What's new

Why do film scholars hate 80s movies...and is there something wrong with me... (1 Viewer)

Chuck Mayer

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2001
Messages
8,509
Location
Northern Virginia
Real Name
Chuck Mayer
Well, film scholars, by their very nature, specifically target a TYPE of film. After all, for film scholars to be important, it follows that film must also be important. Not a knock, just an observation.

The good news is: film scholars don't get to determine what films become classics. The average filmgoer, chatting with his friends at Chili's, does that. The moviegoing, ticket-buying public makes that determination, and always will. By sheer virtue of numbers and enthusiasm.

The eighties produced plenty of classic films. Overall, there is a certain whimsy that some scholars might find distasteful, but it depends on where you are in the cycle. When the 90's become nostalgic (in about 5 years), no doubt film scholars will lament the "fun" and "spark" that 80's classics had. And canonize the 70's. Ten years later, we'll just move up one more.

Some "classic" films are awful. Some are brilliant. That's the beauty of art. WE get to decide for OURSELVES.

Take care,
Chuck
 

TheLongshot

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 12, 2000
Messages
4,118
Real Name
Jason
What the 80s had, that is missing nowadays, is a sense of fun at the movies. Yes, there were a lot of B level films is the 80s, but they were mostly pretty fun. Now, the B level films are either crap, or high budget films trying too hard to be B-Films. (Mars Attacks, Eight-Legged Freaks)

There are times I miss Cannon and Carolco... Drek, but highly entertaining drek.

Also, I think the 80s will be recognized as the decade of the teen movie. There were so many good ones in the decade. Nowadays, good teen movies are few and far between.

Edit: I also think that the Zucker/Abrams/Zucker spoofs will hold up for a long time as well.

Jason
 

Hunter P

Screenwriter
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
1,483
Some dis-jointed thoughts on the subject:
IMHO, films from the 70s and earlier are held in higher regard because most of the high profile "film scholars" are a bunch of old farts. Public opinion is bound to change once these guys finally retire and are replaced by my fellow gen-X'ers.

To me, movies today are not as fun as the movies in the 80s. Where's today's Bill and Ted's, Raiders of the LA, Better Off Dead or Back to the Future? Seems like today's movies just try to drain you.

Nostalgia adds at least one or two stars to anyone's film ratings. I second the opinion that one could name just as many "bad" films for every decade.

I never watch the AMC channel but I saw a commercial on it the other day. This month they plan on showing such "American Classics" like "Short Circuit" and "French Kiss." Given time anything is a classic.
 

Colin Jacobson

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
13,303
I *wasn't* making an elitist comment, simply looking objectively at what has proved of lasting worth from the past. I'm not saying these movies are in any way bad, not worth watching, or that anyone is showing bad taste by liking them. FWIW, I don't 'look down' on popular movies. I *love* ET, and it's in my personal top ten. But given the place it has in the general state of things and based on the fate of popular movies of the past, it, along with Blues Brothers, Raiders et al, is not likely to last.

If I had to place a long-range forecast on any very popular movies that will last, I would bet on Ron Howard's work.
So 50 years from now, people will forsake ET and Raiders of the Lost Ark to watch The Grinch and Ransom?
 

Dome Vongvises

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 13, 2001
Messages
8,172
I think what most critics dislike about the eighties is that its not the seventies.
I'm not pretty sure who said it, but my gut feeling agrees with this assessment. :D

I can't exactly make a good point about why film critics/scholars hate 80's movies (if such a condition does indeed exist), but I've developed this opinion about film scholars/critics in general. Anybody is more than welcome to refute these points, but I'm sticking by my guns. :)

I honestly believe film critics/scholars have a tendency to praise and uphold films that require some sort of higher intellectual function. For the most part, this is genuine (more on what I mean by that later). They love films that require you to think deeply and critically. In a sense, this is the highest respect and accolade you can give to art in general, something that evokes critical thinking and discussion. And more often than not, the thing being discussed is usually a "deep" philosophical theme. This is in stark contrast to "simpler" themes that only invite simple debate and discussion, but not necessarily what can be deemed as "deeper" discussion.

