For the love of movies: The Past, Present, and Future of Cinema and what makes us fans (1 Viewer)

[Winston T. Boogie]

The reason I am starting this thread is I do enjoy discussing cinema from various angles and I feel like these conversations get going in other threads about specific films and can end up derailing the thread for people looking just to talk about that specific film. This thread will be meant more as a place to have those freewheeling discussions about cinema, what we like and don't like, the general state of where it is, where it was, and where it is going and what makes us movie fans.

So, you can talk about whatever you like cinema related and we can go on tangents. Tell stories, talk about how moviemaking has changed, what is good or bad about it, what we miss, what we look forward to. What makes a film a great film to you?

There are no right or wrong answers just really how we feel about it. Obviously, I have had various discussions here about what has changed about the filmmaking landscape. Scorsese has made comments that have made waves about superhero films and what they are and I think people have a lot of different feelings about that.

I'd like to get all of these kinds of discussions cooking here and be able to tell stories, make comments, rave or rant about all things motion pictures.

We just had what I thought was a good year for films in 2021 and so I find this a perfect time to start this thread and get into all this stuff and have a place where we can ramble about what is happening and how we feel about it.

I think at this point motion pictures have been around for about 144 years and obviously there have been various changes and stages that the medium has gone through. We probably all have favorite periods or decades we love and probably a lot of that has to do with when we were born and what part of those 144 years we have experienced. I think anybody that has read anything that I have wrote on these message boards will know I am a big fan of the 1970s, which really begins in the 1960s and goes on well after 1979 as the period has been quite influential on all that came after it.

I think the big thing that the decade has imprinted on me is that I remain director-centric as a film fan. I still mostly look at who is directing a picture in my weighing if I want to see it. I think in this more recent period of filmmaking this has shrunk as a reason why most people go to see a film. I think there are several reasons for this happening but the big thing being that because so many of today's major releases are formula based pictures, this eliminates the need for a director that would be putting a personal stamp on, or attempting to highlight their own artistic vision when making a film. So, directing, as an art, is diminished in the current state of things.

There likely are only a small number of directors now that make any difference in terms of if a picture gets made. The same can be said for actors as in terms of actors that are a big box office draw the number is tiny. I found it really interesting recently when I heard that Don't Look Up was the biggest film of the year. This kind of shocked me and it features Leo DiCaprio who appears to be our last "movie star" whose presence in a picture means it will succeed even though it has nothing to do with a franchise.

This death of actors being a big draw also has diminished the art of acting. In the 1970s the way to get a picture made about whatever you wanted to make it about was to get an actor onboard that they felt was a big draw. Now with there being virtually only a few actors that are a draw, well, that is no longer an option to get a film made.

Only DiCaprio appears able to do this. They don't even have a list of a few people to go down anymore. It's not like the 1970s where they would go down the list - Redford, Newman, Hackman, Pacino, De Niro - until they had a guy to get the film made. Now it is basically Leo and if you can't get him, it is a no go. I mean unless you can get 6 or 10 contributors to an independent production or Netflix, Amazon, or Apple want the content.

The question then becomes though, if it is on one of those streaming services is it cinema? Or is it just TV? Basically, wouldn't cinema be what gets shown in a cinema?

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

On a quick scan of the list, I think the only one I have not seen is Killer of Sheep, which I think was on the Sight & Sound list as well. I don't think that has been an easy one to see. There is a DVD of it but I think selling for upwards of $75.00.

 

[Walter Kittel]

With the knowledge that no list is going to please all the people all the time...

Not a bad list by any means, but I was a bit surprised at the absence of A Clockwork Orange and The Last Picture Show. On the other hand I was pleased to see Vanishing Point make the list. One of my favorites from that era. Based on a quick scan of the list I'd say I've seen around 70 or so of the titles.

- Walter.

 

[TravisR]

I like how high The Long Goodbye has climbed on this list.

I think that movie has had something of a rediscovery over the last few years. I saw it in the 90's and I don't think I had seen anyone talk about it again after that until maybe five years ago.


The one I was happily surprised to see was Rock 'N' Roll High School. And it makes me laugh that Tobe Hopper beat out Ingmar Bergman.

 

[Walter Kittel]

I think that movie has had something of a rediscovery over the last few years. I saw it in the 90's and I don't think I had seen anyone talk about it again after that until maybe five years ago.

