Strong and Weak Film Decades?
Douglas
stronger decades for film than the 40's, 60's, 80's and 00's (so far)?
-Douglas
"The scenario is long and complicated and involves a Kryptonian
venereal disease. But it works."
-Warren Ellis on how he'd kill Superman
David Cavallo
news:066btt00d38l2hivj...@4ax.com:
> Does anyone else think the 30's, 50's, 70's and 90's were much
> stronger decades for film than the 40's, 60's, 80's and 00's (so far)?
Well, to put it bluntly, I just can't see how the 40s were a weak decade
for film...
Aside from that, I agree with you. Except for the part about the
2000s...way too soon to tell.
David Manning
<066btt00d38l2hivj...@4ax.com>...
> Does anyone else think the 30's, 50's, 70's and 90's were much
> stronger decades for film than the 40's, 60's, 80's and 00's (so far)?
>
The 90's are weak: too many pictures like CHILDREN DIGGING FOR CLAMS,
RECORD OF A SNEEZE, BLACKSMITH SCENE, FATIMA, etc.
The 00's are strong: RESCUED BY ROVER, THE KINGDOM OF THE FAIRIES,
THE CURTAIN POLE and, of course, ELECTROCUTION OF AN ELEPHANT.
But I guess most folks prefer the '10s: A FLORIDA ENCHANTMENT,
THE MYSTERY OF THE LEAPING FISH, FATTY'S MAGIC PANTS and
A DOG'S LIFE.
Kevin FilmNutBoy
>Does anyone else think the 30's, 50's, 70's and 90's were much
>stronger decades for film than the 40's, 60's, 80's and 00's (so far)?
I think you need to see more 40s films.
--Kevin
***
"Pacifism is hurtful, but so is blind loyalty."
Jason Mulligan
filmn...@aol.comatose says...
> Douglas citi...@home.com axed:
>
> >Does anyone else think the 30's, 50's, 70's and 90's were much
> >stronger decades for film than the 40's, 60's, 80's and 00's (so far)?
>
> I think you need to see more 40s films.
And I thought that the 80's was a good decade also.
Lulu The Cow
The Top Gun era?
Every year sees good movies, but greatness was a rarity in the 80's,
and almost all of what there was come from the indy movement. Blood
Simple as the first example in my head.
Cheers,
Todd "The 70's were the Golden Age" McNeeley
.
email: mcneeley at enteract dot com
Arnold Kim
Lulu The Cow <nos...@myserver.com> wrote in message
news:eujdttog085lc0h4m...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2001 13:33:42 GMT, Jason Mulligan
> <sul...@NOSPAMbigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> >In article <20011024090531...@mb-mb.aol.com>,
> >filmn...@aol.comatose says...
> >> Douglas citi...@home.com axed:
> >>
> >> >Does anyone else think the 30's, 50's, 70's and 90's were much
> >> >stronger decades for film than the 40's, 60's, 80's and 00's (so far)?
> >>
> >> I think you need to see more 40s films.
> >
> >And I thought that the 80's was a good decade also.
>
> The Top Gun era?
>
> Every year sees good movies, but greatness was a rarity in the 80's,
> and almost all of what there was come from the indy movement. Blood
> Simple as the first example in my head.
I can only think of a few films that I would truly consider great:
Raging Bull
Amadeus
and _maybe_ The Last Emperor.
There were a good number of very good ones (Raiders of the Lost Ark comes to
mind) but not quite as much as other decades.
Arnold Kim
aemilia
wrote:
>The Top Gun era?
>
>Every year sees good movies, but greatness was a rarity in the 80's,
>and almost all of what there was come from the indy movement. Blood
>Simple as the first example in my head.
admittedly, after the 70s, the 80s couldn't have bested it, but there
are some gems...
Salvador
The Color Purple
Sixteen Candles (admit it....a true classic)
Amadeus
Raiders of the Lost Ark
Das Boot
The Killer
Raging Bull
Blade Runner
Ghostbusters
King of Comedy
Ferris Bueller's Day Off
The Princess Bride
Raising Arizona
Mystery Train
A Christmas Story
Die Hard
The Last Temptation of Christ
Platoon
Brazil
Back to the Future
The Killing Fields
Airplane!
Ran
and many more.....the 80s was the decade of perfect meaningless films.
Some of these might not be arty-farty classics (and I'm not knocking
arty-farty movies in the slightest), but you have to admit these are
great films. The 80s were a great decade for politically incorrect
comedy and action flicks. It can't be discounted because there weren't
a whole lot of earth shattering films like there were in the 70s.
aemilia
MadNetter
"aemilia" <aemilia...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ecmdtt874v9gvg7u2...@4ax.com...
Not to mention:
Time Bandits, The Adventures of Baron Munchhausen, After Hours, Something
Wild, Evil Dead II, Army of Darkness, Trust, The Unbelievable Truth, Do The
Right Thing, She's Gotta Have It, Menace II Society, Boyz 'N' The Hood, Full
Metal Jacket, Say Anything, The Decline Of Western Civilization II: The
Metal Years, Thin Blue Line, Cane Toads, Gates of Heaven, Roger & Me...
John Reilly
news:X0CB7.15676$ET.23...@news20.bellglobal.com...
And even -
Sothern Comfort, King of Comedy, Witness, Once Upon a Time in America, The
Dead, Cinema Paradiso, An American Werewolf In London, The Elephant Man,
Videodrome, Hannah and Her Sisters, Crimes and Misdemeanors, Field of
Dreams, Jesus of Montreal and Rumble Fish etc..
Others might disagree with the lists, but every decade produced at least
some fine films.
I still prefer the 70's though.
--
John
(Remove NOSPAM) to Reply
------------------------------------------------
Edmund Blackadder: Baldrick, have you no idea what irony is?
Baldrick: Yeah, it's like goldy and bronzy, only it's made of iron.
chase borden
> stronger decades for film than the 40's, 60's, 80's and 00's (so far)?
>
> -Douglas
>
20s were good, many great silent films
30s were good, with young Hitchcock and Ford, the great screwball
comedies, GWTW, Wizard of Oz
40s were good, with film noir, maturing Hitchcock and Ford, young
Orson Welles and John Huston, groundbreaking cinematography
50s were good, with film noir, horror and sci-fi classics, mature
Hitchcock, Ford, Huston, MGM musicals, young Don Siegel and Stanley
Kubrick, French New Wave, Kurosawa
60s were great, with Psycho, French New Wave, Peckinpah, Bonnie and
Clyde and other groundbreaking films, groundbreaking film composing,
groundbreaking cinematography, great film criticism.
70s were good, with many trends from the 60s carrying over, plus young
Spielberg and Lucas. Hundreds of good movies made every year.
80s represented a steep decline. Handful of good movies made every
year. Hollywood taken over by agents, networkers and hustlers.
90s almost as bad as 80s. Handful of good movies made every year.
Hollywood ruled by networkers and corpocrats. Most films imitative of
other better films. Opening weekend mindset made for over-marketed,
underthought movies.
2000s will be another fallow decade for the same reasons. Rise of
independent, at-home filmmakers with cheap technology will eventually
produce some well-crafted movies.
That's the way I see it.
Bag of Rats
Jesus, I think of the '80s as the Dark Ages of film.
The only decades I like are the seventies and nineties, to be frank. I
like precious little from earlier eras; I find that "old" films are so
unrealistic that they do not even touch upon most of the fundamental
issues of existance. It seems to me that films from the first half of
the century were crippled fatally by being a product of a civilisation
that was not yet able to be realistic. They seem as though they were
made for children. I know that sounds like an ignorant viewpoint, and
god knows I've tried to like older films, because I have a strong
respect for history and would like to be able to experience cultural
continuity, but I largely can't. I basically just like new ones. Apart
from some of the early pioneering stuff from the seventies, I
basically stick to the nineties. There was beginning to be some good
stuff in with all the bad; the nineties were a decade of surprising
elegance in some ways. And now, I'm deathly afraid that the '00s are
going to be terrible. There seems to be a new crappiness, reminiscent
of the eighties, creeping back into culture. I hope it's just a
temporary anomaly, but I worry a lot about it.
Jason Mulligan
supervermi...@hotmail.com says...
> Jason Mulligan <sul...@NOSPAMbigpond.net.au> wrote in message news:<MPG.16416e8223d47c90989758@news-server>...
> > In article <20011024090531...@mb-mb.aol.com>,
> > filmn...@aol.comatose says...
> > > Douglas citi...@home.com axed:
> > >
> > > >Does anyone else think the 30's, 50's, 70's and 90's were much
> > > >stronger decades for film than the 40's, 60's, 80's and 00's (so far)?
> > >
> > > I think you need to see more 40s films.
> >
> > And I thought that the 80's was a good decade also.
>
>
> Jesus, I think of the '80s as the Dark Ages of film.
Maybe it was because I was a teen during the 80's...
Lulu The Cow
wrote:
>
>Lulu The Cow <nos...@myserver.com> wrote in message
>news:eujdttog085lc0h4m...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2001 13:33:42 GMT, Jason Mulligan
>> <sul...@NOSPAMbigpond.net.au> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <20011024090531...@mb-mb.aol.com>,
>> >filmn...@aol.comatose says...
>> >> Douglas citi...@home.com axed:
>> >>
>> >> >Does anyone else think the 30's, 50's, 70's and 90's were much
>> >> >stronger decades for film than the 40's, 60's, 80's and 00's (so far)?
>> >>
>> >> I think you need to see more 40s films.
>> >
>> >And I thought that the 80's was a good decade also.
>>
>> The Top Gun era?
>>
>> Every year sees good movies, but greatness was a rarity in the 80's,
>> and almost all of what there was come from the indy movement. Blood
>> Simple as the first example in my head.
>
>I can only think of a few films that I would truly consider great:
>
>Raging Bull
>Amadeus
>and _maybe_ The Last Emperor.
Definitely THE LAST EMPEROR...
>There were a good number of very good ones (Raiders of the Lost Ark comes to
>mind) but not quite as much as other decades.
Again, Blood Simple is a great movie. Apartment Zero struck me at the
time, and today, as being a great film. There are many that I could
name if I thought about it.
Personally, I have a great love of Brazil, Blade Runner, Empire of the
Sun, Platoon, Talk Radio, and a number of other films that we all
probably won't agree on. But over all, the number of obvious choices
is low.
Cheers,
Todd "It was Pauly Shore's Decade, after all" McNeeley
Marty Feldman
don't forget:
empire strikes back, the right stuff, star trek 2: wrath of kahn,
robocop, the thing, poltergeist, amadeus, dangerous liasons,
predator...
Lulu The Cow
wrote:
>empire strikes back, the right stuff, star trek 2: wrath of kahn,
>robocop, the thing, poltergeist, amadeus, dangerous liasons,
>predator...
Please let me forget Star Trek II... Please...
Cheers,
Todd "There's NEVER been a good Star Trek movie" McNeeley
A Better Chungking_Cash
so groundbreaking after the exit of the hazing code and enterence of a
more defined rating system. There are literally too many classics to
list.
It's true that the 1980's are generally considered weak in terms of
standout work, but some of the greatest films ever made came from this
decade, even if there are only a handful compared to other decades.
I heard not too long ago that people considered 1939 to be the
greatest year in cinema history ("Gone with the Wind," "Mr. Smith Goes
to Washington," "Stagecoach," "The Wizard of Oz," "Wuthering Heights,"
ect.) and the 1950's was our greatest decade for film (followed
closely by the next two decades).
Mpoconnor7
>>
>>Raging Bull
>>Amadeus
>>and _maybe_ The Last Emperor.
>
>Definitely THE LAST EMPEROR...
>
>>There were a good number of very good ones (Raiders of the Lost Ark comes to
>>mind) but not quite as much as other decades.
>
>Again, Blood Simple is a great movie. Apartment Zero struck me at the
>time, and today, as being a great film. There are many that I could
>name if I thought about it.
>
>Personally, I have a great love of Brazil, Blade Runner, Empire of the
>Sun, Platoon, Talk Radio, and a number of other films that we all
>probably won't agree on. But over all, the number of obvious choices
>is low.
>
"The Right Stuff", "The King of Comedy", and "Broadcast News" to name a few.
But all in all, the 80's were collectively IMO the weakest decade for quality
films, with the 90's close behind.
The 80's are best remembered today for the glut of horny teenager films, horror
films about horny teenagers getting slaughtered, movies that were made simply
to get its soundtrack played ad nauseum on MTV, and movies that borrowed too
heavily from "Miami Vice" type editing.
Michael O'Connor - Modern Renaissance Man
"The probability of one person being right increases in a direct porportion to
the intensity with which others try to prove him wrong"
Mike and Dorcie
> Jason Mulligan <sul...@NOSPAMbigpond.net.au> wrote in message news:<MPG.16416e8223d47c90989758@news-server>...
> > In article <20011024090531...@mb-mb.aol.com>,
> > filmn...@aol.comatose says...
> > > Douglas citi...@home.com axed:
> > >
> > > >Does anyone else think the 30's, 50's, 70's and 90's were much
> > > >stronger decades for film than the 40's, 60's, 80's and 00's (so far)?
> > >
> > > I think you need to see more 40s films.
> >
> > And I thought that the 80's was a good decade also.
>
> Jesus, I think of the '80s as the Dark Ages of film.
>
> The only decades I like are the seventies and nineties, to be frank. I
> like precious little from earlier eras; I find that "old" films are so
> unrealistic that they do not even touch upon most of the fundamental
> issues of existance. It seems to me that films from the first half of
> the century were crippled fatally by being a product of a civilisation
> that was not yet able to be realistic. They seem as though they were
> made for children. I know that sounds like an ignorant viewpoint, and
> god knows I've tried to like older films, because I have a strong
> respect for history and would like to be able to experience cultural
> continuity, but I largely can't.
You haven't seen enough older films. If you did you would realize that there isn't too much of a difference
between the *good* movies made seventy years ago and the ones made today.
Dorcie
Marty Feldman
> On 24 Oct 2001 18:21:45 -0700, n2the...@aol.com (Marty Feldman)
> wrote:
>
>
> >empire strikes back, the right stuff, star trek 2: wrath of kahn,
> >robocop, the thing, poltergeist, amadeus, dangerous liasons,
> >predator...
>
> Please let me forget Star Trek II... Please...
noooo. i like that one.
Smaug69
> stronger decades for film than the 40's, 60's, 80's and 00's (so far)?
No. I don't go in for judging the decades. However, I find that most
of my favorite films- the ones I watch over and over- are from the
70s. But then there are tons of great films from each decade,
including the 40s, 60s and 80s and 00s.
The 40s had five of the best films ever made: Citizen Kane,
Casablanca, Treasure of the Sierra Madre, The Maltese Falcon and The
Third Man.
The 60s had Lawrence of Arabia, A Man for All Seasons, Tom Jones,
2001, Dr. Strangelove, Midnight Cowboy, Bonnie and Clyde, The
Apartment, The Producers, and The Wild Bunch.
The 80s had Raging Bull, Ghostbusters, Gandhi, Chariots of Fire, The
Last Emperor, Platoon, Aliens, Escape From New York, Blue Velvet, The
Mission, The Stunt Man, and Reds.
The 00s have Almost Famous, Best in Show, Chicken Run, Traffic,
Memento, Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?, Requiem for a Dream, Waking the
Dead, and Unbreakable.
Smaug69(who likes 20th Century films as a whole)
Lulu The Cow
wrote:
>Lulu The Cow <nos...@myserver.com> wrote in message news:<ea3ftt88lidcd3k3n...@4ax.com>...
>> On 24 Oct 2001 18:21:45 -0700, n2the...@aol.com (Marty Feldman)
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >empire strikes back, the right stuff, star trek 2: wrath of kahn,
>> >robocop, the thing, poltergeist, amadeus, dangerous liasons,
>> >predator...
>>
>> Please let me forget Star Trek II... Please...
>
>noooo. i like that one.
Saying ST:II WoK is better than the other Star Trek movies, to me, is
like saying that being kicked in the ass is better than being kicked
in the balls.
True, but undesirable anyway.
Cheers,
Todd "Suddenly feeling the need to guard my balls" McNeeley
John Reilly
> On 25 Oct 2001 11:02:43 -0700, n2the...@aol.com (Marty Feldman)
> wrote:
>
> >Lulu The Cow <nos...@myserver.com> wrote in message
news:<ea3ftt88lidcd3k3n...@4ax.com>...
> >> On 24 Oct 2001 18:21:45 -0700, n2the...@aol.com (Marty Feldman)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >empire strikes back, the right stuff, star trek 2: wrath of kahn,
> >> >robocop, the thing, poltergeist, amadeus, dangerous liasons,
> >> >predator...
> >>
> >> Please let me forget Star Trek II... Please...
> >
> >noooo. i like that one.
>
> Saying ST:II WoK is better than the other Star Trek movies, to me, is
> like saying that being kicked in the ass is better than being kicked
> in the balls.
>
> True, but undesirable anyway.
>
Todd, I like you, but back off man.
David Manning
<3a8c0f99.0110...@posting.google.com>...
>
> The only decades I like are the seventies and nineties, to be frank. I
> like precious little from earlier eras; I find that "old" films are so
> unrealistic that they do not even touch upon most of the fundamental
> issues of existance. It seems to me that films from the first half of
> the century were crippled fatally by being a product of a civilisation
> that was not yet able to be realistic. They seem as though they were
> made for children. I know that sounds like an ignorant viewpoint, and
> god knows I've tried to like older films, because I have a strong
> respect for history and would like to be able to experience cultural
> continuity, but I largely can't. I basically just like new ones. Apart
> from some of the early pioneering stuff from the seventies, I
> basically stick to the nineties. There was beginning to be some good
> stuff in with all the bad; the nineties were a decade of surprising
> elegance in some ways. And now, I'm deathly afraid that the '00s are
> going to be terrible. There seems to be a new crappiness, reminiscent
> of the eighties, creeping back into culture. I hope it's just a
> temporary anomaly, but I worry a lot about it.
Hey, perhaps we should consider changing the name of
alt.movies.silent to alt.movies.fatally-crippled ...
Just out of curiosity, which films constitute the "early
pioneering stuff from the seventies" ... Star Wars? Badlands?
Cries and Whispers?
Robert Keser
Forbidden Paradise, Docks of New York, Love of Jeanne Ney,
Pandora's Box, and...?
Bob Keser
David Manning wrote:
> supervermi...@hotmail.com (Bag of Rats) wrote in message news:
> >
eric stott
David Manning wrote:
>
> supervermi...@hotmail.com (Bag of Rats) wrote in message news:
> <3a8c0f99.0110...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > The only decades I like are the seventies and nineties, to be frank. I
> > like precious little from earlier eras; I find that "old" films are so
> > unrealistic that they do not even touch upon most of the fundamental
> > issues of existance. It seems to me that films from the first half of
> > the century were crippled fatally by being a product of a civilisation
> > that was not yet able to be realistic. They seem as though they were
> > made for children. I know that sounds like an ignorant viewpoint, and
> > god knows I've tried to like older films, because I have a strong
> > respect for history and would like to be able to experience cultural
> > continuity, but I largely can't. I basically just like new ones. Apart
> > from some of the early pioneering stuff from the seventies, I
> > basically stick to the nineties. There was beginning to be some good
> > stuff in with all the bad; the nineties were a decade of surprising
> > elegance in some ways. And now, I'm deathly afraid that the '00s are
> > going to be terrible. There seems to be a new crappiness, reminiscent
> > of the eighties, creeping back into culture. I hope it's just a
> > temporary anomaly, but I worry a lot about it.
>
Then why in the name of God are you posting here?
David Cavallo
news:e57e1dc8.01102...@posting.google.com:
> I find that "old" films are so
>> unrealistic that they do not even touch upon most of the fundamental
>> issues of existance.
Though weak on spelling, this is a pretty heavy assertion. IMO I'd guess
you haven't seen the "right" older films. Although film fans will fight
over what those might be, we'd probably agree on a couple dozen that might
just change your mind.
The day I started watching films from before the 70s marked a significant
turning point in my appreciation of film as an art form.
And the "made for children" bit...Fellini, Tarkovsky, Antonioni, Bresson,
Kurosawa, Kubrick -- yes, he made films in the 50s and 60s -- Dassin,
Siodmak, Lang, Renoir, Godard, Truffaut, Welles, Reed, Leone...uh, this is
getting silly..
They made movies for adults.
--David
Joanne Capella
> > The only decades I like are the seventies and nineties, to be frank. I
> > unrealistic that they do not even touch upon most of the fundamental
> > issues of existance.
This must have been posted by an AMC programming executive.
Joanne Capella
Arnold Kim
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2001 11:13:05 -0400, "Arnold Kim" <ki...@erols.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Lulu The Cow <nos...@myserver.com> wrote in message
> >news:eujdttog085lc0h4m...@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 24 Oct 2001 13:33:42 GMT, Jason Mulligan
> >> <sul...@NOSPAMbigpond.net.au> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <20011024090531...@mb-mb.aol.com>,
> >> >filmn...@aol.comatose says...
> >> >> Douglas citi...@home.com axed:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Does anyone else think the 30's, 50's, 70's and 90's were much
> >> >> >stronger decades for film than the 40's, 60's, 80's and 00's (so
far)?
> >> >>
> >> >> I think you need to see more 40s films.
> >> >
> >> >And I thought that the 80's was a good decade also.
> >>
> >> The Top Gun era?
> >>
> >> Every year sees good movies, but greatness was a rarity in the 80's,
> >> and almost all of what there was come from the indy movement. Blood
> >> Simple as the first example in my head.
> >
> >I can only think of a few films that I would truly consider great:
> >
> >Raging Bull
> >Amadeus
> >and _maybe_ The Last Emperor.
>
> Definitely THE LAST EMPEROR...
