Films are cultural artifacts created by specific cultures, which deem those cultures, and, in turn, affect them. The visual elements of cinema give motion pictures a universal power of communication.
The history of film spans over a hundred years (from the latter part of the 19th century to the beginning of the 21st). And since the birth of cinema, motion relate films have had a substantial impact on the arts, technology, culture, politics, and society.
Motion pictures were purely visual art up to the late 19th century, but these innovative peaceful films gained a hold on the public imagination. Around the turn of the 20th century, films began developing a narrative structure by stringing scenes together to tell narratives. The scenes were later broken up into multiple shots of varying sizes, angles, and cuts. Other techniques such as camera movement, camera tricks, and special effects were utilized for effective ways to portray a story on film.
The Birth of the Moving Picture
With the development of celluloid film for still photography, it became possible to directly capture objects in motion in exact time. With the captivating picture, it is formed with a celluloid strip containing a sequence of images. These images with incremental movements from each other are shown in succession onto a screen; thus, seeing the quiet images as challenging images. The early motion pictures were static shots that showed an event or action with no editing or other cinematic techniques. Film cameras were handcranked (and the usual speed of cranking is the speed seen with the classic films we see now sharp faster than ordinary human movements).
The early versions of the technology required a person to perceive into a viewing machine to see the pictures that were separate paper prints attached to a drum and turned by a handcrank. The pictures were shown at a variable speed of about 5 to 10 pictures per second depending on how rapidly the crank was turned. Some of these machines were coin operated.
After a while, the development of a motion portray projector to shine light through the processed and printed film and magnify these “moving picture shows” onto a screen for an entire audience became the norm.
The Silent Era
Inventors and producers had tried from the very beginning of entertaining pictures to marry the image with synchronous sound, but no practical method was devised until the late 1920’s. And so, for the first thirty years of film history, movies were more or less silent, although they were usually accompanied by musicians and sometimes sound effects, and with dialogue and narration presented in the so-called intertitles.
During the 1900’s, the word “art” was mentioned more and more in connection with films. And as a result of the increasing artistic ambitions of filmmakers, poems began to be transposed directly into these moving picture endeavors. Symbolic effects taken over from conventional literary and artistic traditions started.
The rise of European cinema was interrupted by the breakout of World War I while the film industry in the United States flourished with the rise of Hollywood.
Experimentation with sound film technology, both for recording and playback, was virtually constant throughout the peaceful era, but the problems on accurate synchronization and sufficient amplification was still quite difficult to overcome.
The Sound Era
By the 1920’s, new technology allowed filmmakers to attach to each film a soundtrack of speech, music, and sound effects synchronized with the action shown on screen. These sound films were initially noted by calling them “talking pictures,” or “talkies.”
The industry impact of sound made a remarkable swift. By the end of 1929, Hollywood was almost all-talkie, with several competing sound systems – which would soon be standardized.
Sound films emphasized and benefited different genres more than silents did. During this time, the musical film was also born.
The 1940’s: The War and Post-war Years
The desire for wartime propaganda became a serious agenda during the war and post-war years. The onset of US involvement in WWII also brought a proliferation of movies as both patriotism and propaganda.
Wartime also brought an interest in more fantastical subjects. And the era also produced a series of atmospheric and influential small-budget horror films.
The 1950’s: Post-war Years
During the immediate post-war years, the film industry was also threatened by television. The increasing popularity of the unusual medium caused the bankruptcy and closing of a number of theaters, especially the petite ones.
However, in the Philippines, this decade fulfilled the so-called “Golden Age of Phlippine Cinema.” During the 1950’s, Many Filipino films were internationally-acclaimed and reaping awards in the international scene.
The 1960’s: Foreign Films, Black-and-white vs. Color, Self-Expression and Propaganda
During the 1960’s, the studio system in Hollywood declined because many films were now being made on location in other countries, or using studio facilities abroad. Unlike Hollywood, other countries are unprejudiced starting to peak in their filmmaking industries. Hollywood movies were still largely aimed at family audiences, and it was often the more old-fashioned films that produced the studios’ biggest successes.
