Why are old movies so much better? (1 Viewer)

[Wendy_L]

Actually Mark-P, could you just explain the ending to me? Because I was sitting there watching the movie, enjoying it and then there is this scene where the boy screams and just dies... then you see "The End". I was like, "What the f***?"

Also, I was thinking about what Jason said some more and I came up with a good example of a movie that doesn't use too many special effects to evoke that feeling of creepiness and that's "The Birds". I love that movie. Matter of fact, I have liked every Hitchcock movie I have ever seen. BUT, there are horror movies I have seen in the recent past that I have really liked too where they do use all those fancy dancy effects.

I guess it's just a matter of preference and what you find enjoyable in a movie.

Like someone else said, a good movie is a good movie no matter when it was made.

 

[SteveJKo]

Count me in with those who think that the writing is what sets the films of yesterday and today apart. Todays films, at times, seem to be an excuse to show off special effects or big action sequences. In the past, fx and action sequences served the story.

Wendy the end of The Innocents is purposely ambiguous. Much of the film's mystery and power come from the fact that the ghosts may or may not be real, they may be an aspect of Miss Giddens sexually repressed psyche.



Actually The Birds uses quite a bit of FX. I believe the documentary on the DVD even mentions that Hitchcock new the FX had to be flawless because the films success depended on the believability of the bird attacks.

 

[Linda Thompson]

Wendy... A very basic question here... Have you seen both versions of THE HAUNTING? If so, which do you personally prefer, and why?

In regard to your original question, this particular comparison can be very helpful, as the differences between the two versions perfectly illustrate many of the excellent points which have been raised here, both by your question and by various responses.

For me, one of these movies is a fun, but ultimately disposable, roller-coaster ride, while the other has the power to chill me to the bone, and has stayed with me (and my psyche) since the first time I viewed it. Need I reveal which is which?

'Nuff said.

 

[Haggai]

Wendy, some other older movies you might want to try along those lines are the Val Lewton films from the '40s. The most famous one of those is Cat People, from '42. Warners released a box set of them last year, and they're also on Netflix, etc.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Linda, I can tell you about The Haunting. The 1963 film is a ghost story told with imagination; special effects are nearly nonexistant. One instead delves into the unstable world Eleanor and the spirits who are tormenting her. We never see a "ghost" but we sure feel its presence.

The 1999 film? A special-effects extravaganza that leaves one cold and angry. Full-color, of course. But 1999 all the way. Subtlety is tossed out, and exhausted viewers see all sorts of nonsense.

 

[Wendy_L]

Ok, so I used a bad example. I still like the movie though. Matter of fact, talking about The Birds prompted me to go to Netflix and add a few Hitchcock movies I have never seen to my queue.

 

[Jeremy Stockwell]

Another telling example is Cheaper by the Dozen (1950) vs. Cheaper by the Dozen (2003). The original mostly sticks with the original true family story and it is funny, sweet, and touching. The Steve Martin re-make (if it can be called that) could have taken some lessons from the original, but it didn't. It is chaotic, but flat.

Neither is perfect, but the re-make was pointless.

 

[Ericka Y]

The problem with the current blockbuster mentality of filmmaking is that the huge expense of blockbusters means studios make fewer films and because so much money is on the line the producers become cautious for fear of not making back their investment: hence big expensive stars, nothing controversial or challenging that might scare people away from the seats, nice safe entertainment. There are still terrific films out there that stand up to the classics, but just a lot fewer of them and many of them are low budget independents. The independents who can produce films with lower budgets are often bolder and more literate in their material.

 

[Michael Elliott]

What Holadem said in post 4 pretty much nails it IMO.

However, while I prefer older movies, I find it rather pathetic when people say no good movies are made today. Yes, there are many, many bad movies made today but there are still some great ones. 1939 is considered the greatest year for films but don't let that fool you because we can mention 10-15 "great" ones but there were still 200+ others made that year that didn't fall into the great catagory.

I think what it really boils down to is what a person is interested in. Just looking at last year, I find it hilarious when people claim that no good films are made anymore. You ask them what they've seen (from last year) and they'll say: THE FOG, DUKES OF HAZARDS, HONEYMOONERS or countless other films that aren't really considered good. Then you ask if they've seen MUNICH, CAPOTE, BROKEBACK or any of the other "great" movies and they say they aren't interested in those movies.

There are great movies from every single year going back to the 1890s but people just have to watch them.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

I'd agree with most of this except the part about "JAWS" and "STAR WARS" being 'shitty' and the statement that "now, all movies suck". The "all" part is a generalization that isn't really accurate. However, I do think many films today are short on originality.

 

[JediFonger]

well, i wouldn't make *that* sweeping of a statement re: pre/post '77 eras. i mean, i simply can't imagine fight club or the matrix being made before the late 90s.

re: batting avg. the batting avg of classics was definitely higher back then than now. it isn't "the same" at all.

re: 1890s, uh... AFAIK, 2 films kicked narrative cinema off in 1902&1903, melies's trip to the moon and porter's great train robbery. then 1914 came Griffith's Birth of a Nation (aka The Clansman). imho, the great silent film ever made is The Kid by chaplin and the greatest director of that era is FW Murnau.

