Classic films are overrated
08-03-04 | 12:09 AM
#126
Thread Starter
Cool New Member
Originally posted by BrentLumkin
Another thing which is a huge difference, is that films from years past were much more dialogue driven and story driven, while many films of today are much more visual.
That's pretty obvious though.
It's the same reason why many people in the US hate foreign films.
Another thing which is a huge difference, is that films from years past were much more dialogue driven and story driven, while many films of today are much more visual.
That's pretty obvious though.
It's the same reason why many people in the US hate foreign films.
08-03-04 | 12:17 AM
#127
Thread Starter
Cool New Member
Originally posted by Tarnower
The AFI Top 100 Greatest Movies list has gotten a fairly bad rap over the last few years. One of the posts in this thread (sorry, too lazy to go back and look it up for the quote) stated that the AFI movies were picked by film critics. I don't think that's true. If I remember correctly from watching the TV special, the AFI selections were made by not only film critics, but also by many creative branches in the film community. Everyone from actors to writers to directors to cinematographers, etc. So, in essence, these selections were made by the creative film community as a whole. I assume as tribute to their craft and their own community from the last century. I know that a lot of people get irritated because there are so many popular titles on the list, but I actually think that' it's a very good place to start if someone is just starting to want to get exposed to classic films from previous decades. I mean, so many of the expected classic standards are in there. But I wouldn't recommend considering the AFI List as the complete Gospel of Film 101. It's just a good starting point. Also, the other AFI Lists (100 Greatest Comedies, Romances, Dramas, whatever) would have additional titles that are not on the basic 100. While I certainly don't agree with many of the titles on there, it's still a pretty good comprehensive guide to becoming exposed to some towering film works of years past. Also, try looking up at the Academy Awards Database the winners of the Screenplay Writing Awards over the years and check out some of those. And, finally (I promise), I have to slip in a recommendation of what I consider the finest film ever made about the media, 1976's absolutely brilliant "Network." Just watch that now and realize how ahead of it's time it was. It could actually be commenting on our media and culture in present day. Now, that was one helluva great dialogue-driven film. It's up there with "All About Eve" and "Annie Hall" as one of the most clever, wittiest and enjoyable-to-the-ears screenplays ever written.
The AFI Top 100 Greatest Movies list has gotten a fairly bad rap over the last few years. One of the posts in this thread (sorry, too lazy to go back and look it up for the quote) stated that the AFI movies were picked by film critics. I don't think that's true. If I remember correctly from watching the TV special, the AFI selections were made by not only film critics, but also by many creative branches in the film community. Everyone from actors to writers to directors to cinematographers, etc. So, in essence, these selections were made by the creative film community as a whole. I assume as tribute to their craft and their own community from the last century. I know that a lot of people get irritated because there are so many popular titles on the list, but I actually think that' it's a very good place to start if someone is just starting to want to get exposed to classic films from previous decades. I mean, so many of the expected classic standards are in there. But I wouldn't recommend considering the AFI List as the complete Gospel of Film 101. It's just a good starting point. Also, the other AFI Lists (100 Greatest Comedies, Romances, Dramas, whatever) would have additional titles that are not on the basic 100. While I certainly don't agree with many of the titles on there, it's still a pretty good comprehensive guide to becoming exposed to some towering film works of years past. Also, try looking up at the Academy Awards Database the winners of the Screenplay Writing Awards over the years and check out some of those. And, finally (I promise), I have to slip in a recommendation of what I consider the finest film ever made about the media, 1976's absolutely brilliant "Network." Just watch that now and realize how ahead of it's time it was. It could actually be commenting on our media and culture in present day. Now, that was one helluva great dialogue-driven film. It's up there with "All About Eve" and "Annie Hall" as one of the most clever, wittiest and enjoyable-to-the-ears screenplays ever written.
I've always wondered the same thing about the separate Academy Awards for Best Picture and Best Director -- how can anyone tell who deserves Best Director; how is it judged?
08-03-04 | 12:46 AM
#128
Thread Starter
Cool New Member
Originally posted by Cathepsin
Opti, you seem to be concerned with, not necessarily the realism, but the verisimilitude of classics versus modern films.
Opti, you seem to be concerned with, not necessarily the realism, but the verisimilitude of classics versus modern films.
