40’s Movie Stars: Better in Bed, Better on the Battlefield
by Yervand KocharI have been watching a lot of 40s movies lately. Being radically anti-celebrity, I was taken aback by how easily mesmerized I was by the movie stars of that period.
After all, why wouldn’t any man (straight or gay) imitate Cary Grant’s walk up the stairs to save Ingrid Bergman at the end of Hitchcock’s “Notorious?”
–
And why wouldn’t any honest woman try to talk and look like Barbara Stanwyck?
I was at a pool party in the Hollywood Hills once where agressive supermodels were trying to seduce fake producers. That entire pack of semi-nude nymphs had less seductive power than the play of the anklet on Barbara Stanwyck left leg in Wilders’ “Double Indemnity.”
–
Watching these 40s movies has made me realize the real power of movie stars and their supercharged sexual energy. Those men and women really capitalized on consenting sadomasochistic aspect of the artist-audience relationship. And they did it without being perverse or even showing sex at all, but instead with class, elegance, and silence.
The stars of the 40s seduce you, and you like it, because they make you feel comfortable. You believe they know what they are doing.
Does this mean they were better lovers in real life? Was, for instance, Clark Gable a better lover than Matt Damon? Was Barbara Stanwyck better in bed than, let’s say, Jessica Alba?
Absolutely.
(Unless, of course, Jessica Alba wants to prove me wrong.)
I know it is far-fetched and improvable, but I am convinced that they were better lovers than most of the celebrities today.
The 40’s stars knew how to make love. They also knew how to fight, and this I can prove.
Watch Laurence Olivier as King Henry V, calling his men to arms. Forget his forceful posture and piercing look; just close your eyes and listen to his voice. He sounds like thousands of exuberant angelic trumpets unleashing their powerful sound from the heights of heaven onto the depths of hell. His voice moves you from within; it makes you want to join the war. It makes you believe that one man can rally multitudes to their death just by intensity of character expressed through vibration of voice. Is it not mere acting, even great acting. There is something frighteningly real in Olivier’s voice.
–
Now, could Laurence Olivier rally troops in real life? Could he rally troops better than, let’s say, Brad Pitt or Colin Farrell? Yes, he could. He actually did.
After William Wyler turned down directing “Henry V,” Laurence Olivier, who was serving in the Fleet Air Army, was released to star in and direct this war propaganda movie. Olivier was actually fighting in the real war as he was portraying a warrior in the movie. His force was real. This is why his call to arms was not merely good acting. It was a real call to arms, and it seriously moved me before I even knew about Olivier’s real-life service.
The excuse that the introduction of color stripped movie stars of their charisma is also irrelevant in this case. “Henry V” is a color movie. In fact, it is made in the exquisite colors of medieval miniature paintings. It borrows colors and naïve perspectives from the medieval “Book of Seasons.” (A similar rendition of period paintings onto screen was later used by Stanley Kubrick in “Barry Lyndon.”)
Color also did not diminish Nikolai Cherkasov’s intensity as Ivan the Terrible in Eisenstein’s two-part masterpiece. Black and white through most of the film, Eisenstein suddenly inserts a colored scene, which demonstrates the ferocity of the ruthless Russian Czar with more oomph and in a more “colorful” way. On the contrary, George Clooney is as believable in the overly crisp black and white “Good German” as Obama’s dethroned “green czar” Van Jones was in denying that he’s a 9/11 truther.
Misuse of colors can wreck any movie, but it cannot take away what is truly there or add something that is not. What makes Olivier’s Henry V believable is the same dynamic that makes Jimmy Stewart’s moral courage so believable in “It’s a Wonderful Life.” Jimmy Stewart was a distinguished war hero serving as a bomber pilot in WWII.
–
It is the same connection to reality that makes one believe that Clark Gable could carry Scarlet O’Hara through the fire of Atlanta (filmed in Technicolor) because when his real wife Carol Lombard died in a plane crash on a USO tour, a devastated Clark Gable took up arms and joined the war in Europe.
–
Brad Pitt may kill many Nazis in Tarantino’s movie and its inevitable sequels and prequels. He can conquer Troy on a tax-friendly location in Romania or some other, currently, more capitalistically inclined state than that of California. But he could never convince me as a warrior. It is not even because he is not courageous by nature. I don’t know. He may be. But he was never tested in such ways and that shows on screen.
Can he still play a convincing warrior without fighting in any real war? Maybe.
