Why no sense of movie history?
Ellen B. Edgerton
>I have to join with others who are wondering why it is that when we see people
>posting their "Ten Best" lists they are dominated by movies released in the
>last 15 years (and in many cases released in the last 5 years).
>
>I'm no cinema academic and not interested in "raising anyone's consciousness",
>per se, it's more that I feel like there are hundreds of wonderful movies out
>there--many of them real precursors to the hits of today--that are all well
>worth watching in their own right and that will never be watched by the
>cinema-goers of today. It's particularly galling when you consider the great
>opportunity afforded today's movie-lover that was never available to his or
>her counterparts of even 15 years ago: the VCR makes us all virtual librarians
>with huge stockpiles of classics, B-movies, and total disasters from the last
>80 years all readily available.
>So I just don't get it. Why fight for the last copy of Jurassic Park, or any
>other recent hit you've probably already seen, when that same movie store--if
>it's of any size at all--probably has other movies like Arsenic and Old Lace,
>Battleship Potemkin, The Thin Man, The Third Man, The Big Sleep, Paths of
>Glory, Stagecoach, Mon Oncle Antoine, and too many others to count that most
>movie-goers ( at least as evidenced by this group) have never seen?
>
>Enlighten me, what am I missing?
>
From your list, looks like THE GENERAL, THE WIND, HAMLET starring Asta
Nielsen, THE BLUE ANGEL for starters...
Whatsamatta, spoiled by those modern special effects like sound, color
and English dialogue?
Paul Kedrosky
posting their "Ten Best" lists they are dominated by movies released in the
last 15 years (and in many cases released in the last 5 years).
I understand the obvious answer, that most people posting here came of age in
the preceding period so they are simply reflecting back what they have seen,
but it still troubles me. I can't help but feel like this is, at least in
part, unique to movies, as opposed to other forms of popular culture like
plays and books. Even in music we see an endless regurgitation of 60's British
Invasion dreck and 70's rock that should all pre-date enough of the supposed
consumers of said product to make their popularity puzzling. But not so with
movies--Why?
The other obvious answer that springs to mind (and that I've heard trotted
out in this group) is that today's movie-goers are spoiled by all the special
effects and high production values and have come to associate flash, rather
than substance, with entertainment. By that measure the so-called "classics"
of the 30's and onward suffer badly, their effects and production
values--while often stunning for their time--don't compare with those of
Jurassic Park; but there is still, to my mind, an essential humanity to films
ranging from The Maltese Falcon to The Godfather that more than transcends the
space of years.
I'm no cinema academic and not interested in "raising anyone's consciousness",
per se, it's more that I feel like there are hundreds of wonderful movies out
there--many of them real precursors to the hits of today--that are all well
worth watching in their own right and that will never be watched by the
cinema-goers of today. It's particularly galling when you consider the great
opportunity afforded today's movie-lover that was never available to his or
her counterparts of even 15 years ago: the VCR makes us all virtual librarians
with huge stockpiles of classics, B-movies, and total disasters from the last
80 years all readily available.
So I just don't get it. Why fight for the last copy of Jurassic Park, or any
other recent hit you've probably already seen, when that same movie store--if
it's of any size at all--probably has other movies like Arsenic and Old Lace,
Battleship Potemkin, The Thin Man, The Third Man, The Big Sleep, Paths of
Glory, Stagecoach, Mon Oncle Antoine, and too many others to count that most
movie-goers ( at least as evidenced by this group) have never seen?
Enlighten me, what am I missing?
Paul
MiklPorter
(Paul Kedrosky) writes:
How come nobody who posts knows about old/classic films ?
Dear Paul,
Enjoyed your theories and thoughts. One of the aspects you forgot about is
the fact that the Net community isn't a random sample of
any movie-loving population. It's the "computer-enhanced" population,
therefore weighted toward geeks, tech-nerds (who love
gadgets + stuff blowing up) and younger people. In my experience,
very few literati use computers except for word-processing. Of
course some do, and some idiots will probably post in response
saying "I do and so do my friends etc. etc." which doesn't change the fact
that computer users, while great in number, are still
only a small part of the global community of readers and filmgoers.
Tisha King
Don't forget North By Northwest, Jean de Florette/Manon Des Sources (recent,
but without all the flash, and extraordiarily awesome), and several dozens of
others I can't think of off hand that I warch everytime AMC or some network or
independent channel's movie night plays them. (whoops. that's watch, not
warch!) ANyways, there are so many movies to choose from, it's hard to
mention just ten or fifteen best. They're all different, so it's often hard
to compare them. But I agree--many really great movies were made before the
era of fabulous special effects and even color or sound.
