Hollywood
Hollywood
Avila and Hozic argue that Hollywood develops as a control of industry in specific geographical areas. Hozic doesn’t discuss films because she is not a reader of films but her work suggests that we think about films as produced fantasies in specific spaces. The most obvious connection between film and one of those produced spaces is Disneyland. Avila’s work doesn’t talk about what’s in Disneyland but I believe it consists of controlled space in which the Disney fantasy has been created. I am going to establish the relationship between fantasy/space using Hozic, Braudy and Ross, look at the place that most exemplifies this relationship – Disneyland, and use the movie “Who Framed Rodger Rabbit” that puts these two ideas together and points out that they are linked back to consumerism.
Hozic states that merely looking at changes in spatial organization is not enough to explain just how Hollywood was able to develop itself into the epicenter of film. She suggests we consider the power relations between the merchants and manufacturers; in particular, the shift from a producer driven to merchant dominated industry. Hozic states that Hollywood became Hollywood because its birth coincided with the rise of consumerism. Hollywood became linked with consumerism; it became a place where people linked several different aspects of the geographic location to Hollywood. There was the stars that lived around Hollywood, the studio lots that made the films possible, the geography of the land that had attracted the production companies initially.
Leo Braudy for example acknowledges that Hollywood came to become Hollywood when cinema finally gained the respect it wanted as a business and art form but Braudy argues that Hollywood really became “Hollywood” when it merged business with a place and location. It seems to me that Hollywood consolidated its stars, production and exhibition in order “to create a brand,” that it otherwise would not have had (Braudy 54).
Avila and Hozic argue that Hollywood develops as a control of industry in specific geographical areas. Hozic doesn’t discuss films because she is not a reader of films but her work suggests that we think about films as produced fantasies in specific spaces. The most obvious connection between film and one of those produced spaces is Disneyland. Avila’s work doesn’t talk about what’s in Disneyland but I believe it consists of controlled space in which the Disney fantasy has been created. I am going to establish the relationship between fantasy/space using Hozic, Braudy and Ross, look at the place that most exemplifies this relationship – Disneyland, and use the movie “Who Framed Rodger Rabbit” that puts these two ideas together and points out that they are linked back to consumerism.
Hozic states that merely looking at changes in spatial organization is not enough to explain just how Hollywood was able to develop itself into the epicenter of film. She suggests we consider the power relations between the merchants and manufacturers; in particular, the shift from a producer driven to merchant dominated industry. Hozic states that Hollywood became Hollywood because its birth coincided with the rise of consumerism. Hollywood became linked with consumerism; it became a place where people linked several different aspects of the geographic location to Hollywood. There was the stars that lived around Hollywood, the studio lots that made the films possible, the geography of the land that had attracted the production companies initially.
Leo Braudy for example acknowledges that Hollywood came to become Hollywood when cinema finally gained the respect it wanted as a business and art form but Braudy argues that Hollywood really became “Hollywood” when it merged business with a place and location. It seems to me that Hollywood consolidated its stars, production and exhibition in order “to create a brand,” that it otherwise would not have had (Braudy 54).