The growth in independent producers and production companies and the increase in the power of individual actors also contributed to the decline of traditional Hollywood studio production. There was also an increasing awareness of foreign language cinema. The nuclear paranoia of the age, and the threat of an apocalyptic nuclear exchange (including the 1963 close-call with the USSR during the Cuban missile crisis) prompted a reaction within the film community. Films like Stanley Kubrick’s “Dr. Strangelove” and “Fail Safe” with Henry Fonda were produced in a Hollywood that was then known for its overt patriotism and wartime propaganda.
The next major step in the development of cinema was the introduction of color. While the addition of sound fleet eclipsed silent film and theater musicians, color was then adopted more gradually. As color processes improved and became as affordable as black-and-white film, more and more movies were filmed in color. After the end of World War II, as the industry came to plan color as essential to attracting audiences in its competition with television, most films remained in the black-and-white medium until the mid-1960’s. By the end of the 1960’s, color had become the norm for filmmakers.
The 1970’s: The ‘New Hollywood’ and Post-classical Cinema
Since the decline of the studio system in the 1960’s, the succeeding decades saw changes in the production and style of film. The rise of film school educated independent filmmakers became a distinguished part of the changes the medium experienced in the latter half of the 20th century.
‘Post-classical cinema’ was also a term ragged to describe the changing methods of storytelling of the “New Hollywood” producers. The unique methods of drama and characterization played upon audience expectations were further utilized: tale chronology could be scrambled, storylines could already feature unsettling “twist endings,” main characters could behave in a morally ambiguous fashion, and the lines between the antagonist and protagonist may be blurred.
A new group of filmmakers also emerged during this time: Francis Ford Coppola, Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, and Brian de Palma. This coincided with the increasing popularity of the auteur theory in film literature and the media, which posited that a film director’s films express their personal vision and creative insights.
The phenomenal success of “Jaws” and “Star Wars” in particular, led to the rise of the recent “blockbuster.” Hollywood studios increasingly focused on producing a smaller number of very large budget films with massive marketing and promotional campaigns.
During the 1970’s, some filmmakers increasingly depicted explicit sexual content and showed gunfight and battle scenes that included graphic images of bloody deaths. Moreover, by the mid-1970s, more pornographic theatres, euphemistically called “adult cinemas,” were established. The legal production of hardcore pornographic films also began.
The 1980’s: Sequels, Blockbusters and Videotape
During the 1980’s, audiences began increasingly watching movies on their home VCRs. During the early part of the decade, movie studios tried apt action to ban home ownership of VCRs as a violation of copyright, which proved unsuccessful. Eventually, the sale and rental of movies on home video became a significant “second venue” for exhibition of films, and an additional source of revenue for the movie companies.
George Lucas and Steven Spielberg started dominating Hollywood for much of the era – leading to much imitations. Two follow-ups to “Star Wars,” three to “Jaws,” and three “Indiana Jones” films helped to perform sequels of successful films more of an expectation than ever before. Lucas also launched THX Ltd, a division of Lucasfilm in 1982, while Spielberg enjoyed one of the decade’s greatest successes in “E. T.” the same year. The success of Tim Burton’s version of Bob Kane’s creation, “Batman,” made box-office history.
The porn cinemas died out during the 1980’s, when the popularization of the home VCR and pornography videotapes allowed audiences to watch sex films at home.
The 1990’s: New Special Effects, Independent Films, VCDs and DVDs
Cinema was increasingly dominated by special-effects films such as “Terminator 2: Judgment Day” (1991) and “Titanic” (1997), independent films like Steven Soderbergh’s “Sex, Lies, and Videotape” (1989) and Quentin Tarantino’s “Reservoir Dogs” (1992). They had significant commercial success both at the cinema and on home video.
The major studios began to create their own “independent” production companies to finance and produce non-mainstream fare.
Animated films aimed at family audiences also regained their popularity, with Disney’s “Beauty and the Beast,” “Aladdin,” and “The Lion King.” During 1995 the first feature length computer-animated feature, “Toy Story,” was produced by Pixar Animation Studios and released by Disney. After the success of “Toy Story,” Disney returned to traditional animation and made three more popular films: “The Hunchback of Notre Dame” (1996), Hercules (1997), and Mulan (1998).
