Have films been improving over time?
Mr Beech
Florida, USAPosts: 1,749MI6 Agent
In order to avoid hijacking the Top 10 Movies thread, this continues the debate found there:
http://www.ajb007.co.uk/topic/37803/top-movies-of-all-time/
I don't think the performances and production of Star Wars or Jaws were what she meant. I think she meant more of that we didn't always see things like these as often as we do now:
Heath Ledger as Joker
Daniel Day-Lewis as Daniel Plainview
Inception
Black Swan
Meryl Streep as Julia Child (and many others, including a convincing male Rabbi)
The Lord of the Rings Trilogy
Rooney Mara as Lisbeth Salander
Colin Firth as King George VI (and, well, a lot of varying personalities)
Michelle Williams as Marilyn Monroe
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Fight Club
and so on...
There has been a lot of greatness in the past several years and I think it is more often than ever before that we get something striking and brilliant out of cinemas. More 'transformation' performances that take far more effort from my fan perspective, are coming frequently. There are more performances that convince and don't feel so written for the actor, but rather the actor knows how to become the part.
And, heck, who expected Pixar would so drastically change the opinion on what Animated Features were? They are arguably one of the biggest reasons for Animation even getting a place in the Oscars. How many of those old critics have talked about their eyes watering during even scenes between these animated fish and grumpy men with flying houses?
Performance has gotten better everywhere, at least everywhere that we know the good actors and productions are.
I do agree that many actors who are so heavily praised from the first Golden age of cinema have been given credit based on far less than many actors today do. There are some classic men's performances from back then that would be called out today for being just plain unrealistic and drawn out, but because of the time it is from, it is seen as a glamorous lure to their talent. Since we experience more in our media now, we have a higher standard for what counts as new territory for entertainment. Back when film first started, a shot of a beach was enough. Then just any love story became loved. Now we gravitate towards incredible worlds and transformations of our actors that require them to go above and beyond being a possible peer character and instead into figures or distant roles of high demand on their talent.
Don't get me wrong. The eras of their past have pushed out many classics, some of which made my list, many of which were still worth watching even if they didn't, but I think as a whole, the actors, scripts, and tech quality all rose (we can just forget about talking over the bad sides of Hollywood in all the eras. There's always some Will Ferrell's and Tyler Perry movies that live on the other side. Always the bad Lindsay Lohan, some sort of Comic Book movie that doesn't go deep, etc.)
I think that there have always been some great actors out there, but I think we have more now than ever. And I think we have a big number of them that, besides roles we know they would be good at, take on roles such as being someone very known in public history or a character that is an imaginative stretch from the actor as we know them. I think we get a lot in addition to improved technology. We expect exhibition from movies, as has always been the purpose. And part of that is the increasing quality of technology, but in my opinion, the other part is increasingly bold performance from actors who give fairly consistently good performances as actors already. There is just more to be had from the film industry, and many of those more are great like you might have hoped for in the 50s and 60s and 70s and so on.
I think many of the serious films have brought scripts to a far more realistic level. I can't tell how many times there are scenes of damsels staring just off to the side of the audience's perspective with a twinkling stage light in her eye as glorious romantic music leads us to a male star staring right back with lines to pop out. Some of the most wonderful films of the past are not as often realistic the way modern greats tend to be.
If you want to talk about the fact that technology has helped recent films with being the fantastic exhibition that film is meant to be, then that is a fine and pretty true discussion separately. That is probably why very few films with major special effects are on AFI's best films list. But some of them earn the praise they get for their huge productions. Lord of the Rings, the last couple Harry Potters, Inception. They may not be just about the acting, but they wow and receive praise because there is a whole lot more they can do as films now. They can take a performance and with movie magic throw it into the most fitting of scenes in castles or highway chases or mid-century England, all elevating it to a great experience.
And Favorites are arguably different than Best films. I wouldn't put most of my favorites on a Best 10 Films list, but as far as films that I put some love in because I appreciate their style, characters, settings, stories, and movie magic, they nail what it takes to be loved. I just can't help but start falling for Sofia in Vanilla Sky, too, even if critically, that isn't what my judgments would be about.
http://www.ajb007.co.uk/topic/37803/top-movies-of-all-time/
Le Samourai wrote:Mr Beech wrote:Le Samourai wrote:Way too many to fit on a 10-item list, but I jotted down some of the first ones to come to mind. And yes, this list goes to 11.
