July 31st 2004

  Buy Issue 2687

Articles from this issue:

COVER STORY: What the COAG Water Agreement means

EDITORIAL: Issues facing the Howard Government

CANBERRA OBSERVED: Kim Beazley's return masks Labor's divisions over US

AUSFTA: Will Green preferences sink trade agreement?

NATIONAL COMPETITION POLICY: SA Government heads towards dismantling single selling-desk for barley

DEREGULATION: Stock Journal survey rejects new SA Barley Export Bill

QUARANTINE BREACH: Inquiry needed on citrus canker

NATIONAL AFFAIRS: Boswell sees red over Senate marriage delay

EDUCATION: School vouchers - giving power back to parents

SOCIAL POLICY: Singapore's Provident Fund adapts to new realities

FILM: Appeals against degrading movies rejected

MEDIA: Victory on TV Code of Practice

HEALTH: Abortion causes uterine damage

VICTORIA: Are we facing a long dry spell?

STRAWS IN THE WIND : Peacock Throne / The Stasi never died / Supersized

CINEMA: Whatever happened to the family film?

Distributism defended (letter)

People without land (letter)

Ethanol industry viable (letter)

OBITUARY: Vale Brian Nash

OBITUARY: Vale Martin Klibbe

BOOKS: Nightmare of the Prophet, by Paul Gray

BOOKS: Memo for a Saner World, by Bob Brown

BOOKS: So Monstrous A Travesty, by Ross McMullin

Books promotion page

Whatever happened to the family film?

by Philip F. Anschutz

News Weekly, July 31, 2004
US corporate chief Philip F. Anschutz has challenged Hollywood's culture of sex and violence-laden movies. He argues that Hollywood's tastes are far removed from the public's and that making good family-oriented movies makes better business sense.

In today's world of mass media and mass instant communication, movies still have an enormous effect on our culture and an even larger effect on younger Americans. Research shows that the average American child between the ages of two and 18 spends five hours and 45 minutes per day with media - mostly electronic media.

Think about that in the context of these figures: since the year 2000, Hollywood has turned out more than five times as many R-rated films as it has films rated G or PG or soft PG-13. No less than 2,146 film released since 2000 received R ratings, compared to 137 films rated G and 252 films rated PG.

Popular choice?

Is this preponderance of R-rated films simply - as we hear so often - a response to the market? I would say not considering that of the top 20 money-making films of all time, not a single one is rated R, and of the top 50, only five are rated R - with the remainder being G or PG.

Don't these figures make you wonder what's wrong with Hollywood just from a business point of view? Why, in the face of these statistics, does Hollywood keep putting out so many non-family oriented movies?

Let me mention the ideas that I've run across that define a kind of Hollywood mindset:

  • The way to be successful is to be hip and edgy.

  • To be noticed and therefore successful, you need to utilise shock value to gain attention.

  • Sex, language, violence and bad taste always seem to find a market.

  • You have to grow up in the film business in order to understand it and have the right creative instincts for it.

  • To earn respect from your peers within the Hollywood community, you have to make at least potential Academy Award films - which in recent history have predominantly been R-rated.

My wife and I now have a number of grand-children who are growing up surrounded by the products of this culture. So four or five years ago I decided to do something about it by getting into the film business.

My reasons for getting into the entertainment business weren't entirely selfless. Hollywood as an industry can at times be insular and not understand the market very well. I saw an opportunity in that fact. But also, yes, I saw a chance to attempt some small improvement in the culture.

There are a few things I've learned about the movie business: First of all, you need a clear vision of the kind of movies you will make - and an equally clear vision of the type of movies you will not make. People in the industry need to know that they needn't bring you certain kinds of product because you're not going to be interested.

Just as importantly, your own people need to understand the kind of movies they are going to be held accountable for producing.

Our company, by the way, makes G and PG and, occasionally, very soft PG-13 movies. They are primarily family films - films that families can see together. We expect them to be entertaining, but also to be life-affirming and to carry moral messages.

Own money

The next thing I've learned is that you need to bring your own money and be willing to spend it. Otherwise, Hollywood doesn't see you as a serious player.

Nothing communicates with the people that make the real decisions in Hollywood like spending your own money and showing that you can make profitable films.

Another lesson I've learned is to keep firm control of the creative process. Many things happen between the time you hatch an idea for a movie and the time that it gets to theatres - and most of them are bad.

So you need to control the type of writers you have, the type of directors you get, the type of actors you employ and the type of editors that work on the final product.

Then you have to control the way the film is marketed and watch over the distribution and exhibition sides of the business.

