Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2017 18:55:26 GMT
Some really great opinions here,
The acting level of the supporting caste and long-term 'gifted' character actors to fill in all the various small parts seems to be a large factor. Maybe this has to do with the seemingly rapid turnover of today's star-system versus the old 'studio' systems, or maybe the eventual tidal wave of inherited 'Hollywood Nepotism' finally overwhelmed the standards for acting, script writing and directing.
I remember growing up- that people around me would be excited and eager to discuss all the major categories weeks before the 'Oscars' and had very firm favorites, So either people have suddenly stopped loving films or they are showing their general let-down for the craft that has been offered to them as entertainment.
Oscar Ratings: Down From 2016 To Hit Multi-Year Low
Did the shrinking of the studio system and disappearance of the independent film companies into a new globalized universal language of 'dumb-downed' increasingly paced, and hyper-editing that airborne3502 has already pointed out in his excellent comment bring about the demise of the classic film-making and story-telling elements to be dominated by a new language of Analogous Corporatism, that has reached out to investors who just demand a standardized 'product' to maximize their potential on returns become the 'hidden' enemy and poisoner of artistic freedom and creativity that many see constantly lacking and can't reason out why?
|
|
|
Post by howardschumann on May 13, 2017 18:56:18 GMT
It's your narrative, howard, so you can express it any way you want, but it strikes me that an association of "scientific/materialist" in this way presents a contradiction rather than a linkage. Spirituality is such an amorphous concept, one I daresay could have as many meanings as there are people to adopt them. While it's true that scientific pursuits can be appropriated for materialistic purposes (just as pursuits defined as spiritual can be appropriated for purposes of control, oppression or any number of other self-serving ends), a scientific paradigm, if I may adapt your phrase, seems to me the very embodiment of seeing ourselves in a "larger context, as part of a larger whole." As inhabitants of a tangible, physical world and universe, science allows us to understand our practical place therein; a spiritual paradigm can allow philosophical interpretation thereof, and a system of values with which to employ that interpretation. Whether that takes the form of service to humanity, dominion over nature or anything in between is entirely up to them, just as employment of scientific understanding is. Doghouse6 - When I talk about the prevailing paradigm, I am referring to the basic assumptions commonly accepted by our society. These are that the universe was created by random interaction of chemicals, that life appeared on Earth as a product of a chance interaction between molecules, and that evolution of the species occurred without any design or teleological purpose. According to consensus reality, the whole universe is a sort of machine and its entire dynamics are governed by a combination of blind chance and some mechanical laws. In light of these assumptions that are prevalent in “our globalized pragmatic, cynical, and market-driven society,” we can see ourselves only in terms of our separateness, insignificance, and transience. Given the acceptance of science’s blind devotion to the gods of chance and automatism, it is no surprise that many feel powerless before the immensity and impersonal character of a seemingly absurd world without meaning or purpose. To the degree that films reflect and reinforce a set of beliefs that lead to our holding life in this context, our innate drive to be associated with something timeless and boundless, with something that transcends life "creeping in this petty pace from day to day” is thwarted and, often leads to the kind of existential despair we see reflected in the news media every single day.
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on May 13, 2017 21:30:15 GMT
Doghouse6 - When I talk about the prevailing paradigm, I am referring to the basic assumptions commonly accepted by our society. These are that the universe was created by random interaction of chemicals, that life appeared on Earth as a product of a chance interaction between molecules, and that evolution of the species occurred without any design or teleological purpose. According to consensus reality, the whole universe is a sort of machine and its entire dynamics are governed by a combination of blind chance and some mechanical laws. In light of these assumptions that are prevalent in “our globalized pragmatic, cynical, and market-driven society,” we can see ourselves only in terms of our separateness, insignificance, and transience. Given the acceptance of science’s blind devotion to the gods of chance and automatism, it is no surprise that many feel powerless before the immensity and impersonal character of a seemingly absurd world without meaning or purpose. To the degree that films reflect and reinforce a set of beliefs that lead to our holding life in this context, our innate drive to be associated with something timeless and boundless, with something that transcends life "creeping in this petty pace from day to day” is thwarted and, often leads to the kind of existential despair we see reflected in the news media every single day. Thank you, howard, for your patient and thoughtful clarification and amplification. It's always a source of fascination to me to compare perceptions and interpretations of matters that are at once existential in their breadth and intensely personal. I see exactly what you mean, yet what you interpret as "our separateness, insignificance, and transience" is something I see, rather, as providing senses of unification and integration, much in the way that the environment of a seemingly insignificant nesting bird or field mouse can have widespread effects upon other environments, species and populations or, to put it in a "classic films" context as befits the board, as is illustrated in It's A Wonderful Life, in which a single being discovers the unimagined ways his existence and acts bring about far-reaching and long-lasting effects to myriad other beings and circumstances (or as also illustrated in proverbs such as "For Want Of A Nail"). My very existence may be the result of "chance" (the diplomatic word my late parents used was "unplanned"), but since it became a fact, I've been an integral (however small) part of a very large mechanism of which we're all components, the tiniest of which - just as in the most complicated man-made mechanism - has a function in its operation. In place of "existential despair," I find reassurance and encouragement therein. Others have clearly differing viewpoints, and such are the distinctions of self-actualization and self-determination, but that's the way I see it.