What's the difference between verisimilitude and realism? Going by the dictionary definition ("The quality of appearing to be true or real"), they seem to be the same thing.
I notice in your list of films you like you included four of Tarantino's films. Do you think that the dialogue and acting in his films is presented in a realistic manner? I think the dialogue in Kill Bill is every bit as stylized as your average film noir or screwball comedy. It's just different, probably more to your taste, but don't bag on classics for their theatrical dialogue when the dialogue from Kill Bill is just as fake.
I think the dialogue and acting in Pulp Fiction is quite realistic in a lot of ways; though stylized to an extent, the dialogue sticks much closer to the variety of topics (not just related to the plot) and manner of real conversation than most movies do, which is why it's so highly regarded. Obviously things are a lot more stylized in Kill Bill, as you said; the movie is not intended to be realistic. The problem I have with the acting in a lot of classic films (and this seems to be more true of side characters than the main characters) is that they are often exaggerated and theatrical.
Also, you liked Eternal Sunshine, but have held off seeing Casablanca in part because it's a romance. Why did you go see Eternal Sunshine? Under the convolution of the script and the quirkiness of the direction, it's a very simple romantic film, not that different at heart from City Lights or Wild Strawberries.
So anyway, I'll have to check out Casablanca sometime to see what it offers over your typical romance film.
08-03-04 | 12:54 AM
#129
Thread Starter
Cool New Member
Originally posted by Seeker
Opti,
first of all, thanks for keeping this thread intelligent, reasoned, and focused. That's cool.
That said, I think the issue here is that you are looking at movies through a single filter: "how do they look and feel and come across today, in 2004."
sure, you are right on - a movie filmed in 1955 will come across "badly" given the advances made in 50 years in comparison. Given today's technolgies, we can make a man into a spider, we can create hobbits, we can make a mediocre actor into a great one.
In 1955, all you could do was take the talents of the actor/actress at hand, the talent of the story writer, and the abilities of the filmmaker.
So, to me, the issue is - look beyond the experience, and look into the intent. The movies from the "bygone days" (that's my crack at you being 23) have a LOT to offer - but you have to look at it with a totally different focus.
If you can change your focus, I think you will suddenly find these films to be absolutely fabulous.
Opti,
first of all, thanks for keeping this thread intelligent, reasoned, and focused. That's cool.
That said, I think the issue here is that you are looking at movies through a single filter: "how do they look and feel and come across today, in 2004."
sure, you are right on - a movie filmed in 1955 will come across "badly" given the advances made in 50 years in comparison. Given today's technolgies, we can make a man into a spider, we can create hobbits, we can make a mediocre actor into a great one.
In 1955, all you could do was take the talents of the actor/actress at hand, the talent of the story writer, and the abilities of the filmmaker.
So, to me, the issue is - look beyond the experience, and look into the intent. The movies from the "bygone days" (that's my crack at you being 23) have a LOT to offer - but you have to look at it with a totally different focus.
If you can change your focus, I think you will suddenly find these films to be absolutely fabulous.
08-03-04 | 01:01 AM
#130
Thread Starter
Cool New Member
Originally posted by Doctor Gonzo
by the way - how about starting our own DVD Talk version of the AFI list? we could submit our own top 100 movies and we could have a grand ranking according to their place on everyones lists.
by the way - how about starting our own DVD Talk version of the AFI list? we could submit our own top 100 movies and we could have a grand ranking according to their place on everyones lists.
08-03-04 | 01:03 AM
#131
Thread Starter
Cool New Member
Originally posted by BrentLumkin
I'd just like to say one more thing.
If anything, "classic" films are UNDERrated.
It's sad to think that there are so many people out there that wouldn't watch one of the older films, just because that it came out years ago. I know plenty of people like this, and that really gets to me in a big way.
I'd just like to say one more thing.
If anything, "classic" films are UNDERrated.
It's sad to think that there are so many people out there that wouldn't watch one of the older films, just because that it came out years ago. I know plenty of people like this, and that really gets to me in a big way.
