They Don't Make 'Em Like They Used To...

I

iTs A B0Y <3

New member
How much do you agree or disagree with this statement? Are the movies released today pale immitations of what has gone before (with particular reference to Hollywood's Golden Age between the 1920's and 1950's).

Some (I have loaRAB) of my favourite old films include;
"African Queen"
"Sunset Boulevard"
"Some Like It Hot"
"Monkey Business"
"Rear Window"
"Vertigo"
"Breakfast At Tiffany's"
"The Seven Year Itch"

When I watch these films, I can't help but be totally struck with the class of them. The slight-of-hand wit. The discretion of it all. I am aware the Hayes Office were incredibly strict on what and what was not acceptable for the big screen, and they remained powerful until the complete collapse of the Studio System in the Mid-Late 1960's. I know that is one reason these films aren't brash or offensive, but that's just part of the charm IMO. Writers had to be smarter in potraying sex e.t.c. Directors had to work harder to produce meaning whilst side-stepping the morality code (Look how successfully Billy Wilder communicated the marital ''affair'' in one of his many greats ''The Seven Year Itch'').

And then, there we have the stars. Ahhh, the stars. They certainly don't make THEM like that anymore. Marilyn Monroe, Grace Kelly, Katherine Hepburn - gorgeous, sexy, classy women. Now we get to have a gander at J-Lo's massive ass and have Sharon Stone flash us. Nice. :rolleyes: And then people like Cary Grant, James Dean, Jimmy Stewart and others. They all had such an air of class and of dignity. Not like these two-a-penny sex-pots and action heroe's we have now. Maybe I'm looking at the past with rose-coloured glasses, but I just can't help but feel dissilusioned by the vast majority of current Hollywood output. Technicolor Musicals were ridiculously over-used during the Golden Age, but now we have a simmilar (worse if you ask me) situation with Big Budget Action Blockbusters. High on CGI Special Effects, ludicrously low on substance. Are all these technological advances in movie making just leaving us short-changed on script and character development? I even dislike Digital processing as a technique - I notice that most big films are still using traditional film stock but I'm sure this will change very soon. :(

I wanted to start a discussion about this. I would be very interested by other people's views. Post away!
 
Oh how I agree!! There are very few modern films that would make me want to watch them over and over again, yet I never tire of It's a Wonderful Life or Bringing Up Baby, to name but two. There's too much formulaic stuff coming out of Hollywood these days - too much use of CGI, too many sequels (Rocky, Rambo, Nightmare on Elm Street, Scream etc. etc). And the stars of yesteryear really were stars! Now all the stars of screen have to be is pretty and thin!
 
Couldn't agree more. Every generation will have it's own amazing movie stars. However, I do feel stars from the Golden Age had a certain allure and quality to them we will probably never see again. The celebrity culture we have now is very different. People want to see thier stars looking like $hit, cellulite pretruding a they pick up Sunday's paper. In the days I harp back to, this wasn't the case. The stars had much more dignity allowed to them.

Whether or not that allure of Golden Age stars was due to outside forces is almost irrelevant. The fact is that we will never get it back. If Marilyn Monroe were alive today, she probably would have done a ''Sharon Stone'' in THAT ''Pulp Fiction'' scene, or had some kind of sex tape leaked. To me, there is just no class or dignity in that and I hate it. That is probably why I love the old stars so much - they had style, class, dignity and grace. Probably only because of the circumstances they were in - I've no doubt - but we've still lost those qualities from most of today's movie stars. For me personally, the magic of movie stars is pretty much dead today.
 
I think it's worth reading up on the infamous "hollywood parties" from that era. I would imagine they were far "worse" than todays. They were pretty much sex and drug orgies with no limits at all.
 
Alot of the time lately they seem to be making them exactly like they used to - remakes, sequels etc.
But I think the evolution of film is still finding its feet - Sin City, for example, love it or hate it, it is very impressive visually. CGI is going to far IMHO but it has its place for sure.

However, I enjoy films from several different eras but agree that looking back will always be rose-tinted.
There are hundreRAB of films from the 20s since which have been huge flops, terrible movies but they arent' remembered alongside the classics. Whereas more recently the flops will be more likely to be recalled. So I don't think you can be truely unbiased with this.
 
I will confess that I haven't seen nearly enough pre-70's movies. Part of the reason why is that when I watch a respected classic, more often that not I am disappointed. I often find the acting style much broader and / or melodramatic than contemporary, which can be a huge barrier.

Citizen Kane left me cold (though no doubt revolutionary in its day), Casablanca was solid rather than wonderful, Breakfast at Tiffany's dull, On The Waterfront incredibly dull and North By Northwest seemed terrible - the ending on Mount Rushmore would surely be derided and laughed at as contrived Hollywood nonsense if invented today.

That said, I have seen two which did stand out - Brief Encounter (it is melodramatic, but incredibly affecting) and most of all It's A Wonderful Life, which was genius from beginning to end.

I think Hollywood has made some outstanding films in the last 4 decades, although I have to say the last 5 years in particular have surely been an ultimate low point in overall history, which is making me depressed. I'd vote only one - Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - as truly brilliant. Maybe this is a bit harsh - United 93 this year was excellent, and the LOTR films, for example, showed that occasionally even blockbusters can deliver the gooRAB and will endure. Also worth noting that animation is still in a golden phase, I think, with Pixar in particular making movies that will last for generations.

All the while people like Charlie Kaufman are allowed to make films how they want, there is still hope in the system yet perhaps?
 
The golden age of hollywood is no longer with us IMO.

I would still rather watch an old Bette Davis or Joan Crawford black and white film than what we have on offer today. Just my opinion.
 
