Pages

Sunday, April 06, 2008

Charlton Heston, RIP

In one sense, the death of Charlton Heston marks the passing of an era. If you compare today’s movie stars with yesterday’s movie stars, they project different models of masculinity and femininity.

Off the top of my head, here some of the male movie stars of the past: Humphrey Bogart, Richard Burton, James Cagney, Gary Cooper, Clark Gable, Errol Flynn, Cary Grant, Burt Lancaster, Steve McQueen, Robert Mitchum, Gregory Peck, John Wayne, and Charleston Heston.

There are also a few aging actors like Kirk Douglas, Clint Eastwood, James Garner, Paul Newman, and Sean Connery who represent a throwback to that era.

Just compare this to Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, Justin Timberlake, Heath Ledger, Orlando Bloom, or Ryan Phillippe to see the difference. The difference is that yesterday’s male movie stars were manly whereas their modern counterparts are boyish.

Today, when we want to cast an actor who projects masculinity, we’re basically down to Russell Crowe—or Dennis Haysbert for TV roles.

And the same patterns holds true for female movie stars: Mary Astor, Joan Crawford, Marlene Dietrich, Greta Garbo, Eva Gardner, Rita Hayworth, Lena Horne, Deborah Kerr, Hedy Lamarr, Sophia Loren, Merle Oberon, Maureen O’Hara, Irene Papas, Simone Signoret, Barbara Stanwyck, and Elizabeth Taylor.

A few of these ladies are still alive, but elderly. Compare that to Angelina Jolie or Jennifer Aniston to see the difference. The difference is that yesterday’s female movie stars were womanly whereas their modern counterparts are girlish.

Today’s movie stars look like High School students. Hollywood is subtly redefining manhood and womanhood. This may have begun with the Sixties youth culture. And it may have been reinforced by the spending power of today’s teenagers.

This doesn’t mean that yesterday’s movie stars were better actors. In general, I think the quality of the acting has improved since the Sixties. More convincing. More naturalistic.

This is partly due to the subject matter, which is more realistic. And it’s also due to a generation of actors who were tutored by Lee Strasberg, with Marlon Brando as the iconic method actor.

There’s a certain tension between star power and naturalistic acting. You can’t stand out if you disappear into a part.

Heston himself was an uneven actor. Sometimes hammy. Sometimes wooden. Two of his better films were El Cid and Soylent Green.

I don’t claim that the Thirties and Forties were the golden age of Hollywood. Most of it was stylish escapism.

I’m just noting a cultural shift in the way that gender is projected by Hollywood. And this can have an impact on the general culture, percolating down from the pop cultural icons.

4 comments:

  1. Mickey Rourke would be the obvious exception, I suppose.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is sort of related to your post. Maybe not, actually, but interesting nonetheless.

    If you havn't seen this popular YouTube video watch it:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UgpfSp2t6k

    and pay attention to the very last accent she does. You'll say, "So THAT'S where that came from..." The trans-Atlantic... They actually were *taught* it...

    ReplyDelete
  3. "I don’t claim that the Thirties and Forties were the golden age of Hollywood. Most of it was stylish escapism."

    Still some of us miss that stylish escapism. It had a certain appeal.

    ReplyDelete
  4.  P.D. NELSON SAID:

    "Still some of us miss that stylish escapism. It had a certain appeal."

    True, some people go to the movie theater, not to see the same thing they could see outside the movie theater, but to see something different—an ideal of sorts. And that's a valid motive.

    ReplyDelete