1

Gentrification in Media Spaces: Hollywood Perspective

Because of its single-reality definition, gentrification has been demonized for its support

of the class, standard, and most importantly displacement. As gentrification continues to cause

displacement, this study aims to go beyond the conventional negative Marxist analysis of the

notion. Incorporating the concept into media studies, it is utilized as a metaphor to analyze

governmental involvement and investment in the evolution of American cinema. To understand

how film economics are changing in modern liberal times, this study proposes the notion of

gentrification. Media studies provide an explanation for gentrification and an examination of

prior studies to determine how much gentrification has been mentioned in the media. This study

focuses on the American film industry, also known as Hollywood, to better comprehend its

transformation. Also, gentrification is analyzed in terms of class conflict and aesthetics changes

in production standards and most importantly gentrification in terms of displacement in the

places where production and consumption take place. Henceforth, the cinematic form (mise-en-

scene, cinematography, editing, sound, etc.) as a framework was used to analyze two recent films

which are; Boys State by Amanda McBaine and Jesse Moss, which displays a miniature of

contemporary political theatre, and the second one is The Boys in the Band (2020) by Mart

Crowley, a reimagining of the stars, and queer 2018 Broadway run, which celebrated its 50 th

anniversary and was critically lauded. Both are American drama film that shows how the film

industry is specifically participating in the gentrification process. Therefore, the present study

answers the research question that in what ways media industries might engage in the

gentrification process, as well as how gentrification describes the shifts changing the American

cinema industry.
 2

In 1965, Ruth Glass invented the term “gentrification”. which is still used today. Even

though it depicts the introduction and sustaining of aesthetics in a specific space, it continues to

be criticized for its introduction of class inequality and displacement. Reinvestment and

rehabilitation contribute attractiveness and value to gentrified areas, notwithstanding the stigma

attached to them. Rather, it is a steady process that does not occur suddenly or overtake

individuals who are affected unnoticed. Affecting class, standard, and aesthetics in formalized

areas is gentrification. As a result, the procedure is beneficial to both new and current

enterprises.

It is currently rare to see “urban studies” in media studies because it was originally

associated with racial bias. A neighborhood's development into an ideal metropolis for the elite

and professionals is referred to as gentrification, and it gives meaning to the political and

economic changes that restructure media industries and the effects this has on those who work in

the industry. However, Hollywood's gentrification is the subject of the current study, which aims

to investigate and explain the recent changes in Hollywood. Also, the American film industry is

called Hollywood.

In 1900, the industry underwent dramatic changes in production, distribution, and

consumption, but the situation was far worse before that. A new rail line was added to Southern

California in 1909 when Pacific Electric Rail purchased the railroad, allowing for the sprawl we

see today, connecting Hollywood and Los Angeles (Banham, 1971). Due to the presence of

transit and Hollywood's inability to deal with its water and sewage problems, Hollywood was

annexed by Los Angeles in 1910. “Love Among the Roses” was filmed in the same year that

Hollywood established its first cinema theatre, “The Idle Hour” (the name was later altered).

This optimism in the economic benefits of movies led a film firmly to purchase the Blondeau
 3

Tavern, a vast vacant space. The company had a good start. Seeing a flourishing industry and a

climate that permitted year-round production, several filmmakers moved west and established

facilities in Southern California (Williams, 2005). In addition to remodeling, numerous historic

structures were neglected and allowed to decay drastically. But in the early 1970s, a brand-new

movie theatre was opened in Hollywood, which was the first in over 30 years (a duplex porno

theater). Yet, a big gang problem arose in the neighborhood, which was not surprising to

everyone. Hollywood's economy was decimated by this trifecta. Yet again, in 1976, the rest of

Los Angeles' property values were skyrocketing, commercial property in Hollywood was selling

for the same price 35 years earlier. The lowered property values and social acceptance/apathy

opened the door for a wave of new inhabitants to move in. Hollywood became home to an

LGBTQ community, and the first gay pride march in Los Angeles was held on Hollywood

Boulevard in the 80s. The long-time residents of Hollywood found themselves on the losing end

of a culture war by the early twenties, much to their dismay. Along Hollywood Boulevard, it was

surrounded by department stores, offices, banks, and theatres. The result was that Hollywood

became a cultural sanctuary, with its principal streets, such as Hollywood Boulevard,

transformed into shopping destinations for celebrities (Britannica, 2011).

