TopBilled

Why do some classic movie fans bash newer films?

342 posts in this topic

51 minutes ago, CinemaInternational said:

Sure. Many had some degree or praise, but not many are brought up much today, even the ones up for Oscars

1980: Inside Moves, Tell Me a Riddle, Hide in Plain Sight, My Bodyguard

1981: Pennies from Heaven (although its well known in film circles), Prince of the City (ditto), One from the Heart, Eye of the Needle, The Chosen, Gregory's Girl, Only When I Laugh, SOB, Ragtime

1982: Cannery Row, Shoot the Moon, Hammett

1983: Max Dugan Returns, Educating Rita, Cross Creek, Without a Trace, Something Wicked This Way Comes

1984: The Stone Boy, Mrs. Soffel, Country, Choose Me, Garbo Talks, and even A Soldier's story is a bit overlooked. Also liked Swing Shift, lumps and all.

1985: most this year seem to pretty established save the lovely Turtle Diary, but Jagged Edge might not be as well known anymore, Ladyhawke (despite something truly grating) was surprisingly emotional and poignant, The Journey of natty Gann was prime Disney,  and Dreamchild, Plenty, Wetherby, and Marie had their moments. And Vagabond would be good to look at now since its director Agnes Varda just passed.

1986: Round Midnight, The morning After (a bit sloppy, but Jane Fonda and Jeff Bridges are on the top of their games here performance wise), True Stories, Heartburn, that's life

1987: Wish You Were Here, The Whales of August, Street Smart, Black Widow, Dead of Winter, Cry Freedom, 84 Charing Cross Road

1988: Madame Sousatzka, Zelly and Me, Camille Claudel, Moon Over Parador, A World apart, Stormy Monday, Things Change, Another Woman, A Cry in the Dark

1989: Miss Firecracker, In Country, Shirley Valentine, Music Box, Immediate Family, The Tall Guy, A Dry White Season, Enemies a Love Story, New york Stories

Interesting list. You seem knowledgeable on 80s cinema. I'm glad a group of us are discussing this, because it's a unique decade that sometimes is overlooked in terms of film history.

Probably my favorite movie from this decade is HOPE AND GLORY, and I also like HOUSE OF GAMES a lot. Meaning 1987 seems to be the top year for me, especially since it also includes THE WHALES OF AUGUST.

I've highlighted the ones from your post in bold that I haven't seen and am interested in seeing. Another one I would like to see (again) is AGNES OF GOD, since I appreciate the feminist approach to Catholicism. 

JAGGED EDGE seems like one that earned high marks from critics and audiences in its day, but has become a bit forgotten. Maybe it will be rediscovered by future audiences.

But what we're doing here mostly is looking at key films from top directors with top stars. When I went through a bunch of films from the 80s (1980 to 1988 since I haven't finished going over the decade's offerings yet), I specifically did not concentrate on so called "A" films or cult films. I tried to look at everything.

I think a year's output (even a decade's output) is best characterized by the more basically commercial stuff. Like what are the studios turning out as formula for the masses. What do they think will attract repeat business during that time? The prestige Oscar-driven films they tend to release at the end of the year are not always indicative of what they're turning out on average for the whole year. 

Another thing I noticed when going through films of the 80s is there were a lot of companies that were trying to get into the big leagues. I don't know if they could be called significant studios, but they were fledgling companies that were trying to gain power in Hollywood. Some of them had a briefly successful run then bit the dust. Companies like Cannon, Vestron, Carolco, Orion. Even RKO made an unexpected comeback. I am not up on the history of a lot of these smaller companies. For all I know, some of them might have started before 1980, but I notice that as the 80s went on, these companies crowded on to the playing field. Some of them had hits. But the quality of lack of quality in what they were were putting in theaters adds to the scope of what was being produced for those years. That basic commercial product does have to go on the scale alongside the prestige projects and the key standout films you have mentioned. 

I feel that the truth about a year's output lies in its most basic average product. When it isn't exactly aspiring for Oscar, or using big names for recognition. It's just a simple film (what the studios called programmers in the 40s) that sells or doesn't sell, and denotes quality or lack of quality. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TopBilled said:

Interesting list. You seem knowledgeable on 80s cinema. I'm glad a group of us are discussing this, because it's a unique decade that sometimes is overlooked in terms of film history.