08-03-04 | 01:20 AM
#132
Thread Starter
Cool New Member
Originally posted by Holly E. Ordway
I think that with any older movie, there's a tension between viewing it "as a classic" (ie. looking at it in the context of its time, appreciating its advances over other films of the era, etc.) and viewing it "as a movie" (simply considering its effect on you right now). Classics are revered for different reasons - some because they advanced the genre or the form significantly, even if since then, they've been surpassed, and others because they transcend their era in some way, so that they're enjoyable just as much 50 years after the fact.
I think that you can "appreciate" an important film, even if you don't "enjoy" it, and vice versa. The thing is, not everybody is interested in just appreciating a film, or may not be in the mood for that at the time. There's nothing wrong with that. I both enjoy and appreciate Chaucer, but that's not to say that someone who bounces off The Canterbury Tales is a cretin!
For instance, I'm another who just couldn't get through Citizen Kane. It didn't click with me as a film to enjoy, and at the time I was watching it, I wasn't in the mood to analyze it and appreciate it in terms of its contribution. I didn't particularly like Contempt (Le mepris) as a movie experience in its own right, but it was really quite interesting to watch it with the commentary and get an understanding of *why* that film was important, what ground-breaking things were done in it, etc. I still don't like it any better *as a film* but I can appreciate its importance and I'm glad I was exposed to it. However, without the commentary I wouldn't have gotten much out of it at all.
On the whole, I think there are more "classics" that are revered for their importance than ones that are revered for their ability to stand the test of time. Of the older films that I've enjoyed, some are sort of borderline on the appreciate/enjoy line. For instance, The Ten Commandments is a film I enjoy quite a bit, but I'm always a bit amused (and thus pulled out of the story) by the "Whee! We have Technicolor!" costume designs. On the other hand, I, Claudius is one of my all-time favorite pieces of filmmaking, ever, because its story, script, and acting are (IMO) just about perfect; I think it will be just as effective after fifty years as it is after thirty.
The age question is interesting, because I think in a way it cuts both ways. At 17, sure, you don't have the depth of experience that might add to your appreciation of a film... but you also haven't been jaded by seeing tons of other movies that build on the classics and take them in new directions. (I'm just about to turn 30, which puts me on the older end of the respondents here, btw.)
I think that with any older movie, there's a tension between viewing it "as a classic" (ie. looking at it in the context of its time, appreciating its advances over other films of the era, etc.) and viewing it "as a movie" (simply considering its effect on you right now). Classics are revered for different reasons - some because they advanced the genre or the form significantly, even if since then, they've been surpassed, and others because they transcend their era in some way, so that they're enjoyable just as much 50 years after the fact.
I think that you can "appreciate" an important film, even if you don't "enjoy" it, and vice versa. The thing is, not everybody is interested in just appreciating a film, or may not be in the mood for that at the time. There's nothing wrong with that. I both enjoy and appreciate Chaucer, but that's not to say that someone who bounces off The Canterbury Tales is a cretin!
For instance, I'm another who just couldn't get through Citizen Kane. It didn't click with me as a film to enjoy, and at the time I was watching it, I wasn't in the mood to analyze it and appreciate it in terms of its contribution. I didn't particularly like Contempt (Le mepris) as a movie experience in its own right, but it was really quite interesting to watch it with the commentary and get an understanding of *why* that film was important, what ground-breaking things were done in it, etc. I still don't like it any better *as a film* but I can appreciate its importance and I'm glad I was exposed to it. However, without the commentary I wouldn't have gotten much out of it at all.
On the whole, I think there are more "classics" that are revered for their importance than ones that are revered for their ability to stand the test of time. Of the older films that I've enjoyed, some are sort of borderline on the appreciate/enjoy line. For instance, The Ten Commandments is a film I enjoy quite a bit, but I'm always a bit amused (and thus pulled out of the story) by the "Whee! We have Technicolor!" costume designs. On the other hand, I, Claudius is one of my all-time favorite pieces of filmmaking, ever, because its story, script, and acting are (IMO) just about perfect; I think it will be just as effective after fifty years as it is after thirty.
The age question is interesting, because I think in a way it cuts both ways. At 17, sure, you don't have the depth of experience that might add to your appreciation of a film... but you also haven't been jaded by seeing tons of other movies that build on the classics and take them in new directions. (I'm just about to turn 30, which puts me on the older end of the respondents here, btw.)
