Sign in to follow this  
GondolaNoUta

How To Get My Age Bracket (20-30) Into Cinema

72 posts in this topic

Alert them to the fact that many of the greatest American novels (the works of Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Faulkner, Melville, Twain, Capote, Crane, McCullers, Cheever, Steinbeck) have all found their counterparts in classic American studio films and those films are the definitive filmed versions of these landmark books. For example, loving John Steinbeck's "Of Mice and Men" or "The Grapes of Wrath" --but not also knowing the b&w classic movie adaptations of those works, marks one as a boor, a philistine, and a neophyte. If they dare to reply with some pathetic wheeze about having seen some lame, trifling, plebeian, "John Malkovich / Jude Law" ABC-TV-movie-of-the-week version, you should scoff vigorously into their faces and then go on to loudly question their virility and their patriotism within the hearing of others. Because it's just not good enough, you know. Its either the real mccoy, or nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do not follow any of the advise Sgt. Markoff provides but instead refer to Speedracers post.

To scoff vigorously into someone's face and yell at them that they are a moron for NOT liking what you do,  isn't a way to get someone to appreciate something.

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh, I was obviously joking...about that last part. Naturally no one should take anyone's directions to do anything personal or intrusive to a co-worker, based on what a stranger like myself, says over the internet. Does this even need stating?

But the underlying point is its not 'my like' vs 'their like'. Its the fact that a movie from 1939 is a part of American culture and American history; whereas a movie with John Malkovich is not. They ought to know about the older version, regardless of whatever popculture they happen to devour from their TV in this timeperiod.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do hope CaveGirl was kidding about using your phones in the movie theater.

With text on a screen, nothing is obvious.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Sgt_Markoff said:

Uh, I was obviously joking...about that last part. Naturally no one should take anyone's directions to do anything personal to a co-worker, based on what a stranger says over the internet. Does this even need stating?

But the underlying point is its not 'my like' vs 'their like'. Its the fact that a movie from 1939 is a part of American culture and a movie with John Malkovich is not. They ought to know about the older version, regardless of whatever popculture they happen to devour from their TV in this timeperiod.

You always you the 'I was just joking' line and I'm not buying it.    

Anyhow,  John Malkovich is an American and therefore a film he is in or has produced is part of the American culture.     So again,  you're being dismissive of a segment of American culture and IMO that isn't a way to get those that mostly swim in that segment to get-out-of-their-bubble and invent time and energy to get outside that bubble.

Note that this is a very common discussion at the jazz guitar forum with rock & roll guitarist that wonder if they should step into the world of jazz guitar.   Some jazz guitarist use your-method;  WHAT!!!   You think THOSE ROCKER know how to play guitar????,,,,,,  do you even have two ears??????      You should listen to these guys!!!!

That approach rarely works.     What does work is seeing the value in what the younger generation appreciates and then pointing out to this generation that prior generations ALSO did 'this and that' and that they may wish to check out what those masters were doing.

  

    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you look at the advice I gave--the choice of words I used--you can't help but see that it is meant to be facetious. I exhort her to, 'question their virility and their patriotism'--is this something that happens in the real world? Do people speak like that in real life? Clearly, I am being impractical and impudent. What else?

Anyway no, John Malkovich --whatever he does, says, is, or thinks--in no way compares to the legacy, influence, and weight that an Oscar-winning studio film from 1939 has had on American culture and history. I amended my post to make that clear. Its a question of history.

There's over 300 million Americans in the country today right? Only one mega-influential Henry Fonda movie based on a Pulitzer-Prize winning book written by John Steinbeck directed by John Ford about the Great Depression. 

If anyone wants to "know more about" John Malkovich they can visit his Facebook page. But that's obviously bupkes. It's just 'eyewash'. Meaningless, trivial, and irrelevant. Its not studying or learning anything. How is this difference remains unclear to anyone, beats me.

Recall what the OP is asking for: how to get more of her 20-something friends into classic Hollywood. So, my suggestion stands. Classic Hollywood movies are intricately tied up with other aspects of depthful American culture like American literature. Whereas John Malkovich, Matt Damon, etc --they're  associated with Purina Dog Chow or whatever else they sell.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sgt_Markoff said:

If you look at the advice I gave--the choice of words I used--you can't help but see that it is meant to be facetious. 'Question their virility and their patriotism'--is this something that happens in the real world? Clearly, I am being impractical and impudent. What else?