Probably my favorite movie from this decade is HOPE AND GLORY, and I also like HOUSE OF GAMES a lot. Meaning 1987 seems to be the top year for me, especially since it also includes THE WHALES OF AUGUST.

I've highlighted the ones from your post in bold that I haven't seen and am interested in seeing. Another one I would like to see (again) is AGNES OF GOD, since I appreciate the feminist approach to Catholicism. 

JAGGED EDGE seems like one that earned high marks from critics and audiences in its day, but has become a bit forgotten. Maybe it will be rediscovered by future audiences.

But what we're doing here mostly is looking at key films from top directors with top stars. When I went through a bunch of films from the 80s (1980 to 1988 since I haven't finished going over the decade's offerings yet), I specifically did not concentrate on so called "A" films or cult films. I tried to look at everything.

I think a year's output (even a decade's output) is best characterized by the more basically commercial stuff. Like what are the studios turning out as formula for the masses. What do think will attract repeat business during that time? The prestige Oscar-driven films they tend to release at the end of the year are not always indicative of what they're turning out on average for the whole year. 

Another thing I noticed when going through films of the 80s is there were a lot of companies that were trying to get into the big leagues. I don't know if they could be called significant studios, but they were fledgling companies that were trying to gain power in Hollywood. Some of them had a briefly successful run then bit the dust. Companies like Cannon, Vestron, Carolco, Orion. Even RKO made an unexpected comeback. I am not up on the history of a lot of these smaller companies. For all I know, some of them might have started before 1980, but I notice that as the 80s went on, these companies crowded on to the playing field. Some of them had hits. But the quality of lack of quality in what they were were putting in theaters adds to the scope of what was being produced for those years. That basic commercial product does have to go on the scale alongside the prestige projects and the key standout films you have mentioned. 

I feel that the truth about a year's output lies in its most basic average product. When it isn't exactly aspiring for Oscar, or using big names for recognition. It's just a simple film (what the studios called programmers in the 40s) that sells or doesn't sell, and denotes quality or lack of quality. 

House of Games and Whales of August were both exceedingly impressive films, I'm particularly fond of the latter. And Hope and Glory was a real charmer.

Agreed that looking at some other films there are troubles. I was looking at Fox's 80s films the other day (I've been trying to hunt down and watch more Fox films since I started the scrapbook series) and there were quite a few in 1981 and 1982 there that just didn't sound very good. Quite a few sounded downright painful.

One of the most interesting elements companywise, was David Puttnam's year-long tenure at Columbia. He didn't last, but with Hope and Glory, Last Emperor, Zelly and Me, Things Change, Housekeeping, The Adventures of Milo and Otis, and The Adventures of Baron Munchhausen all being fascinating films, it was a mostly forgotten but generally fascinating time in their history.

Other smaller companies that went out included Atlantic and Cinecom, both of which produced some interesting work.

I guess I'll have to brush up on some things that weren't near the top of the line.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

House of Games and Whales of August were both exceedingly impressive films, I'm particularly fond of the latter. And Hope and Glory was a real charmer.

Agreed that looking at some other films there are troubles. I was looking at Fox's 80s films the other day (I've been trying to hunt down and watch more Fox films since I started the scrapbook series) and there were quite a few in 1981 and 1982 there that just didn't sound very good. Quite a few sounded downright painful.

One of the most interesting elements companywise, was David Puttnam's year-long tenure at Columbia. He didn't last, but with Hope and Glory, Last Emperor, Zelly and Me, Things Change, Housekeeping, The Adventures of Milo and Otis, and The Adventures of Baron Munchhausen all being fascinating films, it was a mostly forgotten but generally fascinating time in their history.

Other smaller companies that went out included Atlantic and Cinecom, both of which produced some interesting work.

I guess I'll have to brush up on some things that weren't near the top of the line.

Yes, thanks for mentioning Atlantic and Cinecom. I assume those companies were eventually absorbed into larger entities?

ROXANNE (1987) is another film I love from '87. One of those titles I can watch over and over again.

