Talk:Classical Hollywood cinema/Archive 1

Comment
I'd recommend the articles be merged. The terms are virtually synonymous. The merged article, in my opinion, should go under "Classical Hollywood cinema," with a redirect from "Classical Hollywood"; but I can also see it going the other way. In either case, the merged article should clarify that the term refers both to a visual/sound/narrative style, a historical era in US filmmaking, and a factory-style mode of production. These three aspects relate to one another, but each is distinct. --Jeremy Butler 19:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Auteurs in Classical Hollywood Cinema
The article as is states that auteur directors did not flourish under the old Hollywood system. It's true that they were a minority, they always are and always will be, but that statement implies that they DID flourish later on or at some point. In reality, in fact, Hollywood never had as many auteurs as it did during the old studio system. JonasEB (talk) 05:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

header image
ugly, cluttered, not sized right — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.172.171.14 (talk) 16:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

This Article Needs Help.
Section: The Golden Age.

The second sentence of the second paragraph states that MGM had owned Loew's Theaters since it's formation in 1924.In fact Marcus Loew founded Loew's theaters Years before he organized the merger that created MGM. Loew's Inc. was the parent company of MGM during the era covered by this article, not the other way around.( Wikipedia main article Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer.) Movie posters,lobby cards and print ads for MGM films of this era often carried the line "Controlled by Loew's Inc.",usally at the bottom, the statement can also be seen on the opening credits of some MGM films of the period,( Wiki main article Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. history section,foundation sub-section,first paragraph,last sentence.) even the MGM sign over the Culver City studio had the controlled by Loew's line. There is only the one reference for the paragraph ( Bordwell:24 ), so the second sentence is either unreferenced or Bordwell is incorrect if it is the source of that statement.

I can only assume the third paragraph is the product of merging the two seperate articles.The last sentence could be incorporated into the Production section.

References 3-12 are given for this section,yet only five references are listed in the reference section.

Paragraph 4: In sentence four I'd like to see the word "also" deleted and the word "founded" replaced by wrote,created,established or something better fitting the context. The last part of the final sentence is contradicted by information in the article reference 5 links to (How Antitrust Ruined the Movies, paragraph 22).Reference 9 is given for this bit,but alas we know not what reference 9 is.In any case the statement that the MPDDA owned every theater in the country through the big five studios is just not true. ( "Vertical Intergration During The Hollywood Studio Era." www.clemson.edu/economics/seminars/papers/Hanssen-studios.pdf pages 21-26 ) If reference 9, whatever that may be, supports that statement then it is incorrect.

Paragraph 5:The first sentence belongs in paragraph 4.The second and third sentences could be incorporated into the Production section, or paragraphs 5 and 6 could be rewritten, one dealing with the production code and the other with the star system.Preferably all the information regarding the production code would be in one paragraph in this section and all the information about the stars moved to the production section.The information on Walt Disney could be part of the final paragraph of this section.

Paragraph 6:Sentence two is unreferenced and I don't see how it could be. Even if the studios had tried to make every film a hit, that simply was ( and is ) not possible.I think a sentence should replace this one that ties together some of the other points in the article.Something like this maybe." This was possible because the major studios needed to supply their theaters with a constant flow of new films, had the means of production and had the talent under contract to meet demand in this era of peak theater attendance." ( source for theater attendance: MPAA U.S. statistical abstract, as quoted by Michelle Pautz, Elon University in "The Decline in Average Weekly Cinema Attendance: 1930-2000" ) Then go on with the third sentence. The last sentence I feel ventures into the subjective. Since it is unreferenced, who's list is it ? While I would agree with most of the films listed as being classic there are some I would disagree with. I'm sure the same would be true for others if I put up my list. Every example given could be replaced by another film from that era. Maybe instead something like this could be said "Many films from this era have been selected for AFI's top 100 films list". Or some other example that one can reference with out having a litney of titles.

Even if the points I've made are addressed this section still would need at least a good "polish",if not a rewrite.

Section: Production.