Anyway no, John Malkovich --whatever he does, says, is, or thinks--in no way compares to the legacy, influence, and weight that an Oscar-winning studio film from 1939 has had on American culture and history. I amended my post to make that clear. Its a question of history. There's over 300 million Americans in the country today right? Only one mega-influential Henry Fonda movie based on a Pulitzer-Prize winning book written by John Steinbeck directed by John Ford about the Great Depression. 

If anyone wants to "know more about" John Malkovich they can visit his Facebook page. But that's obviously bupkes. It's just 'eyewash'. Meaningless, trivial, and irrelevant. Its not studying or learning anything. How is this difference remains unclear to anyone, beats me.

Recall what the OP is asking for: how to get more of her 20-something friends into classic Hollywood. So, my suggestion stands. Classic Hollywood movies are intricately tied up with other aspects of depthful American culture like American literature. Whereas John Malkovich, Matt Damon, etc --they're  associated with Purina Dog Chow or whatever else they sell.

 

Please state what your suggestions are for getting 20-something individuals into classic Hollywood films. 

Frankly I still don't see any suggestion other than putting down what these 20-somethings currently view.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Please state what your suggestions are for getting 20-something individuals into classic Hollywood films. 

Frankly I still don't see any suggestion other than putting down what these 20-somethings currently view.  

 

Actually here, James, I think the Sarge might be onto something with his use of Ford's The Grapes of Wrath as his example.

You see, I was just thinkin' about some of the times I'm driving that shuttle van down to Phoenix, and when I'll bring up the subject of classic movies to my riders. While I'm doing that, I sometimes at first and before even mentioning the name of a classic movie such as Ford's Great Depression/Okie flick here, I'll do an terrific impression of Henry Fonda (just one of the many old movie stars I can do great impressions of, if I do say so myself) reciting that classic line, "Wherever there's a cop beatin' up a guy, I'll be there, Ma", and THEN once I REALLY have their attention, well, THAT'S when half of 'em seem to start gettin' into the spirit of the thing and this discussion takes off!

The other half of 'em of course just roll their eyes and look back onto the screens of their smart phones while a look of resignation appears on their face. 

But HEY, point being here that PERCENTAGE-wise anyway, I've got a .500 batting average going with the general public that who in SO many cases otherwise couldn't care less about classic movies!

(...and so MAYBE if the young person who started this thread would ALSO learn to do these old movie star impressions, then maybe THAT might bring his fellow young people into the fold TOO?!!!)

LOL

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Dargo said:

(...and so MAYBE if the young person who started this thread would ALSO learn to do these old movie star impressions, then maybe THAT might bring his fellow young people into the fold TOO?!!!)

Of course I know you're joking but you could be one to something with the use of impressions ; BUT I would recommend: 

1) Do an impression of Ryan Gosling from Blade Runner II

2) Then do one of Harrison Ford talking to Gosling from the same film

3) Then do one of Ford from Guns of Navarone  

4) Then do one of David Niven from the same film

5) Then do one of Niven from Wuthering Heights

 I.e.  walk them back from films they like to films from the classic era they might like.   In this case if the young person has romantic feelings toward Gosling (and a lot of women do),   we have walked-them-back to one of the most romantic films of the 'classic' era.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps explain how this clip has no computer influence. This is very well crafted trick photography.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sgt_Markoff said:

ts the fact that a movie from 1939 is a part of American culture and American history; whereas a movie with John Malkovich is not.

He had a whole movie named after him "Being John Malkovich" (1999), he also got a well deserved Oscar nomination opposite screen legend Clint Eastwood in "In The Line Of Fire"

I will agree that Malkovich was miscast in the remake of "Of Mice And Men", I believe the 1939 version is the best, Lon Chaney Jr will always be quintessential Lennie.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Do not follow any of the advise Sgt. Markoff provides but instead refer to Speedracers post.

To scoff vigorously into someone's face and yell at them that they are a moron for NOT liking what you do,  isn't a way to get someone to appreciate something.

 

"He" is very clearly just joking around and putting on his character persona (Sgt Markoff from Beau Geste). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Of course I know you're joking but you could be one to something with the use of impressions ; BUT I would recommend: 

1) Do an impression of Ryan Glosling from Blade Runner II

2) Then do one of Harrison Ford talking to Glosling from the same film

3) Then do one of Ford from Guns of Navarone  

4) Then do one of David Niven from the same film

5) Then do one of Niven from Wuthering Heights

 I.e.  walk them back from films they like to films from the classic era they might like.   In this case if the young person has romantic feelings toward Glosling (and a lot of women do),   we have walked-them-back to one of the most romantic films of the 'classic' era.

 

Well first here James, and in regard to those impressions I said I do, and for the record here, THAT I wasn't kidding about.