However, gentrification in this study does not have to be viewed as a wholly negative

phenomenon, as it appears on the surface of the study's findings (Ezepue, 2010). The benefits of

Hollywood's gentrification can be seen in two ways, according to a study: Industry and its

participant's profit, while the state's economy and state's economy benefit from this as well. For

the industry, gentrification studies are significant since they show potential winners and losers in

the process. The United States government, which is diversifying its economy, will also gain.
 4

Five sections follow an examination of gentrification as it relates to urban geography:

Considering that gentrification is a term that is not often studied in media scholarship, it is vital

to understand its history to apply it effectively. Its stigma as a single-reality description of class

separation and dislocation persists, despite its stigmatization in cinematic studies and the context

of current Hollywood transition, as this study analyzes. According to this study, Hollywood’s

gentrification is being evaluated in terms of its benefits and repercussions for the industry as well

as its participants, customers, and the nation's political economy. The visual analysis of two

films, Boys State (2020) and The Boys in the Band (2020), was used as a tool for this research

project.

A similar process of gentrification occurs in urban areas and media environments. A

region that was previously occupied by people of lower socioeconomic status is now being

gentrified by people of higher socioeconomic status. A middle-class neighborhood relocating

into an area that was formerly occupied by a lower-class neighborhood could be the result of this

phenomenon in urban regions. In the media, gentrification is related to the transfer of talent and

professionalism. On the other side, a new generation of educated/trained professionals migrate

into a space that was previously held by non-professionals, and the process begins from the top

down. Despite the fact that the media is flooded, if not paralyzed, by players who are too

comfortable to make a change, new creativity enters or is exposed in this environment. This

viewpoint gave rise to the old vs. new Discussions in the entertainment sector continue to

polarize rather than unite the players. Determining that these movements are unavoidable in a

dynamic film economy is why this study is so vital to put an end to such arguments.

Arts like film contribute to or are related to neighborhood redevelopment (Grodach et al.,

2014). “Hollywood was once a dangerous place, but now it's filled with fantastic clubs,
 5

restaurants, and boutiques”, writes Marcy (2007). “The revitalization is built on refurbishing

existing theatres and establishing new ones, as well as the presence of fashion merchants”, he

says. It also shows how art and media may support gentrification from a fashion standpoint, he

then added. Gentrification is aided and abetted by the arts and media, which are both gentrified

themselves. According to Huber (2012), the media play an important role in the gentrification

process and should not be undervalued, given that people rely on media sources for information.

The media's role in gentrification was also explored by Huber (2012), rather than the

gentrification processes themselves.

Additionally, gentrification has transcended ethnic, regional, and disciplinary borders as

well as time frames. This, according to Ganti (2012), is a thoughtful and mindful endeavor by the

film business to better comprehend and reflect their target viewers. As the film industry becomes

more gentrified for economic reasons, it must become more formalized. She also notes that film

academies and industry corporatization were important advances in Indian filmmaking. Indian

investors hastened Bollywood's gentrification by setting up new production and distribution

companies, altering existing production, distribution/exhibition, and exhibition companies, and

establishing new companies, according to the report (Ganti, 2012). Due to this, there were and

continues to be more funds available for film financing. Filmmaking becomes more affordable as

a result of such corporatization, which also spreads risk, decreasing its impact on filmmakers.

As a result, the availability of capital is crucial to gentrification. Regeneration is

sustained by capital inflows, which eventually lead to gentrification. Hollywood's gentrification

can be explained by this fact. After the sector transformed (particularly in finance and

organization), Freeman observes that raising capital is no longer viewed as the key barrier or

limitation. Gentrification has resulted in previously mass-produced films being repurposed for
 6

the common people and classes, or perhaps only for the “specialized classes”. When audiences

transition from mainstream audiences to specialist audiences or nobility, the same reaction

occurs. These changes are seen as a sign of creative maturity and industrial development because

audience relocation is invisible. If the goal is to achieve what Lees (2012) calls a “global city

status”, this is an ideal that is attractive to both the media and the economy. Ginia (2017), on the

other hand, contends that the gentrification of America's political economy altered the

consumption and production of cultural products such as Hollywood blockbusters.

