Hollywood in a more Balkanized America

[Expat]

Right, let's assume that the CSA, Texas and California are all independent nations. I don't think the borders are very important. Does the American film industry still develop?
I think this is inevitable, considering Edison's early contributions (assuming he's not butterflied away.) Considering the early cooperation between nations (international productions, directors and stars moving between countries on various projects) the New York/New Jersey studios would probably be unaffected.
And the environmental concerns of film- the need for sunny weather and stable temperatures- means a move to California is possible, but less likely if it involves a move across national borders. So what happens when World War 1 (when Hollywood asserted the dominance it never lost) rolls around?
Are the problems solved easily by the California sun solved artificially with better lighting, better cameras?
Does a rival to New York emerge in Calfornia? Or do the European studios reclaim their market shares, despite the turmoil of war and economic depression?
Any other thoughts/questions/interests on this topic?

 

[AirshipArmada]

Wouldn’t each nation want a film industry of it’s own, if possible?

Talented people could work in the nation which suited their needs (Fritz Lang came to America, Orson Wells went to Europe etc). If the CSA was really about states’ rights then there may be a couple of small studios in a couple of different CSA states. Texas has lots of sunny locations and could host many nationalistic films thinly veiled as Westerns.

Which nation would have the most liberal film industry? Which the best financed? Which would the Jewish community gravitate towards?

 

[David S Poepoe]

Which would the Jewish community gravitate towards?

What makes you say that? From what I've heard one reason that Jewish families got involved in the film industry is that they originally came from the garment industry. At the beginning of the 'motion pictures' they saw it as a way to sell a product (their clothes) to the public. This explains the dresses and gowns that appear in the films of the 1920s-1930s.

 

[Expat]

The Yiddish-speaking community certainly produced its share of films. If immigration occurs fairly similar to OTL (open-door policy in each of the countries, especially California and Texas) then success might be more likely to take these entrepreneurs where their endeavors can flourish.
Most western nations had small national film industries, but there's a difference (even today) between producing a few local melodramas, a few national histories for a local population, and producing transnational blockbusters.
I believe that the flourishing Vaudeville scene of the USA would lead to early success of their industry, but with Edison holding only a smaller market (only guaranteed the USA) they lag behind by the mid-20s and fall off to become a secondary producer on the level of Great Britain with the introduction of sound (once cut off from technological innovation, the US industry has no leg to stand on; they made their profits from patent control.)
The CSA on the other hand is most likely furnished with the creative master of early cinema, D.W. Griffith. His sweeping epics documenting the southern victory and upholding its racist doctrine will revolutionize film-making. Add Buster Keaton, and even if the south is an economically backwards place, the level of genius to lay the groundwork for an active and dynamic industry is undeniable.
Of course they could always immigrate west to greener pastures.
The only personage I can see affecting the growth of the Texas industry is Howard Hughes. Sufficient wealth and ego to form a one-man industry? I'd say so.
And that brings us to California. Is Hollywood inevitable? Is it simply too far off the beaten path to matter? The weather is undeniably perfect, but is that enough?
Popular genres are another consideration. The western is clearly a small-time phenomenon. Perhaps sea tales take their place, or urban crime/thrillers get an early bump?
I believe this splitting of talent will allow Europe time to recover from the war. Many countries, cut off from all imports, developed their own national cinemas for the first time during the war, only to have them fold when it ended. Perhaps these are given a chance to flourish? Certainly France was locked into its old mode of controlling distribution rather than focusing on content. England could have easily picked up, and Italy has a great shot, especially since the weather is almost as good as California.
If the Expressionists have no Hollywood pot of gold to look forward to, do they leave Germany, or stay and bolster the industry?

 

[tallwingedgoat]

If multiple countries replace the US as we know it, then it's reasonable that the dominance of American film industry would never happen. The reason is lack of scalable markets. If you make a great movie in California, it would not be easily marketed abroad and the California market could not create a vast industry like Hollywood by itself.

North America may yet develop powerful centers of film industry, but they would have to seperately compete against European studios. The result would be a more fractured and diverse world of film.

 

[Dan1988]

Well, this could have interesting butterflies in Canada. Originally, there was a Canadian government agency called the "Motion Picture Bureau" whose primary purpose was to produce films to encourage people to immigrate to Canada. That does not mean that there was not a feature film industry in Canada - on the contrary, there were feature films that were produced in Canada since the 1920s. However, the problem is that Canada in OTL is essentially dominated by US cinema, so much so that Hollywood often includes Canada as part of their domestic market. Now, if the National Film Board of Canada replaced the Motion Picture Bureau earlier (whilst still retaining that bureau, but for feature and 'arthouse' films; whilst the NFB could still retain its animation and documentary sections), then someone other than John Grierson would have to take his place. Without a united America, things could somewhat improve, but there could still be the fear of a hegemony from the CSA, Hollywood (California), San Antonio (Tejas), and New York (USA) - especially among cultural nationalists. Thus, maybe the NFB comes sooner rather than later (after all, film was introduced to Canada in the 1890s because of a presentation of Lumière Brothers films in Montréal), and maybe more film studios and distributors would arrive sooner. Things could potentially be more positive for Canadian cinema in TTL than in OTL.

 

[Redem]

Wasn't some spot in florida big in making movie before Hollywood took over?

 

[Max Sinister]

If the suitable locations of California aren't in the same country as the money, things would become difficult. Studio bosses won't like it if everything they want to do becomes an international affair. Time for a creative solution.

Note: In my Chaos TL, the German movie industry sits in "Paradies" (OTL Rio de Janeiro), because Argentina and southern Brazil are German-settled.

 

[Fenwick]

I think the best time is during the shift west in the film industry. Edison was trying to shut down other film companies so everyone who wanted to keep making movies ran West. Now if there is another country, another state closer I would suspect filmmakers would head there.

True California has whatever climate you want depending on how long you want to drive north, but Texas has swamps, desert, plains, and alot of different looking regions. The CSA may just have a really good sound stage, and see no problem in going to Canada, or Mexico for a week to make a film.

 

[Dan1988]

Also, I think as well as during the "shift West" I think that if the NFB replaced the Motion Picture Bureau earlier (and made feature films as well as documentaries), then things could get pretty interesting. Who knows, maybe the NFB will be involved in the development of television? There's another Canadian invention! Who knows, maybe Canada will finally not make films full of Mountie stereotypes anymore (so no films like Rose Marie), but films like the Québécois ones (in OTL), the David Cronenberg/Atom Egoyan ones, and even populist ones like Back to God's Country (which is notoriously famous because it has a scene with nudity). The trick here is to not make the film industry centre around Toronto and Montréal, but to make it more nationwide. So no concentration a la Hollywood,

 

[Alayta]

If multiple countries replace the US as we know it, then it's reasonable that the dominance of American film industry would never happen.

True!
A balcanized America might even mean the world dominiance of American culture at all would not happen.

North America may yet develop powerful centers of film industry, but they would have to seperately compete against European studios. The result would be a more fractured and diverse world of film.

Thats true aswell. Not at least germany was a great nation of movie makers in the early 20century. Remember Fritz Lang.

 

[Dan1988]

Yes, "Metropolis" and all that. And wasn't Germany a leader in colour film - something like "Agfacolor" or something like that?

 

[Count Dearborn]

What if someone hits upon the idea of using a dirigible hanger as a sound stage?