Were there far more great films in the past than today?
the good lady
cinephilia from the 50s to 70s, but is there some truth to the notion
that great films were far more frequent in the 50s, 60s, and 70s than
today?
This doesn't apply to the US(and France to a lesser degree) where
good, interesting, and great films have been made since the 70s up to
now. But, there has been a real decline in world cinema.
In the 50s and 60s, if US was making crap movies in a given year,
French were making good movies. If the French were making crap, there
was Sweden's Bergman. If Bergman was having a dry season, there was
Antonioni. If Antonioni was having a dry run, there was Truffaut. If
Truffaut was having a dry run, there was Imamura. If Imamura was
having a dry run, there was Pasolini. If Paso was sucking up, there
was Godard. If Godard was fuc*ing up, there was Visconti. If Visconti
was messing up, there was Oshima. If Oshima was screwing up, there was
Bertolucci. If Bertolucci was messing up, there was Bresson. If
Bresson was messing up, there was Tati. If Tati was messing up, there
was Kurosawa. If Kurosawa was messing up, there was Rohmer. If Rohmer
was messing up, there was Wajda. If Wajda was messing up, there was
Forman. If Forman was messing up, there was Jansco.
And so on.
Most of the filmmakers listed above made their share of bad films,
ungood films, flawed films. But, there were so many interesting and
first-rate artists that there was always a handful of artists
somewhere who were doing something important. But, international
cinema has declined badly. Only US and France have really remained
as major players. Hong Kong was big in the 80s, but none of it was
serious art cinema.
Today, when US and France falter, there isn't much to look forward to
or rely on. Sure, there are good directors all over but not many
great ones making grand ambitious films. The pool of talent isn't
very deep anymore. When the US and French products are thin, there
aint much else to dive into.
Derek Janssen
> There is a tendency to romanticize the past, especially the age of
> cinephilia from the 50s to 70s, but is there some truth to the notion
> that great films were far more frequent in the 50s, 60s, and 70s than
> today?
...Are you asking because you don't know? :)
Derek Janssen (high-fiving KG for his astute observations)
eja...@verizon.net
Steven L.
> There is a tendency to romanticize the past, especially the age of
> cinephilia from the 50s to 70s, but is there some truth to the notion
> that great films were far more frequent in the 50s, 60s, and 70s than
> today?
>
> This doesn't apply to the US(and France to a lesser degree) where
> good, interesting, and great films have been made since the 70s up to
> now. But, there has been a real decline in world cinema.
Television has taken over.
Some very good writers are now writing dramas for premium cable and
satellite channels in many countries, the U.S. included.
Broadcast TV used to be mostly crap (the "vast wasteland" that Newton
Minow talked about). That was at least partly due to Government
censorship of what could appear on the broadcast airwaves, and also due
to commercial sponsorship of those programs.
But once cable and satellite premium channels appeared, free of
censorship by the FCC and its foreign equivalents, offering programs
without commercial interruption, television drama could improve greatly.
And writers could write stories with larger scope and longer plot for
a series, than they could ever do for a two-hour movie.
In America, we've seen quality shows like "The Sopranos," "The Wire,"
"Deadwood," etc.,
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
the good lady
I saw three episodes of Sopranos, and that was enough. Saw one of
Deadwood, and even Beaver's fine performance couldn't save it. The
entire script for Deadwood goes like 'fuc* this, fuc* that'. Didn't
see the Wire but I think it's been overpraised--rather like Do the
Right Thing--because it supposedly has the 'courage' to show inner
city reality with some degree of honesty. Watching some angry drug
dealers talk shit and shoot eachother may be 'great art' for suckers
but I aint one of them.
Also, the problem was never really censorship. A movie isn't
necessarily better because it has nudity, swear words, and violence.
Sure, those things can be used artistically to convey the true nature
of social reality. But, more often than not, they are used as
substitute for real art. Any hack can load up his movie or tv show
with violence, foul words, and sex and then say, "LOOK, I HAVE THE
COURAGE TO SHOW YOU REALITY AS IT REALLY IS."
gerry
>
> - Show quoted text -
Not to be overly critical, but using the term "great movies" and
ignoring the 20s theorugh the 40s seems incredible. Then stating that
Hong Kong only made noteworthy movies in the 80s, ignoring the early
90s peak of Hong Kong film making seems to indicate a total lack of
knowledge about Hong Kong films.
