why do kids hate older films with passion?
strea...@earthlink.net
(Nimrod) wrote:
<snipped>
Both yesterday and today, these films were time machines
to me which carried me to worlds which no modern film could match.
They could remake it, but they couldn't match it because its actors
and its style would not be a piece of that bygone era.
Hear, hear. Yes, I totally agree with your posting. Being a historian,
your above statement hit a chord.
I always have a "Saturday Nite Movie Clan" of friends (this is my fourth
city in ten years) made up of people my age (37) who love monster flix,
detective flix, Stooges, whatever the mood strikes. Watching cheese &
classics is a way of life for many of us out there-I always find 'em!
Why not younger generations? Is anyone *nurturing* this pasttime?
I've taken many college film courses and they're packed.
Susan
lsmills
white films. There is not overt sex. There is no gratuitous violence. There
is no deafening music. Etc. etc. etc. Big generalization but fairly accurate
I am afraid.
--
lynzee
jprhedd+AEA-hotmail.com
Medieval Knievel
for the same reason they wear ridiculously baggy pants...
for the same reason they would pierce their epiglottis, given half a
chance...because they're a herd of swine...
--
Medieval Knievel...the daredevil of the Dark Ages...
smell_...@hotmail.com
TULL KATHERINE L
generalization to say that we don't like older movies. The truth is that
as with adults, there's always a group who have specialized interests. Now
perhaps, in middle america, kids don't like the older movies, but there
parents don't either I'd bet. As for me and all my friends, and their
friends, we spent much of high school catching up on the oldies, and
continue to do so.
Kate
Robert Lee
> Why not younger generations? Is anyone *nurturing* this pasttime?
> I've taken many college film courses and they're packed.
God, aren't we all a little young still to be bitching about "Those kids
today...?"
I, too, was a teenaged movie geek. Hell, I was a movie geek from early
elementary school on. I was, and still am, fairly isolated in that. I've
driven more than one woman nuts with my obsessions, and, in part, one wife
away.
In part, everyone does not share our obsessions. My wife is a music geek,
with an appreciation of music that I can sort of appreciate but which
still drives me from the room on occasion. I can understand why she
inflicts Steve Reich and John Zorn on herself, but I'd rather be around
when she's enthusing over Pet Sounds or Sonic Youth or something.
We just went to see The Thin Red Line. I was enraptured, and intend to see
it again soon, she was bored and found it tediously inaccessible. We
talked about it after, and she can understand all my reasons for liking
it, but she still doesn't like it. She'd rather be around when I'm geeking
over H.G. Lewis or Russ Meyer or just plain enjoying stupid shit like
BASEketball.
Her favorite movie is Airplane!, I like to listen to old Cheap Trick.
Neither of us thinks the other is an idiot.
Regarding the poster, though, Nimrod: he's a dope. I wouldn't hold much
hope for him ever being anything but a dope. I doubt the guy has much of
an appreciation for anything, given the poverty of his standards for film.
A lot of people always were, always are, and always will be dopes. That's
just the way it goes.
--Robert
--
The Control Voice-we like to watch
http://www.ungh.com/control
Enter our CONTEST and let us give you a prize, dammit!
(Yes, you heard right, a new Jack Chick site is coming to UNGH)
Ray Tucker
wrote:
I wonder how much of this indifference might be due to the comparative
availability of these films today as opposed to 20 years ago (thanks
to video and cable). When I was a teenager in the 70s seeing a film
like Citizen Kane was a big deal since it came on maybe once or twice
a year on one of the local broadcast channels (if at all). Even in the
early days of cable when you might get a handful of extra channels
like WTBS, you'd get a few more chances to see these films, but it was
nothing like today when you can rent a video just about any time you
feel like seeing these films. (Not all of them, of course. There are
plenty of great older films that are not typically stocked by your
average video store)
Even in the 70s, it wasn't as if your average teenager was hot to see
older films. I think there once was something like Friday the 13th
playing at a local multi screen theatre, and it packed two of the
screening rooms, but the screen that was showing a Hitchcock double
feature of 39 Steps and Rebecca was practically empty.
J.F.S.
>
> This is a pretty sad statement, folks.
>
>
> What does this evolution mean? I know there are kids out there
> today who are exceptions to this poster's attitude, but I think they
> are more and more in the minority. I hope I'm wrong. Does it mean
> a media spoon-fed generation (or two) whose imaginations are withering
> on the vine, along with any excitement for other experiences than
> their own? Both yesterday and today, these films were time machines
> to me which carried me to worlds which no modern film could match.
> They could remake it, but they couldn't match it because its actors
> and its style would not be a piece of that bygone era.
>
>
> This vast backlog of excellent films only becomes bigger in
> comparison to the current excellent films of your youth---the
> younger you are today.
>
> Does any of this make any sense to anybody?
> Or have I thoroughly confused meself and most everybody else?
>
> NIMROD
> confused
I totally agree with you NIM, I watch my fair share of new movies. I
also watch my very fair share of old movies.
When I was a child I loved older movies, then as I became a teen I lost
interest in the older films. Now I have a larger collection of old
movies than new, I have also learnt that they did not rely on massive
special FX to rope people in. They relied on acting, direction, camera
work and story, which adds up to one word masterpiece.
I will admit one thing the younger generation (that I know) will not
even watch a movie, no matter how good it is, if it is in B&W.
Justin. >
Alex Crouvier
>
> On Mon, 25 Jan 1999 04:38:29 GMT, Robert Lee <v...@user2.teleport.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Regarding the poster, though, Nimrod: he's a dope. I wouldn't hold much
> >hope for him ever being anything but a dope. I doubt the guy has much of
> >an appreciation for anything, given the poverty of his standards for film.
> >A lot of people always were, always are, and always will be dopes. That's
> >just the way it goes.
> >
> >--Robert
> >
>
>
> Nimrod
Is it Nimmy or Roddy?
David Pittman
popular with young teens. They completely lack any element of subtlety.
The old cliche question, "Do I have to paint a picture?" must be
answered yes when it come to so many young people. Just take one
element of an older movie a, such as the musical score, and you will see
what I mean. The score used to require that one listen for it. Now,
more often than not, it beats you over the head. The same principle
applies to the expression of emotion, to the display of violence, sex,
etc.
Cronan
>For an answer to your question tune in to the TV shows, (or videos),
>popular with young teens. They completely lack any element of subtlety.
I take it you've never seen BUFFY: THE VAMPIRE SLAYER, TRANSFORMERS:
BEAST WARS, BATMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES, BATMAN BEYOND, PINKY AND THE
BRAIN, ANIMANIACS!, etc..
>The old cliche question, "Do I have to paint a picture?" must be
>answered yes when it come to so many young people.
How about shows frequented by older people? Are you telling me that
MATLOCK, PERRY MASON, DIAGNOSIS: MURDER and MURDER SHE WROTE are marvels
of subtle, nuanced storytelling? Is STAR TREK: VOYAGER, whose primary
fanbase lies in the 18-49 age bracket, all the more subtle because of its
older, establihed fanbase? The answer to all the above is, of course, a
resounding no.
Just take one
>element of an older movie a, such as the musical score, and you will see
>what I mean. The score used to require that one listen for it. Now,
>more often than not, it beats you over the head.
And, as I'm sure you know, "Forrest Gump", probably the most notable movie
with a score that 'beats you over the head', was most popular among kids.
The same principle
>applies to the expression of emotion, to the display of violence, sex,
>etc.
Heh. That's right. It's all those kiddies fault.
Cronan
...take some ginkoba and grab a nap pops
Trent
>
> They have the attention span of gnats for one thing. They hate black and
> white films. There is not overt sex. There is no gratuitous violence. There
> is no deafening music. Etc. etc. etc. Big generalization but fairly accurate
> I am afraid.
>
Well, as a kid, I liked several older films. War of the Worlds and
Fiend Without a Face were 2 of my favorite films as a kid. But classic
dramas? Most of them still put me to sleep, as do modern films in the
same vein. The simple truth is that a lot of older films have an
incredibly slow pace compared to today's movies.
----> Trent
Cronan
today' who can't handle the subtlety of older films, wrote:
> Just take one
>element of an older movie a, such as the musical score, and you will see
>what I mean. The score used to require that one listen for it. Now,
>more often than not, it beats you over the head.
Cronan sarcastically replied:
>And, as I'm sure you know, "Forrest Gump", probably the most notable movie
>with a score that 'beats you over the head', was most popular among kids.
Nimrod opined:
>Actually, one of the things I hate most about GUMP is the way no scene
>can stand on its own---it has to be driven nonstop on the soundtrack
>by some old Baby Boomer pop/rock record. Zemeckis has a fairly low
>opinion of his audience and its attention span. It amazes me how much
>audiences will take being insulted without even realizing it.
>Which is just one of many reasons that Zemeckis is a glorified
>hack.....the kind they like to give Oscars to.
I think you're missing my point. I was pointing out that the decline
in subtlety he percieves isn't limited to movies made for teenagers.
It's fairly widespread. It's rare that you'll find a TV show frequented
by *any* demographic that doesn't just tell you the answers instead of
asking you to take the time and figure it out out yourself. But they
are out there. And some of the best are shows aimed at younger
audiences.
(Hell, even not so subtle subtlety is often complained about by
audiences of all ages. Take, for example, when South Park
spoofed season cliffhangers by intentionally showing the wrong
episode. 1000s of people complained and some even sent in death
threats. That's what an attempt at even slightly subtle humor
will get you.)
Cronan
Jim Becker
> As a member of the "younger generations" I think it's a bullshit
> generalization to say that we don't like older movies. The truth is that
> as with adults, there's always a group who have specialized interests. Now
> perhaps, in middle america, kids don't like the older movies, but there
> parents don't either I'd bet. As for me and all my friends, and their
> friends, we spent much of high school catching up on the oldies, and
> continue to do so.
> Kate
I agree that the subject of this thread is an over-generalization. I was a
teenage old-movie fan. (Say, wasn't that a movie? ;-) I was also relatively
alone in that. Many of my friends had very little interest in watching that
stuff.This was back in the early seventies.
Conversely, my teenage son and at least some of his friends enjoy old films.
When my wife and I jokingly complain about "young people today," it's because
they keep getting movie ideas from us instead of rebelling against the older
generation's tastes like "proper" teenagers. They love the Marx Brothers and
the Stooges, they watch Humphrey Bogart, and they want to see every Hitchcock
movie. They also love Monty Python, which is ancient stuff by their standards.
Obviously, they haven't gone completely highbrow in their tastes, but they are
ready, willing, and able to watch old movies.
I hesitate to generalize, but in my experience the only group that seems mostly
uninterested in old movies are those currently in their twenties. Obviously,
there are exceptions, but for the most part my twenty-something colleagues are
interested in current blockbusters and not much else.
Jim
Barton Frink
culturally aware to understand them. Attention span too short
Nemanja Dundjerovic
>
> Because they are not yet old enough to appreciate them. Not yet
> culturally aware to understand them. Attention span too short
No, I think it's just that they are not introduced to them properly. The
prevalent attitude on this group seems to be: the brats deserve nothing
better than seeing films about what happened 6 summers ago.
Classic movies appeal to everybody. For instance, I rented North by
Northwest, and my kid brother watched it with me, and enjoyed it very
much.
You're assuming that, somehow, enjoying the sardonic wit of Scream
renders one unable to appreciate a veritable masterpiece like Vertigo or
Citizen Kane. Give them a little credit.
Nemanja
Michael Brooke
> For an answer to your question tune in to the TV shows, (or videos),
> popular with young teens. They completely lack any element of subtlety.
> The old cliche question, "Do I have to paint a picture?" must be
> answered yes when it come to so many young people. Just take one
> element of an older movie a, such as the musical score, and you will see
> what I mean. The score used to require that one listen for it. Now,
> more often than not, it beats you over the head. The same principle
> applies to the expression of emotion, to the display of violence, sex,
> etc.
I've just seen a marvellous Czech film called 'Buttoners', which is one
of the most sheerly entertaining films I've seen in a very long time -
and one of the things I most liked about it (and there's a long list!)
was that director Petr Zelenka - who's only in his early thirties -
doesn't treat his audience like idiots.
Much of the material in the film appears to be completely
inconsequential and unrelated to previous scenes... until you suddenly
realise that not only does it all make coherent sense, but the film is
actually dealing with much bigger themes than was apparent at first
glance.
But that kind of subtlety takes real courage in this day and age - which
is why sadly few film-makers are prepared to take that kind of risk.
And the fact that 'Buttoners' has *already* vanished from London cinemas
after just one week - despite getting universally great reviews - shows
only too clearly the commercial risks of this approach!
Michael
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAN SVANKMAJER - ALCHEMIST OF THE SURREAL
http://www.illumin.co.uk/svank
a lavish tribute to the cinema's wildest imagination
----------------------------------------------------------------
doug-tr...@msn.com
about film in general and have no interest in films before the mid-'70s.
