It’s often said that studio executives can make or break a movie, and during the late 1960s and early 1970s at Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM), James Aubrey was a figure who seemed to revel in the latter. While some might look back at films from that era with nostalgia, those working behind the scenes, like the author of the original blog post, remember a different reality, one where studio interference and executive whims could determine a film’s fate. Among the many projects touched by Aubrey’s controversial leadership, “Cat Dancing” offers a particularly insightful, if unsettling, glimpse into his methods.
Aubrey’s MGM Reign: More Misses Than Hits?
The original post paints a picture of Aubrey as a disruptive force, someone who actively seemed to undermine the creative process. The author, reflecting on their time at MGM, suggests that Aubrey era was marked by films either “ruined by his tampering or bad to begin with because he purposely green-lighted bad scripts.” This wasn’t a case of simple mismanagement; it appeared to be a deliberate strategy. Projects with potential, like Fred Zinnemann’s “Man’s Fate,” were abruptly shelved, ostensibly for cost reasons, but perhaps, as the author implies, due to their very promise of success. This atmosphere of sabotage and questionable decision-making hung heavy over the studio.
“Cat Dancing”: A Film Shipped “As Is” – and Why That Mattered
The anecdote surrounding “Cat Dancing” is particularly telling. Director Dick Sarafian was even barred from the MGM lot, a clear sign of the hostile environment. Aubrey’s approach to “Cat Dancing” wasn’t about constructive criticism or improving the film. Instead, it was about ensuring failure. His infamous tactic of asking if reels had been removed – a literal form of cinematic sabotage – highlights a disturbing level of interference. In the case of “Cat Dancing,” no reel was removed, but Aubrey’s dismissive reaction, declaring to “ship the piece of s— just as is,” speaks volumes. He seemed indifferent to quality, content to release a film he clearly had no faith in. This wasn’t about artistic vision; it was about control and perhaps a cynical view of the audience.
“Ryan’s Daughter”: The Exception or a Missed Opportunity?
Interestingly, the author contrasts “Cat Dancing” with David Lean’s “Ryan’s Daughter.” This epic film, despite its flaws, was left untouched by Aubrey. The post suggests this wasn’t out of artistic respect but rather a calculated gamble. Aubrey, perhaps sensing “Ryan’s Daughter” would “bomb” regardless of his intervention, simply let it be. While Lean’s stature as a director likely offered some protection, the underlying sentiment is that Aubrey’s decisions were driven by a negative, almost destructive, impulse rather than a desire to nurture good filmmaking. Even though “Ryan’s Daughter” boasted stunning visuals, captured with innovative techniques like the “clear screen” for wave photography, and starred established actors, internal reactions, as revealed by a color timer’s blunt assessment, were far from positive.
Legacy of an Era: Lessons from “Cat Dancing” and Beyond
The experiences recounted in the original post offer a stark reminder of the power dynamics within the Hollywood studio system. James Aubrey’s tenure at MGM, as depicted, was an era where creative vision often took a backseat to executive control and, at times, outright sabotage. “Cat Dancing,” in this context, becomes more than just a movie title; it’s a symbol of a studio environment where films could be dismissed and shipped out with indifference. While “Ryan’s Daughter” might represent a different scenario, even its untouched status seems to stem from a similar lack of faith rather than genuine appreciation. These anecdotes provide valuable insights into a turbulent period in Hollywood history and the lasting impact of executive decisions on the art of filmmaking.
