Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of tables
- List of case studies
- List of figures
- Acknowledgements for the first edition
- Acknowledgements for the second edition
- Preface to the second edition
- Introduction: problems of definition and the discourse of American independent cinema
- Part I American independent cinema in the studio years (mid-1920s to late 1940s)
- Part II American independent cinema in the post-studio era (late 1940s to late 1960s)
- 3 Independence by force: the effects of the Paramount decree on independent film production
- 4 An audience for the independents: exploitation films for the nation's youth
- Part III American independent cinema and the ‘New Hollywood’ (late 1960s to late 1970s)
- Part IV Contemporary American independent cinema (1980s to date)
- Epilogue: from independent cinema to specialty content
- Bibliography
- Index
4 - An audience for the independents: exploitation films for the nation's youth
from Part II - American independent cinema in the post-studio era (late 1940s to late 1960s)
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 December 2017
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of tables
- List of case studies
- List of figures
- Acknowledgements for the first edition
- Acknowledgements for the second edition
- Preface to the second edition
- Introduction: problems of definition and the discourse of American independent cinema
- Part I American independent cinema in the studio years (mid-1920s to late 1940s)
- Part II American independent cinema in the post-studio era (late 1940s to late 1960s)
- 3 Independence by force: the effects of the Paramount decree on independent film production
- 4 An audience for the independents: exploitation films for the nation's youth
- Part III American independent cinema and the ‘New Hollywood’ (late 1960s to late 1970s)
- Part IV Contemporary American independent cinema (1980s to date)
- Epilogue: from independent cinema to specialty content
- Bibliography
- Index
Summary
The independent filmmaker [in the 1960s] was a little bit like a guerrilla fighter – he could move fast and flexibly and react immediately to the change in circumstances – whereas a large army was like a large studio that had to have a bureaucracy to keep it all together and that would slow down its response time.
Roger Corman, filmmakerProducers have always wanted to make ‘dignified’ pictures. That's not a good word for it. They wanted to make ‘nice’ pictures. They wanted to make pictures for their mothers and their wives, and their friends. And, damn it, their mothers and their friends don't go to pictures anymore!
Samuel Z. Arkoff, producer and distributorIntroduction
While the major studios were trying to cope with the effects of the Paramount decree, but mostly with the impact of the economic recession, the Poverty Row studios had to deal only with the latter. The US Justice Department had concentrated its efforts strictly on the Big Five and the Little Three, leaving all other companies out of the lawsuit as their position in the industry was marginal and their collusion with the Big Five minimal. The recession, however, hit companies like Allied Artists (formerly Monogram Pictures), Republic Pictures and other smaller outfits in a more forceful manner than the studios. Not only did the Poverty Row studios not possess adequate resources to cope with dwindling audiences, declining profits and the rise of the big-budget film, they also had to deal with the end of the double bill as a dominant exhibition practice and the closure of hundreds of small, neighbourhood theatres that traditionally were the Poverty Row firms’ best customers. More importantly, these low-budget companies faced fierce competition from television, which in those early years became a vehicle for action-oriented, cheaply made shows that were modelled on the B film. If the majors tried to battle with this emergent competitor with investment in new exhibition technologies such as widescreen and 3-D and with extremely expensive epics and spectacles that could be appreciated only on the big screen, the Poverty Row studios were in no position to invest either in technology or in blockbusters, despite their occasional attempts to finance films with budgets that reached the $1.5 million mark in the late 1940s (see Chapter 2).
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- American Independent CinemaSecond Edition, pp. 124 - 152Publisher: Edinburgh University PressPrint publication year: 2017