MovieChat Forums > Sunset Boulevard (1950) Discussion > I know I'll be crucified by posting this...

I know I'll be crucified by posting this...

posted 11 years ago by Porky_Pigs
13 replies | jump to latest

...but I can't help myself.

Since I started to watch a lot of films, I've been waiting to watch Sunset Boulevard. Today, I decided it was the right time to do it. I don't know if I created too much hype in my head, but apart from Swanson's acting and the beautiful cinematography, I found the movie completely normal.

I mean, it is obvious that are certain things that are hidden in the subtext, like the critic to Hollywood or Gillis giving up on Schaeffer because he thought he was no good for her. 60 years ago, this would seem fresh, but at least for me, this doesn't sound so good in 2013. Everyone who likes cinema nowadays knows that Hollywood is a place that does not care about his past, forgetting his stars and making remakes after remakes just to raise money. When Sunset Boulevard came out, must have been shocking to the audience knows that a director who work with a movie star for so many years would treat her like DeMille treated Norma or that a guard would be so harsh on a movie star, but nowadays we know of stories that are a lot worst than that.

Well, after I finished watching this, I just sat in the dark for about 30 minutes and started thinking. Don't get me wrong, I liked the movie, but I just expected something to blow my mind off, the way that others films that are critically acclaim did, like Les Diaboliques, Meshes Of The Afternoon, M, The Apartment, Some Like It Hot, Stalker, Harvey and a lot other movies that have a great rating here on IMDB.

PS: Sorry about spelling mystakes, english is not my first language.
_____________
http://discutindocinema.blogspot.com

[–] Dreamsincolour 11 years ago

Your English isn't bad at all for someone for whom it isn't a first language. I wish I had a second language that was half as good. And the ones who should be apologising are the many (far too many) who are frighteningly incompetent when English isn't a second language.

But re your post, I do actually think that Sunset Boulevard does remain quite relevant in its criticism of Hollywood, but not re quite the same issues that I think you are seeing. I would actually agree that some aspects aren't as shocking today as one thinks they they were then, when Hollywood was supposed to be more of a glamourised wonderland than it is perceived now. But you only have to look at the likes of this IMDB site (generally rather than SB particularly) to see the inadequacy of basic understanding re most things that is depressingly prevalent. Most people really don't understand, and don't want to understand, anything that is not convenient or that doesn't agree with their preference of perception. Today we are more aware of tragedies like Heath Ledger etc, but still the huge majority of people don't understand that that is only the tip of the iceberg that hits the headlines.

The criticism of Hollywood in the film isn't just about the ruthless discarding of people to suit expedience, but it is about how destructive fame (or celebrity these days) can be. Where I think the film is still very relevant is in the allusions to fame and/or celebrity as a kind of drug, with associated behaviour that mimics addictive behaviour in the imperative to hang on to a distorted reality. Sunset Boulevard is quite remarkable in the layers of allusion built in to addictive personality behaviour generally and to actual real life as well. There are distinct analogies between Joe and Billy Wilder himself. And he was obviously witness not just to the inherent Hollywood ruthlessness but to the repercussive destruction further down the line, even if he wasn't himself the same kind of victim that Joe became. I have always thought that it seemed like there was a large slice of "There, but for the grace of God, go I" in the film. I don't suppose anyone will ever know that for certain, but it would have been a great conversation if Billy Wilder was still alive.

One of the more interesting allusions in the film is re the relationship between Norma and Max where they are essentially enabling each other to continue their addictions in a horrifyingly unhealthy way. And there are analogies, too, between Max who was the ex-husband director who gave up his career to be Norma's servant and the real life director Von Stroheim who played him and who famously also had fetishes in real life. A lot of people seem to think that Max caring for Norma was just because he loved her, and they don't want to see how that was completely fetishistic and integral to the whole story. The more you look into it, the more allusions there are to see. It really is quite a fascinating film.

[–] lisahelenw 10 years ago

Hi Porky! Thank you for your thoughtful review of "Después de Lucía." Don't ever worry about spelling in English -- native speakers tear their hair out trying to spell, and even hold spelling contests with the winner announced on national news! But you might want to change just one word, "indifference." I think you meant "ambivalence," meaning "unclear or confused," since indifference means "not caring at all." There's even an aphorism that goes, "The opposite of love isn't hate but indifference." (Probably the same in Portuguese.)

Thanks again for a great review!

Lisa in San Francisco

[–] ed-pilling 10 years ago

How I saw Max was. He was a great director when it was silent movies but could not make the change to talkies. After they were divorced Norma and Max stayed good friends. Being somewhat down on his luck Norma said he could move into her house. Then he slowly became her butler. Then she became his meal ticket.

[–] montrossboc-1 10 years ago

But Max is dedicated and loyal to the extreme.