Sentence two."All film workers were employees of a particular film studio." What is it with these erroneous declarative statements in this article ? Again unreferenced and how could it be when IT'S NOT TRUE. Without going into a list of talent that worked freelance during part of their career in this time period, a quick example would be anyone that produced, directed, wrote or acted in films released through United Artists.They weren't employees of UA. Employees of a independent production company,yes,but that's not the same as a film studio. In the list of classic films in The Golden Age section at least three were independent productions. As mentioned above there are items that should be added to this section and it should be rewritten.

Section: Periodization.

Question. The third and final paragraph of this section is lifted verbatim from the webpage reference 5 links to,( http:/beta.mises.org/daily/3437. paragraph 28. ) and was originally published in The Free Market, June 1996. Is this copyrighted or public domain ? ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonel469 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm concerned about the references used for the Periodization section, in particular, as the one source for that section seems to take a decided stance against antitrust regulation and prosecution. It may need to be counterbalanced or replaced by another source for this information.  --James-Chin (talk) 05:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello!
To those evaluating this: Wow, I'm honored to have raised it to C-class! It's still terribly sourced and needs more info and is basically missing a section, but still. Also some of its focus is still on the studio system, which is different. Classic ≠ Classical. --Monochrome _ Monitor  19:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Lists of figures and films
As it is a usual policy of the Wiki to create such lists for important periods and movements in art, I created one here too. However, Golden Age of Hollywood was a very large and prolific period and numerous artists made numerous important films. Even the most basic sources on the period list hundreds of artists and a list of important films could end in thousands. Unlike, for example, New Hollywood or Czech New Wave, which were limited movements (although critically exaggerated at the cost of other great artists working in the same country/era) inside their respective countries and eras and consisted of a limited number of historically and/or artistically important films, Classical Hollywood, both as an era and as a style of filmmaking, has virtually unlimited number of those. I propose including few of the most important titles per director, unless the director features a huge number of important films (Ford, Hawks, Hitchcock, etc.), in which case more of them should be included. As for the years in question, sources differ on that matter and I would go with including 1960s work that include classical themes and style, as well as some later works that clearly belong in the previous era (of course, with sources to back that). StjepanHR (talk) 10:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. I would add references for all films when I finish the list (during the next few days). Many of them share the source, so it is simpler for me to add all references when I finish. StjepanHR (talk) 12:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Classical Hollywood cinema. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/filmnotes/classical.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151222103312/http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/2007/12/28/happy-birthday-classical-cinema/ to http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/2007/12/28/happy-birthday-classical-cinema/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151222103312/http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/2007/12/28/happy-birthday-classical-cinema/ to http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/2007/12/28/happy-birthday-classical-cinema/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Why 1963?
This article makes a good argument why this Golden Age period begins at 1927 but provides no information on why the author chose 1963 as an endpoint in the introductory paragraph. What is the justification? Could it be 1959? 1967? What momentous event happened in 1963 that illustrates the end of Hollywood's Golden Age? 69.125.134.86 (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I personally think the endpoint was at least 7-8 years earlier. With the demise of the studio system. 1963 is very random. 66.233.214.191 (talk) 03:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Another way to put the question: what changes occurred in the years around 1963 (and who brought them about) to bring an end to the era of "classical Hollywood cinema"? I think the artice needs a short section on how/why the era ended and what followed it. 141.168.250.205 (talk) 09:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed new section about 1940s Racial Stereotypes in Film
I would urge the editors to explore how 1940s America used black men, specifically Bill Robinson’s representation in movies starring alongside Shirley Temple, to paint a picture of blackness in a manner that assumes all black men are the same and therefore should be treated as a single cohort. This lack of representation of black men as unique and individual enforces a continuation of racial stereotypes. This is a vital piece of information to be included because it explores the tendency for American society to apply specific stereotypes to a broad cohort of people, specifically to racialized groups, and how these stereotypes reinforce the paradox that blackness is unchanging yet must be changed. I would recommend that this information be added in a new sub-section of the Wikipedia article, as the article does not speak to these racial stereotypes and representations in any section. Ataps365 (talk) 15:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I just put the stereotypes on the Criticism section Espngeek (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)