|
Author
|
Topic: The Stars of Yesteryear
|
|
|
Paul Adsett
Film God
Posts: 5003
From: USA
Registered: Jun 2003
|
posted September 23, 2012 10:19 PM
Good question. The stars of Hollwoods golden age, were more than just stars of their day, they truly became immortal through their work, and the films they made are, for the most part, timeless. Todays, so called stars, are not even close. Film stars today, are little more than celebrities. They have a life span of 10 years at best, and most of their work is completely forgettable. A lot of it is due, I think, to the fact that films today are made by much less talented people, not just the stars themselves, but the writers, musicians, cinematographers etc - all the people who helped make an actor look great.
--------------------
The best of all worlds- 8mm, super 8mm, 9.5mm, and HD Digital Projection,
Elmo GS1200 f1.0 2-blade
Eumig S938 Stereo f1.0 Ektar
Panasonic PT-AE4000U digital pj
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michael O'Regan
Film God
Posts: 3085
From: Essex, UK
Registered: Oct 2007
|
posted September 24, 2012 03:18 AM
I agree with Paul. In addition, the system which existed in those days - the Studio System, as it's called - was a million miles away from what exists today. The studios marketed their roster of actors in a way that doesn't really exist today. They were like factories, ever in competition with one another - "More Stars Than There Are in Heaven", etc... The studios promoted their stars and in addition, they worked them constantly. The big names were never off the screen for long unlike today. There was always "the next Crawford feature" or "the latest from Gable" just around the corner. The stars, essentially, drove the machine along. That was the primary reason people went to the cinema - to see Clara, or Joan or Garbo, or... These days, films are made differently and marketed differently.
In the late twenties and early thirties especially, the whole thing was very new - the largescale appearance of features in the twenties through to the appearance of the talkies. Fan magazines existed which no longer exist. The stars were given clean images, which in many cases were far from the actual truth. These days, what's publicized is the sordid details of the stars private lives in the gossip rags and tabloid press, which in many cases are also far from the actual truth. The point being, the public's perceptions of what a star is and does and how they're expected to behave are totally different these days.
So, overall in answer to your query, those were different times. Plus, of course, the past is always golden when we look back at it.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hugh Thompson Scott
Film God
Posts: 3063
From: Gt. Clifton,Cumbria,England
Registered: Jan 2012
|
posted September 24, 2012 04:26 AM
All the above is quite true,coupled to the added advantage that
quite a few of the old favourites had, was that they were trained
in theatre some of course were "hoofers" and the majority had
various skills or second strings to their bows,but one thing they all
had in common was that they could enunciate and speak a line
clearly, unlike some of our so called stars of today, whose mumblings make a mockery of the various sound systems.
[ September 24, 2012, 07:13 AM: Message edited by: Hugh Thompson Scott ]
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
