Which Era Begat The Best Horror Movies 1950

How were actors in the 50’s and 60’s able to do war movies after surviving war?

One can simply assume that by the time the 50s and later rolled around, that any actor/veteran who had the wherewithal to act in a war film was able to do so because the circumstances of his individual time in the service did not leave him incapable of revisiting those experiences in a theatrical context. Some people survive combat and come out as well-adjusted as ever while others experience PTSD or other mental health issues. There is no predictability to it.It might have helped matters to some extent that, in light of the production standards of the period, many war movies of the time were not laden with as realistic depictions of death and dying as film like Saving Private Ryan. The lack of realism might have provided another layer of insulation against an actor/veteran becoming too disturbed by whatever he was depicting onscreen.Three of the regular actors from the 60s comedy Hogan’s Heroes, about a fictitious German POW camp in the Second World War, were themselves Jewish survivors of the concentration camps, including two actors who regularly portrayed German military personnel. They portrayed these characters as somewhat foolish and easy to take advantage of. Rather than flinch in terror at the sight or mention of a Nazi, these actors dressed up like them and acted like goofballs as a way, in part, of dealing with the horror of war decades after the fact of it. Perhaps these actors found the whole thing cathartic. It’s not the way everybody would deal with the past, but no one can tell them they were wrong for it either.

Was everything better in the old days?

Given that it was better in some ways, worse in others, here are some of the things I note as I approach 75 years old in the northern east coast US.Even in urban areas, people seemed a lot more neighborly and mutually concerned. Manhattan had strong neighborhoods and joined in neighborhood concerns to a greater extent I think, though there are exceptions, current neighborhood associations. With neighborliness came good will.Because we were more brainwashed by the political establishment, we felt more secure and had greater peace of mind regarding the path of our country. This also came along with a sense that certain urgent problems were not so—racism and sexism for example, poverty. (I’m speaking as a white affluent American.) I suspect this is what many MAGA people long for.We had mythical heroes, not anti-heroes whom we believed in and emulated. Some of them were actually worth our trust and admiration. It’s harder it seems to find such people, partly because myths get punctured and ill-spirited people throw a lot of mud on people.There was much less political divisiveness among left and right. And “opponents” didn’t get as personal in their criticisms, trashing those who held different opinions, as compared to attacking the position per se,As a nation, the US was all about new, progress, optimism for the future, being on top of the pile in international matters. There was a strong sense after WWII of having met the worst evils one could imagine in the world and beating them back, defeating them near completely (but for state communism).We were much less informed about many urgent world problems. So we had a lot less to worry about. Our of sight, out of mind. (Is that better? I think not, but it felt better, naively.)It seemed like people in the majority middle class could afford to live financially without struggling. Things were comparatively cheaper for them.

Why was Karate so popular in the 80s, but not today?

There could be a lot of answers to this, but I personally blame the “McDojo” epidemic that came along shortly after that era.Many karate schools were founded when people figured out just how much of a cash cow karate could be, and many “experts” of dubious actual skill started filling strip malls all over the Western Hemisphere in a martial arts gold rush. Unfortunately, many people bought into this (unsurprising considering most people's only reference point was Hollywood) and soon enough, unskilled and unfit black belts were so common as to be a trope.It didn't take too long for the average person to notice this, and in 1993 the first UFC tournament took place as a competition between martial arts. The karate fighter didn't do very well and this was the true beginning of the “karate doesn't work, just learn BJJ” trend that has been growing in the martial arts world for the past couple of decades. Many karate teachers stuck to their curriculums, while many others jumped on the MMA bandwagon.Now you might ask- why did the same thing that happened to karate not happen to MMA? The answer is live competition. The one thing that separated good karate from bad karate was realistic training with actual contact, and the latter quickly tarnished the reputation of the former. However, almost every MMA school does live training and most compete to at least some degree. Ineffective MMA training quickly gets weeded out, and even subpar MMA training with actual contact is better than karate training with no live resistance.I feel that this does the great karate teachers a disservice and “black belt inflation” is definitely a problem to this day- if just anyone can walk around with a black belt and call himself a master, how does the average person know the difference between a good and a bad teacher? This question is somewhat rhetorical and has been plaguing the martial arts world for quite a long time.If you want to see some real karate training at its best, there are plenty of full-contact people out there doing great things! I'd check out Kyokushin first and go from there. There is also a lot of excellent karate-based kickboxing, although it's still pretty far removed from the martial art and is much more of a sport.

Was the Bible the first book on Earth?

No. A number of texts predate the Hebrew Bible. Which is the oldest “book?” It depends on what you mean by “book.” The title of earliest collection of writing has several competitors. The history of literature begins with the invention of writing in the ancient near east, Mesopotamia and Egypt, around 2700 b.c. So, the oldest books would be from that region. Though, mind you, they were originally on clay tablets, stone blocks, and crypt walls, so the conception of a book as a stack of papers bound together was still quite a long way off. Some of the main contenders for world’s oldest book:The Sumerian Instructions of Surrupak is a collection of wisdom literature dating from about 2500 b.c. As this exists only in fragmentary form, we may wish to qualify it as a partial book. The Kesh Temple Hymn was roughly contemporaneous. It, too, exists only in fragment.There are various Egyptian Funerary and Pyramid texts that date from about 2400. These are rather like instruction manuals for souls. Do they count as books?The earliest narrative book is probably The Epic Of Gilgamesh, composed in Sumer around 2300 b.c. It exists in numerous texts of fragmentary form.The Code of Uru-Kaginga is a fragment of a municipal and legal code of the eponymous king of Lagash in Mesopotamia from about 2400.The title of oldest Sacred Texts almost certaily belongs to the Vedas, written from circa 1700–1000 b.c. in India.The Bible is a unique case in bronze age (and later) near eastern literature due to its nature as a compilation of many texts by numerous authors over a long period of time. The oldest parts of the Bible are set in the Bronze age and date from anywhere from 1400 to 1000 b.c. There is little scholarly consensus on dates, and there probably never will be. The textual history of the Bible is too complex for any hard and sure answers.