If we for example take Chaplin - his pictures were few and far between
from 1920 onwards. He seemed to take years to get around to finishing
one. If then there was no studio system I think that perhaps there
might not have been so many pictures produced? Cinema owners would of
course been clamouring for product and there may have been someone
else other than the "A" list churning out rubbish. The studio system
may not have been perfect but it did make pictures on a sort of
assembly line, got an excellent crew together, got product out there
and occasional made a gem or two.

It is very important to realize that "Cinema owners" at this point to
a very important degree were who OWNED M-G-M.

That title card at the front of each movie is not a joke that says
"MGM - a subsidiary of Loew's, Inc."

The MGM studio was put together by Marcus Loew to provide a steady
flow of acceptable product for his Loew's theatres all over the US, &
Mayer was put in charge of running MGM. It was very much intended to
be a factory providing a steady stream of product for Loew's theatres,
& the extras of whoever they could sell the picture to in markets that
didn't have a theatre owned by Loew's (Loew's operated a lot of
theatres that weren't named "Loew's", usually theatres with an
established name bought in many markets). Mayer had a bottom line &
knew his bosses were concerned with cost-efficient operation &
reliable box-office appeal.

Paramount, which had started first as a studio, paralleled Loew's/MGM
by putting together its own theatrical exhibition chain. So Loew's/
MGM & Paramount (which later called its theatrical arm Publix) were
doing the same thing, they just started from different ends.

"I sell tickets to theatres, not movies." -- Marcus Loew

GARSON KANIN recounted his friendship with Harry Cohn and does NOT
demonize the man

On May 21, 9:58 am, Lloyd Fonvielle <navigareNOS... at (no spam) cox.net> wrote:
sir m wrote:
GARSON KANIN recounted his friendship with Harry Cohn and does NOT
demonize the man

Orson Welles was fond of Cohn, because even though he was a monster he
was honest about it -- he didn't pretend to be your friend (or a kindly
father figure like Mayer) and then screw you. He just went ahead and
screwed you.

Cohn was also willing to be bold and even reckless when the mood struck
him. When Welles needed $50,000 in three hours to get his costumes for
the stage production of "Around the World" out of hock, so the play
could open, he said that Cohn was the only guy he knew anywhere he could
turn to. Welles offered Cohn his directing services for a thriller
(which turned out to be "The Lady From Shanghai") and Cohn wired the
money immediately.

Cohn was reasonably satisfied with "The Lady From Shanghai" but told
Welles he would never work with him again, "because when one guy is the
actor and the director and the writer, you can't fire him." All the
great moguls had that kind of ruthlessness, but Cohn made no bones about
it.

Mar de Cortes Baja

www.mardecortesbaja.com<http://www.mardecortesbaja.com/blog

I find this talk of "monsters ": fanciful" Business
managers.considered the practice of dismissal (firing) as an almost
divine right and would be shocked to hear it described as ruthless.