And shallow comments about the problem not being censorship, when the
Production Code Adminstration eviserated Hollywood studio movies from
1934 to about 1964, shows a cavalier attitude toward film history.
Besides that, by definition, great movies are rare movies, since if
all movies had characteristics considered great, they would be
commonplace. Still, using the HBO series Deadwood in any discussion
of great movies seems to show a very limited knowledge of movies.
But everyone is entitled to an opinion, just that it always helps to
have some facts to back up the opinion.
Audie Murphy's Ghost
<6741062f-b5ad-48d7...@j39g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
the good lady <and-...@live.com> wrote:
> Didn't see the Wire but I think it's been overpraised
Happily, never having seen the program didn't stop you from delivering
a negative opinion of it.
You can save a lot of time that way.
Opry phantom
The 50s through mid 60s was one of the weakest era in American
film history!
J. Theakston
> The 50s through mid 60s was one of the weakest era in American
> film history!
Must disagree with you. The '50s and '60s yielded excellent films
artistically and technologically. If there is any one dark age of
film making, it surely started in the 1970s with the onslaught of
mainstream pornography and exploitation films.
J. Theakston
sir m
I do not know whether a past great film will still rate as great if
viewed again today
Donald4564
Probably the reason why not so many "great" films come out these days
as once is because:
1. Not as many pictures are churned out per year.
2. Audiences are not as discerning as they used to be.
3. Films are made by accounting firms rather than showmen.
4. Pictures are made to formulas to tie in with merchandising.
5. Whizzbang wizardry is considered far more important than artistry.
Having said all that, I still go to the pictures fairly regularly - I
particularly like the English pictures such as "Mrs. Henderson
presents" and "Gosford Park" etc., and am entertained by them.
Considering that pictures' primary purpose is to entertain and they do
sometimes entertain me, means that they are still serving their
purpose - but putting everything together - there are not too many
great films amongst the modern lot in the last 30 years or so.
Regards
Donald Binks
Lloyd Fonvielle
> The 50s through mid 60s was one of the weakest era in American
> film history!
Yeah -- you just had Ford, Hitchcock, Boetticher, Mann, Tashlin and
Lewis doing some of their best work. Glad those days are over.
--
Mar de Cortes Baja
www.mardecortesbaja.com <http://www.mardecortesbaja.com/blog>
nick
> Probably the reason why not so many "great" films come out these days
> as once is because:
>
> 1. Not as many pictures are churned out per year.
> 2. Audiences are not as discerning as they used to be.
Not as discerning? People used to go to the movies a few times a
week. Now most people go a few times a year, if that often. My
parents have told me that when they went to the movies and saw
something good, that was a bonus. The real entertainment came just
from the moviegoing experience. When I was growing up in the
seventies I'd go see anything showing at our local theater--Dario
Argento one week, Disney the next, some crappy documentary about the
legend of Boggy Creek after that. For some people the seventies were
defined by Altman, Scorsese, Woody Allen and Francis Coppola. I was
seeing Bond, the Apes franchise and disaster flicks. I'm not sure how
much faith you can put in the good taste of previous generations of
filmgoers.
the good lady
He aint talking about the slobs and blobs like you and me. He's
saying that in the 60s and 70s, there was another group--devoted
cinephiles and the film generation--that really took art film(indie
movies and foreign movies)seriously. So yes, there was always the
unwashed masses who went to movies. But, there was also the cinephile
crowd. We have film nuts today too but they have no class, no
seriousness, no intellect. they mix high and low and everything in
between.
so, the serious culture that sat still for a bresson or godard is no
more.
that's what he meant.