|
|
|
Post by london777 on May 13, 2017 21:41:06 GMT
I will not attempt to address head-on the issues raised by various posters here, but will try to side-step them by pointing out that if Spiderwort watched a lot fewer American movies and a lot more non-American movies, he would come to different conclusions. I recommend for this purpose French, Spanish, Scandinavian, Russian, Chinese, Iranian and Turkish films. English, German and Japanese and Latin American movies are often more influenced by American tastes so the stylisms to which Spiderwort objects are often found in them too.
Please note that I am not claiming that the films from certain countries are any better than those from other countries, merely that they tend to be made in a different style which meet Spiderwort's ideals more closely. And, of course, there are hundreds of exceptions (and a good thing too).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2017 23:28:23 GMT
I will not attempt to address head-on the issues raised by various posters here, but will try to side-step them by pointing out that if Spiderwort watched a lot fewer American movies and a lot more non-American movies, he would come to different conclusions. I recommend for this purpose French, Spanish, Scandinavian, Russian, Chinese, Iranian and Turkish films. Would you mind giving some specific examples - some that might be on screen currently in the US (not just at festivals, art houses or ethnic-community theaters in select major cities)? I can't off-hand imagine what you are referencing here, but I would surely love to see a few good, current films in the classic - or even 50s modern - style on the big screen...
|
|
|
Post by teleadm on May 14, 2017 0:04:17 GMT
For me, it's a few simple things: Stronger character development (which results in better plot development), and a pace that allows an audience to experience a film emotionally on a deep level instead of having to play catch up all the time with a story that really doesn't make much sense, but that goes by so fast no one knows it doesn't make sense. A willingness to tell the story in a more conventional way with conventional editing that serves the narrative instead of obliterating it with unjustified fast cuts. And a commitment to using the camera as a tool for the narrative, moving it only for clear and specific reasons that serve the narrative. Letting a scene play out without drawing attention to the camera and/or editing is usually the best way to get the most out of the actors and the subtext of a scene. Not to say, of course, that one should never move the camera or manipulate film in the editing room; just that it has to be justified and done in the service of the narrative. Being able to experience (and understand while you're experiencing it) the depth of a film that is honest and original in its storytelling is the real source of that thing we call film "magic," and is what makes us remember films long after we've seen them. These days all too often I remember too little of anything I've seen not long after I've seen it. Plot and the art of timing
|
|
|
Post by howardschumann on May 14, 2017 2:53:28 GMT
Thank you, howard, for your patient and thoughtful clarification and amplification. It's always a source of fascination to me to compare perceptions and interpretations of matters that are at once existential in their breadth and intensely personal. I see exactly what you mean, yet what you interpret as "our separateness, insignificance, and transience" is something I see, rather, as providing senses of unification and integration, much in the way that the environment of a seemingly insignificant nesting bird or field mouse can have widespread effects upon other environments, species and populations or, to put it in a "classic films" context as befits the board, as is illustrated in It's A Wonderful Life, in which a single being discovers the unimagined ways his existence and acts bring about far-reaching and long-lasting effects to myriad other beings and circumstances (or as also illustrated in proverbs such as "For Want Of A Nail"). My very existence may be the result of "chance" (the diplomatic word my late parents used was "unplanned"), but since it became a fact, I've been an integral (however small) part of a very large mechanism of which we're all components, the tiniest of which - just as in the most complicated man-made mechanism - has a function in its operation. In place of "existential despair," I find reassurance and encouragement therein. Others have clearly differing viewpoints, and such are the distinctions of self-actualization and self-determination, but that's the way I see it. Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I know there are exceptions but I am referring to the consensus reality of our society, about the ordinary human condition. It is no secret that the prevailing mood today is one of cynicism, distaste for traditional institutions, a belief that there is nothing to a human being beyond their physical bodies, and that science has all the answers and, if they don’t, they will eventually. Within that paradigm, of course, there are definitely people such as yourself whose lives make a difference but if the majority of people believe that they are cogs in the wheel, or as you say, “an integral part of a very large mechanism of which we are all components” then within that context, none of it matters in the long run. We know that everything changes, that nothing remains the same, so none of what we find important will last. When people believe that the world is governed by the laws of chance, that every thought, feeling, choice, and action of our lives will eventually be reduced to irrelevance, is already irrelevant, then the only purpose of life is to maximize pleasure and minimize pain and this seems to be reflected in many of our movies. Since life is so short and we ultimately don’t have to be accountable, why not? Those who do seek transcendence, who write books about it, make films about it, etc., by and large are marginalized and dismissed by the majority with pejorative adjectives.
