I’m a fan of Julie Andrews, just because I was extremely impressed with “The Sound of Music” and “Mary Poppins”. You know, there’re loads of critics of this film, and the estimations in IMDB aren’t very high. However, it’s obvious that the most of old movies are much better than that of our era, because the actors weren’t thought to be a set of wage-slaves.
P. S. It would appear that my tastes are just conservative, but, believe you me, I really regret that modern films don’t surpass the higher artistic level of old talkies. After all, I hope that the public of this category won’t answer back and backchat because of my viewpoint.
Fighting the hypothetical, but you are totally mistaken if you think “old-time” actors were thought of as anything but wage slaves. They were owned by the studios, and did what the studios told them to do, which was usually massive amounts of third-rate dreck.
A lot of it is, yeah; the good stuff from back when gets showcased and remembered, but the mediocre-to-bad stuff from back when gets quietly put aside, and so it’s not really an apples-to-apples comparison…
Let’s take a look at Humphrey Bogart as an example. IMDB lists him in 84 movies. For every “To Have and Have Not” there are 10 "All Through the Night"s. Movies were cranked out by the trainload, and actors did what the studios told them to do.
As for what I mean by “third rate dreck,” just keep Sturgeon’s Law in mind. For most of the history of motion pictures, Ted was an optimist.
However, the present era of modern cinema hasn’t produced nothing but technically perfect mediocre-to-bad stuff. At least, I just abhor all the modern Hollywood movies because of its semi-pornographical and semi-trash contents. There’s a set of exceptions, though.
Your thoughts contradict logic. I don’t think that the owners of studios were a set of dim-witted blimps, for their main rival in terms of cinema was the Soviet Union, and, accordingly, I hope that you don’t find the higher artistic level of Soviet movies to be dubious.
By the way, I didn’t praise all the old movies, because, for instance, Grace Kelly is my real abhorrence.
Not sure where that came from, but if that’s even true, it would only be for the tiny percentage of Westerners who even saw Soviet film back then; most American filmgoers (the primary audience for the U.S. studios) would have had zero exposure to any movies from the Soviet Union.
I didn’t correct my mistake. I’m very sorry. There should have been a negation in the above sentences. I have been using this site for two days, so its interface is new for me.
If there was a number two, it would probably be Great Britain. France and Italy would be close behind, and many of Hollywood’s great actors and directors came from Central Europe. (Examples are Peter Lorre and Billy Wilder.)
I agree with most of what you say, but do not badmouth All Through the Night! It was a big fav in our house, and, yes, it’s pretty silly, but it’s a grand kind of silly. Great cast, too. Judith Anderson, Peter Lorre, Conrad Veidt, and the mooks in Gloves Donovan’s gang. And a cute dachshund who gets blowed up! Good pacing and very entertaining. No, it’s not high art, but it’s a hoot.
No, I do not, having never heard of the film, and its Wikipedia entry makes no mention about any such incident. Would you care to enlighten us, with citations?