Why were 30s movies more subtle and high-minded than 40s or 50s movies?

Bullshit. After german expressionism became a huge thing in the 20s filmmakers started adopting elements from it, only without stepping into anti-realism. The 30s were more quiet because of the attempt to blend the 2 movements and attract a larger audience. Afterwards people wanted more and cinema became a bigger, more widespread thing, so they went back to the striking and sensational visuals from the 20s with film noir in response to the clean, cheery and uninspired Hollywood mainstream. Not to mention italian neorealism, the beginning of french and british new wave, the golden age of scandinavian and japanese cinema and more.
You don't know shit what you're talking about.

the winds were blowing in many different directions in the 30s

You've seen the thin man films right? :P

The Jews started taking over after the 30s

Satan confirms it

Again

REDDIT

>THE NASCENCE OF POSTMODERNISM OCCURRED IN THE MIDNINETEEN HUNDRED FORTIES/EARLY NINETEEN HUNDRED FIFTIES; MANY "MOVIES" MADE IN THOSE DECADES IN EUROPA, AMERICA, AND ASIA, REFLECTED THE FATALISTIC AND MATERIALISTIC IMPETUS OF THAT MOVEMENT AS IT ROSE.

Le postmodernism is bad and not an inevitable reflection of modernism meme

>THE NASCENCE OF POSTMODERNISM OCCURRED IN THE MIDNINETEEN HUNDRED FORTIES/EARLY NINETEEN HUNDRED FIFTIES

I thought it started with Nietzsche in the Nineteenth Century

Is there an essential 30's list anywhere?

I've barely seen anything other than Buster Keaton's depressing period,

How have you not seen Wizard of Oz or Gone With the Wind?

The 30's was the most important era in cinema

They aren't all 'essential,' but John Ford's 30s films are worth checking out. Stagecoach, of course is great, but the Will Rogers small-town comedies, The Prisoner of Shark Island, The Informer, Young Mr. Lincoln and Drums Along the Mohawk all have things to recommend them.

>The 30's was the most important era in cinema
>mentions two of the most overrated, commercial and safe films of the decade, from Hollywood too.

Also, no it wasn't necessarily, but it's a dumb subject to bring up and argue about in the first place.

>glorifying the South
>safe

lmao

I started out just picking movies based on who was in them because I wanted to see more of their movies. I think the first was Cary Grant, and after that I just kept branching out more and more based on whoever else I liked in the movies.
After a while I really got a appreciation for the whole decade and now I'll just watch whatever movie sounds good to me at the moment. Even if its not a great movie, I will always enjoy it simply for that unique feel, just like any other decade. Like how 60's movies and 80's movies each have their own unique feels that you sometimes get in the mood for.

Well, that is because you're ignorant....

>Gone With the Wind
>Wizard of Oz
>safe and overrated
Oh let me guess. You're one of those fellows that has a hard-on for French New Wave. You don't really care about storytelling, you just care about being "different".

>overrated
>commercial (as in wow so bad)
>safe
>and from Hollywood, that dreaded place!
Besides being a pleb, you're extremely stupid. Stick to being a faggot

>contrarianism for the sake of contrarianism
Shalom, reddit! YOU got yourself caught XD

There's obviously some substance and political commentary in them since they're adaptations, but they're both highly romanticized and clearly made to appeal the masses, without taking any risks or trying to revolutionize anything, compared to other films from the decade. Plus, while they're not badly shot by any means, the cinematography isn't amazing. People just look at the production, rather than how it actually contributed to cinema.

Also I never said they were bad. I just pointed out how dumb that user's reply was. And I don't see anything wrong with the French New Wave, although I prefer the Japanese one.

If you're genuinely implying Gone With the Wind or Wizard of Oz weren't 2 of the greatest and most groundbreaking films, then you don't even know your fundamentals, guy. You're living a facade.

youtube.com/watch?v=qSEVyzKmlyU

Boyo, that's a good load of bullshit masquerading as someone who knows what they're talking about. And even here where this is the rule, it stands out.
>while they're not badly shot by any means, the cinematography isn't amazing
??
>People just look at the production, rather than how it actually contributed to cinema.
???

Don't post further if you want to avoid a bigger hole

It was the last breath of a pre-war America, the 'elegance' of the old world would soon be swept away by the horrors of war. I hesitate to say that the second war was a 'catharsis', but with it, it almost seems as though a new tradition in Hollywood begun.

I don't think movies of the 30s are superior to those made in the 40s or 50s, but undoubtedly there is a great shift in tone.

I find the dichtomy between the man-about-town of the 1930s, exemplified by Clark Gable and John Barrymore, versus the post-WWII strong and silent archetype, associated with Rock Hudson among others, interesting.

>2 of the greatest and most groundbreaking films
Maybe for Hollywood, but that doesn't say much, even if it's the golden age.
As for the video you posted (and the two films in general), I'll say it again, high production value does not equate inherent high quality.