|
|
|
Post by london777 on May 14, 2017 21:03:20 GMT
I will not attempt to address head-on the issues raised by various posters here, but will try to side-step them by pointing out that if Spiderwort watched a lot fewer American movies and a lot more non-American movies, he would come to different conclusions. I recommend for this purpose French, Spanish, Scandinavian, Russian, Chinese, Iranian and Turkish films. Would you mind giving some specific examples - some that might be on screen currently in the US (not just at festivals, art houses or ethnic-community theaters in select major cities)? I can't off-hand imagine what you are referencing here, but I would surely love to see a few good, current films in the classic - or even 50s modern - style on the big screen... Hi Col O'Rechtal Does your handle indicate military rank or is it a medical abbreviation for colon? I have no idea what movies might be currently showing in the USA but when spiderwort wrote "today" I assumed he was not referring to the latest releases but those from the last two decades (and maybe even further back). I await his clarification if I have got that wrong. What spiderwort claimed was lacking in "today's" movies were: 1) ... stronger character development 2) ... a pace that allows an audience to experience a film emotionally on a deep level instead of having to play catch up all the time with a story that really doesn't make much sense, but that goes by so fast no one knows it doesn't make sense. 3) ... a willingness to tell the story in a more conventional way with conventional editing that serves the narrative instead of obliterating it with unjustified fast cuts. He made no mention of any "classic style". I think my first ever post here was to ask what the definition of "classic" was on this board and, while some of the replies raised interesting points, no consensus was reached. Dates for the end of the "Classic Era" were offered from 1960 to 1980. This would would have been some help at least, but then most posters went on to agree that any film which they considered very good, even up to the present day, could be grandfathered in as a "Modern Classic". Add to that the fact that most movies made before 1960 were rubbish (as would be true of any decade) so could hardly be called "classics" even of they were old, and I for one will never use the description "classic" to define a movie because I have no idea what it is supposed to mean. Below are some of the "modern" movies which I consider satisfy all of Spiderwort's criteria (except where noted). If they did utilize any of the stylistic tricks to which he (and I) object in general, all I can say is that I was not aware of it at the time and my appreciation was not impaired: Leviathan 2014 Andrey Zvyagintsev Nightcrawler 2014 Dan Gilroy (may well have used hand-held camera and/or fast cutting, but appropriately in the context) The Imitation Game 2014 Morten Tyldum Nebraska 2013 Alexander Payne Philomena 2013 Stephen Frears --- And all their films. Payne and Frears are both "traditional" film-makers A Late Quartet 2012 Yaron Zilberman The Hunt 2012 Thomas Vinterberg (some use of hand-held camera) Margaret (Extended Cut) 2011 Kenneth Lonergan (and Lonergan's other movies) Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy 2011 Tomas Alfredson A Separation 2011 Asghar Farhadi The Deep Blue Sea 2011 Terence Davies True Grit 2010 Ethan Coen, Joel Coen A Serious Man 2009 Ethan Coen, Joel Coen El Secreto de Sus Ojos 2009 Juan José Campanella The White Ribbon 2009 Michael Haneke (Haneke can be "tricksy" but not here) Red Cliff (International Version) Parts I & II 2008 John Woo (old-fashioned DeMille-type spectacular with CGI instead of painted backdrops) Revolutionary Road 2008 Sam Mendes Before the Devil Knows You're Dead 2007 Sidney Lumet There Will Be Blood 2007 Paul Thomas Anderson The Lives of Others 2006 Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck Volver 2006 Pedro