The Studio System Case Study

High risk, prohibitive costs, on-the-fly changes, delays, creative differences describe the making of a movie. To curtail the costs, the Studio System was set up leading to an oligopoly of five major Hollywood studios. This paper will focus on the Studio System; its organization, role in the Golden Age, and factors contributing to its decline.

The Rise and fall of Hollywood's Studio System
The Silent Film Era
The Studio System began in the early 1900’s through the efforts of Thomas Edison, Carl Laemmle, and Thomas H. Ince, and D. W. Griffith to control the making, distribution, and exhibiting of motion picture films. An important contribution to curtail the costs and improve efficiency was an assembly-line style of production developed by Thomas Ince. The Studio System relied upon a central producer, who supervised a team of associate supervisors. The associate supervisors handled the day-to-day operations of film production, but the central producer retained total control (Barsam & Monahan, 2013, p. 495). During this era, the films were becoming more polished resulting in longer and more costly productions. However, the films from any particular studio were all beginning to look alike and the influence of the central producer was decreasing the individuality of the films (Hollywood stars & studios, n.d.). Central producer
America now became the leading producer of films in the world (Dirks, n.d.) As the industry grew, the production, distribution, and exhibition fell under one roof known as vertical integration (Dirks, n.d.). The Big 5 were now fully integrated conglomerates, owning vast studios for production, distribution divisions, substantial theater chains, and the holders of numerous contracts with artists and technicians. Approximately 94% of the studios wealth was in real estate. The Big 5’s theater chains were located in prime urban areas (The Studio System,