Why does she always criticise modernity?
-
gomi2 — 18 years ago(September 29, 2007 04:11 PM)
"but even the 1940s and 1950s were all about conformity."
"Also, agents and producers had more control over actors in Lauren's time where they often controlled every part of their physical appearance, maybe that is why they all looked 'so good and different'."
And today we're "rebels?"
OK, there's a giant dump truck load of things wrong with those statements.
1 - Evidently you have never heard of Beatniks, Lenny Bruce, Rebel Without a Cause, Jazz, Bettie Page, and the list goes on for as long as I am tall. Conformity!? Popular culture has always been about conformity. It still is today. I would certainly agree that (American) life was more about Conservative-Christian lifestyles, but "conformity" has always been the majority. Just like how today millions of kids all "rebel" by dressing like Marilyn Manson. Yeah that's real rebellious.
2 - Considering how completely over-produced, formulaic, systematic, brainless, and easily digested movies are today (and music, and TV), I'd say that we have not made any progress. Instead, we have stagnated, or even taken a step back.
3 - You say the movies of the 40's and 50's are basically the same as movies today, but then you have to consider that they were the first ones to do it. It was original and ingenious back then. Repeating it is tired and pathetic.
4 - Given the exposure of stars in tabloids, and how they are shamed almost into oblivion for every single infraction of our concepts of physical beauty - a little cellulite here, a wrinkle there, gaining a few pounds as they grow old, and GASP aging HOW DARE MOVIE STARS AGE LIKE NORMAL HUMAN BEINGS - I think our society has more "control"5b4 over movies stars now than ever before.
Think about how people's careers are basically destroyed (or made) when they are caught doing drugs, sleeping with prostitutes, drinking while driving, cheating on their spouses, or any of the other things that billions of people do every single day.
We treat these people like Gods when they never asked to be. We worship them and name our fokking kids after them. We pay our hard-earned money to watch the sh!+ they star in. We buy their albums when they delude themselves into thinking they can become a rap star.
AND STILL as soon as they show a glimpse of humanity, as soon as they present themselves in any realistic fashion, as soon as they display themselves to be just like any other person with a job, we turn on them. We destroy their careers. We insult them. We make them the butt of our jokes.
Yeah I'd say we have more control over celebrities today, in the numbers of the millions of people who devour their garbage, than a handful of people who did their makeup and fed them their motivation in the 50's.
We suck. -
xcOxCoXco — 18 years ago(September 29, 2007 05:38 PM)
"Considering how completely over-produced, formulaic, systematic, brainless, and easily digested movies are today (and music, and TV), I'd say that we have not made any progress. Instead, we have stagnated, or even taken a step back. "
You are so bloody right! bless ya -
Peter_Fields — 18 years ago(December 21, 2007 07:49 AM)
Personally, I can't believe a previous person who posted had the nerve to compare Lauren Bacall to Lindsey Lohan. Lindsey is a no talent hack with one personality she brings to every role. This person noted that Lauren was 19 when she starred in "To Have and Have Not" but failed to mention the maturity, ability, talent, and poise that Ms. Bacall displayed in her first roll as compared to Lindsey who practically phones in every performance and rarely connects with her "co-stars." Lindsey is the LAST person Lauren Bacall should be compared to. If Lindsey is the ONLY person you could pull out your hat to compare Lauren Bacall to, then you need to start studying film instead just watching them.
On another note, Ms. Bacall has a good point when referring to old Hollywood. She's not so much saying that current Hollywood isn't as good as her era, she's saying that current Hollywood doesn't present or portray itself as well as in her era. Hollywood was all about fantasy, dreams, escape. You didn't see the scars, scabs, and dirt because there was little. And when there was any, you had publicity people that cleaned you up fast. Your career depended on it. Ms. Bacall has a good point in that respect. Current Hollywood wears their scandals and improprieties like a badge of honor. It's become the norm to assume that any "trash" can become a star and surely everyone is finally getting their 15 minutes. You can get out of your car with no underwear, flash your cooter and it's become the norm. You can father 10 kids from 10 different women and as long as you pay your child support, you're a great guy. Stars are no longer people we look up to and aspire to be. They're us now. They're no different than you and I except they assume they exude glamour because some whoring designer dresses them for an award show. They get to be crappy people publically and feel no backlash.