During the late 1990s, another cinematic transition began, from physical film stock to digital cinema technology. Meanwhile DVDs became the new standard for consumer video, replacing VHS tapes.
The 2000’s: Documentary, Fable, Dismay, Fantasy, Adaptations, Animations, Digital Filmmaking and 3D
Documentary films rose as a commercial genre with the success of films like “March of the Penguins,” “Bowling for Columbine,” “Fahrenheit 9/11,” and “An Inconvenient Truth.” A new genre was created with Martin Kunert and Eric Manes’ “Voices of Iraq,” when 150 inexpensive DV cameras were distributed across Iraq, transforming ordinary people into collaborative filmmakers.
The success of “Gladiator” led to the revival of the interest in fable cinema. “The Lord of the Rings Trilogy” and “300″ were the most successful sage films during this era. Horror films, mostly inspired by Asian Cinema, also made its way to the trend. A number of Asian films from various genres also got heads up for Hollywood remakes like the Korean “My Sassy Girl,” the Japanese “The Ring,” the Thai “Shutter,” the Chinese (Hong Kong) “The Departed,” and the Philippines’ “The Echo.” Fantasy and superhero films became the most bankable. Film adaptations from comic books, novels, and even short stories also became a norm. There came the big franchises of “Spiderman,” “Superman,” “X-Men,” “Batman, “Ironman,” “Sin City,” “Chronicles of Narnia” and a lot more. War films went back to the scene with a number of films from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq like “Kite Runner” and “The Hurt Locker.” Small budget films also made their way towards critical acclaim like “Slumdog Millionaire” and “Once.”
From the classic Disney 2D and frail animation format to stop-motion to 3D, enchanting films took advantage of the technology offered by the times. “Kung Fu Panda,” “Shrek,” Corpse Bride,” “Wonderful Mr. Fox,” “Wall-E,” “Up” and lots of other offers became blockbuster hits.
Home theater systems became increasingly sophisticated with HD and digital surround sound technology – as well as the special edition DVDs designed to be shown on them. Competing with piracy, special features, theatrical versions back-to-back with special extended versions intended for home cinema audiences became a viable trend. Soon came the blu-ray technology providing HD quality movies for the family’s home theater system. Buying digital copies of movies, pay-per-views and movie rentals through internet sites and cable companies became prominent including the employ of the iTunes Store, Netflix and a number of satellite TV companies.
Alongside the Hollywood tradition, the “underground film” tradition of small-budget, often self-produced works were created outside the studio system. With new technological breakthroughs, digital filmmaking started to provide more venues to filmmakers from shooting on HD, using memory sticks, firestore, and hard drives attached to cameras instead of using tapes, and having post-production hardware and software becoming as easy as having a regular home gadget. And movie theaters all over the world started investing on digital cinemas offering HD projection.
3D films promoted a steady rise of film theaters offering IMAX 3D and RealD 3D movies. From animated films including “Polar Express,” “Beowulf” and “Monsters vs. Aliens” to documentaries and concerts like “Hubble 3D” and “U2 3D” to live action films like “Harry Potter” and the legendary “Avatar,” the 3D technology became a new trend. Companies also started developing 3D TVs as well.
The Film Industry Now
Profit and sustainability are the key forces in the film industry of today. And yet, many filmmakers strive to create works of with artistic fulfillment and/or lasting social significance.
Digital technology has been the driving force in filmmaking history throughout the 1990’s and into the 21st century. The said era also marked the beginning of film and video distribution online. The demand for audio-visual content is consistently rising with internet venues like the historical Youtube.
Indeed, from its birth until now, film is considered to be an important art form, a source of popular entertainment, and a powerful method for educating and indoctrinating the people.
Tim Dirks, “Film History by Decade.” Filmsite.org.
Paul Burns, “The History of the Discovery of Cinematography.” Precinemahistory.net.
Related Posts
Filed under Stock Bankruptcy by on Dec 3rd, 2011. Comment. 
My father was a business man. He did many despicable things, and it protects me to think of him as dead even though he isn’t.
