Making a Movie vs. Publishing a History Monograph

Earlier this week I had a conversation with Dr. Lester about publication companies. It started with a press of second-or-third-tier distinction being footnoted with the wrong city. She knew that it had moved, and previously she had demonstrated knowledge of other publishers who have tweaked their names back and forth over the past several decades. I was impressed, but also had a hunch.

Hearing her reference publishers made me think that they are analogous to film directors, in that both can give a person a good idea of what they might see if they consume a given work. She said there was something to this, so I thought I'd run with the analogy a bit. America is a nation of cinephiles, so I trust there is some value here.

Both a history monograph and a movie share three broad actors: the writer(s), the producer(s), and the director(s). In both cases, many, many, more screenplays and books are authored than get produced, and only a portion of those ultimately go all the way through production to distribution. Many people watch movies just based on trailers and a favorite actor, but production companies often have a type of movie (or a few) that they make, and so if you like that type of movie it helps to pay attention to that production company. A24 makes off-beat films like The Disaster Artist or Lady Bird,
Bay Films makes big budget action movies like the Transformers and Armageddon, etc... Similarly, certain publishers specialize in the best books on certain subjects, e.g., University of Chicago Press should be consulted if you're studying the history of architecture, the Midwest, or economics...and I've just kicked this rock over so I don't have the knowledge base yet to cite further examples (even that one is a bit shaky).

As with so many analogies, analyzing where it does not work is almost as illuminating as the places where it does. A movie has a whole host of people involved in the filming of the movie, that long list of people that scrolls as we file out of the theater. Then test-audiences, further edits, etc...A book has its principal author(s), perhaps a supporting research assistance, consulting colleagues, and its source materials, but that is pretty much it. It is interesting to consider the parallel between the end credits and the bibliography though--in both cases the people but for which the preceding work would not have been possible. What are other connections and dissimilarities between book and film production?