برچسب: the

  • The Wilhelm Scream: Hollywood’s Legendary Sound Effect


    Introduction

    Have you ever heard of The Wilhelm Scream? It might just be the most famous sound effect in the history of Hollywood. Sound effects are among the most critical yet often overlooked elements that contribute to a successful movie. Even early filmmakers realized the important role that sound effects played in drawing an audience “into” a film and making them suspend their disbelief.

    However, since this process usually tends to happen subconsciously, sound effects often don’t get the same respect that other film elements might garner. There are a few people, for example, who mention them in the same vein, while praising a film’s cinematography or musical score.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FHw2aItRlw

    However, in the history of cinema, there’s one definite “star” in the category of sound effects. It’s one that even the casual movie-goer should have no trouble recognizing. You can hear it in literally hundreds of films, and it’s become sort of an in-joke within the movie industry. It goes by the name of The Wilhelm Scream. Yet how exactly did this sound effect become so popular, and where did it come from?

    Ben Burtt

    Let’s start by talking about the gentleman who made The Wilhelm Scream famous. His name is Ben Burtt, and he’s one of Hollywood’s top sound men. Having worked on dozens of movies, he’s been responsible for the sound design of the Star Wars movies, the Indiana Jones movies, as well as most of the other films directed by Steven Spielberg and George Lucas. He also created sound effects for many of Pixar’s films.

    Along the way, Ben Burtt has been nominated for twelve Academy Awards and has won four times. Burtt is also the person who is responsible for the lightsaber hum in the Star Wars films, which is a film projector idling combined with feedback from a broken television set. Burtt is also the man behind Darth Vader’s breathing, which is Burtt himself wearing an old Scuba regulator.

    In the late 1950s, which was way back before Burtt became incredibly successful in his chosen field, he was just like any other kid who loved going to the movies. While there, he became aware that he had a knack for remembering different sounds. He also noticed that all the movies made by Warner Bros. had a very distinctive scream as part of their soundtracks.

    The “Wilhelm’s” Origins

    Usually, this distinctive sound was uttered by some poor unfortunate cowboy who may have fallen from a great height or had been shot by an arrow in an Indian attack. Burtt remembered one film in particular: The Charge at Feather River, released in 1953 and directed by Gordon Douglas.

    Original Movie Poster for ‘The Charge at Feather River’ (1953). Photo courtesy of Warner Bros.

    This particular film featured the same cry of anguish no less than three different times. One of the characters was named “Private Wilhelm.” It was just his bad luck to be hit in the leg by an arrow. This prompted him to let loose the scream which would one day be heard around the world.

    When Burtt grew up, he embarked on a successful career in the movie business. However, he never forgot that particular scream. Having access to the Hollywood stock sound effects libraries, he began to do some research. Lots of movies had used the scream he remembered, but Burtt was interested in finding the very first one. This turned out to be from the Warner Bros. western Distant Drums (1951) with Gary Cooper.

    “Man Being Eaten by an Alligator”

    Looking through the original sound effects for Distant Drums, Burtt came across a reel with a very unassuming title: “Man Being Eaten by an Alligator.” The reel was edited into a scene that featured a soldier being attacked by an alligator. This was straight from the stock footage library.

    When Burtt played back the reel, he realized he had struck Hollywood gold. There was the famous scream he knew so well, as well as the sound effects coach giving cues to the actor who recorded it. Even though it was uncredited, some people claim the scream belonged to Sheb Wooley, who went on to record the novelty hit song “Flying Purple People Eater” in 1958.

    Burtt called the sound effect “The Wilhelm Scream,” which was based on the character’s name in Charge at Feather River. Additionally, as a sort of private joke, Burtt soon began to include it in every film that he worked on. It would go on to become his signature.

    A hapless character about to be eaten by an alligator in ‘Distant Drums’ (1951). But not before letting loose with the first instance of “The Wilhelm Scream”

    The “Wilhelm” in Star Wars

    Here are three instances from the original Star Wars films where you can hear the legendary Wilhelm Scream:

    Star Wars (1977). Just before Luke Skywalker and Princess Leia swing across the chasm in the Death Star, a stormtrooper is shot and falls in.

    The Empire Strikes Back (1980). In the battle on the ice planet Hoth, a rebel soldier screams when his big satellite-dish laser gun is struck by laser fire and explodes.

    Return of the Jedi (1983). During the battle on Jabba the Hutt’s ship, Luke slashes an enemy with his lightsaber. The bad guy lets loose a Wilhelm as he falls into the Sarlac pit.

    “The Wilhelm Scream” in Other Films

    Soon, other Hollywood sound designers picked up on what Burtt was doing and started inserting the Wilhelm into their movies too. It soon became Hollywood’s audio version of “Kilroy Was Here”:

    Now, the “Wilhelm Scream” is everywhere. At last count, over 200 films feature it. In addition to the Star Wars and Indiana Jones series, here’s just a partial list:

    Aladdin, Batman Returns, Beauty and the Beast, Blades of Glory, The Fifth Element, Gremlins 2, Hellboy, Hercules, Howard the Duck, A Goofy Movie, Kill Bill, Vol 1, King Kong (2005), Lethal Weapon 4, Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers and Return of the King, Pirates of the Caribbean, Poltergeist, Reservoir Dogs, Sin City, Small Soldiers, Spaceballs, Team America, Tears of the Sun, Them, Titanic, Wallace and Gromit, and Willow.

    If you still don’t think you recognize the famous “Wilhelm Scream”, try watching this series of clips from YouTube:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNvZYzg7o68

    We’re pretty sure that from here on out, you’ll become an expert in spotting this ultra-famous sound effect.

    More from Cinema Scholars:

    FIDDLER ON THE ROOF – A Retrospective Review At 50
    POSSESSION (1981): A Retro Review

    Keep up with Cinema Scholars on social media. Like us on Facebook, subscribe on YouTube, and follow us on Twitter and Instagram.





