WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.980 So picture this scenario, because I think it's 00:00:03.980 --> 00:00:06.099 something almost every single person listening 00:00:06.099 --> 00:00:08.960 to this right now has experienced at least once 00:00:08.960 --> 00:00:11.640 in their professional lives. Oh, absolutely. 00:00:11.699 --> 00:00:13.220 You're sitting at your desk. You've been doing 00:00:13.220 --> 00:00:16.559 the exact same job day in and day out, pouring 00:00:16.559 --> 00:00:19.539 your absolute sweat into your work. Right. And 00:00:19.539 --> 00:00:21.839 you finally decide, you know what? Today is the 00:00:21.839 --> 00:00:24.239 day. The day you finally ask for it. Right. You 00:00:24.239 --> 00:00:26.219 work up the courage to walk into your boss's 00:00:26.219 --> 00:00:27.980 office. You've rehearsed the whole speech in 00:00:27.980 --> 00:00:29.800 the mirror. You're going to ask for a raise. 00:00:29.920 --> 00:00:34.299 Oh, man, the universally terrifying human experience. 00:00:34.960 --> 00:00:38.920 I mean, the sweaty palms, the racing heart, the 00:00:38.920 --> 00:00:41.439 mental gymnastics of just lining up all your 00:00:41.439 --> 00:00:43.619 bullet points about exactly why you deserve that 00:00:43.619 --> 00:00:45.799 extra money. Exactly. And the quiet mental math, 00:00:45.979 --> 00:00:47.939 too, of figuring out your fallback plan if it 00:00:47.939 --> 00:00:50.460 just doesn't go well. Right, which it sometimes 00:00:50.460 --> 00:00:52.439 doesn't. Yeah. So you walk in, you make your 00:00:52.439 --> 00:00:55.759 pitch, and it just completely backfires. like 00:00:55.759 --> 00:00:57.820 spectacularly. Oh, no. Not only do you not get 00:00:57.820 --> 00:01:00.520 the raise, but the conversation just spirals 00:01:00.520 --> 00:01:02.460 so far out of control that you actually end up 00:01:02.460 --> 00:01:05.219 getting fired. Wow. Just right there on the spot. 00:01:05.280 --> 00:01:07.379 Just right out on the street. Everything you 00:01:07.379 --> 00:01:10.269 planned your entire life trajectory. instantly 00:01:10.269 --> 00:01:12.310 gone. I mean, that is the absolute nightmare 00:01:12.310 --> 00:01:15.769 outcome. It's the specific fear that paralyzes 00:01:15.769 --> 00:01:18.549 people. It keeps them from ever asking for what 00:01:18.549 --> 00:01:20.250 they're actually worth in the first place. Totally. 00:01:20.590 --> 00:01:22.689 And you would think a nightmare scenario like 00:01:22.689 --> 00:01:25.709 that would be the setup for, I don't know, a 00:01:25.709 --> 00:01:27.849 gripping modern psychological thriller. Yeah, 00:01:27.930 --> 00:01:30.450 or a really tense drama. But we are looking at 00:01:30.450 --> 00:01:33.409 a stack of sources today for this deep dive that 00:01:33.409 --> 00:01:37.239 show this was the exact premise. for a Hollywood 00:01:37.239 --> 00:01:40.579 film from all the way back in 1935. Which is 00:01:40.579 --> 00:01:43.280 wild. And it was billed as a comedy. of all things. 00:01:43.359 --> 00:01:46.859 It was called $10 Raise, or depending on what 00:01:46.859 --> 00:01:48.659 theater you walked into, it was sometimes billed 00:01:48.659 --> 00:01:51.819 as Mr. Feinhart, or $10 Raise within number 10. 00:01:51.980 --> 00:01:54.980 Just a nearly forgotten artifact of 1930s cinema. 00:01:55.120 --> 00:01:57.540 Yeah, and our mission today is to really look 00:01:57.540 --> 00:02:00.540 at the anatomy of this specific movie, because 00:02:00.540 --> 00:02:02.260 we've got the background of the film. We've got 00:02:02.260 --> 00:02:06.459 a genuinely brutal 1935 review from Variety Magazine. 00:02:06.599 --> 00:02:09.539 Oh, it is so mean. It really is. And, you know, 00:02:09.580 --> 00:02:11.599 we have the historical record of what actually 00:02:11.599 --> 00:02:14.349 happened. we really want to understand what happens 00:02:14.349 --> 00:02:17.270 when a movie entirely flops. Right, the aftermath. 