Oh, yeah, the very few best movies of those decades are worth watching. But most of them were crap, and not just because they didn’t have color film then. There was also a system of censorship in effect in America that clamped down very heavily on American films from 1934-1965 (the end date is a rough one, the censorship was slowly lifted, not thrown off all at once).
The censorship wasn’t just a matter of forbidding nudity and sex, though this had an infantilizing effect on American films, of course. There was also the matter of declaring outright that good must always win out over evil, that all authority figures must be treated with respect, etc., etc. blah blah blah. It really fucked up American films for three decades. So there’s good reason for people not to want to watch old films. They are simply not as good as modern films. They could not be. They were heavily censored.
That’s a mostly factually accurate but cartoonishly simplistic view of the Hays Code. (It did, in fact, end suddenly in 1967, although there were some challenges to it and cosmetic changes made in its last few years.) The Hays Code served, for some directors as a kind of evolutionary pressure on creativity. It was very restrictive of explicit content, but many directors sharpened their skills at communicating such content implicitly, subtly, rather than right out on the surface, like a Russ Meyers film.
The Hays Code’s greatest effect was on women in film: before it was put into place, all the biggest stars were women, and all the biggest hits were “women’s films,” with lots of strong, independent female characters. The Hays Code dictated, basically, that all portrayals of women in the film must conform to Catholic morality (the code was written, for all intents and purposes, by an activist bishop).
In any case, while it’s true that many films would have been better without the Code in place, and I agree wholeheartedly tht American culture would hold a different shape today if the Code had not been implemented, it’s certainly nowhere near true that the Code made most movies of those years unwatchable.
The MPAA replaced the old production code with a new one in autumn 1966, replacing the specific rules in the old code with more general rules that preached caution on scenes of violence, nudity, criminal behavior, and sexual intimacy. It also included a “Suggested for Mature Audiences” label for certain pictures. The new production code ended in November 1968, replaced by the voluntary letter ratings system (G, M, R, X).
To be fair, W, every book I’ve ever read on the subject gives the Code’s year of demise as 1967, which is when Blowup’s success despite the withholding of Hays Office certification rendered it irrelevant. It wasn’t replaced with a new system until 1968, but it drew its last rasping breath in 1967. Not that this isn’t a supremely anal nitpick.
As regards “The Big Sleep”, yes it was fairly incomprehensible, and no, I don’t think it was meant to be that way. The problem is that the source material and the Hollywood sensibilities of the day (cf. the Hays Code) didn’t exactly mesh. The original story involves a pornography ring, recreational drug use, casual sex, and a murderer that goes unpunished. The movie could only hint at what was going on, and if I remember right, had to invent a new murderer that could get caught. It’s too bad too because Humphrey Bogart was a perfect cast for Philip Marlowe. The book is great though. I highly recommend it.
Something important that good older films and books give to a younger generation is the understanding that the same problems and passions they face today were faced by their parents’ and grandparents’ generations too. Manners and customs have changed throughout human history, but at the base of all societies is still humanity and that just doesn’t change much.
Once in a great while today when someone wishes to bear the expense, a movie will be released as a ‘silver’ print – that is, in the darker areas the silver is left in the print rather than washed out of it as is normally done. It’s quite expensive as the lab watches its silver go out the door with the print rather than recycling it from the spent developer but it results in absolutely gorgeous blacks. I wonder it the same could be done with black and white stock?
I, for one, am still mourning the loss of Technicolor.
Not to nitpick your nitpick, but you’re going to have to provide a cite for your 1967 statement- one that proves that the Motion Picture Association of America website that details the history of the Ratings System in fim is incorrect. I suspect you’re going to have an extremely hard time doing that.
The demise of the Hays Code and the advent of the Ratings System are two different events, between which there was a gap. I’m at work, don’t have the books in front of me, but here are a few online cites. Will dig through books when I get home.
Well THAT’s ugly. I accidentally hit submit instead of preview. I was just collecting cites, to edit down into an actual post. Here it is again, a little clearer:
The demise of the Hays Code and the advent of the Ratings System are two different events, between which there was a gap. I’m at work, don’t have the books in front of me, but here are a few online cites. Will dig through books when I get home.
“The Hayes Code” was the old production code. As I said, it was replaced in autumn 1966, with a new production code. The new production code was replaced on November 1, 1968 with the letter ratings system.
Frank Walsh, Sin and Censorship: The Catholic Church and the Motion Picture Industry, p. 323,
Leonard J. Leff, Jerold L. Simmons, The Dame in the Kimono: Hollywood, Censorship, and the Production Code, p. 270,
That’s a rather condescending way to think about it. If you look back to my previous post, I mentioned movies such as Amadeus and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, which are recent films that I like quite a bit, and which are FAR closer to “interplay of the actors and a well-written script” than they are to “action-packed film with dazzling images and fast cuts”.
