Distributor: 1940s/50s

The Justification for Choosing RKO

RKO Pictures

RKO Pictures has a sense of balance between both the high-profile, highly commercial fare and the independent, lower cost projects though benefit from a much more powerful position in the studio system, being arguable the second most influential company in Hollywood. The company invested heavily in B-Pictures which meant they provided limited budgets to up-and-coming talent in order to turn over a product that posed minimal financial risk to them while allowing the hired artist to engage with a level of creative freedom, leading to a history of greater success with these smaller projects than their forays into grander efforts with exceptions such as the Best Picture winner Rebecca from Alfred Hitchcock. Their proclivity towards smaller budgets is shown in the fact that, in 1944, of 31 features released, only 9 cost more than $500,000.

What makes them such an ally of the independent filmmaker, is their duality between nurturing and affording opportunities to these directors while also being a major Hollywood studio and thus, having a range of connections to both crew and creators. Their contract players ran the gamut of some of the most popular stars of their day, from Cary Grant to Hitchcock, allowing new directors to work with the most high-profile of stars since they were secured via their contracts. It also put them in touch with already successful artists to allow them to learn as part of RKO training program, designed to encourage the development of a wave of new filmmakers loyal to the studio.

United Artists

During the noir genre’s height, in the 1940s and 50s, United Artists was still burgeoning as a studio in a system dominated by the already-established powerhouses of the likes of Warner Bros. and RKO Pictures. Upon their inception, as the Society of Independent Motion Picture Producers, they made it their imperative to advancing the plight of the independent filmmaker and break the restrictive, old-money system of Hollywood. This can be seen in a number of films they financed and distributed during this time; such as Gun Crazy and The Killing, the latter being famed director Stanley Kubrick’s third film after the disasters of his initial two; Killer’s Kiss and Fear and Desire. Kubrick’s mantra in working with UA was to make “good movies and make them cheap”, speaking volumes to the company’s ideals. The fact that they were willing to entrust Kubrick with “a free hand to create and leave the money problems to me” (Producer James Harris) is emblematic of their desire to afford opportunities for untested yet talented filmmakers with small projects they have the resources to effectively distribute to a target demographic.

Warner Bros.

Evidently, these companies’ approaches to championing smaller projects and independent artists are ideal when applied to my film, in comparison with the approaches from rival companies such as Warner Bros.

Warner Bros. similarly finance and distribute their own films but specialize in much more lavish and high-profile projects that aim for the greatest commercial returns. Noir was a huge box office draw at the time and Warner Bros were committed to producing films with star power and strong production values. The Big Sleep features Bogart and Bacall, the most widely known and sensationalized coupling in the eyes of the world and Mildred Pierce was financed for the then-exorbitant cost of £1.453 million (compared to The Killing’s $325, 000). Their use of established talent is worlds away from UA’s commitment to seeking out newer filmmakers since they see substantial risk in entrusting a large budget to untested blood.

Given the independent nature and lack of commercial appeal of my project, they are highly unsuitable for distributing my product when compared to the aforementioned institutions.

The Big Sleep

To demonstrate Warner Bros. specific marketing style, drawing on star power and high-budget excitement, this is the trailer to their noir hit, The Big Sleep.

United Artists v. RKO

Both studios have similar distribution and production models that make them ideal for an independent feature and director such as myself and this type of production is ideally suited to their proclivities, given their track record. They would be highly likely to take an interesting in a feature such as this and be willing to take a chance on an unknown, first-time director in order to build them up. What makes me side with RKO is the fact that they combine a tendency towards smaller, independent pictures with a highly influential and dominant position in the studio system, being the second most powerful studio in Hollywood. Their interconnected network of unknowns and power players is vital in their ability to distribute my film since they have the most amount of clout and finance to widely circulate the picture. Furthermore, given the sheer amount of films they have distributed, they have great experience in marketing such films which would make for a highly effective campaign.

Modern Distributors

In the modern cinematic landscape, film noir is relegated to a more niche, arthouse audience and their abundance has certainly declined in the intervening years, having all but vanished from their former Hollywood glory days. In this new landscape, independent distributors and arthouse subsidiaries are much more likely to take to my product. For this end, I think that Sony Picture Classics, a subsidiary of the larger Sony Picture conglomerate that specialises in distributing smaller, darker dramatic and independent pieces such as Foxcatcher and Kill Your Darlings to great critical and awards acclaim. These films share a similarly minimal potential audience as my own piece and clearly represent Sony Picture Classics skill with marketing this type of picture, utilising their portfolio of experience and the sizable resources of their parent company to immense effect. I think this makes them an ideal distributor for my product given its lesser commercial prospect and more refined potential audience.