Keeping in mind, cinematic gentrification, both of the selected films, Boys State and The

Boys in the Band are based on my interest that also fulfills the present criteria, examines film's

most important formal elements: set design, cinematography (camerawork and editing), and

sound, as well as its narrative structure and content (Corrigan and White, 2004). This technique

is used to depict the gentrification process and how the second movie based on its theme of

LGBTQ+ rights found a place on Netflix and is now a part of Netflix. Starting from the first

movie, Boys State, the first element mis-en-scene refers to aspects of a film that are set up before

filming begins and then used in certain ways once filming begins (Corrigan and White, 2004).

Directed by Amanda McBaine and Jesse Moss, the documentary, Boys State, gave me a

cinematic headache right away. Onscreen content, although compelling, is overshadowed by a

nagging absence that pervades the entire film and distracts the audience (Figure 1). There's a

lineage of documentarians (from Jean Rouch and Edgar Morin to Robert Greene and Khalik

Allah) who integrate this implicit work into the published one. This isn't a new phenomenon, but

it's a common one. While this may seem like a good idea, in theory, it is dependent on the

consequences of each particular film. In "Boys State", the absence of such underlying activity

makes the picture feel insufficient, and the iceberg is considerably more important to the tip of
 7

action than the creators recognized or disclosed. This absence is more obvious and more present

than the actions onscreen. There is a hermetic quality to it that makes the film seem finished

before it started.

In a week-long simulation of state government, high school students participate in an

annual high school event, which is a type of Model U.N. for American politics, which gives the

documentary its title (Figure 2). As the name implies, it is gender-specific (there is also a Girls

State). Eleven hundred students are divided into two groups, Federalists and Nationalists, cipher-

monikers with no platform or beliefs attached, in the one McBaine and Moss film sets in Austin,

Texas. Parties elect a leader, who then creates and passes a platform on which their candidates

for office (selected in primaries) can compete. Finally, there is a general election among the

entire group to select the winning candidates for each party's offices (the highest office in the

event is the governor).

For the duration of the event, McBaine and Moss follow Boys State's signature-gathering

efforts on petition forms to platform debates to intraparty elections to primaries and runoffs to

campaigning on election day and beyond (Figure 3). Despite this, footage from outside the

competition's limits dilutes any impression of concentrated and closely focused observation of

the event at hand. The video follows four pupils, not only at Boys State but also at home and in

their surroundings. The filmmakers met and cast three of them before production began. A self-

described "politics junkie" and conservative, Ben Feinstein, discusses his situation as a double

amputee (he had meningitis at the age of three) and speaks proudly of overcoming his disability;

he preaches a gospel of personal responsibility, disdaining references to "race, gender or

disability". It seems to me that we are all individuals, right? "Like, I don't think of myself as a

white person; I think of myself as Ben Feinstein, an American, right?" In the words of his
 8

mother, “Future president”. he responds. "I am a progressive guy, and I'm in a room full of

primarily conservative folks," says Steven Garza, who is Hispanic and believes his mother was

undocumented at one time. In addition to wearing a Beto O'Rourke T-shirt to the event, he

expresses a preference for a non-gendered “People's State”. A Republican Senate page from a

seemingly privileged family, Robert MacDougall, applies to only one college, West Point, but

eventually realizes that his genuine political ideas are at variance with those of his peers and his

environment. It appears that the fourth participant has caught the attention of the filmmakers in

the course of the action: In Chicago, a Black student named René Otero grew up in a "bubble"

where “everyone thought alike and was outraged at the same person”. His goal at Boys State is to

be a "delegate for Black people here," and he claims he has never seen so many white people in

his lifetime.

"Boys State" is devoid of this casting procedure and the criteria that go along with it, both

for the students as well as the filmmakers. No sense of the transactional value for the four boys

(or for the American Legion), no sense of what went on behind the scenes in terms of what could

or couldn't be shown, no sense of the terms and conditions of their agreement with the Legion (or

with the students, the students are under the supervision of their guardians). The four characters,

according to the filmmakers, wear wireless microphones, which require the crew's daily

engagement to prepare them. Was the experience like for these students? As a result of being

videotaped, what do the other 996 pupils think? When it comes to the cameras, how does the

entire gang feel about it? When it came to filming, did the other pupils have to agree?

