Overall, I think Cinema is better then it ever was.

We are living in a Second Golden Age, only we can't see because we are kneck deep in it. The innovation we're seeing in films like Eternal Sunshine, the freedom we're seeing in independent films like 21 Grams, the overall level of craft in our "mainstream" mass-market films, the new technologies married to old-school storytelling values at places like Pixar and Peter Jackson's WETA...it's just amazing. I grew up in the 80's, and we are being downright spoiled today by the bounty of riches available to movie fans.

Personally I like films from the 40s and 30s, and some indies today.

Most of the studio stuff today is superficial eye-candy, and star vehicles for the $20 million/pic actors/-tresses. Plots are thin and contrived, acting is weak, scripts are gawdawful. But hey, they do have spiffo special effects.

Honestly, I think every era is relatively the same. You've always had star power and eye candy being the main focus. If you want to see the good stuff... you really have to look for it.

Sometimes it's easy to find, other times it isn't.

I had a friend tell me she thought they didn't make good movies anymore.

I can think of tons that are amazing achievements in just the past 5 years.

Mid 60s thru early 80s is where most of my favorites are from, but the 90s was also a amazing decade for films.

Every era has produced great films.

The worst aspect of modern films is that many of them are poorly photographed - thin, underlit negatives that make for murky theatrical prints.

Couldn't disagree more. In several ways, cinematography is the strongest across the board it has ever been. It is probably the only area where even blockbusters usually are extremely well done. Whatever you are talking about, it is either not photography or you don't really know what you are talking about. The duplicating process may not be what it should, but that has nothing to do with the photography.


Yes it is, but the big studio stuff is a small percentage of what is made and as Ernest Rister pointed out, so much of the rest of it is as good as ever. I feel the percentage of creative film is probably the highest it has ever been. It also annoys me that so often the blockbuster stuff is used as "proof" that the industry, and particularly the American film industry, only produces mindless crap. Sure, disregard all the good stuff and it is easy to say all the rest is crap.


Shawn, I do agree with you, not that I would use Troy, Blade and Gladiator as proof. those may be big and expensive, but they're really no better than anything produced in any other era.

Now those are excellent examples.

Compared to the 1930s and 40s, one basic factor that's often forgotten is that there are simply a lot fewer films being made these days. The studios were cranking them out at a much higher rate back then. So there was more of everything: more great movies, more good movies, more mediocre movies, more crappy movies, more hidden gems, more high-profile flops, more small lousy movies that almost nobody saw or wants to remember, etc. The first thing I usually think of when I hear someone saying something like, "there were so many more great movies made back in the day" is "yes, and there were a lot more movies made back then, period, including a lot more crap that nobody remembered after 1 year, let alone 60 or 70 years."

I'm confident that Peter Apruzzese knows what he's talking about. I believe he's a projectionist by trade.

M.

Haggai, I'm not sure that's actually true. There are a lot more studios now and there was no such thing as Independent Film in those days either. Each individual studio may have cranked out more movies, but I doubt the total number was higher than today. Of course, I have nothing to back it up. It is absolutely true that time has washed away the loads of garbage that were made, so comparing everything made today to the cream of the crop for 60 years ago isn't fair.

There is no doubting that there are great films made today, but in general I'll take any film from the 40's or 50's at random over anything at today's multiplex at random. In general, I would say there are less than 20 films worth seeing each year. I've just seen my 10th and have about 5 to go before the year is up.

My biggest complaint with films today are two-fold
#1 - Piss Poor writing - There are some good writers today, but nothing even close to Hollywood's golden age IMHO. I hate censorship, but in many ways the lack of censorship has made writers lazy because they can say and show anything that they want to.

#2 - Too much reliance on SFX (Related to #1) - I like the LOTR Trilogy, but I wouldn't list any of the trilogy as one of my yearly favorites, primarily for this reason, and I won't even mention SW Ep II.



Two of my favorite films of the last 1-1/2 years and ESOTSM is my #1 for this year with only "The Aviator" & "Billion Dollar Baby" remaining that could possibly unseat it.