--Tisha
Tisha King
>>From your list, looks like THE GENERAL, THE WIND, HAMLET starring Asta
>>Nielsen, THE BLUE ANGEL for starters...
>>Whatsamatta, spoiled by those modern special effects like sound, color
>>and English dialogue?
>Why oh why do I even bother? Did you even read my posting? My intent wasn't to
>provide yet another list of "Ten Best" movies for you yo-yos to argue over, it
>was to bemoan the absence of older movies at all from all these other insipid
>lists. Are you so avowedly anal that to simply make that suggestion that I
>therefore had to list all those movies, or at least a statistically
>representative sample from all times and cultures? Good grief.
>You silly little wingnut, leave responding to longer postings to people with
>attention spans.
>Paul
Well, "I'm rubber you're glue! What you say bounces off me and sticks to you!"
I think he was being facetious. :)
Anyways, you do have a point about better movies being overlooked just
because they're older. I guess they're just harder to remember, because we
haven't been barraged with multi-million dollar ad campaigns for them.
--Tisha
David Lee
>I have to join with others who are wondering why it is that when we see people
>posting their "Ten Best" lists they are dominated by movies released in the
>last 15 years (and in many cases released in the last 5 years).
..etc..
>So I just don't get it. Why fight for the last copy of Jurassic Park, or any
>other recent hit you've probably already seen, when that same movie store--if
>it's of any size at all--probably has other movies like Arsenic and Old Lace,
>Battleship Potemkin, The Thin Man, The Third Man, The Big Sleep, Paths of
>Glory, Stagecoach, Mon Oncle Antoine, and too many others to count that most
>movie-goers ( at least as evidenced by this group) have never seen?
>Enlighten me, what am I missing?
I agree.... Totally..Perhaps it's because no one is advertising the "old"
movies and most movie goers are influenced by tv advertising and the flashy
talk shows hawking another Hollywood spectacular.. Another thing, today's
society and most of us are heavily into "instant" gratification with a heavy
emphasis surface beauty.. The violence, sex and spectacular "special effects"
are common place in modern movies and comparison with older movies tend to
shy younger movie goers away..
I recently bought a "re-colored" copy of John Wayne's "Sands of Iwo Jima"
which was released in 1949.. I had completely forgotten how moving that
movie was.. Even compared with most movies today, Sands of Iwo Jima is very
good.. For John Wayne fans.. Republic has just released its collection of
John Wayne movies in new computer colorized and corrected format.. They are
quite good in both color and quality.. List at K-Mart stores for $9.99..
BTW, many Blockbuster stores in this area are severely cutting back on
these older movies to make more room for the "hot" hits.. Movies that are
just a year or two old and has been rushed for release to the public.
Too bad...IMHO.
.
.
.
....
David Gregory Platt
>>So I just don't get it. Why fight for the last copy of Jurassic Park, or any
>>other recent hit you've probably already seen, when that same movie store--if
>>it's of any size at all--probably has other movies like Arsenic and Old Lace,
>>Battleship Potemkin, The Thin Man, The Third Man, The Big Sleep, Paths of
>>Glory, Stagecoach, Mon Oncle Antoine, and too many others to count that most
>>movie-goers ( at least as evidenced by this group) have never seen?
>>Enlighten me, what am I missing?
> I agree.... Totally..Perhaps it's because no one is advertising the "old"
>movies and most movie goers are influenced by tv advertising and the flashy
>talk shows hawking another Hollywood spectacular.. Another thing, today's
>society and most of us are heavily into "instant" gratification with a heavy
>emphasis surface beauty.. The violence, sex and spectacular "special effects"
>are common place in modern movies and comparison with older movies tend to
>shy younger movie goers away..
But we have more access to the "old" movies than ever before. In the 1950s,
unless you lived in a big city with a large number of repertory theatres,
you couldn't see movies from the 20s, 30s, and even 40s. I think if you
asked this question of average people (not film critics) in the '50s,
they'd name movies made within ten years. (Before the '50s, movies weren't
considered worth saving, so older movies often just disappeared.)
As well, we tend to forget that there were as many (perhaps even more) BAD
movies made in that era, and _those_ are the ones that are lost. The fact
that even a few movies from pre-1950 (Citizen Kane seems to show up a lot)
appear on the lists is a testament to the efforts to in fact _promote_ old
movies (what about these 20th-50th anniversary packages for classic movies?)
Besides, as for my own list, I would put Star Wars and Raging Bull up
there with Citizen Kane. That's my opinion. Case closed.
