Inside the Dream Factory
Classic Hollywood’s star system
Her
provocative approach balances an encompassing analysis of the “dream
factories” that catapulted so many stars into that celluloid stratosphere of
the 1930s-’50s with biographical surveys of individual stars “under the
influence” of a system unparalleled in the ingenuity of marketing. Basinger
doesn’t delve into such famous names as Davis, Gable, Crawford and
Cagney, concentrating instead on the less publicized. She wisely avoids a final
definition of star quality, calling it “something palpable” and “immediately
there—out of the ordinary, ambiguous.” Among the examples cited are Barbara
Stanwyck, described as tough but vulnerable; Tyrone Power as masculine yet
feminine; Carol Lombard as a fun pal, but the ultimate in sophisticated
glamour; and Shirley Temple as “a bossy brat who faked her way forward.”
Once
the studio had decided on potential star material, the studio worked like a
juggernaut from hell to make corrections before launching their newest
commercial venture. Stars were products: Names could be changed; biographies
could be faked. Physical features had to be made camera ready: Gable’s
ears were too big; Greer Garson’s cheekbones photographed flat; Rita Hayworth’s
hairline was raised by electrolysis; dancer Eleanor Powell was put on a diet to
de-emphasize her muscular thighs; and Fred Astaire was trained to capitalize on
the winsome quality of his unhandsome elfin looks.
Publicity
was the life’s blood of the star-making launch pad. In an era of movie
magazines, under the all-seeing eyes of dragon lady columnists Hedda Hopper and
Louella Parsons, not only was scandal to be avoided—unless it involved romance
between such screen beauties as Lana Turner and Tyrone Power—but lackluster
biographies might require some fabrication. Lucille Ball was said to be an avid
polo player and was credited with saving a freezing child in an open-cockpit
plane. Lucille neither rode horses nor flew.
The
great studios weren’t just factories in name only. Each had its own makeup,
costuming and set-designing departments with accommodations for an army of
workers. MGM covered more than 70 acres. Hundreds of extras could be costumed
within an hour. A dozen films might be in progress on any given day. “You
could live there,” according to Janet Leigh.
But
mechanics alone do not account for the magic results produced during these
golden years, nor explain the longevity of certain performers after the studio
system had vanished. The unyielding artificiality of the studio system does not
entirely account for the quality of the finished product, either.
In
an era dominated by the stranglehold of the Hollywood Production Code, stars
were the only major commercial asset of the studio system—and the main reason
that the largest studios even existed. Since violence, profanity and sex were
taboo, these rare human beings called stars had to be showcased with the finest
writing, production, cinematography and particular sensitivity to each actor’s
carefully developed screen type. Audiences liked to feel comfortable with their
favorites, and ultimately it was up to the stars to deliver. Those that
succeeded presented the ultimate of professionalism, cinematic polish and
that ephemeral degree of charisma only the audience can determine. The icons of
that era set standards that remain the yardstick for the present day.
Perhaps
the greatest irony was that the restrictions of the 1930s and ’40s did not
squelch creativity, but enhanced it. Given the limited thematic scope allowed
by the morals code, the demands to be original and unique required a stringent
discipline that challenged the imagination of the most talented writers
and directors. The studio bosses would not have tolerated the sloppy editing
and obscure continuity of many recent films.
The Star Machine is a valentine to a treasured past,
but one that pulls no punches.



Comments