 

[Haggai]

Uh...you guys realize that Holadem was, shall we say, exaggerating? Unless I'm nuts, he was parodying some of the frequently heard arguments as to why "older movies were better." From what I "know" of him from HTF, I don't think Holadem would seriously contend that "before 1975-77, movies were perfect and moviegoers were all really smart"...LOL.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

But his MTV-style observation was dead right.

 

[Tommy G]

I would also like to add that a perfect example of an "older movie" mentality made in today's time is The Others. This movie was so creepy and so well done that it was what was not seen that made it so good. I tend to like older movies but there are a lot of really well done and well written movies that are more recent as well.

 

[Michael Elliott]

Joke or not, he's right on the money. When the independant movement struck in the late 60s/early 70s, JAWS and STAR WARS changed the way smaller films would be made. The studios kicked 'em out and allowed more big budget films in. This trend is still going today.

 

[Haggai]

Sure, part of it is true. Things changed a lot in the late '60s and early '70s (though I don't think it was exactly because of independent movies, at least not by the usual definition of "not funded by a major studio"), and then Jaws and Star Wars shook things up tremendously, certainly in terms of how movies were marketed and distributed, which in turn affected the entire movie-making process.

Though I hope we can agree that "before 1975-77, movies were perfect and moviegoers were all really smart" is not meant to be taken literally.

 

[Michael Elliott]

Oh, of course he was kidding on that. We all know that brains left as soon as sound came into play (according to Chaplin and Griffith).

 

[Brent Avery]

A person's expectations/perceptions has alot to do with why entertainment as we generally know it today has many simply hoping to see another "older" film, mostly those before the early '70's, make it to dvd. Like myself, although I have watched and own some of the blockbusters of today - Spiderman, ROTS as examples and do not dispute their value to entertain, which is the reason most of us watch film in the first place, I find they just do not hold the long term or repeat viewing experience of say, Ben Hur, The Sound Of Music, Singin' In The Rain, Roman Holiday to name but very few of a substantial list of movies made from just the mid '30's to late '60's.

I think Hollywood was able to produce a much more involving experience because of the production code that was in place for a time. Of course, there were directors that tried to push the boundaries over the years but to think that the now famous line in Gone With The Wind " Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn" spoken by Clark Gable almost did not make on film - and it was generally considered somewhat shocking back then. Today of course foul language much worse than that is very common - and I find it a sad state of affairs - that it takes violence, sex etc. to sell a film.

The sad truth is that today, although there are some excellent films still being made more than a few that really have a story to tell are foreign produced. I can say, for me personally, I have a great fondness for films that make you smile, laugh,shed a tear or two ( it's ok to confess ) or give you that good feeling inside - that is what the older generation was able to put across because society 40+ years ago had a firmer moral foundation - I'm simplifying things here because the world has never been without violence, wars ,etc but if things have not changed where ARE the great musicals and comedies of past - gone along with the generation that produced and starred in them. No more James Stewarts, Audrey Hepburns, Fred Astaires etc. Many times I look on Amazon and you see comments by someone about a particular movie and you get alot of the "they don't make them like that anymore" responses. They must be older like me! It is gratifying to see younger people discover and take to the classic films of another time but for most all they seem to care about is the "noise makers" and "shockers" that aptly describes the better part of today's entertainment. Call me old fashioned I guess.

 

[Nathan Phillips]

I think the mistake that a lot of people make when going through "classic" films is assuming that if they end up disliking a particular movie, they're somehow "missing" something. The "classic" label is basically there to give people a starting point on what older films to explore; how good they actually are is a matter of taste. I can listen all day to people talk about how brilliant the ending to "Blowup" is. They're wrong. I mean, for themselves, they're right; for me, they're wrong, and the fact that the movie is a "classic" is irrelevant to my opinion of it. The same goes for its age. A good movie is a good movie, but since everyone has different opinions on movies in general, it stands to reason we'd all feel differently about "classic" movies. But I think people are often afraid to express a dissenting opinion about them for fear of how it will be seen.

Personally, I fell in love with "Citizen Kane"; it completely spoke to me. But I can relate to people who disliked it in a sense because I think getting an opinion on these things is what's so liberating about exploring movies (or any other artform). It's so much better to be able to say "well, I thought Citizen Kane was terrible because etc. etc." than to just go with the general robotic definition of it as A Classic. The same is true for my own passionate view of it. And there are many, many "classic" films I don't like at all, a few I hate.

I must respectfully disagree that changing society is to blame for the supposed decline in quality of movies. I certainly think that the Production Code was beneficial in a sense because limitations always breed creativity, but I still completely oppose the idea of the Code, and I think that if it had been lifted twenty years earlier, the movies of the '60s would have been just as severe as the movies of the '70s (which, to my mind, are often a good deal more hard-hitting than the silly "shock" stuff on the market now). Personally, I can't see how society has changed all that much in terms of a certain attachment to sex and violence. Again, I agree that movies sold strictly for shock value are of no interest to me -- if anything, I'm more vehement about this than most -- but I think that's just a certain kind of film, one that's always existed, and the amount of violence/sex that's "shocking" is not the issue. But that's just me, and I could be entirely wrong about the societal issues here.

 

[george kaplan]

You're a better man than me. I can't stand hearing it for two minutes.