I'll admit it's been a very long time since I watched it.
Oh, and another film from the decade that I consider great- Full Metal
Jacket, and I _always_ watch De Palma's "The Untouchables" when it comes on
TV. I confess that Die Hard, Raiders of the Lost Ark, and The Empire
Strikes Back are some of my favorite films from the decade, though I'd stop
short of calling them great. (But RotLA comes pretty close...)
> >There were a good number of very good ones (Raiders of the Lost Ark comes
to
> >mind) but not quite as much as other decades.
>
> Again, Blood Simple is a great movie. Apartment Zero struck me at the
> time, and today, as being a great film. There are many that I could
> name if I thought about it.
I'll admit I haven't seen either yet. I'll keep an eye out for them.
> Personally, I have a great love of Brazil, Blade Runner, Empire of the
> Sun, Platoon, Talk Radio, and a number of other films that we all
> probably won't agree on. But over all, the number of obvious choices
> is low.
I think part of the problem is that what's most visible from the decade is
the fluff- horror movies, special effects films, and variations on "Sixteen
Candles". Much of which I can enjoy like anyone else-we all have our guilty
pleasures-but of course are nowhere near great films.
Arnold Kim
Arnold Kim
Mpoconnor7 <mpoco...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20011025083356...@mb-fs.aol.com...
> >>I can only think of a few films that I would truly consider great:
> >>
> >>Raging Bull
> >>Amadeus
> >>and _maybe_ The Last Emperor.
Oh, and one more I forgot to mention: Field of Dreams. As a baseball and
movie fan, I find that film to be amazing.
> >Definitely THE LAST EMPEROR...
> >
> >>There were a good number of very good ones (Raiders of the Lost Ark
comes to
> >>mind) but not quite as much as other decades.
> >
> >Again, Blood Simple is a great movie. Apartment Zero struck me at the
> >time, and today, as being a great film. There are many that I could
> >name if I thought about it.
> >
> >Personally, I have a great love of Brazil, Blade Runner, Empire of the
> >Sun, Platoon, Talk Radio, and a number of other films that we all
> >probably won't agree on. But over all, the number of obvious choices
> >is low.
> >
> There were some other classics from the 80's, such as "Tootsie",
"Airplane",
> "The Right Stuff", "The King of Comedy", and "Broadcast News" to name a
few.
> But all in all, the 80's were collectively IMO the weakest decade for
quality
> films, with the 90's close behind.
I think that for the 90's, the difference betwween what's great and what's
bad is bigger than the difference found in any other decade. In my opinion,
Pulp Fiction, Goodfellas, and Schindlre's List can go toe to toe with a
great film from any decade, but the worst of the decade is probably as bad
as it gets.
> The 80's are best remembered today for the glut of horny teenager films,
horror
> films about horny teenagers getting slaughtered, movies that were made
simply
> to get its soundtrack played ad nauseum on MTV, and movies that borrowed
too
> heavily from "Miami Vice" type editing.
The most influential directors...
... in the 60's? Probably Fellini, Kubrick, and Hitchcock.
... in the 70's? Scorsese, Coppola, and Lucas or Spielberg.
... in the 80's? John Carpenter and John Hughes.
Arnold Kim
Christopher Jacobs
90s (besides that they're "newer") is that the current generation of
filmmakers is the first who are largely graduates of film schools, where
they learned how to make movies by watching all the older ones and are now
copying the parts they liked best in all those films of the 20s, 30s, 40s,
and 50s, and yes even the 60s). Previous filmmakers came up through the
business and developed their own styles or adapted to a studio style. Modern
filmmakers, although sometimes innovative on their own, often create
pastiches of styles influenced by their favorite films and directors from
the first half of the previous century.
And, with a certain number (even a substantial number) of notable
exceptions, I always felt the 70s was one of the least interesting cinematic
decades, along with the 50s, 60s, and 80s, and even much of the 40s (all of
which are the least-represented decades of the 20th century in my DVD
collection). In general, if presented the opportunity to see a film whose
title, stars, and/or director I never heard of, I would be most likely to
invest the time if its release date is between 1915 and 1934, simply because
the average film from that period tends to have more originality than
everything that came later (and which was often copying those earlier
films). Now the last half of the 20s was a period of slick, standaridized
studio formulas not unlike the past two decades, but even that has more
style than most of today's mass-marketed product.
--Christopher Jacobs
Robert Keser <rfk...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3BD8B09B...@ix.netcom.com...
Precode
Well, anyone who signs his posts with such handles as "superhappyverminzone" and
"Bag of Rats" is clearly a person of astonishing maturity.
Mike S.
Bag of Rats
I was thinking of Scorsese and Lumet, not Star Wars.
Bag of Rats
I'm not saying that every single film from before the year 1970 is to
be written off. And when I said that they feel "made for children," I
was not actually saying that they were designed to only be watched by
children; I was just saying that a lot of movies from the thirties and
forties were pretty heavily censored because they had to be suitable
for all ages, or whatever the justification was back then. I'm saying
that we've come a long way in terms of what we can have represented on
film. You don't see a lot of nudity in Hollywood films from the
thirties, for instance. You also don't find people talking the way
they would really talk. I'm not saying that every movie has to have
people saying, "holy fucking shit," or whatnot, every two seconds; but
some movies call for that kind of unvarnished language, and it's
important that they be able to use it if they wish to. And so on.
I didn't say that Tarkovsky was crap. I just said that I'm a lot
happier with the roughness and realism of being able to have a naked
breast if we want one and being able to say "fuck" every three words
if that's what we want. It lets us do more. It gives us a freedom that
we didn't use to have.
I'm the kind of person who didn't use to read anything written later
than 1890, so don't lecture me on appreciation of the old stuff. I
used to be an opera fanatic, and if that isn't the ultimate old art
form I don't know what is. But opera is supposed to be highly
stylised, so you don't really need to say "fuck" every two seconds.
Films can be more realistic than any other art form, which is why it
is so important that they be able to actually have realistic content,
so that they can achieve their potential.
And you know what else? The thing I value most about film is the
ability to convey beautiful images. This often requires high-grade
colour film and excellent cinematography. Watching a blurry black and
white image can get really stifling. It's fine for some films, but not
for all. New Chinese films: now that's a cinema for you. They're
making some of the best films ever made right now in China.
Dr.Giraud
says...
that they can achieve their potential.
>
>And you know what else? The thing I value most about film is the
>ability to convey beautiful images. This often requires high-grade
>colour film and excellent cinematography. Watching a blurry black and
>white image can get really stifling.
So you've never seen a beautiful print of a black & white film in 35mm at a
repertory screening, and you've never seen a black & white film on DVD, mastered
from early or first generation 35mm sources. And you don't seem interested
enough to make the effort to do either. Your loss.
Shawn Stone
David Cavallo
> I'm the kind of person who didn't use to read anything written later
> than 1890, so don't lecture me on appreciation of the old stuff. I
> used to be an opera fanatic, and if that isn't the ultimate old art
> form I don't know what is. But opera is supposed to be highly
> stylised, so you don't really need to say "fuck" every two seconds.
> Films can be more realistic than any other art form, which is why it
> is so important that they be able to actually have realistic content,
> so that they can achieve their potential.
Didn't mean it as a lecture, or a swipe. If I'd known more about your
background (you may have commented on it in another post that I missed) I
might have simply solicited further observations, as you seem to have an
interesting vantage point.
Your points on realism in film are well-reasoned. I guess that as I like
so much noir that came out in the 40s -- and find a great deal of the
teeming 'below the surface' tension that obviously was a result of the
Production Code -- I don't really stop and think too much about what was
missing from American films of the earlier decades. (And that is NOT to say
that I support censorship in any form. I just happen to like a lot of
films from the 40s.)
Of course, whether using true to life dialogue (expletives, sexually
explicit talk and violence) and nudity more accurately depicts the human
experience than say, a movie like "The Bicycle Thief" is really hard to
say. It's all a question of what part of "reality" you wish to depict.
If THAT is the objective, in the first place. So many film-makers choose
the opposite route and offer up abstract, surrealist works that somehow
resonate on a human level despite their great distance from the mundane
workings of the planet.
In any case, I'm glad that film-makers today have the broadest possible
pallette of techniques to draw from when making films. (I do like a fair
share of newer films.)
On the cinematography issue, well, I'll have to disagree to an extent. If
you see a restored 35mm print or cleaned up DVD of a beautifully shot older
film -- admittedly not always the easiest thing to find -- IMO quality of
the images holds up to just about everything that's being shot today.
(The technical effects are an entirely different matter. They rule and
they suck, again all depending on who is pulling the strings.)
A poor example perhaps, since it was made in the last 30 years, which is a
general period that you don't really seem to be taking issue with, but is
"Days of Heaven" any less beautiful than "The Thin Red Line," which has had
the benefit of 20+ years of advances in film-making technology?
Hard to say. I guess I was just a sucker for older stuff, and I find the
photography of James Wong Howe, John Alton, Gregg Toland, etc. as
compelling as anything I see today. But the again, I am NOT intimately
familiar with any current Chinese cinema..
--David
Dr.Giraud
says...
>> > The only decades I like are the seventies and nineties, to be frank. I
>> > like precious little from earlier eras; I find that "old" films are so
>> > unrealistic that they do not even touch upon most of the fundamental
>> > issues of existance. It seems to me that films from the first half of
>> > the century were crippled fatally by being a product of a civilisation
>> > that was not yet able to be realistic. They seem as though they were
>> > made for children. I know that sounds like an ignorant viewpoint, and
>> > god knows I've tried to like older films, because I have a strong
>> > respect for history and would like to be able to experience cultural
>> > continuity, but I largely can't. I basically just like new ones.
Just out of curiosity, what older films drove you to this blanket dismissal of
most of cinema heritage?
Shawn Stone
Archie Waugh
Archie Waugh
In article <3BD8B09B...@ix.netcom.com>, Robert Keser says...
Precode
Five bucks sez El Brendel was in it.
Mike S.
Christopher Jacobs
since the original post went only to alt.movies.silent)
--cpj
-------------------------------------------------
This is an intelligent, well-expressed response and it deserves a reasonable
answer.
>>>I was just saying that a lot of movies from the thirties and
forties were pretty heavily censored because they had to be suitable
for all ages, or whatever the justification was back then. You don't see a
lot
of nudity in Hollywood films from the thirties, for instance. You also
don't
find people talking the way
they would really talk.
That is certainly true from 1935-1965, but less so for pre-1934. There is
*lots* of nudity in early films if you know where to look for it. I just
watched a 35mm print of DESTINY that had a topless girl dancing across the
screen quitre nicely. TARZAN AND HIS MATE has lovely full-frontal nudity in
it. Also, in silent films like WHAT PRICE GLORY, every third word is
"fucking
son-of-a-bitch" if you can read lips! And films like BEHIND THE DOOR (1920)
had a scene where Jane Novak is gang-raped by a submarine crew and
jettisoned
out of a torpedo tube.
The reality is that people *didn't* generally act that way in the 20s and
30s,
and therefore, these films are an accurate reflection of the times. A woman
in
the 30s who wore a see-through blouse would be branded a slut and thrown out
of
her apartment. Nowadays, they wear them to work in American corporations.
Likewise, anyone who said "shit" or "fuck" in public in the 20s would be
ostracized, and in some cases arrested. Now you hear schoolkids saying it.
(But mainstream publications still write s__t and f__k so readers won't be
offended!)
>>>Films can be more realistic than any other art form, which is why it is
so
important that they be able to actually have realistic content, so that they
can achieve their potential.
So you don't like science fiction and fantasy films then? INDEPENDENCE DAY
and
JURASSIC PARK clearly aren't "realistic" films.
>>>And you know what else? The thing I value most about film is the
ability to convey beautiful images. This often requires high-grade
colour film and excellent cinematography.
I agree. And that's why I like older films, because when seen properly they
blow today's films out of the water. Want to see great color? You can't
beat
BLACK NARCISSUS in an IB Tech nitrate print. Compare the murky b/w of
today's
music videos with a nitrate of THE SCARLET EMPRESS or TABU or DOCKS OF NEW
YORK. If I listed the 10 most beautiful prints of films I had ever seen
*none*
of them would be later than about 1960.
Your points are all valid. I simply think you need to (a) consider older
films
as an accurate reflection of the time in which they were made and (b) try to
see good 35mm prints of these. Watching something on TV is clearly no
comparison.
===============================
Jon Mirsalis
e-mail: Chan...@aol.com
Lon Chaney Home Page: http://members.aol.com/ChaneyFan
Jon's Film Sites: http://members.aol.com/ChaneyFan/jonfilm.htm
Archie Waugh
relativism all too common on campuses these days. Has it occurred to you that
there is more to the living experience (not to mention drama and literature)
than boobs and being able to say "fuck"? You also have no understanding of the
concept of boundaries in art, as important to ballet and opera as it is to film.
Perhaps someday you will expand your experience of the whole of world film, and
realize that there is more to film than that. Perhaps someday you will realise
that Kevin Smith is NOT a great film artist.
Film is NOT a realistic medium, it is merely an illusion of reality, as
dependent on style and technique as any opera, novel or painting. You want
realism? Go stare out a window; I dare say you will become bored pretty quick.
You want realistic? Check out some of the early Griffith portraits of life on
the streets in pre-World War I New York; they are as gritty and uncompromising
as any Scorcese film, and do not suffer one bit because the word "fuck" doesn't
turn up in the title cards. Or Pabst. Or Lang. Or Milestone. You want
beautiful images? The work of cameramen like Mate', Bitzer, Freund and Howe
stand against anything being done today, and are razor-sharp if one makes the
effort to seek out good print material.
In short, you are a short-sighted, inexperienced dweeb with an insignificant
frame of reference; come back in ten years if and when you have something to say
worth reading.
Or to speak in the vernacular of the peasantry, Go Fuck Yourself.
Archie Waugh
David B. Pearson
It's not right for you to call this idiot an idiot in our politically
correct society.
He's "mentally and conceptually challenged."
David B. Pearson
PS: Given "Bag of Rats" stunning arguments, I am now wondering if an
old-time silent black and white movie like "Sunrise" can realistically
compete -- either in camerawork, sets, story, acting, or direction -- with a
color, more culturally unrestricted and mature film of the 1970s, like
"Black Belt Jones."
:-)
Michael Cummins
Archie Waugh <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:kZnC7.2264$xS6....@www.newsranger.com...
Archie, I admire your response. Cinema is a dramatic art, not a realistic
one, how he can equate modern cinema and Scorsese with gritty realism, I'll
never know.
Personally, I find Griffith is extraordinarily realistic in his emotion, I
can't look at a frame of Griffith without feeling something.
I think the average Joe's mind is so clutered with the usual modern
horseshit that they just can't get it without total re-education.
--
M. Cummins
------------------------
"Ni raibh d'oidhreacht aige ach an geal- ghaire do bhronn Dia air, agus gur
chreid se na chroibhe go raibh an saghal mor ar mire"
--Scaramuis le Rafael Sabatini
Mpoconnor7
>90s (besides that they're "newer") is that the current generation of
>filmmakers is the first who are largely graduates of film schools, where
>they learned how to make movies by watching all the older ones and are now
>copying the parts they liked best in all those films of the 20s, 30s, 40s,
>and 50s, and yes even the 60s).
It is also important to point out in the 90's we also saw directors who spent
their entire childhood perched in front of a TV, and they "sample" (to borrow a
term from the rappers out there) directly from television. I'm speaking of
that damned screenwriter who pitched the concept of the Brady Bunch movie to
the network suits (who undoubtedly were also raised by the Great Babysitter,
Television). This poor soul undoubtedly went into that meeting and said "We
can't come up with anything original for this movie here, so we'll get kids who
look just like the kids from the TV show, and then we'll recreate line-by-line
the funniest moments from the series". And the suits bought it.
Also in the 80's and 90's with the boom in VCR's it became possible to rent
many movies that were no longer being shown on late night television (thank
you, infomercials) and classic films and foreign films that one normally would
have had a tough time catching at the theatre. Quentin Tarantino dropped out
of high school to work at a video store so he could get an unorthadox film
education, and it shows in his work with the slick dialogue, pop culture
references, and influence of gritty crime capers and blaxploitation films.
Michael O'Connor - Modern Renaissance Man
"The probability of one person being right increases in a direct porportion to
the intensity with which others try to prove him wrong"
Dr.Giraud
>
<snip>
Cinema is a dramatic art, not a realistic
>one, how he can equate modern cinema and Scorsese with gritty realism, I'll
>never know.
>
<snip>
I like that one, too. Scorsese's films can take credit for (and be accused of)
many things, but not "realism".
Shawn Stone
Bob Birchard
> <3a8c0f99.0110...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > The only decades I like are the seventies and nineties, to be frank. I
> > like precious little from earlier eras; I find that "old" films are so
> > unrealistic that they do not even touch upon most of the fundamental
> > issues of existance. It seems to me that films from the first half of
> > the century were crippled fatally by being a product of a civilisation
> > that was not yet able to be realistic. They seem as though they were
> > made for children. I know that sounds like an ignorant viewpoint, and
> > god knows I've tried to like older films, because I have a strong
> > respect for history and would like to be able to experience cultural
> > continuity, but I largely can't. I basically just like new ones.
I would not force anyone to to sit and watch something they cannot
stand, on the other hand when I was teaching a course at UCLA Extension a
few years back I had an interesting moment with the class along these same
lines.
I ran a chunk of the 1933 film "42nd Street" and afterwards the class
commented on how corny and unrealistic it was. Then I asked them if they
had seen "Dirty Dancing" which then had just recently been released. Most
had seen it, and most thought it was a pretty good picture--but until I
pointed it out none of them could grasp that the two films had exactly the
same story, i.e.: The leading lady breaks her leg/gets a botched abortion
and the understudy goes on with the show and becomes a star.
Often audiences get so blinded by irrelevancies like costumes, and lack
of color, conventions of acting styles if earlier decades, etc. that they
miss the underlying values of the films. And yes, without exposure, earlier
films often seem quite foreign to modern eyes.
If I were recommending a crash course in films from earlier decades
that might offer some insight as well as enlightenment. I might suggest (in
no particular order:
1910's
The Italian (1915) directed by Reginald Barker
Hell's Hinges (1916) William S. Hart
Intolerance (1916) directed by D. W. Griffith
The Golden Chance (1916) directed by Cecil B. DeMille
Regeneration (1915) directed by Raoul Walsh
1920's
The General (1927) Buster Keaton
The Kid Brother (1927) Harold Lloyd
Smoldering Fires (1924) Laura La Plante and Pauline Frederick directed by
Clarence Brown
The Docks of New York (1928) director Josef von Sternberg
The Great K&A Train Robbery (1926) Tom Mix
Isn't Life Wonderful? (1924) directed by D. W. Griffith
1930's
I am a Fugitive From a Chain Gang (1932)
The Dark Horse (1932)
The Scarlett Empress (1934)
Love Me Tonight (1932)
Bride of Frankenstein (1935)
The Awful Truth (1937)
1940's
How Green Was My Valley (1941)
The Best Years of Our Lives (1946)
The Maltese Falcon (1941)
The Big Sleep (1946) both versions
Palm Beach Story (1942)
Hail the Conquering Hero (1944)
1950's
The Searchers (1956)
Sweet Smell of Success (1956)
Sunset Boulevard (1950)
Funny Face (1957)
Singin' in the Rain (1952)
North By Northwest (1959)
Strangers on a Train (1952)
Some of these are acknowledged classics, some are more obscure. With a
little hunting most of them can be found on video, though if you get an
opportunity to see any of them in a theater with an audience that is
definitely the best way to seem them. What should you start with? "The
Bride of Frankenstein" by all means.
--
Bob Birchard
bbir...@earthlink.net
http://www.mdle.com/ClassicFilms/Guest/birchard.htm
Robert Keser
keeps projecting that image from Bringing Out the Dead of the villain
impaled on a cast-iron spike while exploding fireworks fill the sky
behind him. This is great florid imagery, but it sure doesn't look like
a slice-of-life to me.
Bob Keser
Kevin FilmNutBoy
>It is also important to point out in the 90's we also saw directors who spent
>their entire childhood perched in front of a TV, and they "sample" (to borrow
>a
>term from the rappers out there) directly from television. I'm speaking of
>that damned screenwriter who pitched the concept of the Brady Bunch movie to
>the network suits (who undoubtedly were also raised by the Great Babysitter,
>Television). This poor soul undoubtedly went into that meeting and said "We
>can't come up with anything original for this movie here, so we'll get kids
>who
>look just like the kids from the TV show, and then we'll recreate
>line-by-line
>the funniest moments from the series". And the suits bought it.
Actually, the Brady Bunch movie wasn't like that at all (it was a mocking
parody of the show which emphasized its basic unreality, not a recreation of
the show), but in theory you're right about TV remakes in general.
--Kevin
***
"Pacifism is hurtful, but so is blind loyalty."
Frederica
>Cinema is a dramatic art, not a realistic
>>one, how he can equate modern cinema and Scorsese with gritty realism, I'll
>>never know.
>>
><snip>
>
>I like that one, too. Scorsese's films can take credit for (and be accused of)
>many things, but not "realism".
I don't understand why realism must be gritty, other than it's a tired cliche.
There are a whole lot of people in the world whose experiences are pretty
darned cushy. That doesn't make their experience any less real. From a
personal standpoint, why would I want to roust myself from my usual torpor and
pay money to see realism? I can look out my window. Frankly, the view needs a
good editor and the soundtrack sucks.
Frederica
William Hooper
Bob Birchard stated...
I think they're not irrelevancies. They're essential in the mechanism of
communication of whatever's on the screen to the viewer, which the viewer can
only interpret in terms of his or her own experience. If it is a component
being treated as essential in its consideration as an everyday, common thing,
but in fact is weird & alien, the effect is of course ludicrous.