1. The Seventh Seal (Ingmar Bergman, 1957)
2. The Ipcress File (Sidney Furie, 1965)
3. The Wild Bunch (Sam Peckinpah, 1969)
4. A Clockwork Orange (Stanley Kubrick, 1971)
5. The Long Goodbye (Robert Altman, 1973)
6. Taxi Driver (Martin Scorsese, 1976)
7. Apocalypse Now (Francis Ford Coppola, 1979)
8. This is Spinal Tap (Rob Reiner, 1984)
9. Brazil (Terry Gilliam, 1985)
10. Groundhog Day (Harold Ramis, 1993)
11. Rushmore (Wes Anderson, 1998)
A couple of random thoughts. For one, if you want to understand my general philosophy of life and existence, watch 'The Seventh Seal' and 'Groundhog Day.'
There are no Bond movies on my list. As much as I enjoy the series, I don't really consider any of them to be truly great films, though OHMSS comes the closest in my estimation.
Yes, there are two Bill Murray films listed.
I'm also rather surprised how many people listed movies made within the last 10 years or so. As motion pictures have been around for over a century, it seems odd to see such a bias towards relatively recent films, especially if the topic is 'Top Movies of All Time.' Most of the films on my list either came out before I was born or when I was way too young to have seen them in theaters, and none of them were made within the last decade.
That surprised me with my list, too. I watch a lot of old movies and several somewhat older ones from your list, but ended up picking fairly recent ones for the most part. I have to agree with Meryl Streep, however, that movies have gotten better over time. The acting has gotten better, the performances are more of a stretch from the original actors, some of the stories are far more studied and complex than the older films. I don't think it is that wild for people to find so many to love from recent years. Sure, Breathless, Rear Window, and Once Upon a Time in the West are great classics, but after thinking about it, I can see why something more recent is relevant to people. Many recent films are as good as those old films.
I respectfully disagree with Ms. Streep. In general, I believe filmmaking peaked sometime in the '70s. And as entertaining as they are, I think 'Jaws' and 'Star Wars' were among the worst things to ever happen to cinema.
One reason I am hesitant to pick more recent films is they have not yet proven themselves to have any real staying power. IMO, the question must be asked: Will I still really care about this film 10 years from now? Or 20? Sure, there are plenty of contemporary films that I've enjoyed, yet precious few have left a lasting impression. The same goes, incidentally, for contemporary music. (Though not, curiously, contemporary literature. Some of my favorite novels were written within the last 10 years.)
I also don't find that current films are more personally relevant. The film on my list with the most personal relevance to me—'The Seventh Seal—is over 50 years old, and its themes are timeless.
I don't think the performances and production of Star Wars or Jaws were what she meant. I think she meant more of that we didn't always see things like these as often as we do now:
Heath Ledger as Joker
Daniel Day-Lewis as Daniel Plainview
Inception
Black Swan
Meryl Streep as Julia Child (and many others, including a convincing male Rabbi)
The Lord of the Rings Trilogy
Rooney Mara as Lisbeth Salander
Colin Firth as King George VI (and, well, a lot of varying personalities)
Michelle Williams as Marilyn Monroe
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Fight Club
and so on...
There has been a lot of greatness in the past several years and I think it is more often than ever before that we get something striking and brilliant out of cinemas. More 'transformation' performances that take far more effort from my fan perspective, are coming frequently. There are more performances that convince and don't feel so written for the actor, but rather the actor knows how to become the part.
And, heck, who expected Pixar would so drastically change the opinion on what Animated Features were? They are arguably one of the biggest reasons for Animation even getting a place in the Oscars. How many of those old critics have talked about their eyes watering during even scenes between these animated fish and grumpy men with flying houses?
Performance has gotten better everywhere, at least everywhere that we know the good actors and productions are.
I do agree that many actors who are so heavily praised from the first Golden age of cinema have been given credit based on far less than many actors today do. There are some classic men's performances from back then that would be called out today for being just plain unrealistic and drawn out, but because of the time it is from, it is seen as a glamorous lure to their talent. Since we experience more in our media now, we have a higher standard for what counts as new territory for entertainment. Back when film first started, a shot of a beach was enough. Then just any love story became loved. Now we gravitate towards incredible worlds and transformations of our actors that require them to go above and beyond being a possible peer character and instead into figures or distant roles of high demand on their talent.
