|
|
Post by TheGoodMan19 on Oct 18, 2019 22:34:26 GMT
Brought to mind by the Montgomery Clift thread, especially the Misfits. How could the big studios let their big stars fall apart? Supposedly, the studios were all powerful (maybe I'm wrong about this). So why didn't they help out the big stars with their problems. So many destroyed themselves, Clift, Marilyn Monroe, Judy Garland, etc. Some went over the edge when they stopped making money like Errol Flynn, but Monroe was still a cash printing machine. The Studio could have got her help,effective help, why didn't they?
|
|
|
|
Post by marshamae on Oct 19, 2019 2:26:12 GMT
I think you assume the studios were both more caring and more capable than they actually were. Even in the movie mogul days of one man rule, they thought pretty starkly in terms of the bottom line, and actors were assets who were more or less valuable. This thinking only became more pronounced when corporations and banks took over. The studios were not averse to a little TLC for their stars but they expected a quick turn around. They hired shrinks galore, but their job was to get Judy, Monty , Marilyn et al back to work. They would say whatever it took, provide whatever medications would achieve that goal. It was not just that the studio paid the docs. The studio could make it impossible for doctors who failed, or refused to go along, to practice in LA , maybe anywhere in California.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Oct 19, 2019 19:12:54 GMT
Hollywood operates like a mafia and the actors are brothel workers.
James Garner sued Universal for getting ripped off in Rockford Files royalties and a week after the show ended he was beat up by an ex-green beret at a traffic stop. It didn't stop his lawsuit but it may have been intended to send a message to others who might try the same.
I think Hollywood (majors especially) were more interested in market-message control than profit control. I don't see them ever having serious cash shortages and they made the stars, the stars did not make themselves. The studios could withdraw favor any time they wanted.
Why else did Basil Rathbone end his film career in Mexico by descending a stairway holding (and in love with) a robot in drag? Could he not get any work in Hollywood? He was a household name and was in good health right to the end so unless he turned down tv parts I don't know.
|
|
|
|
Post by marshamae on Oct 20, 2019 2:31:55 GMT
Brought to mind by the Montgomery Clift thread, especially the Misfits. How could the big studios let their big stars fall apart? Supposedly, the studios were all powerful (maybe I'm wrong about this). So why didn't they help out the big stars with their problems. So many destroyed themselves, Clift, Marilyn Monroe, Judy Garland, etc. Some went over the edge when they stopped making money like Errol Flynn, but Monroe was still a cash printing machine. The Studio could have got her help,effective help, why didn't they?
Marilynn like Judy and Monty were almost uninsurable because of frequent illness, missed days, productions stalled sometimes for weeks. So Monroe was not a cash machine by the time she died. Elizabeth Taylor personally insured Monty Clift to allow him to accept a role in Reflections in a Golden Eye, but he died before filming began. Finally treatment for substance abuse, personality and mood disorder was in its infancy. Even if the studios had been willing to provide the best treatment, there was absolutely no guarantee it would work.
|
|
