In this section we are discussing Classical Hollywood Cinema.
The films we are screening are:
Lonedale Operator, D. W. Griffith, 1911
Some Like It Hot, Billy Wilder, 1958
500 Days of Summer, Marc Webb, 2009
We had a last minute restructuring of discussion leaders, so for now here are a few discussion items:
Belton discusses Classical Hollywood Cinema as the development of a national style, do you agree with him? Why/why not?
If you were to segment 500 days of Summer, what would it look like? Do you find this a useful way of looking at film?
How do you think CHC contributed to the solidification of cinema as a cultural institution?
Cinema became a cultural institution because it captured people’s own selves on some level and brought them on a journey that real life rarely, if ever, offered. It took the basic conflicts of life: love, survival, moral choices, a search for identity and place in the world and projected them onto the characters in a film. Those characters then were able to take that journey and hopefully find resolution, where the audience had to get up at the end and go back to their day to day struggle. I think Classic Hollywood Cinema, being so character driven, appealed to the people because they could relate to those characters and feel the excitement of success, or love, or adventure and it spoke to their souls for the time spent in the theatre. Someone of any race or social class could watch a film and be a part of that dream, and like a drug or perhaps even like a religion, people kept coming back for more.
Does CHC really speak to everyone?
I think that the universal themes such as love, or overcoming adversity, adventure, comedy – could speak to everyone on some level. I can appreciate that not every film will appeal to everyone. The poor black man may not relate to the rich white woman on screen – the same as I may not relate to the Boyz n the Hood; but I can identify with the struggle.
I think Renee raises a great point here. With the exceptionally wide range of films that are out there, I find it interesting that there is some film somewhere that relates to someone. But that ability to relate to a film isn’t restricted to just that film. While I might strongly relate to Slumdog Millionaire after spending time overseas with poor children, I may not completely relate to Legally Blonde. But I can appreciate the motivation Reese Witherspoon’s character had to win back her jerk of a boyfriend. In this same sense, while one might completely relate to all films, movies have an ability to connect with their audience even if it is sometimes in very small ways.
I agree with the universal themes you Renee named off, regardless race or gender there is a medium film covers that is something everyone can feel or relate to.
I think CHC speaks to everyone as much as music does just in visual art form. Even if there were no words displayed in the silent film The Cheat everyone can feel the intensity of the story through music and body language.
I agree with Renee! I think Classical Hollywood Cinema presented audiences from all walks of life with characters who they could relate to. These characters travel to far away places and, experience hardships, and overcome obstacles in ways that can inspire and may even transform the viewer. I think that audience members saw (and still see) parts of themselves in these characters. When watching these on-screen figures solving mysteries or winning the heart of the love of their life, the viewer may believe that they also can accomplish a difficult task they might be facing at that time because that particular character is so relatable to them (if that makes sense).
You need to be a little careful – Classical Hollywood Cinema was predominantly a white, heterosexual, middle class cinema. That is not to say that it did not speak to audiences that did not fit those categories, or that others who did not fit those criteria could not relate to it, just that those relations were often strained and tenuous. Remember, Laura Mulvey points out that CHC was presented for the viewing pleasure of the male viewer, so that while women viewers could identify with female protagonists, that very identification also served to objectify them.
Classical Hollywood Cinema must have found a home when the film industry discovered that narrative was in demand. That demand fueled the industry, turning the narrative into a product. The demand itself however, could be related Depression-era related. Cinema is seen as a form of escapism and narrative might have been an effective remedy. Since people kept returning to theaters to watch movies, and the business rarely dwindled in its early days, “from 1929 to 1949, more than 80 million American went to the movies every week” (Belton 19), the revenue definitely had a part in solidifying cinema as a part of American pastime.
