Political Economic Analysis of History of Filmed Entertainment - Essay Example

? Sur Political Economic Analysis of History of Filmed Entertainment It will not be incorrect to state that filmed entertainment has its origin in 19th century. This era gave economic opportunities to the entrepreneurs to make profits. The development in terms of political economy within the context of the film industry was quiet swift. 19th century and 20th century have been entitled as Nickelodeon era where cultural aspects in stories (soundless films) became commodities. Ultimately, as awareness of Nickelodeon form of entertainment spread, more and more consumers turned towards this new form of entertainment. Herein, it should be noted that the major distributors of 19th and 20th century Nickelodeon era were pioneers of motion pictures namely Thomas Edison, George Eastman and more. It was the moment in the history of film developmental era that distributors like Thomas Edison monopolized the market of motion pictures. This paper is a clear understanding of the readings that have been selected for undertaking political economic analysis. Investors in the US film industry were one of the major cultural shifts that were noted in the 19th century. With the advancement of technology, the field developed to the extent in 20th century when motion pictures were being broadcasted with the help of celluloid. This further provided recognition to the filmed entertainment. However, the pioneers were the ones who had control over the equities (Litman 15). In order to gain capital, more and more innovation was needed in this newly born economic sector. It is for this reason that Thomas Edison used all his engaging resources in order to sell motion pictures. The fact remains that capital that was being received by filmed entertainment did not exceed much until the nickel arcades spurted up. In order to gather larger groups of consumers, an arena was needed where people could experience entrainment resulting in buying products from the distributors (Bettig and Hall 110). The invention of Kinestoscope and camera stands allowed the filmmakers to record films more than a minute duration. A penny was the minimal cost for viewing the motion films. It was much needed that the hold of the industry was divided among more people because the filmed entertainment was merely being provided to the upper classes only (Meehan 48). The domestic companies such as Bio-graph and Vita-graphs helped in taking the films to middle class as well. As discussed in Meehan’s study, these domestic companies joined hands with the international companies as well that were focusing distributing of films across borders in order to gain the hold of international markets. By this time, it was evident that motion films were now out of pioneer control i.e. Thomas Edison and George Eastman. Films were no longer limited to the premises of penny arcades, parlors etc. as more and more people ushered to experience filmed entertainment within exhibitions (Meehan 52) At this point of the film development, exhibition criterion became a new way to earn money. This rather made film industry became a serious economic contributor for which increased entrepreneurs joined the field as filmmakers and distributors. According to Betting and Hall, the increase in filmmakers and points of exhibitions, there was an avid need of increasing the crowd for viewing the films (Litman). It was for this reason that the rate of per viewing was kept flat. One viewing cost remained one penny for a long time for which films were made from ten minutes to sixty minutes. The change in films was increased so that the Nickelodeon (penny theatres) could have stayed flocked. At this point, films were made a regular entertainment as an accepted culture (Bettig and Hall 62). This helps us understand that the economic model that was applied at the origination of the film was to keep the cost minimal by making sure that the production was limited as well. It is one of the reasons behind film duration to be no more than sixty minutes (Bettig and Hall). With the help of implementation of this model, it was noted that the film industry developed with a fast pace allowing increased demands followed by increase supply. By the end of 1905, the number of Nickelodeon reached somewhere around 5000 (Cavanagh and Mander 78). The other dimension of maintaining the flux in the supply and demand, there were a couple of distributors who undertook the ownership of the Nickelodeon as well as their motion film studios. In this context, Herman has taken an ideological stance about the fact that the most famous names included paramount, Fox, Warner Bros etc. It should be noted that these distributors ultimately brought the joint ventures in the industry (Meehan; Litman). In order to maximize the trend of increasing filmmaking, Hollywood ultimately became the hub of filmmakers and their studios. The production and distribution of films was no different from any other commodities. Let alone, the capital that Paramount Pictures was able to make during 1966 was $83 share (Herman 327). As a matter of fact, the number of films doubled when technologically advanced sound tools were generated. It was the time when major corporations in the film industry have to gain a lot of money to develop the infrastructure which was needed at the time to brought higher sales and distributions. With sound, and technologically advanced ways of filmmaking, paramount took the crown of market controller (also known as the capitalist logic) having films Godfather, Beverley Hills Cop, Star Trek etc (Bettig and Hall). The innovation in film theories