who really runs hollywood? (aug. 12, 1962)
TRANSCRIPT
8/7/2019 Who Really Runs Hollywood? (Aug. 12, 1962)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/who-really-runs-hollywood-aug-12-1962 1/4
GAZETTE-MAIL
Dean Martin: Is he worth $300,000 a picture? CAGE4
WHO REALLY RUNS HOLLYWOOD? by LLOYD SHEARER
JUNE COBB BLONDE SOLDIER OF FORTUNE
8/7/2019 Who Really Runs Hollywood? (Aug. 12, 1962)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/who-really-runs-hollywood-aug-12-1962 2/4
Today's big battle of stars vs. studios...
SH O L L Y W O O D .
KVEiiAL Y E A R S A G O , midst much fanfare, Metro-
Golchvyn-Maycr announced a forthcoming pro
duction. Suite of the Union, starring Claudette Colbert
and Spencer Tracy, to be directed by Frank Capra.
The motion picture was scheduled to start on a
Monday. On the previous Friday Miss Colbert, then
a star of the brightest luminosity, ran into Capra at
the studio. The actress and the director greeted each
other warmly, discussed a key scene in the film. As
Miss Colbert was leaving, she remarked perfunctorily,
"You know, of course, Frank, that I work onlv until
five."
For decades it's been standard operating procedure
in Hollywood for the cast of a motion picture to work
each day until six.
"What do you mean?" Capra asked pleasantly.
"Exactly what I said," the actress countered. "I
work only un til five."
"How come?" Capra persisted.
"Because I get tired after five," Miss Colbert ex
plained.
"On my pictures," Capra said, still pleasantly,
"everyone works until six."
The actress shook her head from side to side. "I
want you to know," she declared flatly, her voice
stomping its foot a little, "that I'm going to quit at five."
"I want you to know," declared Capra, "that you've
just bee n fired."
The director then called upon Benny Thaw, one
of the MGM executives who happened at the time to
be conferring with Spencer Tracy. "Gentlemen," an
nounced Capra, "come Monday we've got no leading
lady. I just fired Claudette Colbert." He then explained
what had happened.
Said Tracy, a slow grin forming across his freckled
face, "Why don't we try to get Katie [Hepburn]? I
don't think she'd mind working until six."Capra phoned Katharine Hepburn, asked her if
she'd play the role. Quickly she said, "You bet." Mon
day morning, no time lost, everyone happy, the pro
duction got under way.
In 1 950 George Stevens was directing A Place in
the Sun with Elizabeth Taylor, Montgomery Clift and
Shelley Winters. One morning Miss Winters phoned
and complained that she was seriously ill and would
not report for work. Unfortunately for her, the actress
had been seen reveling in a local saloon the night be
fore. Convinced that she wasn't ill at all, Stevens
merely substituted a double for Shelley and used along shot in the scene so that the face would not be
recognizable. When Miss Winters heard that Stevens
was using a double, she quickly reported for duty.
Ho w T imes Have Changed
Contrast these two incidents featuring Colbert and
Winters with what happened recently at 20th Cen
tury-Fox in the case of Marilyn Monroe, Dean Martin,
and Something's Got To Give.
In Marilyn Monroe we have a girl who is essentially
no professional actress and possibly doe* not belong in
the profession. She started out in wartime Hollywood
as a model with no dramatic training, no theatrical
background, no feeling or predilection for the work.
After first dropping her as hopeless, 20th Century-
Fox took a second chance on her, publicized and
expl oite d her to screen sta rdo m. Her rise was a fluke,
based in part upon public sale of her nude modeling
photos. In the exploitation process the studio made
millions, and from an orphaned nonentity Marilyn
Monroe bepame an international celebrity, the sex
goddess of the 1950s.
Four years ago, to keep Marilyn happy—she was
dreadfully sad because in 1955 she had signed a so-
called "slave contract" with the studio, which called
for her to receive only $1 00 ,0 00 a film for four films
—20th Century-Fox purchased for $250,000 from
Marilyn Monroe Productions, Inc., a novel by Louis
Malley entitled Horns for the Devil. Marilyn had pre
viously paid $5,000 for the property and another
$20,000 for writers to adapt it, so she made a cool
capital gain of $225,000 on the deal.
Conceiv ably this should have helped the 37-year-
old actress to achieve a cooperative state of mind when
she started Something's Got To Give this past April
2 3 , but Marilyn is afraid of the camera. When she
begins a film she frequently comes down with an
illness. One director who's worked with her says
flatly: "She simply doesn't belong in this busine ss.