I used to work with a guy who is a part-time film critic in Dayton, OH. He
has no interest in any genre other than "drama," his knowledge of film theory
was nonexistent and his knowledge of films in general dated to JAWS and he
couldn't care less about any film which came before that.
A Cincinnati film critic commented about the re-release of GONE WITH THE
WIND: "the picture never encompasses the whole screen, the way it should be
seen. Instead of expanding to the rectangular length of the screen, it
retains a square format as if ready to be viewed on a big-screen TV." Unlike
the above- mentioned guy, this one is a full-time film critic -- you'd think
he'd at least get Film History 101.
A few years ago some magazine film critic said -- straightfaced! -- that HOOK
was the pinnacle of Spielberg's career and everything had been prelude to it.
If this is the type of work that sees print, can we expect self-involved
teenagers to be any more discerning?
Doug
In article <78i2hc$qkv$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>,
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Robert Lee
> Just take one
> >element of an older movie a, such as the musical score, and you will see
> >what I mean. The score used to require that one listen for it. Now,
> >more often than not, it beats you over the head.
> And, as I'm sure you know, "Forrest Gump", probably the most notable movie
> with a score that 'beats you over the head', was most popular among kids.
Good one.
I'll add The Big Chill, which may have--seriously--the most oppresive
soundtrack in movie history.
Robert Lee
My quick writing errors. I was addressing you, not insulting you. I meant
the guy you responded to.
Peace Electric
> You're assuming that, somehow, enjoying the sardonic wit of Scream
> renders one unable to appreciate a veritable masterpiece like Vertigo
> or Citizen Kane. Give them a little credit.
I also wonder what these insulters did when *they* were teenagers. If
you were a teen in the thirties, were you more interested in talkies,
or were you seeking out early one-reelers by D.W. Griffith? Were you
more likely to see 'Gone With the Wind' or 'The Great Train Robbery'?
If you were a teen in the fifties, were you more interested in the
new James Dean or Marilyn Monroe film, or were you avidly hunting down
every single Harry Langdon film you could find? In the seventies were
you more excited about 'The Exorcist' or 'The African Queen'?
It seems to me that it's all relative. The majority of teenagers are
more interested in newer movies, and as they get older (or as they
grow intrigued with the medium) they begin to go back and fill in the
blanks. Really, is it a new phenomenon?
--
peacel
pea...@sk.sympatico.ca
“The world and its characters materialize out of the abyss of the
imagination, and in their impossibility, they seem more real than
the characters in many realistic movies.”
-Roger Ebert on ‘Babe: Pig in the City’
Nemanja Dundjerovic
>
> Nemanja Dundjerovic wrote:
>
> > You're assuming that, somehow, enjoying the sardonic wit of Scream
> > renders one unable to appreciate a veritable masterpiece like Vertigo
> > or Citizen Kane. Give them a little credit.
>
> I also wonder what these insulters did when *they* were teenagers. If
> you were a teen in the thirties, were you more interested in talkies,
> or were you seeking out early one-reelers by D.W. Griffith? Were you
> more likely to see 'Gone With the Wind' or 'The Great Train Robbery'?
> If you were a teen in the fifties, were you more interested in the
> new James Dean or Marilyn Monroe film, or were you avidly hunting down
> every single Harry Langdon film you could find? In the seventies were
> you more excited about 'The Exorcist' or 'The African Queen'?
>
> It seems to me that it's all relative. The majority of teenagers are
> more interested in newer movies, and as they get older (or as they
> grow intrigued with the medium) they begin to go back and fill in the
> blanks. Really, is it a new phenomenon?
Amen to that, brother. The other significant factor is that older films
are difficult to appreciate because they are taken out of the social
context in which they were made. As has been pointed out many times,
Psycho ellicited horror in the 60s, but chuckles in the 90s. You have to
treat older movies with respect to this temporal gap.
Nemanja
Gary Couzens
Trent wrote in message <36AC06...@bu.edu>...
wonder if that film could ever be made the same way now.
Let's assume you've put John Boorman, Jon Voight, Burt Reynolds et al
through a time warp and they make "Deliverance" today instead of in 1972.
I'm willing to bet that it wouldn't get nearly as many rave reviews as it
did back then. After all, "nothing happens" for the first 50 minutes...
Another example, recently I watched "Taxi Driver" with a friend of mine
(only five years younger than me) who hadn't seen it before. Halfway
through, she said "Does anything happen in this film?"
There are many factors involved here - the success of "Star Wars" and too
many inferior Lucas/Spielberg imitators being a major one. Another one would
be the effect of TV. It's not as if "Star Wars" invented fast pacing, but
nowadays the assumption seems to be if you don't have something "happening"
every ten minutes, your audience will lose interest. And character-based
narratives mean "nothing happens, just talk".
Very sad.
I don't think this is new, by the way. I was involved with the film society
at Southampton University 1984-87, and we noticed this then. Many older
films didn't go down that well, with the notable exceptions of comedies like
"Bringing Up Baby" and "Some Like It Hot". (Which wasn't an argument against
showing older films, at least we didn't think so.)
Gary Couzens
Steve Erickson
(Nimrod) wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jan 1999 22:59:24 -0500, TULL KATHERINE L
> <kt3...@csc.albany.edu> wrote:
>
> >As a member of the "younger generations" I think it's a bullshit
> >generalization to say that we don't like older movies. The truth is that
> >as with adults, there's always a group who have specialized interests. Now
> >perhaps, in middle america, kids don't like the older movies, but there
> >parents don't either I'd bet. As for me and all my friends, and their
> >friends, we spent much of high school catching up on the oldies, and
> >continue to do so.
> >Kate
>
>
> Kate knows that I don't lump her in with this generalization,
> and I know there are many, many others in their teens and
> twenties to whom my statement doesn't apply and me thinks
> they are to be applauded and supported in their never-ending
> search for fun films, fine films and great films----old and new.
>
> As I've told her, I'm glad she and her friends don't subscribe to the
> norm, but I think they are underestimating themselves if they think
> their tastes are typical of most.
As a 26-year-old who saw more "old" films than new ones last year (and
plenty of both), I don't think I'm typical of my generation, but I don't
think I'm all *that* rare either. I've had a number of discussions with
older cinephiles about the supposed Death Of Cinema and/or Cinephilia, and
I find it pretty infuriating that when I defend the tastes of my generation
by using my own tastes as an example, I get told that I'm a rare exception
to the rule. If the tastes of my friends and the customers of the video
store I used to work at are any indication, there are many exceptions to
the rule. Let's face it: every generation is convinced that the generation
following them is doomed.
--
Steve Erickson
Remove "nospam" to reply.
http://home.earthlink.net/~steevee
Peace Electric
> star wars...i think it's wrong for you to bash teenagers because they
> dislike old movies.the reasons why 1001: a star odyssey are not
> in..because there is nothing in the film to grab a persons eye...have
> you seen the AFI list?....if you did..you would see that all the
> movies in the top 10 are from the 90's.I also dislike the academy
> awards (I think he is talking about the GG) because they over look
> movies that should be nominated..the faculity and deep impact was shut
> out...but gods and wizards and einstein in love got nominated....i
> have not seen those movies because they don't play at my theater..do
> you know why??..i do....because the theater owner won't play garbage
> like that...do you get it bitch?....you think your a movie
> buff?...well your not!....you think crap like 1001 is better than
> scream 2?....i think not!....you should leave the newsgroup for being
> such a dummy....i ask all my roommates and they have never heard of
> 1001 or citizen kane....you should leave the newsgroup and let the
> real film buffs post"....(i got 2 more letters from this guy..claiming
> he was gonna get everyone together and kick me out)
I'd love to hear the other two letters because this one is great.
It's obviously someone imitating a clueless teenager, but still...
--
peacel
Peace Electric
> What a self-serving crock. Did either of you read my post that
> started this stretch of the thread? I don't think you did because
> it was about the way myself and my friends watched old movies,
> staying up till all hours of the night to watch 2 a.m. late shows
> of classics when we were teenagers. Of course, we also watched
> new films, but we knew all the old character actors and quoted them
> constantly. We were not particularly unusual among our friends.
Exactly how big was that group of friends, and do you think that their
movie-watching habits were representative of all teens everywhere? (Or,
hell, even most teens everywhere?)
> No, like it or not, most kids attention spans---and most adults
> attention spans as well, apparently---have gotten shorter. [...]
I'm really doubtful about that assertion. What kind of testing have you
done? Any experiments? Case studies? Surveys? Informal telephone polls?
How exactly are you gauging the attention spans of the 1920s and '30s?
What about the Ancient Egyptians -- how attentive were they? Personally,
all those confusing hieroglyphics bore me to tears. Can you use that in
your study? When do you feel attention spans were at their peak? Did
they ever climax, or have they simply been in a constant state of
decline since the dawn of Man? Also, do you like the color purple?
> [...] Nobody suddenly develops a taste for reading at the age of
> eighteen or twenty-one. Movies are no different.
Is it okay if from now on I just call you Generalization Boy?
Peace Electric
> Three measely letters....MTV.
Also, don't forget those other three bastard letters: PBS.
Seriously, I think MTV has a semi-undeserved bad rap. Sure, more than
half the stuff they show is garbage, but what network can't you say the
same for? And of course there are networks like ABC and CBS, which air
safe, totally conventional crap 95% of the time. At least with MTV you
get the occasional brilliant show, or some kind of experimental piece
of animation, or an interesting new video by a director who will
eventually go on to make interesting new movies.
Whatever its flaws, I'd argue that you'll find more creativity in any
random hour of MTV than you will in any random hour of ABC.
je...@msmisp.com
Nimrod wrote:
> Just for funnies, I'm including this post below (which I'd also sent
> Kate earlier) that was posted over in alt.movies yesterday
> by DAN 9000 who started the thread:
>
> On 24 Jan 1999 12:02:31 PST, "DAN9000" <dan...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
> i started the thread about teens hating older films
>
> i have looked at all of the posts in this group and I got a lot of
> mail about it...such as
>
> from an 18 year old: "im a film buff and i know films, teens hate
> older films because older films suck"
>
> from a 14 year old: "quality of films just improved...that's why
> movies like citizen kane suck now"
>
> from a 16 year old: "my friends hate older films because the stories
> in them are not very good...the same with me"
>
> (this is the best) from a 19 year old: "i like old films like big and
> star wars...i think it's wrong for you to bash teenagers because they
> dislike old movies.the reasons why 1001: a star odyssey are not
> in..because there is nothing in the film to grab a persons eye...have
> you seen the AFI list?....if you did..you would see that all the
> movies in the top 10 are from the 90's.I also dislike the academy
> awards (I think he is talking about the GG) because they over look
> movies that should be nominated..the faculity and deep impact was shut
> out...but gods and wizards and einstein in love got nominated....i
> have not seen those movies because they don't play at my theater..do
> you know why??..i do....because the theater owner won't play garbage
> like that...do you get it bitch?....you think your a movie
> buff?...well your not!....you think crap like 1001 is better than
> scream 2?....i think not!....you should leave the newsgroup for being
> such a dummy....i ask all my roommates and they have never heard of
> 1001 or citizen kane....you should leave the newsgroup and let the
> real film buffs post"....(i got 2 more letters from this guy..claiming
> he was gonna get everyone together and kick me out)
>
> thats why i can no longer post here..(i have gotton mail bombed
> several times by a couple of people)...because i said that teens don't
> respect older films....
>
> due to my mail...i was wrong....older films are bad....im sorry if
> i thought different
>
> all hail newer films and all of it's glory, down with older films and
> it's black and white charm
>
> DAN9000
>
Maybe we assume everyone has the proclivity to truly understand and appreciate
"film"... a lot of people -- especially kids -- "go to the movies" to be
entertained. That's why "Varsity Blues" was number one at the box office last
week while "The Thin Red Line" was third. I made my kid see the latter with
me... I have a rule: for every crap picture I allow him to see, he must watch
something worthwhile. That can be a film with historical significance like
"Amistad" or "Gettysburg", a films with social importance, like "Philadelphia"
or "The Color Purple". He loves "Saving Private Ryan" even though it
thoroughly horrified him (not to mention gave him new appreciation for his
grandfather who fought in the Hurtgen Forrest in '45 and the crotchety old guy
next door who was in the first wave to land on Iwo Jima). I feel like "Ryan"
is an antidote for all the "Die Hard on a whatever" films our kids are
spoonfed.
Movie lover that I am, it was years before I was ready to appreciate "Citizen
Kane". I finally watched it last fall, at age 34, and truly loved it. I've
watched it twice since. And I got my son to watch the final 40 min. with me --
he really did like it, and was awed by the cinematography. However, it took
viewing the remastered and restored print of Romero's "Night of the Living
Dead" to make the kid REALLY appreciate black and white!
My mom was and still is a lover of old movies -- she urged me to watch films
like "Casablanca", "Gone With the Wind", "Sunset Blvd.", and anything with
Bette Davis in it when I was a kid growing up, and it stuck with me. So maybe
it's one more of those things that's up to we adults to pass along to the
younger generation... to hell with morality, let's teach proper film
appreciation! :-)
jean
Cronan
>Cronan (h...@mindspring.com) wrote:
>> I think you're missing my point. I was pointing out that the decline
>> in subtlety he percieves isn't limited to movies made for teenagers.
