For a long time after reading his interview in Playboy where he
appeared to belittle Native American Indians, I was real anti-Wayne.
But eventually, I realized one can enjoy and even respect an
entertainer as just that, without letting their character or politics
enter into it. It was then that I really began enjoying The Duke.
Over the years, after following his career and realizing the truth of
many of Ebert's observations, I really came to love this old American
icon. His movies sometimes bordered on brilliant, as did True Grit, a
movie I still watch quite often. Movies are now so pointless and
insipid, a good ol' Duke actioner is the only cure.
>Wayne retrospectives seem always to underline for me how movie stars
>seem to be a thing of the past, and to make me wonder why.
One element is in the fact that people don't make as many movies now.
Another is how we see so many stars in our living rooms, bedrooms, and
phones.
-- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
Never been much pro-Wayne or anti-Wayne, with one exception,
his Ethan Edwards in 'The Searchers'. Actor, character, and
movie amount to inseparable greatness.
On May 28, 9:24 am, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> Never been much pro-Wayne or anti-Wayne, with one exception,
> his Ethan Edwards in 'The Searchers'. Actor, character, and
> movie amount to inseparable greatness.
Slimy AMPAS blocked the video in Ebert's article of Wayne
getting his Oscar. But the pricks haven't blocked it on
YouTube:
> Wayne retrospectives seem always to underline for me how movie stars
> seem to be a thing of the past, and to make me wonder why.
Because in the days of "movie stars" there were only a handful of movie studios and hence only a handful of stars. Nowadays we have major studios, independents, films from Korea and what not, so the number of people appearing in movies has risen exponentially. Moreover, with paparazzi constantly snapping pictures of stars scratching their butts and girls not wearing any panties, they don't seem nearly as larger than life as they used to.
>> Wayne retrospectives seem always to underline for me how movie stars
>> seem to be a thing of the past, and to make me wonder why.
> Because in the days of "movie stars" there were only a handful of movie > studios and hence only a handful of stars. Nowadays we have major > studios, independents, films from Korea and what not, so the number of > people appearing in movies has risen exponentially. Moreover, with > paparazzi constantly snapping pictures of stars scratching their butts and > girls not wearing any panties, they don't seem nearly as larger than life > as they used to.
Oh, so true. Back in the 50s-60s there were a few movie star magazines out monthly (Modern Screen comes to mind). We loved them and drooled over the pictures and stories on a monthly basis. Now we have a non--stop barrage of People, etc, magazines, ad infinitum TV coverage of every wink, nuisance, divorce, or what have you the "stars" do. Most of the people featured will never make the pinnacle of stardom that our friends from the past did, but they are certainly getting more publicity than most of the oldies did.
> "trotsky" <gmsi...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:rNydnZG-FNNJDV7SnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@mchsi.com...
>> On 5/28/12 8:13 AM, moviePig wrote:
>>> On May 28, 12:11 am, Bill Anderson<billanderson...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> And it's a good article.
>>> Wayne retrospectives seem always to underline for me how movie stars
>>> seem to be a thing of the past, and to make me wonder why.
>> Because in the days of "movie stars" there were only a handful of
>> movie studios and hence only a handful of stars. Nowadays we have
>> major studios, independents, films from Korea and what not, so the
>> number of people appearing in movies has risen exponentially.
>> Moreover, with paparazzi constantly snapping pictures of stars
>> scratching their butts and girls not wearing any panties, they don't
>> seem nearly as larger than life as they used to.
> Oh, so true. Back in the 50s-60s there were a few movie star magazines
> out monthly (Modern Screen comes to mind). We loved them and drooled
> over the pictures and stories on a monthly basis. Now we have a
> non--stop barrage of People, etc, magazines, ad infinitum TV coverage of
> every wink, nuisance, divorce, or what have you the "stars" do. Most of
> the people featured will never make the pinnacle of stardom that our
> friends from the past did, but they are certainly getting more publicity
> than most of the oldies did.
Hell, even relatively good actors like Mel Gibson and Alec Baldwin seem like total jerkoffs when their private lives are exposed. And are fellow Scientologists John Travolta and Tom Cruise gay? Why should I know or care?
I think another factor is the kind of movies these people make. Tom Cruise first breakout movie was "Risky Business", a teen sex comedy that war really pretty good, but not something you'd look at and see a "movie star" in the traditional sense. Compare and contrast this to the resumé of Errol Flynn, for example:
My feminist wife, who likes men just fine, thanks you for paying your
Windstream bill on time and putting food on our table, clothes on our
backs and a very, very nice roof over our heads.