00:02:17.889 --> 00:02:20.830 Exactly, and more importantly, what it teaches 00:02:20.830 --> 00:02:23.789 you about career resilience. Because the aftermath 00:02:23.789 --> 00:02:26.849 of this film is just mind -blowing. It really 00:02:26.849 --> 00:02:29.150 is a crazy story. So, okay, let's unpack this. 00:02:29.289 --> 00:02:30.789 Where exactly are we starting with this one? 00:02:30.919 --> 00:02:33.580 Well, we are starting right in the belly of the 00:02:33.580 --> 00:02:36.639 Hollywood studio system. So the film was released 00:02:36.639 --> 00:02:40.120 by Fox Film Corporation. OK, big studio. Huge. 00:02:40.699 --> 00:02:44.860 And the exact release date is May 4, 1935. Got 00:02:44.860 --> 00:02:47.620 it. It was directed by a man named George Marshall, 00:02:48.340 --> 00:02:50.979 who, well, he becomes the central figure in our 00:02:50.979 --> 00:02:53.319 story a bit later on. Right. Keep him in mind. 00:02:53.539 --> 00:02:55.759 And it starred a very well -known character actor 00:02:55.759 --> 00:02:58.460 of the era named Edward Everett Horton. And Horton 00:02:58.460 --> 00:03:01.669 plays our are extremely unlucky protagonists. 00:03:01.870 --> 00:03:03.849 Yeah, and Fox Film Corporation clearly thought 00:03:03.849 --> 00:03:05.990 they had a massive hit on their hands here. Yeah. 00:03:06.229 --> 00:03:08.090 And you can sort of see why when you look at 00:03:08.090 --> 00:03:10.770 the raw DNA of the plot. The setup is actually 00:03:10.770 --> 00:03:13.689 pretty solid. It is. So the protagonist is this 00:03:13.689 --> 00:03:16.789 guy named Hubert T. Wilkins. He's a lowly bookkeeper. 00:03:17.550 --> 00:03:21.159 And Hubert has a romantic interest. Emily Converse. 00:03:21.340 --> 00:03:23.599 Right, played by Karen Morley. Yes, Karen Morley. 00:03:23.900 --> 00:03:27.099 And Emily is really the catalyst here. She pressures 00:03:27.099 --> 00:03:31.099 Hubert into this terrible situation by basically 00:03:31.099 --> 00:03:33.879 encouraging him to go to his boss, Mr. Bates, 00:03:34.419 --> 00:03:38.520 and demand a $10 pay rise. Ten dollars. Ten dollars. 00:03:38.879 --> 00:03:41.659 Presumably so they can actually, you know, afford 00:03:41.659 --> 00:03:43.900 to get married. Well, we have to pause and look 00:03:43.900 --> 00:03:45.539 at the economics of that for a second because 00:03:45.539 --> 00:03:48.439 I think it's important. Yeah, please do. In 1935, 00:03:48.599 --> 00:03:51.699 $10 a week wasn't just pocket change to go buy 00:03:51.699 --> 00:03:54.120 a nicer suit. I mean, we're talking about the 00:03:54.120 --> 00:03:56.000 middle of the Great Depression here. Right. Things 00:03:56.000 --> 00:03:59.319 were incredibly tight. Exactly. A $10 bump in 00:03:59.319 --> 00:04:02.719 weekly salary was a massive life altering increase 00:04:02.719 --> 00:04:04.699 for a bookkeeper back then. Oh, wow. Really? 00:04:04.819 --> 00:04:07.240 Yeah. It was the literal difference between just 00:04:07.240 --> 00:04:08.960 scraping by in some boarding house and actually 00:04:08.960 --> 00:04:10.680 being able to rent a home and start a family. 00:04:11.020 --> 00:04:13.139 So the stakes of that request were incredibly 00:04:13.139 --> 00:04:15.580 high. OK. That makes it so much more stressful. 00:04:16.240 --> 00:04:19.240 So Hubert feels that pressure. He goes to Mr. 00:04:19.480 --> 00:04:21.480 Bates, who is played by Burton Churchill, by 00:04:21.480 --> 00:04:23.839 the way, and asks for the $10. And we all know 00:04:23.839 --> 00:04:26.339 how this goes. Yeah. Mr. Bates just fires him 00:04:26.339 --> 00:04:29.160 on the spot. So now Hubert has absolutely no 00:04:29.160 --> 00:04:31.480 income, no money for his and Emily's wedding, 00:04:31.740 --> 00:04:34.199 and he is just totally desperate. And what do 00:04:34.199 --> 00:04:36.360 desperate people do? He does what they all do. 00:04:36.500 --> 00:04:39.699 He pivots. He takes whatever he has left and 00:04:39.699 --> 00:04:42.220 seeks to invest in property to regain his fortune. 