If your cable package included the MGM channel back around five or so years ago (not the current MGM+ offering) this film would surface every month or so.

- Walter.

 

[Joe Wong]

A very good list, especially in terms of the diversity of films included. In addition to the genres and categories @TravisR mentioned (eg, horror, etc.) there is also Enter the Dragon, representing martial arts!

My one surprise would be that 4 Oscar-winning Best Pictures from the 1970s - Patton, The Sting, The French Connection, and Kramer vs Kramer - didn’t make the cut. My impression is that these 4 are generally still quite well-regarded (unlike recent BPs like Crash and Green Book). Not saying they should be on the list, of course. They just didn’t make the top 100 for the people making the list.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

there is also Enter the Dragon, representing martial arts!

I thought it was very cool that Enter the Dragon was on there as well.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I think that movie has had something of a rediscovery over the last few years. I saw it in the 90's and I don't think I had seen anyone talk about it again after that until maybe five years ago.

What I recall is that the film was not a well thought of Altman film for many years. I loved it when I first saw it, which would have been in the 1980s but I think it was not shown much then and pretty much ignored.

Now it seems to be getting a lot of love, which I think is deserved. I think it stands up there with Altman's best work. He was red hot in that 1970s period. What a great string of films he had.

 

[TravisR]

What I recall is that the film was not a well thought of Altman film for many years. I loved it when I first saw it, which would have been in the 1980s but I think it was not shown much then and pretty much ignored.

Now it seems to be getting a lot of love, which I think is deserved. I think it stands up there with Altman's best work. He was red hot in that 1970s period. What a great string of films he had.

Since I haven't seen it in decades, I don't really remember anything about The Long Goodbye other than Gould being in it and that the movie itself was good. John Williams did the score (one of the last times he did a jazz-style score) so as a Williams fan, I picked up the soundtrack in the last year and have been meaning to see the movie again since then.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Since I haven't seen it in decades, I don't really remember anything about The Long Goodbye other than Gould being in it and that the movie itself was good. John Williams did the score (one of the last times he did a jazz-style score) so as a Williams fan, I picked up the soundtrack in the last year and have been meaning to see the movie again since then.

It's a really great film with Gould doing a funny oddball take on Marlowe. The supporting cast are just awesome. I'm a huge fan of Sterling Hayden anyway, and I love him in this. I enjoy how different versions of the same song play throughout the film. If this had been done today, I feel like it definitely would have ended up being a series of pictures because it is so damn good and you have the awesome detective character at the center and you would move him from mystery to mystery with different surrounding characters in each one.

I also have always felt, but have no idea if it is, that this would have been a film the Coen brothers loved and were influenced by. Definitely see it again.

 

[Kevin Antonio (Kev)]

" your a born loser".........." yeah I even lost my cat".
Perfect ending and not a common one either of that time. Kinda glad they never made a sequel to Goulds version. It always had a dream like quality to me.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

" your a born loser".........." yeah I even lost my cat".
Perfect ending and not a common one either of that time. Kinda glad they never made a sequel to Goulds version. It always had a dream like quality to me.

The ending is great and I don't want to say any more about it if some people have not seen it. I will say that they earn the ending here though and despite how oddball the film is, it is true to the Marlowe character.

I am very impressed by how this film is now turning up on greatest lists. I love a lot of Altman's work, but I would probably rank this as one of his very best. Probably above Nashville and McCabe and Mrs. Miller.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

On the subject of reconsidered films, what are some pictures you think should be reconsidered that perhaps have not had the praise and notoriety you think they deserve since being released?

Perhaps something that flopped or was not seen by many when it was released.

One for me would be Alex Garland's Annihilation. I thought this was a fantastic picture, when I saw it in a theater, I was there alone. I don't think it was particularly well received which surprised me because the film does, I think, everything right and also has almost an all female cast as the team the story centers on is all women. Which today, seems like a huge marketing point as there seems to be a real desire to spotlight films with female leads. This film does give all the primary parts to women and does it in an exemplary manner. It's also beautifully shot, with a very intelligent story, and has an excellent ending. To me this was a great sci-fi film that did get a but 2001 in the ending, it that there was some audience interpretation that needed to be done. I kind of felt that this is what knocked the film down for some critics but I loved that approach.

