MovieChat Forums > Written on the Wind (1956) Discussion > Why couldn't people act in 1956?

Why couldn't people act in 1956?

posted 15 years ago by moviefanTP
19 replies | jump to latest

I know I can't expect old movies to be technically sophisticated---but I don't understand why acting and writing in old movies is always so laughably bad. Even in well-received movies, like this one. Jesus Christ---Dorothy Malone was handed an AWARD for her acting in this movie! How did Oscar voters distinguish between "good" and "bad" performances in the 30s, 40s and 50s? I'm not being facetious. This isn't a rhetorical question. Did they just assign winners randomly, like by pulling names out of a hat?

Before you start telling me about how filmmakers like Sirk were geniuses, and how their stylized use of color and light were brilliant, and how they were making all kinds of ironic commentary, can I ask: instead of concentrating so hard on making everything as fake as possible so he could delight in deconstructing it's fakeness, why didn't he instead concentrate on just telling good stories? And maybe have his actors deliver lines in a way that reasonably replicated actual human speech patterns? And why didn't other writers and directors of this era do the same thing? Shouldn't acting and writing be timeless arts? How come nobody in 1956 knew how to act?

I seriously doubt movie audiences in the 1950s, on the whole, were sophisticated enough to appreciate Sirk's use of irony. I'm sure they just took everything at face value. I mean, people of my grandparents' generation would laugh out loud at people like Danny Kaye and Red Skelton. Seriously. I mean actually laugh out loud. So I'm sure when they saw movies like "Written on the Wind", they would gasp when someone got slapped across the face, or when a word like "miscarriage" was uttered and dramatic music underscored it. So what's the deal---were these directors just thinking, "Some day, fifty years from now, when acting is realistic and moviegoers are a little smarter, I'll finally be appreciated for the genius that I am!"

Is that what we're supposed to believe? Or do you a think a time will come when movie fans---or even serious film critics---will stop romanticizing everything about the "golden age" of cinema, and finally identify these movies (or most of them, anyway) for what they are. Poorly written and laughably acted.

[–] glasha-1 15 years ago

Your post makes no sense whatsoever.
You are saying that actors couldn't know how to act back then based on one movie?
You think your children gonna see The Blind Side and think that Sandra Bullock knows how to act?

FYC: Three-time Academy Awards nominee Angela Lansbury for an Honorary Oscar

[–] HillieBoliday 14 years ago

.....probably couldn't act your way out of a paper bag!

"OOO...I'M GON' TELL MAMA!"

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] eden_echo 14 years ago

I know I can't expect old movies to be technically sophisticated---but I don't understand why acting and writing in old movies is always so laughably bad.

So what are you basing this on? This film alone? Which btw, had great acting, that's just my opinion though.

Shouldn't acting and writing be timeless arts? How come nobody in 1956 knew how to act?

It is timeless art but you're basing your entire post it seems on one year and one movie, makes no sense.

So what's the deal---were these directors just thinking, "Some day, fifty years from now, when acting is realistic and moviegoers are a little smarter, I'll finally be appreciated for the genius that I am!"

"When acting is realistic and moviegoers are a little smarter"???? Give an example, Megan Fox?
Granted and don't get me wrong, there are some great actors and actresses today and great films.
Have you ever seen Far from Heaven (2002)?, it's a homage to the films of Sirk, and lest not forget De Palma, he's not influenced by Alfred Hitchcock, I mean who cares, right?!

Is that what we're supposed to believe? Or do you a think a time will come when movie fans---or even serious film critics---will stop romanticizing everything about the "golden age" of cinema, and finally identify these movies (or most of them, anyway) for what they are. Poorly written and laughably acted.

"No matter what you do or where you go, we'll meet again."

[–] bradjanet 14 years ago

Yes, those people from the past were so unsophisticated ... Scott Fitzgerald, Dorothy Parker, George Cukor, Billy Wilder, Dickens, Austen ...the answer to your question might be found in a quote from another writer from the 1950's ... L.P. Hartley begins his novel "The Go Between" with these words: "The past is another country; they do things differently there".

But you ARE Blanche ... and I AM.

[–] fleaaaaaa 14 years ago

What year did people begin to be able to act then?

I was just wondering because you are counting out greats like;
Richard Burton,
Alec Guiness,
Bette Davis,
Marlson Brando
James Dean

And many more by saying people couldn't act back then.

[–] directorscut 11 years ago

I know I can't expect old movies to be technically sophisticated

Considering some of the most technically sophisticated films ever produced were made at the height of the silent era I conclude you know jack about films.

Proud member of the Pro-film Anti-digital Society (PFADS).

[–] aasoloway 11 years ago

What you're looking at is stylized acting. I don't think it was meant to be as realistic as it was meant to be dramatic.

Do you really think that the acting in current movies looks like reality? It looks kind of soap opera-ish to me as if everyone has the same coach.

[–] svenrufus 10 years ago

Well, I think this was the most reasonable reply to the OP in the whole thread. I think the OP was misjudging things, but I can at least understand how that view may have been formed and you have tried to answer it rather than jumping down his(?) throat and dismissing him as stupid.

The key to it is acting styles, and what the audience has been conditioned to expect, so although the acting style from the 50's etc may be very different, it was what was being asked of them, for an audience with a different way of receiving and interacting with the films they watch.

I'm not an expert so I'm speculating a bit here, but perhaps that is because as cinema grew in popular culture, it was at different times competing at different levels with other forms of public entertainment where the performances were even more exaggerated such as variety theatre/vaudeville etc. The cultural tastes arising from one form of entertainment may cross over into the way other media have to present themselves. As time moves on, the relative importance of the different forms of entertainment change, as well as those other forms changing in themselves too, and so how audiences perceive a performance, and what they want from it, may change too.

It's very clear that the acting styles are different, and I too sometimes find it difficult to fully engage with the actors because I feel they lack credibility (not specifically this film, a general comment), but I can enjoy a film notwithstanding that by looking at the things it says about the people and situations it portrays in a more fundamental way. Acting may have changed, society may have changed, but emotions and human responses haven't shifted so much, so there can still be much to take from films of this era and beyond.

For the record, one of my all time favourites is 12 Angry Men, which has a rock solid performance at it's heart, even by today's standards, from Henry Fonda, but some of the other performances are a little 'distancing' by comparison. The point of that film though is so clearly deeper than the way people are acting that it stands the test of time.

Beyond all this rationalisation though, it comes down to personal taste. MovieFanTP - don't let people tell you you're stupid for offering or having a view that's different from yours. You're quite entitled to ask what you did, and those who slate you for it show their own flaws in doing so.

[–] Tashtago 11 years ago

Check out an actor called Marlon Brando, he gave some of the greatest acting performances in the movies. Oh yeah and most of his best work was done in the 50s.