Talk:Classical Hollywood cinema

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Classical Hollywood cinema article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 365 days

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: American This article is supported by the American cinema task force. United States: Cinema Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Top-importance).

I moved the article on the age of hollywood from the American Cinema page to here.

WarrenTrenton- monday, 9,22,08 10:52

Inline numbers (eg [3]) without anything to link to them are pretty useless! Also, there doesn't seem to be a footnote 2 at all! (Did the move mentioned above cause this?)

MichaelSterlingSF

I would urge the editors to explore how 1940s America used black men, specifically Bill Robinson’s representation in movies starring alongside Shirley Temple, to paint a picture of blackness in a manner that assumes all black men are the same and therefore should be treated as a single cohort. This lack of representation of black men as unique and individual enforces a continuation of racial stereotypes. This is a vital piece of information to be included because it explores the tendency for American society to apply specific stereotypes to a broad cohort of people, specifically to racialized groups, and how these stereotypes reinforce the paradox that blackness is unchanging yet must be changed. I would recommend that this information be added in a new sub-section of the Wikipedia article, as the article does not speak to these racial stereotypes and representations in any section. Ataps365 (talk) 15:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

<ref>Hark, Ina. “Shirley Temple and Hollywood’s Colonialist Ideology.” In Hollywood and the Great Depression. Edinburgh University Press, 2016.</ref>

I just put the stereotypes on the Criticism section Espngeek (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Marval4787 has taken it upon themselves to be the guardian on which major Hollywood figures can be included in this list in a highly arbitrary way without noticeable criteria. This user needs to be monitored and held accountable.For example, Errol Flynn is deemed acceptable, but his contemporary Tyrone Power is not. Minor Hollywood figures like Tito Guizar, Dorothy Dandridge and Katy Jurado are included, but bigger stars like Randolph Scott, Alice Faye, June Allyson and Ricardo Montalban are not. Without explanation, User talk:Marval4787 seeks to control this page. I have shown using the Top Ten Money Making Stars Poll why some stars need to be included in this list but Marval doesn't understand the importance of fan popularity and bankability. User talk:Marval4787 needs to explain why fan popularity and bankability at the time that actors were active should not be the main reason for inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoBo (talk • contribs)

To the both of you: Please work this out on the talk page, I'm tired of seeing this on the top of my watch list. -

MrOllie (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

MrOllie I have asked User:Marval4747 to explain why popularity and bankability should not be included as the main criteria for inclusion on the Major Figures section. I do not understand how the era can be separated from its most popular and bankable stars. I have no problem including people who ethnically or racially were first to achieve in their respective fields. However, that should not mean that popularity and bankability should not also be included. After all, these people defined what it meant to reach the pinnacle of stardom in Hollywood. The Top Ten Money Making Stars Poll

helped the studios to decide who were their most valuable stars were. These are the people Classic Hollywood is usually associated with.

Marval4787 (talk) 00:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marval4787 I do not have any problem with the inclusion of names based on quality of work as compared to popularity or bankability. However, I feel that popular Hollywood stars define the era. Ethnicity, race or quality of work are all good criteria, however, so is popularity and bankability. Otherwise, the list would just be elitist and dependent on the vagaries of critical acclaim (when was the acclaim first promoted? first repealed? Why in both cases). User talk:BoBo

I would also like to add Louise Brooks and Hedy Lamarr, both highly intelligent women who belied the notion that beautiful female motion picture stars were not very intelligent. BoBo

User:MrOllie, User talk:BoBo: In the end, exactly what User talk:BoBo criticised extensively a few days ago has happened: In the section "List of major figures from Classic Hollywood cinema", names and persons are added arbitrarily and incomprehensibly for outsiders without any control and supervision. There are no external sources to prove why exactly the added actors, producers, directors, costume designers etc. are considered "major figures from Classic Hollywood cinema".

Names and persons cannot simply be added based on personal preferences without adding an associated external source for each name. It is also not clear to outsiders why certain actors, producers, directors, costume designers etc. are considered "important" or "major figure". Who determines this categorisation? Where are the relevant external sources that can be used to prove the attributes "important" or "major figure" from Classic Hollywood cinema?