Most of her ills are psychosomatic. They originate out
of her basic insecurity, her nagging, ever-present self-
doub t, the feeling that she has in her heart and mind
tha t as an actress she's a fraud ."
Someone Had to Give
The day Something started, Marilyn fell victim to
a sore throat. For the first two weeks that Something's
Got To Give was in production, she didn't show. After
the first week the film should have been cancelled or
Marilyn replaced. Instead, director George Cukor shot
around her, filming scenes with other members of the
cast, Dean Martin and Cyd Charisse, scenes in which
Marilyn's presence was unneeded.
Peter Lcvathes, production chief at the studio and a
former FBI agent, grew irritated. Against the adviceof other knowledgeable producers who had suffered
disastrously from previous Monroe breakdowns, Leva-
thes had agreed before the production to meet all of
Monroe's demands. These were considerable.
They included getting rid of the film's original pro
ducer, David Brown, having the script rewritten by
Nunnally Johnson at a cost of $125,000 to make it
more sexy, getting rid of the original director Frank
Tash lin in favor of George Cukor, one of the 10
directors on Marilyn's approved directors list, promise
of a substantial bonus when she finished the film, a
promise to hire a recent friend, Wally Cox of Air.
Peepers TV fame, for a part in the film, the hiring of
Sidney Guillaroff to do her h air, Jean Louis to design
her wardrobe, Franz Planner to work as her camera
man, and granting her the right to approve all publicity
stills before they were released to the press.
Although all these demands were met, Marilyn
failed to report for work for two weeks. Then she
showed up for one day's work, quickly left with the
announcement she was ill with a virus. Somehow she
quickly recovered, returned to work for another three
and a half days, then suddenly one afternoon scooted
off the set, caught a helicopter to Los Angeles Inter
national Airport and jetted to New York to sing "Happy
Birthday" at President Kennedys 45th birthday party
at Madison Square Garden. During Marilyn's absence,
work on the film was impossible. Awaiting the return
of the movie queen, the picture was closed down and
r e a l l yr u n s
H o l l y w o o d ?by LLOYD SHEARER
Three stars who demand and get huge salaries are Dean
Martin and Lana Turner (above in Who 'sGot the Action) and
Marilyn Monroe (right in Left Mate tore)—yet not one of
them can guarant ee box-office success. Marilyn, nervous and
difficult to work with, was scheduled t o co-star with Martin
in Something's Got To Give but was fired for not coming
to work. Are such stars worth $300,000 and up a film?
104 members of the crew lost their pay.
Returning from New York, Marilyn made a per
sonal appearance at the Los Angeles Dodgers baseball
game on a Friday. Came Monday she phoned the
studio at 6 a.m. that she was too ill to work. Came
Tuesday she phoned the studio at 6 aan. that she was
still too ill to work. The phone calls then ceased, but
Marilyn didn't report for work, the crew of 104 losing
still another week's pay.According to producer Henry Weinst ein: "During
the 32 days that the picture was in production,
Marilyn showed 12 days, and dur ing those 12 days,
managed only four days' work. The most she could
deliver was a page and a half of script per day com
pared with three to four pages from other actors."
8/7/2019 Who Really Runs Hollywood? (Aug. 12, 1962)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/who-really-runs-hollywood-aug-12-1962 3/4
Said another studio employee: "She arrived late,
couldn't recite her lines properly, left early. She was
what she is—Marilyn Monroe."
Finally on June 9, after spending $2,000,000 on
the production, the studio fired Marilyn and filed suit
against her for $500^000 charging breach of contract.
She was then replaced by Lee Remiek,' but Dean Mar
tin, co-star of the movie, said he was exercising his
contractual right of approval of his leading lady, and
he would not approve Lee Remick.The studio then sued him for more than $3,000,-
000 claiming Martin "arbitrarily and in bad faith re
fused to approve an actress . . . as replacement for
Marilyn Monroe and refused to approve any actress
which plaintiff might have so designated." To even
things.up Martin countered with a $6,000,000 suit
against the company. ,
The case of 20th Century-Fox versus Marilyn Mon
roe and Dean Martin raises the all-important question:
Who is running Hollywood these days—the stars or
the studios?The simple answer: the stars and tlteir agents.
