Movie Money:

Evaluating Profit Prioritization and Artistic Legitimacy in Modern Hollywood

In an increasingly productivity-driven society, many do not properly consider the role that work

plays in defining our daily lives. Work is commonly viewed as a necessity, existing only to sustain itself.

Accomplished thinkers like Albert Camus and Adam Smith agree with this view that work is meaningless. In

“The Myth of Sisyphus,” Camus illustrates “that unspeakable penalty in which the whole being is exerted

toward accomplishing nothing,” pointing out that “the workman of today works every day in his life at the

same tasks.” In other words, Camus portrays work as an endless entity that possesses no personal meaning.

Similarly, in “The Wealth of Nations,” Smith presumes that one’s work only serves an economic purpose, as

a manifestation of economic self-interest. Like Camus, Smith considers work as personally meaningless.

On the other hand, in “A World Without Work,” Derek Thompson hypothesizes scenarios where

traditional work becomes economically obsolete. In one such future, Thompson argues that artisans will

create “an economy geared around self-expression, where people would do artistic things with their time.” In

this case, work gains personal meaning through the personal significance that is inherent to art.

Creative industries, as defined by John Howkins’ “creative economy” (Howkins), present an

interesting conundrum to the question of whether work is meaningful or meaningless. On one hand, all

creative work is an art form, and therefore self-expressive and meaningful. On the other hand, recent industry

trends strongly suggest that prominent creative industries like modern Hollywood now view their artistic

product as profit generators, and thus personally meaningless.

To evaluate the state of work within modern creative industries, I formulate the research question,

“to what extent does the modern Hollywood film industry prioritize financial profit over artistic legitimacy?”

I utilize Hollywood as a case study illustrative of modern creative industries. In my argument, I view

Hollywood’s prioritization of financial profit as representative of its view of work as a meaningless entity.

Conversely, I view Hollywood’s efforts toward artistic legitimacy as viewing work as personally meaningful.

To answer my research question, I address three research objectives. First, I seek a working

definition of a film’s artistic legitimacy. Second, I identify the evidence of the increasing commercialization

of modern Hollywood. Thirdly, I argue why such commercialization processes have directly harmed

Hollywood’s artistic legitimacy. Through my research, I ultimately come to the conclusion that the

Hollywood industry must empower independent filmmakers in order to retain its artistic legitimacy as a

cultural industry.
Defining a Film’s Artistic Legitimacy

Hollywood has a short but rich history. Birthed in silent film, Hollywood films became a way of

American life by the “Golden Age” of Classical Hollywood. Since then, Hollywood has had its share of

turbulence, ranging from the Paramount antitrust action to competition with television (Britten, Mathless).

But it remains undeniable that Hollywood cinema remains a vital part of the American identity. For instance,

in “The Decay of Cinema,” New York Times writer Susan Sontag wistfully recalls that “it was from a weekly

visit to the cinema that you learned (or tried to learn) how to walk, to smoke, to kiss, to fight, to

grieve” (Sontag).

Given its significance, what then defines the artistic legitimacy of the films that the industry

produces? Some, like Sontag, argue that “all of cinema is an attempt to perpetuate and to reinvent [a] sense

of wonder” (Sontag). Critics like Sontag value originality and emotional value. Others, like Shyon Baumann,

take a different approach, utilizing the idea of “fields of cultural production.” In “Hollywood Highbrow”

Baumann argues that “artists seek not economic capital, but symbolic capital, which moreover, is field

specific” (Baumann). In other words, the artistic merit of a film is based on the widely accepted standards of

the existing film community.

However, in “What is a Good Film?,” Illinois academic Malcolm Fleming posits that “the art-science

of film making has no sufficient meter stick for gauging its progress.” Instead, Fleming argues that “what

counts is the effect our films have on people, not just on you or me or anybody, but on this for whom each

film is intended” (Fleming). In other words, Fleming claims that a film’s merit is entirely subjective,

dependent on the filmmaker’s arbitrary intent.