I do wonder if there are people within the film industry whose job is monitor how long certain film conventions can last before audiences get fed up with them then fall back on the platitude “Hollywood has run out of ideas.” Such an instance would be the recent (and short-lived) 3D craze. Avatar (Cameron 2009) did make the most of it by being the first in a long while to make use of the the new advances in 3D projection technology but subsequent movies that tacked on 3D were criticized. I wonder if the same can be said for narratives or sub-genres. Maybe there’s a room full of soon-to-be-let-go unpaid interns scouring the internet trying to get a bead on audience preferences.
I do believe it’s the ticket taker – with the producers standing in the background shouting “show me the money!”
This is actually 3D’s second time around, and I am not entirely sure it is short lived.
Oh, and most studios conduct pre-screenings with audiences to test out story lines, technologies/special effects, actors, etc..(even titles) They have a pretty good sense of how a film will be received before it gets released.
I think I would have to agree with Belton when he speaks of Classical Hollywood Cinema as a National style. Through the infancy of narrative cinema with film makers like Porter and D.W. Griffith narrative and technical devices like cross cutting, and image match came to dominate CHC. When Classical Hollywood Cinema began to thrive is when people craved a narrative that not only let them escape their current world but also gave them actors that they enjoyed watching. CHC is such a character driven format that it could not have become what it is today without the talented and attractive looking actors and actress that graced the screen. CHC became a national style as way for compensating for the strict censorship code that dominated Hollywood film making from the 1930’s into the 1960’s. Consistent revenues were the basis for the continued making of Classic Hollywood films, the audiences enjoyed escaping into these fantasy movies that were filled with stereotypes that they could relate to but also different enough that they were desirable destinations week after week.
What is different or similar between the beginning of CHC and now? Don’t people now need to escape the drudgery of reality?
I think CHC is much more different now than it was its beginning. Watching films was the pasttime of American back then and that was one of their sole ways of escaping reality. People would go to movies weekly. Now there is so much media to escape reality some people don’t care to watch movies let alone go out to the theater. We have iPods and social media and many other ways of entertaining ourselves that it takes the focus away from Hollywood.
I’m not sure what Belton means when he speaks of a larger national style. Is he calling out United States of America (Hollywood) cinema as a style of its own? Is this national style Belton speaks of the invisible narrative that uses editing and camera movement and the 180 degree rule so as not to jolt the viewer out of the fantasy or is it the basic story idea of problem solving? Is this “national” style somehow different than the rest of the world’s cinema? I have to admit I haven’t seen much foreign cinema, but what I have seen uses the same 180 degrees. I’m not disagreeing that Classical Hollywood Cinema was laying a lot of groundwork, but I think I’m getting thrown off with this word national – as though it’s exclusive to America and Hollywood invented that a story has a beginning middle and end.
Renee, that is really what is at question here – Does CHC constitute a national style? Does the US have a national cinema? or are all other cinemas merely defined by how they are not the US?
I completely agree with Belton and with Nick’s comment in saying that Classical Hollywood Cinema is a national style. CHC established a vast amount of the film language that we consider to be customary today. As Nick mentioned, cross cutting and match-on editing are staples in American cinema. It was these core characteristics that formed how American audiences (as well as global audiences) viewed films. They also allowed for the cinema to expand greatly. With film movements such as French New Wave and New Hollywood, the rules and standards of cinema were being broken and twisted to expand the possibilities of cinema. Today, a film like (500) Days of Summer (Marc Webb 2009) uses these conventions as well as breaking them in order to form an interesting form of storytelling. A film made in the original CHC style would never be told in the way that (500) Days of Summer was edited together. The segment style completely alters the audiences sense of time and space that would most likely be far too complex for earlier cinema audiences. Having said that, (500) Days of Summer would be a rather boring and depressing film if it was made in the CHC style. It would not have been what early audiences of America would have wanted to see. This really proves how far the art of cinema and, in particular, American cinema has come over the years, and it still has a great deal of space to expand.
