Did Hollywood make better movies under the studio system?

Matthew

Here's something I've been thinking about lately. Some of my favorite movies where made in the Black & White era, when Hollywood ran under the studio system. The system was pretty simple all-in-all. Actors where less....actors...and more like employees of the studio. They signed contracts with the studio and were assigned new films as they went. Now it went further than this, of course, as the studio often controlled everything about them, especially there public image and this is highly questionable (of course, when you see how some celebrities act nowadays, that may have been a good thing for them).

But what i'm really thinking about right now is the quality of movies. Does anyone else think Hollywood made movies under the studio system that were just...better than current ones? I don't mean in terms of spectacle, just in overall quality? It seems that alot of truly great movies were made under the system, in the current model...not so many.

What do you think?

Reznik

No.

The reason it might seem like better movies were made back then is because only the better movies have survived. I guarantee you there is an enormous shitpile of terrible movies from back then that have been lost to the sands of time.

Ninjeff

Reznik wrote: »

No.

The reason it might seem like better movies were made back then is because only the better movies have survived. I guarantee you there is an enormous shitpile of terrible movies from back then that have been lost to the sands of time.

100% agree.

Its like looking back with music. "Oh the 70s were such an epic time for rock! if only!" and then realizing that, nope, there was just as much total crap back then as now. After so many years, however, the gauntlet of time has allowed only the best to reach us.
Same with movies.


Add to that, you wont really know what will be a "classic" from today's era until years and years from now.

ElJeffe

There's probably also the fact that a lot of critics tend to fetishize older movies, which manifests itself in every Best Of list starting with Citizen Kane and Casablanca almost as a matter of tradition. When a newer movie has the potential to make the list, it seems to be approached less as "here's a pile of movies from all eras, let's pick the best" and more "here are all the movies from the 70s and prior we've declared the best, any new movie has to prove why it's better."

It's basically an incumbent effect for classic movies.

AngelHedgie

And honestly, we can't ignore how utterly abusive the studio system was. Even if you could say that it objectively produced better movies (and as the above points show, you can't), the abuse that actors and especially actresses went through because of it would alone make the system indefensible.

Hevach

Go to Walmart and buy one of those huge movie collection boxes that make you think, "Wow, 87 movies for $5, how can I go wrong?" Watch any film not prominently featured on the front of the box, and say, "Oh, that's how I can go wrong."

I've got one of those I was just watching a few from. It's all John Wayne movies, and even limiting to ones with a great lead actor... Well, after Hatari and McClintock there's maybe two watchable movies in the lot, and I can't blame you if you can't watch McClintock because so much of it's humor is metaphors for spousal abuse and the rest is literally spouse abuse played for laughs.

Matthew

True. I suppose it really depends on how you look at it.

tinwhiskers

ElJeffe wrote: »

There's probably also the fact that a lot of critics tend to fetishize older movies, which manifests itself in every Best Of list starting with Citizen Kane and Casablanca almost as a matter of tradition. When a newer movie has the potential to make the list, it seems to be approached less as "here's a pile of movies from all eras, let's pick the best" and more "here are all the movies from the 70s and prior we've declared the best, any new movie has to prove why it's better."

It's basically an incumbent effect for classic movies.

And I'd argue that additionally most of the best movies weren't made under the studio system. It was mostly done by 1950 and gone by 1960 almost completely.

As examples none of Kubrick's, Coppola's, Spielberg's, or Scorsese's output was under the studio system- and Hitchcock's later(better) stuff wasn't either. To make the claim the studio system made the best movies is to ignore a murderer's row of contenders for "Best Picture Ever" just from those 5 guys alone.


Also a lot of foreign directors(Fellini, Kurosawa, Leone etc)never worked under it at all because it never existed in their countries.

Sadgasm

Oh god no, it only seems that way because you only see the gems these days. The studio system churned out countless hackjob films who's sole purpose was to be theater fodder. You think direct-to-video movies are crap? The stuff produced to be double features and the likes wouldnt get you on YouTube these days.

Gyral

You should put on TCM and leave it playing for like a month straight. Leave it on in the background (like my wife does) and you'll realize that these are considered the "better" of classic theater. Even then, there's a fair bit that can be tenuously labelled good.