Is Gen X/Y film illiterate?
damien
young film-lovers are overlooking important classics -- and i'm hoping
you can help. specifically do you think it's necessary to see films by
old directors like howard hawks or ingmar bergman or antonioni in
order to be film literate? is it necessary to understand past classics
(as baby-boomer film school professors argue) in order to appreciate
film's ultimate capabilities and to develop a taste for complex
present and future releases? why or why not? and if these specific
oldies aren't in your personal canon, what is? what films (from any
era or genre) must the average english major see to declare
him/herself knowledgable or "film literate"? (if you disagree with
this premise entirely, that's fine too.) but regardless, feel free to
post, call and/or email me your answers/questions/comments. (and be
sure to include your age so i know whether you're part of "us" or
"them.")
thanks.
damien cave
senior writer
salon.com
dc...@salon.com
212 549-3265
Stephen Cooke
On 26 Sep 2002, damien wrote:
> hi all, i'm a reporter at salon, trying to get at whether today's
> young film-lovers are overlooking important classics
They're definitely overlooking the shift key.
swac
Tony Spadaro
if you didn't see the very first showing you lose, man.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
Photography ... the hard way
and partial home of
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
The Links are at
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/links.html
"damien" <dc...@salon.com> wrote in message
news:3a5846c1.02092...@posting.google.com...
Prakash Jayachandran
> specifically do you think it's necessary to see films by
> old directors like howard hawks or ingmar bergman or antonioni in
> order to be film literate?
Yes. The term "film literate" is however, mighty vague. I'm not sure if I'd
belong in that list.
> is it necessary to understand past classics
> (as baby-boomer film school professors argue) in order to appreciate
> film's ultimate capabilities and to develop a taste for complex
> present and future releases?
Um, no. I'll probably get roasted for saying this, but it's perfectly fine
to disagree with the pundits. I don't distinguish between classics and "the
rest", at least not before watching them (well, no, not really. I'm more
likely to reach out for an acclaimed film than for um, "Spy Kids 2"). If I
like the movie, I like it; otherwise I don't. If a movie I don't like
happens to be on every film critic's Top 10 list, then so be it. I don't
necessarily have to "understand" every single classic, but not giving them
a chance would be criminal.
> why or why not?
If you haven't seen them, how are you to know that they aren't better than
the ones you've seen? Especially with all those people around you
worshipping them? When you know a guy who has seen the movie 225 times?
For me, the choice is simple. Because the chances I'd prefer a Bergman to
"Spiderman" is incredibly high. No other reasons, whatsoever. If you are
the kind who prefers "Spiderman", stick to it.
> and if these specific
> oldies aren't in your personal canon, what is?
> what films (from any
> era or genre) must the average english major see to declare
> him/herself knowledgable or "film literate"? (if you disagree with
> this premise entirely, that's fine too.)
I disagree with the premise. Thank you. However, if one hasn't seen or
doesn't like nearly every film on a list of 100 all-time best films created
by a bunch of those knowledgable in film (Yikes, recursive definition here;
tread with caution), I would only be too happy to hand out an "illiterate"
tag.
> but regardless, feel free to
> post, call and/or email me your answers/questions/comments. (and be
> sure to include your age so i know whether you're part of "us" or
> "them.")
22, going on 23. Am I a part of "us" or of "them"?
Prakash
damien
email and on message boards. But I am capable. I promise.
damien
Stephen Cooke <am...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.102...@halifax.chebucto.ns.ca>...
MadiHolmes
>hi all, i'm a reporter at salon, trying to get at whether today's
>young film-lovers are overlooking important classics -
No more than the kids who were going to see z-grade monster horror movies in
the 50s. Any of them ever heard of Eisenstein? How many of them now? We might
be "better off" in terms of being able to track down more obscure movies
through the use of cable, videostores, and libraries. Whether we utilize those
resources is another question. Revival arthouse movie theaters of the past were
about the only resources a lot of people had, or so I've gathered.
>specifically do you think it's necessary to see films by
>old directors like howard hawks or ingmar bergman or antonioni in
>order to be film literate?
Define "literacy." My take on a movie is no more valid than yours. I might see
where the director is influenced or where he borrows certain aspects from other
directors, but that's just more power to me.
Granted, I do take exception to people who refuse to watch something simply
because it's "foreign" or it doesn't star Vin Diesel.
We all have our own tastes. I can also tell you that I've never seen a Bergman
or Antonioni movie. I'm sure I will someday, but not yet. I also consider
myself "film literate" in some aspects, and a "poseur" in others. Such is life.
>is it necessary to understand past classics
>(as baby-boomer film school professors argue) in order to appreciate
>film's ultimate capabilities and to develop a taste for complex
>present and future releases?