In the case of actors, for example, it was argued that those names that appeared on the Top Ten Money Making Stars Poll were added to this list. But what does that mean exactly? Were actors added who had been at No. 1 once or at No. 1 several times? Or is it enough to have appeared on the Top Ten Money Making Stars Poll at all to be considered a "major figure from Classic Hollywood cinema"? Who determines this? And who determines that the Top Ten Money Making Stars Poll is even a reference point for the list of "major figure from Classic Hollywood cinema"?What other reference points may be relevant here and why? Again, there is a lack of any external sources and proof; this is not a matter of individual preference and personal belief.

Not only for actors, but also and especially for producers, directors, costume designers and hairstylists, each name should be individually, clearly and comprehensibly documented (with sources/proofs/links) as to what makes them a "major figure from Classic Hollywood cinema". Every article on Wikipedia needs to be backed up with appropriate and distinct sources and proofs, and this article and section are no exception.

I would be very happy if my questions and comments were addressed here in an understandable and comprehensible way. Marval4787 (talk) 13:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marval4787 (talk)

All the people I have added have Wikipedia articles which justify their inclusion in this list of major influencers of Classical Hollywood. It would appear that any deletions from the names I have listed have been done by people who have not read the Wikipedia articles supporting their inclusion. Those articles almost always offer lists of awards and filmographies. Also a close examination of most of these people such as Loretta Young or Edith Head can easily find justification in the list of Academy Award winners and nominees in each of the particular articles about costume design, etc. User talk:BoBo

In addition, the Top Ten Money Making Stars Poll is not arbitrary but represent actors who were popular enough to bring profits to theatre owners. It is the direct result of fan popularity. Hollywood is a business. It would not create a world inhabited by actors who could not connect to the viewing public. That is one of the reasons why Hollywood became popular around the world: the popularity of the stars. In addition, people who created the aesthetics of Classic Hollywood (like producers, directors, costume designers, make-up artists and hair stylists) also made Classic Hollywood popular way beyond the confines of the United States. Look at the Academy Award lists to see who people in the industry regarded as premier in their chosen fields. You should start reading the Wikipedia articles about these people as well as the Academy Award lists. Many of these articles are very well researched and NOT the trash you assume.

User talk:BoBo

Dear BoBo, unfortunately you did not understand what I was aiming at with my comments and questions and what the problem with your way of working here is.

You add names and people to this list every hour and every day that YOU claim are major figures from Classical Hollywood cinema. But instead of linking a corresponding external reference/source behind each of these names (e.g. from literature, from online articles or from film critics/experts pages), you merely refer to the corresponding Wikipedia page of each person to "justify" your claim. However, it is not enough to justify your claim internally with other Wikipedia articles, for that you need an external reference/source to prove or support your point. This is how editing and referencing texts works. You need to find authors or (online) articles outside of Wikipedia with whom you can prove/support that the people added here are major figures from Classical Hollywood cinema; only through external references/sources can statements and personal claims be adequately proven/supported. Do you understand what I am trying to tell you?

If you look at the individual Wikipedia articles of the actors, directors, producers etc. added here, you will see that almost all statements and passages are supported by external references/sources (via literature or online articles). And even if you look at the list of major figures from New Hollywood cinema on Wikipedia, you will notice that behind each name there is a corresponding link to an external reference/source outside Wikipedia proving/supporting that the respective person was part of New Hollywood cinema. I therefore wonder why you refuse to add such external references/sources to the people in this list as well? Is it perhaps ignorance? Is it perhaps convenience or laziness? Regardless of whether you personally believe that the individual Wikipedia articles of these people are well researched, you must provide appropriate references/sources for this article again/as well.

Wikipedia works with relevant, appropriate, individual and verifiable references/sources and not with personal stories and mere claims. This applies to every article and every section within an article.

I will try to explain this with an example: The fact that Edith Head has won eight Academy Awards for Best Costume Design does not automatically make her a "major figure from Classical Hollywood cinema", but first and foremost an eight-time Academy Award winner. Nothing more, nothing less. In order to write/make the statement that she was indeed a major figure from Classical Hollywood cinema, you must prove/support it with an external reference/source (e.g. with external literature or with an external (online) article). Otherwise it is just a personal claim or personal belief by you that cannot be verified or researched by others and is thus insufficient for a Wikipedia article. Do you understand what the problem of your editing/way of working is here?

Marval4787 (talk) 05:28, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In that sense, BoBo, it is not me or anyone else who needs to explain or justify why they remove certain people from the list of major figures of Classical Hollywood cinema, but YOU who needs to explain why certain people are added or reinstated to that list in the first place without a reliable and appropriate external reference/source.