also allowed the films to make use of cultural behaviors. These were marked as the elements that increased the reasons for audiences to make use of the filmed entertainment (Cavanagh and Mander 93). The contemporary structure being followed in the film industry notes that Viacom like companies have acquired paramount edging with highest bids. These bids in return helped in producing ground-breaking films including Shrek, Transformers that have been able to gain as much amount as production cost (Meehan). Metro-Goldwyn-Mayor, Warner Bros etc. all are sharing this legacy and have become the capitalist groups. Let alone, the self-distribution of filmmakers is also allowed but increased competitiveness in the field has rather made it difficult for the new entrants to gain as much recognition as the oldest ones (Bettig and Hall 77). Furthermore, it should be noted that there were a number of stakeholders who proved to be critical to success measures of the film industry. These concluded pirated versions of films which were easily watchable through VCR (home theatre device) which made the number of cinema visitors to become less. Therefore, the era changed to the blockbuster. The politics of having more audiences in the cinema resulted in the conglomeration of more and more films with increased budget requirement (Bettig and Hall). The overall film budget became higher whereas the capital earned in the shape of profit proved less. Thus, it can be well stated that there was an avid need of providing a new model to the industry. The contemporary era is known as blockbuster era where the competitions tend to make money for the filmmakers depending upon the season (Cavanagh and Mander 105). It will not be incorrect to state that with innovation and technological advancement, the field has been able to increase the overall capital that can be made with the help of films. The time when the viewing of each film was no less than a penny have now changed into billions of dollars. The core stakeholders remain the distributors. Filmmakers may be dependent upon the distributors demand as in return they are the ones who are responsible for the supply to consumers. Economics have merely controlled the creativity and diversity of subjects being filmed because distributors are only willing to provide subjects through films which are demanded by the consumers (Litman). Overall, it can be viewed that increase in profits, the graph of supply chain and development of the filmed entertainment remains one of the crucial economic sector. In the modern times, there are various stakeholders such as self-distributive filmmakers, distributors etc (Meehan). who have been affecting the field in positive and negative manner. It is due to this reason that the film has become one critical and economically competitive form of entertainment (Cavanagh and Mander). Normative Goals of the Media and Proposal of Operations Normative theories have been stated over the years in order to make sure that the media is able to provide the required results. The normative goals of the media are basically applicable in the free countries where the word and mouth is not closed for one’s interest. In simpler words, media is supposed to provide aid to the collective interest of people. There are a number of goals of media that are normative in nature. These have been discussed in the context of theories. This essay aims to conduct a political economic analysis of the normative goals of the media communication. It is to understand how media systems measure well in achieving these normative goals. It is due to this reason that this paper includes theoretical framework including neoliberal theory, reformer’s theory as well as theories that have been giving a radical idea about the roles of media. These theories will help in understanding the overall role of the media that is supposed to be played. According to the study by Herman, radical’s view of the normative goals of the media was the regulation by obligations. Herein, the aspect of ‘by regulations’ means that the hold or control of all the media content must always be in the hands of the governing elites and authorities of government. This is considered as a conservative way to look at the media role. This way or normative goal proposal seems to undermine the voices and views of the common man (Herman; Cavanagh and Mander). Any content that is regarding the voice of common men is considerably blocked or marked as a non-normative goal of media. By this theory, it becomes evident that the interests of the elites should be taken care of. Any critical acclaim that has to be broadcasted against the elites should be completely banned because the elites are more likely to contribute to the society in one or the other. These normative goals are to be achieved by implementing a number of licenses and censorship. In simple words, it can be said that societies that are implementing media by applying this theory make it critical for the media systems to operate after having a series of publication approvals. In case the approvals are not provided, they are not allowed to work in accordance to the media. The fact remains that one of the reasons behind the spread of this view is because the funding provided to media is by an elite group. Hence, they should never be targeted by the media person because that is the only way in which the media systems can operate on their own for making profits (Herman 341) A complete different view to look at the media or the role to be played by media is under libertarian normative goal. According to this proposal for operation, media is supposed to give complete