Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Do you think Hollywood's golden age has passed?

I think it has. Nowadays, hollywood is churning out more and more crap.

by Anonymousreply 12304/26/2013

Girl, it passed A LONG TIME AGO.

by Anonymousreply 104/24/2013

Like, in the mid 1960s!

by Anonymousreply 204/24/2013

Yes.

Hollywood has become the big photocopy machine. Originality is dead.

by Anonymousreply 304/24/2013

It passed when TV came in big time -- mid-1950s.

by Anonymousreply 404/24/2013

I'm holding of my opinion until I see that new "Carrie"

by Anonymousreply 604/24/2013

It's hanging on a cross made from my wooden acting.

by Anonymousreply 704/24/2013

Oh, I know, the stuff you see out now it just utter crap.

by Anonymousreply 804/24/2013

Look on the good side of this. Anyone who came up with something original and truly amazing, would have very little competition in this current market.

by Anonymousreply 904/25/2013

Audience consists of morons. Get what you pay for.

by Anonymousreply 1004/25/2013

It passed before the 70s were over. And if you're talking true Studio Hollywood, then make it 1950/55 at the most.

by Anonymousreply 1104/25/2013

The real question is: where are the good movies now?

I feel like Europe is producing a variation on what Hollywood used to do a while ago

And Latin America is producing the exciting movies Europe used to do

-- your thoughts?

by Anonymousreply 1204/25/2013

Not that Hollywood ever made superior movies. Being an Ingrid Bergman fan, I watched her 1940 drama hit Juninatten, and it is far better in my opinion than anything Hollywood might produce.

by Anonymousreply 1304/25/2013

Of course, the Golden Age of Hollywood has passed, OP. You're only fifty years too late with your question.

Although, so far I do think the '10's has been slightly better than the '00's.

I don't like movies that American or British.

by Anonymousreply 1404/25/2013

The '00s were terrible in every way culturally. Talk about confused.

by Anonymousreply 1504/25/2013

Sorry, I meant:

"I don't like movies that [italic]aren't[/italic] American or British.

by Anonymousreply 1604/25/2013

I think the film stock they use is not friendly to the "stars". Back in the really old days, it was made of silver nitrate and made them shimmer. Up until the '70's stars could look gorgeous on film.

Now they look like they're on videotape, much too clear. And now they're moving into digital, which will be a fatal blow.

by Anonymousreply 1704/25/2013

It passed when corporations started producing content. The art of screenwriting and movie making became obsolete. It became simply commerce.

by Anonymousreply 1804/25/2013

I agree with R17. There is an ineffable quality to film. HD has yet to find its equal with post effects. Actors are also interchangeable and unnaturally dull looking, thanks to modern surgery. Hollywood is in a manure phase now, the worst it has ever been. It is consuming itself thematically (see "Oblivion" a gruesome Frankenstein quilting of past sci-fi successes). Yet out of manure, new seeds can be sown. I think if studios consent to limit the micro-management of talent, they could have an "Easy Rider"-style payoff in the form of creative, mid-budget indie science fiction films. I won't pay to watch big budget movies until their quality is taken under reconsideration by studios. They're not worth the money.

by Anonymousreply 1904/25/2013

Yes. How I wish that studio system was still in place.

by Anonymousreply 2004/25/2013

Hollywood golden age was probably 75-84. I can't fathom why idiots in this thread would be claiming much earlier dates. The movies from that era were horrible.

by Anonymousreply 2104/25/2013

There was less nepotism (in terms of actors, only) in Old Hollywood.

by Anonymousreply 2204/25/2013

You have poor taste, R21.

by Anonymousreply 2304/25/2013

You have a glaring inability to detect bad acting r23.

by Anonymousreply 2404/25/2013

When the studio system died, Hollywood's Golden Age died right along with it.

That's why there will never be another Barbara Stanwyck or Bette Davis or even Olivia De Haviliand(Sp?)