Dave
Paul Kedrosky
>In article <pkedrosk.8...@pipeline.com> pked...@pipeline.com (Paul
>Kedrosky) writes:
>>I have to join with others who are wondering why it is that when we see people
>>posting their "Ten Best" lists they are dominated by movies released in the
>>last 15 years (and in many cases released in the last 5 years).
[Much of my own stuff deleted including some tossed off names of other movies]
>>Enlighten me, what am I missing?
>>
>From your list, looks like THE GENERAL, THE WIND, HAMLET starring Asta
>Nielsen, THE BLUE ANGEL for starters...
>Whatsamatta, spoiled by those modern special effects like sound, color
>and English dialogue?
Why oh why do I even bother? Did you even read my posting? My intent wasn't to
Ellen B. Edgerton
ever hurled at me.
And come on. Most people who complain about older movies not being
included on lists have NO appreciation for silents and older foreign films.
It's just as Greek to most of them as CITIZEN KANE and AN AFFAIR TO
REMEMBER are to people whose Top 10 all were released after 1970. What are
the top 20 most important films of the silent era? Let's see how many
"literate" opinions there are on that. (I'm not offering any, but then
again, I'm not trashing people for loving the films they know, whether or
not they were released before they were born.)
Jeanne F. Leonard
: I have to join with others who are wondering why it is that when we see people
: Paul
Personally (I'm your average "idiot" movie-goer) I only go to movies
for the sake of entertainment. More specifically, I go to be challenged
or disturbed. Seldom do I run out and see action movies or comedies on
the big screen, or even at all. I go for political themes mostly,
although anything that is extremely disturbing or erotic I also enjoy.
Granted, 9 1/2 weeks wasn't my cup of tea, b/c it lacked any story or
characters that I could enjoy.
So I do not have a great appreciation of film, but I can still enjoy
movies, and have an opinion. I do not claim to have any appreciation of
film as an art, nor do I claim to "know film" andd its history. I could
change this, yes, but I do not want to. I prefer to go on as I am and
not make any great effort to broaden my horizens when it comes to film.
Maybe that will change when I am very old. But as things are now, I have
other interests that are more important to me, and not a lot of time. In
fact, one of my interests happens to be politics, and one particular
interest of mine is Haiti. I have always been interested in the country
and am very familiar with the place after having studied its history,
language, and culture (visiting the country), etc. I'm no great expert,
but I do happen to know more than the average American citizen. (And I
suspect that I know more than the average citizens of other nations as
well). So now that Haiti is big news, everyone has an opinion -- even
the folks who know less about Haiti's history than me. These folks'
opinions are not less valid than mine simply because they are less
informed. It is no surprise to me that most peoples' opinions of Haiti
are formed by the media. Once a person becomes
interested in Haiti b/c it is conveniently located on the front page of
her/his newspaper every day, I would not expect those interested people
to go much further in their readings than their newspapers. I doubt
that they have the time, and I doubt that they care *that much*. Maybe
while I'm busying myself by reading yet another book about Haitian
history, or spending yet another month in Haiti's countryside, someone
else is reading another book on film history, or watching yet another old
movie. My point being, (in case it isn't completely obvious?) that for
every subject, issue, or whatever, there will always be the more informed
person, and then the larger population of lesser informed people.
So if you are troubled by the lack of knowlege of film history, you
can assume that a great majority of viewers are either 1) not at all
interested, 2) only slightly interested (me) and 3) the interested and
informed class. Certainly the #2's can become #3's if they choose to,
but they are sometimes indistinguishable from the other #2's like myself,
who are tending towards a #1.
Therefore, folks like myself will continue to go to movies for --
probably in your opinion -- all the wrong reasons. And we will continue
to go on at the mouth about what our top ten movies are, even though we
only have a casual interest and might not know what the heck we are
talking about, and unfortunately/ fortunately (take your pick), people
like you will be stuck having to figure out who really knows what s/he is
talking about, b/c in any democratic society, you won't be able to stifle us.
So I think that you might get a whole range of answers concerning
some peoples' lack of knowlege of films. These will range from
advertising (as some have already said) to "I don't like black and
white..." to whatever else. But I think it boils down to a lack of true
interest in film. My own reasons for passing by all those oldies, are 1)
advertising 2) Personal interests that don't seem to be represented in
lots of the older films (especially women -- I feel underrepresented as
a woman in those films, and that sometimes drives me away). If I was
interested in film at all, obviously these things would be overpowered by
my fascination for the medium. But they are not. I hope that this was
clear, and I hope that it answered your question.
Jeanne
Mike D'Angelo
Ellen responded in kind to what you posted; she apparently just did so with
such subtlety that her point flew over your head.
