The Effects of The Private Life of Henry VIII to the British Film Industry in the 1930s - Essay Example

?The Effects of The Private Life of Henry VIII to the British Film Industry in the 1930’s Introduction The emergence and success of Hollywood and itsfame as the movie capital of the world even put the British Film industry to a heavier struggle. In the legislation of 1927 during the 1930’s, quota and quickie films were the trend of British cinema; however, it did not maximize profit since the movies were considered low-budget and of less quality. The production and showing of Alexander Korda’s The Private Life of Henry VIII reversed the monotonous British film making. Korda’s film brought the British movie industry to another light amidst the tight competition with American films, but the downside of it produced another wave of financial difficulties to other new film production companies and to the movie industry as a whole, which made contrasting results from Korda’s increase financial assets to the overwhelming deficits of other production companies. Quotas and Quickies in British Film Industry Hollywood has begun to overrule all other filming industries around the world, making the competition of international and local cinemas rise. In England, 1930’s “were turbulent years” for the British filming industry, as the import of Hollywood films became more popular than the locally produced films (Aldred, 1996.). As an action from the government, a legislation was passed ordering all movie houses to showcase British products. Although it was a good act to make, the unexpected result happened as the mediocre, low-budget British films were made so as to fulfill the legislation and avoid any legal impediments. The Cinematograph Film Act of 1927, instead of successfully addressing the problems of British movie’s audience share, produced a line of “quota quickies” or movies made for the sake of following the legislation. In other words, a large number of British movies of that time period were based on quantity, not quality and consequently failed to reach the minimum profit of each movie shown. This Act of Parliament, although considered a failure, brought British film making into a more active state compared to the period before the law was enacted (Richards, 2001, p. 57). The Film Act of 1927 became known throughout Europe, and some countries like Germany did the same legislation in order to enhance their own locally-produced films (Richards, 2001, p. 59). Quota quickies were born out of the legislation from the Parliament to enhance the production of British films, and not to bombard the cinemas with mediocre outputs. Realizing the inability and less use of the Cinematograph Films Act of 1927 to the proliferation of quality British films, another Act of Parliament was made to amend the flaws of the previous legislation. Cinematograph Films Act of 1938 ordered the raise of British film quotas from 5 per cent to 15 per cent and required all British films to be worthy of passing the international standards, thus, debunking the typical perception of the British movies in the 1930’s. Following the decline of the U.S. market on the period of the Great Depression, local movie producers were given the “space [to create] new and unusual films” (Ashby & Higson, 2000, p. 57). This also served as the first manifestation of the American presence in the British-made films. Metro Goldwyn Mayer (MGM), an American film production company was the first one to make British-inspired films, which were huge successes for both British and American audience. Consequently, America’s great depression forced American producers to seek refuge in the British lands. British setting is not unusual for the American audience, with the British history as mandatory subject in schools. According to Reynolds (n.d.), the appreciation of British-set movies by American movie goers stems from the interest of the Americans of “British traditions and institutions especially of the class system” (cited in Ashby & Higson, 2000, p. 58). Ashby and Higson’s (2000) claim about the class system as marketable topics in movies was proved by the England based Hungarian director Alexander Korda with his movie The Private Life of Henry VIII even before the enactment of the 1938 Act of Parliament. Korda’s masterpiece made big in the British filming industry and successfully penetrated Hollywood; a first time in the history of British film making. The Birth of Alexander Korda and The Private Life of Henry VIII and its Impact on the British Film Industry During the 1930’s Sandor Kellner, more popularly known as Alexander Korda was the man behind the first British-made film to ever win big in Hollywood. Even before his venture in Hollywood, he already had an extensive career in the film industry in his country and in some parts of Germany. In 1927, he was invited to do a Hollywood movie, but it did not turn out quite as expected which made him go back to his country and then to London (Kehr, 2006). When he was new to London, it was Leopold Sutro who helped him organized his own production company which was later called London Film Productions, with The Private Life of Henry VIII as its debut movie which also launched Charles Laughton’s first major character portrayal (Aldred, n.d.). Upon merging with United Artists production, Herbert Wilcox granted him the support for the same movie which Korda wants to release internationally, and indeed, Wilcox was right about Korda since the movie became a success also in American theatres, premiered at the Radio City Music Hall (Balio, 1976, pp. 132-133). The success of Korda’s film opened avenues for other British producers to make quality films with the hope of having the same recognition as what Korda had. Korda’s idea of having British performers and American producers in the British setting was perfect, if based on the result of The Private Life of Henry VIII, profit-wise and the number and weight of recognition. Although Korda was not nominated as best director in the Academy Awards, he helped Charles Laughton (the actor who portrayed Henry VIII) make history as he was nominated and awarded Best Actor; it is another first in Hollywood history since he is the first British national to be awarded the said recognition. Since the concept was a novelty in the 1930’s, it lured the movie goers instantly made the movie a blockbuster hit. For the first time, Hollywood transformed from being an exclusive American movie industry to being a venue for international collaboration to the influence of other cultures. However, The Private Life of Henry VIII had to be edited due to some vulgar scenes and languages, which were not yet acceptable in the American