As I suggested, what types of plot fallacy “get in the way” and which don’t may be an interesting topic for a separate thread. I love Crash despite the absurd number of coincidences; I love Lord of the Rings despite that many would agree it’s obviously fictional! Casablanca’s fallacies don’t get in the way for most of us. YMMV.
Many modern movies are intolerable to me because of fallacies. A good example (though not a “movie”) would be 24. The science fiction doesn’t bother me; it’s the petty feuds and the “We only have 5 minutes to save the world so, sorry, I can only spend 4 minutes flirting and talking trivia with you just now.”
As to your other comments, my mention of “childish ‘snap’” should have emphasized era rather than nationality. There are many modern actors much better than Bogart; I was contrasting him with box-office successes like Tom Cruise.
Yes, I happen to like Bogart’s characters. And Clint Eastwood’s. And Jack Nicholson’s (though I realize he has a much wider range than his stereotype role).
And Casablanca may not be great by many objective standards, but it’s plot and dialog work for me, a “sentimental fool.”
Also remember that movies were cranked out a high volumes, with low budgets, and low ticket prices. Ten or fifteen cents or whatever, that you paid to get into the theater in the 1930s was obviously worth a lot more than is today, but I don’t think quite as much as we do pay to get into a movie today. So sure, there was a lot of formulaic blather being produced just to get people in the door; many people went every Saturday night, and a new batch of blather had to be ready for them. You couldn’t do that without some exploitation and corner-cutting. In general I rather like the old movies. That different world of suits and hats, bulbous sedans, and gorgeous passenger trains and airplanes gets me every time.
Sorry everyone; I really hate doing these obnoxious point by point replies and almost never do them. But so much conversation has taken place since my last post I have no real choice. In my defense, I’m responding to 3 different long posts that were addressed directly to me.
Wow, you really missed my point by a mile. Yes, the whole point is that Lopez is nothing special. With the Hays code abolished even a middling journeyman like Lopez can pull off scorching hot chemistry on screen. Under the code it would be much harder (rarer) to get that.
Realism is an element not in pre-1970 films. (Or at least so says lissener, who I fully believe.)
You didn’t understand my sentence: “Back then you weren’t allowed to make grownup movies for grownups.” What I mean is nowadays you can make grownup movies for grownups and keep the children out. Back in the day you could only make grownup movies for children. Nowhere did I say you couldn’t make grownup movies. The whole point is that the movies for grownups had to be kept child-safe. Which, to me, is an abomination.
On an unrelated note, I agree with you guys about Saving Private Ryan. I hold it in high esteem for the intro, much like I hold Full Metal Jacket in highest esteem for the training under Gunnery Sergent Hartman. (Though I love the second half of Full Metal Jacket, it was nowhere near as good as the first.)
First, I disagree that it took 20 years for realism to make it to the States. I contend that realism really wasn’t possible under the Hays code. I see no coincidence in the fact that realism in American film exploded immediately (or very shortly) after the code was abandoned, and has remained so in the subsequent 40 years. (And while I don’t turn up my nose at films like Avatar, I roll my eyes very hard. I can’t imagine ever thinking a cartoon is a great work of art.)
Second, assuming your assessment is true, this is a totally valid reason to think that older movies stink, and is also a solid refutation to those that cling to the SDMB-common notion that no group can ever be lumped into a single block.
I see movies because I like to relate to the humanity of the characters. If this is only a “fad” in newer movies, consider me a Philistine.
This is not a virtue.
I have been trying very hard not to Godwinize the thread, but there are multiple ways I’d like to. One of them would be a direct response to this basic idea, which I personally consider a fallacy.
This is a false dichotomy. Unless you contend that films today are unable to have the same depth, this point is wholly irrelevant.
Agreed. I also posit that a larger percentage of Hays code films are equally disposable dreck.
(Loved Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, btw. And I hate watching it neutered on basic cable, which ironically is far less of a butchering than it would have suffered under the Hays code.)
I was talking about surface realism. It’s arguable–certainly it’s my belief–that in general there was more emotional realism–or humanity, if you will–in films made before the surface elements (realism for its own sake, SPFX) became the only thing anyone cared about.
Anyway, it’s obviously not worth responding to you point by point, because it strikes me that all of your points are sophist and defensive, addressing only the letter of the argument and not the spirit; you engage only ambiguities in what people say, not what they mean, and ignore the substantive points that people have made in favor of engaging only those ambiguities for which you have a comeback.
Bottom line, you’re wrong, which you’ll never believe because the evidence that will prove it to you can only be gathered by watching the best of the old movies. Which is obviously your loss, and no one else’s. Your arguments are, finally, a laboriously constructed and defended refusal to accept a gift.
People went to the movies several times a week, and usually expected to see more than one movie in an evening. The volume “cranked out” was huge. But this didn’t affect the quality of the “A pictures,” the big budget “main event” of each evening’s program. The volume movies, the “B movies,” or programmers, were made much more cheaply and quickly, and were used as fillers. So it wasn’t so much to get them in the door–the A pictures did that–as it was to pad the program once they were in. So people could make an evening of it.
