Paramount Decision and Exploitation

The effects of the Paramount Decision of 1948 were far reaching and all encompassing.  The antitrust legislation deeply affected the Big 5.  One of the first things that was affected was Block Booking.  The studios could no longer force the theaters to purchase “blocks” of films.  This in turn allowed the independent studios to be able to sell their films to the theaters.  Foreign films can get the chance to be seen in these theaters as well.  The independents were not being hampered by the production aka Hays code as well.

If I look at the Paramount decision with my business eyes, I found the anti-trust legislation a little hard to swallow.  Although morally the studios owning the theaters and forcing other theaters to purchase block of films is wrong however from a business viewpoint it was brilliant.  I guess I saw the studios like chefs making a meal, and the theaters like the restaurant building where the meal is served.  Don’t misunderstand me as I think the Paramount decision was the right things to do, as it opened the world to different film styles.  I just wonder if it wasn’t a monopoly as much as great selling.

With the decision the Big 5 studios soon floundered and many sank.  American International Pictures (AIP) arrived on the scene and catered to the American teenager.  I found Sam Arkoff, one of the founders of AIP, utterly brilliant and hilarious to watch.  I think one of my favorite statements is when he states, “Artsie Fartsies”.  I got the distinct feeling as I listened to him talk, that his passion wasn’t making good movies, or even making movies for teenagers.  His passion was making money and basically giving the big 5 studios the middle finger and a big I told you so smile.  I watched many of AIP movies growing up on the midnight cinema shows.  Lame, B quality, comical, and a must watch were those films.  API knew what they were doing and how to get the teenager (even a couple of decades later) watching.  They also were brilliant, because teenagers were terrified early on with the various Duck and Cover and bomb propaganda training films.  Teenagers just wanted to be heard and forget their parents and the pressures homelife placed on them.  API delivered.

In my opinion, Exploitation is a very misunderstood word when applied to the film genre.  I’m not sure what my fellow students think it means but I feel that Doris Wishman had it right when she said something along the lines of “We all exploit films when we advertise it.”   I also think that Exploitative films are nothing more then films depicting those things that the Artsie Fartsie society feels is immoral or degrading.  I found Doris Wishman to be just what that time of film making needed.  She made nudist camp films and roughies.  Doris used her intelligence and loopholes to avoid being censored, at least some of the time.  I feel many of these roughies are nothing more then soft porn or straight out pornographic films.  The bottom line is sex sells.  These films showed the American woman as an erotic sexual being, exactly what men wanted.  But they also wanted the motherly homebody almost virginal woman at home.  Tiger in bed kitten in the kitchen scenario.

Back in the early eighties HBO released a Burlesque movie, which was nothing more than a stage show that they filmed.   It was of course based on the old Burlesque shows.  What my father called raunchy humor and some nudity.  I was far to young to understand it, and my parents were very angry when they found out I had watched.  It had humor I didn’t get and a naked lady twirling around in a cocktail glass.  At my age I just thought it was a weird glass bowl.  Sorry, I digress.  The point I was going to make is what the Burlesque show to me was nothing but boring people in funny outfits.  But to my parents it was adult humor and of course nudity.  So, the fact that sex-exploitation films were out shouldn’t matter as we all see sex in different ways.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4Nj5qWGtmY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELiDUPapD7c&has_verified=1