–
Will he be able to move us like Laurence Olivier? No way.
–
Needless to say, acting is a craft and great actors can embody qualities without having the real-life experiences of what is being portrayed. Otherwise, how is one going to play an alien (unless, of course, one is Tom Cruise)?
Good actors can play real-life characters more expressively than the characters depicted are in real life. And yet, there are certain qualities that one cannot embody unless one possesses them off-screen. These are qualities that can be imitated only poorly unless experienced fully.
Those qualities are real courage, real intelligence, and the greatest of all, love (or its secular equivalent, sexiness). These are qualities that most of our stars lack today and the great actors of the 40s had in abundance.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
68 Comments
[...] Follow this link: 40’s Movie Stars: Better in Bed, Better on the Battlefield [...]
The main difference between today's "stars" and the real movie stars of the Thirties and Forties? One word: class. Whether it was innate or acquired, it is obviously lacking in our present filmdom of idiots, loudmouths, bimbos, and pseudo-intellectual morons.
Ya………..if any of these present day hollywood leading men had to go fight a real war, they'd wee wee down their leg.
The same can be said of so many of the "between the wars" actors. Basil Rathbone, Maurice Chavalier and Humphrey Bogart just to name a few. They experienced events that current day actors can only have nightmares about, and their on screen personalities were usually riveting. Now we have Tom Cruise as a fighter jock that races his motorcycle along side an F-14 while it's taking off, then pumping his fist up and down and yelling "Yeah!'. He probably got a courtesy ride in the back seat of an F-14, so he's been there. Oh and he's also been an emotionally scarred Indian fighter AND a Samurai warrior. What a man of life experiences….
By the way. Rathbone, Chevalier (correct spelling) and Bogart fought in WW1.
Well if you're going to compare "Troy" to Shakespeare – of course your going to come up short!
I still like Brad Pitt, but heroic hero is not his strong suit. He seems to do much better in comedy
There are still plenty of fine actors these days – they may not be the superstars. But they're still around. We're not making the same type of movies anymore though (our heroes are more introverted and self conflicted)
"They experienced events that current day actors can only have nightmares about[...]"
Just to give the benefit of the doubt, today's leading actors can't be held responsible for world events beyond their control (but I'm sure they'd like to be).
And I agree with the poster above re: class. There are probably a few other factors at work here too (the studio system and the stars' handlers for one thing, to borrow an idea from Mr. Nolte).
Agree on the '40s, but I'd also like to add 2 words:
Grace Kelly.
[...] Here is the original post: 40’s Movie Stars: Better in Bed, Better on the Battlefield [...]
I would suggest rather than class, what they lack is talent. I forget who said the quote, and I can't remember the exact wording, but it goes something like, when ever there is a lack of talent, sexuality will fill the void.
Actors and actresses of the 30's & 40's had talent. That afforded them the luxury of class. Today, lack of talent causes an over reliance on sexuality. Why do so many actors act with so little class these day? They don't have the talent to cover them, so they need to find some other way to attract attention.
I love Laurence Olivier as much as the next man, but I've got to say that Kenneth Branagh's Henry V was better, especially the "Band of Brothers" speech.
Don't forget Harvey Korman's "Great Crusade" speech from BLAZING SADDLES
Rathbone actually served in the same unit along side Claude Raines, Herbert Marshall and Ronald Coleman and they saw real action.
Wow, I truly miss the Real Americans such as Duke Wayne, Jimmy Stewart and Ronaldo Magnimus Reagan
There was more sexiness in Lauren Bacall's little snake shimmy at the end of To Have and have Not than in all of the movies in the last 25 years.
I am not a big fan of Ms Bacall's politics, but having seen her speak, I would make an exception in her case. she had a smooth classiness that the current crop doesn't even have the imagination to grasp. They are coarse and crude. Clooney is s pretty boy joke. Jennifer Aniston (a particular irritant) is physically somewhat attractive, but so ugly inside I can't even watch her movies.
Frank
I've always found Olivier's delivery a little too sing-songy. I agree with Kevin that Branagh's is better. And I think Ian McKellan outdoes them both.
The cut of 'Double Indemnity' had so much within, with the sexual duel between those two actors and the thoughts describing the area and his true thoughts laid bare. Incredible and stunning was my impressions when I saw it, and I can't place a current film to even match this caliber!
'Brick' had an great script that nailed a small bit of the '40s, but the actors didn't seem to me to carry it too well. I'm not knocking it and I have the DVD to prove it, but it just doesn't compare.