She wasn't saying "why aren't these four movies on your list?" She was saying
"you complain that nobody selects classic films for their ten favorites, and
yet you completely ignore the silent era yourself." It was a cheeky response,
no doubt, but clearly intended in fun (I think; I guess Ellen can speak up if I
misinterpreted).
By the way, if you can be so bold as to call Ellen a "silly little wingnut" and
the rest of us "yo-yos," I feel justified in mentioning that your sentence
above beginning "Are you so avowedly anal..." is one of the most poorly
constructed I've seen in this newsgroup all week; your grammar is quite
atrocious. So there.
Mike D'Angelo
Tisch School of the Arts
Jeanne F. Leonard
: but I do happen to know more than the average American citizen. (And I
: suspect that I know more than the average citizens of other nations as
: well). So now that Haiti is big news, everyone has an opinion -- even
: the folks who know less about Haiti's history than me. These folks'
: opinions are not less valid than mine simply because they are less
actually do not believe that every opinion is as valid as the next. I
think that everyone should be allowed the freedom to express his or her
opinion, but I do not believe that these opinions are necessarily valid
at all. Certainly my own opinions concerning film are much less valid
than a film student's, or some other obviously more informed person. But
my point remains that the voices of the uninformed should still be given
the freedom to be heard. Hence, I will still blather on about movies.
: advertising 2) Personal interests that don't seem to be represented in
: lots of the older films (especially women -- I feel underrepresented as
: a woman in those films, and that sometimes drives me away). If I was
I would like to re-emphasize this point because it has a large
impact on why I do not grab those old movies off the shelves.
Jeanne
Mike D'Angelo
In no order and off the top of my head:
1. The Birth of a Nation
2. Intolerance
3. Broken Blossoms
4. Regeneration
5. Sherlock, Jr.
6. The General
7. The Gold Rush
8. Sunrise
9. Greed
10. Three Bad Men
11. The Mark of Zorro
12. The Crowd
13. The Cabinet of Dr. Calagari
14. Dr. Mabuse der Spieler
15. Dr. Mabuse, King of Crime
16. Metropolis
17. The Iron Horse
18. Docks of New York
19. Blackmail
20. The Wedding March
I'm not an expert on the silents, so these aren't necessarily the best, but
they are undoubtedly among the most important. Anyone who hasn't seen any
silent film and wants to know where to start wouldn't go far wrong with this
list, even if I do say so myself.
I confined myself to films of five reels or longer, so early shorts (especially
the early French hand-painted shorts, which are phenomenal) aren't represented.
21. Pollyanna (I forgot Mary Pickford)
22. Pandora's Box (this is what happens when you don't think ahead!)
Okay, everyone remind me of those I've forgotten.
David Gregory Platt
Good point. I thought _Sunrise_ and _City Lights_ were brilliant, and
there are a lot of other good silents (_Safety Last_, all of Keaton's
movies), but, then again, there are some really BAD ones, that have
nothing to do with a lack of sound (I defy anyone to sit through a
Griffith movie. I had a film prof who liked no American movie after 1940,
but even _he_ couldn't stand Griffith.)
Dave
Craig Ashcroft Willmott
>In article <pkedrosk.8...@pipeline.com>, pked...@pipeline.com (Paul Kedrosky) is confused by the limits of news as a medium of communication:
>>lists. Are you so avowedly anal that to simply make that suggestion that I
>>therefore had to list all those movies, or at least a statistically
>>representative sample from all times and cultures? Good grief.
...
>Ellen responded in kind to what you posted; she apparently just did so with
>such subtlety that her point flew over your head.
...
>By the way, if you can be so bold as to call Ellen a "silly little wingnut" and
>the rest of us "yo-yos," I feel justified in mentioning that your sentence
>above beginning "Are you so avowedly anal..." is one of the most poorly
>constructed I've seen in this newsgroup all week; your grammar is quite
>atrocious. So there.
On the other hand, you'd have to admit, Mike, that the sentence does start with
a very attractive piece of alliteration, even if it does lack rythmically...
Back to the matter at hand. I think that the post earlier regarding the makeup
of r.a.m posters was correct. And more than just being tochnofreaks etc, they
are mostly youngsters. The thing is that most people only see movies to
get a superficial 2-hour fix, not because they view movies as some art form.