These actors today are nothing more than glorified hair models who accidentally hit it big in Pictures.

by Anonymousreply 2504/25/2013

Yes, nepotism is a factor in the suffocating, "snake eating its tail" environment with regard to industry "talent" in its current state.

by Anonymousreply 2604/25/2013

There was definitely a lot of bad acting in those old movies.

by Anonymousreply 2704/25/2013

Apart from the bad acting, one of the reasons I can't stand many old movies is that just as they get going and you develop some interest, some idiot busts out singing and jumping around like a loon. How did people put up with that? I know it's a different era, but there's no way people wouldn't see it as incredibly lame.

by Anonymousreply 2804/25/2013

There have been some excellent small movies lately such as Ghost Writer and Place Beyond the Pines. Nowadays tv/cable is on fire though with their programming.

by Anonymousreply 2904/25/2013

There were good [italic]and[/italic] bad actors in Old Hollywood, R24. Although, due to nepotism there are more of the latter, today.

Of course, styles change. But, many, many performances hold up today.

by Anonymousreply 3004/25/2013

It began to end for me with JAWS, which started the blockbuster uber alles mentality. I haven't really liked many movies since around 1978.

by Anonymousreply 3104/25/2013

[quote]Apart from the bad acting, one of the reasons I can't stand many old movies is that just as they get going and you develop some interest, some idiot busts out singing and jumping around like a loon.

Were you watching a musical, R28?

It's also sad that musicals died out.

by Anonymousreply 3204/25/2013

There is a interview with Dick Cavett that Bette Davis had in what was probably November of 1971.

It's on youtube if any of you ever want to see it, but it's quite enlightening and prophetic.

Most of her predictions about what was going to happen to Hollywood actually managed to come true.

The place is not very realistic anymore and There's a lot of Unprofessionalism.

Nowadays we more about the Actor's insanity in the tabloids than their latest project.

by Anonymousreply 3304/25/2013

so r30 is excusing the horrible acting in old movies as a "style."

by Anonymousreply 3404/25/2013

[quote]so [R30] is excusing the horrible acting in old movies as a "style."

I'm not, R34. I found some of that acting unbearable.

And, I'm not claiming it was a "style" - it was, and it's gone out of style today.

by Anonymousreply 3504/25/2013

Hi, gorgeouses!

The golden age of film in Hollywood is nowhere near finished! After all, I am bringing my dream project to the screen, "Gypsy", the story of Momma Rose. It will be the epic classic of the 21st Century. After that, I am starring in a franchise flick, "Mutha-Fockers", to begin filming in January of 2014.

See, boyz and gurlz, it never ends. The magic is always present and accounted for. Hollywood has a lot of life left in her, especially while I am still alive and kicking.

by Anonymousreply 3604/25/2013

Your parody post failed, R36.

Barbra would never talk like that.

by Anonymousreply 3704/25/2013

[quote]Were you watching a musical, [R28]? It's also sad that musicals died out.

Sad? It's an odd, almost freakish format. It's about as weird as having the story typed on screen for the audience to read, although that at least wouldn't be quite as annoying.

Please understand that I'm not talking about the use of music to enhance a story, that's fine. But I've seen movies from before 1960 where and ordinary story is taking place, when suddenly out of nowhere people interrupt and start jumping around and singing about who knows what. Then they stop and go back to the story. It's ridiculous.

by Anonymousreply 3804/25/2013

That's musicals for you, R38.

by Anonymousreply 3904/25/2013

Forget acting and writing, Hollywood now needs to make most of its money from audiences who don't speak English.

by Anonymousreply 4004/25/2013

A good example of the use of music in a movie is Donnie Darko, especially the opening when he wakes up on the mountain road to Never Tear Us Apart, and also when they introduce the school and associated characters with Head Over Heels.

by Anonymousreply 4104/25/2013

Poor R38, if musicals challenge you, just think what a piece of modernist theatre might do.

by Anonymousreply 4204/25/2013

Why would they do that r40 when English has become the dominant world language, certainly the most spoken language among those with the most money to spend.

by Anonymousreply 4304/25/2013

R37 Sounds just like her to me, and I should know.

by Anonymousreply 4404/25/2013

The Golden Age of Hollywood ended before I was born; and I am not a young man.

by Anonymousreply 4504/25/2013

The star of that movie is the product of nepotism, R41.

by Anonymousreply 4604/25/2013

[quote]A good example of the use of music in a movie is Donnie Darko, especially the opening when he wakes up on the mountain road to Never Tear Us Apart, and also when they introduce the school and associated characters with Head Over Heels.