You mention Jimmy Stewart. I have long noted the difference between his acting before and after his service in WWII. He was a rising star even before the war, but always seemed a bit callow. After he came back and resumed his acting career, he always had that little edge that said he had seen and done things that his younger self could not have even understood. I doubt that he could have played the tortured character in Vertigo nearly as well without his wartime experience.
Actually evacuating the bowels and urinating yourself is a normal reaction. Guess where you got the naive couch-warrior notion that only cowards piss their pants? You guessed it: Hollywood.
You already picked my first two words: Jimmy Stewart, who had to fight the Army to let him fight the Nazis. So I'll go with these: Jackie Coogan. Jackie Coogan? Yep, the original Uncle Fester volunteered for hazardous duty with the 1st Air Commando Group in the China-Burma India theater. His job was to fly British commandos to hidden fields over 100 miles behind Japanese lines – on a regular basis.
Not sure how he was at love-making, but he made good war..
Even Audie Murphy was a better actor than Brad Pitt!
Uh, You need to back off a bit on Mr. Gable. Word has it that he practiced very poor hygiene with his dentures and had just awful breath. No sack time for Clark.
NO!! Branagh's version was anti war all the way through. The English list 250 men, and the French, some 10,000 men, at Agincourt. It was a VICTORY, not a tragedy. Branagh's Agincourt is so 1980s: war is eeeevillll, war never solved 'anything', let us whine. It is of a piece with never reporting on any heroism in today's battlefields. Olivier's Henry was a warrior who was happy to win the battle. Good for him!
There are very few working actors that come to mind who even have served, let alone been in combat. Harvey Keitel, Drew Carey, Gene Hackman, Lee Ermey, Dale Dye (all Marines). I can't think of any young actors, although there must be some.
Perhaps the difference in sexuality lies with the relative permissiveness of the times. They couldn't have explicit scenes in the 40s, so the actors and actresses had to work harder to convey sexuality. They had to act, in other words.
While the personal experience was valuable, even for those without it their exposure to men and women who did was what gave them a basis. Brad Pitt does caricatures of what he believes a real warrior would be. The earlier actors and writers, even if they didn't have the personal experience, lived and worked with those that did. From their observations, they created characters true to reality.
[...] here: 40’s Movie Stars: Better in Bed, Better on the Battlefield This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
I may have missed it but did anyone mention Leslie Howard, the British actor who stared in Gone With the Wind. He died during World War II. His plane was shot down.
These are names we remember today with respect. I wonder how future generations will evaluate many of today's shallow actors?
Branagh WAS better (I say as I duck the chairs thrown at me)
Mr: Kochar: Olivier served in the "Fleet Air Arm" (not ARMY)….the Brit version of our "Naval Aviation".
Thank you for correction, Wes.
Troy is as much part of Western Canon as Shakespeare, not like I compare Henry V to Elmo.
On the other hand, I am sure Olivier could've been more convincing in reading a phone book than Brad Pitt as Achilles in Troy.
You said it perfectly. The 40's is my favorite film era.
Absolutely.
Troy – the epic poem by Homer is. Troy the movie from 2004 – not so much.
Sorry, but I never knew how Olivier got to be some kind of acting legend. He was awful as Henry V–wooden, whiny, unbelievable. He couldn't have roused me to go across the street for a cup of coffee, let alone face down the French at Agincourt. Kenneth Branagh was much better.
Great post. There is only one or two actors in this current generation that I would call "stars" one of them would be Meryl Streep. She I would give that honor to and, from interviews I've seen with her, she might be one to eschew the title. This insular group of actors that go to acting school at the age of 18 then emerge as people who think they can portray the grittiness of real life sometimes annoy me. I've sat at read throughs and listened to characterisation discussions and have thought to myself "WRONG" but since it was not my character we were discussing I've kept my mouth quite shut. Their performances come from parody, not genuiness.
Well, Agincourt didn't solve anything.
Look who's in charge of France — the French!
Not to knock Larry, but McKellan's Richard III was awesome.
Barbara Stanwick was a notorious Hollywood lesbian.
"They experienced events that current day actors can only have nightmares about[...]"
Just to give the benefit of the doubt, today's leading actors can't be held responsible for national and international events beyond their control (but I'm sure they'd like to be).