Sure there are (or at least, we snobs ilke to assume there are) some people who don’t like old films because their favorite movie is Jackass part 2, and they ALSO don’t like any film with subtitles, any film without car chases, any film that’s too talky, or what have you. But there are also people who like intelligent dramas without explosions, who still prefer the ones made in the past 30 years. I think that’s a more interesting issue.
That’s one of the things that bugs me about old films. That, and the delivery of many of the child actors comes across more like a recitation than dialogue: hands at their side, chin up, chest out, clear, strong voice. Why did those kids shout everything? Actually, much of the dialog I’ve heard from young boy actors frankly sounds as if it was overdubbed by an adult woman.
Another thing that I find to be quite a distraction in the older films is the fact that there were a lot of stage techniques that they hadn’t yet realized were unnecessary in film. For example, raising the back of the hand to the mouth to indicate fear. A standard stage acting device, useful because many in the audience were too far away from the actor to be able to read his facial expression. They would recognize the gesture and know that the character was afraid. But the technique is unnecessary in film, thanks to the ability to do close-up shots. But they kept doing it for quite some time.
Another similar device I’ve seen in a lot of old films, which I suspect was a carryover from the stage: the bottle of brandy (or whatever kind of liquor) placed on a small table right inside the front door of the house. The man of the house comes home, hangs up his coat and hat and then immediately pours himself a drink from the conveniently placed bottle. A nice, clear way to indicate that this is the character’s “home”. It’s an action that would likely not be performed at work, in store, or in somebody else’s home. It works on the stage where all the audience gets to see is the interior of the room. In a movie, where they are able to show the outside of the house and depict the character pulling up in his car and walking in the front door, it becomes superfluous.
I’ve also been astonished by the number of Americans in old movies who have British accents
Nah - I saw Lawrence of Arabia a few years ago (it was re-released or re-mastered, or soemthing) in a big, old theater, the kind it was designed for, and all I could think was “it’s not over, yet? End already!”
I actively didn’t like it.
On the other hand, I’ll watch horrible VHS copies of “His Girl Friday” on tiny tvs anytime. Any old film won’t do… not even any good, old film.
The exact date on which the old Code ended is unimportant. The important thing is that it was there, and it was a big, wet blanket on American cinema for three decades. True, some great films were made despite it, but it’s really hard to argue (though I know some damned Doper will try, sooner or later) that any great films were ever made BECAUSE of it. You’ve already read about the way The Maltese Falcon was fucked up (in relation to the original story) by the Code. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. I’m sure there are a LOT of stories out there that never got made, that might have been great films, simply because there would have been too much conflict with the Code.
If you look at the direction films were moving in in the early 1930s, you’ll see that they were becoming more hard-edged, sexier, and as has been pointed out, strong women were making themselves felt in the movies.
Well the Code sure put an end to all that awful stuff and turned it into some whacked-out Catholic fantasyland of goodness vs. not-so-goodness, with not-so-goodness taking it on the chin in every case and badness was never sexy because sexy didn’t exist.
Sorry, people, but the Hayes Code really DID fuck up American cinema big time. It’s an historical fact. Most people don’t know enough about movie history to understand that, they just know they don’t like old movies. But if you’re at all honest, you know that’s one of the reasons. Really, perhaps the most important one. I’m afraid that if you’re an old movie fan, you just have to deal with it.
Incidentally, The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly is one of my favorite old westerns. I saw part of the end of it on TV once, and then rented the whole trilogy from Blockbuster Online. It was fun to watch the guy’s style develop from Fistful of Dollars to For A Few Dollars More to TG,TB,&TU. That said, I can see how trying to get people to watch the films “In order” could be a problem, since the older ones weren’t NEARLY as polished as the third. I’ve directed fans of the Mariachi trilogy to check out the Dollars Trilogy, since Robert Rodriguez pointed at Sergio Leone as one of his inspirations for those movies.
Other than that, my dad raised me on a healthy diet of John Wayne westerns (McClintock and El Dorado will forever be some of my favorite films).
And sometimes, I suppose it just helps if they make a video game based on it :smack: I just saw The Godfather a few months ago because I loved the video game so much. And it looks like they’re re-releasing Scarface on DVD to tie in with the new video game based on THAT game.
I just watched Humoresque on DVD: terrific, schmaltzy, over-the-top movie, Joan at her Joanniest, and the last 15 minutes alone are the best movie of that year. But you really have to take the time and attention to immerse yourself in it. I turned off the lights, made a cup of tea, and sat and enjoyed.
(By the way, I’d love to see a Humoresque video game!)
Actually, much of the dialog I’ve heard from young boy actors frankly sounds as if it was overdubbed by an adult woman.