Tweet
Several years ago, I decided that I wanted to read all of the "classic" works of literature, and dove into a reading list including Stranger in a Strange Land, Catcher in the Rye, various Asimov, Steinbeck, Ayn Rand, etc. I'm making progress.
Since then, I've started to buy and watch the classic "greats" of films as well, including Ben Hur, Citizen Kane, My Fair Lady, the Sound of Music, the Music Man (original, not recent remake), Casablanca, Gone With the Wind, Wizard of Oz, and so on. You know what? I was a little surprised at how INTERESTING they were! I didn't expect any of them to be junk, of course, since many of them were nominated or won "Best Picture of the Year" and such. But I think many of us just assume that classic movies are just not as ENTERTAINING as current movies--who wants to watch a dumb old black and white movie with cheesy acting when you can watch the latest blow-em-up dazzling special effects thriller movie on DVD?
Sadly, I think this is probably true of many film viewers today, and that there's no way that they would sit through Citizen Kane today, much less find it interesting. On the director's commentary of CK, they pointed out that Orson Wells directed entire scenes at times with one constant rolling shot, without camera cuts, lasting for minutes. With our current society so plagued with Attention Deficit Disorder, this would not be tolerated in films for the common public today. (another discussion for another time would be if current styles of television and movie presentations perpetuate this constantly decreasing attention span)
Watching these movies got me thinking: Are classic movies generally of higher quality as a media than modern films? Or vice versa? Or a little of both? Those who know me know that one of my strongest opinions of books, movies, and television is that current society is LOSING THE ART OF STORYTELLING. I am entertained by a big explosion, deep bass, and cool surround sound just as much as the next guy. (heck, I'm building an entire room based on that) But to me, that's entertainment, not necessarily storytelling, which engages the mind, imagination, and heart. That's why I appreciate current movies like the Star Wars saga, Lord of the Rings, the Matrix, etc. They take you beyond a 90 minute time period of entertainment, where your mind is simply babysat, and instead engage you in a new WORLD of stories, characters, history, and above all, LIFE.
Watching classic movies, there is a stark difference in styles and techniques to modern film. Some would argue that the modern works are better, having evolved from earlier forms and utilizing the latest technology. I would argue that the existence of newer technologies makes a fatal trap that takes the producer away from relying on good storytelling and directing techniques. New technology isn't inherently bad, as I think that Pixar has done an amazing job of staying true to good storytelling while using the latest-and-greatest to support the story, especially with the Toy Story duos. But I would say that this is the exception. Even a well-intending producer can become reliant on special effects, sex appeal, or violence to keep the audience's interest instead of using plot, AUGMENTED with some of the aforementioned items, as well as foreshadowing, irony, lighting, color, shadows, blocking, camera angles, etc.
(pause in my rant... I'm off to see Return of the King)
Classic movies do have a surreal feel to the story and acting. It's not what I would describe as "stiff" or "wooden", but you don't really see people acting like that in real life for the most part. So be it. But there is quite an appeal to the drama and the story that I just don't know if you get anymore. Will we ever see another film in the likes of Citizen Kane, with pure genius in production and direction? Would the movie studios even allow a genius to make a great film like that today, not oriented to selling tickets?
I suppose it might be true that the list of some classics I gave could be reproduced with modern films, listing 10-20 movies that are recent but just as fantastic. There were bad movies 50 years ago just as there are today. We do have good ones today. But I wonder if we've lost a little something in film making that may or may not be undescribable, but changes the whole outcome as a work of art.
(as a side note, I found the commentary by Roger Ebert on the Citizen Kane DVD to be extremely enlightening and deep. It gave me a whole new appreciation of that movie and viewing films in general. THAT is what all DVD commentaries should strive to be like, not of some bimbo that sits and watches the movie with you, making occasional comments of "I like this part" and "this is nice", i.e. Forrest Gump's commentary)
CHRIS
Luke: "Hey, I'm not such a bad pilot myself, you know"
Since then, I've started to buy and watch the classic "greats" of films as well, including Ben Hur, Citizen Kane, My Fair Lady, the Sound of Music, the Music Man (original, not recent remake), Casablanca, Gone With the Wind, Wizard of Oz, and so on. You know what? I was a little surprised at how INTERESTING they were! I didn't expect any of them to be junk, of course, since many of them were nominated or won "Best Picture of the Year" and such. But I think many of us just assume that classic movies are just not as ENTERTAINING as current movies--who wants to watch a dumb old black and white movie with cheesy acting when you can watch the latest blow-em-up dazzling special effects thriller movie on DVD?
Sadly, I think this is probably true of many film viewers today, and that there's no way that they would sit through Citizen Kane today, much less find it interesting. On the director's commentary of CK, they pointed out that Orson Wells directed entire scenes at times with one constant rolling shot, without camera cuts, lasting for minutes. With our current society so plagued with Attention Deficit Disorder, this would not be tolerated in films for the common public today. (another discussion for another time would be if current styles of television and movie presentations perpetuate this constantly decreasing attention span)
Watching these movies got me thinking: Are classic movies generally of higher quality as a media than modern films? Or vice versa? Or a little of both? Those who know me know that one of my strongest opinions of books, movies, and television is that current society is LOSING THE ART OF STORYTELLING. I am entertained by a big explosion, deep bass, and cool surround sound just as much as the next guy. (heck, I'm building an entire room based on that) But to me, that's entertainment, not necessarily storytelling, which engages the mind, imagination, and heart. That's why I appreciate current movies like the Star Wars saga, Lord of the Rings, the Matrix, etc. They take you beyond a 90 minute time period of entertainment, where your mind is simply babysat, and instead engage you in a new WORLD of stories, characters, history, and above all, LIFE.
Watching classic movies, there is a stark difference in styles and techniques to modern film. Some would argue that the modern works are better, having evolved from earlier forms and utilizing the latest technology. I would argue that the existence of newer technologies makes a fatal trap that takes the producer away from relying on good storytelling and directing techniques. New technology isn't inherently bad, as I think that Pixar has done an amazing job of staying true to good storytelling while using the latest-and-greatest to support the story, especially with the Toy Story duos. But I would say that this is the exception. Even a well-intending producer can become reliant on special effects, sex appeal, or violence to keep the audience's interest instead of using plot, AUGMENTED with some of the aforementioned items, as well as foreshadowing, irony, lighting, color, shadows, blocking, camera angles, etc.
(pause in my rant... I'm off to see Return of the King)
Classic movies do have a surreal feel to the story and acting. It's not what I would describe as "stiff" or "wooden", but you don't really see people acting like that in real life for the most part. So be it. But there is quite an appeal to the drama and the story that I just don't know if you get anymore. Will we ever see another film in the likes of Citizen Kane, with pure genius in production and direction? Would the movie studios even allow a genius to make a great film like that today, not oriented to selling tickets?
I suppose it might be true that the list of some classics I gave could be reproduced with modern films, listing 10-20 movies that are recent but just as fantastic. There were bad movies 50 years ago just as there are today. We do have good ones today. But I wonder if we've lost a little something in film making that may or may not be undescribable, but changes the whole outcome as a work of art.
(as a side note, I found the commentary by Roger Ebert on the Citizen Kane DVD to be extremely enlightening and deep. It gave me a whole new appreciation of that movie and viewing films in general. THAT is what all DVD commentaries should strive to be like, not of some bimbo that sits and watches the movie with you, making occasional comments of "I like this part" and "this is nice", i.e. Forrest Gump's commentary)
CHRIS
Luke: "Hey, I'm not such a bad pilot myself, you know"
It has to be right up there with (My ultimate classic) Lord of the Flies by John Steinback.
Comment