Anyway, my point being that the volume didn’t reduce the quality of films across the board, which I think is what you were suggesting. There were no corners cut on the A pictures. The studios were just as likely to spare no expense on a major production as they are today. So what you’re saying really goes only for the B pictures of that era. Which, needless to say, there were some B list directors who had great creativity and ingenuity, and occasionally an overlooked masterpiece would squeak through in the Bs. Jacques Tourneur and Edgar Ulmer spring to mind as two such examples.
And there were a lot of series films that were hugely popular as filler for the B part of the program. The Charlie Chan films are extremely entertaining and were basically the Law & Order of their day. Anyway, I just wanted to make the point that the increased volume may have made a wider field of crap to slog through to get to the gems, but the gems were there, and just as bright, if not brighter.
An interesting and coincidentally very relevant article in today’s NYTimes:
[emphasis mine]
“Is it possible now, 50 years later, even to imagine seeing ***Breathless ***for the first time?” --made me think of the people who still have this whole world of great movies to discover. Like youth is wasted on the young, having the opportunity to see all these movies for the first time is “wasted” on the uninterested. I honestly wish I could start over, and experience them all for the first time.
Why not? That seems to be your attitude. You don’t “enjoy” them; you find them (all of them? That’s a lot of film) “boring”. Ok. Isn’t that YOU, then, and not the movies?
I’ve already said that there are exceptions, and I’ve also said that it is that I can’t get into certain style elements like the acting–that is pretty much me saying that it’s me. I haven’t said that the movies are crap or anything like that. Simply that I have a hard time getting into them. And as I just said, I’ve admitted that there are some that I have enjoyed.
I know those pesky letters have come up before but the way I always justify it in my mind “fan-wanking” is the colloquial term, was they would be needed at the destination. If they did not have proper papers when arriving in Lisbon they would be sent back or imprisoned. De Gaulle was a world figure and maybe Portugal would honor his authority in respect to refugees. Then the papers would make sense plot wise. That’s just my interpretation.
And I still disagree. You apparently need to be hit over the head for a point to made, other people can appreciate some subtlety. This is a matter of preference which has nothing to do with the Hays code.
Okay. I disagree.
The Postman Always Rings Twice, Anatomy of a Murder, Psycho, The Searchers etc. These are all child-safe?
In any event, yes I understood what you meant. No, I disagree. Truthfully, it sounds like you need big arrows to point out when characters have sex or curse or fight or whatever else you think needs to be included in order to label it a big boy movie. This is fine. That’s your personal preference. Rather than saying that, however, you’d rather go on some pseudo-intellectual rant about how several decades of movies (movies you haven’t apparently seen) are worthless because the Hays code wouldn’t let actors shove lollipops up their vaginas. Sorry, don’t buy it.
[LIST=A]
[li]There are exceptions to everything, so that’s hardly a concession.[/li][li]I think the point is that by saying you can’t get into the acting style, and then leaving it at that as a reason to avoid the vast majority of all movies ever made, it’s that generalization as justification that is being addressed by eleanor. Not speaking for her of course. Your OP is pretty sweeping, with an infinitesimal number of exceptions listed.[/li][li]Put it this way: think of the one-in-a-million exceptions you’ve come across. Isn’t it likely that there might actually be ratio higher than 1:1,000,000? Maybe even :1,000? That would mean that there are hundreds of exceptions still out there that you will probably love. Again, not expecting you to slog through 50 years of B pictures. Try a list or two. Ask someone you trust. Or, you know, not. [/li][li]You’re right: your OP is mostly “I statements,” not blistering condemnations of the unfamiliar. Any negative reaction is probably just the feeling judgmental words like “snobbery” and “cheeseball” and “worse” impart. And the fact that the tone is asking more fore others to admit they don’t like these old movies than it is a request for suggestions for a way to appreciate them.[/li][li]Again, all armchair psychoanalyzing. But I’m bored today, avoiding work. Carry on.[/li][/LIST]
Really? I must have missed that very short list. You can watch and like whatever you like. But a thread entitled, “Am I alone in not really enjoying most old (“classic”) movies?” lends itself to the assumption that you don’t care for entire decades of film. Again, that’s your right, but instead of thinking it might be some lack in you or perhaps you haven’t really tried to educate yourself on them, you and others who have the same POV seem to point the finger at the films. Otherwise, the thread would read, “hey, I get that classic films are a valuable cultural resource, but they’ve never been my cup of tea. Should I do something about that? Who can point me to some that I might appreciate?” or “Classic movies are not for me, are they for you? in IMHO” or similar. What you wanted when you started this thread was validation of your POV. I can’t provide that. Others have, so let’s hope you’re satisfied with their approval.
Note: In my posts, I have not singled out any one poster, not even the OP, until you addressed me directly. My responses were to the tone of the thread, not any one post in it.