The question of whether CHC helped develop a national style is evident simply in the name, “Hollywood.” The word Hollywood is synonymous with narrative film making. Many practices used almost 100 years ago to communicate narrative stories are still used today, whether it be through editing, writing, or even shot composition, the foundation for today’s cinema is rooted in the classical Hollywood way of communicating stories. Other countries around the world use words that resemble Hollywood to describe their own narrative film making industries such as Bollywood in India. Classical Hollywood cinema not only contributed to our own national style and cinematic identify, but set a global precedent for a formula which molded most of the 20th centuries cinematic experience.
Classical Hollywood cinema is a cultural institution due in part to the escapism these films offer. Narrative Cinema was going through what they call the “golden age” in the 1930s, not just simply because the films were fantastic, but because the droves of economically depressed and down trodden people went to see these films to escape their struggling existence. They could not only identify with the characters, but dream with the characters. They could live vicariously through the stars on screen. As many people mentioned above, these troubled characters gave the viewers someone to relate to and lean on during their times of instability and uncertainty in all aspects of their lives. This yearning for relation and belonging has been indoctrinated into our culture as a hallmark of not only weekend entertainment, but as a cultural phenomenon, far exceeding what many of the earlier filmmakers ever dreamed it would be.
Do you think cinema holds the same cultural status as during the Classical Hollywood period?
I would have to say yes. I see a lot of people commenting about different editing techniques, writing, special effects, or styles of films, but I’m going to look at it not from those perspectives but from the consumers point of view. Movies are still made for the people and for entertainment purposes and that’s why movies are still around and will always be. Early movies, even without all of the high tech stuff we have today, were able to pull audiences in and let them into a world outside of the one they are living in. Even though the world we are in now is completely different than the Classical Hollywood period and you can defiantly say that our culture has changed, the idea of movies is the same and still provide us with the aforementioned so I don’t believe the status of movies has changed necessarily. As I stated in an earlier post I absolutely love the movie Avatar because I would love to be Jake Sully and have the same opportunity as him, and when I watch it I forget the world around me and become that character as corny as that sounds. So that’s my answer and reasoning, it may not be extremely solid on screen but at least it makes sense in my head.
I would say yes, in that they tend to influence our normative values.
I’m critical of Belton describing the theater as a social institution. The reason being is that while the theater was a place for people to gather it doesn’t seem like a place where people actually meet the people their with. The audience is typically more focused on the film than each other.
In regard to 500 days of Summer there are two broad segments and within them, five sub segments.
The first broad segment is when its non-linear.
within this segment is the subsegment where we get to know the perception of Summer from Tom Hansen’s perspective. We know he sees her as perfect yet we know he eventualy breaks up with her. Thus the conflict is set up
The second subsegment is when we see them get together. From their the contrast between past and future intensifies since Tom Hansen seems on the top of the world yet equally present is the fact that Summer keeps telling him that the relationship isn’t serious and we know he’s soon to be miserable.
The third subsegment is after the break up, however this sub segment is within the larger Linear segment now. We are almost led to believe that the continuing back and fourth from the previous segment was somehow in Hansen’s head. Now that that is exposed, the narrative takes in a straight line. In this subsegment, Hansen and Summer have broken up but he still holds hope that they might get back together.
The fourth subsegment is when Hansen realizes that Summer is married. Now his hopes are dashed, this causes him to go into despair.
The fifth subsegment is when Hansen finally gets over it and goes into archetecture. It concludes with him asking another girl out (conveniently named Autumn). Thus solidifying him getting over Summer.
I think people do pay more attention to the screen than eachother at the theater, but I don’t think that changes what makes it a social institution. Though each individual experiences the narrative within themselves and empathize with the characters in their own ways, they are a part of an audience, collectively taking in the same information. Whether experienced at home or a drive-in, movies are a sort of social engagement. Characters, in one way or another, reflect the real people in the audience, and in Classic Hollywood Cinema, the character is at the center of everything that happens on screen.