Fox did have some intriguing entries in the early part of the decade. FATSO and MONSIGNOR are far from perfect, but have their moments. Herbert Ross' I OUGHT TO BE IN PICTURES (from Neil Simon) is good though it seems like it would have worked better as a made-for-television movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TopBilled said:

Yes, thanks for mentioning Atlantic and Cinecom. I assume those companies were eventually absorbed into larger entities?

ROXANNE (1987) is another film I love from '87. One of those titles I can watch over and over again.

Fox did have some intriguing entries in the early part of the decade. FATSO and MONSIGNOR are far from perfect, but have their moments. Herbert Ross' I OUGHT TO BE IN PICTURES (from Neil Simon) is good though it seems like it would have worked better as a made-for-television movie.

I thought Fatso was charming. Saw that earlier this year and consitantly made me smile. Also checked out the first half of Kiss me Goodbye, which looks charming so far.

And Atlantic, their films went to MGM. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

And Lawrence, didn't mean to make you sad, I just thought you'd love those the most. I could see you give both 8s or 9s.

I hate to hear that there are so many that I won't like.

1981 Fox releases that I've seen:

  • Fort Apache, the Bronx
  • Eyewitness
  • Omen III: The Final Conflict
  • Chariots of Fire
  • Death Hunt
  • History of the World, Part 1
  • The Cannonball Run
  • Zorro, the Gay Blade
  • Chu Chu and the Philly Flash
  • Southern Comfort (This is my favorite from the list)
  • Tattoo
  • Shock Treatment 
  • Taps
  • Modern Problems

1982 Fox releases that I've seen:

  • Quest for Fire
  • Porky's
  • Eating Raoul
  • I Ought to Be in Pictures
  • Visiting Hours
  • Author! Author!
  • Megaforce
  • Young Doctors in Love
  • Six Pack
  • The Pirate Movie
  • I, the Jury
  • National Lampoon's Class Reunion
  • The Man from Snowy River
  • The Verdict (This is my favorite from the list)
  • Kiss Me Goodbye
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, LawrenceA said:

I hate to hear that there are so many that I won't like.

1981 Fox releases that I've seen:

  • Fort Apache, the Bronx
  • Eyewitness
  • Omen III: The Final Conflict
  • Chariots of Fire
  • Death Hunt
  • History of the World, Part 1
  • The Cannonball Run
  • Zorro, the Gay Blade
  • Chu Chu and the Philly Flash
  • Southern Comfort (This is my favorite from the list)
  • Tattoo
  • Shock Treatment 
  • Taps
  • Modern Problems

1982 Fox releases that I've seen:

  • Quest for Fire
  • Porky's
  • Eating Raoul
  • I Ought to Be in Pictures
  • Visiting Hours
  • Author! Author!
  • Megaforce
  • Young Doctors in Love
  • Six Pack
  • The Pirate Movie
  • I, the Jury
  • National Lampoon's Class Reunion
  • The Man from Snowy River
  • The Verdict (This is my favorite from the list)
  • Kiss Me Goodbye (at least part of it. Will finish the rest this weekend)

Wasn't trying to insinuate that at all, but if there is anything I have found over the years, I can hardly predict how anybody else will react to a film. I once recommended Remember My Name from 1978 to a friend who was into avant-garde films. Thought they'd absolutely flip for it. They thought it was OK, but nothing to write home about.  Also a few times when I thought family members would behave a certain way to a film, and I was very far off on that. So, sensing things can turn out to be quite wrong.

As for Fox, the ones in italics are ones I still plan to see from those years. And the ones with a strike are already tackled.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I haven't seen these, although I have several* in my stack of stuff to watch:

  • Gregory's Girl

...You've NEVER SEEN "Gregory's Girl"??  😮

Imagine "Local Hero" relocated to every boy's high school--When Bill Forsyth's better-known movie opened in '83, not every movie fan was "taken by surprise" by quirky Scottish whimsy, and knew what to expect.  (Forsyth's early "That Sinking Feeling" was also dug up later on the strength of his big-studio hit, but then, after "Comfort & Joy", his work suffered a pretentious, nutty depression and fell off a cliff.)