I think the arrival of TV hurt the hollywood film industry that
catered to the slobs and blobs, because slobs and blobs will watch
anything. like you said, they just wanna watch to watch. they just
wanna go to the movies to go to the movies. they just wanna turn on
the tv to turn on the tv. so, when the tv came along, it hurt
hollywood. but, tv didn't hurt art cinema because tv didn't show art
films for the most part. cinephiles had to go to the art house theater
to see that stuff. also, only revival houses showed great old and
foreign films that didn't show up on tv.
but, when the VCR came along, even cinephiles could stay home and
watch art films. also, since you could watch any film at anytime, it
was no longer special to go to revival houses. if you could watch a
fellini movie ONLY in the theater, you might go to see 8 1/2 if it
showed up once in a long moon. but if you can see it anytime, it's no
longer special. too much of something sometimes bad.
Flas...@live.com
I shouldn't think prurience will better weather the dark edge to art
as it imitates reality (or, apropos to a reality that's doing an
imitation of art). Three or four hundred years ago, I recall when a
voluptuous painting was first hung in perhaps an Italian or French
gallery, how seeming a matter then she be depicted, wrapped in her
nakedness, in the novelty of a rather large snake howsoever
artistically draped upon her. That it should nevertheless occur to
the day, to be proclaimed a misused issue, that wherein that
particular frame was granted great art should reside was only a
temporal matter thereafter adjusted to inculcate voyeuristic appeal.
Not long ago the wealthiest man in America had built a magnificent
home to purvey a majestic view over the Pacific heights, the same man
whose rise to wealth came to encompass an expressed vision of a flat-
panel hung on every American household wall. When asked if and what
television fare would suit such very panels, within his own domain, as
indeed were intended a behest to our selfsame future, his answer,
'[that] I [William Gates The Third] wouldn't have [televised] trash in
my household,' presents interesting contradictions among uncertain and
perhaps accelerated terms, at present, in evolution.
-
“What four-letter word do they have in mind? ... Hero?” -Geraldo
Rivera
Howard Brazee
<and-...@live.com> wrote:
>There is a tendency to romanticize the past, especially the age of
>cinephilia from the 50s to 70s, but is there some truth to the notion
>that great films were far more frequent in the 50s, 60s, and 70s than
>today?
Here's my second post today mentioning _Sturgeon's Law_.
There were far more movies back then. Which means the 10% of not-crud
also were more movies.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Donald4564
Before television we used to go to the pictures once a week. Then, as
well as the main film, we had a full supporting show, an orchestra and
an organist. Most people of this era also went once a week - after
all, we had the wireless to listen to on the other nights.
Because people would have gone to the pictures more often than the
average Joe Blow today, they would have seen more films and thus would
have been able to judge based on volume.
To my mind anyone who can come out of a picture today where nearly
everyone in it has been shot, there has been an explosion every five
minutes, bodies are strewn about in bloody gore, 25 motor cars have
been wrecked and the language throughout would make a sailor blush -
and then say it's a "classic" - ought to have his bumps read.
Regards
Donald Binks
nick
> On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 13:50:00 -0800 (PST), the good lady
>
> >There is a tendency to romanticize the past, especially the age of
> >cinephilia from the 50s to 70s, but is there some truth to the notion
> >that great films were far more frequent in the 50s, 60s, and 70s than
> >today?
>
> Here's my second post today mentioning _Sturgeon's Law_.
>
> There were far more movies back then. Which means the 10% of not-crud
> also were more movies.
>
straight-to-DVD, all kinds of limited releases, films shot for
television and cable. Literally anyone with a digital camera can make
a movie and get it online. There are more movies in general release
now than there were when I was coming up. A friend of mine back in
school decided to see every single release that showed up in his multi-
plex heavy hometown one summer and he managed it. He couldn't do it
now because he'd be going to the movies every day,
I think what's happened is the glut of movies, everything from major
releases in the theater to the straight-to-DVD throwaways, has messed
up our filters so it's harder to get to what's good. All the bad
movies made by people with no talent who never would have had an
outlet when the studios were controlling things and the technology of
filmmaking was prohibitively expensive brings the average down and
gives the impression things are worse than they are.
Ubiquitous
>There is a tendency to romanticize the past, especially the age of
>cinephilia from the 50s to 70s, but is there some truth to the notion
>that great films were far more frequent in the 50s, 60s, and 70s than
>today?