    Source link

  • GriefTech: Death and Technology in The Shrouds,…



    This trend can also be traced in recent tele­vi­sion series. In Apple TV+’s Sev­er­ance, bio­corp giant Lumon man­u­fac­tures brain chips that allow users to sev­er,” or switch on and off between, their work and per­son­al lives. Griev­ing wid­ow­er Mark Scout (Adam Scott) is com­pelled by the sci­ence as an oppor­tu­ni­ty to for­get his wife’s pass­ing for eight hours a day, ren­der­ing a ver­sion of him­self that is not only a pro­duc­tive work­er, but also lives rel­a­tive­ly pain-free. The pro­ce­dure is not with­out its down sides. The sev­er­ance chip, acti­vat­ed by a spa­tial bound­ary, ulti­mate­ly affects a tem­po­ral dis­so­nance: office-bound innies’ expe­ri­ence life as a con­tin­u­ous work­day – A week­end just hap­pened? I don’t even feel like I left,” notes Britt Lower’s Helly R – while their out­ies’ miss whole chunks of time. The show real­izes this dis­crep­an­cy in episodes that take place in real time,” like in the first season’s whirl­wind finale, or entire­ly with­in the warped lin­ear­i­ty of the sev­ered floor, as in the sec­ond season’s pre­mière, in which the time elapsed since the events of the first sea­son is delib­er­ate­ly mis­rep­re­sent­ed to audi­ences and innies alike. 

    As with Inven­tion and The Shrouds, the func­tion­al­i­ty of the tech at the root of Sev­er­ances sci-fi con­ceit is echoed by the tele­vi­su­al tech­nol­o­gy that pro­duces the show. His­tor­i­cal­ly bro­ken up by ads, episodes, and sea­sons, tele­vi­sion – per­haps even more so than cin­e­ma – relies on time as its orga­niz­ing prin­ci­ple and pri­ma­ry medi­um. The major cat­e­go­ry of tele­vi­sion” wrote the­o­rist Mary Ann Doane in 1988, is time.” The lit­er­al­ly mind-bend­ing tech­nol­o­gy of Sev­er­ance, employed in the case of its pro­tag­o­nist to mit­i­gate grief, splices time in the same mode as, well, a TV show. 

    In some ways, this reflex­ive pat­tern harkens back to the ear­li­est days of mov­ing image cul­ture, when the technology’s new­ness often saw it put in con­ver­sa­tion with mod­ern anx­i­eties over acci­dent, dis­as­ter, or death. Ear­ly films like, for instance, the afore­men­tioned com­ic trick film, The Big Swal­low – in which a man approach­es a cam­era pho­tograph­ing him and, in an act of irri­ta­tion or amuse­ment, eats it whole – played on the film appa­ra­tus’ abil­i­ty to cap­ture or depict nonex­is­tence. Where the film might be assumed to end with a black screen, as the cam­era itself is swal­lowed, we’re instead shown the tri­pod and pho­tog­ra­ph­er dis­ap­pear­ing into dark­ness, sug­gest­ing that film has some­how been able to cap­ture an after­life, even after its own demise. 

    The effect of film’s abil­i­ty to rep­re­sent death has been the sub­ject of much crit­i­cism and foun­da­tion­al the­o­ry. In 1951, French crit­ic André Bazin sug­gest­ed that film’s abil­i­ty to cap­ture and then repeat the unre­peat­able moment of death – as in the doc­u­men­tary he was review­ing, Myr­i­am Bor­sout­sky and Pierre Braunberger’s Bull­fight – might both des­e­crate” the final­i­ty of loss, while also ren­der­ing it even more mov­ing.” That ambiva­lence is then affirmed in these recent works where the sci-fi tech­nol­o­gy mar­shalled to coun­ter­act their char­ac­ters’ grief does lit­tle more than com­pli­cate it. Mark Scout’s inabil­i­ty to recall the loss of his wife leads him to turn his back on her by the end of the sec­ond sea­son. Inven­tions Cal­lie, after oper­at­ing the heal­ing machine, is moved to help­less tears rather than some deep­er sense of peace or com­pre­hen­sion. The Shrouds ends ambigu­ous­ly, with Karsh seem­ing to move on from his wife while, of course, con­tin­u­ing to see her everywhere. 

    But the lack of res­o­lu­tion is what makes these recent works such effec­tive med­i­ta­tions on what mov­ing image tech­nol­o­gy knows of – or owes to – death. Over the past few years, images of dev­as­ta­tion have pro­lif­er­at­ed across mobile plat­forms, stream­ers, and big screens alike. Fears that such images might ren­der view­ers desen­si­tized to grief or vio­lence are coun­ter­act­ed by projects that explore visu­al medi­ums as tools for fac­ing the fall­out of death head on. If there is no treat­ment for grief, cin­e­mat­i­cal­ly, it’s per­haps only because such treat­ment is nec­es­sar­i­ly ongo­ing, always unre­solved. As tech­nol­o­gy con­tin­ues to advance into realms some might call post-human, these recent works affirm that it can still remain a tool for explor­ing the most human thing: life and our respons­es to its end­ing. By invit­ing view­ers to see film and tele­vi­sion as a kind of GriefTech,” these works under­score the blind­ing inevitabil­i­ty of loss with­out turn­ing from it. That is: we only tru­ly lose if we refuse to keep looking. 





    Source link

  • F1: The Movie Review – Wonderboy


    Introduction

    You’re probably going to see a bunch of reviews describing F1: The Movie as predictable and formulaic. Many will call it predictable, but that’s lazy because sports movies are always predictable. Others will call it formulaic, which is also lazy (all movies are formulaic), but also because they can’t resist bad puns (in case you don’t know, the F in F1 stands for formula). Ironically, F1 is formulaic. I don’t say that because it follows the standard racing movie formula (and it does). I say it because it’s The Natural on wheels.

    F1
    Brad Pitt stars in “F1: The Movie” (2025)—photo courtesy of Warner Bros. Pictures.

    Synopsis

    In F1: The Movie, young Sonny Hayes (Brad Pitt) was going to be the best there ever was. After showing off a bit, he suffers a near-fatal, life-changing injury. For a couple of decades after that, he disappears, occasionally racing in random places, and finally gets another shot at the biggest stage in racing – the F1 circuit with the APX team. Once there, he has to contend with the resident and younger star Joshua Pearce (Damson Idris).