From a young age, I was always told “perception equals reality,” but I always had a very distinct feeling that this was simply untrue. The truth, I felt, was greater than what one might consider it is, or what one can even comprehend. While I still hold to this belief, I understand the value of the expression, and the hurt possible when a person chooses to take “perception equals reality” as a mantra or life philosophy.
If it’s true, the world is one big marketing ploy. If people think one thing (about a person, company, government, or religion), then it is taken as tangible and real. This is a powerful tool; a self-empowering impetus for advancement, but it is very dangerous. If others perceive a business person, politician, lawyer, husband, teacher, or religious authority to be competent and knowledgeable, then others will follow.
When combined with a culture of fear [terrorists! disease! weapons! bankruptcy!] it is easy to follow this mantra of character-building into complete chaos. The faces we demonstrate intentionally to others to alter their perception though these faces are not ours-these dreams we preserve hidden, the songs we never sing-cripple us in the face of a real tragedy.
The stock market is falling. Was it ever real? Perception equals reality, especially in business, and truthfully, stocks only represent the faith of multiple people in the competence of a company. A stockholder puts up money to represent her or his confidence in a company, essentially buying the reality created by corporations. Stability of government operates in the same fashion.
Even the once-formidable American dollar is nothing more than paper. It’s printed with pride and nationalistic images to which Americans assign meaning. The value of this paper might be backed by gold. Perhaps this paper means more because a black man may earn the presidency. What if it means more to me because a hard-earned dollar meant so noteworthy to my immigrant ancestors? Everything has assigned meaning: crosses, guns, swastikas, flags, beauty…even natural acts like sex, and unnatural acts such as genocide. These images (like the swastika) can have various meanings over time and space. Some images (such as a cross) may provide comfort to some, but inspire disgust in others.
Applying the perception equals reality mantra to these strong symbols can cause one to retract the power of assigning their own meaning to these items and deeds. Perhaps something is only this way [powerful! offensive! wrong!] if I think it is. There are, for example, feminists and African-Americans who use very strong (and otherwise offensive words) amongst others like themselves in hopes of removing the generally celebrated assigned meaning from a given word. The conception is empowering, but often misunderstood. I can’t say I would agree with someone else using that terminology to, about, or around me, regardless of intent.
That is, however, because of my perception. I cannot divorce myself from the fact that I inherently feel (and was stringently taught) that certain words are altogether rank to use because they will pain other people. I have a human empathy when others are injure by words and deeds, though society shows me it is sometimes a weakness to display such empathy.
My perception, therefore, enables me in the best and worst of ways to judge others for using those words, even if I understand their intent.
It is the instinct-the ultimate need to perceive things and judge them, even for survival purposes-that drives us to create realities for others. What would happen if everything crashed…not just an administration or an economy, but something so phenomenal or abhorrent that we completely lost our ability to perceive things for some time? Would we remain in a daze like weeks following September 11th, able to allow our sincere, nonpartisan patriotism to be manipulated into a war without real cause? Would we become resolved and see the truth in things, pursuing a matter like the American forces at Normandy? Even with the best of intentions and the deepest purity…would that be blind?
The Matrix-like truth is so; reality is rarely delightful. Husbands cheat, businesses rarely do kind things without the stipulation of a profit or a tax break, and the American economy is based only on self-worth. After receiving an F in international diplomacy and feeling personally affected by many well-intended decisions, it is hard to feel pride, worth, resilience, or any shred of self esteem as an individual and as a country.
It isn’t that complicated after all. The truth is always hidden, because we are programmed and encouraged to accept it. Perception equals reality.
Related Posts
Filed under Stock Bankruptcy by on Mar 16th, 2011. Comment.
My father was a business man. He did many rank things, and it protects me to think of him as dead even though he isn’t.
From a young age, I was always told “perception equals reality,” but I always had a very distinct feeling that this was simply groundless. The truth, I felt, was greater than what one might think it is, or what one can even comprehend. While I still acquire to this belief, I understand the value of the expression, and the harm possible when a person chooses to take “perception equals reality” as a mantra or life philosophy.
