Why are old movies so much better? (1 Viewer)

[Mary M S]

Just as a general rule of thumb I think violence has affected ‘modern’ films most.
If you go back to the 30’s 40’s although you don’t “see” the sexual act, you do see a surprising amount of sheer bra-less coverage on women. Find an unedited version of the original JW Tarzan, (not the one cleaned up for 70’s 80’ s morning matinees.) The scene where he rips her dress off before throwing her in the river is quite the surprise.
I thought Wendy’s comment on AH “The Birds” was on target, while it may have garnered awards in its day for FX, imagine it today in the hands of Clive Barker.

 

[Dan Hitchman]

Most films today really pander. The studio suits want to take out anything that requires thinking on the part of the audience.

If the main character has to die to make the story work... they don't do it!

If the main character shouldn't be with the guy or girl at the end.... they do it any way, because they think all people like wrap up.

If the film has an open ending on purpose... they close it!

If the film isn't supposed to be about product placements... they add them anyway!

If the film needs a nice, slow pace and it fits the subject matter... they chop it up so it so it keeps the "short attention span crew" happy, and makes for more showings in a day.

You basically know what's going to happen before the character's do, because the film follows the exact same formulaic pattern as every other paint-by-numbers, mass produced flick.

Things like artistic merrit and top-flight cinematography and editing don't mean much to a lot of director's today.

Things like that which really infuriate me about today's typical studio picture. There may have been crap films in the golden days of Hollywood, but they sure are becoming more frequent today.

Dan

 

[Holadem]

Dan, those are pretty specific complaints, have you any examples to back them up?

--
H

 

[Jason Seaver]

Uh... wasn't it pretty unusual for films to approach two hours, let alone pass that, in the past? And isn't a 75-minute movie (or anything under 90 minutes) almost unheard of nowadays?

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Pace is a different concept from running time, I don't know why Dan equated them. There definitely is a "get to the action" mentality in today's films that you did not see in the classics of old. I would say a film such as Lawrence of Arabia would never be made today, simply because of the slow pacing. I believe LOA and Citizen Kane are the recipients of more HTF "it was sooo boring" admonishments than any other (mostly by

 

[JeremyErwin]

ed wood was a master at making 68 minutes seem like hours,

 

[Jason Seaver]

True enough, although I think it's worth noting that sometimes the perception doesn't match the reality: Certain trends are the opposite of how we tend to think of them, and the < 100 minute movies which were the norm in the past are generally looked at as a bad sign today. Also, the 75-minute movies were frequently the mediocrities that have been more or less forgotten now, and likely outnumbered the classics.

Also, some of those older comedies were insanely fast-paced, compared to today, even if they didn't have as many cuts. I bet that the directors and producers of the thirties and forties would gut about a half hour from Wedding Crashers for instance.

 

[JediFonger]

i'd like to add to the growing list that mis-en-scene/frame composition and "texture" isn't high on the list of filmmaking as it used to be except to a select few. modern directors seem to like to cram gimmicks into each frame instead of perspective/field of vision or that michaelangelo 3-d angle thingy(forgot what it was called in art class i took a while back). you can hear it in the audio commentaries. if you took a few minutes and analyzed it, you'd find those qualities non-existent in modern films whereas it was prevalent in the eras that called upon classical forms of art.

 

[Michael Elliott]

Not if you've seen the words of Madigan, Warren or any other "Z" filmmakers.

I think one thing missing today IS the shorter running time. HIGHWAYMEN was yanked from a theatrical release because it only ran around 78 minutes, which the studio felt wasn't long enough. I think most film run out of ideas around the 70-80 minute mark yet they add countless minutes trying to make a longer film, which is usually a mistake. In fact, I'd say a lot of films shouldn't go over one or two reels.

 

[Adam_S]

There've been a lot of ridiculous things said in this thread, but this tops them all.

 

[Andy Sheets]

There's an interesting hostility towards short(er) fiction I've noticed over the past decade or so, presumably because audiences feel cheated out of their money if something isn't overlong. Doesn't matter if shorter would serve the story better, they want more length, dammit! There are certainly some works that need the breathing room but I see a lot of padding going on in all forms of storytelling.

 

[Holadem]

OK, here is a little experiment: Let's attempt to see with some objectivity how American tastes have changed over the years, if at all. Since many consider the mid 70s to be a turning point, let's look the box office numbers from 15 to 25 before 1975 and 15 to 25 years after 1975. Basically, let's look at the top grossing films of the 50s, and the top grossing films of the 90s. Box office is of course no indicator of quality, but I think we can all agree that it is a solid indicator of the public's sensibilities.