I think it's generally only as people get older that they tend to appreciate
movies as something more, and this is only if they have the time or inclination
to worry about such things. Even then, few will be enthusiastic enough
to search out good old movies. It's not like you walk into a video store
and find yourself confronted by a whole section of _North by Northwest_. In
addition, watching older movies _does_ mean acclimatising yourself to lower
production values, bad clothes, a lack of gratuitous sex/violence etc.
btw, if anyone can explain to me why Jean de Florette/Manon des Sources were
good films (apart from Daniel Auteuil) I would be interested.
Later,
Craig.
---
For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration!
Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient
and the world will follow our lead to the future!
- Adolph Hitler, 1935
Richard Han
have come to mind. First, even given the fact that you are interested in
watching such classic movies, the sheer quantity of old movie material is
really daunting. For example, this summer I went through a classical movie
binge, and saw over two hundred movies over 3 months (somewhat a mind-boggling
experience I must confess -- not recommended for the faint of heart). These
were all movies made after the silent era and exclude foreign films. So I
focused on American films in the 30's and 40's, but included all decades
except the 20's. Even then, I haven't seen most of the films by Norma Shearer,
Jean Harlow, Joan Crawford, Hepburn-Tracy, Bette Davis, Rogers-Astaire, etc.
Some of their filmographies are huge. So the point is that, even if I
narrowed the "critical mass" of the "best" movies from the 30's to the 50's
to say 100 films (a VERY conservative number in my estimation), it would still
take me about a year, at a clip of about two movies per weekend, to become
reasonably conversant with the so-called "best" movies of just these three
decades. You'd have to be pretty focused with a long-term interest in the
classics to gain even partial literacy. My guess is that for most people
the commitment isn't there, and that videos are rented on a random "what-
should-we-see-tonight?" leisurely basis.
Again, presupposing your interest in such classics, finding *out* about them is
another story. How is someone who has never heard of "Rebecca" or
"A Streetcar Named Desire" supposed to know what to look for? Especially some
movies which weren't recognized for Academy Awards, but were fine movies
nonetheless. I don't know how other folks learn about old movies, but for
me it's rather a piecemeal experience -- part serendipity, part intelligent
search. Some videos can't be found, and those that are on the shelves have
misleading blurbs. In the process, one rents and sifts through alot of
mediocre stuff, though I suppose that's part of the learning experience.
Finally, just getting folks to that "awareness threshold" is a challenge in
and of itself. Just laying out rows of musty old videos at Blockbuster from
long-dead actors and actresses does not really engage the average video
customer. The renter generally needs to have been previously exposed to
John Wayne, or Humphrey Bogart, hooked in some way by visual memory or emotion,
to have a real desire to spend money and time on a movie. Curiosity alone
is not sufficient to compete with megamillion modern movie advertising.
Just my two cents,
Rick
Philip Stephens
Paul Kedrosky writes:
>I have to join with others who are wondering why it is that when we see people
>posting their "Ten Best" lists they are dominated by movies released in the
>last 15 years (and in many cases released in the last 5 years).
Well, quite frankly Paul, I find a lot of old movies to be poorly paced,
woodenly or melodramatically acted, with pompous or overdramatic music. Put
simply, I either find myself getting bored (no, I'm not part of the MTV
generation) or unable to involve myself in old movies because they are too
stage-like for my tastes. What's more, I don't always relate to the attitudes
of the period in which older movies have been made.
Now of course this is a generalisation, and I _have_ seen movies that were
released more than 15 years ago that I actually liked very much. But as
far as I'm concerned, the art of making movies has improved quite dramatically
over the last couple of decades; both in terms of quality of production, and
quality of acting. Furthermore, I prefer movies made in my time because they
reflect the world I live in right now, and the way people think today.
So why bemoan the fact that not everyone likes old movies? Nothing lasts
forever; society changes, and what were considered masterpieces of cinema by
one generation may be seen as silly by another. But that doesn't necessary
mean that the current generation is more stupid than previous generations!
--
=========== Philip Stephens, Systems Programmer, Labtam Australia ============
====== Owned by Motor (Mo for short), the power-purrer from Down Under =======
== DS (B+S+O+W)t Y 2.5 X L W C+++ I T++ A+ E H++ S+ V+ F Q++ P B PA+ PL+++ ==
"Many views yield the truth. Therefore, be not alone." -- Viggies' Prime Song
Thomas Andrews
a wide variety of films are less inclined to make a list of their
ten favorite, and even if they were inclined, might not have the time
to sort through their memories. I haven't noticed any top ten lists from
any of r.a.m's regular film critics, for instance. The lists don't reflect
the readership of r.a.m, but instead reflect the portion of the readership
that would try to make such a list.
Here is a start of my list:
The Conversation
Rear Window
Cool Hand Luke
The Maltese Falcon
Singing in the Rain
Fitzcaraldo (sp?)