Short Cut, Draw Blood

[–] Jonny_B_Lately 10 years ago

Exactly. We don't know the details of the back-story. Heck, the fact that Max was a director and later her husband isn't even revealed at first. We just know there's an unreasoning dedication to Norma. She's clearly delusional, but rather than get her professional help, Max coddles her, placates her, and even, in some cases, encourages her.

Max is so loyal, in fact, that the duo of Norma and Max are a "closed system." The only people allowed into that system are those who help it along or keep Norma stuck in her delusional world. Only later do you realize just how dangerous this is. Any third party is expendable.

Watta ya lookn here for?

[–] ritamilo 10 years ago

Your feelings are perfectly valid. I enjoy the scene where they are watching her old films in the drawing room.

A bit of enjoyable trivia about that scene: the film being shown is "Queen Kelly."

Gloria Swanson had a lengthy affair with Joseph Kennedy, Sr. He was so enamored of her that he actually bankrolled a studio/production company just for her.

It was a disaster.

They cranked out four movies which tanked her career. The last movie, the one that put the nail into the coffin, so to speak, as well as derailing their affair, was "Queen Kelly." She was in her 30's and attempted to portray a 16 year old girl.

I love the fact that she's watching a film that killed her career in a movie that revived it - and also put Bill Holden onto the map as a viable leading man.

English/History MA: Symbolism rules. "Loyaulte me lie...Richard III

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 10 years ago

I agree with you that this film is disappointing. But I don't understand this part:

When Sunset Boulevard came out, must have been shocking to the audience knows that a director who work with a movie star for so many years would treat her like DeMille treated Norma or that a guard would be so harsh on a movie star...

Huh? I thought the guard and DeMille were notably kind to Norma. Unless by "guard" you mean the first one who wasn't going to let her through--which was just because he didn't recognise her. DeMille was very kind, protective, and solicitous though. I have no idea what you're talking about there.

--------
See a list of my favourite films here: http://www.flickchart.com/slackerinc

[–] Rosabel 10 years ago

Yes, I agree with you. DeMille gave a very sympathetic portrayal. (Since he was playing himself, I wonder if he'd have agreed to do it if he'd been shown as a nasty, hard-hearted bastard?) He really cared about Norma, and he was the only one who made an attempt to talk some sense into her until the final confrontation with Joe. You can tell he's starting to explain that the call from the studio was really about her CAR, but then she starts to cry and he just can't tell her the truth.

Flat, drab passion meanders across the screen!

[–] Eric-62-2 10 years ago

I agree that DeMille comes off as very sympathetic and kind, though he has to set his own limits. Sikov's commentary on the DVD on his scenes that describes him as sour and terrible are really off-base IMO and seem more colored by the fact that Sikov more than once tips his hand that he has a low opinion of DeMille and his films to begin with.

[–] Rosabel 10 years ago

I agree. I listened to the commentary and I couldn't reconcile what the film scholar was saying with what I was actually seeing. He seemed to have his own agenda.

Flat, drab passion meanders across the screen!

[–] sergiotea 10 years ago

you got to remember, this was old Hollywood money being exposed... all those mansions in Los Angeles were bought with tax free income... also, by now I guess we are very jaded as a society... this pre-dates, celebrity TV trials (Lana Turner, Lindsey, Zsa Zsa Gabor, and O.J....) back then the press (including film) were very discreet... what Billy Wilder was just lift the corner of the rug and exposed the dust!!! ... the Oscar that year went to All About Eve, which is the total opposite of Sunset Blvd... All About Eve showed how show biz gets rid of the old and welcomes the new.... Sunset Blvd.... showed... don't *beep* with predecessors or you'll get shot!! :)

[–] BorisKarpov 9 years ago

yes i had the sme feeling its a bit overrated

[–] PeterBlues (790) 5 years ago

amen, while it starts off by you thinking what an unusual movie, because here's this guy stepping into what he thinks is an abandoned place filled with strangeness, and it reminded of the twilight zone episodes "the sixteen-millimeter shrine" and "queen of the nile", and by the way, as she had her card playing companions from the silent movie era one of them actually looked like major silent movie icon buster keaton, then coincidentally she plays charles chaplin... both leads though are sometimes on the brink of being unbearable, first i thought the way she treated him was off putting, then i got the same feeling about how he treated her... i read positive things about this movie and expected to like it but frankly the longer the movie ran i couldn't stand either of the two main roles, there is an entire thread on this board about which of the two is most off putting, when he got shot at the end (which was revealed at the start of the movie so i'm not spoiling anything), i couldn't care less (and that's what the particular topic is about), also since that was how it started there was no shocker by the end... i didn't find this to be a good movie at all. the dvd paramount special collectors edition release that i got of this includes a whole bunch of neat bonus material.

💿 🎥 📽 🎞 🎬 🏠 🏡 🏘 🏚 🌇 🌆

buries your nose in my chest,
throws your hair tear my reality away,
my heart you wet,
slurps it flies with it to space,
pretended you were innocent,
pushed into black hole so i could never give your secrets away.