00:04:42.899 --> 00:04:47.399 Ah, yes. The classic desperation pivot. Yeah, 00:04:47.420 --> 00:04:49.120 and this is where I have to push back on the 00:04:49.120 --> 00:04:52.360 framing of this as just some breezy, silly 1930s 00:04:52.360 --> 00:04:54.560 comedy. How so? Well, when I read through these 00:04:54.560 --> 00:04:57.540 sources, Hubert's pivot to real estate felt so 00:04:57.540 --> 00:04:59.579 intensely modern to me. Oh, I see what you mean. 00:04:59.740 --> 00:05:01.930 Right. Like you lose your foundation. you're 00:05:01.930 --> 00:05:04.170 terrified of losing your partner, and instead 00:05:04.170 --> 00:05:06.529 of taking a week to slowly look for another bookkeeping 00:05:06.529 --> 00:05:09.569 job, you just bet your remaining chips on a volatile 00:05:09.569 --> 00:05:12.050 long shot. Right, like a quick fix. Exactly. 00:05:12.170 --> 00:05:15.600 It's like modern side hustle culture or... I 00:05:15.600 --> 00:05:19.319 don't know, crypto bros. It is the timeless human 00:05:19.319 --> 00:05:21.899 reflex to try and get rich quick when the floor 00:05:21.899 --> 00:05:23.959 just falls out from under you. Yeah, that panic 00:05:23.959 --> 00:05:26.160 investing. And panic investing after losing a 00:05:26.160 --> 00:05:29.079 job is a deeply stressful real life nightmare. 00:05:29.360 --> 00:05:31.620 I'm stressed out just thinking about Hubert's 00:05:31.620 --> 00:05:34.500 situation. I mean, the financial anxiety radiating 00:05:34.500 --> 00:05:37.339 off that plot is totally palpable. Audiences 00:05:37.339 --> 00:05:40.079 in 1935, they were living that reality every 00:05:40.079 --> 00:05:42.399 single day. Because of the depression. Right. 00:05:42.569 --> 00:05:45.529 Banks had failed, life savings were just wiped 00:05:45.529 --> 00:05:48.949 out, and the fear of sudden destitution was this 00:05:48.949 --> 00:05:51.829 collective national trauma. But the irony I found 00:05:51.829 --> 00:05:53.769 in the production notes, which is so funny, is 00:05:53.769 --> 00:05:55.610 that this wasn't even a fresh script born out 00:05:55.610 --> 00:05:58.329 of 1935 depression anxiety, was it? No, it wasn't. 00:05:58.329 --> 00:06:00.720 It was recycled intellectual property. I couldn't 00:06:00.720 --> 00:06:02.660 believe that. Yeah. What's fascinating here is 00:06:02.660 --> 00:06:04.920 how Hollywood was already cannibalizing its own 00:06:04.920 --> 00:06:08.019 back catalog even back then. So early on. Yeah. 00:06:08.079 --> 00:06:09.939 The screenplay for Ten Dollar Rays was written 00:06:09.939 --> 00:06:12.300 by Henry Johnson and Lou Breslow, but it was 00:06:12.300 --> 00:06:15.800 based entirely on a silent film from 1921. That 00:06:15.800 --> 00:06:18.040 earlier film, which was called The Ten Dollar 00:06:18.040 --> 00:06:21.639 Rays, spelled out, was written by Peter B. Kine. 00:06:21.819 --> 00:06:24.740 So they were doing literal reboots of 14 year 00:06:24.740 --> 00:06:28.300 old movies in 1935. They were. But, you know, 00:06:28.300 --> 00:06:31.009 the technological shift kind of Oh, because of 00:06:31.009 --> 00:06:35.220 sound. Exactly. In 1921, the story was told entirely 00:06:35.220 --> 00:06:38.899 through pantomime and title cards. By 1935, the 00:06:38.899 --> 00:06:41.839 industry had fully transitioned to talkies. Right. 00:06:41.879 --> 00:06:44.220 People wanted to hear the dialogue. Yeah. Audiences 00:06:44.220 --> 00:06:46.600 wanted to actually hear the snappy dialogue of 00:06:46.600 --> 00:06:48.660 a bookkeeper pleading for his job, and they wanted 00:06:48.660 --> 00:06:50.699 to hear the boss yelling at him to get out. That 00:06:50.699 --> 00:06:53.360 makes sense. But the underlying fear of financial 00:06:53.360 --> 00:06:56.139 ruin, the fear of disappointing the person you 00:06:56.139 --> 00:06:57.720 love because you can't provide, I mean, that 00:06:57.720 --> 00:06:59.800 never goes out of style. It's universal. Right. 00:07:00.180 --> 00:07:02.379 A story about a bookkeeper getting fired over 00:07:02.379 --> 00:07:05.180 a $10 raise resonated just as much during the 00:07:05.180 --> 00:07:08.660 post -World War I economic shifts of 1921 as 00:07:08.660 --> 00:07:11.639 it did in the depths of the 1935 depression. 00:07:11.860 --> 00:07:14.680 And because this premise touches on such universal 00:07:14.680 --> 00:07:17.079 financial anxieties, you might naturally assume 00:07:17.079 --> 00:07:19.819 it really struck a chord with those 1930s audiences. 