Noiseboy- you need therapy NOW.
To say North by Northwest is "terrible" just beggers belief-this is not only one of Hitchcocks greatest films its simple of of the greatest films ever. Herrmanns soundtrack is genius in itself.
The whole film was "contrived" beteween Hitchcock and writer Ernest Lehman and what a remarkable achievement it is.
ESOTSM was pretentious rubbish in the Royal Tennenbaum league- Kaufman is a one trick pony and not a very good trick at that.
 
Without a doub there are some wonderful old films, but there are a hell of a lot of stinkers too.

There are good films still being made but, for me, they are the smaller budget films with subtle performances and a certain edginess to them. Films such as Garden State, Lost in Translation, Sideways and 28 Days Later.

What I don't like is this need to remake films, some of which were only filmed maybe 30 years ago. There's a worrying lack of imagination about that and the remakes are almost always lacking the talent and atmosphere of the originals.
 
I've just watched You Can't Take It With You. To be fair they could have improved the film quality where the sound cut out or the picture went a bit funny, but overall it didn't put me off such a great film. So it had a happy ending, all Capra films do. I found with the It's A Wonderful Life DVD that the sound was a bit crackly in places but again it didn't put me off. How many films nowadays would be allowed to build up the main story for 90 mins for the main action in the last 30 mins? I'm not talking about the true independent films or foreign films. Also, what would be the Citizen Kane of our era, i.e. a very under-rated film, which is very likely to become a classic in 40-50 years?

And if these films had been made today, who would you have alternatively cast in the various roles? Forget about who was cast in the remakes, as most of them have been dreadful
 
Finally, Noiseboy, someone who is prepared to stand up to the tyranny of the absurd deification of old "classic" films. There seems to be an unwritten agreement that any film on the established "list of classics" is beyond criticism and if anyone dares to criticise such a film they are derided as ignorant or insane. For example....



Now I really enjoyed North by Northwest but I don't get my knickers in a twist if someone dare criticise it.

Sometimes I get the feeling people feel compelled to eulogise the old classics as a form of snobbery, in which they can exhibit their own superiority to the cinema-going, popcorn-chomping masses by virtue of the fact that they have sought out old black-and-white films that the casual movie goer isn't going to see. Almost as if they turn off their critical faculties and sit down to watch a classic film thinking "this is a classic film therefore I shall enjoy it and consider it wonderful and better than anything made today".

For a while I struggled watching "classic" films, feeling confused and angered that a film all the critics say we film fans should seek out left me cold. Did it mean I was ignorant? Was my taste not up to much? Were my critical faculties entirely misaligned? Perhaps, but hey, films are to be enjoyed and we all have our opinions. So now I can happily say: I find Casablanca boring and tedious! I find Jimmy Stewart's acting style bizarre and annoying! I thought Sunset Boulevard was brilliant! I found Metropolis quite breath-taking! I disliked the Third Man..... etc etc

Anyone else have so-called classic films that they disliked?
 
I think the golden age of Hollywood looks so much better because we only remember and re-watch the good films. They was a lot of crap that was developed then, too.

There are plenty of good films that still come out today. The problem is that we are having to wade through the dross to find them, rather than having them picked out by 50 years worth of positive critique.

Believe me, in another 50 yeats, people will be loking back on today and going on about how they "don't make 'em like that anymore." It seems a recurring theme throughout history, on nearly any subject. We always remember the good of the past and dwell on the bad of the present.
 
I've already got It Happened One Night and bought The Lady Vanishes off Ebay today, but I might give Pillow Talk a go. A couple of others I'm not sure on are Roman Holiday and The Amazing Adventure

And I'm still trying to find the cheapest place to get Shadow Of A Doubt. I also want The Magnificent Ambersons but fear the full version may never see the light of day
 
You have much of his very best work already, but there are a couple more gems to look out for I am aware of.

"To Catch A Thief" is one of my very favourite films of all time. It teams up Cary Grant and Grace Kelly - a cast to die for. The script is classic Hitch (full of slick double-entendre). Interesting to see Cary Grant as a lead in one of Hitch's films instead of James Stewert, too. I highly recommend it - a fantastic movie.

"The Man Who Knew Too Much" - the 1955 re-make is another of my favourites. Stars James Stewart who is predicatably excellent. Doris Day is at her best in this movie IMO, she turns in a magnificent performance (Look out for her mesmerising acting in the Albert Hall scene). Hitch himself considered this version to be far superior to the original, and I totally agree.

Those are two good ones I'm sure you would love. They have become favourites of mine since I got them on DVD.




I must disagree. I do totally understand what you are saying about the ''Rose Coloured Glasses'' effect - it's a fact of history as you rightly say. However, I don't think the current state of Hollywood will ever be remembered as a Golden one. I don't think there is the consistancy of high quality output. In 1950 two all-time classics - "All About Eve" and "Sunset Blvd." were released. I can't think of a year in recent history when the same has happened. There are also far too many sequals, prequals and re-makes floating around - the majority of them very low on any kind of real value. As I said, depsite all the advances in film making we don't appear to be progressing anywhere.

When Technicolor first became viable for film making during the Golden Age, some low-class Musical's relied on it - yes. But the industry did not become stagnant - things continued to progress with or without the new technical marvel. I don't see History repeating itself, sadly. Look at how many current films are utterly dependant on Special Effects and CGI to sell tickets - those kind of movies outweigh the high quality movies today IMO. Perhaps it's all down to personal preference, I'm not sure. But for me there is just no comparison to be made between the Hollywood of 50 years ago and the one of today.
 
great thread

what is it though that makes William Holden more of a "film star" in the classic sense than say ... oh, I dunno ... Tom Cruise ?

and by the way, you can't have a "they don't make 'em like they used to" thread without a mention for Casablanca :cool:
 
Back
Top