    As the season progresses, Hayes wins over the fans and the racing team while also having to contend with a meddlesome journalist. In addition, one of the team’s owners wants to force another owner, Ruben Cervantes (Javier Bardem), to sell his stake (as long as they don’t win a race, the sale will happen).

    Near the end, and riding high, Hayes suffers another injury that appears to be his permanent end, but he grits his teeth and performs in the final race. Sound familiar? Would you be surprised at all if it were revealed that Hayes scratched a lightning bolt on the side of his car and named it Wonderboy? Before you scream SPOILERS!! at me, I did warn you in the first paragraph. And unless you’ve never seen a sports movie, don’t act surprised.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CT2_P2DZBR0

    Analysis

    Sports movies are always about underdogs. They always feature someone being redeemed. They always feature some form of rival. And, they nearly always end with the underdog winning unless it’s Rocky Balboa’s first title fight or the Mystery, Alaska hockey team playing the New York Rangers. And even in those cases, they still won while losing. People generally don’t like that there was no joy in Mudville.

    So don’t pretend there’s a chance F1: The Movie ends with Hayes and/or Pearce dying in a fiery crash and Ruben forced out and bankrupt. Besides, there are plenty of good things about this movie that provide a reason to watch.

    One of those reasons is Brad Pitt. He’s very easy on the eyes, confirmed by Pearce’s mother (Sarah Niles), when she first lays eyes on a large poster of Hayes and mildly grosses out her son with her comments.  But Pitt can also be relied on to always deliver a good, if not great, performance. Some might complain that Pitt always just plays himself, to which I reply – yeah, exactly. Isn’t that like complaining about pizza always being pizza?

    You know who else is easy on the eyes and gives a great performance? Damson Idris. Pearce is cocky, arrogant, entitled, and wildly talented. He’s essentially younger Hayes, which is another staple of sports movies like this, including…wait for it…The Natural.

    F1
    Brad Pitt and Damson Idris star in “F1: The Movie” (2025). Photo courtesy of Warner Bros. Pictures.

    Further Discussion

    Idris delivers a performance that nails all of those character traits, then nails Pearce’s character growth through Pearce’s very strong story arc. It’s so well done, you’ll go from wanting someone on the pit crew to hit him with a wrench to kinda, sorta rooting for him to win the last race. Don’t worry, that’s not a spoiler. Hayes and Pearce both participate in the races, and only one of them has to win to save Ruben’s ownership. You’ll be rooting for both of them in the end, I promise.

    You know who else is easy on the eyes and gives a great performance? Kerry Condon. She plays Kate McKenna, a former aerospace engineer and the team’s technical director. McKenna is the brains behind the team and the design of the car. She’s also the love interest, but the screenplay doesn’t turn her into the wide-eyed damsel pining for Hayes.

    Perhaps the best scene of the film features McKenna expertly handling her two head-butting drivers in a friendly game of poker to determine which driver gets to be the primary driver in an upcoming race. It’s the kind of scene and performance that confirms why she was nominated for an Academy Award (The Banshees of Inisherin).

    You know who else is easy on the eyes and gives a great performance? Just kidding, I’ll
    stop now. And, yes, Javier Bardem gives a great performance; not sure about the other part.
    Sorry, Javy, you’re no Brad Pitt.

    F1
    Kerry Condon stars in “F1: The Movie” (2025). Photo courtesy of Warner Bros. Pictures.

    Conclusion

    You know what else is easy on the eyes and performs great? All of the racing stuff and not just the racing scenes themselves (which are very cool). While the story is completely fictional, the filmmakers went to great lengths to showcase much of what goes into an F1 racing team. The technology alone is staggering for what seems like such a simple sport – to drive a car really fast.

    From wind tunnels, to racing simulators, to an operations room and team that looks like it’s going to launch rockets to the moon, to the various components of the cars, it’s mind-boggling to realize it’s all done to gain a few seconds of time. And for the low, low cost of a $50-150 million per year.

    F1: The Movie does all the right things. Not only does it check all the boxes of a good summer blockbuster: good action, beautiful people, and excellent visual effects. It checks all the boxes of movies that you’ll watch multiple times – good storytelling, well-developed characters, smart dialogue, and excellent performances. I knew next to nothing about F1 before this film, and now I’m far more interested in the entirety of it.

    Rating: Ask for the low, low cost of zero dollars back.

    More from Cinema Scholars:

    MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE – DEAD RECKONING PART ONE – Judgement Day

    MAD HEIDI: A Review Of The Modern Grindhouse Epic

    Keep up with Cinema Scholars on social media. Like us on Facebook, subscribe on YouTube, and follow us on Threads and Instagram.





    Source link

  • The Shrouds review – precision filmmaking of the…



    It’s become a cliché to say that David Cronenberg’s The Fly remains one of the most heart­break­ing films of the 1980s, a film which cul­mi­nates in an inves­tiga­tive jour­nal­ist hav­ing to put down her sci­en­tist boyfriend for being too overzeal­ous with his toys. With his rumi­na­tive lat­est, The Shrouds, Cro­nen­berg once more makes a play for the heart­strings in what must be one of the most naked­ly mov­ing and rev­e­la­to­ry films with­in his canon.

    There is, of course, a lot of iron­ic lev­i­ty too, as seen in an open­ing sequence in which melan­choly wid­owed tech mag­nate, Karsh (Vin­cent Cas­sell, made up to look exact­ly like the film­mak­er), decides to dive into the dat­ing scene once more, organ­is­ing a lunch with a match for­mu­lat­ed by his den­tist in a restau­rant that’s adja­cent to a grave­yard. The joke is, it’s his restau­rant. And his grave­yard. And what’s more, his late wife, Bec­ci, is buried there – would you, dear date, like to come and see her decay­ing corpse in 8K res­o­lu­tion via live-relay videofeed?