If I had the idea of adding Meryl Streep, George Clooney or Cate Blanchett to the list of major figures from Classical Hollywood cinema, wouldn't I have to prove with a reliable and appropriate reference/source that these actors belong to that period of cinema rather than simply adding them and then claiming that it is the job of others to prove that they do not belong on this list?

Why do you have permission to keep adding people without reliable and appropriate external references/sources, but others do not have permission to delete these names in the absence of such a reference/source? Marval4787 (talk) 11:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Marval4787 I disagree with your analysis on several accounts. First is your assumption that already researched articles on Wikipedia do not qualify as good sources. That is actually an implicitly biased response against Wikipedia. Second, I view appearance on either the Top Ten Money Making Stars Poll or one of the many Academy Award lists as a definitively objective criterion for inclusion in the Major Figures section as each list represents true power in Hollywood either in terms of fan popularity, studio bankability or excellence of work as viewed by members of the Hollywood community at the time. No additional commentary by film critics (lay or professional) is needed. Film critics are a product of their times. To suggest that just because someone is a columnist, journalist or author that their opinion is sacrosanct is too broad, too extreme a position. There is too much chronological bias to say that only critics can determine who is a major figure or not. Who is to say that Bosley Crowther, Pauline Kael or Roger Ebert is the more accurate arbiter of what is the Classic Hollywood? Film critique is in and of itself a highly subjective area and as I said subject to revision and the vicissitudes of time. Who appears on the Top Ten Money Making Stars Poll and Academy Awards lists are not subject to such changes. They are a more permanent representation of the power of particular people at particular times. Third, all along I have merely asked that before a name is deleted that a discussion be had here on the Talk Page as to the individual merits for the person. Do they have enough appearances on the various lists, is their fame during the right time frame (1910-1960), are they the first of their sex, ethnicity or race to achieve in their particular area? That can all be discussed on the Talk Page. BoBo (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bobo, unfortunately you still haven't understood what I'm talking about here, but that's okay. You are not capable of answering my questions or explicitly addressing them, and you don't understand my argument.

I never said anything about a comparison or competition between film critics, Oscar nominees and winners, and the Top Ten Money Making Stars Poll, and I'm afraid I don't know why you're making that comparison, why you see it as a competition, or why you're hung up on it at all (spoiler alert: Academy Award lists and the Top Ten Money Making Stars Poll are just as highly subjective and random and shaped by personal preferences as any author or film critic's opinion; the voting patterns of Academy Award members are, after all, just as much a product of their time and based solely on personal opinions). I also never said that the opinion of authors and film critics should be the sole point of reference; I don't know where you read that out, but I would be happy if you could show me the sentence/paragraph.

Anyway, I have explained to you extensively by means of several examples what my criticism is aimed at and that it is a sloppy and incomprehensible procedure to add names and people without adequate and reliable external references/sources (in the form of a literature reference or links with URL address). Fortunately, this is a public platform and any user can shape and reshape this article here within Wikipedia guidelines.

P.S.:If you were writing a new Wikipedia article, would you work completely without references/sources or do you think it might be important to support text passages and sentences with references/sources? And would you then use only links to other Wikipedia articles for these references/sources or perhaps use external literature and articles? This is just for reflection. Marval4787 (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Marval4787 If I understand your position correctly, you want the article, including the list of Major Figures, to read as a thesis or dissertation with footnotes and references. I am completely happy to add footnotes to the name of each figure referencing the article on the Top Ten Money Making Stars Poll or the particular Academy Award list that serves as justification for the inclusion of that figure. I disagree with your comment that either the Stars Poll or any of the Academy lists are just as subjective as modern film critique. The stars on the Stars Poll and the producers, directors, costume designers, make-up artists and hair stylists on the Academy Award lists are the people who created the Classic Hollywood this article is about and made it widely popular around the world. Film critics of the 1960s to the present did not. Their views are less relevant as to why Classic Hollywood succeeded as spectacularly as it did. Their views are relevant only in terms of analyzing changing social priorities and values. You can footnote the name of the figures you want included on the list with any source you find appropriate, be they contemporary to 1910-1960 or more modern. If a future person adds a name, they must also supply a footnote with justification. Does that solve your problem? BoBo (talk) 03:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it should of be taken off from the article, instead there should be a category of "Classical Hollywood Cinema figures" or something like that, I even believe there is one. This same move of

