The Hidden Art of Hollywood: In Defense of the Studio Era Film Review

Average Reviews:

(More customer reviews)Are you looking to buy The Hidden Art of Hollywood: In Defense of the Studio Era Film? Here is the right place to find the great deals. we can offer discounts of up to 90% on The Hidden Art of Hollywood: In Defense of the Studio Era Film. Check out the link below:

>> Click Here to See Compare Prices and Get the Best Offers

The Hidden Art of Hollywood: In Defense of the Studio Era Film ReviewAs a video store manager and classic movie lover, few things are more distressing than hearing about or seeing people dismiss old Hollywood movies, whether they simply dismiss them for being in black-and-white, or for being "unrealistic." So, in theory, I welcomed the book "The Hidden Art of Hollywood: In Defense of the Studio Era Film" by John Fawell (an associate professor at Boston University) as a way to counter some of those claims. Unfortunately, the book ends up not as illustrating the virtues of classic Hollywood films but as a pedantic rant against anything else.
Fawell's book does have its good points. His chapter on character actors is a delightful illustration of one of the great pleasures for classic movie lovers, that of the seemingly inexhaustible supply of character actors who either propped up various movies, or became part of the stock company of such directors as Capra, Ford, and Sturges, all of whom knew how to use said actors to their best advantage (though he does err by misidentifying Charles Lane, one of Capra's favorites, as "Charles Lang"). Fawell also avoids the trap of those who prefer classic movies because they represent "simpler times," and he's able to distinguish between, say, the honest sentiment of movies by Capra and Ford (because of the harsh backdrops their sentiment is set against) and the saccharine nature of the Andy Hardy films.
Too often, however, Fawell makes the same mistake he accuses "realistic" films of making - he preaches rather than illustrates. Certainly, I would agree such seemingly "light" films as TROUBLE IN PARADISE, NOTHING SACRED, STAGE DOOR, THE LADY EVE, TO HAVE AND HAVE NOT, and NORTH BY NORTHWEST, to name but a few, can stand up proudly with the likes of more serious-minded films. But Fawell forgets during the 1930's, there were also attempts at more serious-minded films, and while some were indeed self-serious bores (A FAREWELL TO ARMS - one of the few films he actually does cover, biopics such as THE GREAT ZIEGFELD), they could also be very well made (I AM A FUGITIVE FROM A CHAIN GANG, BLACK LEGION). Also, in talking about the Production Code, while Fawell discusses the way Hollywood directors and writers were forced to be creative in depicting sex and violence, he completely ignores the uglier aspects of the Code (the enforced racism, for starters, he completely ignores).
What bothered me most about the book, however, was Fawell's tirade against method acting, and his auteurist rants. For the former, it's one thing to point out the acting of such stars of the time is better they get credit for today (he brings up the oft-cited example of Gary Cooper, who seemed to be doing nothing until you actually saw him on film), and I certainly have no argument against that. But to say actors who tried to change from role to role are inferior to the star acting of the time is patently unfair, and ignores how the stars we like were good when they were allowed to perform variations on their persona, not playing it straight (in other words, Humphrey Bogart is better served in THE MALTESE FALCON and TO HAVE AND HAVE NOT than in third-rate knock-offs like DEAD RECKONING). As for the latter, Fawell acts as if the director is the main one to be credited for the success of a film, yet he contradicts himself by pointing out the collaborations necessary to make those classic films great. And while he's right in pointing out the vitality of the slang-heavy, cynical dialogue, his anti-intellectual rants about the uselessness of "big ideas" in films becomes tiresome (particularly when he forgets much of the dialogue he likes comes from the pens of writers who worked for The New Yorker, one of the greatest collections of intellectual writers ever).
People who try to praise older Hollywood films usually tend to either do it at the expense of today's films as a way of longing for a "simpler time," or they tend to treat classic films the same way high school English teachers often treat Shakespeare - it tastes bad, but it's good for you. Fawell attempts to avoid both of these routes, but ends up being as preachy and off-putting as the more "realistic" films he slams.The Hidden Art of Hollywood: In Defense of the Studio Era Film Overview

Want to learn more information about The Hidden Art of Hollywood: In Defense of the Studio Era Film?

>> Click Here to See All Customer Reviews & Ratings Now