    Get more Lit­tle White Lies

    Karsh is the founder of GraveTech, a com­pa­ny who have, in tan­dem with a Chi­nese firm named Shin­ing Cloth, devel­oped a new type of bur­ial shroud which allows the bereaved to be in con­stant con­tact with the recent­ly depart­ed. Ever the roman­tic, Karsh is just itch­ing to dive into his plot next to Bec­ci so they may enter the eter­nal rest togeth­er, but in the mean­time, he’s can zoom in on her des­ic­cat­ing skull and won­der­ing what those lit­tle nod­ules grow­ing on her bones might be.

    Explo­rations of grief on film are ten a pen­ny and so often lean on maudlin sen­ti­ment to achieve their intend­ed goal. The Shrouds offers some­thing that’s at once more nuanced, more com­plex and more rad­i­cal, as Karsh finds him­self hav­ing to deal with the fact that some­one may be sab­o­tag­ing his sys­tem to use it as a sur­veil­lance tool, some­thing one of his oper­a­tives and ex-broth­er-in-law Mau­ry (Guy Pearce) may have a hand in. This cen­tral con­ceit of man attempt­ing to dis­cov­er the prove­nance of strange broad­cast images and being swept into a world of polit­i­cal intrigue is a ful­some call-back to 1983’s Video­drome, and as a film about a husband’s con­spir­a­to­r­i­al obses­sions with his dead wife, there’s quite a bit of 1991’s Naked Lunch in there too.

    On a pro­duc­tion lev­el, this is just pre­ci­sion film­mak­ing of the high­est stripe, and there’s a heart­beat-like rhythm to both the syn­tax and syn­co­pa­tions of the dia­logue, and the beau­ti­ful­ly judged shot/​reverse shot edits. Howard Shore deliv­ers anoth­er one of his gor­geous synth scores, this one with an apt­ly fune­re­al vibe, and long-time pro­duc­tion design­er Car­ol Spi­er threads the nee­dle between a world of pris­tine mod­ern inno­va­tion, and Japan­ese minimalism.

    The Shrouds is a new type of cin­e­mat­ic love sto­ry, one that deals with our abid­ing con­nec­tion with the dead through dreams and real­is­tic inno­va­tion rather than hav­ing to lean on such time­worn crutch­es as ghosts and fan­ta­sy. Like much of his late work, there are a cer­tain set of demands placed on the view­er, but if you’re will­ing to take what Cro­nen­berg is giv­ing you and tap into the film’s rich emo­tion­al main­frame, then the gifts (and heart­break) will be plentiful.





    Source link

  • The Rise And Fall Of The Hollywood Studio System


    Introduction

    The curtain rose on a new age of Hollywood cinema in 1927, when The Jazz Singer shattered the silence of motion pictures with Al Jolson’s famous ad-lib: “You ain’t heard nothin’ yet!” That moment was more than the dawn of the ’talkies’—it heralded the maturation of Hollywood’s studio system. Cinema Scholars looks behind the curtain at the vertically integrated juggernaut that would dominate American entertainment for over a decade.

    “It was a factory, yes. But what a factory—stars for assembly lines, scripts for blueprints, and dreams for exports.”

    — Bette Davis, reflecting on the studio era

    Hollywood
    Jack Robin (Al Jolson) sings ‘Blue Skies’ to his mother (Eugenie Besserer) in “The Jazz Singer” (1927). Photo courtesy of Warner Bros. Pictures.

    Between 1927 and 1939, Hollywood wasn’t just making movies—it was manufacturing a mythology. Underneath the glitter and gloss lay a ruthlessly efficient machine, run by a handful of powerful studios known as the “Big Five”: MGM, Paramount, Warner Bros., 20th Century Fox, and RKO. Together, these companies controlled production, distribution, and exhibition, ensuring that the stars on the silver screen were as carefully cultivated as the orange groves Los Angeles was paving over.

    Rise of the Studio Titans

    Louis B. Mayer of MGM once quipped, “I don’t make art—I make pictures to make money.” And indeed, the major studios operated like corporate kingdoms, each with its stable of stars, directors, writers, and technicians all under (or handcuffed to) long-term contracts.

    MGM, the undisputed king of the 1930s, boasted “more stars than there are in heaven.” With a house style that emphasized glamour and polish, it churned out hits like Grand Hotel (1932), The Thin Man (1934), and The Wizard of Oz (1939). Meanwhile, Warner Bros. cultivated a grittier image, favoring gangster films and socially conscious dramas like The Public Enemy (1931) and I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang (1932).

    Behind every star was a carefully maintained image, orchestrated by publicists and studio heads alike. Judy Garland was the girl next door. Greta Garbo was the elusive goddess. Clark Gable was the King of Hollywood. Scandals were buried, teeth were capped, and waistlines were cinched.

    Hollywood
    Gretta Garbo and John Barrymore star in “Grand Hotel” (1932). Photo courtesy of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer.

    Talkie Revolution and Artistic Shifts

    The transition to sound sent shockwaves through the industry. Silent film stars like John Gilbert and Clara Bow saw careers falter, while new voices—literally and figuratively—rose to prominence. Technological changes forced studios to reinvest in equipment, rewrite production norms, and retrain actors and directors for a medium where voice and dialogue now mattered.

    Yet the upheaval brought creative breakthroughs. Directors like Ernst Lubitsch and Frank Capra harnessed the power of sound to explore new genres. Capra’s It Happened One Night (1934) helped establish the screwball comedy, while Lubitsch’s Trouble in Paradise (1932) showcased the sophisticated wit that defined pre-Code Hollywood.

    Production Code and the Morality Police

    By 1934, under intense pressure from religious groups as well as conservative watchdogs, the Motion Picture Production Code—commonly known as the Hays Code—was fully enforced. Overseen by Joseph Breen, the Code clamped down on depictions of sex, crime, and anything resembling social subversion.

    Gone were the risqué innuendos of Mae West. In came the moral rectitude of wholesome family fare. Yet even within these constraints, filmmakers inevitably found creative ways to push boundaries. Gone with the Wind (1939), with its fiery heroine and burning Atlanta, danced on the edge of controversy.

    “We had to say everything without saying anything at all. That was the art.”

