Wed Jun 27, 2012 6:34 am
Wed Jun 27, 2012 5:19 pm
Wed Jun 27, 2012 9:33 pm
Wed Jun 27, 2012 10:15 pm
Sun Hero wrote:can we call him the first major movie star....the first heart throb for woman.....woman actually killed themselfes when he died.
From rags to riches....from a jack to a king......similar to Elvis but Rudolph actually had nothing to start with.
Makes you wonder what would have happend if he ever entered the world of the "spoken" film.
Again, nice posting Elvis Lady
Thu Jun 28, 2012 1:23 am
Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:34 am
poormadpeter wrote:There were major movie stars before him - Chaplin, Fairbanks, Pickford etc - but Valentino was undoubtedly the key one where mass hysteria broke out over his sex appeal. His pretty (rather than handsome) looks were quite at odds with what were seen at the time as "masculine", and America was in the midst of what has since been called a "masculinity crisis" - leading papers of the time to question Valentino's sexuality and refer to him as a "pink powder puff". He was also the first major film star to have the "pretty" rather than rugged looks, and he paved the way for literally hundreds of actors with similar pretty looks, such as Ramon Novarro, Charles Rogers, Richard Cromwell, Ben Lyons, Lew Ayres and Richard Arlen. It was actors with these types of looks which eventually became the norm in Hollywood, with the more rugged leading men becoming a dying breed by the 1930s.
As with so many actors, the talkies would either have killed Valentino's career or elevated his status even further. Even by his death in the mid-20s, his looks were starting to fade - his skin was beginning to age, his hairline was receding (see the pic below). Whether Valentino could have remained as popular following this is something we shall never know, but the record for sex symbols remaining as popular after their looks fade is not great.
Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:18 am
Thu Jun 28, 2012 3:08 pm
Mike Eder wrote:Too bad they sound so muddy. When did sound recording improve from that? I know by 1929-30 there is some good music on film that is clear. I think Robert Johnson's stuff sounds way better than that but that's a few years later 1927 I think most of his stuff was cut.
Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:24 am
Fri Jun 29, 2012 3:13 pm
likethebike wrote:It depends on the source Mike. If you're using good source recordings, even from back then, you'll have better sounds. It seems somewhere around the mid-1930s there were dramatic leaps in recording technology in both movies and on record. Listen to the Crosby releases from later in that decade and they sound really respectable.
Poormad- What do you think of The Eagle? I recently stumbled on this on a P.D. release and found it quite the decent entertainment.
By necessity though, because everything is acted out as opposed to spoken, isn't silent acting a little broader, even hammier than sound acting?
Sun Jul 01, 2012 10:28 am
Hosted by ElviCities