Which decade had the best movies and why was it the 1930s?

>which meant that the diversity of temperaments and lives was honestly portrayed as it never was after television came
Could you elaborate on this? Or point me somewhere I can read more about it.

Yes he did. The sudden and sadistic violence of Scorsese movies, he took it here. The last scene where the mama is waiting her son, making his bed and he comes back as a corpse (the fall is too cartoony though, kinda ruin the shocking effect to the audience) and his brother is too desperate to tell her. It's exactly something you could see in a Scorsese movie.

If Metropolis is so good, why isn't it in the Criterion Collection? Check. MATE.

Pre Hays code

cringe and pseudpilled

>the fall is too cartoony
Right, so not only are you completely uninformed about Scorsese, you're too much of a mouth-breather to appreciate the brutality of the film you're talking about.

the 1960s.
if you want to see movies with social realism that arent british cuck trash and or movies about interpersonal relationships. early 60s.

>60s
>good movies

Attached: 7f417-1513919889-500.jpg (500x281, 25K)

70s. Studio system lies in ruins and they are willing to greenlight anything that can save their bacon.

Then Star Wars came along.

Hays Code was in effect for most of the 30s.

>Metropolis
>"some old movie"
lmao how much of a zoomer capeshitter can one be

The depictions of everyone, cross the board, were less insulting and more nuanced. There were poor villains and poor heroes, rich villains and rich heroes, and there was more ethnic diversity without that being the sole point of a character's inclusion. Basically, you couldn't patronize anyone. The poor went to the movies. I mean the *poor*. Everyone was suffering the Depression. There was a sense of solidarity, and the movies were an industry unto themselves, not beholden to the advertising industry, nor an enslaved branch of a larger entertainment industry. For example, there's a movie called Crooner, made in 1932, which basically states that the then-current "crooning" style of popular singing is a way for the recording industry to manufacture safe pet talents out of men who appeal to women but can't sing a lick. No studio would dare make a movie about a whole branch of pop music sucking in 2019, because the movies are now an expensive addendum to the rest of pop culture. In the 30s, the movies WERE pop culture.

>if you want to see movies with social realism
But nobody does, which is why they only made those movies for about three years.

>70s. Studio system cynically produces movies for undergrad audiences only.
ftfy

It peaked in 1939 and slowly went downhill since then

Attached: download (1).jpg (670x519, 105K)

Oh come on. Cagney wanted to have a dramatic end but the fall was a little bit too much. His death was much better in Angels with Dirty Faces.

>His death was much better in Angels with Dirty Faces.

>"Hey bro, could you scream and cry like a little bitch on your way to the electric chair so kids won't think that gangsters are cool? K thx."

You have faggot taste, user.

Stop pretending to be discerning, the fall is excellent. He falls like dead meat, which is the point. It's more sickening than anything in modern gangster movies, because those all play up the grimness; Wellman plays it so straight that you're defensively laughing at it 88 years later. Not bad.

>Drums along the mohawk
>good

Educate yourself sweetie:
film.avclub.com/tarantino-was-onto-something-when-he-took-that-shot-at-1798281125

This pic doesn't even have Wizard of Oz. Musicals would still peak in another 15 years. Also Babes on Broadway>babes in arms.

youtu.be/4JlXV_XrWiA

north to Alaska
a kind of loving
in the heat of the night
Manos hands of fate
etc. is it too accessible or what

Except we don't know if he did it or not. That was good subtlety.

Very interesting. Where can I read about this?

Tarantino was being dandyish when he elevated William Witney above John Ford. Unnecessary, unconvincing, and invites the obvious interpretation that Tarantino would rather be compared to a jobbing hack who had moments of inspiration than to one of the great directors. Which is understandable, but he's still not going to fool anyone.

Unironically because the results of WW2 hadn't affected the western world yet, also WW1 was still seen as The Great War and all films in the 20s and 30s about it are pure kino
>tfw no pre WW1 cinema

Gee I wonder.

Elaborate. How did WWII change the film industry?

1970s, somehow.

oy vey

I'm not sure to be honest, I found it out by watching hundreds of 30s movies, but I'm sure it's been covered in a general way somewhere. Stuff like not being integrated into everything else is just on the record, and the details of individual films you encounter when you watch them. Warners have a particular reputation though, and there are books about their crime films and musicals, though I can't remember any titles offhand.

gotta say I didn't expect Yea Forums to have so much knowledge on pre-80s film.

lurk more.

End of vertical integration. The studios had been told that the integration of production, distribution and exhibition would get them prosecuted under anti-trust laws, but for the duration of the war this was suspended. The WWII output of the studios was made in the knowledge that the great days were over; the end of the war would mean the end of Hollywood as its founders had built it.

It's rare, desu, it all depends on who's around when a thread happens to be posted.

I'm aware of this change but I usually see it brought up as something positive.

I'm just saying how it changed the industry, I jumped in, was someone else. That said, I do think it was the start of the rot. Great if you were an independent producer, but in terms of reorganizing the economy of the industry to focus more on big, one-off ventures by independent producers and stars, not so good. The essentially industrial character of pre-war and wartime production took a dent.

>in terms of
I'll just clarify, by this I mean "as it meant".

WW2 ended, audiences became more jaded and wanted grittier films, studio system got broken up by the gubment with the help of Howard Hughes

Do you have a resource where I could learn more about this?

Fuck you. the 1970s was the best era.

The 1970s had the most great movies, but the 1930s had the greatest movies.

No, you're fucking wrong.

Besides, I'd argue that the 1910s and 1920s were better than the 1930s, anyway.

not as good as the 20s or the 40s so that’s that’s gonna be a no from me dog

1920s you'd have a case, 1910's you're just being a pissy contrarian. It's not like disliking Citizen Kane, you won't gain any hipster points here.

hard for me not to agree with this, but upon further reflection, i think that it was simply the peak of mainstream american cinema. we will never again live in an era where successful, beloved, mainstream movies were as tastefully created as in the new hollywood generation

for me it's the 40s

Frankly 10s-50s was GOAT

Why don't you try watching old films instead of getting butthurt that others do

The 60s+ were an incredible downgrade in cinema quality. The dropoff is so fucking apparent if you actually watch films from a variety of decades. It's disgusting.

>WW2 ended, audiences became more jaded and wanted grittier films
That's really strange, seeing as they didn't get them until the 1980s

I said grittier, not gritty by the modern definition. To them movies like The Big Sleep were gritty, or White Heat

But those types of movies predated ww2 even in pop culture. I don't buy your narrative, it's a load of bull.

Tim Wu - The Master Switch. He also has some other books on the history of human attention and it covers a lot of the film/radio/tv era stuffs in interesting detail.

I'm torn between 1910s & 1920s, film wasn't stuck in a post modern simulacrum like it is now.

1980s, it has an absurd amount of great action, science fiction, fantasy, comedy, horror and drama films

Attached: 16908215430274.jpg (1774x1305, 203K)