    — Ernst Lubitsch, on working under the Code

    Hollywood
    Clark Gable and Claudette Colbert star in “It Happened One Night” (1934). Photo courtesy of Columbia Pictures.

    The Star Machine in Full Swing

    The studio system’s most potent invention was the star. The studios discovered talent, gave them new fabricated names (Archibald Leach became Cary Grant), shaped their public personas, and sometimes orchestrated their personal lives. Actors like Bette Davis battled studio control fiercely. Davis once stated:

    “Until you’re known in my profession as a monster, you’re not a star”

    Davis fought Warner Bros. in court for the right to reject roles—though she lost the case, she won something more valuable: respect. Her performances in Jezebel (1938) and Dark Victory (1939) cemented her place among the elite.

    The Business of Dreams

    The Depression did little to stop the march of movies. Hollywood thrived. Films were cheap escapism for the public and big business for the studios. In 1939—the year often considered the greatest in Hollywood history—audiences were treated to The Wizard of Oz, Gone with the Wind, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Stagecoach, Ninotchka, and Wuthering Heights.

    The year truly symbolized the zenith of the Hollywood studio system. It was the end of the beginning. War loomed. Television whispered on the horizon. And antitrust lawyers were sharpening their knives.

    Hollywood
    Jimmy Stewart stars in “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” (1939). Photo courtesy of Columbia Pictures.

    A Machine Facing Its Reckoning

    Though the studio system would survive the next decade, its foundations had been laid bare. In 1938, the U.S. government filed an antitrust suit against the Big Five and the Little Three (Universal, Columbia, and United Artists), challenging their monopolistic grip. The eventual Paramount Decree of 1948 would dismantle vertical integration, but the seeds were sown in the late ’30s.

    Still, in those heady years between 1927 and 1939, Hollywood stood as a glittering empire—a blend of artistry, industry, and illusion. It was a dream factory, yes. But what dreams.

    “They owned everything: the cameras, the theaters, even the lives of the people in the pictures. But they gave us magic, too.”

    — Olivia de Havilland

    Top Milestones in the Studio Era (1927–1939)

    • 1927The Jazz Singer premieres, introducing synchronized sound to film.
    • 1929 – The first Academy Awards are held; Wings wins Best Picture.
    • 1930 – Hays Code introduced (but not enforced until 1934).
    • 1934 – Enforcement of the Production Code begins under Joseph Breen.
    • 1935 – Merger of Fox Film and Twentieth Century Pictures forms 20th Century-Fox.
    • 1938 – The U.S. government files antitrust suit against major studios.
    • 1939 – Peak year of Hollywood’s Golden Age with Gone with the Wind and The Wizard of Oz 

    Join us for Part 2, 1939–1945…and Hollywood at War!

    If You Enjoyed This Article, We Recommend:

    The Rise and Fall of the Brown Derby (Click Here)

    Agua Caliente: Old Hollywood’s Mexican Monte Carlo (Click Here)

    The Celebrity-Owned Restaurants of Old Hollywood (Click Here)

    Keep up with Cinema Scholars on social media. Like us on Facebook, subscribe on YouTube, and follow us on Twitter, Threads, Instagram, and Bluesky





    Source link

  • Jurassic Lark: The satirical genius of Jim Henson’s Dinosaurs


    Two anthropomorphised green and pink monster characters with exaggerated features and expressions, wearing checked and yellow shirts against a textured brown background.

    Animatronic puppets, searing social commentary, this short-lived early ’90s sitcom had it all.

    Reptilian newsreader Howard Handupme looks to camera: “A meteor, three times the size of Earth, is heading towards us in a collision course that will result in the extinction of all life on this planet.”

    Left of frame, a rubbery green hand slides a sheet of paper across the desk. “This just in,” Handupme reports. “No, it’s not.”

    “Oh, good,” says Earl Sinclair – a simple, workaday Megalosaurus – who promptly changes the channel.

    So opens the first episode of the irreverent sitcom Dinosaurs, in which the dysfunctional Sinclair family contends with the strictures of modern life (dinos, in this timeline, having only evolved from being wild, swamp-dwelling brutes about a million years earlier).

    A Jim Henson Television production, the series starred a cast of expressive – and expensive – animatronic puppets, the most memorable being Baby Sinclair (performed by Kevin Clash, who also popularised Elmo). Back in the show’s original run from 1991-94, Baby’s wily slapstick and weekly catchcry ‘Not the Mama!’ eclipsed the show’s more subversive quirks. But in the 30 years since Dinosaurs’ debut, its biting satire and sly commentary on gender, labour, politics, racism, the economy and climate change – not to mention television itself – has only grown more savage.

    With its four idiosyncratic seasons hitting Disney+ on 29 January, now is the perfect time to reconsider this curious analogue artefact. From its prehistoric Pangaea setting (roughly 60 million years BC through to its reflection in the Anthropocene, withering under late capitalism, the prophecy of Dinosaurs is anything but obsolete.

    Dinosaurs charged onto the US network ABC (plus ITV and Disney Channel in the UK, among other territories) care of co-creators Bob Young and Michael Jacobs. Their previous writing and producing credits included such all-American candy floss as The Facts of Life and Charles in Charge, but this new beast sacrificed the sweet accessibility of cookie-cutter sitcoms, favouring the playful parody and contained chaos vital to much of Jim Henson’s work, particularly with the Muppets.

    Three fantasy creatures wearing colourful, patterned clothing surrounding a large spotted egg on a plush surface.

    That said, Dinosaurs was the first major Jim Henson Company work produced without supervision from the Creature Shop’s founding leader, who passed away in May 1990. Henson is said to have conceived the series, which shares thematic DNA with his unproduced screenplay for The Natural History Project – a fantasy feature à la The Dark Crystal and Labyrinth. Sadly it was scrapped due to its apparent similarities to The Land Before Time, at a time when Jurassic antics were just starting to peak on the pop cultural landscape.