Almodóvar Caché 2005 Michael Haneke (no plot, or rather, it is never fully revealed to us). A Very Long Engagement 2004 Jean-Pierre Jeunet (traditional film-making except in its bold mixture of different genres, thriller, love story, war movie, social satire, etc) Downfall 2004 Oliver Hirschbiegel The Motorcycle Diaries (widescreen version) 2004 Walter Salles Vera Drake 2004 Mike Leigh The Return 2003 Andrey Zvyagintsev The Mayor of Casterbridge 2003 David Thacker Kontroll 2003 Nimród Antal (lots of tricks spiderwort normally objects to, but used creatively here) The Best of Youth Parts I & II 2003 Marco Tullio Giordana (very old-style, to the point of dragging a bit at times, but has a great heart) Adaptation 2002 Charlie Kaufman (screenplay) my favorite "meta" movie but the actual filming style is straightforward Safe Conduct 2002 Bertrand Tavernier (his riposte to the Nouvelle Vague lads who dissed his generation of directors). Hable con Ella 2002 Pedro Almodóvar About Schmidt 2002 Alexander Payne All or Nothing 2002 Mike Leigh (most Leigh movies are traditional in style though subversive in content) The Man Without a Past 2002 Aki Kaurismäki (and all his movies) Amelie 2001 Jean-Pierre Jeunet Behind The Sun 2001 Walter Salles (and all his movies) The Experiment 2001 Oliver Hirschbiegel (uses lots of quick cuts, deliberate obfuscation and dutch angles, etc, but appropriate to the story of people being driven nuts) The Man Who Wasn't There 2001 Ethan Coen, Joel Coen The reason I like the above films is that they all deal with characters having to make moral choices or wrestling with moral dilemmas. I may even be at the point in my life where they are the only sorts of films in which I am interested. (That thought has just occurred to me, so I will leave it to simmer for a few days before I confirm it or otherwise).
|
|
doivid
New Member
@doivid
Posts: 33
Likes: 5
|
Post by doivid on May 26, 2017 10:55:17 GMT
The Imitation Game, imo, was a tacky, insulting, overwrought mess which was only saved by decent acting.
I think it's a very keen observation about how contemporary films often are too 'dark'. The issue is that we've had a real fixation on dark/edgy/gritty films (and tv) for the last 17 or so years. Some people see this as 'realism' or whatever, but I think each generation has their own idea of what dark is. So these films will end up looking kind of corny or hokey in hindsight because they are too one-note, and when our idea of what is dark changes, they will seem kind of vapid and empty. A little levity would give them the kind of texture that makes a movie look timeless.
I think every generation thinks the films they're making are more realistic than the last, but give it a few years and the seams start to show. If we obsess too much over looking realistic, we lose sight of how to make a story that people can engage with.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on May 26, 2017 12:24:13 GMT
A lot of things that people pointed out already. Something that I've noticed lately over the past decade or so is a growing reliance on "tell don't show" instead of the other way around. Not just blockbuster movies that need to get a lot of exposition out of the way but even smaller scaled films are rather talky and noisy.
|
|
baj2
Sophomore
@baj2
Posts: 265
Likes: 94
|
Post by baj2 on May 26, 2017 12:25:54 GMT
Off the cuff --
*Absorbing story telling -- maybe with real life drama or entertaining slices in people's lives. Great screenwriters.
*Better character arcs. Some movies have too many minor characters instead of focusing on a handful of key characters.
*Real actors ( trained or experienced), not just the ability to put on a costume... or simply change one's body or looks to suit a biopic.
*Less bloated production budgets so directors/screenwriters are more focused on storytelling and not on CGIs...and cinematographers are able to show drama instead of too much fight choreography ( explosions, included).
