I agree 100%. The discussion arises when people make sweeping statements that old movies aren’t as good because the acting was fake, or the censor was too powerful, or whatever. When people take responsibility for their own opinions rather than justify them by disparaging whatever they don’t like–and then extrapolating it to generalizations about other things–that’s when argument ensues.
A person’s preference for one era of movies over another is a statement about that person and their opinions; it is NOT a statement about the movies in question. Too often here, though, it is stated as such.
For what it’s worth, he has actually done just that: many of the films he lists can be found in this newspaper’s film review archive, with capsules written by Rosenbaum.
Of course he is. Both films were made by the same director, Leo McCarey. It’s his opinion that McCarey’s second version was stylistically more mature. And what some see as saccharine, others see as melodrama–which is not inherently a bad thing. Emotional intensity can make what would otherwise be a bland movie great. McCarey’s second version has some of that postwar melodrama that Sirk made such masterworks with. Anyway, again, just another example of how impossible it would be for anyone–you, me, MTCicero–to go100/100 on ANYONE’s list.
Maybe R’baum’s list works better for me BECAUSE it’s so personal and idiosyncratic, while the AFI list feels so much like the bland product of a committee that it is.
It’s no kind of mindreading bullshit at all; rather, it’s drawing inferences from an author’s text, an entirely valid pursuit.
That said, I appreciate your offering the list. It’s probably not to my tastes–the two movies I’ve seen on the list (Nutty Professor and Cat People) left me cold–but it’s an interesting alternative to AFI’s list. And I disagree with people suggesting the author of that piece is a hipster douche; he’s certainly allowed to like whatever he wants without throwing my taste or his into question.
For myself, I didn’t like old movies until I was about twenty, and I checked out The Maltese Falcon to broaden my horizons. And I freakin’ LOVED it: watching the dialogue between Bogart and Astor, my head was snapping back and forth as if I were watching a tennis match, and I had a big goofy delighted grin on my face throughout. I still have a crush on Bogart, and when I see a modern movie that recalls this sort of dialogue (e.g., Iron Man, Down with Love), it’s a real pleasure.
If you like Astor, my favorite performance of hers is in Palm Beach Story, where she plays an eternally amused society dame who collects and discards husbands out of boredom. And of course she’s the heart at the center of one of my alltime favorite movies, Meet Me in St. Louis. I think of her as being like Katherine Hepburn–always able to completely inhabit the role she’s in–only better: she was more versatile, and played *femmes fatales *just as well as she played society dames.
I’d be interested to hear if you ever revisit Cat People. It was definitely a B-movie–that was literally what it was made for. So it’s story, and most of the performances, are weak. But as an exercise in atmosphere–something I for one was far less likely to notice when I was younger–it’s nearly unparalleled. Nearly: personally I’d pick I Walked with a Zombie, by the same director (Jacques Tourneur) over Cat People any day.
And please don’t dismiss the list for those two titles. If I reordered it according to my own taste, ***The Nutty Professor ***would be near the bottom, and Cat People would probably be in the lower third. That said, I’m glad I’ve seen TNP. While I don’t find it all that enjoyable, I do “get” what Dave Kehr is saying about it, c&p’ed from this newspaper:
I confess I am appalled that some find Casablanca boring or not worthy of watching. IMO, that opinion shows a certain lack of open-mindedness. Of course it’s not the world’s greatest movie: there are better plots; there is better cinematography, direction etc, but as was said upthread, this movie is about reclaimed faith in the nobility of Man. AND it has fantastic acting and intelligent, subtle dialogue. What’s not to appreciate or like?
We can argue all day about what makes a “classic”. Some are saying it’s the quality of the film; others are stating it’s an era; still others insist a film needs critical acclaim to make it so. It’s all and any of these, really. Captain Blood, Casablanca,* Kinds Hearts And Coronets*, hell, Hope and Crosby’s Road pics, may not meet all qualifications (or any), but they’ve stood the test of time and people are still entertained by them–a salient point that most film snobs seem to lose sight of, but that’s another thread entirely.
Compared to old black and white films, I find most movies today to be incredibly boring, dumbed down to the nth degree and playing to the lowest common denominator of humor/fear/anger/shock. In contrast to what has been said here, I think most contemporary films spend too much time on exposition. Even the trailers give entire plots away. And it would seem that Hollywood has run out of creative ideas and is now in the business of remaking old movies or basing new films on on TV shows (do we really need a remake of The Karate Kid? or The A Team?)
I think some people just don’t want to do the work needed to fully enjoy older film. The syntax and vocabulary is different than today (usually more sophisticated); body language and gestures/movement/actor positioning signified important things in older films. Lighting (especially in b&w) was crucial, and soundtracks were more than a way to tout the next CD. If you don’t want to put in effort, that’s fine: your leisure time is yours to spend how you want. But don’t decry what you don’t appreciate.
