The American Spectator

Appleby| 1.5.10 @ 7:41AM

Books are in such danger that it is virtually impossible to find anything fit to read. All I could find on a recent trip to the bookstore was vampires, anorexia, divorce and grueome murder, with liberal ladlings of sex. (If I read the first two pages of a book and people are already disrobing, I put it back.) Books are now based on movies instead of the other way round. In fact, when I go to the bookstore to look for classic books, I specify that I do NOT want the movie version. This can make a big difference, as it does in *Tuck Everlasting* which is a fascinating story about the tragedy of living forever -- and was brought out in the movies as yet another slurpy Disney Romance.

Ken (Old Texican)| 1.5.10 @ 10:28AM

Appleby,
May I suggest:
"The Last Centurion"...........Ringo
"Empire and Hidden Empire"..........Orson Card
The entire "Mitch Rapp" series..........Flynn
The "presidential Agent" series ..........WEB Griffin

All the above very very current, informative, and great reads.

Stammon| 1.5.10 @ 8:23PM

App-
Try Patrick O'Brian. Start with him and then to to Usula K. LeQuin. And don't forget P.E. Woodhouse.
Really, look up O'Brian, he's deep and true.

Appleby| 1.6.10 @ 7:44AM

Ursula LeGuinn is a Marxist. Have you read her book The Dispossessed, in which nobody is permitted to have property -- and children use such circumlocutions as The Handkerchief That I Use (as opposed to My Handkerchief)?

I did buy a nice Childrens picture book for a nephew for Christmas that she wrote. When she sticks to facts in short sentences, she can do it.

I have read P.G. Wodehouse since I was in Grade 6 and I adore his work.

In modern literature I recommend The Cat Who books (e.g. The Cat Who Could Read Backwards); they are set in a small town *400 Miles from Everywhere* with a continuing cast of characters, and although its detective is a man who freakishly inherits $1 Billion on the proviso that he live in this town for at least 5 years, and the author has a bad habit of burning down town landmarks and killing people off randomly when she gets tired of them, your grandmother (or great-grandmother if you are young) can read them in safety and you can imagine the people living their lives when the book is closed.

Kitty| 1.5.10 @ 8:05AM

I remember the 1970s as being the worst decade for movies, mostly because of the popularity of the XXX-rated garbage. A local theater would offer the XXX fare during the week and Disney films on the weekends. I can still see the marquee in my mind.

And then I remembered that a number of my favorites were made in that same decade: "The Godfather" (I & II), "Paper Moon," "Chinatown," "Days of Heaven," "The Exorcist," "Rocky," "Jaws," "Young Frankenstein."

Btw, do they make movies these days in which the characters smoke?
...

JimH| 1.5.10 @ 8:21AM

Realize of course, that Moby Dick now would have the whale as the good guy.

RAMIII| 1.5.10 @ 1:05PM

The WHITE WHALE is the good guy!

harry z| 11.12.10 @ 3:13PM

yes of cause, no doubt

Lazy Jack| 1.5.10 @ 8:35AM

Bill,

As an aside on your media theme, I also find it interesting that the most celebrated films and television are essentially about... Hollywood and Media. For example, despite awful reviews, Nine scored at least five Golden Globe Nominations. And on television, 30 Rock has been the darling of the media award circuit since its creation.

Proving, once again, that the most popular media watched by actors, etc. is apparently what comes on when they look in the mirror.

Best,

Lazy Jack

www.thanksforthelaughs.wordpress.com

Lazy Jack| 1.5.10 @ 8:42AM

One other note. I do not watch many movies, but I do see a few on international flights. I do not see a lot of smoking in cinema anymore, unless it involves bongs or currently cool actors sticking it to the man.

But seriously, it seems smoking is really from American films these days. Seems to mirror American life in some respects, especially when compared to smoking habits in Asia and Europe.

Best,

Lazy Jack

PolishKnight| 1.5.10 @ 11:43AM

Don't worry lazyjack, smoking is still popular among leftists and in hollywood. I remember watching Something about Mary recently and Cameron Diaz, a pretty and funny girl, takes a puff from a cigarette which totally ruined her beauty for me for the rest of the picture. The left smoke just as they ride in private jets and preach against global warming.

That said, I agree with their stance about smoking: It's a rude, low class habit and I remember the good ol days when tolddiers would cough and wheeze while parents satisfied their addiction. It's now even more dirty as the companies have put in additives to make it even more addictive giving it a smell like a crystal meth lab next to a burning plastic trash dump.

Grzmlyk| 1.5.10 @ 9:28AM

The vast majority of fare today is aimed at the 18-35 crowd, so we get a "re-imagination" of Sherlock Holmes that is virtually indistinguishable (I imagine, since I've only seen a trailer that seemed to last itself for 2 hours) from Batman Returns or from X-Men or T3 or Transformers - a thin, tired gruel of CGI-bloated cartoonish values, frenetic and highly-stylized violence, intellectual clichés and supposedly hip mores.

