Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
You also have to understand that back then the movies had no bad words in it no sex or anything like that in it.And because of that it was a good movie.
Not everyone could be an actor that was only if they could sing acted and dance.Now adays that rule does not apply.and to me that is why most now aday movies suck!jm
Real Actors are only people that can sing and dance then?
Originally posted by exanda kane
Ok, your comparing 6 decades against 3? Take to the point that in the latter, film studios would produce 52 films on average, compared to the 11 on average films a studio makes a year and your argument is already flawed.Apocalypse Now, Raging Bull, Eternal Sunshine, The Shawshank Redemption, Se7en, Goodfellas, Being John Malchovic, City of God, Pulp Fiction, Donnie Darko, Traffic; all of these films are equal or surpassing of those films you mentioned.
Cinema was golden then because it lived in a glamorised and naive world.
Well, as you want. Lets compare the 40s, the 50s and the 60s against the 80s, the 90s and the 00s. Golden age still win. More quality in the past decades.
False. Casablanca, citizen kane, the apartment,sunset bulevard, on the waterfront, or double idemnity are much much better than all those films, except apocalypse now , goodfellas , pulp fiction and ranging bull, that are in the same range.
That last sentence from you is absurd and ridiculous. Quality is quality, nobody is talking about navies worlds or something like that. A great actor is a great actor and a great movie is a great movie now and then.
Originally posted by ragesRemorse
Im sorry man, But i was only naming a very small handfull of movies. No one is disagreeing with the fact that moives of the golden age are not examples of great cinema. However, for you to disregard the movies that have been birthed from the innovation and fine crafting from the golden age is kind of ridiculous.
Just as much innovation in directing and acting is apart of cinema today. This is because Cinema is more apart of culture today. Thus more focus and attention has been contributed to the art.
Also, the golden age of cinema ended in the 60's So you cannot lump the 60's and 70's into the golden age. The late 60's brought on a new revolution in film making Which more or less influenced the types of films we have today. At best you have the 30's to the mid 60's for the golden age.
The one thing that shows how far movies have come since the golden age is knowing that there are filmakers today still revolutionizing filmaking and changing what inspires people to make films. From acting, to technology, to editing. Movies of today are in a seperate league from movies from yesteryear. This isnt to say there better, Just different, but still just as good on all fronts.
there are Acting performaces, editing techniques, camera angles and lighting effects of today that couldnt have even been attempted in the 50's.
Film has transformed and evolved. I dont want to get in a pissing contest about what movies are better, but for every one movie you can name from the golden age, One can be named from todays cinema
One thing is to name a movie, another very diffent one is to pair the quality of those movies. I mean, a group with citizen kane or casablanca or sunset bulevard or all about eve couldnt ever be compared with a grupt with traffic or seven or being john malkovich, the comparation is very poor.
We arent talking about technique and those things, because it cant be compared. Only watch and leartn how to value the avances and innovations of every time. Films like king kong, the invisible man or citizen kane did mean a lot of innovation and revolution at their time, but its natural, today those efects looks old because the time is different. But people like chaplin, welles, hitchock , murnau and many and many more innovated in so many ways that couldnt be telled with in a right way and do justice to it.
We are talking about script, direction and acting. In those ways, the golden age was far superior. In those times, there were like 10 ranging bull or 10 apocalypse now in a decade, if not better. Those times were better without any doubt.
Originally posted by bakerboy
Well, as you want. Lets compare the 40s, the 50s and the 60s against the 80s, the 90s and the 00s. Golden age still win. More quality in the past decades.
That's simply not true, and I'd like to here some evidence and proof behind your reason before you come back with a retort, and that's me disregarding the fact that the 60s and for the most part of it, the 50s aren't even considered in the Golden Age of Cinema.
False. Casablanca, citizen kane, the apartment,sunset bulevard, on the waterfront, or double idemnity are much much better than all those films, except apocalypse now , goodfellas , pulp fiction and ranging bull, that are in the same range.
That's just silly. Judging by your reply you simply regard a film of quality as having lavish stars, budgets (for their time bar Pulp Fiction) and lots of promotion, plus being the brainchild of a Hollywood studio.
No one is denying Citizen Kane, On the Waterfront or Casablanca aren't great films, but to deny that quality still exists on equal terms is a gross mistruth. Cinema is very different nowadays, there are more diverse markets out there and output is spread thinly between them all; not every potential star, writer or director heads for Hollywood these days.