I think the costumes & lack of color are not as alienating as acting, directing,
writing, & lighting styles.
I know a guy who I would always see afternoons with his family at a Shakespeare
in the Park thing decades ago, who loved it. But he wouldn't go to any indoor
productions. He'd been to several, & hated them all because they were so
unnatural & artificial. So, I'm digging, trying to figure this
out...Shakespeare, Moliere, & others were OK, but not more modern stuff by the
same local directors? Can't be writing, can't be period, can't be costume,
can't be direction, can't be acting styles... He's talking about how hokey
those other plays were, about guys standing over in the corner in the shadows, &
how it was all so affected...
It was the lighting. He was sensitive to being manipulated through the
artificiality of gobos, gels, light & dark areas of a set, turning them up,
turning them down, & he *knew* that it was being done to manipulate him. Bam,
it *is* artificial & hokey, he's outta there.
We and others are just used to it. We've grown up no problem with mid-Atlantic
accents, weird lighting, stencil-like allegorical plots, etc. not only on TV,
but in theaters. We got no problem. People who grow up in bilingual households
will watch Spanish-language shows, I'm completely uninterested in them.
And the awareness of the machinery itself is even more alienating.
Keeping in auditorium-based, personally-immersive context:
Have you ever heard descriptions by Baptists of what goes on with all that stuff
in some high church places like RC & other churches?
Have you ever heard Primitive Baptist folks describe the carrying on at places
like the first Baptist church, etc?
It's weird, ornate, affected, unneccessary, & way outside their experience.
It *is* artificial to them.
I can't put up a lot of times with it, especially mid-Atlantic accents.
I know how they got there, & most places where they were originally didn't
bother me because of that, but I'm still sensitized to them because now they are
an affectation, & the personal Onanistic pleasures of contemporary grotesquely
insecure affectatious music radio station announcers, English profs addressing
audiences, etc. I cannot count the number of times a perfect, flowing day has
been jolted off the rails for me as I've furiously reached down to punch a car
radio button while yelling (Alone! In the car, in traffic!) "Just talk like a
fucking human being! What is WRONG with you! NOBODY talks like that! You
haven't heard anybody talk like thJust talk like you do when you're in the hall
talking to somebody!"
So, uh, yeah, I know where he's coming from.
I also think that it's not easy for anyone to be acclimated to these things via
exposure to them on TV. I've always liked Casablanca, I saw it first on TV, but
I don't even feel the need to stop long to look at it when it's running on a
tube somewhere.
On the other hand, it's hypnotic & paralyzing on a movie screen. Claude Rains
is very constructed in that movie, but he's not alienating on a movies screen.
I've seen 2400 people, and about 70% young adults & children, in a theater just
transfixed at something that wouldn't slow them down on cable. And afterwards,
they eat it up, want more, when's the next one, the little kids weren't
screaming but twirling in the aisles, didn't want to go, etc.
B&W 24fps & 40 feet wide affects folks brain chemistry.
I'm not joking. I've watched lots of people on drugs, & lots of audiences in
movie theaters.
Robert Lipton
Robert Keser wrote:
>
> Every time I see Scorsese and "realism" in the same sentence, my mind
> keeps projecting that image from Bringing Out the Dead of the villain
> impaled on a cast-iron spike while exploding fireworks fill the sky
> behind him. This is great florid imagery, but it sure doesn't look like
> a slice-of-life to me.
>
Happened to me twice last month.
Bob
Bob Birchard
> > Often audiences get so blinded by irrelevancies like costumes, and lack
> >of color, conventions of acting styles if earlier decades, etc. that they
> >miss the underlying values of the films.
>
> I think they're not irrelevancies. They're essential in the mechanism of
> communication of whatever's on the screen to the viewer, which the viewer can
> only interpret in terms of his or her own experience. If it is a component
> being treated as essential in its consideration as an everyday, common thing,
> but in fact is weird & alien, the effect is of course ludicrous.
I understand what you're saying, but these things become irrelevancies when
you've seen a lot of movies and become familiar with the conventions of previous
decades. The goal is to educate the eye and ear, and this really requires an
"immersion" rather than "bi-decade" approach.
> I think the costumes & lack of color are not as alienating as acting, directing,
> writing, & lighting styles.
I think costuming is no longer the obstacle that it used to be--largely because
we are treated to a steady subliminal diet of costumes of the past 70 years seeing
old movies, clip shows, etc. on TV. But in the late 1950's, when the major studio
films from 1928-1948 first came on TV, it was indeed the costumes that were the most
off-putting. They literally looked like they came from outer space. But until TV
no one had ever really been able to travel back in time in such a fashion. Today,
we see such a wide variety of clothing on the street precisely because TV and old
movies have made such hybrid fashions possible. This got translated through the
Beatles and other pop groups into the sort of eclectic look we see today. Not
nearly as elegant as a top down fashion driven culture, but a lot more democratic.
Likewise, B&W versus color. In the late 1960's when everything went to color
there was a conscious effort to do away with B&W. My parents were typical. I can
still hear my dad bellowing: "I didn't pay $600.00 for a color TV so you could
watch Black and White!" Again, repetition of old movies in B&W had an effect and
music video producers started incorporating B&W images in their MTV fare. Now, I
doubt that the color vs. B&W issue is as big as some make it.
I doubt that lighting and direction, per se, are issues either. There might be
a little more fast cutting today, especially in short pieces like commercials, music
videos, etc. But the average shot length in feature films has remained relatively
constant over the past 80 years according to Barry Salt's published studies. It has
gone down in recent years, but only by about a half foot per shot on average-so that
while the average shot length used to be five feet it is now four and a half.
What is most off putting for audiences, I think, is lack of familiarity with
the performers and the performance styles of the past. Number one, today's
teenagers don't have a clue who Gable, Dietrich, Flynn, Crawford, Garbo, et. al.
are. Their reaction is akin to the opposite effect a parent might have today in
seeing Britney Spears for the first time and having no point of reference in their
own experience. Acceptance comes from exposure and repetition, and because there is
a vast heap of potential programming, and since no one could watch it all even if
they wanted to, there is a certain amount of luck (opportunity) and self motivation
that governs what we will see and respond to.
> I know a guy who I would always see afternoons with his family at a Shakespeare
> in the Park thing decades ago, who loved it. But he wouldn't go to any indoor
> productions. He'd been to several, & hated them all because they were so
> unnatural & artificial. So, I'm digging, trying to figure this
> out...Shakespeare, Moliere, & others were OK, but not more modern stuff by the
> same local directors? Can't be writing, can't be period, can't be costume,
> can't be direction, can't be acting styles... He's talking about how hokey
> those other plays were, about guys standing over in the corner in the shadows, &
> how it was all so affected...
I had a similar experience myself in y younger years. I hated musicals. When
the actors started to sing in movies it always bothered me that the sound quality of
the pre-recorded songs sounded so different than the sound of the surrounding
dialogue tracks. I went to see a program of old musicals (just because they were
old and I was interested in older movies and you couldn't really se them at the time
as they were starting to dry up on TV), and I was bored witless through the first
couple of weeks of programming. But, when I saw "Love Me Tonight" I suddenly had a
revelation--musicals were not supposed to be realistic--there was another aesthetic
going on. Opportunity and exposure.
> It was the lighting. He was sensitive to being manipulated through the
> artificiality of gobos, gels, light & dark areas of a set, turning them up,
> turning them down, & he *knew* that it was being done to manipulate him. Bam,
> it *is* artificial & hokey, he's outta there.
See above. Now, it is true, you can't force someone to like something, and
often you can't even force them to be exposed to something, even in a classroom
setting, without encountering closed minds. I always thought my college film
instructor had the best approach. He'd say: "I've selected the films I show for a
reason, but I'm not here to torture you. If you hate something we're showing, by
all means get up and leave. All I ask is that you give the films twenty minutes.
If you don't like it after twenty minutes, get up and leave." This safety valve
worked wonders, and I recall very few walkouts--although I did walk out on "Ziegfeld
Follies" which really IS a terrible movie.
> We and others are just used to it. We've grown up no problem with mid-Atlantic
> accents, weird lighting, stencil-like allegorical plots, etc. not only on TV,
> but in theaters. We got no problem. People who grow up in bilingual households
> will watch Spanish-language shows, I'm completely uninterested in them.
Again, opportunity and exposure filtered through your cultural bias. The kids
are rally no different than you on this stuff, they just have different biases.
> And the awareness of the machinery itself is even more alienating.
> Keeping in auditorium-based, personally-immersive context:
> Have you ever heard descriptions by Baptists of what goes on with all that stuff
> in some high church places like RC & other churches?
> Have you ever heard Primitive Baptist folks describe the carrying on at places
> like the first Baptist church, etc?
Again, lack of on-going exposure creates lack of understanding.
> It's weird, ornate, affected, unneccessary, & way outside their experience.
> It *is* artificial to them.
It is outside their experience and therefore SEEMS artificial. I detested soap
operas when I was a kid--couldn't get into them, flipped the channel, bye-bye, outta
there. But then I was sick abed for a couple of weeks in those pre-remote days and
was simply too done in to get up and change the channel after my favorite show gave
way to the soaps. Forced (more or less) to watch, I suddenly got into the
storylines and the characters, and suddenly the slow stilted storytelling style no
longer mattered. I came to appreciate soap operas for what they were, and I no
longer derided anyone who watched, but free of my sick bed I lost any interest in
seeing them--still it served as an educational experience.
> I can't put up a lot of times with it, especially mid-Atlantic accents.
> I know how they got there, & most places where they were originally didn't
> bother me because of that, but I'm still sensitized to them because now they are
> an affectation, & the personal Onanistic pleasures of contemporary grotesquely
> insecure affectatious music radio station announcers, English profs addressing
> audiences, etc. I cannot count the number of times a perfect, flowing day has
> been jolted off the rails for me as I've furiously reached down to punch a car
> radio button while yelling (Alone! In the car, in traffic!) "Just talk like a
> fucking human being! What is WRONG with you! NOBODY talks like that! You
> haven't heard anybody talk like thJust talk like you do when you're in the hall
> talking to somebody!"
Along these lines, it is the punch button and the remote that contributes to the
fractured nature of our media experience today. We have the ability to instantly
move away from things we don't immediately respond to. This may not be a good
thing.
> So, uh, yeah, I know where he's coming from.
>
> I also think that it's not easy for anyone to be acclimated to these things via
> exposure to them on TV. I've always liked Casablanca, I saw it first on TV, but
> I don't even feel the need to stop long to look at it when it's running on a
> tube somewhere.
In a theatrical situation you are forced to watch, at home on TV there are 80
other channels and beer in the refrigerator to distract your attention.
> On the other hand, it's hypnotic & paralyzing on a movie screen. Claude Rains
> is very constructed in that movie, but he's not alienating on a movies screen.
> I've seen 2400 people, and about 70% young adults & children, in a theater just
> transfixed at something that wouldn't slow them down on cable. And afterwards,
> they eat it up, want more, when's the next one, the little kids weren't
> screaming but twirling in the aisles, didn't want to go, etc.
>
> B&W 24fps & 40 feet wide affects folks brain chemistry.
>
> I'm not joking. I've watched lots of people on drugs, & lots of audiences in
> movie theaters.
See above, I think it's more the forced concentration than any hypnotic
effect. You're in the dark, there are relatively few distractions, and the picture
is big enough to command your attention.
Bob Tiernan
On Fri, 26 Oct 2001, David B. Pearson wrote:
> PS: Given "Bag of Rats" stunning arguments, I am now wondering if an
> old-time silent black and white movie like "Sunrise" can realistically
> compete -- either in camerawork, sets, story, acting, or direction --
> with a color, more culturally unrestricted and mature film of the
> 1970s, like "Black Belt Jones."
A future generation of Bag of Rats people, raised in a world
of 3D films with Smell-O-Rama, will say that films prior to
2010 are antiquated and unrealistic, and will support 3D-ing
tolder ones for TV as well as creating scratch-n-sniffs
for them, (smellerized by Ted Turner.)
This idiot Bag o' Rats is probably opposed to plays
written before 1910 or so because they were only
plays instead of screenplays because of technical
limitations of the era.
Bob T.
Bob Tiernan
On Sat, 27 Oct 2001, Bob Birchard wrote:
> If I were recommending a crash course in films from earlier decades
> that might offer some insight as well as enlightenment. I might
> suggest (in no particular order:
[snip]
> Regeneration (1915) directed by Raoul Walsh
I need to see this one again (and fortunately, it's in a
local library). I was much impressed with Rockliffe
Fellowes and his acting style (Elmer Booth was in the same
league). Had this film been thought of as a Griffith film
it would be praised far more than it is.
[snip]
> 1930's
> I am a Fugitive From a Chain Gang (1932)
> The Dark Horse (1932)
> The Scarlett Empress (1934)
> Love Me Tonight (1932)
> Bride of Frankenstein (1935)
> The Awful Truth (1937)
The Dark Horse should be viewed during each
election cycle. The Awful Truth has that
great "Marriage is a beautiful thing"
sequence that's worth the price of
admission. There are a few on your
entire list that I've not seen and will
make a point to do so (the few silents
I need to see will be harder to see),
and while I shouldn't toss in some
suggestions without fully understanding
the criteria, I might add Dodsworth
to the 30's list. Bag of Rats thinks
Police Academy is a mature film, but
if he hasn't seen Dodsworth than he's
never seen one.
Bob T.
Bruce Calvert
<kZnC7.2264$xS6....@www.newsranger.com>, Archie Waugh stated
>
>Your arguments are specious and sophomoric. It's typical of the inane moral
>relativism all too common on campuses these days. Has it occurred to you that
>there is more to the living experience (not to mention drama and literature)
>than boobs and being able to say "fuck"? You also have no understanding of the
>concept of boundaries in art, as important to ballet and opera as it is to film.
>Perhaps someday you will expand your experience of the whole of world film, and
>realize that there is more to film than that. Perhaps someday you will realise
>that Kevin Smith is NOT a great film artist.
>Film is NOT a realistic medium, it is merely an illusion of reality, as
>dependent on style and technique as any opera, novel or painting. You want
>realism? Go stare out a window; I dare say you will become bored pretty quick.
>You want realistic? Check out some of the early Griffith portraits of life on
>the streets in pre-World War I New York; they are as gritty and uncompromising
>as any Scorcese film, and do not suffer one bit because the word "fuck" doesn't
>turn up in the title cards. Or Pabst. Or Lang. Or Milestone. You want
>beautiful images? The work of cameramen like Mate', Bitzer, Freund and Howe
>stand against anything being done today, and are razor-sharp if one makes the
>effort to seek out good print material.
>In short, you are a short-sighted, inexperienced dweeb with an insignificant
>frame of reference; come back in ten years if and when you have something to say
>worth reading.
>Or to speak in the vernacular of the peasantry, Go Fuck Yourself.
>Archie Waugh
WOW Archie! Well put!
--
Bruce Calvert
(who usually makes it throught the day without hearing the f-word, and who rarely saw a bare breast until I met my wife seven years ago (except at those "realistic" movies of course...))
Philip Sawyer
"Bob Tiernan" <zu...@pacifier.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.BSO.4.33.01102...@shell.pacifier.com...
On the other hand, the best in creativity comes when you have to say things
that can't be said openly. Back when naked breasts and profanity were taboo
most of the time, filmmakers and other artists tried to express things
through subtext, lighting, montage etc etc, all the tricks of the trade that
make craft into art. Today's artists don't make great art because they
aren't forced to be creative about what they say. If they want to suggest
that a couple are having a sexual relationship, then they show them naked in
bed together going through the motions. They don't show the man lighting
two cigarettes and giving one to the woman a la NOW VOYAGER.
Therefore, your average filmgoers don't have to think about what is being
shown on screen because it is all laid out for them. This might now be
called the "bag of rats" effect.
Precode
>
> I ran a chunk of the 1933 film "42nd Street" and afterwards the class
>commented on how corny and unrealistic it was. Then I asked them if they
>had seen "Dirty Dancing" which then had just recently been released. Most
>had seen it, and most thought it was a pretty good picture--but until I
>pointed it out none of them could grasp that the two films had exactly the
>same story, i.e.: The leading lady breaks her leg/gets a botched abortion
>and the understudy goes on with the show and becomes a star.
>
Or how about this? The veteran quarterback breaks his leg and the rookie comes
off the bench, wins the game and becomes a star.
Yes, folks, it's Oliver Stone's ANY GIVEN SUNDAY.
Mike S.
(and on Sundays, it's P-U)
Bag of Rats
> relativism all too common on campuses these days.
Moral relativism? What is this, a sermon from a Jesus freak?
But seriously, if you're suggesting that there's something wrong with
moral relativism, then you aren't exactly in the intellectual elite.
You're just an old-fashioned, small-minded prude. I'm not even saying
there's anything wrong with that, but you shouldn't pretend to be part
of the elite. You're probably from Nebraska or some other redneck
region.
> Has it occurred to you that
> there is more to the living experience (not to mention drama and literature)
> than boobs and being able to say "fuck"?
Well, you're assuming things that are incorrect. I never said that
that's all there is to life; I never implied it. But those things are
PART of life, and so it shouldn't even be an issue about putting them
on the screen. They go right in with everything else. To show a naked
breast shouldn't be a big deal. It could appear in the corner of the
screen without being particularly astounding. And as for your
denotation of that anatomical feature, I can only say to you, "How
mature do you really think YOU are?" I mean, Christ, man. Grow up.
> You also have no understanding of the
> concept of boundaries in art, as important to ballet and opera as it is to film.
> Perhaps someday you will expand your experience of the whole of world film, and
> realize that there is more to film than that. Perhaps someday you will realise
> that Kevin Smith is NOT a great film artist.
I never said I liked Kevin Smith. You have no idea what my tastes are;
you're guessing. And I couldn't really call it an educated guess. This
shows again that you're just a reactionary; I mean, after all, how
original do you think your sentiments are? I said something about old
films being no good and your considered response is just to attack me?
Gee, I never would have anticipated that. That's what everyone has
done. It's not really a very original response. Don't you bore even
yourself?
> Film is NOT a realistic medium, it is merely an illusion of reality, as
> dependent on style and technique as any opera, novel or painting.
Well, "realism" isn't even a particularly useful term. Maybe I
shouldn't have used it. But in order to get at the essence of
experience, shouldn't we be free to do what we want to show this? I
never said that we had to be free of style. I never said what you are
attributing to me. I've commented elsewhere in this thread on the
concept of "realism."
> You want realism? Go stare out a window; I dare say you will become bored
> pretty quick.
Again, I never said we should film two hours of people walking on the
sidewalk and call that an entertaining film. You're continuing to
attribute things to me that were never in any of my comments.
You're assuming, incorrectly, that I am saying all films should be
realistic. Elsewhere in this thread I stated that the type of film
dictates the style. I'm not saying realism is better, that everything
has to be "realistic," whatever that means. What I said was that
breasts are real. You can't deny that. They exist, believe it or not.
You won't see an exposed breast in some 1950s Hollywood picture. It's
part of life; those old films are denying this facet of reality. It
doesn't show our actual experience. I believe somewhere you or someone
like you made a comment about the issue of what to show in film; that
person said that sex never used to be shown, that it was implied by
showing cigarette smoking or whatever, and not the sexual act itself.
This, that person stated, was a better technique. I'm not saying it's
a worse technique. I'm saying it's a different technique. If you have
a story in which people have sex and other things happen, the story
itself is not about the sex so it probably shouldn't be shown; it's
unnecessary from a narrative point of view. BUT: if the film is about
the experience of having sex, then it has to show the sex. It has to
attempt to describe what the experience is like. It has to be as
intimate as possible. This is a completely different agenda than the
narrative agenda. And this is something that wasn't done much until
recently. Until recently, a major part of life was left unexplored.
The idea of sex may not have been utterly removed, but the experience
of sex was largely gone, or at least minimised, in the old films. This
is terrible for the filmmaker. Sex is big. One wants to be able to
show it. Ignoring important issues is not cleverness. It's opacity.
> You want realistic? Check out some of the early Griffith portraits of life on
> the streets in pre-World War I New York; they are as gritty and uncompromising
> as any Scorcese film, and do not suffer one bit because the word "fuck" doesn't
> turn up in the title cards. Or Pabst. Or Lang. Or Milestone. You want
> beautiful images? The work of cameramen like Mate', Bitzer, Freund and Howe
> stand against anything being done today, and are razor-sharp if one makes the
> effort to seek out good print material.
Well, it is hard to find good prints of old films. For the larger part
we have to watch them on VCR, which doesn't work well. But that's not
even really the point. The lighting on some of those old films is
incredibly stylised; they often don't look like real life at all, so
how can that evoke the daily experience? Now, you'll say that I'm
wrong to think that today's Hollywood films are any more realistic. I
don't think that. I hate Hollywood films of today that are trying to
be realistic but use ludicrous lighting. I'm not saying that today's
industry is good. For a lot of things, it isn't. However, I never said
that only realistic films should be made; I was addressing that facet
of the creative process. There is definitely a call for stylisation,
as I stated elsewhere in this thread. Take a John Woo film, for
instance. "Face/Off" is not about "realism" (whatever that is). It's
operatic; it's a fantasy; it's about conveying a riveting experience,
not a realistic one. There are many completely different types of
films, and I was only addressing the problems of "realism," or
conveying the experiential reality, which is but one type of film. I
never said it was everything; this you wrongly assumed.
> In short, you are a short-sighted, inexperienced dweeb with an insignificant
> frame of reference; come back in ten years if and when you have something to say
> worth reading.
> Or to speak in the vernacular of the peasantry, Go Fuck Yourself.