Says one producer: "They have the film industry
by the jugular, and they aren't letting go. They are
sucking the industry dry. They are maneuvering for
every possible financial and promotional advantage."
Says Italian producer Dino De Laurent iis: "The
stars and agents are runn ing and ruining the. motion
picture business. Instead of the stars doing what they
are paid to do—act—they have become prima donnas
intent on taking over the jobs of the writers, directors
and producers. The industry just cannot go on .at this
rate."
'Unscrupulous Agents'
Says director Fred Zinnemann: "Many of the ex
isting evils in this business can be traced to unscrupu
lous agents who feel they have no responsibility to the
industry and its continuity. Their only responsibility,
they feel, is to themselves and their clients. They are
the ones who make these outrageous demands. In
many cases they are as despicable human beings as
you will find on this planet."
Says director George Stevens: "Hollywood today is
a community without leadership. In many instances
the executives are too stupid, too inept, too incompetent to produce a picture. The result is that the stars
have taken over and are producing on their own
tertns."
Says a studio executive who prefers to remain
nameless: "You wouldn't believe what the stars are
asking for these days. Take a fellow like Dean Mar tin.
As a crooner, he's fair. As an actor, he's worth maybe
60 cents at the box-office in Akron, Ohio. Who re
members more than one good film he ever worked in
as a single? Who says, 'Let's go down to the Ritz
tonight. Dean Martin is playing'? No one. And yet
this guy gets $300 ,000 a picture plus script approval,director approval, leading lady approval. And the
studio bosses are idiots enough to let him and his agent
get away with it. I was at 20th Century-Fox when we
made The Young Lions with Montgomery Gift, Mar
lon Brando and Dean Martin. We di dn't want Martin
for the picture. He'd just made a film at MGM, a dog
called 10,000 Bedrooms, and it laid a bomb. We
wanted Tony Randall instead. You know what hap
pened? Marlon Brando came in one day and said he
wanted Dean Martin for the part. It so happens that
Brando and Martin have the same agent, MCA. Now
mind you, MCA never said; 'If you want Brando, you'll
have to take Martin, too.' They never said that. But
someone had Brando make the pitch to us, and we had
to take Dean. I think The Young Lions is the only
decent picture he's ever been i n.
"The studio that gave him his big opportunity was
20th Century-Fox. How did he show his gratitude?
When Fox got in a hassle with Marilyn Monroe and
Martin was asked to okay Lee Remick, he refused.
Why he refused I don't know. Marilyn is a new mem
ber of Frank Sinatra's rat-pack. Martin is a charter
member. He knows Frank is allegedly sweet on Mari
lyn and perhaps that's why he refused—didn't want
to antagonize the leader. Anyway, he had a chance ofhelping the studio out of a pickle, but he blew it. He
took his $300,000 and scrammed, and I for one. am
glad the studio has sued him.
"For years we've been letti ng the st ars get away with
murder. I remember a couple of years ago when Fox
was shooting Carousel with Sinatra. Frank suddenly
decided that we were shooting two versions of the
picture and that we had no right to do so. He walked
off the picture, so we sued. Eventually we settled the
case and made a deal for him to do Can-Can for
$250,000 against IVi per cent of the gross, insteadof 10 per cent of the gross, which was the previous
deal.
"Now take Marilyn Monroe," this executive con
tinues. "Insofar as I'm concerned, I would never make
a picture with that dame unless she was certified okay
by a psychiatrist. Too much trouble. She's just not
worth it. Moreover, I don't think anybody can get a
performance out of her except Billy Wilder. But the
studio wouldn't listen. They went ahead. Now I ask
you, how come Marilyn Monroe — whose last two
films, Let's Make Love and The Misfits, both lost
money—can demand and get script approval, director
approval, cameraman approval, writer approval, ward
robe approval, publicity approval, every other kind of
approval? How come Marlon Brando can demand 100
per cent of the profits of One-Eyed Jacks from Para
mount and be given such a deal? How come Brando
can behave as he did on Mutiny on the Bounty and
not be thrown out of the picture and sued for breach
of contract? How come Cary Grant without risking
a single dollar gets 75 per cent of the profits or
$7,500,000 from the film Operation Petticoat? How
come Doris Day can refuse to grant interviews unless
she censors the stories?