Why? A movie should stand on its own merits, not what it can rip off. People in
cinema should know the history, but it shouldn't drown out their own vision,
nor should they know nothing about it.
>What must the average english major see to declare
>him/herself knowledgable or "film literate"? (if you disagree with
>this premise entirely, that's fine too.)
The AFI list is a good place to start, but it's not the end all, be all of
filmdom. It can seem daunting, but it's not impossible. It also should be fun,
and you should enjoy it.
Oh, and film literacy doesn't have to be delegated only to English Majors.
There are other people out there <like myself> who enjoy movies and whose
interests lie elsewhere.
MadiHolmes, age 21
Tony Spadaro
church film festival that same year. I also ran the projector for the first
Jacques Cousteau (not Clouseau - Cousteau!) underwater documentary, the
Fleisher feature length animated version of "Gulliver's Travels" and "Man of
Aran" during the same film series.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
Photography ... the hard way
and partial home of
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
The Links are at
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/links.html
"MadiHolmes" <madih...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020927010947...@mb-cg.aol.com...
damien
of the fact that old movies are so much more accessible -- thus
rendering the old-style festivals less important? i only ask because
i've been getting a surprising number of emails from high school
students who tell me that they saw the AFI top 100 or randomly caught
"the third man" on TV and have been hooked on classics ever since.
makes me wonder if today's kids aren't *more* interested in the
classics -- rather than less, as is generally assumed. but what do you
think?
d.
"Tony Spadaro" <tspa...@ncmaps.rr.com> wrote in message news:<KLTk9.43657$jF4.3...@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
David
> I saw Rodan in 1958, and ran the projector for "October" during our
>church film festival that same year. I also ran the projector for the first
>Jacques Cousteau (not Clouseau - Cousteau!) underwater documentary, the
>Fleisher feature length animated version of "Gulliver's Travels" and "Man of
>Aran" during the same film series.
Tony, I had no idea you were quite so old!
David
>i've been getting a surprising number of emails from high school
>students who tell me that they saw the AFI top 100 or randomly caught
>"the third man" on TV and have been hooked on classics ever since.
>makes me wonder if today's kids aren't *more* interested in the
>classics -- rather than less, as is generally assumed. but what do you
>think?
They've still got to be the minority. Most young people aren't
interested in the film past.
But I think cable in general & channels like the old AMC & certainly
TCM are directly responsible for turning thousands of people of all
ages into old movie lovers. TCM alone ... can you imagine its
influence?
Tony Spadaro
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
Photography ... the hard way
and partial home of
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
The Links are at
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/links.html
"David" <dobe...@NIHILSPAMsocal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3d9472d...@news-server.socal.rr.com...
Jim
Never mind the current generation. I wonder how many people of past
generations were film connoisseurs when they were twenty or so. I grew up
watching mostly horror movies and standard Hollywood productions. I got
exposed to some artsy movies in my late teens. But I was well into my late
twenties before I started thinking there was more to know about film. By
that time, I had swung too far toward artsy films and ignored everything
else. It was only in my thirties that I finally tried to view the art of
film with some perspective. And there's still more to learn than I have
time for. So, I'm not convinced that today's young people are all that
different from me.
Prakash Jayachandran
> The AFI list is a good place to start, but it's not the end all, be all of
> filmdom. It can seem daunting, but it's not impossible. It also should be
> fun, and you should enjoy it.
or better still - "The New York Times Guide to the Best 1000 Movies Ever
Made". More daunting than the AFI list, on account of 1000 being a
significantly larger number than 100, but not without its advantages, as
many foreign movies are included, and is (naturally) more comprehensive.
It's not available on the net, to the best of my knowledge, but the local
library should have a copy.
Prakash
Nick Macpherson
>Never mind the current generation. I wonder how many people of past
>generations were film connoisseurs when they were twenty or so.
I'm more concerned about rock fans knowing their history, rather than film
fans. I mean, I couldn't care less if some English major standing in line at
the multi-plex to see XXX has seen Blow-Up or not but it bothers me more that
young music fans might not know who Chuck Berry is and their concept of "the
classics" is Radiohead and U2.
David
> I'm sure not getting any younger.
It's just that there's a youthful exuberance & vigor to your posts!
madkevin
"Nick Macpherson" <nmacp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020927165827...@mb-da.aol.com...
You got a problem with Radiohead? You want to step outside?
But seriously, folks: Rock music is for the young. It's marketed as youth rebellion.
Clearly, it's not in their best interests to remind those very same people who might be
buying it that they are no different from their parents. Or, put another way: How many
Chuck Berry fans had Robert Johnson records?