Wow, what a display of wit. Would you say that this is "something to
say worth reading"? Why don't YOU come back when you have something to
say that isn't an exact carbon copy of everything everyone else is
saying. Your attitude, after all, is not, as I said before, exactly
original.
You know what? After responding to your comments, I went back to read
what I had written earlier, afraid that I'd said some things I
shouldn't have. You kept saying I was inexperienced and so on, so I
figured I'd been a bit hasty with some comment. But I said nothing
that I take back. Read my comments again with an open mind, rather
than with assumptions about "where I'm coming from." I never even said
that old films are all "bad." For that matter, I sure as hell didn't
say that all new films are "good." I think you just got defensive
concerning my comment that "old films are 'designed' for children."
You tried to prove me wrong; you tried to prove me more childish than
yourself. But using the word "boob," failing to think through what you
were saying, and ending with a witticism such as "Go fuck yourself"
doesn't really speak volumes for your defence.
Bag of Rats
>
> Archie, I admire your response. Cinema is a dramatic art, not a realistic
> one, how he can equate modern cinema and Scorsese with gritty realism, I'll
> never know.
>
I never said that I equated Scorsese with realism (which I definitely
don't) or modern cinema with "gritty realism" (which I also don't).
You and everyone else here keep assuming things about what I said
rather than actually taking what I said at face value. I stick to my
original comments. Also my newer comments on "realism."
Bag of Rats
> Now Archie,
>
> It's not right for you to call this idiot an idiot in our politically
> correct society.
> He's "mentally and conceptually challenged."
>
> David B. Pearson
>
> PS: Given "Bag of Rats" stunning arguments, I am now wondering if an
> old-time silent black and white movie like "Sunrise" can realistically
> compete -- either in camerawork, sets, story, acting, or direction -- with a
> color, more culturally unrestricted and mature film of the 1970s, like
> "Black Belt Jones."
>
> :-)
Wow, that's funny stuff. You really got me, there.
I've never heard of this film "Black Belt Jones," but it doesn't
exactly sound like a model of brilliant filmmaking. I didn't say it
was. I also didn't say that all films prior to 1970 are "bad" in my
opinion. I never said any of the things that you're attributing to me.
I said that a lot of old Hollywood films aren't exactly very
"realistic," by which I meant they don't convey the existential
elements very well. Again, I was using a generalisation, thinking of
Hollywood films, not saying that anything old is therefore bad. I was
talking in terms of the history of moviemaking, I was not proposing a
law of physics or whatever.
Frederica
Bag of Rats wrote:
> I've never heard of this film "Black Belt Jones," but it doesn't
> exactly sound like a model of brilliant filmmaking. I didn't say it
> was. I also didn't say that all films prior to 1970 are "bad" in my
> opinion. I never said any of the things that you're attributing to me.
> I said that a lot of old Hollywood films aren't exactly very
> "realistic," by which I meant they don't convey the existential
> elements very well. Again, I was using a generalisation, thinking of
> Hollywood films, not saying that anything old is therefore bad. I was
> talking in terms of the history of moviemaking, I was not proposing a
> law of physics or whatever.
But as we pointed out, NO film is realistic, and very few of them are made with the goal of conveying
existential elements. This is a good thing. Occasionally I am faced with the rare film that attempts to
educate and enlighten me--the film that strives to make me a better person. When faced with such a film, I can
move at near light speeds exiting the theater, or even faster diving for the remote. I see films to be
entertained, not to be lectured. So really, it hardly seems fair to judge an art form on whether it succeeds
at something it never set out to achieve in the first place. It is what it is.
Frederica
Archie Waugh
>Moral relativism? What is this, a sermon from a Jesus freak?
Nope, you don't have to be a Jesus freak to understand the fallicy of moral
relativism.
>But seriously, if you're suggesting that there's something wrong with
>moral relativism, then you aren't exactly in the intellectual elite.
Thank God! If that's the "intellectual elite", spare me please.
>You're just an old-fashioned, small-minded prude. I'm not even saying
>there's anything wrong with that, but you shouldn't pretend to be part
>of the elite. You're probably from Nebraska or some other redneck
>region.
As hilarious an assumption about me as any I made about you, as anyone in this
newsgroup can attest. I'm sure glad you're not one of those people who leap to
pigeonhole others.
>> Has it occurred to you that
>> there is more to the living experience (not to mention drama and literature)
>> than boobs and being able to say "fuck"?
>
>Well, you're assuming things that are incorrect. I never said that
>that's all there is to life; I never implied it. But those things are
>PART of life, and so it shouldn't even be an issue about putting them
>on the screen. They go right in with everything else. To show a naked
>breast shouldn't be a big deal. It could appear in the corner of the
>screen without being particularly astounding. And as for your
>denotation of that anatomical feature, I can only say to you, "How
>mature do you really think YOU are?" I mean, Christ, man. Grow up.
I see nothing wrong with making a comical comment ("boobs", for those just
joining the thread) on your bizarre obsession with breasts in film as some kind
of gold standard of "realism" and modernity. Also, check out Hedy Lamarr's
hooters in "Exstasy"(1936) and the hot bare-breasted babes in "Ben Hur" (1926).
>I never said I liked Kevin Smith. You have no idea what my tastes are;
>you're guessing. And I couldn't really call it an educated guess. This
>shows again that you're just a reactionary; I mean, after all, how
>original do you think your sentiments are?
My reactionary comments were in response to your equally blanket, reactionary
statements against all pre-1970 films. And my statements may not be original (I
never said they were) but are pretty reflective of how many in this newsgroup
reacted to yours.
> I said something about old
>films being no good and your considered response is just to attack me?
Because it was a phenomenally stupid and ignorant statement.
>Gee, I never would have anticipated that. That's what everyone has
>done. It's not really a very original response. Don't you bore even
>yourself?
Why should I? I'm having too much fun boring you.
>Well, "realism" isn't even a particularly useful term. Maybe I
>shouldn't have used it.
I think the posts that followed indicated pretty clearly that it was indeed an
inept choice on your part, yet you used the word about 75 times, so I am afraid
you're stuck with it.
>But in order to get at the essence of
>experience, shouldn't we be free to do what we want to show this? I
>never said that we had to be free of style. I never said what you are
>attributing to me. I've commented elsewhere in this thread on the
>concept of "realism."
>
>
>> You want realism? Go stare out a window; I dare say you will become bored
>> pretty quick.
>
>Again, I never said we should film two hours of people walking on the
>sidewalk and call that an entertaining film. You're continuing to
>attribute things to me that were never in any of my comments.
>
>You're assuming, incorrectly, that I am saying all films should be
>realistic. Elsewhere in this thread I stated that the type of film
>dictates the style. I'm not saying realism is better, that everything
>has to be "realistic," whatever that means. What I said was that
>breasts are real. You can't deny that. They exist, believe it or not.
>You won't see an exposed breast in some 1950s Hollywood picture.
You won't see a penis, either. Or anal penetration. Or defecation. Forgive me
for not noticing, but somehow I doubt that in the great book of film history
there will be a chapter on how the sudden appearance of bare breasts in
Hollywood films ushered in a new Age of Enlightenment. For the most part it
ushered in a Golden Age of Low Budget Sleaze with Questionable Artistic Value;
remember, for every "Last Tango in Paris" there are a hundred "Hollywood Pom-Pom
Girls".
>It's
>part of life; those old films are denying this facet of reality. It
>doesn't show our actual experience. I believe somewhere you or someone
>like you made a comment about the issue of what to show in film; that
>person said that sex never used to be shown, that it was implied by
>showing cigarette smoking or whatever, and not the sexual act itself.
Wasn't me, but I appreciate what they were trying to say.
>This, that person stated, was a better technique. I'm not saying it's
>a worse technique. I'm saying it's a different technique. If you have
>a story in which people have sex and other things happen, the story
>itself is not about the sex so it probably shouldn't be shown; it's
>unnecessary from a narrative point of view.
>BUT: if the film is about
>the experience of having sex, then it has to show the sex.
And approximately what proportion of (non-porn) films are about having sex?
It has to
>attempt to describe what the experience is like. It has to be as
>intimate as possible. This is a completely different agenda than the
>narrative agenda. And this is something that wasn't done much until
>recently.
And are we all the richer for it? (See above about the Golden Age of etc.)
Until recently, a major part of life was left unexplored.
>The idea of sex may not have been utterly removed, but the experience
>of sex was largely gone, or at least minimised, in the old films. This
>is terrible for the filmmaker.
For which filmmaker? Russ Meyer?
Sex is big. One wants to be able to
>show it. Ignoring important issues is not cleverness. It's opacity.
>
>Well, it is hard to find good prints of old films.
Bullshit.
For the larger part
>we have to watch them on VCR, which doesn't work well.
Then buy a DVD player and treat yourself to quality prints, or visit a museum or
revival house, there are lots of them.
But that's not
>even really the point. The lighting on some of those old films is
>incredibly stylised; they often don't look like real life at all, so
>how can that evoke the daily experience?
And the key word here is "some" - you're making outragous assumptions based on
viewing very very few older films. Extremely stylized lighting is generally the
exception, not the rule, in older films. Perhaps more common in black and
white, but that's the nature of black and white photography, and still is today,
both in motion pictures and still photography.
Now, you'll say that I'm
>wrong to think that today's Hollywood films are any more realistic. I
>don't think that. I hate Hollywood films of today that are trying to
>be realistic but use ludicrous lighting. I'm not saying that today's
>industry is good. For a lot of things, it isn't. However, I never said
>that only realistic films should be made; I was addressing that facet
>of the creative process. There is definitely a call for stylisation,
>as I stated elsewhere in this thread. Take a John Woo film, for
>instance. "Face/Off" is not about "realism" (whatever that is). It's
>operatic; it's a fantasy; it's about conveying a riveting experience,
>not a realistic one. There are many completely different types of
>films, and I was only addressing the problems of "realism," or
>conveying the experiential reality, which is but one type of film. I
>never said it was everything; this you wrongly assumed.
Well, you did babble on about "realism" (your choice of words) for about three
pages, so what were we to draw from that?
>> In short, you are a short-sighted, inexperienced dweeb with an insignificant
>> frame of reference; come back in ten years if and when you have something to say
>> worth reading.
>> Or to speak in the vernacular of the peasantry, Go Fuck Yourself.
>
>Wow, what a display of wit.
Actually, if you had enough of a frame of reference to recognize where the first
part of that line came from, you'd think it was pretty damned witty.
Would you say that this is "something to
>say worth reading"? Why don't YOU come back when you have something to
>say that isn't an exact carbon copy of everything everyone else is
>saying. Your attitude, after all, is not, as I said before, exactly
>original.
No, it's pretty representative of how many people in this group responded to
your silly comments. I find it interesting that my reply was the only one you
decided to respond to, considering how unoriginal and boring you found it.
>You know what? After responding to your comments, I went back to read
>what I had written earlier, afraid that I'd said some things I
>shouldn't have. You kept saying I was inexperienced and so on, so I
>figured I'd been a bit hasty with some comment. But I said nothing
>that I take back.
Then you're still a short-sighted, inexperienced dweeb, and perhaps a bit of a
fool.
Read my comments again with an open mind, rather
>than with assumptions about "where I'm coming from." I never even said
>that old films are all "bad."
You certainly did, and to a newsgroup full of people who love old films and find
much of great value in them, generally speaking far more artistry and beauty and
skill than most modern films.
For that matter, I sure as hell didn't
>say that all new films are "good." I think you just got defensive
>concerning my comment that "old films are 'designed' for children."
Because it was a silly, uninformed comment.
>You tried to prove me wrong; you tried to prove me more childish than
>yourself. But using the word "boob," failing to think through what you
>were saying, and ending with a witticism such as "Go fuck yourself"
>doesn't really speak volumes for your defence.
The word is spelled "defense". The word "boob" was used for humor in relation
to your obsession with the aforementioned, and unlike you, I don't need to speak
volumes to get my point across. The witticism was in the line "To speak in the
vernacular of the peasantry", as you are an intellectual peasant; and the "Go
fuck yourself" was merely my way of joining you in the celebration of the new
freedom we now experience in modern film dialogue.
Have a nice day.
Archie Waugh
David B. Pearson
rom: supervermi...@hotmail.com (Bag of Rats)
> "David B. Pearson" <da...@silent-movies.com> wrote in message
> news:<B7FF903C.2E98%da...@silent-movies.com>...
>> PS: Given "Bag of Rats" stunning arguments, I am now wondering if an
>> old-time silent black and white movie like "Sunrise" can realistically
>> compete -- either in camerawork, sets, story, acting, or direction -- with a
>> color, more culturally unrestricted and mature film of the 1970s, like
>> "Black Belt Jones."
>>
>> :-)
>
> Wow, that's funny stuff. You really got me, there.
Well... at least I enjoyed it.
:-)
> I've never heard of this film "Black Belt Jones," but it doesn't
> exactly sound like a model of brilliant filmmaking. I didn't say it
> was. I also didn't say that all films prior to 1970 are "bad" in my
> opinion. I never said any of the things that you're attributing to me.
Oh, then you haven't really lived. "Belt Belt Jones" cancels out "The
Godfather, Part II" on the scales determining whether the '70s were a great
film making decade or not.
:-)
Seriously, I read what you wrote pretty carefully.
As I recall, you wrote:
> > The only decades I like are the seventies and nineties, to be frank. I
> > like precious little from earlier eras; I find that "old" films are so
> > unrealistic that they do not even touch upon most of the fundamental
> > issues of existance. It seems to me that films from the first half of
> > the century were crippled fatally by being a product of a civilisation
> > that was not yet able to be realistic. They seem as though they were
> > made for children. I know that sounds like an ignorant viewpoint, and
> > god knows I've tried to like older films, because I have a strong
> > respect for history and would like to be able to experience cultural
> > continuity, but I largely can't. I basically just like new ones. Apart
> > from some of the early pioneering stuff from the seventies, I
> > basically stick to the nineties. There was beginning to be some good
> > stuff in with all the bad; the nineties were a decade of surprising
> > elegance in some ways. And now, I'm deathly afraid that the '00s are
> > going to be terrible. There seems to be a new crappiness, reminiscent
> > of the eighties, creeping back into culture. I hope it's just a
> > temporary anomaly, but I worry a lot about it.
... which has gotten roundly hooted down. Now, I can understand where you've
tried to soften that opinion with the much more reasonable...
> I said that a lot of old Hollywood films aren't exactly very
> "realistic," by which I meant they don't convey the existential
> elements very well. Again, I was using a generalisation, thinking of
> Hollywood films, not saying that anything old is therefore bad. I was
> talking in terms of the history of moviemaking, I was not proposing a
> law of physics or whatever.
... but you are still getting yourself into serious trouble because even
your softened generalization seems based on the belief that films were
always under a banner of industry self-censorship prior to the mid-1960s.
This is not correct, as silent films and early talkies made prior to the
Hayes/Breen codes slapped on them in the early 1930s. These eariler films do
not suffer from the "realistic" factor you seem to be talking about. In
"It," for example, one can quite clearly see an angry Clara Bow tell a
social worker to "Fuck Off!" There is also a fair amount of incidental
nudity in silent movies. Mainstream films tackling subjects such as drug
(heroin and cocaine) addiction, prostitution, ethnic humor, comedies kidding
homosexuality, sexual role reversals, serious criticism of social double
standards, social/racial hatreds, and social/racial tolerance -- in short,
most any "realistic" topic you might hope to discuss. Everyone in the
alt.movies.silent group this thread has cross-posted into knows all this to
be true. And your not qualifing your thoughts to reflect this, makes your
opinion about "realistic" films to be a recent idea to look pretty damned
foolish. It also appears to reveal a bigotry towards the past, as your
failure to watch them reveals much more about yourself that the films your
condesending generalization incorrectly portrays the past to be.
In short, to have a better all round understanding of cinema, you need to
see a LOT more films -- and not just SOME films YOU like from the '70s and
'90s -- because everything, from "The Sneeze" to the films released today
are all apart of a medium we love.
David B. Pearson
David B. Pearson
> From: Archie Waugh <nos...@newsranger.com>
>> You tried to prove me wrong; you tried to prove me more childish than
>> yourself. But using the word "boob," failing to think through what you
>> were saying, and ending with a witticism such as "Go fuck yourself"
>> doesn't really speak volumes for your defence.
>
> The word is spelled "defense". The word "boob" was used for humor in relation
> to your obsession with the aforementioned, and unlike you, I don't need to
> speak
> volumes to get my point across. The witticism was in the line "To speak in
> the
> vernacular of the peasantry", as you are an intellectual peasant; and the "Go
> fuck yourself" was merely my way of joining you in the celebration of the new
> freedom we now experience in modern film dialogue.
> Have a nice day.
> Archie Waugh
A word in "defense" of the intellectual peasant:
"Defence" is the correct spelling in (UK) English.
As for the rest of what the child is saying, as we watch him trying to come
to terms with what reality is supposed to be, let me quote "Black Belt
Jones" in reviewing his sadly collapsing arguments...
"Don't BULLSHIT me!!! I'm from New Orleans!"
;-)
DBP
Robert Keser
To expand a bit on one of Archie's points: almost all of the people in
this group are professionals working in film, many directly and others
as writers, historians, and teachers. The purpose that brings us together
is exchanging information and viewpoints (and jokes) about the great
works of film history. Then, you enter proclaiming that "(t)he only
decades I like are the seventies and nineties, to be frank. I like precious
little from earlier eras; I find that 'old' films are so unrealistic that they
do not even touch upon most of the fundamental issues of existance [sic]"
and that " films from the first half of the century were crippled fatally by
being a product of a civilisation that was not yet able to be realistic.
They seem as though they were made for children." Well, what kind of
reception did you expect? Would you show up at a conference of
classical musicians to announce that you don't like their work because
"real" music began with the rock era? How do you think people would
react?
Maybe you'll recall my original reaction in an earlier post: "Can we tie
this kid down and force him to watch Greed, White Tiger,Forbidden
Paradise, Docks of New York, Love of Jeanne Ney, Pandora's Box,
and...?" This is a list of films for grown-ups, films of great sophistication
and adult themes as well as being peaks of film artistry. Why don't you
try to see as many of these as you can, and then come back to tell us
your reaction?
In the meantime, if you want to participate, why don't you tell us
how many silent films you've seen and which ones gave you
"trouble"?
Bob Keser
Stephen Cooke
On Fri, 2 Nov 2001, David B. Pearson wrote:
> As for the rest of what the child is saying, as we watch him trying to come
> to terms with what reality is supposed to be, let me quote "Black Belt
> Jones" in reviewing his sadly collapsing arguments...
>
> "Don't BULLSHIT me!!! I'm from New Orleans!"
FWIW, I'll be one of the first people in line to buy a copy of Black Belt
Jones (and hopefully its sequel, Hot Potato) when it gets issued on DVD.
Mostly so I can see every film ever made that features Isaac from The Love
Boat, but there's also some trampoline kung fu and that final fight in the
car wash.
Anyone want to buy my VHS copy?
Stephen
Greasyfries
> In the meantime, if you want to participate, why don't you tell us
> how many silent films you've seen and which ones gave you
> "trouble"?
>
A Keaton short run at sound speed with a MIDI piano soundtrack, I reckon.
Philip Sawyer
"Bag of Rats" <supervermi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3a8c0f99.0111...@posting.google.com...
I can only speak for myself, but out of the 12,000 or so films I have seen,
dating from the 1890s to 2001, I cannot say with any certainty that I have
ever seen a film that was "real". Films that purport to be realistic still
have a heightened sense of reality, still have dialogue that no-one really
speaks, still show human activity with some of the "reality" missing or
distorted. Film can never be reality. It can only approximate reality.
Portrayals of reality in the arts are never the same as "reality". The only
reality is reality itself. Film, art, literature are merely roadmaps; they
may approximate the truth, they may portray the truth, but the real and
complete map of the road is the road itself. Films cannot be any more
realistic than any other artform, unless your entire reality is merely
passive, visual and auditory, not active, intellectual and sensual.
I'm sure that filmmakers and filmgoers before 1970 thought that their
"realistic" films did portray reality to the greatest extent possible at the
time. I'm also sure that filmgoers 20 or 30 years from now will find films
of today less "realistic" than their contemporary films.
I (and I'm *not* someone like Archie, I expect) raised the "cigarette
smoking" in NOW VOYAGER as an example of the type of portrayal of sexual and
emotional relations that was mandated under the Hollywood production code.
I did not say that this was a "better technique" of portraying sexual
relations; but yes, it does portray human emotions better than any faked
sexual encounter in films of the last 25 years. I've never seen on-screen
sex that told me what the actual experience of sex was like. And if you
have, or if you need films to tell you what sex is like, either you are not
very imaginative or not very experienced.
No era of filmmaking has ever ignored sex. There are just as many different
ways of dealing with it as there are different ways of having it.
If you think films need to be realistic to "achieve their potential", then
you are better off watching documentaries. Art's potential is to take us to
the limits of imaginable possibility; to take ideas and stretch them as far
or as little as possible.
You don't need to show breasts to portray the idea of breasts.
William Hooper
Greasyfries stated...
Well, since Richard Roberts has probably worn out these letters on his keyboard
& cannot respond, I'll point out that for late silents, "sound speed" 24 fps is
a period-correct "performance".
To us now, it looks weird & unnatural, with things falling faster than gravity
allows, etc. But when SMPE was nailing down what would be standardized a "sound
speed", they did a *survey* of the speeds films were being projected at in the
big houses (in San Francisco?) and found the *average* to be 24 fps.
And so 24 fps is now the "sound speed". So if someone shows a late silent at 24
fps, you're getting a quite correct, period performance. Some people may not
like it at all, though, finding the mechanics of presentation to get in the way
of modern expectations in perception, & wish it were projected at a speed which
adheres more to a fidelity of reproduction of the orginal subject than a correct
period exhibition.