If it’s true, the world is one ample marketing ploy. If people deem one thing (about a person, company, government, or religion), then it is taken as tangible and real. This is a powerful tool; a self-empowering impetus for advancement, but it is very dangerous. If others perceive a business person, politician, lawyer, husband, teacher, or religious authority to be competent and knowledgeable, then others will follow.
When combined with a culture of dismay [terrorists! disease! weapons! bankruptcy!] it is easy to follow this mantra of character-building into complete chaos. The faces we present intentionally to others to alter their perception though these faces are not ours-these dreams we keep hidden, the songs we never sing-cripple us in the face of a real tragedy.
The stock market is falling. Was it ever real? Perception equals reality, especially in business, and truthfully, stocks only represent the faith of multiple people in the competence of a company. A stockholder puts up money to represent her or his confidence in a company, essentially buying the reality created by corporations. Stability of government operates in the same fashion.
Even the once-formidable American dollar is nothing more than paper. It’s printed with pride and nationalistic images to which Americans assign meaning. The value of this paper might be backed by gold. Perhaps this paper means more because a black man may secure the presidency. What if it means more to me because a hard-earned dollar meant so much to my immigrant ancestors? Everything has assigned meaning: crosses, guns, swastikas, flags, beauty…even natural acts like sex, and unnatural acts such as genocide. These images (like the swastika) can have various meanings over time and space. Some images (such as a cross) may provide comfort to some, but inspire disgust in others.
Applying the perception equals reality mantra to these strong symbols can cause one to assume the power of assigning their possess meaning to these items and deeds. Perhaps something is only this way [powerful! offensive! wrong!] if I think it is. There are, for example, feminists and African-Americans who use very strong (and otherwise offensive words) amongst others like themselves in hopes of removing the generally popular assigned meaning from a given word. The thought is empowering, but often misunderstood. I can’t say I would agree with someone else using that terminology to, about, or around me, regardless of intent.
That is, however, because of my perception. I cannot divorce myself from the fact that I inherently feel (and was stringently taught) that certain words are altogether gross to use because they will hurt other people. I have a human empathy when others are hurt by words and deeds, though society shows me it is sometimes a weakness to display such empathy.
My perception, therefore, enables me in the best and worst of ways to judge others for using those words, even if I understand their intent.
It is the instinct-the ultimate need to perceive things and judge them, even for survival purposes-that drives us to create realities for others. What would happen if everything crashed…not just an administration or an economy, but something so phenomenal or abhorrent that we completely lost our ability to gawk things for some time? Would we remain in a daze like weeks following September 11th, able to allow our sincere, nonpartisan patriotism to be manipulated into a war without trusty cause? Would we become resolved and see the truth in things, pursuing a matter like the American forces at Normandy? Even with the best of intentions and the deepest purity…would that be blind?
The Matrix-like truth is so; reality is rarely palatable. Husbands cheat, businesses rarely do kind things without the stipulation of a profit or a tax break, and the American economy is based only on self-worth. After receiving an F in international diplomacy and feeling personally affected by many well-intended decisions, it is hard to feel pride, worth, resilience, or any shred of self esteem as an individual and as a country.
It isn’t that complicated after all. The truth is always hidden, because we are programmed and encouraged to accept it. Perception equals reality.
Related Posts
Filed under Stock Bankruptcy by on Dec 15th, 2010. Comment.
- From the earliest days of American cinema, governmental agencies have attempted to censor films.
- Hollywood developed its first censorship code in 1913; the Hayes Code was adopted in 1930.
- In 1968, after the demise of the Hays Code, Hollywood created the ratings system we know now.
In the earliest days of American cinema, there was no standards board determining what could, and could not, be shown to theatre audiences. Local authorities might, and sometimes did, ban or edit films they found to be against the public good. In 1859, for instance, “Dolorita in the Passion Dance” was removed from a Kinetoscope parlor in Atlantic City, NJ. In 1909, however, in response to increasing public demands for content standards, the studios began submitting their films to the New-York based Board of Censorship (which would later become the National Board of Review). The Board, which was made up of private citizens, screened films for objectionable content. The studios hoped that this acquire of self-censorship would both attract viewers concerned about exposing themselves, or their families, to snide material, and forestall government attempts to control the burgeoning movie industry.