>> It's fairly widespread. It's rare that you'll find a TV show frequented
>> by *any* demographic that doesn't just tell you the answers instead of
>> asking you to take the time and figure it out out yourself. But they
>> are out there. And some of the best are shows aimed at younger
>> audiences.
>
>everyone so ethnocentric for the peoples of this time period, or something
>else?
Please quote any section of the above quoted paragraph (or anything
else anyone has written in this thread) to support your claim that
someone is expressing an 'ethnocentric' viewpoint.
>(Of course I'm guilty of the same crime by assuming it's just this time
>period that's suffered from this sickening disease.)
You seem to be confusing ethnicity with... something else entirely. (What
that is, I don't know.)
>>Why don't you people all get off your fat asses and buy three books:
>_Extraordinary Popular Delusions & The Madness of Crowds_, _The Glass
>Teat_ & _The Other Glass Teat_. The last two are by a guy named Harlan
>Ellison, he's a good writer, I'm sure you've all heard of him.
>
>The first one will help you to realize that gol' darn-it, people have
>always been SUCKERS, and have always liked CRAP. It's not some youthful
>fancy you're dealing with here, but rather a genetic disadvantage of the
>human race.
Ah, I see. This book helped you 'to realize' that it's own contents,
which you pretty clearly agreed with before hand, were gospel and
should be read by everyone before they dare expression an opinion on
today's culture... Might I suggest you read a little book called
THOUGHT CONTAGION?
>The second two will help you systematically realize how fucking stupid
>TELEVISION has always been, and how poor the taste of the youth, AND
>ADULTS, has always been.
Ah, so there's a system to realizing that Television has always been
fucking stupid? I had no idea! Does it take much practice? (I'd
argue that to proclaim everything on television 'fucking stupid' is
not only insulting to a good many talented writers, producers and actors
but to Ellison himself who has been involved with a number of TV shows.
I doubt it would get through, though.)
>I understand that Nimrod is basically a disguised misanthrope, and that's
>respectable, so it's all ONE LOVE for him, but the rest of you are not
>excluded from our little lesson.
Worship Ellison. He is god. He knows all.
>Get some historical perspective, for god's sakes.
Learn to write a reasoned post that supports the opinions it presents
with something more than "HARLAN ELLISON SAID SO SO IT MUST TRUE!", for
god's sake.
Cronan
Alex Crouvier
>
> My mom was and still is a lover of old movies -- she urged me to watch films
> like "Casablanca", "Gone With the Wind", "Sunset Blvd.", and anything with
> Bette Davis in it when I was a kid growing up, and it stuck with me. So maybe
> it's one more of those things that's up to we adults to pass along to the
> younger generation... to hell with morality, let's teach proper film
> appreciation! :-)
>
> jean
Glad to hear this, glad to hear there are people who still appreciate
"slower" cinema. LAst night I rented Tati's MR HULOT'S HOLIDAY and AN
AFFAIR TO REMEMBER. as the young female clerk handed me the tapes, she
looked at me as if to say: "Why do you watch this? Are you gay?"
B&W French film + a Cary Grant love story = YOU ARE GAY
<hands up in there>
Medieval Knievel
Teenagers like to see people they can
>>relate to.
Explains why they went to see "Dumb and Dumber" in droves.....
--
Medieval Knievel...the daredevil of the Dark Ages...
smell_...@hotmail.com
Jay Rosenberg
accompanied by live, original music. Both shows were sold at days in advance, and
the ticket price was $10.00 a pop. The crowd was young (it is Austin, after all),
in addition I brought 3 of my kids (ages 10, 12 and 14) and they loved it.
Walking back to the car the were bubbling over with excitement and asking all
kinds of questions. I mentioned at work what I did, and most people were
surprised that kids these days could enjoy a silent movie. (My 18 year old
daughter absolutely refuses to watch any B/W film on principle).
On another note, my love for early silent and sound movies was nourished by
Blackhawk films. I used to purchase movies in the early to mid 70's from them and
had built up quite a collection (this were 8mm prints, long before the advent of
home videos). Anyone out there remember them and are they still in business.
---Jay
Steve Erickson
(Nimrod) wrote:
> Come on, Steve. Nobody said you or anyone else was doomed---I hate
> that kind of talk. Either we're all doomed together or we ain't.
> But we have heard a lot from younger kids, even in this thread,
> who say their friends think they are nuts for liking old films.
Well, you're the one who ranted about the low attention spans of today's
kids and linked it to things like "children having children."
> Ultimately, the proof of any trend lies at the box office. And all
> one has to do is look at the overall "dumbing down" of the audiences
> and films our theatres are filled with. All of the top box office
> stars are males who appeal to a demographic between 14 and
> 24, largely in comic-book level, action adventure fare; while the
> top-flight female stars have to scramble for any roles of substance
> that aren't incidental wives or girlfriends to the male leads.
If you like at box office figures, all you'll get is a view of majority
taste. Note that this doesn't say anything about what films people actually
liked, only what they went to see out of a fairly small range of choices.
Note that people can't go see indie or foreign films in many areas because
the mall mutliplexes won't show them. Note that people can't see old films
on the big screen in all but a few cities "thanks" to video. Note that
including video rentals and cable viewings would likely produce a broader
view of public taste. (My parents watch plenty of AMC and rent videos but
rarely go to a theater.)
> The last major film renaissance in the U.S. was in the late
> Sixties/early Seventies (I first heard Spielberg say this, but
> I agree with him) when Hollywood was actually producing
> a surprising wealth of pictures such as THE GODFATHER, THE LAST
> PICTURE SHOW, THE CONVERSATION, THIEVES LIKE US,
> DELIVERANCE, etc. which had a more European sensibility with more
> leisurely rhythms, complex undertones and provocative,
> not-always-upbeat resolutions. And younger audiences flocked
> to them. They were the major films of their day, not like the indy
> glut we have today which, while admirable in many ways, only
> produces marginal box office results despite much hoopla plus
> a whole lot of bad films made by ill-equipped amateurs to boot.
The most popular film of the 60s was THE SOUND OF MUSIC, and the 70s also
produced such deathless classics as THE TOWERING INFERNO and AIRPORT.
Does anyone remember the scathing reviews a now-revered film like BONNIE
AND CLYDE generated on its initial release? Or Andrew Sarris' 1972 pan of
THE GODFATHER, for that matter? It's not always easy to tell what films
will have lasting value upon their release. In 20 years, the kids you sneer
at will probably be talking about the good ol' days of the mid 90s and
wondering why Hollywood can't make movies as good as SCREAM, FARGO or PULP
FICTION. And the cycle continues.
Medieval Knievel
note, my love for early silent and sound movies was nourished by
>Blackhawk films. I used to purchase movies in the early to mid 70's from
them and
>had built up quite a collection (this were 8mm prints, long before the
advent of
>home videos). Anyone out there remember them and are they still in
business.
Oh yeah! I have fond memories of setting up my super 8 projector on the
basement and watching those 50ft and 200ft gems that I bought at K_mart on
the basement wall...kind of my introduction to film...I had an editor and a
splicer as well and experimented with splicing things together. I haven't
seen any 8mm or super 8 films like those for sale in a long time...
LesserRorqual
way through, talent wasted from the top down. Shouting matches for
"intensity" (how 'bout that spittle flying out of Danny Glover's mouth
toward the end?). Gibson's overdrawn and unfunny jokes. Joe Pesci in a
demeaning disposable role. What kind of audience attends "audience
draw" films like this vomitous mess? I saw it on video when visiting. I
can't imagine paying to see it in the theater.
Alex Crouvier
What do you think of the condescending attitude towards Chinese culture
here? You failed to mention LW 4's biggest offense: imperial arrogance.
TULL KATHERINE L
believe that any movie older than 30 is a great film. The fact is that
"The Thing" is about on par with Nightmare on Elm Street, whereas
Washington Square is just as good as The Heiress..I wouldn't ever claim
that the older the better, and maybe we should just drop the bullshit.
Kate
doug-tr...@msn.com
pea...@sk.sympatico.ca wrote:
> Nemanja Dundjerovic wrote:
>
> > You're assuming that, somehow, enjoying the sardonic wit of Scream
> > renders one unable to appreciate a veritable masterpiece like Vertigo
> > or Citizen Kane. Give them a little credit.
>
> I also wonder what these insulters did when *they* were teenagers. If
> you were a teen in the thirties, were you more interested in talkies,
> or were you seeking out early one-reelers by D.W. Griffith? Were you
> more likely to see 'Gone With the Wind' or 'The Great Train Robbery'?
> If you were a teen in the fifties, were you more interested in the
> new James Dean or Marilyn Monroe film, or were you avidly hunting down
> every single Harry Langdon film you could find? In the seventies were
> you more excited about 'The Exorcist' or 'The African Queen'?
>
> It seems to me that it's all relative. The majority of teenagers are
> more interested in newer movies, and as they get older (or as they
> grow intrigued with the medium) they begin to go back and fill in the
> blanks. Really, is it a new phenomenon?
As a kid (pre-teen) I loved older films and whenever they came on TV I would
watch them. Note that this was before cable and VCRs. The films I didn't
like were things like 2001, Butch Cassidy and the like. By the time I got to
college, I realized that I actually liked those films, but because of the
pan- and-scanned nature of the beast in the dark ages they looked absolutely
horrible on TV and I was subconciously reacting to the hack jobs done to
them. In those days, too, television stations used to pass around copies of
the film itself in many cases, snipping out parts so they could add
commercials -- after a while the movies were hacked to pieces, making them
even more unbearable to watch. Movies on videotape were spared this,
generally, but they still looked horrible.
Essentially I disliked anything which was Cinemascope and longer than 2 hours
-- not because the films were bad, but because the ham-handed TV broadcasters
were destroying them. Restored to their original glory, many of them are
amazing films. But as the man said, "No one ever went broke underestimating
the taste of the American public."
Doug
doug-tr...@msn.com
Robert Lee <v...@user1.teleport.com> wrote:
> In alt.cult-movies Cronan <h...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > Just take one
> > >element of an older movie a, such as the musical score, and you will see
> > >what I mean. The score used to require that one listen for it. Now,
> > >more often than not, it beats you over the head.
>
> > And, as I'm sure you know, "Forrest Gump", probably the most notable movie
> > with a score that 'beats you over the head', was most popular among kids.
>
> Good one.
>
> I'll add The Big Chill, which may have--seriously--the most oppresive
> soundtrack in movie history.
>
> --Robert
Poppycock.
ARMAGEDDON takes the prize for that. THE BIG CHILL used found music
wonderfully; I love the use of the pause in "Good Lovin.'" Unfortunately it
was done so well virtually every film since then has done the same with
colossally awful results. FORREST GUMP's soundtrack was integral to the
metaphor, musical touchstones for the story.
As for non-pop soundtracks, I fear any film scored by Michael Kamen -- the
innappropriate use of bombast makes him the equivalent to those moronic
teenagers who blast their car stereos so loudly the body panels on their cars
rattle audibly. (LETHAL WEAPON's score is a crime against nature, almost as
if it's screaming: I AM HIGHLIGHTING HOW IMPORTANT THIS TEDIOUS ACTION SCENE
IS YOU DULL-WITTED IDIOTS!!! Which brings to mind HIGHLANDER -- now
_there's_ a godwaful soundtrack.)
Brent Wilkins
<pea...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Nemanja Dundjerovic wrote:
>
>> You're assuming that, somehow, enjoying the sardonic wit of Scream
>> renders one unable to appreciate a veritable masterpiece like Vertigo
>> or Citizen Kane. Give them a little credit.
>
>I also wonder what these insulters did when *they* were teenagers. If
>you were a teen in the thirties, were you more interested in talkies,
>or were you seeking out early one-reelers by D.W. Griffith? Were you
>more likely to see 'Gone With the Wind' or 'The Great Train Robbery'?
>If you were a teen in the fifties, were you more interested in the
>new James Dean or Marilyn Monroe film, or were you avidly hunting down
>every single Harry Langdon film you could find? In the seventies were
>you more excited about 'The Exorcist' or 'The African Queen'?
>
In the 30's, there wasn't any chance to see the older films. No video
recrders and television was in early development stages. In the 50's
I'm sure there were teens who watched the older films with a passion
on TV. And in the 70's I was more interested in learning to walk and
waiting to start school *L* But I did watch older movies even back
then.
>It seems to me that it's all relative. The majority of teenagers are
>more interested in newer movies, and as they get older (or as they
>grow intrigued with the medium) they begin to go back and fill in the
>blanks. Really, is it a new phenomenon?
>
>
Jeff Rubin
Wilkins) wrote:
>In the 50's
>I'm sure there were teens who watched the older films with a passion
>on TV
You realize these still exsit, right? Especially with the advent of
home video.