The negative side-effect of this is that it creates elitisim, the Ivory Tower effect if you will. What exactly is elitism in this sense? Film critics/scholars are often dismissive of films with emotional appeal, seeing that emotional appeal is one of the most low-brow functions of human beings. We laugh, we love, we cry, we hate, and these are things mostly done without thought, and anything done without thinking offends the sensibilities of film critics/scholars. What's odd is that even if two films were to delve into the same themes/issues, the film critic/scholar will always choose the one that is more heavy-handed/serious. This is in part due to the fact that fun is often related to emotional appeal and this gets in the way of thinking critically. Film critics/scholars also possess a tendency to hate anything done for the sake of entertainment which is somewhat related to emotional appeal.

This is why you see a whole lot of "art" films high up in critics' lists of the greatest films of all time. Most of these works have intellectual content and are often devoid of any emotion or are emotionally detached. Emotions would interfere or would be disruptive of thinking. If there were any sense of emotional appeal, it would be kept to a minimum. Of course, there are exceptions and Casablanca does show up on these lists every once in a while. :)

Of course, it's no use to discuss film scholars/critics' paradigm of thought without seeing the other end of the deal, the general movie-going public. I'm pretty sure somebody's already picked up on this, but I'll bring the point up nonetheless. A lot of what appeals to film scholars/critics or the general movie-going public can be traced to occupation/job. I'm willing to bet that a vast majority of film scholar/critics are writers, folks who have the time to pursue their art of choice. The general movie-going public on the other hand, consists of, well, everybody else. They're your doctors, lawyers, waiters/waitresses, students, soccer moms, people with desk jobs in high-rises, teachers, janitors, etc.

If you folks can understand what I'm getting at here, is that the general movie-going public often have duties/occupations that are physically draining, whether it's trying to pick up kids after work or staying at the office from 9 to 5. This isn't to say that film scholars/critics have easy work loads (they've got their deadlines ;) ). But more often than not, folks who work "normal" jobs are often more physically drained by the end of the day than writers or folks who discuss art.

And this leads to one of several differences in what film scholars/critics love and what the general movie-going love. The general movie-going public does not want films that make them have to think deeply (every film causes people to think, just not to a level or depth that is considered "deep"). They want their movies in nice little packages that have simple beginnings, middles, and ends. Or they may want stories that have themes they can identify with on a personal level. They want to laugh, cry, love, and hate.

Personally, I don't blame them. When you've got issues to deal with in your own life, and you're dead tired by the end of the day, the last thing you want to watch is a film that causes you to think about the implications of middle-class values.

Film scholars/critics have the time and resources to watch films that elicit thought. Their occupation, which is the critical analysis of film as art, creates a tendency leaning towards "artier" films. And because they do not take part in the themes and issues that affect most people, they have the fortunate situation of being able to sit back, observe, and discuss such themes (eg. discussing middle-class values or discussing the many facets of love).

What's odd (and I think this will get the most dispute from folks) is that these film scholars/critics who love to intellectualize every idea and principle, aren't exactly experts at anything. They may be great thinkers, but they're not exactly great doers either. Were they to find themselves in the exact situations to which they love to discuss, would they know exactly what to do?

But you know what? Having expressed my opinion now, I think I can come up with a reason why film scholars may hate 80's movies. When you look at films like Top Gun, Breakfast Club, and Ferris Bueller's Day Off, they have one thing in common: they're fun films. :) And we know what fun means. To film critics/scholars, fun = emotion = bad. :D

Earlier, I mention that a vast majority of film scholar/critics are genuine. When I say this, I mean to say that I admire that they take film as an art and are extraordinarily passionate about it (about emotional as those guys can get ;) ). What I hate, however, are the posers. In other words, I simply can't stand these folks who profess to be better than their fellow man simply because they can "get" a certain film. I hate these pretentious pseudo-intellectual bastards. They only like "art" films only to make themselves look better. The worst offense is how they look at others with contempt for enjoying films that are "below" them.

