to depend on everything except the quality of the movie in question. The studio system kept production costs under control and the movies were promoted on their content; not production-cost hype.

Roger

[steve hyde]

Free Market ideology is founded on the assumption that individual freedoms are guaranteed by freedom in the Market. If freedom cannot be guaranteed in the Market, then advocates for Free Markets are not advocates for freedom. What are the risks of a free market? Are there no risks at all?


Steve

[MovieStuff]

Free Market ideology is founded on the assumption that individual freedoms are guaranteed by freedom in the Market.....

No it isn't. A free market was never founded in the literal sense. There was never a group of business people that got together long ago and signed some sort of declaration-of-independence-type-magna-carta-thingy that established rules of order for operating the market place that guaranteed anything to anyone, Steve. The market we see today is simply an evolution of the same market that has existed for thousands of years, since the time that someone first traded water for yak meat. As I noted before, a free market is to benefit the buyer, not the seller. The idea that a free market somehow offers guarantees for the seller is a myth, ironically, older than the notion of supply and demand that you feel is so antiquated.

Roger