In my opinion the listing should be added back onto the page, it is important to know who important figures were in this period of cinema history. People keep using the excuse that a consensus was partaken and the result of which was that the list was to be removed — this consensus was between TWO possibly three people. Why are two people allowed to decide that important figures in this period of cinema history and the films of the era are not to be listed? It’s absolutely ludicrous. Bradonwiki (talk) 15:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this list, and the one of "notable" films, is that there is no criteria defined for inclusion. What criteria is being used to determine who is notable and/or important? Anyone can add anyone they feel,

in their opinion

, should be there, and anyone can remove them because they feel they do not. This inevitably leads to disputes.

It is also very questionable what value an ultimately arbitrary list of hundreds of people adds to the article. What is the reader gaining in their understanding of the article subject? Which names amongst the hundreds should the reader pay most attention to? Is there a serious expectation that the reader should refer to them all to find out? It should also be noted that this article is not a list article and a list should not be allowed to dominate or hijack it.

I would suggest that if a list as to be there, it is reduced to the ones in bold, the American Film Institute's top 50 list, and that can be the criteria based on an authoritative source. A similar criteria should be applied to the list of films. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:19, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It does appear as an arbitrary list, the one about important figures in Classical Hollywood. Lionel Barrymore is rightfully on the list, but Gummo Marx. Gummo never made movies or appeared in them with his brothers. Gummo was a behind the scenes man not even connected to Hollywood. Gummo makes a list like this but Lionel's brother John Barrymore is absent! Koplimek (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness, Gummo Marx along with his brothers were listed by the American Film Institute as being one of the Top 25 greatest stars of classic Hollywood cinema, so maybe take your issue up with AFI, not this Wikipedia page 149.36.26.43 (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gummo Marx isn’t listed on AFI’s list, the other 3 brothers are. Gummo was more behind the scenes. Bradonwiki (talk) 12:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever keeps removing the famous Hollywood actors and actressses from the article page, please stop. It is relevant information that should stay where it belongs. 172.74.203.83 (talk) 02:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm typing this William Shatner is alive. He was in movies in the 1950s and early 60s and is older than some of the people included on the living actors list. He is also extremely notable. 184.14.244.236 (talk) 03:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This page declares and delineates that the "Golden Age of Cinema" is, approximately, from the year 1927 to 1969. There is nothing that says that certain actors, be they, at the time, well-known or not, are certainly well-known now, and are of a generation of ever-dwindling numbers, should be excluded or omitted for any particular reason. If an actor appeared in numerous films of the era, and were emerging as a talent, and are now established movie stars of today, why should any actor or actor(s) be omitted? What is the criterion for inclusion or exclusion? What is the standard?

I added, to this page, Jack Nicholson and Michael Murphy. To say that these two are not associated with this period of American cinema is purely and factually untrue, and as they were both in numerous films--eighteen for the former, and five for the latter--these men not only worked before the end (1969) of this era, but also, worked with landmark people who pioneered cinema with great stars and directors, both, of this period.

Murphy has, also, like Nicholson, starred opposite legends from this same time period, be it Kirk Douglas, Deborah Kerr, Elvis Presley, Kim Novak, Peter Finch, Ernest Borgnine, Robert Duvall and Sandy Dennis, and directors like Elia Kazan, Robert Aldrich, Norman Taurog and Robert Altman.

So, to just discard their names, from this page, to simply disregard their presences without any qualified explanations or technical litmus acting as bearers of either standard or concreteness, then I have to say that there is no rightful reason for stripping Jack Nicholson's or Michael Murphy's names from this article.

My opinion is backed by objective logic and practical reasoning, as well as by historical fact and technical standards: they both worked a lot during this time period, with legends of this time period. These two movie stars, both Misters Nicholson and Murphy, and they should remain on this page, and if they are removed again without a valid and credible argument backed by some kind of universal calculus and mutually-agreed-upon technical standard, then I shall report these removals and demand a critical and scientific standard for this article, and those like it. PERIOD.

Anything otherwise will just look like fascist, arrogant and opinionated manipulations of historical and cultural content management, something we are all seeing more and more in the credibility-reduced realm known as "Wikipedia", a shrinking planet composed less and less of facts borne from objective and scientific truth, found in an expanding galaxy bearing, more and more, a composition comprised even more so of pompous opinion and revisionist control. 64.38.125.171 (talk) 23:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to have been monopolized by an individual or small group of individuals whose perception is warped...and no one's doing anything about it.

