Behind the Glitz and the Glamour – An Ethnography of Hollywood

The Cultural Power of Hollywood Film

Two fundamental aspects of ethnographically studying Hollywood, is acknowledging Hollywood as not only an industry, but as an art form, and not as an isolated phenomenon, but rather as part of the wider society it takes place within. This article examines the huge cultural power Hollywood possesses, how it creates and perpetuates representations of peoples, it’s function as a community, and how anthropologists can be involved in this world.

The basic difference between Hollywood and Independent films, are the realms of fantasy and reality. Hollywood films provide viewers with an escape from real life, and are ‘compelled to deliver the happy ending’ (Ortner, 2012:14), even in the most realistic of premises, with its fundamental mandate to entertain, Hollywood inevitably implores ‘movie-magic’. Hollywood is a huge force continuously shaping American and global society. Though the third largest film producing industry following Nollywood and Bollywood, Hollywood has dominated the realm of ‘entertainment’ for the twentieth century. Hollywood produced films have the cultural power to shape everyday discourses and the agency to shape the audiences’ subjectivities, continuing to have an immense effect on how an audience sees themselves and others. Though Hollywood audiences do not uniformly believe what they see on screen, but nor are they uniformly critical, the social consequences, positive and negative, of the outputs of the motion picture industry should not be overlooked or dismissed and as such, should be of great interest to anthropologists.

Today we can see Hollywood’s force through its politicised movements and events such as the #TimesUp and #MeToo movements, diversity and inclusion to work against whitewashing, #OscarsSoWhite movement/debate, and political speeches at award ceremonies in relation to President Trump, global conflicts, LGBT rights, gender equality, and environmental protection. In addition, awards ceremonies in the latter part of 2017 and the 2018 Oscars saw an increasing number of celebrities bringing political activists as their guests, actively highlighting them on the red carpet and in interviews. The causes ranged from #NoDAPL/Standing Rock, the Black Lives Matter movement, gender equality, refugee protection, and school shootings to name a few. The first incident of using Hollywood Academy Awards as a platform for political action and activism was in 1973 when Marlon Brando declined his Oscar for best actor due to the treatment of American Indian actors by the film industry, inviting Sacheen Littlefeather to decline the award and explain why in his absence.

The coupling of cultural power and politicised actions highlights Hollywood as a form of representational politics and as such ‘the presence of anthropological interlocutors should play an active part in managing the fields of cultural production in which mass-mediated images of difference are made (Askew, 2004:57). Hollywood’s desire and need as a business is to please and entertain both insiders (which affects esteem and social dynamics), and outsiders/audiences, even if that means portraying inaccuracies that can be harmful when portraying culturally sensitive topics. Askew coins this action, “culture wrangling” (2004). For example, indigenous rituals, or the assimilation of historical events into Hollywood standards of plot development or genre requirements. This ‘movie-magic’ results in a ‘surface history’ and ‘surface realism’. In our global world and at a time where most people learn about other cultures through mass media film rather than reading academic work such as anthropological scholarly literature, the conflation of real and fantasy can be very harmful. For example, inaccurately portraying American Indian battles, their relationship with the US government, or contemporary daily life, which can have significant social and political consequences. Askew contends, ‘Hollywood films liberally employ “movie magic” to smooth over historical, cultural, political, musical, linguistic, and other inaccuracies’ (2004:52). This action relates to Talal Asad’s theory that cultural translation never occurs on equal terms or authentically and we can relate Bourdieu’s modes of cultural production to the Hollywood film industry – restricted production for insiders and other cultural producers, (independent or art-house films/filmmakers), and large-scale production, (Hollywood), which is economically driven and for outsiders. This large-scale production correlates to Hollywood’s motives of mass-entertainment to the mass market, commercialism and recognition through academy awards and fan cults.

Hollywood as a Community

I believe it is more useful to anthropologically view Hollywood as a community as opposed to an organisation. Entry into this realm is often through existing contacts, predominantly family members or family friends, though is not as bounded or permanent as kinship structures. Ortner muses, ‘it is ironic that this site of high- or even post-modernity is also one of the few places in America where ‘community’ in a relatively classic sense really exists’ (2010:213). Hollywood straddles the paradigms of organisations and communities; film studio lots and offices are social organizations with walls around them, in full control of who is ‘allowed’ inside, and the role they play within. Despite an over-arching formulaic ‘Hollywood’ genre and style, the motion picture industry is a melting pot of variable influences. Hollywood conventions of script development and genres, and the collective professional thought and behaviour is indicative of Julian Steward’s cultural ecology model, (human’s adaption to social and physical environments). We can use this model to help understand how Hollywood ‘insiders’ adapt to their physical and social environment and the cultural processes involved in this. In a classic sense, a community structure as well as sense of community exists in this realm. A community can be defined in several ways, including common interests, beliefs or practices, a common locality, or a common social structure/ system, with social identity and community membership formed by defining themselves as separate from another group, in this case, Hollywood industry professionals against outsiders. Hollywood ‘insiders’ share a common knowledge, vocabulary, symbols and values which contribute to their sense of belonging, as well as attachments such as interdependence, loyalty, common goals and a common professional identity.