And I agree with the poster above re: class. There are probably a few other factors at work here too (the studio system and the stars' handlers for one thing, to borrow an idea from Mr. Nolte).
On the other hand, we still have great character actors today (Stephen Tobolowski, Christopher Walken, Stephen Root, William Sanderson, etc.) just like they did back then.
I recall that the male stars I admired eons ago were all MEN. Today they are boys. There are, of course, exceptions and when one comes along they stand out. The difference between the gorgeous female stars of that era and today is that not only did they have screen presence but they could be sexy by keeping their clothes on and alluding to what lay beneath trather than showing flesh and thinking flesh means sexy. Rita Hayworth took off one glove singing Put the Blame on Mame in Gilda and had men drooling, Who could do that today? I knew the great French star Simone Signoret who, even having seen better days, could flatten me with a look through a haze of cigarette smoke. I doubt if anyone among today's crop of vacuous so-called stars could do that.
Ceemack, I don't think you really need Olivier to get you going for coffee. But I need a lot of coffee to stay awake through Kenneth Branagh's performance
It's getting even better!!! Go Barbara!
There are also rumors that Cary Grant was gay.
If that's true then if a token gay and lesbian today were even remotely close to those two, there would be no problem legalizing same sex marrige.
I see yor point.
But there is still huge potential in playing Achilles that great actor can utilize.
Waht I think I could agree with is that, it is not solely actors' fault but the way every story is being trivialized. This leaves actors with very limited ways of expression. The stars are not pushed by strong directors and producers to perform their best. And the stars go with it… and it all becomes mediocre.
I can'r agree with you more.
Class and seriousness.
I said before and I'll say it again. The next wave of classy actors and actresses is coming. Some of them happen to be serving overseas at the moment.
Noel Coward was also gay and was a great rolemodel for patriotism if ever there was one. Olivier was also rumored to have had a relationship with Danny Kaye! Still trying to wrap my brain around that one!
My mother and I were watching an old movie on television several years ago. I don't remember which one, but the male lead was one of the hunks of the 1950s. There was some terrific big-band dance music going (the scene was the outside of a military club on some base in the Pacific in WW2). I looked at my mother and said "Gads, they sure don't write music like that anymore…!" Mom said "they don't make MEN like that anymore!"
She was right. The actor ACTED like a man, LOOKED like a man, hairy arms, rugged face and all the rest of it. Can a male actor even get on camera looking like that anymore?
Oh, I don't know…Gary Sinese strikes me as someone who could look into the face of the elephant and root his courage to the sticking spot…
Remember "Strategic Air Command"?
I KNEW I was watching a real pilot…just the way he did things…
Remember "Strategic Air Command"?
I KNEW I was watching a REAL pilot…just the way he did things…
Brad is such a douche. A nice hard shell of muscle with Angie's initials tattooed on his balls. Never understood why women fawn over him, or Clooney, or whatshisface Mc"Hottie"Doctor, either. I'm a straight women but I find them a bit repulsive.
Aside: How awesome was Fred MacMurray at being just shy of sleazy? I knew him from My Three Sons reruns, so that came as an enjoyable shock!
Really no proof about Barbara, she just suffered the stereotype that all strong, forceful women _must_be gay; Dietrich & Garbo, on the other hand…
I think you are onto something very important, Phil Silver's Chost. I think not only future classy actors but also future honest politicians are serving overseas at the moment.
Gary Sinise is a courageous man and he is proven that by his service, sacrifice and unconditional support of the military and their families. You don't have to fight a war to be courageous. But you can't imitate courage unless you have it. Gary has it and he's shown it. I saw it personally and it reads on screen.
Funny you should have this subject today. My friend Larry the Movie Nut (LTMN) is showing me his collection of movies alphabetically. His collection is mostly 50s – current but he does have some fm the 30s and 40s. I just saw – and learned to appreciate – It Happened One Night with Clark Cable and Claudette Colbert. What a movie.
Today was Ball of Fire. Man – that Barbara Stanwyck had some legs. She was far sexier in her night club gown than (pick your current star) – nude.
And those legs.
Did I tell you she had some fabulous legs?
You'll see Gary Cooper as you rarely see him.
Ya……………………………..the 40's rocked. When men were men,……………………………………and Rosie the Riveter built airplanes.
Eddie Albert from was a better actor than Brad Pitt too. Before he was Mr. Douglas on Green Acres, he won the Bronze Star during WWII while serving as a pilot in the US Navy. And who could forget Chuck Buchinsky, the 11th of 15 children born to lithuanian immigrants, a Pennsylvania coal miner who went on to being a tail gunner on a B-29 in WWII. He was better known as………………………………….. Charles Bronson.
