The Hollywood Star System and the Regulation of Actors' Labour, 1916-1934

Author(s): Sean P. Holmes

Source: Film History , 2000, Vol. 12, No. 1, Oral History (2000), pp. 97-114
Published by: Indiana University Press

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3815272

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Indiana University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Film History

This content downloaded from

137.204.24.180 on Sun, 27 Sep 2020 18:05:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Film History, Volume 12, pp. 97-1 14, 2000. Copyright © John Libbey & Company
ISSN: 0892-2160. Printed in Malaysia

The Hollywood star

labour, 1916-1934
Sean P. Holmes

O v er the last fifteen years or so, the field through which the social relations of power in the
of star studies, a sub-discipline of filmfilm industry during the studio era were estab-
studies, has undergone an important lished and maintained.
reorientation. Scholars like Barry King At the purely theoretical level, this body of
and, more recently, Danae Clark have rejected literature works very well, shifting the emphasis of
the overtly textual and psychoanalytical ap-
star studies from the process of consumption to the
proaches to the study of movie stars which char-process of production and sharpening our under-
acterised the scholarship of the 1 970s and early
standing of how the star system has structured la-
1980s, arguing that in focusing attention uponbour-management relations in the motion picture
star images and the spectator-image relationship
industry. What it lacks is any real sense of the star
they render the actor as worker invisible1. Movingsystem in Hollywood as a lived experience. King
beyond the consumption-exchange side of the sets out to 'set the limits of a Marxist account of the
cinematic process, they have tried to relocate star system in the popular cinema'3. Yet his discus-
movie actors in the sphere of production by exam-sion of the nature of performance as a labour proc-
ining the material conditions of labour in Holly-ess and the system of production in which that
wood. King, for example, has looked at stardomprocess takes place rarely moves beyond the level
of ahistorical abstraction and includes little or
as part of an occupation of screen acting, concen-
trating upon what he terms 'the particularities ofnothing on the material conditions of actors' la-
performance as a labour process and the rela- bour at specific historical moments. Clark pro-
tions of production in which such a process oc- fesses to embrace an approach to the study of
curs'2. Rather than situating his analysis at theactors that 'is motivated by a political agenda that
level of the individual star, he has looked at the
operation of the larger 'star system', exploring the
ways in which economic practices in the film in-
Sean Holmes has a Ph.D in American History
dustry have combined with film as a technology to
from New York University. He teaches in the
transform actors' labour into its commodity form. American Studies programme at Brunel Univer-
Clark has attempted to rearticulate the basic sity and is currently working on a book on the
premises of star studies in order to carve out a unionisation of stage actors entitled Weavers of
Dreams, Unite!: Constructing an Occupational
space for actors as 'subjects of production', work-
Identity in the Actors' Equity Association,
ers engaged in an ongoing struggle to control the 1913-1934. Correspondence should be ad-
terms of their commodification. Writing from a dressed to: Dr. Sean P. Holmes, Department of
cultural studies perspective, she has examined the American Studies and History, Brunel University,
processes, both economic and discursive, Uxbridge, Middlesex UB8 3PH, England. e-mail:
Sean.Holmes@brunel.ac.uk

This content downloaded from

137.204.24.180 on Sun, 27 Sep 2020 18:05:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
98 98 Sean P. Sean P. Holmes
Holmes

... privileges
shift, they had gradually embraced a mode of pro- th
jects who duction that rested upon a detailed
histo division of la-
institutionalised relations of dominance under bour and a rigorous application of the principles of
capitalism'4. In her analysis of stardom as a site ofscientific management. At the urging of Taylorite
ideological and discursive struggle, however, theefficiency experts, studio heads had inserted into
men and women who worked in the motion picturethe organisational hierarchy a class of managerial
studios during the 1920s and early 1930s areworkers whose task it was to direct operations on
given no voice and their day-to-day experiences onthe part of capital. By the mid- 1 91 Os, the so-called
the cinematic shop floor are left largely unex-'central producer' system had emerged as the in-
plored. dustry norm. Reflecting broader changes in busi-
Film scholars, no less than the historians that ness practice in the United States, this highly
Clark takes to task in her dissertation for their fail- centralised system of production placed overall re-
ure to interrogate an image of Eddie Cantor that sponsibility for the running of the studio in the
they used on the cover of their study of the Ameri- hands of a general manager or producer. Al-
can film industry, 'should be held accountable for though the director retained control over shooting
the histories they (do not) tell'5. For Clark to claim activities, the producer was the key decision maker
that investigating the historical circumstances of at the operational level, planning and budgeting
screen actors, and especially the thousands of per- films and coordinating the work of the various de-
formers who laboured in relative obscurity, is made partments involved in the manufacturing process
difficult by the absence of adequate primary source in order to ensure regularity of production and
materials is to do her putative subjects an enor- adherence to uniform standards of excellence8.
mous disservice6. Actors at every level of the Holly- Standardisation was not the only economic prac-
wood star system have left vivid accounts of their tice at work in Hollywood, however. In the film
struggles at the point of production. They are not industry, as in other mass-production industries,
to be found, however, in the institutionally oriented individual firms had to differentiate their products
and rather old-fashioned labour histories upon from those of their competitors in order to maxi-
which Clark bases her account of labour-manage- mise their market share, an economic imperative
ment relations in the motion picture studios7. If we that fostered high levels of innovation within the
are to integrate the actor as labourer into the his- parameters determined by the classical stylistic
tory of the film industry in the United States we must standard9. Advertising played a key role both in the
look beyond such sources and seek out the sites in process of standardisation and in the process of
which screen performers, both collectively and as differentiation. On the one hand, it helped to rein-
individuals, have articulated their concerns as force industry-wide benchmarks of quality. On the
workers. This paper, which focuses upon Holly- other, it directed the attention of consumers to the
wood's 'non-union' era and draws heavily upon unique qualities of a given product- its authentic-
hitherto unused materials in the Actors' Equity As- ity, its 'realism', its cost, its technical excellence,
sociation Collection at the Wagner LaborArchives and, above all, its stars0.
in New York and the Academy Collection at the The star system was central to the economics
Margaret Herrick Library in Los Angeles, is con- of moviemaking in the United States during the
ceived as a first step in that process. studio era. Its adoption in Hollywood had not been
By the late 1910s, the movie industry in the a straightforward process, though. To the apostles
United States was operating on a mass-production of scientific management, the institution of star-
basis. Eager to maximise profits, filmmakers had dom was an outmoded relic of the legitimate thea-
seized upon the concept of standardisation as the tre, a pre-industrial anomaly in a system of
key to industrial efficiency. As early as 1906, they production that was increasingly geared towards
had begun to concentrate their energies upon the maximising efficiency and minimising unnecessary
production of fictional narratives chiefly because expenditure and they had continued to rail against
they could be made at a predictable cost and re- it even after it had emerged as a key weapon in the
leased on a regular schedule. In the wake of this struggle for market dominance. When efficiency