Alien
Once I got this far, I found that I couldn't think of any more that
I felt clearly belonged on the list, not because I couldn't think
of any more good movies, but because it is hard to weigh one against
another.
--
Thomas Andrews
CenterLine Software
JEREMY W PERKINS
Paul Kedrosky <pked...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>I understand the obvious answer, that most people posting here came of age in
>the preceding period so they are simply reflecting back what they have seen,
>but it still troubles me. I can't help but feel like this is, at least in
>part, unique to movies, as opposed to other forms of popular culture like
>plays and books. Even in music we see an endless regurgitation of 60's British
>Invasion dreck and 70's rock that should all pre-date enough of the supposed
Hang on here. Some of what you say about films seems to me to have force, but
don't do the elitist trick of dismissing elements of the development of another
culture just because it is only "pop" music.
J.
Steven Sullivan
: Actually, I liked being called a wingnut. It's one of the cutest epithets
: ever hurled at me.
I have to wonder, are the barriers to appreciating old B&W talkies
as great for today's cinematically illiterate filmgoers as they
are for your average CITIZEN KANE fan who hasn't worked his way
to silents and old foreign films? Personally I think the answer
is no, that there's less of an excuse for being ignorant of
classic English-language talkies, but maybe I have misjudged
the 'foreign-ness' of old talkies to the demographic bulge of
viewers brought up on color TV and dreary sitcoms (which would
be depressing since I'm a member of that bulge).
Peter Reiher
>Good point. I thought _Sunrise_ and _City Lights_ were brilliant, and
>there are a lot of other good silents (_Safety Last_, all of Keaton's
>movies), but, then again, there are some really BAD ones, that have
>nothing to do with a lack of sound (I defy anyone to sit through a
>Griffith movie. I had a film prof who liked no American movie after 1940,
>but even _he_ couldn't stand Griffith.)
I've sat through at least a dozen, and will generally go see any
Griffith film that's playing that I haven't already seen. (And a
few that I have.) Griffith made some very fine, very watchable
films, in my opinion - "Birth of a Nation" (while vile in its racism)
has extremely stirring scenes; the Babylon sequences of "Intolerance"
are one of the great spectacles ever filmed; the rescue scene in
"Way Down East" is very exciting; "Broken Blossoms" is very moving.
Not all of Griffith's output were gems, but most of them are at
least pretty good. I know of many others who feel the same, so
you must be running with a different cinematic crowd if you truly
find them uniformly and universally unwatchable.
--
Peter Reiher
rei...@wells.cs.ucla.edu
Robert_Bryan_Lipton
: ever hurled at me.
Let's see... my personal favorites among silents... in no particular order
THE CAMERAMAN
SAFETY LAST
THE GENERAL
STEAMBOAT BILL JR.
THE THIEF OF BAGHDAD
THE IRON HORSE
TUMBLEWEEDS
INTOLERANCE
GRANDMA'S BOY
THE LOST WORLD
SEVENTH HEAVEN
SHOULDER ARMS
THE FOUR HORSEMEN OF THE APOCALYPSE
ORPHANS OF THE STORM
NELL GWYNN
FOOLISH WIVES
THE MARRIAGE CIRCLE
My taste for comedy and adventure shows, as does my American bias -- no
Eisenstein; in fact, no non-American films except for Nell Gwynn.
However, I would estimate that I have seen fewer than a hundred silent
features in forty years. People don't want to look at them.
Unfortunate, since it betokens ignorance, yet leaves people open to
discovering new stuff. For example, I've been listening to people rave
about Jim Carey's performances and my reaction is slightly blase. 'Oh,
yeah. Reminds me of Joe E. Brown.'
Instead of screaming, go watch AMC, especially this weekend. Lots of
restoration work going on.
Bob
Kim Pugh
=>I have to join with others who are wondering why it is that when we see people
=>posting their "Ten Best" lists they are dominated by movies released in the
=>last 15 years (and in many cases released in the last 5 years).
=>I understand the obvious answer, that most people posting here came of age in
=>the preceding period so they are simply reflecting back what they have seen,
=>but it still troubles me. I can't help but feel like this is, at least in
=>part, unique to movies, as opposed to other forms of popular culture like
=>plays and books. Even in music we see an endless regurgitation of 60's British
=>Invasion dreck and 70's rock that should all pre-date enough of the supposed
=>consumers of said product to make their popularity puzzling. But not so with
=>movies--Why?