Anyway, curious what pictures you guys feel need some reconsidering.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

The Parallax View is another film that I believe has had positive reconsideration. I don't think it was well loved by critics when it came out but I think people, critics, now see it in a much better light. I think it is an amazing film and have since I first saw it. Part of the reason for this is because the film looks so stunning and this is thanks to Gordon Willis. Here's a great talk with him about the film:

 

[Walter Kittel]

I think the cinematography is pretty special in The Parallax View. Some of the shots really have a 'Mondian Art' aesthetic with the uses of the various rectangular structures. In some ways this films feels like a precursor to The International where the various buildings dwarf the individuals; speaking to the dominance of the institutions over the characters that inhabit the film.

My main criticism of the Parallax View is the car chase segment which really feels out of place and dates the film. It feels like it belongs in another film and I could have really done without that segment. Regardless, a pretty solid film that fits nicely in the 'conspiracy genre' that was popular at the time of its release.

- Walter.

 

[Keith Cobby]

Re the 1980s list, Back to the Future should be numero uno, not 42 and certainly higher than Brazil @ 6. Where is The Fabulous Baker Boys?

I'm probably in the minority but the 1970s are my least favourite decade, a few good films certainly, but too many looked horrible, really grungy, either stylistic choices or poor film stock.

 

[Joe Wong]

On the subject of reconsidered films, what are some pictures you think should be reconsidered that perhaps have not had the praise and notoriety you think they deserve since being released?

Perhaps something that flopped or was not seen by many when it was released.

One for me would be Alex Garland's Annihilation. I thought this was a fantastic picture, when I saw it in a theater, I was there alone. I don't think it was particularly well received which surprised me because the film does, I think, everything right and also has almost an all female cast as the team the story centers on is all women. Which today, seems like a huge marketing point as there seems to be a real desire to spotlight films with female leads. This film does give all the primary parts to women and does it in an exemplary manner. It's also beautifully shot, with a very intelligent story, and has an excellent ending. To me this was a great sci-fi film that did get a but 2001 in the ending, it that there was some audience interpretation that needed to be done. I kind of felt that this is what knocked the film down for some critics but I loved that approach.

Anyway, curious what pictures you guys feel need some reconsidering.

I haven't seen the film, but I did read the book a few years before the film. I thought the book was pretty good - a lot of thought-provoking material, fascinating imagery, and consistently mysterious. I would like to read the follow-up novels, but haven't done so yet. And I need to see the film, of course!

For context, the book also features an all-female team, so whether it was part of the marketing angle or not, one could say the film followed the book.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I haven't seen the film, but I did read the book a few years before the film. I thought the book was pretty good - a lot of thought-provoking material, fascinating imagery, and consistently mysterious. I would like to read the follow-up novels, but haven't done so yet. And I need to see the film, of course!

For context, the book also features an all-female team, so whether it was part of the marketing angle or not, one could say the film followed the book.

I read the novel as well, and here's the big surprise, the film outside of some basic aspects really does not have much to do with the novel. Garland took an odd approach to writing it that the author, Jeff VanderMeer was fine with. He wrote the script based on things the novel made him think and feel. So, it does not follow the story we get in the book.

He did keep the all-female team from the book, so that remains in the film.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I always enjoy hearing from Mr. Friedkin, he is such a direct and honest guy. Here's a recent chat with him on The Exorcist and he's looking great and his wit remains intact.

 

[Jeffrey D]

One of the joys of film for me is when I turn on someone else to a film I like, and then come to find out they enjoy it too. I showed Pulp Fiction to a bunch of people, and unanimously they all liked it. I turned my buddy on to Three Billboards and Hell Or High Water, and he likes these films as much as I do. Get others involved in our hobby, people.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

One of the joys of film for me is when I turn on someone else to a film I like, and then come to find out they enjoy it too. I showed Pulp Fiction to a bunch of people, and unanimously they all liked it. I turned my buddy on to Three Billboards and Hell Or High Water, and he likes these films as much as I do. Get others involved in our hobby, people.