Moreover, the filmmakers' ability to cast is impressive in its own way, as well. Steven,

Robert, and Ben, who were all pre-selected to play "main characters" by the filmmakers, win
 9

major roles in the simulation: Steven and Robert become the gubernatorial candidates who face

off in the Nationalist primary runoff, while René and Ben become the party chairs of the

Nationalist and Federalist parties, respectively. To put it another way, they would have ended up

with the same set of boys had McBaine and Moss entered the Boys State whirlpool unprepared

with no previous casting. Their insight is excellent, but their reluctance to reveal their true goals

makes the happy accident feel artificial.

The producers' clever way of obtaining comments from their interviewees adds to the

sense of trickery. Interviews with all four principals, conducted in an empty meeting room during

the event, are interwoven throughout "Boys State". There are no questions from the filmmakers,

no challenges or pushbacks, and no intervention to bring up topics they'd like to hear about from

the participants. The hole produced by the filmmakers' invisibility (and inaudibility) obliterates

the facts and events, the characters being shown, and the stakes of the competition.

"Boys State" is by no means the first or the only documentary that relies on meticulous

and extensive casting to create a compelling story or character. Also, Claude Lanzmann's

"Shoah," which I consider to be the best documentary ever made, was based on years of

detective work and background interviews to discover the people that Lanzmann interviewed for

the film. Although Lanzmann's stance on the participants became apparent once the camera

started rolling; he is on video with many of them, vocally questioning and challenging others.

Even humorously, Lanzmann termed one of them an "actor". However, even though he did not

include the background process, he did include his own "direction" of these "actors"—and their

perspective on their own involvement—in the film. McBaine and Moss, on the other hand, fall

into the trap of TV journalism: they convey the sense of documenting without experiencing,
 10

without even thinking. Even if they aren't aware of it, their assumptions and presuppositions, the

premises on which they build their plot, and their preconceived beliefs that drove their choices,

are embedded in the film. 'Boys State' currently tries to retain impartiality, but ends up obscuring

subjectivity.

The plot of The Boys in the Band (2020) is divided into two acts: in the first act, the film

opens in Michael's New York apartment. In preparation for the celebration, Michael has music

playing, drinks on hand, and is wrapping a present. Donald's entrance sets the scene for the rest

of the story. Donald has been invited to the party despite though he has never met the guest of

honor. On Saturday nights, after seeing his therapist, he visits Michael's apartment, where he

spends the night before returning to the Hamptons the following morning. Donald's therapist, on

the other hand, was unable to make it that evening, so he arrived earlier than scheduled. Michael

offers him perfumed soap, his own toothbrush, and hair spray that he bought for him to use

during his weekly visits. There is a long talk about their life before the guests come.

Act 2 opens with Emory putting ice on his swollen lip, as Alan sits on the couch with his

hands over his ears. As Harold ages, he becomes depressed and enjoys drug use. Since then,

despite his promise to Donald, Michael has begun to drink and smoke once more. Hank follows

Alan out of the room to keep an eye on him. He also tells to him that Harold is keeping a hidden

stash of pills—"Hundreds of Nembutal and Sectionals"—to kill himself when he gets too old and

loses his youthful appearance. A short time later, the lights are turned out, and the Cowboy gives

Harold his birthday cake, which he enjoys while opening his gifts. After the presents have been

opened, they turn on the music, and the men are once again dancing when Alan enters the room.
 11

Aside from that, The Boys in the Band has an easy-to-follow framework and focuses on a

single theme, which keeps readers guessing as to what will happen next. Alan McCarthy's

readiness to admit to himself and others that he is gay is at the center of all of the discoveries that

come out on the night of Harold's birthday party. "Great heaves and sobs" are described as his

first cry, indicating his sexual orientation. That's not his way at all." Later, when Alan shows

there, it's evident that he knows (or at least has a fairly good notion) that everyone at the party is

gay, yet he doesn't leave. As though scared by the sight of a man who is comfortable acting

unmanly, he becomes unreasonably irritated about Emory's effeminate behavior. Everything

points to Alan coming out as homosexual, right up to Michael's disclosure that Alan had engaged

in homosexual conduct with Justin Stuart in the past.