I think it's more accurate to state that they m ake more crappy movies than
they used to.
Why are you asking this in a newsgroup about television?
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.
Opry phantom
Sheesh! Alright I was too rough on the Fifties, but there was a
drop off in the second half. The mid Sixties in American film was
awful.
Stone me
Culture is a continuous flow of creativity, and it's changeability is often
reflected.
Movies are no less subject to the above.
The use of the word "great" requires some qualification.
None of us can tell for sure, since the subject is subjective, but certain
quotes
I have heard from many different eras say the same thing:
"It were great in my day"
"These young people don't know they are born".
"No respect for their elders and betters"
It is a certainty that some eras are "better" than others, given some kind
of
measurement. It may be that the current standards of Movies are not as good
as they have been, but without a well built argument to sustain the notion,
the OP is wasting bandwidth.
End of.
Stone me.
WQ
--- You might even be wrong about that, too. Between '63 and '66 [the
mid-60s], these were some of the better and/or more popular ones to be
released:
8½
A Fistful of Dollars
A Hard Day’s Night
A Man and a Woman
A Man for All Seasons
Alfie
Arabesque
Becket
Billy Liar
Blood Feast
Blow Up
Charade
Cleopatra
Darling
Doctor Zhivago
Dr. Strangelove
Fahrenheit 451
Fail Safe
Fantastic Voyage
From Russia with Love
Gambit
Georgy Girl
Goldfinger
Harper
How to Murder Your Wife
Hud
Irma la Douce
It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World
Jason and the Argonauts
Kaleidoscope
King Rat
Lillies of the Field
Lord of the Flies
Move Over, Darling
Our Man Flint
Repulsion
The 10th Victim
The Birds
The Collector
The Fortune Cookie
The Great Escape
The Hill
The Ipcress File
The Leopard
The Nutty Professor
The Pawnbroker
The Pink Panther
The Russians Are Coming, the Russians Are Coming
The Servant
The Spy Who Came in from the Cold
The Train
The Trial
Thunderball
Tom Jones
Topkapi
Viva Las Vegas
Von Ryan's Express
What’s New, Pussycat?
What’s Up, Tiger Lily?
Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?
Zorba the Greek
X…The Man with the X-Ray Eyes
That's over 60 films in a 4-year period, with I'm sure another 20 or
30 overlooked or more marginal ones that I could add to that list.
Have there been that many good ones of more or less the same caliber
to come out in the last 4 years?
WQ
wrote:
> WQ <WQi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The mid Sixties in American film was awful.
>
> > --- You might even be wrong about that, too. Between '63 and '66 [the
> > mid-60s], these were some of the better and/or more popular ones to be
> > released:
>
--- Half those films were American, and since that was a period when
half the films released were American and the other half foreign, it's
a representative list of what ALL Americans had available for them to
see. The foreign films at the time could almost be considered
American by default because of the low output of domestic product at
the time. So much for your Film Studies 101.
> > 81Ž2
> > XŠThe Man with the X-Ray Eyes
wlah...@gmail.com
> I do not know whether a past great film will still rate as great if
> viewed again today
Isn't that the definition of greatness? That it would be viewed that
way? I finally got around to seeing "Sunrise" a couple of weeks ago
and I may not be the silent flick savant as some on this list but I do
know a good film when I see one. "Sunrise" tells a story about people
that any audience can relate to. That never goes out of style.
William
www.williamahearn.com
trotsky
> WQ <WQi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 9, 12:54 pm, Ronnie Bateman <OurOwnRonnieBate...@earthlinc.net>
>> wrote:
>>> WQ <WQi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> The mid Sixties in American film was awful.
>>>> --- You might even be wrong about that, too. Between '63 and '66 [the
>>>> mid-60s], these were some of the better and/or more popular ones to be
>>>> released:
>>> What part of "American" did you fail to understand about his comment?
