Hi simplemindedsociety,
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Lauren Bacall
digitaldiva — 14 years ago(September 16, 2011 06:10 PM)
Hi simplemindedsociety,
I think the OP questioned why Ms. Bacall was so critical of modern actors. To be honest, her original comments were not on their acting but their style - she said they all looked alike. My comments was addressed to the fact they don't have a studio glamour machine behind them.
Actors like Bale and DiCaprio do not have their careers handed to them. Think of the hundreds of child performers who never transitioned to adult acting. While acting is not as rigorous as ditch digging, it is a craft that a very few succeed at and certainly fewer attain the stardom of DiCaprio or Bale. -
dlombino — 14 years ago(September 16, 2011 07:29 PM)
I don't understand you at allyour whole point is that you think there still isn't some Hollywood studio glamor machine out there.
Don't you understand that the same people who pay the paparazzi to take pictures of these celebrities are the same people who pay the film studios that make the films starring these celebrities? Film studios are owned by the same companies that own the television studios that air the advertisements of these film studios, and that host the talk shows where celebrities go to promote these films.
You think that the glamor machine studios don't exist? You're living in a fantasy worldone that these studios constructed in order to fool you so they can steal your money. Open your eyes.
You champion these Hollywood actors. Why? What have they done for you?
And you think DiCaprio and Bale didn't have their careers handed to them? Their parents encouraged them every step of the way. They didn't have to drive to an audition independentlytheir parents drove them there. There parents held their hands, and now the film studios gladly hold there hands as well. What do you think Dicaprio or Bale ever had to worry about in a real adult way in their lives? When did they ever have to worry about money like the rest of humanity? The least b68they should give us is something approaching art.
I don't understand people who apologize for the terrible quality of films these days. I assume you're the same type of person who trivializes great literature or painting by calling it boring, by saying Melville and Chekhov don't have enough action, or that Pablo Picasso's blue period isn't sexy enough, or that you can't grind to Mozart.
Don't diminish great art by championing insignificant accomplishments by Hollywood and their lackeys. -
digitaldiva — 14 years ago(September 16, 2011 08:07 PM)
Goodness dlombino,
You are taking this too personally. I worked as a journalist for ten years and no, there is no studio glamour machine because there are no studios, no contract players. There is, however, a Hollywood media machine that can be used to promote films something completely diffent than the comp2000lete different animal than the publicity machine used by individual studios of the past - By the way, I considered an expert on classic Hollywood and have written about it extensively.
Regarding DiCaprio, he grew in poverty, in the squalor of Hollywood and got involved with acting to help his mother out financially. Bale was not poor but certainly didn't come from wealth.
That modern media machine celebrates evertyhing including mediocrity and promotes personality becaause the public likes it and it makes money. Big bang 'em up movies are made because they play well internationally, not because there are no talented actors, or because Hollywood is in some moral decline. The issue is that there are far fewer films being produced today for myriad reasons including network television, digital gaming, the internet, reality television, cable, sports, Twitter, Facebook and a million etc. Everyone is fighting for the same buck.
I must say I hoped to keep this conversation civil and not lower myself to the level of personal insult, especially from someone who confused Bettie Page with Bette Davis. I am considered well-read and polite, something that after your insulting comments, I can not say about you. -
dlombino — 14 years ago(September 16, 2011 09:13 PM)
digitaldiva,
Your thought that "far fewer films are being made today" is a ridiculous presumption. As a journalist, you are more than familiar with the value of research. So far this year, nearly 700 films have been released. Ten years ago in 2001, less than 500 films were released.
I sincerely doubt your credibility as both a journalist and someone who has intelligently written about Hollywood in the past (however, I don't doubt that you've written about this matter before).
I don't harbor any delusions of myself and don't presume to be polite. Hopefully, someday, your delusions may fade as well.
As a former journalist myself, I have mired myself in books about the things I'm writing aboutspecifically, media. Perhaps you should read Robert McChesney's "Rich Media, Poor Democracy" or Ben Bagdikian's "The New Media Monopoly" for a proper understanding of how the media giants in the contemporary age work, which you have thus far championed and thus far misunderstood. -
digitaldiva — 14 years ago(September 16, 2011 09:59 PM)
dmomblino,
Fewer films are made today than during the studio era is not a presumption, it is fact. I was very clear that I was speaking about Hollywood offerings and I stand by it.
Regarding delusions - how did an innocent conversation about a remark Lauren Bacall made quite a while ago about starlet fashion drift into a strange rant about everything, but her remark? I suggest you take your meds, chill out and look at your collection of Bettie Page pin-ups. -
SimplemindedSociety — 14 years ago(September 16, 2011 11:24 PM)
digitaldiva,
Re: my comments of 'careers being handed to them'
If a given actor is discovered or a case involving nepotism, what term would you use? Those other child actors who never transitioned also involved cases of not receiving offers.
