Who Really Runs Hollywood? (Aug. 12, 1962)

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



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."



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



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

Documents

Who Really Runs Hollywood? (Aug. 12, 1962)