“Bring Hollywood Home!” Studio labour, internationalism, and runaway production, 1998-2005
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the late 1990s, Hollywood has experienced an exodus of film production to other parts of the United States and Canada. In response, studio employees have turned to a variety of strategies including campaigning for state and federal subsidies to encourage shooting in the US, demanding that the World Trade Organisation introduce punitive countervailing tariffs on Canadian produced films, and to forming closer ties with Canadian (and European) unions. This paper critically examines labour’s response within the broader framework of film production’s global dispersal. \n \nAt the heart of Hollywood’s anti-runaway movement is a complex and contradictory interweaving of a rank-and-file radicalism (which rejected ‘corporate welfare’), working-class chauvinism, and international official union acceptance of many of the premises of free trade and globalisation. The search for US-Canadian cross-border solutions emerged out of pragmatic rather than principled internationalism: the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE) has members in Canada and the US, while the US Screen Actors Guild (SAG) has close ties with its Canadian counterpart, the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists (ACTRA). In 2002 ACTRA supported SAG’s Global Rule One campaign despite implications for its own jurisdiction. \n \nThe conflict between the major studios and labour has not been resolved but key elements in the process can already be discerned. \n \nThe sources for this study are: the trade press, especially Hollywood Reporter and Variety; Hollywood local union and US and Canadian national union publications; interviews with Los Angeles studio workers; and federal government and California state publications.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".