|
|
|
Post by telegonus on May 26, 2017 18:23:55 GMT
For me, it's a few simple things: Stronger character development (which results in better plot development), and a pace that allows an audience to experience a film emotionally on a deep level instead of having to play catch up all the time with a story that really doesn't make much sense, but that goes by so fast no one knows it doesn't make sense. A willingness to tell the story in a more conventional way with conventional editing that serves the narrative instead of obliterating it with unjustified fast cuts. And a commitment to using the camera as a tool for the narrative, moving it only for clear and specific reasons that serve the narrative. Letting a scene play out without drawing attention to the camera and/or editing is usually the best way to get the most out of the actors and the subtext of a scene. Not to say, of course, that one should never move the camera or manipulate film in the editing room; just that it has to be justified and done in the service of the narrative. Being able to experience (and understand while you're experiencing it) the depth of a film that is honest and original in its storytelling is the real source of that thing we call film "magic," and is what makes us remember films long after we've seen them. These days all too often I remember too little of anything I've seen not long after I've seen it. Most of what I think and feel has already been said by others on this thread. What to add? Maybe class. Dignity. Of characters and their plight, as something independent of whether they've "made it" (i.e. accomplished what they set out to do early in the film) but as individuals worthy of our respect, even love, because of who they are. Also, and increasingly, sad to say, the people of the film as important because they're people not due to their income, how fast their lives move, how many gadgets they own, whether they're big shots. There's a throbing pace, an intensity to many films,--worse on television shows--that feels almost punitive: life as tasks, chores, always urgent, almost never as an end in itself worthwhile, worth living because the characters just happen to be human beings. On the other hand I do think that this big shot complex accurately reflects American society in the early years of the 21st century. This is bad news.
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on May 26, 2017 19:18:36 GMT
For me, it's a few simple things: Stronger character development (which results in better plot development), and a pace that allows an audience to experience a film emotionally on a deep level instead of having to play catch up all the time with a story that really doesn't make much sense, but that goes by so fast no one knows it doesn't make sense. A willingness to tell the story in a more conventional way with conventional editing that serves the narrative instead of obliterating it with unjustified fast cuts. And a commitment to using the camera as a tool for the narrative, moving it only for clear and specific reasons that serve the narrative. Letting a scene play out without drawing attention to the camera and/or editing is usually the best way to get the most out of the actors and the subtext of a scene. Not to say, of course, that one should never move the camera or manipulate film in the editing room; just that it has to be justified and done in the service of the narrative. Being able to experience (and understand while you're experiencing it) the depth of a film that is honest and original in its storytelling is the real source of that thing we call film "magic," and is what makes us remember films long after we've seen them. These days all too often I remember too little of anything I've seen not long after I've seen it. Most of what I think and feel has already been said by others on this thread. What to add? Maybe class. Dignity. Of characters and their plight, as something independent of whether they've "made it" (i.e. accomplished what they set out to do early in the film) but as individuals worthy of our respect, even love, because of who they are. Also, and increasingly, sad to say, the people of the film as important because they're people not due to their income, how fast their lives move, how many gadgets they own, whether they're big shots. There's a throbing pace, an intensity to many films,--worse on television shows--that feels almost punitive: life as tasks, chores, always urgent, almost never as an end in itself worthwhile, worth living because the characters just happen to be human beings. On the other hand I do think that this big shot complex accurately reflects American society in the early years of the 21st century. This is bad news. While all these things are so, tel, I wonder if they aren't merely symptomatic of what the industry itself has become in an era when marketing infuses and overrides all other considerations. There has always been a relationship between art and commerce that's at once symbiotic and adversarial, but it's been the case for some years that each production, rather than one of a series of modestly and efficiently-budgeted products turned out with regularity by a braintrust of creative teams attuned to the requirements of both endeavors, becomes nearly a make-or-break proposition: sign up a couple front-rank players and maybe add a well-known supporting one or two, and your above-the-line costs are already in excess of $50 million before anything other than signing agreements has been accomplished. And adventurism in storytelling and thematic exploration consequently fall by the wayside.
|
|
|
Post by petrolino on May 27, 2017 1:43:50 GMT
More than anything, the compact nature. Nowadays it seems like inflated budgets have to be justified through excessive length and showing all the money is up on screen. I think alot of older movies are well paced and don't outstay their welcome (as a generality).
|
|
wanton87
Sophomore
@wanton87
Posts: 224
Likes: 198
|
Post by wanton87 on May 27, 2017 16:37:58 GMT
Right to the point, and yes, I agree. It seems that anything that is even semi-worthy of a remake, is, and often ends up going through a process that I have coined “remake hell”, as I almost never like a remake better than an original. A few exceptions would be the 1980’s East of Eden, and perhaps the 1992 remake Of Mice and Men. Of course, this is nothing new, as evidenced by the three easiest writing jobs in the history of television; Gilligan’s Island, The Dukes of Hazzard, and Scooby Doo Good to see you back in full swing spiderwort
|
|
spiderwort
Junior Member
@spiderwort
Posts: 2,544
Likes: 9,340
|
Post by spiderwort on May 27, 2017 22:39:14 GMT
Thanks, wanton87 . Glad to be back in (probably for now semi-) full swing. And I couldn't agree more with you about re-makes. Only bad films should be remade to make them better, and yet they are never the ones chosen to be remade. Alas.