This content downloaded from

137.204.24.180 on Sun, 27 Sep 2020 18:05:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Hollywood star system and the regulation of actors' labour 99

experts audited Vitagraph in 1917, for example, work and the grim realities of its factory condi-
they were highly critical of the company for paying tions'14.
what they saw as excessive salaries to its leading At the base of the occupational hierarchy that
performers. In their report, they claimed that 'the underpinned the operation of the Hollywood star
tendency in the business is towards making the play system during the studio era were the unknown
and not the actor the attraction' and advised man- actors and actresses competing for work as extras
agement to encourage this trend, insisting that 'the and bit players. Inspired by a discourse of stardom
cost of good plays by popular writers is much less which identified 'personality' and a natural affinity
than the cost of salaries to advertised 'stars"'1. with the camera as the keys to screen success,
Contrary to such predictions, however, efforts to thousands of would-be motion picture performers
sell individual movies on the strength of an engag- made their way to Hollywood in the 1910s and
ing storyline and a good script proved unsuccessful 1920s, the majority with no acting experience
and by the late 1 91 Os, actors had become not onlywhatsoever. By film historian Kevin Brownlow's es-
the most important means of differentiating onetimate, their chances of finding jobs in the studios
film from another but also the key to attractingwere no better than one in a hundred15. As many
outside capital12. Through their unique personae, were to find to their cost, even a promise of paid
star performers invested movies with an element ofemployment could not always be taken at face
distinctiveness that gave their employers a com- value. Throughout the 1 920s and 1 930s, it was
petitive edge in the cinematic marketplace and common for performers to receive informal job
thereby justified the vast salaries that they were offers from studio representatives only for them to
able to commandl3. be withdrawn at a later date. Often this was simply
The star system was more than simply a means the consequence of a directorial whim. In 1934,
of marketing motion pictures, however. It was also for instance, dancers Don El Mere and Dorothy El
the basis for a hierarchical division of labour in the Mere gave up a secure job in Lake Tahoe on the
Hollywood film industry that shaped the working strength of a promise of work in a musical from
lives of all motion picture performers, regardless of Dave Gould, a choreographer at RKO. When they
their individual status. Straddling the contradictiondemonstrated their talents for the film's director
between standardisation and differentiation, it al- Mark Sandrich, however, he decided that they
lowed film companies to reconcile the competingwere not what he was looking for and they found
imperatives of economy and originality. Under its themselves stranded in Los Angeles without any
aegis, they could pay high salaries to the privileged means of supporting themselves16. On otherocca-
elite in Hollywood whilst simultaneously control-sions, it happened because the star around whom
ling costs by placing strict limits on the earnings of a cast was being built had become incapacitated.
the character actors, supporting players, and ex- In early 1 932, for example, Ralph Ince accepted a
tras who occupied the lower strata of the occupa-verbal offer from the RKO casting department of a
tional hierarchy. Just as importantly, though, the small part in a John Barrymore vehicle. Owing to
star system worked to reinforce managerial controlan injury to Barrymore, however, the studio put the
over the production process and made it easier for production on hold and eventually told Ince that
studio heads to dictate the terms of actors' com- his services were no longer required17. Nor was a
modification. By elevating a small minority of per-written contract necessarily a guarantee of paid
formers at the expense of the struggling majority, itemployment. In 1932, actress Zena Bear signed
fragmented the acting community and forestalled up with the Radio Transcription Company, a small
the emergence of a sense of shared oppression studio operating on the margins of the industry, to
amongst the men and women of the silver screen. play a role in a series of twenty-six shorts provision-
By prioritising the image over the image-making ally entitled Our Neighbors at a salary of $10 a
process, moreover, it stripped actors of their iden- film. When the studio subsequently decided not to
tity as workers and, as Danae Clark puts it, '[di- put the series into production it cancelled Bear's
verted] public attention away from the problem of contract and refused to pay her anything'8.

This content downloaded from

137.204.24.180 on Sun, 27 Sep 2020 18:05:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
100100 Sean P. Sean P. Holmes
Holmes

Fig. 1. Extras
benefit which

Even I had
when n
the
the men
toand
getw
wood lunchb
acting co
their kind
labours. o
Griffith's
erty,Intt
ceived $1.25,
he'd si
lunch inwhat
returnw
tions ofI Griff
stroll
abery sides
demons of
was
significance his
fo
line his
that lunc
far o
cially if they h
Thoug
When 1920s,
the tru
for it, yellin
remaine
couldn't con
workin
lunchesinto
and th
th
happy encount
with th

This content downloaded from

137.204.24.180 on Sun, 27 Sep 2020 18:05:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Hollywood star system and the regulation of actors' labour
ford to eat regular meals. In an article recounting
her experiences, she described what had hap-
pened when a male actor walked into the casting
office where she was waiting with other screen as-
pirants and offered round a handful of mints. 'I had
noticed a gaunt woman next to me', she recalled.
Now she rushed forward and clutched at the
man's hands, grabbing the little packages.
'No you don't', he cried. 'Give those back.
You can only have one'. She paid no attention
to him. She was already stuffing those little
candies into her mouth. To her, plainly, they
were food20.
Statistics relating to standards of health within
the acting community in Hollywood in the 1910s
and 1 920s do not exist. Impressionistic evidence,
however, lends support to Joseph Henabery's
claim that malnutrition and other related diseases
were not uncommon21.
Members of a perennially overcrowded pro-
fession, the unknown performers who scraped out
a living in cinematic obscurity had little alternative
but to accept work on whatever terms it was offered
to them. Secure in this knowledge, studio person-
nel devised a range of tactics to keep their labour
costs to a minimum. Producers often signed up
performers at an extra's rate of pay but expected
them to do more than an extra's work. In 1 933, for
example, the William Fox Company engaged a
performer named General Savitsky as a so-called
'atmosphere player' on one of its productions at a
salary of $10 a day. When filming began, the di-
rector ordered Savitsky to play the role of 'a police-
man speaking French' but refused to pay him the
$25 a day he was accustomed to receiving for roles
which required him to deliver lines22. In another
incident involving the William Fox Company, actor
Jack Kenny accepted a position as a 'bit and fight'
player for a series of scenes in a production of The
Oregon Trail which were to be shot on location in
Arizona at a salary of $90 a week. As soon as
shooting was completed, the producer asked
Kenny if he would like to continue working on the
film as an extra in the company's Los Angeles stu-
dio at the reduced rate of $60 a week, an offerthat
he accepted without hesitation. When he began
working, however, he discovered that he was ex-
pected to do a bit player's work at an extra's rate
This content downloaded from
137.204.24.180 on Sun, 27 Sep 2020 18:05:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
101
of pay and he responded angrily, accusing his em-
ployers of resorting to subterfuge to cut their wage
bills23. On the face of it, the distinctions between
one type of work and another were small and so
too were the differences in the rates of pay that
attached to them. But for performers struggling to
find regular employment they were enormously im-
portant.
Cost-conscious producers also resorted to
paring down minor roles after shooting had started
in order to cut their wage bills. During the filming
of MGM's prison melodrama The Big House in
1930, for example, actor Matthew Betz took part
in a scene in which he overheard a conversation
which the script required him to repeat to another
character in a later scene. To his dismay, the studio
subsequently closed the film and terminated his
engagement without shooting the scene in which
he repeated the conversation, claiming that it was
not necessary as the repeated conversation was
not a vital part of the story24. As long as it did not
compromise continuity within the narrative, the
omission of a small scene of this type had little or
no effect upon how a film turned out. To the per-
formerwhose lines had been cut, however, it could
be the source of considerable resentment. On the
one hand, it meant a shortened engagement and,
therefore, a loss of wages. On the other, it meant
less time on screen, a key consideration for actors
and actresses who had their sights set upon profes-
sional advancement.
Like many other groups of workers in industrial
America, the men and women who plied theirtrade
in the motion picture studios encountered a work-
ing environment that was fraught with dangers. Bit
players and extras, performers whose collective
welfare was not a major priority for the studio
heads, frequently fell victim to what might, in other
lines of work, have been defined as industrial acci-
dents. During the shooting of a scene in a Pathe
Studios production in 1930, for example, actress
Florence Oberle received severe bites to the face
from a dog that her role had required her to carry
around in her arms. She later reported that as a
consequence of her injuries she was 'out of com-
mission for work for some time [and] spent ten days
under the care of a doctor'25. On another occa-
sion, bit player Rose Plumer lost two teeth when she
was struck in the face with a club by a fellow per-
102102 Sean P. Holmes Sean P. Holmes