Also, with Bacall's other complaint:
In 50 years, people will be saying how all the actors look alike, and that today's actors were so unique. (I,personally find nothing engaging in James Stewart,everybody's sweetheart) What about all the 50's starlets(and hunks) who looked alike to spectators then?
Do you think Bacall should ,you know, be more gracious about her good fortune and stop complaining? She's also lucky to have been discovered on a fashion magazine, or does she forget that part? -
digitaldiva — 14 years ago(September 17, 2011 08:31 AM)
Hi SimplemindedSociety,
Regardig nepotism, are you speaking of someone like Charlie Sheen and Will Smith's kids? Of course having parents in the industry helped their careers, but the public still determines who will be a star. I'm not a Sheen fan but he has a huge following. Perhaps the reason that he was so cavalier about his career was the ease with which he got his early breaks.
You could also say that Bacall had her career handed to her too. She was a model when Hawks found her, molded her. Her leading man left his wife for her and helped create a csreer for her at nineteen. Still her stardom came as a result of her unique look and inate talent. And yes, I do wish she was more gracious about her good fortune and would stop putting down other performers who haven't had her good luck or people to mold them as she had. -
mickeeteeze — 14 years ago(October 09, 2011 07:16 AM)
Wow. I'm glad I DVR-d "Private Screenings with Lauren Bacall" on TCM. It brought me here, where a sometimes solid discussion took place.
For the record, I tend to lean towards the classics myself: I generally wait for films to air on my TV, which is a big HDTV with a powerful sound system. Not the theater itself, admittedly something different. I will see drama on Broadway when I can.
T7echat said, I believe the old timers sell their era too high.
As someone said before, "Casablanca" was crafted as a Warners programmer: not a prestige flick like "Gone With The Wind", or even Warners own "Sea Hawk", a big budget Errol Flynn vehicle from 1940.
All sorts of 'formula' going on in "Casablanca". If there is a plot twist in "Casablanca", it's that the noble American leaves the girl on the table for 'the greater good'.
Now, in all reality, one of the reasons it played well was the war, already going on in Europe.
At this point, Warners had a formula going with Bogart, one that featured him as the strong 'lone wolf', ready to settle down with the 'hot young thing ' at the time. Bergman, Lupino, and yes, Lauren. This was a
formula
, a tried and true money maker. IMO, "Casablanca" fails, there is no "Have And Have Not".
All about the dollars.
So careers were manipulated back then, no matter what the actors 'artistic integrity'. I'd love to ask Ms. Bacall some stories about Bogie trying to keep a straight face reading certain lines during the later formula years, after the vogue began to dissipate. Like 'Sirocco' and the like. i doubt Bogart had any illusions about the greatness of his dramatic efforts. Like any artist, he was probably completely immersed in most of his roles, then, after a little time went by, looked at half of them with a goofy smile, thinking "I can't believe I took this so seriously". That'd be my guess.
And the same goes on today.
Daniel Day Lewis, DeCaprio, Blanchett and so on, make some good movies. Some will be really memorable, most will not.
I believe certain clunkers of today will be remembered fondly, and some solid pieces of drama may be mostly forgotten. As someone else pointed out, it depends on how well it resonates with it's own generation.
In terms of 'great artistic film making', I personally don't see anything original about &qu111cot;Dirty Dancing", but it's one of the highest revered flicks of the 80's.
Why?
Because it
resonated
with a generation, and that generations culture.
I think Bacall believes actors as artists today lack a certain 'character' she attributes to her entire generation.
Well, good riddance to that era's 'character', which was based on an outdated sense of 'nobility'.
Could you imagine what this world would be like today had the bomb been developed in 1925?
As good as the greatest generation was at movies, music, painting, etc, their greatest talent seems to have been war. -
digitaldiva — 14 years ago(October 09, 2011 10:11 AM)
Hi mickeeteeze,
I agree with your very eloquent post. Many of so-called "classic" films were originally programers dismissed by critics at the time and were rediscovered after they aired on television. Casablanca was a originally planned as a studio vehicle for George Raft and became revered when another generation of movie goers discovered Bogart.
While I don't take anything away from Ms. Bacall, she is a surviver of another period, the studio system. Stars who had their careers and images mapped out by a studio shouldn't compare themselves to actors of today who have to make their own way. -
Funky12345 — 14 years ago(October 22, 2011 09:00 AM)
I pretty much agree with Bacall on this one. She was spoiled and grew up and acted in - what is in my opinion - the zenith of Hollywood, so it's no wonder she has a problem with today's films and "actors". With a few exceptions, today's actors have no talent, and they most definitely do not present a screen presence the way Bacall and others in her day did. They were multi-dimensional (both onscreen and off) while today's actors go about as deep as a puddle of mud.
