having trouble getting through a few classics (1 Viewer)

[Adam W]

I own LOA, the 2 disc DVD, and can't finish it either. I have tried about 5 times and I just want to fall asleep or watch a new DVD I just bought.

 

[Lew Crippen]

I can’t comment on your cynicism Leo. But I’m just the opposite. I use the critics and the box office as a guide to which current movies I watch—though to be sure I only pay attention to a small subset of critics.

And I use critics (among other things) to search out films from years ago to watch.

I don’t think that I’m a slave to popular or critical opinion, as I’ve seen enough movies to have a reasonable idea of what is likely to appeal to me. But then, I could be wrong—perhaps I’ve seen so many movies that my mind has been taken over and I have no free will.

In fact, I don’t think that I intended to write this at all…

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Ah yes Lew. The old "popularity and critical acclaim as an immediate negative" routine. Where one judges a work of art by totaling how many positive reviews it has and then immediately determines it's worth as the inverse of the popularity. One of the foremost examples of critical thinking, relying not so much on the criticisms of others(yeah right), but solely on the judgment that all the critics are wrong and the one person "above the fray" is right. Lots of analysis and point by point critique, not to mention reliance on knowledge of film techniques and history, as well as watching thousands of films for comparison:rolleyes.

Only one problem - Taken to it's inevitable conclusion, it means that "Gigli" is a masterpiece. Somehow, I don't think it is quite the method the poster should rely on. They should stick to the "I don't like any films in B&W" technique, it's more accurate for them and doesn't require them to read as many reviews.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Casablanca bores you?!

That I just don't get. That's a film that to me keeps hitting you with plot points and character introductions at a rapid pace. Plus its got such lively dialog too.

Within a few minutes we are in a seedy underworld in a mysterious foreign country and a guy (a murderous thief himself) is shot dead.


But taste it taste. Its just that Casablanca is not a film I would expect to bore someone, even if they didn't like it.



Anyway, with Brook and others I'm also doing the Sight and Sound list, and getting myself up for many of the films is a chore. I have had several two parters. However, in many occassions I end up really being struck by the film and look for a 2nd viewing.

I think that films of substance and challenge can be difficult to access at first. The reward in those cases is a film you can return to.

I counter this with my anecdote of Die Hard. Rented it when it first came out and loved it. Watched it 3 times while I had it rented. The third time some of the gloss was wearing off. By the time it hit cable I wondered what I had seen in the film.

Eventually I avoided it for a long enough period to return to it and love it.

The point being that it is a film that is very accessible initially, but a little too thin to support heavy repeat viewings and analysis.

It's very tough to make a film that can work in both ways.


But I'm not trying to feed you a line of BS elitest snobbery when I say that Kane, LoA and Casablanca really do capture and keep my attention., even the first time.

Like Brook, I am also losing my attention span for lame new releases too. I drift off (not always sleep, but just attention) when watching stuff like Ecks vs Sever or Dumb and Dumberer.

I think some of it stems from having to adjust my mindset for all the more "difficult" viewings I've been doing for classes and S&S. It's hard for me to keep interest with films that don't engage me.

Don't get me wrong though, I was so pleased with the new Dawn of the Dead I went back the next week. I just don't have the same tolerance I used to for new releases that don't really grab me.

 

[RobertR]

The only time I really have a problem with such statements is when they're clearly influenced by a judgement about the technology instead of the art, as in "but the film's so old, or in (gasp!) black and white", or a rejection out of hand of "too old" cultural norms/references. The "it must be new, new, NEW" (in style, editing techniques, sound quality, etc.) mindset is bothersome.

 

[Terry St]

Everyone is different, but I found almost all of the films mentioned so far to be absolutely rivetting. However, I am not without my limits either. I suggest you try watching Fritz Lang's Die Nibelungen (1924, Two parts rated 8.2 and 7.9 on IMDB) or Dr. Mabuse: The Gambler (1922, 7.8 on IMDB). There's nothing like a couple of 5-hour silent german epic's to make you appreciate the tight editing and brisk pacing of the other films mentioned so far in this thread. Then, once you have built up your attention span to a level that even Nietzsche would envy, you can tackle the ultimate snooze inducing classic: L'Avventura (1960). Although it clocks in at just 145 minutes, L'Avventura would probably be a great film for euthanizing cats and dogs if it weren't for the SPCA. Here's the entire plot:

Some lazy italians go to an island. One of the women disappears. They look for her, but give up. The woman's boyfriend and one of her female friends fall in love, but feel guilty about it. Then they decide they don't care. The end.

That's really the entire plot. Watch the film if you don't believe me. It seems as if the content of the film is deliberately devoid of interest in order to force you to watch the way it was shot, which is actually quite interesting. (It's why everyone raves about the film.) However, if you don't feel like analyzing cinematography your only hope is to gnaw off a limb.

Even though I found these three films to be very punishing, I'm glad I saw them once, although I have no desire to see them again.

P.S. Caffeine is your friend. A triple espresso sweetened with condensed milk and put on ice will get you through almost anything.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

I'm getting mixed up here. Are we talking about falling asleep while watching ANY film in general, or are we debating the worth of certain movies?

