Quote:
Originally Posted by Moejoe
Well the wedding was non-religious, civil ceremony, so I guess they still are living in sin (but what a beautiful sin it is) 
On to the films of that era and there's a lot to be said for the enforcement of the Hays Code that lasted from 1930 - 1968. A strict set of moral guidelines were placed upon film-makers so that, for instance, you always saw two beds in a married couple's room, kisses only lasted a certain length of time and Crime Never Paid (in the end).
The film makers of that time had to be clever in showing one thing and saying another. Those old films are full of nuanced portrayals of life, and seem to be better for the restrictions, rather than worse. They leave a lot to the imagination (always a good thing). But it's not only that, at least for me, there's a kind of romance to those films that doesn't exist now. They are almost fantasies, magical realist in essence.
Plus, men wore a lot more hats back then (I would have fit right in)  |
i agree, filmmakers were incredibly inventive to find ways to get around the censors. hitchhock's (in)famous "train entering tunnel" scene is an obvious example ; the censors really couldn't say anything about that, but how much more explicit can innuendo get ? it had sometimes unexpected (and frankly amusing) consequences as well. dashiell hammett, annoyed at the stifling of all profane language in The Maltese Falcon (by his publisher), snuck in the word "
gunsel" :
Quote:
Note: The two meanings are believed to have originated concurrently but independently. gunsel: Or: gonsil / gonzel / gonsel : A 19th century term of German and Yiddish (little goose) derivation for a young, inexperienced gay male similar to the more recent gay slang term, "twink". See sodomite for synonyms.
The latter usage — a gun-toting hoodlum — derives from Dashiel Hammett's "The Maltese Falcon". Hammett's publisher at the time refused to allow any rude or profane terminology in his publication. Hammett slipped in "gunsel" — a street term for a young, gay man — as a joke. Since it is used throughout the book to refer to the character of Wilmer — a gun-toting thug — most people erroneously assumed that is what it meant and it stuck.
|
and i agree that leaving a lot to the imagination usually leads to a richer and more nuanced experience than showing every detail, and i think encourages a more active participation in the story by the spectator (who had to think about implications, and imagine ways to fill in the blanks).
i associate the romantic, magical realism quality (which i love too) in many of these films with the same esthetic of the era that gives us such effortlessly elegant images. i think there is a very deliberate desire to make life as beautiful as possible in these films which permeates every aspect. i regret that loss in today's creations (although from time to time it resurfaces a bit... Le fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulain seems to correspond to that...) but at least we've still got all the old classics...
oh, and you can never have too many hats. i'm working on bringing hats back. anyone can join the movement : just wear a hat !