Preliminary scenes define Michael's personality and actions. After Alan reconciles with

his wife and leaves, Michael remains on stage, struggling to cope with the changes Alan's

presence has wrought in his life. Michael's relationship to what Alan knows and doesn't know,

and how Alan thinks about himself, is at the heart of the drama. Although Michael is the play's

main character, Alan's actions determine his character and how he interacts with the other

characters in the play.

As a result of this, The Boys in the Band uses a language that is full of puns, sly insults,

and references to films, plays, and literature. When a group of visitors gathers at a party, there is

a lot of banter that occurs:

“Emory: (Loud aside to Michael.) I think they’re going to have their first fight.

Larry: (Leans on landing) The first one since we got out of the taxi.
 12

Michael: (RE:  EMORY) Where’d you find this trash?

Larry: Downstairs leaning against a lamppost.

Emory: With an orchid behind my ear and big wet lips painted over the lipline.

Michael: Just like Maria Montez.

Donald: Oh, please.

Emory: (crossing to Donald) What have you got against Maria? She was a good woman”. (The

Boys in the Band, 2020).

This kind of wording reflects Mart Crowley's writing style, his manner of keeping people

amused every time they watch his play. It's not uncommon for authors to use the same verbal

style for all of the characters in their dialogue, and this is considered as a symptom that the writer

lacks the imagination to create different styles for each character in their conversation. Although

the speaking style is inconsistent in this play, it does assist to give the audience a sense of the

tight-knit, cohesive worldview of this particular LGBT group. Because the Cowboy does not

"understand" many of the sophisticated references, he is left out of the situation even if he is gay.

Despite their physical acceptance of the Cowboy, the other characters make fun of his simplicity

and inability to keep up with their verbal banter.

Moreover, even though the revival of The Boys in the Band corresponds with the rise of

LGBT culture, it appears improbable that this new critical sensibility could account for the play's

newfound popularity. When it comes to queer theory, theatrical performance has a marginal and

sometimes dismissed position, with the focus primarily on television, film, and "daily life"
 13

performances. Judith Butler's influential theory of performativity, one of the most frequently

discredited in queer criticism, is a prime example of this pattern, as it takes a theatrical

terminology that suggests an attachment to the stage, but rarely discusses live performance. To

define a "critically queer" performativity against the traditions of theatrical performance, Butler

refers to it as "the stage". Additionally, typical mimetic theatre, and there is no mimesis more

conventional than the fourth-wall realism of The Boys in the Band, pretends explicitly to make

visible the "reality" of its gay characters, and would more likely draw the rebuke of a queer

commentary. Critics have noted that even in the most well-intentioned gay plays, homosexuality

is more often than not used as a plot device to solve a storyline difficulty to move the plot

forward. Any theatre that rejects the idea of a fixed identity outside its depiction would seem to

call for a new form or performance style of presentation. Even though a materialist analysis of

the history of realism and its reception, such as Elin Diamond's theory of "unmade" mimesis,

might refine such a broad critique, The Boys in the Band exemplifies this tendency when

Michael has a nervous breakdown and Donald goes on an alcoholic binge at the end of the film.

There was no irony or criticism in the revival; it was played "straight" (as it were).

The characters in The Boys in the Band, while similar in some areas, are also black and

white, nelly and butch, conservative and free-thinking, Catholic and Jewish, city-dwellers and

suburbanites... the list could go on (Figure 7). They are a diverse group of people that seem to

have little in common. They don't even seem to like each other a lot of the time! “The same old

weary fairies you've seen around since day one,” Michael tells Donald in the opening scene

(Figure 4). “If there's one thing I'm not ready for, it's five screaming queens shouting ‘happy

birthday”, he said half-jokingly earlier. There is only one memorable line dance movement in the

entire party. The rest of it is a continual stream of hateful remarks that crescendo to an
 14

uncomfortable pitch. All of these characters have one thing in common: they're gay (Figure 5).

More than that, the WPA and Lucille Lortel theatres didn't just bring together homosexual men

on stage, but also in the audience. Darkened rooms masked spectators' differences, allowing

them to identify not with the characters' closet lives, but rather with their minority LGBT

identity, as well as the strength of their male friendships, even when they were formed under

duress (Figure 6). As a result, The Boys in the Band cultivated a clear-cut and unambiguous

sense of gay identity that was unproblematized, but not uncommunitas.