Funny, I remember my childhood Saturday mornings watching Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce putter around low-budget, fog-laden soundstages that produced far more atmospheric, compelling and entertaining, Holmesian fare, modest even as that series of movies' ambitions were.

A snarky Robert Downey Jr. tied up as a result of some implied sexual tryst? This is Holmes? Oy. And don't get me started on Jack Black, Ben Stiller, Will Farrell and that ilk.

But then the fare aimed at the "mature" crowd (and I use the word "mature" very loosely) is generally pabulum designed to promulgate 1) girl power (Sex and the City); 2) dysfunctionality as cute and desirable (the Family Stone); 3) left-wing points of view (Avatar, Doubt); and the dyspeptic, dystopian wages of conservative sin (Revolutionary Road).

And of course we've seen the decline of acting as a craft. I just watched Requiem for a Heavyweight (Anthony Quinn, Mickey Rooney, Jackie Gleason, Julie Harris - 1962), in which real actors portrayed real, complex people - not some L.A.-incubated amalgamation of youth-worshipping, Hollywooded-up poses, trite one-liners and sophomoric attitudinizing that parades with shameless exhibitionism in front of the camera today - callow, uninteresting and incomprehensible performances given ostensible cohesion by frenetic, ostentatious, intrusive editing in lieu of rendering something remotely human that we, the audience, can relate to in any deeply emotional sense.

It's funny how, as we deconstruct modernity with ever-more obsessive glee, and as we excuse all kinds of behavior under the rubric of the complexity of the human condition, movies become dumber and dumber, simpler and simpler, more and more formulaic. If life is so complex and so many points of view are valid, why does Hollywood rely almost exclusively on remakes, puerile sexuality, juvenile computer graphics and threadbare, shopworn morality that is warmed over from the 60's, which itself was warmed over scraps from the Progressive Era?

Movies used to be a celebration of the human condition - even its forays into the dark side were more often than not treated as of-a-piece with a human condition that bound us all together, rendered within a context that gave life meaning. So on the light side, a Fred Astaire/Ginger Rogers piece of depression-era fluff nevertheless reinforces things I’d like to think of as eternal - like decency, manners, love and honor. And on the dark side, even controversial movies from later eras, such as The Asphalt Jungle, The Misfits or even Chinatown, portray the dark underbelly of life's vicissitudes with a compassion and understanding that are lacking from the one-dimensional pigeon-holing of morality that characterizes too many movies today (corporations = bad, self-interest = bad, war = bad, male sensibilities = bad; U.N.-style one-world government = good, victimization = good, "giving back" = good, female world-view = good).

And while every era has its stylistic idiosyncrasies, some of which do not age well, the movies and the stars from bygone decades that endure to this day do so because they touch us personally. Try wringing out the compassionate humanity that emanates from Fred McMurray and Barbara Stanwyck in Remember the Night from any ostensible love story today.

Today's movies - when they have any point at all - merely serve to shore up the false consciousness of the shallow, desensitized social masks we want others to see. They are thus dehumanizing in the same way that pornography dehumanizes sex.

We detach from our inner selves not only at our peril, but at the peril of society at large. The crap we generally see Now Playing is a supposedly kinder, gentler epoch's version of the bread and circuses that distracted antiquity's citizens as Rome fell around them.

I fear our popular culture, and the movies that are one of Pop-culture's weight-bearing girders, foreshadow a dark future indeed. And that's the one aspect of today's fare that really should command our attention.

JAH666| 1.5.10 @ 9:46AM

Wow, that was a really nice summing-up of the current low-tide that is movie-making and the entire Hollyweird world. If American movies have been a reflection of American life through the years, it is no wonder that so many people don't realy want to look anymore. Thanks for your post, Grzmlyk, it told in a few paragraphs very clearly, why I don't go to the movies anymore.

Grzmlyk| 1.5.10 @ 10:30AM

Thanks - I agree, it is a reflection of our dehumanized, conformity-coerced, utterly insincere era.

And so our entire discourse - Hollywood included - is set by a bunch of adolescent mentalities with cardboard moralities where all that matters is looking like THEY CARE - the only value that has any currency today.

Why, you can be as big an a-hole as you want, selfish, decadent, exploitive, obnoxious, sadistic, felonious, promsicuous, adulterous, drug-addled, whatever - but as long as you cry for the polar bears, or boo-hoo for the victim of white culture du jour, you are going to liberal heaven, baby.

I mean, what does it say about our values that Britney Spears and Lindsey Lohan became skanks because it was a good career move?

That's only partly a tongue-in-cheek observation. Can anyone guess what Mylie Cyrus's next incarnation, post-Disney, will be? Hint: It ain't gonna be Amish.

I'm as prurient as the next guy, but the problem with prurience is that it is utterly self-serving and ulitimately fleeting, whether in the naked guise of sexual titillation or in the more insidious trait of assuaging moral vanity. There's a subtractive quality to it.

By contrast, the genuine humanity that is portrayed in older movies reinforces the qualities that bind us. There's an additive quality there.