As for the idea of appreciation vs. enjoyment: Commentaries and other background info can definitely help you appreciate a film, but it should stand on its own to be truly enjoyable. Why should anecdotes about the director's struggle to make a movie, the casting decisions, the efforts exerted to get certain camera angles or effects, and so on can make a big difference in the appreciation of a film, but the viewer should be able to view it without any of this background info and enjoy it, if it's a truly great film.
08-03-04 | 01:29 AM
#133
Thread Starter
Cool New Member
WARNING -- PLOT SPOILERS FOR "THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI" QUOTED AND FURTHER DISCUSSED BELOW.
I kinda liked the movie overall, but you're right, that scene, critical as it was to the conclusion, was just too cartoon-like. It could've been done in a much more believeable manner.
I can't remember his name, but I thought the cynical American character who's sent back to rescue the POWs was a little comical, in his manner and the scene of him on the boat, for instance. This is the sort of artificial grandeur that you just would not see in a serious film of this sort today.
It probably doesn't help that I saw Bridge on the River Kwai after To End All Wars, which has a lot of similar plot points but is much more realistic, brutal and moving.
Originally posted by DouglasRobert
While I really like The Bridge on the River Kwai, the one scene that really bothers me is the scene where the Alec Guiness character dies and falls down on the explosives detonator plunger. His acting is just way over the top in that scene.
While I really like The Bridge on the River Kwai, the one scene that really bothers me is the scene where the Alec Guiness character dies and falls down on the explosives detonator plunger. His acting is just way over the top in that scene.
I can't remember his name, but I thought the cynical American character who's sent back to rescue the POWs was a little comical, in his manner and the scene of him on the boat, for instance. This is the sort of artificial grandeur that you just would not see in a serious film of this sort today.
It probably doesn't help that I saw Bridge on the River Kwai after To End All Wars, which has a lot of similar plot points but is much more realistic, brutal and moving.
08-03-04 | 01:42 AM
#134
Thread Starter
Cool New Member
Originally posted by Breakfast with Girls
That makes sense, except I'm 23 and I love older movies. And obviously I love video games as well.
FWIW, the original Manchurian Candidate is vastly superior to the remake. I saw the new one last night.
That makes sense, except I'm 23 and I love older movies. And obviously I love video games as well.
FWIW, the original Manchurian Candidate is vastly superior to the remake. I saw the new one last night.
These two definitely demonstrate the differences between classic and modern filmmaking and acting, without any CGI in the remake that I can think of.
One thing that bugged me about the original (though admittedly, mostly after I was reading some message board comments on it): the dialogue and actions of Eugenie don't seem to make a lot of sense.
08-03-04 | 01:46 AM
#135
DVD Talk Special Edition
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: California
Classic movies are as interesting as they were back then. I'm sorry but i just don't see how you (topic creator) can call movies boring. It isn't just everyone, it's only you, and maybe a small fraction that regard those films as having lost their greatness in the passes of time. Great art doesn't pass. Technicolor or not, a great movie back then is still a great movie.
When i was a mere 15 year-old i saw Paths of Glory for the first time and was so absorbed in the characters and hoping that Kirk Douglas's character would save his comrades from the unfairness of the execution squadron.
Adventures of Robin Hood SE DVD remains one of the crown jewels in my collection. Almost any Humphrey Bogart movie is a testament why Bogart remains the most widely known actor and regarded as the greatest. It's not just an homage or a time covered haze saying he's the greatest, watch his movies and you'll see. Just because of having a low attention span isn't a reason to call classic films overrated.
Treasure of the Sierra Madre -- Not one movie about finding treasure has surpassed it -- not one. I would rather watch this movie than any other movie about finding treasure. Many films of this sub-genre have indians, criminals, and other "outer" enemies as the antagonists, but this movie has a much more deeper and subconcious part which is man's own weakness in greed and suspicion between the protagonists within the already having to deal with "outer" enemies such as bandits. Movies like this back then had that something extra that shined above the rest.
Even the "cheesiness" that has branded the 50s SciFi genre shouldn't go to actual art in a world when new technologies arose and little green men started appearing giving human kind new ideas about life, the universe, and the mind shown through the great SciFi movies as The Day the Earth Stood Still, War of the Worlds, or Forbidden Planet.
