|
|
Post by Salzmank on Apr 21, 2017 20:42:50 GMT
There was a sense that there was always an effort to make a quality product, every time. Even what they then thought of as a lesser picture, some are beloved classics today. Many actors were skilled dancers or could ride a horse. Sentimentalness or nostalgia aside, there is just great entertainment to be had. As a history lover, they are often a great source of insight to their particular time period. I never used to really seek out or enjoy many old movies, until I got older myself, now I'm playing catch-up! One of the interesting things about older films that your post reminded me of is the fact that in the "old days" the filmmakers, many of whom where not far removed from the immigrant experience, or from very specific American hometown experiences, brought that reality to their films. Life wasn't quite so homogeneous then. And films then weren't based so much on what other films were like as they were on what people were actually experiencing in life. So many contemporary films seem to be based upon the filmmaker's sense of other people's films instead of their own life experiences. I'm reminded of a story about Shirley MacLaine, who in the early seventies after a hiatus from acting and a trip to Asia, returned to meet a studio executive who took her around the lot for a visit. Afterwards he asked her what she thought and she replied, "I think there are a lot of directors who know a lot about other directors and not very much about life." If it was true then (and it was), think how much worse it is today. I think this is absolutely true, Spider. I'm something of a cinemaphile and auteurist, but I often wonder to what extent film was changed for the worse exactly by directors who were cinemaphiles and auteurists. I mean, as you say, directors (and everyone who worked on movies) used to have experience of life because film was still a relatively new medium. Now we are largely divided into directors with experience of past films and directors with experience of box office receipts. So much for the grit and life experience the movies used to have! |
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Apr 21, 2017 23:56:25 GMT
The best period were the 20s-30s and 60s-70s IMO.
Because you had less big studio control in those decades. Lots of variety. In several countries.
What I like about older movies is that the actors had gravitas. They spoke with strong voices, men and women, and they held your attention. You had alpha actors. Nowadays I feel most performers in starring parts are better suited as small part or background players.
Jennifer Lawrence? lol She's no Shirley Eaton.
Also you had so many non studio film companies. Lots of choice. And they got more bang for the buck on location shooting.
And as others said, they were professional (most of the time).
Less editing cuts. Less unnecessary closeups.
The biggest problem with the system now is that for the films with the most media attention, the filmmakers are coming from the same background as the studio owners, or they reflect the fake multiculturalism agenda. In Canada we had that for a couple of decades earlier, and most sane people agree that with the exception of Cronenberg, most Canadian movies suck.
I would rather watch a 1960s Santo movie from Mexico than a Canadian film.
But I'd rather watch a Santo film than many Hollywood films made in the last 15 years though.
|
|
|
|
Post by BooRadley on Apr 22, 2017 3:36:48 GMT
I agree with every point the OP stated, plus, classic films were made to entertain audiences, not to insult them, and if they made a profit it was appreciated.
Concerning today's films, it's obvious that it's ALL about the profit..... no heart, no soul, just mind-boggling eye candy served at rapid speeds because surely every movie fan suffers with ADD.
Empty but violent fantasy movies made for empty, young souls, and are precisely calculated to make huge profits.
The cash cow says moo, and the herds come by the millions.
|
|
|
|
Post by BooRadley on Apr 22, 2017 4:25:34 GMT
BooRadley Agree completely, Boo. And one other thing I forgot to say in my earlier post: in the old days - even if the films were silly as many were - an adult seemed to be at the helm. These days, even when an adult is directing, it too often feels like a juvenile is. I know what you mean. Even as recent as the 80s, those "teen" sex comedies were obviously directed by adults who assured us that even mature audiences could enjoy the film and get several good laughs out of them. Not so with today's comedies, sex or otherwise. Yes, adults are directing them, but the end results are always the same ... just how gross, how perverted, how disgusting and how repulsive and offensive can they make it. You would think a pimply faced 14 year old with hormones in overdrive are making these heartless, clueless movies. Long live the classics ! Heartfelt movies for people with hearts. (comedy, drama, horror ... it didn't matter) Sadly, today's music scene is just like the movies. One must be under 25, and obsessed with making cash. (no talent necessary) Empty music for empty heads. |
|
|
|
Post by marianne48 on Apr 22, 2017 19:47:25 GMT
All the men wear hats and long pants. Sexy! And they don't shave their heads, either.
|
|