Kids not knowing anything about music certainly isn't anything new. Heck, when I was a
young disaffected punk in the 80s, I thought modern music started with the Sex Pistols. It
wasn't until much later that I discovered the American punk rock of the sixties - The
Stooges, the "Nuggets" compilations, MC5, "Sister Ray", Johnathan Richman, etc. etc. That
didn't stop me from enjoying the living hell out of "Rocket To Russia" or Minor Threat.
Music, like movies, is what speaks to you. Probably 95% of the vast consumer public could
give three shits about, say, the significance of The Beach Boys' "Pet Sounds" on rock 'n'
roll, or James Wong Howe's influence on Hollywood noir, or the history of The Mercury
Players, or whatever. That's because they're not addicts. They're not fans. They're not
geeks. We are. That's why we're so fucking cool.
===============
"Hail, Hail, Rock 'n' Cogliano!"
madkevin
To be "literate" in an art form implies a certain clear knowledge of it's formation; in
other words, it's past. Any art as old as cinema (which is young by most standards, but
old enough for this conversation) will have gone through periods that are inexoriably tied
to certain times and places - the neo-realist movement of post-war Italy, the noir period
of forties Hollywood, the nouvelle vague of the French sixties, etc. "Literacy" implies a
knowledge of the grammar of film, and the historical artistic context from which that
grammar arose.
That answers one question. Let's try some more.
Are young film lovers overlooking important "classics"? No more so than at any previous
time, certainly. God knows, it's a fuck of a lot easier to see the classics today than it
was ten years ago, when I was in my early twenties. (There's another answer to another
question.) Back then, I was basically at the mercy of my local rep theatre and the CBC.
Today, it's much easier to find a DVD rental of, say, a Fellini film than it was when I
was first getting heavily addicted to cinema.
But a love of movies is a lifetime addiction, just like music or art. Whatever road gets
you there is OK in my book. Trace the routes of your artistic life sometime. Here's an
example: I got into Borges via Philip K. Dick, via Ursula K. LeGuin, via Harlan Ellison,
via Issac Asimov. Asimov to Borges is a pretty big leap. Was I wrong to read the
Foundation series before I knew read "Ficciones"? Is it wrong for a teenager to become
interested in Shakespeare via "Ten Things I Hate About You"? The answer - surprise! - is
no.
I think that a true love of cinema - or any art - is a love of discovery. It's a love of
finding out things, of wanting to see things that you never dreamed existed. My favourite
film-makers - Gilliam, or Bergman, or Fellini, or Tarkovsky - are the ones that are true
originals, whose specific sensibility is imbued in everything they touch. If "A.I." leads
a kid to Kubrick, then perhaps Spielberg will be able to work off some of his time in
Hell.
My big problem with the notion of a "canon" is the idea that you should be watching some
films because they're, pardon the expression, "good for you". A movie like "Citizen Kane"
shouldn't be approached as a homework assignment, it should be approached as what it was
intended to be: a breathtakingly perfect piece of entertainment. Knowledge of the
back-story of "Kane" - the history of the Welles and Manciewicz, Welles' previous
accomplishments in the theatre, the basis of Kane on Hearst, etc - is interesting, but
unessesary to the enjoyment of the movie.
In short: I believe that a true, abiding love of cinema will lead one to the greats like a
tiny tributary eventually leads to the ocean. Literacy comes out of a passion for the art;
to work it the other way around usually results in failure.
====================
"A Touch Of Cogliano"
James L. Neibaur
they have immediate access to so much of film history and current independent
cinema via video and cable TV makes them comparatively so.
I think they may be the first generation to balk at things that were not trendy
(black and white, silent, foreign) whereas those of us who are baby boomers did
not find those things to be so off-putting. Hence, the increased availability
of older or foreign films pleased us more than it did them.
Having taught intro film courses at the college level, I have found many gen X
students to be very interested and informed for their age. And just as many
who took the course expecting to see American Pie while eating pizza. I guess
when I took film courses back in the seventies, the only people in the class
were those who actually wanted to learn more about film.
It's always good to see as many films made before your time as during. And as
many films made in other countries as your own. Many younger people don't
bother (or care) to do so.
JN
Please visit the most poorly designed web pages online:
my Favorite Movies web page:
http://hometown.aol.com/jimneibr/myhomepage/movies.html
and my Favorite Performers web page:
http://hometown.aol.com/jimneibr/myhomepage/rant.html
James L. Neibaur
>I mean, I couldn't care less if some English major standing in line at
>the multi-plex to see XXX has seen Blow-Up or not but it bothers me more
>that
>young music fans might not know who Chuck Berry is and their concept of
>"the
>classics" is Radiohead and U2.