>> --- Half those films were American, and since that was a period when
>> half the films released were American and the other half foreign, it's
>> a representative list of what ALL Americans had available for them to
>> see. The foreign films at the time could almost be considered
>> American by default because of the low output of domestic product at
>> the time. So much for your Film Studies 101.
>
> perfectly well how stupid the above "defense" is.
>
> "Could almost be considered American by default." Good lord. Who are you
> trying to kid?
Ronnie Bateman and sundry sockpuppets.
wlah...@gmail.com
> You put "X: The Man with the X-Ray Eyes" on that list?
You're OK with "Viva Las Vegas"? I could toss half of those films
without thinking twice. If we start quibbling over every list entry,
we'll be here forever.
William
www.williamahearn.com
trotsky
>>
>> --- You might even be wrong about that, too. Between '63 and '66 [the
>> mid-60s], these were some of the better and/or more popular ones to be
>> released:
>
Why not just tell him he made a mistake instead of being snide? Are you
trying to be a jerk, Ronnie?
Boy oh boy, was Steve Newport ever right about you.
Lloyd Fonvielle
> Oh, yeah. "Viva Las Vegas" is definitely tripe.
Hardly. If you can look past its officially low status as a musical and
an Elvis Presley film, you'll find a very adventuresome piece of
filmmaking, with MGM stalwart George Sidney doing some bravura
single-take musical numbers that are quite dazzling.
Presley was one of the great screen performers, beck when he cared, and
the whole surreal landscape of "Viva Las Vegas" can be read as a
delightfully ironic form of cinematic theater, in the Arthur Freed mold.
We tend to read such stuff as camp today, which is a way of dismissing
it, but it's really just a mode of cinema that has gone out of style
when not presented with tongue self-consciously in cheek.
"Viva Las Vegas" is also the best evocation of the actual style and
spirit of Las Vegas ever put on film.
David Johnston
>There is a tendency to romanticize the past, especially the age of
>cinephilia from the 50s to 70s, but is there some truth to the notion
>that great films were far more frequent in the 50s, 60s, and 70s than
>today?
>
I don't really care. "Great" movies are unenjoyable except by a tiny
minority. .
WQ
wrote:
> WQ <WQi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 9, 12:54 pm, Ronnie Bateman <OurOwnRonnieBate...@earthlinc.net>
> > wrote:
> > > WQ <WQi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > The mid Sixties in American film was awful.
>
> > > > --- You might even be wrong about that, too. Between '63 and '66 [the
> > > > mid-60s], these were some of the better and/or more popular ones to be
> > > > released:
>
> > > What part of "American" did you fail to understand about his comment?
>
> > --- Half those films were American, and since that was a period when
> > half the films released were American and the other half foreign, it's
> > a representative list of what ALL Americans had available for them to
> > see. The foreign films at the time could almost be considered
> > American by default because of the low output of domestic product at
> > the time. So much for your Film Studies 101.
>
> perfectly well how stupid the above "defense" is.
>
> "Could almost be considered American by default." Good lord. Who are you
> trying to kid?
--- Considering that a lot of those foreign films would've been co-
productions and almost all of them released through U.S. studios, then
yeah, they're American by default.
WQ
> certainly a B movie. Sure, at the time, I remember jumping up in my
> seat at the last scene, but I was a mere child. When I saw it later,
> I saw how shoddy the production values were.
>
> When we're asked what movies we'd like to see remade, that's one I
> always put on the list. It was a good movie, for what it was, but I
> certainly wouldn't have put it on any REAL best-of list.
--- Well, no, not Oscar material, but within the time frame when it
was made and considering the dearth of sci-fi films at the time, it
was an entertaining freaky film to watch. When I caught it again in
the last year, after not having seen it since the early 70s on TV, it
did look kind of tawdry and very dated, but Ray Milland's performance
still held up, I found. Still, when I look at what was good and what
wasn't, I try to do it from within the context of the time, not from
today's perspective, because judging a film like X with today's
mindset would mean having to completely knock it off the list. But
you're right about a remake, that X could definitely benefit from one,
especially with the kind of sfx used now.
