# I'm a movie ageist and I'm not sure why. **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [January 9, 2009, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-movie-ageist-and-im-not-sure-why/480526 "2009-01-09T14:53:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![TV\_time](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f17d59/32.png) [@TV\_time](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TV_time)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2009, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-movie-ageist-and-im-not-sure-why/480526/41 "2009-01-09T22:08:36Z")
> [@](#): > > So apart from the reasons stated in brackets above (if they can be called reasons) does anyone share this ‘snobbery’ for modern films? Can someone who doesn’t explain it, and convince me to give old films a try? **Casablanca** - If after watching that film, you don’t enjoy old black and white films, I doubt you will every enjoy them. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2009, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-movie-ageist-and-im-not-sure-why/480526/42 "2009-01-09T22:12:22Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > if you wanted to be a painter would you refuse to look at anything painted before 1950? Hehe, no, I’d refuse to look at anything painted AFTER 1950. ;p ---
**Author:** ![KneadToKnow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kneadtoknow/32/3999_2.png) [@KneadToKnow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KneadToKnow)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2009, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-movie-ageist-and-im-not-sure-why/480526/43 "2009-01-09T22:42:22Z")
It makes me sad to think that there are people who will let the kinds of things mentioned in this thread interfere with them enjoying a good movie on its own terms. Some of these things amount to refusing to read some of the best books ever published because they’re only available as paperbacks, or refusing to listen to the most beautiful music ever composed because you can only get it in stereo on CD, not in a DTS-HD Master Audio version. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2009, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-movie-ageist-and-im-not-sure-why/480526/44 "2009-01-10T00:31:57Z")
You should try to learn to appreciate a movie for what it is, not for what it isn’t. If I were forced to limit myself to watching movies from only one decade, I would choose the 1930s. ---
**Author:** ![Bites\_When\_Provoked](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bites_when_provoked/32/18073_2.png) [@Bites\_When\_Provoked](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bites_When_Provoked)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2009, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-movie-ageist-and-im-not-sure-why/480526/45 "2009-01-10T00:33:14Z")
I generally avoid B&W movies, because the acting really does annoy me. (The special effects - or lack thereof - generally don’t bother me one way or another though.) But really, I’m more of a book person anyway; I don’t watch a lot of modern movies either. When I do, I’m more likely to be taken in by something with lots of CGI, because if I’m watching a movie it’s because I’ve planned to turn my brain off for a couple of hours and just enjoy the pretties. (Having said that, a bad script drives me nuts.) ---
**Author:** ![Quintas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/48db29/32.png) [@Quintas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quintas)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2009, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-movie-ageist-and-im-not-sure-why/480526/46 "2009-01-10T01:52:53Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Old movies are still somewhat mired in the stage tradition. **It wasn’t until about the 80s that film became its own medium as distinct from stage,** and people recognize that one could capture much more subtle movement. I know what you are trying to say, but it was WAY before the 1980’s. Kubrick, Scorcese, Copola, De Palma? Going back prior to the 60s and 70s, John Ford’s westerns aren’t 'mired in stage tradition. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2009, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-movie-ageist-and-im-not-sure-why/480526/47 "2009-01-10T02:42:06Z")
> [@Quintas](#): > > I know what you are trying to say, but it was WAY before the 1980’s. Kubrick, Scorcese, Copola, De Palma? Going back prior to the 60s and 70s, John Ford’s westerns aren’t 'mired in stage tradition. Actually, to be fair, John Ford’s movies–and he’s one of the 3 or 4 greatest directors who ever lived–were pretty stylized and stagey. But his audiences didn’t go the movies for reality; they expected to escape it. (FWIW, there are few modern directors as non-realist as DePalma, from your examples.) As far as when movies began to try to reproduce real life, instead of escape from it, most people consider that to have begun with the Italian Neo-Realists, who made movies in the bombed out rubble of postwar Italy, using real people as actors. (Being as how the Italian studio system was in ruins too.) Again, if you appreciate a movie for what it is rather than for how it differs from your arbitrary expectations. If you can “accept” an animated movie, surely you can adjust your realism filters to “accept” a pre-neorealist movie. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2009, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-movie-ageist-and-im-not-sure-why/480526/48 "2009-01-10T03:32:49Z")
