Why are old movies so much better?

Wendy_L · 03-27-2006, 10:51 AM

Ok, so I have been on this board for almost a year now and I have noticed that a lot of the members can write a review for a movie like it's their college thesis. It's quite amazing. Unfortunately I'm not that articulate. My idea of a movie review is:

"It was good, I liked it" or "I found it sort of boring and dind't really care for it". That's the extent of my reviews.

With that being said, this past weekend I watched "The Innocents" which I hear is considered a "classic thriller" by some people. My question is, why? Why is that movie, and other movies like it, so great?

Now, I'm not saying I didn't like the movie because I did. I found it interesting because it was sort of neat to see what was considered "scary" in 1961. But it's not a movie that totally "wow"ed me and I won't be talking about it for years to come.

So, what are your thoughts on this movie? I have no doubt that some of you will be more than happy to provide me with a 10 page composition with footnotes and such on what I'm missing. And what was up with the ending?

Ok, let all the big words fly...

Jason Seaver · 03-27-2006, 11:47 AM

Old movies aren't better; it's just that, by and large, we set the crap and mediocrities aside over the years while the good stuff gets released on video, shows up on TCM, plays rep theaters, etc.

Also, I think a lot of people give older movies points for degree of difficulty - it's more of an accomplishment to provoke the same reaction with fewer tools to choose from. Eliminate the use of profanity, graphic violence, nudity, color, location shooting, digital effects, and the same end result is more impressive.

Russell G · 03-27-2006, 11:51 AM

To answer the thread question, I don't think they are.

The main interest in classic films that I have is an appreciation of seeing individual ideas of the film makers coming out of rigorous studio controlled films. That said, film to me is ultimately about story. I like alot of the older films, as they are really story based, with any special effects processess utilized to tell the story. We could argue all day if this is cause and effect of the fact that special effect were not capable of being the driveing force of the movies in the classic era, but I find now that too many movies are driven by effects, as opposed to effects helping the story.

I haven't seen the film you talk about. I have seen and enjoyed many classic thrillers and horrors. I don't think you really have to look at them from the era they were made to appreciate them, although doing so may make you appreciate them more, that the craftmanship of them make them hold their own.

Ultimately I see movies as movies, I either like them or I don't irregardless of when they were made.

Holadem · 03-27-2006, 12:04 PM

The thing is, before 1975-77, movies were perfect and moviegoers were all really smart.

Then Jaws and Star Wars came out, proving that shitty movies could make a boatload of loot. Then MTV said you didn't need shots longer than .5 secs. This combination, in addition to generating $$$, robbed moviegoers of their collective intelligence.

So now all movies suck.

--
H - it really happened.

Wendy_L · 03-27-2006, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Also, I think a lot of people give older movies points for degree of difficulty - it's more of an accomplishment to provoke the same reaction with fewer tools to choose from.

I guess there is something to be said for a movie that can do that. I'm not sure "The Innocents" totally did that for me though. I didn't find myself thinking, "oh boy, this is really creeping." I just found it mildly interesting.

I enjoy movies, all sorts of movies. As long as I'm entertained and found something interesting about the movie then I'm happy. And "The Innocents" was able to do that for me. But I'm still a little confused by the ending.

**HTF Ads**

Haggai · 03-27-2006, 12:20 PM

LOL, Holadem. I think I've heard almost that exact train of thought expressed completely seriously a whole bunch of times, and in only slightly less exaggerated tones.

TravisR · 03-27-2006, 12:21 PM

Movies are just as good (or bad) as they've always been. There's always been crap and there's always been quality and there always be. When people look back, they don't remember the crap but they remember the quality and that leads to the false impression that everything was good way back when...

Walter Kittel · 03-27-2006, 12:32 PM

If anyone thinks that what passes for writing in most mainstream films today can hold a candle to the work of the '40s and '50s then we will just have to disagree.

Also, like it or not, the blockbusters of the late '70s and early '80s changed the way films were approached. I won't dismiss the positive qualities of any of the big money makers that changed the business (The Exorcist, The Godfather (I and II), Jaws, or Star Wars), but to pretend that films didn't change after the advent of the blockbuster is ignoring reality. You can argue quality all day long as a matter of personal preference, but change did take place.

IMHO, and not coincidentally, the 80s are simply the weakest decade ever in terms of overall quality. Good films are made every year, but in terms of larger trends there are up and down cycles.

- Walter.

RobertR · 03-27-2006, 12:53 PM

"B" movies used to be just that--movies made with lower budgets (sometimes MUCH lower), such that they didn't use topnotch (or "A") talent. What's changed is that "B" movies are being made on an "A" budget. That is, they COULD afford to hire topnotch writing, directing, and acting talent, but they don't bother. Instead, the money is spent on visual and sound effects, marketing, and paying enormous star salaries (which is an aspect of marketing).

Andy Sheets · 03-27-2006, 01:11 PM

Quote:

I guess there is something to be said for a movie that can do that. I'm not sure "The Innocents" totally did that for me though. I didn't find myself thinking, "oh boy, this is really creeping." I just found it mildly interesting.

IIRC, the most interesting thing about The Innocents isn't whether it's scary or not (almost no horror movies in any era are scary) but that it has some interesting things going on in the subtext. Unfortunately, it's been a long time since I saw it, so I can't remember what that was

I think movies from the past tended to target adults a bit more often than today, at least as far as major releases were concerned. I've read in multiple places that Hollywood considers its primary target audience today to be 14 year old boys.

JediFonger · 03-27-2006, 02:33 PM

wendy, that's a loaded question (as you can tell already).

it's both difficult and easy to answer. difficult because everyone has different definitions of "better". easy because once you've seen enough old films, you can spot a pattern of why the old films were "better". but that means you have to watch thousands of old films.

robert, the definition of "b" movies have changed socially. try showing ANY black and white films to a teenager and they will *ALL* think it is a B movie. they'll laugh @it, point out the "mistakes" and dismiss it all altogether. whereas, back then, teenagers revered the halls of cinema. it was a palace of dreams, a similar phrase you hear again and again from people who grew up in that era. just go and read memoirs of ANYone growing up during the golden age and you'll read the phrases (again and again) about a place of dreams, dream factory, and variations of that.

my take? honestly, i haven't seen ehough. i can answer only on the silent film era (1900-1927ish) because i've watched most of it on DVD. there's an equal amount of crap back then as there are now, but the batting average of classics are definitely higher (as i alluded to in another thread about classic films).<