00:07:20.060 --> 00:07:22.319 You would think so, yeah. Right. Like you'd think 00:07:22.319 --> 00:07:24.699 people would go to the theater, see Edward Everett 00:07:24.699 --> 00:07:27.120 Horton sweating in his boss's office, and see 00:07:27.120 --> 00:07:29.750 themselves on screen. Unfortunately, the historical 00:07:29.750 --> 00:07:32.029 record points in the exact opposite direction. 00:07:32.189 --> 00:07:34.910 Oh, man, does it ever. When we move to the critical 00:07:34.910 --> 00:07:37.170 reception of the film, we see the critics just 00:07:37.170 --> 00:07:39.670 pull out their knives and go to work. It is brutal. 00:07:40.089 --> 00:07:42.610 We have the review from Variety magazine published 00:07:42.610 --> 00:07:46.170 on May 8th, 1935, which is just four days after 00:07:46.170 --> 00:07:48.009 the film was released, by the way. Wow. They 00:07:48.009 --> 00:07:51.069 didn't waste any time. No. And it is an absolute 00:07:51.069 --> 00:07:53.389 master class in professional savagery. And we 00:07:53.389 --> 00:07:56.649 have to remember what Variety was and still is. 00:07:56.750 --> 00:07:59.220 It wasn't just a new paper for the general public. 00:07:59.360 --> 00:08:01.000 It was an industry paper, right? Exactly. It 00:08:01.000 --> 00:08:04.699 was a trade publication. So the studio executives, 00:08:04.879 --> 00:08:07.079 the producers, the casting directors, the people 00:08:07.079 --> 00:08:09.839 who literally controlled your livelihood, they 00:08:09.839 --> 00:08:11.899 were reading this over their morning coffee. 00:08:12.060 --> 00:08:14.800 Oh, that is so stressful. Right. A bad review 00:08:14.800 --> 00:08:17.420 in variety carried real industrial weight. It 00:08:17.420 --> 00:08:20.160 could end your career. Which makes the phrasing 00:08:20.160 --> 00:08:24.029 of this review so much more brutal. Like, the 00:08:24.029 --> 00:08:25.870 reviewer writes, quote, it isn't likely that 00:08:25.870 --> 00:08:28.490 anybody will get as excited about the plot as 00:08:28.490 --> 00:08:31.050 do the actors in this picture. Oh, ouch. That 00:08:31.050 --> 00:08:33.929 goes on. Such an arrangement is always embarrassing 00:08:33.929 --> 00:08:37.370 and never an inducement at the box office. I 00:08:37.370 --> 00:08:39.409 mean, calling an actor's effort embarrassing 00:08:39.409 --> 00:08:43.610 is a very specific type of cruelty. Right. Can 00:08:43.610 --> 00:08:46.210 you imagine working on a film, giving it your 00:08:46.210 --> 00:08:48.629 absolute all, And the critic essentially says, 00:08:48.850 --> 00:08:50.750 it's embarrassing how much you actually care 00:08:50.750 --> 00:08:53.669 about the story. It's so dismissive. Yeah. And 00:08:53.669 --> 00:08:55.669 they also complained that the film had, quote, 00:08:56.149 --> 00:08:59.110 no special pull in its cast. Which is pretty 00:08:59.110 --> 00:09:01.350 harsh considering the actors they had. Exactly. 00:09:01.580 --> 00:09:04.059 Meaning, despite having established working actors 00:09:04.059 --> 00:09:06.559 like Edward Everett Horton, Karen Morley, and 00:09:06.559 --> 00:09:08.700 Alan Deinhardt, the reviewer felt there was just 00:09:08.700 --> 00:09:11.419 no actual star power to draw an audience into 00:09:11.419 --> 00:09:13.860 the theater. Right. And that leads into the most 00:09:13.860 --> 00:09:16.240 colorful critique in the entire review, I think. 00:09:16.500 --> 00:09:18.840 It beautifully captures the vernacular of the 00:09:18.840 --> 00:09:22.340 1930s. Oh, the telegraph line. Yes. The critic 00:09:22.340 --> 00:09:24.909 writes, quote, On top of sending its punches 00:09:24.909 --> 00:09:27.850 by postal telegraph, the punches thus sent are 00:09:27.850 --> 00:09:31.090 few and far between, and these few bear little 00:09:31.090 --> 00:09:34.080 weight behind them. Sending its punches by postal 00:09:34.080 --> 00:09:37.059 telegraph. I mean that is such a vivid way to 00:09:37.059 --> 00:09:39.379 insult someone's comedic timing. It's great. 00:09:39.419 --> 00:09:42.519 And the mechanism of that insult is just brilliant. 