Hi simplemindedsociety,
-
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. -
jclarke@attglobal.net — 12 years ago(September 16, 2013 05:10 AM)
also consider that the six major studios also own pretty much every theater in the United States
I hate to resurrect an ancient thread but I have to address this on two different grounds.
In 1939 nearly all the theaters in the US were owned by the studios.
That was the year that "The Wizard of Oz", "Dark Victory", "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington", "Stagecoach", and "Goodbye Mr. Chips" were all beaten out for Best Picture by "Gone With the Wind"it is generally regarded as the the greatest single year of movie releases in history.
In 1938 an antitrust action was filed by the Federal government and by 1940 almost all the studio-owned theaters had been divested.
So the theaters being owned by the studios was not necessarily a bad thing.
However . . .
Right now the largest single chain of theaters in the US is Regal Entertainment, with more than 7000 screens in more than 600 theaters, is privately owned by an oil tycoon named Philip Anschutz, who wants more for it than anybody is willing to pay.
The second largest, AMC, with more than 5000 screens in 378 theaters, is owned by the Chinese real estate conglomerate Dalian Wanda Group.
The third largest, Cinemark, with roughly 4000 screens in more than 300 theaters, is an independent corporation traded on the New York Stock Exchange.
The fourth largest, Carmike, with more than 2000 screens, is another independent, traded on NASADAQ.
I could go on but those between them represent more than 80 percent of the screens and the theaters in the US. None of them are owned by a studio. -
manofsteel4455 — 13 years ago(July 14, 2012 07:57 AM)
The fact that alot of the people on this topic are in their teens and early twenties just proves that she's absolutely right!!
You want to play the game, you'd better know the rules, love.
-Harry Callahan -
Destinata — 11 years ago(August 14, 2014 10:12 PM)
I really like Lauren Bacall but why does she always complain about contemporary Hollywood.
Because she remembers it when it was good.
No, the '40's and '50's are not the same as today. Today an actor doesn't have to act, scripts don't have to be good. There has to be action, dirty jokes, nudity, F-bombs, CGI, and and this is the only thing that's similar to the '40's and '50's a couple of the handful of actors who are box office draws. That isn't art. It's formula.
I rarely watch new movies. I've seen enough of them, though, that I realize the latest addition to the formula is "teal" everything. I love teal. It's my favorite color. But if a movie has that all over it all the time I find it revolting. It's like a shortcut to "we're being all next-level and 'edgy' now."
No. It's not "art."
You will probably disagree. That's the nature of discussions they have two sides. -
kenny-164 — 11 years ago(August 15, 2014 07:24 AM)
I tend to agree that films today are not as good as in the past, but that does not mean no good films are being made or are not worth seeing.
I have not rated a newer film at 10 here since The Thin Red Line. But I do think the following films in the interim are near excellent, if not deserving of a ten:
Lost in Translation
No Country for Old Men
Master and Commander
3:10 to Yuma
Up in the Air
The Wrestler
Blue Valentine
The Descendants
Tree of Life
The Hunt
Lincoln
Even just last year I greatly enjoyed American Hustle and Before Midnight.
But I do tend also to agree with Bacall's criticism, which is of a more general nature. The studio system at least was run by people who knew how to make films, who loved films. The companies in control of Hollywood now are more purely corporate in nature. They also play to the world market, which tends to prefer stories that are more visual in nature, tending to undercut character development, acting with dialogue, and the like.
A more general problem is that Hollywood in its golden age attracted many of hte most talented people in society. Now those people can go into any number of lines of business to find success. I have my favorite actors and actresses now, but who among them really deserve to be ranked among the best all time? Perhaps Meryl Streep, Daniel Day-Lewis. Maybe Kate Winslett. Christian Bale might have made it, but gets sucked into these comic book type productions aimed at teenaged boys. No Bogarts, John Waynes, Bette Davises in the lot of them. And no more Lauren Bacall for that matter. -
PopperTheKungFuDragn — 11 years ago(August 15, 2014 10:31 AM)
Pople are always nostalgic about the times they grew up in. I don't think she was any different than anyone else.
Hell, I'm only 32, but I still prefer the 80s and 90s to the present day because those are the times I grew up in.
So its only natural for her to prefer those days rather than the present just like a lot of people.
We often look back with nostalgia on the 40s and 50s but they were just the same as today.
I think this depends on the perspective of the people who lived through those times.
Like I said, I prefer the 80s and 90s even though, as you say, they were probably not much different to today.