Period Films in Period Times

[happyfilmluvguy]

Today we watch and notice many films in which take place at some point in time, either the past or future. What are some films during the Golden Era that were set in the past and future? How accurate was the production? If set in the future, was their vision of the future believable? How accurate was it if set in the present (Today)?

 

[K.D. Lightner]

I can think of Fritz Lange's Metropolis, a futuristic look and fearful one. Fascinating film, did not come true.

Lots of Golden Era films were set in the past, most were not realistic, idealizations of the past rather than realistic. Probably some foreign films were. Eistenstein's Battleship Potemkin and Ivan the Terrible certainly looked realistic.

karol

 

[Amy Jeanne]

JUST IMAGINE!!! My all-time favourite movie.

Set in 1980, made in 1930. Way off. But cute.

Back Pay (1930) is supposed to take place during WWI, but NOTHING in the fashions, hairstyles, and cars says "1918." I love to hate that movie -- not because it's historically inaccurate, but because of Corinne Griffith.

The House On 56th Street (1933) progresses from 1905 to "the present day."

So Big! (1932) also progresses from the turn of the century to "the present day."

Frisco Jenny (1932) takes place during the 1906 quake.


Just a few off the top of my head. Certainly not the most historically accurate examples, but still fun, and still more accurate than those movies made in the 50s that depicted the 20s!!!

 

[HadleyH]

another movie ... "Marie Antoniette" (1938) with Norma Shearer, Tyrone Power and John Barrymore among others

 

[dhermann1]

The 1940 version of "Pride and Prejudice" was set about 40 years later than the book is set, with huge puffy sleeves on the women. Greer Garson is always undamageably gorgeous, but I really disliked the look of this film. Plus the mucked about with the story beyond recognition.
"Things to Come", 1936, is a wonderful/terrible look at the future. Great technical effects for the time (Like "Metropolis", everyone should see "Metropolis"), but hokey ideas.
In the final scene of "Drums Along the Mohawk", 1939, the remnants of Rogers' Rangers march home all in step, like drilled soldiers, something I cannot imagine happening in real life 1763.
Among more modern films, "The House on Carroll St", 1988, portray New York in WW II with great accuracy, IMHO.
When it comes to the Middle Ages, tho, I think Golden Age Hollywood was pretty hilarious. Errol Flynn's "Robin Hood", Robert Taylor's "Ivanhoe", etc., all make the Middle Ages look a lot more tidy and clean cut than it ever was. On the other hand, the 1934 version of "The Scarlet Letter" seemed pretty accurate to me.
Fun topic.

 

[dhermann1]

Back Pay (1930) is supposed to take place during WWI, but NOTHING in the fashions, hairstyles, and cars says "1918." I love to hate that movie -- not because it's historically inaccurate, but because of Corinne Griffith.

The same thing happened after WW II. Events of the 40's, but Sophia Loren or Senta Berger or whoever has a totally 1960 hairdo. The styles were just out of fashion enough to make everybody go "Ewww" when they looked at them, and the events seemed contemporary. It's hard to think of 15 years ago as history.

 

[Leading Edge]

Interesting that you put this on the table now, happyfilmluvguy. Although it is a little later than the Golden Era, I just sent out an email with a reference to George Orwell's 1984. This after having read the Hats & Privacy thread.

I remember thinking as I watched the B&W version that the producers were dead on with some parts of Orwell's vision of the future and way off base in other aspects. (Let's not talk about the discrepancies. I spent quite some time flipping through the book and re-reading sections because I could not believe they would change Orwell's work that much and still call it 1984. I was still young enough to be naive.) What I remember most were the oppressive over-use of spot lighting and the stark set designs that are in sharp contrast to the increasing proliferation of various little red, yellow, blue lights and various dings, buzzes, short melodic lines of gadgets in evidence about that time.

Maybe the later production done in "commemoration" (?!) addressed the set design issue - it was 1984 after all. I refused to see it: once burned, twice shy as they say.

 

[Doh!]

I often wonder this when I watch old Westerns: they seem less real than, say, Once Upon a Time In the West but they should be more real because they were shot a LOT closer to the time period being depicted.

The same holds true for any period piece, really: Glory seems more accurate than Gone With the Wind, Last Temptation of Christ or Passion of the Christ seem more authentic than The Greatest Story Ever Told.*

Maybe it's a question of how "gritty" modern movies have become.


*(I have no intention of debating religion, only movie aesthetics.)

 

[Kishtu]

In the final scene of "Drums Along the Mohawk", 1939, the remnants of Rogers' Rangers march home all in step, like drilled soldiers, something I cannot imagine happening in real life 1763.
.

There isn't a "really apologetic" smiley character, but there are certainly books of soldiers' drill dating back to the 1600s, so it could happen.... particularly for artillery/musket regiments. On the other hand of course it would only happen if the officer in charge could be bothered to make it happen!
(Seen replicas of the said books, and performed the drill at shows. "Order your musket!")