Rolls and Chauffeur
"How come Cary Grant stipulates in his contract
tha t he must be given a Rolls Royce and chauffeur for
transportation, that no actress playing opposite him
is allowed to wear body makeup, that no photos of
him are to leave the studio unless each bears his per
sonal approval stamp? How come Frank Sinatra is
permitted to shoot his films at night, to put various
people on the production payroll?
"Where does a newcomer like Warren Beatty come
off, a beginner in the business, refusing to work until
all visitors are thrown off the set? How come ElizabethTaylor can allegedly demand that an entire production
like Cleopatra be transferred from Hollywood to Eur
ope? How come she can ask and obtain an incidental
$3,000 a week in household expenses while filming
Cleopatra? Where does Brando come off demand-
ling $5,000 a day in overtime for Mutiny on the
Bounty? I'm telling you it's murder in Hollywood
nowadays. The inmates have taken over the asylum."
How and why did today's stars obtain the power
to enforce their endless list of demands?
One answer lies in the cowardice, ineptness, and
lack of foresight of the current crop of studio execu
tives. In the old days, near-tyrants like Louis B. Mayer
of MGM, Harry Cohn of Columbia and Darryl Zanuck
of 20th Century-Fox ran their domains with iron
hands. These men were picture makers who regarded
actors with contempt in many cases, who classified
them as ungrateful exhibitionists, who kept them in
line. But these men have been replaced, and the re-
placments in many cases are woefully inadequate,
"inadequate" under the circumstances being the kind
est adjective one can use to describe them.
In the late 1940s television came upon the scene
and almost simultaneously with its arrival the govern
ment compelled the motion picture industry to divorceitself from the exhibition end of the business. Motion
picture companies weren't allowed to make films and
own the theatres in which they were shown. They
could choose one avenue of the business or the other.
They chose the production end. Continued on page 7
8/7/2019 Who Really Runs Hollywood? (Aug. 12, 1962)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/who-really-runs-hollywood-aug-12-1962 4/4
HOLLYWOOD continued
How the stars got control of their old bosses
As television burgeoned, these men grew panicky.
To c ut expenses quickly they, let lapse almost all thecontracts of their studio players. MGM let go ClarkGable, June Allyson, James Stewart, Robert Taylor,Ava Gardner, Spencer Tracy, Elizabeth Taylor. Otherstudios followed suit without having an y replace mentswaiting in the wings.
' Heeding the advice of their agents, many of whomare more clever and intelligent tha n the various studioexecutives, these stars formed their own productioncompanies, made films which were financed and released by United Artists. Soon they were competingin the open market with their former employers.
The studios, having cut way back on their production schedules, learned sadly that: 1) they couldn' tmake new stars on their limited schedules which didn ' tprovide enough exposure, and 2) they couldn' t sella picture to an exhibitor without a star-name. To getthe stars they had just fired, the studios were compelled to eat crow, to pay through the nose, to complywith the outrageous demands currently being made.In short, the law ofsupply and demand has been invoked against them with a vengeance.
Is there any solution to the star shortage? WaltDisney has found one. He makes family-type pictureswithout big-name stars. Those pictures do fabulously
well. For example, three of Disney's recent films,Parent Trap, Absent-Minded Professor, and ShaggyD og , will each gross better than $10,000,000 domestically, and yet each cost less than $1,500,000 to
produce.
Another solution calls for Hollywood to producespectacle-type pictures with no-name stars and let thespectacles sell the picture. Be n Hur is a classic examp le. Charlton H eston was no full-fledged star whenMGM risked $15,000,000 toproduce a film whichhas now grossed $50,0 00,0 00. Imagine the headaches20th Century-Fox could have avoided had Cleopatra
been filmed with anaverage actress or an unknow ninstead of Elizabeth Taylor. Th e film would have bee nmade in Hollywood for less than $4,000,000. WithElizabeth Taylor itcos t $30,000,000, and Fox needs$50,000,000 to break even.
Think 'Little'
A third solution is to make "little" picture s, as theydo overseas, using unknowns and letting the storyvalues and subject matter sell the picture. Taste ofHoney is a case inpoint, as was Marty, produced in
Hollywood a few years back.
A fourth solution is for the industry to avoid thosestars and agents who insist upon run ning the show andraising the production costs to astronomical levels. LetMarlon Brando/Elizabeth Taylor , Frank Sinatra andothers of that ilk produce their own films, and you willsee how quickly their productions come in on sched uleand under budget .
