Examples of How Modern Film is Awesome (1 Viewer)

[JohnRice]

Recently someone was making some sweeping statements about how awful all modern film is. It got me thinking about all the examples of beautiful filmmaking that actually exist in modern movies. I'll start with some of my favorites.

BTW, here's one of the many quotes I'm referring to.

well basically during the golden age of Hollywood, from the silent era to the late 1960's, the unwritten rule of filmmaking was to edit and shoot in a way where the camera becomes unnoticeable, so it enhances the immersive experience of watching a film. This was done away in the 70's, with their experimental editing and shooting, and that's fine but it became the new standard, which has no use outside of an experimental stance, in other words, the way films are shot today are jarring and without finesse and they just remind you with every shot that you are seeing something artificial and that it's a film. The biggest culprit of this are the "auteurs", which I've come to find really unbearable, like Nolan and Fincher.

First, it's hard to beat the opening scene from Pride and Prejudice for simple, flowing beauty. Unfortunately the quality of this video isn't very good.




Next, what I think is one of the greatest opening sequences of all time, from Arrival. Sorry for the French subtitles, but it's the only one I found.




The final sequence from a favorite movie of mine, Never Let Me Go. This is the end of the movie, so there's a bit of a spoiler.



A scene late in Kenneth Branagh's 2015 version of Cinderella. I think this movie is not recognized for how excellent it is.




I'll finish with another favorite, Tom Tykwer's Heaven. I could use any one of a dozen different clips, but settled on this one.



OK, jump in with your own examples.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

So, I can't speak for LetThemEatCake but yes, I agree he was not correct about "all modern films" and the examples you chose were good ones and display filmmakers using the "language of film" to create their pictures.

There are some great filmmakers working today and I don't think they should be lumped in with the folks that make films that appear to be for ADHD 10 year old video game junkies on a sugar high.

I think people make comments like the one Mr. Cake made because so much of what they fill cinemas with and throw money at making tilts toward super heroes, Star Wars, and lowbrow comedy. Or action films that employ rapid cutting and shaky cam.

I think a lot of what he is complaining about visually comes from the influence of video games which in many cases seems to supplant film technique with video game CGI and movement. I think the "gamers" have no issue with this but for some of us, it takes people right out of the film.

But sure, there is good stuff out there.

 

[Sam Posten]

Film making is both art and business. Sometimes the business gets in the way of the art. This isn't new.

If you are judging today's films based on The Avengers, you aren't looking hard enough.

The pictures making the biggest $$$ have never ever ever been the most important, or interesting.

But I would rather live in a world where anyone can afford a camera and NLE and make their own weird and personal stories than one where only the gatekeepers ever get to show what they deem worthy.

 

[JohnRice]

There are some great filmmakers working today and I don't think they should be lumped in with the folks that make films that appear to be for ADHD 10 year old video game junkies on a sugar high.

However, the two filmmakers he specifically named are Christopher Nolan and David Fincher. Fincher has his style, but I don't think it's without a valid, creative purpose, and I don't even see how Nolan fits the complaint. Actually, if you exclude Fight Club, I'm not sure Fincher fits either.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

However, the two filmmakers he specifically named are Christopher Nolan and David Fincher. Fincher has his style, but I don't think it's without a valid, creative purpose, and I don't even see how Nolan fits the complaint. Actually, if you exclude Fight Club, I'm not sure Fincher fits either.

Some people just have stuff they really dislike. Nolan I think has people that really dislike him because of his tremendous success. Perhaps Mr. Cake just really does not like Nolan's "style" and Fincher perhaps falls into the same boat.

I don't see those two guys as problems. I think I posted that in response to Mr. Cake's comment in another thread. The thing is though I think Nolan and Fincher are very much influenced by other films and filmmakers of the past that Mr. Cake is referring to.

Cake has been banned now so he won't be filing a response here.

I think the change in film if you look at say the 1970s as compared to films made this decade is that the "mainstream" stuff in the 1970s would now primarily be art house and small independent films because today the "mainstream" or big studio films tend to be just super heroes, Star Wars, animated films, and lowbrow comedy for the most part. That's all they really want to make. It's all geared toward teens and children and yes, dumbed down to a great degree (insert fart joke here).