> [@](#): > > I am put off by any sign of a dated look in films. I guess I’m spoiled for what can be done in films these days (SFX, more realistic, **more freedom to move the camera** , It’s arguably easier to do today (especially if the scene is CGI, like the camera moving around the ship in **Titanic** ), but if you think the camera didn’t move around in the old days, you haven’t seen films like Rouben Mamoulian’s **Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde** , or an awful lot of Alfred Hitchcock. Or the opening scene in **Pinocchio** (Yeah, I know it’s animation. So was Titanic) ---
**Author:** ![Invisible\_Chimp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/f05b48/32.png) [@Invisible\_Chimp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Invisible_Chimp)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2009, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-movie-ageist-and-im-not-sure-why/480526/49 "2009-01-10T03:39:41Z")
I brainstormed my favorite movies of all time and without meaning to, in a list of twenty movies, I had at least one movie from every decade from the 1930’s to the 2000’s. I love old movies, but I also love new movies. I just love movies. I can’t grok not liking a particular group of movies. FTR, I just turned 30 years old. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2009, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-movie-ageist-and-im-not-sure-why/480526/50 "2009-01-10T03:52:49Z")
> [@CalMeacham](#): > > It’s arguably easier to do today (especially if the scene is CGI, like the camera moving around the ship in **Titanic** ), but if you think the camera didn’t move around in the old days, you haven’t seen films like Rouben Mamoulian’s **Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde** , or an awful lot of Alfred Hitchcock. Or the opening scene in **Pinocchio** (Yeah, I know it’s animation. So was Titanic) Check out Murnau’s \*Sunrise \*and _The Last Laugh_. Murnau is often cited as the inventor of the moving camera; the tracks and cables and pulleys he and his cameraman devised for these movies are pretty astonishing, even by today’s standards. Let alone when you think about the clumsy technology of the day. ---
**Author:** ![WarmNPrickly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/d78d45/32.png) [@WarmNPrickly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WarmNPrickly)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2009, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-movie-ageist-and-im-not-sure-why/480526/51 "2009-01-10T04:20:22Z")
I tend to agree with the OP. Old movies are way to dramatic. I hate drama. The writers are always trying to be literary geniuses with metaphors, so the great mistery turns out to be a sled or something. The humor can be good. I loved _Dr. Strangelove_. I love many of the B&W sitcoms. There are exceptions, but most of these movies are really time sensitive. I love CGI, but if the plot revolves around it I will hate it. The original _Terminator_ is the only one worth seeing IMO. _The Matrix_ was cool but the sequels sucked. Specifically the third one. I don’t have too much trouble with the enhance _Star Wars_ movies except where the plot was changed. Han shot first. ---
**Author:** ![Jenaroph](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e8c25b/32.png) [@Jenaroph](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jenaroph)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2009, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-movie-ageist-and-im-not-sure-why/480526/52 "2009-01-10T05:34:24Z")
I’m having a hard time thinking **Lobsang** wouldn’t like Young Frankenstein or any of the Monty Python movies. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_the\_Immortal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/6de8d8/32.png) [@Max\_the\_Immortal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_the_Immortal)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2009, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-movie-ageist-and-im-not-sure-why/480526/53 "2009-01-10T05:39:45Z")
I don’t think that recommending a list of 17 or more old movies is going to get **Lobsang** to change his mind. As others have said, there’s old crap and new crap, old gems and new gems. There are also old and new _overrated_ movies. Someone upthread recommended Olivier’s version of Hamlet. I remember tuning in to that film, and watching the blurb about how it was made during the war and how they didn’t have much of a budget but it turned out great anyway. I had recently taken part in a pretty intense five-week Shakespeare program, and I was stoked to see what Olivier would do with such legendary material. Then the movie started. By the middle of the first scene I hated it and by the middle of the second scene I had turned it off. The actors were just doing such a terrible job, blandly reciting their lines and _completely missing the point_ of doing a Shakespeare play. If Lobsang were to watch this film, his opinion would be reinforced. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2009, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-movie-ageist-and-im-not-sure-why/480526/54 "2009-01-10T06:25:29Z")
