Actors and Movies, Then and Now

Movies today, with their multi-million dollar budgets, socially conscious story lines, and special effects, have no doubt evolved from the black and white days of Casablanca, and It's a Wonderful Life. Perhaps this evolution is for the better, but over time some movies come to be considered classics, and very few modern films can claim that status. Many of the classics relied heavily on their actors, without the aid of modern technoloy. Acting has evolved along with the advances in film, but are the actors of today as good as those in the classics? Can direct comparisons even be made between films of such different periods?

Some argue that no films - including the "classics" - before 1970 can compare to modern films. Actors then, like cult hero John Wayne, lacked the ability to give depth to their roles. Their lack of range limited them to playing the same type of role over and over again. However, would it be fair to say actors like Audrey Hepburn and Humphrey Bogart had a more difficult time making their stories believable? How would modern actors fare in the older film industry with the censoring of a more conservative era, or without the aid of modern technology? For example, Bruce Willis might have a hard time convincing his audience he was going to blow up an asteroid if technology did not make it look like a real asteroid was on a collision course with earth in Armageddon.

Maybe movies are similar to athletes of different eras. Direct comparisons cannot always be made. Technology changes. People change. In sports, athletes become bigger, stronger and faster. Rules change and equipment improves. We can only compare certain skill sets. For example, we can compare the fielding skills of baseball legend Willie Mays to those of Barry Bonds, but the introduction of "juiced" balls, harder bats and steroids makes a fair comparison of batting skills difficult.

When movies like Casablanca were winning Academy Awards, film was relatively new. It was a transition period for actors, and most acting techniques were developed for theatre. In theatre, projection and over-the-top expression were used to reach the person sitting in the back row. The result was intentional overacting. On film the slightest expression was picked up, so expressions no longer needed to be big to be seen. New acting techniques were developed, and today the great actors can tell the whole story with their eyes, without having to change expression.

The differences in skill sets make it hard to find actors from either era that can gracefully adapt to the other's stle and do it justice. Each generation offers us something unique and entertaining, and comparing them is unfair. There is something to be said for the originality, innocence, and subtle messages of the classics. There is also a deserving respect for the innovation, provocation and cinematic appeal of modern film. The test of time is the only fair test. The "classics" have already withstood the test of time. Will modern movies do the same?