Back in the Golden Age of cinema, for every few great films, there were a good 300 bad ones.
That last sentence from you is absurd and ridiculous. Quality is quality, nobody is talking about navies worlds or something like that. A great actor is a great actor and a great movie is a great movie now and then.
Exactly, and that is testimony to my and Rages point; quality still exists and because it isn't staring right at you in the multiplex doesn't mean doesn't there isn't any. Look around. If you don't find quality your obviously a very lazy observationist.
Originally posted by bakerboy
If you want to value the talent of an actor , try and watch some silent cinema. A way to express many feelings without any words, all in the expressions and gesture.
Yet a silent film actor might not be very good at little acting or poor still in the Theatre. Does that mean that actor isn't great? No, of course not, but it doesn't mean they are diverse.
Christian Bale, as an example is both very, very good at what modern cinema would call little acting and yet he is also a renowned stage talent. Might he be a great silent era actor is the moment warranted it? Maybe not, but does that make him any less of a great actor? Of course not. He still has quality and that can't be doubted.
Originally posted by bakerboy
One thing is to name a movie, another very diffent one is to pair the quality of those movies. I mean, a group with citizen kane or casablanca or sunset bulevard or all about eve couldnt ever be compared with a grupt with traffic or seven or being john malkovich, the comparation is very poor.We arent talking about technique and those things, because it cant be compared. Only watch and leartn how to value the avances and innovations of every time. Films like king kong, the invisible man or citizen kane did mean a lot of innovation and revolution at their time, but its natural, today those efects looks old because the time is different. But people like chaplin, welles, hitchock , murnau and many and many more innovated in so many ways that couldnt be telled with in a right way and do justice to it.
We are talking about script, direction and acting. In those ways, the golden age was far superior. In those times, there were like 10 ranging bull or 10 apocalypse now in a decade, if not better. Those times were better without any doubt.
You sir obviously seem to be mis understanding what i am trying to say.
Time and time again, I ahve ben trying to say to you. That you CANT compare film of today with film of yesteryear, Because the social relevences have changed. Things that were important yesterday, are humourous today. You obvisouly cannot understand my point of continuingly saying that Film and acting has advanced because the audience has become more sophisticated. Style is dictacted by limits.Acting today has become more raw and authentic than it ever has been. Acting in the 50's was acting, acting today, Is capturing reality in a scene. Im sorry but i hate to burst your bubble, but
Apoc-now, Raging Bull, Eternal sunshine, Se7en,Goodfellas,city of god, Pulp fiction, Trainspotting,silence of the lambs, Requiem for a dream, radio days, annie hall, SAving Private Ryan,Braveheart,Last of the Mohicans, A beautifull mind, The insider, Aemelie,Schindlers list,Shine,The PLedge, The Departed,The 25th hour,Dances with Wolves,Quills,Fight Club,The Pianist, Dead man Walking, As good as it gets, Good night and good luck, Munich, American beauty, Once upon a time in America, Monster, little miss sunshine, A good year,Children of men, Gattaca,...
All Fit into the catagory of being just as intellectually captivating and intriguiging to the targeted audience, As citizen Kane, Casablanca, and etc.. were during their time. These films Offer Gripping Acting performaces, Streamlined and seemingly seamless directing and editing. And these are just a bit of a mere taste of the movie that you are obvisouly missing out on of today, Take a look sir, behind the shiny movies, and you will find the movies of quality, begging to be found and embraced. And yes, The golden age was Golden Only because it was galmourised. It led way for the Celebrity worshiping that we are currently doing today. It was Golden BEcause Hollywood was it, That was the place to be, That was paradise at that time, The shining image of America. Almost like a france, flaunting their art and crafts in everyones faces. Wake up and watch some movies, and please try to realize, That wasnt a space filler between a song and dance
Originally posted by exanda kane
Yet a silent film actor might not be very good at little acting or poor still in the Theatre. Does that mean that actor isn't great? No, of course not, but it doesn't mean they are diverse.Christian Bale, as an example is both very, very good at what modern cinema would call little acting and yet he is also a renowned stage talent. Might he be a great silent era actor is the moment warranted it? Maybe not, but does that make him any less of a great actor? Of course not. He still has quality and that can't be doubted.
Boy, Kane just shattered your entire argument there