00:09:42.720 --> 00:09:44.019 For people who don't know, what was a postal 00:09:44.019 --> 00:09:46.419 telegraph? So the postal telegraph was a major 00:09:46.419 --> 00:09:49.039 communications company at the time. Sending a 00:09:49.039 --> 00:09:52.419 telegraph was this multi -step mechanical process. 00:09:52.559 --> 00:09:54.980 Like it took a while? Yeah. Someone types it 00:09:54.980 --> 00:09:57.200 out, it goes over a wire, it gets printed on 00:09:57.200 --> 00:09:59.440 the other side, and then a courier physically 00:09:59.440 --> 00:10:01.399 hands it to you. So it's not exactly instant. 00:10:01.480 --> 00:10:04.299 No. So the critic is saying the jokes and narrative 00:10:04.299 --> 00:10:06.639 twists in this movie are so heavily signaled 00:10:06.639 --> 00:10:09.159 that you can literally watch them being manufactured 00:10:09.159 --> 00:10:11.720 miles in advance. Oh, I see. Yeah. By the time 00:10:11.720 --> 00:10:13.820 the punchline finally arrives at your front door, 00:10:14.019 --> 00:10:17.000 it lands with absolutely zero impact. It's savage. 00:10:17.440 --> 00:10:19.679 Just completely savage. But you know, there is 00:10:19.679 --> 00:10:22.259 a hilarious contradiction in the source text 00:10:22.259 --> 00:10:24.399 that I absolutely have to point out here. Oh, 00:10:24.519 --> 00:10:27.159 the runtime thing. Yes. So at the very end of 00:10:27.159 --> 00:10:29.860 this review, the variety critic dismisses the 00:10:29.860 --> 00:10:33.360 entire film with this sweeping final judgment. 00:10:33.539 --> 00:10:36.299 The nail in the coffin. Right. They call it one 00:10:36.299 --> 00:10:39.039 of those nice pictures intended as a pleasantry, 00:10:39.399 --> 00:10:42.059 but resulting in 60 minutes of inconsequential 00:10:42.059 --> 00:10:45.759 celluloid. The ultimate dismissal. Inconsequential 00:10:45.759 --> 00:10:49.100 celluloid. But if you look at the official production 00:10:49.100 --> 00:10:52.299 details for $10 raise, the official running time 00:10:52.299 --> 00:10:55.740 is listed as 70 minutes. Right. Not 60, 70 minutes. 00:10:55.899 --> 00:10:58.500 A full 10 -minute discrepancy there. I just love 00:10:58.500 --> 00:11:01.139 the idea that this movie was so incredibly inconsequential, 00:11:01.360 --> 00:11:04.240 so mind -numbingly boring to this critic, that 00:11:04.240 --> 00:11:06.639 their brain just mentally erased 10 full minutes 00:11:06.639 --> 00:11:08.679 of it. They just blacked it out. They walked 00:11:08.679 --> 00:11:11.600 out of the theater and just rounded down at a 00:11:11.600 --> 00:11:13.740 pure spite. They lost 10 minutes of their life 00:11:13.740 --> 00:11:15.500 to the void and just refused to acknowledge it. 00:11:15.720 --> 00:11:18.539 That is pretty funny. But, you know, to keep 00:11:18.539 --> 00:11:20.120 the picture balanced here, we should probably 00:11:20.120 --> 00:11:22.980 note that the critic didn't hate absolutely everything. 00:11:23.200 --> 00:11:25.519 Right. There were a few nice words. Yeah. Even 00:11:25.519 --> 00:11:28.480 in the midst of this devastating takedown, the 00:11:28.480 --> 00:11:31.100 Variety reviewer threw a few crumbs of praise. 00:11:31.580 --> 00:11:34.240 They specifically praised Edward Everett Horton. 00:11:34.659 --> 00:11:37.259 Our main guy. Right. They said he delivered a, 00:11:37.379 --> 00:11:40.820 quote, Clever portrait of a poor sap. So Horton's 00:11:40.820 --> 00:11:43.860 individual performance as the desperate fired 00:11:43.860 --> 00:11:46.720 bookkeeper actually landed well with them. It 00:11:46.720 --> 00:11:49.159 did. And perhaps even more surprisingly, the 00:11:49.159 --> 00:11:51.100 critic noted that the film contained samples 00:11:51.100 --> 00:11:53.480 of exceptionally good screenwriting. See, that 00:11:53.480 --> 00:11:56.299 is a very confusing mixed message to me. It really 00:11:56.299 --> 00:11:59.059 is. You have a clever portrait by the lead actor 00:11:59.059 --> 00:12:01.559 and you have exceptionally good screenwriting. 00:12:01.740 --> 00:12:04.779 by Henry Johnson and Lou Breslow. Yet the movie 00:12:04.779 --> 00:12:07.559 as a whole is this embarrassing telegraphed failure. 