I respect David Lean on so many accounts of not forgetting the heroic sacrifices made in the good of mankind in the "side-shows" of the 2 world wars. Without Lawrence of Arabia not many of this and the last generation would know about the incredible unbelievable missions these men are placed in. From the Jungles of Indochina to the desert of Arabia, as industry and technology has started to mold with the ancient kingdoms of the past.
When i was a mere 15 year-old i saw Paths of Glory for the first time and was so absorbed in the characters and hoping that Kirk Douglas's character would save his comrades from the unfairness of the execution squadron.
Adventures of Robin Hood SE DVD remains one of the crown jewels in my collection. Almost any Humphrey Bogart movie is a testament why Bogart remains the most widely known actor and regarded as the greatest. It's not just an homage or a time covered haze saying he's the greatest, watch his movies and you'll see. Just because of having a low attention span isn't a reason to call classic films overrated.
Treasure of the Sierra Madre -- Not one movie about finding treasure has surpassed it -- not one. I would rather watch this movie than any other movie about finding treasure. Many films of this sub-genre have indians, criminals, and other "outer" enemies as the antagonists, but this movie has a much more deeper and subconcious part which is man's own weakness in greed and suspicion between the protagonists within the already having to deal with "outer" enemies such as bandits. Movies like this back then had that something extra that shined above the rest.
Even the "cheesiness" that has branded the 50s SciFi genre shouldn't go to actual art in a world when new technologies arose and little green men started appearing giving human kind new ideas about life, the universe, and the mind shown through the great SciFi movies as The Day the Earth Stood Still, War of the Worlds, or Forbidden Planet.
I respect David Lean on so many accounts of not forgetting the heroic sacrifices made in the good of mankind in the "side-shows" of the 2 world wars. Without Lawrence of Arabia not many of this and the last generation would know about the incredible unbelievable missions these men are placed in. From the Jungles of Indochina to the desert of Arabia, as industry and technology has started to mold with the ancient kingdoms of the past.
08-03-04 | 03:50 PM
#136
it's really just a matter of taste. I'm 27 and have always been more of the "cult movie" fan. But in the past 7 years, I've been open to watching as many "classic masterpieces" of yesteryear as I possibly can.
Just like the topic creator had done, I used the AFI-100 guide as well as EW's 100 Greatest Movies of all Time to see what all the hype is about. And in the process, I've had mixed reactions to some of the classics.
Loved:
The Third Man
Duck Soup
Treasure of the Sierra Madre
Citizen Kane
The Seventh Seal
Bridge on the River Kwai
Sunset Boulevard
Didn't love, but respected:
Casablanca
The Grapes of Wrath
Children of Paradise
Lawrence of Arabia
Singin' in the Rain
So-So:
On The Waterfront
North by Northwest
Shane
Touch of Evil
The Searchers
Didn't care for:
[b]Some like it hot
8 1/2 (There's other Fellini titles I liked better)
White Heat
All about Eve (Couldn't even finish it)
Vertigo
I won't say that today's movies are better, but they have something that appeal more to me than stuff from the 30's-50's. Examples:
-Acting (As mentioned before)
-Realistic character protrayals
-Experimental cinematography/Special FX
-Presence of African/Latino/Asian-Americans in leading roles
-Freedom (Pertaining to language,sex,and violence)
Whenever I watch one of these "classic" movies, I have to remind myself that I'm not always going to get what I labeled up above, but if the movie manages to be great without the benefit of my listed examples, then it's a great movie. 'nuff said.
Just like the topic creator had done, I used the AFI-100 guide as well as EW's 100 Greatest Movies of all Time to see what all the hype is about. And in the process, I've had mixed reactions to some of the classics.
Loved:
The Third Man
Duck Soup
Treasure of the Sierra Madre
Citizen Kane
The Seventh Seal
Bridge on the River Kwai
Sunset Boulevard
Didn't love, but respected:
Casablanca
The Grapes of Wrath
Children of Paradise
Lawrence of Arabia
Singin' in the Rain
So-So:
On The Waterfront
North by Northwest
Shane
Touch of Evil
The Searchers
Didn't care for:
[b]Some like it hot
8 1/2 (There's other Fellini titles I liked better)
White Heat
All about Eve (Couldn't even finish it)
Vertigo
I won't say that today's movies are better, but they have something that appeal more to me than stuff from the 30's-50's. Examples:
-Acting (As mentioned before)
-Realistic character protrayals
-Experimental cinematography/Special FX
-Presence of African/Latino/Asian-Americans in leading roles
-Freedom (Pertaining to language,sex,and violence)
Whenever I watch one of these "classic" movies, I have to remind myself that I'm not always going to get what I labeled up above, but if the movie manages to be great without the benefit of my listed examples, then it's a great movie. 'nuff said.
