Week 8 - Human Capital: The Studio System

Question 1

Signifiance of the Havilland v. Warner Bros Case

Answer 1

-helped end the studio system
-studios no longer make human capital investments

Question 2

Briefly explain the Havilland v Warner Bros case

Answer 2

-Olivia de Havilland was an actress who signed a 7 year cobtract with Warner Bros
-Havilland got tired of being type cast as the sweetheart because these characters don’t win awards
-Warner suspened her for 6 months
-Warner Bros said contract was paused during suspension but Havilland said her contract expired

Question 3

Havilland v. Warner Bros case outcome

Answer 3

-court sided with Havilland and said that a contract is based on calendar time, not punch clock time

Question 4

What were contracts like before this case?

Answer 4

-contracts could be dragged on, preventing artists from signing with other studios

Question 5

What were contracts like after the case?

Answer 5

-actor could effectively strike
-gave actors more control and created cost problems for studios and human capital development

Question 6

What was human capital development like during the studio system?

Answer 6

-studios invested in actors and help get them training (lessons) and exposure
-was only effective if investment could be recouped over time (thus the longer contracts)

Question 7

early vs late in the contract

Answer 7

-early: studio pays salary, provides lessons, and exposure, actors contributed little to films
-late: studio pays a low salary and actor contribute a lot to films

Question 8

How did actors begin behaving after the case?

Answer 8

-began behaving more aggressivley
-as a result, studios stopped signing contracts where they invested in actors