Don't get me wrong. The eras of their past have pushed out many classics, some of which made my list, many of which were still worth watching even if they didn't, but I think as a whole, the actors, scripts, and tech quality all rose (we can just forget about talking over the bad sides of Hollywood in all the eras. There's always some Will Ferrell's and Tyler Perry movies that live on the other side. Always the bad Lindsay Lohan, some sort of Comic Book movie that doesn't go deep, etc.)
I think that there have always been some great actors out there, but I think we have more now than ever. And I think we have a big number of them that, besides roles we know they would be good at, take on roles such as being someone very known in public history or a character that is an imaginative stretch from the actor as we know them. I think we get a lot in addition to improved technology. We expect exhibition from movies, as has always been the purpose. And part of that is the increasing quality of technology, but in my opinion, the other part is increasingly bold performance from actors who give fairly consistently good performances as actors already. There is just more to be had from the film industry, and many of those more are great like you might have hoped for in the 50s and 60s and 70s and so on.
I think many of the serious films have brought scripts to a far more realistic level. I can't tell how many times there are scenes of damsels staring just off to the side of the audience's perspective with a twinkling stage light in her eye as glorious romantic music leads us to a male star staring right back with lines to pop out. Some of the most wonderful films of the past are not as often realistic the way modern greats tend to be.
If you want to talk about the fact that technology has helped recent films with being the fantastic exhibition that film is meant to be, then that is a fine and pretty true discussion separately. That is probably why very few films with major special effects are on AFI's best films list. But some of them earn the praise they get for their huge productions. Lord of the Rings, the last couple Harry Potters, Inception. They may not be just about the acting, but they wow and receive praise because there is a whole lot more they can do as films now. They can take a performance and with movie magic throw it into the most fitting of scenes in castles or highway chases or mid-century England, all elevating it to a great experience.
And Favorites are arguably different than Best films. I wouldn't put most of my favorites on a Best 10 Films list, but as far as films that I put some love in because I appreciate their style, characters, settings, stories, and movie magic, they nail what it takes to be loved. I just can't help but start falling for Sofia in Vanilla Sky, too, even if critically, that isn't what my judgments would be about.
Comments
I was indeed referring to the so called First "Golden Age" and I'm glad we see somewhat eye-to-eye on that. A majority of the "stars" of the First Golden Age were highly overrated in their time thanks to the efforts of the Studios (and that was point) but I am baffled as to why this appraise of some rather mediocre performances continues today. I don't know, perhaps you are too.
I now of course realise that you were in fact not affirming this appraise but referring to the Second Golden Age (I haven't actually heard this term before - learn something new everyday
(This is purely my personal opinion and I don't intend for it to supersede your contrary opinions in any way
However, I respectfully disagree that it was the peak of cinema and therefore a signal for a downward trajectory to follow. I personally feel that, despite many of it's positives, the 70s were oddly unremarkable in film when compared with the 60s or the 80s (the buffering decades for the purpose of an example). Sure, like any era it had it's mega-hits like Jaws and Star Wars (remaining engrained in cinematic history to this day) but I don't see how this was the definitive age of film. On top of that you said that Jaws and Star Wars, two films from this unremarkable decade in cinema that I actually do regard highly, "were among the worst things to ever happen to cinema." Again I'm just a tad confused to what exactly makes this era so definitive, especially when two of the more innovative films of the time are inconsequential. I would love for you to clarify that for me.
I myself maintain the belief that although every era, every decade has it's bombs (and the Age of Information has allowed these bombs to become more prominent today than in the past) but the overall quality of what is labeled "good cinema" has and continues to improve. I tend to agree with many of Mr Beech's far more eloquently put points above. I think the calibre of screenwriting, cinematography, direction, acting and effects (though I think they should stay a tool) have continued to get better all round. As to whether these recent films will stick around and become classics, well I don't know but I don't think that really matters. I'm going to like certain movies regardless of timelessness or critical reception purely because I enjoyed the movie and I don't let the fact that it might not stand the test of time after I'm dead prevent that. And vice-versa, I'm not necessarily going to enjoy a film just because it did stand the test of time (though i do enjoy older films. 60s and 80s for me.) And if more recent movies do last, that's great, but if not at least I appreciated a film for what it was worth to me in it's time. That's merely my opinion of course. -{
"I should spend the money quickly, Commander Bond," he said.
