Cinema Is Becoming a Monopoly (Again)
Every film buff can point to moments that changed cinema forever: the magical transition to Technicolor in The Wizard of Oz, the directorial freedom of Easy Rider, the landmark trial of Paramount vs. United States. The latter transformed the way we watch films forever.
In 1948, the Supreme Court ruled that large studios could no longer own their own cinemas. The big six – Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM), RKO, 20th Century Fox, Warner Bros., and, of course, Paramount Pictures – went to war with the U.S. justice system over their theatres. Since the 1880s, picture houses had been owned by production companies through a process called “block booking,” where independent cinema houses signed contracts with studios to exclusively show their films.
After persistent legal battles, the case eventually reached the Supreme Court, which ruled that the practices of motion picture companies violated the Sherman Antitrust Act. The court deemed block booking and the ownership of theatres by movie producers to constitute a monopoly.
This landmark decision forever altered the industry landscapes of both film production and exhibition. Instead of being tied to exclusive contracts, production companies increasingly turned to freelance hires and short-term agreements with filmmakers to alleviate financial burdens and fund their projects. This shift fostered greater artistic freedom, allowing independent studio films to finally grace cinema screens, and making skilled personnel more accessible.
This pivotal ruling marked the beginning of a new era in cinema, becoming the first domino of the New Wave. This paved the way for visionary directors like Stanley Kubrick, Martin Scorsese and Steven Spielberg, to emerge and thrive.
And it’s still relevant nearly eight decades later…
In 2022, Jeff Bezos and Amazon purchased MGM for $8.5billion. The iconic opening of the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Lion that roared before Gone with the Wind and James Bond now has a cruel stamp under the logo: “AN AMAZON COMPANY.” How has the once mighty fallen so far? Why is there less and less money in your account each month?
We all spend pools of money each month on streaming services like Amazon Prime, Netflix, Hulu, Max, Paramount Plus, Disney Plus, and even Sky. Every company is producing movies with your favourite actors, and the only way to watch them is by paying $6.99 per month for the rest of your life. After the death of Blockbuster, if you don’t have WiFi and some surplus cash you’ll be avoiding spoilers for a year.
Some people may recall Netflix’s humble beginnings as a DVD delivery service, renting discs to customers via mail. This changed in 2007 when Netflix transformed its platform, recognizing the potential of streaming as improvements in internet speeds eliminated the hassle of postage. For the first few years, Netflix was relatively quiet, operating alongside services like LoveFilm and maintaining its DVD rental-by-mail business.
Then, in 2013, everything changed with the birth of the “Netflix Original.” When ‘House of Cards’ first aired, everyone scrambled to fork over £6 per month just to watch a modern take on ‘The West Wing’ and have something to talk about at the water cooler on Monday. This breakthrough tripled Netflix’s stock, and subscribers surged from 24 million to 57 million practically overnight.
In the world of film, this didn’t go unnoticed. The sleeping fat cats at the big studios saw a new kid on the block and wanted a piece of the action. Disney dropped their Star Wars action figures, Paramount stopped making blu-rays, and Universal took time out of building rollercoasters. This was it; this was how they’d get back at the people that had robbed them of their monopoly all those years ago…
In the 2020s, streaming services are engulfing cinemas, and every streaming service has an “original” flagship show: ‘Stranger Things’, ‘The Bear’, ‘Ted Lasso’, ‘Yellowstone’. The list is endless – all these shows have exclusive rights to be distributed by their original parent companies. What we’re looking at now is the beginning of a new monopoly on the film and television industries, and it’s so convenient for them that seemingly no one is paying attention.
Although films are still being shown in cinemas, several big titles are frighteningly slipping through the cracks each year. A great example of this is Road House, starring Jake Gyllenhaal and Conor McGregor, and directed by proven Hollywood name Doug Liman. To Liman’s horror, the film went straight to streaming services before even touching a cinema screen, leading him to boycott the movie completely. He stated:
“I signed up to make a theatrical motion picture for MGM. Amazon bought MGM. Amazon said: make a great film and we will see what happens. I made a great film. We made Roadhouse a “smash hit” – Amazon’s words, not mine, by the way.”
This kind of attitude towards blockbuster films has been more cavalier post-COVID after it was discovered how much money there was to be made. In 2021, subscriptions soared to 1.1 billion, rising by 27%. Films like Glass Onion, The Green Knight and Soul, that could have been huge cinema events, were victims of this early descent into direct-to-streaming releases.
Large production companies are using these vast assets to attract new customers, slowly beginning the process of having more and more premieres within living rooms around the globe, undermining everything the 1948 decree originally stood for. It was the big man vs. the little man; after the trial, independent cinema blossomed, finally being shown in theatres across the globe, leading to artistic innovation within cinema from Kenneth Anger to Dennis Hopper.
The 1948 decree was a landmark effort to combat the monopolization of corporate power in cinema exhibition, championing the cause of public interest and promoting economic equality. This era has ended. Even films once considered independent are now being absorbed by major production companies. A24, a favourite among film enthusiasts, exemplifies this trend. Scripts that were once celebrated for their obscurity and uniqueness are now being polished and marketed under the guise of independent films, although they are backed by an emerging industry giant.
While independent cinema is not dying, it certainly isn’t thriving. In 2024, the most successful “independent” films were distributed directly to streaming platforms, with Beverly Hills Cop: Axel F streaming straight to Netflix. Such films rarely receive global theatrical releases; instead, they are often sold to Netflix or Amazon, where they rapidly fade into obscurity, appealing only to a niche audience. This trend makes it nearly impossible for indie movies to break into mainstream circles. If Napoleon Dynamite, one of the most profitable independent hits of all time, was made today, you’d be scrolling past it without a thought tomorrow.
Other industry giants are stifling independent cinema in a more subtle manner. Marvel, for instance, famously handpicks successful filmmakers from the independent festival circuit and thrusts them into large, formulaic Hollywood roles. This prioritization of blockbuster formulas over innovative storytelling diminishes film quality. Cate Shortland, a renowned short filmmaker praised for her unique and innovative movies, ended randomly regurgitating the 2021 film Black Widow, which exemplifies how independent filmmakers, once known for their fresh perspectives, are now being instructed by industry moguls to adhere to proven formulas.
The monopolization of the film industry has far-reaching consequences for consumers. When giant corporations control our viewing options, ticket prices and streaming subscription fees rise, making entertainment more expensive. For consumers, this monopolization means fewer choices and higher costs. It limits access to the unique, thought-provoking films that independent cinema is known for, driving a homogenization of content. To truly support diverse and high-quality filmmaking, it is crucial to be aware of these industry dynamics and advocate for a more equitable distribution of cinematic power.
Much like the block booking of the past, exclusive content today locks viewers into specific platforms and companies. This digital stranglehold mirrors the dominance of “The Big Five” from years ago, threatening to stifle the creativity and uniqueness that once flourished in cinema. As audiences, we are being deprived of innovation and originality, with every script following a well-worn path to fit a narrow mainstream niche.
We must remain vigilant, supporting independent cinema and advocating for a diverse and competitive film industry. The battle for creative freedom and diversity in cinema is far from over, and recognizing streaming services as the new monopolies is the first step in continuing that fight.
Recommended for you: Netflix’s Business Model Doesn’t Allow for Long-Term Success
Written by Jamie Williams
You can support Jamie Williams via LinkedIn.