highly
former durin
1933 productried t
were hope
hardly o
l
tended they to pr c
marketable comeb c
tablished directo star
actress who had been cast in the role of a home-
gagement be
caused steader, to unbutton
by her dress and, in her words,
'g
wreck 'to immodestly
careerexpose her breast'. When she re-
female fused to do soperfo
an argument ensued which culmi-
findingnated in her being ordered wor off the set29. A
the studio,
performer's sexuality could enter into the process t
the of exchange in other ways as well. Aspiring ac-
industry
As tresses were sometimes faced with a choice
Danae be-
Cl
screen actors
tween trading sexual favours for paid employment
or not working at all. In early
1930, for instance, Isabel
Cotton, a young singer who
had already appeared in
several early screen musi-
cals, successfully auditioned
for a part in an MGM pro-
duction provisionally entitled
Silk and Cotton. When she
arrived at the lot to begin
shooting she was greeted by
a studio executive who said
that he wished to speak to
her privately. 'He led the way
along a building being dis-
mantled and to a rehearsal
room in the rear and there
made it clear that he ex-
pected me to accept his ad-
vances then and there', she
claimed later. 'I was so
shocked and amazed at his
insulting behaviour that I did
not know what to do ...', she
went on. 'I was not desirous
of making a scene and left
after expressing my indigna-
tion.' Several weeks later the
studio executive telephoned
her and asked herto visit him
at his office. Still anxious to
Fig. 2. 'I am entirely content to live out here in Hollywood in this
profusion of beauty', wrote transplanted New York stage actor Louis secure a job, she agreed to
Wolheim (left), seen here with Lew Ayres in All Quiet on the Westerndo so but no sooner had she
Front (Universal, 1930). arrived in his office than he

This content downloaded from

137.204.24.180 on Sun, 27 Sep 2020 18:05:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Hollywood star system and the regulation of actors' labour
renewed his advances. 'He immediately threw his
arms around me and again implored me to do as
he wished', she reported.
I was thus placed in an awful embarrassing
predicament: dependent on my own efforts to
make a living, not wishing to lose the oppor-
tunity of singing at a studio I was at a loss how
to handle the situation. His insistence was very
distressing and during this time several people
came back [to the office] and he would have
to step out to the waiting room to dismiss
them.
Eventually Cotton's harasser relented and al-
lowed her to leave his office, assuring her that he
still wanted herto work forthe studio. However, she
received no further job offers from him and sub-
sequently heard that he had fired another woman
on the MGM payroll for letting her know that he
was sending out calls for replacement singers30.
Not all the actors and actresses who earned
their living in the movie industry experienced such
overtly exploitative employment practices. Though
the system of production in Hollywood tended to
prioritise the ability to cultivate a marketable per-
sona over more traditional skills, studios relied
heavily upon performers who, by virtue of their
acting talent ortheir ability to conform to a physical
type, could slip easily into supporting parts and
character roles. Often employed on a freelance
basis rather than under contract to a single studio,
the most successful supporting players were well
compensated for their labour and, though their
salaries never matched the sums paid to the Holly-
wood elite, their working lives were potentially
much longer than those of the stars31. Assured of a
steady flow of screen roles, they enjoyed a stand-
ard of living that far outstripped that of their coun-
terparts in other branches of the performing arts. 'I
am entirely content to live out here in Hollywood in
this profusion of beauty where we work and play,
eat and play, sleep and play', wrote character ac-
tor Louis Wolheim in a 1 926 article explaining why
he preferred the movies to the stage.
It's so beautiful that the very air breathes
warmth and love. The sunshine and flowers,
the slow tempo of life is nearer to the natural
state, and none of us is so far removed from
This content downloaded from
137.204.24.180 on Sun, 27 Sep 2020 18:05:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
103
the primitive as to require radical adjustment
to fit into it32.
Even for performers who were employed on a
regular basis at good rates of pay, however, the
Hollywood 'dream factories' were a far from per-
fect working environment.
Amongst the men and women who occupied
the broad middle strata of the Hollywood acting
community, there was considerable resentment of
the way in which the star system prioritised the in-
terests of a privileged elite. One-time stage actor
Wedgewood Nowell, for example, was highly criti-
cal of the practice of setting salaries in relation to
box-office drawing power and allowing a small
minority of actors and actresses to monopolise the
most lucrative work, insisting that it rested upon an
entirely false set of assumptions. 'What the public
desires primarily is entertainment [emphasis in the
original]', he asserted in a letter to the Actors'
Equity Association, the New York-based stage ac-
tors' union, in 1 924. 'If the show is good, the public
don't care much who is in it.' Adding to Nowell's
sense of injustice was his conviction, seemingly
shared by many of his fellow performers, that the
motion picture studios were colluding to limit the
salaries of middle-ranking performers who were
not tied in to long-term contracts. 'It is reasonably
certain' he claimed, 'that a salary list" is being kept
on file [by the producers] with a view to preventing
actors from raising their salaries between pictures
when freelancing'33. Like the less successful per-
formers labouring at the base of the occupational
hierarchy, Hollywood's supporting players and
character actors frequently fell victim to cost-cut-
ting initiatives at the point of production. During
the early 1 920s, for example, cost-conscious stu-
dio managers tried to trim their wage bills by intro-
ducing 'rotation shooting', a practice which
Wedgewood Nowell described as follows:
Here's the way it works. The various 'sets' in
the picture are erected in such order as to
permit the studio to absolutely 'clean up' all
scenes with a given actor or actress who re-
ceives, say, $2,900 weekly. This player is 'rail-
roaded' right through those sets which are
ready and waiting - and as night is turned into
day and the player simply rushed from one set
to another from eight-thirty or nine a.m. until
104104 Sean P. Sean P. Holmes
Holmes