Therefore, Fleming argues the importance of the explicitness of a film’s purpose. “Once the intent of

a film is explicitly stated and agreed upon,” Fleming argues, “the criterion for evaluating it as good or bad is

thereby established” (Fleming). For instance, if a film is simultaneously advertised as an artistic product and

treated as a revenue generator, the film can be evaluated as a poor film. Since Fleming’s definition

incorporates that of Sontag and Baumann, it is reasonable to utilize it in the evaluation of the Hollywood

industry.

The Commercialization of Modern Hollywood

Although Hollywood advertises itself to be a nirvana of cinema art, its films have always been

produced with a profit-making mentality. For instance, in “Planet Hollywood,” David Kipen points out that
“greed is nothing new in Hollywood. While their employees may have thought of what they thought as art,

Harry Cohn and Louis B. Mayer had no such illusions. They made Ninotchka and Mr. Smith Goes to

Washington as business ventures, and saw handsome returns on their investments” (Kipen). This businesslike

disposition has manifested itself in American film production in clearly identifiable ways.

For example, in “More in Less,” Jedediah Leland asserts that “no student of the business of movies

can ignore the fact that sequels are endemic to today’s American film industry.” Sequels may be appealing to

the profit-oriented business executives of modern Hollywood, Leland contends, because sequels are “almost

sure to return their bloated production and marketing costs, and maybe even a profit” (Leland). Furthermore,

the commercialization of Hollywood has resulted in a fundamental change in the very corporate structure of

Hollywood. In “Hollywood as Industry,” Douglas Gomery argues that new developments (e.g. the advent of

the television medium) have “been accompanied by a change of ownership of the major Hollywood

corporations and their emergence as media conglomerates” (Gomery). Modern Hollywood is increasingly

identifying more as a business and less as a form of cinema.

Why does Hollywood prioritize profit generation to such a far-reaching extent? Perhaps it is because

of the economic nature of the film industry. In “Profitability Trends in Hollywood,” researchers Michael

Pokorny and John Sedgwick analyze Hollywood’s financial relationship with its audience. They point out

that “the key to understanding Hollywood is to understand how it deals, and has dealt, with the risks born of

uncertainty.” The researchers illustrate their conclusion through the statistical relationship between US film

profits and film costs (throughout the 1930s and 1990s), which shows significant data variation, proving the

unpredictability of the film market (Pokorny, Sedgwick).

Globalization is another potential phenomenon affecting the course of Hollywood’s development.

Hollywood has learned that international markets have immense revenue potential. In fact, the BBC reporter

Tom Brook reveals that “the global marketplaces is bringing profitability to pictures that would sink if they

were relying just on the domestic box office” (Brook). In other words, the economic safety net of foreign

markets has prompted Hollywood to internationalize its content.

The Loss of Artistic Commitment

When Hollywood makes profit generation its foremost priority, its content is shaped accordingly.

Kipen decries the consequences of Hollywood commercialization, lamenting that “thanks to studio over-

reliance on markets where English is not spoken, the moribund American movie of today tells its simple-

minded story in a kind of Esperanto, easily translated but more easily ignored” (Kipen). The loss of
language-based American cinema is not the only change caused by the prioritization of financial profit.

Huffington Post writer John Farr argues that “a fundamental part of great filmmaking - excellence in script,

character development and overall story-telling - gets sacrificed, because the bells and whistles, the sheer

noise and kinetic pacing of today’s commercial releases, would seem to render them unnecessary” (Farr).

Hollywood is not delivering its product as advertised; today’s Hollywood films clearly do not satisfy

traditional artistic standards. Because of this, by Fleming’s definition of artistic legitimacy, we can judge an

overwhelming number of modern Hollywood films as “poor.”

