Why Did Americans in the 1930s Let One City Control the Entire Nation’s Film Industry?

The location of the US entertainment industry on the west coast, primarily in Hollywood, was determined by the frequency of sunny days and a strategic distance from legal troubles and harsh weather conditions.

Origin and Migration of Studios

Some of the major studios, like those that emerged in New Jersey adjacent to Thomas Edison’s laboratories, began their journey towards the west coast. The primary reasons for this migration included:

Temperate and sunny weather, suitable for outdoor filming Afar from Edison and his patent lawyers to avoid legal disputes Access to diverse backgrounds, landscapes, and weather conditions, essential for bringing different settings to the screen Larger spaces to build and burn large sets without significant disruption to residents as much of Southern California was sparsely populated at the time

While Northern California and Southern California both hosted early studios, by the 1930s, most of the major studios had relocated to Southern California.

Hollywood's Rise and Geographic Significance

Hollywood quickly emerged as the central film production venue in America by the 1930s, becoming synonymous with the film industry. However, it is important to note that New York City continued to be a significant player in the film industry, rivaling Hollywood and even controlling the industry's financing even after ceasing to be a major production area.

The term "Hollywood" often includes neighboring areas such as Los Angeles, Burbank, Culver City, and Beverly Hills, hence it is a mischaracterization to say that "one city" controlled the American film industry. This remains true today as the film industry continues to be a multifaceted and geographically diverse entity.

Industry Evolution and Public Policy

Discussing the concentration of the film industry in Hollywood, some propose solutions such as requiring a percentage of films to be shot outside of the studios. However, enacting such public policies could be impractical. For instance, mandating that 25 percent of films in 1933 be produced in Southwest Ohio, where the industry infrastructure did not exist, would be an odd solution. Such policies are often created to search for problems rather than address real issues in the industry.

The film industry in the 1930s and beyond is a complex ecosystem that thrives on the unique attributes of different regions. Every studio, from major players like Warner Bros. and Paramount to smaller independent outfits, has adapted to the environments that best suit them. This adaptability is a cornerstone of the industry's success and creativity.

Conclusion

The dominance of Hollywood in the American film industry by the 1930s was not merely a result of geographic advantages but also a reflection of economic and creative opportunities. The industry's evolution and the influence of neighboring areas demonstrate the multifaceted nature of American cinema. Policies that ignore these realities may not only be ineffectual but could also stifle the industry's vibrant and dynamic nature.