    Another way in which Dinosaurs tapped the early ’90s zeitgeist was by gutting the ‘wholesome ’50s father’ archetype. Upstanding dads had dominated sitcoms (subgenus: comedie domesticus, or ‘dom coms’) from Father Knows Best to The Cosby Show. Full of beer nuts and hot air, Earl (voiced by Stuart Pankin) inherited the ‘bad dad’ mantle from Alf Garnett (Till Death Us Do Part) and Archie Bunker (All in the Family), whose parenting deficits were honoured such ‘dumb dad’ renaissance texts as Married… with Children, The Simpsons and Home Improvement. Dinosaurs even skewered the trend with this facetious weeknight line-up:

    ABC TV schedule showing episode titles including "Father Knows Nothing", "Dad's A Big Moron", "Simpleton Father", and "Brain Dead Dad".

    “This is why TV stinks,” groans Earl. “One show’s a hit, they make 50 more like it,” to which Baby replies, “Don’t have a cow, man!”

    But Earl is more cynical than his bumbling brethren like Homer Simpson and Fred Flintstone. What’s more, his wilfully shit behaviour isn’t typically framed as endearing, so we don’t laugh with him – the chuckles come when he gets his comeuppance. (Notably, Dinosaurs’ producers chose to can the initial laugh track, which means no one implicitly condones Earl’s buffoonery.)

    Unlike many TV patriarchs, Earl is rarely handed a free pass to fail upwards, which makes it all the more meaningful when, in the third season episode ‘Honey, I Miss the Kids’, the flaccid antihero sincerely bonds with his progeny. Meanwhile, his wife Fran (Arrested Development’s Jessica Walter) returns to work full time, itching to escape the cyclical tedium of domestic drudge work.

    A prototypical nuclear family, the Sinclairs live in a version of suburbia that marries prehistoric aesthetics and postwar social values. Every relevant stereotype gets eviscerated, along with the idealised virtues of heteronormative parenthood (both adults express resentment toward each other and their kids), organised religion (teenage son Robbie rejects many cultural customs, like eating other animals and hurling old folk into tarpits), and soulless consumerism (when Baby demands the ‘leg smoother’ he saw on TV, he’s told he can’t have it because he’s a boy. “Oh, then I want a machine gun!”).

    Traditional gender roles receive constant ribbing, with clichéd traits inverted. Man of the house Earl is beholden to the whims of his – to borrow a Sesame Street term – big feelings, whereas Fran is mostly moderate. Though she begins an obliging housewife, one part Stepford to two parts Bedrock, she becomes disillusioned with her lot and develops the voice to say so.

    This is largely due the influence of her friend Monica Devertebrae (Suzie Plakson), a feminist Brontosaurus who takes her employer – the ubiquitous corporate giant WESAYSO – to court in ‘What “Sexual Harris” Meant’. The episode aired in late 1991, just two months after Anita Hill’s widely televised sexual harassment case, and it features one of Dinosaurs’ most searing jokes.

    Two construction workers, one wearing a yellow hardhat, chatting on a worksite.

    The ignobility of work regularly comes under fire, particularly in regard to Earl’s blue-collar job as a ‘tree pusher’ at WESAYSO Development Corporation. Managed by a tyrannical Styracosaurus called BP Richfield (sitcom stalwart Sherman Hemsley, All in the Family and The Jeffersons) who’s slick by name, if not by nature.

    The company motto is “We’ll do what’s right if you leave us alone”, which, in practice, means razing a redwood forest to make way for 10,000 tract houses, and building a wax fruit factory that precipitates an ice age. (Howard Handupme’s news report was right: it’s not a meteor that ends all life on Earth in the series’ breathtakingly bleak finale.)

    Dinosaurs leaves few sociopolitical stones unturned, illustrating how gender performance, class, work and the environment are all inextricably linked. In some ways, it’s a spiritual successor to another Henson series about ecology, Fraggle Rock, which also depicts nature’s precariousness and the dangers of xenophobia. (Earl’s opinions of the early hominid folk who cohabit this revisionist history echo the Fraggles’ view of ‘Silly Creatures’ aka the human race.) This begs the question, was Dinosaurs intended for adults or children? Like most Jim Henson Company work, it’s both, and the writers clarify this with a knowing wink.

    The Sinclairs’ television set is their home’s focal point, and some of the show’s best roasts concern TV’s hypnotic allure. (‘Network Genius’ is a work of genius.) But Dinosaurs’ drollest running gag involves a puppet show that delights Earl and Baby equally. When Fran dismisses the show as kid’s stuff, Earl retorts, “You’d think that, because they’re puppets – so the show seems to have a children’s aesthetic.” He turns to eyeball the camera. “Yet the dialogue is unquestionably sharp-edged, witty, and thematically skewed to adults.” The mighty Megalosaurus flexes his dexterous brow.

    Puppets mimic the human condition with an uncanny likeness. They’re not people, clearly, but an eerie approximation. When camouflaged in the soft power of a sitcom, they have a unique capacity to point fingers at society’s trickiest home truths. Slapstick and catchphrases are just a handy distraction. All these years later, Dinosaurs still goes for the throat.



    Source link

  • Cabo Villas Right by the Sea — Every Movie Has a Lesson

    Cabo Villas Right by the Sea — Every Movie Has a Lesson



    Morning coffee with ocean views, afternoons spent soaking up the sun, and drifting comfortably while listening to waves. That dream can become a reality with Cabo villa rentals by the ocean. Cabo San Lucas brings a great mix of relaxation and luxury, perfect for romantic trips, family vacations, or group retreats when paired with seaside villas.  

    Let’s look closer as to why rentals in Cabo make for the perfect beach escape.  

    Oceanfront Luxury at Its Best  

    Unmatched access to the sea is one of the top reasons travelers opt for villa rentals in Cabo. Many villas provide breathtaking sea views and sit right on the beach, giving you direct beach access.  

    With open air living areas and outdoor terraces that are perfect for watching the sunset, private infinity pools that blend into the ocean, and refreshing sea breezes, these villas offer breathtaking views. This kind of luxury feels exclusive but in Cabo, it’s surprisingly accessible. Instead of a busy hotel with shared amenities, you get your own private retreat with everything you need right at your fingertips.