However, some argue that these trends of artistic loss are not new. As far as back as 1933, critics like

Dalton Trumbo decried “the leeches which have sucked a young and vigorous industry [Hollywood] into a

state of almost total paresis” (Trumbo). Similarly, in “What the Public Wanted,” Catherine Jurca argues that

even within the final years (1937-1942) of the “Golden Age” of Hollywood, the public was taught “that so-

called popular star were really box office poison; that the industry purposefully produced not only good ‘A’

pictures but also inferior ‘B’s’” (Jurca). Such writers would contend that financial prioritization has existed

since the dawn of American cinema.

However, others argue that modern Hollywood has reached a new and alarming level of

commercialization, enough to be concerned about. For instance, Leland argues that sequels “were nowhere

nearly as ubiquitous as they are now.” Leland points out that at the turn of the 21st century, the number of

sequels (symptomatic of profit-prioritization) in the top 25 top-grossing films had gone from 2 to 12

(Leland). Furthermore, when responding to Alexander Cockburn’s 1991 claim that Hollywood was “after

aerospace, this country’s largest export,” Kipen argues that today, “there is no cinematic equivalent to Airbus,

in Europe, or anywhere else, and if Hollywood gets its way there won’t be” (Kipen).

Restoring Creativity

The rise of the American independent film movement presents a solution to rebalancing the

relationship between commerce and creativity in Hollywood. In order for Hollywood to retain its artistic

legitimacy, it must find outside solutions that are free from the profit-making mentality that has overtaken the

mainstream industry. In “Independent Filmmaking in America,” Mitchell W. Block quotes a 1918 Variety

issue describing an independent filmmaker as who “can take any length of time he feels is essential to the

quality of his releases…is free to choose his own stories…is not harassed by telegrams and long distance

telephone call…is entirely independent of any one or any other concern of any character” (Block). In other
words, independent filmmaking allows filmmakers to express their artistic will, pursuing the purest form of

their personal art.

Block emphasizes that “history suggests that the filmmaker whose films find the largest audience

find the greatest freedom. The freedom it permits the filmmaker almost total artistic control” (Block). Artistic

freedom can only be achieved through economic freedom, Block argues, and that means Hollywood studios

must take the radical step of empowering filmmakers who can potentially be economic competitors. This

decision, in financial terms, would be senseless. But from an artistic point of view, many would argue that it

is necessary in order to save Hollywood’s artistic legitimacy from oblivion.

Some are skeptical of the independent filmmaking community, however. For instance, Kipen argues

that “independent film has failed us…more and more the studios look to independent film as a farm

system…the Sundance Film Festival has become a virtual agents’ convention, and the Independent Spirit

Awards little more than a beachfront Oscar rehearsal” (Kipen). In other words, although Kipen acknowledges

the creative potential of independent filmmaking, he fears that Hollywood studios would exploit rather than

empower independent filmmakers.

Nonetheless, contrary to Kipen’s fears, independent American filmmaking has shown a stubborn

tendency to survive. Block reveals that “the struggle by filmmakers to control the content, form, production,

and the distribution of their films is a struggle that can be traced back to the very beginnings of film

history…this struggle continues today and little has changed” (Block). In Hollywood’s current artistic state,

independent filmmaking presents a viable solution to regain the trust of the traditional cinema community.

Since its inception, Hollywood has always been a true creative industry. For instance, in “Hollywood

and the Culture Elite,” Peter Decherney argues that it is wrong “to think that if film is art it somehow

exceeds or is opposed to commerce” (Decherney). Rather, Hollywood film is, by its very nature, a mixture of

creativity and commerce.

But modern trends have clearly illustrated that the scale has been unbalanced. Over time, modern

Hollywood has developed into a profit-chasing corporate machine that has neglected the artistic legitimacy

of the content it produces. Hollywood doesn’t have to be this way, and it shouldn’t. In “What’s Wrong with

Hollywood?,” Joseph C. Potter refers to Walt Disney as someone who “showed what can be achieved with a

better balance of artistic and business acumen” (Potter). Clearly, there is hope for the artistic legitimacy of

Hollywood. Independent filmmaking offers one such path for hope, but only if today’s studio executives,
sitting in the glamour and glitz of Los Angeles, renew their initiative in restoring the respect of their industry.