I find it ironic indeed that a society that is utterly without shame when it comes to personal vice becomes so thoroughly embarrassed when it comes to public virtue - patriotism, spiritual faith, genuine feeling - all of these are scorned by our hard-bitten culture.

We flee from the corny, mushy arms of sweetness and sincerity and run to the embrace of the hard-bitten cynicism of cotton-candy celebrity for its own sake.

Hence the demise of human community - and the rise of people like Kim Kardashian.

But hey, she voted for Obama, so it's all good.

Tony in Central PA| 1.5.10 @ 1:29PM

" I find it ironic indeed that a society that is utterly without shame when it comes to public vice becomes so thoroughly embarrassed when it comes to public virtue ..."
What it is.

PolishKnight| 1.5.10 @ 11:45AM

I'm a big fan of the Granada series of Sherlock Holmes on PBS. Another great series is the Russian version of Sherlock Holmes that's on MHz. It's said to be a favorite of the Queen herself. There's nothing like seeing Victorian sentiments expressed in Russian! (I suspect it's filmed in St. Petersburg)

Margie| 1.6.10 @ 2:48PM

Grz,
I agree with JAH666. Great assessment. You're a great writer.
We've spoken before about the old movies.. so I couldn't agree more with you here. There's nothing like getting lost in an old romantic black and white flick from the 40's and 50's for me. I love the drama and the romance! Like the one martha mentions below with Gene Tierney.
I also love the 60's groovy old hippie movies as well as early 70's. After that, I'm not much interested. In the past 40 years I've probably gone to a theatre about 10 times. I watch what I can online.
It's like reading.. for me, I prefer old classics. Give me Tolstoy any day! I wish he wrote more books. And American History, and books on and about the Founders, by conservative authors only.
I just finished reading Shirley Temple's autobiography. If you want a great look on the inside of early Hollywood-through the eyes of a child that grew up in it, you'd really enjoy her book. I love that lady! Her style of writing is excellent as well. She remembers everything like it was yesterday.. gives her experiences with Zanuck, Barrymore, Mayer.. involvement with all kinds of old actors.. and dancers, like Billy (Bojangles) Robinson. Also her relationship with J. Edgar Hoover, and how she later came to actually work for the F.B.I. It was a great read. She's finishing up a second autobiography now.
Anyhow.. too long a post. always enjoy yours.

racking| 1.5.10 @ 9:35AM

http://www.racking-shelving.com
http://www.cold-store-equipment.com

as a whole contractor for cold store equipment, design, manufacturing, installation.

professional racking & shelving manufacturer, pallet racking, drive in racking,
cantilever racking, longspan shelving, dexion racking,

gearjammer| 1.5.10 @ 9:40AM

Try Marvin's Room and Doubt. Meryl Streep smokes in both of them. One is uplifting and avoids a ton of schmaltz, and the other thought provoking in its own way. I am sure they both did zilch in the box office. No nudity for openers.

Le Cracquere| 1.5.10 @ 10:22AM

Also, the success of such movies are overdetermined in advance by their advance publicity & ad campaigns, or lack thereof. Too many good films find only a boutique audience because the studio can't imagine the point of bringing them to wider attention. Still, Gearjammer, I must question in the strongest possible terms whether Meryl Streep nudity would do much for a film's appeal or box office.

gearjammer| 1.5.10 @ 10:50AM

You provide her with a young, sexy daughter.

Le Cracquere| 1.5.10 @ 11:31AM

Who does nude scenes? Hm--tell you what, have her swordfight a couple of aliens, and I'm there. Meryl Streep can light up and say something trenchant later in the movie. You drive a hard bargain, sir.

Ron Cole| 1.5.10 @ 11:07AM

Shot my tv 50 years ago with my elephant rifle.
Sure felt good then, and I cherish tje memory.
I do not miss it.
Will not support wackowood ever.

I only watch high quality movies on a fine home theater system, and listen to fine music.

Highly recommend the tv execution.

Ancient cowpoke, mud Marine, and Aviator

Sheila| 1.5.10 @ 11:16AM

I think I've seen two movies in the last year - one in a theater (Firestarter) and one at home recently (Julie and Julia). The first was a Christian film, and the second was half about an interesting woman and half about a vapid, self-absorbed modern girlchild. Appleby, I share your love of books and can't think of a single film that has ever successfully translated a truly good book (with the possible exception of a few classics such as "A Christmas Carol" or the old Masterpiece Theatre production of "The Forsythe Saga"). Grzmlyk, the human condition is so passe, you know, now it's all about self actualization! My husband was channel surfing the other day and paused at a biography of Carrie Fisher. I had forgotten she was not only a mediocre actress, but also a "critically acclaimed" (i.e. lousy) novelist - and each of her books was about herself (a self-absorbed addict who can't handle life). Just as Dear Leader wrote two autobiographies before he ever actually did anything, most writers now write about what they know - themselves - and what they've done - ruminate on their own endlessly fascinating (to themselves) lives and thoughts. Movies only reflect this, and magnify the self regard. Nothing is so interesting to the narcissist as himself, and Hollywood is nothing if not filled with narcissists.

