Northern California Film History - Essay Example

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA FILM HISTORY Historians often have different theories about a particular event or place in history. Movie history is also not exempted from such difference in opinions and it has endured the brunt of many controversies. Though most of the movie historians have epitomized Hollywood as the movie industry’s capital, no one can ignore San Francisco’s role as the grooming ground of the motion picture industry. One Historian, Scott T S Trimble, puts forth a contention that San Francisco is ‘the Original Hollywood’. When one considers the various backgrounds in history that has caused the movie industry to evolve into its current form, the opinions and findings of Trimble will emerge as most relevant and realistic. There is an element of a forgotten past behind Hollywood’s emergence as the capital of motion picture industry. The events that can reveal the historic background of this transformation date as long back to the early 1900s when the production activities began shifting from San Francisco to Los Angels in 1907. This has heralded a major change for the Northern California movie scenario apart from the changes the film industry underwent as a whole. Before that most of the production activities in the US have been centered in San Francisco Bay Area. An inquiry down the lane of history reveals that the Bay Area was a fertile hub for the early experiments, inventions, and evolution of motion pictures. Pioneers like Edward Muybridge, Edison, and Edwin Porter were involved in the process of movie making in the Bay Area. Without their contributions the motion film industry in US would not have gained its momentum. Thus one cannot overlook as irrelevant Trimble’s observation that motion pictures were invented in San Francisco. Yet, much of the print history on motion pictures has ignored San Francisco’s contribution and directed their focus on Hollywood as the cognation point of film industry. Credit doesn’t seem to have been given where it actually belongs and the flawed assumptions need to be rectified in the light of the facts available. However, if one explores the oral history in the matter the contention seems to honor Southern California’s role in giving the boost to the movie industry that made it flourish to its current status. When one examines history and the recorded facts therein, it becomes evident that San Franciscans are key players in the making of the movies and their role has been pivotal right from the embryonic stage of motion pictures’ development as an industry. It was Eadward Muybridge, a San Francisco photographer, who paved the way for photographing objects in motion in 1887. Though it could be argued that it was in the primitive stage, his experiments led the way to evolving of a movie machine that could run a sequence of pictures. The emergence of Edison, with the innovative Kinetoscope in 1889, gave a new qualitative twist to the evolution of movies as the source of a new variety of entertainment. It was the advanced form of peephole show, which again underwent further improvement in his hands. The world’s first film production studio, The Black Maria, was built in 1893 at the grounds of Edison’s laboratory, at West Orange, New Jersey. April 23, 1896 witnessed the first motion picture being projected on a screen in New York, which was produced in Bay Area, and thus San Francisco became the pioneer city in movie history while rest of America was nowhere in this map. There are several corroborative incidents to the context, starting with contribution of Edwin S. Porter who used modern film technique of editing in his grand film “The Great Train Robbery.” This great film of 1903 has its rippling effects retained for ages to come. Another major feat of filming based in San Francisco was attributed to Billy Anderson, who shot more than 400 films from Bay Area. The silent film era had its ring leader in Charlie Chaplin, whose grotesque character swept theaters across the world, was the culmination of San Francisco effect. Thus, it can be understood that most of the movie activities during the formation years of the movie industry have been concentrated in San Francisco. During this period the city was rich in supporting elements like technology and human resources were available. The period also marks the presence of several visionaries who lived in San Francisco. This made San Francisco a very fertile place with a conducive atmosphere for location the motion picture industry. The industry also received good patronage from the local community. However, as it flourished, some unfortunate incidents occurred which dismantled the solidarity it established in the area. First, came the Earthquake of 1906 which was a devastating blow to every routine of human life in the city in general and movie industry in particular. As an aftermath of this tragedy, there was an apprehension that such mishaps may recur in this area. Thus emerging productions were hesitant to base their operations in San Francisco while existing ones wanted to vacate this area and look for greener pastures. Los Angles, because of its scenic beauty and ideal geographic location seems to have become the obvious choice. “Edendale… is a very beautiful suburb of Los Angeles. It is the motion picture of the Pacific Coast. With clear air and sunshine three hundred days out of the year, conditions are ideal for perfect picture making. The scenic advantages of the location too are unique. From Edendale can be seen the Pacific Ocean 20 miles to the west, and the broad panorama of Southern California with its fruit and stock ranches, its snow-capped mountains and its tropical vegetation to the east, north and south, within a short distance of Edendale may be found every known variety of national scenery, seemingly arranged by a master producer expressly for the motion picture camera.” (www.historicecopark.org). Because these appealing conditions there has been an exodus of movie producers from San Francisco to Los Angeles. World War-I had also influenced the movie industry in San Francisco in a significant way. Naturally, the conditions arising out of the War brought a surge in demand for more movies from America. A crippled San Francisco had to stand aside watching while Los Angeles readily accepted the challenge of facilitating the necessary infrastructural, technical, and aesthetic demands arising out of the sudden surge in the market. The observations made by Trimble and his findings focus on the relevance of San Francisco as the Original Hollywood, and he doesn’t seem to be much interested in the history of movies in general. There have been several historical perspectives on other issues relating to movies as such but Trimble has ignored most of them as he is largely unconcerned. Most of what Tremble promulgates is the adverse conditions arising out of 2 major events that played a key role in preventing San Francisco from becoming the original Hollywood. He also advocates the theory that the scenic beauty of Los Angeles and the other conducive conditions existing there helped the focus shift from San Francisco. Once the film industry was established in Los Angeles it registered a speedy expansion, thriving on the favorable conditions existing in the city. As the burgeoning business signaled an exponential growth, it became impossible for Hollywood to contain the volume. And thus it began to spill over into the neighboring areas such as Santa Monica in the west, and San Fernando Valley in the north and north west. Thus Hollywood elevated itself into an unassailable position of solidarity that it presently commands. From such contentions it is obvious that Trimble rather fits the frame of a Californian Film History scholar rather than a Film History scholar. The research into the historical evidence points to two major indicators that caused the concentration of the movie industry in Bay Area to shift to Los Angeles. The earthquake of 1906 created an apprehension that the San Francisco area is prone to more such tremors. This caused the movie production companies to migrate to Los Angeles which offered the ideal conditions for film making. Thus a large number of producers established their units in Los Angeles and its surrounding areas. Another main reason why San Francisco couldn’t become Hollywood seems to stem from the fact that during the concurrent time there was a surge in the demand of American movies in the aftermath of the outbreak of World War-I. “With the beginning of World War-I, the motion picture industry in Europe came to a halt because of shortage of power and supplies but Europeans demanded to watch movie because it provided a nice escape from the burdens of war. The American film industry thrived on this business in the European market, using the profit to produce bigger and better motion pictures.” (www.library.thinkquest.org). Thus Los Angeles became a hotbed for movie makers who teemed in the area, attracted by the prospect it offered both in terms of money and glamour. Works Cited http://www.library.thinkquest.org/10015/data/info/reference/history/ - accessed November 12, 2006 http://www.historicecopark.org – accessed November 12, 2006 www.Film/filmhistory.org. Read More