eight, scene or to shoot additional scenes which were

nine, or not
player a part
willof the original script. On occasion, studios
stan
took advantage of such clauses to cut performers
Now then - her
from the pay roll temporarily without dispensing
into it. Just as
with their services. Towards the end of shooting on
with the $2,900
a Fox production in 1 931, for example, studio ex-
they start the n
ecutives told George Andre Beranger, a support-
have scenes tog
ing player earning $750 a week, that his services
played by the fir
were no longer required but warned him not to
the second play
shave off the beard he had grown forthe part. Four
'railroaded' do
days later they called Beranger back to shoot what
first one was. T
they claimed was an 'added scene', offering him
Now sometimes
an additional day's salary but refusing to pay him
that it is
for the period imp
after they had ended his original
engagement even
services in though they had known full well
just
the picture an
that they would need him again35. Willy Fung, an
Asian-American actor who had
scheduled to taken advantagela
player of the limited opportunities available to non-white
instead o
salary)performers
is during the early 1 930s to carve out a
told t
ture' and that
niche for himself playing waiters, cooks, and ship's
added scenes
stewards, experienced a variation on this ployor at
the the hands of MGM. In 1934, the
studio studio demanded
will
three that he return for retakes of Sequoia, a film
days, orhe had
worked on almost a year
gleefully earlier, at his original
receiv
port salary of $300 a week,
the nexteven though the standard d
truth fee for his services
of thehad increased during thema
interim
them to $350 a week36.laying
by
point According to Wedgewood Nowell, unscrupu-
where th
ture34 lous producers were not above using flattery to
dupe unwary performers into playing two parts for
Conceived as a practical application of the
the price of one. 'An actor engaged in a good part
principles of the assembly line to the process of
for ONE [sic] picture', he explained,
making motion pictures, 'rotation shooting'
aroused considerable anger among freelancers is approached and told that some other direc-
like Nowell who figured out that it worked entirely tor on the same lot is stuck for a 'good' actor
to the advantage of their employers. Not only did to play such and such a part in his picture. The
it increase the length of their working day while part isn't very long but it needs a GOOD MAN
reducing the total number of days they worked. It [sic] .... Now as he isn't being used tomorrow
also placed them at the studio's disposal without by the director, he is supposed to be working
requiring the studio to employ them continuously forwhen he was originally engaged 'would he
for the duration of a shoot. mind' shipping over to so-and-so set tomor-
The issue of retakes and added scenes re- row and play that part. ... Thus, they get a
mained a perennial source of tension between ac- good man in two pictures for one salary37.
tors and their employers throughout the 1 920s and
Where flattery failed, studio representatives
early 1930s. Most freelance contracts contained
sometimes resorted to outright coercion. In 1932,
clauses which bound performers to make them-
for example, the William Fox Company hired Stan-
selves available after their initial engagement had
ley Fields, a middle-ranking actor who worked
ended if the producer of the movie on which they
regularly throughout the 1930s as a screen
had been working wanted to retake a particular
'heavy', on a fixed weekly salary to play supporting

This content downloaded from

137.204.24.180 on Sun, 27 Sep 2020 18:05:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Hollywood star system and the regulation of actors' labour 105

Fig. 3. Lois Wilson (right, with Alan Hale), felt that the 'uncomfortable and ... unexpected'
production circumstances of The Covered Wagon (Paramount, 1923) improved the quality of the
film.

roles in two films which were scheduled to be made
one after the other. When shooting overran on the
first film, the studio tried to force Fields to begin
working on the second for no extra salary, an ar-
rangement that the actor, not surprisingly, found
totally unacceptable38.
For the relatively small number of performers
who won a place in the cinematic firmament, con-
ditions of employment were, on the face of it at
least, far from onerous. Signed up to long-term
contracts, the stars of the silver screen were extra-
ordinarily well rewarded for their labour. As early
as 1916, Mary Pickford was receiving $1 0,000 a
week from Famous Players-Lasky plus 50 per cent
of the profits on the ten films she made each year.
In 1918, she moved to First National in return for
an annual salary of $675,000 for three films, a
sum which together with the same share of the
profits that she had enjoyed at Famous Players-
Lasky gave her a net income in excess of $1 million
a year. Pickford was exceptional in that her per-
ceived exchange value allowed her to negotiate
unusually lucrative percentage deals. Stars who
were employed on a straight salary, however, were
also very highly paid. In 1923, for example, Fa-
mous Players-Lasky had seven performers under
contract who were earning in excess of $250,000
a year. Norma Talmadge topped the list with a
weekly salary of $1 0,00039.
By comparison with the vast majority of actors
and actresses in the United States, the elite of the
Hollywood acting community enjoyed a very cos-
seted professional existence. On occasion,
though, even they had to labour under very harsh

This content downloaded from

137.204.24.180 on Sun, 27 Sep 2020 18:05:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
106106 Sean P. Sean P. Holmes
Holmes

conditions, part
majority
cation. In a
only 196
lim
Lois has
Wilson obse
reca
having produce
to live
suppliesply
rannot
ou
ered With
Wagon, un
a
which she co-st
dustry l
When such
Colleena Mw
the Highworkers
Sierra
housedtions
in a u
ca
running1 water
91 Os,a
for in the
heating. 'ItU
1962. world m
'Every o
in and sively
build a in
f
water on it. sim
'You W
cold. We had
truth to
ab
so it would
the unfr
fanz
to find ception
themsel
1923, whilst sho
through
Flash the Won
Rome. Y
northern
whoIdaho
com
rector ment or
husband
the rest their
of thesc
c
ing. Vanterised
Tuyle h
to drag sional
him id
on
miles across a
operatio
safety experien
but Shipm
husband had
strates, t
tated42. ployers
Such in
and left stacked
no lastin
of Goudal
performers
pursuitwhen
of sh
wha
mount
excellence' thanP
'Oh we early
were sc
co
ence oftale, Pa
workin
don't that the
think rep
hadn't been unc
perform
'They
unexpected w
circ
tured t
Nevertheless,
stars said
and that
the m
means free of
displease
wood into
was my
punct
lic had
power ser
strugg
star identity
performer
control discover
over th
Barry tle
King weigh
has a
dom ever
allows wr
the
out a 'manoeuv
early 1
ship when
with theI o
s

