How Can Hollywood be less dominant?

How could USA cinema not become so much more successfull than other countries?

Some thoughts:

-DW Griffith sticks to acting, greatly retarding American artistic development. (This will slow down others as well, but it isn't going to give the huge USA advantage)
-Motion Picture Trust isn't brokent up, greatly restricting the ability of people to make movies, and limiting people from entering the industry (at least in the USA)
-European Countries discover much sooner the value of movies as Propaganda, studios such as UFA are founded earlier. you could get movies from competing sides in WWI being exhibited all over the USA for instance
-Alternatively the USA could not notice this, and introduce restrictions on use of materials during wartime, leading to severe shortages of film stock.
-You could have a more severe Censor board in the USA, more moral panics such as with Fatty Arbuckle, and people who are unable to work in the USA heading abroad.
 
The main explanation seems to be that a English language country have to become dominant due to the popularity of English and Hollywood had to be chosen because it feature a lot of different sceneries near by. (Ie desert, beach, mountains, cities...).

However, I think the Europeans subsidised their theaters thus kept their actors and the rest of the potential movie workers from transition to moviemaking, potentially more profitable.
 
Despite the US movie indiustry getting an early lead, as late as the 1930s ther totral dominance of Hollywood was avertable. It was the all-but-complete destruction of Europe's movie production capabilities at the critical point where sound and colour film went mainstream that gave Hollywood the pick of global talent and a near-monopoly on high-end productions. European productions - the only other ones aiming for global distribution - as a result defined themselves against Hollywood.

Can you imagine a solidly funded, well-equipped German film studio system with a market in East Central Europe and people like Greta Garbo, Marlene Dietrich, Fritz Lang and Brecht under contract? Or a British film industry with actual real budgets for Ealing comedies and the sequals to The Drum?
 

Deleted member 1487

Basically one of the bigger POD's might be to have Hitler never rise to power and turn German cinema into his propaganda tool. Also the subsidies never hurt. But in an age where Hollywood was still all about the big budget, European cinema was churning out amazing films. If the war never happens the process never gets interrupted which would make European cinema a larger alternative to American mega-films
 
Part of the issue was the popularity of westerns, with their settings amenable to those of California. After WWII, the movie producers quickly learned that movies about that war and allied victories did not attract large audiences, but westerns did.

For a POD, we need a trend that uses Asian, European or British settings. Given the impact of the world wars on continental Europe, the best bet might be London-based producers in British colonial settings.
 
Weimar Republic survives. This prevents the brain drain of the German film greats to the United States (e.g Fritz Lang) and to the Nazi orbit (Leni Riefenstahl)
 

Deleted member 1487

Well, much of the best German talent was going to Hollywood anyway because there was just more money. WW2 and the Nazis just accelerated the trend.
 
Well, much of the best German talent was going to Hollywood anyway because there was just more money. WW2 and the Nazis just accelerated the trend.

Fair enough, but Weimar cinema could still have a shot at cornering what we call the "arthouse" market, especially if it manages to survive into the present day.
 
Avert WWII.

The introduction of sound actually helped other film industries for a while as there were no subtitles or dubbing yet, so that would help to cement them through the thirties (those early talkies were actually shot in different languages - the main crew did it in English for the English speaking countries, a second crew would shoot later in Spanish for the Spanish speaking countries and so on).

Finally when subtitles and dubbing come into play, Hollywood has to compete in markets were it was nearly absent or as a second rate player for years and the local filmmakers would already have stablished their own star systems and would be in a dominant position in their countries. And it's usually easier to mantain a dominant market position that to replace the main players. Note however that, in Europe, that would hurt European films exports as well. For the British film industry, it's a moot point as it shares language with the USA.
Once we move through the 40s and 50s Hollywood would probably begin to grow again. In movies, over 99% of the costs are fixed costs (I'm counting the copy that goes to the theater to be played as the only variable cost, as I don't see any other "unit" made), so the country with access to the larger market gets a huge economical boost. Scales (selling a lot of tickets) are very important in getting the upper hand in that business.

So I guess that in the long run, unless trade restrictions are imposed, the dominant filmmaking countries would probably be the USA, Germany and perhaps Japan, depending in what happens in the Pacific. And who knows, maybe the Argentinean filmmaking industry can remain strong in the Spanish market until the late 50s and perhaps more :D
 
Top