00:12:08.059 --> 00:12:10.360 This raises an important question, though. How 00:12:10.360 --> 00:12:12.539 can a film possess exceptionally good writing 00:12:12.539 --> 00:12:14.960 and a clever, well acted lead performance, yet 00:12:14.960 --> 00:12:17.779 still completely fail as a cohesive piece of 00:12:17.779 --> 00:12:20.120 art? Right. It's the eternal mystery of collaborative 00:12:20.120 --> 00:12:23.399 projects. I always think of it sort of like building 00:12:23.399 --> 00:12:26.559 a car. OK, I like that. Having a great script 00:12:26.559 --> 00:12:29.639 and a talented lead actor is like having a top 00:12:29.639 --> 00:12:32.029 tier engine and a fantastic steering wheel. Sure, 00:12:32.210 --> 00:12:34.970 the core components. Right. But the director 00:12:34.970 --> 00:12:37.669 and the pacing of the film, they serve as the 00:12:37.669 --> 00:12:40.049 transmission. And if the transmission is broken, 00:12:40.409 --> 00:12:41.909 it doesn't matter how much horsepower the script 00:12:41.909 --> 00:12:44.149 has or how well the actor steers, you know. The 00:12:44.149 --> 00:12:46.610 car isn't going anywhere. Exactly. That power 00:12:46.610 --> 00:12:49.070 never connects to the wheels. The movie stalls 00:12:49.070 --> 00:12:52.470 out. The pacing is off. The chemistry misfires 00:12:52.470 --> 00:12:56.309 and the entire vehicle just collapses into 60. 00:12:56.730 --> 00:13:00.610 Excuse me, 70 minutes of inconsequential celluloid. 00:13:00.710 --> 00:13:03.210 That is a perfect analogy. And when a project 00:13:03.210 --> 00:13:05.830 collapses that hard, and the transmission basically 00:13:05.830 --> 00:13:07.629 falls out on the highway in front of all the 00:13:07.629 --> 00:13:09.950 studio executives reading Variety, the career 00:13:09.950 --> 00:13:12.470 is dead. Right. The logical assumption is that 00:13:12.470 --> 00:13:15.590 the driver's career is over. You read a devastating 00:13:15.590 --> 00:13:18.370 review of an inconsequential film like that, 00:13:18.470 --> 00:13:21.149 and you think that director is completely finished 00:13:21.149 --> 00:13:23.549 in Hollywood. But here's where it gets really 00:13:23.549 --> 00:13:25.669 interesting. Because the sources we have don't 00:13:25.669 --> 00:13:29.769 just give us the plot and the bad review of $10 00:13:29.769 --> 00:13:33.549 raise. We also have the complete historical list 00:13:33.549 --> 00:13:36.210 of films directed by this movie's director, George 00:13:36.210 --> 00:13:38.889 Marshall. Which is just a massive list. It is. 00:13:39.250 --> 00:13:42.570 Looking at this list reveals a reality that completely 00:13:42.570 --> 00:13:45.009 shatters our modern assumptions about failure. 00:13:45.250 --> 00:13:48.169 His filmography is absolutely staggering. I am 00:13:48.169 --> 00:13:51.129 marveling at the sheer volume of it. George Marshall 00:13:51.129 --> 00:13:53.690 didn't just survive the humiliation of $10 raise. 00:13:53.970 --> 00:13:56.990 He thrived. He really did. This man had a 50 00:13:56.990 --> 00:14:00.049 -year continuous career as a director. 50 years. 00:14:00.350 --> 00:14:02.669 His list of credits starts all the way back in 00:14:02.669 --> 00:14:06.450 1916. He was directing silent films like The 00:14:06.450 --> 00:14:09.129 Committee on Credentials, Loves Lariat, and A 00:14:09.129 --> 00:14:11.610 Woman's Eyes. Way back in the teens. Yeah. He 00:14:11.610 --> 00:14:13.649 worked through the teens, the 20s, the 30s, the 00:14:13.649 --> 00:14:16.610 40s, the 50s, the 60s. His final listed credit 00:14:16.610 --> 00:14:19.929 is a movie from 1969 called Hook, Line, and Sinker. 00:14:20.059 --> 00:14:22.759 I mean, he witnessed and actively participated 00:14:22.759 --> 00:14:25.320 in every major technological and cultural shift 00:14:25.320 --> 00:14:27.340 in the history of the medium. Pretty much all 00:14:27.340 --> 00:14:29.759 of them. The birth of Hollywood, the transition 00:14:29.759 --> 00:14:32.759 to sound, the introduction of color, widescreen, 00:14:32.960 --> 00:14:35.179 the peak of the studio system, and its eventual 00:14:35.179 --> 00:14:38.840 collapse. He was there for all of it. And what's 00:14:38.840 --> 00:14:41.179 really striking to me is the power of brute force 00:14:41.179 --> 00:14:44.320 volume here. We look at a flop like $10 raise 00:14:44.320 --> 00:14:46.279 and think, oh, it's a career ending disaster. 