This content downloaded from

137.204.24.180 on Sun, 27 Sep 2020 18:05:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Hollywood star system and the regulation of actors' labour
was a swell stunt and would be continued, no mat-
ter what my feelings on the subject might be.'48. In
the context of the system of production that pre-
vailed in Hollywood in the 1920s, Paramount's
reluctance to give ground on this issue was entirely
understandable. As Goudal was to discover to her
cost, her persona was more than simply a market-
able commodity. It was also an instrument of con-
trol, a weapon that managers and producers at
Paramount and elsewhere could use against herto
reinforce their authority at the point of production
and beyond.
In 1925, after a brief spell with the Distinctive
Pictures Corporation, Goudal signed a five-year
contract with the newly created Cecil B. De Mille
Pictures Corporation. Increasingly unhappy with
the terms of her commodification, she soon began
to demand a greater degree of control over the
production of her image. Within a matter of
months, her relationship with her new employers
had broken down irrevocably. Newspapers were
quick to reproduce the ensuing power struggle as
an extra-filmic narrative for the consumption of a
moviegoing public that was as interested in the
details of the off-screen lives of the stars as it was
in their appearances on screen49. According to
one contemporary report, the problem stemmed
from Goudal's insistence upon a minimum
number of close-ups in each of her movies50. Ac-
cording to another, its origins lay in Goudal's re-
fusal to allow a cameraman to photograph her
from her left side 'because she thought that par-
ticular camera angle did not do her profile jus-
tice'5 . Unwilling to allow her employers to dictate
the parameters of the debate over her professional
conduct, Goudal tried to put her case to the press.
'Miss Goudal is frank in admitting her disagree-
ments and is willing to talk of them', reported one
Oklahoma City newspaper in 1925.
She maintains that she knows something
about pictures and is entitled to some say in
the direction of her own. She bases her right
upon the fact that a poor picture hurts her
standing more than it hurts anyone else con-
nected with it. Therefore, she states, she re-
fuses to do anything in any scene which she
feels is not good52.
This content downloaded from
137.204.24.180 on Sun, 27 Sep 2020 18:05:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
107
To her evident frustration, however, she was
unable to cast off the Goudal persona and reinvent
herself as a dedicated cultural worker with legiti-
mate concerns about how she was represented on
the screen. In the eyes of most commentators, she
was nothing more than a pampered prima donna
whose career was on the skids because, to quote
one article, 'her highly Latin soul refused to bend
before either directors or producers'53. When Cecil
B. De Mille terminated her contract with three years
still to run on it, asserting that he could not work
with an actress whom he characterised as 'a little
cocktail of temperament', his actions went entirely
unchallenged in the newspapers54.
Goudal had not yet exhausted all her options,
however. In an effort to resurrect her professional
reputation, she took out a lawsuit against De Mille,
demanding compensation of $101,000 from her
erstwhile employer on the grounds of breach of
contract55. The ensuing court case was very acri-
monious and did nothing to enhance her value in
the cinematic employment market. In February
1929, three Hollywood directors testified on be-
half of De Mille, claiming that Goudal's 'artistic
temperament' together with her 'insubordination
and willfulness' made her impossible to work
with56. Even in the witness stand, Goudal was un-
able to divorce herself from her persona. Her ef-
forts to justify her position to the court were
represented in the press as the emotional outpour-
ings of 'a temperamental and artistic actress
caught between picture directors and producers
who had their own ideas about how she should do
her work'57. In the end, the court ruled in favour of
Goudal upon the grounds that that she had a legal
right to 'so-called fits of temperament' and or-
dered De Mille to pay damages of $31,00058.
Goudal's victory was a hollow one, though. Ac-
cording to press reports, the studios responded by
placing heron an unofficial blacklistand she found
it impossible to find work.
A little over a year later, MGM relented and
offered Goudal a featured part in one of its early
French language releases at the much-reduced
salary of $1000 a week. Eager to relaunch her
career, Goudal accepted the offer but refused to
cash her salary checks. 'I was willing to do it for
nothing but could not jeopardize my position and
career by doing it for the salary offered', she ex-
108 Sean P. Holmes

plained later. 'I did not want anyone to say She did
the constraints of the identity that the studios had
it for MGM for $1 000 so she can do it for us"'59.
imposed upon her, she turned hertalents to interior
design and disappeared into obscurity62.
Her comeback ended prematurely, however, when
her new employers allegedly reneged on a promiseThough actors at every level of the star system
had ample reason to resent the conditions under
to give her star billing when the film was exhibited
at MGM's Madeleine Theatre in Paris60. Exhausted
which they laboured, the obstacles to collective
by her ordeal at the hands of her various employ-
action in Hollywood were formidable. The star sys-
ers, Goudal suffered a nervous breakdown tem
(evi-divided the acting community both hierarchi-
dence, for those who sought it, that she was indeed
cally and by type, a process of fragmentation that
placed barriers between actors and, in Danae
psychologically unstable) and was unable to actfor
several months61. She returned to the screen in Clark's words, 'gave studio heads the power to
1931 in Business and Pleasure, a Will Rogers bind [them] into a passive community of work-
vehicle, playing a role that parodied her earlier ers'63. Among the stars, few were willing to jeop-
screen incarnation as a femme fatale but her ca- ardise their privileged position by challenging
reer as a star was effectively over. Unable to escape exploitative labour practices. Among the lesser
players, most were more
than happy to trade coop-
eration in the workplace for
regular employment and a
shot at the big time. For
their part, the studio heads
2222V'.ft ::0- . .5and, just as importantly,
:I i i their representatives on the
cinematic shop floor, felt a
deep-rooted antipathy to-
wards organised labour
: and they worked tirelessly
to prevent the trade union
movement from estab-
lishing a foothold in Holly-
wood. As Joseph
_.. Henabery's account of how
he dealt with a group of ex-
tras who belonged to the
Industrial Workers of the
World (IWW) during the
shooting of Intolerance
::. Ni0 demonstrates, they we
notabove using violence or
:1:::~ : the threat of violence to
force those whom they
wl^1f ^ identified as troublemak
into line.

i 1^eWe were shooting th

%sc ^crucifixion and we
waited to do it at dusk
actress Jetta when we didn't have
Fig. 4. Typed as exotic and temperamental, French
Goudal fought the Hollywood studios and found herself on an s , strong sunlight, and
unofficial blacklist.

This content downloaded from

137.204.24.180 on Sun, 27 Sep 2020 18:05:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Hollywood star system and the regulation of actors' labour 109

could get certain effects with lights and flares. of each of the five groups involved in the creative
These guys started to insist on another day's process and entrusted with the task of promoting
pay if they were going to stay on. ... The ha- harmonious employment relations in the film in-
ranguing wenton forquite a time. Finally I told dustry66.
them they would get seventy-five cents - take Almost as soon as the Academy was in place,
it or leave it. the studio heads set about testing its efficacy. In
June 1 927, sixteen of Hollywood's biggest studios
'We leave it.'
implemented pay cuts of ten percentforall workers
They started up the hill to the gate, which earning over fifty dollars a week in what they
would be two hundred yards away through claimed was an attempt to reduce excessive pro-
sets. I beat them to it. I ran around another duction costs. Incensed at what they interpreted as
way, and as I went past a carpenter I saw that high-handedness on the part of their employers,
he had a hammer in his overalls. I grabbed it workers at every level of the studio system - direc-
and got to the gate just before the Wobblies. tors, writers and technicians, as well as actors -
turned to the Actors' Equity Association for leader-
There was a box there. I climbed on it and
ship. For a brief moment, it seemed that the film
yelled; 'The first son of a bitch who tries to get
bosses had finally turned the keys of the motion
out of this gate is going to get a hammer right
picture studios over to the stage actors' union67.
in the head'.
However, the Academy, having been presented
You've always got ringleaders you watch for.with an opportunity to prove its worth to the film-
That's how you lick these mobs64. making community, acted promptly to defuse the
situation. Ten days after the new pay scales were
By the mid-1 920s, however, union bashing inannounced, members of its executive board
a literal sense was the exception rather than thepassed a resolution sympathising with the studio
rule and employers in the film industry had begunheads in their desire to reduce costs but condemn-
to experiment with other, less overtly confronta- ing the blanket reduction in salaries and suggest-
tional, methods of defusing the threat which or-ing an alternative strategy based around the twin
ganised labour posed to their collective interests. ideals of harmony and co-operation. 'We feel',
In November 1 926, the International Alliance they concluded,
of Theatrical Stage Employees and Motion Picture
that by the concentrated efforts of all the mem-
Machine Operators (IATSE), an AFL affiliate with
bers of all the branches of the industry, ways
jurisdiction over the studio craft workers, used the
and means can be devised of effecting re-
threat of a walkout to persuade the major produc-
forms in production which will result in great
ers to recognise its right to bargain collectively on
economies, as a result of which it may be un-
behalf of its members65. With the industry's open
necessary to impose any uniform reduction68.
shop on the verge of collapse, the studio heads,
who had already pooled their collective resources Responding with an alacrity that suggests that
in the Motion Picture Producers Association, Inc.,the entire controversy had been engineered in or-
moved quickly to ensure that the 'talent' in Holly-der to demonstrate that trade unions had nothing
wood did not cast its lot with organised labour.to offer Hollywood's cultural workers, the studio
Within weeks of the signing of the so-called Studioheads agreed first to postpone the proposed salary
Basic Agreement, they opened talks with groups ofreductions and eventually to scrap them alto-
actors, screenwriters, directors and techniciansgether69. A few months later, they sat down with
with a view to devising a mechanism for resolvingrepresentatives of the Academy and thrashed out
disagreements between management and labourthe terms of a contract for freelance players which
without the interference of outside agencies. Thethey promised would standardise conditions of
negotiations bore fruit in early 1927 with the employment across the industry and eradicate any
founding of the Academy of Motion Picture Artsabuses that had crept into the relationship between
and Sciences, a body made up of representativesactors and their employers70.