I mean in the 1970s you could name all kinds of great actors and stars that were given great scripts to work from in mainstream films. Now, the scripts for mainstream films are mostly garbage and who are the great actors or stars today? There basically aren't any and there are not great scripts to work from. The "mainstream" stuff today relies on effects and jokes/gags and they don't need stars nor actors nor a good script to sell the picture. That's a shift away from movies of the past.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Mr. Cake

Reminds me of when the NY Times used to refer to the rock star Meat Loaf as "Mr. Loaf!"

 

[JohnRice]

I think the change in film if you look at say the 1970s as compared to films made this decade is that the "mainstream" stuff in the 1970s would now primarily be art house and small independent films because today the "mainstream" or big studio films tend to be just super heroes, Star Wars, animated films, and lowbrow comedy for the most part. That's all they really want to make. It's all geared toward teens and children and yes, dumbed down to a great degree (insert fart joke here).

I mean in the 1970s you could name all kinds of great actors and stars that were given great scripts to work from in mainstream films. Now, the scripts for mainstream films are mostly garbage and who are the great actors or stars today? There basically aren't any and there are not great scripts to work from. The "mainstream" stuff today relies on effects and jokes/gags and they don't need stars nor actors nor a good script to sell the picture. That's a shift away from movies of the past.

Excuse me? Are you Mr. Cake returned in camouflage? There are no great actors or scripts?

Is there something that allows us to only see "mainstream" movies? Are good movies not released to theaters? Are they not available on video? I don't watch any of the crap you're referring to, because there's way too much other stuff that's worth seeing. Yeah, I'm being sarcastic, but I know YOU know better. As long as people turn away from anything that's decent, then "mainstream" will continue to be superhero garbage.

I suggest you watch that 2015 Disney Cinderella. Totally mainstream, Disney, classic story, and it's really an exceptional movie. It's so easy to overlook it, because you just assume it's fluff. Like I said, I know you know there is great stuff coming out all the time. It just doesn't have a $10 Million marketing campaign attached to it.

 

[Bryan^H]

Her


Wonderful movie. Heartbreaking, and scary in that I think this is where we are headed with AI

 

[sleroi]

I'm not sure if the 80s count as modern, but it fits the OP rant.

I submit John Carpenter's Big Trouble in Little China. Every single shot is perfectly framed at 2.35. Great practical effects. Great nods to Hawks and Wayne. Such clever, witty perfectly timed comedic dialogue. Still holds up today. Even though it's a "genre" movie, I consider it perfect. And especially the cinematography.

 

[JohnRice]

I'm not sure if the 80s count as modern, but it fits the OP rant.

I submit John Carpenter's Big Trouble in Little China. Every single shot is perfectly framed at 2.35. Great practical effects. Great nods to Hawks and Wayne. Such clever, witty perfectly timed comedic dialogue. Still holds up today. Even though it's a "genre" movie, I consider it perfect. And especially the cinematography.

I like that suggestion. I know I saw that years ago, but I wouldn't have been paying much attention to it.

It would be fun to give suggestions of movies that are shot a lot better than you'd expect. Such as, surprisingly artistic for the subject matter, or just interesting and/or fun. One I'd throw in along those lines is 10 Things I Hate About You. There's a lot of fun camera work in that.

 

[TravisR]

I think the change in film if you look at say the 1970s as compared to films made this decade is that the "mainstream" stuff in the 1970s would now primarily be art house and small independent films because today the "mainstream" or big studio films tend to be just super heroes, Star Wars, animated films, and lowbrow comedy for the most part. That's all they really want to make. It's all geared toward teens and children and yes, dumbed down to a great degree (insert fart joke here).

It's geared toward who is buying tickets though. It's undeniable that there's been a shift away from 'adult' fare but that's a change in the audience and not Hollywood who merely provides what makes them the most money. If Phantom Thread or Spotlight or Zodiac were making $250 million, there'd be more movies like that.

I'm not sure if the 80s count as modern, but it fits the OP rant.

I submit John Carpenter's Big Trouble in Little China. Every single shot is perfectly framed at 2.35.

I'm a huge fan of John Carpenter and I love his shot composition more than any other filmmaker. Not to say that there aren't better but for my tastes, Carpenter is the best.

