MovieChat Forums > telegonus
telegonus (727)
Posts
Childhood Favorite
Excellent Actor
Police Stations Etc.
Back To The Original Series
Revisiting Frankenstein
Starting Up Again
Any Thoughts On Why There Aren't More Serious Posters Here?
One Vicious Movie
The 7th Is Made Up Of Phantoms
View all posts >
Replies
I hope so, EC. Also, I'm hoping that the Moviechat admins don't start deleting posts, or closing threads that still have life in them. Psycho is sill alive ad kicking, as a classic movie AND a worthy topic for discussion.
Once more, EC, some interesting thoughts. The voices of actors is a seldom discussed topic these days; while the era of celebrity imitating comedians pretty much ended in the 70s.
Yet don't let us forget that distinctive voices were common in films as well as, arguably, more so, on radio, fifteen or twenty years prior to Psycho. In the very early 40s (1941-42) several popular, major movies were, and for many of us still, like catnip for the classic film buff. Think Rebecca (Colman, Fontaine, George Sanders, C. Aubrey Smith, Judith Anderson); or The Maltese Falcon. (Bogart, Astor, Greenstreet, Lorre, Cook and even the dynamic duo of Barton McLain and Ward Bond). These are great classic movies with great classic voices. Psycho is perhaps a tribute to those films; and maybe even an attempt to recapture their texture, visually (lighting, shadows, camera placement) and aurally (voices, often very subtle sound effects).
Thanks for all the decades musings, EC. They have my head spinning. Somewhat. As to the voices in Psycho, I've taken a shine to the somewhat similar vocal stylings of Johns Anderson and McIntire, with the former more deft and understated, the latter deadpan hilarious, a sort of Rocky & Bullwinkle for grownups. Both men had good runs in anthology shows of the same era as Psycho, and appeared in The Twilight Zone, as did several other cast members of the movie (Vaughn Taylor, Vera Miles, Balsam And Oakland, and even. in a tiny, non-speaking role, Ted Knight).
The 50s-60s and 70s-80s cusps in Hollywood is an interesting take on what seem in retrospect, competing eras; not at the time so much as now, viewed as four decades of the 20th century.
Those decades were also shaped by what even at the time, as a child, then teen, then a very young man, I was aware of as Old Hollywood in its death throes, and wasn't happy about. The historical breakdowns made major social change almost inevitable; and well beyond the usual suspects of Sex, Drugs and Rock & Roll: the rise of at the time a largely youth-driven culture led by Elvis, then JFK, with reality kicking in the the Vietnam war, the civil rights movements, and the massive changes in manners, morals and fashion implicit is S,D & R & R.
Psycho does appear as a key factor in these changes; as a template, a shocker and a hugely successful movie, filmed mostly on the Uni back lot, in glorious black and white and a cast of not thousands, or even hundreds but at most dozens; like maybe two or three, allowing for extras and very small parts players.
What happened, in the wake of all this isn't that Hollywood began changing history so much as history changing Hollywood. By around the mid to late 70s, the summer blockbuster era of movies, then Saturday Night Live, it's like America had become like Fernwood Tonight merged with Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman. No one could have predicted that. It was like a tsunami, and it came to a halt when Ronald Reagan became President and things began to settle; a little anyway.
That remark, as delivered by Lurene Tuttle, was one of the many comic moments in an otherwise serious and unsettling movie. She was a veteran radio actress, appeared frequently on TV in the 50s-60s, and very good. Miss Tuttle spoke that line in a rather loud whisper to Vera Miles, and in a manner consistent with the time in which Psycho was made.
And a Happy New Year to you, EC, and here's to good health and a long life!
Charming lady, gifted actress, often in light or comic roles. When I see Miss Johns in anything these days she brightens my spirits, and makes me wonder why there aren't more like her today. RIP, Miss Johns.
Yes, although for many, the Chaney, Jr. Wolf Man is up there, especially as he was, in non-wolf form, a man of conscience and moral integrity. In the Frankenstein monster there's an incipient humanity to him, yet he remains, due to the nature of his lab creation, essentially a dumb animal, albeit with some sympathetic human attributes.
I find the Karloff Mummy poignant, especially in his (admittedly) morbid romanticism, or obsessiveness, if one prefers a more clinical perspective. Dracula and other, similar vampire creatures, is nearly impossible to relate to, yet his aristocratic ancestry and, for a monster anyway, poise and good manners, make him stand out, and lend him a measure of charisma.
The Invisible Man, in the original 1933 film, is difficult for most of us to relate to due to his megalomania, sadism and overall narcissism, which came, for him, from the chemical that enabled him to become invisible, and was not inherent to his character prior to his becoming invisible. This, plus the fact that he can't be seen, make him wholly unlikable, unless, I suppose, the viewer has a yen for world domination and playing cruel tricks on innocent people.
Brilliant stuff, Swanstep. Your three posts are a pleasure to read, and I haven't even seen the god-damn movie! Thanks to much for staying alive and keeping up the good work. Writing about films, modern and classic, on the Internet, is more difficult than many years past; and there's so much more going on now, in the world, movie-wise, intellectually and socially, as to make one's head spin; but there are still some good places left, and new ones that have sprouted, post-IMDB, the relative safety of the old place, and the accompanying good fellowship (gender neutrally speaking) it's easy to get demoralized or just plain overwhelmed by all that's going on in the world, much less the film world. By all means, keep up the good work!
Indeed, EC, finding the classics by our own cleverness is the best way to go with this. YouTube and Archive.org both have lots of fans, and I gather that they get a lot of hits, in most senses of that word.
My growing fondness for classic TV is a nice way to find old movies that aren't really that old, and certainly not movies. Filmed in the style of the classics, with many shot on the wonderful still alive and kicking back lots of old Hollywood.
In their way, Perry Mason and Peter Gunn are chopped up movies, essentially first rate B's, allowing for the melodrama. Combat! is like a top of the line A picture, featuring a talented cast and guest players, and often amazingly well written stories, and not typical prime time fare.
Many if not most Combats eschew the easy irony of the most "vulnerable" new character of the week dying (a hero, of course); on Combat, a total jerk who cheats at cards not only survives but prospers. The only "typical" thing is that he's "brought down" by all the good guy regulars shunning him. "Big deal!", says the average viewer, "but he's still alive, and he still has his rank even though his dereliction of duty caused another man's death". There are no easy answers on this show.
Hitchcock's two shows made him a literal household name, and they also entertained the co-called average viewer, as to me they seem too subtle and sophisticated for prime time. But I guess not. For today, yes! For the Millennial viewers, they're too slow, too talky, too asexual, lack the requisite violence to please many if not most viewers.
The decline of the Old Guard classical education, practically a dinosaur now, is a major factor in this change of pace and love of speed and gimmicky effects. I see no way this is going to turn around. Even the elite, generally liberal Brandeis University is strongly considering discontinuing granting advanced degrees in English. They don't want to burden young people with an education there's almost no market for.
View all replies >