True. And importantly, you'll notice that none of the characters started singing themselves.

by Anonymousreply 4704/25/2013

r42, that's certainly creative phrasing. Just call anything annoying and stupid "challenging." LOL.

by Anonymousreply 4804/25/2013

You guys are so mean! I always thought gay men were nice and sweet. You guys are catty queens to each other!

by Anonymousreply 4904/25/2013

Tell me, James, when does Barbra say: "boyz and gurlz"?

When did she decide it wouldn't be beneath her to star in a movie called [italic]Mutha-Fockers[/italic]?

And, why did she spell Mama Rose as "Momma Rose"?

by Anonymousreply 5004/25/2013

1950-55 is correct.

by Anonymousreply 5104/25/2013

Even some more modern movies went off the deep end trying to incorporate that 1950s weirdness. Remember the Breakfast Club when they made them suddenly break out of character and dance in the library? Incredibly stupid.

by Anonymousreply 5204/25/2013

People who can't understand the ecstasy of bursting into song in musicals are anally retentive idiots.

by Anonymousreply 5304/25/2013

r53, you think interrupting a story with stupid dancing and contrived songs is "ecstasy"? You must have orgasms at every TV commercial break.

by Anonymousreply 5404/25/2013

So should Stephen and Naomi not have had children, R46? Or forbidden them from taking part in the family business, just in order to suit your idea of the way things ought to be?

Granted, all "products of nepotism" aren't as fine as the one under discussion, but seriously, why [italic]wouldn't[/italic] movie people's children work in the movies?

by Anonymousreply 5604/25/2013

I think r46 was rejected for the part of Donnie.

by Anonymousreply 5704/25/2013

[quote]Nowadays, hollywood is churning out more and more crap.

Said every single year since Hollywood has existed, yet people seem to think they are so brilliant and uniquely insightful for saying it.

by Anonymousreply 5804/25/2013

Nepotism has been used as a tool to benefit the privileged while excluding the masses for ages. I don't think anyone has an issue with children of celebrities working in the entertainment field and/or the family business, the problem arises in the privileges afforded to them due to their station in life, privileges not afforded to those unlucky enough to have been born to ordinary parents. I read a study recently that explained that the higher unemployment rate that some minority groups experience is partly due to nepotism.

by Anonymousreply 5904/25/2013

The last sentence in R59's screedette is a classic of its kind. Never mind that the topic of the harms from nepotism is focused on the entertainment industry (Horrors! The unfairness of it all!) rather than, say, the fucking Rockefellers and Waltons and the high-caste privilege and the thousands-year culture of inherited nobility. It is because of nepotism that "some" minorities have high unemployment rates!

Eek.

by Anonymousreply 6004/25/2013

r31 Is right. When hollywood became obsessed about blockbusters, the quality of films decreased. The obsession with the "foreign market" has also ironically made Hollywood crappy. Since the 70's, Hollywood has decided to decrease adult-driven movies in favor for teen and young adult guy flicks.

by Anonymousreply 6104/25/2013

r40 Most Hollywood films in non-English speaking countries just dub or subt-title.

I do think however the obsession with the foreign market has decreased the quality of Hollywood/US films. One reason why we don't see more localized and parochial topics about US life is because the studios say it won't translate- hence the obsession with "universal" movies. And they deem cartoons, super hero films, and action movies as being more "universal" as the stories are more simplistic and not overly parochial.

by Anonymousreply 6204/25/2013

r61, you mean they've substituted more interesting ones for the boring ones.

by Anonymousreply 6304/25/2013

I love pre-60's Hollywood films. Yes the acting was stilted, but the stories were more interesting. They had to be since special effects were basically non-existent. I love musicals, so I love how even films that weren't technically musicals would have dance and singing numbers!

by Anonymousreply 6404/25/2013

[quote]So should Stephen and Naomi not have had children, [R46]? Or forbidden them from taking part in the family business, just in order to suit your idea of the way things ought to be?