The studios had reason to be concerned. In 1907, Chicago had passed an ordinance allowing the superintendent of police to ban films he considered obscene. Film makers challenged the ordinance, but the Illinois Supreme Court allowed it to stand. In 1908, New York’s Mayor George McClellan closed all the movie houses in his city. They opened again within a few days, but the industry realized that it was in danger of disappearing, or at least of being silenced, if it did not appease that segment of the voting public which objected to sex and violence on the screen. The Board of Censorship was the first step in that direction. Within a few months, the Board could boast that it had screened 75% of the films being exhibited in the US. Many conservative groups considered the Board’s standards to be too lax, however, and continued to request more stringent controls.
In 1916, the industry again attempted to appease the shrill minority demanding government action. There was a new urgency to its efforts, as the United States Supreme Court had denied First Amendment protection to movies in 1915. (Because the First Amendment would not be held to apply to state law until 1931, when Reach v. Minnesota confirmed the Court’s statement in Gitlow v. New York that freedom of speech is “among the fundamental personal rights and ‘liberties’ protected by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment from impairment by the states,” a ruling in the industry’s favor would only have protected it from federal action, in any case.) The studios worked out a 13-point code, prohibiting nudity, graphic violence, base forms of sexuality, and obnoxious portrayals of governmental or religious authorities. Still the complaints continued. The studios, despite their soothing gestures, were peaceful creating movies that offended, and certain vocal watchdog groups were still making their displeasure clear.
In 1922, in the wake of the Roscoe “Fatty” Arbuckle scandal, the Motion Pictures Producers and Distributors Association was formed, with William Hays at its head. Hays’ first act was to ban all of Arbuckle’s films. He made it clear from the beginning that the private lives of the stars were as much his trouble as their on-screen exploits. For the next eight years, Hays fought an uphill battle against depravity in cinema. In 1930, though, the industry adopted the Production Code, known as the Hays Code, or simply the Code. In theory, every film made in the U.S. had to be favorite by the Production Code Association. However, America was deep in the thrall of the Great Depression, and the studios feared bankruptcy if they showed only the safe, moral films which the Code would permit. Until 1934, then, the studios flouted the Code at every opportunity. Prostitution, crime, and even homosexuality found artistic outlet in the American cinema. In 1934, though, the economy improved, Congress grew more vocal in its threats to impose federal legislation on Hollywood, and the Catholic Legion of Decency threatened to boycott Hollywood films. Joseph Breen, a used journalist, took over the administration of the Code.
Breen was a devout Catholic who was unwilling to compromise his morals or the provisions of the Code, but who was always willing to work with the studios to discover that their films could be exhibited. He lost some battles early in his administration – three of Mae West’s comedies got past him before he gathered enough clout to ban her from Hollywood completely – but that soon changed. He scored one of his first victories against “Tarzan and His Mate.” In the original cut of that film, Maureen O’Hara’s Jane is skimpily attired, and her body double appears completely nude in the swimming sequence. MGM, the studio responsible for the film, appealed, but Breen’s decision was upheld. MGM made the changes he had requested, cutting or obscuring the nudity, and redesigned Jane’s costumes in the ensuing Tarzan films. For three decades, Hollywood largely abided by the Code, although the studios did not always submit gracefully. And then, in 1966, Warner Brothers released “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? ” without the Production Office’s seal of approval. Jack Valenti, head of the Motion Pictures Production Association (MPAA), had been unable to broker a compromise over the artfully nasty portrayal of a disintegrating marriage. Just a few months later, MGM released “Blow Up,” which contained nudity and drug use, without the seal. The Code was, effectively, dead. The MPAA called a series of meetings with the National Organization of Theatre Owners (NATO), the Screen Actors Guild (SAG), and other industry organizations, and in 1968, a original form of self-censorship was unveiled. In place of the Code, which banned all films that failed to meet its standards, there was to be a ratings system, which would label films according to their content. The original system had just four categories (X – no one under 18 admitted, R – no one under 18 without an adult, PG – parental guidance suggested and G – general audience), in contrast to today’s five-tier system (NC-17 has now replaced X, which was co-opted by pornographers, whose films are not usually submitted to the MPAA, and PG-13 has supplemented the PG rating, to indicate films which do not merit an R rating, but which may collected be wicked for young children), but was essentially the same system that is used today.
