Wow–thanks, guys! The Mask of Fu Manchu and The Phantom Empire sound like they need to go on my must-watch list, if I can find them.
Does anyone know what Hollywood was like around that time? Were there agents? What kind of pay could actors expect? How big were cameras? WHat were the places to go in LA to see and be seen?
These are the sort of details that I need. Things like robots and death rays I know about :).
Daniel
Do you have any theories as to why?
Y2k?
I think it was somewhat a case of declining ratings couple with relatively high production costs. But I think there must have been a certain amount of network “monkey see monkey do” involved. “The Lost World” is an exception. Its ratings were strong, but it was destroyed due to chest-beating by the execs on the show. And I think high production costs did in Cleopatra 2525, more than ratings.
It’s a matter of style. *King Kong * was made just 5 or 6 years into the sound era. The acting style of the early talkies evolved from the style of the silents, and from the experience of many of the stage actors who were imported to Hollywood when the sound barrier was broken. Both styles–stage and silent–were highly stylized. The stage style, to project the dialogue and the facial expressions to the back of the house, was somewhat exaggerated and unnatural. The silent style, to communicate meaning without dialogue, was similarly exaggerated and unnatural. King Kong, an undeniable masterpiece, was very much a product of its time.
Remember, the idea of naturalistic acting didn’t really come into vogue until post WWII, most notably when Montgomery Clift and Marlon Brando received recognition. This, coupled with evolving ideas about film acting–closeups making subtler expression possible; montage taking up a great deal of the storytelling burden; etc.–led eventually to the more natural style that we take for granted today.
Judging art that was created in an entirely different context by today’s standards is a good way to miss what value there is in the older works.