Then he turn away from the table and walked swiftly out of the room.
Sir Hugo: Speaking of 'Star Wars' and 'Jaws'… They were megahits, and that was the problem. While plenty of earlier movies had been very successful financially, these two were very successful very fast, and were the first two blockbusters. Hollywood became enamored with the idea of big releases with big returns, and salivated at the idea of creating mega-hits, popcorn movies, and franchises, a practice that remains today.
Also, 'Jaws' paved the way in which movies were marketed and distributed. Universal Studios broke established practices by unleashing the movie in wide release to theaters across the country and launching a massive TV ad campaign. This helped created buzz and anticipation.
For its part, 'Star Wars' took tie-ins and merchandising to a whole new level. Sure, there had been things like 007 toys in the past, but nothing like the madness of the Star Wars franchise.
Another key point about 'Star Wars' and 'Jaws' is that they are not adult films. I don't mean that pejoratively. I was in elementary school when these movies came out, and both I and many of my classmates saw them in theaters and loved them. That wouldn't have been the case if we had gone to see something directed by Robert Altman or Hal Ashby, both of whom largely made films for mature audiences. And don't get me wrong, I still like both 'Star Wars' and 'Jaws.' It's just that they don't have much meaning for me anymore, and it wouldn't bother me in the least if I never watched either of them again.
The topic of special effects has been raised by others. This is probably the only way in which 'Jaws' and 'Star Wars' are in any way innovative, at least outside the realm of marketing. My response is… I don't care. I'm impressed by the technical skill of good special effects, but that's it. I've never liked a movie based on the quality of the effects. Few of my favorite films even have special effects.
As to the question regarding which films from the Second Golden Age I consider truly great… well, there are far too many to name. I would just point to all the fantastic directors who were doing some of their best work at the time: Robert Altman, Hal Ashby, Woody Allen, Roman Polanski, Francis Ford Coppola, etc. (Quick confession re: Coppola—I find the Godfather films rather overrated.) Looking at various 'Best of' and box office charts from the '70s, '80s, and '90s, I do see a marked decline in quality of filmmaking. And I'm not biased due to my age: I'm in my early 40s, so I "came of age" in the '80s and '90s. But comparing this list
http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/movie-pages/movie_70s.html
and this list
http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/movie-pages/movie_80s.html
I find way more to love on the earlier list.
I should also add that when I refer to "standing the test of time" I mean with me, not in general. For example, many people rave about 'The Dark Knight.' I enjoyed it, and saw it twice in the theaters. Yet I never find myself thinking about it or wanting to re-watch it. I've watched all the films on my list countless times, and never tire of them. (On a similar note, I would be unfazed if Hollywood never made another superhero film as long as I live.) I wonder how many people who put 'The Dark Knight' on their Top 10 list will do so a decade or so from now. I'm not sure if I could put a film on my own Top 10 list unless a few years had past since I first saw it.
Lastly, consider the kind of person I am. I'm not into pop culture or buzz (among the many reasons I don't watch TV, which I detest) or the latest, newest things or special effects or superheroes or video games or gadgets. I'm the sort of person who thinks Spielberg peaked with 'Duel.' I like the classic and timeless and things with staying power. Tellingly, the recent films I've most enjoyed are 'Midnight in Paris' and 'The Artist.'
A Gent in Training.... A blog about my continuing efforts to be improve myself, be a better person, and lead a good life. It incorporates such far flung topics as fitness, self defense, music, style, food and drink, and personal philosophy.
Agent In Training
With regards to Star Wars and Jaws, I had never really considered the impact both had made in film marketing and the birthing of the modern day blockbuster, but I suppose you're right. If it hadn't been for them we probably could have avoided a few poorly conceived and rushed films over the years. Progress (however received) has its price I guess. That's for putting all that thought into your response. -{
"I should spend the money quickly, Commander Bond," he said.
Then he turn away from the table and walked swiftly out of the room.
Thanks for your kind words. I'm glad you see where I'm coming from. As you can probably guess, I take movies pretty seriously. I always have... as a child I was more likely to watch classic films from the '30s and '40s instead of cartoons. (Same goes for music: Don't get me started on the whole prepunk/punk/postpunk thing!)