08-03-04 | 05:23 PM
#138
DVD Talk Hero
Originally posted by opti
As for the idea of appreciation vs. enjoyment: Commentaries and other background info can definitely help you appreciate a film, but it should stand on its own to be truly enjoyable.
As for the idea of appreciation vs. enjoyment: Commentaries and other background info can definitely help you appreciate a film, but it should stand on its own to be truly enjoyable.
08-03-04 | 05:50 PM
#139
DVD Talk Special Edition
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: The Archives, Indiana
Movies and the age of the viewer are a funny thing. The older I get- I'm 44- the more likely I am to enjoy older films than I would have been half my life ago. Maybe I'm slowing down to their pace 
08-03-04 | 07:33 PM
#140
DVD Talk Legend
Originally posted by opti
Seeker, you seem to be confirming a suspicion I have about many of these films -- that they were excellent and groundbreaking for their time, but recent films have surpassed them. A poster earlier in the thread made a good comparison with his experience reading Dune -- he'd read all the sci-fi that was inspired by Dune, and took those ideas further, so by the time he read the original it didn't seem like anything special. To be regarded as a great film, it must stand up to the competition today, not just when it was made.
Seeker, you seem to be confirming a suspicion I have about many of these films -- that they were excellent and groundbreaking for their time, but recent films have surpassed them. A poster earlier in the thread made a good comparison with his experience reading Dune -- he'd read all the sci-fi that was inspired by Dune, and took those ideas further, so by the time he read the original it didn't seem like anything special. To be regarded as a great film, it must stand up to the competition today, not just when it was made.
If you have multiple ways to view something, you can come to different conclusions.
08-08-04 | 07:31 PM
#141
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 923
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to say this is one of the best threads I've ever seen in this forum. Kudos to all.
I appreciate new members coming with new ideas and not being afraid to say "I downloaded a divx movie"... and older members who still keep the flame going... thanks for a very enjoyable read!
I appreciate new members coming with new ideas and not being afraid to say "I downloaded a divx movie"... and older members who still keep the flame going... thanks for a very enjoyable read!
08-09-04 | 02:50 AM
#144
DVD Talk Special Edition
Opti - I think a large part of the problem lies in the format you've seen these films in
Hate to say this, especially on a DVD forum, but many films just can not be appreciated on a TV screen, irregardless of the size. David Lean films were not meant for TV.
Take Lawrence of Arabia, for example. I first saw it during a 70mm revival about 15 or so years ago on a humongous screen. The movie is overwhelming when seen that big. On a TV, many details are lost and the whole epic sense of the film is somewhat diminished.
And its not just historical epics. Always loved Citizen Kane and the Wizard of Oz, but they were never a beautiful as on a big screen. Watching Singing in the Rain with a restored Technicolor print is a jaw-dropping experience. Hell, even The Sound of the Music is amazing on a large screen (esp the "16 Going on 17" number in the rain).
What I tend to find is that the bigger the movie is, the better it is reflected from a theatrical viewing. The Ten Commandments and Ben Hur are definitely hammy flicks, but that style of acting fits much better when viewed in 70mm. The initimacy of the TV is much less forgiving of such things.
I think thats why modern films seem so much better on a TV set. They are produced with the idea that they will eventually be known mostly by a small screen audience. The acting style is more intimate and even big set pieces tend to focus on smaller details.
Hate to say this, especially on a DVD forum, but many films just can not be appreciated on a TV screen, irregardless of the size. David Lean films were not meant for TV.
Take Lawrence of Arabia, for example. I first saw it during a 70mm revival about 15 or so years ago on a humongous screen. The movie is overwhelming when seen that big. On a TV, many details are lost and the whole epic sense of the film is somewhat diminished.