For me, this has been a mixed bag over the years. I've been part of movie clubs where a group gathers and watches pictures together. I always seem to be the oldest one in the group. So, many times I show films from the 50s, 60s. or 70s and these often flopped with people. Showing 2001 worked out horribly for me once. I think they wanted to throw me out of that group. I showed Manhunter, the Michael Mann film once, and they laughed at it. Showed To Live and Die in LA to another group, they thought the music in the film was obnoxious and ruined the picture. I recall showing The French Connection to a group of people much younger than me and they could not follow the story. There are many scenes without dialogue and then there is some dialogue that is intentionally meant to be confusing "Did you ever sit on the edge of the bed and pick your feet in Poughkeepsie?" a line I quoted many times over the years.

I mean, I'm fine if people don't like a picture I like. That's just a matter of personal taste. However, when some of these folks present themselves as "movie buffs" but then have not seen a picture made before the 1990s...I'm a bit perplexed. I recall once asking one of these groups to name some classic pictures so I could get a feel for what they may like and the first film they named was The Goonies as an "old film" they loved. I knew at that moment I was screwed.

It gave me perspective though. People know and like the things they grew up with. So, there are a lot of people out there for whom Stanley Kubrick is nobody. They have no idea what Citizen Kane is and many if they saw it now would not like it at all.

Dr. Strangelove is probably the picture I have seen the most and the one I name the most when people ask you to name your favorite or one of your favorite films. It is truly one of the pictures that defines filmmaking for me. It's satire, a totally lost art in motion pictures today. So, I mostly will not show that if I am in a film club because, I just expect it won't be well received. I showed it one time and people did not laugh. Which was funny because I have heard Joe Dante tell the story of seeing it when it came out and he said the audience did not laugh, they saw it as a drama.

I recall trying to explain the scene where Sellers is asking Keenan Wynn to shoot the Coca-Cola machine. Nobody thought that was funny. I guess you can watch that scene as Sellers is begging him to shoot the machine so he can make a call to stop the bombs being dropped as dramatic, but it was always obvious to me that it was meant to be funny.

I just feel like today movies, and I mean in any genre, mostly have to be absolutely crystal clear to the audience about what is going on. I am not talking just comic book pictures, I mean dramas too, any type of film. The primary goal seems to be to make it so obvious it is like being slammed in the face with a baseball bat what the film is about, what the characters are, who is good or right and who is bad or evil. Absolutely no gray areas allowed. The problem being that, if you do confuse the audience or don't explain something entirely, well, you are nearly guaranteed to lose about 50% of your audience right off the top. So, now you have a niche film. A picture that at least half your audience won't like.

Because this is the way that they have been making films now for at least 20 years, I think we have a lot of people that don't understand and can't follow most pictures made before that. There is culturally just too much in them that they don't like, can't follow, don't understand, or take offense to. Combine that with the different editing techniques, the changing music, clothing, phrases or words, effects from past decades and you've just got a universe of things that people now don't enjoy about those pictures.

I do love to show people a picture I love and I hope they will enjoy it but now I generally ask them to name a bunch of pictures they love so that I can grasp what it is they might like that I could suggest. I guess it is like doing the algorithm thing. Making recommendations based on data showing what you have previously watched.

When I was a kid we did not have algorithms selecting anything for us. We watched what was on TV or what was at the cinema. You would go into the picture not knowing it and at the end just decide if you liked it. It did kind of cause you to branch out and like a lot of different kinds of films. It made our tastes more diverse and really the only way that can happen is if you are exposed to a lot of different things. I think there is a ton of choice out there now for people but I am not sure they are taking advantage of that.

Over the past weekend I had a little Toho film festival. I watched monster movies and The Seven Samurai. Being immersed in those films for the weekend was a blast for me. Watching them all in a short span really made me see and think about things I had not thought about before. I know it may not appeal to many people to do that but for me, it was wonderful.

I have been approached on a couple of occasions to put together a program to encourage appreciation of older films. Once about doing a Hitchcock program, because a frustrated professor that worked with my wife was angered that so many of his students did not know Hitchcock and his films. Then another time just to do a history of film thing that would expose younger people to a wide array of older films. I declined in both cases but now, I think it would be even harder to do because so much of film history now is not accepted at all by people and so much of it can be seen as offensive.

So, in order to do a film history appreciation thing, you have to wipe out about 85% of all the pictures made prior to the year 2000. That would not be a film history, that would be a selection of specific films that are the easiest to grasp and have nothing offensive in them. So, in reality, it would be a lie.

Sorry, that was a bunch of rambling thoughts...