MovieChat Forums > Sunset Blvd. (1950) Discussion > Aging or the arrival of sound?

Aging or the arrival of sound?

posted 9 years ago by Erniesam
28 replies | jump to latest

Last night I watched SB again since along, long time. I never gor quite into it, but the last time I watched it I was a teenager. This time I was truly overwhelmed. Why didn't I "get" it sooner? I find this a truly mesmerizing and very mature work. Many questions are buzzing in my head, but let me start with this one.

What is the reason Norma is out of the business? She says it is because of the coming of sound, but it is likely she has made herself belief that in order not to face the fact that it is due to her aging that she cannot get any work in Hollywood anymore. It isn't quite clear to me which it is. Perhaps it is a combination.

Next question is this: some on this board have suggested that it was due to Norma's increasing diva behavior that she was rejected by Hollywood eventually. Though this might have played a part, I cannot see any clear reference to this fact. Could it be that her "illness" (personality disorder of some kind) was fed by the fact that she could not accept the fact she was rejected by Hollywood (or indeed could not cope with the coming of sound)? Personally I'd like to believe that she cannot accepts the fact that she is aging and indeed not accept the fact she isn't in the spotlights anymore.

Anybody else any thoughts on this?

[–] Rosabel 9 years ago

But this film is taking place 20 years after the arrival of sound. She wasn't that old when that happened: barely 30. I can't believe that she lost her Hollywood career because she was getting too old. I think it WAS the coming of sound that ended her career.

And if you've seen any of those very early sound movies, you'll notice something: it's not just that an actor or actress might not have the right-sounding voice for movies. The presence of sound-recording equipment changed everything about the way they had to act. They had to move differently, because the microphone picked up all the sounds from moving around. In the 1929 movie "Behind That Curtain", everyone stands stock-still as if they're afraid to move, and reads their lines at the top of their voices. And one of the actors is Warner Baxter, who had a fine voice and went on to make perfectly good sound movies, once he'd figured out the new techniques required. But it wasn't easy at first, and maybe Norma had that sort of experience: sudden, unexpected failure, for someone who was a star and had never had to deal with that before. It could be why she gave up rather than try to reinvent herself to deal with the new reality.

Flat, drab passion meanders across the screen!

[–] Doghouse-6 9 years ago

Excellent analysis, Rosabel.

There are any number of examples of players who simply didn't "come across" in talkies, and possibly as many reasons: slowness - or failure - to adapt, as you suggest; pictures that, through no fault of the actor, were poor quality sound debuts; changing audience tastes and so forth.

And in Norma's case, there is also her explicitly-stated resistance, even after those 20 years. When Joe suggests her script needs "more dialogue," she protests: "What for? I can say anything I want with my eyes."

What's interesting to me is that there's no hint that Norma ever made even one talkie, or whether she voluntarily walked away without having done so. Maybe Wilder and Brackett didn't think it mattered to the story, although it would have added another dimension to have had the information that she had tried...and failed. She does make a reference to having "desert[ed] the screen," but it's still vague, and I've always rather inferred that this characterization of hers might have been a bit of personal revisionism that excuses her from having to face the possibility that audiences had rejected or tired of her.

On the other hand, they may have felt that leaving the circumstances of her retirement relatively enigmatic was of more benefit to the tone of both character and story.

Poe! You are...avenged!

[–] reece-26 9 years ago

In some cases their careers just happened to be teetering on the brink when sound came along. Buster Keaton, for example, had a perfectly satisfactory voice but had had several underperforming pictures (including The General) in a row and was alcoholic at the end of the twenties. That can kill a career in any Hollywood era.

[–] Doghouse-6 9 years ago

I've added my meager thoughts on Rosabel's astute reply, and wanted also to address a specific item in your post:

...some on this board have suggested that it was due to Norma's increasing diva behavior that she was rejected by Hollywood eventually. Though this might have played a part, I cannot see any clear reference to this fact.