Critics of the current system say that it is too subjective to be useful. The MPAA has published guidelines to the ratings, but refuses to adopt a standardized means for determining what films will receive which ratings. The government continues to threaten statutory restraints on film content, although First Amendment considerations should invalidate any federal censorship. And Hollywood goes on adopting narrate restrictions, which it then cheerfully ignores. In the movie business, this is business as usual.
Related Posts
Filed under Stock Bankruptcy by on Oct 30th, 2010. Comment.
- The original sign read: HOLLYWOODLAND.
- The Hollywood Sign was built in 1923 to advertise a housing development.
- Today the sign is protected under the auspices of the Department of Homeland Security.
Overlooking the movie capital of the world, the Hollywood heed has been a symbol of the mythical world of expose business for nearly 85 years. And yet, once you know the real history behind the most famous sign on the planet, you will find it to be one of the most unlikely icons ever built.
The Birth of Tinsel Town
The early days of movies were controlled by Thomas Edison and the Motion Pictures Patents Trust. Operating out of New York, Edison and company controlled movie production and ruthlessly stamped out any competitors. To avoid the trust, a few filmmakers headed about as far away from New York as you can possibly glean without getting your feet wet – a sleepy little town of orchards and sheep farms known as Hollywood.
A Quiet Microscopic Nowhere
Ironically, Hollywood got its name from the wife of a Kansas prohibitionist named Harvey Wilcox, who had moved to the Cahuenga Valley area to location up a small community that reflected his conservative beliefs. He bought 120 acres of land and built a ranch in the middle of a fig orchard. Wilcox’s wife, Daeida, while returning home by narrate from an East Coast trip, struck up a conversation with another woman on the bid who called her summer home Hollywood. Daeida liked the name so much, she decided to borrow it as the name of her ranch. By 1897, the area surrounding the ranch became known as Hollywood, and in 1903 the town was incorporated.
Enter the “MoviePeople”
In 1907 the first filmmakers came to Hollywood and place up shop. The sunny climate and tremendous distance from Edison and the Patent Trust made Hollywood an ideal location for shooting movies. Five years later, over a dozen film companies had moved into Hollywood, but the real insist hadn’t started yet. Films were shot all over town, with many ’studios’ setting up shop in old barns and unused cowsheds. Cecille B. DeMille worked out of a barn on Vine Street.
The New Gold Rush
By 1915, Hollywood was a boomtown. Studios were springing up all over town. Young hopefuls gathered by the hundreds for a shot at breaking into the movie industry. Established stars built glamorous mansions. The town was literally transformed overnight, from a sleepy conservative backwater to a bustling metropolis where fortunes were won and lost every day. As more and more people flocked to Hollywood, the real estate market exploded.
Here’s Your Sign
In 1923, the Hollywoodland Real Estate Group decided to promote some of their prime real estate by erecting a massive sign on the side of Mount Cahuenga. The sign simply read: Hollywoodland, but that was the only thing simple about it. Built at a cost of $21,000 dollars the enormous sign was made of 13 letters. Each letter was 30 feet wide and 50 feet tall. The letters were made of metal barn roofing and held up by a framework of pipes and telephone poles. Below the note was a large white circle, 35 feet in diameter. The message was meant to say: “Hollywoodland! Period.” The sign originally was studded with 4,000 20-watt light bulbs that blinked “Holly” then “Wood” then “Land” out into the clear California sky and was visible at a distance of 25 miles. As a promotional gimmick, the sign was meant to last about a year and a half. Obviously, the promotion is still going on. Only the product has changed.
Hard Times
The Great Depression hit Hollywood hard. Salary cuts were implemented; jobs slashed. The Hollywoodland sign stood as a symbol of hope for thousands of actors and actresses struggling to make it in movies. One such hopeful was a Broadway actress named Peg Entwistle who tried desperately to create it into movies but failed. In 1932, she climbed to the top of the 50-foot “H” and jumped off into the night, committing suicide from Tinsel Town’s most famous symbol.