4 hours ago, LawrenceA said:

Some of those have gained a cult following (WolfenHeartbeeps, and I've heard some people actually like Grease 2) and Honkytonk Man is now well regarded critically.

Heartbeeps at least had one of John Williams better least-known early-80's scores to redeem a reasonably patient tolerance of it:  https://youtu.be/L6EE5vpY7Kw?t=35

Wolfen came on the strength of a big paperback novel, and Grease 2 was Alan Carr's attempt to pick himself up, dust himself off, and try to get his "glory days" back after the fallout of "Can't Stop the Music".  (And he still had two more films and a Broadway musical to go before the Oscars ended it all.)  In its defense, the opening number of Grease 2 is required viewing for 1 fans--and yes, that's Michelle Pfeiffer as the new Pink Lady boss--but anything after those opening ten minutes plays like an embarrassing "Porky's: the Musical".  😓 

And if we're talking Unknown 1982, I continue my defense against Airplane II: the Sequel's neglect by history.  Paramount was Movie Cool in the 80's, not sure what they are now.

1 hour ago, TopBilled said:

Fox did have some intriguing entries in the early part of the decade. FATSO and MONSIGNOR are far from perfect, but have their moments. 

Monsignor was the other example that sprang to mind of lesser-known '81-'82 John Williams redeeming a fairly awful movie (mostly for a Nino Rota "Godfather"-knockoff theme and Vatican church music), but not quite to the degree that he could make Heartbeeps watchable.

I'd go for the trilogy hat-trick, but still don't know if I could face Yes, Giorgio.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that a quote from the new Fosse/Verdon series sums my opinion up for me the best. It said something along the lines of classic movies show us a world that we can escape to, where new movies (in the case of the quote, Cabaret) show us reality. 

I have always used classic movies to indulge in what Midnight In Paris calls "golden age thinking". "Nostalgia is denial, a denial of the painful present. The name for this denial is Golden Age thinking - the erroneous notion that a different time period is better than the one one's living in..." Yes, it's a fallacy, but it's one I'm happy to indulge in. What I like about traditional classic movies is that I can escape to a different time...perhaps it was a time that never truely existed, yes, but its a wonderful escape. 

Others have mentioned superhero movies in this discussion. I adore Marvel movies and eagerly wait the next one in a few weeks. However, I don't think I consider them on the same level as Now, Voyager (my favorite film). I also have trouble saying that a film made during my lifetime (I was born in the early 90s) is "classic" because to me a classic is one that was made a few decades ago.

And yet this is a difficult subject to consider in general. Is a film not a classic because it was made twenty years ago rather than forty or fifty? Is a film not a classic because it portrays life a bit (or more than a bit) more real than the films made under Mayer or Jack Warner? I think we agree that none of those things are true. What I do think is true is that Hollywood has changed. I think also that many equate "classic" with a multi-million (or billion) dollar box office. Perhaps the problem that many have with applying the word "classic" to 21st century films is that the word often gets overused. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one in the original anecdote stated that they liked country music 'except for' Johnny Cash; no one in the original anecdote stated that they liked rocknroll 'except for' the Beatles; no one in the original anecdote stated that they were adamant Beatles fans. So, I don't know where you're getting your aberrant take on a rather simple proposition.

No, all of this has nothing to do with a 'numeric' argument. The Beatles are not legendary because of their 'sales'. There are many artists who's deep, lasting fame well attests to their talent influencing other musicians --and influencing the rest of the world as well--on an intrinsic level. Their mere REVENUE is not a part of this equation at all. For example, look at Woody Guthrie. How much money did he make? Yet he is another profoundly influential pioneer. None of this has anything to do with money.

At some point all popular music leads back to fundamentals --fundamentals which root-level artists like Beethoven, Beatles, and Cash all cleave to. Your response just flounders around without defeating my proposition. You ascribe 'other causes' for it and skip over historical fact --as so many do -- in favor of today's horribly manic, adamant obsession for subjectivity.

You blithely leapfrogged over logic in your first response. Suggesting that in-depth knowledge of music represents lack of enough specific, biased, personalized taste. What? The idea is frankly ludicrous. Obviously everyone has their own specific taste.  Its the mark of musical acumen to transcend this level of judgment and recognize why taste exists at all.