No, but people should have to make it on their own, without their parents giving them a leg up.

I'm not talking about just Hollywood and it's not just [italic]my[/italic] idea of the way things should be. The most qualified person should get the job, not the one with family members in the right place.

And, shockingly, most people share my view, R56.

by Anonymousreply 6504/25/2013

R60, what exactly do you think high-caste privilege entails? Do they all select some poor stranger to pass their money and privilege onto? Or are you just not clear on the definition of nepotism (while you're at it, you might want to look up the definition of "partly")? Let's try to make sense here.

Black Unemployment Driven By White America's Favors For Friends

by Anonymousreply 6604/25/2013

Op, the golden age of hollywood was from the silent period up till the late 50's and early 60's. Some people would also say that in the 70's there was a resurgence/renaissance with Hollywood with films like "the graduate."

by Anonymousreply 6704/25/2013

[quote]up till the late 50's and early 60's.

What is it with this lunatic propaganda? That's about the time the worst films ended and we finally were able to see some decent acting.

by Anonymousreply 6804/25/2013

I wonder who would have been Toothy Tile, R65 R46, if Jake Gyllenhaal hadn't had an in in the entertainment biz. I saw him for the first time on an episode of Homicide his father directed, and thought, "That's a cute kid. I wonder if we'll see more of him." And then I promptly forgot all about him until Donnie Darko (or whatever the first movie was I saw him in).

Most people may share your view. Theoretically, I share you view. I just wouldn't want your view to have gotten in the way of the rest of our being entertained by Jake Gyllenhaal. Or his sister. Or even Gwynnie, whom I loathe only as a personality, not as an actress.

I'm glad we have Jake G., even though his people are movie people.

by Anonymousreply 6904/25/2013

[quote]What is it with this lunatic propaganda? That's about the time the worst films ended and we finally were able to see some decent acting.

R68, do you mind if I ask you; who do you think were the best and worst actors in Old Hollywood?

I'm just curious for your opinion.

by Anonymousreply 7004/25/2013

r68 The acting got better because the stilted style went away for more natural acting. But in terms of plots, I don't think films got better during that time period.

by Anonymousreply 7104/25/2013

We all have different perceptions, R68. And it's perfectly fine to have different opinions. I prefer films from around the 30s-70. However, I have enjoyed many films after that period. And I'm not crazy about musicals either. Although, I did like WOZ, Mary Poppins, BKABS, The Wiz (precisely for the music) and many more as a kid.

by Anonymousreply 7204/25/2013

I'm sorry, but the uncritical endorsement of 'natural' acting reveals a very narrow taste. It's just one performance style among many. Today's realism will also look 'stilted' eventually.

by Anonymousreply 7304/25/2013

I don't believe just because someone has parents in the business, that automatically makes them untalented, R69.

Elizabeth Montgomery comes to mind as one who wasn't and could've easily found success without a helping hand.

But, look at the Hollywood today and tell me it isn't full of actors who wouldn't have gotten anywhere if it weren't for their family. Gwyneth is a prime example and her Oscar was very undeserved.

I don't just disapprove of nepotism in Hollywood, I disapprove of it in all walks of life because it's wrong.

Why should Jake Gyllenhaal have gotten that role on an episode of "Homicide"? Was there no other child actor that could've been better or just as good?

by Anonymousreply 7404/25/2013

r70, I don't think it was about actors as much as it was movies. Actors could be horrible in 10 movies and then decent or good in one. I think it was mostly about direction. An example of good acting back then might be Peck in To Kill a Mockingbird.

by Anonymousreply 7504/25/2013

[quote]Nowadays, hollywood is churning out more and more crap.

[quote]Said every single year since Hollywood has existed, yet people seem to think they are so brilliant and uniquely insightful for saying it.

This.

by Anonymousreply 7604/25/2013

[quote]I'm sorry, but the uncritical endorsement of 'natural' acting reveals a very narrow taste. It's just one performance style among many. Today's realism will also look 'stilted' eventually.

This has to be the most moronic serious post I've read on DL in a long time. At least you appear to be serious.