Old Texican, I enjoy Vince Flynn and WEB Griffin too, but they're great action/escape books and not thought-provoking literature. For that, I turn to the past, and recently started reading G.K. Chesterton's works.

Finally, I feel compelled to use this forum to raise an issue that has irked me for years. Neoconservative (i.e. a Kennedy liberal who is worried about Muslims) Michael Medved has for years claimed that Hollywood doesn't really have an agenda, it's all about the profit motive and they make what they think will earn them the big bucks. NOT SO! They know exactly how much money their family fare earns, and how little their anti-war screeds, but because they most definitely DO have an agenda they don't care! I'm so tired of being told that I must believe the experts (or film critics) instead of my own lyin' eyes. Hollywood is owned and run, for the most part, by typically liberal Jewish Democrats, and their agenda permeates everything they make. Even my small pleasure in parts of "Julie and Julia" was constantly smothered by Nora Ephron's overpowering voice - when Julie's boss declared "If I was a Republican I'd have fired you" I decided I had had enough. Even the dollar I paid for the DVD for the night was too much to have to endure Ephron's snark. Too many comments here criticize lousy movies - but clearly demonstrate just how many of them people have paid good money to see. Like Bill Croke, I'm sending a message by withholding my money. The rest of you need to follow suit.

Mark| 1.5.10 @ 1:42PM

Actually, Michael Medved argues the exact opposite. Read his book, "Hollywood vs. America".

explosion proof flood light| 11.25.10 @ 1:33AM

That's the way it went in the U.S. for decades. People in poor communities were convinced that the police and justice system didn't give a hang about crime in their neighborhoods.

Seek| 1.5.10 @ 11:26AM

Let's take a look at the "decadent" films of the past year (including a few foreign one):

"The International"
"Duplicity"
"Star Trek"
"Is Anybody There?"
"Easy Virtue"
"X-Men: Origins"
"Julie and Julia"
"The Informant!"
"Up in the Air"
"Nine" (the reviews actually were favorable)
"Sherlock Holmes"
"Fantastic Mr. Fox"
"Where the Wild Things Are"
"The Hurt Locker"
"District 9"
"A Christmas Carol"
"500 Days of Summer"
"Zombieland"
"Taken"
"Broken Embraces"

I'll take any of these films over the badly lit, acted and directed crap that constituted 90% of film from the supposedly "Golden Age" of Hollywood. Sorry, Mr. Grim, if that makes me out of synch with the reigning cant of this site.

Le Cracquere| 1.5.10 @ 11:39AM

Seek makes an excellent point. We don't REMEMBER the "Year Ones" and "I Love You, Beth Coopers" of Hollywood's Golden Age, but they had them. Only the best stuff from prior decades persists in our memories, and this selective representation necessarily looks better than the combined good, bad, and the ugly of our present year.

The present can never look like a good time for movies, because the good stuff is ALWAYS buried in piles of dreck which won't recede from critical notice until later. Go into an average theatre on an average week in the 70s, and you sure wouldn't feel like you lived at a high-water mark for American film.

Grzmlyk| 1.5.10 @ 12:39PM

I'm guessing
1) you're young;
2) you haven't actually seen any movies from the "supposedly" golden age of hollywood (if you did, you wouldn't call them all badly-lit, acted and directed); and
3) CGI in place of plot, character and narrative are okey doke by you.

In a word, your comment sort of proves the point.

Not all movies from bygone eras are great - not by a long shot. And not all movies today suck. But too many do, and the values espoused by even the supposedly great ones are too often disturbing at best.

And if you think the acting in Star Trek was anything but embarrassing, well, you may have a future in television.

Grzmlyk| 1.5.10 @ 12:41PM

Actually, if it's not obvious, this comment should have been addressed to "Seek."

Anastasia Mather| 1.5.10 @ 12:45PM

Really - Star Trek was a fun romp, nothing more. It took the beloved cliches of the original series, translated them to today with better special effects and lots of action.

Not saying it's an enduring classic, but I enjoyed it for what it was.

Breathe!

Grzmlyk| 1.5.10 @ 12:52PM

Sorry. I like it when actors can act.

Jeremiah| 1.5.10 @ 9:48PM

When he was in high school, my son and I loved to watch movies together. I am fond of many very old movies - and also stuff that preceded him but was very cool; Raiders of the Lost Ark, Jaws, Superman, etc. But we watched such things as the African Queen, Casablanca, Roman Holiday - and anything with Cary Grant, Jimmy Stewart or Audrey Hepburn. Talking about the movies, my son said at one point that the older ones had really cheesy effects, but they really knew how to tell a story then. I laughed and told him they had to: they couldn't cover a lousy story with dazzling effects.