This content downloaded from

137.204.24.180 on Sun, 27 Sep 2020 18:05:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
110110 Sean P. Sean P. Holmes
Holmes

Fig. 5. Actor C
one of the foun
founders were
[Marc Wanama

Like other em
less interest in improving working conditions than
duringin keeping
the the Actors' Equity Association,
1a union9
controlled by the old theatrical elite, out of the
anti-unionism7
studios73.
dividuals who
To be sure, the Academy
standing in did provide actors
or
production bra
and other groups of cultural workers in Hollywood
try, with a measure of protection against
either the worst ex-
indir
set of cesses of the studio heads and their repre-
criteria r
community
sentatives. All performers, regardless of whetherin
or
most successful
not they were Academy members, were entitled to
permanent we
use the services of the Academy Conciliation Com-
whom the studios defined as 'creative artists' - mittee, a body made up of one representative from
directors, cinematographers and screenwriters, aseach branch of the Academy and entrusted with the
well as actors - and the studio craft workers who task of resolving disputes between labour and
had cast their lot with organised labour. Encour-management. During the period between January
aged to think of themselves as equal partners in the 1928 and July 1929, the Conciliation Committee
productive process, the stars who became the offi- handled somewhere in the region of 111 com-
cial voice of the screen acting community showedplaints from actors, the vast majority relating to

This content downloaded from

137.204.24.180 on Sun, 27 Sep 2020 18:05:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Hollywood star system and the regulation of actors' labour 111

contractual issues. In about one hundred of the the scandals in the press, whereas one of the
cases that came to its attention, the Committee main purposes of the Academy is to reduce the
managed to mediate between actor and studio harmful publicity about such problems within
without putting its formal arbitration procedures the industry76.
into operation. In a further eleven cases, it held
hearings at which both parties were able to put Though the Academy's arbitration and con-
their case and in all eleven it found in favour of the ciliation service undoubtedly gave individual per-
actor74. Nor did the Committee's involvement in a formers the opportunity to let off steam, its primary
case end when it had made its judgement. Anxious function was to bolster the position of the studio
to dispel rumours that the studios maintained an heads. By keeping contractual disputes firmly un-
unofficial blacklist of troublemakers, its members der wraps, it reinforced a discourse of popular en-
worked hard to ensure that successful complain- tertainment that diverted public attention away
ants did not suffer as a consequence of challeng- from the sphere of production and denied screen
ing their employers. In the case of Rita LaRoy, the actors a collective identity as industrial workers
actress dismissed from the set of Call Her Savage locked in an unequal relationship with their em-
for refusing to unbutton her dress, for instance, ployers.
they wrote to the actress's erstwhile employer, theIn its original incarnation as a champion of
FoxFilm Corporation, recommending that she be industrial peace, the Academy of Motion Picture
offered another part as soon as possible. '[E]very Arts and Sciences lasted only a few years. By early
opportunity for the establishment of confidence, 1933, the movie industry was in serious financial
cooperation, and trust should be taken advantage trouble, gross box-office receipts having fallen by
of by both sides', they advised. a third since the onset of the Depression. The major
studios responded to the crisis by implementing
[We must avoid] any possible charge that one
wage cuts of up to 50 per cent to last for a period
can be discriminated against because of com-
of eight weeks, a move which antagonised actors
plaints brought to the Academy for adjust-
both inside and outside the Academy. When two of
ment. This case, if handled as per our
the industry's biggest players, Warner Bros. and
recommendation, we feel will go a long way
Goldwyn, failed to restore salary levels at the end
to establishing that such discrimination does
not exist75.
of the eight weeks, several Academy members re-
signed and joined with a group of anti-Academy
In truth, though, the Academy as it operated actors to form the Screen Actors Guild. Initially, at
in the late 1 920s and early 1 930s was not so much least, the new organisation attracted little interest
a mechanism for protecting the rights of workers as in Hollywood. Its efforts to organise the screen ac-
a means of keeping Hollywood's labour troubles tors received a boost, however, when the National
out of the public gaze. A letter from Donald Gled- Recovery Administration, a body created by the
hill, Executive Secretary of the Academy, to B.F. federal government to oversee the implementation
Zeidman at Universal in which he took the studio of the National Industrial Recovery Act, convened
to task for leaking to the newspapers the details of in August 1 933 to formulate a code of practice for
a 1934 case involving character actor Warren the movie industry. Though the Academy was sup-
Hymer makes explicit the collective agenda of its posed to represent the screen acting community in
architects. 'The story in the trade press about thethe negotiations, its officials allowed the studio
Warren Hymer Adjustment Committee hearing heads to insert into the initial draft of the NRA Code
seems to have been given out by the studio', Gled- a series of clauses which were utterly unacceptable
hill wrote. to the majority of screen actors, stars and non-stars
alike. When the document was made public,
While it probably did no harm in this instance, twenty-one of Hollywood's biggest names re-
you can see that if each side released its own signed from the Academy in protest at what they
version of each controversy, the result would saw as a betrayal of their collective interests and
be to keep the disputes and, in some cases, cast their lot with the nascent Screen Actors Guild.

