United Artists

[Michael O'Regan]

Why did Chaplin, Pickford, Fairbanks and Griffith form UA? Was their dislike of the block-booking system the main reason?
Did the company fulfill their expectations?

[Frederica]

Why did Chaplin, Pickford, Fairbanks and Griffith form UA? Was their dislike of the block-booking system the main reason?
Did the company fulfill their expectations?

I can recommend Tino Balio's United Artists, Volume 1, 1919-1950: The Company Built by the Stars, and United Artists, Volume 2, 1951-1978: The Company That Changed the Film Industry. You can pick both up inexpensively on amazon.com, or you can hound your local library for them.

[Michael O'Regan]

Thanks, but I'm interested in what you guys think.

[drednm]

They wanted a bigger share of the profits. UA allowed them to produce and release their own and others' films. I assume that meant they avoided block booking.

UA was almost always under-funded in part because the "Big 4" really slowed down film production by the time UA was founded. Griffith may have been the most prolific of the 4. If I remember right Chaplin's The Gold Rush brought in more revenue than all the films of Griffith, Pickford, Fairbanks combined. In part this is because Pickford and Fairbanks slowed production once they had creative control. Griffith was in his "hit or miss" period.

William S. Hart was supposed to be an original member but (I believe) he balked and never joined.

After Joseph Schenck took over the reins, UA became more profitable and added (for a time) Norma Talmadge, Gloria Swanson, Buster Keaton, and Constance Talmadge to ensure a steady stream of "product."[/b]

[rudyfan]

UA was almost always under-funded in part because the "Big 4" really slowed down film production by the time UA was founded. Griffith may have been the most prolific of the 4. If I remember right Chaplin's The Gold Rush brought in more revenue than all the films of Griffith, Pickford, Fairbanks combined. In part this is because Pickford and Fairbanks slowed production once they had creative control. Griffith was in his "hit or miss" period.
[/b]

Excuse me, I might be wrong, but UA was formed in 1919, Chaplin was still under obligation to First National. The Gold Rush was Chaplin's first product for UA. Again, I might be mis-remembering this. Doug and Mary kept product coming well into 1925. They were not exactly sitting on the lot twidling their thumbs. I can't comment on box office, I'd rather check that against the books Fred recommended.

As for the original OP, it made better business sense for them to form UA, they had control of the films they made and the profits. Neither Doug, Mary or Chaplin wanted to be beholden to the moguls anymore. Griffith's business sense was as lousy as Valentino's. IMO

[Frederica]

William S. Hart was supposed to be an original member but (I believe) he balked and never joined.
[/b]

Adolph Zukor offered Hart a $200,000 per picture contract to keep him from joining UA. Hart decided to stay with Famous Players/Lasky rather than accept the risks involved in independent production.

[drednm]

Doug and Mary were down to a film a year at the time they started UA.... Chaplin was notioriously slow but his film was a bonanza.... I believe Griffith provided like 6-8 filmes in the same period.

[silentfilm]

One of UA's big mistakes was that they never had enough product. And other independent producers could not get as good of a distribution deal with them. Of course Chaplin, Fairbanks, and Pickford had sunk their money into the company, so they could run it the way that they wanted to do so. But when Pickford was out of films and Chaplin was making one every five years or so, the board of directors was very disfunctional.

Of course they had the right idea, and from the 1950s on UA was very successful.

[Chris Snowden]

Why did Chaplin, Pickford, Fairbanks and Griffith form UA? Was their dislike of the block-booking system the main reason?
Did the company fulfill their expectations?

There were credible rumors afoot in 1919 that Famous Players-Lasky was going to effect a merger with First National, essentially creating a monopoly that would result in the film artists having to work less independently and for less money once their current contracts expired. By forming their own company, they were able to avoid that. It was actually a very risky move at the time, as independence had usually spelled disaster for everyone who'd tried it up to that point.

[Michael O'Regan]

Ha...coincidence or what??!!
Shortly sfter posting the original post I turn on the TV to find TCM uk showing HEAVENS GATE.

[drednm]

And even though UA was a collection of independent producers, the company also gave loans to Griffith (I don't know about the rest) for many films, so box office revenues that came back to the company often paid off loans and were not profit.

Griffith had his Mamaroneck studio around this time, which was finished off by America. I believe Griffith's first films for UA was Broken Blossoms which was produced by Paramount but distributed by UA.

Interesting that Mary Pickford was listed as Gladys Mary Moore in the papers of incorporation.

[Gumlegs]

Excuse me, I might be wrong, but UA was formed in 1919, Chaplin was still under obligation to First National. The Gold Rush was Chaplin's first product for UA. Again, I might be mis-remembering this. Doug and Mary kept product coming well into 1925. They were not exactly sitting on the lot twidling their thumbs. I can't comment on box office, I'd rather check that against the books Fred recommended.

As for the original OP, it made better business sense for them to form UA, they had control of the films they made and the profits. Neither Doug, Mary or Chaplin wanted to be beholden to the moguls anymore. Griffith's business sense was as lousy as Valentino's. IMO

Actually, Chaplin's first product for UA was "A Woman of Paris," which left his partners rather less than satsified.

I seem to recall reading that UA originated in something of a bluff in an attempt to get better deals from the studios, although Theodore Huff traces it to a remark made during one of the Liberty Bond tours. There's no reason both can't be true.

In his autobiography, Chaplin says it was at least partially self-defensive because there were rumors that First National and Paramount were planning a merger. UA was to have made the studios merger pointless because their biggest stars were all leaving. Chaplin was also unhappy with what he thought was First National's penny-wise and pound-foolish dealings with him.

Scott Eyeman's bio of Pickford, tracks fairly well with this.

[Frederica]

I seem to recall reading that UA originated in something of a bluff in an attempt to get better deals from the studios, although Theodore Huff traces it to a remark made during one of the Liberty Bond tours. There's no reason both can't be true.

Not to keep flogging this moribund horse, but UA turned all their corporate paperwork up until 1951 to the University of Wisconsin at Madison. Tino Balio was the head of the Wisconsin Center for Theater Research, and he based his histories of UA on that primary source material and interviews he did with UA officers, their corporate counsel, and Chaplin himself. In addition, his book has appendixes containing release dates for UA films, corporation producers, corporation income history, dividend payments, and an inventory of the collection.