00:14:46.399 --> 00:14:48.490 Right. But look at what else George Marshall 00:14:48.490 --> 00:14:51.429 was doing in 1935, the exact same year this movie 00:14:51.429 --> 00:14:54.029 bombed. This is the craziest part. He directed 00:14:54.029 --> 00:14:57.230 Ten Dollar Race. Right. But in 1935 alone, he 00:14:57.230 --> 00:15:00.070 also directed Life Begins at 40, Music is Magic 00:15:00.070 --> 00:15:03.409 in Old Kentucky, and Show Them No Mercy. Five 00:15:03.409 --> 00:15:05.830 feature films. Five feature films in a single 00:15:05.830 --> 00:15:09.049 calendar year. How is that even physically possible? 00:15:09.590 --> 00:15:13.039 Well... To understand how he produced that volume, 00:15:13.440 --> 00:15:16.080 we have to look at the mechanism of the 1930s 00:15:16.080 --> 00:15:18.700 Hollywood studio system. Because George Marshall 00:15:18.700 --> 00:15:21.799 wasn't a modern independent auteur who, you know, 00:15:21.860 --> 00:15:23.980 had to spend three years hustling for financing 00:15:23.980 --> 00:15:26.019 after a movie flopped. Right, he wasn't out there 00:15:26.019 --> 00:15:28.379 pitching to investors. Exactly. He was a contracted 00:15:28.379 --> 00:15:31.759 employee of Fox Film Corporation. The studio 00:15:31.759 --> 00:15:34.379 lot was essentially a factory. An assembly line 00:15:34.379 --> 00:15:37.690 for entertainment. Precisely. The studios owned 00:15:37.690 --> 00:15:39.750 the movie theaters back then, and they needed 00:15:39.750 --> 00:15:42.049 to supply those theaters with a constant stream 00:15:42.049 --> 00:15:44.389 of content every single week to fill out double 00:15:44.389 --> 00:15:46.590 features. Oh, they just needed product. Yeah, 00:15:46.610 --> 00:15:49.629 they needed A pictures and B pictures. $10 raise 00:15:49.629 --> 00:15:52.570 was just product on the assembly line. Wow. If 00:15:52.570 --> 00:15:55.269 a movie flopped on a Friday, the studio boss 00:15:55.269 --> 00:15:58.049 didn't fire the director. They handed him a new 00:15:58.049 --> 00:16:00.230 script on Monday because the machinery couldn't 00:16:00.230 --> 00:16:03.529 stop. He was contractually obligated to just 00:16:03.529 --> 00:16:06.049 show up and shoot the next picture. That mechanical 00:16:06.049 --> 00:16:08.629 necessity completely changes the context of his 00:16:08.629 --> 00:16:10.830 survival, doesn't it? It really does. The studio 00:16:10.830 --> 00:16:13.309 didn't have the luxury of canceling him over 00:16:13.309 --> 00:16:16.049 a bad review because they literally needed him 00:16:16.049 --> 00:16:18.669 on set the next morning to direct in Old Kentucky. 00:16:18.970 --> 00:16:21.129 Exactly. And if we connect this to the bigger 00:16:21.129 --> 00:16:23.909 picture, Marshall's filmography shows us that 00:16:23.909 --> 00:16:26.210 being a reliable gear in that machine allowed 00:16:26.210 --> 00:16:28.769 him to just outlive his failure. Just keep working. 00:16:29.070 --> 00:16:31.879 Yeah. And it wasn't just churning out forgettable 00:16:31.879 --> 00:16:34.879 B -movies forever, either. Because he kept working, 00:16:35.360 --> 00:16:38.299 he eventually directed some massive, highly respected 00:16:38.299 --> 00:16:40.980 titles long after this supposed career -ending 00:16:40.980 --> 00:16:44.500 flop. Oh, really? Like what? Well, in 1939, he 00:16:44.500 --> 00:16:46.919 directed Destry Rides again. Oh, a certified 00:16:46.919 --> 00:16:50.440 classic. Right. In 1940, he directed The Ghostbreakers. 