Was moviemaking really better "back then?"

[DerekG]

The glut of sex, explicit violence and ADD-tailored action movies have induced nostalgia among many film buffs for the classic studio era, but when you think about it, is this proper?

Back then, there were a lot of tacked-on happy endings. Many of the adaptations had little commonality with the source material. There were no substantive roles for minorities. Social/political commentary was hardly ever incisive. Actors tended to essay their roles, rather than inhabiting them.

What do you think?

[mix]

1. John Ford, Howard Hawks, Douglas Sirk, George Cukor, Sam Fuller...

as long as Terrence Malick keeps making movies, I'll be happy.

[fishwax]

2. There's plenty of wheat and plenty of chaff, both then and now

[jp11]

3. I think it is better now.

We have perspective on everything you've listed so directors, mainly the creative or struggling ones can and do make decent films. There will always be the profit driven films catered to a public market demographic but it opens a door for everything else that people who like stories and film want to see or make.