As a young adult, he says I was perfect in developing his taste in movies. Since I loved both Action and Adventure mivies and Chick Flicks - and passed this eclectic taste on to him, he is pleased that he is perfectly comfortable and enjoys going out to the movies either with the guys or with his girl.

And finally, Seek, as nice as some of the movies you cite are, it borders on blasphemy to make Sherlock Holmes into an Action/Adventure star.

Anastasia Mather | 1.5.10 @ 12:41PM

If you won't see animated films, you've missed Pixar and the best work, both for children and adults. Films like "Cars", "Wall-E" and "Up", which have a moral compass, tragedy and humor like real films should.

I think you need to get out more.

the permanent newbie| 1.5.10 @ 3:07PM

Not to mention "The Incredibles," one of the best-written and most deliciously conservative films of the decade. The only time I ever paid to see a movie twice...

Grzmlyk| 1.5.10 @ 2:30PM

On the other hand, perhaps you should stay in more. Where you can breathe in the comfort of your own home.

I love the animated stuff - particularly Cars, Toy Story, The Incredibles and Ratatouille.

But note that these are throwbacks - virtually without exception, they are built on solid storylines and characters and narratives that are derived from much older, more time-honored traditions of story telling - in a word, the same things that made older movies so compelling.

I don't object too much to the mindless pabulum like Star Trek - although it bores me - or the stuff that doesn't have pretentions beyond its genre - like the Bourne movies, which were very well done. Those are, to my mind, keeping the tradition of filmmaking alive.

And I thought Tarentino's piece in the Grindhouse twin bill last summer (the one with Kurt Russell) was a very nice bit of moviemaking.

And I love the Cohen Brothers - though lately I think they've succumbed to the Important Filmmaker disease - No Country for Old men SUCKED.

But a lot of stuff out there takes me on a journey that substitutes liberal platitudes and conservative bashing for emotional involvement (Little Children, Revolutionary Road), or mucks up traditional forms - like the first Daniel Craig James Bond flick, which i loved - right up until Craig has his "Oprah" moment and cries over his violent lifestyle choice in the bathroom. And then the new James Bond forever lost me.

Cartoonish fights, over-the-top CGI, busy camera work, self-conscious editing, bad acting, phony compassion, politically correct points of view - those things are far too common and often mask the lack of story, plot, character, perspective. Will "Milk" endure? I have my doubts.

(Please, for the love of god, don't get me started on Sean Penn, the most overrated human being on the planet. And that includes Madonna.)

We've become too cynical, too cool to be taken in by innocence; we've become too jaded to cheer for humanity unless it comes attached to the proper victimology (although the Pixar stuff you cite is not so encumbered, which is why it stands out and why it endures and why it's good family fare).

Albert Constantine, Jr.| 1.5.10 @ 5:10PM

Speaking of Sean Penn, I've always found in curious that despite a lenghty reported history of domestic violence with Madonna, and the fact that he served jail time for violating his probation for assault, that he was issued a Concealed Deadly Weapons Permit by the State of California, which reportedly does not issue many for law abiding citizens.

Margie| 1.6.10 @ 2:55PM

Ha! I watched a Sean Penn movie recently online.. out of sheer curiosity. The one where he played Huey Long. The guy is just such a turn off. A Royal turn off. Does his personality always come through in ALL the movies he does? Ugh.

Sheila| 1.5.10 @ 2:48PM

I'm with you, Grzmlyk. Even Pixar sometimes substitutes liberal platitudes for traditional norms. Anastasia Mather, Wall-E's moral compass was skewed toward "bad humans destroy the earth; superior other races need to replace them." Sort of an Avatar for children (no, I have not seen the latter and have no intention of so doing). The most traditional message was to be found in The Incredibles (we're not all equal, some people are exceptional and should be allowed to excel, jealousy over others' ability or success breeds adult temper tantrums bordering on insanity, etc.) but most of this went over my son's head; he just enjoyed the movie. There are loads of animated and kids' movies out there that are dangerous to your child's mental health and moral compass, but mindless parents (pretty much all one finds these days) flock to things like Shrek and The Barnyard. Most Disney movies now substitute cool cant by Eddie Murphy and bathroom humor for the morals and mores the company's founder preferred (thanks so much, Michal Eisner). Most big kids' hits aren't even stories at all, but rather vehicles for merchandising. Save your money . . . and your children . . . stay home and read books.

Grzmlyk| 1.5.10 @ 3:30PM

Yes, Sheila, I agree - although I thought the first Shrek was not without a modicum of charm.

I didn't see Wall-e - probably because the trailers betrayed what I figured was a liberal theme. And I agree, a lot of stuff from Pixar is somewhat "scrubbed" to be acceptable to a politically correct audience. But the basic stories, it seems to me, could be taken from any number of 1930s movies.

I don't really understand movies like Revolutionary Road, Little Children or, to a lesser extent, The Road to Perdition and No Country for Old Men - or any film Sean Penn directed, such as The Crossing Guard or The Pledge. These movies operate from a palate in which there are no tints - just shades of black. They set up a false moral universe that is tilted distinctly against American values.

