having trouble getting through a few classics (1 Viewer)

[Michael Reuben]

What have you seen on Broadway recently?

M.

 

[Brad E]

No this does not apply to other art forms or history. Not sure how you made that jump.
In fact it is the opposite as far as paintings, sculptures, buildings and other art go.

Literature , unlike a movie, is all imagination. There are no sets, bad sound, overly dramatic acting, lack of colour ect, to distract from the story. So the time period really does not apply to literature in the same way. Until you get to things like Shakespeare. I have no desire learn old english just so I can understand what is being said. The fact that this is still taught in high school baffles my mind.

The old classic movies are, IMO, an acquired taste. Because to get to all the intrigue, excitement, suspense...... one has to overlook or acclimatize to all the distractions. Distractions being anything that I am currently acclimatized to. The list of differences in old vs. new movies is long and ranges from everything from sets used to acting and director styles.
Hope that helps you to better understand.


Michael, by Broadway I mean the overly dramatic acting. In the old movies it just seems like actors are performing for a live audience. Just another one of those distractions I was referring to.

 

[Terry St]

Anything after 1500 is considered to be modern english.

Shakespeare was born in the 16th century. Although the vernacular of his time was quite different from that of today, Shakespeare spoke and wrote in "modern" english. Talking about learning "old english" in order to understand Shakespeare might understandably raise eyebrows here and there, although probably not that many.

 

[Brad E]

I don't see anything modern about this quote from Macbeth.
Yes I can read Shakespeare and understand it, or at least get the gist of what is being said. But the tone and subtle emotion is lost on me.
No normal person picks up Shakespeare for the first time and totally understands all the words and true meaning behind them.
It has to be studied and learned just like a different language. Even then the interpretation (and that's what it is) is open to debate even amoung Shakespeare experts.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

I recently enjoyed THE 39 STEPS quite a bit, but I was left empty by REAR WINDOW myself (although the set and cinematography were great). And I'm afraid I'm in the teeny tiny minority when it comes to VERTIGO - I really just didn't like it. I found it too convoluted (it's been several years since I've seen it). I'm a big fan of FRENZY, THE BIRDS and PSYCHO, though.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Sorry, but it's just not a meaningful description to someone who's actually seen a lot of actors performing before live audiences (I see 30-40 plays a year). If what you're trying to say is that the acting in old movies strikes you as exaggerated or stylized, the better comparison is to contemporary films where the same type of acting can be found -- e.g., the LOTR films or any of the Strek Trek movies.

M.

 

[DaveButcher]

Terry St: Nice post, one of my pet peeves in life is peoples missuse of terminology and lack of understanding when it comes to history. I mean the fact that you don't understand Shakespear Brad, does not make it Old English, these aren't terms that are thrown around willy-nilly, they actually mean something.



Where to begin? Noise, Grind, Doom, Avant-Jazz, Some BM and DM, Power-Violence, Crust etc.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

But the style in the "old movies" is far superior to the majority of today's films - better acting, more realistic photography (especially black & white films - the most realistic look of all, since it's the color of your dreams), better stories, etc.

No one will be able to change your mind - it's best if you don't bother to watch any of the classics.

 

[DaveButcher]

I really don't want it to seem like I'm picking on you, but very few people make as bold of a statement as this. So I'm wondering if you are able to watch 80's movies, or if these fall under the non-"acclimatized" films as well, you can't say that the film stock, director styles and acting haven't changed since then. Watch a movie like Valley Girl or Ferris Bueller's Day Off (I mean the computer screen had green writing, GREEN, and no "windows"!). What about 70's movies, even stranger clothes and acting styles. Or modern foreign movies? You wouldn't be familiar with most of their setting or acting or language, can these ones be watched? What if they are foreign, but British, so the language is still kinda the same, but referrences would be totally different? I'm curious as to how you grade the various distraction that would inhibit your enjoyment of a movie. At what point are they bearable and at what point is it simply too much?

 

[Brad E]

Dave, for you to imply that Shakespeare is a measure of intelligence is more bold of a statement than anything I've said. But you are entitled to your opinion.

You disagree with my statement that no normal person picks up Shakespeare for the first time and understands it, then go on to say that you do, for the most part.
Seems to support what I initially said, no? You just happen to like it and took the time to learn the language whereas I did not.

 

[DaveButcher]

Shakespeare is not a measure of intelligence, but a willingness to understand history and context is.

I didn't call you stupid or anything, but the idea that one of the most influential writers in history should be omitted from English Lit studies is certainly not a good argument to the contrary.

What I had originally meant was that if this is a common thought across North America (the idea that Shakespeare and other "old writers" are worthless [and I believe it is]), then it tells me why most high school grads can't answer a lot of basic questions. If you take that as a direct slag, well I can't help that.

If you can't agree with that, then there's not much point in this continueing.

"For the most part" was used because it's true, and it's pretty true in most novels. If you're reading Elroy or Stevenson, Faulkner or Welsh, you have to get used to their style, and some phrases and expressions will be unfamiliar, so you have to use educated guesses, context and sometimes you need to look it up somewheres so that you do know. The idea that this is only true with Shakespeare is silly.

BTW I didn't "learn" a language to read Shakespeare, it's still English. If I wanted to read Beowulf in the original text, I would need to learn a new language (or in this case old).

 

[Brad E]

I can agree with this.
But blanket statements referring to intelligence or willingness to learn history I cannot.