Alright, I've rambled and said my piece. But if I can leave with a parting remark, I believe most film scholars/critics to be the grumpiest lot of folks I've ever run across. They've intellectualized everything to the point where they're just plain miserable. They can't have fun because then they wouldn't be exercising their higher functions. Just look at Ebert. I've yet to see that guy smile. :D
 

Arman

Screenwriter
Joined
Jan 10, 2003
Messages
1,625
Like the other respected film critics, Roger Ebert thought Ferris Buller's Day-Off is a fun film and for some, it is one of the classic teen-age & comedy films of the 80s'. And IMHO, Ebert is one of those film scholars who most often breaking rules his own rating system and has been giving unusually high grades & lavish praises to some not "so great films" just because he thought they are "fun films.".

Again, the film scholars do not hate the 80s films in general, they hate horrible films made during the 80s (or any other decade). :)

As a person who is now just really beginning to appreciate, marvel and love these great films which are being praised and admired by those film scholars and the filmmakers themselves, I'm all for the continued existense of these "posers and grumpy individuals" if it means, from time to time (after the 80s), films like Being John Malkovich, Punch-Drunk Love, Mullholland Dr, The Straight Story, Innocence, Atanarjuat, Rabbit-Proof Fence & Boys Don't Cry (or other thought-provoking films that stimulate intelligent discussions among discerning film fans) are going to be made not just Star Wars or Jackass type of films. And being an ordinary fan myself (who sometimes watch movies "just to be entertained") I don't blame the majority & ordinary movie watchers who put their money & admiration to films that are "simply fun."
 

Joshua_Y

Screenwriter
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
1,241
I really love the 80's some great movies...and great music...screw the critics...there a different species entirely....
 

george kaplan

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2001
Messages
13,063
Dome,

I agree with a lot of what you say, and disagree with a lot. :) I'm not going to go through a point-by-point analysis. I think you've pretty well summed up what many of these critics think they're doing. The problem is that many (not all, but many) of these so-called deep or intellectual films are not. Frankly it's a lot like philosophy. There's some very good, and very deep work in philosophy. But when I was a professor I used to have a friend in the philosophy department, and occassionally I'd read something and ask him about it. I'd say that I must just be missing something cause rather than see something deep, it sounded like a bunch of bullshit to me. He'd most often confide to me that it was indeed (in his opinion) trumped up bullshit. As he (a philosophy professor) said himself, he loved philosophy, but unfortunately 90% of what passes for it these days is bullshit hidden in big words, rambling discourse and twisted logic.

That's how I feel about many of these 'art' films. Then again, there's also some truth to the fact that after a day of thinking about higher mathematics, I want to just have fun. And watching some film that tries to be deep (and isn't) ain't my idea of fun.
 

Chuck Mayer

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2001
Messages
8,509
Location
Northern Virginia
Real Name
Chuck Mayer
Dome,
I agree with George's assessment. Like I alluded to earlier, film scholars are possessive of their domain, and "art for the people" must not be a good thing.

In my opinion, art is about reflecting truth, and is as it's VERY BEST when it is simple. The films that will become all-time classics are the ones that transcend normal boundaries, the ones that invoke passion in viewers, the ones that trade on honest emotion (which is much harder than honest intellectualism).

As in any field, "experts" want to define and quantify the object they study. They want to make the rules, and have domain with them. It's sort of a secret club. Like I said, in film, they can't do that.

Take care,
Chuck
 

Rob Willey

Screenwriter
Joined
Apr 10, 2000
Messages
1,345
Real Name
Rob
The 80's: the introduction of B-movies made with A-budgets and all the dreck that entails.

Rob
 

John Kilduff

Screenwriter
Joined
Oct 27, 2001
Messages
1,680
Well, we've settled one half of the topic, and now for the other half...

Is there anything wrong with me for liking 80s movies? Should I be thought of as a simpleton cretin? Should I be thought of as just liking what I like? Or does the truth lie somewhere in the middle of those two?

Sincerely,

John Kilduff...

And be honest.
 

george kaplan

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2001
Messages
13,063
No, of course not.

No matter what your taste, there's nothing wrong with you. But if you like only the 80s, to the exclusion of other (especially earlier) decades, then,

if you've seen tons of earlier movies, and just don't like them, then that's just your taste, and nothing wrong with it.

if you've not seen many (perhaps because you didn't like a few you saw), then you're doing yourself a great disservice, and should give those non-80s films a chance.
 