By the way, I'm no old fogey yearning for the past. I'm 32. (Of course maybe some people think that's old)

Good to know, but I still stand by my point. Does being a projectionist make him an expert on photography? It could make him an expert in projection, which would make him particularly concerned with the duplicating process. I'm glad you brought it up, because I am a commercial photographer. I have 2 degrees from one of the top photography schools in the world and I know photography. I can assure you, the level of skill employed by cinematographers these days is startingly good. On the other hand, I have long suspected the duplicating process was wanting, but that is not my area of expertise.

I look forward to Mr. Apruzzese's feedback on the issue.

Two good points, Eric.

Look at the two movies you lauded. 21 Grams happens to be my favorite from 2003 and Eternal Sunshine is my favorite (so far) from 2004. I'll add my fave from 2002, 25th Hour and if you look closely, you will notice one common thread. None of them were written by the director. OK, the story for ESOTSM was co-written by the director, but that can just mean he had some input on the basic idea. Movies are often making the same mistake that popular music is. The performers and directors insist on writing their own stuff. I say leave the writing to writers and the directing to directors. There are exceptions, but in general, I think that is the best way to do it.

As far as SFX goes, if it is a crutch, it is a crutch. It is not bad in itself, only when it is used as a reason to make a movie. Once again, don't throw out everything because too many movies rely on SFX.

I don't have much either, but also remember that there weren't just 5 or 6 major studios back then, there were also others that eventually went under or were subsumed by other studios (RKO being one example). Movie distribution was very different back then as well, in that major releases didn't go nationwide all at once upon release (this persisted to one degree or another almost all the way through the 1970s, I believe). So it's hard to do any direct comparisons, since it even depends on how we define major/nationwide releases.

But, I'm reasonably sure that more theatrical releases of almost every kind were seen on movie screens back in the '30s or '40s as compared to today, for the simple reasons that they were (relatively speaking) cheaper to make back then, and didn't take as long to make either (not unrelated to the point about cost). Like with some genres, there were like 10 kajillion quickie Westerns being cranked out every single year in the classic era we're talking about.

And this is a concern I have about the future of American filmmaking. Sure, there will probably be as many excellent films made this year as in any other year.

But those films don't have the chance to be seen today as ALL films of the '40s and '50s did...the big studios, which have allowed their insecurity over financial risk to completely chill script creativity in mainstream releases, have a stranglehold over most screens at your local multiplex. If you want to go see the films worth seeing, usually you have to make a concerted effort to go to independent film houses or art cinemas--both rare in many average urban areas in this country.

It's FAR too easy for the American public to perceive so much of the American film landscape as crappier than ever when so many millions are only exposed to money-driven Hollywood product at the AMC/United Artists/Mann et. al. googolplex down the street.

That being said, I'll take American cinema of 1971-83 over any other era. I don't think there has ever been a time of greater, more entertaining diversity and freedom in Hollywood.

Ok, the guy who prefers silent films from the 20s needs to chime in, then we'll have all the decades covered

Not a projectionist by trade any longer (although I do operate the machines for all of my special programs and Big Screen Classics at the Lafayette Theatre, it's the best way for me to guarantee the quality of the image on the screen for the audience; handling rare archive prints is part of it).

What I mean is that the classic studio lighting system employed in the films from the 20s to the late 60s usually resulted in a film that had a look that could sparkle when required, or be dark and mysterious. This is a generalization, but I feel that a lot of today's films are more concerned with using filters and special photographic technique rather than telling a story. The current overuse of unattractive blue and yellow filtering on loads of new films (especially "edgy" and independent films) is frustrating to me as a viewer, because it makes the actors look so unattractive. And the directors are constantly placing things into deep shadows - a fine technique when used properly, see "Citizen Kane" for how it's done - but they are also underexposing the shots so that these shadows get swamped with grain. This is exacerbated by poor release prints - Kodak's new Vision print stock is terrific, however, so there's a chance that it could look better. It's the closest that release prints have looked like classic dye-transfer Technicolor in years.

So, John, what we may have here is a disagreement over style rather than technical skill. I ran From Here to Eternity in a new print last weekend - photographically, it out-classes a lot of the films on screen right now. Lawrence of Arabia (and Spartacus, El Cid, Ben-Hur, Quo Vadis, etc.) was a far better film photographically than Gladiator or Alexander or Troy.

