What's new

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

Francois_T

Auditioning
Joined
Mar 11, 2003
Messages
8
Since then is "elitism" a bad thing ? I am proud to be an elitist in a world that seeks the mediocre.

Being an elitist does not mean that you only appreciate "art films", it means that you are not afraid to speak up about what is good and what is not (instead of the tastes of the masses), establishing standards, judging and weighting. Things that I'm sure most of you do, if you really like movies.

In that view, this thread seems to me to be in bad taste and probably bad. :D
 

george kaplan

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2001
Messages
13,063
That's OK, Brook. I can't begin to fathom the idea that someone actually finds something truly deep and insightful about the human condition from some of those films, or that invoking deep thought is what art should be. You and I just have completely different views of film aesthetics, and that's what makes life interesting. :)
 

Steve Christou

Long Member
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2000
Messages
16,333
Location
Manchester, England
Real Name
Steve Christou
But Francois how do we really know the films you elitists champion as works of art, are in fact, works of art? What if in reality 'Ferris Bueller's Day Off' is THE true work of art, while an elitist/film snob favorite like 'A Room With a View' is actually a worthless pile of doggypoo (but lets don't tell anyone).

Have you ever been to an art show where the art critics are fawning over a sculpture which to you and I looks exactly like the contents of your waste bin piled in a heap, but to the experts is a wonderful work of art? Who is right? It looks like a pile of rubbish, but the experts say no, it has beauty and meaning.

My point is, one man's trash is another man's treasure. I rarely listen to the so called experts, I wouldn't have so many favorites if I adhered to their 'does it compare to 2001 or Kane?' rule.
 

Francois_T

Auditioning
Joined
Mar 11, 2003
Messages
8
"But Francois how do we really know the films you elitists champion as works of art, are in fact, works of art? What if in reality 'Ferris Bueller's Day Off' is THE true work of art, while an elitist/film snob favorite like 'A Room With a View' is actually a worthless pile of doggypoo (but lets don't tell anyone)."

You didn't quite understand what I was saying. Elitism is not a result, it's a process. It's not because you like art films that you're an elitist, and because you like Ferris Bueller's Day Off (a good movie, BTW) that you're a populist or a movie ignorant. One can like something good for the bad reasons as well.


"Have you ever been to an art show where the art critics are fawning over a sculpture which to you and I looks exactly like the contents of your waste bin piled in a heap, but to the experts is a wonderful work of art?"

Believe me, you won't get any argument from me about the stupidity of "New Art". And I think that's an important part of being an elitist : to promote independent thinking above what critics say. Otherwise you're just being a sheep, a populist, a follower, only in another form. Fashions are just another expression of mass-think, after all.


"My point is, one man's trash is another man's treasure."

Agreed ! However, that doesn't make trash change into treasure.
 

Chuck Mayer

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2001
Messages
8,509
Location
Northern Virginia
Real Name
Chuck Mayer
But who decides which is which?

And WHY did they decide that?

There is the rub of it.

And I side with Steve myself. I decide FOR myself.

Take care,
Chuck
 

Francois_T

Auditioning
Joined
Mar 11, 2003
Messages
8
"And I side with Steve myself. I decide FOR myself."

Once again, you won't get any disagreement from me. No one else can really decide anything for you.

And I think that's a very elitist statement. If you're an elitist, obviously you're not intending on anyone else to think for you, since you are using your own judgment. Authorities become references and points of thought, just like in any other discipline where judgment is valued (such as science). You don't need to follow authorities slavishly, but you don't need to reinvent the wheel either.
 

Gruson

Second Unit
Joined
Sep 20, 2000
Messages
494
I for one LOVE films of the 80s. We will never have a decade like the 80s again.

Not only did we get classics like E.T., Indy trilogy, ESB and Jedi, Batman, Die Hard, Krull, Tron, etc.

but the horror movies were the best then: Elm Streets, Friday the 13ths, and MANY others.

Comedies were also at their peak with Chase, Martin, Pryor, Candy, etc and of course the Spring Break type movies :)

80s will always be my favorite decade and who cares what the boring, lame ass critics say.

I don't.
 