Robert Lee
> > I'll add The Big Chill, which may have--seriously--the most oppresive
> > soundtrack in movie history.
> >
> > --Robert
> Poppycock.
> ARMAGEDDON takes the prize for that. THE BIG CHILL used found music
> wonderfully; I love the use of the pause in "Good Lovin.'" Unfortunately it
> was done so well virtually every film since then has done the same with
> colossally awful results. FORREST GUMP's soundtrack was integral to the
> metaphor, musical touchstones for the story.
So, let's sum up here: when a buttload of Pavlovian pop shit is used in a
Boomer luv-fest, it's "wonderful" and provides "musical touchstones." When
the same is done in a movie aimed at younger audiences, it's a catastrophe
brought on by MTV and the general death of culture.
I think I spoke too soon about "We're too young..." I'm thirty-one,
comfortably a "gen-x'er." I think this conversation is getting into "I
like the music I liked when I was eighteen best" territory, and I ain't
goin' there.
I will say that I loathe The Big Chill and Forrest Gump about equally.
Mark Edwards
> In alt.cult-movies doug-tr...@msn.com wrote:
>
> > > I'll add The Big Chill, which may have--seriously--the most oppresive
> > > soundtrack in movie history.
> > >
> > > --Robert
>
> > Poppycock.
>
> > ARMAGEDDON takes the prize for that. THE BIG CHILL used found music
> > wonderfully; I love the use of the pause in "Good Lovin.'" Unfortunately it
> > was done so well virtually every film since then has done the same with
> > colossally awful results. FORREST GUMP's soundtrack was integral to the
> > metaphor, musical touchstones for the story.
>
> So, let's sum up here: when a buttload of Pavlovian pop shit is used in a
> Boomer luv-fest, it's "wonderful" and provides "musical touchstones." When
> the same is done in a movie aimed at younger audiences, it's a catastrophe
> brought on by MTV and the general death of culture.
>
> I think I spoke too soon about "We're too young..." I'm thirty-one,
> comfortably a "gen-x'er." I think this conversation is getting into "I
> like the music I liked when I was eighteen best" territory, and I ain't
> goin' there.
>
> I will say that I loathe The Big Chill and Forrest Gump about equally.
>
> --Robert
So isn't your "loathing" possibly just the reverse prejudice of this whole
thread? Instead of bitching about "Those kids today..." you're moaning about
"Those old farts from yesterday..."? Hell you certainly seem to dislike their
music and two movies aimed at them.
And I will say that I enjoyed "The Big Chill" and loved "Forrest Gump", both
the sound tracks and the movies.
Mark
Neil Sarver
> My experience is that most kids who are ever going to embrace
> older films and film history have started down that path already
> by the time they reach their teens. If that native interest and
> eagerness to experience the unfamiliar and learn is present
> in them, you couldn't hold them back if you tried.
That's true to a certain extent, but one does have to take certain
factors into account with certain movies. A lot of things in thrillers
like DIABOLIQUE and Hitchcock's films have been imitated so often as to
have become cliche, so it takes more effort for a modern viewer to
appreciate it then it did for a person at that time.
Which doesn't mean that some of this isn't true, as well.
Me, I grew up in a reading household, but my parents didn't basically
appreciate older or arty films, so as long as I can remember back I had
to work at seeing things like that. I don't know what the appeal was
for me then... I can't say I recall. It was just my natural
inclination, to like films. All different kinds of films.
*shrug*
--
Neil
--
The Bleeding Tree
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/3271/
--
"Then I shall unleash a firestorm of humility the likes of which this
Universe has never seen!"
-- Space Ghost
Trent
>
> Oh yeah! I have fond memories of setting up my super 8 projector on the
> basement and watching those 50ft and 200ft gems that I bought at K_mart on
> the basement wall...kind of my introduction to film...I had an editor and a
> splicer as well and experimented with splicing things together. I haven't
> seen any 8mm or super 8 films like those for sale in a long time...
> --
> Medieval Knievel...the daredevil of the Dark Ages...
> smell_...@hotmail.com
My dad has roles of film from movies like Seventh Voyage of Sinbad, This
Island Earth, and tons of 50's sci-fi monster movies. Those things must
be worth a *ton*. You definitely can't get things like that anymore.
You put them into a projector and could watch them on a movie screen we
had, which was probably about 4ft by 4ft or so, but still looked great.
Wow, the memories that brings back. I remember as a kid, if I came home
and all the shades were pulled and a carpet was hanging over the main
window to block out the sunlight, that meant it was a movie night.
------> Trent
doug-tr...@msn.com
nim...@earthlink.net (Nimrod) wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jan 1999 01:51:08 GMT, Robert Lee <v...@user1.teleport.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In alt.cult-movies doug-tr...@msn.com wrote:
> >
> >> > I'll add The Big Chill, which may have--seriously--the most oppresive
> >> > soundtrack in movie history.
> >> >
> >> > --Robert
> >
> >> Poppycock.
> >
> >> ARMAGEDDON takes the prize for that. THE BIG CHILL used found music
> >> wonderfully; I love the use of the pause in "Good Lovin.'" Unfortunately
it
> >> was done so well virtually every film since then has done the same with
> >> colossally awful results. FORREST GUMP's soundtrack was integral to the
> >> metaphor, musical touchstones for the story.
> >
> >So, let's sum up here: when a buttload of Pavlovian pop shit is used in a
> >Boomer luv-fest, it's "wonderful" and provides "musical touchstones." When
> >the same is done in a movie aimed at younger audiences, it's a catastrophe
> >brought on by MTV and the general death of culture.
> >
> >I think I spoke too soon about "We're too young..." I'm thirty-one,
> >comfortably a "gen-x'er." I think this conversation is getting into "I
> >like the music I liked when I was eighteen best" territory, and I ain't
> >goin' there.
> >
> >I will say that I loathe The Big Chill and Forrest Gump about equally.
> >
> >--Robert
>
>
> Nimrod
I'm suddenly wondering how old Robert thinks I am.
WWS
Nimrod wrote:
>
> On 25 Jan 1999 23:20:47 GMT, jwk...@is8.nyu.edu (Jarett Kobek) wrote:
>
> >Cronan (h...@mindspring.com) wrote:
> >> I think you're missing my point. I was pointing out that the decline
> >> in subtlety he percieves isn't limited to movies made for teenagers.
> >> It's fairly widespread. It's rare that you'll find a TV show frequented
> >> by *any* demographic that doesn't just tell you the answers instead of
> >> asking you to take the time and figure it out out yourself. But they
> >> are out there. And some of the best are shows aimed at younger
> >> audiences.
> >
> >God, is it the impending threat of global apocalypse that's making
> >everyone so ethnocentric for the peoples of this time period, or something
> >else?
> >
> >period that's suffered from this sickening disease.)
> >
> >_Extraordinary Popular Delusions & The Madness of Crowds_, _The Glass
> >Teat_ & _The Other Glass Teat_. The last two are by a guy named Harlan
> >Ellison, he's a good writer, I'm sure you've all heard of him.
> >
> >The first one will help you to realize that gol' darn-it, people have
> >always been SUCKERS, and have always liked CRAP. It's not some youthful
> >fancy you're dealing with here, but rather a genetic disadvantage of the
> >human race.
>
In defense of Mackay's "E.P.D...", it is a series of historical studies
of human nature, and has nothing to do with TV or movies, having been
written in 1848. It is one of the few great classics that really
would be mandatory reading in any educational system concerned with
learning and not just social promotion. Demonstrates mainly that most
people are boobs, and have always been boobs, and when they gather in
crowds are much more similar to stampeding cattle than to any type of
sentient being. And also that people are suckers and will believe
anything that someone with position and credentials tells them.
And it's one of the few clssics that still has day to day application.
For instance, the most famous chapter, Tulipomania, will explain the
current stock prices of companies like Yahoo and Amazon beautifully.
>
> >The second two will help you systematically realize how fucking stupid
> >TELEVISION has always been, and how poor the taste of the youth, AND
> >ADULTS, has always been.
I think it was first called "A Great Wasteland" in the 50's, just a
few years after it came out. Oh, how I long for the subtlety and
depth of 'My mother the Car" and "Mr. Ed".
> >
> >I understand that Nimrod is basically a disguised misanthrope, and that's
> >respectable, so it's all ONE LOVE for him, but the rest of you are not
> >excluded from our little lesson.
> >
> >Get some historical perspective, for god's sakes.
> >
> >-Jarett
>
> I'm actually an undisguised demi-misanthrope. There are loads of
> folks I dearly love, but there are loads of folks I don't.
"If that mob had but one throat, I'd cut it!!" - Caligula
The Patron saint of Misanthrope's everywhere. (There's
historical perspective for you!)
>
> Of course, me wife calls me a jilted philanthrop.
She told me you were a jilted philanderer. Watch out for
Jarett, btw. He's in Attica for cooking and eating the
last 3 posters who flamed him. One of those Hannibal
Lecter kind of things.
--
__________________________________________________WWS_____________
It's a little known fact that the Dark Ages were caused by the
Y1K problem.
Michael Brooke
> A far worse problem is the younger film critics coming up who know nothing
> about film in general and have no interest in films before the mid-'70s.
>
<damning examples snipped>
>
> If this is the type of work that sees print, can we expect self-involved
> teenagers to be any more discerning?
Yes, but I've argued elsewhere that there are *some* good young critics,
and there are just as many jaded middle-aged hacks who should really be
put out to grass.
I don't think age is as much of a factor as some people seem to be
implying - if anything, some of the better younger critics tend to work
harder because they know all too well that their film knowledge isn't
what it should be. I can think of several older critics who regularly
make silly factual errors because they were presumably relying on a
somewhat faulty memory.
Michael
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAN SVANKMAJER - ALCHEMIST OF THE SURREAL
http://www.illumin.co.uk/svank
a lavish tribute to the cinema's wildest imagination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Garrett
says...
> to hell with morality, let's teach proper film
> appreciation! :-)
I think I just found my new .sig.
Dave
Steve Erickson
mic...@everyman.demon.co.uk (Michael Brooke) wrote:
> <doug-tr...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > A far worse problem is the younger film critics coming up who know nothing
> > about film in general and have no interest in films before the mid-'70s.
> >
> <damning examples snipped>
> >
> > If this is the type of work that sees print, can we expect self-involved
> > teenagers to be any more discerning?
>
> Yes, but I've argued elsewhere that there are *some* good young critics,
> and there are just as many jaded middle-aged hacks who should really be
> put out to grass.
>
> I don't think age is as much of a factor as some people seem to be
> implying - if anything, some of the better younger critics tend to work
> harder because they know all too well that their film knowledge isn't
> what it should be. I can think of several older critics who regularly
> make silly factual errors because they were presumably relying on a
> somewhat faulty memory.
It's also worth pointing out that there's a clueless editor behind every
clueless critic. Dave Kehr's dismissal from the DAILY NEWS last year says a
lot about the difficulty of writing intelligent, adventurous criticism for
an American daily.
Andrew White
<troj...@geocities.com> wrote:
>What do you think of the condescending attitude towards Chinese culture
>here? You failed to mention LW 4's biggest offense: imperial arrogance.
You really seem to have a rather strange, strong hatred directed
towards LW4. If you had listened to Donner's commentary on the DVD
then you would know that your favourite line ("Flied lice you plick")
was actually suggested by the Chinese actor. Donner thought it would
be too much but he relented when the actor laughed off any 'racist'
suggestions.
Andrew White
45 DVD... OPEN DVD, FIGHT DIVX
**Kumba (BGT) Psyclone (SFMM)**
**Desperado (BB)
Last 3 films (/5):
Psycho '98 * The Siege ** Enemy of the State ***
TULL KATHERINE L
have bitched about "these kids today." They've certainly done it in this
century. Just watch Rebel Without A Cause. When we get older, doubtless
we'll bitch about the younger generation. I guess it's just the way of
things...
Kate
Shannon Robert Burge
On Tue, 26 Jan 1999 doug-tr...@msn.com wrote:
>
> As for non-pop soundtracks, I fear any film scored by Michael Kamen -- the
> innappropriate use of bombast makes him the equivalent to those moronic
> teenagers who blast their car stereos so loudly the body panels on their cars
> rattle audibly. (LETHAL WEAPON's score is a crime against nature, almost as
> if it's screaming: I AM HIGHLIGHTING HOW IMPORTANT THIS TEDIOUS ACTION SCENE
> IS YOU DULL-WITTED IDIOTS!!! Which brings to mind HIGHLANDER -- now
> _there's_ a godwaful soundtrack.)
>
> Doug
>
One thing that annoys me about Lucio Fulci's Zombie/Gli Ultimi
Zombi/Zombies 2/ Zombie Flesh Eaters is the bad scoring of the infamous
"shark scene". That scene could have been so intense with appropriate,
exciting music, but instead we hear that plodding theme song, which makes
the scene laughably cheesy. It's like porn films; they just put on some
random music, not caring if it suits the action on screen.