 

[JohnRice]

I'm a huge fan of John Carpenter and I love his shot composition more than any other filmmaker. Not to say that there aren't better but for my tastes, Carpenter is the best.

Give the DPs some credit too. They tend to have more say than the director. Who does he commonly work with?

 

[TravisR]

Give the DPs some credit too. They tend to have more say than the director. Who does he commonly work with?

Dean Cundey is the DOP who worked most frequently with Carpenter on his most beloved movies.

 

[JohnRice]

I just know his movies are fun, and they do look good. I have The Thing, Christine, They Live, Ghosts of Mars and Vampires on Blu, that I recall. Without looking it up, I can't remember what else I've seen. Well, there's always Dark Star. I didn't realize he hasn't directed a movie since Ghosts of Mars.

 

[Walter Kittel]

I was going to post earlier with regards to Christopher Nolan. I think he is a terrific filmmaker and consider his last three films examples of wonderful, contemporary filmmaking. I really like the various means with which he deals with time in his features in such titles as Memento, Interstellar and Dunkirk. He strikes me as someone who values intelligence in his films and that is definitely awesome in my book.

Some other features that strike me as particularly excellent examples of filmmaking include:

Open Range - One of my favorite films of the '00s. I think it is beautifully shot and the chemistry between Costner and Duvall carries the entire feature. It isn't exactly modern in terms of the story it tells or even how it tells it as it hearkens back to the kinds of Westerns that someone like Wayne or Cooper would have starred in during the olden days, but it is a modern film that is excellently crafted and really holds up well on multiple viewings.

City of God - From 2002, this film might be viewed by some as an example of style over substance; but I don't see it that way. I believe the style of the film furthers the narrative and while it is flashy, that speaks to the lifestyles of the characters who inhabit the film, and really helps frame the action. Probably one of the more visually compelling films I've ever seen.

The Proposition - From 2005, I enjoy the gritty, uncompromising nature of the film. It features great casting and some of the shots of the landscapes really stand out. There are some interesting visual compositions in this film.

Children of Men - From 2006, this is a terrific SF tale infused with drama and features a wonderful cast. I find it very engrossing and think it features Clive Owen's best performance to date. Another film that feature some excellent cinematography and just works extremely well.

It kind of falls apart in the final quarter of the film, but before then Danny Boyle's Sunshine (from 2007) is really, really well made. I never did like the turn the film makes as it feels out of place with the rest of the story; but before that happens this is one of the better SF films of the past 20 years. Once again another film that features some wonderful visual elements. Quite striking.

Just a few (out of many) that come to mind.

- Walter.

 

[JohnRice]

Walter, I still haven't seen City of God, but those others are faves. I just watched Open Range again a few weeks ago. I especially like Children of Men as an example of modern technology done right. It has a significant amount of CGI, but I defy you (in most cases) to state for certain what was CGI and what wasn't. It uses CGI, it isn't about CGI.

 

[JohnRice]

OK, I'm going to go ahead and toss in a bit of modern, not subtle cinematography, just 'cause. I love the technical prowess of this chase scene from Drive. The maneuver at the end, and what had to be done to capture it, just blows my mind. This is actually a very arthouse movie. I might be getting a little off track here...

 

[Walter Kittel]

Yeah, I would agree with your assessment of Children of Men. Definitely a case where the technology serves the story and never intrudes.

I haven't seen Drive in quite a while but I remember how much I enjoyed the opening segment in Los Angeles at night. The way the city was presented reminded me a lot of two Michael Mann features - Heat and Collateral. It is a style of presenting urban environments that feels very effective to me.

One other filmmaker I feel like I should mention is Denis Villeneuve. I've enjoyed his films and find them to be excellently crafted in terms of his attention to detail and the kinds of performances he is able to elicit from his actors. Films such as Incendies, Prisoners, Enemy, Sicario, The Arrival and Blade Runner 2049. He has a really good track record, with me anyway.

- Walter.

 

[JohnRice]

Villeneuve is the most exciting mainstream director to come along in a long time. I've never seen Incendies, but I've seen all the others at least three times each, even Enemy.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Excuse me? Are you Mr. Cake returned in camouflage? There are no great actors or scripts?