Funny you should have this subject today. My friend Larry the Movie Nut (LTMN) is showing me his collection of movies alphabetically. His collection is mostly 50s – current but he does have some from the 30s and 40s. I just saw – and learned to appreciate – It Happened One Night with Clark Cable and Claudette Colbert. What a movie.
Today was Ball of Fire. Man – that Barbara Stanwyck had some legs. She was far sexier in her night club gown than (pick your current star) – nude.
And those legs.
Did I tell you she had some fabulous legs?
You'll see Gary Cooper as you rarely see him.
But those gams…
Its ironic that you should say you find Olivier’s delivery a ‘little too sing-songy’ because it was Olivier who first challenged that style of delivery (made popular by John Gielgud) in the 1930’s, with Olivier’s ground-breaking Romeo in 1937. Still I suppose style continuously changes, but it shouldn’t mean that we brush aside the greats of the past.
Olivier was a great stage actor in a long line of greats – Irving, Garrick, Kean, but the age of film and television, eradicated any such hope of another great – so Olivier was the last. But then I did see his Othello at the National Theatre in the 60's so I suppose I am biased.
Olivier got to be some kind of acting legend through his stage work – he was the greatest stage actor probably in the history of the stage, a Hollywood idol, one of the greatest Shakespearian actors of all time and the founder of the National Theatre. You cant assess Olivier’s greatness by just simply watching a few of his films – its incomplete evidence. I know, I saw him on stage – he was a genius.
Also by the way I’ve seen Brannagh on-stage too, and although he’s very good – there’s no way he can touch Olivier.
It is amusing to me that Hollywood would blame “the introduction of color stripped movie stars of their charisma.” Yes, there is a magic quality in some black and white movies that just can't be achieved with a color film. We all must agree that Casablanca just wouldn't be the same in color. But that really only applies to certain types of drama. The old comedies and musicals would be every bit as funny and entertaining if they had been filmed in color. And some dramas, such as Gone with the Wind, would not have the same impact without the spectacular use of color. (Imagine Rhett's good-bye kiss to Scarlett as he goes to war without the dramatic orange sky in the background.) Alfred Hitchcock proved that you can create drama and suspense with or without color. The problem has nothing to do with the media.
The problem with Hollywood today is the same problem that exists in all the entertainment fields: sports, music, theater, etc. The people who worked in the entertainment industry in the early half of the twentieth century did it because they were doing a job in a field they enjoyed. They had more talent because they had pride in what they were doing. They didn’t get paid millions of dollars just for showing up. They were expected to work. If they didn’t work, they got fired—just like normal folk.
No one has the talent of those true stars of old, because they are not interested in perfecting their craft. Acting, for the modern Hollywood “star,” is just that thing you have to do occasionally to get attention—and of course, lots and lots of money. They are more interested in going to parties and being part of the “in” crowd, than they are in just doing their job and making a good movie. However, this problem can only exist because a lot of the audience must share the same view. There is a huge industry built around celebrities—books, magazines, TV shows. Every news department has entertainment and sports sections which are more devoted to reporting on the “personal” lives of celebrities than it is on what these people supposedly do for a living. And audiences will go see any movie that certain actors or actresses are in, regardless of whether or not it is a piece of garbage. And that garbage will rake in millions and millions of dollars.
Until people start rebelling against these millionaire actors, singers, and ball players and stop paying for this junk, until people care more about the job they do as an entertainer than who they were seen with last night, we will be stuck with this mediocre entertainment and talentless performers.
As for me? Thank goodness for DVD.
Branagh rocks the St Crispin Day speech. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NA3gOST4Pc8&fe... The swelling music also helps.
One way to judge the performances is asking yourself which king would you follow into battle?
Don'g forget Hede Lamarr –
She saw a problem with our torpedo's during WWII. She brainstormed herself and invented and designed a new concept of code-hopping and form of spread-spectrum communication with guided torpedos during WWII… her work was kept classified during a lot of her career.. however today you can search google and see just how AHEAD OF HER TIME she was… (eg you use this new concept of communication in your Cell Phones)
BRAINY, BEAUTIFUL and PATRIOTIC… pay attention you current SNARKY WANNABEE's in Hollywood
You must be logged in to post a comment.