This content downloaded from

137.204.24.180 on Sun, 27 Sep 2020 18:05:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
112112 Sean P. Holmes Sean P. Holmes

tors' Labor (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota,

Stripped o
1995).
play an ac
2. King, 'The Star and the Commodity', 1 45.
troubles. T
3. King, 'The Star and the Commodity', 145.
fectively o
In an arti
4. Clark, Negotiating Hollywood, p. x.
sen issued a call for what he termed 'a workers' 5. Clark, 'Actors Labor and the Politics of Subjectivity',
history of the film industry in the United States' - a 38-39. The book at which Clark's criticsm is di-
rected is Robert C. Allen and Douglas Gomery, Film
history, that is, that rests upon the central premise
History: Theory and Practice (New York: Knopf,
that film is the product of human labour78. 'A full 1985).
critical review [of the operation of the industry]', he 6. Clark, 'Actors' Labor and the Politics of Subjectivity',
insisted, 'must merge dispassionate analysis of 22-23.

structures with the real-life stories of those most
affected by the workings of the industry - the work-
ers themselves'79. By rescuing screen actors from
the sphere of consumption and focusing attention
upon the social relations of production that have
determined the terms of their commodification,
scholars like Barry King and Danae Clark have
taken us halfway towards that goal. What we do
not find in their carefully theorised analyses of the
star system, however, are the voices of the men and
women who have sold their labour in the Holly-
wood 'dream factory'. As Clark has made clear,
7. The narrative portion of Clark's work is based largely
upon Louis B. Perry and Richard S. Perry, A History
of the Los Angeles Labor Movement, 1911-1941
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1963) and
Murray Ross, Stars and Strikes: The Unionization of
Hollywood (New York: Columbia University Press,
1941).
8. On mass production and the managerial revolution
in the Hollywood-film industry, see Janet Staiger,
'Mass Produced Photoplays: Economic and Signify-
ing Practices in the First Years of Hollywood', in Paul
Kerr, ed., The Hollywood Film Industry (London and
New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1986), pp.
100-1 03; Janet Staiger, 'Dividing Labor for Produc-
tion Control: Thomas Ince and the Rise of the Studio

the struggle between actors and their employers System', in Gorham Kindem, ed., The American
Movie Industry: The Business of Motion Pictures
over the terms of their representation and self-rep- (Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois
resentation has been an unequal one. Yet to sug- University Press, 1982), pp. 94-102; David Bord-
well, Janet Staiger and Kristin Thompson, The Clas-
gest that producers in the 1920s and 1 930s were
sical Hollywood Cinema: Film Style and Production
entirely successful in their efforts to silence actors to 1960 (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1985),
as workers is misleading. As this paper demon- pp.88-95, 128-153.
strates, screen actors in the studio era, like other 9. On differentiation as an economic imperative, see
groups of workers in industrial America, were Staiger, 'Mass-Produced Photoplays', pp.
107-108; Bordwell, Staiger, and Thompson, The
neversilent. If, as historians, we wish to make sense
Classical Hollywood Cinema, pp. 96-102.
of their collective experiences in the cinematic
10. On the role of advertising in directing consumers to
workplace, we have a responsibility to listen to sources of exchange value, see Bordwell, Staiger,
what they had to say.f and Thompson, The Classical Hollywood Cinema,
pp.99-100.
Notes 11. Report on the Affairs of the Vitagraph Company of
America, The Examinations Corporation, March
1. See Barry King, 'Stardom As An Occupation', in Paul
191 7, Albert E. Smith Papers, Box 10, Special Col-
Kerr, ed., The Hollywood Film Industry (London and
lections Department, University of California, Los
New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1984), pp.
Angeles.
154-184; King, 'Articulating Stardom', Screen 26
(September-October 1985): 27-50; King, 'The12.Star
On the film industry's increasing reliance on outside
and the Commodity: Notes Towards A Performancecapital, see Janet Wasko, Movies and Money: Fi-
Theory of Stardom', Cultural Studies 1:2 (1987): nancing the American Film Industry (Norwood, New
145-161; Danae Clark, 'Actors' Labor and the Jersey: Ablex Publishing Company, 1982), pp.
Politics of Subjectivity: Hollywood in the 1930s' 17-45.
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
13. Richard de Cordova, Picture Personalities: The
Iowa, 1989); Clark, 'Acting in Hollywood's Best
Emergence of the Star System in America (Urbana
Interests: Representations of Actors' Labor During
and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1990), p.
the National Recovery Administration, Journal of 112.
Film and Video 42.4 (Winter 1990): 3-19; Clark,
Negotiating Hollywood: The Cultural Politics of
14.Ac-
Clark, 'Actors' Labor and the Politics of Subjectivity',
7-8.

This content downloaded from

137.204.24.180 on Sun, 27 Sep 2020 18:05:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Hollywood star system and the regulation of actors' labour
15. Kevin Brownlow, The Parade's Gone By (London:
Martin, Secker & Warburg, Ltd., 1968; reprint edi-
tion, London: Columbus Books, Ltd., 1989), p. 39.
16. Don El Mere and Audrey El Mere v. RKO, 28 July
1934, Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences
Collection, Margaret Herrick Library (hereafter
Academy Collection), Actors Adjustment Commit-
tee, File E.
17. Ralph Ince v. RKO, 29 February 1932, Academy
Collection, Actors Adjustment Committee, File I.
18. Zena Bear v. Radio Transcription Company, 12
September 1932, Academy Collection, Actors Ad-
justment Committee, File B.
19. Brownlow, The Parade's Gone By, pp. 59-60.
20. Brownlow, The Parade's Gone By, p. 40.
21. For Henabery's claims about health problems
amongst extras and bit players in Hollywood, see
Brownlow, The Parade's Gone By, p. 60.
22. General Savitsky vs. William Fox Company, 1 March
1933, Academy Collection, Actors Adjustment
Committee, File S.
23. Jack Kenny vs. William Fox Company, 25 July 1 930,
Academy Collection, Actors Adjustment Committee,
File K.
24. Report of the Adjustment Committee, 12 June 1930,
Academy Collection, Actors Adjustment Committee,
File 'Matthew Betz vs. MGM'.
25. Florence Oberle to E. B. Derr, Path6 Studios, 9
August 1930, Florence Oberle vs. Path6 Studios,
Academy Collection, Actors Adjustment Committee,
File O.
26. Rose Plumer vs. Twentieth Century, 30 August 1933,
Academy Collection, Actors Adjustment Committee,
File P.
27. On Evalyn Knapp and the 'grease paint poisoning'
incident, see Evelyn [sic] Knapp vs. Universal Produc-
tions, 18 October 1933, Academy Collection, Ac-
tors Adjustment Committee, File K.
28. Clark, Negotiating Hollywood, p. 19.
29. Report sheet, Academy Collection, Actors Adjust-
ment Committee, File 'LaRoy, Rita vs. William Fox
Company #209, 25 October 1932'.
30. Isabel Cotton to William Conklin, 26 May 1930,
Academy Collection, Actors Adjustment Committee,
File C.
31. Barry King, 'Articulating Stardom', 47.
32. Louis Wolheim, 'I Prefer the Movies to the Stage'
Theatre Magazine 46 (September 1927), 41.
33. Wedgewood Nowell to Frank Gillmore, 30 July
1924, Actors' Equity Association Collection, Robert
Wagner Labor Archives, New York University (here-
after AEA Collection), Box MX1, Folder 'Motion
Pictures - Hays Negotiations, 1924'.
34. Nowell to Gillmore, 30 July 1924.
This content downloaded from
137.204.24.180 on Sun, 27 Sep 2020 18:05:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
113
35. George Andre Beranger vs. William Fox Company,
3 October 1 931, Actors Adjustment Committee, File
B.
36. Willie Fung vs. MGM, 7 July 1934, Academy Col-
lection, Actors Adjustment Committee, File F.
37. Nowell to Gillmore, 30 July 1924.
38. Stanley Fields vs. William Fox Company, 12 Septem-
ber 1932, Academy Collection, Actors Adjustment
Committee, File F.
39. Salary figures are from Richard Koszarski, An Eve-
ning's Entertainment: The Age of the Silent Feature
Picture, 1915-1928 (Berkeley and London: Univer-
sity of California Press, 1990), pp. 114-116,
266-268.
40. Brownlow, The Parade's Gone By, p. 334.
41. Brownlow, The Parade's Gone By, pp. 333-334.
42. Brownlow, The Parade's Gone By, pp. 330-331.
43. Brownlow, The Parade's Gone By, p. 334.
44. King, 'Stardom As An Occupation', pp. 167-168.
45. Clark, 'Acting In Hollywood's Best Interest', 6.
46. Gladys Hall, 'Diamond-Studded Whims', Motion
Picture (July 1929), 34.
47. Untitled clipping, Los Angeles Times, 22 June 192
n.p. in Goudal, Jetta, microfilmed clippings file,
Margaret Herrick Library, Los Angeles (hereafter
Herrick Library).
48. 'Long Arm of Coincidence Replaces Goudal on
High', unsourced clipping, 21 June 1931 in
Goudal, Jetta, microfilmed clippings file, Herrick
Library.
49. On the reproduction of such power struggles as
'gripping narratives', see Jane M. Gaines, Con-
tested Culture: The Image, The Voice, and The Law
(Chapel Hill and London: University of North Caro-
lina Press, 1991), p. 146.
50. Untitled clipping from unidentified Oklahoma City
newspaper, September 1925, n.p. in Goudal, Jetta,
microfilmed clippings file, Herrick Library.
51. Untitled clipping, Los Angeles Examiner, 1 February
1929, n.p. in Goudal, Jetta, microfilmed clippings
file, Herrick Library.
52. Untitled clipping from unidentified Oklahoma City
newspaper, September 1925, n.p. in Goudal, Jetta,
microfilmed clippings file, Herrick Library.
53. Untitled clipping, Brooklyn Standard, 1 August
1927, n.p. in Goudal, Jetta, microfilmed clippings
file, Herrick Library.
54. Unsourced clipping, 7 January 1927, n.p. in
Goudal, Jetta, microfilmed clippings file, Herrick
Library.
55. Untitled clipping, Los Angeles Examiner, 1 February
1929, n.p. in Goudal, Jetta, microfilmed clippings
file, Herrick Library.
56. Unsourced clipping, 2 February 1929 in Goudal,
Jetta, microfilmed clippings file, Herrick Library.
114 Sean P. Holmes