Dome Vongvises

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 13, 2001
Messages
8,172
Brook K said:
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.
Again, a lot of it's probably my fault. I'm not exatly well-versed in reading certain forms of criticism, and when I read, I get the feeling that good film criticism is just "cold description and defining symbols and allegories". It's a lot easier for me to spot it when critics talk about how emotionally manipulative films are. And on the other hand, it's hard for me to "read" when critics are applauding a combination of emotional and intellectual appeal.
 

Scott Calvert

Supporting Actor
Joined
Nov 2, 1998
Messages
885
"It's just funny to me to have the word experts associated with "art". How anyone could be an expert on something so subjective is beyond me."

Bruce, of course it's possible to be an "expert" on art. Do you know anything about Cubism or Impressionism? How about paintings and architecture from the Romantic or Rococco periods? Do you know what "negative space" is? Do you know anything about German Expressionism or the French New Wave? Have you ever taken an art appreciation class?

I don't know much about the above myself, but there are experts in such matters. I think you're confusing "art experts" with "what Bruce likes experts." Such off-hand dismissal of critical evaluation strikes me as willful ignorance.
 

DonMac

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Nov 12, 2000
Messages
221
Arman wrote:
(Technically, you cannot consider 1980 as a year from the 80s).
I disagree with this view now, after reading this article in "The Straight Dope" (but it's not Cecil's view I agree with, though, but the letters by Kenny Mostern and John Cork: http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_376.html ).

Basically, although the 199th calendar decade is really the years 1981-1990 because there is no year zero, it is still okay to call any ten-year span of time a "decade." Therefore, calling the ten-year span of time from 1980-1989 either "the '80s" or "the 1980s" is quite valid.

--
 

Arman

Screenwriter
Joined
Jan 10, 2003
Messages
1,625
On that note I would like to quote Cecil's replies which I completely agree -

"I assume we're agreed the next century starts on January 1, 2001, not January 1, 2000. (If not, there's no point continuing.) Call me wacky, but it seems only reasonable that the start of the new century and the start of the new decade ought to coincide. Granted there's no harm done if they don't. No harm if your socks don't match, either. But some people it bothers. Sorry if I'm such a fussbudget."

"If you're determined to stick to this silly idea that "the '80s" means all the years with eightysomething in their names, be my guest."
 

SteveGon

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2000
Messages
12,250
Real Name
Steve Gonzales
Dome, nice post!

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.
The thing is, I no longer find films like those to be fun. That's not to say I don't enjoy films designed as popular entertainment - I love Raiders of the Lost Ark as much as anyone, but that's a quality film whereas those you mentioned are nostalgic favorites for some, forgettable for others.
 

Lars Vermundsberget

Supporting Actor
Joined
Nov 20, 2000
Messages
725
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Technically, you cannot consider 1980 as a year from the 80s).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I think it's pretty clear that the 80s (1980s) is the period 1980-89. The period from 1981 to 1990, however, would be the 9th decade of the 20th century. Or should we say 199th decade?
 

Mike Kelly

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Sep 30, 2000
Messages
76
At the end of 1989, Premiere Magazine asked a group of filmworld notables in tandem with the magazine's top editors to pick the ten best movies of the 80s. Here were the 83 films listed that earned at least 5 points:

