Were producers in the studio era creative people?

[moira finnie]

Are producers creative people?

Sometimes we wonder, when we hear the horror stories about crass bully boys, lecherous creeps and untalented son-in-laws, but sometimes I think that there were such things as creative producers, once upon a time. Certainly David O. Selznick, (like him or not) was one, and maybe someone such as Hal Wallis, Jerry Wald, or Mark Hellinger were as well. One of the few producers from the studio era who most interests me is Walter Wanger

Take a look at the range of films within the studios and independently that he helped to create:
The Bitter Tea of General Yen (1933)
Gabriel Over the White House (1933)
Queen Christina (1933)
The President Vanishes (1934)
Private Worlds (1935)
Mary Burns, Fugitive (1935)
The Trail of the Lonesome Pine (1936)
The Moon's Our Home (1936)
You Only Live Once (1937)
History Is Made at Night (1937)
Stand-In (1937)
Blockade (1938)
Trade Winds (1938)
Stagecoach (1939)
The Long Voyage Home (1940)
Foreign Correspondent (1940)
and that's just the pre-Fritz Lang partnership...

Unfortunately, most people only remember his name for one drunken act of stupidity when he shot agent Jennings Lang in the parking lot (or some other part of his anatomy), when poor ol' Wanger became paranoid about his failing marriage to Joan Bennett.

Does anyone else think this man's movies might have been more interesting than most?

[Mr. O'Brady]

Well, he did produce We've Never Been Licked . Required viewing in college...

I must confess I rarely pay attention to who produces the movies I watch, and don't know much about their personal lives, but looking at the list of his films, there are a lot of movies I love, despite WNBL.

I do, however, have a preference for the ever-lovable Samuel Goldwyn's films.

[MissGoddess]

Hi Moira,

I guess the answer to that would depend on how broadly one would define "creative". I am broad minded broad so my answer, for those names you listed, would be "yes".

I also might stretch it to include Darryl Zanuck, one of the few producers and studio heads who actually listened to writers---and then went ahead and did what he thought was right. But he was also good at making choices that would help the pictures---not always, but often enough. He was very hands on, knowing not ony how to write but how to edit.

And yes, Sam Goldwyn to be sure.

Is there a book that covers in detail the creative partnership between Wanger, Lang and Joan Bennett? I know so little about any of them.

And let's not forget Merion C. Cooper.

[Ann Harding]

Regarding Goldwyn, I have some very mixed feelings. Yes, I do like his productions (especially his early talkies & silents), but, to what extent was he responsible for the quality of the picture himself. He had around him a great team of technical people. But, probably the unsung hero of these productions was his executive producer (never credited in any of the films!): Arthur Hornblow Jr. He got fed up with the Goldwyn treatment and left for Paramount where he produced amond others: Ruggles of Red Gap, Easy Living, Midnight... Great stuff!

As for Wanger, I wasn't aware that he produced all those films in different companies. Thanks for mentioning them, Moira!

[moira finnie]

Is there a book that covers in detail the creative partnership between Wanger, Lang and Joan Bennett? I know so little about any of them. ~Miss Goddess

Miss G.,
Patrick McGilligan's Fritz Lang: The Nature of the Beast is a fine bio of the innovative director, which does have quite a bit about the trio's work in the '40s. A word to the wise, though. Lang was a very strange, talented man.

Brian Kellow's The Bennetts: An Acting Family gives a fine sense of the lives and work of Richard Bennett and his daughters, particularly Constance and Joan's lives and careers.

Walter Wanger's own remarkably diverse interests and life have been chronicled in Walter Wanger: Hollywood Independent by Matthew Bernstein, though I've yet to acquire a copy, it sounds intriguing. Here's a link to a lively look at his career.

So many books, so little time to read them all!

Thanks for mentioning such men as Samuel Goldwyn, Arthur Hornblow, Jr. & Darryl Zanuck as other examples of producers who seem to defy easy pigeon-holing.

[stuart.uk]

Moira

Possibly the likes of MGM and Warners main concern was to make a buck rather than the quality of the film, but if they achieved both it was a bonus. However, maybe on a smaller scale producers were more creative, but it was difficult in a world where the big guns ruled. James Cagney tried to produce his own movies, but ended back at Warners.

