 |
| A few 40's alcoholics celebrating the completion of a lackluster decade! |
I now stand before you an older, more cantankerous Oscar-blogger, completely exhausted by a decade's worth of hyper-safe, hyper-conventional, hyper-heartfelt, and worst of all, hyper-repetitive filmmaking. I can hardly believe it's been two years since I began my trek through the 1940s, mostly because I feel as though this decade has been a constant state of perpetuity.
To watch the Oscar-nominated flicks of the 1940's is to be in a constant state of déjà vu...you make it through a year and yet you feel you had seen it all before - you move on to the next and it's the same people, the same slightly-different storylines, the same 1940s-branded layers of ooey-gooey sentimentality. Applying what I already know about the decades following it, the forties may very well be the most unexciting decade of films that Oscar has to offer. To be frank, I'm not sorry to leave it behind.
I look back at the performances, and very few excite me. What's worse - I look back at my own handpicked winners, and the sentiment is essentially the same:
 |
| Congrats to this decade's winners! |
This was a decade of few surprises, a decade of total conventionality and total ordinariness. I suppose that's directly reflective of the time period - with wartime in the backdrop, with the nation preserving its resources and seeking refuge in good, clean fun to complement the savagery going on in the world, it makes sense that cinema would reflect that.
So begone 1940s, it's certainly been a ride. In any case, I'm happy to be done, and I'm very confident that I'll be changing my tune for the fifties.
UP NEXT: Highlights from the 1940s! Bear with me as I'm trying to make my way through a fairly thorough list of films not-yet-seen before drafting my thoughts, so it may take some time, but it's coming!
I think you'll enjoy the 1950s much, much more.
ReplyDeleteI'm very confident that I will!
DeleteIt's interesting how you characterize the 1940s. When I think of my favorite films I have many from the '30s, '50s, '60s and '70s (after which, I think American Cinema, with a handful of exceptions, devolved quickly into what we now have - action/adventure and comic hero franchises geared toward the 13-year old adolescent male). When I think of the '40s there are exactly two: "The Little Foxes" and "The Best Years of Our Lives". I've never been able to think of anything else I really love. The Hays Code may have kicked in in 1934 but when WWII patriotism and "warm-hearted Americana to appease the masses" came along, the Code seemed to double-down and blanded-out almost everything in the process.
ReplyDeleteThe 1947 disbanding of theater-chain monopolies from the studios was the beginning of the end of the studio system and Method acting was emerging, which means that the ensuing decades had far more interesting films that endure. Until recent decades, the '40s really did stand out as the most lackluster decade in Academy history. However, from the mid-80s on, there are several decades that could easily earn that title. But for now, let's just say that this staid, complacent decade is rather unmemorable.
While I don't have much of an opinion on the present state of cinema, I do find solace in modern independent film. It's those freelance artists, not associated with a major studio and often barely able to scrounge up the budget for their pictures, that really present awesome work. Separately, I think acting is getting increasingly advanced, even if their respective movies don't match.
DeleteYou know, despite your negative feelings about this decade (which I can objectively understand), I actually still have a soft spot for the movies of this era. I think there is a kind of magical charm in the cheesiness, dated acting and the over-sentimental gooeyness that reminds me of why I enjoy movies =) Hard to explain too, it's just a personal feeling. I can never fail to enjoy the cheesy sentimentality of Penny Serenade on a rainy afternoon. Serious.
ReplyDeleteOut of all your winners, I would say I am most impressed with your 1946 picks. I think Jimmy Stewart and (especially) Celia Johnson gave some really amazing and heartbreaking performances.
Totally, and I completely understand how people may love 1940s sentimentality. I think to your point it perhaps reminds people of a more innocent, simpler, maybe more joyous time.
DeletePersonally I'm a realist who tends to prefer a gritty and/or fervent movie-going experience, and so the simplicity of 1940s storylines just don't provoke much of a reaction for me - that's where my issues are rooted, unfortunately.
It's truly not the most exciting decaded but the 50s are a great compensation! It will surely be great for you, no more Greer Garson and hardly Bette Davis or Jennifer Jones! :)
ReplyDeleteBut loads of Marlon Brando and a solid showing from Kate, so I can't complain :)
DeleteDespite the occasional dud, I think you will like the 50s!
ReplyDeleteI'm confident this will be true. Each of the years of the fifties present something interesting in my opinion, so that's a great sign.
DeleteThe optimistic side of me wonders if the decade could have been better had Garbo and Shearer stuck around. The realist, however, with Two Faced Woman, We Were Dancing, and Her Cardboard Lover close in mind says consider Davis in exciting things like Winter Meeting and be glad your beloved legends walked with their heads held up.
ReplyDeleteWell I don't know about Garbo (I was typically lukewarm with her) but Shearer would have been interesting.
DeleteGiven that a great number of actors who had their heyday in the early thirties didn't make it very far past the forties, I get the feeling Shearer may very well have gotten delegated to motherly roles a la Irene Dunne in Life with Father or Myrna Loy in Best Years of our Lives...
Sept. 1111118th was your last entry. Do you have a date when you are going to start the fIFTIES ? I just hate going into your Blog EVERYDAY and being disappointed. I don't always agree with you, but I look forward to your take on these Oscar nominated performances.
ReplyDeleteThe early fifties are going to be special years for me to review, so I wanted to delay a bit in order to be able to come in with a fresh perspective. It is what it is. A consistent review cycle ultimately results in rushed and stale posts. 1950 is coming soon enough!
DeleteI agree with click5's remarks, especially pertaining the appeasement to censorship, and would also point out that the 1940s would be the last decade the film world had a virtual monopoly on the audience.
ReplyDeleteThe growing competition from television however, would force enterprise, daring and imagination if movies wanted to continue to thrive. There'd be no choice about giving them something they couldn't already have simply staying home.
In a few hours, Turner Classics is about to show "Born Yesterday," and taking nothing away from Holiday's perfect performance, I consider it one of the foremost examples of when a tie win would have been most appropriate. (You pick, I can't: Bette already had two, but Gloria would never have so deserving a shot again.) :(
I awaited Best Actress 1950 with bated breath.
Delete