In 2020, it will be interesting to see how this play was received by audiences that are

unfamiliar with it. It's not just because of its rhythm, its bitchy one-liners, and its “secretly gay

homophobes are the worst offenders” chronicle strength that Crowley's dialogue is likely to

sound strangely familiar to them. Since the play premiered, it's also been transformed into

hundreds and even thousands of other plays and television programs. Our experience of watching

The Boys in the Band, today is like discovering a long-lost very exceptional event of

determination and elegance, complete with celebrity stunt casting! If I say this negatively, my

goal is to show how much Crowley's DNA has permeated into other spheres of culture

(Betancourt, 2017).

Although he has created a cast of archetypes, his characters prefer to reveal their

personalities as soon as they enter the room. Then there's the enjoyable vindictiveness they have

with each other. With rising LGBT demonstration increases anger with their portrayals of life

that is extra romanticized, too clean, crafted to display us as role models or ideals, we would be

stripped of our complexity and humanity if we do so. Another example is ignoring our own lives

in favor of a fictitious heterosexual audience (Figure 7). Consequently, Crowley did not create

the egocentric kings of The Boys in the Band to mirror our finest personalities, but rather to
 15

apprehend and show somewhat basic about our genuine selves at a time when most homosexual

men were still hiding. And yet his findings were and remain unappealing (Bomer conspicuously

excepted). A generation of gay media depictions, from New Queer Cinema to The Golden Girls,

has left us with a different picture of hopelessness and self-loathing, but The Boys and the Band,

a 52-year-old film now, don't leave us with the same. Too much time has passed since it was first

introduced to the world. Despite its unique capacity to express its artistic moment at the time, the

caustic aspect of its characters was tempered over time, as well as by its innumerable imitations.

As a well-preserved artefact from a dreadful period, this film’s content let Crowley play

alone, without trying to imbue it with current analogies or meta-meaning. Right on cue! It doesn't

need to be current since it's so brutal in its attack on homosexual men's inner lives. However, it

will continue to be relevant for the remainder of the time that we live on this earth. Thus, the

media industry's role in gentrification may be seen in the acceptance of culture over time and the

displacement of people owing to the circumstances represented in movies.

Therefore, by gentrifying Hollywood, I mean a film industry in transition that is being

stripped of its informalities and assimilated into a formal economic system. When it comes to

Hollywood, the term gentrification has been used sparingly. As a whole, the production values,

visual aesthetics, and narrative substance of Hollywood films have improved significantly, but

this hasn't been explored using any idea other than the present study, which is an attempt to make

a difference in film studies. Filmmakers in the so-called "new wave" are bringing

professionalism to the industry, as well as a change in target demographic and bigger budgets,

according to Patch (2004). His description of the process, however, does not include the word

“gentrification”. Later, gentrification in Hollywood is analyzed in terms of social class or group

segregation. On the subject of access to local production environments becoming increasingly

restricted, he acknowledges that “there are plans to construct more rigorous entrance points and

social benefits won over the years by a restricted elite of cinema practitioners” (Patch, 2004). It

was for this reason that this research focused on Hollywood's gentrification. A similar process of

gentrification was used to illustrate how the industry is changing. Giani's investigation of

Hollywood gentrification is used to highlight gentrification in the film business. According to

this study, Hollywood is evolving in ways that are creating class divisions in production,

distribution, and consumption. Informal business activities are impacted by the industry's

interactions with international and corporate institutions, such as the Bank of Industry, Netflix,

and Apple. However, this is simply a transient phenomenon, according to this study. To remain

relevant in the industry, filmmakers also make a concerted effort to become more competent or

obtain current information. As a result, the competition is becoming more intense, and new

chances are opening up for both newcomers and established industry players. Note that

gentrification in the film business doesn't take place in the same manner that it does in urban

growth.