I am not saying that those who don’t like older films are stupid or narrow minded; everyone has different tastes. (I don’t like opera, for example, but I understand I’m cutting myself off from a large segment of culture and entertainment). What I “hear” from those who dislike old movies here, though, is “they were shite, anyway, so I’m not missing anything”. Yes, you are. It’s one thing to realize something has cultural importance and value and not enter into it. It’s another to dismiss the very foundations of the entertainment you now enjoy and laud as unnecessary and primitive (“fluffier”–wth?). There is a self-centeredness to that POVwhich is breath-taking in its arrogance.
We could go back and forth (and of course there are quality films made today, just as there was total dreck made back in the b&w days) forever. We could all compile lists of our own classics and then point fingers and laugh at one another etc. But there is this: aren’t we all glad we have the choice? Thank god for the existence of Hollywood for the last 100 years (roughly). We can all watch what we want to watch. That alone is amazing. To think I never, ever have to see a Freddy Krueger movie and that there is my counterpart who is avidly awaiting the next one is wonderful, IMO. Just don’t ask me to sit through what you consider entertainment and I won’t make you watch The Easter Parade.
Those both sound like my kind of fun; thanks for the recommendations!
Hmm…my main memory of that is a scene that’s supposed to be extraordinarily creepy, in which a girl turning into a cat person flings a parakeet into a lion’s cage or something. Except she throws it exactly like a frisbee, and my then-girlfriend and I broke up laughing over the scene. The whole thing was just so ridiculous that I had trouble suspending disbelief. There are other movies who excel in creepy atmosphere (e.g., The Shining, The Haunting, Let the Right One In); this one just didn’t do it for me.
Yes, the movie has some serious, serious weak spots. But for an appreciation of how creatively–and cheaply–Tourneur achieves high atmosphere on a low budget, check out The Bad and the Beautiful, a behind-the-scenes Hollywood soaper* where the making of a thinly disguised Cat People is appropriated to show how creative–and cheap–Kirk Douglas’s character is.
*Again, a melodrama, but a great, great movie by Vincente Minnelli.
The “letters of transit,” “issued by General de Gaulle,” “cannot be recinded, even questioned.” Although they are the central plot device in the film, they make no sense; it is clear (as should be obvious) that nothing issued by de Gaulle is going to be worth wax paper in Nazi-controlled Vichy France territory, and it doesn’t stop Strasser from trying to call his boys to stop them from escaping. Never mind that Lazlo is on the run; he doesn’t send his siren of a wife on forward, and avoid attracting attention by meeting up with a known Resistance member at one of Casablanca’s hot spots, and subsequently pointlessly humiliating the Strasser and his exaggerated group of cartoon Nazis, bringing more attention upon himself. What he’s going to do in America to support the Resistance is anyone’s guess (he’d be better off going to London), but he scarcely seems to be the key charismatic figure upon which hinges the future of the Resistance. Of course, a lack of logic isn’t a death knell for an otherwise enjoyable film, but it also does open the door for legitimate criticism by those who enjoy a story for its plot elements. (And despite the claims that Renault actually said, “General Weyland”, I’ve listened to the soundtrack at slow speed and he is clearly saying “de Gaulle.”)
I’m unclear what “childish American-style ‘snap’” is supposed to mean; Casablanca, despite being directed by a Hungarian, is most certainly an American film, made within the Hollywood studio system (at Warner Bros.) by contract players and primarily written by a notable American screenwriting team (the Epstein brothers). It is almost quintessentially American of its era, both in dialogue and tone; cheery, optimistic, a little shallow and dismissive in its portrayal of “foreigners”, and ultimately a little tinny and unrealistic about the consequences.
Bogart did not think much of his own acting ability–his range was notably limited, and he was the first to acknowledge it. For the most part in his career (and this was certainly true in Casablanca) he played up his own cynical, wisecracking dry wit, and parts that he took were rewritten to emphasize this.
It’s an entertaining film, but there is no objective reason it should be held up to be the finest film ever made. There are far better films in any measurable sense, even some made in the last ten or twenty years.
It’s not mindreading. I read the article and that’s the impression I got from it.
And to be quite frank, lissener, you have more than a touch of the same (as your post which I quoted would indicate). If people don’t agree with you, it’s not just a matter of different opinions. It’s because we’re too shallow to appreciate the inner depths that you see.
Huh. I never thought that (and certainly never said anything that could even be loosely interpreted as implying it–I await your cite to the contrary), so if that’s what your mindreading is picking up, you should adjust the squelch or something. My mindreading take? You’re projecting that I’m trying to make you feel inadequate because you feel inadequate. But nothing to do with me.
Talking of objective reasons and measurable senses by which art may be evaluated reminds me of Dead Poets Society, which is in no subjective or intuitive sense a great movie, but at least got this point dead on :).
That said, I certainly have found some movies from the last decade or two to be superior to Casablanca. Let the Right One In has stuck with me more, and I’m sure I could think of others if I weren’t so tired. But “best movie evar” isn’t a standard I’m at all interested in. I’m just interested in Casablanca as a movie full of humor, full of romance, and full of Bogart.