1. Raging Bull - 105 points
2. Wings of Desire - 59
3. E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial - 46
4. Blue Velvet - 40
5. Hannah and Her Sisters - 29
5. Platoon - 29
7. Fanny and Alexander - 28
8. Shoah - 26
8. Who Framed Roger Rabbit? - 26
10. Do the Right Thing - 25
11. The Road Warrior - 24
12. Local Hero - 20
12. Terms of Endearment- 20
14. Berlin Alexanderplatz - 19
14. The Night of the Shooting Stars - 19
16. Ran - 18
17. Dangerous Liaisons - 17
17. Dead Ringers - 17
17. The Right Stuff - 17
20. My Dinner with Andre - 16
22. Witness - 15
22. L'Argent -14
22. Once Upon a Time in America - 14
22. Salvador - 14
25. The Big Chill - 12
25. Prizzi's Honor - 12
25. Tootsie- 12
28. Danton - 11
28. The King of Comedy - 11
30. Amadeus - 10
30. Kagamusha- 10
30. The Killing Fields - 10
30. Raising Arizona - 10
30. When Father was Away on Business - 10
35. Atlantic City - 9
35. Boyfriends and Girlfriends - 9
35. Love Streams - 9
35. Rain Man - 9
35. RoboCop - 9
35. This is Spinal Tap - 9
35. Three Brothers - 9
35. The Unbearable Lightness of Being - 9
43. Das Boot - 8
43. Francisca - 8
43. Heimat - 8
43. My Life as a Dog - 8
43. On top of the Whale - 8
43. Sans Soleil - 8
43. The Shining - 8
43. The Singing Detective - 8
43. Stranger Than Paradise - 8
52. After the Rehersal - 7
52. Au Revoir Les Enfants - 7
52. Babette's Feast - 7
52. Hope and Glory - 7
52. Passion - 7
52. Shoot the Moon - 7
52. Sid and Nancy - 7
52. Sophie's Choice - 7
52. Tess - 7
52. Veronica Voss - 7
52. Zelig - 7
63. A Nos Amours - 6
63. The 80s - 6
63. Law of Desire - 6
63. Matewan - 6
63. Mississippi Burning - 6
63. Parting Glances - 6
63. A Room with a View - 6
63. Stand by Me - 6
63. The Thin Blue Line - 6
63. The Three Crowns of the Sailor - 6
73. Diner - 5
73. Dreamchild - 5
73. From the Pole to the Equator - 5
73. Lili Marleen - 5
73. Little Dorrit - 5
73. Mephisto - 5
73. Out of Africa - 5
73. Pixote - 5
73. Raiders of the Lost Ark - 5
73. Therese - 5
73. Toute Une Nuit - 5

Many Foreign titles and some obscure releases. Some films that earned less than 5 points that are more well-known:
Big, Blade Runner, Brazil, Dead Poets Society, Dressed to Kill, Evil Dead, Full Metal Jacket, The Natural, The Terminator, The Untouchables.

Somehow, I think if those same people were asked to vote today, the list would be a bit different.
 

DonMac

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Nov 12, 2000
Messages
221
Arman
On that note I would like to quote Cecil's replies which I completely agree -
--------------
"I assume we're agreed the next century starts on January 1, 2001, not January 1, 2000. (If not, there's no point continuing.) Call me wacky, but it seems only reasonable that the start of the new century and the start of the new decade ought to coincide. Granted there's no harm done if they don't. No harm if your socks don't match, either. But some people it bothers. Sorry if I'm such a fussbudget."

"If you're determined to stick to this silly idea that "the '80s" means all the years with eightysomething in their names, be my guest."
--------------
I am a big fan of Cecil's column, but I think he is quite mistaken in his answers to those two well-written letters.

Yes, the 21st century began on January 1, 2001, as well as the 3rd millennium and the 201th decade. Note that all of these are ordinal numbers that represent the position of each number and hence are all relative to start of the counting (hence the "-st", "-rd", or "-th" symbol at the end), so the use of natural numbers for the calendar -- which caused the lack of a zeroth year, zeroth decade, zeroth century, and zeroth millennium -- matters and the whole "one up" effect (for lack of a better term -- is there an official term for this?) is figured in.

However, when talking about a single stand-alone span of time, then these rules do not apply because the missing zeroth frames of time in the calendar isn't figured in simply because it doesn't matter. So, for example, while "the 20th century" indicates the years 1901-2000, the term "the 1900s" is not the same (its very name which doesn't have the "one up" in it says so) and is instead the years 1900-1999. After all, if these were exactly the same, then "the 20th century" (1901-2000) would be indicated by "the 2000s" due to "one upping" instead of "the 1900s", and likewise "the 199th decade" (1981-1990) would be called "the 1990s" instead of "the 1980s".

So there is a distinct difference between these two measurements of time and once a span of time ends in a plural indicator (the "-s" at the end) instead of an ordinal symbol ("-st", "-rd", "-th"), it then exactly matches the years that the plural form obviously indicates and factoring in the "one up" counting would be incorrect. So if this makes any sense (I hope so), I'm basically saying that "the 1980s" really does refer to the years 1980-1989 and not the years 1981-1990.


(P.S. I promise no more from me on this! ;) )

.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum statistics

Threads
356,710
Messages
5,121,077
Members
144,145
Latest member
treed99
Recent bookmarks
0
Top