And its not just historical epics. Always loved Citizen Kane and the Wizard of Oz, but they were never a beautiful as on a big screen. Watching Singing in the Rain with a restored Technicolor print is a jaw-dropping experience. Hell, even The Sound of the Music is amazing on a large screen (esp the "16 Going on 17" number in the rain).
What I tend to find is that the bigger the movie is, the better it is reflected from a theatrical viewing. The Ten Commandments and Ben Hur are definitely hammy flicks, but that style of acting fits much better when viewed in 70mm. The initimacy of the TV is much less forgiving of such things.
I think thats why modern films seem so much better on a TV set. They are produced with the idea that they will eventually be known mostly by a small screen audience. The acting style is more intimate and even big set pieces tend to focus on smaller details.
08-09-04 | 09:02 AM
#145
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am an old film buff, who somewhat agrees with the OP
With one distinction. I do not lump "old films" together. This by nature prejudices your viewing. If you sit down to watch a movie thinking that you are watching something old, how can you possibly keep an open mind. Same with foreign language movies.
Separating movies from their genre allows you to judge a movie by it's creative force.
What do I agree with? Fast talking. Please slow things down to the speed of life. Overacting. I think it was left over from silent movies, where every gesture had to be over done. But by the 50's most of this was gone.
Most movies before 1950 were anything but slow. Of course exceptions exist like Napolean(silent) and Grapes of Wrath. But that does not make them bad. Grapes of Wrath was an amazing film almost reminds me of Robert Altman. But it refused to come to you. You will have to go to it and it is sometimes a lot of work.
Lawrence of Arabia is not a masterpiece because it rivits the viewer in their seats. You have to be patient with it. It is most definately a journey. I had the misfortune of watching Hildago the other night. Not a completely horrible experience, but it sure tried its best to irritate me. It is the antithesis of Lawrence of Arabia. Where LoA paced itself to show the journey across the desert and through the years, Hildago turned an impossible 3000 mile race into 8 miles. There was absolutely no sense of distance or time. Where LoA would give more weight to a conversation than a battle. A conversation that may or may not have gone on 5 minutes too long, but was often important to devolping relationships between characters. Without relationships there is little drama. Techology, like any art medium is as good as the artist. Hildago's CGI created moments of dibelief. That is not a good thing for a period piece.
But it is not about comparing films as much as the relationship between the director and viewer. Your obligation as a viewer is to attempt to see the big picture. You may have to work at it. There are no perfect films and I have learned to concentrate on the good things about a film rather than the bad. Which are more rewarding to you?
There are films made today that require a lot of work on the part of the viewer. Those who are willing to put forth the effort will be rewarded those who view movies passively will not.
With one distinction. I do not lump "old films" together. This by nature prejudices your viewing. If you sit down to watch a movie thinking that you are watching something old, how can you possibly keep an open mind. Same with foreign language movies.
Separating movies from their genre allows you to judge a movie by it's creative force.
What do I agree with? Fast talking. Please slow things down to the speed of life. Overacting. I think it was left over from silent movies, where every gesture had to be over done. But by the 50's most of this was gone.
Most movies before 1950 were anything but slow. Of course exceptions exist like Napolean(silent) and Grapes of Wrath. But that does not make them bad. Grapes of Wrath was an amazing film almost reminds me of Robert Altman. But it refused to come to you. You will have to go to it and it is sometimes a lot of work.
Lawrence of Arabia is not a masterpiece because it rivits the viewer in their seats. You have to be patient with it. It is most definately a journey. I had the misfortune of watching Hildago the other night. Not a completely horrible experience, but it sure tried its best to irritate me. It is the antithesis of Lawrence of Arabia. Where LoA paced itself to show the journey across the desert and through the years, Hildago turned an impossible 3000 mile race into 8 miles. There was absolutely no sense of distance or time. Where LoA would give more weight to a conversation than a battle. A conversation that may or may not have gone on 5 minutes too long, but was often important to devolping relationships between characters. Without relationships there is little drama. Techology, like any art medium is as good as the artist. Hildago's CGI created moments of dibelief. That is not a good thing for a period piece.
But it is not about comparing films as much as the relationship between the director and viewer. Your obligation as a viewer is to attempt to see the big picture. You may have to work at it. There are no perfect films and I have learned to concentrate on the good things about a film rather than the bad. Which are more rewarding to you?