I'm disappointed in your response from top to bottom. I expect better from you, I generally appreciate your work on this website. Do better! I will salute you if you actually provide a solid argument. Don't just 'nay-say' me because you dislike the import of what I have asserted. This is what so many around here do. Generate a valid reply and make me step down from my position, that's what I will admire!

Share this post


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

I think that a quote from the new Fosse/Verdon series sums my opinion up for me the best. It said something along the lines of classic movies show us a world that we can escape to, where new movies (in the case of the quote, Cabaret) show us reality. 

I have always used classic movies to indulge in what Midnight In Paris calls "golden age thinking". "Nostalgia is denial, a denial of the painful present. The name for this denial is Golden Age thinking - the erroneous notion that a different time period is better than the one one's living in..." Yes, it's a fallacy, but it's one I'm happy to indulge in. What I like about traditional classic movies is that I can escape to a different time...perhaps it was a time that never truely existed, yes, but its a wonderful escape. 

Others have mentioned superhero movies in this discussion. I adore Marvel movies and eagerly wait the next one in a few weeks. However, I don't think I consider them on the same level as Now, Voyager (my favorite film). I also have trouble saying that a film made during my lifetime (I was born in the early 90s) is "classic" because to me a classic is one that was made a few decades ago.

And yet this is a difficult subject to consider in general. Is a film not a classic because it was made twenty years ago rather than forty or fifty? Is a film not a classic because it portrays life a bit (or more than a bit) more real than the films made under Mayer or Jack Warner? I think we agree that none of those things are true. What I do think is true is that Hollywood has changed. I think also that many equate "classic" with a multi-million (or billion) dollar box office. Perhaps the problem that many have with applying the word "classic" to 21st century films is that the word often gets overused. 

The word is overused because on some level it's a marketing tool. Like in the mid-80s when we had New Coke and Classic Coke. It became fashionable in the 80s to find comfort in things from the past-- even if the past wasn't so great. And that wave of nostalgia has carried forward.

The superhero movies and NOW VOYAGER are almost two different species. But people in 1942 probably didn't think NOW VOYAGER was classic. They thought of Harold Lloyd and Buster Keaton silent films from the mid-1920s as classic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EEEeeeehhhhh.......

I think they probably thought of them as just OLD.  Probably too, the "average" movie goer in '42 wouldn't "critique" a movie beyond saying, "I liked it!"  ;) 

But, just MHO of course.......

Sepiatone

Share this post


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

EEEeeeehhhhh.......

I think they probably thought of them as just OLD.  Probably too, the "average" movie goer in '42 wouldn't "critique" a movie beyond saying, "I liked it!"  ;) 

But, just MHO of course.......

Sepiatone

I don't think you're giving the average moviegoers of yesteryear much credit. They weren't all ignorant masses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yowza!

Sarge, I gotta admit I'm a bit surprised, too, that someone who seems to have such low regard for the intelligence of the general public would have such faith in it's ability to unanimously recognize absolute perfection when it comes along. Or do I have this backwards? Are you saying that the legendary greatness of the Beatles is due largely to the fact that they are so very influential, rather than their influence was a result of them being so very great? Of course I wouldn't dispute their influence, but the idea that their popularity was due solely to their exceptionally high quality as music is hard for me to swallow. I like the Beatles, no doubt were a great pop band, but pop music gets lots of circulation and lots of advertising, and it always seems to mean a heckuva lot more when you are popular with America & Friends, as our favorite things usually seem to travel farther and shout louder than anyone else's. World-wide media has not really been around so very long, and the toll it takes on the face of culture is clear. Media control has the power to set trends that change the face of nations. There seems to be something about human nature that causes us to cluster together and copy and homogenize, and far-reaching media has expedited the process. It is little wonder that generations are shaped because of it.

