I’ve been watching a number of very good movies lately: The Last Recipe (2017), Suzume (2022), and Still Life (2013). None of those three are from traditional Hollywood.

It seems Hollywood isn’t as creative as it used to be. What some call the “Golden Age of Hollywood,” spanning from the late 1920s to the early 1960s, is remembered for its creative vigor and innovation. This was a period characterized by high production quality, immense creativity, and the creation of many of the industry’s classic films. This translated to massive growth and a clear dominance on the world’s cultural stage.

However, as the Hollywood system grew and became more commercialized, economic pressures started to significantly influence the nature of film production. Beginning in the 1980s, film production companies became part of larger corporate entities. These corporations were more focused on generating profit than on nurturing creativity, leading to a shift in the type of films produced. Increasingly, the focus turned towards surefire blockbusters and films that could generate substantial merchandising and product tie-ins.

As these economic pressures mounted, many filmmakers and artists felt that creativity was being stifled. The emphasis was placed on financial success rather than artistic merit, leading to a proliferation of sequels, remakes, and adaptations of successful properties. The growing focus on international box office potential also led to a decrease in films dealing with culturally specific or challenging topics, as these were seen as less likely to appeal to a broad global audience.

Although we still see creativity through independent films and streaming platforms, the blockbuster franchises and tentpole movies in traditional Hollywood production are likely to lose ground to non-traditional content producers who can generate good business by addressing specific niches. Technology will enable high quality productions on low budgets.

The connection between economic pressure and productivity is nothing new, though. Artists through the ages have had to face this problem.

A poignant example of an artist feeling pressure to prioritize income over creativity is Vincent Van Gogh (1853-1890). Despite being one of the most famous painters in history, Van Gogh’s talent was largely unappreciated during his lifetime, and he struggled with financial hardship, mental illness, and a lack of commercial success.

Van Gogh’s brother, Theo, provided him with financial support, allowing him to pursue his artistic endeavors. But the constant worry of being a financial burden to his brother, combined with the pressure to sell his works, often led Van Gogh to compromise on his artistic vision.

In a letter to his brother Theo, Van Gogh once expressed his dilemma:

“I am always doing what I can’t do yet in order to learn how to do it.”

Vincent Van Gogh

This sentiment reflects Van Gogh’s struggle to balance the pressure to produce commercially successful art with his desire to push the boundaries of his craft.

Despite the commercial pressures, Van Gogh never truly succumbed to them. He continued to push the boundaries of his craft, leading to the creation of some of the most iconic artworks in history, such as “The Starry Night” and “Sunflowers.” However, the lack of recognition and financial success during his lifetime led to a life marked by hardship, and he died largely unrecognized.

In retrospect, Van Gogh’s story illustrates the potential stifling impact of economic pressures on creative freedom. However, it also serves as a powerful testament to the enduring power of artistic integrity and the pursuit of one’s unique creative vision, even in the face of significant adversity.

T.S. Eliot (1888-1965) is another notable example of an artist who experienced economic pressures that initially constrained his creativity. Eliot, one of the 20th century’s major poets, is best known for works like the poem “The Waste Land” and the novel “Murder in the Cathedral“. He was not always able to dedicate his full attention to his craft, primarily due to economic concerns.

Eliot was born in the United States but moved to England in 1914. At the time, he worked in various roles, including as a teacher and a bank clerk at Lloyds Bank in London, a role he held for nearly a decade. While these jobs provided him with the financial stability he needed, they also limited the time he had to write.

During this period, Eliot’s health suffered due to overwork, which also impacted his creativity. His situation began to change in 1922, primarily due to the intervention of his friends and patrons. The Dial, a literary magazine, awarded him the inaugural Dial Award along with a handsome monetary prize, recognizing his contribution to literature. This recognition helped bolster Eliot’s standing in the literary world.

In 1925, Eliot was offered a position at the publishing firm Faber and Gwyer (later Faber and Faber). This position was facilitated by Geoffrey Faber, one of the firm’s directors and an admirer of Eliot’s work. This role provided Eliot with a more stable income and a work environment that was more conducive to his writing.

Another significant patron and friend was Virginia Woolf, who had her own publishing house, Hogarth Press. Woolf published Eliot’s works, including “The Waste Land,” providing him with both financial support and artistic freedom.

Finally, the Russell family, particularly Bertrand Russell and his wife, were close friends and patrons who provided both financial and emotional support.

Thanks to this combination of patronage and a more creatively fulfilling work environment, Eliot was able to shift his focus more towards his poetry and literary criticism, leading to some of his most prolific and influential periods. His situation demonstrates the significant impact that economic pressures can have on an artist’s creativity and the importance of support networks in helping artists overcome these challenges.

(Calamba, 230805)