If your "acting" isn't natural, it's bad acting. By what other standard could you claim that someone is a bad actor? If you can just act any way you want and excuse it as a "performance style" then everyone can claim to be a great actor.

by Anonymousreply 7704/25/2013

[quote] I don't think it was about actors as much as it was movies. Actors could be horrible in 10 movies and then decent or good in one. I think it was mostly about direction.

The same could be said about any actor, from any era.

by Anonymousreply 7804/25/2013

R74:[quote]Why should Jake Gyllenhaal have gotten that role on an episode of "Homicide"? Was there no other child actor that could've been better or just as good?

There's really no answering this question to either of our satisfaction, R74. The set of child actors who could have played this virtually non-speaking role was the very definition of fungible. Maybe casting Jake meant "together time" for Stephen and his son that they wouldn't otherwise have had. He was the director. Why *not* cast Jake?

by Anonymousreply 7904/25/2013

[quote]Said every single year since Hollywood has existed, yet people seem to think they are so brilliant and uniquely insightful for saying it.

Did people say that in the forties?

by Anonymousreply 8004/25/2013

Yes.

by Anonymousreply 8104/25/2013

I agree with posters who say that mainstream film is at its nadir. Movies have never been as one-dimensional and unoriginal as they are now. We're still recycling stars (like Julia Roberts and Tom Hanks) from 20-30 years ago. That would be like Clara Bow still being an A-lister in the 50s - it's ridiculous and shows an industry-wide complacency.

by Anonymousreply 8204/25/2013

[quote]The set of child actors who could have played this virtually non-speaking role was the very definition of fungible.

So, there was nothing special about him, and any other actor could've played the part.

[quote] Maybe casting Jake meant "together time" for Stephen and his son that they wouldn't otherwise have had.

Isn't that just the most perfect excuse for nepotism, more time with the family?

[quote]He was the director. Why *not* cast Jake?

Why not cast any other actor? Why should he get a job, just because of who he's related to.

Why doesn't the mayor of a town just hand out jobs to his family members?

by Anonymousreply 8304/25/2013

You're complaining to the wrong person. I can't answer these questions for you, R83. Even if I had the power to make the changes you'd like, I don't know that I would.

I'm glad Jake was cast in that episode of Homicide. We can't know what would have happened otherwise, but there isn't another young actor I liked more during the '00s. I might say Matt Bomer, but I find White Collar too boring.

by Anonymousreply 8404/25/2013

[quote]You're complaining to the wrong person. I can't answer these questions for you, [R83]. Even if I had the power to make the changes you'd like, I don't know that I would.

I wasn't asking you specially. Rather, I was offering a suggestion; why should someone get a job, just because of their relations, when there are other people who can do the job just as well?

I don't know how that doesn't strike you as unfair.

by Anonymousreply 8504/25/2013

Girls, please!

by Anonymousreply 8604/25/2013

For all we know, twelve other kids auditioned who sucked.

by Anonymousreply 8704/25/2013

I think the number of good films is a lot less than it used to be, but I also have hopes for the influence of the silver market, which they're starting to get. Inexpensive films, nice stories, decent return on investment given the low budgets because they're figuring out the aging boomers will go to the movies if everything isn't blown up during the proceedings.

by Anonymousreply 8804/25/2013

I do get sick of movies about people in the 25-50 age group. Annoying fucks they are.

by Anonymousreply 8904/25/2013

Let's let the Gyllyenhyaal dynasty off the hook. He is serviceable - lol - an adequate actor, though his Hwood sculpted nose and babytalk are distracting in Brokeback and elsewhere. There is no "living in the real world" to his acting. Why should there be? He doesn't. There was in previous generations of actors an approved artistic drive and hunger to express the human experience, be it Brando, Pacino, Dunaway, even Liz Taylor - an industry-sanctioned former child star - that was supported by the stories and filmmakers. Stars were photographed intensely studying acting, amongst "regular actors". Even the venal studio heads loved a well-realized, humane film. They celebrated life. Movies today are numbing superhero cliffhangers or CIA informercials like Argo. They are not incisive or provocative, not even tearjerkers. They're just there, just digital assets to move from theaters to cable to Hulu. Actors appear in them to sell their ancillary crap, their perfumes and ugly clothing lines. As with all cultural shifts, I expect intelligent, well-made stories of all genres to eventually reconnect with a paying, hungry, technologically-connected audience, if only as a niche market, possibly as crowd-sourced productions. I also hope corporate "entertainment" providers are totally shut out of any profits.

by Anonymousreply 9004/25/2013

[quote]For all we know, twelve other kids auditioned who sucked.