So yeah, actual quality is a factor, too, but I still think money has a lot to do with it and so do circumstances. Woody Guthrie was more of a voice for the common man than a musical genius. His songs were simple and meaningful. They resonated with a lot of people and they were easy to play. His fiery personality contributed to his folk-hero appeal, and having talented and popular fans like Pete Seeger and Bob Dylan helped create his legend status. For his place and time he was a tonic, and he will forever be legend, but what made him great was very circumstantial. Yeah, he came, he saw, he conquered; his influence is real, it's on the books and I wouldn't try to dispute that. Yet there are plenty of "other causes" that can contribute to someone's ability to capture the imagination of the public aside from their own intrinsic greatness. Familiarity, simplicity, personality, and playing to people's common emotions are all powerful tools as well.

True musical originality, seems to me, does not usually have the same power to influence as the semi-familiar does. The complex music of Raymond Scott was very popular in it's day, tho poorly marketed later on when he became a cartoon cliche, and spawned virtually no copy-cats or fads that I know of. His music was determinedly thrilling and tight in it's construction in a way few innovators ever are, and his unique INABILITY to influence other musicians may in some way be due to the utter originality and inimitability of his work. You can't change the face of music if no one is able to copy, much less ADVANCE on, anything you did. Many true musical geniuses stand apart from the general degradation that recorded music has, IMO, seen in some slow way since it's creation. A degradation that many truly great artists have contributed to, wittingly or not.

21 hours ago, Sgt_Markoff said:

You blithely leapfrogged over logic in your first response. Suggesting that in-depth knowledge of music represents lack of enough specific, biased, personalized taste. What?

What, indeed! Sarge, I barely recognize my own opinions when you lay them out. I would not suggest that musical astuteness directly means someone hasn't any taste, but I raise an eyebrow to anyone who would listen to any artist just because he thinks it would be musically astute of him to do so, (unless he's in the process of educating himself,) even tho he doesn't really like it. Makes me think of that line in Born Yesterday, "But I wanna like what it's better to like!" Those teens on the bus were looking for something they liked, and didn't necessarily reveal anything about themselves when they flipped by the Beatles, a band we've all heard enough to hurl by now. It would be pretty pretentious of them to leave it on, pretend to like it, and sit there trying to look astute.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Sarge, I gotta admit I'm a bit surprised, too, that someone who seems to have such low regard for the intelligence of the general public would have such faith in it's ability to unanimously recognize absolute perfection when it comes along. Or do I have this backwards?


These two 'high-handed' verdicts of mine (taken from two different thread discussions) are not incompatible.

First: any obvious, practical truth can be 'recognized' by a public no matter what level of intellect they otherwise possess. When millions of people tap their feet and whistle and snap their fingers to a song on the radio, what intellect is needed to recognize this?

Quote

Are you saying that the legendary greatness of the Beatles is due largely to the fact that they are so very influential,

No! I'm not saying that their greatness is 'due to' their huge influence on all subsequent music. It does not STEM FROM this. This is not the relationship.

You have it the wrong way around. I'm saying rather, that their enormous influence is evidence of their deep impact on music. There are many such tell-tale signs, 'influence on other musicians' is BUT ONE clue. It indicates that they were not just a popular fad taken up by audience-morons. Audiences are USUALLY morons. But in this case, intelligent and gifted  musicians changed the course of their careers based on what this foursome did. That doesn't just happen. To affect your PEERS, (not just the goofy PUBLIC) you gotta have serious clout. Credibility.

I appreciate your enthusiasm and I admire the energy of your reply. But as far as an argument, I pored through the rest of your remarks and do not see a single thing which is stated plainly enough for me to respond to.

Now, when it comes to Woody Guthrie--the chief example of my previous reply--you seem to want to defray the point I made, by questioning just what Guthrie achieved. I am not sure why you think 'dissecting' Guthrie's appeal has any bearing on what we can all agree on: namely, what he accomplished.

It is so huge as to be beyond question, I would have thought? It seems to be a thing beyond subjective interpretation. His legend is universally accepted and agreed upon. It is one thing to describe why Woody became popular but this has nothing to do with the upshot of his career which stands very clearly and plainly in its results.

Remember why Woody Guthrie was cited by me in the first place. I mentioned some major bands which are above 'taste' and you suggested that the MONEY they made was the reason why they were so renowned. So I naturally HAD to cite Woody Guthrie. Demonstrating that 'money' has nothing to do with this.

