The movie enterprise saw huge growth through the prosperous years of the 1920’s, with all phases of production, distribution and exhibition expanding rapidly. This success occurred due to movie going becoming the most popular form of entertainment, not only in America, but also in the entire world. Hollywood in the classical era had another boom on top of its recent success of the early 1920’s, due to the introduction of sound in 1927-8 (known as the “talkie boom”). This boom was so strong that the industry stated itself to be “Depression proof”. This statement would seem evidential as the industry’s best ever year through the classical era occurred in 1930. However, this thriving industry was to acknowledge the effect of the Depression later on in the 1930’s.

As one can see, the film enterprise had the potential to create a lot of revenue. Business personnel would have realised this in the early 1920’s, and it was due to this basis that the emergence of the Hollywood studio systems were formulated. The main beneficial factor for the Hollywood studio systems was that it created a “mature oligopoly”. This meant that each studio could manage maximum profits (assuming that the market was still available), as not only did they produce the films, but they also would exhibit films themselves, excluding the phase of importation from a distributor (however, the big studios would export their films to the smaller studios).

As this “mature oligopoly” came into existence, it was important that each studio differentiated itself from another, thus creating a “brand identity”. Genre and contracted stars held the key to this “brand identity”, with paramount opting for comedies and westerns, and contracting such stars as Bing Cosby and the Marx Brothers, whereas Warner Bros. opted for musicals, swashbucklers and gangster films, contracting such stars as Errol Flynn and James Cagney. From a business perspective, the brand identity created a low-levelled competitive market. Although there were some crossovers in genres between studios, (for example Fox and Paramount both producing westerns), each genre appealed to a different spectrum of the market.

In my own opinion MGM appears to be the most exciting studio, as their outputs consist of “quality” dramas and musicals. The high budget allowances, along with the long list of contracted mega stars able to appear in them allowed Louis B. Mayer (head producer) to manufacture such high key and important films as “The Wizard of Oz”, costing $2.77million to produce. It seemed that MGM led the way in film technicalities and class, with their slogan “all the stars in the heavens” showing how powerful the MGM studio was. Offering viewers escapism with all these “godly like” characters must have been rather appealing to the dilapidated American citizens who had just lived through the Depression. It is easy to tell that MGM’s “brand identity” was one of flair, elegance and sophistication.

Star genre formula was an important equation for any studio to be right. Often a studio would put the same actors together in films, as it was considered that the relation between certain actors would lead to a successful film. This tactic can still be seen in modern cinema with actors such as Paul Rudd, Steve Carell and Will Ferrell being put in numerous films together, as their comical acting skills and on screen relationship between one another works fantastically, thus creates a successful motion picture (examples being “The Anchorman” and “40 Year Old Virgin”). Judy Garland and Mickey Rooney where put in musicals together, such as “Wizard of Oz” (1939) and “Babes in Arms” (1939), and although “Wizard of Oz” working to a $1million loss, the two actors where still praised for their performance, and the studio for the sophistication of the film. Both Garland’s and Rooney’s acting skills where rewarded thanks to the financial success in the lower budgeted film “Babes in Arms” grossing at more than $3million, yet only costing $750,000 to produce.

The children actors of the classical era where very popular. The young girls especially where used to portray the simplicity and homely virtues rewarded in America at the time. Judy Garland was signed at the age of thirteen, however did not get her first real big break until she was seventeen, in “Wizard of Oz”. She was hired by MGM for her innocence and precocious singing voice. Although MGM found it hard to typecast her blend of innocence and mature, touchy singing voice, she offered a great deal of purity and respect; something which at the time was part of the “brand identity”, especially within the musical genre. She was paired successfully with Mickey Rooney, often into roles of the commentator through song. Her performance in the film “Wizard of Oz” however led to her gaining numerous leading romantic roles. Now an adult, she had now come of age, yet personal problems of drink and drug use where to hold her back. In a contract spanning fifteen years she made nearly thirty films for MGM, including, “Strike up the brand” (1940), “For me and my girl” (1942) and (Meet me in St. Louis’ (1944) is only mentioning a few.

David O. Selznick brought Mickey Rooney to MGM in 1933. The multitalented youngster, like Judy Garland, brought innocence and purity to the studio, emphasising on the studio’s “brand identity”. The star embodied the young American, and was to act as a role model, very much like Judy Garland. It was becoming apparent that the industry had a huge influence in social structures. Therefore, it was important to stay compliant with moral advisors, so not only was censorship an important factor, but the “brand identity” of the studio had to be morally acceptable.

The stars epitomize the “brand identity”, and appear to be the face for the studios, yet Leo Rosten noted in his landmark study in (1941).

‘Each studio has a personality; each studios product shows special emphasis and values. In addition, in the final analysis, the sum total of studio’s personality, the aggregate pattern of its choices and its tastes may be traced to its producers’

Although the actors were the face of the studio, I think it is fair to say that the producers were the brains of the studio. Louis B. Mayer, being the head producer of MGM, had the final say on how the studio was to portray itself. He would also give the go ahead to whether a film should be made. He would also have a final say in which actors were to appear in the films he produced. In addition, he had the power to veto the director on a decision (something that was to fade towards the end of the classical era, especially with the increased interest in auteur theory).

Another important character in the world of MGM was Arthur Freed. He was originally a lyricist for MGM, but sort after to become a director. Freed was the catalyst that influenced Louis B. Mayer to hire Judy Garland (being the man who discovered her precocious voice). This move credits Freed, as she was a big part of MGM, bringing a great deal of success and decorum to the MGM studios. MGM Freed unit musicals, was the department for the musicals in MGM, directed by Arthur Freed. If one was to look at the morals behind the musicals from this unit in MGM, it would be fair to say that they where highly righteous. This certainly ties in with the “brand identity” and the era for which its target audience was set. This would suggest that just like Louis B. Mayer, Arthur Freed also was a driving force in the development of the studios “brand identity”.

The term “brand identity” shows how the industry behaved like modern business enterprises. By organising the studios into departments, run by a professional manager, where the efficiency of filmmaking was greatly increased. The “brand identity” allowed the studios to select a certain target audience; in the case of MGM, it would have been a family audience, as the genres musicals and dramas would cover all age’s appetites.

The drive for a “brand identity” was highly motivated by the market at that time. The cinema was seen as a way of escaping the realities of life, thus the popularity in such genres as gangster films, musicals and comedies. MGM stands out for me, as they thrived for perfection and prominence within the industry, churning out films of immense quality for the time. Although the market shaped the “brand identity”, it was the producers, stars and directors which made the “brand identity” how it was. Judy Garland at MGM, created the epitome of how a young lady should be: righteous and caring. Arthur Freed at MGM, who did discover Judy Garland, would have also been responsible for portraying the morals that MGM’s “brand identity” represented. Ultimately, the head producer, Louis B. Mayer, would have been the key instigator into creating the “brand identity”. The power entwined into his decisions was a prevailing influence into how MGM would be perceived by the market.