Don't get me wrong, I love both films, but there's much better ones out there from around the same time in terms of groundbreaking.

If you think I'll take your vapid shitpost attacks seriously, then you're even more retarded than your posts. Try using arguments like a normal human being.

Check it out guys, I'm actually replying to a tripfaggot lmao!!

If you're talking about film, you're talking about Hollywood. You can't avoid it. The major studios have made the best and most influential pictures that shaped the history of cinema whether it be through advancements in camera technology such as 70mm and Panavision, or standardization of script structure.

Why would it be necessary to "revolutionize" anything?

In regards to risk, the kiss was seen as licentious, bordering on improper. Nowadays it's the scene where Butler takes O'Hara by force that we consider scandalous. Seventy years later and people are still shocked by it, I think that more than adequately constitutes "taking risks".

The last hour is one of the most dour moments put on film, and the cinematography, so imperative in portraying the romance and
tempestuousness of the first three hours, reflects the tragedy.

Sure, but personally I don't consider it a great achievement the fact that they contributed to Hollywood getting on the bandwagon of expelling countless cheesy melodramas and comfy adventures fun for the whole family only for the profits, practice which only got worse and worse over time.

It wasn't "necessary" for it them to revolutionize anything. They're great films as they are, but innovation deserves praise, and the period was full of innovative and seminal movies. Which is what I meant with "taking risks". Not as much in terms of plot elements and narrative, but more so structurally and technically. Coming up with new and ingenious things is much more interesting than trying to push social boundaries and risking censure.

Nice to see you're still browsing, whenever there's a somewhat decent thread popping up. Did you post for her last birthday?

The 30's were the birth of talkies, so a lot of films were merely play adaptations and thusly had a unrivaled voracious wit and fire to them as they matured and filled out their shoes.

Check it out fellas, I'm replying to a tripfaggot hahaha

Films of the 30s I've given more than an 8 to on IMDB:
Angels with Dirty Faces (1938)
All Quiet on the Western Front (1930)
M (1931)
The Cat's-Paw (1934)
Things to Come (1936)
Pygmalion (1938)
The Thin Man (1934)
King Kong (1933)

I did, and though I was somewhat ill-prepared it turned out well. There was more interest in her films than usual, which was a pleasant surprise.

>The Jews started taking over after the 30s
Let's assume the thread was only about Hollywood cinema, but the Hays code was implemented halfway through the decade to get rid of the already in place jewified degeneration. Mid-30s to 50's is the most "Catholic" Hollywood has been.

Re: subtlety, OP posted a pre-code film, but I find really interesting how the early post-code films had to deal with censorship by using more visual metaphors and euphemisms in dialogues.

Like how Hitchcock often used tricks to get around the rules, Notorious having the characters kissing on and off to make it seem like a longer kiss. Or the train into tunnel metaphor for sex at the end of NxNW. Interestingly other countries had similar attitudes towards censorship subtlety, Mizoguchi does a similar thing in Cruficied Lovers, with a small boat riding on a river and the camera movement hinting at sexual connotations. This is something that disappeared in the 60's, when everything became allowed again, cinema became cruder and
less inventive re: sex and violence.

There's also the fact that more filmmakers from the 30's started their careers with silent films, and kept a certain approach and mindset while making talkies, while 40's and 50's saw the birth of filmmakers who only ever worked on talkies and relied more on dialogues, with different ethics, etc. It evolved really fast.

.le vapid shitposts
>le arguments by the normal human beings
Get fucked, retard. You have no idea what you're talking about and digging a bigger hole out of your initial bullshit is your only act. You don't deserve anything but scorn and laughter.

See again.

See again.

10/10

My BOY

I wanted to ask this in this thread because I feel as though I'll get genuine answers.

Do any of you visit r/TrueFilm?

If not, where else do you go? I frequent BluRay.com and that's where I've mainly resided.

Europe is so unimaginative.

Nope, Hollywood has always been very Jewish

The 30s may have been the Jewiest point, because after '33 pretty much every German Jewish filmmaker came to America

Come join us at Reddit, friend! We're always eager for new people ready to engage with the seventh art. Be sure you will be very welcome in our den of cinephiles :)

Nah. It's mostly about over-analyzing new films and writing huge personal blog posts that don't amount to anything. It's still better than Cred Forums because people actually seem enthusiastic about films, rather than rejecting anything that's not simple and straightforward, but it's still too shitty and pretentious.
Honestly the only way to properly discuss movies is in person, and not on the internet.

aka "I've only watched american movies from the 80s and onward"

The biggest war in human history

Hi, Trufaut!

Only to prddle the same degeneracy they did in the Weimar republic. God, jews make me sick.

