having trouble getting through a few classics (2 Viewers)

[Amy Mormino]

There are some big differences between some of the films mentioned in this thread. Films like "The Seventh Seal" and "L'Avventure" were pretty much made to be art films. But movies like "Casablanca", "Gone With the Wind" were intended to be entertaining films for mass audiences.

That doesn't mean that there isn't some fun in the older art films or that the mass audiences films don't have artistic merit. But if you're trying to appreciate older films, start with the more accessible ones like "The Adventures of Robin Hood". If you show a classic-hating friend or family member something like "The Seventh Seal" first, you're asking for trouble.

 

[Jefferson]

One of the most interesting threads i've read in awhile.
I agree, that it is all a matter of taste,
but i found that my taste broadened as my age
and interests increased.
I will look at and enjoy films now that i would
not have gone near when i was 25...
As my thirties creep on,
i have widened my scope in films.

I am in a business with mostly people
younger than i,
and they have quite a disgust for classic
film, and even more disgust for black and white.
This saddens me.
As a child in the 1970's,
these films were shown often on television
as a 'treat'...
and i dont believe they are as accessible
to the current youth market as they were to me.

But you can change your mind/taste.

I never thought i liked opera
until a few years ago, when i subscribed
to the NewYorkCity Opera and saw
all sorts of them, "live"...
it really opened my mind about it,
and I now enjoy it.

I know some people who dont give things a try,
or who, as has been noted here,
hate something just because it is beloved.
that is just immature to me.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Simply one of the greatest scenes in all of film, especially when you consider the time that the film was made and it still gives me goosebumps when I even think of the words "Play La Marseilles". See, you do have great taste, can appreciate a classic and I officially pronounce you not dead (unlike some other whippersnapper in this thread).

Highly recommend the Ebert commentary, especially the parts where he talks about how they lit Ingrid Bergman and how she was always filmed looking up into the camera (she was heart achingly gorgeous from some angles and relatively plain from others).

 

[Angelo.M]

I have a serious case of the warm fuzzies.

[Irrelevant quote deleted.]

 

[Lew Crippen]

I love reading about everyone who is giving some of these older movies a try—with an open mind. While none of us will like everything, I’m sure that there is plenty to like (and love), but so far unseen.

BTW Jefferson, I was anti-opera until I took a girl I was trying to impress to a production put on by the IU music department. As a college freshman, I had limited funds and this was free. The Queen of the Night came out for her aria in the first act of The Magic Flue and I was blown away. Yet still not prepared for those F’s about C in her aria in the second act.

The girl did not last that long, but my love of opera has remained.

Strangely I used to listen to the Texaco broadcasts of the Met Saturday matinee performance (or portions) when I was younger, so even though I claimed to not like opera, there must have been something about it that appealed beneath the surface.

 

[Haggai]

He also talks about how she was really good at looking down, probably as good at that as any other actress who's ever been in the movies. After hearing him point that out when I first got the DVD, I noticed a similar thing about Audrey Hepburn in some of her movies: have you ever seen anybody blink as well as she did? Specifically, I mean her ability to express one particular emotion on her face, and then blink, while coming out of it with a totally different emotion. A change of mood in (literally) a blink of an eye. Lots of this in Charade, with her multiple swings between love, fear, despair, happiness, etc.

 

[Stephen_L]

Jeff, I think 'Casablanca' is remembered so warmly because everything about it just clicks. It's what old Hollywood could produce when all the pistons were firing. The dialogue is so sharp and tight, its no wonder that its one of the most quoted movies. The first time I watched it I was amazed how many common phrases were from this picture ("Here's looking at you kid", "This looks like the beginning of a beautiful friendship", "Round up the usual suspects"). The acting from leads to supporting is top notch; not a weak performance. The romance works; every man falls in love with Ilsa, every woman with Rick. And what appeals to modern tastes is the cynicism pervading Rick and his world. He's not a noble hero. He's a former idealist gone bitter. Victor Lazlo, the only purely heroic character is the least interesting. Rick, Ilsa, Reynaud all have dark corners of their lives.

 

[Holadem]

I saw Casablanca long before I had any interest in film as a hobby and loved every minute of it.

There was a little get together some sundays ago at the friends house. After the meal we threw in The Lady Vanishes, which I had brought, sight unseen. Everyone had a blast.

2 anecdotal evidences of the mass appeal of many classics

--
H

 

[Zen Butler]

Amy, trust me, I've been there. More frequently though, it's normally when I show a more offbeat classic that I get a positive response. I'm sure it's simply the crowd that I hang out with. Like I've mentioned, some of my more mainstream classic favorites e.g. Sabrina(1954), Adventures of Robin Hood, 300 Spartans, Casablanca etc. is when I get "it's corny" or "dated" as a response.
Not surprisingly though, many of the film noir classics in my collection go over very well with my friends.

Lew, have you tried Cephalexin for that Magic Flue?

Seriously, The Magic Flute is a big favorite of mine, in all its' various forms.