And I won't even go into the myriad anti-bush anti-Iraq war movies that smugly assumed anyone watching would of course be enlightened enough to know that anything Bush engaged in was evil. These folks embrace complexity and moral relativity - right up until it comes to conservatism - and then a rigid, doctrinaire, oppressive, manichean morality of the left suddenly rises up and casts a shadow over every character.

Other great movies explore the nature of evil without shoving a phony view of morality down our throats - Citizen Kane, Treasure of the Sierra Madre, Chinatown (quite controversial in its own right), the Devil and Daniel Webster, A touch of Evil, Psycho, to name just a few, all show the corrosive, destructive quality of evil without blocking out the sun entirely.

Such is life.

martha| 1.5.10 @ 9:47PM

You ever want to see a movie about a really really evil person I would recomment "Leave Her to Heaven" with Gene Tierney, who BTW smokes like a chimney through it

Margie| 1.6.10 @ 2:20PM

Love, love, love those old movies! Give me one of those any day!

Lu Dumak| 1.5.10 @ 2:48PM

I grew up on movies. I am "young" enough to remember my mother taking my sister & I to the movies on dish night. For those real yougn's there was a time for one thin dime you got a free dish plus a double feature movie each Tuesday. For the low income people it was a way to collect a set of dishes a week at a time. As I gew into the teen years Friday was a meeting place for all teens to meet at the movies, plus the Saturday matinees. Two movies,news real and cartoons. What a deal! I always loved going to the movies, but now it seems they are more special effects and little plot.

Grzmlyk| 1.5.10 @ 2:53PM

BTW, I also thought The Wrestler was EXCELLENT. It lived up to its buzz, which is rare.

But again, this was old-fashioned story telling; the camera work supported the character's isolation - it didn't substitute for character development.

It was beautifully acted too. but it is the age-old story of a man's fall from putative grace and his learning what really matters in life. Not that far removed from Jimmy Stewart in Capra's corny It's a Wonderful Life!

Tony in Central PA| 1.5.10 @ 3:25PM

I think movies have become more of a business than they used to be. I'm not entirely sure why this is the case. Movies cost more to make, but I guess that's relative. Movies have much more to compete against now and there are no second runs in theaters, only DVD, cable and network.

Many of the movies seem so, dare I say, conservative, if not in values in marketing approach. Actors are chosen to recycle roles they effectively executed previously. Story lines must be either regurgitative or highly derivative. There are movies devoted to cartoons and TV shows from deceades ago that weren't even that good to begin with. They were chosen because they are familiar. There is a heavy emphasis on special effects, of course. Moviemaking has had the Playstation / Theme Park school for at least a couple of decades. I imagine few people will be entertained much by these kind of films as the technology advances and filmmakers must resort to increasingly painful neural jolts to stab our deadened senses to life.

I would say that many great films from previous eras will lose their audiences as they become increasingly incomprehensible to people who are learning to expect entertainment that works at the brainstem level.

PAT| 1.5.10 @ 3:48PM

"In my day, movies were better" - each recent generation proclaims their disappointment with our most "popular" art form. And the psychologists say you remember the "good ole days" with fondness because you were young then, you felt great and this old world was relatively new - the movies weren't better, you were.

What changed was the business aspect of movie making. They're very expensive to make nowadays, banks don't want to fund a money losing "dog", producers endlessly revive old "themes", popular books, even comic book characters because they have a proven track record of popularity with consumers. Actors may want challenging roles, the banks and investors want guaranteed money makers, the public simply wants to be entertained and the movie themes change over time based on the publics' mood or their current fears. Uplifting stories during bad times, gritty vigilante hero movies during periods of high crime rates, altruistic political themes during the good economic times.

It's not art, it's money - and the market has been stratified accordingly. Slasher flicks, vapid romances, zombie/vampire horror scaries, heart pounding special effects sci-fi movies for the teen and young adult date crowd. Animation and semi-animated movies for the families with younger kids. The rare and low budget stories for the mature adults who don't very often attend movies which they and they alone can enjoy - the low return on investment segment of the market.

Hollywood understands this market segment relationship very well, despite the spin the Academy Awards puts on their "artistic" output. And Hollywood has joined pro sports in that regard - tickets prices are high, entertainers command astronomical salaries.

And NFL players are no different from movie actors either, they entertain, the league and the owners protect their investment with a plethora of rules which protects the high paid ball handlers from injury. When they've made the playoffs, teams slack off regular season games for fear of injury, take their valuable players off the field early on, the crowd sees a second rate show for premium prices. The playoffs and the Superbowl command enormous revenue streams so owners and coachs want to make it to the finals, they hope the public understands and sympathizes with their strategy, but in the end don't care about the public unless it affects their revenue stream.

Money has always controlled art and it always will.

Grzmlyk| 1.5.10 @ 4:00PM

I agree with what you say, Pat, but for me, I'm a relatively recent convert to the cornucopia of classic movies since I got Turner Classic Movies about 7 years ago. It's true that I've always liked them, but I had probably only seen 50 or so - now I've seen hundreds.