The physicality of studio lots and offices further allude to the insider/outsider mentality and sense of boundaries, these binary oppositions are perhaps the elementary structure of Hollywood life. Within the walls are rules and regulations, and defined power structures and hierarchies. Even outside the physical boundaries, the hierarchical and ritualistic spaces remain – in academy award settings, film festivals and other industry events. Ortner’s and Sutton and Wogan’s publications discuss the ‘mythical’ and illusionary aspects of Hollywood and how much of its pull is from a secrecy which is maintained through the insider/outsider framework. For those ‘outside’ the industry, Hollywood is arguably a loaded term, conjuring ideas of ‘tinsel town’, and exciting and glamorous people and lifestyles. In this sense, we can view Hollywood as a vessel for myth telling (Sutton & Wogan, 2009), not only does Hollywood produce myths, but is itself built upon a culture of myths and legends, ‘and the boundaries around the production process, and especially around actors, are important for maintaining those illusions’ (Ortner, 2010:213). The Hollywood community and the professional work of those within it is indicative of functionalism as everyone has a clearly defined role and purpose in order to achieve the common goal and will continue through time due to intergenerational networks. Furthermore, the community functions at all levels as workers can rarely move out of their roles without the help of accolade, respect and reputation from other insiders, yet respect transcends the boundaries of Hollywood as a closed community as individuals can receive worldwide recognition. However, purely viewing Hollywood employees within the functionalist paradigm is problematic as it does not allow room for tensions, conflicts and conflicts of power, or strikes which commonly arise amongst studio bosses and the creative teams, as well as tensions between artistic and economic goals in production. Anthropology is useful here to examine the ‘complex relationships [within] organizations and how those relationships impact and are impacted by market, societal, and global issues’ (Jordan & Caulkins, 2012:19).

Theories of transactionalism can be related to the day-to-day social dynamics of Hollywood working life. Insiders are hired by other insiders who can then reciprocate or ‘repay’ them by hiring them or having influence over their next job. The ‘transaction’ can occur between all levels of the film industry from actor and actor, director and producer and writer, director/producer and actor. More hierarchical transactions can even be seen in relation to the office crew managing on-location accommodations for the more senior positions, (‘name’ actors, producers, directors, writers, camera operators), to the hiring of caterers. This transactionalism can also work in a negative sense, with a wrongdoing or disagreement affecting career movements. Here we can draw on the anthropology of organisation theory of ‘new institutional theory’ which suggests a three dimensional approach to looking at institutions, the actors, the interactions, and the multiple perspectives involved (Jordan & Caulkins, 2012).

Despite the fixed sites of Hollywood studio lots, it is difficult to define Hollywood as a specific location, not just because of ‘on-location’ shoots and offices or hubs such as Los Angeles, Vancouver, and Atlanta, but because it is so much a part of society in a symbolic sense. Furthermore, though Hollywood is delocalised, there is a strong community network that extends across the world to where ‘insiders’ are filming. For Hollywood professionals residing outside of Los Angeles the community networks are bound by membership to unions and guilds, and industry magazines such as Variety and Deadline.