Except, that never happened.

Why don't you pick a story and stick to it, R79/R89. Note your quote below:

[quote]The set of child actors who could have played this virtually non-speaking role was the very definition of fungible.

by Anonymousreply 9104/25/2013

Why bump a thread from the 1970's

by Anonymousreply 9204/25/2013

imo, it passed when the studio system died...early 1960's, although it's death began in 1950's. Also tv came in more fully around then. And in my opinion, again, tv peaked in the late 70's or early 80's. It was replaced by cable tv..which is different then regular tv ...for you twinks!

by Anonymousreply 9404/25/2013

another propagandist for bad old movies at r94. Although I think you're mostly right about TV, though there have been some exceptional series, like West Wing, My So-called Life, and Lost.

by Anonymousreply 9504/25/2013

Yes because oonly the VanDyke brothers and Betty White are still living and Mickey Rooney.

by Anonymousreply 9604/25/2013

[quote]If I say "nepotism sucks," will you go the fuck away?

Why ever would you say that, after how you kept defending it?

by Anonymousreply 9704/25/2013

Just to get rid of you.

by Anonymousreply 9804/25/2013

I'd like for you to understand why nepotism sucks, R98, but you appear to be unable to do so.

Feel free to say what you want, but I have no intention of leaving this thread willingly.

by Anonymousreply 9904/25/2013

[quote]I do get sick of movies about people in the 25-50 age group.

That's because you're old.

by Anonymousreply 10104/25/2013

As one who's not involved in the nepotism debate, I also wish you'd shut up about it. It's not really the topic of this thread.

by Anonymousreply 10204/25/2013

[quote]That's why there will never be another Barbara Stanwyck or Bette Davis or even Olivia De Haviliand(Sp?)

Thank god. They couldn't act their way out of a paper bag. No one spoke or acted like that.

by Anonymousreply 10304/25/2013

[quote]That's because you're old.

I'm 31. If that's old, so be it, but I'm sick of the 25-50 demographic and their vapid interests being constantly shoved in our faces. What about those under 25 and over 50? I've found that in real life they're far more interesting and less annoying/conniving.

by Anonymousreply 10404/25/2013

[quote]I don't know how that doesn't strike you as unfair.

R85, life is unfair.

by Anonymousreply 10504/25/2013

There's a type of person who just loves unfairness when it's happening to someone else.

Of course those people should be shot.

by Anonymousreply 10604/25/2013

"Uh, no, OP. Hollywood passed, but film is better than ever. It's all independent, thus more artistic integrity. Hollywood's original Golden Age was full of cartoonish performances (Bette Davis, Joan Crawford, etc). No one could act back then."

You are an incredibly idiotic, clueless, brain-dead cretin.

"Film is better than ever?" HAHAHAHHAHAHA! Sweetie pie, movies SUCK these days. Sequels, remakes, franchises, movies based on tv shows, big-budget commercial garbage, tedious, pretentious "independent" crap...yeah, that's what filmgoers can expect these days. If you think that shit constitutes "better than ever" than you are a complete and utter retard.

"Artistic integrity? Honey, I don't think you even know what that means. No, I KNOW you don't know what that means.

"Hollywood's original Golden Age was full of cartoonish performances (Bette Davis, Joan Crawford, etc). No one could act back then."

"No one could act back then?" That clinches it: you are a major fucktard. You wouldn't know a good movie or good acting if it bit you on your pimply rump.

by Anonymousreply 10704/25/2013

Bitch! I will cut you, R100! You didn't have to mention Joan, you could have mentioned someone else! Now with regard to LBW/Bette, you have point. Cartoon indeed! Bozo the Clown even.

by Anonymousreply 10804/25/2013

"Thank god. They couldn't act their way out of a paper bag. No one spoke or acted like that."