Today's actors are hired based on sex appeal and bankability. Like Bacall has said of today's actresses, "If you photograph well, that's enough." Who do we have today, by way of films? Adam Sandler? Owen Wilson? Can people honestly say that these kind of people are up to par with the likes of Old Hollywood?
Nepotism is a huge thing. If your ex-husband's third cousin has been nominated for a Razzi Award, hey, you have SOME sort of history behind your name, while back then, entertainers had to EARN their right to be in the business. Hard work is no longer needed today to become an actor/actress.
Conformity is much too rampant and celebrity c5b4omes much too easily. I'm a young person, and I still have a hard time distinguishing "who's who" in young Hollywood - they all look exactly the same to me. Celebrity is easy to come by these days. If a complete twit blows a guy and it just "happens" to end up on the internet, she is now a national sensation. Only in America!
I got the feeling I was the mans first date that wasnt inflatable. -
digitaldiva — 14 years ago(October 22, 2011 10:15 AM)
Hi Funky12345,
Once again, Bacall didn't denigrate their talent. She simply said they look alike. As noted before, Bacall and other actors from the studio system, worked with studio stylists, make-up artis, photographers, lighting experts and myriad others to craft their i5b4mage. Young talents today like Natalie Portman, Joseph Gordon Levitt, Armie Hammer, Leonardo DiCaprio, Daniel Ratcliff, Ellen Page, Reese Witherspoon, Cary Milligan, Elle Fanning, Emma Watson, Keira Knightley, Dakota Fanning, Soirse Roan, Amanda Seyfried, Mia Wasikowska, Elizabeth Olson among many others, don't have that luxury. They create their own careers outside of the studio system by talent and hard work.
I have lived and worked in Los Angeles all my life, interviewed many actors and never seen such a hard-working group of people as young, determined actors. There is a difference between instant the instant celebrity of reality tv and the net. Unfortunately, some members of the public can't see that difference. -
Adam_P_L — 14 years ago(November 22, 2011 11:21 AM)
There are many fine actors and filmmakers working in Hollywood today. It's just hard to see the forest for the trees sometimes. Most of what's floating and bobbing on the surface, on TV and in the tabloids, is junk and the actors and actresses are indeed interchangeable and untalented.
But honestly, there was plenty of that going around in the '40s, too. Lauren Bacall was always a unique beauty and talent. There weren't many like her. If you want to talk about untalented actresses who all look alike, get deep into Hollywood cinema of the '40s and look at all the attractive, lookalike blondes that the studio machine chewed up and spat out.
http://ocdviewer.com -
digitaldiva — 14 years ago(November 22, 2011 04:08 PM)
Agreed Adam P L - I think a lot of lovers of classic film forget how much drek there was. Even some celebrated films don't stand up to scrutiny. I also note that people who critique modern actors often mention 1c84the most vapid of TV and reality TV personalities and don't know the work of young talents like Ryan Gosling and Cary Mulligan. I agree about the legions of long-forgotten, bland contract players.
-
moloko1989 — 14 years ago(February 12, 2012 08:17 PM)
for this whole thread to go on for so long is ridiculous. Its an out and out fact the actors and studio players of yesteryear were much better actors. As well as all around better screen talents compared to even the most genteel actor in our modern generation. they were trained/groomed, given dancing, singing lessons , and taught theatrics.
today ninety percent of the "actors"in front of the camera don't "act" they read lines, and create tabloids off camera. While the ones who can act IE DiCaprio, gosling,Bale, are widely aware of old Hollywood and what its contributed.
similarly the auteur's of today, namely Tarantino,PTA,Wes Andersonetc homage and are inspired by the golden era of cinema.
I mean PTA watched treasure of the sierra madre, everyday while making "there will be blood"
it was Bacall's generation in Hollywood that wrote the bookits only fair she has the right to criticize the current crop, and with strong validity too. -
raygal — 12 years ago(October 23, 2013 11:48 PM)
Bump thread but after reading this I 'd say dmombolino had a point until he/she made things go left real quick by putting you down, doubting you as a journalist, and I don't' blame you for saying to them to take their meds so unnecessarily nasty; For what? Just cause you were standing up for the actors of today. While they're not the same as yesteryear's some today are pretty good. (like Carey Mulligan and Juliet Binoche, and the two Kate/Cates). Both you had good points but for him/her to demean today's folks just cause they're not off fighting in wars or doing charity the way he/she wants them to is ignorant.
-
raygal — 12 years ago(October 23, 2013 11:53 PM)
I'm going to say this again:
For you to demean today's folks just cause they're not off fighting in wars or doing charity the way you wants them to is ignorant. What the beep have you done; concentrate on yourself and how you're making the world better/worse or whatever. It's a good thing your behind hasn't been on the site, many need to follow suit.