57. Unsourced clipping, 5 February 1929 in Goudal,

70. For a digest of the Academy contract, see Academ
Jetta, microfilmed clippings file, Herrick Library.
58. Unsourced clipping, 18 March 1929 in Goudal,
Jetta, microfilmed clippings file, Herrick Library.
59. Statement of Jetta Goudal before the Actors Adjust-
ment Committee, 26 June 1930, 'Goudal, Jetta vs.
MGM Case #58', Academy Collection, Concili-
ation Committee Files.
60. Decision of Actors' Branch Executive Committee, 8
August 1930, 'Goudal, Jetta vs. MGM Case #58',
Academy Collection, Conciliation Committee Files.
61. On Goudal's health problems, see unsourced clip-
72. Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences Bulle-
pings, 23 May 1930 and 21 June 1930 in Goudal,
Jetta, microfilmed clippings file, Herrick library.
62. 'Long Arm of Coincidence Replaces Goudal on
73. On the Actors' Equity Association in Hollywood, see
High', unsourced clipping, 21 June 1931 in
Goudal, Jetta, microfilmed clippings file, Herrick
Library.
63. Clark, Negotiating Hollywood, p. 20. For more on
the process of fragmentation, see Clark, Negotiating
Hollywood, pp. 18-23; Clark, 'Actors' Labor and
the Politics of Subjectivity', 85-90.
64. Brownlow, The Parade's Gone By, pp. 60-61.
65. On IATSE and the signing of the Studio Basic Agree-
ment, see Ross, Stars and Strikes, 13-18.
66. On the formation of the Academy of Motion Picture
Arts and Sciences, see Hugh Lovell and Tasile Car-
ter, Collective Bargaining in the Motion Picture In-
dustry (Berkeley, California: Institute of Industrial
Relations, 1955), p. 35; Ross, Stars and Strikes, p.
27; Harding, 'The Motion Pictures Need A Strong
Actors' Union', 286-287; Harding, The Revolt of the
Actors, p. 536.
67. On the pay-cut controversy, see Ross, Stars and
Strikes, p. 27; Perry and Perry, History of the Los
Angeles Labor Movement, pp. 338-339; Harding,
'The Motion Pictures Need A Strong Actors' Union',
287-88; Harding, The Revolt of the Actors, pp.
536-537.
of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences Bulletin, No. 6
(1 January 1928), p. 2, Academy Collection, Herrick
Library.
71. On employee representation schemes in the 1920s,
see Howell John Harris, 'Industrial Democracy and
Liberal Capitalism, 1890-1925' in Nelson Lichten-
stein and Howell John Harris, eds. Industrial Democ-
racy in America: The Ambiguous Promise
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp.
60-65; Lizabeth Cohen, Making A New Deal: Indus-
trial Workers in Chicago (New York and Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1990), pp. 171-1 73.
tin, No. 1, 1 June 1927, p. 1, Academy Collection,
Herrick Library.
Sean P. Holmes 'Organizing the Dream Factory: The
Actors' Equity Association in Hollywood,
1919-1929', unpublished paper.
74. Statistics relating to the activities of the Academy
Conciliation Committee are from 'The Academy and
the Actor', Academy of Motion Picture Arts and
Sciences Bulletin, No. 22, 9 July 1929, pp. 1-2,
Academy Collection, Herrick Library.
75. Actors Adjustment Committee to Winfield Sheehan,
Fox Film Corporation, 13 May 1933, Academy
Collection, Actors Adjustment Committee, File
'LaRoy, Rita vs. William Fox Company #209, 25
October 1932'.
76. Donald Gledhill, Executive Secretary of the Academy
of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences to B. F. Zeidman,
Universal Studio, 10 December 1934, Academy
Collection, Actors Adjustment Committee, File
'Hymer Warren vs. Universal Studio, 19 November
1934'.
77. On the founding of SAG and the demise of the
Academy, see David F. Prindle, The Politics of Glam-
our: Ideology and Democracy in the Screen Actors
Guild (Madison: University of Wisconsin, 1988), pp.
16-25.

68. For the full text of the resolution, see Academy of

78. Michael Nielsen, 'Towards A Workers' History of the
Motion Picture Arts and Sciences Bulletin, No. 3, 2US Film Industry', in Vincent Mosco and Janet
July 1927, Academy Collection, Herrick Library. Wasko, eds., The Critical Communications Review,
Volume 1, Labor, The Working Class, and the Media
69. See the letter from the film bosses to the Academy
(Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corp,
reproduced in Academy of Motion Picture Arts and
1983), pp. 47-83.
Sciences Bulletin, No. 3, 2 July 1927, Academy
Collection, Herrick Library. 79. Nielsen, 'Towards A Workers' History,' p. 48.

This content downloaded from

137.204.24.180 on Sun, 27 Sep 2020 18:05:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms