<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: ..includes controversial strikes, & (SAG) walkouts...
Review: May is American Studies Prof. at U. of MN,& wrote: "Screening Out-the-Past" He dislikes Bob Hope-Bing Crosby's.."mindless' Road pictures,also Ronald Reagan,(head, Screen Actors Guild)for stifling emerging "left-wing",independent producers,& all those who were not 100% anti-communist. Hopefully, he'll prove his points by updating with coverage of post 60's Hollywood....
Rating:
Summary: ..includes controversial strikes, & (SAG) walkouts...
Review: May is American Studies Prof. at U. of MN,& wrote: "Screening Out-the-Past" He dislikes Bob Hope-Bing Crosby's.."mindless' Road pictures,also Ronald Reagan,(head, Screen Actors Guild)for stifling emerging "left-wing",independent producers,& all those who were not 100% anti-communist. Hopefully, he'll prove his points by updating with coverage of post 60's Hollywood....
Rating:
Summary: A great overview of Hollywood from the 1930s to 1950s
Review: This book is a well researched account of Hollywood during the Depression, World War II and at the beginning of the Cold War. It is a must for everyone interested in the history of Hollywood."The Big Tomorrow" depicts Hollywood as a 'populist and progressive world that offered a vision of an egalitarian and humanitarian world in film' before the 1950s. The author demonstrates this on the example of actor Will Rogers, a Cherokee Indian, director Frank Capra, and others. May shows that not only film content had changed but the theatres as well. The central themes were gangsters, fallen women and ribald comics while the language and dialects of the folk were used. The theatres underwent a change from lavish, sumptuous ones, where seating was divided between the high-paying and low-paying, to democratic movie houses. The author uses several photographs to illustrate the changes. Inside Hollywood actors, directors etc. formed unions that supported New Deal reforms. The second part of the book explains why World War II and the Cold War reshaped politics and moviemaking in Hollywood. May discusses censorship and the role of CIA agents in Hollywood. Films presented a 'new' woman now. Female characters focused ultimately on a home life that preserved traditional gender roles, symbolized in the rise of 'patriotic domesticity' while during the Depression female characters of 'empowered women' fulfilled themselves. May also points out the change in the portrayal of African Americans and Asians. The rise of anti-communism and its effects are dealt with. Those who wouldn't or couldn't prove their belonging to the communists were suspended. However, they found a new market for a dark 'film noir' that challenged the consensus and set the stage for a youthful counterculture in the 1950s and 1960s.
Rating:
Summary: One of the finest film studies of recent years
Review: This is one of those books that is difficult to over praise. Over and over while reading this book, May helped me gain new insight into aspects of Hollywood cinema from the thirties, forties, and fifties, and continually suggested to me new areas of research to undertake. In the long run, I believe that his book is going to have a profound effect on the way that I view movies from those decades. Before I move on to the considerable praise I want to heap on this book, let me dwell briefly on a couple of negatives. I think this book has a much broader appeal than the author might believe. The book takes an essentially popular subject, and couches it in an overly academic style. As someone with a strong graduate school background (albeit in philosopher rather than cultural studies), I managed to always make sense of his argument, but sometimes only with difficulty. There was also a too-heavy reliance on statistical data for my taste. Clearly he feels that the data gives greater force to and to a degree validates many of his arguments. But I feel that it also caused the book to drag at points. But overall, this book is a stunner. The thesis of the book is a complex one, and any attempt to state it briefly will distort it to a degree. I will try to minimize my distortion. May begins by arguing that there was a radical shift in social and political outlook in Hollywood in the 1940s. The effort in Hollywood to eliminate political dissent and to promulgate a monolithic vision of America is well known. May argues that this was a break with the legacy of the thirties, in which the Hollywood talking film had developed as a mode of expressing an egalitarian, anticapitalist, and multicultural affirmation of the New Deal. Thirties films were highly critical of big business, with representatives of big business frequently appearing as villains in films. As America entered WW II, however, and began to unify in order to oppose first Hitler and Japan and then the Red Menace, movies reflected a different order, which was nonegalitarian, pro-big business (with big business disappearing as a villain in films), and nondissenting. May attempts to tell this story in several ways. His brilliant first chapter dwells at length on the movie career of Will Rogers, who articulated a vision of America that varied greatly from the Anglo-Saxon dream that looked to Europe for models of success and social ordering. As May quotes on several occasions, in response to the New England social elite, Rogers, who identified with his Cherokee heritage, wrote, "My ancestors didn't come over on the Mayflower--they met the boat." The second chapter of the book continues this to display many example of multicultural republicanism that permeated 1930s filmmaking. He then proceeds, in perhaps my favorite chapter in the book, to demonstrate how this egalitarian vision of America profoundly influenced American movie theater design. Rejecting the theater palaces that dominated 1920s theater design and which represented an affirmation of the social layering of the European model--with different prices of admission for various areas and separate entrances--American designers moved to a conception where all viewers paid a uniform price and seating was not restricted, with all viewers entering through the same entrance. The second half of the book deals with the undermining of the egalitarianism of the thirties by a new vision of Americanism in the forties. The first of two chapters devoted to this displays this by articulating the vision of a white consumer culture, where individuals look for freedom in a private realm emphasizing family and material comfort. The second chapter deals with the politics in Hollywood to help eliminate all those who dissented from this vision or who had a political history that did not conform to this vision. These were painful chapters to read, with the ruthless suppression of political dissent. May deals in some degree with the history of the Screen Actors Guild (SAG), which in the 1930s strongly affirmed the ideals of the New Deal and egalitarian ideals. In particular, the career of the first appointed president of the SAG (in the 1930s, the president of the SAG was elected by the membership), Ronald Reagan (i.e., he was not elected by the membership at all) is dealt with at length. May ends his book with a discussion of film noir and its attempt to express dissent from the accepted and sanctioned cultural norm. Anyone interested in cultural studies, the political climate and culture of the US in the thirties and forties, or the history of Hollywood should read this book. Easily one of the more compelling books I have read on film in the past two or three years.