Also, it's always been about money in Hollywood - the old studio system was essentially a group of factories that cranked out content on a scale unimagineable today.

As free agency did with pro sports, the collapse of the studio system gave rise to astronomical salaries and all that came with it. I often struggle with the issue of which was better - baseball before Curt Flood's lawsuit or after, Hollywood before folks like William Holden broke away from their contract-player status. Both have upsides and downsides and, as you say, it's economics pure and simple. One might say it's the rise of the power of unions - the players unions in sports and AFTRA/SAG in acting - that tipped the balance. for my money, the scale has now tipped too far in the direction of the unions. Sure, if the market will bear a $250 million contract for A-Rod, or a $100 million payday for Angelina Jolie, I can't begrudge them - and yet at some level I do. Call it a contradiction.

Hence James Cameron's settling on an incredibly stupid, silly plot for his CGI extravaganza - one that will be as popular in Europe and Asia as it is here - if not more so.

But the rise of the independent film was supposed to mitigate against the cost issue. To some extent it did. One woudl think, though, with the price of video technology always falling, that a creative class of folks would arise who can make good films on the cheap. But of course the devil is in the distribution system. Hence the tsunami of crap from hollywood and obnoxious, thuggish prima donnas who won't listen to their coaches on the playing field.

MikeBee| 1.5.10 @ 6:23PM

I was raised in Los Angeles' suburbs. Out there, entertainment is the biggest thing going, with the exception of the Defense department. So, since the news can't cover defense stuff too well, due to secrecy issues, it covers the entertainment industry. Many years ago, news articles were written descrying the fact that there were no more writers in Hollywood. When Hollywood began, and throughout the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s (and even a bit into the 1980s), the writers were mainly people who had written for radio, and younger people trained by them. When you write stories for radio, you must appeal to a person's imagination; you must paint a picture for him to see in his head. Therefore, television stories were better then. Actually, we revere the old sports announcers for the same reason. The old sports announcers first called games on radio, before entering the medium of T.V. When calling a game on T.V., they still painted a picture for you to see, even though you could now see the picture for yourself. Anyone who has heard Chick Hearn call an L.A. Lakers basketball game or Ernie Harwell call a Detroit Tigers game on T.V. knows what I'm talking about.

The older writers had been trained in their art, studying standards of writing, and practicing greatly before becoming famous. However, in the 1970s, universities began casting aside the "old" standards, claiming that true art comes from within a person. Art became whatever an artist threw on the canvas, even if it was what he had had for breakfast. This tossing aside of standards has occurred also for writing, and is reflected in today's garbage called movies. The inability to create true tension; the absence of probing the inner being and displaying true human values; every movie ending with the climax of the story, and containing no denouement; these are all evidence of a lack of training in the standards of writing.

It's high time to return to teaching standards to artists again, including writers. Becoming disciplined in one's art only helps one to better express him/herself through art; it does NOT hinder creativity. It's time artists (including writers) began painting pictures in the minds of people again, rather than throwing slop at their canvases.

Suzanne Rhoades| 1.5.10 @ 6:45PM

Grzmlyk - "Sherlock Holmes" is nothing like the previews of it. We wanted to hate it sight unseen (like you) but we also wanted to "vote" for it with our money against "Avatar". My husband and I are huge Jeremy Brett fans (the best Sherlock EVER) and had a great date afternoon with Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law. I forgot how fun it was to go to the movies. This movie is about the first volume of Watson and Holmes and, yes, Sherlock was a BOXER, don't forget. He had a few other hobbies besides rationality and he loved being the star in a melodrama. I hope the previews roped in some unsuspecting plastic action types and that they were pleasantly surprised that men with brains are also sexy! The part with RDjr. tied up was not a huge scene, just some eye-candy for the girls.
That said, I enjoy reading what you have to say about movies you've seen. We also love the old movies the best but have never been steered wrong by the American Spectator's own movie critic, James Bowman. He sees a lot more foreign films and we usually follow his lead and are not disappointed.

Richard Baker| 1.5.10 @ 7:29PM

Most of todays "actors" wouldn't have careers without pyrotechnics/explosions, gunfire, or special effects. At least the stars and character actors up to about '64-'65 were skilled in their craft and understood the meaning of an understated performance and being a distinct character you wanted to watch in a human manner. As an example, Walter Pidgeon and Bogart come to mind.