My original point was that down through music history there are artists which transcend passing tastes of any era. You raised the idea that commercialism might be responsible for this, so I then cited Guthrie as an example of a colossal talent which had no commercialism. I could have cited others.

Now, you are quibbling with me as to why there might be 'some other reasons' why Woody (specifically) became so widely known. It doesn't matter! Stick to the original point and counterpoint! You asserted something ('money' being the reason for fame) and the example of Woody Guthrie definitively deflected the objection you raised. Don't move the goalposts.

I'm not brushing aside your questions. Here's your next query:

Quote

I would not suggest that musical astuteness directly means someone hasn't any taste, but I raise an eyebrow to anyone who would listen to any artist just because he thinks it would be musically astute of him to do so, (unless he's in the process of educating himself,) even tho he doesn't really like it.

No one is asserting this at all. You are inserting a motive into a hypothetical person in order to discount it. Its completely unrelated. No one need have an intrinsic motive such as you describe. Who exactly is 'listening to any artist just because he thinks it grants him the position to discern quality'? Where does this idea come from? You?

Its just not the way it works. No one listens to music they don't like, in order to make pronouncements on music. Many people are just naturally interested in music and a few of these individuals develop the scrutiny to discern what is behind their taste and the taste of others. This is not due to an ulterior or 'personal' motive.

 

Quote

Makes me think of that line in Born Yesterday, "But I wanna like what it's better to like!" Those teens on the bus were looking for something they liked, and didn't necessarily reveal anything about themselves when they flipped by the Beatles, a band we've all heard enough to hurl by now. It would be pretty pretentious of them to leave it on, pretend to like it, and sit there trying to look astute.

The teens on the bus DID display something VERY revealing about their musical intellect, and I have no idea why this riles you so much. The points in the story itself reveal why this is the only conclusion one can draw. Remember they are TEENS. They are too young to have developed depthful taste.

Their situation is therefore dissimilar to the fact that older people have been exposed to the Beatles (in an over-saturated way). So your whole chain of assumption --stemming from this point -- collapses, and it is exactly the kind of argument which is maddening to someone like me in that it strays from the established points which should not be questioned. Rebutt fairly!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, TopBilled said:

The word is overused because on some level it's a marketing tool. Like in the mid-80s when we had New Coke and Classic Coke. It became fashionable in the 80s to find comfort in things from the past-- even if the past wasn't so great. And that wave of nostalgia has carried forward.

Actually, there was no product called "New Coke"--The sweeter recipe imported over from Diet Coke was changed to the main flavor for "Coca-Cola'" (in order to try and compete with Pepsi), and when the audience objected, and the original flavor also sold, there had to be some distinction in the product name.  And, of course, when the new Coke was retired, there was no longer a "Coke Classic".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But of course the dialectical critical realism may be seen under the aspect of Foucauldian strategic reversal — of the unholy trinity of Parmenidean/Platonic/Aristotelean provenance; of the Cartesian-Lockean-Humean-Kantian paradigm, of foundationalisms (in practice, fideistic foundationalisms) and irrationalisms (in practice, capricious exercises of the will-to-power or some other ideologically and/or psycho-somatically buried source) new and old alike; of the primordial failing of western philosophy, ontological monovalence, and its close ally, the epistemic fallacy with its ontic dual; of the analytic problematic laid down by Plato, which Hegel served only to replicate in his actualist monovalent analytic reinstatement in transfigurative reconciling dialectical connection, while in his hubristic claims for absolute idealism he inaugurated the Comtean, Kierkegaardian and Nietzschean eclipses of reason, replicating the fundaments of positivism through its transmutation route to the superidealism of a Baudrillard, don't you think?

  • Haha 3

Share this post


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

TopBilled played The Statler Brothers in a different thread. I feel this one goes here:

 

:lol:

Wow!