Secondly here, and while I believe what I would call your "Progression Method" here has much merit, allow me to remind you here that Ryan's last name is actually "Gosling" and without that first letter 'L' in it. And then also that Harrison Ford was not in The Guns of Navarone, but was in fact in that movie's sequel Force 10 from Navarone. And so, your link from Ford to Niven would be broken here.

BUT as I said, I DO believe in principle your idea has much merit, but with perhaps just ONE little drawback to this particular example.

(...and that being the question: Does Ryan Gosling REALLY have THAT distinctive a voice that by doing an impression of him, other people would know who the hell you're doing an impression OF???) ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Dargo said:

Well first here James, and in regard to those impressions I said I do, and for the record here, THAT I wasn't kidding about.

Secondly here, and while I believe what I would call your "Progression Method" here has much merit, allow me to remind you here that Ryan's last name is actually "Gosling" and without that first letter 'L' in it. And then also that Harrison Ford was not in The Guns of Navarone, but was in fact in that movie's sequel Force 10 from Navarone. And so, your link from Ford to Niven would be broken here.

BUT as I said, I DO believe in principle your idea has much merit, but with perhaps just ONE little drawback to this particular example.

(...and that being the question: Does Ryan Gosling REALLY have THAT distinctive a voice that by doing an impression of him, other people would know who the hell you're doing an impression OF???) ;)

Yea,  my example was messed up but you still got the point;   Gosling might not be a good example of someone with a unique voice.    I was just picking an actor I believe younger folks really like.

Next time I'll stick to guitar playing examples (ha ha).

But yea,  for us over-50 folks to relate to younger people,  we have to make an attempt to understand why they like,  what they like.   Then we can tie that to similar things (movies,  T.V. shows,  music),  that were made before the stork left them on the porch.

 

  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/18/2019 at 6:53 PM, jamesjazzguitar said:

You really believe that the Wayne version of True Grit is a much finer film than the recently made version?

I don't think so at all.� � There are so many areas where the new adaptation does a better job;� one clear one is the acting,� especially that of�the young girl and Texas Ranger.� � In the original the acting was weak (and to be fair to Campbell he wasn't even an actor, while the actress was too old for the part).� � �

While I agree that 99% of "remakes" are inferior to the original,� �True Grit falls into that 1%.� ��

The new adaptation is much more faithful to the book then the�Wayne film.� � It clearly is an adaptation of the book while the Wayne film is just that;� A made for the Wayne persona,� film.� �(note that many star driven films made during the 'golden age' suffered because they were built around the star,,,,,� �e.g. that is why low-budget noir films are often superior,� because the producer and director didn't have to�give a hoot about the star's image.

I loved the remake of True Grit. It was an extraordinary film, beautifully crafted, expertly acted, literate, tough yet with some tenderness at the same time. It had a true lyricism about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, CinemaInternational said:

I loved the remake of True Grit. It was an extraordinary film, beautifully crafted, expertly acted, literate, tough yet with some tenderness at the same time. It had a true lyricism about it.

Well according to a Sgt. around these parts you're just a boob that doesn't know the difference between a true classic and crap.

 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gershwin fan said:

"He" is very clearly just joking around and putting on his character persona (Sgt Markoff from Beau Geste). 

Thanks, it's good to know at least just what the ___ "he" is doing. I not familiar with that film at all. :D

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sepiatone said:

:rolleyes:

One of those, eh?  ;) 

NOW, I gotta figure out just what you mean by "cinema".  ???   Do you mean to reference MOVIE  THEATERS?  or just general interest in an eclectic taste in movies....

Personally, I call EVERY movie a "movie", and use the term "film" as another word, but not meaning anything special by it.  All depends on my mood and/or which comes to mind first.  But I did read some years back a local movie critic make this distinction---

"A FILM is a MOVIE with pretentious conceit."  ;)  Not necessarily better, but more presumptuous:) 

And too, was a time( before my time I think) when ALL of them were referred to as "Photoplays".

Now, if you're referring to getting a specific age group interested in "classic" movies(ie: film), we've discussed this plenty of times here.  And drew no concrete solutions.  The only thing that seems to work best is exposure to old comedy shorts( Laurel and Hardy, Three Stooges, etc.) either early "talkies" or silents( Lloyd, Keaton, Chaplin etc.) and move up from there.  No "rock solid" guarantee mind you, but worth a try.  At least.....

YOU'LL enjoy the effort!  B)

Sepiatone

But Mr. Film Critic means something completely different, he is sophisticated you see, and wouldn't that be a shame if none of that rubbed off on anyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As per OP.  It's another hobby, and hobbies are best experienced by doing them.  So have a friend over and pop in a movie.