|
|
doivid
New Member
@doivid
Posts: 33
Likes: 5
|
Post by doivid on May 30, 2017 14:28:26 GMT
The Imitation Game, imo, was a tacky, insulting, overwrought mess which was only saved by decent acting. I think it's a very keen observation about how contemporary films often are too 'dark'. The issue is that we've had a real fixation on dark/edgy/gritty films (and tv) for the last 17 or so years. Some people see this as 'realism' or whatever, but I think each generation has their own idea of what dark is. So these films will end up looking kind of corny or hokey in hindsight because they are too one-note, and when our idea of what is dark changes, they will seem kind of vapid and empty. A little levity would give them the kind of texture that makes a movie look timeless. I think every generation thinks the films they're making are more realistic than the last, but give it a few years and the seams start to show. If we obsess too much over looking realistic, we lose sight of how to make a story that people can engage with. I disagree with you about The Imitation Game, doivid, but I absolutely agree with you about the darkness of films in general today. You've articulated this concept perfectly. And I think a one-note anything is dull and boring. There are some great film artists (like Bergman, for example), whose films display a general darkness, but that is a great artist expressing his feelings about the human condition, and even his films have a truthful variation in them that keeps them honest and always interesting. But that's an entirely different thing from what you're talking about, I think. I for one would appreciate a little more of what I consider to be honest realism, in which truths about the human condition are told with a blend of what we generally see in life: happiness and sadness; darkness and light - all that the world is and all that it can be, which does engage us and can even inspire us. I miss that (in general) so much these days. Yeah they think to be more honest is to be 100% serious and doom & gloom, but that's not honest, that's just pouty. Eh Imitation Game isn't the worst movie out there, but it hits on all the cliches, has Cumberbatch doing his typical thing where he twists a dynamic, complex figure into his pseudo autistic 'feel sorry for me' shtick, and they just hammer that tired old tragic gay trope home. Not that Turing wasn't tragic, but they could have at least approached it in a different way or used the narrative to give him back some dignity. Instead they doubled down so hard on the sympathy angle they just made him another victim, and worse, they made him look pathetic.
|
|
|
Post by teleadm on May 30, 2017 18:02:14 GMT
Since I last wrote on this thred I've recently seen two new modern comedies Neighbors 2014 and Identity Thief 2013, well they are labeled comedies but I'm still waiting for the laughs. Did they use any scripts whatsoever or were they based on an idea "Wouldn't it be fun if..." and then make things up as they go. No wit, no timing, just screaming and yelling hysterical actors as if excess in overdoing things is funny. Not one smart line can be found in them. "Funny" actors letting loose without any restraint from the directors, doing their so called "funny" bits forever and ever. I watched these two movies mostly to see if comedy was dead in big hit movies of today that is labeled comedies, on TV. If this is the future in comedies the genre is dead, gone and buried, sadly. I watched them to see if my fears were true.
|
|
|
Post by taranofprydain on Jun 18, 2017 4:30:52 GMT
Forgive me as I rattle on aimlessly, as I am somewhat preoccupied at this time.
I never lived in the era of classic film. I was born well into the modern era, the world of the 1990s. But about half (give or take two or three films) of the almost 2,500 films I have seen predate 1980,including many of my favorites, so I definitely know of the pleasures and artistry of classic films And I know enough to see that something is missing in many major-scale modern films, in fact several things. And it has grown worse overall with time, although this decade for films is a bit better than the 2000s. The 1980s and 1990s now look like golden, juicy years with tons of intriguing, well-made films.
First, there is subtlety. Most films are like sledgehammers anymore and do not allow audiences much to think about.
Also, on a different type of subtlety, sex is not as frequent in new films, but language and violence are much more common. I can generally handle bad language (grew up around it), but violence greatly upsets me. While there are exceptions to this rule (I find David Lynch's films hypnotic, and I greatly admire The Godfather series, Die Hard, the recent Mad Max:Fury Road, and Kubrick's The Shining) graphic violence depresses me a great deal. It just all seems so callous and needless. And worse, the films that try to show it as the disturbing, horrific thing that it is, like 2016 films Silence (very hard and disturbing to watch but an important, necessary work) and Jackie, generally disappear at the box office. Violence has been made to seem fun through a generation (1996-present) of increasingly ludicrous and often badly made action films that are often emotionally hollow (2010's Inception is an exception). And to many, this is all they have ever known. And when they don't see things like it, they get bored.