=>The other obvious answer that springs to mind (and that I've heard trotted
=>out in this group) is that today's movie-goers are spoiled by all the special
=>effects and high production values and have come to associate flash, rather
=>than substance, with entertainment. By that measure the so-called "classics"
=>of the 30's and onward suffer badly, their effects and production
=>values--while often stunning for their time--don't compare with those of
=>Jurassic Park; but there is still, to my mind, an essential humanity to films
=>ranging from The Maltese Falcon to The Godfather that more than transcends the
=>space of years.
=>I'm no cinema academic and not interested in "raising anyone's consciousness",
=>per se, it's more that I feel like there are hundreds of wonderful movies out
=>there--many of them real precursors to the hits of today--that are all well
=>worth watching in their own right and that will never be watched by the
=>cinema-goers of today. It's particularly galling when you consider the great
=>opportunity afforded today's movie-lover that was never available to his or
=>her counterparts of even 15 years ago: the VCR makes us all virtual librarians
=>with huge stockpiles of classics, B-movies, and total disasters from the last
=>80 years all readily available.
=>So I just don't get it. Why fight for the last copy of Jurassic Park, or any
=>other recent hit you've probably already seen, when that same movie store--if
=>it's of any size at all--probably has other movies like Arsenic and Old Lace,
=>Battleship Potemkin, The Thin Man, The Third Man, The Big Sleep, Paths of
=>Glory, Stagecoach, Mon Oncle Antoine, and too many others to count that most
=>movie-goers ( at least as evidenced by this group) have never seen?
=>Enlighten me, what am I missing?
=>Paul
Part of the problem is *how do younger cinema devotees know what older
movies to rent*? All they hear about is what's out _now_. Where do they
go to find out about older, classic films? Look at the blurbs on the
film boxes; what do they really tell you about what's inside? How can
they tell the difference between _Citizen Kane_ and _Just Imagine_?
--
Robert "Kim" Pugh | DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed are *strictly*
<k...@telepath.com> | those of the last person I talked to.
TornCot
go out and get a good movie guide. (My favorite is Maltin)If you read a
description of an older film that seems as if it might interest you-rent
it
Dave Krugman
JEREMY W PERKINS
Richard Han <rh...@shannon.eecs.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>should-we-see-tonight?" leisurely basis.
>
>Again, presupposing your interest in such classics, finding *out* about them is
>another story. How is someone who has never heard of "Rebecca" or
>"A Streetcar Named Desire" supposed to know what to look for? Especially some
>movies which weren't recognized for Academy Awards, but were fine movies
>nonetheless. I don't know how other folks learn about old movies, but for
>me it's rather a piecemeal experience -- part serendipity, part intelligent
>search.
I suppose most of us rely on television stations to serve up a good cross-
section of old movies. Most of my 'serendipity-watching' comes about this
way. Unfortunately, in Britain at least, BBC, ITV and Channel 4 between them
seem to have a core of about 4,000 films they keep recycling over the years.
J.
John R. Dooley
Mike D'Angelo <mqd...@ACFcluster.nyu.edu> wrote:
>Wingnut writes:
>>
>>What are the top 20 most important films of the silent era?
>
>
>1. The Birth of a Nation 2. Intolerance 3. Broken Blossoms
>4. Regeneration 5. Sherlock, Jr. 6. The General 7. The Gold Rush
>8. Sunrise 9. Greed 10. Three Bad Men 11. The Mark of Zorro 12. The Crowd
>13. The Cabinet of Dr. Calagari 14. Dr. Mabuse der Spieler
>15. Dr. Mabuse, King of Crime 16. Metropolis 17. The Iron Horse
>18. Docks of New York 19. Blackmail 20. The Wedding March
>
>I'm not an expert on the silents, so these aren't necessarily the best, but
>they are undoubtedly among the most important.
I think this is a really good list, but it misses two that I'd bet are
on most people's (well, most people who care) list of important silent
flicks: The Battleship Potemkin (famous scenes, imaginative editing)
and Napoleon (the huge 3-screen projection). Both seem fundamental,
at least to me. I'd probably get rid of Blackmail (I like Hitchcock,
but he's a director who grew into greatness) and Broken Blossoms.
John D.
dr white timothy rey
: I've sat through at least a dozen, and will generally go see any
: Griffith film that's playing that I haven't already seen. (And a
: few that I have.) Griffith made some very fine, very watchable
: films, in my opinion - "Birth of a Nation" (while vile in its racism)
: has extremely stirring scenes; the Babylon sequences of "Intolerance"
: are one of the great spectacles ever filmed; the rescue scene in
: "Way Down East" is very exciting; "Broken Blossoms" is very moving.