Ms. Bacall is also correct on the current crop of actresses. You can watch most films and interchange many of the current actresses in the roll and you'd get the same product. Ironic, but true. Actresses in Laurens era may have been manufactured by the studio system to develop their individual looks and personalities, BUT, they also had the talent to pull it off. Something todays actresses don't show a knack for doing.
It's difficult to disagree with Lauren on these aspects. -
warrior-woman-1 — 16 years ago(November 02, 2009 06:57 PM)
there's a lot to be said for living in the past, movies were for entertainment, actors were somthing special, Hollywood was concidered a land of magic for a reason. today, its all to much reality. who goes to the movies to see reality.
its ment to be escapisam. heros of old movies were heros. almost all of todays actors look weak, compare orlando bloom, zac efron and danial crage to bogart, burt lancaster and sean connery. and actreses had personality, Katherine Hepburn, Lauren Bacall, ingred burgman. hollywood isnt any fun any more, everyones serious, geting drunk stoned and arrested. bring back the heros.
and in case anyone is thinking im some 60 year old. Im 17. -
mysteryfan — 16 years ago(January 26, 2010 10:18 PM)
I think she does it because she can. Like another poster said, she has been in this business a hell of a long time so it isn't like she doesn't have the experience. I agree with her too, nowadays you don't have to be a great actor, just star in some popular movie and everyone wants you in their films to sell it. It isn't about talent anymmore just fame.
I am from this new age, but I think there are only a few talented actors nowadays, especially on the men's side. Gone were the days when we saw actual talent. If someone is so called sexy enough then bam, it's alright they get a role (e.g. Megan Fox and Channing Tatum) to name a couple. Disney, Nickelodean kids, majority can't act or the over act. However their popularity gets them roles. Also gone were the days when Hollywood would actually think of stories, it's just remakes after remakes. When someone does an original that doesn't sound cheesy, I am amazed.
Hollywood use to be this great big place, but nowadays it has really fallen off. Nowadays a lot of good stuff come from outside of Hollywood's bubble.To compare these new school actors to older ones who have distiguished careers don't make me laugh.
Considering how completely over-produced, formulaic, systematic, brainless, and easily digested movies are today (and music, and TV), I'd say that we have not made any progress. Instead, we have stagnated, or even taken a step back
Well said -
schappe1 — 16 years ago(March 07, 2010 08:17 PM)
They must have spent a lot of time together agreeing with eachother. A factor in this, I'm afraid, is superannuation. When it's no longer your era, you tend to take a dim view of things. Add a layer of arrogance and you can have plenty of hard feelings.
They weren't necessarily wrong but there's something inherently unfair about comparing the past and the present. The accomplishments of past periods and the people who lived and worked in them are all in the books and can be seen in full perspective. The present is a story still being told. There's plenty of dreck out there and plenty of people producing it but there always has been. The only thing we see from past periods is the best they had to offer. There are gems being created today and this era will look pretty good someday. -
jejohnson73 — 15 years ago(October 07, 2010 09:23 AM)
Because she is RIGHT. Movies of today are ARTLESS. Movies of her time, they did not have to depend on special effects to be special. Also, the acting was better. The overall way women dressed was better. They were glamourous back in those days. Now, these gals will show off their crotches, dress at the Oscars and other awards shows showing up in practically nothing. I mean, come on. The woman came from an era that was considered class. Movies then were ART. Movies now, unless these films are not being glorified with special effects, they are not nothing. Directing means nothing anymore without effects. Movies, actors, and actresses of her day were flat out BETTER. PERIOD. Deal with it.
J -
Vraiment — 15 years ago(February 16, 2011 07:07 AM)
This is silly, Bacall (and many posters) are just making huge generalisations about movies and movie stars of the "past" bunching all work from 1930s - 1980s in some cases! The simple fact is bad films are forgotten! Hollywood churns out loads of crap and always has done. For every Casablanca or Godfather there are about 50 duds, even Bogart is quoted a saying "I made more lousy pictures than any actor in history."
Hollywood was a production line for much of the early 20th century, churning out dodgy picture after dodgy picture because it was highly profitable to do so. Studies only started using sound and then colour in films because they discovered these films sold more, there was not artistic motive to do so.
It also ignorant to suggest all films 'now-a-days' are crap, because there are have been some cracking films in the past year alone, never mind since the 1990.
As for the dislike of modern Hollywood stars and women dressing better, well the entire nature of the media has changed. You would never see Ingrid Bergman out in her slacks going for a jog because there was no one there to take a picture of it. Today, the press are everywhere ready to shoot any mundane photo of an actor at the shops, waking their dog, driving a car a5b4nd so on. This picture can be immediately put on internet ready for the world to see.