Sorry if that seemed too obvious.  I don't really have a good tactic.  Most of my friends are either familiar with old movies or old TV shows, one of them isn't.  We just have one less thing to talk about.  But that is my fault.  I have failed in that regard.

So for me it is a matter of popping in Metropolis, for instance, instead of some action movie from the 70s or 80s through 2000s (probably their usual fare), and watching them take it in.  Don't attempt to describe it or puff it up, don't try to explain how great B&Ws are.  Just have them over and show it to them.  You have to be there, or else they won't watch it.  So pick something you enjoy.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Well according to a Sgt. around these parts you're just a boob that doesn't know the difference between a true classic and crap. 

--JamesJazzGuitar

Hold on there please. I never said any such thing. Let's not put words in my mouth, if you don't mind?

To review what I actually have said:

  • Joel and Ethan Cohen are clowns in my opinion.
  • True Grit remake is not a classic film.
  • True Grit remake is a film I dislike.
  • There's a galaxy of differences between any contemporary movie vs any classic movie.
  • Jeff Bridges has a beach-boy aesthetic and is miscast as a cowboy (that's all I said about him, I otherwise like him).
  • I like any classic movie better than I like any contemporary movie.
  • Matt Damon is a twerp, in my opinion. I dislike him.
  • John Malkovich is irrelevant, in my opinion. I dislike him.
  • Classic movies are intrinsically more worthwhile (historical perspective they offer) than contemporary popculture.

I've paraphrased wherever I could not recall my exact phrase. There's not a single statement in the above I'm embarrassed to repeat. There's not a single statement made above, which derides anyone here.

I'm surprised at your willingness to stir the pot in this case, JJG. Not your style. Is anyone here really so thin-skinned they fall to pieces if someone vehemently pipes up with a negative opinion of a movie? Seriously? It provokes vaguely 'personal' backbiting like this? Come on now.

This is why I say people take the internet far too seriously. If we were in a bar and I 'harrumphed' at True Grit-the-remake, you'd shrug and let it roll off your back. Anyone would. It's just movie gab.

(p.s. expletives--what's up with that?) :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sgt_Markoff said:

(p.s. expletives--what's up with that?) :o

Every time I'm in a bar I hear quite a few of them, no big deal, are you a closet snowflake? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Michael Rennie said:

With text on a screen, nothing is obvious.

Aye. All the more reason not to overreact and pounce on anyone because of some wifty, half-baked dribble they typed in a little white text input box probably 3,000 physical miles away. Its not like they're standing in front of you insulting your mother.

It's ludicrous, this same phenomenon in practically every chatroom everywhere. I mean, right now I'm looking at a cheap, (<$200) hunk of used plastic and metal; there's no battle between Massala & Judah Ben-Hur going on here. I don't know what the rest of you are seeing but nothing on the internet evokes the slightest twinge of emotion in yours truly. The internet is a kid's toy--always has been, always will be.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Sgt_Markoff said:

This is why I say people take the internet far too seriously. If we were in a bar and I 'harrumphed' at True Grit-the-remake, you'd shrug and let it roll off your back. Anyone would. It's just movie gab.

You're doing what you're complaining about;  taking my comment far too seriously. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, LawrenceA said:

49f7469e2062e9febf8693e04b318e9d

Yeah:  Turn off THAT cartoon, for a start.

7 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Please state what your suggestions are for getting 20-something individuals into classic Hollywood films. 

Frankly I still don't see any suggestion other than putting down what these 20-somethings currently view.  

Basically, the Millennial treats the "old film" the way the sixth-grader treats the Shakespeare play or the Charles Dickens or Mark Twain novel he's been assigned in English class:
Oh, no.  It's old.  It's one of THOSE things.  He's been forced to sit down and analyze why his grownup teacher thinks it's so Important, and it probably won't even have a plot where things happen.  And then, if he actually pays attention, things do happen, and he's reading all the way to the end...Because that's why we're still reading Dickens and Twain a hundred years later.

If, like the Sarge, you browbeat some stubborn Millennial twenty years younger than you into why he "should" watch movies that are Better For Him than the Marvel ones, he's going to think you're handing him an Important movie that's Good For Him...In a word, he thinks you're going to make him watch "Citizen Kane", and write a 20-page essay on Orson Welles' use of unique editing and camera angles, like any actual moviegoer ever freakin' cared.  (Literally: I repeat, get in an old-movie discussion with one, and you WILL eventually hear the K-word thrown back at you.  Twenty bucks if you don't.)  

...What you have to conquer is not Ignorance, but Fear and Terror of the Unknown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us