A modern liberal viewpoint on gentrification is used in this study to interpret and

comprehend gentrification, a stance that recognizes the importance of governmental intervention

in the regeneration of industries, no matter how restricted. As a result of this perspective, the

government must establish an “enabling environment” for individuals to succeed. Hollywood's

individuality is reflected in this perspective, which also represents the changing situations in

economic and social progressions within the field. Also, it encourages the use of collectivism, an

uncommon feature of the film industry. With this technique, we can examine how Hollywood's

social and economic environment has changed as a result of gentrification. According to modern
 17

liberalism, this study is a favorable critique of gentrification, a process that builds parallel

economies to accommodate industry players who may be displaced.

It's also hypothesized in this study that the media business would be impacted by

gentrification to various degrees and was claimed that the media sector could undergo

gentrification due to new experts moving in or improving established players. When people,

corporations, and governments reinvest to limit disinvestment in mature film industries such as

Hollywood, it might stimulate gentrification. In Hollywood, gentrification is considered as the

shifting of production, distribution, and consumption as a result of regulations and the migration

of economic capitals. For future research investigation, to see whether the gentrification process

in Hollywood will continue to have a lasting influence can be considered as the main subject to

investigate.

References

Beauregard, R.A. (1986). Politics, Ideology, and Theories of Gentrification. Journal of Urban

Affairs, 7(4), pp.51–62.

Betancourt, M. (2017). The Boys in the Band: Flashpoints of Cinema, History, and Queer

Politics ed. by Matt Bell. Film Quarterly, 71(1), pp.118–119.

Chum, A. (2015). The impact of gentrification on residential evictions. Urban Geography, 36(7),

pp.1083–1098.

Corrigan, T. and Barry, P. (2004). The film experience: an introduction. Basingstoke: Palgrave

Macmillan.
 18

‌Ezepue, E.M. (2020). The New Nollywood: Professionalization or Gentrification of Cultural

Industry. SAGE Open, 10(3), p.215824402094099.

Freeman, L. (2005). Displacement or Succession? Urban Affairs Review, 40(4), pp.463–491.

Ganti, T. (2012). Producing Bollywood: Inside the contemporary Hindi film industry. Duke

University Press.

Glass, R. (1964). London: Aspects of change. MacGibbon & Kee.

Grodach, C., Foster, N., & Murdoch, J. (2014). Gentrification and the artistic dividend: The role

of the arts in neighborhood change. Journal of the American Planning Association, 80(1), 21–35.

https:// doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2014.928584.

Huber, F. (2012). Integrating gentrification into the intrinsic logic discourse – Suggestions for

linking the research. Urban Research & Practice, 5(2), 209–222.

https://doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2012.691618.

Jedlowski, A. (2015). Avenues of participation and strategies of control: Video film production

and social mobility in Ethiopia and Southern Nigeria. In M. Banks, B. Conor and V. Mayer

(Ed.), Production studies II: The sequel (pp. 175–186). Routledge.

Lees, L. (2012). Gentrifying the world city. In B. Derudder, M. Hoyler, P. Taylor and F. Witlox

(Ed.), International handbook of globalization & world cities (pp. 369–377). Edward Elgar

Publishing.
 19

Marcy, M. (2007). Hurry to Hollywood: Will the rapid gentrification of L.A.’s most famous

district drive indie fashion elsewhere. WWD, 193(59), 1–4. https://wwd. com/business-

news/retail/hurry-to-hollywood502339/.

‌Patch, J. (2004). The Embedded Landscape of Gentrification. Visual Studies 19(2), 169-186.

Smith, N., & Williams, P. (eds). (2006). Gentrification of the city. Routledge.

Sutherland, L. (2012). Return of the gentleman farmer? Conceptualizing gentrification in UK

agriculture. Journal of Rural Studies, 28(4), 568–576. https://doi.

org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2012.05.001.

The data retrieved is from:

www.imdb.com. (n.d.). Boys State (2020) - IMDb. [online] Available at:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11095742/ [Accessed 20 Aug. 2021].

www.netflix.com. (n.d.). The Boys in the Band | Netflix Official Site. [online] Available at:

https://www.netflix.com/pk/title/81000365 [Accessed 20 Aug. 2021].

Appendix
 20

Figure 1: Boys State (2020)

Figure 2: Boys State (2020)

Figure 3: Boys State (2020)

Figure 4: The Boys in the Band (2020)

Figure 5: The Boys in the Band (2020)

Figure 6: The Boys in the Band (2020)

Figure 7: The Boys in the Band (2020)