You can go either way. The considerations are: faithfullness to reproduction
of the original subject, reproduction of the original theatrical experience, &
gauging your current audience's wants, needs, desires, & requirements to make
them come back & buy more popcorn.
So pop those things on your 24 fps 16mm Keystone, light a pipe & say, ah, yes,
here is the visual representation to the period theatre audience. Nod
occasionally.
Lulu The Cow
Rats) wrote:
>I've never heard of this film "Black Belt Jones," but it doesn't
>exactly sound like a model of brilliant filmmaking.
If you've never heard of "Black Belt Jones" then you clearly don't
know enough about film history to hold your own with these guys, or
any other guys for that matter.
A title like "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" doesn't "sound like a model
of brilliant filmmaking", either... But it is...
Cheers,
Todd "Not that BBJ is, but it's an important part of history" McNeeley
.
email: mcneeley at enteract dot com
--
/"\ ||
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN || NO ATTACHMENTS
X AGAINST HTML MAIL || NO STATIONERY
/ \ AND POSTINGS || NO GRAPHICS
Bag of Rats
You know what? You've been taking what I said way too seriously. I
thought that my initial comment was obviously a light-hearted
insignificance. But now you're getting angry when I try to modify my
jokes to make them into a more serious conversation. But that's
perfectly legitimate; I'm not hiding it.
May I remind you that this is being posted to
rec.arts.movies.current-films as well as alt.movies.silent. This isn't
just for silent-film junkies. This is for general film. I think you
were assuming that I was coming into silent film areas and saying
things about old films to get a rise out of you people. I came in from
current-films. But whatever.
To repeat, I wasn't really making a grand pronouncement when I said I
didn't like "old films." You said above that "to have a better all
round understanding of cinema, [I] need to see a LOT more films..."
Well, again, I never said that I was saying that old films are bad; I
never said I had a perfect understanding of films. Actually, I've seen
precious few "old" films and don't pretend to be well-versed in them.
That was part of my point, originally; I was saying that I found them
off-putting. I presented my personal tastes on the subject and you
took it as an offence.
I'm basically just a regular joe who likes to watch movies. I never
said I was a professor of film or whatnot. I'm just expressing my
personal sensibilities.
As for the "belief that films were under a banner of self-censorship
before the 1960s," I never implied that films before a certain date
were fundamentally "censored" while films after a certain date were
fundamentally "free of censorship." Film, and every other art form, is
always censored to what the artist believes the public can or should
tolerate, or likely instead what he _himself_ believes acceptable.
There is no such thing as free art; it's always created within the
social fabric of its time. Films from the 1940s largely catered to
what was then deemed acceptable. Do you honestly think a film from
1948 would have entered general release if it had had a graphic rape
scene, for instance? But things are similar today, and will always be.
I'm not sure a film from 2001 would be able to enter general release
if it had a graphic rape scene. We'll never be "free" of social
constraints, whatever they may be at any given time. What I'm saying
is that we're LESS constrained in SOME areas today then we were fifty
years ago; there's absolutely no denying that.
Bag of Rats
> >Moral relativism? What is this, a sermon from a Jesus freak?
>
> Nope, you don't have to be a Jesus freak to understand the fallicy of moral
> relativism.
Well, you've yet to explain it. Jesus freak or not, you can't be very
well educated if you embrace moral absolutism.
> >But seriously, if you're suggesting that there's something wrong with
> >moral relativism, then you aren't exactly in the intellectual elite.
>
> Thank God! If that's the "intellectual elite", spare me please.
You're the one who seems to value said elite. You've invoked the
concept of "intellectual" superiority before this, as you do again
further on. I, for one, acknowledge the legitimacy of no such concept.
I must say, this distinction of "intellectualism" versus something
else is really ludicrously juvenile. I was into that stuff when I was
fifteen. I gave it up a bit later when my brain matured.
> >You're just an old-fashioned, small-minded prude. I'm not even saying
> >there's anything wrong with that, but you shouldn't pretend to be part
> >of the elite. You're probably from Nebraska or some other redneck
> >region.
>
> As hilarious an assumption about me as any I made about you, as anyone in this
> newsgroup can attest. I'm sure glad you're not one of those people who leap to
> pigeonhole others.
Just trying to give you "a taste of your own medicine." But I think
we'll all agree, my assumption had much more foundation than any of
yours. You've yet to convincingly refute it at any rate.
> >> Has it occurred to you that
> >> there is more to the living experience (not to mention drama and literature)
> >> than boobs and being able to say "fuck"?
> >
> >Well, you're assuming things that are incorrect. I never said that
> >that's all there is to life; I never implied it. But those things are
> >PART of life, and so it shouldn't even be an issue about putting them
> >on the screen. They go right in with everything else. To show a naked
> >breast shouldn't be a big deal. It could appear in the corner of the
> >screen without being particularly astounding. And as for your
> >denotation of that anatomical feature, I can only say to you, "How
> >mature do you really think YOU are?" I mean, Christ, man. Grow up.
>
> I see nothing wrong with making a comical comment ("boobs", for those just
> joining the thread) on your bizarre obsession with breasts in film as some kind
> of gold standard of "realism" and modernity. Also, check out Hedy Lamarr's
> hooters in "Exstasy"(1936) and the hot bare-breasted babes in "Ben Hur" (1926).
I never proposed any "gold standard." You assumed that I did,
incorrectly. No, any film with a breast does not qualify as a
"realistic" film (although I have to insist at this juncture that you
stop using that ill-advised term). But if we _can't_ show a breast,
that means there's a problem. Your couple of examples from the
exceptions that prove the rule don't really change the basic form of
historical trends.
> >I never said I liked Kevin Smith. You have no idea what my tastes are;
> >you're guessing. And I couldn't really call it an educated guess. This
> >shows again that you're just a reactionary; I mean, after all, how
> >original do you think your sentiments are?
>
> My reactionary comments were in response to your equally blanket, reactionary
> statements against all pre-1970 films.
Wrong once again. I never made a blanket statement; indeed, I'm having
to continually advise you of the opposite seemingly at every juncture.
I will say it once more: you are assuming that I meant things I never
said. I specifically said that I was NOT referring to any film made
before the year nineteen hundred and seventy AD. Also, you are
assuming as well that I think everything made after that
spuriously-chosen year is "good." I hate most films regardless of
their era; very few things from any time are "good."
And my statements may not be original (I
> never said they were) but are pretty reflective of how many in this newsgroup
> reacted to yours.
>
> > I said something about old
> >films being no good and your considered response is just to attack me?
>
> Because it was a phenomenally stupid and ignorant statement.
It was a statement of taste, of personal preference. You wrongly took
it as an assertion of an absolute truth. Plus, calling something
"stupid" really doesn't help anything. It's anticonstructive and
childish. You failed to explain why it was stupid. Ignorance? You've
demonstrated precious little lack thereof yourself.
> >Gee, I never would have anticipated that. That's what everyone has
> >done. It's not really a very original response. Don't you bore even
> >yourself?
>
> Why should I? I'm having too much fun boring you.
>
> >Well, "realism" isn't even a particularly useful term. Maybe I
> >shouldn't have used it.
>
> I think the posts that followed indicated pretty clearly that it was indeed an
> inept choice on your part, yet you used the word about 75 times, so I am afraid
> you're stuck with it.
Nope, and nope again. You're the one perpetuating it; I don't find it
to be of value and have said so many times.
> >But in order to get at the essence of
> >experience, shouldn't we be free to do what we want to show this? I
> >never said that we had to be free of style. I never said what you are
> >attributing to me. I've commented elsewhere in this thread on the
> >concept of "realism."
> >
> >
> >> You want realism? Go stare out a window; I dare say you will become bored
> >> pretty quick.
> >
> >Again, I never said we should film two hours of people walking on the
> >sidewalk and call that an entertaining film. You're continuing to
> >attribute things to me that were never in any of my comments.
> >
> >You're assuming, incorrectly, that I am saying all films should be
> >realistic. Elsewhere in this thread I stated that the type of film
> >dictates the style. I'm not saying realism is better, that everything
> >has to be "realistic," whatever that means. What I said was that
> >breasts are real. You can't deny that. They exist, believe it or not.
> >You won't see an exposed breast in some 1950s Hollywood picture.
>
> You won't see a penis, either. Or anal penetration. Or defecation.
Well? Are you saying that's good? People do shit. It happens. It's
part of reality.
> Forgive me
> for not noticing, but somehow I doubt that in the great book of film history
> there will be a chapter on how the sudden appearance of bare breasts in
> Hollywood films ushered in a new Age of Enlightenment. For the most part it
> ushered in a Golden Age of Low Budget Sleaze with Questionable Artistic Value;
> remember, for every "Last Tango in Paris" there are a hundred "Hollywood Pom-Pom
> Girls".
You're exhibiting again your famed Nebraskan illogic. You are
assigning value. That is not objective, it is your personal opinion.
Just because you don't want to see a penis in a film and you call
certain things "sleaze" and you don't like "sleaze" and you do value
"intellectualism" and so on does not make all this an absolute,
objective truth. Some of us may disagree with your value judgements. I
for one did not propose an Age of Enlightenment or even acknowledge
the legitimacy of the concept of "enlightenment." I don't, in fact.
This is all meaningless to me. It might be for you, too, if you hadn't
been born in Nebraska or environs and your parents hadn't taught you
about what "god" likes and what he doesn't and that we should care and
if you didn't believe it still, even though you're not six anymore.
> >It's
> >part of life; those old films are denying this facet of reality. It
> >doesn't show our actual experience. I believe somewhere you or someone
> >like you made a comment about the issue of what to show in film; that
> >person said that sex never used to be shown, that it was implied by
> >showing cigarette smoking or whatever, and not the sexual act itself.
>
> Wasn't me, but I appreciate what they were trying to say.
>
> >This, that person stated, was a better technique. I'm not saying it's
> >a worse technique. I'm saying it's a different technique. If you have
> >a story in which people have sex and other things happen, the story
> >itself is not about the sex so it probably shouldn't be shown; it's
> >unnecessary from a narrative point of view.
>
> >BUT: if the film is about
> >the experience of having sex, then it has to show the sex.
>
> And approximately what proportion of (non-porn) films are about having sex?
Holy christ, are you actually suggesting that sex is not a legitimate
topic for a serious work of art to address? You must not even be from
a large Nebraskan town, but raised in some really small hamlet; maybe
a single farmhouse in the middle of ten thousand acres of corn?
> It has to
> >attempt to describe what the experience is like. It has to be as
> >intimate as possible. This is a completely different agenda than the
> >narrative agenda. And this is something that wasn't done much until
> >recently.
>
> And are we all the richer for it? (See above about the Golden Age of etc.)
This gets back to my earlier comments. I, personally, do, indeed,
think we are richer for it. You obviously disagree. But don't say that
your personal opinion is "right" and that the opinion of someone else
is "wrong." It's asymmetrical reasoning.
You shouldn't have made any conclusions. You should have fairly taken
my words at face value rather than getting the first whiff of my
attitude and then conjuring up in your little mind a picture of who
was speaking and addressing that rather than what I actually said.
You've got no idea what my overall opinions really are. I showed you a
tusk and you assumed a buffalo, but I'm actually a walrus. Whatever.
Maybe buffaloes don't have tusks. That's really not the point.
> >> In short, you are a short-sighted, inexperienced dweeb with an insignificant
> >> frame of reference; come back in ten years if and when you have something to say
> >> worth reading.
> >> Or to speak in the vernacular of the peasantry, Go Fuck Yourself.
> >
> >Wow, what a display of wit.
>
> Actually, if you had enough of a frame of reference to recognize where the first
> part of that line came from, you'd think it was pretty damned witty.
Enlighten us, and I'll be the judge of its wit. But the line itself is
ill-placed so it doesn't really matter where it comes from. If you
took it from Shakespeare it would still be poorly used in your
application because it reveals a puerile attitude about the topic of
"intellectualism" (namely, that such a concept has value). I recognise
this because I used to say the same kind of thing when I was fourteen.
> Would you say that this is "something to
> >say worth reading"? Why don't YOU come back when you have something to
> >say that isn't an exact carbon copy of everything everyone else is
> >saying. Your attitude, after all, is not, as I said before, exactly
> >original.
>
> No, it's pretty representative of how many people in this group responded to
> your silly comments. I find it interesting that my reply was the only one you
> decided to respond to, considering how unoriginal and boring you found it.
>
>
> >You know what? After responding to your comments, I went back to read
> >what I had written earlier, afraid that I'd said some things I
> >shouldn't have. You kept saying I was inexperienced and so on, so I
> >figured I'd been a bit hasty with some comment. But I said nothing
> >that I take back.
>
> Then you're still a short-sighted, inexperienced dweeb, and perhaps a bit of a
> fool.
>
> Read my comments again with an open mind, rather
> >than with assumptions about "where I'm coming from." I never even said
> >that old films are all "bad."
>
> You certainly did, and to a newsgroup full of people who love old films and find
> much of great value in them, generally speaking far more artistry and beauty and
> skill than most modern films.
This is posted to two newsgroups. It isn't just about you "old film"
buffs. It's also in "current-films." That's the doorway I came in
from. I didn't even notice it was going to silent films also when I
started posting.
And now you come out and say that old films are better than new ones.
Well, who's being ignorant now? You obviously haven't seen any new
ones if you think the old ones are superior, I could easily say with
justice equal to that of your entire previous spiel.
> For that matter, I sure as hell didn't
> >say that all new films are "good." I think you just got defensive
> >concerning my comment that "old films are 'designed' for children."
>
> Because it was a silly, uninformed comment.
No more uninformed than your comment just now about old films being
"better" than new ones. You're exhibiting exactly the same type of
exclusion of taste that you're ripping into me for, but you are being
self-righteous about your view while I am not about mine. And,
"silly"? At least back yourself up with some evidence if you're going
to make juvenile jabs like that.
> >You tried to prove me wrong; you tried to prove me more childish than
> >yourself. But using the word "boob," failing to think through what you
> >were saying, and ending with a witticism such as "Go fuck yourself"
> >doesn't really speak volumes for your defence.
>
> The word is spelled "defense".
Actually, you're sadly mistaken. The word was originally spelled
"defence" and continues to be in the mother land of its tongue; in the
former colonies, it was corrupted to "defense" with an "s". This is
not, however, generally accepted worldwide. Your parochialism is
showing again. If you're not from Nebraska, I'd have reason to be
surprised at this point.
The word "boob" was used for humor in relation
> to your obsession with the aforementioned,
I never demonstrated an unusual obsession with breasts. You assumed
one. I used the possibility of showing a breast as an example, not as
a benchmark for "realism" (which, I must continue to insist, is the
wrong word to use here). As for my perfectly normal obsession with
breasts, where's the shame in that?
> and unlike you, I don't need to speak
> volumes to get my point across. The witticism was in the line "To speak in >the
> vernacular of the peasantry", as you are an intellectual peasant;
Again with the assumptions and snap judgements, and also with the
puerile value judgements. An intellectual peasant? What does that even
mean? Are you saying that I'm not as "intellectual" as you? If so,
your assumption that I would want to be may well be false. You
apparently value "intellectualism;" but as I and many others fail to
acknowledge the legitimacy of the concept, we won't be saddened if you
think us poor in this regard. And if you meant, instead, that I am
simply not as intelligent as you, then I must say, you've yet to
demonstrate it. The fact that you think the line "to speak in the
vernacular of the peasantry" to be of wit in this application doesn't
exactly bear that out.
and the "Go
> fuck yourself" was merely my way of joining you in the celebration of the new
> freedom we now experience in modern film dialogue.
But it wasn't a particularly clever retort, you'll have to admit.
"Just because we can, doesn't mean we should."
Bag of Rats
> On 2 Nov 2001 14:13:57 -0800, supervermi...@hotmail.com (Bag of
> Rats) wrote:
> >I've never heard of this film "Black Belt Jones," but it doesn't
> >exactly sound like a model of brilliant filmmaking.
>
> If you've never heard of "Black Belt Jones" then you clearly don't
> know enough about film history to hold your own with these guys, or
> any other guys for that matter.
In your judgement I may not "know enough" to "hold my own" with these
or other guys, but I seem to be holding just fine. This idea that only
the people who've seen all the old silent movies have something to say
on the subject of film is pretty ludicrously exclusionist and quite
antipopular, something that elsewhere you would have been loath to
have been seen being (whatever). The point is, don't come in at this
point just to say that I'm making a fool of myself. I know what I'm
doing and if you want to join the discussion then by all means say
something. However for the time being it seems these guys would
themselves disagree with you about my legitimacy in having a place in
this discussion, otherwise they would have never engaged me at all.
Bag of Rats
"Sadly collapsing arguments"? I was just stating my personal tastes. I
never even made any "arguments" that were meant as some kind of
affront to your personal tastes. My first post was a simple,
lighthearted expression of personal sensibility, and then everyone
else started to attack me. But since there's no accounting for taste,
I'm not arguing that my tastes are "better." I never said anything
like that. You and all the others made that faulty assumption.
As for the crack about being a child: up until now, no one has thought
me childish enough to ignore. You can't start playing that card now
after I start to win.
Bag of Rats
> Bag of Rats wrote:
>
> > I've never heard of this film "Black Belt Jones," but it doesn't
> > exactly sound like a model of brilliant filmmaking. I didn't say it
> > was. I also didn't say that all films prior to 1970 are "bad" in my
> > opinion. I never said any of the things that you're attributing to me.
> > I said that a lot of old Hollywood films aren't exactly very
> > "realistic," by which I meant they don't convey the existential
> > elements very well. Again, I was using a generalisation, thinking of
> > Hollywood films, not saying that anything old is therefore bad. I was
> > talking in terms of the history of moviemaking, I was not proposing a
> > law of physics or whatever.
>
> But as we pointed out, NO film is realistic,
But as I pointed out, the term "realistic" doesn't really have
objective meaning. Everyone is using that word to describe all sorts
of different things, and mostly not really understanding what they are
trying to describe, myself included when I was still using it. That is
why I have attempted to make a break with the word, as I explained in
my previous posting, which I now resubmit here:
Yes, you're exactly right. "Realism" is not even a very good word to
use. I should have thought more carefully about what I meant. There is
no such thing as "realism." Each film calls for its own treatment;
some films call for elegant stylisation, some call for elegant
antistylisation, some call for glossy stylisation, some call for
unvarnished grittiness; but none of these should really be called
"realistic." No artistic medium can be realistic. In fact, the word
doesn't really mean anything. Each person's experience of the universe
is different; each reality is something different: so all we can do in
film or prose or any art form is to try to convey our feelings. What I
was trying to get at, I believe, was that film today seems to be a
little (not much, just slightly) better able to deal with the
existential terrors and queasiness that I have experienced as a
significant part of my personal reality. I find that natural lighting
helps a great deal; also, less "stylisation" (this is probably the
closest thing to "realism"). But this isn't to say that we are now at
a place qualitatively different and better, or "more realistic," than
where we were in 1947 or whenever; it's a continuum and there's still
a lot of progress to be made in terms of understanding what we are
trying to do when we make a film.
[previous posting ends here]
I should perhaps have added that in my view there are different things
a film can attempt to do. It can be entertainment, or it can attempt
to convey a reality. These aren't mutually exclusive, but sometimes
only one rather than both elements distinguish an artistic work. I was
only addressing the more "serious," "literary" function, if such terms
are of use or meaning. I agree with you completely about entertainment
being of value; indeed, I don't officially value anything besides
entertainment. But sometimes, something else in art that is completely
different, perhaps, is needed. Sometimes, we need to feel that others
understand what we are feeling, that we are not alone in the universe.
This is the existential quandary with which we are all of us all too
familiar. This is a need for something other than entertainment; it's
what I meant when I used the word "reality;" I should perhaps have
instead used the phrase "experiential reality," "existential
experience," or something similar. You go on to say that you
occasionally are faced with the rare film that attempts to "educate"
you, and that your reaction is to abandon the theatre. I think this
"literary" function of a film, however, is not at all about
"education;" I think either that you misunderstand intent or else that
filmmakers don't always understand what the natural prerogatives of
art are (i.e., what I want to see in a film... boy, am I going to get
nailed for this comment). The point is, the "literary" function of art
shouldn't, in my opinion anyway, be to "educate" or somehow "better"
us. Maybe some people believe that "spiritual health" (to use another
poetic, not literal, turn of phrase) can be learned through some kind
of information. These are the religious, those who think they are
right and we are wrong and if we only knew what they know then we'd be
okay. My point is, I disagree. I think that all a literary function in
art can do is to keep us company, to say to us: "You're sort of alone,
true: but not completely because I am too and I understand some of
what you're feeling, if not all of it." Isn't that the best that we
can hope for in this utterly barren universe of ours? It doesn't
really work, but it's all we've got, and maybe for some of the time it
will dampen the terror and pain just a little bit. If so, I say it's
worth doing once in a while. Then we can go back to our entertainment,
to keep our minds off the fact that death is approaching all of us so
quickly that we'll be dead soon no matter what happens. You gotta kill
time. So yes, I agree that entertainment is necessary.
David B. Pearson
> thought that my initial comment was obviously a light-hearted
> insignificance. But now you're getting angry when I try to modify my
> jokes to make them into a more serious conversation. But that's
> perfectly legitimate; I'm not hiding it.
LOL.
No, actually I took your first post as something someone quite ignorant
might say. Your second "revised" opinion seemed much more reasonble, as a
adolesant might do when trying desperately trying to cover up the gross
error in judgement made in the eariler post. The attempt to "cover up" your
original errors are perfectly understandable. But that you failed to yet
get, is the continued historical errors in the second posts.
> May I remind you that this is being posted to
> rec.arts.movies.current-films as well as alt.movies.silent. This isn't
> just for silent-film junkies. This is for general film. I think you
> were assuming that I was coming into silent film areas and saying
> things about old films to get a rise out of you people. I came in from
> current-films. But whatever.