SRB
BillyBond
>There has been ONE gen-u-winely good television show in the entire history
>of the medium, and that was _The Prisoner_.
Why does this not surprise me? Those who sneer at television in general
routinely exempt THE PRISONER.
Robert Lee
> So isn't your "loathing" possibly just the reverse prejudice of this whole
> thread? Instead of bitching about "Those kids today..." you're moaning about
> "Those old farts from yesterday..."? Hell you certainly seem to dislike their
> music and two movies aimed at them.
Why would I dislike Motown and Jefferson Airplane and Credence? I'm not
crazy about the way they were used in both movies...
As to loathing any movies aimed at boomers...no, I don't. Gump and Chill
are just spectacularly unimpressive films, totally undeserving of their
status. The extra frosting of them also being giant dick-strokes for the
most-stroked generation in this nation's history is...just that, frosting.
Medieval Knievel
>This whole argument isn't new. All throught the ages the older generation
>have bitched about "these kids today."
Yeah, but my generations stupidity seemed really cool and right at the
time.......
Jim McLennan
> I have a rule: for every crap picture I allow him to see, he must watch
> something worthwhile. That can be a film with historical significance like
> "Amistad" or "Gettysburg", a films with social importance, like "Philadelphia"
> or "The Color Purple".
How to kill off a budding interest in film in one easy lesson: force a
kid to go see films he doesn't want to. I know if I had to sit through
moralistic dreck like the titles listed, I'd have gone back to reading
books. Anyone who needs Hollywood movies as a social education has
clearly got bigger problems than the odd "crap picture".
I'm going to stick my neck out here and say a few things that may or may
not be popular, but what the hell...
Despite being the wrong side of 30, I empathise with "young people".
Looking at my favourite films, while there are exceptions (Orphee, the
Hammer Dracula, etc), the VAST majority date from 1980 or after. Now,
in my case, this is largely because the genres I like are ones which
have undeniably progressed over time i.e. SF, horror, action, etc. But
equally, these are all genres which are popular with YPs -- the reason
a lot of them think old films suck is largely because they DO! :-) The
number of scary, creepy or even plain gross horror films made before,
say, 'The Exorcist', is very limited, especially to an audience which
is now a great deal more media-conscious and aware.
In addition, I think such films are very much a product of their
time: this is particularly true of SF movies, where some films from
only a decade or so ago now look incredibly dated. Allow 30 years or
so, and most of them will look laughable at best. Now, perhaps its
also true that OPs, having lived through more years, are better able
to adapt to films from a different era. To someone born in the late
70s, 'Easy Rider' must seem like a movie from a different planet, and
without an appreciation of all the cultural baggage which surrounds
the film, how can you get a handle on it?
As for all the people who think "the old days were better", I think
there is a massive case of rose-coloured glasses here. Sure, 90% of
the movies today stink. But so did AT LEAST 90% of movies made back
in the 50s -- it's just that time has managed to erase a lot of
them from the record.
I am happy to appreciate films from any era -- but a film which
speaks to me directly, and is of relevance to my life, has a better
chance than films which have only an abstract significance.
--
Jim McLennan
-- Next time you visit the Internet, why not pop in to TrashCityLand? --
-- http://www.trshcity.demon.co.uk --
Peace Electric
> [..] So maybe it's one more of those things that's up to we adults to
> pass along to the younger generation... to hell with morality, let's
> teach proper film appreciation! :-)
I have to voice my opinion and say that that sounds like one horribly
torturous world to live in. As a kid, I was only made to see one film
against my will, and that was the first film I ever saw (you see, I
didn't know what they were talking about so I didn't want to go). But
aside from that I was basically free to watch whatever crappy movies I
wanted to, and eventually I grew more interested in other types of
films and I refined my tastes a little bit. But I would've absolutely
hated it if my parents had turned cinema into a chore and forced me to
sit through 'Gandhi' simply because the Academy said it would be good
for me. In fact, it probably would've turned me off of cinema forever.
Though certainly I wouldn't have minded any knd of suggestions and
recommendations, but to have to sit through 'Mrs Brown' every time I
wanted to watch 'Dawn of the Dead'? No thanks.
Peace Electric
> Glad to hear this, glad to hear there are people who still appreciate
> "slower" cinema. LAst night I rented Tati's MR HULOT'S HOLIDAY and AN
> AFFAIR TO REMEMBER. as the young female clerk handed me the tapes, she
> looked at me as if to say: "Why do you watch this? Are you gay?"
I would love to follow Alex around for a day, just to see these looks
people are giving them -- just to see if they're really as indicting
and suspicious as Alex seems to think. Personally, I don't even know
how someone could give an "Are you gay?" look. Is it something in the
eyes? Do they mouth the word "gay"? Or do they make like Mr. Furley
and do the old tinkerbell thing? (In which case it would be more of a
gesture and less of a look.)
Peace Electric
> [...] And in the 70's I was more interested in learning to walk and
> waiting to start school *L* But I did watch older movies even back
> then.
Yes but you're also posting to a newsgroup dedicated to film, so I'd
assume that you were never much of a casual moviegoer. And the point
I'm not doing a very good job of making is that over the years teens
have remained basically the same, with the vast majority of them being
much more inclined to watch a new movie than an old one. It's just the
way it is, and it's neither deserving of scorn, nor an inevitable sign
of the apocalypse.
People watch what they want to watch. Now let's get off their backs.
Peace Electric
> [...] And it won't change the kind of mind-numbing,
> assault-on-the-senses action flicks Hollywood has been cranking out
> for the last twenty years, at an ever escalating pitch, just to cater
> to that 14--24 year old demographic.
Unless I somehow blinked and missed them all, there were less of those
mind-numbing action films in '98 than in either '96 or '97. That might
not sound like the greatest possible news to you, but it *is* an
improvement, and it refutes the "ever escalating pitch" statement.
Cronan
>> Please quote any section of the above quoted paragraph (or anything
>> else anyone has written in this thread) to support your claim that
>> someone is expressing an 'ethnocentric' viewpoint.
>
>An ethnocentric viewpoint is a viewpoint centered a specific group of
>peoples, usually dealing with ethnicity,
Indeed.
but in this particular case
>dealing with the assumption that YOUNG FOLKS in earlier times were somehow
>of a nobler breed than the current YOUNG FOLKS, whose minds are anything
>but sound.
I see. You're somehow assuming that those who have implied young
people today are somehow less erudite can be categorized as
ethnocentric despite the fact that their posting histories indicate
vastly different backgrounds, lifestyles and ages. You're further
assuming they are behaving as a homogenous whole, expressing
variations on the same opinion. Neither of these assumptions is
logically sound.
>Not that you necessarily said that, but that's the entire gist of this
>idiotic thread. You were another cog in the grand machine, and I picked
>your post at random.
So, and let's be clear on this, although I was arguing the a point
diametrically opposed to what you say is the gist of this thread I
am 'a cog in the grand machine'? Yes. If there was a single factor
that could make me flipflop on this argument it's being attacked by
someone who, having taken a vow of intellectual poverty, charges
into a thread spouting grand conclusions based on a summary of an
unrelated third party's echoing a long standing truism pertaining to
inately subjective matters. And his subsequent implication that this
should silence all others. It's a type of idiocy I'd rather not be
associated with.
>> Ah, I see. This book helped you 'to realize' that it's own contents,
>> which you pretty clearly agreed with before hand, were gospel and
>> should be read by everyone before they dare expression an opinion on
>> today's culture... Might I suggest you read a little book called
>> THOUGHT CONTAGION?
>
>Might I suggest you SHUT THE HELL UP?
>
>It didn't help *me*, realize anything, because *I'm* a gen-u-wine GOD, and
>know everything. I know things that can't be known, I see things that
>can't be seen.
I'm unsure if you're a troll or a moron. (I've been having trouble
telling them apart of late.) I suppose I shall have to wait and see.
>You on the other hand, are a taenia, and need all the help your myopic
>self can get.
I am often acussed of being myopic so there may be so limited truth
in this statement. Perhaps you'd care to expound on why you believe
I'm myopic based on the opinions I've expressed in this thread.
>Don't get mad because I was being all sort of compassionate and trying to
>keep you from looking like a generic asshole.
There's nothing generic about my asshole-like qualities.
>> Ah, so there's a system to realizing that Television has always been
>> fucking stupid? I had no idea! Does it take much practice? (I'd
>> argue that to proclaim everything on television 'fucking stupid' is
>> not only insulting to a good many talented writers, producers and actors
>> but to Ellison himself who has been involved with a number of TV shows.
>> I doubt it would get through, though.)
>
>
>There has been ONE gen-u-winely good television show in the entire history
>of the medium, and that was _The Prisoner_. Everything else is cheap
>thrilling entertainment of varying quality, (best case: _The Simpsons_ or
>_All In the Family_) (worst case: _Love American Style_) and all of it is,
>essentially, fucking stupid.
I'm convinced.
>> Learn to write a reasoned post that supports the opinions it presents
>> with something more than "HARLAN ELLISON SAID SO SO IT MUST TRUE!", for
>> god's sake.
>
>What?
>
>What can be more effective for stating opinions than making reference to
>works that are far more comprehensive and insightful on the same subject
>matter? This is the basis of all academics, you swine! Don't you see the
>.edu at hte end of my address?
>
>I don't have to say anything of my own! Just reiterate the opinions of
>others!
Good.
>I made reference to Harlan Ellison's books of television criticism,
>because for all their would-be hipsterism, they're very, very insightful
>into the nature of television program, and the industry in general, AND,
>even though they're 30 years old, NOTHING is different in television, only
>the names of the programs, and I think that's the important part.
>
>As for my wonderful self being in love with Ellison, that's pretty
>laughable, given that I'm the guy who pissed the old man enough that he
>forced Dave Gerrold, of STAK TREK TRIBBLES FAME, to post up a 150 line
>flame of me.
Your troll is a bit too blatant near the end. Work on it.
Cronan
...IHBT
Christina Stanley
: As to loathing any movies aimed at boomers...no, I don't. Gump and Chill
: are just spectacularly unimpressive films, totally undeserving of their
: status. The extra frosting of them also being giant dick-strokes for the
: most-stroked generation in this nation's history is...just that, frosting.
If you're like me, you get perverse pleasure from the words "dick-strokes"
and "frosting" being used in the same sentence.
christina
lsmills
dreck? How droll.
--
lynzee
jpr...@hotmail.com
Jim McLennan
> Jim Mclennan of Trash City Land (ROFL) calls Amistad, Color Purple, etc.
> dreck? How droll.
The day I attempt to rewrite history from my own moral viewpoint, you
may have a point. Until then, anyone who apparently lauds big-budget
Hollywood work for its "historical significance" or "social importance"
can hardly comment.
Spielberg's emotionally manipulative style is fine for escapist fantasies
like ET and Indiana Jones, but distorting the facts as he does means he's
when it comes to "historical significance", he's effectively no better
than Leni Riefenstahl [have you heard of her?]. Indeed, at least she was
there when she documented the events she filmed.
Feel free to argue if you want -- or indeed, if you can. But if all you
can do is make snide remarks, do the rest of us a favour, and shut the
fuck up.
History does not make good movies. Something has to give -- and it's
rarely the movie...
je...@msmisp.com
Peace Electric wrote:
> je...@msmisp.com wrote:
>
> > [..] So maybe it's one more of those things that's up to we adults to
> > pass along to the younger generation... to hell with morality, let's
> > teach proper film appreciation! :-)
>
> I have to voice my opinion and say that that sounds like one horribly
> torturous world to live in. As a kid, I was only made to see one film
> against my will, and that was the first film I ever saw (you see, I
> didn't know what they were talking about so I didn't want to go). But
> aside from that I was basically free to watch whatever crappy movies I
> wanted to, and eventually I grew more interested in other types of
> films and I refined my tastes a little bit. But I would've absolutely
> hated it if my parents had turned cinema into a chore and forced me to
> sit through 'Gandhi' simply because the Academy said it would be good
> for me. In fact, it probably would've turned me off of cinema forever.
>
> Though certainly I wouldn't have minded any knd of suggestions and
> recommendations, but to have to sit through 'Mrs Brown' every time I
> wanted to watch 'Dawn of the Dead'? No thanks.
>
> --
Having read & posted to these newsgroups for the better part of a year, I
should've known better than to post WITHOUT ELABORATING.
Okay, here's the deal -- I don't make my son watch "Ghandi" or "Mrs. Brown"
-- 2 films I haven't been able to sit through myself. Call it Mom's
Privilege -- but I choose movies I myself feel are worthwhile, and since
the kid pretty much shares my interests and loves when it comes to
entertainment, the movies I "make him watch" are really movies I know he'll
appreciate -- perhaps even love -- he just needs a little prod here and
there. He never would've given "Night of the Living Dead" a chance had I
not insisted, simply because it was in black and white. My remedy for
"Scream"? "Dawn of the Dead" (a movie I've seen more times than I can
count). "Scream 2"? "Rosemary's Baby". The myriad of crappy MTV movies?