 

[BarryR]

For me, having watched old b & w films forever (I'm 48) makes me simply conversant in the look and language of those films, and it's like learning of a wonderful, different world--think of such movies as the only plausible time machines we have. It's remarkable to have this kind of access possible. Not to at least try and unlock the good that is to be found in decades worth of quality cinema is like partitioning off one's brain and discarding anything that doesn't look and sound like whatever is going on this millisecond. Even 2004 is going to look dated in about, oh, ten years. Pity the movies that will seem ruinously out of style then!!

 

[Jeff B.]

Brad, I would like to applaud your willingness to let known how you feel about old movies and "classic" literature. I find it amusing how many people in this thread are telling Brad that his opinion is wrong.

Dave, most people just really don't find Shakespeare entertaining. Why does this bother you so much? I've been in advanced english and lit classes my entire life. I can say that there are very few, if any students that are elated when the teacher announces the next unit is...Shakespeare! It really wouldn't bother me if Shakespeare was not on the curriculim in class rooms across America. Blasphemy! I would much rather see kids reading stuff they actually enjoy and can relate to.

I am not trying to debunk Shakespeare in any way pertaining to its literary value or its place in literary history. However, the majority of people in the world do not read Shakespeare for fun.



Well, I guess I just totally disagree on this one. If I read through something for the first time, and I have no idea about what the "true meaning" is, then to me its not really worthwhile.

I can totally understand where Brad is coming from. Movies and literature can be extremely personal. If one considers movies and literature to be art, as I do and assume most everyone here does, then I would think one would be capable of understanding and accepting that everyone has different tastes when it comes to art.

Also, btw Dave for someone who seems so keen to point out people's mistakes, ie, Brads misuse of the term "old english," I thought it might be important for you to know that you mispelled "Shakespeare" four times in post #67.

 

[DaveButcher]

Jeff, I don't think you've read the posts or you're not getting what I'm saying. What people do for entertainment purposes doesn't bother me in the least, if it did, I wouldn't be able to enjoy anything as I don't agree with most people when it comes to popular entertainment. Peoples "opinions" on films or literature also doesn't bother me, what I'm talking about is the sugestion that Shakespeare be removed from English Lit because kids don't dig it.

School's not there for people to be entertained, it's there to teach. Of course you temper the material with entetainment so that kids don't get too bored, but let's face it, most high school isn't terribly fun. Students don't like math or history or homework or getting up in the morning, doesn't mean they should stop doing it.

Christ this is a stupid argument, kids don't enjoy reading Shakespeare, so let's take it out of the course. Name another Elizabethan playwrite they would enjoy, quite frankly name a novel older then 100 years that kids would find entertaining. Doesn't matter, there will always be exceptions to every rule.



Who the hell said I was an expert in literature or Shakespeare? Knowing that he wrote in modern English isn't rocket science, nor does it need a degree. I haven't referenced ANY obscure writers so I'm not sure where you get the idea I'm an expert. If anything I have a basic knowledge of general literature, but maybe that just goes to show. If someone suggested removing calculus from math class I'd call that idea dumb too, and I know less about math then most six year olds.

And yes, it was early in the morning and I screwed up Shakespeare, you caught me, aren't you clever.

 

[Brad E]

Actually what Terry St failed to mention is that Shakespeare wrote in Early Modern English (1500-1800)
We are writing in Late Modern English (1800-Present).

Seeing how one of your pet peeves in life "is peoples missuse of terminology and lack of understanding when it comes to history", I thought you would appreciate this.


Jeff, good post. Do you have a hard time watching older movies as well?

 

[Brad E]

You bring up a very good point. Older movies are a time machine of sorts. It is very interesting to watch and see how the whole industry (among other things) has evolved over the years.
But for me, I would rather watch a documentary on how these old classics contributed and changed the industry.
Or a biography on past actors.
The movies themselves really don't interest me. I have tried, it's not like I woke up one morning and decided I will no longer watch older movies.
And it is not set in stone either, maybe one day I will aquire the taste.
Even today as I was looking to find Donnie Darko, (no luck:frowning: ) I saw Casablanca and GWTW and had an internal debate on whether on not I should buy them. After this thread I have to watch them, but decided I'll rent them instead.

 

[DaveButcher]

Those distinctions are not the same as the ones between Old English and Modern English. This has really gone 'round enough times, my main point was about Shakespeare and school, however you like to watch movies and read is up to you.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

That's a shame. Because the latter-day Eastwood's UNFORGIVEN is hailed as one of his best films of all time. He's also perfect for his older role in THE BRIDGES OF MADISON COUNTY.

I really hope you're able to overcome this some day.

 

[Leo Kerr]

It isn't that old films are 'bad.'

My take was that the inital point of the thread was that there were a number of 'great classics' that some people thought were dreadfully boring.

I do not deny that I 'do not appreciate' some of the 'great classics.'

I don't appreciate a lot of the 'great contemporary films,' either.

On the other hand, there are quite a lot of films, new, 'medium,' or quite old that I really quite enjoyed. So far as I can tell, age is no determiner if a film is 'good' or not.

Curiously, it isn't even a determiner of technical quality of the film... I saw a 1930s Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes film (not Hound of the Baskervilles, though I've seen that one, too,) that looked fantastic, and sounded great. Now, in the late 1930s, film sound was... primative. But this one had fantastic (monaural) sound and picture. Granted there was some noise; it wasn't perfect, but perfection is so hard to reach...

Leo Kerr