Yeah, the music thing bothers me too. Just as Hitchcock seems to be the only
director working in the thirties that anyone knows, The Beatles are the only
pre-1970 group that anyone knows (I am talking the younger ones, of course).
Now this is not to undermine Hitchcock or The Beatles -- on the contrary! But
you know what I mean.
We seem to be living in an era where the music is rather bland (the pop
singers) and derivative (the metal and grunge acts who think Nirvana is Year
Zero in rock music). But also where classic old time comedy only goes back as
far as Animal House (with a nod to the Three Stooges). Neither perspective is
any good.
Jim
> "Nick Macpherson" <nmacp...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20020927165827...@mb-da.aol.com...
>> >From: Jim jcph...@SPAMmindspring.com
>>
>> >Never mind the current generation. I wonder how many people of past
>> >generations were film connoisseurs when they were twenty or so.
>>
>> I'm more concerned about rock fans knowing their history, rather than
>> film
>> fans. I mean, I couldn't care less if some English major standing in
>> line at the multi-plex to see XXX has seen Blow-Up or not but it bothers
>> me more that young music fans might not know who Chuck Berry is and their
>> concept of "the classics" is Radiohead and U2.
>
> You got a problem with Radiohead? You want to step outside?
>
> But seriously, folks: Rock music is for the young. It's marketed as youth
> rebellion. Clearly, it's not in their best interests to remind those very
> same people who might be buying it that they are no different from their
> parents. Or, put another way: How many Chuck Berry fans had Robert Johnson
> records?
Maybe not Chuck Berry fans, but fans of Cream certainly knew who Robert
Johnson was. The revival of interest in the blues that happened in the mid
to late 60's came about almost entirely because popular rock acts
acknowledged their influences and recorded albums with their mentors where
possible. Eric Clapton was a good one for that and so was his teacher, John
Mayall. You don't see much of that these days. Of course, the old blues
masters have died off, but how many modern rock acts make any effort to
acknowledge influences?
John Harkness
Neibaur) wrote:
>Not all of that generation is cinematically illiterate. However the fact that
>they have immediate access to so much of film history and current independent
>cinema via video and cable TV makes them comparatively so.
>
>I think they may be the first generation to balk at things that were not trendy
>(black and white, silent, foreign) whereas those of us who are baby boomers did
>not find those things to be so off-putting. Hence, the increased availability
>of older or foreign films pleased us more than it did them.
>
>Having taught intro film courses at the college level, I have found many gen X
>students to be very interested and informed for their age. And just as many
>who took the course expecting to see American Pie while eating pizza. I guess
>when I took film courses back in the seventies, the only people in the class
>were those who actually wanted to learn more about film.
>
Hmmm....
When I took film courses back in the 70s, at least at the undergrad
level, there were any number of students who thought watching movies
for credit was an easy B.
John Harkness
Stephen Cooke
On 26 Sep 2002, damien wrote:
> > On 26 Sep 2002, damien wrote:
> >
> > > hi all, i'm a reporter at salon, trying to get at whether today's
> > > young film-lovers are overlooking important classics
> >
> > They're definitely overlooking the shift key.
> >
> email and on message boards. But I am capable. I promise.
That's better! (I work at a newspaper, we tend to be picky about these
sorts of things...) I admit it wasn't the most egregious thing in the
world (you didn't type "u r" for "you are" or "d00d"), but it's often just
as hard to read something that's all lower case as it is to wade through
wingnut posts in all caps.
Having got my anal retentive whining off my chest, it does seem as if
younger viewers have a fairly blinkered view of film history, as the
mentality that silent films are boring and black & white is unwatchable
continues to be widespread, while classic films are rarely seen in their
proper context--on a big screen--and require extra effort to track down
and watch.
I also think there's some credence to the idea that attention spans
have been ratcheted down to a bare minium thanks to rapid-fire editing in
features, videos, games, commercials. It might not mean much when it comes
to watching Warner Bros. gangster films or Russ Meyer flicks, but try to
imagine sitting through L'Aventura or Stalker with an MTV-programmed mind.
Just because you can use AVID to create spasm-inducing sequences doesn't
mean you *should*.
Like another poster noted, I came into my love of movies through the
Universal Horror films (and I suppose, Warner Brothers cartoons) before
graduating to WB classics which CBC used to air every night and making
tentative steps towards foreign films through revival screenings of
Yojimbo and Alphaville, which opened my eyes to a whole new world. This
was largely before the home video revolution, so nothing was taken for
granted, and each new discovery was a truly special event. I started to
gobble up film books and learned a lot through repartory cinema programs
which, although obviously intending to draw an audience, also managed to
succinctly sum up individual titles' charms and importance. Such was the
method used to gradually build up a personal perspective of the universal
world of film.