I made no such assumption. If you carefully re-read my posts, I was the
first to point out the cross-posting was occuring. I also simply pointed out
that your knowledge of cinema over the decades was obviously limited. And I
hate to break this to you, but when the thread is called "Strong and Weak
Film Decades," a thread which opens the door for to argue for ANY decade,
whether it be the 1910s, the 2000s, or anything in between. You brought this
on yourself by the foolhardy decision to try to dismiss eight of those
decades!
> To repeat, I wasn't really making a grand pronouncement when I said I
> didn't like "old films." You said above that "to have a better all
> round understanding of cinema, [I] need to see a LOT more films..."
Well, you do, don't you?
:-)
> Well, again, I never said that I was saying that old films are bad; I
> never said I had a perfect understanding of films. Actually, I've seen
> precious few "old" films and don't pretend to be well-versed in them.
Be aware that most of the people posting in alt.movies.silent have seen a
LOT of old movies, from EVERY decade, and either have written, are currently
writing, or should be writing, books on film. You've a sparrow who's walked
into a room filled with eagles and hawks. Your only break is that most of
the eagles don't think you're worth the trouble...
;-)
> That was part of my point, originally; I was saying that I found them
> off-putting. I presented my personal tastes on the subject and you
> took it as an offence.
I certainly have no problem with people prefering films made in our own
time, because -- obviously -- our own time is the easiest to relate to.
And personal tastes are personal tastes, whether others agreed with it or
not. No, what I, and many others took offense with, is your suggestion that
your preference was based on a basic deficiency in older movies not being
"realistic" enough, which not only wasn't fair, but as I'm sure you've
become increasingly aware, not even a good descriptive word to say. What the
problem really is, is not a flaw in "realism" in older cinema, but with your
own personal gratifications. In other words, you can't relate to "old
movies," because those "old movies" were not designed with you in mind. How
could they be? A 1920s films was designed for a 20s audience, a 50s film for
viewers of the 50s, and so on. They weren't, in the absolute sense, made for
YOU. However, that in no way makes them "lesser" films, as audiences of a
future time will probably be dumbfounded that "Titanic" was so popular in
the 1990s makes it no less of a hit now. We, as people, change. The films
made do not (hopefully).
> I'm basically just a regular joe who likes to watch movies. I never
> said I was a professor of film or whatnot. I'm just expressing my
> personal sensibilities.
All the more power to you. Just try not to piss on somebody else's art while
honoring what you do like.
> As for the "belief that films were under a banner of self-censorship
> before the 1960s," I never implied that films before a certain date
> were fundamentally "censored" while films after a certain date were
> fundamentally "free of censorship."
Umm... well, American films between the 1930s and the 1960s WERE strongly
self-censored by the Hollywood industry -- which would help explain WHY you
may feel about older films as you do. As most pre-1933 films, which were not
self-censored, are much harder to see, this would also feed into your false
"realistic" hypothesis about older movies.
> Film, and every other art form, is
> always censored to what the artist believes the public can or should
> tolerate, or likely instead what he _himself_ believes acceptable.
Nah, film's a business. What the artist feels doesn't always count. Often,
not at all.
> There is no such thing as free art; it's always created within the
> social fabric of its time. Films from the 1940s largely catered to
> what was then deemed acceptable. Do you honestly think a film from
> 1948 would have entered general release if it had had a graphic rape
> scene, for instance?
No, but I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see such a scene in a 1928 film.
I just haven't found one like that.
:-)
>But things are similar today, and will always be.
> I'm not sure a film from 2001 would be able to enter general release
> if it had a graphic rape scene. We'll never be "free" of social
> constraints, whatever they may be at any given time. What I'm saying
> is that we're LESS constrained in SOME areas today then we were fifty
> years ago; there's absolutely no denying that.
No denials, but you seem to keep missing my counter-point. Freedoms do not
constantly increase. They come and go depending on the desires of each
generation. Artistic freedoms in films were lost in the 1930s, regained in
the 1960s, and (sad to say) may be more restrictive in a future time. You
need to look at the whole flow of art in film history, not just the freedoms
film makers gained between 1955 and 1975. That's just the upswing of a
wave... and besides, believe it or not, we're MORE constrained in SOME
areas, than we were seventy-five years ago!
David B. Pearson
David B. Pearson
> From: supervermi...@hotmail.com (Bag of Rats)
> Organization: http://groups.google.com/
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films,alt.movies.silent
> Date: 3 Nov 2001 15:36:05 -0800
> Subject: Re: Strong and Weak Film Decades?
>
>>> I've never heard of this film "Black Belt Jones," but it doesn't
>>> exactly sound like a model of brilliant filmmaking.
>>
>> If you've never heard of "Black Belt Jones" then you clearly don't
>> know enough about film history to hold your own with these guys, or
>> any other guys for that matter.
>
> In your judgement I may not "know enough" to "hold my own" with these
> or other guys, but I seem to be holding just fine.
Nah. You've already lost it badly. You just don't realize it yet.
DBP
Frederica
Frederica
says...
>I should perhaps have added that in my view there are different things
Uhhh...hmmmm. You know, it is just a teensy bit possible that you are taking
life wayyyyyyy too seriously. So far you've talked about terror, pain, the
barrenness of a universe I find incredibly rich and vivid, and queasiness. You
are certainly entitled to your opinions and beliefs (as we are entitled to
ours), but you are beginning to sound like Holden Caulfield.
Frederica
Robert Keser
> From: (Bag of Rats)
>
> Do you honestly think a film from
> > 1948 would have entered general release if it had had a graphic rape
> > scene, for instance?
>
> No, but I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see such a scene in a 1928 film.
> I just haven't found one like that.
>
> David B. Pearson
Actually, I recently saw a 1927 exploitation film called Street of
Forgotten Women [no credits on the film or on IMDb] about a
particularly dim young debutante who foolishly defies her wealthy
father and gets disinherited, which starts her on the slide down the
social chute to final entrapment in a brothel. The climax (forgive me)
of the film shows a startlingly violent rape scene which goes on and on
and on: no flesh is bared, yet the graphic assault captures the violation
of an individual in a much more shocking way than mere physical details
would. What makes it even more disturbing is that this was clearly the
"money scene" for the audience. (The morning after, another prostitute
tells her to "get used to it"). This is not much as a movie--with minimal
sets and an utterly charisma-free heroine (ski-nose and fat sausage
curls)--but it certainly teaches a lesson in social history.
Bob Keser
David Manning
<3a8c0f99.01110...@posting.google.com>...
> I should perhaps have added that in my view there are different things
> a film can attempt to do. It can be entertainment, or it can attempt
> to convey a reality. These aren't mutually exclusive, but sometimes
> only one rather than both elements distinguish an artistic work.
Okay, but isn't this the standard view, held by most critics, that
there's a difference between mere entertainment (which exists to
divert) and true works of art (that may very well entertain but also
attempt to deal honestly with the human condition, to enlighten, or
to address serious issues in a meaningful way)?
> I was
> only addressing the more "serious," "literary" function, if such terms
> are of use or meaning. I agree with you completely about entertainment
> being of value; indeed, I don't officially value anything besides
> entertainment. But sometimes, something else in art that is completely
> different, perhaps, is needed. Sometimes, we need to feel that others
> understand what we are feeling, that we are not alone in the universe.
> This is the existential quandary with which we are all of us all too
> familiar. This is a need for something other than entertainment; it's
> what I meant when I used the word "reality;" I should perhaps have
> instead used the phrase "experiential reality," "existential
> experience," or something similar.
I'm not so sure we ought to "officially value" entertainment over art.
Shouldn't we value both and not pretend that the former is the same as
the latter? The "need for something other than entertainment" would be
the "need for art" in what I've always understood to be the standard
view on these topics.
> What I
> was trying to get at, I believe, was that film today seems to be a
> little (not much, just slightly) better able to deal with the
> existential terrors and queasiness that I have experienced as a
> significant part of my personal reality. ... But this isn't to say
> that we are now at a place qualitatively different and better, or
> "more realistic," than where we were in 1947 or whenever; it's a
> continuum and there's still a lot of progress to be made in terms
> of understanding what we are trying to do when we make a film.
I think it might be more accurate to say this: Since, at any given
time, the majority of artworks produced are going to be failures of
art or entertainment (or both), one has to look to those few works
that qualify as successes in order to make a serious judgment about
the particular art form in question. So, when it's argued that
pre-1970s movies are "crippled fatally" by an inability to face
"reality" (or to put it a different way: to achieve the status of
true works of art), it's hard to take the statement seriously partly
because it's true of post-1970s films as well.
When Frederica responded to this post, she invoked Holden Caulfield,
but I was reminded more of director Ingmar Bergman's work in the
late fifties and sixties which deals exactly with those issues
Bag of Rats finds unaddressed (or poorly addressed) in pre-1970s
cinema -- the idea of near-isolation in a "barren universe," the
"existential terrors" of life, and how one copes with the
inevitability of "approaching death." Like Bergman's films or not,
they are generally considered among the great works of twentieth
century cinema, descending from other important achievements like
"Citizen Kane" and the German Expressionism of the 1920s.
Well, these are the sort of pre-1970s films that Bag of Rats
might find of interest because they give the lie to the notion that
today's cinema is somehow "a little (not much, just slightly) better
able to deal with" such topics. (In fact, some will argue that
they've never been better dealt with than in the Bergman films --
but that, I think we all would agree, is a matter of taste).
The reality is (pardon the expression) that, in the hands of
serious artists, the cinema since the time of Griffith, Seastrom,
Chaplin, etc., and the social problem films discussed by historian
Kevin Brownlow in his invaluable "Behind the Mask of Innocence" has
always been able to face "reality" and deal with the human condition,
both entertainingly and artfully, for those discerning enough to give
it a chance -- and will continue to do so, as any vibrant artform
would.
> You go on to say that you
> occasionally are faced with the rare film that attempts to "educate"
> you, and that your reaction is to abandon the theatre. I think this
> "literary" function of a film, however, is not at all about
> "education;" I think either that you misunderstand intent or else that
> filmmakers don't always understand what the natural prerogatives of
> art are (i.e., what I want to see in a film... boy, am I going to get
> nailed for this comment). The point is, the "literary" function of art
> shouldn't, in my opinion anyway, be to "educate" or somehow "better"
> us. Maybe some people believe that "spiritual health" (to use another
> poetic, not literal, turn of phrase) can be learned through some kind
> of information. These are the religious, those who think they are
> right and we are wrong and if we only knew what they know then we'd be
> okay. My point is, I disagree. I think that all a literary function in
> art can do is to keep us company, to say to us: "You're sort of alone,
> true: but not completely because I am too and I understand some of
> what you're feeling, if not all of it." Isn't that the best that we
> can hope for in this utterly barren universe of ours? It doesn't
> really work, but it's all we've got, and maybe for some of the time it
> will dampen the terror and pain just a little bit. If so, I say it's
> worth doing once in a while. Then we can go back to our entertainment,
> to keep our minds off the fact that death is approaching all of us so
> quickly that we'll be dead soon no matter what happens. You gotta kill
> time. So yes, I agree that entertainment is necessary.
Okay, Frederica prefers to be entertained rather than enlightened.
And Hollywood prefers to entertain rather than enlighten. And
Hitchcock prefers to serve you "a piece of cake" rather than "a slice
of life." But wouldn't we all agree that a steady diet of cake will
make you fat and sick no matter how good it tastes?
_______________________________________________
David Manning
"The Greatest Film Critic Since Sliced Bread"®™
Paid for by Sony, Inc. -- Makers of Crap and an Occasional Work of Art
Bag of Rats
I was just trying to reach out to those who currently hate me by
showing my sensitive side. That's all. I was trying to defuse the
bickerfest by showing some compassion and understanding of my fellow
man. But you don't have to take it too seriously.
Bag of Rats
Wait a sec... are you saying that Holden was misguided in some way?
David B. Pearson
> From: quote...@yahoo.com (David Manning)
> Okay, Frederica prefers to be entertained rather than enlightened.
> And Hollywood prefers to entertain rather than enlighten. And
> Hitchcock prefers to serve you "a piece of cake" rather than "a slice
> of life." But wouldn't we all agree that a steady diet of cake will
> make you fat and sick no matter how good it tastes?
No.
And any filmmaking joker who inflicts an "artistic vision" on a moviegoing
public at the expense of the audience's entertaintment -- who paid hard
earned money to be entertained for a couple of hours -- should not only be
forced to repay the ticket price of any audience member who felt cheated of
their money, but also pay an extra fee compensating the damages caused on
the audience by the director for wasting the audience's time with "artistic"
crap.
Movies are made for the audience's pleasure, not the director's ego.
David B. Pearson
Bag of Rats
> From: supervermi...@hotmail.com (Bag of Rats)
> >
> > You know what? You've been taking what I said way too seriously. I
> > thought that my initial comment was obviously a light-hearted
> > insignificance. But now you're getting angry when I try to modify my
> > jokes to make them into a more serious conversation. But that's
> > perfectly legitimate; I'm not hiding it.
>
> LOL.
> No, actually I took your first post as something someone quite ignorant
> might say. Your second "revised" opinion seemed much more reasonble, as a
> adolesant might do when trying desperately trying to cover up the gross
> error in judgement made in the eariler post. The attempt to "cover up" your
> original errors are perfectly understandable. But that you failed to yet
> get, is the continued historical errors in the second posts.
I don't remember if you were the person who chided me on spelling
before, but if you were, I now point out that the word "adolescent" is
spelled thusly rather than "adolesant," as you spelled it. If you
weren't that person, I won't point that out at this juncture.
To be serious for a moment: as for your comment about how you
"actually" took my initial posting, you say you believed it was posted
by someone ignorant. However, as I've said many times by now, it was
not exactly meant as a serious statement. That should have been
obvious from the tone. But if it was not originally, it should be
apparent by now, since I have already explained in subsequent postings
that I did not take it very seriously. You've failed to adjust to
this, however, continuing on with your initial incorrect assumption
that it was not a tongue-in-cheek statement but a perfectly serious
one. You say that I am attempting to "cover up" my "original errors."
I'm not. I was taking the perfectly legitimate tack of adding to my
initial comments. That's what a conversation is about; you don't go
into it with everything perfectly formed, and those like you who take
initial lead-in warm-up statements as the ultimate proclamation of
someone's views are not really allowing for the nature of how
conversations work.
> > May I remind you that this is being posted to
> > rec.arts.movies.current-films as well as alt.movies.silent. This isn't
> > just for silent-film junkies. This is for general film. I think you
> > were assuming that I was coming into silent film areas and saying
> > things about old films to get a rise out of you people. I came in from
> > current-films. But whatever.
>
> I made no such assumption. If you carefully re-read my posts, I was the
> first to point out the cross-posting was occuring. I also simply pointed out
> that your knowledge of cinema over the decades was obviously limited. And I
> hate to break this to you, but when the thread is called "Strong and Weak
> Film Decades," a thread which opens the door for to argue for ANY decade,
> whether it be the 1910s, the 2000s, or anything in between. You brought this
> on yourself by the foolhardy decision to try to dismiss eight of those
> decades!
I made no foolhardy decision to dismiss eight decades. I said that I
didn't like some as much as others. It was obviously not a
particularly serious statement; making any kind of overall assessment
of decades is obviously a parlour-game sort of thing and not really a
serious discussion at all. You people turned a parlour-game INTO a
serious discussion (or a fight) AFTER you heard me say something that
you didn't think funny. That's not really a legitimate tactic,
although I didn't call you on it at the time.
So it was not I who was foolhardy. It was you in failing to understand
the nature of what was happening.
> > To repeat, I wasn't really making a grand pronouncement when I said I
> > didn't like "old films." You said above that "to have a better all
> > round understanding of cinema, [I] need to see a LOT more films..."
>
> Well, you do, don't you?
I never said I didn't. Indeed, I go on to state that I haven't seen
many films. Again, my initial statement that everyone jumped on was
just a statement of my current feelings about "old" films. I phrased
it as such. I did not say, "Old films are stupid." I did not say, "I
hate all old films and they're stupid and anyone who thinks they're
good is stupid." I said nothing of the sort. I did say that I didn't
like a lot of old films. That's a statement of opinion. If you think
that your opinion is more valid than mine, then you're being
exclusionist, which is usually considered a "bad" thing. If we are
only allowed to voice an opinion on a subject that we have a perfect
understanding of, then few would ever voice opinion on anything. In
fact, you might not even be able to voice opinions on the current
subject either, if perfect and not partial understanding were
required. As I said already, I never claimed to have a degree in film
history.
>
> > Well, again, I never said that I was saying that old films are bad; I
> > never said I had a perfect understanding of films. Actually, I've seen
> > precious few "old" films and don't pretend to be well-versed in them.
>
> Be aware that most of the people posting in alt.movies.silent have seen a
> LOT of old movies, from EVERY decade, and either have written, are currently
> writing, or should be writing, books on film. You've a sparrow who's walked
> into a room filled with eagles and hawks. Your only break is that most of
> the eagles don't think you're worth the trouble...
"A sparrow who's walked into a room filled with eagles"? What an ego
on you. As if this were really some cutthroat milieu in which I could
be genuinely hurt. Yeah, you people are _real_ badasses. Give me a
break.
Actually, the analogy is wrong. Eagles would actually be able to eat
the sparrow. You can't physically harm me. So there is no actual
threat hanging over my head. This means that we are logistical equals.
Whether you believe your intellect superior to mine or whatever, this
is a free discussion forum open to anyone on the internet; you've had
a decade or so to get used to this fact. This isn't a private club;
you can't throw me out. If you don't want to talk to me, don't. You've
called me a fool. What do they say about people who argue with fools?
Like you're some badass bikers and I've walked into your bar. Give me
a break. Bikers would eat you alive the same as they'd eat me. You're
writing little books on movies, you're not mafiosi.
>
> > That was part of my point, originally; I was saying that I found them
> > off-putting. I presented my personal tastes on the subject and you
> > took it as an offence.
>
> I certainly have no problem with people prefering films made in our own
> time, because -- obviously -- our own time is the easiest to relate to.
> And personal tastes are personal tastes, whether others agreed with it or
> not. No, what I, and many others took offense with, is your suggestion that
> your preference was based on a basic deficiency in older movies not being
> "realistic" enough, which not only wasn't fair, but as I'm sure you've
> become increasingly aware, not even a good descriptive word to say.
I have to insist that you stop using the word "realistic." It is not
constructive; as I've already established elsewhere, the word has no
real objective meaning and I myself haven't used it for some time now.
"Realistic" means many different things or nothing at all and if you
think that it was a suggestion that my preference was based on a basic
deficiency in older movies, you are not getting the point.
>What the
> problem really is, is not a flaw in "realism" in older cinema, but with your
> own personal gratifications. In other words, you can't relate to "old
> movies," because those "old movies" were not designed with you in mind. How
> could they be? A 1920s films was designed for a 20s audience, a 50s film for
> viewers of the 50s, and so on. They weren't, in the absolute sense, made for
> YOU. However, that in no way makes them "lesser" films, as audiences of a
> future time will probably be dumbfounded that "Titanic" was so popular in
> the 1990s makes it no less of a hit now. We, as people, change. The films
> made do not (hopefully).
>
> > I'm basically just a regular joe who likes to watch movies. I never
> > said I was a professor of film or whatnot. I'm just expressing my
> > personal sensibilities.
>
> All the more power to you. Just try not to piss on somebody else's art while
> honoring what you do like.
I'm not pissing anywhere. I stated my personal tastes. You took it as
a personal insult or something. We were having a light discussion and
I made a joke. You seem to have had no sense of humour.
> > As for the "belief that films were under a banner of self-censorship
> > before the 1960s," I never implied that films before a certain date
> > were fundamentally "censored" while films after a certain date were
> > fundamentally "free of censorship."
>
> Umm... well, American films between the 1930s and the 1960s WERE strongly
> self-censored by the Hollywood industry -- which would help explain WHY you
> may feel about older films as you do. As most pre-1933 films, which were not
> self-censored, are much harder to see, this would also feed into your false
> "realistic" hypothesis about older movies.
I have no "realistic" "hypothesis" about "older" movies. I've already
stated this several times. And films, whether you believe it or not,
are still censored by the Hollywood industry. I said as much below.
> > Film, and every other art form, is
> > always censored to what the artist believes the public can or should
> > tolerate, or likely instead what he _himself_ believes acceptable.
>
> Nah, film's a business. What the artist feels doesn't always count. Often,
> not at all.
Maybe in Hollywood. You know, the American industry is not exactly the
entire world of film. Who's being ignorant of the greater artistic
landscape now? I wasn't talking just about Hollywood. "It's a big
world out there."
> > There is no such thing as free art; it's always created within the
> > social fabric of its time. Films from the 1940s largely catered to
> > what was then deemed acceptable. Do you honestly think a film from
> > 1948 would have entered general release if it had had a graphic rape
> > scene, for instance?
>
> No, but I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see such a scene in a 1928 film.
> I just haven't found one like that.
>
> :-)
>
> >But things are similar today, and will always be.
> > I'm not sure a film from 2001 would be able to enter general release
> > if it had a graphic rape scene. We'll never be "free" of social
> > constraints, whatever they may be at any given time. What I'm saying
> > is that we're LESS constrained in SOME areas today then we were fifty
> > years ago; there's absolutely no denying that.
>
> No denials, but you seem to keep missing my counter-point. Freedoms do not
> constantly increase. They come and go depending on the desires of each
> generation. Artistic freedoms in films were lost in the 1930s, regained in
> the 1960s, and (sad to say) may be more restrictive in a future time. You
> need to look at the whole flow of art in film history, not just the freedoms
> film makers gained between 1955 and 1975. That's just the upswing of a
> wave... and besides, believe it or not, we're MORE constrained in SOME
> areas, than we were seventy-five years ago!
