2. RKO Pictures
RKO Pictures has a sense of balance between both the high-profile, highly commercial
fare and the independent, lower cost projects though benefit from a much more
powerful position in the studio system, being arguable the second most influential
company in Hollywood. The company invested heavily in B-Pictures which meant
they provided limited budgets to up-and-coming talent in order to turn over a product
that posed minimal financial risk to them while allowing the hired artist to engage
with a level of creative freedom, leading to a history of greater success with these
smaller projects than their forays into grander efforts with exceptions such as the
Best Picture winner Rebecca from Alfred Hitchcock. Their proclivity towards smaller
budgets is shown in the fact that, in 1944, of 31 features released, only 9 cost more
than $500,000.
What makes them such an ally of the independent filmmaker, is their duality between
nurturing and affording opportunities to these directors while also being a major
Hollywood studio and thus, having a range of connections to both crew and
creators. Their contract players ran the gamut of some of the most popular stars of
their day, from Cary Grant to Hitchcock, allowing new directors to work with the most
high-profile of stars since they were secured via their contracts. It also put them in
touch with already successful artists to allow them to learn as part of RKO training
program, designed to encourage the development of a wave of new filmmakers loyal
to the studio.
3. United Artists
During the noir genre’s height, in the 1940s and 50s, United Artists was
still burgeoning as a studio in a system dominated by the already-
established powerhouses of the likes of Warner Bros. and RKO
Pictures. Upon their inception, as the Society of Independent Motion
Picture Producers, they made it their imperative to advancing the
plight of the independent filmmaker and break the restrictive, old-
money system of Hollywood. This can be seen in a number of films
they financed and distributed during this time; such as Gun Crazy and
The Killing, the latter being famed director Stanley Kubrick’s third film
after the disasters of his initial two; Killer’s Kiss and Fear and Desire.
Kubrick’s mantra in working with UA was to make “good movies and
make them cheap”, speaking volumes to the company’s ideals. The
fact that they were willing to entrust Kubrick with “a free hand to create
and leave the money problems to me” (Producer James Harris) is
emblematic of their desire to afford opportunities for untested yet
talented filmmakers with small projects they have the resources to
effectively distribute to a target demographic.
4. Warner Bros.
Evidently, these companies’ approaches to championing smaller projects and
independent artists are ideal when applied to my film, in comparison with
the approaches from rival companies such as Warner Bros.
Warner Bros. similarly finance and distribute their own films but specialize in
much more lavish and high-profile projects that aim for the greatest
commercial returns. Noir was a huge box office draw at the time and
Warner Bros were committed to producing films with star power and
strong production values. The Big Sleep features Bogart and Bacall, the
most widely known and sensationalized coupling in the eyes of the world
and Mildred Pierce was financed for the then-exorbitant cost of £1.453
million (compared to The Killing’s $325, 000). Their use of established
talent is worlds away from UA’s commitment to seeking out newer
filmmakers since they see substantial risk in entrusting a large budget to
untested blood.
Given the independent nature and lack of commercial appeal of my project,
they are highly unsuitable for distributing my product when compared to
the aforementioned institutions.
5. The Big Sleep
To demonstrate Warner Bros. specific marketing style,
drawing on star power and high-budget excitement,
this is the trailer to their noir hit, The Big Sleep.
6. United Artists v. RKO
Both studios have similar distribution and production models that make
them ideal for an independent feature and director such as myself and
this type of production is ideally suited to their proclivities, given their
track record. They would be highly likely to take an interesting in a
feature such as this and be willing to take a chance on an unknown,
first-time director in order to build them up. What makes me side with
RKO is the fact that they combine a tendency towards smaller,
independent pictures with a highly influential and dominant position in
the studio system, being the second most powerful studio in
Hollywood. Their interconnected network of unknowns and power
players is vital in their ability to distribute my film since they have the
most amount of clout and finance to widely circulate the picture.
Furthermore, given the sheer amount of films they have distributed,
they have great experience in marketing such films which would make
for a highly effective campaign.
7. Modern Distributors
In the modern cinematic landscape, film noir is relegated to a more niche, arthouse
audience and their abundance has certainly declined in the intervening years,
having all but vanished from their former Hollywood glory days. In this new
landscape, independent distributors and arthouse subsidiaries are much more likely
to take to my product. For this end, I think that Sony Picture Classics, a subsidiary of
the larger Sony Pictures conglomerate that specialises in distributing smaller, darker
dramatic and independent pieces such as Foxcatcher and Kill Your Darlings to great
critical and awards acclaim. These films share a similarly minimal potential audience
as my own piece and clearly represent Sony Picture Classics’ skill with marketing
this type of picture, utilising their portfolio of experience and the sizable resources of
their parent company to immense effect. I think this makes them an ideal distributor
for my product given its lesser commercial prospects and more refined potential
audience.