Regarding the character being at the center: I’ve heard several lecturers here at SIU bring up Russian films as a counterpoint. Films like Battleship Potemkin (1925) and Man with a Movie Camera (1929) do not have individual protagonists in the same way that CHC does.
Alex, yes those films are examples of films that do not have individual characters as central protagonist, but equivalent examples in CHC are few and far between and they most likely would NOT have been mainstream films (even those Russian films were not all that popular during their time, audiences preferred films like The Cigarette Girl from Mosselprom (1924), Bed and Sofa (1927) and Circus (1936). The last two films are genius btw and if you get a chance you should try to see them.
That is a interesting question to pose Dr Leigh, I feel as though now we are to transfixed on the special effects and how we can dazzle audiences with this instead of well thought out story lines. While I feel as though back in the golden age of cinema there was more of an emphasis on story lines and acting. One of my personal favorites is “All about Eve”. The dialogue in that film is probably the best I have ever seen on screen and yet there is no action, no swearing, no sex, nothing. While I am starting to sound like my grandma, they just don’t make movies like this anymore. They simply don’t sell tickets, audiences want sex, action and half naked individuals up on screen. While I am not saying that we don’t have great films in this era, we do, I personally love Argo, Titanic, and so on, I am simply saying that I don’t think films are held to the same regard as they use to be.
Our culture has evolved greatly since then. All About Eve (1950) came from a time when it was less of a choice to omit cursing and sex, rather, content like that was completely restricted.
Although it is obviously much more acceptable to include sex, violence and cursing in modern films, I also agree with Steven’s opinion. It often seems like raunchy comedies, action films, and premium cable shows (HBO shows in particular) feel obligated to include sex, violence, and cursing. In many cases it feels superfluous and distracting.
Ah, but it is amazing what they were able to do with those restrictions, how much more interestingly they were able to deal with the same issues.
I agree that Classical Hollywood Cinema is a national style. I think it’s sort of like having a national language. We all speak English, but there are groups that speak other languages that we don’t consider to be primary in this country. There are plenty of other filmmakers (experimental, indie, underground) in America but the overarching cinematic style is that of the Hollywood narrative. We go to a movie theater and we expect to be told a two hour story with a beginning, middle, and conclusion. The elements of film (narrative, mise-en-scene, editing) are what we are accustomed to seeing.
I do think that things are changing. With Netflix and other video sources available people are not going to movies as much. They can watch online and people seem to be more interested in following serials than watching a movie. The thing about TV is that there are new episodes each week for an allotted amount of time, and we can look forward to a continuous storyline. With the exception of superhero films or films based on novels, most movies are one and done. It seems that people nowadays want to follow characters through an entire life, as you can do when watching television shows. I will admit that when I was younger I would go see movies and they would leave me wanting more, even with a conclusion. It was like I wanted to know what was next for the characters, not simply a conventional “happily ever after” ending. I will say there are plenty of films that should not have sequels, but I think this is something to pay attention to in the industry. Webisodes are becoming more popular, and even Netflix and Hulu are making their own series. I think the film industry will start to change and not keep the structure, but still the narrative style, of the CHC.
I really like the structure of (500) Days of Summer. I think the structure has a lot to do with how people actually look back on their own failed relationships. We don’t always remember things in chronological order and we like to remember the good things more than the bad. The film jumps to different days as if we are in Tom’s mind, trying to help him make sense of Summer’s actions. I agree with Clark about how if the film was made in CHC style it would be boring to sit through. I also think that it is important to the story to have the structure be chaotic and messy because it reflects Tom and Summer’s relationship.
I, along with most of us, agree with Belton. When I think of the phrase “national style” I think of a collective group doing something in a particular way. In early Classical Hollywood Cinema and especially today, films have a variety of genres. Across these genres are a wide range of stories that are told in different ways. Within these different genres the basic different styles are used through editing, storytelling, effects, etc. These are privy to films across the spectrum and therefore construct this “national style” we speak of.