Today there are far more options--home video, TCM, IFC, etc.--unless of
course you live in Canada, where MoviePix just doesn't cut it as a classic
film channel. But there was a time when you saw something special and you
knew it, it wasn't just another box on a video store shelf. I think the
joy of discovery is largely diminished today, why look something up in a
book when you can get the Cole's Notes on the 'Net? There's a sense of
jadedness out there that makes me glad I grew up in an age with less
irony, when Godzilla films were just goofy rubber monster movies and not
some post-modern extension of wacky Japanese pop culture. (Although I tend
to be more of a Gamera man.)
I also agree with another poster who said the idea of "canon" often does
more harm than good. The idea that you "have" to see Citizen Kane not only
makes it seem like a chore, but it raises your expectations to a level
that it may not satisfy on home video (as opposed to a theatrical
screening). I was lucky enough to watch Citizen Kane for the first time
over 20 years ago, simply because it was a cool-looking old movie that
just happened to be playing on late night television. What did I know
about Sight and Sound polls? I had to discover what it was about the film
that *I* liked, rather than approach it like it was the Bible or
something.
Maybe this is why I've been watching a lot of Jess Franco movies. No one's
claiming he's a genius, but at least he made movies for the sheer hell of
it from time to time, even if you do have to wade through a lot of muck to
get to the good stuff.
I'm 35, so I'm somewhere on the Generation X cusp, and had to shake off a
lot of preconceived notions that younger viewers have, like "westerns
suck" or "musicals suck" although luckily I was inured to silents and
black and white early on. But I tend to think I'm far from the norm
though. Most of the music I like was made before I was born (keeping in
mind I grew up in the 70s, so I had just cause, and thank Yahweh for punk
rock).
The notion of "film literacy" just reminds me of schooling where you have
to read The Great Gatsby and Julius Caesar (why one of Shakespeare's
*worst* plays? Just because it's easy to read and less challenging?) but
kept away from On the Road or Catch 22. I get equal amounts of enjoyment
out of The Seventh Seal and Robin and the Seven Hoods, but "literacy"
teaches that one is great and the other disposable, like Mill on the Floss
versus Alan Moore's The Watchman. I know which I've read more than once.
On the positive side, Hollywood productions seem only to be getting
increasingly worse, and it's somewhat comforting to see old standbys like
Schwarzenegger and Willis dying on the vine at the box office (of course,
they still clean up overseas) but I don't know that folks like Todd Haynes
(whose Far From Heaven is a Douglas Sirk throwback where maybe 10 per cent
of the audience will get the joke) or PT Anderson (Adam Sandler?!?) are
picking up the slack.
At least Gangs of New York gives me something to look forward to at
Christmas...
swac
Stephen Cooke
On Sat, 28 Sep 2002, Jim wrote:
> Maybe not Chuck Berry fans, but fans of Cream certainly knew who Robert
> Johnson was. The revival of interest in the blues that happened in the mid
> to late 60's came about almost entirely because popular rock acts
> acknowledged their influences and recorded albums with their mentors where
> possible. Eric Clapton was a good one for that and so was his teacher, John
> Mayall. You don't see much of that these days. Of course, the old blues
> masters have died off, but how many modern rock acts make any effort to
> acknowledge influences?
About the only original influence they have is Pearl Jam. Every rock band
I hear is copying Eddie Vedder's back-of-the-throat growl, and this is a
decade after that band peaked! Get over it! Of course before that, it was
legions of singers imitating Robert Plant, so nothing has changed there.
Basically how it works is, radio tells the record companies what it will
play (and there are only a handful of radio station owners these days, so
they have tons of clout), the record company A&R guys tell the bands how
to sound, and the bands comply in order to keep their tour busses and deli
trays at gigs. It's not like The Beatles discovering American rock and
roll from records brought over by sailors anymore.
Luckily, there's all kinds of music out there that cheap home recording
and a flurry of indie labels have made possible, and with music on the
'Net radio is becoming increasingly redundant. In a couple of decades,
radio will no longer have a core audience in that key young professional
demographic because kids are growing up without radio as part of their
lives. The current mass music industry model is digging its own grave.
swac
Thank Shiva for Guided By Voices...
David
>Maybe not Chuck Berry fans, but fans of Cream certainly knew who Robert
>Johnson was. The revival of interest in the blues that happened in the mid
>to late 60's came about almost entirely because popular rock acts
>acknowledged their influences and recorded albums with their mentors where
>possible. Eric Clapton was a good one for that and so was his teacher, John
>Mayall. You don't see much of that these days. Of course, the old blues
>masters have died off, but how many modern rock acts make any effort to
>acknowledge influences?