John Kilduff

Screenwriter
Joined
Oct 27, 2001
Messages
1,680
It's nowhere near true that I'm an exclusively 80s viewer.

I'm a tremendous fan of the MGM musicals of the 40s and 50s...I loved "Casablanca" and "Gone With The Wind"...I thought "Network" was a terrific piece of work...I'm a fan of Billy Wilder's material...Charlie Chaplin, Harold Lloyd, The Marx Brothers and The Three Stooges are all fun to watch...I've been impressed by the work of 90s filmmakers.

I'm not exclusively 80s...if a movie looks enjoyable, be it from the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s or 00s, I'm in it for a good viewing.

Sincerely,

John Kilduff...

Does this maybe clear up a few things?
 

george kaplan

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2001
Messages
13,063
In that case John, you've got nothing to worry about. Keep seeing films, like the ones you like and don't worry about what anyone else says. And in case you didn't just leave it out as an oversight (which is probably what happened) make sure to see some top notch Hitchcock. :)
 

Dome Vongvises

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 13, 2001
Messages
8,172
Walter Kittel said:
Given Mr. Ebert's current medical condition, that statement is inappropriate.
It's true that Ebert's health is not doing so well these days, and I'm sorry if I offended anyone.

Disregarding this current health status, he's still strikes me as a very unhappy individual.
 

Mark Pfeiffer

Screenwriter
Joined
Jun 27, 1999
Messages
1,339
Dome, Ebert strikes me as a very happy guy on the occasions when I've met him or been in the same place. (I've gone to his festival twice and saw him interview Scorsese at a local retrospective.) He's far from the cranky, bitter critic that some people seem to assume that most are. He's very personable and goes out of his way to talk with movie fans.

The most recent Entertainment Weekly (the one with Six Feet Under on the cover, I think) has an article about Ebert and Roeper's floating film festival. I think it might change your impression.
 

Brook K

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2000
Messages
9,467
Not that it carries any weight, but I'll chime in FWIW.

Critics don't like 80's films, just means "this select group of 80's movies you guys are fans of didn't make such-and-such a list or didn't receive rave reviews from every critic". There are tons of films from this period that are critically acclaimed beloved masterpieces. To list them would be tiresome for all involved.

Dome, your "those who can't - critique" argument is the same highly flawed reasoning that would say I can't criticize Andruw Jones (or any random sports figure) because I can't hit a 90mph fast ball.

Also your analysis, while it looks good, is flat out wrong. Almost every film or work of art has an emotional appeal. It is the nature of the mediums to appeal to both our mind and heart. I know of very few coldly unemotional movies. All the great directors - Kurosawa, Bergman, Dreyer, Godard, Bunuel, Kubrick, Powell/Pressburger, Sirk, Fassbinder, Ford, Hawks, Eisenstein, Keaton, Chaplin, Scorsese, Sturges, Truffaut, De Sica, Visconti, Rossellini, Fellini, Ozu, etc, you get the picture. All of these individuals have made films filled with moving emotion. Great films play upon the viewers emotion just as easily, if not more so, than they invite intellectual analysis.

Ebert has been brought up here several times. Read his reviews for Ikiru, My Life To Live, Umberto D, The Passion Of Joan of Arc or virtually any of his "Great Movie" reviews (yes even those from the 80's like Do The Right Thing or Grave Of The Fireflies) and you will see someone expressing their emotional reactions to so-called "art" films. Good film criticism is not just cold description and defining symbols and allegories, it is speaking to how the images, symbols, actors, music etc evoke emotions and engage the viewer in both heart and mind. Critics further from the mainstream, like J. Hoberman and Jonathan Rosenbaum, do this as well.

And I can't even begin to express how much I disagree with George. Not only have we gone many rounds on his unfathomable to me "pseudo-intellectual" critique, but I like The Jazz Singer ;)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum statistics

Threads
356,710
Messages
5,121,135
Members
144,146
Latest member
SaladinNagasawa
Recent bookmarks
0
Top