A fifth solution is for Hollywood toemploy thoseyoung actors and actresses who have integrity, a senseof duty and responsibility, a background in the professional theatre. Why build uppeople like MarilynMonroe and Warren Beatty if they are certain to cause
future trouble? Give the build-up toyoungsters whohave the strength ofcharacter to prevent fame fromcorrupting them completely.
Th e trouble with Hollywood today lies primarily inthe executives who are running what is left of th eindustry. T hey, are truly a sorry lot. To let the starstake over, they must be. •
Frank Sinatra was co-operative when he
made Anchors A weigh in 1944, now insists
on full control of many aspects of his films.
Marlon Brando got $5000a day overtime
in Mutiny on the Bounty, wound up cost
ing films producers $1,100,000 in salary.
W H Y S O M U C H E V I L
If God Governs All Things?
M M *
ent thing. God does not will thatwe shall be sinful, and the Biblerepeatedly reminds us that He
"hates all workers of in iquity"(Psalms 5:5) . In permit t ing moralevil, God gives us the choice between evil andvir tue, betweenthe bad and the good, between rejecting or accepting eternal life.
... Mo ral evi l is , there fore , the
supreme tes t ing ground of the
world, and of our individual lives.By glorifying God we overcomeevil, which isnothing more thanthe absence of goo d . . . j u st as a
shadow is the absence of light.
FREE —A new pamphlet en
titled "The Problem of Evil",which will help you better to understand the na ture of evil, why it
exists, how it fits into God's mercyin forgiving and His justice in
punishing. Write today for your
free copy. We'll mail it in a plainwrapper; nobody will call on you.Ask for Pamphlet No. PR-64.
An unbeliever may ask this ques
tion in a spirit ofridicule.
"If God watches over us," he
will say, "why do so many goodpeople suffer, and so many wickedones thrive? And if God createdall things, would He not also be
responsible for creating sin, suf
fering and death?"
Even to those ofgreat faith, it
may seem at times that th e forces
of evil gain ascendancy over G od'sdivine plan for good. "Why," somewill ask when tragedy afflicts th eirown lives, "did God allow this to
happen to me?"
To ge t a satisfying answer to
these questions, it isnecessary to
have a correct understanding of
the problem of evil. First of all,if all things come from God, whyis there such a thing as evil? D oesevil exist because God wills that
it shall, or because God does nothave the power to overcome it?
The answers to these questionsare essential to an understandingof the problem, for in them is theexplanation of the very nature ofevil itself.
God does not, for example, willphysical evils such as suffering,illness and death for the sake ofevil itself. But He does will or
perm it the physical evils of life topunish sin, to make sinners re
pent, to try the just and make themworthy of everlasting reward. Andto all who withstand these ordealsin faith and in resignation to theDivine wil l , H e promises that thereward shall be vastly beyond ou rhuman comprehens ion.
Moral evil is an entirely differ-
S U P R E M E C O U N C I L
K I 1 I G H Y S O F C O L U M B U SRELIGIOUS IN FOR MATI ON BUREAU
S T . L O U I S 8 , M I S S O U R I
M A II C OU I ' O N TO D' A ' Y
I
SUPREME COUNCIL ~
KNIGHTS OFCOLUMBUS
RELIGIOUS INFORMATION BUREAU
4 4 2 2 U n d e lT Blv d . , St . Lo u is 8 , M o .
P I M M send mayour frM Pontphlat No.
64 • n t i ik d i "Th e Pr o bl tm of Evil"
PR-64
NAME-
ADDRESS..
CITY- _STATE_
4 4 2 2 L I N O E L l B L V D
Pain,Callouses,Burningat Ball of Foot?
Cushion of Softest Foam BringsFastest Rellsf You Ever EKporiencod IW i t h D r . S ch o U 'a B A L U O - F O O T C u s h i o n y o u c o n s t a n d ,wa lk , d a n c e - fre» of d isc o m fo r t h a r e . La te x F o a mc u sh io n a b so r b s J a r o f e a c h a to p . Wa sh a b le , wo r n in v is ib ly .N o a d h e s i v e. O n l y 81 p a ir at Dr a g . Sh o s . De p t . . f t -M *sto r e s . If n o t o b ta in a b le lo c a l ly , s e n d SI to Dr . Sc h o i l 'a ,De p t . B0 3 0 , Ch ic a g o 1 0 ,1 U. Sta te if to r m a n o r wo m a n .
D'S<h nils BA LI- 0• FQ OT C ush o n
7