How old are you, twelve? Movies and acting were different back then. But I guess you don't know that. You're obviously very ignorant. Maybe you should take a few basic courses on the history of film, because you don't know what the hell you're talking about. I don't think you realize how stupid you are.

by Anonymousreply 10904/25/2013

r107-109, you are a deranged loon. You obviously can't refute any of the things you resent. You KNOW the acting was bad back then. You KNOW it, so why are you spewing propaganda (mostly just baseless statements) in defense of it?

by Anonymousreply 11004/25/2013

Anyone who can't see the horrible acting in most movies before the 60s is pretty blind and has no basis for lecturing anyone else.

by Anonymousreply 11104/25/2013

r107/r109 = same angry fat drag queen, still doing their Bette Davis impression. You're just embarrassing.

by Anonymousreply 11204/25/2013

R110/R111 = hopeless retard

by Anonymousreply 11304/25/2013

Here's a little info for the dumbass who doesn't know anything about movies or acting, period:

Barbara Stanwyck; nominated for an Oscar four times, eventually given an honorary award for her many outstanding performances.

Bette Davis; nominated for an Oscar 10 times, won twice.

Joan Crawford; nominated for an Oscar three times, won once.

Olivia De Havilland; nominated for an Oscar five times, won twice.

Not bad for women who "couldn't act their way out of a paper bag." Not bad at all.

by Anonymousreply 11404/25/2013

I do agree that acting in old movies seems fake to me.

by Anonymousreply 11504/25/2013

Movies peaked in the 70s. After Star Wars, it was all about cartoons. ( Animal House is the other culprit here.)

by Anonymousreply 11604/25/2013

[quote]life is unfair.

Don't I know it, R105!

There were plenty of bad actors in Old Hollywood, but the people of this thread are arguing about the wrong ones. Crawford, Davis, de Havilland and Stanwyck were all good actors.

For bad acting, look instead to say, Katharine Hepburn or Norma Shearer.

This documentary about "Cleopatra"(1963) is somewhat interesting:

by Anonymousreply 11704/26/2013

Agreed, R117. I don't know why people can't appreciate film, music, art, and so on from all eras, as long as it isn't meant to hurt or demean anyone. It's their loss I guess.

by Anonymousreply 11804/26/2013

[italic]This[/italic] thread has some interesting points:

by Anonymousreply 11904/26/2013

R103, Are you insane??

People like Bette and Olivia and even Barbara paved the way for the shitty actresses that we are forced to suffer through today.

I would take those 3 chicks over any of the whores or manufactured hair models that H-Wood is pushing out today.

Everyone knows that people didn't actually act like that during that time, but they didn't exactly care. It was the depression and people wanted to forget life for a while.

Watch "Babyface" or "Philadelphia Story" or even "Now, Voyager" and then say those chicks couldn't act their way out of a paper bag.

by Anonymousreply 12004/26/2013

[quote]People like Bette and Olivia and even Barbara paved the way for the shitty actresses that we are forced to suffer through today.

That seems to go against the rest of your post, R120.

by Anonymousreply 12104/26/2013

I meant that those women really set the standard for acting and a lot of chicks that we got on the screen today really can't live up to that image.

New Hollywood is filled with hair models and reality wannabes and bitches with really no talent.

I think that "Gangster Squad" and "The Artist" were clear reminders that H-Wood has a glimmer of talent still left in it.

But only a Glimmer.

by Anonymousreply 12204/26/2013

Hollywood is and always has been bottom-line focused. Women's pictures used to make giant money for the studios, but I don't know if that necessarily translates to a golden age. A lot of those movies were terrible and were simply made to make money.

There is a comic book and young adult franchise push now that is deadly for creativity, but seems to be very profitable overseas. Certain movies will last and endure as classics, and others won't.

I am generally more concerned whether movies will last at all as an art form. With digital and hand held devices, there are so many kids now who either think movies should be game-like or they can just play games at home. Movies may become as quaint as old radio.

by Anonymousreply 12304/26/2013
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.