And there are loads of great contemporary actresses: Kate Winslet, Jodie Foster, Cate Blanchett, Natalie Portman, Halle Berry, Scarlett Johansson, Julianne Moore etc etc etc
In 50 years time I'm sure people will look back on the early years of the 21st century and be saying exactly the same thing. Nostalgia and sentimentality distort the reality of previous generations. Katharine Hepburn apparently hated the next generation's star Meryl Streep and yet Streep is widely considered the greatest living (and often all time) actress. -
dlombino — 14 years ago(September 16, 2011 09:48 AM)
The problem with the chastisement of the "old" for their chastisement of the "new" is enveloping yourself in the same problem that you attack them for seemingly being lost in.
What I mean is that you condemn Lauren Bacall and others for their "sentimental" view of her generation in Hollywood, while similarly lionizing YOUR generation. People of our generation REFUSE to see anything wrong with the way we go about things.
We ignore facts like the hypercommercialization of Hollywoodthe Hollywoodization of so-called independent films. The fact of the matter is our current generation of films is far more homogenized than any previous generation. Consider the fact that currently only six major studios create something like 90 percent of the films that are released in theaters (also consider that the six major studios also own pretty much every theater in the United States).
We ARE of a different generationthat is correct. Lauren Bacall's generation had their set of problems, and we have our own set. However, the most glaring problem b68I can see is our refusal to account for the past, for History. One poster said something about Bacall's generation having a "conservative-Christian" aesthetic, as if that were a bad thing. The poster was clearly looking at this "conservative-Christian" thing entirely from the warped view of our current generationcompletely forgetting that it was in the 40's, 50's, and early 60's that the "conservative-Christian" demographic were the one's that protested against war, discrimination, and typically voted for the progressive candidates (not to mention that all of the now contemporary "blue" states actually used to vote "red" in the early 20th century).
My point is, people all too often look at their generation and themselves in a myopic lens. We like to see the best in us, not the worst. We are a generation inundated with advertisements that tell us to fear being ourselvesto fear having acne, to fear not having designer jeans, to fear looking like an adult and getting wrinkles, to fear working a real job or thinking very hard about our past. We are Generation Fear, afraid of the reality of ourselves. We are the MTV Kids.
Unsurprisingly, our celebrities reflect our climate. Can you imagine Brad Pitt, Johnny Depp, Angelina Jolie, Blake Lively, Will Ferrel, Will Smith, Jennifer Aniston, Ben Stiller, Scarlett Johansson, Shia Labeouf, Leonardo DiCaprio ad infinitum having anything unique or insightful to say about films, art, or life?
Compare them to, say, Humphrey Bogart, Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, Bettie Page, John Cassavetes, Ingrid Bergman, Erich von Stroheim, Orson Welles. Sure, I'm hand-picking the best from previous generationsbut I'm also picking who are considered the best from our CURRENT generation. So make your comparison.
The fact of the matter is, our "great" actors today are merely performers. They aren't trying to get at the heart of humanity, they aren't trying to get to truth. Humphrey Bogart hated anything fake, and surely he would hate our current generation of actors, who are not in any way artists but are rather brands developed by the corporate media.
Our generation reflects the disenfranchisement of spirituality (most reading this I'm sure will disagree and say that religionspecifically Christianityis bad/stupid/primitive, and will simply take the bastardization of religion in the form of fundamentalism as some form of truth, as if fundamentalists even understand what Christianity is about) and our generation lionized corporate media materialism. We are living in a scientific age and we champion the things we see, and not the internal things which are yet true.
MY POINT IS, take a look at yourself critically. Everyone at all times. -
digitaldiva — 14 years ago(September 16, 2011 10:24 AM)
Hi dlombino,
While I admire Ms. Bacall, she was a product of the old Hollywood system. Her glamour was created, her public persona carefully groomed, her product released into theaters owned and operated by the studios. From the 1960s to today, actors have not had the luxury of being taken care of by a studio and have pretty much had to do it alone. Ms. Bacall did not became a star in the age of television, the internet, paparazi, video gaming, Youtube etal and can look back at film history through the lens of nostalgia.
I disagree with your assessment of current crop of actors, many of whom are intelligent, thoughtful and much more business savvy then actors of the past. Most are quite aware of film history, but working within a different paradigm. I assure you, many of the actors you demean have contributed more in the way of their time and charity work than most of their predecessors.