    Ideal for Groups, Families, and Special Events  

    Traveling with friends? Renting a villa in Cabo is often more convenient than reserving several hotel rooms. With a villa, everyone can share the common areas for cooking, dining, and relaxing. In addition, many Cabo villa rentals by the ocean are equipped with media rooms, large kitchens, and offer private chefs or concierges, turning the villa into a sea-side entertainment haven.  

    Whether it’s a family reunion, birthday, or much overdue friends getaway, Cabo villa rentals provide comfort and privacy while enabling friends and family to spend quality time together.  

    Secluded Tranquility and Space  

    A lovely benefit of villas by the ocean are the peaceful and private surroundings. Unlike resorts, you will not have to share the pool, dining areas, or relaxation zones which are exclusively yours. This is particularly attractive for coupes and families who wish to escape the crowds.

    Cabo villa rentals by the sea are placed in quiet coastal areas or within gated communities, ensuring privacy and safety. You set your own schedule, enjoy the home like it’s yours, and get more personal connection with Cabo San Lucas.

    An Authentic Cabo Experience

    A villa stay allows you to savor Cabo like a local, but with five-star luxuries at your fingertips. You can immerse yourself in the stunning Baja California culture with fresh seafood markets, private boat tours, and even local chefs that prepare meals in your villa all at your own pace. 

    Guests often remark that villa rentals in Cabo make them feel so much more connected to the region, because they can savor local cuisine, enjoy the beaches and immerse themselves in local culture away from tourist crowds. It is a smarter, better, and more meaningful way to travel.

    Your Ideal Cabo Escape Begins Here at Suncabo.com

    Selecting Cabo villa rentals offers the luxury, comfort, and unforgettable memories of staying beside the ocean. No matter whether you want to relax, celebrate, or explore, these villas are equipped with all the necessary amenities and so much more. Travelers increasingly favor renting villas in Cabo for their getaway because of the stunning oceanfront views, absolute privacy, and spacious accommodations for the entire group.



    Source link

  • Episode 200 of “The Cinephile Hissy Fit” Podcast — Every Movie Has a Lesson

    Episode 200 of “The Cinephile Hissy Fit” Podcast — Every Movie Has a Lesson



    For their historic 200th episode, two detective-minded film critics, two dream theory dads, and two noir-loving teachers, Will Johnson and Don Shanahan, welcome Chicago-based film critic and artist Jeff York of The Establishing Shot and Pipeline Artists to compare two examples of poisonous Hollywood settings separated by decades and mere blocks of postal addresses. Our trio compares the dangerous and pervasive themes to be found in David Lynch’s revered 2001 fever dream Mulholland Drive versus Billy Wilder’s salaciously seminal 1950 dark comedy Sunset Boulevard. The interpretations and lasting effects run quite the gamut in this extended discussion. Come learn more and stay for the mutual love and respect that fun movies encapsulate. Enjoy our podcast!

    ABOUT OUR GUEST

    Jeff York has been writing film criticism online since 2011. His movie blog The Establishing Shot is read in 27 countries. He’s a contributing critic, editorialist and illustrator to Pipeline Artists magazine. And he’s a frequent guest on various film podcasts too. In the past, he was the film critic for Creative Screenwriting magazine online from 2017-2020, an Examiner film critic from 2011-2016, and the host of the movie review podcast “Page 2 Screen” from 2015-2018. Jeff has also been a featured critic at RottenTomatoes.com since 2019. He hails from the world of Chicago advertising and journalism and his caricatures and cartoons have graced hundreds of periodicals including the Chicago Tribune, Automobile, Playboy, and W magazine. Jeff’s illustrations have filled eight books so far and original caricatures of his hang in the homes of Spike Lee, Bryan Cranston, Antonio Banderas, Jamie Lee Curtis, and many other celebrities. Jeff is also an optioned screenwriter and currently has projects under consideration by various studios, including Netflix. He was an original charter member of the Chicago Indie Critics and has been a member of SAG-AFTRA since 1990.



    Source link

  • Little Home Improvements That Make All the Difference — Every Movie Has a Lesson

    Little Home Improvements That Make All the Difference — Every Movie Has a Lesson



    When it comes to making your home feel more comfortable, stylish, or functional, sometimes it’s the smallest changes that have the biggest impact. You don’t always need a full renovation to refresh a space. Thoughtful, affordable updates can transform your everyday living experience in subtle but meaningful ways. From lighting tweaks to sensory touches, here are a few ideas to consider.

    Get the Right Fit with a Lamp Shade Reducer Ring

    Lamps are one of the most versatile ways to alter the mood of a room, but finding the perfect shade to match your existing fittings isn’t always straightforward. A lamp shade reducer ring solves the common problem of mismatched fittings between lamp bases and shade openings. These handy little rings allow larger European-style shades to fit standard UK lamp holders, giving you more freedom when choosing a new shade.

    Instead of having to replace your lamp entirely or settle for limited designs, a reducer ring opens up your options, making it easy to experiment with style, colour, or fabric. It’s a small detail, but one that can quickly update a room without major cost or effort.

    Create a Welcoming Atmosphere with Home Diffusers

    Fragrance plays a powerful role in shaping the atmosphere of your home. A carefully chosen home diffuser can add a constant, subtle scent to any room, enhancing both comfort and cleanliness. Whether you prefer calming lavender in the bedroom or a zesty citrus blend in the kitchen, diffusers are a simple yet effective way to set the mood.

    Many modern diffusers are elegantly designed to fit with a range of interior styles, from minimalist glass bottles to rustic ceramic vessels. Reed diffusers require no electricity and last for weeks, making them both practical and decorative. They’re an excellent finishing touch to create a space that feels thoughtful and well cared for.

    Upgrade Your Switch Plates and Handles

    One of the most overlooked improvements in the home is the hardware we use every day—light switch plates, door handles, and cabinet knobs. Replacing these small elements with modern, coordinated alternatives can lift the feel of a whole room. Brushed brass handles, matte black switches, or even ceramic drawer knobs can turn functional fittings into eye-catching details.

    These updates require minimal tools and time, yet they bring a polished, cohesive look to spaces like kitchens, bathrooms, or entryways. It’s a great way to refresh your home with very little disruption or expense.

