Prophet_of_Doom
Posts: 727
Joined: 15/2/2006
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: st3veebee
quote:
ORIGINAL: elab49
quote:
ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom
quote:
ORIGINAL: st3veebee
quote:
ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom
quote:
ORIGINAL: st3veebee
I was thinking about this topic after the Sight and Sound Poll myself. I think it boils down to that stupid word "classic" which goes hand in hand with age. Older films get forgiven for being slower paced, worse FX (obviously) and a different approach to acting simply because they go under the genre "classic".
I'm not sure how genre-defying, revolutionary and damn-near perfect films like Pan's Labyrinth aren't instantly on the best of lists.
That's actually a good point (well, half a good point, because I don't necessarily agree with all of it!)
A lot of older films are slower paced. And have a different style of acting. (Although you're suggesting they're weaker for it in both instances, which is unfair - it's just that they were different and from different eras where what was considered the peak of art was radically different to today). It's like trying to decide who was the best football team, the Manchester United of the 60s or the Manchester United of the 90s. Football was so different that it's an unfair comparison - can we say that Pele was the greatest player of all time if he'd struggle to get into the Wigan side because he couldn't cope with the strength and athleticism of the modern footballer? I think it's similar with film. Thus it does make these polls pretty impossible to take seriously.
That's a fair point, and it does look like I was giving out about older films but rather it was just a different time.
However...considering how much films have evolved, surely the modern films are...better? Great stories are always at the heart of a film , but everything else has pretty much evolved. If you showed a group of people, who had never seen any film or televsion, 2 films: An older classic such as Vertigo/Kane/Tokyo Story and then showed them a modern classic such as There will be blood/Hugo/Pan's Labyrinth...which would have the greater impact on them?
Good argument! I think your comparisons are a little unfair though. Comparing Vertigo (for instance) to Pan's Labyrinth and asking "which has the most impact" to someone who has never seen film, well it would definitely be the latter because it would just make them go "woooooah" like the little green guys from Toy Story! But that's just because it has more bells and whistles, not because it's a better film. It would be like showing them a torch and a firework. The latter would definitely impress them more! What would have the greater impact if you showed them Kane or The Squid and the Whale, for instance? I think if you show comparable movies then they each hold up. There is greater sophistication in every element of film making now (both in front of and behind the camera, in screenwriting etc) but then again you can look back at something like Chinatown which still holds up in every respect. There Will Be Blood is actually an interesting one, because it's almost structured like a classic film. So I'd be interested to know what they thought if you compared TWBL with The African Queen, for instance.
I'm not sure some of those comments about older films are really valid though.
Slower-paced? Nothing should be forgiven for bad pacing. If an older film is 'slower-paced' and good then it's supposed to be 'slower-paced'. Just as not all modern films - far from it - are faster paced. Lots are also 'slower-paced' because it's entirely down to the type of film they are,
Some older films aren't slower paced - something like His Girl Friday could spank the arse of most modern films in terms of pacing. It is entirely down to context.
Acting? Kind of depends on the film. There is an old style of acting that looks kind of dumb to modern eyes, but bad acting is still bad acting old or new.
FX? Kind of gives the game away. Are we only talking about films with FX? Because we're probably talking about only a certain type of modern film - the non-slow, non-FX type. And I doubt many of them would get in 'best of' lists, old or new.
I also think you're making assumptions about what the people want from what is being watched. Emotive depth can impress across the ages. Steeveebee expects Pan's Labyrinth to be acknowledged as a classic now because it will endure - but what if people make the same argument he does in 20 years, that it's boring old hat? The point to argue, surely, is the quality and strength of the storytelling makes the film ageless - not 'new'. 
Fair point about looking back on PL 20 years from now, at least people will consider it a (old hat) classic then!
I should also point out that, even though it clearly looks like I dislike films before 1990, I really don't. Of course some of my all time favourites come from each era but if you just stand back and look at filmsthen and now: we are able to do so much more at the minute, from a directors point of view.
Do we honestly think that films we adore from the last year or two are suddenly going to become obsolete in future years?
If you mean in terms of their place in 'best of' lists, I think it possibly depends on whether or not they're typical of the genre. I remember when Silence of the Lambs won its Oscars, there was talk of it being a classic (and the fact that it had taken a pretty typical genre to a more sophisticated level ...) But now, it wouldn't make many lists. Because, in truth, it's nothing exceptional.
I think Drive is probably the most recent film I can think of that may remain high on lists in years to come because it isn't typical of the genre and is something very much 'new'.
|
Printable Version
RE: Should there be a certain amount of time before put... - 
Mod Candidate 2013
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread