why i dont like old movies. (actor, watching, Montgomery Clift, Ronald Colman)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Interesting points of view. I've seen a TON of movies, both old and new. First, did people actually talk like was portrayed in some of the old movies? Obviously, some of them didn't, but in others the speech patterns are really fairly close. It can be difficult for younger people to understand how stilted and prudish people were. They grew up in an era of blue laws, going to church at least once a week, and rigid social structures. Feelings WERE often hidden from public view. The fuss about Rhett saying "Frankly, my dear I don't give a damm." would never had occurred if the word damm was spoken in average polite society. Read Shakespeare and recognize that a lot of that stilted dialog was actually common Elizabethan English. Styles of speech change almost as much as fashion. Isn't that groovy man? Knarly, dude? Excellent, Bill?
Early films also tended to build the words from the plot-line upwards, rather than being stream-of-consciousness or more loosely woven. Film cost money, many features were short, and the minimum number of words and actions to get the story told were often the main criteria.
The influence of German cinema and the German atmospheric techniques built more depth into a lot of films. Sound itself required certain concessions of early filmmakers.
Ultimately, it is a craft and artform. The stylizations of particular directors, actors, and studios can be compared to those of various types of paintings. Some folks hate Grandma Moses paintings, some don't care for Impressionists. Those feelings are certainly valid, but understand that they often change over time. A film that you love now, you may grow to hate. The reverse is true as well.
Part of the change comes from study and appreciation for what was done within the context of the time and pressures on the director, cast, and crew. Appreciation doesn't always mean liking, what it does mean is a greater understanding and respect. What you or I might like or hate at a particular time is best seen as opinion based on an unsteady base of emotion. What we appreciate, and the reasons for that, can be more important in conveying to others what is good or bad about a movie, or any other artform.
Moviemaking really was different back then, but that's not to say that all dialogue was cheesy, or directors never took chances.
It's true that the finished product back then is different from today's film, but it's also true that there are some great old movies, and some wretched modern ones.
I also think there was a lot of behind-the-scenes stuff.
Check out this screen test with Paul Newman and James Dean.
(The sound doesn't come on until 7-8 seconds in.)
When the American Film Institute was still at the Kennedy Center (1980's), we went to see a program that included the 1920 silent movie classic, D.W. Griffith's Way Down East starring Lillian Gish. The AFI is a great place to see these old silents because they have an appropriate theater organ just like was used in those days, and several talented and knowledgeable players to provide accompaniment. Also, many are familiar with how people move jerkily and comically too fast in very old films. Well it turns out that this is not by design, but because there was a change in projection equipment speed and mechanism standards since those films were made. (Perhaps if harry chickpea or gy2020 are around here they can enlighten us?? ) At the AFI the films are projected at their proper speed and with proper optics, providing a surprising experience to those who have not seen the movies they way they were meant to be seen.
We went to the viewing expecting a creaky old antique, but when the lights went down, the movie came on and the music began to play, we were drawn into the incredible story. The acting style for the silents is quite different, because of course, the story has to be told through actions and expressions, and this results in a very melodramatic style. But all this notice disappears as the viewer is drawn into the story, as the artists meant it to be
As a special treat, before the film was shown, there was a discussion with Lillian Gish, a very lovely lady. We learned that there were no stunt doubles in 1920, and the scenes in the film where she is trapped on an ice flow in the Connecticut river, well that was her She still recalled how terribly cold the water was. And she put forth an interesting proposal, that silent film format is not necessarily dead or obsolete. Wouldn't it be interesting if a modern silent film was made. It could be shown in Europe, China, India etc, with no need for interpretation. I am still intrigued by this idea, but haven't heard of anyone attempting this.
And she put forth an interesting proposal, that silent film format is not necessarily dead or obsolete. Wouldn't it be interesting if a modern silent film was made. It could be shown in Europe, China, India etc, with no need for interpretation. I am still intrigued by this idea, but haven't heard of anyone attempting this.
What a great idea.
Awhile back, there was a video making the rounds, of different people throughout the world singing the same song. Of course, there was sound, and the song was in English.
A completely soundless film would definitely be a different kind of challenge.
And yes, it is interesting to reflect on how they did things back then.
Fewer things were faked, that's for sure.
This was touched on a bit in the movie The Aviator.