The Marx Brothers.
Maybe he doesn't thoroughly enjoy or appreciate EVERY film -- but that's
the breaks. Parenthood is a tyranny, afterall. But thanks to my tyranny,
he loves Monty Python, George Romero, & Stanley Kubrick (show me another 13
yr. old American who loves Kubrick... though some of his films will have to
wait -- "A Clockwork Orange" is a little much for 13 yr. olds in my book).
Next, someone will no doubt jump my ass for allowing a young teen to view
violent horror films, so let's nip that one in the bud right off... I grew
up on a steady diet of horror films, comics, books, and every evil heavy
metal band, followed by hardcore punk, and managed to never get arrested,
never get in a fight, never had a drug problem, never worshipped satan,
never sacrificed small animals or infants, never abused anyone or
anything. I don't allow my child to view sexually violent films and really
over the line violent films like Italian cannibal splatter. I was a lot
more uncomfortable with him watching "Scream" than "Dawn of the Dead". But
he's a super bright, happy, well-adjusted kid, from a happy family, so I'm
inclined to believe everything will work out okay. As long as I don't
force him to sit through "The Sound of Music".
cheers,
jean
Mariane Desautels
>
> Because they are not yet old enough to appreciate them. Not yet
> culturally aware to understand them. Attention span too short
Funny you should say that. I find that the _older_ I become, the shorter
my attention span.
M
--
"Hello. My name is Agent Scully. You killed my father,
my sister, my daughter and my dog, gave me cancer, abducted me,
performed bizarre experiments on me and made me chase suspect in
heels. Prepare to die." --- Lady Miss Tree ---
Alex Crouvier
>
> Barton Frink wrote:
> >
> > Because they are not yet old enough to appreciate them. Not yet
> > culturally aware to understand them. Attention span too short
>
> Funny you should say that. I find that the _older_ I become, the shorter
> my attention span.
>
> M
Has ARMAGEDDON grown in stature yet for you?
Peace Electric
> Is that the best you have to offer?
No. The summer of '98 also gave us 'Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas',
'The Truman Show', 'The Negotiator', 'Saving Private Ryan', 'Out of
Sight', 'There's Something About Mary', and 'The Mask of Zorro', all
of which took their time and required something of an attention span
to enjoy. And at least three of those films were surprise smashes.
In comparison, 'Godzilla' was a tremendous disappointment, despite not
requiring more than a modicum of patience. And 'Armageddon', although
having done better, was also seen as something of a disappointment, as
it didn't do the kind of business it was expected to. (Additionally,
you had a lot more disappointed people coming out of this movie than
you did 'Mary' or 'Ryan' or 'Truman' or 'Frank'.)
Now, I'm not saying that Hollywood filmmaking is as good as it was in,
say, the mid-seventies, but this year was still extremely impressive,
and an incredible improvement over '96.
Oh, and recall that 'Titanic' is currently the highest-grossing film of
all-time. I can't say how that fits into your attention span study, but
it would seem to contradict it.
> [...] I notice you never address the overall trend since the earliest
> moviemaking, only some minor fluctuation between last year and this
> (and I would even question that).
What is the "overall trend since the earliest moviemaking"? That the
medium has gradually gone to hell? That every year movies have grown
just a little bit dumber and just a little bit faster-paced? If that's
seriously what you're positing then your handle is more accurate than
you know. Would you really argue that 'The Godfather' and 'Dog Day
Afternoon' and 'Taxi Driver' play down to people's dim-witted minds
more than 'The Gold Rush' and 'Seven Chances' do? Would you argue that
the work of Harold Lloyd is slower than the work of Jacques Tati?
> [...] The biggest box office success of last year was ARMEGEDDON,
> poster child for this very trend. There's nine decades of active
> moviegoing to chart it, so it isn't like the data isn't in.
Please send me a copy of your study results, because instead of seeing
this apparently obvious decline in quality cinema over the decades, I'm
seeing a completely random collection of good years and bad years.
> You're right. People watch what they watch. Whew, now that's
> stunning social observation.
Thanks, I'm a philosopher. You know, like Plato.
> And most people---even kids---have always wanted to watch new movies
> more than old. Now who's generalizing? As if things weren't a
> matter of degrees----the degree of interest in older movies by kids
> 35 years ago in contrast to the degree of interest today.
Could you please rephrase this part so it makes sense? Thanks.
> Look, you can find exceptions all goddam day---many of them right
> here in this newsgroup for obvious reasons---but any film or
> television editor/producer/director (take your pick) can tell you
> authoritatively what the handwriting is on that big wall you refuse
> to read.
I never could understand that guy's handwriting. It's so messy.
> People's attention spans are getting shorter---and the younger they
> are the more this generalization applies.
I agree, although I've found that a sharp pencil to the eye generally
gets them going again. It sounds gruesome, I know, but so far it's
the only really effective way to get infants to watch 'Intolerance'.
P.S. Do you realize that the thing you're criticizing kids for (being
closed off to old movies), is exactly what you yourself are doing (in
reverse, of course). Sure you can say that you still watch new movies,
but how is believing that current film is *inherently* dumber than
classic film really any different from believing that classic film is
inherently dumber/duller/suckier than current film?
--
peacel
pea...@sk.sympatico.ca
“The world and its characters materialize out of the abyss of the
imagination, and in their impossibility, they seem more real than
the characters in many realistic movies.”
-Roger Ebert on ‘Babe: Pig in the City'
Mark Edwards
> In alt.cult-movies Mark Edwards <dange...@ids.net> wrote:
>
> > So isn't your "loathing" possibly just the reverse prejudice of this whole
> > thread? Instead of bitching about "Those kids today..." you're moaning about
> > "Those old farts from yesterday..."? Hell you certainly seem to dislike their
> > music and two movies aimed at them.
>
> Why would I dislike Motown and Jefferson Airplane and Credence? I'm not
> crazy about the way they were used in both movies...
>
> As to loathing any movies aimed at boomers...no, I don't. Gump and Chill
> are just spectacularly unimpressive films, totally undeserving of their
> status. The extra frosting of them also being giant dick-strokes for the
> most-stroked generation in this nation's history is...just that, frosting.
>
> --Robert
>
Now don't hold back there Robert, tell us what you really think. You certainly
didn't deny a strange and seething dislike for the boomer generation anywhere in
that ramble and that last paragraph pretty much nails it. Do you really believe you
are being truly objective about those two films? (No need to answer, it's a
rhetorical question).
Mark
Robert Lee
> On Tue, 26 Jan 1999 19:00:30 -0500, je...@msmisp.com wrote:
> > As long as I don't force him to sit through "The Sound of Music".
> >
> >cheers,
> >jean
> >
> .....but then, that would be child abuse and he might report you
> to Child Welfare Services.
hey, I like The Sound of Music, dammit.
--Robert, Amistad and Color Purple, though...ugh...
Robert Lee
I could provide a list of movies aimed at that generyou'd like.
--Robert
doug-tr...@msn.com
mic...@everyman.demon.co.uk (Michael Brooke) wrote:
> <doug-tr...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > A far worse problem is the younger film critics coming up who know nothing
> > about film in general and have no interest in films before the mid-'70s.
> >
> <damning examples snipped>
> >
> > If this is the type of work that sees print, can we expect self-involved
> > teenagers to be any more discerning?
>
> Yes, but I've argued elsewhere that there are *some* good young critics,
> and there are just as many jaded middle-aged hacks who should really be
> put out to grass.
>
> I don't think age is as much of a factor as some people seem to be
> implying - if anything, some of the better younger critics tend to work
> harder because they know all too well that their film knowledge isn't
> what it should be. I can think of several older critics who regularly
> make silly factual errors because they were presumably relying on a
> somewhat faulty memory.
>
As a fellow who takes a dim view of most film critics, I'd like to read some
of these young critics you consider good -- are any accessible on the web?
You have a great website, btw.
Doug
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
doug-tr...@msn.com
cris...@animal.blarg.net (Christina Stanley) wrote:
> Robert Lee (v...@user2.teleport.com) wrote:
>
> : As to loathing any movies aimed at boomers...no, I don't. Gump and Chill
> : are just spectacularly unimpressive films, totally undeserving of their
> : status. The extra frosting of them also being giant dick-strokes for the
> : most-stroked generation in this nation's history is...just that, frosting.
>
> and "frosting" being used in the same sentence.
>
> christina
I'm almost ashamed of the thought I just had.
Almost.
Michael Brooke
>
> It's also worth pointing out that there's a clueless editor behind every
> clueless critic. Dave Kehr's dismissal from the DAILY NEWS last year says a
> lot about the difficulty of writing intelligent, adventurous criticism for
> an American daily.
There's an equivalent example on this side of the Atlantic - the highly
distinguished David Robinson, one of the best-informed critics on the
planet, resigned from the Times in protest after his editor told him
that he always had to open his column with a review of the biggest
mainstream Hollywood film and devote the greatest amount of space to it,
regardless of whether or not it was the best film of the week.
Robinson, like all good critics, preferred to review films in order of
merit, but inevitably this meant that his columns often opened with
films that were only playing in one small cinema in London rather than
on a national release.
More recently, the Observer sidelined their equally distinguished (and
equally longterm) critic Philip French, only letting him review one film
a week and farming the rest out to a load of anonymous twentysomethings.
Fortunately, this experiment seems to have been a failure, as French has
been reinstated as the paper's only major critic.
I took a keen personal interest in this most recent development, because
I've been enormously grateful to French on numerous occasions for going
out on a limb to promote films I've been involved with. The best
example was when we staged the first commercial showings of Samuel
Beckett's legendary 'Film', a 22-minute black-and-white totally silent
film playing exclusively in just one small cinema. French not only led
on 'Film', he also devoted the first third of his column to it - purely
on the grounds that it was the most important film opening that week.
And that's what makes a good critic - the courage to stick up for what
you believe in and promote the virtues of those who may not have the
resources to do so themselves.
Michael
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAN SVANKMAJER - ALCHEMIST OF THE SURREAL
http://www.illumin.co.uk/svank
a lavish tribute to the cinema's wildest imagination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Chen
> As a 26-year-old who saw more "old" films than new ones last year (and
> plenty of both), I don't think I'm typical of my generation, but I don't
> think I'm all *that* rare either. I've had a number of discussions with
> older cinephiles about the supposed Death Of Cinema and/or Cinephilia, and
> I find it pretty infuriating that when I defend the tastes of my generation
> by using my own tastes as an example, I get told that I'm a rare exception
> to the rule. If the tastes of my friends and the customers of the video
> store I used to work at are any indication, there are many exceptions to
> the rule. Let's face it: every generation is convinced that the generation
> following them is doomed.
I'm a 17-year-old and I love old movies (as well as new ones). However, I DO
think we are a "rather rare" exception to the rule. When I go to the video store,
I see more than 90% of the people at the New Release section. The Classics
section takes up only about 1/20 of the entire store. (You might tell me to
change stores.) Nowadays, when I do go to the store, I try to get out of the
video store as quickly as possible, instead of trying to bear it when people say
films like "The Postman" (1997) looks "interesting".
Many of my friends hate old movies. Main reason: black and white. ("How can you
see that? - it's in black and white!") I admit I didn't prefer the medium when I
was 13 either, but now I like both, more so if it looks like the better colouring
method for that particular film (Schindler's List, Citizen Kane, The Wizard of
Oz). One of my closer friends used to really hate black and white films. He has
improved his "tastes" after I showed him Schindler's List - a contemporary B&W,
and then Dr. Strangelove. But I would never defend the tastes of my generation.
And contrary to your belief (Every generation is convinced that the generation
following them is doomed), I believe MY generation is doomed. There are two types
of films: mindless entertainment and intelligent/artistic entertainment. If
mindless entertainment isn't what my generation is preferring, big Hollywood
studios wouldn't be churning out crap like Godzilla and Armargeddon.
Nevertheless, they love what they watch, and rare young people like you and I
love what we watch, and that's all there is to it.
Michael Brooke
> In the 30's, there wasn't any chance to see the older films.
Yes there was - film societies and repertory cinemas filled that role.
True, there weren't that many of them, certainly not compared with the
proportion of video users today - but they did exist, and they certainly
provided such opportunities.
If they hadn't, rather fewer films from the first few decades of the
cinema's existence would have been preserved!
Michael
Medieval Knievel
<36AEEC28...@oe.net.au>...snippage...>Many of my friends hate old
movies. Main reason: black and white. ("How can you
>see that? - it's in black and white!"
this I have never understood...it's almost like the medium is more important
than the content...kind of supports the "eye-candy" argument made many posts
back, doesn't it? Hey, maybe if they redid Casablanca in color, with
DeCaprio and Care Dane, with 3-d effects and lots of merchandising
tie-ins...and of course get the quote right "play it again, Sam"......
Helen & Bob
Peace Electric wrote:
> .
>
> Though certainly I wouldn't have minded any knd of suggestions and
> recommendations, but to have to sit through 'Mrs Brown' every time I
> wanted to watch 'Dawn of the Dead'? No thanks.