I also feel I should stress that I am not opposed to popcorn movies. After all, I am posting this on a James Bond forum and am a Bond fan! However, the films that really stay with me, that really touch me, and that I truly admire do tend to be films with substance and meaning. I believe that is reflected in my Top 10 list (with 'Spinal Tap' being something of an exception.)
By the way, I had no idea that a few offhand observations I made after posting my Top 10 list would trigger such a deep discussion of film! Not that I'm complaining, of course.
A Gent in Training.... A blog about my continuing efforts to be improve myself, be a better person, and lead a good life. It incorporates such far flung topics as fitness, self defense, music, style, food and drink, and personal philosophy.
Agent In Training
I would be fine without any more superhero films too. I find that they ask you to suspend disbelief just too much for their twists on our reality, but too little to become a complex fantasy or sci fi piece. They tread an awkward territory for me of using spectacle with little intelligence or complexity.
That is part of why I like 'The Dark Knight' specifically though. As no one has any fantasy powers, it comes down to a bit of great crime direction from Nolan and some sci fi tools to help the main character (many of which are based on real items). I don't care for movies like Thor, Captain America, Spider-man, or X-men.
'Watchmen' is one that I was surprised to like, but I just really loved the dark alternate history it told. It crossed beyond the awkward territory and into some darker and brutal ideas about what a hero is. All the 'heroes' in it like The Comedian or Dr. Manhattan do some amazing things that make you interested in their heroics, but then they so willingly hurt people too, that you have to question yourself when liking them. I appreciate them being more than extraordinary beings in our world, and instead rather complicated people in a timeline-gone-wrong setting.
As for your second paragraph, I find that I am unusual in my generation and my age (19) in that I am pretty open to liking such a variety of entertainment. I watch movies from decades before I was born regularly, but also ones from after. I loved 'Midnight in Paris', and wanted to see 'The Artist' (had to leave for school before I got to). I love movies like 'The Descendants' and pretty much like seeing all the dramas nominated for Best Picture (was it just me, or should Pixar's 'Up' not have been in the Best Pic nominees that year?). I like 'Singin' In the Rain' and 'Bicycle Thieves' and 'Chinatown' and 'Bonnie and Clyde'. I like 'The Matrix' and 'Inception' and 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'. I hate 'The Tourist'. I was the only person I knew of in my high school that loved the Bond movies from the oldest entries through to the newest. 'There Will Be Blood' is one that my peers seem to ignore, but I love. I see where you are coming from in your appreciation of movies. I am there too. I don't have a problem with differences between older greats and most new stuff, though. I tend to take it in differently.
My point is, I love and regularly appreciate films outside my time. Most of my Netflix queue is pre-2000. I certainly see there is a lot of greatness that came before.
The deeper and more meaningful films are something to be cherished. But I can't ignore that something like 'Blade Runner' emphasizes something I just love about the whole process of Hollywood. That there is more to it than just the films that don't tell stories with special effects. Part of the love I have for movies is in thinking about things like 'Back to the Future' and 'Lord of the Rings'. I just love the idea that sometimes it takes a big team to take us somewhere new with big sets and futuristic vistas. So while I may watch 'An Education' and be touched by it one day, the next day I may just want to take a trip to Middle Earth and enjoy it. Both are great approaches in their own ways. Sure, they did tons of great films without effects back before they were as capable, but that doesn't mean there aren't many films of greatness or equal substance just because they choose to have effects. I think the human and machine conflict in Blade Runner is incredible as a story and grabs attention even when the scenes has zero effects. It comes to a point where it means far more than just some type of battle. Questions on humanity in that film make it as valuable as several films that question it without effects.
As for music, you may not find anyone with more diverse tastes there.
Sidenote: I always wanted to be a twenty-something in the fifties.
"The World you have entered was created by The Walt Disney Company and is dedicated to Hollywood—not a place on a map, but a state of mind that exists wherever people dream and wonder and imagine, a place where illusion and reality are fused by technological magic. We welcome you to a Hollywood that never was—and always will be. ”
—Michael Eisner, May 1, 1989, Dedicating Disney's Hollywood Studios
EDIT: Did not realize how long this was... sorry.
I.E-I watched Bullit the other day and I realised that the sequences were quite long and realistic and it felt like you were actually there seeing it happen. Instead of the flashbang speed up versions of some modern movies.
-Casino Royale, Ian Fleming