Bravo! So many of this new breed of actors “mumble” or fail to enunciate their words. Sloppy acting. Sinatra was from Hoboken, NY & realized he needed to take elocution classes to enable his audience to understand the beautiful words of the lyricists of that era such as Gershwin, Porter et al.
This was the same year that Sinatra was the producer and star of one of the best films of the 60s, "The Manchurian Candidate". The only nominee from that film was Angela Lansbury for Best Supporting Actress; while she didn't win that award, she was honored this year with an Oscar for Life Achievement encompassing her entire career.
Professor Time...not only films today...which are horrendous...but also music...there is nothing left of the quality of past times....a cultural wasteland.
Well there is some great films that are being made today... You missing out. Not all films nowadays suck, try films like this : Enemy, Nightcrawler, Joker, There will be Blood, The Dark Knight Trilogy, Arrival,Blade Runner 2049, LA LA Land, Whiplash, Parasite, Silence, 1917, Hakksaw Ridge, The Portrait of Lady In The Fire, The Master, Call me by your Name, Moonlight, Drive, Sicario, Dallas Buyers Club, The Artist, Wind River and etc... Just to name the few, this is some movies that are worth your while that came out in recent years or last year.
Amazing to think this was 1963. The old studio system was beginning to creak. Sinatra got his wish in the 1970s, with the so-called Second Golden Age of Hollywood, but I wonder if it came in the form he was expecting - Coppola, Scorsese, Spielberg, Altman, Pakula, Ashby et al.
Micky Finn , I'm sure he didn't, because he knew he couldn't anticipate the times to come or the variety and uniqueness of individual talent. And you're right, there was that flowering, until 1977, when "Star Wars" changed filmmaking forever, almost entirely for the worse.
@@bobtaylor170 Too right. I remember seeing Star Wars as a kid and being baffled about what all the fuss was about. I never could have guessed that zap/explosion/boom was going to be the future of movies though.
It reminds me of a photo i saw once where a farmer proudly put up a sign saying "this farmer is not on government assistance" during the great depression.
"On government relief" said the sign. The farmer himself was not in the photo. If he was farming only for himself and his family, he would not qualify. Or he may have disagreed with the government and refused its help and boasted about it. Frank, himself, was famously an admirer of Franklin D. Roosevelt, inventor of the New Deal and its slew of government welfare programs. Frank named his son not for himself, but for FDR.
He knew what he was talking about. That is one reason why "indies" are often more successful than the huge productions! And it got even worse after he was gone, until today's movies are not even worth our time, much less our money!
. . today, Sinatra would take a swing at entertainment corporations disguised as film studios, cranking out gigantic cash registers disguised as motion pictures.
Wow. Do you believe that it took 3 years after this for them to put the oscars in color. They should colorize this. It would be so awesome to see Frank's first hosted oscar in color.
This is extraordinary, Frankie S Laying down the truth. The scary thing is that what he was rallying against back in 1963 has now become the norm. Mona lisa films are rare, more often than not films are produced by people who care nothing for art or expression. Their cold hearts care only for $$$$$$$$
Yeah Frank is right..That is why Universal was Seagrams, Vivendi, Purchases Seagrams,,Sony owns Columbia, Viacom purchased Paramount, Yeah you get the picture...Big Business owns Films.
& Gulf Western purchased Paramount decades before Viacom... I use to live on Bronson Ave 'decades ago' 3 blocks from Paramount & Desilu, etc... which use to be RKO before All the big boys on the monopoly board began buying out all these Studios & Recoding Companies etc etc...
Yes,and I don't think Frank had a lot of diction training other than his singing! Unfortunately film producers and directors go more for "naturalness" than good diction You can use an accent but still speak clearly for the audiences ' sake.But I spend half the time running the movie back to try and catch what the actors are saying, or put in the closed caption which is a distraction. The other maddening thing going on these days us the "under voice"-speaking in a rough whisper -for dramatic effect I suppose,but people generally don't talk this way unless not wanting to be heard.Drives me crazy . Also the sudden increase in sound volume when a scary or dramatic part comes on I spend so much time riding the volume button on my remote,and it disturbed my companion in the other room when it happens suddenly Ridiculous! D C.
Ok eloquently said However the greatest interpreter of American popular song, would show up on the set around noon, and start tearing pages out of the script, earning him the nickname "one take charlie".
He was (and is) absolutely right. Let the directors, actors, writers etc; do 'their' thing and not be controlled by the money people (banks, investors etc;) What destroyed the auto industry (at least partially) was the corporate interests taking control of the industry from the designers on the 1970's
There’s always going to be good movies and there’s always going to be bad. People who are complaining about only bad movies existing today clearly do not put in the time and effort to watch the good ones.
the complaint is: awful movies claimed as masterpiece and winning oscars because its box office or its production was a zillion dollars, zillion dollars promoted by the industry
He doesn't seem angry to me. A bit narked but nothing untoward. And, in my opinion, his singing during his peak era (50s/early 60s) exists outside of any kind of mood he might've had. He nailed the essence of every lyric and melody he turned his attention to.