First, I often fall asleep during films at night, be they good or bad. It's just that I often watch them weeknights after work, and I like to lie down on my sofa -- biiiiiig mistake. However, I do manage to stay awake, too...
I fare much better on weekends in the a.m. hours.

I watch all types of films, all genres and all decades. I've caught up with a lot of classics recently for the first time (like CITIZEN KANE and CASABLANCA) and have found it to be extremely rewarding. Like Lew, I use whatever gets the best reputation as a guideline in many cases, and I have to say I've seldom been disappointed. CASABLANCA was good, and I'd like to see it again - and CITIZEN KANE was truly excellent and deserved all of its legendary praise, IMO.

I also was astounded by SUNSET BLVD, another great film.

 

[Shawn_KE]

CITIZEN KANE. Can't see why it is considered to be the best movie ever made. Didn't do anything for me and was boring.

 

[DaveButcher]

I often fall asleep during movies as well, but it's much more along the same lines as Joe. I watch 'em after work and when it get's dark (I hate watching movies with a lot of light around and in the summer that means waiting 'till 9 to start watching a flick). That being said, it's rarely because the movie was so boring that I couldn't get througyh it. I can see that being the case with a lot of avantgarde and surrealist movies, but it's strange to see movies like Casablanca (very short and action packed) and Lawrence of Arabia (long, but so is The Good, The Bad and The Ugly) being included in that list.

I've never had to put movies "in context" to appreciate and enjoy them, maybe I'm just lucky, but I wouldn't change that. Even if you do have to put a film "into context" that doesn't make it bad. If you look at some cave drawings in France as just drawings, then it's pretty unspectacular, but if you understand that they are some of the earliest recordings of human artistic endevor, it's truly amazing. Context is what makes greatness.

Still, if you only watch movies because of their historic or technical value, then you're missing the point.

 

[Steve Christou]

It may be true that with every generation there are fewer and fewer fans of classic old movies, and I find this sad. Not liking or finding them boring doesn't make them any less great, it's just an opinion. And yes it very much depends on the individual, his personality, character, intelligence etc, maybe if you're into heavy metal and fast cars the possibility that you'll find Citizen Kane a big snooze is far more likely. Or maybe a lot of young guys today have the attention span of a goldfish, like my young cousin, he refuses to watch old movies, anything pre-Star Wars is out. Why waste your time watching Lawrence of Arabia when you can spend those precious 3 hours on Playstation?

 

[DaveButcher]

I love heavy metal (Black Metal and Death Metal more but why split hairs), and I love fast cars. I also love Citizen Kane. I also like Star Wars and Tom Waits and Buddy Holly and The White Stripes and pre-war delta blues (among many, many others. In fact it may be easier for me to lists styles that I don't like rather then like). I dug Underworld and (as other may know from another thread) love film noir. I'm also under the age of thirty (not by much, but still).

Don't be so quick to judge people and their tastes. Of course I realize that most people are not as eclectic with their appreciation of music and movies, but it doesn't make it true all the time.

 

[Shawn_KE]

Well I'm not sure why the b&w classics don't do anything for me. I like all the classic monster movies and the spagetti westerns, horror movies and scifi of the 60's and 70's, action and slasher movies of the 80's. I love em.

The Road Warrior, The Good, The Bad and The Ugly and Conan the Barbarian are my faves.

It's just I don't see why Kane is #1.

I guess it's the same as not seeing why people don't like the Matrix sequels or Star War prequels.

 

[Rob P S]

.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

The only way to really respond to a thread such as this (where bonafide classic films are called "boring", etc.) is to remember that everyone's taste in films is different. Education and context can change that somewhat, but many people will continue to have bad taste anyway.

 

[DaveButcher]

I friend of mine had a great sticker on his fridge

"Knowing that taste is in the eye of beholder doesn't stop me from ridiculing Pearl Jam fans"

It might have said "ear of the beholder" but I'm prety sure it was "eye". Anyways, I got a chuckle out of it every time I read it.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Kinda off-topic, but what music DID you friend like?

 

[teapot2001]

I tend to fall asleep while watching B&W movies at night and sometimes during the day. I always try to push myself to stay awake watching the movie, but I can never do it. The funny thing is that the moment I switch the TV source back to television, I am wide awake.

I had to watch 8 1/2 in two parts, and I might have fallen asleep during The Seventh Seal.

~T

 

[Brad E]

I have a hard time watching movies older than 15 years.

The old style clothes, hair, glasses, cars, ect...... ruin what might be an interesting story.
The oldest movie that I can actually watch and enjoy would be Star Wars. That movie is almost timeless.

I really do want to watch some of the old classics like Citizen Kane, GWTW and Casablanca but I fear the acting alone will turn me off. Whenever I see clips of an old movie it seems like something I'd see on Broadway.

 

[Nick Sievers]

I was wondering how long it would take someone to bring this up in a classic film thread.

 

[Adam W]

After reading all this I am rethinking trying to watch LOA this weekend during the day as to not fall asleep. Can someone tell me if there is a certain point where you were bored and then just got caught up in it so I don't quit before then, or was everyone feeling the movie all the way through?