Rating:
Summary: One of the finest film studies of recent years
Review: This is one of those books that is difficult to over praise. Over and over while reading this book, May helped me gain new insight into aspects of Hollywood cinema from the thirties, forties, and fifties, and continually suggested to me new areas of research to undertake. In the long run, I believe that his book is going to have a profound effect on the way that I view movies from those decades. Before I move on to the considerable praise I want to heap on this book, let me dwell briefly on a couple of negatives. I think this book has a much broader appeal than the author might believe. The book takes an essentially popular subject, and couches it in an overly academic style. As someone with a strong graduate school background (albeit in philosopher rather than cultural studies), I managed to always make sense of his argument, but sometimes only with difficulty. There was also a too-heavy reliance on statistical data for my taste. Clearly he feels that the data gives greater force to and to a degree validates many of his arguments. But I feel that it also caused the book to drag at points. But overall, this book is a stunner. The thesis of the book is a complex one, and any attempt to state it briefly will distort it to a degree. I will try to minimize my distortion. May begins by arguing that there was a radical shift in social and political outlook in Hollywood in the 1940s. The effort in Hollywood to eliminate political dissent and to promulgate a monolithic vision of America is well known. May argues that this was a break with the legacy of the thirties, in which the Hollywood talking film had developed as a mode of expressing an egalitarian, anticapitalist, and multicultural affirmation of the New Deal. Thirties films were highly critical of big business, with representatives of big business frequently appearing as villains in films. As America entered WW II, however, and began to unify in order to oppose first Hitler and Japan and then the Red Menace, movies reflected a different order, which was nonegalitarian, pro-big business (with big business disappearing as a villain in films), and nondissenting. May attempts to tell this story in several ways. His brilliant first chapter dwells at length on the movie career of Will Rogers, who articulated a vision of America that varied greatly from the Anglo-Saxon dream that looked to Europe for models of success and social ordering. As May quotes on several occasions, in response to the New England social elite, Rogers, who identified with his Cherokee heritage, wrote, "My ancestors didn't come over on the Mayflower--they met the boat." The second chapter of the book continues this to display many example of multicultural republicanism that permeated 1930s filmmaking. He then proceeds, in perhaps my favorite chapter in the book, to demonstrate how this egalitarian vision of America profoundly influenced American movie theater design. Rejecting the theater palaces that dominated 1920s theater design and which represented an affirmation of the social layering of the European model--with different prices of admission for various areas and separate entrances--American designers moved to a conception where all viewers paid a uniform price and seating was not restricted, with all viewers entering through the same entrance. The second half of the book deals with the undermining of the egalitarianism of the thirties by a new vision of Americanism in the forties. The first of two chapters devoted to this displays this by articulating the vision of a white consumer culture, where individuals look for freedom in a private realm emphasizing family and material comfort. The second chapter deals with the politics in Hollywood to help eliminate all those who dissented from this vision or who had a political history that did not conform to this vision. These were painful chapters to read, with the ruthless suppression of political dissent. May deals in some degree with the history of the Screen Actors Guild (SAG), which in the 1930s strongly affirmed the ideals of the New Deal and egalitarian ideals. In particular, the career of the first appointed president of the SAG (in the 1930s, the president of the SAG was elected by the membership), Ronald Reagan (i.e., he was not elected by the membership at all) is dealt with at length. May ends his book with a discussion of film noir and its attempt to express dissent from the accepted and sanctioned cultural norm. Anyone interested in cultural studies, the political climate and culture of the US in the thirties and forties, or the history of Hollywood should read this book. Easily one of the more compelling books I have read on film in the past two or three years.
<< 1 >>
|