society at that time. The movie had to undergone series of censorships with respect to the Production Codes. In fact, the movie’s advertising poster was banned because of its suggestive meaning (Ashby & Higson, 2000, p. 59). Amidst the strict compliance of the Production Code, The Private Life of Henry VIII still became a huge success in the American Market. Street (1997) is right when she contends that the American cinema has “profound impact on the British film industry,” and that its contribution is present from “production to exhibition” (p. 2.). Street (1997) wants to emphasize that the two film industries’ cooperation to each other, either in the production or exhibition, is tantamount to the success of the movie. The influence of the American cinema to the British films was undeniably a formula for Korda’s success, taken into consideration the newness of the concept at that time and the audience’s attitude towards unconventional movie ideas. In addition, most British films hold austerity and bland presentation of the British culture (Street, 1997, p. 28) and history, which contrasts the genre of Korda’s The Private Life of Henry VIII. Korda’s movie is a satirical take on King Henry’s VIII life with his failed marriages. Although the movie has several inaccuracies, it still reflects British monarchy being ruled under King Henry VIII. Being the first British film to have ever reach box office stardom from United Artists production, Korda became a “sought after producer.” The company’s confidence for Korda made him sign a sixteen-movie contract and offering him a share in the UA. In September 1935, he owned 25% of the total profit shares without even putting an investment (Miskell, 2006, p. 745). Korda, together with his colleagues in the United Artists and London Film Productions, was made one of the highest grossing producers and an instant share holder of the said company. This effect has provided the British film industry a more active involvement of directors, actors, and other people responsible for making a film, but contrary to the expected “booming” movie age of this period, smaller and newer production companies were not able to survive the competition leaving the older companies to stay in reign. According to Richards (1984), the success of Korda’s The Private Life of Henry VIII initiated the boom of British film industry which ironically holds three “main features peculiar to itself” (p. 40). He contends that the rapid improvement of British cinema is inspired only by “expectations” which were quite unmet. The right kind of inspiration, of which the new producers lack, may be the one to resolve the problem. To risk a significantly large amount of money to a production is surely a risk, but to expect it to become a blockbuster hit like other movies is actually surreal because audience taste changes from time to time depending on the trends of a particular period. Furthermore, ordinary shareholders did not receive as much as they have spent in the “production sphere” which explains the booming loans made by private and smaller production companies (p. 40). The problem lies within a non-concrete ideologies of most new companies and directors, who believed that their movies were a potential international success. In no time, there were several production companies, all in their embryonic stages, mushrooming and producing movies with the same expectation as Korda’s. Although it is beneficial to the British film industry to acquire a full involvement of producers, directors, and actors, these high expectations threat the quality of the movies being produced. Ironically, the booming of British film industry in the production of Korda’s celebrated The Private Life of Henry VIII brought a possible devastation. According to Sight and Sound, a British film magazine, the so-called improvement of the British film industry has produced three kinds of movies: “expensive films designed for world markets, cheaper films designed for home markets, and quickies...to meet the quota obligations” (cited in Richards, 1984, p. 41). The problem is, inaccuracy and incompetence of the movies during this period is not autonomous to the quota quickies, and also present in the other two categories. This is because of the hasty production planning in order to release the movie as early as possible and expect that it would also receive the same kind of fate as what Korda’s film obtained. Furthermore, the magazine also criticized the expensive production cost and the “import” of American casts whose salaries were an additional burden to the expenses. Most of the film’s expenses were not complimented by the sales of which the movies obtained. Even the blockbuster hit were not even enough to make up with the deficits of the production costs. Thus, instead of building a profit boom, it brought a list of loans in order to finance the movie without having reciprocated. Conclusion Alexander Korda’s The Private Life of Henry VIII opened opportunities and pitfalls of the British film industry. Its success spells the start of the American and British influences of the western cinema, where Hollywood starts to deter the monopoly of film making. Unrecognized film producers and actors were given the same opportunity of showcasing the art which they have long been keeping through the spotlight faced towards them. Delirious with the idea of being in the summit of their careers, movies were at the peak of its production in terms of number but not on quality. Emerging film producers during Korda’s height of career were united with one vision: equaling or even surpassing Korda, which has brought British film making into a rather uncertain feat. References Aldred, J., 1996. Korda’s denham studios. The amps Newsletter, [Online]. Available at: The Association of Motion Picture Sound http://www.amps.net/newsletters/issue17/17_korda.htm [Accessed 20 January 2011]. Ashby, J. & Higson, A., 2000. British cinema, past and present. London: Routledge. Balio, T., 1976. United artists: the company built by stars. Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press. Kehr, D. Holding a fun house mirror up to the present. The New York Times, [internet] 6 May. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/10/movies/homevideo/10kehr.html?_r=2 [Accessed 20 January 2011]. Miskell, P., 2006. ‘Selling America to the world?’ The rise and fall of an international film distributor in its largest foreign market: United States and Britain 1927-1947. The Journal of American History, 7(4), pp. 740-776. Richards, J., 1984. The age of the dream palace: cinema and society in Britain, 1930-1939. London: Routledge. Street, S., 1997. British national cinema. London: Routledge. Read More