Also, since 9/11, there has been a lack of respect for warm, soft films. Although you will get at least one crowdpleaser at the Oscars every year (La La Land, Lion, Brooklyn, etc.) There is no doubt that dark films make up the majority of box office hits and praised films. And that sucks much of the joy out of the new films. Many of these brooding films are just not worth the time. The Revenant, a poster child of brooding cinema, I thought was pretty unbearable outside of Domhnall Gleeson's supporting performance.And yet that film almost clinched Best Picture. That's how engrained it has become.
And there is the lack of wit. Comedies are a dangerous lot anymore. Most major-studio comedies are raunchy concoctions rated R that heap on language, sex, and nudity. They feel grubby overall. I see bits and pieces of them and they think that the sheer raunchiness is funny. It's not. The only truly raunchy recent R-rated comedies I enjoyed were Pirate Radio, Everybody Wants Some, Bridget Jones's Baby, American Hustle, and The Nice Guys, and in the case of three of those (the first three) their sheer warmth and human kindness raised them above their torrents of profanity. And the R-rated (although relatively mild) British comedy-drama About Time shows what such comedies could be when made well. About Time is sweet, kind, witty, romantic, touching, and moving, and many a comedy moviemaker could learn from it. But while it has become a cult hit, it was mostly ignored in 2013, lost amidst blockbusters.
Which leads to the next problem. Major studios largely abandoned thoughtful films after the independent movie boom of 1996, and the situation has only deteriorated since then. While there are some good studio films, a good 70% or more of them are unnecessary. And some independent film companies closed and others have downsized. They do not get released as widely as they once did, and do not get a chance to succeed.
I look again at some of the films this decade that I loved: About Time, True Grit, Brooklyn, 20th Century Women, 45 Years, La La Land, The Grand Budapest Hotel, Jackie, Beginners, Sing Street, Hell or High Water, The End of the Tour, Silence, How to Train Your Dragon, Spotlight, Room, Life Itself, Inside Out, The Imitation Game, The King's Speech, Whiplash, Nebraska, Testament of Youth, Eddie the Eagle, Hidden Figures, Fences, The Help, Hugo, Boyhood, Life Itself, The Wind Rises, Les Miserables, Anna Karenina, Philomena, Lion, My Week with Marilyn, Midnight in Paris, Another Year, The Artist, Boyhood, The Red Turtle, The BFG, Gifted, Lion, Loving, Denial, American Hustle, Labor Day, I'll See You in My Dreams, Far from the Madding Crowd, Paterson, Moonrise Kingdom, Foxcatcher, Ex Machina (another exception to my usual sex and violence adversion), Manchester by the Sea, The Skeleton Twins, The Decendants, Secretariat, Rules Don't Apply, Arthur Christmas, Maggie's Plan, Bridget Jones's Baby, Everybody Wants Some, When Marnie was There, Florence Foster Jenkins, Made in Dagenham, Woman in Gold, Albert Nobbs, A Royal Night Out, The Fighter, The Way Way Back, 12 Years a Slave, Argo, Enough Said, Saving Mr. Banks, Inception, Zootopia, Short Term 12, The Intern, Her, The Martian, Still Alice, Wreck-It Ralph, Irrational Man, Suffragete, Truth, Silver Linings Playbook, Gravity. These are quality films. Many were up for Oscars. About half disappeared at the box office. But this long list shows that Hollywood can make good films still if they try. All is not lost, but films like these need to be nurtured and cherished.