>
> ______________________________________________
> Alric Knebel
WQ
--- It was the best Elvis film of the 60s and earned the highest or
second-highest box office of all his films, depending on which source
you want to believe, making 3-5 times more than his other films. It
was 60s fluff that worked pefectly in the 60s, and it's still got some
appeal to this day, helped by a better selection of tunes than most of
his 60s films had. And the chemistry spark between Elivs and Ann-
Margaret still shines through on the screen.
wlah...@gmail.com
> --- It was the best Elvis film of the 60s and earned the highest or
> second-highest box office of all his films, depending on which source
> you want to believe, making 3-5 times more than his other films. It
> was 60s fluff that worked pefectly in the 60s, and it's still got some
> appeal to this day, helped by a better selection of tunes than most of
> his 60s films had. And the chemistry spark between Elivs and Ann-
> Margaret still shines through on the screen.
I'm glad there are people like you out there and I don't mean that in
any snide or snarky way. To me, I just don't think about Elvis movies
as anything other than the screen fodder of my youth. At this point
they're just something I don't think about. There's too many films I
haven't seen, to be re-evaluating something I'm just not interested
in. And when I see someone making a case for something such as Elvis
movies, or rubber-suited Japanese monster flicks or some other style
or genre that is not my particular fascination I really appreciate the
fact that they are out there. That's why I'm on this newsgroup,
because I'm interested in silent films but don't yet know enough to
see what may not be on the top 25 and still may be a great film in my
book. So when I'm confronted by a strange to me passion for some type
of film, it makes me think about why I like the films that I do and
puts a personal perspective on movie watching that may otherwise be
overlooked. So thanks. I'm not going to re-see the Elvis flicks as a
result of your post, but that post made my day.
William
www.williamahearn.com
le...@my-deja.com
I watched the Elvis box set recently. The films held up better than I
thought. Esp. VIVA LAS VEGAS. I liked SPINOUT a great deal, too.
ROUSTABOUT is worth seeing for the chemistry between Elvis and Barbara
Stanwyck. I continue to find Elvis fascinating. And even his lesser
films have some interesting qualities. IT HAPPENED AT THE WORLD'S FAIR
was fluff but it had some good scenes and interesting character
touches throughout.
WQ
--- Well, thank you for those kind words, sir. I aim to please, and
when I do, that makes my day. At least you "get it," and I can't ask
for more than that.
curmudgeon
millennium, any genre, foreign or domestic, if you can *!*
*curmudgeon*
"The best read illiterate in the country"
jln...@yahoo.com
I think Flaming Star and Follow That Dream were a bit better than Viva
Las Vegas, although I do like that one (one of the stronger Elvis
soundtracks of the 60s as well).
Today's movies are about as good as today's rock and roll: there is
some good stuff out there if you dig around, once in a while a good
one enters the mainstream, but the strongest and most pivotal work is
definitely during the classic era.
JN
R H Draney
>
>Today's movies are about as good as today's rock and roll: there is
>some good stuff out there if you dig around, once in a while a good
>one enters the mainstream, but the strongest and most pivotal work is
>definitely during the classic era.
If there's good rock and roll out there, it's been doing a dynamite job of
keeping hidden for the last, oh, nineteen years...I've been listening to Taiwan
Radio since the turn of the century simply for lack of anything else
worthwhile....r
--
"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!"
"You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!"
Donald4564
I won a ticket to see "Blue Hawaii" from a local wireless station back
in the early sixties. At the time I vaguely seem to recall admiring
the scenery. I did see part of another of Mr. Pressley's cinematic
endeavours on television about ten years ago. The reason I didn't see
much more than part was because it came under the 'crap'
classification unfortunately and I had to switch it orf. Wasn't there
also an awful series of "Beach" pictures with people called Franky
Avalon and Annette Funnicello? (Don't know why this stays in my mind).
Regards
Donald Binks
Lloyd Fonvielle
> If there's good rock and roll out there, it's been doing a dynamite job of
> keeping hidden for the last, oh, nineteen years...I've been listening to Taiwan
> Radio since the turn of the century simply for lack of anything else
> worthwhile....r
The White Stripes are good and Dylan is making some of the best music of
his career right now. Things could be worse.