If you notice in another thread I mention Herbert Wilcox an English director, producer and movie mogul. He seems to be very creative judging by the classic movies he made over a 35-yr period

In the silent days DW Griffith turned movies into an artform. Also his fellow United Artists Charlie Chaplin and Mary Pickford care about their protuctions.

Richard Attenburgh spent yrs preparing Ghandi. I think he was unlucky he didn't get much help from the studios with Chaplin, a film which has its merits, but should have been so much better, perhaps making two films rather than one. Attenbourgh's partner actor/director Bryan Forbes is another creative film maker.

Lew Grade on tv put almost his entire ATV budget on The Adventures of Robin Hood in the mid 50s, in an effort to get his company of and running with a hit show. This led to The Saint in the 60s and The Persuaders a decade later. He had his biggest success IMO with Jesus Of Nazareth, IMO the most devinitive story about the life of Jesus. Sadly he just about lost his shirt with Raise The Titanic, a film that bombed

David Putnam his a very creative producer with Charriots Of Fire, Greystoke and The Killing Fields to his credit

[mrsl]

In order to answer your questions, I need one of my own answered which I have wondered about for quite a while now: Where does the line begin in order to separate duties of Producer and Director? What exactly does a producer do? I always thought the producer was little more than the money man leaving creativity to the director. I was never aware that the producer got involved in creating the actual picture except perhaps an actor/producer which is why so many actors were their own producer/director -- so nobody else could invade their vision of the completed product. While watching The Bad and the Beautiful, I always wondered why Kirk Douglas, the producer, had so much control over Lana and all the other aspects of the film instead of the director. Does the producer choose the screenwriter, director, actors, location etc? I always thought that was the director.

Anne

[coopsgirl]

I definitely believe there were more creative producers back in the good old days and I think the lack of them today is one of the reasons modern movies no longer really interest me (with the rare exception like The Dark Knight and X-Files).

One of my faves was Val Lewton. He could take a meager idea and turn it into a wonderful film. My faves of his are I Walked With a Zombie and Cat People which I got to see on the big screen a few weeks ago and they were just awesome. I especially enjoyed Zombie. It sounds like a cheesy film from the title, but it’s so interesting with the tense family dynamic and the voodoo scenes that are very spooky. It’s also got a little romance mixed in. It’s one that I can watch over and over and never tire of.

Frank Capra also produced many of the films he directed and I’m absolutely addicted to Capra-corn. He put so much work into every aspect of his films and to me they just seem a notch better than most others.

It also appears like Hollywood has run out of entertaining ideas here over the past several years. There are three movies being advertised now (Hellboy II, Journey to the Center of the Earth and another Mummy movie) that all look like the same film.

Hollywood has always done remakes and I’m sure the same thing happened with movies being released at the same time that were very similar like the ones I mentioned above, but the old ones seemed to be better; or at least they are films that I have for the most part enjoyed and I don’t think I could say the same about most new movies today.

It just makes me wonder what happened? Where did all the creative people go? I mean, the movie industry has always been a business so it’s not like people back in the old days just made stuff willy-nilly. They wanted their movies to make money and it just seems like they worked harder at it back then to make sure they were putting out movies that would be entertaining and successful. It didn’t always work, but look at how many movies don’t make their production costs back anymore? I’d be willing to bet that happened less often back then.

[MissGoddess]

Hi Angie! Good to see you here!

And good question, "what happened?" People have changed, many will disagree with me, but I insist, people have changed. Audiences and movie makers alike.

I'm glad you mentioned Val Lewton, he cannot be left out of any discussion of "creative" producers. I love how he worked Jane Eyre into the plotline of I Walked with a Zombie, what a brilliant idea. Unfortunately, he became an example of a man who was really not enough of a tough business man to survive the shark infested waters of Hollywood.

[Vienna]

Good topic.
I think most producers were simply executives, deciding what films would be made,who would direct and star in them. But after reading MEMO FROM DAVID O. SELZNICK and MEMO FROM DARRYL F. ZANUCK , you begin to understand that some producers really were creative and contributed a lot to their films. Hal Wallis was another one who took an interest in every aspect of the films he was responsible for. And of course Irving Thalberg.
But of course these kind of producers did not appeal at all to power house directors like Hitchcock or Howard Hawks who had to have total control.