|
|
|
Post by jeffersoncody on Jun 18, 2017 5:41:22 GMT
Forgive me as I rattle on aimlessly, as I am somewhat preoccupied at this time. I never lived in the era of classic film. I was born well into the modern era, the world of the 1990s. But about half (give or take two or three films) of the almost 2,500 films I have seen predate 1980,including many of my favorites, so I definitely know of the pleasures and artistry of classic films And I know enough to see that something is missing in many major-scale modern films, in fact several things. And it has grown worse overall with time, although this decade for films is a bit better than the 2000s. The 1980s and 1990s now look like golden, juicy years with tons of intriguing, well-made films. First, there is subtlety. Most films are like sledgehammers anymore and do not allow audiences much to think about. Also, on a different type of subtlety, sex is not as frequent in new films, but language and violence are much more common. I can generally handle bad language (grew up around it), but violence greatly upsets me. While there are exceptions to this rule (I find David Lynch's films hypnotic, and I greatly admire The Godfather series, Die Hard, the recent Mad Max:Fury Road, and Kubrick's The Shining) graphic violence depresses me a great deal. It just all seems so callous and needless. And worse, the films that try to show it as the disturbing, horrific thing that it is, like 2016 films Silence (very hard and disturbing to watch but an important, necessary work) and Jackie, generally disappear at the box office. Violence has been made to seem fun through a generation (1996-present) of increasingly ludicrous and often badly made action films that are often emotionally hollow (2010's Inception is an exception). And to many, this is all they have ever known. And when they don't see things like it, they get bored. Also, since 9/11, there has been a lack of respect for warm, soft films. Although you will get at least one crowdpleaser at the Oscars every year (La La Land, Lion, Brooklyn, etc.) There is no doubt that dark films make up the majority of box office hits and praised films. And that sucks much of the joy out of the new films. Many of these brooding films are just not worth the time. The Revenant, a poster child of brooding cinema, I thought was pretty unbearable outside of Domhnall Gleeson's supporting performance.And yet that film almost clinched Best Picture. That's how engrained it has become. And there is the lack of wit. Comedies are a dangerous lot anymore. Most major-studio comedies are raunchy concoctions rated R that heap on language, sex, and nudity. They feel grubby overall. I see bits and pieces of them and they think that the sheer raunchiness is funny. It's not. The only truly raunchy recent R-rated comedies I enjoyed were Pirate Radio, Everybody Wants Some, Bridget Jones's Baby, American Hustle, and The Nice Guys, and in the case of three of those (the first three) their sheer warmth and human kindness raised them above their torrents of profanity. And the R-rated (although relatively mild) British comedy-drama About Time shows what such comedies could be when made well. About Time is sweet, kind, witty, romantic, touching, and moving, and many a comedy moviemaker could learn from it. But while it has become a cult hit, it was mostly ignored in 2013, lost amidst blockbusters. Which leads to the next problem. Major studios largely abandoned thoughtful films after the independent movie boom of 1996, and the situation has only deteriorated since then. While there are some good studio films, a good 70% or more of them are unnecessary. And some independent film companies closed and others have downsized. They do not get released as widely as they once did, and do not get a chance to succeed. I look again at some of the films this decade that I loved: About Time, True Grit, Brooklyn, 20th Century Women, 45 Years, La La Land, The Grand Budapest Hotel, Jackie, Beginners, Sing Street, Hell or High Water, The End of the Tour, Silence, How to Train Your Dragon, Spotlight, Room, Life Itself, Inside Out, The Imitation Game, The King's Speech, Whiplash, Nebraska, Testament of Youth, Eddie the Eagle, Hidden Figures, Fences, The Help, Hugo, Boyhood, Life Itself, The Wind Rises, Les Miserables, Anna Karenina, Philomena, Lion, My Week with Marilyn, Midnight in Paris, Another Year, The Artist, Boyhood, The Red Turtle, The BFG, Gifted, Lion, Loving, Denial, American Hustle, Labor Day, I'll See You in My Dreams, Far from the Madding Crowd, Paterson, Moonrise Kingdom, Foxcatcher, Ex Machina (another exception to my usual sex and violence adversion), Manchester by the Sea, The Skeleton Twins, The Decendants, Secretariat, Rules Don't Apply, Arthur Christmas, Maggie's Plan, Bridget Jones's Baby, Everybody Wants Some, When Marnie was There, Florence Foster Jenkins, Made in Dagenham, Woman in Gold, Albert Nobbs, A Royal Night Out, The Fighter, The Way Way Back, 12 Years a Slave, Argo, Enough Said, Saving Mr. Banks, Inception, Zootopia, Short Term 12, The Intern, Her, The Martian, Still Alice, Wreck-It Ralph, Irrational Man, Suffragete, Truth, Silver Linings Playbook, Gravity. These are quality films. Many were up for Oscars. About half disappeared at the box office. But this long list shows that Hollywood can make good films still if they try. All is not lost, but films like these need to be nurtured and cherished. Do try and see. THIS BEAUTIFUL FANTASTIC (2017) www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rq_7LPpKcT8THEIR FINEST www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMh1EvAQOQ8A UNITED KINGDOM www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-gqxhkKW88THE LIGHT BETWEEN OCEANS www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqUGVSEyF90DENIAL www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYcx43AmAyYOUT OF THE FURNACE www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gw0qH34cbRETHE EDGE OF SEVENTEEN www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOxm4q7wE5sTHE PLACE BEYOND THE PINES www.youtube.com/watch?v=KepnbJT5nBw
|
|