If they do, then modern Hollywood may just return to the grand vision of artists, old and new alike, have

always dreamed of.

(2175 words)

 Works Cited

Baumann, Shyon. "Change from Within: New Production and Consumption Practices." Hollywood

Highbrow: From Entertainment to Art. Princeton: Princeton UP, 2007. 53-108. Print. Princeton

Studies in Cultural Sociology.

Block, Mitchell W. “Independent Filmmaking in America.” Journal of the University Film and Video

Association, vol. 35, no. 2, 1983, pp. 4–16., www.jstor.org/stable/20686937.

Britten, Loretta, and Paul Mathless, eds. 100 Years of Hollywood. Alexandria, VA: Time-Life, 1999. Print.

Brook, Tom. "How the Global Box Office Is Changing Hollywood." BBC News. BBC, 21 Oct. 2014. Web.

29 Mar. 2017., http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20130620-is-china-hollywoods-future

Camus, Albert. The Myth of Sisyphus, and Other Essays. London: H. Hamilton, 1965. Print.

Decherney, Peter. “Introduction : How Film Became Art.” Hollywood and the Culture Elite: How the Movies

Became American, edited by John Belton, Columbia University Press, 2005, pp. 1–12,

www.jstor.org/stable/10.7312/dech13376.4.

Farr, John. "Just When Did The Quality Of Hollywood Films Start To Drop?" The Huffington Post.

TheHuffingtonPost.com, 24 May 2009. Web. 29 Mar. 2017.

Fleming, Malcolm. “What Is A Good Film?” Journal of the University Film Producers Association, vol. 15,

no. 4, 1963, pp. 8–18., www.jstor.org/stable/20686704.

Gomery, Douglas. "Hollywood as Industry." American Cinema and Hollywood: Critical Approaches. Ed.

John Hill and Pamela Church. Gibson. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2004. N. pag. Print.

Howkins, John. The Creative Economy: How People Make Money From Ideas. London: Penguin, 2013.

Jurca, Catherine. “What the Public Wanted: Hollywood, 1937-1942.” Cinema Journal, vol. 47, no. 2, 2008,

pp. 3–25., www.jstor.org/stable/30137700.

Kipen, David. “Planet Hollywood: The Death of the American Film.” World Policy Journal, vol. 14, no. 2,

1997, pp. 59–66., www.jstor.org/stable/40209531.

Leland, Jedediah. “More is Less: Hollywood's Sequel Addiction Explained.” Film Comment, vol. 40, no. 1,

2004, pp. 46–48., www.jstor.org/stable/43456649.

Pokorny, Michael, and John Sedgwick. “Profitability Trends in Hollywood, 1929 to 1999: Somebody Must

Know Something.” The Economic History Review, vol. 63, no. 1, 2010, pp. 56–84. New Series,

www.jstor.org/stable/27771570.

Potter, Joseph C. “What’s Wrong with Hollywood?” Challenge, vol. 12, no. 4, 1964, pp. 35–37.,

www.jstor.org/stable/40718794.
Smith, Adam. "Chapter 10, Part 1." The Wealth of Nations. N.p.: London: Methuen &, 1904. N. pag. Print.

Sontag, Susan. "The Decay of Cinema." The New York Times. The New York Times, 25 Feb. 1996. Web. 29

Mar. 2017. http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/03/12/specials/sontag-cinema.html

Thompson, Derek. "A World Without Work." The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 17 Aug. 2015. Web. 27

Apr. 2017. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/07/world-without-work/395294/

Trumbo, Dalton. “The Fall of Hollywood.” The North American Review, vol. 236, no. 2, 1933, pp. 140–

147., www.jstor.org/stable/25114256.