I actually really liked the way 500 Days of Summer was sequenced together. To this day it is one of the only films that truly puts me in the character’s shoes. For me, it made the film very realistic. I have a terrible memory, so I often can’t dig into my memory and find what I want. I really liked how it showed the character’s process in doing so.
The films we are screening are:
Lonedale Operator, D. W. Griffith, 1911
Some Like It Hot, Billy Wilder, 1958
500 Days of Summer, Marc Webb, 2009
We had a last minute restructuring of discussion leaders, so for now here are a few discussion items:
Belton discusses Classical Hollywood Cinema as the development of a national style, do you agree with him? Why/why not?
If you were to segment 500 days of Summer, what would it look like? Do you find this a useful way of looking at film?
How do you think CHC contributed to the solidification of cinema as a cultural institution?
I think that CHC needed to be the format for putting together movies for a long time before films started to be put together differently. Audiences I think really needed to get used to films in general and an easy format that is very direct and straight forward before they could even understand more complicated formats. If since the beginning of films the standard format was to tell the end of the story in the first scene like Quentin tarantino movies , that would really confuse movie goers. First the audience must understand movies as a whole before they can understand complex structures of how to tell the story. I think many movies benefit from breaking the CHC structure and it really helps enhance the story and make the movie better. 500 Days of Summer being one of them. I do not think this film would work as well if it was told in a straight forward structure and would be bland and boring over all. Instead it really tells different parts of the story out of order to really make the story more interesting overall than if it was just told in order , in my opinion.
I also think with editing programs like Final Cut X and Avid Media Composer being around 300 dollars to purchase that new editing techniques are going to continue being developed and used for a long time because of so many people having access to them and trying new things out.
Absolutely. For that matter, experimenting in editing is far easier with these programs than it was back when people used moviolas and had to physically cut film up and glue strips together.
You haven’t edited until you have had to splice and tape film for hours on end and then fish around for that one frame you cut and now realize you need…. 😉
It is hard to argue whether Classic Hollywood Cinema developed a national style. All cultures cast their identity in the form of narrative, and America is no exception. Yet Hollywood is not the birthplace of cinema, rather the place where it was industrialized. I thought Belton’s comparison of this style to Henry Ford’s automobile assembly line was spot on, and though imagination sometimes takes a back seat in CNC, there is an efficiency that is hard to deny.
As a social/cultural institution, CHC does provide a language for understanding the art form. Many aspects of filmmaking became defined tools for expression. This is beneficial for mass production and reaching a vast audience, but could be restrictive for the art form, especially if the audience only considers it a form of passive entertainment.
The films we are screening are:
Lonedale Operator, D. W. Griffith, 1911
Some Like It Hot, Billy Wilder, 1958
500 Days of Summer, Marc Webb, 2009
We had a last minute restructuring of discussion leaders, so for now here are a few discussion items:
Belton discusses Classical Hollywood Cinema as the development of a national style, do you agree with him? Why/why not?
If you were to segment 500 days of Summer, what would it look like? Do you find this a useful way of looking at film?
How do you think CHC contributed to the solidification of cinema as a cultural institution?
________________________________________________________
I, like other students in the class agree that CHC is certainly a national style. Concepts such as equilibrium and disruption, problem solving, time and space (in the context of the linear or nonlinear narrative) can be applied to a great variety of contemporary and classical historical Hollywood films. In the context of 500 days of Summer you could break down the films segmentation into three main sections. Tom meeting Summer and his false expectations and false perceptions of Summer and his infatuation with her, skipping forward in the nonlinear story format to months later when Tom and Summer attend the wedding and the party following where part three begins after he discovers she has become engaged to another man, thus leading us back to a circular narrative format where Autumn is introduced, starting the 500 days (or hopefully more for Tom’s sake) over again, and ensuring the viewer that there is always another chance, another cycle, another beginning for the main protagonist and hero, Tom, who the viewer sympathizes with and follows throughout the narrative. Like much Classical Hollywood Cinema Tom is a likeable protagonist who is presented with an initial introduction – we want Tom to get his girl, a series of problem solving occurs where Tom thinks he may have overcome one obstacle after another into Summers heart only to be set back, then seemingly triumphs in the end, alluding to a potential relationship with the newly introduced Autumn. I definitely think this is a useful way of looking at film, and it helps to break down the narrative and characters into a concise and understandable format that the viewer can reflect upon and analyze after watching the film to better understand not only its underlying structure but maybe illuminate oneself to aspects of the characters psychology or development that may have been missed the first time through.