Poor old Errol Flynn is going to keep copping for it in this thread isn't he, because here he is again - "The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex" and "The Seahawk" spring to mind... Both films I adore, but with no more relation to the period than I have to a stoat.

 

[Amy Jeanne]

It's hard to think of 15 years ago as history.

Plus times were still changing at a very rapid pace. Who wanted to see outdated, laughable 1918 chic in 1930? My dad says the same thing when I ask him about the movies from the 50s set in the 20s -- "No one wanted to see that silly, old stuff! They wanted to see the 50s! They wanted to see PROGRESS!" is always his response.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Best-looking period film I've ever seen? Buster Keaton's "The General" -- like a Matthew Brady photo come to life, only with gags.

Worst? The 1947 MGM production of the classic 1920s college musical "Good News," in which no one in the cast makes the remotest effort to look authentically twenties. This was a common problem in the wave of period musicals done at Metro during the late forties/early fifties -- with all the Technicolor flash and glitter, you'd think they could have afforded a hair stylist who knew the correct styles.

 

[BeBopBaby]

One of my favorites has always been the version of Little Women with Katherine Hepburn in it. She's so wonderful in that movie.

 

[BeBopBaby]

Best-looking period film I've ever seen? Buster Keaton's "The General" -- like a Matthew Brady photo come to life, only with gags.

It's always odd for me to think that when these movies set during the Civil War and made during the 1920s, that the Civil War was still very much in people's consciousness. It hadn't happened that long ago and there were still many Civil War veterans alive at the time.

 

[Flivver]

Worst? The 1947 MGM production of the classic 1920s college musical "Good News," in which no one in the cast makes the remotest effort to look authentically twenties. This was a common problem in the wave of period musicals done at Metro during the late forties/early fifties -- with all the Technicolor flash and glitter, you'd think they could have afforded a hair stylist who knew the correct styles.

I agree...Good News made no attempt to be period correct. I bought the video of this many years ago with great anticipation. Boy, was I disappointed!

On the other hand, "Meet Me In St. Louis", done in 1944, appears to do a pretty good job of portraying 1903-4. I'm no expert on that time period, however. Would anyone care to comment on this?

 

[Haversack]

In regards to period piece movies made in the 1930s-50s, I often notice how the extras, properties, and set are correct to the period. It is obvious that someone had cracked open a history book to get something approaching the right look as opposed to being creative and original. Even in something as frivolous as _The Court Jester_ the furniture is late medieval.

Every era has its own conceptions of what the past was like and these get reflected in their movies. For me, the nadir was the 1990s where nearly every Medieval movie depicted everyone wearing brown studded leather and covered in odure. Even today we have a lot of common misconceptions, i.e nobody bathed, spices covered the taste of rotten meat, knights needed assistance in mounting horses, etc.

Haversack.

 

[dhermann1]

Both "The General" and "Our Hospitality" are amazingly authentic looking, to me.

 

[dashiell]

One of my favorites has always been the version of Little Women with Katherine Hepburn in it. She's so wonderful in that movie.

Another period piece with Hepburn was Quality Street. It was odd. There were very, very peculiar hats.

I'll just throw out some titles for people to chew on, since I doubt I can recognize authenticity as well as my fellows.

I suppose I'll pull out the obvious Jane Eyre. The Barretts of Wimpole Street with Norma Shearer. The southern dramas like Jezebel and The Little Foxes. The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex. Queen Christina? Leslie Howard in The Scarlet Pimpernel.

Then there are the swashbucklers like Captain Blood. I love the 'bucklers.

Off the top of my head, that's about it...

 

[The Wolf]

The William Powell film The Hoodlum Saint from 1946 takes place just after WWI. It is a perfect example of "period" costuming in 1940s movies. The doughboy outfit looks good but most of the regular clothes look modern, especially the women's clothes.
I've noticed that 1940s movies always have such beautifully fitted lovely frocks for the women, no matter who they play or when the movie is suppose take place.lol

Sincerely,
The Wolf

 

[happyfilmluvguy]

I often wonder this when I watch old Westerns: they seem less real than, say, Once Upon a Time In the West but they should be more real because they were shot a LOT closer to the time period being depicted.

I feel that the reason that they don't seem as authentic is because at the time they were made, as close as it was to the actual time, they weren't showing it to a 1880s audience. They were showing it to a 30's/40's/50's, etc audience and so had to bring them something acceptable of the present time. Movies keep up with society and sometimes are further ahead.

 

[Kishtu]

One of the things I miss about us not having a TV, is that round about this time of year in the UK when the afternoons start to get grey and chill, one of the channels used to run a "Glorious Technicolour" movie most afternoons.

Which was where I got my bit of a thing for Errol Flynn.

In fact as a result of this thread, I just signed up for the Amazon DVD rental scheme, and am hoping to get "Captain Blood" as a kick-off. Thanks, guys!