: Not all of Griffith's output were gems, but most of them are at
: least pretty good. I know of many others who feel the same, so
: you must be running with a different cinematic crowd if you truly
: find them uniformly and universally unwatchable.
I definitely agree with you on this one, Peter. Griffith is not the god
of cinema that many believe him to be, but I've seen very few of his
films that I didn't find at least interesting. And the good ones
(INTOLERANCE, WAY DOWN EAST, BROKEN BLOSSOMS, BIRTH, as well as a lot of
the short Biographs) are VERY good.
--
Dr Timothy R White
Dept of English Lang & Lit
Natl Univ of Singapore
10 Kent Ridge Crescent
SINGAPORE 0511
Telephone: (65) 772-3936 Fax: (65) 773-2981 Internet: ell...@nus.sg
Eric C. Johnson
>Part of the problem is *how do younger cinema devotees know what older
>movies to rent*? All they hear about is what's out _now_. Where do they
>go to find out about older, classic films? Look at the blurbs on the
>film boxes; what do they really tell you about what's inside? How can
>they tell the difference between _Citizen Kane_ and _Just Imagine_?
Well, it depends on how *active* you are about the whole process. I realize
that many people may actually want to expand their knowledge but simply can't:
they live in film-poor areas, etc. But for one who does not have such
legitimate excuses, it all comes down to the effort one puts into it.
I'm 25, so I guess I'm "young" (though perhaps that's not true when it
comes to the Net), and the way I deal with it is to *read*. I spend
countless hours pouring through the film books and magazines available
here at the Northwestern library. I am also fortunate to have several
film-literate friends, and contacts with a few professional film critics,
so there are many sources of information open to me. And I use them!
I purchase film magazines and follow up on all the film schedules of the
various film outlets here in Chicago (Facets, The Film Center, Doc Films,
etc.) And I learn, learn, learn. I don't passively wait for films to
fall in my lap; I go out looking for them...
Eric C. Johnson
ejoh...@nwu.edu
Eric C. Johnson
Philip Stephens <phi...@labtam.oz.au> wrote:
>
>Paul Kedrosky writes:
>
>>I have to join with others who are wondering why it is that when we see people
>>posting their "Ten Best" lists they are dominated by movies released in the
>>last 15 years (and in many cases released in the last 5 years).
>
> Well, quite frankly Paul, I find a lot of old movies to be poorly paced,
>woodenly or melodramatically acted, with pompous or overdramatic music. Put
>simply, I either find myself getting bored (no, I'm not part of the MTV
>generation) or unable to involve myself in old movies because they are too
>stage-like for my tastes. What's more, I don't always relate to the attitudes
>of the period in which older movies have been made.
> Now of course this is a generalisation, and I _have_ seen movies that were
>released more than 15 years ago that I actually liked very much. But as
>far as I'm concerned, the art of making movies has improved quite dramatically
>over the last couple of decades; both in terms of quality of production, and
>quality of acting. Furthermore, I prefer movies made in my time because they
>reflect the world I live in right now, and the way people think today.
You know, this almost sounds really great until you stop and think about how
unrepentantly parochial it is. I'm sorry Philip, but you sound like someone
who only likes those things which "massage your prejudices" (to borrow a
phrase from Peter Greenaway). I suspect you don't watch many films from
places other than Oz, England, or the US (i.e., non-English language films)
since they certainly don't reflect the world that *you* live in.
My greatest joys in film are experiencing new things, new ideas, new
cultures. (And by "new" I'm referring to my discovery of them, not their
vintage.) It's not a question of whether I "relate to the attitudes"
expressed in films of other times and places, but what I learn from them
regardless. I've seen films spanning the entire history of the medium so
far (1895-1994), and I'm trying my very best to see films from every country
in which they've been made (recent major additions Greece, Belgium, Iran,
Senegal, and soon Hungary). Hell, I love modern films about modern
life (just around the corner), too. But they're hardly the *only* films I
like, for cryin' out loud!!!
As for your comments about "old" movies, I have to disagree strongly. While
it's true that quality and efficiency of production have improved (on the
whole) as the years have passed, the basic technology has existed largely
unmolested. There are things of such power and beauty from films made
nearly a century ago that equal, and often surpass, anything made today.
I don't know what films you've been watching but the phrase "woodenly
or melodramatically acted, with pompous or overdramatic music" applies to
just as many films today as it ever did. If what you're trying to say
is that you have no appreciation for the different cultural indexes that
exist in "old" or "foreign" films, well then just go back to my previous
paragraph.
Eric C. Johnson
ejoh...@nwu.edu
There are 5 billion opinions in this world...this has been one of them.