Anthropological Involvement in Film Production

There is more anthropological literature dedicated to Bollywood and Nollywood than Hollywood. Sutton and Wogan describe anthropologists absence from Hollywood as cautiousness (2009) yet from my personal observations, and other literature, (Ortner, 2012, Frank, 2012) this is a result of Hollywood being notoriously difficult to access as an ‘outsider’, with ‘feature film production…remain[ing] largely inaccessible to anthropologists’ (Askew, 2004:32). The key themes arising from the literature focusing on Nollywood and Bollywood are the positive and negative consequences of cultural portrayals, and the role of film as vehicles for perpetuation of traditions, the medium of communication and internationalizing of cultures, and the importance of media channels in transmitting cultural practices and knowledge, yet acknowledge that ‘popular films can constitute threat to cultural values’ (Effiong & Iseyen, 2017:84) which we can also see in relation to socio-political consequences of harmful representations of American Indians. In his discussion of “glocalism”, Arthur examines how ‘transnational Nollywood films set in the United States represent the cultural juxtapositioning African immigrants undertake upon arrival in America’ (Arthur, 2017:4). This observation can be contemplated when considering the nation-to-nation relationship between American Indians and the US government and how American Indians view their culture on screen in relation to the dominant society’s portrayal/ aesthetics. Characters in Nollywood films show how identities are co-produced by the actor’s African traditions and revisions to their behaviours in accordance to American culture which ‘enable[s] them to maintain the familiar in a foreign place’ (Arthur, 2017:4). Identity is a cultural construction on the individual and collective level, grounded in historical contexts but continuously changing in accordance to contemporary influences, a negotiation between the actors personhood and positionality, the wider society the film is taking place in and the conventions of the industry, which is exemplary in Hollywood films depicting American Indians. It is clear from the literature that film can either help (if authentic) or hinder (if inaccurate) the construction and maintenance of cultural identity.

With regard to Nollywood films, the assimilation of African storylines and western filmic technology and narratives, document and re-create socio-political relationships and are able to promote national and ethnic identity by showcasing traditional and cultural values (Effiong & Iseyen, 2017). This correlates to visual sovereignty and forms a bridge between ‘home’ and diasporic communities, for example, for American Indians on and off reservations. This notion links to the theory of transnational cinema, the representation of ‘multination community linked together through phenomenological and cultural proximity’ (Arthur, 2017:13). It is interesting to refract this cultural change back to Hollywood and American society in relation to the cultural and filmic representations of Native North Americans, whether a Native character is peripheral or central to the plot, they exemplify macro-level socio-political statements. Such politics of representation are especially influential for kinetic communities when highlighting and reshaping their cultural identity in today’s globalised world, particularly for the culture’s diaspora.

Lastly, the principles of visual anthropology can be applied to Hollywood headshots, totemic images that serve a specific purpose and symbolise an individual identity and broader ethnicity. From a visual anthropology angle we can examine the production and meanings behind headshots, who created the image, how is the subject represented, in what context and for what purpose? For a specific role relating to a specific character identity, or as a general image used by agents? Headshots ‘have multiple distinct constituencies: commercial photographers, actors, and casting agents. Each of these populations takes the same object and creates different meanings from it’ (Frank, 2012:179). This relates to visual anthropology as a single image can be interpreted differently by different audiences, yet headshots are similar to documentary photographs in that they are a commodity and function within a specific paradigm of social conventions (Frank, 2012), in this case, the film industry.

References cited –

1. Arthur, T.O. (2017). Glocal Nollywood: the politics of culture, identity and migration in African films set on American shores. Globalism: Journal of Culture, Politics and Innovation. 2: 1-28.

2. Askew, K. (2004) “Striking Samburu and a Mad Cow: Adventures in Anthropollywood,” in A. Shyrock (ed.), Off Stage/On Display: Intimacy and Ethnography in the Age of Public Culture. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp. 31–68.

3. Effiong, C. & Iseyen, L.M. (2017). Nollywood, Popular Culture and Nigerian National Identity. International Journal of Humanities and Cultural Studies. 4(2):75-86.

4. Frank, S. (2012). Ready for Your Close-Up? Polyvalent Identity and the Hollywood Headshot. Visual Anthropology Review. 28:2. 179-188.

5. Gardner, B.B. & Whyte. W.F. (1946). Methods for the Study of Human Relations in Industry. American Sociological Review. 11(5):506-512.

6. Jordan, A.T. & Caulkins, D.D. (2012). Expanding the Field of Organizational Anthropology for the Twenty-first Century. In: Jordan, A.T. & Caulkins, D.D. (eds.). (2012). A Companion to Organizational Anthropology. New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing. Pp.1-23.

7. Ortner, S.B. (2010). Access: Reflections on studying up in Hollywood. Ethnography Vol.1: 2 211-233.

8. Ortner, S. B. (2012). Against Hollywood. American Independent film as a critical cultural movement. HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 2 (2): 1-21.

9. Sutton, D. & Wogan, P. (2009). Hollywood Blockbusters. The Anthropology of Popular Movies. Berg: Oxford & New York.

#art #Hollywood #movie #featured #academyawards #anthropology #culture #LosAngeles #equality #acting #visualanthropology #power #film