Well, no. Not defensive. More puzzled about why anyone (the OP) would start a thread about something they profess to not like, all while saying they don’t really not like it. Oh, and btw, they haven’t really tried it and don’t plan to. They keep adding to a queue that they don’t plan on watching.
It’s a way to pass the time, I guess. To each his own. Maybe a thread about what’s in your Netflix queue that you’ll never get around to would be a good idea, too. Opal is free to dislike whatever she wants. This thread isn’t going to change her mind; I don’t think anyone posted in it with that motivation.
Psst, EC–you should probably read the thread before you post, to avoid accidentally completely misstating stuff that’s already been covered. Like, 180 degrees misstating. Just a friendly hint.
Also, to use the Tourneur Cat People as an example of how much better movies can be when you show MORE is a pretty monumental heap of not getting the point.
The ones before sound definitely seem overacted to me and I think the reason is that those actors felt they needed to make big sweeping motions since there was no sound and they had to compensate for that with extra visual stuff and they seem to always be shouting and yelling instead of just talking.
I just watched The Big Parade. It’s a silent film that is usually regarded as one of the top 5 silent films of all time. Sorry, I just thought it was terrible.
The only silent films I liked were Birth of a Nation and Intolerance. I will still watch those today. But not any others.
Check out A Cottage on Dartmoor or*** The Crowd ***for a couple of more “realistically” acted silent films. And again, once you watch a bunch of them and build up a tolerance for the “vocabulary” of silent film, you stop thinking of the more stylized approach, and begin to just accept it as another way to tell a story. Kind of like how you lose yourself in the poetry of Shakespeare, without always thinking, “That’s not *really *how people talk.”
A couple of my favorite silents, Sunrise and The Passion of Joan of Arc, have pretty stylized acting, but the emotional truth of the performances shines through, and the films themselves are so powerful you quickly forget to notice the acting style.
It is not irrelevant. I definitely think both advancement in cultural expression as well as restrictions in technology have big impacts on creativity.
For the first, it’s easy to see that when a new cultural movement emerges, there is usually a lot of activity in the beginning until the movement hits a creative peak from which it will fade out. You can see this in the punk movement, with hip hop, with French New Wave movies, with dadaism - one might say with realist movies post-Hays Code as well. Any popular movement, really. There is nothing forbidding us from going back to explore these themes, but they have had their time in the sun.
Also, technology and restrictions matter to some extent. We are today capable of making movies with any kind of special effects, from hand-made props to CGI. This was not possible thirty years ago. If we look at a film like John Carpenter’s The Thing, its special effects were the result of Rob Bottin, an extremely gifted prop maker. Possibly mad, but a master of his craft. If it were today, his skills would much likely not be called for and more likely, it’s possible that he wouldn’t even be who he is, since his craft came from hi-end props and stop motion being the state of the art in the special effects industry.
So in essence, I *do *think that the Hay’s Code spurred some creativity that wouldn’t have been there otherwise. If it’s something people love, it’s exploring forbidden topics. It’s just that this creativity was there at the expense of some pretty difficult restrictions which didn’t make up for it.
I will commiserate with the OP and say that I haven’t enjoyed many of the “classic” movies I’ve watched. I can appreciate the technique and the artistry but I wouldn’t watch them outside of a class. Like The Third Man or Don’t Look Now - I was bored by both.
Actually I have never understood why people seem to worship Godfather series … to the point of focusing film classes on it. The movie is stupid and vapid - it is an adaptation of a book. Yippee. It has mobsters, and people dying, and a wedding and a horse head. It is a freaking movie - it was made to make money and amuse people for a couple of hours, and that is it. It is entertainment and that is all. They made it with the expectation of entertaining people and making money off the ticket sales, and leasing it out to television channels for broadcast.
The best parody of the worship Godfather mindset is in the movie The Freshman. The entire movie is essentially a parody of how some people worship the damned movie. You have a whacked out film teacher that has the dialog memorized, and is conducting classes on the awesomness of the Godfather, you actually have Marlon Brando playing a godfatheresque mafia family head, you have the crime family … priceless. I have a friend who absolutely HATES that movie because he feels it is poking fun at his precious Godfather … :rolleyes:
I thought of an example that won’t Godwinize the thread: Howard Stern. Note that your opinion of Stern is irrelevant to my point, so bear with me. I’ve been a regular listener of his radio show since the late 80s. I’ve always loved the show.
Up until four years ago, he labored under the oppressive restrictions of the FCC, who seemed to delight in targeting him specifically. This forced him to be creative in ways he never would have, and he did a great job at that. (Great in that he came up with creative ways to be funny; not great at avoiding fines.)
Four years ago he moved to satellite radio, where there is no censorship at all. His shows have been far, far better than they ever were under the arbitrary and artificial restrictions of the FCC, even though he no longer employs any of that secondary creativity you have to use to get around the censor. That creativity is all gone, and yet his show is far more creative now than it ever was under censorship.
I loved his show for 20 years, but now having heard the uncensored version, I can’t listen to his old shows at all. It’s just too restrictive; I can’t take it. Same concept for Hays code movies. Mind you, I know firsthand that I loved FCC-era Howard Stern and I yet can’t stomach the censorship and won’t listen to them in “Best Of” compilations. That’s an example of how I can be pretty confident that I won’t be interested in old movies. I simply cannot stomach the censorship. Period.