>
>
Interesting. I would revolt it the order of films were reversed. ":Dawn of
the Dead", to me, is a "One Time Interesting" film, where Mrs. Brown is
a fascinating film about the interaction between two adults, one of whom
has great power. I found "Mrs. Brown" to be an excellent film. But then,
each to their own.
Bob
Helen & Bob
Michael Chen wrote:
> Snip snip snip
>
> If mindless entertainment isn't what my generation is preferring, big Hollywood
> studios wouldn't be churning out crap like Godzilla and Armargeddon.
>
I am 60+. Your statement is valid for all of my life. The classics will live far a
very long time. But 90% of what Follywood has made for its entire existence is
crap. What is left is the good stuff. Most of the stuff I watched in the 40's and
50's does not exist any more. And that's not a bad thing.
Bob
jsch...@my-dejanews.com
Isn't that (Somebody's) Law? "Ninety percent of everything is crap"? There's
an inherent advantage in developing a taste for classics in anything--movies,
music, literature: you can let the winds of time separate the wheat from the
chaff.
JSC
Peace Electric
> >Many of my friends hate old movies. Main reason: black and white.
> >("How can you see that? - it's in black and white!"
>
> this I have never understood...it's almost like the medium is more
> important than the content [...]
Is it really hard for you to understand? I suppose it would depend on
how old you were, but I'm sure that most of us who were born after
color film was the norm can remember a time when we preferred color to
black and white, or at least saw color as an ideal and black and white
as a regrettable step down. In any case, the logic behind it goes
something like this: 1) Reality is in color, and so it's difficult to
relate to a world of black and white; 2) Color is an improvement over
black and white, so why go back?; 3) A color film is brighter and more
interesting to look at, while monochrome is monotonous and depressing.
(Disclaimer: I myself am not anti-b&w, so don't bother trying to
convince me of how great it is.)
Peace Electric
> Actually, factored in current dollars, GONE WITH THE WIND is still
> the hightest-grossing film of all time. And the movie I saw called
> TITANIC was definitely dumbed down, with Cameron's patented
> hyped-up style which has served him well with his other films geared
> to 15-year-olds---as in T2 and ALIENS---only this time he geared it
> to 15-year-old girls instead of 15-year-old boys.
But still, it was a three hour movie, and the first two hours were
almost nothing but talking. It required as much patience as just about
any silent film or screwball comedy or gangster picture I can think of,
*and yet* it was a tremendous box-office hit. That says something about
the audience's patience.
> I never said that every year movies have grown dumber---and I
> wouldn't say it, because I don't believe it.
Two seconds ago you were saying that 'Titanic' was dumbed down. And
your entire hypothesis is that movies have gradually become faster and
faster to make up for short attention spans. Is it then such a huge
leap to assume you also think movies have grown worse? Or do you think
that despite making up for short attention spans, the quality of
Hollywood cinema has remained consistent, or actually improved?
> And at this point, if you can't see an overall trend toward
> faster-paced films in the nine decades audiences have been going to
> movies---and we can both cite exceptions all day---then I doubt you
> ever will.
Well what about the seventies? Would you say that the seventies fits
comfortably into this nine decade overall trend?
> But the most common complaint you hear from kids about why they don't
> watch old movies is that they are too slow and they are in black and
> white. Apparently you don't take them at their word.
No, everyone knows most kids prefer new movies, but how is that one
little fact evidence that Hollywood has been dumbing down and speeding
up all of its product for the last ninety years?
> My, my, my, there have been good years and bad years. We all agree on
> that.
But then how can you say that Hollywood filmmaking has slowly declined?
If '98 was better than '37 and '56 and '71, or whatever collection of
years you'd want to argue, then doesn't that mean Hollywood filmmaking
*hasn't* gradually declined? (Of course, I'm assuming that you see this
dumbing down and speeding up as a decline.)
> [...] that there have been major, overarching changes in Hollywood
> product and pacing in the last nine decades of commercial
> moviemaking. And no, you don't deserve any study results from me or
> anybody else---and I love folks who keep crying out for them in place
> of common sense.
You keep saying that like it's a given. What is the evidence? What are
these films that conclusively prove that cinema has been dumbed down
and sped up? I keep providing films and filmmakers that contradict that,
and you keep swiping them away as exceptions to the rule. Just recently
Hollywood has released 'A Civil Action', 'The Prince of Egypt', 'The
Thin Red Line', and 'A Simple Plan' -- would you say that these films
require more or less patience than every film Buster Keaton ever made?
> [...] Whether or not more kids are increasingly closed off to old
> movies doesn't have anything to do with the calibre of movies then
> and now.
Er, okay, that's what *I'm* arguing. I could've sworn you were using
the decline in attention spans as the reason for Hollywood's most
recent releases, but I guess not. Let's move on.
> Rather than let you continue to fulfill your agenda by putting words
> in my mouth, I will say for the record, that the big-budget "A"
> pictures of today are largely---not entirely---but largely what would
> have been "B" pictures for kids in the Forties and Fifties, only now
> they are juiced up with money and state-of-the-art special effects.
There are certainly movies like that ('The Faculty', 'Rush Hour', 'I
Still Know...'), but there are still enough exceptions that I can't
say that they're the norm. And since there aren't really any kind of
B movies that kids actually go to any more, you shouldn't be too
surprised to see Hollywood targeting that demographic.
> Meanwhile, the adult dramas and soaps that were once "A" pictures are
> now the stuff of a more limited demographic in box-office terms.
> While major studios do continue to make them, the vast majority are
> relegated to indy producers or, more and more, they turn up as TV
> movies.
I don't know about that. This time last year you would've had 'As Good
As It Gets', 'Good Will Hunting', and 'Titanic' burning up the
box-office, and all of those would certainly meet the definition of
adult drama or soap. And even now we have things like 'The Thin Red
Line', 'A Simple Plan', 'A Civil Action', and 'The Prince of Egypt'.
And stuff like 'Stepmom' and 'Patch Adams' seems like it would be the
'90s equivalent of the '30s soap-type stuff.
> That's economics. I've never believed that films as a whole have
> gotten inherently dumber over the evolution of movies thus far;
> that's a different issue entirely.
What about Hollywood as a whole?
Robert Lee
> I'm a 17-year-old and I love old movies (as well as new ones). However, I DO
> think we are a "rather rare" exception to the rule...
There you go, Nimrod. Hope for the future. Our cranky, obsessive legacy
will go on.
Brent Wilkins
wrote:
>On Tue, 26 Jan 1999 00:33:48 GMT, bre...@geocities.com (Brent
>Wilkins) wrote:
>
>>In the 50's
>>I'm sure there were teens who watched the older films with a passion
>>on TV
>
>You realize these still exsit, right? Especially with the advent of
>home video.
Yes. I was just responding to the generalizations that were made
about the 50's It wasn't meant to reflect upon today's audiences.
Brent Wilkins
Sorry I forgot about the "roadshows" as I call them. I should have
said that there was a very minimal chance for it =)
Gary Couzens
Peace Electric wrote in message <36AF30...@sk.sympatico.ca>...
>
>Is it really hard for you to understand? I suppose it would depend on
>how old you were, but I'm sure that most of us who were born after
>color film was the norm can remember a time when we preferred color to
>black and white, or at least saw color as an ideal and black and white
>as a regrettable step down.
Hollywood black and white photography, as an unbroken tradition, came to an
end in 1967, with the release of "in Cold Blood" amongst others. 1968 was
the first year in the USA where all the major studios releases were in
colour. (This happened later in other countries - there was one British b/w
commercial film in 1968 - "Inadmissible Evidence" - and then 1969 was 100%
colour.) Later examples of black and white are exceptions to the rule
rather than part of a tradition. I was three in 1967, and I don't remember
going to see b/w films in the cinema until rather later. I did see them on
TV of course: I remember watching a season of SF movies at the age of 10,
including "The Day The Earth Stood Still", "Them!" and "Village of the
Damned". This was a time when you could show b/w films in prime time on a
popular TV channel - that's no longer the case any more.
I would go so far as to say: if a film these days is made in b/w it would
attract my interest, because it would suggest that the director has at least
thought about the visuals of his/her film. Almost everything is in colour
nowadays, but not many films *use* colour in any creative way.
In any case, the logic behind it goes
>something like this: 1) Reality is in color, and so it's difficult to
>relate to a world of black and white;
Who says film has to be realistic? What happened to one's imagination? I
would suggest b/w would be very appropriate for something set in a period up
to the 1940s as our view of that era is mostly b/w (newsreel, TV etc.)
Dickens strikes me as a writer who would be best filmed in b/w - read one of
his novels and you get a tremendous eye for detail but not so much a sense
of colour. Other novelists, conversely, have a very strong colour sense,
and film versions of their work *should* be in colour.
Jeremy Dyson's book "Bright Darkness" makes the case that most of the best
supernatural horror films are in b/w - partly because the medium (like prose
literature and radio drama) by definition gives us an *incomplete* sensory
picture, forcing us to use our imaginations - in the case of a good horror
movie, making it scarier.
>Color is an improvement over
>black and white, so why go back?;
British media critic Mark Lawson used this argument when John Boorman's "The
General" was released last year. Tell this to all the directors and DPs who
would give their right arms for the chance to work in black and white (and
who did use it in the 50s and 60s when colour was available).
3) A color film is brighter and more
>interesting to look at, while monochrome is monotonous and depressing.
>
The late Nestor Almendros said that it's a lot easier to produce bad,
ugly-looking colour than bad, ugly-looking b/w.
Finally, if b/w photography is so unacceptable, why do so many
advertisements and music videos use it? The few b/w pictures released by
major studios since the early 70s range from hits ("Schindler's List", "The
Elephant Man," "Young Frankenstein", "The Last Picture Show") to flops
("Raging Bull", "Under the Cherry Moon", "Ed Wood" - though two of these are
very good films). I don't see their commercial fate being changed much if
they were in colour. People will still see a b/w film if all the other
elements are right.
Gary Couzens
Brent Wilkins
<pea...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Brent Wilkins wrote:
>
>> [...] And in the 70's I was more interested in learning to walk and
>> waiting to start school *L* But I did watch older movies even back
>> then.
>
>Yes but you're also posting to a newsgroup dedicated to film, so I'd
>assume that you were never much of a casual moviegoer. And the point
>I'm not doing a very good job of making is that over the years teens
>have remained basically the same, with the vast majority of them being
>much more inclined to watch a new movie than an old one. It's just the
>way it is, and it's neither deserving of scorn, nor an inevitable sign
>of the apocalypse.
Actually, I was. Theater visits other week, but then they split our
small local theater in half to get 2 screens and that destryed the
movie going for me. But by that time, I had a VCR * a C-Band
satellite dish and could see the movies at home. I would always rent
a new release and an older movie. I still do that most of the time.
And now we have a new video store that rents 2 older movies for a week
for $1. This week I rented Avengers, Wrongfully Accused, Brewster
McCloud, Carry On Behind, Carry On Cleo and Archie: Return To
Riverdale. And now I can't be a casual moviegoer. The nearest
theater is between 30-45 minutes away now. Can'texactly decide to go
to a movie on the spur of the moment like I used to.
>
>People watch what they want to watch. Now let's get off their backs.
>
>
>--
>peacel
>pea...@sk.sympatico.ca
>“The world and its characters materialize out of the abyss of the
> imagination, and in their impossibility, they seem more real than
> the characters in many realistic movies.”
> -Roger Ebert on ‘Babe: Pig in the City’
>
>
Peace Electric
> Except that in traditional film language, black & white equals grim
> reality (i.e. SCHINDLER'S LIST, THE LAST PICTURE SHOW), whereas color
> equals unreality (i.e. STAR WARS, THE RED SHOES, TITANIC and DISNEY
> ANIMATION).
I don't think that's how the casual moviegoer sees it at all. To them,
the world is in color and so a color film is closer to the world. It's
actually pretty logical.
> By its very nature, the film medium transforms and stylizes what the
> camera sees. In other words, the argument---whatever age you
> are---is pretty useless.
But it depends on how much stylization you can put up with. People who
refuse to watch b&w obviously can't tolerate the fact that it isn't as
realistic as color. (It's not all that different from someone not being
able to get into 'The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari' simply because the sets
look so much like sets.)
> And it really breaks down when you see all the black & white music
> videos kids watch gleefully on MTV.
First, what is the ratio of color videos to b&w videos? Second, a music
video usually doesn't require its audience to become involved in the
story or characters; generally the video isn't much more than a random
collection of images, and so it's not as difficult for people to endure
the unreality of the film stock. And third, a music video only lasts a
couple of minutes, and b&w is always easier to tolerate in small doses.
> By the way, I was also born after color was the norm---and I never
> preferred color or black & white over the other. [...]
I would think you'd be the exception. I would think that most young
children (I'm talking seven or eight), if given the chance, would
choose a color episode of "Gilligan's Island" over a black and white
one. And really, as they grow up and see that every new television show
and just about every new movie is shot in color, it's understandable
that kids would assume that color is better or preferred. I think it
has more to do with environment than inherent intelligence (as has
been suggested).
