1995/03/01 by H. Mark Glancy · 42 citations
Economics, Econometrics and Finance · Arts and Humanities · Social Sciences · #Cinema and Media Studies #Art History and Market Analysis #European history and politics #Ledger #Studio #Hollywood #Art #Sociology #Art history #History #Visual arts #Business #Accounting
paper · doi:10.1080/01439689500260031
published in Historical Journal Of Film Radio and Television 15(1), 55-73 (Routledge)
openalex publication_date 1995/03/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/29
Conclusion The three studio ledgers that have been uncovered so far have confirmed many facts about the studio system and challenged many others. The figures certainly will be useful to film historians investigating particular films, stars or genres. The ledgers also point to areas that are in need of further research. Most notably, the high level of foreign earnings that each of these studios received and relied upon necessitates further understanding of Hollywood's relationship with its foreign audiences; and, as Jewell has noted, there is little to explain the fact that foreign earnings held up (and even increased) during World War II [23]. Furthermore, the fact that three ledgers have emerged in the past three years begs the question of how many more exist. Comparison of the MGM, RKO and Warner Bros data indicates that MGM was a particularly lavish and successful studio, but Warner Bros at times challenged MGM's pre-eminence, and for much of its history RKO seems to be in a different league altogether. Ledgers detailing other members of the ‘big five’ group of studios would clarify this, but an even greater perspective would be garnered from ledgers concerning the “little three” and the “poverty row” studios. One can only hope that they exist, and that they are made accessible to historians.