by Brian.


To the filmmaker and the filmgoer, one cannot deny that it was better in the forties.

Today the art and the business of cinema are muddled in corporation control. Pictures are made by committee, solely driven on mass appeal (tested by polls of course), bankable actors (who charge the bank in return), and marketing hype. The opening weekend takes in half a film's gross, sometimes higher with horror pictures and teen comedies. Executive control over the studios themselves are constantly under the gun to produce a leading edge, culture-phenomenal, bolt of lightning, or else. The lucky stay, the normal don't. The writers, getting less credit daily, strain to come up with something new to draw the people away from their videogames and televisions. This in turn causes the MPAA to crack under numerous double standards and inconsistencies. Everything is unclear, the film art languishes in lunch meetings and board meetings, and the monetary goal has never been closer to the artist himself.

Now, let's take the Golden Age, filled with the tyranny of studio heads, moral contracts, and oligarchies, with no union in sight. Yes the entertainment of the country was in the hands of a dozen men, yes the public perception of actors' lives were 100% spin, and yes becoming a star took more than talent. However, movies were the big ticket back then; everybody went to the movies. The numbers are staggering, as high as 90 million per week taking a seat and glimpsing a better life of action, intrigue, and romance. With such a high audience, the studios could afford to make more movies. 52 movies a year from each studio means 52 directing gigs a year for each studio, 52 leading men gigs for each studio, and 52 crew gigs for each studio. Hollywood was BIG, bigger than life, bigger than everything (save the war).

Big Hollywood brings big stars. The sheer number of talent each studio held under its wing is astounding. Think about our top talent today and compare them to yesteryear. Tom Hanks, the closest we come to Jimmy Stewart, save the mumbles and stutters. Harrison Ford, the closest we come to HALF of Cary Grant. Tom Cruise, Mel Gibson, and even Sean Connery are no match for James Dean, John Wayne, and Spencer Tracy. We just don't have the library. We have no Humphrey Bogarts; we have no Clark Gables. And I'm just speaking of leading men. Can anyone hold a flower to our beloved Audrey Hepburn in this day and age? And Ingrid Bergman? Joan Crawford? Grace Kelly? We have no royalty in our current family.

Aside from top talent, trained and refined by the studios to be top talent, The Golden Age also offered a steady job. The only place in America not suffering from the Depression, Hollywood was growing day by day in the 30s, to churn out the entire catalog of "classics" in the 40s. When you were doing five to ten movies a year, it was ok if one tanked. With such a quantity of work, the artist has room to grow, to sharpen his tools and perfect his craft. This also gives him an opportunity to take chances, do different things, and refine his style to the point where one can notice similarities between a screwball comedy and a western.

Nowadays, you're lucky if you make a movie a year. No matter how good your first two were, you get no second chance. If your third doesn't find an audience, be prepared for a vacation But to even make the movie, you have to find a star; one of the few who search for quality and are willing to stand up for it (Brad Pitt and Harvey Keitel come to mind). Many times one may only proceed with either a Star or his or her own money. What the Hollywood of the 40s gave you was a chance. Yes you'd have to start at the bottom, yes you'd have to do your time as an understudy and learn the Hollywood Way, but true talent always had a way of bubbling to the top. I challenge you to look at Preston Sturges, a fine writer/director making audiences laugh at his sheer wit, making six fine features in three years. Look at Charlie Chaplin, who was born in an alley and eventually became the most popular figure in the world. More popular than the President, more popular than the Pope: Charlie Chaplin... a little tramp who you can really get behind. How is this possible? Hollywood.

I believe the Hollywood that made Chaplin was just getting started with him in the 20s. By the time the 40s came along, the dream factory was in full swing, cranking gears as smoothly as Charlie's own mechanical conundrum in 'Modern Times.' Leading men were known worldwide, and leading ladies were loved worldwide. Cinema gave the world hope, spurned the imaginations to keep those factory workers working and those soldiers fighting. And after the war? Once returned triumphant? Hollywood was there to pop the corks, throwing a party nation-wide.

But of course not everyone was interesting in celebrating. Not everyone wanted glitz and glamour... and so Hollywood produced B pictures. Films for the everyman, gritty, harsh, real, my neighborhood type of films that the working Joe could identify with as much as he could fantasize about being in love with Ava Gardner in Africa, dancing with Ginger in a tux, or romancing Hepburn in Paris. These films not only satisfied reality-seeking audiences but also gave the incoming craftsmen something to do. Of course not everyone gets a shot at location shoots with The Duke in monument valley, but at least you're making film, and you're making a living.

The confining restrictions that we all hear about, Mr. Breen and the Hayes Production Code that strangled Hollywood with mundane rules such as no kisses lasting longer than 5 seconds, did not, contrary to popular belief, make old movies "boring." Instead they challenged the filmmakers to come up with a story that was both entertaining and accessible. The work of Billy Wilder and Alfred Hitchcock clearly show how any story worth telling can be made, and quite often be more entertaining and more stimulating because of what you don't see. Today's level of violence is to the point where nothing's shocking, and kids have seen it all, thanks to the media. What can Cinema bring to scare audiences with that isn't already being plastered all over our television in hopes of ratings? Back in the 40s, a skirt blown above the knee or a gun being shot was enough. We didn't even need blood! All of these things however, the steady position that the studios offered, the larger audience and subsequent stardom, the better stories, everything, is a shadow behind what I, being a man, feel is the best thing about the 40s: The Women.

They were smart, they were sensual but never obscene, they had wit as well as looks, they had fashion, they had style, and most of all, they were talented. Now I know that many of the leading ladies of the 40s were productions, taught and trained to be that way by studio finishing schools. But who cares? Rita Hayworth, whatever she was before 1946, was Rita Hayworth star of Gilda afterward. Even through the luminous black and white, I can still see her blazing red hair flowing from her glittering eyes and sensible cheeks. Yes, Bette Davis can outsmart me; yes, Joan Crawford can make me do whatever she wants me to; and yes, Katharine Hepburn can out duel me in debate. So? I like it! Julia Roberts will do as a neighbor but does she command the audience of every room she enters? Do her eyes burn with Lauren Bacall's fire? I think not. Can Meryl Streep handle the attention that comes to a woman like Barbara Stanwyck? Not likely. Can Jodie Foster keep up with Jean Arthur? Doubtful. All of these women hold more life, more spirit, and more joy than any of their contemporaries. Just filling a list of adequate replacements, not of girls next door or high school sweethearts but real Stars, gives me trouble.

Cinema was simpler back then, people knew what they liked and Hollywood knew how to deliver. There was no indecision that plagues us today, and it shows in films such as Casablanca and Gone With the Wind. Yet let it not be said that all films made during the Golden Age were factory-assembled. Some of the greatest, most personal films of all time had opportunity to surface (look to Ford's 'The Quiet Man' or Wyler's 'The Best Years of our Lives' for proof), while at the same time entertain audiences.

So instead of watching today's mediocrity, I have a tendency to escape back to a period where film was not only good, it was exciting. All these masters creating all of this work, all to be absorbed through the eyes like a dream, a fantasy not controlled by you. An emotional scenario played out by people you want to be. That era is unfortunately over. We've all waken up from that dream. Today we are in business, wading through mediocrity, mistaking failures as stylistic masterpieces just because it's been so long since any real style has shown itself. We need a History lesson.


back.