Charade? my word this thread is firing fast with favorites galore.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

I started watching the so-called classics during the summer after graduation. Of all the ones I watched, 2001: A Space Odyssey just didn't click with me at all and this was during 2000 sophomore year in college. However, I have since watched it again, and my opinion of it has changed to not my cup of tea. It's a good film where I understand the intentions, but quite frankly it's got some severe editing problems a la Tarkovsky type stuff. Say what you will, but watching a spaceship from point A to B says no more about the human condition than seeing points A and B. Otherwise, I was enthralled by Lawrence of Arabia, Chinatown, and The French Connection. If anything, it started me on the path to appreciating some of the classical Hollywood style and the new Hollywood explosion of the 70's.

I started the S&S Challenge a while back, and quite frankly there are a select few films I'm having the most trouble getting through (namely they're boring, dry, and emotionally uninvolving). I really don't think some of them are that good at all, namely L'Avventura and L'Atalante. Others I find overrated like Aguirre, Wrath of God. Reading essays like the Criterion ones helps my understanding of some of the films, but it doesn't make me like them anymore.

Yeah, it's quite puzzling when people try to bash the classics, particularly the Hollywood style classics. Wait until you see the World classics, then they can tell me old Hollywood movies are boring.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Andy said this pages ago, but this is what I consider a GOOD analysis of why a film isn't working for you.

So much better than "it was dumb/boring".

Of course viewers don't have to educate themselves on their own tastes in a field, it is acceptable to simply not like something. Just as long as they put aside the blasts against classics (ie, actually knocking the tastes of others) until they have taken the time to understand what truly dictates their own tastes.


DISTANCE FROM CHARACTERS/STORY - probably the #1 factor in not enjoying a film. Over affected filmmaking or acting can do it, or a foreign language and culture. Doesn't make those films bad and yet it successfully explains some people's inability to enjoy the film without knocking them either.


Of course sometimes a viewer finds a fascination with a clearly artistic style, such as the 70's version of "future styles" that was also mentioned early in the thread. I share that interest and find the styles in Soylent Green and Rollerball to be as telling of the viewpoint of the times as the story itself is.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Well, for me part of the interest in this sequence is its hypnotic beauty. It feels so relaxing and the film emphasizes the inherent artistry within science, that something so "anti-art" as hard science is itself also capable of great beauty.

Also I think that it does touch on the Romance ideals (the movement I mean) with man dwarfed by the cosmos around him. A tiny ship in that sea of stars, a single passenger on that ship (plus crew).


But anyway, I guess a guy like you who's all into W.A.S.P. and Cinderella wouldn't get that.


(did I pick 2 bands you don't know Dome? I was trying to at least)

 

[Dome Vongvises]

It's a good way of putting it. In films as in real life with people, you have to make an investment of time. Some times it's worth it, other's it is not.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

Cinderella I know of with a few songs I like. W.A.S.P. I've heard of, but I don't know anything by them. But nice try though.

BTW, you're way off. I'm classic rock guy.

 

[Seth Paxton]

I just had this very argument with a friend of mine because I said that Bad Boys 2 wasn't very good.

I got the "that's what I hate about guys like you..." thing. This just seconds after talking about how much I love Dazed and Confused and The Road Warrior. In fact the only film I knocked in the entire conversation was BB2, yet that was enough to label me a snob.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Dude, W.A.S.P., Cinderella, LA Guns, and Dangerous Toys ARE classic rock.


(A - I do still enjoy some old metal/glam metal)

(B - I brought it up in reference to Steve's heavy metal thing back on page 1)

 

[Jack Briggs]

Stephen, in post #167, offers a compelling, cogent, and insiteful thumbnail summary of why Casablanca ranks so highly in the annals of film. Nice job!

And to discuss 2001 adequately, again, one needs to expand her or his cinematic vocabulary even to begin to grapple with the issues Mr. Kubrick raises. He has, practically speaking, expanded the rules of cinema with the work.

I could go on, but this thread is not the place to single out and highlight that one film.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Thank you for small favors.

Seriously Jack, I've read and reread the HTF analysis of 2001:ASO, learned more from it than any other thread on this forum and still don't understand it all. I have graduated from "God, am I going to have to drop acid to see this again" to an almost full appreciation of the film. I now understand why you say Kubrick has expanded the rules of cinema and agree, but it still puts me to sleep. However, as I said before in this thread, that is a fault of mine, not the filmmaker.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

Oh yeah. :b

Actually, I was thinking Stone, Derek and the Dominos, and AC/DC folk.

If it's any comfort to anybody, I have no HTF cred. I proudly own the works of Kubrick, Welles, and Kurosawa next to cinematic works of art like Navy Seals and Super Troopers.

And while I'm at it...

Hey Lew, Pork BBQ is better than Beef BBQ. Go Memphis!!! Texas sucks!!!

 

[BrettB]

My wife refers to 2001 as "the monkey movie". I'm not sure if she'll ever come around.