    Use Mirrors to Expand Space and Light

    Another clever improvement is the strategic use of mirrors. Placing mirrors in the right spots can make small rooms feel larger and lighter. Positioning a large mirror opposite a window, for instance, maximises natural light and visually expands the space. Decorative wall mirrors can also act as art pieces, adding depth and interest.

    Whether you opt for a full-length mirror in the hallway or a collection of smaller ones in a living room, this trick works in almost every setting. It’s simple, stylish, and incredibly effective.



    Source link

  • American Comic Star Joe Kwaczala on the Secret to Filming Authentic Stand-Up Scenes

    American Comic Star Joe Kwaczala on the Secret to Filming Authentic Stand-Up Scenes


    Joe Kwaczala is a Los Angeles-based comedian and the writer-star of the mockumentary American Comic, which follows two stand-ups, both played by Kwaczala, as they navigate the modern comedy world. Directed by Daniel J. Clark, the film premieres Sunday at Dances With Films. In the piece below, Joe Kwaczala describes getting the comedy world right.—M.M.

    I made the film American Comic for a number of reasons, but on some level, it all goes back to this:

    “HOW ARE THEY GETTING THIS SO WRONG?!”

    This is me every time I’m watching a movie or TV show that incorporates stand-up as part of the story. It’s one of many things I’m yelling, really: “That doesn’t look like a comedy club!” “Audiences in a room that size wouldn’t sound like that!” “That wouldn’t get a laugh!”

    I’ve been a comedian for more than 15 years, and I’ve always been fascinated by how fictional narratives can never seem to figure out how to portray stand-up on screen. I started to think about this more intensely as I prepared for production on my debut feature film American Comic.

    In writing the script, I had drawn on countless experiences from my career to create a This Is Spinal Tap-like mockumentary satire of stand-up. With that being the premise, it was crucial not only to show stand-up on screen but for it to also feel authentic. If history is any judge, I was setting myself up for failure.

    Joe Kwaczala on the Pressure to Get American Comic Right

    So the pressure was on to figure out a way to make this work. My tactic? To reverse-engineer it. By analyzing what doesn’t work, it would hopefully become clear what to avoid, and I could forge my path to success.

    I thought about my main problems with depictions of stand-up comedy and landed on three areas: the setting, the audience reactions, and the material. When one of those doesn’t come across correctly, it all goes south. So I had to nail all three.

    Among comedians, there might be varying opinions on the ideal setting for a stand-up show, but most will agree that intimacy is key. That means close quarters, low ceilings, the audience’s proximity to the stage and to each other. A lot of comedy clubs are designed with these qualities in mind.

    Also Read: The 25 Coolest Film Festivals in the World, Including Dances With Films

    But what do film productions need? Lots of room! To fit lights, cameras, and anything else the crew requires. Naturally, if a scene takes place at a comedy club, they will want to find (or even construct!) a location that gives them the space they need to film, and as a result, you get an environment with negative intimacy. The solution to this problem was pretty obvious: We had to shoot at real venues.

    But what about the crew? Some of these actual stand-up rooms wouldn’t be able to accommodate even a small film crew. So we didn’t have one. Well, kind of. I collaborated on American Comic with director Daniel J. Clark, who made one of the great fly-on-the-wall documentaries of all time, Behind the Curve. He and I decided that for these particular scenes, the crew should consist of just him and a camera, filming the action in a corner of the room.

    American Comic director Daniel J. Clark (left) on set with writer-actor Joe Kwaczala. Photo by Caroline Clark.

    That way, we could take advantage not only of the physical dimensions of these real spaces but also of their less tangible, lived-in qualities that would be impossible to recreate anywhere else.

    Obviously we were not the first people to think, “Let’s film our stand-up scene at a stand-up venue.” But even if they’re also using a real location, a typical production is still likely to utilize fake audience reactions. And that’s the next thing about stand-up on film that just doesn’t work. Productions will bring in extras and try to conduct them like an orchestra: “Laugh hard at this part, giggle at this joke, boo at this guy.”

    This process goes against human nature itself: Laughter is involuntary! So this forced nonsense is undoubtedly going to feel wrong. Daniel and I realized the only way around this was to film during real stand-up shows.

    At this point, I’ll remind you that American Comic isn’t a documentary. It’s a narrative feature film with a story about fictional characters. I play the two lead roles, and they were written to be comedians with styles very different from my own. And if we wanted to avoid fake laughs, that meant these characters needed to earn real ones.

    We also didn’t tell these audiences I was in character. For it to feel real on screen, we needed real reactions. So that means there were dozens of stand-up shows that happened in 2024 where audience members had no idea that one of the comedians they saw was actually me playing a movie character. Sorry!

    Although in that regard, I guess the movie is kind of a documentary.

    This leads us to the final piece of the “Stand-Up Authenticity Puzzle:” the material. Anyone can get on-stage at a stand-up show and bomb with a bad joke. But the comedians I’m portraying in this film are supposed to be up-and-coming with some potential for success, so I had to write jokes for them that would work in front of actual audiences.

    To further complicate things, these characters are awful, uninspired hacks. So my task as a writer and performer was to come up with jokes that I personally don’t like but still could get laughs. A tricky needle to thread! So I did what any good comic does with new material: I workshopped the jokes at shows and open mics and tweaked them based on the response. In fact, these characters and their jokes started doing so well that I started to worry: “Oh no. Is this what people like?”

    I’m really proud of what Danel and I accomplished with American Comic. In the end, the hunt for authenticity was simple. Instead of taking stand-up and bending it to fit our filming process, we took our filming process and bent it to fit stand-up. Obviously, I’m hoping what we do in the film will be appreciated by general audiences, but I’m hoping the extra care in our treatment of stand-up will resonate especially with comedians. The ideal reaction?

    “HOW ARE THEY GETTING THIS SO RIGHT?!”

    American Comic premieres Sunday at Dances With Films in Los Angeles.

    Main image: Actor-writer Joe Kwaczala in a still from American Comic, shot and directed by Daniel J. Clark.



    Source link