I never said freedoms constantly increase. Who said that? No one. It's
all in flux, constant flux. Again you assumed something not stated.
I'm not saying there is inexorable progress; god knows that's the
stupidest historical idea of all time. I compared us to the scene
fifty years ago; I didn't compare us to the scene eighty years ago.
Robert Keser
lighthearted and others were attempts to show your sensitive side. It's
no disgrace to grapple with history and art, trying to work out your ideas,
but posing just annoys people. We're here to talk about films, not about
you (take a look below at how many times you use "I").
So, let's get down to business: tell us the movies that you like and why
you like them. Then tell us the movies you don't like and why.
By the way, it will come as a surprise to real scholars of film history
that "making any kind of overall assessment of decades is obviously a
parlour-game sort of thing and not really a serious discussion at all." It's
only a parlor-game if you haven't amassed the tools to participate.
Bob Keser
Bag of Rats wrote:
> "David B. Pearson" <da...@silent-movies.com> wrote in message news:<B80A1310.3D18%da...@silent-movies.com>...
> > From: supervermi...@hotmail.com (Bag of Rats)
> > >
> > > You know what? You've been taking what I said way too seriously. I
> > > thought that my initial comment was obviously a light-hearted
> > > insignificance. But now you're getting angry when I try to modify my
> > > jokes...I'm not hiding it.
> >
> > I don't remember...I now point out that ... I won't point that out ...
>
> as I've said many times by now, ...I have already explained ...
>
> that I did not take it very seriously.
> I am attempting to "cover up" ...
> I'm not. I was taking the perfectly legitimate tack ...
>
> I think you
> > > were assuming that I was coming into silent film areas... I came in from
> > > current-films. I made no foolhardy decision to dismiss eight decades. I said that I didn't like some as
> much as others. ... I didn't call you on it at the time...So it was not I who was foolhardy.
>
> > > To repeat, I wasn't really making a grand pronouncement when I said I
> > > didn't like "old films."
>
> I never said I didn't. Indeed, I go on to state that I haven't .... I phrased
> it as such. I did not say, "Old films are stupid." I did not say, "I
> hate all old films ...." I said nothing of the sort. I did say that I didn't
> like a lot of old films. ... As I said already, I never claimed to have a degree in film
> history.
>
> >I never said that I was saying that old films are bad; I
> > > never said I had a perfect understanding of films. Actually, I've seen
> > > precious few "old" films ...
> >... some cutthroat milieu in which I could
> be genuinely hurt....Like you're some badass bikers and I've walked into your bar.>
> ...I was saying that I found them... I presented my personal tastes
> >...I have to insist...as I've already established elsewhere...I myself haven't used it ...I'm basically just a
> regular joe.... I never said I was a professor of film or whatnot. I'm just expressing my personal
> sensibilities....I'm not pissing anywhere.
> I stated my personal tastes. ...
> I made a joke. You seem to have had no sense of humour.
>
> I never implied ...
> I have no "realistic" "hypothesis" about "older" movies. I've already
> stated this.... I said as much below....I wasn't talking just about Hollywood.
>
> I never said freedoms constantly increase.
> I'm not saying there is inexorable progress...I compared us to the scene
Lulu The Cow
Rats) wrote:
>Lulu The Cow <nos...@myserver.com> wrote in message news:<4kg8ut4apqbjuqn7q...@4ax.com>...
>> On 2 Nov 2001 14:13:57 -0800, supervermi...@hotmail.com (Bag of
>> Rats) wrote:
>> >I've never heard of this film "Black Belt Jones," but it doesn't
>> >exactly sound like a model of brilliant filmmaking.
>>
>> If you've never heard of "Black Belt Jones" then you clearly don't
>> know enough about film history to hold your own with these guys, or
>> any other guys for that matter.
>
>In your judgement I may not "know enough" to "hold my own" with these
>or other guys, but I seem to be holding just fine.
True... If this debate is happening in Fantasyland...
Cheers,
Todd "The kiddie pool is too deep for you" McNeeley
David B. Pearson
>
> "David B. Pearson" <da...@silent-movies.com> wrote in message
> news:<B80A1310.3D18%da...@silent-movies.com>...
>> From: supervermi...@hotmail.com (Bag of Rats)
>>>
>>> You know what? You've been taking what I said way too seriously. I
>>> thought that my initial comment was obviously a light-hearted
>>> insignificance. But now you're getting angry when I try to modify my
>>> perfectly legitimate; I'm not hiding it.
>>
>> LOL.
>> No, actually I took your first post as something someone quite ignorant
>> might say. Your second "revised" opinion seemed much more reasonble, as a
>> adolesant might do when trying desperately trying to cover up the gross
>> error in judgement made in the eariler post. The attempt to "cover up" your
>> original errors are perfectly understandable. But that you failed to yet
>> get, is the continued historical errors in the second posts.
>
>
> I don't remember if you were the person who chided me on spelling
> before, but if you were, I now point out that the word "adolescent" is
> spelled thusly rather than "adolesant," as you spelled it. If you
I wasn't, but as you've openly admitted you're an idiot (see below), it
really doesn't matter whether I mispell "adolescent" or not, does it?
:-)
> To be serious for a moment:
Something "serious" by an idiot called "Bag of Rats?" Indeed...
> as for your comment about how you
> "actually" took my initial posting, you say you believed it was posted
> by someone ignorant.
Well, your posts speak for themselves.
:-)
> However, as I've said many times by now, it was
> not exactly meant as a serious statement.
> That should have been
> obvious from the tone.
Funny no one seemed to get the "joke."
And frankly, I find what you are saying now is much more funny.
>But if it was not originally, it should be
> apparent by now, since I have already explained in subsequent postings
> that I did not take it very seriously.
Of course. That why you keep writing long, long, posts trying to explain
what you mean, without even using a single film as a point of reference.
So, why are you posting on ANY film group -- silent, current, or whatever??
> You've failed to adjust to
> this, however, continuing on with your initial incorrect assumption
> that it was not a tongue-in-cheek statement but a perfectly serious
> one. You say that I am attempting to "cover up" my "original errors."
> I'm not. I was taking the perfectly legitimate tack of adding to my
> initial comments.
No. What happened was that YOU made an incredibly stupid statement about
film. Everyone called YOU on it. YOU made a second stupid statement trying
to explain the stupidity of the first. YOU were called on the second stupid
posting. Then YOU tried to pretend YOU were "just joking" -- which makes YOU
look even MORE STUPID because YOU have wasted everyone's time. Especially
YOUR own time writing these imbecilic dumbass responses of YOURS, which now
reasonable person would believe.
> That's what a conversation is about; you don't go
> into it with everything perfectly formed, and those like you who take
> initial lead-in warm-up statements as the ultimate proclamation of
> someone's views are not really allowing for the nature of how
> conversations work.
No that's how a chatline works. This is a newsgroup.
Get lost until you've got your act together enough to see some movies.
As you claim not like most movies, and really haven't seen that many, maybe
you should stop making an ass of yourself.
Be realistic.
>>> May I remind you that this is being posted to
>>> rec.arts.movies.current-films as well as alt.movies.silent. This isn't
>>> just for silent-film junkies. This is for general film. I think you
>>> were assuming that I was coming into silent film areas and saying
>>> things about old films to get a rise out of you people. I came in from
>>> current-films. But whatever.
>>
>> I made no such assumption. If you carefully re-read my posts, I was the
>> first to point out the cross-posting was occuring. I also simply pointed out
>
>> that your knowledge of cinema over the decades was obviously limited. And I
>> hate to break this to you, but when the thread is called "Strong and Weak
>> Film Decades," a thread which opens the door for to argue for ANY decade,
>> whether it be the 1910s, the 2000s, or anything in between. You brought this
>> on yourself by the foolhardy decision to try to dismiss eight of those
>> decades!
>
> I made no foolhardy decision to dismiss eight decades. I said that I
> didn't like some as much as others.
No idiot. What you said was:
> > The only decades I like are the seventies and nineties, to be frank. I
> > like precious little from earlier eras; I find that "old" films are so
> > unrealistic that they do not even touch upon most of the fundamental
> > issues of existance. It seems to me that films from the first half of
> > the century were crippled fatally by being a product of a civilisation
> > that was not yet able to be realistic. They seem as though they were
> > made for children. I know that sounds like an ignorant viewpoint, and
> > god knows I've tried to like older films, because I have a strong
> > respect for history and would like to be able to experience cultural
> > continuity, but I largely can't. I basically just like new ones. Apart
> > from some of the early pioneering stuff from the seventies, I
> > basically stick to the nineties.
Does anybody else out there think this guy was going for comedy?
>It was obviously not a
> particularly serious statement;
Sure doesn't read too funny to me.
> making any kind of overall assessment
> of decades is obviously a parlour-game sort of thing and not really a
> serious discussion at all.
Only an idiot who hasn't seem any films could make such a statement.
> You people turned a parlour-game INTO a
> serious discussion (or a fight) AFTER you heard me say something that
> you didn't think funny.
What happened was simply this: you brought a pen knife to a gun fight.
We laughed, and we shot you!!!
>That's not really a legitimate tactic,
> although I didn't call you on it at the time.
But, as Archie said, you certainly are now trying to call that, now that
you've been laughably crushed, haven't you?
;-)
> So it was not I who was foolhardy. It was you in failing to understand
> the nature of what was happening.
I understood prefectly.
You are WAY out of your depth, and trying desperately to save face.
>>> To repeat, I wasn't really making a grand pronouncement when I said I
>>> didn't like "old films." You said above that "to have a better all
>>> round understanding of cinema, [I] need to see a LOT more films..."
>>
>> Well, you do, don't you?
>
> I never said I didn't. Indeed, I go on to state that I haven't seen
> many films.
Yet, you continue to post in film groups as if you know what you talking
about.
WHY??
> As I said already, I never claimed to have a degree in film
> history.
LOL.
Certainly, no one is accusing you of that!
>> Be aware that most of the people posting in alt.movies.silent have seen a
>> LOT of old movies, from EVERY decade, and either have written, are currently
>> writing, or should be writing, books on film. You've a sparrow who's walked
>> into a room filled with eagles and hawks. Your only break is that most of
>> the eagles don't think you're worth the trouble...
>
> "A sparrow who's walked into a room filled with eagles"? What an ego
> on you.
No, it's just that most everybody else in this newsgroup DOES have a degree
in film... or something equivalent, or better.
> As if this were really some cutthroat milieu in which I could
> be genuinely hurt. Yeah, you people are _real_ badasses. Give me a
> break.
Yep, this joker IS a teenager.
> Actually, the analogy is wrong. Eagles would actually be able to eat
> the sparrow. You can't physically harm me. So there is no actual
> threat hanging over my head. This means that we are logistical equals.
On the subject of FILM??? Show me...
> Whether you believe your intellect superior to mine or whatever...
I'm afraid topping you is not a major feat.
> this
> is a free discussion forum open to anyone on the internet; you've had
> a decade or so to get used to this fact.
That's right. You have the right to be stupid.
I also have the right to point and laugh.
Now fly away, little starling. Fly away...
> This isn't a private club;
> you can't throw me out.
> If you don't want to talk to me, don't.
I didn't start it. But I do think I'm about to see the finish.
> You've
> called me a fool.
Well?
:-)
> What do they say about people who argue with fools?
Now, that's better. I'm glad you've come forward and admitted you are a
fool. Doesn't that make you feel more realistic about your limited skills?
:-)
> Like you're some badass bikers and I've walked into your bar. Give me
> a break. Bikers would eat you alive the same as they'd eat me. You're
> writing little books on movies, you're not mafiosi.
I don't know if the mafiosi would be willing to take on alt.movies.silent
members in a "Strong and Weak Film Decade" thread.
>>> That was part of my point, originally; I was saying that I found them
>>> off-putting. I presented my personal tastes on the subject and you
>>> took it as an offence.
>>
>> I certainly have no problem with people prefering films made in our own
>> time, because -- obviously -- our own time is the easiest to relate to.
>> And personal tastes are personal tastes, whether others agreed with it or
>> not. No, what I, and many others took offense with, is your suggestion that
>> your preference was based on a basic deficiency in older movies not being
>> "realistic" enough, which not only wasn't fair, but as I'm sure you've
>> become increasingly aware, not even a good descriptive word to say.
>
> I have to insist that you stop using the word "realistic." It is not
> constructive; as I've already established elsewhere, the word has no
> real objective meaning and I myself haven't used it for some time now.
> "Realistic" means many different things or nothing at all and if you
> think that it was a suggestion that my preference was based on a basic
> deficiency in older movies, you are not getting the point.
Now, let's be realistic here... You haven't seen many movies. (Maybe not
any.) You don't like most movies. Why WASTE the time of people who DO LIKE
MOVIES?
You simply need to be more realistic in your expectations about reality.
:-)
>> What the
>> problem really is, is not a flaw in "realism" in older cinema, but with your
>
>> own personal gratifications. In other words, you can't relate to "old
>> movies," because those "old movies" were not designed with you in mind. How
>> could they be? A 1920s films was designed for a 20s audience, a 50s film for
>
>> viewers of the 50s, and so on. They weren't, in the absolute sense, made for
>
>> YOU. However, that in no way makes them "lesser" films, as audiences of a
>> future time will probably be dumbfounded that "Titanic" was so popular in
>> the 1990s makes it no less of a hit now. We, as people, change. The films
>> made do not (hopefully).
>>
>>> I'm basically just a regular joe who likes to watch movies. I never
>>> said I was a professor of film or whatnot. I'm just expressing my
>>> personal sensibilities.
>>
>> All the more power to you. Just try not to piss on somebody else's art while
>
>> honoring what you do like.
>
> I'm not pissing anywhere. I stated my personal tastes. You took it as
> a personal insult or something. We were having a light discussion and
> I made a joke. You seem to have had no sense of humour.
Hmmm... so how can be sure what you are writing now isn't a joke?
There doesn't seem to be any realistic way of knowing. is there?
>>> As for the "belief that films were under a banner of self-censorship
>>> before the 1960s," I never implied that films before a certain date
>>> were fundamentally "censored" while films after a certain date were
>>> fundamentally "free of censorship."
>>
>> Umm... well, American films between the 1930s and the 1960s WERE strongly
>> self-censored by the Hollywood industry -- which would help explain WHY you
>> may feel about older films as you do. As most pre-1933 films, which were not
>
>> self-censored, are much harder to see, this would also feed into your false
>> "realistic" hypothesis about older movies.
>
> I have no "realistic" "hypothesis" about "older" movies. I've already
> stated this several times.
Oh, I'm sorry. I persumed you thought about what you were writing before you
wrote it.
> And films, whether you believe it or not,
> are still censored by the Hollywood industry. I said as much below.
OH MY GOD!!!! THEY ARE?? Well, shuck my jowls! You mean, they don't allow
internet child porn viewing in the theatres yet?
(shrug)
Maybe that's TOO realistic.
>>> Film, and every other art form, is
>>> always censored to what the artist believes the public can or should
>>> tolerate, or likely instead what he _himself_ believes acceptable.
>>
>> Nah, film's a business. What the artist feels doesn't always count. Often,
>> not at all.
>
> Maybe in Hollywood. You know, the American industry is not exactly the
> entire world of film.
Just the part most everybody in the world wants to be involved in...
> Who's being ignorant of the greater artistic
> landscape now? I wasn't talking just about Hollywood. "It's a big
> world out there."
You mean, you weren't joking that time??
> stupidest historical idea of all time. I compared us to the scene
> fifty years ago; I didn't compare us to the scene eighty years ago.
Well, you certainly aren't saying that NOW...
;-/
DBP
David Manning
Entertainment has its place and ought to be valued when it's successful.
There's nothing intrinsically wrong with a work meant only to divert.
But if the publishing business were nothing but murder mysteries and
bodice-ripping romances, etc., even if excellently done, there would
be no such thing as serious literature and the culture would be the
poorer for it. I don't think anyone would argue otherwise. Same with
the film industry and the art of serious cinema.
Serious artists (for example, the sort of filmmakers mentioned in
one of David Cavallo's posts earlier in this thread) will certainly
try to engage and entertain an audience. The "filmmaking joker who
inflicts an 'artistic vision' on a moviegoing public at the expense
of the audience's entertaintment" is either a failed artist or an
artist that has misjudged the intended audience (may, for example,
simply have gone over the audience's collective head and bored them).
We rightly criticize the failures as best we can.
Maybe the idea of Griffith, Keaton, W. C. Fields, and Jean Renoir
being forced to reimburse their bored audiences for having to sit
through such "artistic crap" as Intolerance, The General, The Fatal
Glass of Beer, and The Rules of the Game appeals to you but if
adopted as a general practice, it would probably result in a
film culture even more horrifyingly timid than the one we usually
have. For there to be any successes in an art form there have to be
failures and that means giving the artists the right to fail.
Movies are made for a variety of reasons, often to make a buck,
sometimes to challenge or even provoke an audience, etc. -- the
audience's pleasure and some filmmaker's ego may very well have
nothing to do with it. To pretend otherwise is to take an entirely
too narrow view of cinema. There's something aesthetically wrong
with pandering to an appetite for diversion at the expense of other
values and commitments.
"David B. Pearson" <da...@silent-movies.com> wrote in message news:
<B80B1D41.3D59%da...@silent-movies.com>...
David B. Pearson
From: quote...@yahoo.com (David Manning)
> I'm not sure this deserves a reply but here goes:
Thank you for your consideration.
> Entertainment has its place and ought to be valued when it's successful.
> There's nothing intrinsically wrong with a work meant only to divert.
> But if the publishing business were nothing but murder mysteries and
> bodice-ripping romances, etc., even if excellently done, there would
> be no such thing as serious literature and the culture would be the
> poorer for it. I don't think anyone would argue otherwise. Same with
> the film industry and the art of serious cinema.
This is a point I agree with in theory, but in practice I don't think your
point holds water.
You are quite right about our culture being all the better with the book
industry's ability to support serious literature, and for that matter,
non-fiction. However, someone who buys a book with the intention of reading
a murder mystery, or a bodice-ripping romance, is going to probably greatly
displeased that the mystery they are reading turns out to a bunch of Ernest
Hemingway type prose. If a book IS serious literture, it MUST certainly be
advertised as such.
Likewise, if a filmmaker wants to do an "artistic" film -- and I mean a film
that takes it outside the bounds of the popular cinema -- it would be in bad
taste to be presented as a mainstream film.
> Serious artists (for example, the sort of filmmakers mentioned in
> one of David Cavallo's posts earlier in this thread) will certainly
> try to engage and entertain an audience. The "filmmaking joker who
> inflicts an 'artistic vision' on a moviegoing public at the expense
> of the audience's entertaintment" is either a failed artist or an
> artist that has misjudged the intended audience (may, for example,
> simply have gone over the audience's collective head and bored them).
> We rightly criticize the failures as best we can.
We hardly need to. If a director has "gone over the audience's collective"
head, it's going to be brutally reflected in the film's box office returns.
And it will also likely damage audience trust in the director, not to
mention those who might finance future projects.
And this big difference between the mainstream film and book industries.
A film -- even a low budgeted one -- is a risky multi-million dollar
investment, that the director is betting that enough moviegoers will go see
the movie to cover that risk. Hopefully, a LOT more money than what was
invested. Art is great, but the botom line is about money. "Entertainment
films" usually brings money at the box office. "Art films" do not.
Generally, art films are a bad risk.
> Maybe the idea of Griffith, Keaton, W. C. Fields, and Jean Renoir
> being forced to reimburse their bored audiences for having to sit
> through such "artistic crap" as Intolerance, The General, The Fatal
> Glass of Beer, and The Rules of the Game appeals to you but if
> adopted as a general practice, it would probably result in a
> film culture even more horrifyingly timid than the one we usually
> have. For there to be any successes in an art form there have to be
> failures and that means giving the artists the right to fail.
Now we reached that "slippery slope" of the argument, and using some of my
favorite films at that.
Films like "Intolerance," "The General," and "The Fatal Glass of Beer," are
-- despite their deviations from the norms of their genres -- are still
clearly products of their genres. Intolerance is a epic drama (well... four
epic dramas). The General and The Fatal Glass of Beer are both clearly
comedy films. I don't think the audience would be justified in demanding
their money, as these films ARE meant to entertain, despite any additional
artist meanings. And, even as it were, the artistic factors probably DID
hurt those films.
As for Renoir's "Rules of the Game," I think that one proves my point. The
audience it was made for HATED it, because it was not the KIND of film the
audience were expecting. Likewise, today's classic horror film fans would
probably be displeased by having Dreyer's "Vampyr" foisted on them during a
"Dracula" festival, or imagine unleashing Luis Bunuel's "Age of Gold" on a
30s audience expecting the Marx Brothers.
Doing that sort of thing would be a cheat. And confined to "art houses," it
would be hard for a "serious" film of that ilk to make back its financial
return -- thereby killing the hopes of a second such "serious" film being
made.
> Movies are made for a variety of reasons, often to make a buck,
> sometimes to challenge or even provoke an audience, etc. -- the
> audience's pleasure and some filmmaker's ego may very well have
> nothing to do with it.
Most films are made to make a buck.
And I've never heard of a movie made with the intention of LOSING money.
(Except maybe somebody with a Mel Brooks sense of humor).
> To pretend otherwise is to take an entirely
> too narrow view of cinema. There's something aesthetically wrong
> with pandering to an appetite for diversion at the expense of other
> values and commitments.