00:16:50.879 --> 00:16:55.159 In 1945... Murder, he says. He directed the famous 00:16:55.159 --> 00:16:58.679 noir film The Blue Dahlia in 1946. Wow, okay. 00:16:58.899 --> 00:17:02.039 And skipping all the way forward to 1962, he 00:17:02.039 --> 00:17:04.440 was one of the directors on the massive star 00:17:04.440 --> 00:17:07.660 -studded epic How the West Was Won. Wait, from 00:17:07.660 --> 00:17:10.980 an inconsequential comedy about a $10 raise to 00:17:10.980 --> 00:17:14.660 a sprawling epic western like that? Yep. Same 00:17:14.660 --> 00:17:16.920 guy. It really puts the life cycle of a career 00:17:16.920 --> 00:17:18.920 into perspective, doesn't it? It really separates 00:17:18.920 --> 00:17:20.940 the identity of the artist from the outcome of 00:17:20.940 --> 00:17:23.259 a single project. So what does this all mean 00:17:23.259 --> 00:17:25.279 for us? We started this deep dive talking about 00:17:25.279 --> 00:17:27.980 the fear of asking for a raise, the fear of failing, 00:17:28.460 --> 00:17:30.740 and the fear of being told your efforts are embarrassing. 00:17:30.880 --> 00:17:33.140 Right, those very real fears. The reason this 00:17:33.140 --> 00:17:36.299 forgotten 1935 film matters to you, listening 00:17:36.299 --> 00:17:39.259 to this right now, is because you undoubtedly 00:17:39.259 --> 00:17:42.569 have a $10 raise in your past. Or... You know, 00:17:42.829 --> 00:17:45.490 you will soon. It is an unavoidable part of participating 00:17:45.490 --> 00:17:48.069 in any industry, really. You have a project that 00:17:48.069 --> 00:17:50.410 bombed. You have a moment where you stepped up, 00:17:50.690 --> 00:17:53.930 pitched an idea, and just got rejected entirely. 00:17:54.609 --> 00:17:57.849 You have work that... critics or your peers or 00:17:57.849 --> 00:18:00.049 your bosses deemed inconsequential. Yeah, it 00:18:00.049 --> 00:18:01.789 happens to everyone. And it feels like the end 00:18:01.789 --> 00:18:03.750 of the world when you're standing in the boss's 00:18:03.750 --> 00:18:06.009 office getting fired or when you're reading a 00:18:06.009 --> 00:18:08.269 brutal performance review. It feels permanent. 00:18:08.569 --> 00:18:11.529 But George Marshall's massive decade -spanning 00:18:11.529 --> 00:18:14.650 list of films proves that one failure is just 00:18:14.650 --> 00:18:17.380 a tiny data point. It only defines you if you 00:18:17.380 --> 00:18:19.839 stop producing. I think there is a really profound 00:18:19.839 --> 00:18:22.019 takeaway here about the mechanics of success. 00:18:22.200 --> 00:18:24.279 What's that? Well, the real lesson isn't just 00:18:24.279 --> 00:18:26.740 a generic platitude about never giving up. The 00:18:26.740 --> 00:18:30.200 lesson is that prolific output actively dilutes 00:18:30.200 --> 00:18:32.680 failure. Oh, I like that. Think about the harsh 00:18:32.680 --> 00:18:35.609 permanence of that variety review. It has been 00:18:35.609 --> 00:18:39.829 phrasing in time since May 8th, 1935. It was 00:18:39.829 --> 00:18:41.990 written by a critic who was completely confident 00:18:41.990 --> 00:18:44.569 that this director had produced nothing of value. 00:18:44.950 --> 00:18:47.670 Right. Yet because George Marshall was embedded 00:18:47.670 --> 00:18:50.569 in a system that demanded volume, and because 00:18:50.569 --> 00:18:53.609 he just kept showing up to do the work, he built 00:18:53.609 --> 00:18:57.250 a mountain of films so large that it stripped 00:18:57.250 --> 00:18:59.990 that single critic of their power. Volume as 00:18:59.990 --> 00:19:03.329 armor. Exactly. When you produce a massive volume 00:19:03.329 --> 00:19:07.119 of work, you ensure that no single failure and 00:19:07.119 --> 00:19:09.839 no single critic has the power to define your 00:19:09.839 --> 00:19:11.920 narrative. That's incredibly empowering. And 00:19:11.920 --> 00:19:13.900 you know, in our modern age of instant internet 00:19:13.900 --> 00:19:16.339 reviews, immediate feedback and rapid fire public 00:19:16.339 --> 00:19:19.079 judgment, it is so easy to feel destroyed by 00:19:19.079 --> 00:19:21.539 a single misstep. Oh, for sure. One bad tweet 00:19:21.539 --> 00:19:23.640 or bad review and you feel like it's over. Right. 00:19:23.920 --> 00:19:26.299 But consider how many inconsequential stepping 00:19:26.299 --> 00:19:29.019 stones we harshly judge today without realizing 00:19:29.019 --> 00:19:31.460 they're just one necessary chapter in someone's 00:19:31.460 --> 00:19:34.539 50 year long story of success. The failure only 00:19:34.539 --> 00:19:36.299 matters if it's the last thing you do.