James L. Neibaur
>When I took film courses back in the 70s, at least at the undergrad
>level, there were any number of students who thought watching movies
>for credit was an easy B.
Yeah, there were a couple of those. But they usually dropped after having to
sit through a few silents. It seems nowadays (based only on my own
experience), the less interested students stick with the course. Sometimes
that's good in that they develop an appreciation. Sometimes they never quite
get it and end up doing poorly.
In any case, just simply showing up for the screenings isn't enough for a B.
jean
wrote:
>
>"Nick Macpherson" <nmacp...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20020927165827...@mb-da.aol.com...
>> >From: Jim jcph...@SPAMmindspring.com
>>
>> >Never mind the current generation. I wonder how many people of past
>> >generations were film connoisseurs when they were twenty or so.
>>
>> I'm more concerned about rock fans knowing their history, rather than film
>> fans. I mean, I couldn't care less if some English major standing in line at
>> the multi-plex to see XXX has seen Blow-Up or not but it bothers me more that
>> young music fans might not know who Chuck Berry is and their concept of "the
>> classics" is Radiohead and U2.
>
>You got a problem with Radiohead? You want to step outside?
>
Radiohead: one of the few contemporary bands that I and my 16 yr old
agree on... THEY RAWK!
>But seriously, folks: Rock music is for the young. It's marketed as youth rebellion.
>Clearly, it's not in their best interests to remind those very same people who might be
>buying it that they are no different from their parents. Or, put another way: How many
>Chuck Berry fans had Robert Johnson records?
>
I knew Zeppelin owed it all to Robert Johnson and the great
bluesmen... mainly from reading Cameron Crowe's liner notes in the
'Song Remains the Same" double album. :-)
>Kids not knowing anything about music certainly isn't anything new. Heck, when I was a
>young disaffected punk in the 80s, I thought modern music started with the Sex Pistols. It
>wasn't until much later that I discovered the American punk rock of the sixties - The
>Stooges, the "Nuggets" compilations, MC5, "Sister Ray", Johnathan Richman, etc. etc. That
>didn't stop me from enjoying the living hell out of "Rocket To Russia" or Minor Threat.
>
I think ya nailed it pretty good... my kid only knows about classic
rock and cinema because they're still a big part of my life. Of
course, just because he knows about it, doesn't mean he appreciates it
or agrees with me on what's good and what's not. Try telling the
average 16 yr old that Sum 41 and Blink 182 aren't really 'punk', and
that The Hives are much closer to the real thing... my kid listened to
"Veni, Vedi, Vicious" and all he could say is it "sounds like shit".
No, I said, it sounds like the Stooges or MC5. Production and all.
As far as they're concerned, Iggy Pop did that Trainspotting song...
>Music, like movies, is what speaks to you. Probably 95% of the vast consumer public could
>give three shits about, say, the significance of The Beach Boys' "Pet Sounds" on rock 'n'
>roll, or James Wong Howe's influence on Hollywood noir, or the history of The Mercury
>Players, or whatever. That's because they're not addicts. They're not fans. They're not
>geeks. We are. That's why we're so fucking cool.
>
Damn right.
Nothing I love better than seeing an "old" movie affect my kid. Best
example: "The Exorcist" scared the shit out of him. And he's not
afraid of anything but spiders.
But of course, he thought "Psycho" was lame.
jean
I went to a bookstore and asked the saleswoman, "Where's the self-help section?"
She said if she told me, it would defeat the purpose. -- George Carlin
Nick Macpherson
>How many
>>Chuck Berry fans had Robert Johnson records?
>>
>
>I knew Zeppelin owed it all to Robert Johnson and the great
>bluesmen... mainly from reading Cameron Crowe's liner notes in the
>'Song Remains the Same" double album. :-)
>
The Rolling Stones were Chuck Berry fans who also owned Robert Johnson records.
And I'm no expert on Johnson or Zeppelin but I can even spot the points of
rip-off in Zep's catalog. Both the Stones and Zep had that little trick of
giving themselves saongwriting credit (trad. arrangement by . . .) when they
recorded songs by Johnson or other bluesmen.
>I think ya nailed it pretty good... my kid only knows about classic
>rock and cinema because they're still a big part of my life. Of
>course, just because he knows about it, doesn't mean he appreciates it
>or agrees with me on what's good and what's not. Try telling the
>average 16 yr old that Sum 41 and Blink 182 aren't really 'punk', and
>that The Hives are much closer to the real thing... my kid listened to
>"Veni, Vedi, Vicious" and all he could say is it "sounds like shit".