I mentioned in the OP that there are exceptions, and listed a few. And I later stated that I felt uncultured admitting it. So how does that translate into not thinking it’s a lack in me? I didn’t want “validation” in the OP I wanted to know if others felt like me. Validation would be wanting people saying that my view was somehow “correct” which is nonsensical because we’re talking about completely subjective things like personal taste.
And no, I wasn’t specifically looking for people to convince me to like old movies because I don’t feel a big drive to need to see more movies. I am not a huge movie watcher to begin with, and my Netflix queue is already unmanageably long. I just don’t feel any particular urge to set out on a mission to watch a bunch of movies in an attempt to like them. Now, if someone who knew me and my taste were to say “hey, Opal, you should watch this movie, I think you’d like it” I’d probably give it a shot even if it was old. But to just generally set out to acquire a new taste for no real reason? I don’t need a new hobby.
Really? You really weren’t sure whether there are other people on the SDMB who also aren’t keen on old movies? You thought it might be possible that everyone who posts here absolutely enjoys old, classic movies? Just a fact-finding mission, huh?
Right.
Not buying it.
You wanted validation for your subjective taste. Nothing wrong with that: everybody does, “nonsensical” or not. Your being disingenuous about it is a bit odd, though.
You are not leaving the impression that you would be willing to try an (any) old movie that was recommended you. Several people have tried to show you effective ways of changing that, if you so desire.
Apparently, you don’t desire, so again, why start the thread? (and how, if you’re not a “huge” movie watcher, is your Netflix queue “unmanageably long”?). For me, your position isn’t cohesive–of course you’re not alone in your position. It’s a big world and a large message board; there’s bound to be a portion that share your view. Maybe you could all get together and not watch classics together.
Or, and this is a long shot, is your OP and this whole long thread some tortuous way of asking for recommendations? Doubt it. :dubious: Eh, **knorf **nailed much more succinctly.
:rolleyes: No, not EVERYONE but I was curious how unusual my position was. Really, it’s not that hard. People make threads of this nature all the time.
I started the thread to see how many people felt the same way. Pretty simple motivation, happens all the time here. And I’d be willing to try recommendations from people who already know my taste, or from people who I felt shared my same taste more than I would from random strangers. The reason my Netflix queue is unmanageably long is precisely *because *I’m not a huge movie watcher and only get through maybe 2-3 movies per month or so. Sometimes less than that if it takes us too long to get to it. Meanwhile I’ve been adding things to that queue for years. Also, some of the stuff in the queue is tv shows. We’ve been trying to be better about watching them but it’s not uncommon for a Netflix DVD to sit around for a couple of weeks before we actually watch it, and we’re on the plan where you only get one at a time.
Opal, sorry you’re getting so much heat in this thread. I’m guessing it’s just one of those subjects like sports and specialty foods, where people who really love it get a bit too defensive and somewhat evangelical.
[sub]FTR, I love old movies and my wife doesn’t. We’re OK with that.[/sub]
You old movie fans don’t get to hand-wave the Hayes Code away that easily. No boobies, indeed. If only it had been THAT simple, then … you’d have a point! but it wasn’t. The Hayes Code was like a series of filters: No boobies, sure, no sex, sure, but also no bad guys winning, no challenges for authority figures, no disrespect for religious figures, no this, no that, blah blah blah … essentially a series of filters imposing the worldview of devout Catholic Sidney J. Breen on every last writer, director and actor in Hollywood for a period of about 40 years.
Cat People is a good example. It’s a movie about a race of people who were part cat, apparently borne of the mating of lions and humans, or some kind of big cat and humans. it was kinda hard to figure out what the movie was even ABOUT in the Hayes Code version. The Paul Schrader remake was explicit about it, up to point … there’s a prehistoric flashback of a naked woman left tied to a tree as a sacrifice to a big cat, which is actually a nice bit as the movie ends with Cat Woman Nastassja Kinski tied to a bed as a sacrifice to the human race.
I consider the original Cat People to be much more powerful stylistically than the remake, but at least the remake had Nastassja Kinski and Malcolm McDowell radiating cat sexy at full amplitude, something the original would never have had. I only wish that Jacques Tourneur had been as free to make Cat People with his own personal filters (rather than trying to force his filters through Sidney Breen’s filters) as the tremendously less talented Paul Schrader had been to make “Cat People” through his personal filters. Then we might have had a riveting film instead of a murky film that’s very hard to make its way through.
Who’s waving away the Hayes Office? The glory is that so many excellent, adult films (that is, adult concepts and stories) were made despite the Hayes Office crap. Now it’s too easy and convenient for filmmakers to show skin etc. Too many of them rely on sex appeal and explosions, instead of good dialogue and plot.
That said, I doubt anyone (except for our nostalgic for 1950s members) wants to return to those days.
Casablanca’s fallacies don’t get in the way for most of us. YMMV.