There are films made today that require a lot of work on the part of the viewer. Those who are willing to put forth the effort will be rewarded those who view movies passively will not.
08-09-04 | 03:51 PM
#147
DVD Talk Special Edition
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,096
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: sunny San Diego!
It's also worth mentioning that "overrated" doesn't mean "garbage." It means "not as good as everyone says it is." A film might still be very good and definitely worth watching... but if you've heard from everyone that it's THE MOST AMAZING FILM EVER!!!!!!!!! then you could quite justifiably say "it's overrated."
If you start watching a film *expecting* it to be amazing, it's also quite understandable to feel a bit let down if it's merely good rather than astounding. That's the problem with a lot of the classics, I think... they've been praised so often, and wormed their way into popular culture and history to such an extent, that it's almost impossible to *not* have unrealistically high expectations (and thus be disappointed at least to a certain degree).
If you start watching a film *expecting* it to be amazing, it's also quite understandable to feel a bit let down if it's merely good rather than astounding. That's the problem with a lot of the classics, I think... they've been praised so often, and wormed their way into popular culture and history to such an extent, that it's almost impossible to *not* have unrealistically high expectations (and thus be disappointed at least to a certain degree).
08-09-04 | 05:55 PM
#148
Senior Member
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 765
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Springfield, VA
I just watched The Seventh Seal the other night and honestly had trouble sticking with it. Now of course that's because I'm not the brightest person in the world and couldn't extract ever bit of deeper meaning that Bergman was trying to convey. Having said that, I suspect that's true for alot of people. While I like a movie that makes me think, I don't like one that gives me a headache while thinking.
In comparison, one of my favorite older films is The Best Years of our Lives. In fact, I first saw that several years ago before becoming more serious about movie watching and DVD collecting. While it's not a piece of fluff, it also doesn't make me strain to figure it all out. I just sit back and enjoy the great character development and the interplay amongst the characters.
I'm also starting to watch some noir. I absolutely loved The Maltese Falcon, Out of the Past, and The Killing. These are all well done movies, but again, I don't lose brain cells trying to figure out what the director is trying to tell me.
In comparison, one of my favorite older films is The Best Years of our Lives. In fact, I first saw that several years ago before becoming more serious about movie watching and DVD collecting. While it's not a piece of fluff, it also doesn't make me strain to figure it all out. I just sit back and enjoy the great character development and the interplay amongst the characters.
I'm also starting to watch some noir. I absolutely loved The Maltese Falcon, Out of the Past, and The Killing. These are all well done movies, but again, I don't lose brain cells trying to figure out what the director is trying to tell me.
08-09-04 | 09:50 PM
#149
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 5,169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: On the penis chair
I tend to believe that watching movie is all about expectations. I tend to watch all of my movie with no or little expectation. That works sometimes - and when it doesn't work when I watch critically acclaimed movie (such as what happen when I watched Lawrence of Arabia for the first time), I usually re-watch it to understand why people praised them. And it works effectively. I enjoyed other classics such as The Third Man, Casablanca, The Children of Paradise and so on only after I re-watch them, sometimes after the third or the fourth screenings.
Although I agree that some classic movie has aged poorly, most of the good one is just as good today. I also agree that sometimes age affects the audiences, because watching these kind of movie needs some skill, not just staring at the screen blankly like when you watch most recent movie.
Although I agree that some classic movie has aged poorly, most of the good one is just as good today. I also agree that sometimes age affects the audiences, because watching these kind of movie needs some skill, not just staring at the screen blankly like when you watch most recent movie.
08-09-04 | 11:59 PM
#150
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 853
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by opti
I'm 23, how about you?
I'm not sure if there would be much of a difference in opinion when I get older, really. I like a lot of modern slow-paced films, but Lawrence of Arabia in particular just seemed so slow and dull as far as I watched, that 6 months to a year later I haven't had the motivation to go back and finish watching.
I'm 23, how about you?
I'm not sure if there would be much of a difference in opinion when I get older, really. I like a lot of modern slow-paced films, but Lawrence of Arabia in particular just seemed so slow and dull as far as I watched, that 6 months to a year later I haven't had the motivation to go back and finish watching.