>No, I said, it sounds like the Stooges or MC5. Production and all.
>
>As far as they're concerned, Iggy Pop did that Trainspotting song...
>
Mark E. Smith, the Fall singer, said that he's a great believer in musical
generation gaps and if he ever caught his kids listening to the same music as
him, he'd force them to listen to Shostakovich. Wendy James, ex of Transvision
Vamp, said it drove her up the wall when people hear music and complain that it
sounds like something they heard ten years ago, when the audience for that
music wasn't around ten years ago. I agree with both comments, intellectually
anyway, but then I find myself watching that Coldplay concert on MTV or reading
the Coldplay singer's top twenty LPs in the new Maximized-Rolling Stone and I
turn into a total old fuck, shaking his fist and complaining about the kids and
all the crap music they listen to. So none of my opinions on music are to be
trusted. I mean, I complain about bands like Coldplay going crazy ripping off
U2 or Radiohead but the bands I listen to like the Silver Jews or Destroyer are
all off imitating Dylan or Bowie. But I bet everyone's like that.
>Nothing I love better than seeing an "old" movie affect my kid. Best
>example: "The Exorcist" scared the shit out of him. And he's not
>afraid of anything but spiders.
>
>But of course, he thought "Psycho" was lame.
Show your kid Repulsion sometime. If there's any movie that transcends any era
and age group and is just plain creepy as hell, it's Repulsion.
Jim
>>From: jean je...@msmisp.com
>
>>How many
>>>Chuck Berry fans had Robert Johnson records?
>>>
>>
>>I knew Zeppelin owed it all to Robert Johnson and the great
>>bluesmen... mainly from reading Cameron Crowe's liner notes in the
>>'Song Remains the Same" double album. :-)
>>
> The Rolling Stones were Chuck Berry fans who also owned Robert Johnson
> records.
> And I'm no expert on Johnson or Zeppelin but I can even spot the points
> of
> rip-off in Zep's catalog. Both the Stones and Zep had that little trick
> of giving themselves saongwriting credit (trad. arrangement by . . .) when
> they recorded songs by Johnson or other bluesmen.
If you listen to Led Zeppelin's "How Many More Times?" from their first
album, they break into another song called "The Hunter" in the middle of
it. It's a Willie Dixon song and they never gave him any credit.
John Harkness
wrote:
>>From: jean je...@msmisp.com
>
>>How many
>>>Chuck Berry fans had Robert Johnson records?
>>>
>>
>>I knew Zeppelin owed it all to Robert Johnson and the great
>>bluesmen... mainly from reading Cameron Crowe's liner notes in the
>>'Song Remains the Same" double album. :-)
>>
>The Rolling Stones were Chuck Berry fans who also owned Robert Johnson records.
> And I'm no expert on Johnson or Zeppelin but I can even spot the points of
>rip-off in Zep's catalog. Both the Stones and Zep had that little trick of
>giving themselves saongwriting credit (trad. arrangement by . . .) when they
>recorded songs by Johnson or other bluesmen.
>
Worth remembering that Willie Dixon sued Zeppelin for plagiarism over
Led Zeppelin 2 and got a great honking wad of cash.
John Harkness
Rob
> hi all, i'm a reporter at salon, trying to get at whether today's
> you can help. specifically do you think it's necessary to see films by
> old directors like howard hawks or ingmar bergman or antonioni in
> order to be film literate?
If you define literate as an arbitrarily chosen canon of films,
thought to be "Great", then I wouldn't care to be judged by those
standards myself. It took me years of watching to have enough
experience with films past & present to come to the conclusion that
the films I see as essential are my own reality.
Everyone should have his own level of "great film", and screw everyone
else. If you have a common favorite with someone else, so much the
better - you can talk about it with another fan. Or not. I think
directors are only part of it, anyway, the actors had to get it right,
or no matter how good the crew, it can still suck.
I'd love for film to be studied at an early age, especially some
silents, as part of an expanded arts program in schools from
elementary on up - but no money - no art classes. Kids should be aware
of film's ability to influence at a young age. Now with all this CGI
shite floating around, it's easier than ever to warp reality. It would
be a good thing if young people were aquainted with the process, i.e.
"jump cuts", "tracking", "two-shots" and such, but I think a lot of
the basic film conventions will be gone with the wind soon anyway.
Faster cuts, no actors, no sets, no humans involved. All
computer-driven, visually action oriented, with the same films being
re-made over and over. Could the long, uncut opening scene from
Welles' "Touch of Evil" be done now, without critics carping about the
slow pace? Don't think so.
is it necessary to understand past classics
> (as baby-boomer film school professors argue) in order to appreciate
> film's ultimate capabilities and to develop a taste for complex
> present and future releases?