harmony and freedom to the common men. It is because people of any society are supposed to raise their voices in case they are not given their rightful possessions i.e. education about truth. It should be noted that it is a common behavior that people understand and believe on the content that is broadcasted by the media. Therefore, it is the rightful duty of media to ensure that any content which is being broadcasted provides complete facts and figures. Common men are supposed to look at an issue from all the angles therefore; one-sided stories should be rightly avoided. In this process, the government is not allowed to undertaken any interference. It is because the government is to provide services and a system to the common men to live with quality life. Under this normative goal, government can never undertake scrutiny because media is a public forum. Societies that are following this sort of normative goal have been successful in making sure that they are democratic (Herman; Cavanagh and Mander). A neoliberal viewpoint of the normative goals of media is that content that is being broadcasted through different media systems is supposed to fulfill the interest of global capitalism. This makes sure that people following media also follow capitalist view so that the contemporary way of living is possible for everyone. This is accordance to the advertisers who will pay for media system operations. Under neoliberal view of normative goals of media, it is the duty of media to allow better education about globalization. In other words, it can be said that gone are the days when people were only living on policies that were affected domestic operations. Now, international business of policies affects domestic operations. It is due to this reason that there is an avid need of propaganda that is being done by the media to ensure that society is able to match the pace of internationalization (Cavanagh and Mander 76). By understanding the class readings, another normative goal that is expected of the media is social responsibility, which means that the media is supposed to educate people, provide entertainment, inform about the whereabouts of media and finally allow voting opportunities. Under this goal, media is responsible for the purpose of providing unbiased news. All news that is projected from media to the viewers needs to be under the qualification list of journalism. In a very broader way, it is much easier to note that there is not a single democratic ideology which has been able to fit the media operations. Be it the western bloc, there seems to be an increased gap between the media roles and the rights of people. The old philosophy and ideology which has been addressed in a number of research work mainly focusing at the normative role of media have made it evident that it is either the interest of the funding stakeholders of media or the politicians who have been safeguarded by the media content (Herman 344). Through the above normative goals and their understanding in the context of the proposal for media operations, I am not convinced that any of them are workable. It should be noted that with the technological advancement, media has become more and more accessible. Almost every person is contributing in media operations one way or another. There is a need of the theory that is able to cover all the weaknesses of the normative goals proposed by different ideological schools. For instance, the social responsibility as a normative goal seems to be non-practical because media practitioners are under the influence of the government which limits them to provide news without bias. Since, it is an evident fact that media is funded by the elites and advertisers, neoliberal view and authoritative normative roles of media seems to diverge media from democracy. I propose or recommend that there is a theory which is democratic in nature should be practiced in order to devise roles of media which are not just normative in nature but also authentic enough to help media gain capital. The user-gratification model is the least discussed subject matter which is being discussed. Considering this as the basis of role to be played by media, it has not been able to meet its role in the past ages too. Looking at the communist societies of the world that have controlled their media for a very long time has now thought over their views of media role. Therefore, it will not be incorrect to state that this view about media role has become obsolete. There is no government that has been able to control the media exposure for nations. Within the technological advanced world, entrepreneurs have come up with different media systems which have not only helped in delivering the content but also generating economical backing as well. Works Cited Bettig, R and J. Hall. "The Hollywood Movie Industry: Do We Really Need It?" Bettig, R and J. Hall. Big Media, Big Money: Cultural Texts and Political Economics. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2012. 57-114. Print. Cavanagh, J and J. Mander. Alternatives to Economic Globalization (Large Print 16pt). New York: ReadHowYouWant.com, 2010. Print. Herman, E. "Democratic Media." Herman, E. The myth of the liberal media: an Edward Herman reader. New York: P. Lang, 1999. 326-328. Print. Litman, B. "Business History of the Industry." Litman, B. The motion picture mega-industry. Chicago: Allyn and Bacon, 1998. 9-18. Print. Meehan, E. "Holy Commodity Fetish, Batman!: The political Economy of a Commercial Intertext." Schatz, T. Hollywood: Cultural dimensions: ideology, identity and cultural industry studies. San Francisco: Taylor & Francis, 2004. 49-62. Print. Read More