By the way, you noted Bettie Page in your critique - when did she ever participate in studio films? She was a pin-up model. Oh, another thing, Ms. Bacall is a proud liberal as was Bogart and not a fundamentalist Christian. In fact, she is Jewish. -
dlombino — 14 years ago(September 16, 2011 02:03 PM)
digitaldiva,
I'll address a few mistakes of mine first:
When I wrote Bette Page, I meant Bette Davis. I'm glad you caught that, I made a mistake. I was writing in a haste.
Second, I didn't say Lauren Bacall nor Humphrey Bogart were fundamentalist Christians. However, it's impossible to ignore the role religious thought 5b4(of any kind) was more responsibly regarded during her era and more ingrained in the culture of the era. I was merely addressing a criticism from a previous poster. I wasn't suggesting Bacall is, was, or even likes Christians.
What I was trying to write was that culture changes and our perception of something in the now isn't necessarily how it was perceived once upon a time. For example you may find it strange that during her time Christians were actually pretty liberal (or do you forget that our Civil Rights icon Martin Luther King was in the clergy, or that his namesake Martin Luther was basically the founder of our modern concept of the individual?).
So to say that "Christians are Conservative" and to demean a previous generation for being overall pretty Christian is very myopic. And to see our current generation of Fundamentalists as representative of all Christians during all times is fairly ignorant. It's ignorant in that it ignores the history of Christianity, of labor movements, and of civil rights. It's so cool in our generation now (and I mean my generation, as I'm 23) to hate Christians that we forget that our modern day idea of civil liberty actually comes from Martin Luther's belief that each individual is capable of learning the Bible for his or herself. (To Note: I don't consider myself a Christian)
Finally, to think that our modern actors are NOT products of the new media system111c, despite the "studio" system no longer being the rule of the day, is a misunderstanding of our film climate.
Let's look at Christian Bale, specifically as his role as Batman. Prior to this movie, he wasn't nearly so big a star as he is now (and, truly, his performance as Batman was nothing spectacular, and, in fact, was wrought with criticism). I'm not saying he didn't have previously good performancesjust that he wasn't an IT person until Batman.
So he gets to be Batman. They advertise his face everywhere, they put him in commercials, print, video games, etc. He became an it person in Hollywood when the studios could use his face as a brand. So then the movie studio can put him in other movies toobut THEIR movies. Think of it in the same terms as the MLB today.
In Baseball, players no longer sign for a lifelong career with a team. They are "free agents." So they simply sign a contract for a certain amount of years with a team, and then they're free to change teams. The current system in film is just about the same, with contracts being either explicit or assumed or managed from the top and the actor not being truly aware of it.
The point is, Christian Bale would be a nobody if it weren't for the media marketing machine that pushed him through our throats. Jennifer Lawrence would right now be a nobody if she didn't have the Oscars (another media marketing ploy) to nominate her. Slumdog Millionaire would hardly be known if it weren't for the Oscars. If it weren't for the Oscars, every would have seen Black Swan for what it really is, a silly movie with melodramatic acting.
By the way, the Oscars was first televised after the studio system in Hollywood began declining. Lauren Bacall in here time didn't have television to promote her movie. Humphrey Bogart didn't have a Letterman to go to in order to promote Casablanca. Actors in our day are much more omnipresent because of television than during the Hollywood era.
It's easy nowadays being an actor if you've made it because the media makes sure you are seen. So I don't buy the argument that Hollywood actors have it in any way harder now than they did back thenespecially with the monopolistic practices of media corporations who own the film studios, the television stations, magazines, and adspaces throughout the country. Being an actor now is only trouble if you are an independent or aren't beautiful. Right now there are so many untalented beautiful people competing in the market that disenfranchise truly compelling people who are really terrific actors.
Let's examine your statement that "many of the actors you demean have contributed more in the way of their time and charity work than most of their predecessors."
So, which one of them signed up to fight in the Iraq War? James Stewart fought in WWII despite the fact that he was one of the most recognizable faces in the world. Humphrey Bogart signed up for the Navy during WWI (though, before he was an actor). These two actors didn't see themselves as anything special and were willing to give there lives for a cause they felt bigger than them.
A young Audrey Hepburn in occupied Netherlands in WWII acted as a messenger between anti-Fascist forces, risking death. Later, she became the Goodwill Ambassad
