Article regarding 70's movie era - discussion (1 Viewer)

[Ben Motley]

Loosely related, I thought this Lars Von Trier quote was poignant...

“At the beginning of my career, I made very ‘filmic’ films. The problem is that now, it has become too easy. All you have to do is buy a computer and you are ‘filmic’.

“You have armies rampaging over mountains, you have dragons, you just push a button. I think it was OK to be ‘filmic’ when, for instance, Kubrick had to wait two months for the light on the mountain behind Barry Lyndon when he was riding towards us.

“But if you only have to wait two seconds and then some kid with a computer fills it in . . . it’s another art form, I’m sure, but I’m not interested.”

Kinda brought it home for me to a degree. Surely there are other aspects of today's filmmaking that rankle me, but this one certainly is a large part of it. With the ease of production, I believe there is a loss of quality content.

The quote is from a Times Online article on Nicole Kidman at Cannes, and is in reference to Von Trier's work with her in his "U S And A" trilogy.

 

[Jim DiJoseph]

Ben, interesting twist on the discussion. I do see what you are saying, and I would agree that the purity of film-making may seem compromised in today's world of CGI and such. However, I would also argue (to go back to the thread's original direction) that creativity does not necessarily have to suffer as a result. In fact, given our capabilities of today, film-makers can bring things to the big screen never conceived of in the past. I welcome that.

As for the perspective given by Von Trier, I can't disagree, but I also can't completely agree.

Thanks.

 

[Terry St]

I did not start the thread with the intent to state that no good films are being made today. I simply note the change that has occurred in the past couple decades. Judging from many of the first-rate films listed throughout this thread, it seems evident that today's lists would pale (in numbers) by comparison.

My point was that this may not be true because we are still still in the process of sorting the wheat from the chaff. When Rashomon was released, there were probably a grand total of 5 people in North America who had heard about it, but now it's considered a classic. If in 10 years you have the same opinion, then fine, but currently it is premature. Blasting the 80's and perhaps early 90's is just fine though, because ample time has passed for the classics of those years to become known. So be my guest.

 

[Lew Crippen]

When Rashomon was released, there were probably a grand total of 5 people in North America who had heard about it, but now it's considered a classic.

There are probably better examples to use. It is certainly true that it takes time for some films (or indeed any work of art) to become recognized as being truly great.

In the case of Rashomon, it received almost instant recognition in the West. At the time, the Academy did not have a ‘foreign language’ category. Even so it was voted an honorary Oscar in ’52 for being the best foreign language film released in the States in 1951. And it was nominated for ‘Best art & set decoration (B&W)’ in 1953. Even though it did not win, just to be nominated back then was a remarkable achievement.

Many film historians consider this film not only the breakthrough for Kurosawa in the West, but the film that brought Japanese cinema to general (at least for the film-going public) attention in the West.

 

[Ben Motley]

Jim, you're welcome!

I would agree that creativity doesn't have to be compromised, but I do think it's easier today to give in too quickly to a "decent job" and not go for the gold. I think the standard has been lowered. Granted, films like Jackson's LOTR series, Requiem for a Dream, Spider-man, Gladiator, Sleepy Hollow, etc. use modern state of the art effects and don't sacrifice a strong story, dialogue and acting (of course, that's debatable to many, I'm sure ), but there seem to be many more films today that rely solely on the state of the art effects at the expense of any solid filmcraft, for lack of a better term.

But then there is always hope. Look at the organic quality of The Bourne Identity. Not only were the effects old school and very natural, the production actually paid attention to continuity, plot, character relations, etc. No, it's no masterpiece, but I'd rather watch that again than Blade 2.

I think my real problem is that I pine for the grand epics. I was brought up on them, and they're just too few and far between these days. I still haven't seen Gangs of New York or Gods and Generals yet, so I can't comment on them, but I guess what I'm getting at is that I'm used to a certain criteria of filmmaking that was for the most part prevelant in the old epics - a certain grandiosity that just eludes today's films due to the inherent nature of assembly line production. But I could just be being too hard on the medium. Certainly back in the "good old days" there were bad films as well. For as many Dirty Harrys and 2001s, there were just as many, if not more, turkeys.




As for Rashomon, Lew's right. Kurosawa didn't become an international overnight sensation because he was pretty.
There certainly were a few more than five westerners who had heard about Rashomon upon it's North American release.

 

[Jason_Els]

If you're after just the creme, you have to either drink a *lot* of milk or be patient, and willing to skim off the top.

What's left, of course, becomes cheese.

 

[Jim DiJoseph]

Jason! Can't believe I missed that opportunity! Nice!