Of course, I'm making a lot of generalizations about today's films - I don't see as many as I used to, maybe 25-50 or so a year, versus at least a hundred classics - there are probably a lot that are good-looking that I've missed. Terence Malick's films are the perfect modern marriage of new camera technique and classic cinema lighting, I'm looking forward to "The New World".

My biggest concern with modern movies is the almost manic pacing of everything. This was struck home the most in the "Earthsea" thread over in TV; the thing barely stopped long enough to get any of it's story out and it was decried as being slow and plodding. Give me more slow and plodding then, I guess. It was also my chief complaint of the lastest Harry Potter film over the previous films; there's never room to breathe any more.

"#1 - Piss Poor writing - There are some good writers today, but nothing even close to Hollywood's golden age IMHO."

What about the pisspoor acting.

I prefer the realism of the more serious efforts of the 70s - present than the "classics" which are mostly,IMHO just plain corny.

Peter, we actually don't disagree so much. I do definitely agree that there are annoying techinques taken to an extreme in big movies. It kind of goes back to the same argument over general movie quality of blockbusters. I find movies like Gladiator and, the worst I remember, that army movie with Demi Moore by tony Scott, I forget the name, to be almost unbearable to watch due to exactly the same things you mention. Where I am impressed is with the same smaller films I mentioned before.

Of What? Older films? I don't find the acting in those films to be pisspoor at all, but I guess that depends on what you've seen. I would say that acting has been great and bad throughout the history of films. Acting may be a bit grittier & more realistic today, but that doesn't mean that the old style is pisspoor - just different.



I think my statements are summed up by your next statement. Personally, I find the 70s to be the decade that I like the least. You enjoy the period for it's grittiness and realism, which are the same reasons that I don't. I like a bit more of a fantasy world when I watch a movie (Fantasy, not meaning D&D). If I want realism, I'll go outside. Plus, those fashions are so horrendous - I can spot a film made in the 70s from a mile away!!

I haven't seen either 21 Grams or Eternal Sunshine yet, so I'll be certain to check them out based on your comments.

Even at only 24, I'd hate to be the age I was ten years ago when I was going to see 200+ movies at the theater each year. I think Hollywood went downhill right after JAWS and STAR WARS because the money factor became a bigger issue than actually delivering a quality movie. Of course each decade has great and bad films but I do question those who constantly put down older films. I'd guess they are either spoiled by current effects or simply don't want to open their minds to anything made before MTV was created.

There's certainly nothing wrong with this because we all enjoy what we want to but I'd take a close look at those who considering something great or bad. If you watch KANE and think it's horrid, that's fine. However, if you don't like B&W films then I'm going to have a hard time taking what you say seriously.

As for today's films, I really don't see as much today as I use to. I've seen around 25 films from 2004 and I've loved quite a few of them but most of them were art house films are indies. I certainly wouldn't put many of these films (LOTR, MATRIX, SPIDER-MAN) as any kind of classics.

If people really think CGI offers better effects then perhaps they should watch some Keaton and see how those guys did things. They weren't sitting behind a computer to make a dangerous effect look real. They were actually doing the stunts.

Michael, I think a more accurate take on this is that Jaws and Star Wars had their greatest effects on the marketing and distribution of major movies. To say that they actually increased the "money factor" in Hollywood over "quality" is over-simplifying quite greatly, since Hollywood has always been (and always will be) about making money, first and foremost. The moguls who established the studios, and essentially built the modern American film industry from the ground up, did not sit around saying "let's just make quality movies, and who cares whether they flop or not." They were businessmen through and through.

Of course they were and I don't blame them for making money. I blame them for what they're feeding the sheep so to speak. The public will eat up whatever the media tells them is cool so if Hollywood decided to start making quality films then the public would come along. There's nothing wrong with people getting their heads blown off, dirty sex or loud explosions but why not spend a couple extra thousand putting a good story around it?

There are very few actors or directors who I really respect these days. I think DiCaprio would be my top pick because he selected to try and make quality films over films that are going to be hits. DiCaprio was on Larry King the other night and he said he wanted to make films that people would talk about fifty years from now. I'm sure there were many "cool" films in the 1930's but we certainly don't remember all of them today. There are cool films in 2004 that will be forgotten this time next year when the next cool film is released.

I don't blame anyone for wanting to make money but they should certainly take some pride in their work.