I can relate to the OP, but I look at the style of earlier films with an adjusted sensibility. They were really for the most part filmed stage plays with, as noted, acting tendencies that reflected it. Then experimentation with cameras forced a different perspective on what film could be, what could be suggested with images rather than insistent narration. The medium is always undergoing technological evolution. It's funny to think that close-ups back then were first regarded as rip-offs. The audience paid for the whole actor, and they deserved to see the whole actor!
Actually the 'trash' mouths of the way people talk now is not how the real life people that I grew up around talked. I am talking about the 30s, 40s and 50s. Back then men respected women and did not use filthy language around them. And the women would not have even thought of talking like the modern ones do. Also, a lot of the filfthy language, that is used now, was not even in existence then.
Even when we first moved here, in 1977, there was not the filthy language used in public that is now used. Only the trashy women used bad language back in my youth.
Anyone who thinks people are more advanced socially need to think again!
The present day language has gone down the drain, just like the morals have.
It is odd that the young folk know so much more about the past than we who lived it!
And the posts that I see on here that have filthy words blanked out are proof of what I just posted. Any intelligent, decent, person does not need to resort to such words....blanked out or not!
I like some older movies, but not all. I've never like the affectation all women seemed to have in the "old days". You know - where they all talk with a slight British accent. The other thing I never found realistic was if the film had "exotic" characters, such as islanders or persons from the middle east - they were always portrayed by blonde haired - blue eyed Swedish looking people. What comes to mind are Bob Hope films - every island girl is an obvious caucasian with either brown or blonde hair and blue eyes, and those Jesus or Moses films where Jesus is a blonde guy with blue eyes and all the rest of the people who are supposed to be ethnic are obviously caucasian.
I recently watched 'The Robe' on DVD because my husband (who loves old movies) made me watch it with him. Good grief, I couldn't even enjoy the story because everything looked and sounded so fake, from the facial expression (Richard Burton's wooden expression throughout the movie was downright confusing), the acting (the guy who played Ceasar was completely over the top), to the stilted dialogues.
However some of us see this as campy and enjoy that aspect!
When the American Film Institute was still at the Kennedy Center (1980's), we went to see a program that included the 1920 silent movie classic, D.W. Griffith's Way Down East starring Lillian Gish. The AFI is a great place to see these old silents because they have an appropriate theater organ just like was used in those days, and several talented and knowledgeable players to provide accompaniment. Also, many are familiar with how people move jerkily and comically too fast in very old films. Well it turns out that this is not by design, but because there was a change in projection equipment speed and mechanism standards since those films were made. (Perhaps if harry chickpea or gy2020 are around here they can enlighten us?? ) At the AFI the films are projected at their proper speed and with proper optics, providing a surprising experience to those who have not seen the movies they way they were meant to be seen.
We went to the viewing expecting a creaky old antique, but when the lights went down, the movie came on and the music began to play, we were drawn into the incredible story. The acting style for the silents is quite different, because of course, the story has to be told through actions and expressions, and this results in a very melodramatic style. But all this notice disappears as the viewer is drawn into the story, as the artists meant it to be
As a special treat, before the film was shown, there was a discussion with Lillian Gish, a very lovely lady. We learned that there were no stunt doubles in 1920, and the scenes in the film where she is trapped on an ice flow in the Connecticut river, well that was her She still recalled how terribly cold the water was. And she put forth an interesting proposal, that silent film format is not necessarily dead or obsolete. Wouldn't it be interesting if a modern silent film was made. It could be shown in Europe, China, India etc, with no need for interpretation. I am still intrigued by this idea, but haven't heard of anyone attempting this.
How wonderful that you got to see Miss Gish as well as the film -- I love her in "Night of the Hunter" done decades later. My late Daddy was born in 1921 and used to talk about seeing Gish on the ice floes in that movie when he was a kid -- I didn't see it until years later. There are some truly amazing stunts in those silents -- nobody could match that today.
I once saw the Lon Chaney "Phantom of the Opera" with a theater organ in our local classic movie theater Home | Lakewood Theater I still remember the chills I got 20 years later.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) At the AFI the films are projected at their proper speed and with proper optics, providing a surprising experience to those who have not seen the movies they way they were meant to be seen.
She still recalled how terribly cold the water was. And she put forth an interesting proposal, that silent film format is not necessarily dead or obsolete. Wouldn't it be interesting if a modern silent film was made. It could be shown in Europe, China, India etc, with no need for interpretation. I am still intrigued by this idea, but haven't heard of anyone attempting this.