MikeBee| 1.5.10 @ 9:16PM

Richard,
You're right! The biggest difference between actors of yesterday and actors of today: age. Today's actors/actresses are children compared to yesterday's actors/actresses. Nowadays, if an actor has turned 30, he's considered too old for the profession. This is the main reason that actors today are so shallow, and unable to truly emote. They lack the life experience which only comes with age. It's time we return to seeing adults on stage who really are adults, not teens pretending to be adults.

kris Lepine| 1.5.10 @ 10:57PM

I figured out the problem with movies several years ago. The writers do not know how to make the audience care about the characters. Years ago it was different. There was development of the characters and you actually cared about them. In the really old movies (30's & 40's) you even cared about the villians at times.
Like you, we rarely waste our time or money on movies. However, on New Years Eve my husband and I went to see "Blind Side" and it was delightful. I highly recommend it. You will come away with a warm and happy feeling. It's funny, charming and touching. And worth the price of admission. Kris Lepine

Jeff Perren| 1.6.10 @ 2:38PM

"The only 'ism Hollywood believes in is plagiarism."

There are two more, far worse: Progressivism and Pragmatism.

John Blake| 1.6.10 @ 3:15PM

Hollywood's degenerate pop-cult attracts only the immature, the unlettered, a plebian Roman mob. Pixar animations such as "Toy Story" and "Up" work well, but for years now we have plumped solely for Peter Jackson's "Ring" trilogy. Over the next generation, as demographics inexorably dispose of post-Boomer adolescents, studios will either revert to half-way decent entertainment or become as extinct as mass-media print and TV communication franchises.

Whoever discerns that mature (meaning over thirty) audiences have been deprived of substance this past fifty years will reap rewards past current producers' dreary, foul-mouthed, inane imaginings.

Andrew B| 1.6.10 @ 6:48PM

The problem, as I see it, is simple. Hollywood used to deal in archetypes--The Loner, The Bad Girl, The Tragic Heroine, The Romantic Idol, The Funny Best Friend.

Now, Hollywood simply writes in shorthand. Corporations are bad, liberals are brave, conservatives are evil, women of the past were all spunky proto-feminists. These are not archetypes, they are stereotypes, and they have no resonance. Glad I have a vast archive of old movies on tape and dvd. Watch "Sands of Iwo Jima" some time, where the hero is a pretty bad guy, but is still heroic. Too much ambiguity for today's audience, I guess.

berita patani| 11.8.10 @ 5:56PM

Hollywood again s4ck

nappies| 11.8.10 @ 5:57PM

audiences have been deprived of substance

TV.Black.Friday.2010| 11.9.10 @ 4:32PM

I agree that Hollywood simply writes in shorthand.

Shop.Friday.black| 11.11.10 @ 7:36AM

we rarely waste our money on movies. However, on New Years I went to see "Blind Side" and it was delightful. I highly recommend it. You will come away with a warm and happy feeling. It's funny

eec dot electric scooter china| 11.22.10 @ 7:49AM

electric scooter bike exporter from China
We are selling these electric scooters and bikes at a introductory price. We strive to ensure that our products are reliable, updated. China

Converse| 8.11.11 @ 9:37PM

is good

balcuizar62| 10.13.11 @ 4:07AM

To begin with i would like to appreciate the truly great and informative entry.
yaz class action

shia| 10.18.11 @ 9:20AM

i can't find any reason why my friend do like this..maybe she find an interesting topic from here..thats what i want to search it..i hope in my hands which is not almighty.
i can still find it..thats it thanks..

mesothelioma lawyer

creamer| 10.20.11 @ 2:54AM

screenruchit is very good and exciting post i like your posting Whole
Actos Attorneys

abominable putridity| 11.5.11 @ 3:57PM

I've got to admit that we haven't ever got word of this information. Concerning noticed many new facts personally.

L Tod Schlosser

wow| 11.13.11 @ 9:38PM

I would like to thank you for the efforts you have made in writing this article. I am hoping the same best work from you in the future as well. In fact your creative writing abilities have inspired me to start my own blog now.

zoloft lawsuits

bogol| 11.16.11 @ 2:10PM

Greetings! Now i'm extremely happy to check this original page! Your website seemed to be exceedingly incomparable as well as a must read!
Actos Lawyers

Perfect !!!| 11.19.11 @ 4:51PM

Nice site! I adore a couple of of the articles which were written, and particularly the comments posted! I will definately be visiting again!
mas200

bogol| 11.30.11 @ 2:01PM

Excellent read, I just passed this onto a colleague who was doing a little research on that. And he actually bought me lunch because I found it for him smile So let me rephrase that: Thanks for lunch!

Effexor Lawyer

bogol| 12.1.11 @ 10:54AM

was absolutely pleased to stumble upon this web-site.I wanted to thank you for your time for this wonderful read!! I unequivocally enjoyed every little bit of it and I have you saved to check out the new stuff on you website.

mesothelioma attorney

inah0911| 12.5.11 @ 3:21PM

I have gone through the article and found interesting information helped me in getting the best answer that I am looking for.

san diego personal injury attorney

inah0911| 12.6.11 @ 11:46AM

it seems that i have found something here thanks its slowing down but its clea in my head for something here its knowing all your stuff thanks

san diego bankruptcy attorney

IMYI| 12.15.11 @ 10:24PM

As usual i am searching some useful information, immediately i found this post and gain some useful information great work such a great brain to use.

Medtronic Infuse Lawsuit