It's referred to briefly during the sequence of her visit to de Mille, when his assistant says, "I understand she was a terror to work with," which de Mille off-handedly acknowledges: "Only towards the end." And we get a tiny taste of it when Norma shifts in an instant from teary-eyed to imperious: "And remember, I don't work before ten in the morning and never after four in the afternoon."

I think you're right that it may have been a contributing factor, but certainly not the sole reason.

Poe! You are...avenged!

[–] cwente2 9 years ago

It's important to note, I think, that Norma's desire to be back in films, saying she didn't realize how much she'd missed the old studio, etc., is not her over-riding desire -- and not an insoluble problem for her. The scene DeMille is filming from Samson and Delilah has, in fact, three people who were stars of his in the silent era (including Julia Faye - a BIG star). DeMille would have hired Norma for a part in one of his sound pictures had she wanted it, provided the part was age appropriate. Had Salome been a good enough script to produce, DeMille would have, at least, considered her for the part of Herodias, Salome's mother. She didn't want that! She wanted (had) to be the star! Remember, she wouldn't permit Gillis to excise any scenes in her original script which featured her. That is her problem. She wanted "time" to stop ("The stars are ageless", she says): The difference between simple melancholy, which could have been mitigated for her, and out-and-out madness -- which could not.

[–] Doghouse-6 9 years ago

She wanted "time" to stop ("The stars are ageless", she says)

Yes, that's a central theme, isn't it? It's accented all through the film, and the contrast between Norma's world and its "creeping paralysis" - to use Joe's phrase - and that of the outside one of Joe, Betty, Artie and their colleagues is adroitly emphasized alongside it.

And the de Mille sequence - and the presence of those like Faye and Wilcoxon along with him - denotes the bridge between those two worlds that Norma is unwilling (or unable) to cross.

I recall that there were two Twilight Zone episodes of similar theme, but with distinctly spooky, Serling-esque "twists:" The Sixteen-Millimeter Shrine and The Trouble With Templeton.

Poe! You are...avenged!

[–] Erniesam 9 years ago

You mentioned the discussion between DeMille and his assistant:

"I heard she was impossible to work with."
"Only toward the end."

Now this I forgot and I guess it indeed shine some light on the reason(s) Norma left the movies. My question remains however: WHY did NOrma get impossibe to work with? Was this due to the coming of sound or was she indeed getting self centered and maddened by her own fame?

[–] Doghouse-6 9 years ago

In direct response to your question, it's tempting to invoke the stereotype (which certainly has some real-life basis) of the star whose demands - and the overall "diva" behavior to which you referred - increase with fame and power.

That by itself isn't remarkable, but in Norma's case, it's clear that she had been so fully invested in her star status that it had become the entire basis of her identity. And the added knowledge (from Max) about her "moments of melancholy" and suicide attempts suggests that the instability we can see goes back a ways, and was perhaps always there, needing only feeding by sycophants and critics alike to bring it to the fore and turn it toxic, and then emotional frustration to render it deadly.

But that's all theory and speculation. Since my earlier reply to Rosabel, I've become convinced that Wilder and Brackett deliberately left the circumstances of her professional downfall vague. You might recall that when Joe asks Max if her career was responsible for the suicide attempts, he doesn't wait for an answer and, more to the point, Max doesn't offer one.

In that later exchange between deMille and the assistant, we're presented with the central mystery of Norma: how did the "girl of seventeen, with more courage and wit and heart than ever came together in one youngster" become the "terror to work with" whose career failed?

Or did it? As I mentioned in my earlier post, we're never even told explicitly whether Norma walked away on her own or not. Sensing the changes in the industry and the times, and feeling the world she knew slipping away from her, she may very well have left of her own accord. I'm reminded of a story I heard about Douglas Fairbanks and a friend, at the close of the silent era, going to check out a newly-built soundstage. Looking around the dark, cavernous space, Fairbanks sadly remarked to his friend, "The romance of picture-making ends here." Perhaps that was something Norma felt too acutely to bear, and chose to withdraw.