>Honestly the only way to properly discuss movies is in person, and not on the internet.
But why not here?? We're doing it right now! Cred Forums just has to reinforce new culture and silence the newcomers and children. I just want you guys to discuss more film history. That's what a large majority of my BluRay catalogue is comprised of. I don't have anything against current movies, but I find myself increasingly distanced from them and rarely amused or enraptured.

Weimar cinema was amazing you classless piece of shit

>vlc
Fuck off idiot.

Were they really? Weren't the 50s/60s the more sublte, less Hollywoody films? You know, like Breathless, Citizen Kane, Tokyo Story, Spirit of the Beehive.

>less Hollywoody
Why is Cred Forums comprised of such faggots?

Easy supposition that his point was about American cinema specifically. Not that he was right, either way.

Best answer

what's your problem

Yeah, but of course the world can't be perfect. 90% of all discussions on Cred Forums, and on the internet in general, end up in dumb arguments over nothing. You'll never see anyone accept that they were wrong or settle for a middle ground. When you're not face to face with someone, it's too easy to just start bullshitting and have the conversation devolve into calling each other retards and such.

I guess on places like /r/truefilm people are considerate and polite, but personally I can't stand all the new hobby kids who write massive over-analytical essays on "modern classics" or the same 10 or so overrated older films. I mean it's nice that more people are interested in good cinema, but those places aren't for me. I'd rather just keep it to myself or discuss it with the 1 or 2 people in my life who are even remotely interested in the matter.

Not him, but what's wrong with VLC for media, and what do you use that's better?

Very correct post overall. And about reddit and r/truefilm specifically, that politeness and reasonability has an enormous air of fakeness every time I bothered to look.
It's much preferable a place where insults flow non-stop but once in a while you can have genuine discussion, recs and sharing of experiences.
But for anyone who isn't a newshit, what I say is well known and the reason why most stay in this place. A freer shithole is better than a constipated shiny toilet.

My problem is classless uneducated pricks like you that think cinema is about breaking rules and being surreal. You're the quintessential type that will turn their nose to Wings, Mark of Zorro, Cleopatra, Frankenstein, Duck Soup, How the West Was Won. Travelling to the dawn of Hollywood and upward will net you the greatest pantheon of films. Hollywood IS cinema. Hollywood INVENTED cinema. All your petulent little idols like Fellini, Bergman, Trufaut, Bazin, Tarkovsky ALL learned from Hollywood.

Don't bother, he's not interested in having a reasonable discussion.

The Hollywood part is pretty right, but the european ways- and beyond- and their own developments are discarded too easily in your tone. Not the replied chap, btw.

I'm not even the guy you replied to initially, I was just confused by you getting angry over someone using the word Hollywood to describe a type of film.
Most people would understand what is intended by that.

City Lights
Modern Times
Hal Roach Laurel and Hardy shorts
Thelma Todd and Patsy Kelly shorts
Public enemies
Frankenstein
Stagecoach
The Gold Diggers of 1933
Twentieth Century
Snow White and the Seven Dwarves
Shen Nu

The candor of Cred Forums is unrivaled and wading through thousands of terrible threads for a handful of decent ones is worth it. And here, unlike everywhere else, when film is discussed it seems as though people take their masks off rather than the other way round.

"Anybody wanna buy a duck?"

so subtle, so high-minded
wow, the 30's were the pinnacle, my friend

Criterion Forums are by far the best place.

>My problem is classless uneducated pricks like you that think cinema is about breaking rules and being surreal

A popular example of breaking rules of cinema would be Antonioni. It is definitely a thing in cinema, you are ignorant.

nice

Honestly the thirties are my favorite decade when ti comes to Hollywood cinema

I'll add:
Thin Man film series
Tarzan film series
anything with Errol Flynn
Scarface
Bringing Up Baby
Only Angels Have Wings
Baby Face
Red Headed Woman
My Man Godfrey
Nothing Sacred
It Happened One Night
All Quiet on the Western Front
Stage Door

Just a few off the top of my head. Honestly there are so many great thirties movies. I'd also recommend anything John Ford directed during that decade, IMO it's his peak as a director

It doesn't properly playback audio nor colors, and its main purpose as stream player is surpassed by livestream derivative progarms

The 50s are generally considered the downslide of the Golden Age, competition from television made them focus on gimmicks and forget to simply tell good stories. Also the break up of the studio system (thanks for that Howard Hughes, you faggot) it was a decade of creative chaos and uncertainty in Hollywood. Aside from the work of a few great directors and filmmakers (Hitchcock, Ford, Hawks, Wilder, Preminger, and a few others) The 50's were pretty shit

30's and 40's are way better, at least as far as American movies

Plebs in the 30s were still plebs and had to be pandered-to

and yet the plebs from back then weren't nearly as bad as the plebs today. When you look at the top-grossing films of that period they're mostly really good films

When you look at the top-grossing films of the last 10 years or so... yikes. What happened?

Children and China.
See: capeshit and transformers

Wizard of Oz is definitely overrated, but Gone With the Wind is 10/10