There are occasional exceptions, but I generally don’t care for much before at least the 70’s. The ridiculous, affected acting is part of it but an even bigger obstacle for me is the Hayes Code straight jacket those films were made under. Everything is so sanitized that it made for very limited dramatic, thematic, even comedic colors. Another thing I notice that bothers me when I watch old movies is the oppressive sexism. ---
**Author:** ![Abby\_Emma\_Sasha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e68b1a/32.png) [@Abby\_Emma\_Sasha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abby_Emma_Sasha)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2009, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-movie-ageist-and-im-not-sure-why/480526/55 "2009-01-10T12:53:29Z")
> [@AuntiePam](#): > > I’m ageist in the other direction. I avoid modern films populated by teens and twenty-somethings. Ditto. ---
**Author:** ![Lobsang](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobsang/32/4067_2.png) [@Lobsang](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobsang)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2009, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-movie-ageist-and-im-not-sure-why/480526/56 "2009-01-10T13:17:17Z")
> [@Jenaroph](#): > > I’m having a hard time thinking **Lobsang** wouldn’t like Young Frankenstein or any of the Monty Python movies. I’ve never seen Frankenstein. I do like the Monty Python movies, particularly life of Brian. There are always exceptions to every rule. What happens is a generic ‘old movie’ comes on TV and I’m immediately channel-hopping. And it gets worse the older the movie gets. An 80s movie I’ll watch. A 70s move might have a chance. a 60s movie is probably going to get turned over. And a 50s movie is almost certainly going to get turned over. I’m a fan of James Bond, and yet I don’t like the Connery films because they’re old. I only like the Roger Moore films because I grew up with them being on TV a bloody lot. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2009, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-movie-ageist-and-im-not-sure-why/480526/57 "2009-01-10T19:27:01Z")
Let’s do this one at a time, rather than a list. Find a way to see _[Kiss Me Deadly](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0048261/)_, 1955, then report back for further instructions. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2009, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-movie-ageist-and-im-not-sure-why/480526/58 "2009-01-10T19:53:53Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > Actually, to be fair, John Ford’s movies–and he’s one of the 3 or 4 greatest directors who ever lived–were pretty stylized and stagey. But his audiences didn’t go the movies for reality; they expected to escape it. (FWIW, there are few modern directors as non-realist as DePalma, from your examples.) > > As far as when movies began to try to reproduce real life, instead of escape from it, most people consider that to have begun with the Italian Neo-Realists, who made movies in the bombed out rubble of postwar Italy, using real people as actors. (Being as how the Italian studio system was in ruins too.) > > Again, if you appreciate a movie for what it is rather than for how it differs from your arbitrary expectations. If you can “accept” an animated movie, surely you can adjust your realism filters to “accept” a pre-neorealist movie. It has nothing to do with realism. It has everything to do with dynamism. Sometimes people just don’t like watching people make put on jerky movements and talk really fast and halt to make a point. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2009, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-movie-ageist-and-im-not-sure-why/480526/59 "2009-01-10T20:03:25Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > It has nothing to do with realism. It has everything to do with dynamism. Sometimes people just don’t like watching people make put on jerky movements and talk really fast and halt to make a point. The movies you’re objecting to weren’t made for _you_, and your post-neorealist expectations. They were enormously popular to the audiences of their day. Try to put yourself in that mindset; for some movies it’s well worth the effort. Of course, some people can’t–or won’t–read Shakespeare, or Dickens, or even Steinbeck, for pretty much the same reasons: it’s not written in their present-day argot. Whose loss? Not Shakespeare’s. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2009, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-movie-ageist-and-im-not-sure-why/480526/60 "2009-01-10T20:27:21Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > The movies you’re objecting to weren’t made for _you_, and your post-neorealist expectations. They were enormously popular to the audiences of their day. Try to put yourself in that mindset; for some movies it’s well worth the effort. Of course, some people can’t–or won’t–read Shakespeare, or Dickens, or even Steinbeck, for pretty much the same reasons: it’s not written in their present-day argot. Whose loss? Not Shakespeare’s. Well I do watch those films. I’m just saying what I prefer. The argument about realism is one thing, but I am not talking about being able to accept unrealistic movements, stylized and such, but there is certain boxy and jerky motions I don’t watch. Pedantic lectures are unnecessary though I know they are filmy mainstream culture and that’s just how filmy’s speak. 😉 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-movie-ageist-and-im-not-sure-why/480526.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-movie-ageist-and-im-not-sure-why/480526.md?page=4)