The limiting factor on this list is the number of movies from the 50s I could find: 12 on the 150 films long Adjusted Domestic Gross List (if you know a longer list lemme know). The other 4 were found on lists such as this: http://www.filmsite.org/boxoffice2.html. I don't know how accurate the stuff on that last link is, in any case, the first 12 films are rock solid. Then it's only a matter of listing 16 top grossing movies of the 90s (much easier task).

So here goes:

Top Grossing Films of the 50s

The Ten Commandments
Ben-Hur
Sleeping Beauty
The Robe
Around the World in 80 Days
The Greatest Show on Earth
The Lady and the Tramp
The Bridge on the River Kwai
House of Wax
Rear Window
Peter Pan
The Caine Mutiny

Cinderella
This is Cinerama
South Pacific
Peyton Place


Top Grossing Films of the 90s

Titanic
Jurassic Park
Star Wars: Episode I
Forest Gump
The Lion King
Independence Day
Home Alone
The Sixth Sense
Twister
Men in Black
Mrs Doubtfire
Aladdin

Ghost
The Lost World: Jurassic Park
Toy Story 2
Terminator 2: Judgement Day





Have at

--
H

 

[Nathan Phillips]

Yeah, because we all know people over 30 have impeccable taste...

 

[Agee Bassett]

Hollywood product has indeed always been dominated by crap. Prior to the 1980's, however, it was more likely to err on the side of adult sensibilities, as opposed to teen ones.


It's arguably the most observant thing said in the thread.

 

[Adam_S]

try prior to the 1950s NOT 1980s, in the fifties AIP began making a fortune off of drive ins and Hollywood followed suit, catering to those interests.

And there seems to be some sort of impression that all the movies in the 70s were somehow brilliant and that everyone was smarter and more tolerant and more open minded to the sanctity and purity of the filmic art form. That is a load of horse shit. (and every director of a seventies film was gifted with a DP and juicer from God as well as divine inspiration on how to shoot the film and direct the actors).

it's hardly observant, it reeks of snide, ignorant elitism, and is along the same lines as the ridiculous comment made last year (by a journalist) that all modern filmmakers just don't have any passion for their films any more.

I'd say that 2005, overall, as a year, was better than any year of the 1930s except maybe 1939.

Adam

 

[Jeff Gatie]

I was speaking specifically about those who have posted the "Citizen Kane is sooo boring" threads. Without exception, they were started by younger persons. Thankfully (and surprisingly), we've not had one of those in a while, although they are some of the most interesting threads we have. Even the youngin's seem to learn something in those.

 

[Holadem]

The idea that Citizen Kane has been called booooooooooring by some because of it's pacing or editing is quite flawed: this thing is as brisk a narrative as they come.

The subject matter however isn't very appealing to young audiences or people who are into film history (and are thus unable to understand it's status). That simple, really. It's got nothing to do with "modern audiences". I strongly suspect that teenagers in 1941 reacted no more favorably to CK than those of today.

--
H

 

[Agee Bassett]

It seems we didn't read the same post. YiFeng's comments seem to be related to a perceived general decline in visually subtle/sophisticated cinematography in Hollywood films (something I would agree with); nothing about any presupposed, inherent superiority of all films prior to the 1980's. One might judge these remarks elitist, but at least they offer a relieving pertinence to discussion away from the sloppy, generalization "pie-fights" that are ever part and parcel of these threads.

 

[JediFonger]

adam_s,
can you cite specific examples of the point you're trying to make?

 

[JeremyErwin]

I found The Rules of the Game to be amusing, but it didn't seem to live up to the hype. Then, I watched the film with the commentary--mind you, this has got to be one of the finest commentaries ever recorded for DVD-- and I saw the film again. Brilliant. Simply brilliant. I suppose that if I had been familiar with Figaro, my initial impressions would have been more favorable, But I wasn't, so they weren't.

Good films are supposed to stand up to repeated viewings, and reveal more each time they are watched.

On the other hand, I did see Being Julia last night. It was simply an absorbing, wonderful film that probably would collapse if subjected to critical analysis, despite Annette Benning's skills.

The most recent film I've seen was Inside Man. The cinematography probably could have been better-- more detail would have been nice. But then I decided to stop worrying about f-stops and depth of field, and just enjoy the picture, comparing it at various points to Dog Day Afternoon. and, oddly (nay, insultingly) enough to Boondock Saints, probably because Paul Smecker was still fresh in my mind from St Paddy's Day.

You know what would cure my critical eye once and for all? Another viewing of Dancer in the Dark. 5.1 sound and technicolor are for dreams. The real world is in mono, tripodless scope.