--
peacel
pea...@sk.sympatico.ca
“The world and its characters materialize out of the abyss of the
imagination, and in their impossibility, they seem more real than
the characters in many realistic movies.”
-Roger Ebert on ‘Babe: Pig in the City'
Steve Erickson
> In article <1dm8ov0.f9c...@everyman.demon.co.uk>,
> mic...@everyman.demon.co.uk (Michael Brooke) wrote:
> > <doug-tr...@msn.com> wrote:
> >
> > > A far worse problem is the younger film critics coming up who know nothing
> > > about film in general and have no interest in films before the mid-'70s.
> > >
> > <damning examples snipped>
> > >
> > > If this is the type of work that sees print, can we expect self-involved
> > > teenagers to be any more discerning?
> >
> > Yes, but I've argued elsewhere that there are *some* good young critics,
> > and there are just as many jaded middle-aged hacks who should really be
> > put out to grass.
> >
> > I don't think age is as much of a factor as some people seem to be
> > implying - if anything, some of the better younger critics tend to work
> > harder because they know all too well that their film knowledge isn't
> > what it should be. I can think of several older critics who regularly
> > make silly factual errors because they were presumably relying on a
> > somewhat faulty memory.
> >
> > Michael
>
> As a fellow who takes a dim view of most film critics, I'd like to read some
> of these young critics you consider good -- are any accessible on the web?
>
> You have a great website, btw.
>
I highly recommend the "Movie Mutations" exchange published in FILM
QUARTERLY, which sheds some light on the supposed Death Of
Cinema/Cinephilia: http://www.ucpress.edu/journals/fq/critic.html.
Additionally, I'd recommend Kent Jones, Adrian Martin and Jonathan Romney
as worthwhile relatively young (i.e, in their 30s) critics. As for as
online critics, I'd also recommend Mike D'Angelo, Bryant Frazer and Theo
Panayides. You can follow the link to my page for links to theirs.
--
Steve Erickson
Remove "nospam" to reply.
http://home.earthlink.net/~steevee
Brent Wilkins
>A far worse problem is the younger film critics coming up who know nothing
>about film in general and have no interest in films before the mid-'70s.
>
>Snipped examples>
In Jr College, I did video reviews. I tried to do a theme. When
Ready To Wear came out, I reviewed several Altman movies. The only
ones that any of the students recognized were MASH and Popeye.
Unfortunately, when doing reviews, you must address what the majority
of the readers care about. When I reviewed The Legend Of Hell House,
I had students telling me that it wasn't horror(As I classified it)
because there weren't much gore. And these were people around my age
or a bit younger.
Shannon Robert Burge
On Wed, 27 Jan 1999 jsch...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <36AF20C8...@ix.netcom.com>,
> Helen & Bob <chil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Michael Chen wrote:
> >
> > > Snip snip snip
> > >
> > > If mindless entertainment isn't what my generation is preferring, big Hollywood
> > > studios wouldn't be churning out crap like Godzilla and Armargeddon.
> > >
> >
> > I am 60+. Your statement is valid for all of my life. The classics will live far a
> > very long time. But 90% of what Follywood has made for its entire existence is
> > crap. What is left is the good stuff. Most of the stuff I watched in the 40's and
> > 50's does not exist any more. And that's not a bad thing.
> > Bob
> >
>
> Isn't that (Somebody's) Law? "Ninety percent of everything is crap"? There's
> an inherent advantage in developing a taste for classics in anything--movies,
> music, literature: you can let the winds of time separate the wheat from the
> chaff.
>
That's true, but unfortunately we now live in a culture in which
*everything* is archived and catalogued for the future. Old movies like
London After Midnight are gone forever, but Weekend at Bernie's 2 will
last until the end of time.
SRB
Peace Electric
> >1) Reality is in color, and so it's difficult to relate to a world
> >of black and white;
>
> Who says film has to be realistic? [...]
No one. It's just that for the casual moviegoer it's easier to relate
to a world of color than a world of black and white. It's not so much
about realism as it is about the ability to relate.
> >Color is an improvement over black and white, so why go back?;
>
> [...] Tell this to all the directors and DPs who would give their
> right arms for the chance to work in black and white [...]
That is 100% absolutely meaningless to a casual moviegoer. Color is
seen as an improvement because it has "more," and all the directors
and all the DPs in the world aren't going to change that perception.
> >3) A color film is brighter and more interesting to look at, while
> >monochrome is monotonous and depressing.
>
> The late Nestor Almendros said that it's a lot easier to produce bad,
> ugly-looking colour than bad, ugly-looking b/w.
Yes, but color is still less depressing for people. Black and white
usually has a shadowy bleakness to it that I think a lot of casual
moviegoers can't stand. Similarly, casual moviegoers are also turned
off by the creepy nightmarish quality inherent in all silent films
(or at least this is the reason I've been given.)
> Finally, if b/w photography is so unacceptable, why do so many
> advertisements and music videos use it? [...]
I don't know what advertisements you're referring to, and I already
covered music videos elsewhere.
Peace Electric
> Actually, I was. Theater visits other week, but then they split
> our small local theater in half to get 2 screens and that destryed
> the movie going for me. But by that time, I had a VCR * a C-Band
> satellite dish and could see the movies at home. I would always
> rent a new release and an older movie. [...]
I'm sorry, I'm not following you. Are you using this as evidence of
your being a casual moviegoer? If so, I don't think you really know
what a casual moviegoer is. They're the kind of people who see maybe
twenty movies a year. They don't like anything too disturbing or too
experimental. Hopefully the film will be safe and predictable and
entertaining. Movies are seen as a way to kill a few hours, or as a
pleasant distraction after a hard day's work, or as a way to get out
of the house and hang out with friends.
But what you're describing up above is closer to "film buff in the
making" than "casual moviegoer."
Marshall
<smell_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> for the same reason that Backstreet Boys sell millions of records...
> for the same reason they wear ridiculously baggy pants...
> for the same reason they would pierce their epiglottis, given half a
> chance...because they're a herd of swine...
Thank you for that insanely thoughtless generalization.
---
|-------------|-------------------------------------------------|
| / \ |Spider <mars...@gtn.net> |
|'\ \__O__/ /`| |
| `--(_)--' |http://users.gtn.net/marshall/ |
| .---/ \---. |ICQ UIN - 2447374 |
|/ /'(>I<)`\ \| |
|` \ `-' / '|"You forgot your fortune cookie. It says you're |
| \ / |shit out of luck." |
| | |
| |- Clint Eastwood as Dirty Harry, "The Dead Pool" |
|-------------|-------------------------------------------------|
Marshall
Dundjerovic <nema...@nortelnetworks.com> wrote:
> Barton Frink wrote:
> >
> > Because they are not yet old enough to appreciate them. Not yet
> > culturally aware to understand them. Attention span too short
>
> No, I think it's just that they are not introduced to them properly. The
> prevalent attitude on this group seems to be: the brats deserve nothing
> better than seeing films about what happened 6 summers ago.
> Classic movies appeal to everybody. For instance, I rented North by
> Northwest, and my kid brother watched it with me, and enjoyed it very
> much.
> You're assuming that, somehow, enjoying the sardonic wit of Scream
> renders one unable to appreciate a veritable masterpiece like Vertigo or
> Citizen Kane. Give them a little credit.
You're right. I don't think the problem is with being unable to appreciate it,
but it is with the attitude that all old films are bad. This attitude means
that most teens completely avoid older films, and therefore they never have a
chance to experience them until they themselves get older.
Medieval Knievel
Peace Electric wrote in message <36AF78...@sk.sympatico.ca>...>and just
about every new movie is shot in color, it's understandable
>that kids would assume that color is better or preferred. I think it
>has more to do with environment than inherent intelligence (as has
>been suggested).
yeah, since the majority of viewable media you see is in color now, there's
an assumption that B/W is technologically inferior to color, or it's an
inference from the cheapness of B/W TV's in comparison to color TV's, that
any movie in B/W is automatically cheap or otherwise inferior...
Medieval Knievel
"Ninety percent of everything is crap"?
that's from Theodore Sturgeon, science fiction author...
--
Medieval "loves insanely thoughtless generalizations" Knievel...the
Peace Electric
> So the first two hours of TITANIC requires as much patience as a
> silent movie or screwball comedy, huh?
Actually, it requires *more*. I mean, what is 'Sherlock Jr.' about?
It's a 45 minute movie about a guy entering a movie screen and running
around and chasing crooks. What is 'Bringing Up Baby' about? It's a
bunch of zany characters shouting at each other while they try and
track down a dinosaur bone. I love both of these films, but I don't
think they require any more patience than the incessant talking of
'Titanic' or the casual pacing of 'As Good As It Gets' (the year's
biggest video rental, BTW).
Now, you may be arguing that it would require more patience for someone
to watch 'Sherlock Jr.' *today*, in which case I might agree. But at
the time of its release did 'Sherlock Jr. require any more patience
than 'Titanic' or AGAIG did in December of '97? No, not really.
> [...] And I would hardly call robot pods roaming the ocean floor and
> fancy computer graphics just talk. [...]
I don't remember that robotic pod doing anything much after the opening
credits, and the computer graphics were limited to wide shots of the
ship. Not exactly heart-pounding stuff.
> Look, I'm tired of rehashing this point with you. If you can't
> accept that most Hollywood films have gotten faster paced---and
> longer I might add---then we have no common ground, I question your
> ability to see the forest for the trees, and we should end this
> discussion. Even a relatively low-key love story like YOU'VE GOT
> MAIL is faster paced than the original---and superior---THE SHOP
> AROUND THE CORNER. It *is* a leap to make your assumption about
> movie quality, a leap I'm not willing to make.
So you're saying that Hollywood films have quickened their pace in
order to play down to moronic audiences with short attention spans, and
that very often these films are dumbed down for greater appeal, and yet
you're *not* making any broad assumptions about the overall quality of
these films, and you're *not* going to make any huge leaps and argue
that Hollywood cinema has declined?
If so, that's fine. I'd assumed that with Hollywood doing all of these
terrible things you'd also feel that their films had grown worse, but
hey, it looks like you don't think that at all.
> I might remind you, that question is: Why do kids dislike watching
> older films?
That's the subject header, but it's not what this discussion is about.
Not any more, anyway.
> >Well what about the seventies? Would you say that the seventies fits
> >comfortably into this nine decade overall trend?
>
> [...] In 1945 or '55 or '65 do you think we saw anything like James
> Caan as Sonny Corleone blown away with more blood squibs attached to
> his body than any actor had ever worn before (even in BONNY AND
> CLYDE) or had we seen anything like THE WILD BUNCH's in-your-face
> gunbattles or Dustin Hoffman's final rampage in STRAW DOGS or Ed,
> Lewis, Bobby and Drew battling hellacious river rapids and hillbilly
> buggery in DELIVERANCE?
So what are you objecting to now? Pace or amount of violent content?
And what are you saying about the above movies? That they're bad for
being violent? That they're overly violent to appeal to idiots? That
they're sped up to appease short attention spans? You can't possibly
be using 'The Wild Bunch' and 'Bonnie and Clyde' as evidence of the
nine decade decline in adult-oriented Hollywood cinema, can you?
Of course if your only point with the above paragraph was that the
films of '75 were more violent than the films of '45, then I agree.
Although I'm not sure what that proves, exactly.
> >But then how can you say that Hollywood filmmaking has slowly
> >declined?
>
> Jesus Christ, I DIDN'T SAY ANY OF THIS CRAP you keep restating like a
> droid, except that, in general, the pace of films has sped up and now
> cater to shorter attention spans. Do I think that's good? In a
> word---NO.
Do you truly not see why I'm making that assumption? You're saying that
for the past ninety years Hollywood has gradually catered more and more
to the morons (my word, not yours) in the audience, and you even label
this a bad thing. Is it then so strange for me to assume that this bad
thing you're referring to is also leading to bad movies? (And if it's
not, then why complain?)
> Read the last sentence of the paragraph you are responding to.
> Read what I already said very closely. With the exception of
> TITANIC, which is hardly an adult drama or soap, all of those
> pictures you just named have a more limited demographic in
> box-office terms than ARMAGEDDON or ID4. That means no matter how
> well A CIVIL ACTION does, it can never touch the box-office returns
> of an ARMAGEDDON.
We obviously have a different definition of "A picture". 'As Good As It
Gets' starred Jack Nicholson and was directed by Oscar winner James L.
Brooks. Wouldn't that make it as much an A picture as 'Dark Victory' or
'All About Eve'? Isn't 'The Thin Red Line' an A picture? What about
'The Truman Show'? 'Saving Private Ryan'? 'A Civil Action' has a major
star behind it -- shouldn't that be enough to count it as an A picture?
Seriously, I really don't understand why you only want to let films
like 'Armageddon' and 'Godzilla' represent Hollywood's A pictures.