Keep in mind there are three parts to the movie business: Production, distribution and exhibition. Being just a producer isn't good enough. There are a lot of good movies that have been made but not seen, because they couldn't find distribution and they couldn't find exhibition.

At the same time we set up a movie production unit, we set up a companion education unit. The movie unit, of course, is headquartered in Hollywood. But the education unit is headquartered as far from Hollywood as we could get it - in Boston.

There is not a single movie-producer type that works for that company. They're all educators - teachers and parents - who go out and interact with schools. We're now in regular contact with some 10,000 schools and over 30,000 teachers.

We ask teachers and parent groups several questions: What kind of movies would you like to see made? What are the important books that are being read in schools? What's the best way that we can deliver life-affirming messages? How can we affirm the good, and de-emphasise the bad and the negative?

We began an active outreach to all of these groups, gathering regular focus and feedback information. We showed one of our recent movies well in advance of its release to 20,000 teachers in order to see how they felt about it. Then we took their suggestions and re-cut the movie.

Films for people

Speaking purely as a businessman, it is of utmost importance for a business to try and figure out a way to make goods and products that people actually want to buy. And as I've already suggested, I don't think Hollywood understands this very well.

Why can't movies return to being something that we can go and see with our children and our grandchildren without being embarrassed or on the edge of our seats?

When I said that Hollywood can be insular, this is in part of what I meant. I don't think they understand the market and the mood of a large segment of the movie-going audience today.

I think that this is one of the main reasons, by the way, that people don't go to movies like they used to.

Here are a couple of concrete examples of specific movie projects that came out of the process I have just described.

One of our movies was Holes. There is also a strong moral message in it. It was screened for a number of teachers before we ever released it; and even after it was released, we did multiple interactive screenings in our theatres with young audiences.

In one session alone we had 17,000 young people from across the country interacting with the director and the writer and some of the actors in the film, learning about acting skills, writing skills and what lessons could be drawn from the movie.

Another project that came out of this process was C.S. Lewis's Narnia Chronicles. These books were written some 60 or 70 years ago, and over 120 million of them have sold worldwide in some 80 languages - more than either Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings.

I acquired the rights to make films from that set of books - there are seven of them - and the first will be released next year. We feel that this is a great responsibility and are determined that the film be very good.

We have found in our focus sessions that people also want movies that are simply entertaining - movies that are fun, the way movies used to be. Our very next movie will have some educational value, but that's not really its purpose.

Above all it has a great sense of adventure, and it's funny and entertaining - it's called Around the World in Eighty Days.

Let me say that the movie business is not a very good business in many ways. No one with any sense would get into it.

My friends think I'm a candidate for a lobotomy and my competitors think I'm naive or stupid or both. But you know what? I don't care. If we can make some movies that have a positive effect on people's lives and on our culture, that's enough for me.

  • Philip E. Anschutz, founder and president of the Colorado-based Anschutz Corporation, has been described by Fortune magazine as a "wily operator", after he turned an unsuccessful movie theatre business into a financial blockbuster.

  • His above remarks were delivered on February 24, 2004 at a Hillsdale national leadership seminar in Naples, Florida. They are reprinted by permission from Hillsdale College's publication, Imprimis.

Join email list

Join e-newsletter list

Your cart has 0 items

Subscribe to NewsWeekly

Research Papers

Trending articles

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Memo to Shorten, Wong: LGBTIs don't want it

COVER STORY Shorten takes low road to defeat marriage plebiscite

COVER STORY Reaper mows down first child in the Low Countries

COVER STORY Bill Shorten imposes his political will on the nation

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Kevin Andrews: defend marriage on principles

CANBERRA OBSERVED Coalition still gridlocked despite foreign success

ENVIRONMENT More pseudo science from climate

News and views from around the world

Menzies, myth and modern Australia (Jonathan Pincus)

China’s utterly disgraceful human-rights record

Japan’s cure for childlessness: a robot (Marcus Roberts)

SOGI laws: a subversive response to a non-existent problem (James Gottry)

Shakespeare, Cervantes and the romance of the real (R.V. Young)

That’s not funny: PC and humour (Anthony Sacramone)

Refugees celebrate capture of terror suspect

The Spectre of soft totalitarianism (Daniel Mahoney)

American dream more dead than you thought (Eric Levitz)

Think the world is overcrowded: These 10 maps show why you’re wrong (Max Galka)

© Copyright NewsWeekly.com.au 2011
Last Modified:
November 14, 2015, 11:18 am