Editor’s Note: This is a guest commentary. The opinions do not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial board.
I often notice an unease in the eyes of many film students whenever our lives after graduation are brought up — an unease I’m sure can also be seen in my own eyes. While the nation’s current challenges of inflation, unaffordable housing and crushing debt remain unsolved, pursuing a career in the film industry is the riskiest it has ever been for people who don’t come from affluent backgrounds. It’s much easier to wait for new opportunities in cinema when you aren’t relying on them to eke out a living. Stable, rewarding careers in the movie business aren’t a guarantee for people who come from wealth, either. Ultimately, filmmaking is a considerably volatile field.
However, we shouldn’t be too hasty in accepting this fact as immutable. Compared to other art forms, cinema is just a baby — not even two hundred years old. It still has some growing up to do, and those who love the art of cinema must always want better for those who want nothing more than to be a part of it.
That is not to say that thousands haven’t already been working toward this goal. It would have been difficult not to hear about the months-long “Hollywood double strike” that dealt a $5 billion dollar blow to the United States entertainment industry. While the Writers Guild of America and the Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists had most of their demands met, it is concerning how long it took to get to that point.
The 2023 strikes were a step forward, but the U.S. film industry is still far from its ideal state. For a country as massive as the U.S., the distribution of its cinematic infrastructure is disproportionately concentrated on the West Coast. Now the home of 6.5 million square feet of sound stages, scores of post-production facilities and dozens of production companies, it is easy to understand why Los Angeles is the dream destination for many industry hopefuls. In reality, many of its characteristics are more akin to a nightmare: high cost of living, a competitive housing market and dwindling job opportunities in entertainment.
Enduring the challenges of LA should not be the only option for studio work. Studio production has been increasing in states like Colorado, Georgia, New Mexico and New York because of competitive tax credits. Further investments in these alternative cinema hubs would do wonders for film career accessibility outside of the West Coast. In order to truly better the working conditions of the entertainment labor force, these investments must be made in tandem with other changes in business practices. Reducing the use of runaway production and implementing even more regulations on artificial intelligence would be a good start.
Film schools should also do their part in making the industry more accessible. The Roy H. Park School of Communications markets its cinema program as ample preparation for a career in the industry, but whether it delivers on this promise seems inconsistent between students and alumni. The equipment required for filmmaking is often expensive, and wealthier students who had access to it before arriving at college are often miles ahead in terms of knowledge and experience compared to others. Unfortunately, the current style of instruction does not always shorten this gap. As other Park students have pointed out, a focus on film history and theory certainly has its merits, but the curriculum also needs more emphasis on technical, hands-on learning. Park must also do more to ensure that as many students as possible have access to internships. As of now, internships are only really guaranteed to those involved with the Ithaca College LA program, a program that only admits 75 students per semester. Internship advising being available to all students could drastically improve their postgraduate career prospects and should be considered.
Ultimately, most of the film industry’s problems come down to a detrimental hyper-focus on maximizing profit margins. The profitability of studio projects is an absolutely vital consideration, given how expensive it can be to make digital media. However, questions of profits are too often more about lining the pockets of the Hollywood elite than maintaining sustainable business practices. It is an injustice to pay industry leaders and A-listers salaries in the millions while those whom they rely on worry about falling below the poverty line. Ultimately, it is the audience that pays for the film industry, which also means they have the most power to affect it through their consumption. It is in consumers’ best interest for the movie and television business to be the best it can be so that there can always be more exceptional art to be created.
