King Vidor about why he wanted to make The Big Parade (1925):
One day I had a talk with Irving Thalberg and told him I was weary of making ephemeral films. They came to town, played a week or so, then went their way to comparative obscurity or complete oblivion. I pointed out that only half the American population went to movies and not more than half of these saw any one film because their runs endd so quickly. If I were to work on something that I felt had a chance at long runs throughout the country or the world, I would put much more effort, and love, into its creation.
David Thomson says of these words:
Notice that money and art are not mentioned. The focus is upon the masses, the mind of the people, in the way of politics or religion. Notice, too, the way Thalberg seems to be in the habit of making time to listen to Vidor, to encourage him, just as he was prepared to let the budget go higher to get a single, poetic effect.
David Thomson, The Whole Equation (2005), p. 166.
I'm not qualified to question Thomson's analysis, but it seems that these early Hollywood types were interested in art, as evidenced by Thalberg's willingness to "let the budget go higher to get a single, poetic effect." There's also the example of Erich von Stroheim's 1925 Greed, a film over eight hours long (and meant to be viewed in one sitting; M-G-M slashed it to two hours).
The early "moguls" (a self-styled term, which is odd since the moguls were Jewish and "mogul" refers to absolute Muslim rulers) were primarily interested in money. There's no doubt about it. But that didn't mean they ignored morality (as evidenced the Production Code) or art. They also wanted to impress the masses "in the way of politics or religion."
Hollywood is still interested in money and in influencing the masses (in decidedly unhealthy ways). It's too bad the morality and art have been largely abandoned.