So my guess is that the intention was for viewers, most likely aware of the myriad reasons a film career might end, to arrive at their own conclusions based on that awareness and fill in the blanks for themselves within the framework of what we do know about Norma.

As long as there's no conflict with that framework - as there would be if, say, we imagined her to have become a drug addict, for instance - whatever conclusion one viewer reaches is probably just as good as that reached by another.

If that seems like a cop out on either my part or the scriptwriters, I'd say no. It's not as if what became of Norma is inexplicable; it's simply that we're not pointed specifically to one of many possible explanations, and in the end, it makes no difference to the story which one applies.

Poe! You are...avenged!

[–] cwente2 9 years ago

"So my guess is that the intention was for viewers, most likely aware of the myriad reasons a film career might end, to arrive at their own conclusions based on that awareness and fill in the blanks for themselves within the framework of what we do know about Norma."

I think so, too.

[–] Erniesam 9 years ago

I guess you are right in that Bracket and Wilder left it purposefully vague the reasons why Norma left the movies. Still, I think we can extract several things from the movie which can be backed up by evidence. For instance: we know that Norma left the movies 20 years ago, meaning that she DOES have some experience with sound pictures. We also know that she became impossible to work with (but only in the end). This would seem to indicate that she became impossible during the introduction of sound. Adding to this is her gesture of waving annoyed the microphone away when she is in the studio, suggesting she realy has a feud with sound in pictures. To me this all seems to suggest it was indeed the coming of sound that ruined her career. So, the impossibillity to work with her in the end might very well be her incomepetence to work with sound. It might be that because she was a huge silent star and she could not adapt to sound, she could not bear the fact that she was stumbling about and didn't get the respect and admiration anymore.

[–] Doghouse-6 9 years ago

A perfectly sound conclusion (pardon the pun) which fits well within the framework. And to your evidence of a feud with sound, we can add Norma's tirade about it when she first meets Joe in her boudoir.

And that moment when she disgustedly pushes away the microphone is masterful in both its meaning and economy: here she is, "back in the old studio" where she'd once been queen, and along comes that ol' devil mic, knocking the literal feather in her cap (and symbolically dislodging her crown).

Poe! You are...avenged!

[–] IloveMuggy 9 years ago

Wow, what an interesting and informative thread! I just watched SB again last night and the thoughts and observations here gave me some welcome additional insight into the character of Norma and the film itself. Great job, everyone!

[–] Doghouse-6 9 years ago

As many times as I've seen this film over the course of 40-odd years, the end of Norma's career was something I'd simply taken at face value: she'd been big in silents and disappeared with sound. Film history is littered with such instances, and it never occurred to me to give the specifics any thought until Erniesam asked the question.

One of the things I love about this place is the number of people who challenge us to look at familiar films from new angles by asking just such questions, and I always welcome those opportunities.

Poe! You are...avenged!

[–] Rosabel 9 years ago

I agree - IMDb is at its best when it hosts conversations just like this one, with people drawing on history, experience, and psychology to put forward ideas that help fill in the details of a movie. And without sneers or insults, either! I wish more threads were the same.

Flat, drab passion meanders across the screen!

[–] judygmartin 8 years ago

I agree, all the responses are so thoughtful and provocative. I just finished watching a few minutes ago and though I'd seen it a few times over the years, by now I have a lot more of Hollywood's history tucked under my belt. I find this thread mesmerizing. Thank you all.

[–] Catbookss (13664) 7 years ago

Yes!

This thread is a fascinating read, full of insights about a film I've watched many times, yet hadn't considered asking the OP's questions, or their possible multi-layered answers.

Age and the advent of talkies, as well as her madness, yes. But this discussion has taken it further.