Is there something that allows us to only see "mainstream" movies? Are good movies not released to theaters? Are they not available on video? I don't watch any of the crap you're referring to, because there's way too much other stuff that's worth seeing. Yeah, I'm being sarcastic, but I know YOU know better. As long as people turn away from anything that's decent, then "mainstream" will continue to be superhero garbage.

I suggest you watch that 2015 Disney Cinderella. Totally mainstream, Disney, classic story, and it's really an exceptional movie. It's so easy to overlook it, because you just assume it's fluff. Like I said, I know you know there is great stuff coming out all the time. It just doesn't have a $10 Million marketing campaign attached to it.

Yes, I know better...you are right. No, we certainly don't need to only watch mainstream films but I think it is the mainstream films that cause a lot of the sort of comments and feelings that Mr. Cake expressed.

I think all the films we are all bringing up here with possibly an exception like Cinderella (and some of Mr. Nolan's films) are not films that studios wanted to make really. Can studios make a really good film...sure they can...but as Travis and Sam point out above too, they make what people seem to want to pay to see and what will turn a big profit.

I can't complain about that because who am I to tell anybody that they should not do what creates a profit and gives people a paycheck.

I think Mr. Cake was saying he preferred films made from the 1930s through the 1960s. This was the "golden age" he was talking about and that basically these guys in the 1970s were where he saw the problems starting.

I think in every decade we get good films. I think some decades are better than others. We tend to look at things in neat little 1960-1969 blocks because that makes it all seem organized and we like that. I think the kind of films we are making reflect our society during the moment we are making them.

I happen to love the 1970s because it seemed to be the last great burst and "golden" decade for films made for adults...but that was because we had filmmakers and studios all trying to make films for adults. They were not focused on the children.

Now, we have studios focusing on children and teens. They don't want any risk of failure so they created a formula and they cut a film on a stopwatch that is based upon how long they think people can go without an explosion or a gag. They are not cutting a film based upon the rhythm of the story thinking about the arc and how it should all breath...they are literally cutting to 45 seconds and joke, 55 seconds and explosion, joke, action sequence, joke based on action sequence, cut to new scene, joke, explosion, 15 seconds of dialogue where character explains what just happened and/or what is about to happen, action sequence, joke, explosion.

Basically, you don't need a script for that and you don't need a director and you don't need good actors. You need a computer, effects, sound, music and stunt people, lots of CGI and a DP. This is why it is hard, for me anyway, to tell any of these big budget studio films apart. They all bleed together because they are all the same thing...and that's the intent...that they all be the same thing because if it sold before it will sell again. Look what that does to filmmaking. If you are going to regurgitate a formula and run the whole thing on a stopwatch then it does not matter who directs or who you cast and you can generate the script from a computer program that has all the info on the formula and the timing it should run on.

That's why I ask who are the big stars or great actors today? I'm not trying to be a jerk...I am really asking who they are. Yes, I think there are good actors today and ones I enjoy watching. Daniel Day Lewis was probably cited for a while as great actor. One that people would go after to be in their film. Tom Hanks has been a big star for a while. Lewis has supposedly retired. Hanks is 61 and not going to bring kids into theaters. Tom Cruise is 55 and not the draw he once was. He can still bring people in for his franchise films, another Mission Impossible, but he is on the downside and the kids don't care about him.

There is Jennifer Lawrence I guess. Is she big? Chris Pratt? Lousy actor but they are casting him in the big popcorn films. Leo DiCaprio? I have to hand it to him. He does not do franchise films and sequels. He seems focused on doing work where he gets to be an actor. However, is he a "draw" for the kids? I don't think so because he typically is not making movies for them.

I think there are no big stars because they don't need them anymore. For the big studio films they have no need really to cast big names. The scripts in these films don't call for great acting, they just need somebody that looks good in the costumes. The only time in these films that they want somebody specific is if that actor is part of a franchise. Otherwise, they don't need them.

When Paul Thomas Anderson or Wes Anderson, or Scorsese want actors they go get them but really there seems to be no big stars anymore that fill a theater or that they want or need to open a picture.

The Andersons or Scorsese or Tarantino...these guys are looking for a good script and actors to deliver them. In the big budget stuff though...they don't need a script and because they don't the actors don't matter much either.

Yes, we still get good films, they seem a bit fewer and far between and you have to sort of search them out because...as you say...there's not much of a marketing campaign for them.