The Depression also forced the real estate developers who built the sign into bankruptcy. By 1939, all maintenance on the sign had stopped. All 4,000 light bulbs were stolen. Vandals removed pieces of the sign, and the elements wore away at its supports. Holes and gaps began appearing in the trace, which was becoming an unstable, unsightly mess. Many neighborhoods in Hollywood lobbied for the sign’s removal
The rationing during World War Two meant that no resources could be spared to repair or fix the sign. Arrive the end of the war, the bankrupt real estate developer who had built the label, gave the city of Hollywood his remaining acreage high up in the Hollywood Hills – sitting on a small parcel of this land, sat the rapidly deteriorating tag.
By 1949 the sign was in extreme disrepair – the letter H had fallen face down. Something had to be done. Later that year, the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce, the new owners of the sign removed the “Land” part of the designate and repaired the remaining letters.
I’d Like to Pick a Vowel
In 1973 the sign was declares a historical monument by the cultural heritage Board of Los Angeles. It’s new, official status as a monument, meant that much-needed restoration and repairs would take place. The repairs would be expensive, so to raise money, the new Hollywood Designate trust put together a star-studded fund raiser, during which, individual letters of the sign could be “adopted” for $28,000 each. The fundraiser was hosted by Hugh Hefner at the Playboy Mansion and featured a unique mix of celebrities rallying around the sign. Gene Autry adopted one of the L’s. Alice Cooper bought an O. Paul Williams sponsored the W. With new financial backing, the Designate Trust unveiled a new Hollywood sign in 1978.
Sign Sponsors:
H — Terrence Donnelly, Publisher of the Hollywood Independent Newspaper
O — Giovanni Mazza, Italian movie producer
L — Les Kelley, Creator of the Kelley Blue Book
L — Gene Autrey, singing cowboy, Owner of KTLA
Y — Hugh Hefner, Creator of Playboy magazine
W — Paul Williams, Singer/composer * (some sources attribute this to Andy Williams)
O — Warner Brother’s Records
O — Alice Cooper, rock legend (in tribute to Groucho Marx)
D — Dennis Lidtke
The Sign Today
In 1992, Dan Lungren, California Attorney General specified a belief to absorb the sign. Under the plan, The Hollywood Sign Trust was to preserve and promote the sign as a symbol of the entertainment industry. The Hollywood Chamber of Commerce was entrusted with protecting the image of the sign, ensuring that any images of the sign are properly licensed. The City of Los Angeles was required to have and protect the restricted area of Griffith Park that’s home to the sign. They also provide park rangers and security for the sign.
The entire area around the sign is restricted and monitored by a state-of-the-art security system. External alarms, motion sensors and digital surveillance cameras constantly monitor the entire sign area.
In 2006, the Hollywood Sign Trust integrated the sign’s security system with the Department of Homeland Security to ensure that the sign is protected as a national care for.
You can see the view from the sign’s webcams and security cameras HERE.
Only in America – Fate of the Original Sign
When the original brand was torn down the pieces were purchased from the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce by Hank Berger, a nightclub promoter for $10,000. Berger crop up small sections of the sign and sold them as framed collectables. Sales were slow and Berger eventually gave up on the project. The crumbling, original sign then sat in storage for 25 years.
Dan Bliss, who knew Berger through business dealings, purchased the imprint for an undisclosed six-figure amount in 2003. Bliss auctioned off larger pieces of the trace on eBay, including a 5′x3′ section of the H to the Hollywood History Museum for $11,766. The rest of the sign sat stacked in a storage building. In 2005, Bliss auctioned off the rest of the sign on eBay. He opened the bidding at $300,000. Bliss wanted to use the money to fund a documentary to see if Elvis was still alive. On December 6, 2005 the remaining sections of the original Hollywood stamp sold for $450,400. Ah, only in America.
You can peruse the original ebay listing for the sign HERE.
From a real estate ad to federally-protected icon of the American entertainment industry, the Hollywood sign has endured as a lasting tribute to the dreamer in everyone.
Sources: City of Hollywood Chamber of Commerce, CBC.ca
Related Posts
Filed under Stock Bankruptcy by on Sep 2nd, 2010. Comment.