Jump to content

PaperThinWalls

Global Moderator
  • Posts

    11,333
  • Joined

Everything posted by PaperThinWalls

  1. Yikes! What a repetitive, uncreative mess...
  2. Ah, I see. Not too surprised. A Lubitsch film! Share more of your thoughts. I plan on watching a large portion of his works soon.
  3. Dunno, I assumed it was heroin with the needle and all. But it could be something else. Haven't gotten to them, yet. I have a whole backlog of movies I've been getting through. But at some point I'll check them out. BTW are those the only Thin Man films worth watching or are there others you recommend?
  4. Imagine seeing pictures move for the first time. Must have been thrilling. I like the part where he shoots up heroin. ;D And One Week = Haven't gotten into other Sennett productions. Actually, the only silent comedy I've seen is from the big 3 and a couple Fatty Arbuckle shorts. One of these days I'll check out more.
  5. Oh, yeah. Both were early innovators who contributed a whole lot to the art form. Outstanding countries.
  6. That's Pre-Cinema. And I believe it's mentioned.
  7. That's a shame; you're missing out! There's a ton of creativity within that genre. Cinema didn't begin until the late 1800s---and that's exactly where Mark Cousins' doc begins. It ends in the 2000s. Yeah, the Production Code sucked.
  8. They start at the early peepshows, which is the main reason I watched the series again. It's fun to learn about the industry before the whole studio system was set in place. Yeah, after I read the book, the series just felt like it didn't cover as much as it should have. If you're looking for a similar series about film history, I recommend you check out Mark Cousins' The Story of Film: An Odyssey, which goes beyond Hollywood and covers far more film history. It's a pretty good place to start if you're looking to get into non-Hollywood produced films. The downside about this series, though, is that it doesn't give much attention to genre-filmmaking, specifically horror pictures. That's where Mark Gatiss' A History of Horror and Horror Europa come in handy, both of which are loving tributes to the genre that cover a lot of ground. Unfortunately, though, both exclude movies past the '70s (the only exceptions are a couple of Cronenberg and del Toro films, I believe).
  9. Well, no duh. Of course, he'll be known for GoT. But Thrones wasn't part of our exchange.
  10. I didn't mention Game of Thrones... I was comparing the two things we were talking about. Remember? The commercial and the Fast film. Out of those two, I much rather be known as an actor from Fast 8 than a lame spokesperson for a series of commercials.
  11. I'd call that innocent work. Not damaging cinema like the Fast movies. Don't know if the Fast series is damaging cinema... But I think I rather be known as an actor who was in one of the Fast films than being the "Wyndham Rewards Wyzard."
  12. I've seen it. It ain't bad for what it is, which is a look at the Hollywood Studio system up until New Hollywood. But there's far more to cinema than that. So obviously, if you want a more complete look at film history, look elsewhere.
  13. The dude is doing hotel ads, so he's done worse.
  14. Notorious is great. It's funny what Hitchcock does in that one. By the end of the film, the character you feel for the most is a Nazi!
  15. Yeah, Chaplin was someone I had in mind when I was talking about people concern about sound. Rear Window, Vertigo, Harvey, and It's a Wonderful Life.
  16. It's crazy how Chaplin was still doing movies that had intertitles all the way into the '30s. Modern Times was released in 1936 nearly a whole friggin' decade into the sound era! Ha! I love that he did that! I like how Jimmy Stewart took on roles that went beyond his aw-shucks persona and went into dark places. TBH I haven't seen many of his films and so I'm guilty myself for not giving him recognition. I do like him in The Devil and Daniel Webster.
  17. Dunno, I still find their concern understandable to an extent. Silence and the reliance on the visual image defined a generation of cinema. Just when silent film was at its pinnacle, a new tool comes in set to redefine the art as they knew it. I think if I were in that position, I would have some anxiety initially. Just when you thought you hit your stride, everything has changed and now you have to familiarize yourself with this new (at the time) cumbersome technology if you wanted commercial success. But ultimately they had nothing to worry about because what sound did was open a whole other dimension to cinema yet explored. Jimmy Stewart. He showed more dynamism with the roles he took on. What about you?
  18. Whoa. No way am I against sound. Oh, no. I made a topic dedicated to film music which I think shows some of my appreciation for it. I'm just pointing out the importance of the visuals and how some filmmakers & actors from the silent generation were a little wary of sound's impact on the art form. I agree that sound has become a vital tool for cinema, especially when used right.
  19. I can understand where some filmmakers were coming from. Cinema is fundamentally a visual medium. If you take away the visuals, the moving images -- all you have is a radio play. On the other hand, if you take away sound... What do you have? A silent film, the purest form of cinema. So if you look at it that way, I can understand the unease and skepticism. Visuals are essential to cinema and they thought by adding sound people may lose sight on what makes the medium so unique. Yup, it's one of those films that is meant to be seen on a big screen to get its full impact.
  20. Neither. It's the 1931 version directed by Rouben Mamoulian with Fredric March as the doctor/fiend. It's the only one that pronounces the Jekyll name properly. I think because early sound technology was so inadequate and such a burden that studio heads didn't think it was worth the investment and development. Plus, I don't think those who were involved in the filmmaking process were particularly interested in its possibilities, at least initially.
  21. From Valerie and Her Week of Wonders: https://youtube.com/watch?v=7qwfwSPCYVc So many words to describe this score... Lyrical, beautiful, strange, enchanting, childlike, baroque, eerie, haunting. It's such an incredible score.
  22. A terrific actor who starred in such movies as Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931), Design for Living, A Star is Born (1937), and The Best Years of Our Lives. Yeah, I suppose it's one of the unfortunate problems with that era of filmmaking.
  23. Oh, now I get what you're saying. It's not the general exaggerated acting (which she did not invent) per se but rather specifically the hysteria that you dislike. In that case, you may not like her in Nothing Sacred because she does that. Although, once again, I don't see the comparison to the two actors or their comedies. What's more, I think she does a fine job in her role and I still think you should check it out because it's a funny satire with a lot of bite. Plus, it has Fredric March.
  24. Huh? No... She didn't originate exaggerated comedic-acting. Come on. You've seen silent comedies... You've also seen screwball comedies... Another thing: I don't get how you made the correlation with those actors to begin with. I don't see it at all. Their shtick typically consists on stupidity and being incredibly obnoxious. That's not how I would describe Lombard's acting in Nothing Sacred.
  25. It's a performance you'd expect in a screwball comedy. It's a farcical performance, so yeah, it is exaggerated but not to their level of ludicrousness and silliness.
×
×
  • Create New...