"I haven't seen either 21 Grams or Eternal Sunshine yet, so I'll be certain to check them out based on your comments."

That's just the tip of the iceberg. There is so much terrific work being being done these days that it makes me think I'm living in some sort of parallel universe when I hear people talk down the film industry. I can only chalk such statements up to people who only go to see garbage in the first place. It should be no surprise that every year has its fair share of garbage - even the mysteriously magic years of 1939 and 1993 had some dogs among the embarassment of riches. But this year has been a fantastic year for film, as was last year, and if you're not seeing it, I have to ask what movies are you watching?

After my exchange with Peter, I realized I should probably explain how I tend to look at these things, and that is that there will always be crap. There always has been and it will never change. So, I have a problem with the logic that pointing out the crap there is proves there is nothing good. all it proves is, there will always be crap.

Peter, you use Spartacus, El Cid, Ben-Hur, Lawrence of Arabia, Citizen Kane, etc as examples, but those are the cream of the crop, plus most of them were Dye Transfer Technicolor, which simply had different capabilities. Don't forget that at the same time you have movies like Talk to Her, Heaven, Unforgiven, The Elephant Man and so on. I personally think they can be held in pretty much the same regard as many of the greats. Yeah, G.I. Jane, Gladiator and, for my money, the LOTR movies look like monochrome or video games, but they aren't the only game in town.

BTW, you will probably like the cinematography in Eternal Sunshine. It is unadorned, but uses some clever camera tricks. They claim there is not a single special effect, but there are 2 scenes I can't figure out without SFX, which are a scene involving Joel in a sink and Joel and Clementine running through a train station.

As far as 21 Grams, it may be exactly what you are complaining about. If you have seen 25th Hour, then you know pretty much what it looks like. It is shot by the same DP (Rodrigo Prieto) and he uses many of the same techniques. Subtle it is not.


Far from Heaven
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
The Man Who Wasn't There
Solaris

I could go on. Yes, there is a lot of manic pacing, but there is probably even more which isn't manic.


Yes, but again, there is this thriving independent industry which barely even existed then. There is also a fabulous multinational film industry where money and creativity are consolidated from many countries to produce some great stuff.

And Haggai, Jaws and Star Wars are pretty much credited (or blamed) for the creation of the summer blockbuster, which causes studios to invest their entire existence in one movie, which causes them to have too many cooks in the kitchen, stifle creativity and so on. I think it's a fair and accurate assesment.

And BTW guys, I don't recommend 21 Grams and Eternal Sunshine based on their cinematography. I just think they are fabulous movies. If you want to see some of the best recent cinematography, check out Talk to Her or Far from Heaven and even Heaven and Princess and the Warrior though the imagery created by Tom Tykwer and Frank Griebe on the last two can be so staggering as to detract from the film.

We might not see eye to eye on Ed Wood but God bless ya for this statement. There are many wonderful films released each year but sadly people aren't seeing them. However, this is to be expected. Heck, CITIZEN KANE and IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE bombed when originally released. There are many "greatly entertaining" films released each year but it seems that the true great works are only discovered years after their release date.



Very true and I agree when you said people always look at the cream of the crop. If I enjoy an actor/director then I try to watch every film they've ever done. When people speak of an actor, they usually discuss their great work or their worst work. They rarely talk about those simply good gems that just aren't remembered. When talking Tracy they can say BOYS TOWN, SAN FRAN or ADAM'S RIB. They might talk about something bad yet they don't discuss the "good" but non-classics like THE MURDER MAN for example. When people say Cagney they think of YANKEE DOODLE, ANGELS WITH DIRTY FACES or ONE TWO THREE. They might overlook or not see something like TAXI!, which is a good film but not a classic.

For most people, they see what is considered popular and that's why they'll watch YANKEE DOODLE without bothering with TAXI. TAXI just doesn't have the reputation to make anyone but film buffs want to see it. I don't blame people for this because not everyone makes movies their #1 priority in life. I love movies and make them my top priority so I'm going to watch everything I can. If people watch GODSEND and say movies from 2004 "suck" then perhaps they should see films that don't even get that much attention like DOGVILLE, BAADASSSSS! or THE DREAMERS. If people hate CGI stuff like SPIDER MAN then watch one of the above movies.