Recently I watched an old Behind the Scenes from AMC, and learned when talkies became the obvious direction of Hollywood, many Broadway stars were courted and brought in, because they already knew how to act using their voices in performances. Good point about silent film stars needing to exaggerate their bodies and expressions, which didn't translate well, in general, to sound films.

[–] LetThemEatCake01 9 years ago

I don't think that was the problem at all, of course she was crazy but the movie implies that she wasn't good enough for films because she was old and out of fashion and because sound had killed her career. The audience doesn't know that Samson and Delilah had silent actors in it, it's irrelevant to the story.

[–] Strazdamonas 9 years ago

A lot of actors struggled with arrival of sound. Most of early movie actors came from Theater and thus they knew how to act with their body, and there were plenty of pretty faces, but when a demand for realistic and convincing speech started to appear they didnt knew how to do it. it was different than what they have been taught for decades. and thus a lot of actors struggled to accomodate with the need for sound.

Norma is a very extragarated version of that.

---------------------------------------------
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Explosivediarrheakidgenius 9 years ago

Keep in mind the primitives of sound at the time of Norma's career. So many had fine voices but the archaic sound systems of the time altered voices and ruined the illusion of so many great stars of the silent era.

Exactly, it's about illusion. Just look at facebook; "we" try to be so cool and calm up front on the net, but while in the grocery store shopping - a running into a facebook-"friend" has "us" hiding behind the cereals.

As the tv-show is called: Keeping up appearances.

[–] Venus-25 8 years ago

I completely agree with all the answers here.

Many silent stars also didn't have speaking voices that matched their stereotyped characters, whether it was how they recorded or because they had the wrong accents. Rudolph Valentino didn't live to make it to sound films but he had a strong accent and his career would have been limited by it.

Also, the exaggerated facial expressions in silent films exceed even what stage actors do. Sound film required a whole different style of acting and not everyone was able to make the adjustment.

The diva behavior is another negative. No producer or director in his/her right mind should put up with it.

The Fabio Principle: Puffy shirts look best on men who look even better without them.

[–] necoleman 8 years ago

I am formerly known as HillieBoliday....Member since May 2006

Some very valid points...and well taken. I have seen this film a million times since first viewing it on television in the late 50's early 60's; and I gain something new every time I watch it.

You're right....no producer/director should have to waste precious time and energy dealing with a self-centered actor/actress who wallows in their own hype. But I think pros. and dirs. from that era did tolerate it more than they wanted because...IMHO....those silver screened.icons were deemed by the viewing public as one of a kind. There was only one Rita Hayworth, one Bette Davis, one Joan Crawford, etc. The pros. and dirs. didn't want to risk pissing off a highly visible box office breaking actor/actress...so they were more likely to put up with their crap. Now the actors/actresses today....are so easily and quickly replaced with whatever new face is about to enter the film making, cut throat business of Hollywood.

With the highly successful and lucrative exclusive club of independent producers and directors who carry so much weight in Hollywood....I think actors and actresses of today had better be on their best behavior.....if they want to last.

"OOhhhooo....I'M GON' TELL MAMA!"

[–] vicky_lc2001 (1907) 7 years ago

Valentino didn't have a strong accent by the time he died. People said that he lost much of it by then and had a somewhat musical midatlantic accent.

[–] cartesianthought 8 years ago

It's likely a combination of factors.

Of course she would blame it on her age (nature) and advent of sound (society). Those are factors out of her control so she can absolve all responsibility.

It very well could have been her mental instability, difficulty to work with and that she wasn't all that talented (just a flash in the pan).

[–] blazinglight 8 years ago

Cecil B. DeMille summed it up quite well.. when he said, "Norma! Our business is a fickle one" (paraphrased) ... meaning, that one day you're up and the next day you're out...

[–] brefane-41162 7 years ago

The film is about time and technology and its effect on people and society. She pushes away the boom mike with disgust; technology is her enemy. And yes,she needs to age professionally rather than recapture the past. A true film classic.