Certainly Classical Hollywood Cinema solidified itself into our culture through using narrative techniques that envelope audiences into the lives and stories of the protagonists and characters that we may see as a reflection of oneself or of one we know, we relate to these characters and care about their well being as a result of this narrative structure. First we become interested in the character- who is hopefully when done successfully not two dimensional and through mis-en-scene and other cinematic techniques comes alive and takes us into another realm of reality or unreality. Then through a series of problem solving, and enlisting the viewer into the problems, trials and tribulations of the protagonist, hopefully in the end restoring the order and balance of the characters life, enlightening and strengthening the character in the process (typically or generally). This structure has been used and is still used because it is such an effective (or affective) method of story telling.
I think that classical hollywood is a national style in that it is a formula that most hollywood directors stuck to, no matter what the subject matter was and genre of the film. There was a certain type of way the narrative is told on any film and there is the same formula of how that story is told, even leaving room for the occasional plot twists and turns..Even tolday, with all of the ways that genres crossover into others, and are meshed together, the majority of hollywood films still follow the same formula at the root of the story. As well as the same stories being told with different characters and details.. The Cinderella type stories, the Action hero type stories and so on…I also agree with the others in saying that CHC has continually solidified cinema as a cultural institution. Though everyone may not be able to relate to a specific story, most people can relate to the themes. Even though I never actually related to Cher in Clueless, I could relate to the themes and what she wanted, which was really love, and the feeling that she wanted to be needed or helping someone, but of course I was like 6 when the movie first came out, and I was only attracted to the fashion. An when I was a little older and watched it again, I understood more, and I of course couldn’t relate to lifestyle of the characters, but the movie was still relatable. Clueless isn’t necessarily CHC, but it does follow some of the same formulas as Classical Hollywood.
I agree the formula of hollywood cinema allows it to be a national style becuse it turns it into an artform to be studied by any nationallity. The formula of the movie has worked so great over the years because the order of each scene creates an emotional ride that sales. I wouldnt re-order 500 Days of Summer because I think the way the director did was way more effective in making you believe and giving you hope in the relationship they had. The film let you see them at there very best right after you see it getting rocky.
On CHC conventions:
In Belton, page 54:
Belton writes that the lighting in Westerns “violates the logic of nature” when the fill lights illuminate the shadows on actors faces and under their cowboy hats. Yet this practice is a CHC convention to such a degree that Westerns that do not do this (Belton cites the film Tom Horn) “appear unrealistic because they do not abide by this timeworn lighting convention.”
Legibility and readability frequently trump logic and physics. I guess if characters are chatting in a convertible on the highway, I might rather hear what they are saying than hear them shouting in over immense wind-resistance.
Yes logic and physics frequently get trumped (most recent incarnation Sharknado), for the most part filmmakers rely on our ability to suspend disbelief.
The lonedale operator video/movie was particularly interesting to me because of the drastic change in color of the film which was changed three times throughout the film which actually distracted my viewing pleasure. The color change was only two different colors fortunately for me. It would of been much harder to view the film if the colors had continuously kept changing . My first guess was all the colors had utilized some sort of symbolic meaning with the characters intellect. My second guess towards putting color in a mostly black white film was to show the differentiation between objects and people.