There are a couple of major issues. First is the timeframe used to define "Classical Hollywood". Some Joe Schmo has put 1969 as the cutoff, but the reference that immediately follows this dubious claim - Oxford Dictionary website - says 1960! Which means the editor who put '69 is lying (misrepresenting, fabricating, whatever).

For perspective, Raquel Welch said that she thought of classic Hollywood as finishing off in the '50s, while TCM's Alicia Malone considers a classic film to be anything before 1980. There is no clear definition.

Even if you approximate, 1969 is such a random year. Smack dab in the middle of counterculture, it's completely inappropriate to use as a cutoff. 1959 or 1979 would make sense.

The second major issue is the compilation of actors and actresses that are ostensibly "major figures from classical Hollywood cinema". Some of the names on there are laughable. Tippi Hedren? She starred in exactly two films. And while she was born in 1930, her first credit isn't until 1963. By that standard, Ron Howard should be on the list, since his debut well precedes Hedren's. By that standard, there are hundreds of names you could add to the list. The inclusion of Clint Eastwood is also absurd, as he didn't star in a Hollywood movie until 1968 when he was 38. Fabian Forte and Tuesday Weld, both of whom are 13 years younger than Eastwood, were household names a decade before he was, yet they aren't even on this bogus list.

It looks like someone has thought up all the famous or semi-famous performers born within a certain time, and that's the measurement they've used to determine eligibility....regardless of whether the performers were part of "Classical Hollywood" or not. It's ageism and pigeonholing, and it has nothing to do with "Classical Hollywood". Parts of this page have been written by editors who don't even understand what classic Hollywood is.

This isn't going to get resolved without administrative intervention. The talk page is no use. There have been attempts to start a discussion over the years, but nobody ever replies.

If you're going to pick a cutoff, the cutoff should be backed by a consensus. As for the index of actors and actresses deemed "major figures from classical Hollywood cinema", the only names that should be retained are those on AFI's 100 Screen Legends, since it's the only criteria that has been established. I'm removing the rest. Namwidow (talk) 06:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The list even had Zsa Zsa Gabor (!). These fanboy article are ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Namwidow (talk • contribs) 06:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To prevent future abuse, it might be a good idea to remove the "major figures" list altogether. I'm looking through the edit history and no such section even existed until a decade-plus after the article was forked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Namwidow (talk • contribs) 06:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the list "Living performers from the Golden Age of Hollywood cinema" because again, it's subjective and there is no backup for it. Some of the people on that list were not even participants in the golden age of Hollywood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Namwidow (talk • contribs) 07:26, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Classical" is a stylistic description, not a temporal one. It is perfectly possible for some Hollywood films produced in the 1960s to be classical while others, even though produced earlier, are not.

Phil Bridger (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I've BOLDly restored the removed edits; AFI is not the final word on cinema notability or eras, and they themselves gathered their list based on input from others with diverse views, so they're certainly not the final word. And 1969, the last decade of the 1960s, is hardly a random year; it was the first full year the Motion Picture Association film rating system was in effect, which is appropriate era demarcation as everyone now had to work around them. Do not remove those edits again without consensus (which isn't just you plus one person). Nate • (chatter) 17:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to somewhat sympathise with Namwidow; I feel like the lists in the article violate

WP:CHALLENGE: "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• I definitely agree with the sweeping removals. The sourcing here is terrible to nonexistent - most entries have no citation at all, and the few that do are to extremely low-quality sources. The first two lists have no citations and the last one seems to be a random copy-paste of a list on another website of no significance. And the total lack of any clear criteria is a clear reason not to have a list anyway - what does "major" mean in this context? What makes a film "notable" for this list? Aside from the copy-paste from hollywoodcinema.com, it appears to just be some editors' random opinions. --Aquillion (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aquillion, I've just discovered that the list which says its cited to hollywoodsgoldenage.com actually isn't. Many films in the article are not from that website, and some from the website are not in the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's even worse then! --Aquillion (talk) 19:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have boldly removed most of the lists, only retaining the actors listed on the AFI's list (because, well, sourced). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:58, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And with someone in the topic addressing the article's issues now, I'm withdrawing from this as I was more concerned about removal without explanation and discussion rather than content itself. Thank you, Airship. Nate • (chatter) 21:43, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]