I'm afraid the magic wouldn't be the same, altho it would make for a
different appreciation of say, "Dude, Where's My Car?". ;) As for how
far one can stretch the boundaries, some of the Music videos are
amazingly clever, and generally use a lot of basic big movie
techniques as essential parts of the whole.
In addition, Some of the music videos I've seen are shameless
rip-offs of older flicks, that actually bring those visuals to a new
generation; or even better - sly tributes: the Smashing Pumpkins video
director did an excellent Georges Melies take, and I remember Tom
Petty's video people had a beautiful Little Nemo piece. I'm sure the
X/Y's who saw 'em knew they were based on old films, and maybe it
sparked an interest, who knows? That may be the only way to start
things off. I really don't think TCM or AMC are able to get enough
X/Y's to watch, unless their folks are controlling the remote.
why or why not? and if these specific
> oldies aren't in your personal canon, what is? what films (from any
> era or genre) must the average english major see to declare
> him/herself knowledgable or "film literate"? (if you disagree with
> this premise entirely, that's fine too.)
I would love to have my faves as some sort of important canon, but I
disagree with the premise anyway. I really hate to see those AFI-type,
false-Dharma lists - pretty soon they're like the paper of record,
they become the reality, rather than an interpretation of it.
but regardless, feel free to
> post, call and/or email me your answers/questions/comments. (and be
> sure to include your age so i know whether you're part of "us" or
> "them.")
Who the F**k are "them"? or "Us"? Sounds like life in the Village.
BCNU,
Rob, 47
>
> thanks.
>
> damien cave
> senior writer
> salon.com
> dc...@salon.com
> 212 549-3265
Lewis Mammel
damien wrote:
> (and be
> sure to include your age so i know whether you're part of "us" or
> "them.")
In the days of old in the days of gold
How oft times I repine
For the days of old when we dug up the gold
In the days of '49
Lew Mammel, Jr.
how...@brazee.net
movies, but before cable. She grew up not seeing nearly as many old movies
as I did. (although she lived with TV all of her life)
John Gwynn
>
> To be "literate" in an art form implies a certain clear knowledge of it's formation; in
> other words, it's past. Any art as old as cinema (which is young by most standards, but
> old enough for this conversation) will have gone through periods that are inexoriably tied
> to certain times and places - the neo-realist movement of post-war Italy, the noir period
> of forties Hollywood, the nouvelle vague of the French sixties, etc. "Literacy" implies a
> knowledge of the grammar of film, and the historical artistic context from which that
> grammar arose.
>
> That answers one question. Let's try some more.
History is an art, a muddy art at best. To be literate in an art form
requires nothing more (nor less) than the ability to say something
fresh (and intelligent?) about it. (Being the first to do so is not a
requisite). It may be that understanding the tapestry of connections
and patterns woven by historical analyses contributes (and it may
hinder just as easily) but adding a fresh perspective not grounded in
current intellectual "fashions" of the day can be just as
articulate.....
> I think that a true love of cinema - or any art - is a love of discovery. It's a love of
> finding out things, of wanting to see things that you never dreamed existed. My favourite
> film-makers - Gilliam, or Bergman, or Fellini, or Tarkovsky - are the ones that are true
> originals, whose specific sensibility is imbued in everything they touch. If "A.I." leads
> a kid to Kubrick, then perhaps Spielberg will be able to work off some of his time in
> Hell.
>
Well said, although it can be argued that Speilberg also has a
"specific sensibility" that imbues his work...
> My big problem with the notion of a "canon" is the idea that you should be watching some
> films because they're, pardon the expression, "good for you". A movie like "Citizen Kane"
> shouldn't be approached as a homework assignment, it should be approached as what it was
> intended to be: a breathtakingly perfect piece of entertainment. Knowledge of the
> back-story of "Kane" - the history of the Welles and Manciewicz, Welles' previous
> accomplishments in the theatre, the basis of Kane on Hearst, etc - is interesting, but
> unessesary to the enjoyment of the movie.
The good thing about a number of "classics" is that they can be
enjoyed simply as entertainment. Kane is a darn good yarn with a
commonsensical ending. One does not have to wonder about the bird
motif (and meanings therein) of "Psycho."
But, lets face it, there are films that force us to work a bit to get
anything substantial out of them. It could be worse, thinking about
Joyce's "Ulysses" or Faulkner's "Sound and Fury" cinema is cake....
In short: I believe that a true, abiding love of cinema will lead one
to the greats like a
> tiny tributary eventually leads to the ocean. Literacy comes out of a passion for the art;
> to work it the other way around usually results in failure.
Any way that works, works....
johng