Early cinema was almost never truely black and white. Films were often hand painted, tinted or toned. Generally big shifts in color of whole scenes connoted either location or time of day – blue meant it was a night sequence, yellow or reddish tones would have meant an inside location like the home.
While watching Some Like It Hot I thought it as a weird and awkward experience because I discovered all the actors spoke as if everything was totally exaggerated in conversation, which made it seem like a forced comedy of some sorts. Not only would the girls act more like this, but the men as well would get as exaggerated almost on the same level as the women. This is one reason why I am not very interested in movies from long ago because of the exaggeration with story, plot and character. Really not making the film feel real hinders me from watching the film and experiencing it as a whole.
I do agree that Classical Hollywood Cinema developed as the national style because of the development of the narrative structure. Movies were being better developed in way to capture the audience’s attention and increase audience participation. Belton describes Classical Hollywood Cinema as character-centered cinema. Cinema was using the narrative structure so the audience would better identify with the characters. The viewer would fully understand the main character’s or characters’ motivations, circumstances, and emotions. The audience watches a movie and unconsciously want to see a goal reached and balance restored. The nation believes that the stories they watch in the cinema can be paralleled with their own lives and it gives them a sense of hope.
For a segmentation of 500 days of Summer,
Tom and Summer are introduced.
Summer breaks up with Tom. Tom can’t believe.
Tom meets summer because of what Tom believes is “fate.”
Their relationship develops.
The signs of their pending break up are shown.
Tom’s life without summer; Tom and Summer go their separate ways.
I don’t like segmentation because it does not cater to films with non linear structures like 500 Days of Summer. It takes away from the visual representation of the film.
I really hope I’m on the right track with this but if I had to segment 500 Days of Summer, it would probably be a more linear plot. Of course, the original segment is pretty structured but it can get a bit confusing at times. I would have incorporated more background information or even the history of Tom and Summer’s relationship in the beginning of the film, but still in some way kept the days in order. But, their love/ relationship beliefs would have fallen in the middle of the film. Reason being, because it gives the audience an understanding of why Tom and Summer’s relationship eventually becomes extremely rocky. The ending of the film is what makes this question a little hard to answer because it’s perfect and it would fit perfectly into my segment. Also, I find my segment a useful way of looking at films because its more of a reality. People can enjoy pervious information before jumping right into a very complicated situation.
I believe that Classical Hollywood Cinema developed its style due to the economic forces driving the film industry. Many foreign film industries were funded by their governments and therefore were not as dependent on attracting a mass audience. Hollywood did not receive this type of funding and they instead relied on ticket sales. Through trial and error, Hollywood studios were able to create films that appealed to mass audiences. The national film style that CHC created is most obvious in their highly commercial nature.
I feel that 500 days of Summer was a good way for Classic Hollywood Cinema to slightly bend the rules. Really all in all, boy meets girl boy gets a girl in the end. It isnt that specific girl though which is why CHC formula breaks pattern. Right off the bat we are thrown into a weird timeline of storytelling, his heart is broken, good times, meeting her for the first time, then depression, then losing her. It keeps us involved because of the question, “will he get the girl?” We are so used to this formula that when we find a good story we actually can ask that question rather assume. This is so classic hollywood! The way it is told is unlike the normal traditions which makes for the interesting story. The fact that he does not get Summer in the end is a huge twist for CHC. Now the audience doesn’t feel quite satisfied. If it were to end there, we would get over it but it wouldn’t be as strong. But of course, the movie is Hollywoodized and he meets Autumn. Now the story can end and we all can go home happy. Our hero character found love or a chance at it again. Because of this ending the story, despite all of the breaking and changing the rules of CHC, falls into the trap of the movie style of CHC.
Hollywood makes things happier in the end. If not happier somehow they satisfy the audience with that last decision of the character. Earlier films were like this and when they saw how successful they were, it became a given to use that story format.