Thanks for so clearly stating exactly how worthless your arguments are. It couldn’t be more obvious that you do not understand what I’m saying if you think lollipops have fuck-all to do with it.
One is arbitrary and artificial, while the other is organic and natural. I don’t tolerate the former, but have no problem with the latter. So I totally buy into everything you say about Rob Bottin, but deny that the state of technology is analagous at all to the Hays code restrictions.
We get it. You’d rather listen to Howard Stern than watch older movies. If I were a Serious Film Buff, I’d get all sarcastic. But I’m not serious; I just find many older movies pretty enjoyable.
Your “Crusader Against Censorship” pose is noble but is not convincing anybody.
Dude, I understand what you’re saying. You’re not spouting string theory here. I disagree entirely, however, with the substance of your argument. To dismiss several decades of movies you have not seen because you don’t like the Hays code is as narrow-minded and arbitrary as the guidelines you profess to abhor.
If you think, for example, that Disturbia is a better movie than Rear Window than that’s great. You might like the acting better or the plot or the cinematography or any number of other factors but to say one is better than the other because of the Hays code or the lack thereof is pathetic. Do feel free, however, to come back and let me know yet again how I just don’t understand the complexity of your thought processes.:rolleyes:
For what it’s worth, I’d say the same about you, Ellis. You keep missing the point that plenty of masterpieces were created during the Code era. Of course, Requiem for a Dream could not have been made back then, and many–many, many, many–films suffered under the code. But that doesn’t in any way change the fact that there were some great, great artists at work, even then, artists who were bigger than the code and managed to create some towering masterpieces despite Code restrictions. Your arguments apply only to the films that were damaged by the code, but completely ignores the ones that are great in spite of it. There ARE, after all, human dramas and universal truths that are Code friendly. Not all truth is R-rated.
Whuuuut? The movies on my Netflix queue aren’t old movies. I said my Netflix queue is too long already [with movies and tv in general], and this is the reason why I’m not inclined to pile a bunch of old movies on there “just in case” I might like or learn to like them. Also, I’ve seen plenty of old movies. Not a huge ton, because as I’ve said, I don’t watch a huge ton of movies in general, but I’ve seen a fair number. So your “haven’t really tried it” thing is out of nowhere. Also, I didn’t say I don’t really not like it, I have simply tried to clarify that I’m not saying the movies are objectively bad, just that there are stylistic things about them that my personal taste doesn’t go for. I’m trying to allow that there may be some fine art there, but that I personally might not care for. This is different from saying “old movies suck” which is what some people seemed to be trying to put in my mouth.
Nobody’s saying you Netflix movies are old, and I don’t know where in the name of reason you got that out of anything anyone has said. People are summarizing what you have said about your situation–that you don’t much care for old movies, that you haven’t really watched a lot of movies, that you have no interest in watching old movies because you already have a Netflix queue longer than you’ll ever watch, and the queue is so long because you hardly ever watch movies of any age. But you’re totally willing to add an old movie that someone who knows your tastes to the queue, which is a list of movies that you’ll probably never get around to watching.
Which, on the face of it, sounds fairly nonsensical of you.
I didn’t say you were adding classic films to your queue. You have made it plain that you will not do so. Saying you have such a long list implies that you are interested in film or at least enjoy watching them (and TV as well). If you don’t watch a lot of movies, but have a long Netflix queue, why are you adding to the list?
I also didn’t say you said old movies suck. IMO, you are being disingenuous about your “lack of enjoyment” re this form of entertainment. You just can’t figure it out, but it sure isn’t you. :rolleyes: I’d have more respect for your opinion if you’d just stated: “I don’t like classic films and I don’t want to change my mind.”
I’ll get around to them eventually, and generally if I put something on the queue because someone recommended it I move it to the top. Stuff that gets added to the end is stuff I’ve happened upon on my own.
For what it’s worth, even though I tried to explain to Opal why others might have been put off by her OP, she doesn’t strike me, in this thread, as being overly closeminded. I think we classics buffs are hurting our own “cause” in giving her too much shit for starting this discussion, which has obviously led to some interesting, um, sharings.
Opal–and others–recommendation by committee can be overwhelming; still too many to slog through. If you’re interested, I’d love to give you one “assignment” at a time, an old movie I feel you’d have a good chance at liking, and adjusting subsequent recommendations based on how each such assignment is received. Or, you know, not; just an offer if you have any curiosity at all about some of the great old movies that are worth finding your way to. (And for the record, personally, ***Casablanca ***would not be on my short list for inclusion in this syllabus.)
We’ll call it the Classics for Skeptics Group or something.
Again I have to say Whaaa? I can totally figure it out and I laid it out from the get-go. I find the acting style cheesy and hard to relate to. There is no mystery there. And I didn’t start the thread to discuss whether or not I should like the movies, I started it to find out if there were other people out there who felt uncultured because of their lack of appreciation for older movies. It’s been massively hijacked since then, but that was the intent at the beginning.
I might have taken you up on that a few days ago, but this whole thing has largely soured me to the whole old-movie-thing on an emotional level, beyond just taste at this point. If I knew you in real life and you had an idea of what my tastes were I’d consider it.