It may aesthetically wrong, but I'm afraid it's what keeps -- and has kept
-- the film industry going. I may personally prefer the art of Griffith and
Keaton to the more commerical films of DeMille and Lloyd (who both catered
more to the mainstream) -- but that doesn't escape the hard fact that
Griffith and Keaton were forced out of moviemaking, while DeMille and Lloyd
lasted until THEY wanted to quit. The film artist rides the whirlwind at his
own risk.
David B. Pearson
Lulu The Cow
Rats) wrote:
>Frederica <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message news:<c42F7.11779$xS6....@www.newsranger.com>...
>> Uhhh...hmmmm. You know, it is just a teensy bit possible that you are taking
>> life wayyyyyyy too seriously. So far you've talked about terror, pain, the
>> barrenness of a universe I find incredibly rich and vivid, and queasiness. You
>> are certainly entitled to your opinions and beliefs (as we are entitled to
>> ours), but you are beginning to sound like Holden Caulfield.
>
>
>Wait a sec... are you saying that Holden was misguided in some way?
Now THAT is funny...
If a monkey bangs on the keys long enough...
Cheers,
Todd "And a good length too" McNeeley
Frederica
Bag of Rats wrote:
> > Uhhh...hmmmm. You know, it is just a teensy bit possible that you are taking
> > life wayyyyyyy too seriously. So far you've talked about terror, pain, the
> > barrenness of a universe I find incredibly rich and vivid, and queasiness. You
> > are certainly entitled to your opinions and beliefs (as we are entitled to
> > ours), but you are beginning to sound like Holden Caulfield.
> >
> > Frederica
>
> Wait a sec... are you saying that Holden was misguided in some way?
Oh...dear. How to say this? No, Holden was not "misguided." Holden was young and incredibly
self-absorbed, which--come to think of it--is a tautology. It isn't wrong or misguided until you hit
age 16, but after that it becomes quite tiresome. Most of us here are (AHEM!) enjoying the middle
period of our lives and we've seen a lot of Holden Caulfields come and go--heck, some of us probably did
time in Caulfieldland ourselves. Belly-button gazing is fascinating only to the owner of the button.
You came into a newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of silent films and issued a blanket dismissal of
the form. You are now saying this was done to elicit discussion. That is all well and good, but we are
not here to discuss art and philosophy and the universe, we're here to discuss silent films. (And from
a personal standpoint, I'm a "cut to the chase" kind of gal, so forgive me if I appear impatient.) You
are not unintelligent and I suspect that you have probably already grasped the idea that silent films
are simply a different method of storytelling (as is opera, ballet, and, yes, even Noh Theater). As
such silent film often deals with issues that are universal; if you don't think so, I highly recommend
that you hie yourself off to see a good theatrical presentation of GREED.
Frederica
Frederica
"David B. Pearson" wrote:
> > Okay, Frederica prefers to be entertained rather than enlightened.
> > And Hollywood prefers to entertain rather than enlighten. And
> > Hitchcock prefers to serve you "a piece of cake" rather than "a slice
> > of life." But wouldn't we all agree that a steady diet of cake will
> > make you fat and sick no matter how good it tastes?
WHO YOU CALLIN' FAT, FELLA??
>
>
> No.
>
> And any filmmaking joker who inflicts an "artistic vision" on a moviegoing
> public at the expense of the audience's entertaintment -- who paid hard
> earned money to be entertained for a couple of hours -- should not only be
> forced to repay the ticket price of any audience member who felt cheated of
> their money, but also pay an extra fee compensating the damages caused on
> the audience by the director for wasting the audience's time with "artistic"
> crap.
>
> Movies are made for the audience's pleasure, not the director's ego.
The thing is...why would a filmmaker have a better grasp of universal morality
than I do? Do I need to pay money to be lectured about...whatever? What
makes any filmmaker think I don't learn lessons about life--hard lessons
sometimes--every damned day? Probably because he thinks he's better than me.
I beg leave to differ. Shakespeare managed to explore some durned interesting
issues, and he did it while keeping Elizabethan audiences (famed for short
attention spans) entertained. I can reel off the names of a dozen writers who
have done the same. Any filmmaker who feels obliged to preach at me had
better brush up on his iambic pentameter, because my standards are HIGH. I
don't need to pay good money to see "a slice of life." I live life. Gimme the
cake.
Frederica
David Manning
> You are quite right about our culture being all the better with the book
> industry's ability to support serious literature, and for that matter,
> non-fiction. However, someone who buys a book with the intention of reading
> a murder mystery, or a bodice-ripping romance, is going to probably greatly
> displeased that the mystery they are reading turns out to a bunch of Ernest
> Hemingway type prose. If a book IS serious literture, it MUST certainly be
> advertised as such.
Well, I agree. But how "serious literture" is marketed doesn't refute
the point being made about the need for serious literature, the point
on which we agree.
>
> Likewise, if a filmmaker wants to do an "artistic" film -- and I mean a film
> that takes it outside the bounds of the popular cinema -- it would be in bad
> taste to be presented as a mainstream film.
On this, I pretty much agree, except that
I don't accept the assumption that an "artistic" film is
automatically "outside the bounds of the popular cinema" -- it
may or may not be. Chaplin's best work, for example, is well
within it -- Frederica's point about Shakespeare applies to
filmmakers as well. We agree it's not a good idea to pretend
a film is something it's not but that still doesn't refute
anything said about the need for art, etc.
> And this big difference between the mainstream film and book industries.
> A film -- even a low budgeted one -- is a risky multi-million dollar
> investment, that the director is betting that enough moviegoers will go see
> the movie to cover that risk. Hopefully, a LOT more money than what was
> invested. Art is great, but the botom line is about money. "Entertainment
> films" usually brings money at the box office. "Art films" do not.
> Generally, art films are a bad risk.
I don't really see that the two industries differ fundamentally.
Publishers are also answerable to the "botom line," as you call it.
Serious literature (or drama or sculpture, which can also involve
large investments) may also be a bad risk but, again, that doesn't
change the need for it. You're raising a separate issue.
>
> > Maybe the idea of Griffith, Keaton, W. C. Fields, and Jean Renoir
> > being forced to reimburse their bored audiences for having to sit
> > through such "artistic crap" as Intolerance, The General, The Fatal
> > Glass of Beer, and The Rules of the Game appeals to you but if
> > adopted as a general practice, it would probably result in a
> > film culture even more horrifyingly timid than the one we usually
> > have. For there to be any successes in an art form there have to be
> > failures and that means giving the artists the right to fail.
>
> Now we reached that "slippery slope" of the argument, and using some of my
> favorite films at that.
> Films like "Intolerance," "The General," and "The Fatal Glass of Beer," are
> -- despite their deviations from the norms of their genres -- are still
> clearly products of their genres. Intolerance is a epic drama (well... four
> epic dramas). The General and The Fatal Glass of Beer are both clearly
> comedy films. I don't think the audience would be justified in demanding
> their money, as these films ARE meant to entertain, despite any additional
> artist meanings. And, even as it were, the artistic factors probably DID
> hurt those films.
It may be true that the "artist meanings" hurt those particular films
at the box office but, of course, you don't judge their art by that
standard: if David Pearson prefers Keaton to the more commercial Lloyd,
it has to do with reasons that have little to do with their strengths
at the box office. But if you're making the assumption that a serious
artist is not trying to entertain as well as enlighten or depict the
human condition honestly, etc., then I disagree. I go along with
Frederica and Shakespeare on that issue.
> As for Renoir's "Rules of the Game," I think that one proves my point. The
> audience it was made for HATED it, because it was not the KIND of film the
> audience were expecting. ... Doing that sort of thing would be a cheat.
Maybe -- but it could also be that the filmmakers honestly misjudged
the audience. I believe Renoir insisted that the film was meant mainly
as an entertainment. Of course, it was probably also meant to
challenge people and to transcend genre. But, of course, I assume
you're not objecting to works of art that challenge people or transcend
genre, just the way those works are marketed or presented, which,
though it may be a valid point, still doesn't have anything to do with
the larger issue I was raising.
>> There's something aesthetically wrong
> > with pandering to an appetite for diversion at the expense of other
> > values and commitments.
>
> It may aesthetically wrong, but I'm afraid it's what keeps -- and has kept
> -- the film industry going.
Again, we agree. You're pushing against an open door. Bodice-rippers,
etc., may keep the publishing industry going, but that doesn't mean we
confuse them with literature. Similarly, the DeMilles and Lloyds
may keep the film industry going, but we don't admire and appreciate the
Griffiths and Keatons less or pretend that a steady diet of DeMilles,
etc., isn't a poor substitute for engagement with more serious artists.
> I may personally prefer the art of Griffith and
> Keaton to the more commerical films of DeMille and Lloyd (who both catered
> more to the mainstream) -- but that doesn't escape the hard fact that
> Griffith and Keaton were forced out of moviemaking, while DeMille and Lloyd
> lasted until THEY wanted to quit. The film artist rides the whirlwind at his
> own risk.
Not sure about DeMille. I know Lloyd's declining box office was a
contributing factor in his leaving the screen.
But there's no point in confusing industry needs with artistic needs.
These are separate issues and the "hard facts" may very well change:
In some as-yet-unrealized future, one can envision a differently-
organized film industry (maybe a decentralized one with greater
input from local communities) that would replace maximizing profits
as a primary goal with meeting and balancing the needs and interests
of the public, reflecting their values and concerns (including
artistic concerns) rather than primarily trying to divert them in
order to separate them from their money.
Robert Keser
> "David B. Pearson" wrote >...
>
> > As for Renoir's "Rules of the Game," I think that one proves my point. The
> > audience it was made for HATED it, because it was not the KIND of film the
> > audience were expecting. ... Doing that sort of thing would be a cheat.
> David Manning wrote:
> Maybe -- but it could also be that the filmmakers honestly misjudged
> the audience. I believe Renoir insisted that the film was meant mainly
> as an entertainment. Of course, it was probably also meant to
> challenge people and to transcend genre.
Financial failure could also be due to misjudging the public mood at the time
of release, a mis-step in the zeitgeist. So many films were shunned (or
even actively reviled) by their contemporary audiences, but emerged as
invaluable--and entertaining!-- to filmgoers at a later time: Greed, The
Wind, Freaks, The Scarlet Empress, Lady From Shanghai, Sweet Smell
of Success, Paths of Glory, Peeping Tom, etc. etc., all films ahead of their
time (and Freaks might still be). The risk of producing a financial turkey
was probably easier in the studio era thanks to block booking, long-term
contracts, and studio-owned theater chains. The present system seems to
be a lot more unstable and hit-and-miss, yet still provides second and third
chances (via cable, videotape, and DVD releases) for a film to find an
audience that will appreciate its entertainment value . Personally, in terms
of new films, I feel lucky that we're living at a time when modest or
seriously offbeat titles can attract more attention than they could in
the 20s or 30s.
Bob Keser
Edward Milton
> Bag of Rats wrote:
>
> > > Uhhh...hmmmm. You know, it is just a teensy bit possible that you are taking
> > > life wayyyyyyy too seriously. So far you've talked about terror, pain, the
> > > barrenness of a universe I find incredibly rich and vivid, and queasiness. You
> > > are certainly entitled to your opinions and beliefs (as we are entitled to
> > > ours), but you are beginning to sound like Holden Caulfield.
> > >
> > > Frederica
> >
> > Wait a sec... are you saying that Holden was misguided in some way?
>
> Oh...dear. How to say this? No, Holden was not "misguided." Holden was young and incredibly
> self-absorbed, which--come to think of it--is a tautology. It isn't wrong or misguided until you hit
> age 16, but after that it becomes quite tiresome. Most of us here are (AHEM!) enjoying the middle
> period of our lives and we've seen a lot of Holden Caulfields come and go--heck, some of us probably did
> time in Caulfieldland ourselves. Belly-button gazing is fascinating only to the owner of the button.
>
> You came into a newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of silent films and issued a blanket dismissal of
> the form.
This was posted to current-films as well as movies.silent, you know. I
didn't come into the silent films newsgroup. I came into the current
films newsgroup. I didn't even notice it was posted to silent-films
until everyone started talking about silent films. I didn't choose to
come into silent films and start saying that silent films were stupid,
or something. I came in from current films, saw a little thing about
"what's your favourite decade in film?," and posted my opinion on the
subject. This kind of discussion is a parlour-game sort of thing,
rather akin to the list-making activities that often go on in
current-films. So I didn't realise that there were lots of silent film
junkies with no sense of humour or sense of perspective around.
You are now saying this was done to elicit discussion.
I didn't even say that; it sounds like you're implying that I'm saying
"I said something I didn't mean" in order to get out of a bind, or
something. No, it wasn't to be taken seriously. Do you take those
"What are your Top Five Action Movies" lists seriously? It's a fun,
harmless little parlour game. That's what I was doing. Again, you took
it way too seriously.
>That is all well and good, but we are
> not here to discuss art and philosophy and the universe, we're here to discuss silent films.
I wasn't here to discuss silent films. I entered this thread from
current-films, which is just about films. Everyone starts talking
about silent films and how clever they are and what kinds of books
they can write. They keep telling me that I'm way out of my league and
so on. But you know, apart from pointing out that this is the internet
and not a private club, I could also note that since I came in from
current-films, I wasn't expecting a lot of film professors.
Current-films is more for the greasy teenager crowd. So don't go
ballistic on me, even if you think my opinion doesn't count because
I'm not schooled in film.
(And from
> a personal standpoint, I'm a "cut to the chase" kind of gal, so forgive me if I appear impatient.) You
> are not unintelligent and I suspect that you have probably already grasped the idea that silent films
> are simply a different method of storytelling (as is opera, ballet, and, yes, even Noh Theater). As
> such silent film often deals with issues that are universal; if you don't think so, I highly recommend
> that you hie yourself off to see a good theatrical presentation of GREED.
>
> Frederica
Let me just say this: I wasn't even thinking about silent films when I
was talking about "old" films. Now, you'll say that makes me even more
ignorant, stupid, etc. Yeah, I'm not saying it doesn't. What can I
say, I have my tastes. What I originally meant was, "I don't like old
movies much. I don't know why, though, and it kinda worries me. After
all, I like old books. I like old music. Hell, I used to love opera,
so I'm not a complete fuckin' illiterate. Anyone have any ideas on
this?" My point is that I wasn't trying to antagonise silent film
buffs, and I don't know why I don't like old films. That's what I was
saying; I wasn't saying, "old films suck, and you people suck too." I
was saying, "I don't know why I don't like old films." It wasn't an
attack on people who feel differently. And again, it was just a
cutesy-little-game kind of thing, and that should have been apparent
to all involved.
Edward Milton
> Now, look: you've made sweeping statements, then told us some were
> lighthearted and others were attempts to show your sensitive side. It's
> no disgrace to grapple with history and art, trying to work out your ideas,
> but posing just annoys people. We're here to talk about films, not about
> you (take a look below at how many times you use "I").
>
> So, let's get down to business: tell us the movies that you like and why
> you like them. Then tell us the movies you don't like and why.
>
> By the way, it will come as a surprise to real scholars of film history
> that "making any kind of overall assessment of decades is obviously a
> parlour-game sort of thing and not really a serious discussion at all." It's
> only a parlor-game if you haven't amassed the tools to participate.
>
> Bob Keser
I'm not posing. I'm just speaking my mind as far as I can tell what it
is at any particular time. That doesn't mean I ever have a perfect
understanding of what I'm thinking. Who does? We're all just making
little posts to usenet, adding another poorly-phrased thought a day
later, and so on. Something occurs to us so we type it and post it.
Then we think it was stupid and didn't capture our opinion perfectly
but it's too late. The medium doesn't really allow for a synthesis of
thought or any meditation. It's just like conversation. There's no
perfect distillation of anything. It's messy.
As for the comments about myself, I was talking about films when
everyone started attacking me, personally. They've called me an
"idiot," a "moron," "uneducated," "illiterate," "a dove amongst the
wolves," "stupid as fuck," and so forth. So you'll just have to
forgive me for shifting my attention to myself along with everyone
else. I didn't start us down that road.
That doesn't mean I'm not happy to talk about myself. And since you
asked me what my favourite films are, I'll give you some lists and
some ideas about which ones I like.
Some, Not All, Favourite Films; In No Particular Order
Face/Off (I think of this as perhaps my favourite film)
Annie Hall
Pulp Fiction
The Hunt for Red October
American Beauty
The Limey
La Femme Nikita
Time Code
Dog Day Afternoon
Love and Death
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
Caro Diario
Short Cuts
Manhattan
Air Force One
Twelve Monkeys
Underground
The Million Dollar Hotel
The Road Home
Ghost World
Yi Yi
As you can see, this is not a snobbish list in any way. I've given you
plenty to snort at and much to attack my intelligence with. It's a
mix. The point is this: I value entertainment. I don't really think
much of the "literary" tradition, as my nihilistic views don't allow
for anything to have any value. I felt differently when I was younger,
but now I just want something that is fun. That is all. I do, however,
require quality. You will probably say that "The Hunt for Red October"
is a stupid piece of crap. I disagree, however. I think it was a very
well-made and highly atmospheric film. It was a riveting experience.
That is what I am looking for in a Great Film, a feeling of
participation or understanding of a far-out, exotic, fascinating
experience. So what's wrong with submarines? If it's well done, it's
pretty cool. That's my attitude. So I do, indeed, like action movies;
but only the ones that I feel are very well made, not the crapfests,
of which there are many. Take Face/Off, perhaps my all-time favourite:
now that's a beautiful film! Why not?
My other favourite movie category is Chinese films. I can't say I've
seen many, but the few that I have seen have been unbelievably
beautiful. The sense of imagery, which is the other thing that I value
highly, is astonishing and so much better developed than that of other
cinemas, I feel. I recently saw "Yi Yi," (yes, I know that it's
Taiwanese, not mainland Chinese) and was absolutely astounded. It may
be one of the best films I've ever seen.
Favourite Directors
Woody Allen
Steven Soderbergh
Wim Wenders
John Woo
Terry Gilliam
Robert Altman
I'm sure there are plenty of others I like that I'm not thinking of
now. Indeed, I'd like to think that there are more non-American people
and non-Hollywood films that I like; I haven't listed that many. I
mean, there definitely are plenty of "foreign" films that I liked a
lot but that wouldn't quite qualify as "favourites." The films I
listed above are mostly from my written list that's on my website for
my own reference; I can never remember which ones I like without a
list, and that list is incomplete. For instance there are definitely a
few more Chinese films that should be on my favourites list. So I'm
sure there are others I haven't mentioned.
Anyway, I have diverse tastes, within a certain range. I really do
appreciate quality cinema, as much as you may believe otherwise. I
haven't really watched any "old" movies for a long, long time, so I
don't even know if I'd like them now. But the couple of ones that I
have gone out on a limb for have been hugely disappointing. I just
dunno.
Edward Milton
> Paid for by Sony, Inc. -- Makers of Crap and an Occasional Work of Art
I don't know that I would disagree with much of anything you've said,
basically. Although I don't really know that there is something
inherantly valuable in "literary" art or "art" art rather than
"entertainment" art or "entertainment." I do make some distinction
between the two, but I don't think there's necessarily a qualitative
difference. My point was that there may be two types of art, but I
think that neither is "better" than the other; to get heavy for a
moment, since I don't believe in things I can't value anything, so I
don't value "knowledge" or "literature" in any inherant way. I just
think that art that speaks to how we feel rather than entertaining us
with fantasies is sometimes needed, but what we need more often is
something to divert us, to kill time, to give us something to do, to
take us away from reality rather than confront us with it, because
really, reality sucks, and there's not much we can do about it. So I
think fantasy is perfectly legitimate. It helps me a bit, anyway. As
for getting fat and sick on cake, I don't know: I'm already pretty fat
and sick, so to speak, anyway, so where's the harm?
Edward Milton
I agree with you about the cake, but we can have that most of the time
and have the other thing sometimes when we need it, too. I think
you're misrepresenting what the "other thing" is, though. I don't
think a good "literary" artwork will "preach" at us. I don't think it
will try to "teach" us something or "enlighten" us in some way. I
think what a legitimately literary artwork will do is to show us that
our feelings are shared by others. Most of us feel unique and alone.
We can only feel what we feel, and not what others feel, so we feel as
if we're the only ones who feel what we feel. But a literary artwork
can show us that other people also feel things similar if not
identical to what we feel. I think that's what people are getting at
when they say something is "realistic." They mean that it shows them a
little bit of what they themselves actually feel, and so they know
that someone else can feel that too. It's like being kept company when
you feel lonely. That's all. I don't think any good artists will try
to shove philosophy down our throat. Admittedly, literature has been
used or misused for this purpose quite a lot, but I feel that's not
the same, and illegitimate. They shouldn't teach us, they should
empathise with us.
Edward Milton
art and "entertainment" art. Good art tries to be entertaining.
"Literary" art ALSO attempts to give us a sense of existential reality
so that we know we are not alone BUT it still must entertain as well.
"Literary" art is just entertaining art that has been augmented with
this second purpose. There's no either/or equation here.
For instance, easily my favourite book of all time is "The Brothers
Karamazov." I like it because it was the most fun I ever had reading a
book, or indeed enjoying any type of art, not because it was
"literary," whatever that means. I valued the "literary" aspects of it
as part of the entertainment. Those aspects heightened the experience
for me. But I'm not sure the two aren't really part of the same thing.
Isn't appreciating "literature" fun? I never read books because I
wanted to be educated, whatever that may mean to anyone at any time. I
read them because I wanted to be entertained, and entertainment that
engaged my mind was the most fun of anything. So I don't think there's
any "art house" film distinction. Whether a film is a general
Hollywood release playing in American multiplexes, or a small-budged,
limited release that only plays in an expensive New York theatre, the
goal should be the same. We should be entertained, either massively on
a single level or else somewhat on two levels. I know that I, for one,
am entertained far more frequently and more completely by "art house"
films than by the Hollywood movies that achieve cineplex release.