I probably remember a little more than HALF of the stuff in that clip.  We STILL have an A&W here in Lincoln Park(the same location and structure since the '40's, next door to the ROLLER RINK that's still there since the '30's.  ;) ), I still have the late '50's era "large" mug a much older cousin of mine "copped" from it back then, and a few '60's era "medium" mugs my brother filched when he worked there in '65.   ;)   And BTW, in referrence to the song in the clip------

At the 2:00 mark, do they sing, "Polack jokes"?  Can't make it out clearly, so some clarification would be welcome.  And too, although I AM Polish, I never really minded those jokes(and they're still going 'round) and found many of them pretty funny.  Even TOLD a good share of 'em m'self!  ;)

And TB-----  I never implied the "average movie goers" back in the '40's as "ignorant masses".  Just that I don't think a whole lot of people sat around analyzing movies all that much.  

Sepiatone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TopBilled posted "Whatever Happened To Randolph Scott," also by The Statler Brothers, in the HAS THERE EVER BEEN A STAR YOU LIKED BUT THEN LATER CAME TO DISRESPECT? thread. That song would fit this thread too.

So Sepiatone, I did some digging and it should be, "little moron jokes." These two songs came from 1972 and 1973. Their reputation would not have allowed them to say what you suggest. In my day, they were Italian jokes.

Even now, I don't feel as if people dissect movies a lot. Some on this message board put movies under the microscope more than I would. I'm pretty much yeah or nay.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, EricJ said:

Actually, there was no product called "New Coke"--The sweeter recipe imported over from Diet Coke was changed to the main flavor for "Coca-Cola'" (in order to try and compete with Pepsi), and when the audience objected, and the original flavor also sold, there had to be some distinction in the product name.  And, of course, when the new Coke was retired, there was no longer a "Coke Classic".

That's right, it just went back to being regular Coke again. It was silly for them to try and compete with Pepsi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sarge, I'm finding your insistence that I stick to some money/sales issue very exhausting. Money is not the ONLY cause for fame and I'm not going to defend a statement I never made, so I wish you wouldn't corral me back into that and seemingly ignore my other points. And here I thought it would be fun to fight with you, but instead I just feel like I'm getting repeatedly whacked on the snout with a rolled-up newspaper.

Exceptions don't definitively disprove a rule... and besides, I don't think Woody Guthrie's success is necessarily equatable to these other artists because of the circumstances that effected not only him, but everyone. Woody was an ACTIVIST! The popularity of his music is very politicized. Someone who doesn't agree with Woody's politics is probably not going to turn around and proclaim his music as masterworks beyond kindergarten sing-along stuff. Super popular music is not necessarily appealing to our higher minds, it's more likely effecting us on lower, more visceral levels. They are common emotions, and that's why the music's pleasing power is so ubiquitous! Most people don't even appreciate it for it's greater qualities! Open your EYES, man!!!

I know, I know, I know, it's not about the mass appeal the music has to the stupid public, even if the stupid public are the measuring stick for fame; it's more about the influence on other musicians...? Well, I guess you have more regard for the integrity of people in the musical field than I do. This one seems like it could easily be about the 'M word.' The slew of imitators that crop up in the shadow of some megastar are usually capitalizing on a trend, aren't they? Don't record companies always try to repeat such successes for monetary reasons? In mass media money is almost always a factor! Not the ONLY factor- there is no ONLY factor! I have the RIGHT to acknowledge other factors, DAHM YOOO!!! I will NOT be suppressed by your debate class-handbook goalpost POPPYCOCK!

I need another drink...

...

More than anything else this is about the phenomena of POPULARITY! The common folk have a tendency to unify into groups, it is human nature. The groups vary in size, but we also have a way, it seems, of creating idols. Popular media uses our nature against us by encouraging such instincts by assaulting us with exposure to music and personalities and building them up according to our general reactions. The ones that make it the biggest and last the longest are not transcending tastes, they are DEFINING them. These musical Napoleons are not born, they are MADE!...

I don't know if any of this is stated plainly enough for you. I just happen to think generalities such as these are greater contributing factors to world-changing stardom than the idea that there are really artists who are outstanding enough to justify such impact. It happens, but it is not a good thing. To me it does not say that these artists are the greatest, it just says that they had a more devastating, unifying, homogenizing effect on the face of music than so many others...

Furthermore, teenagers may not be old enough to have developed depthful tastes, but they are old enough to be over-saturated. Art that is thrust upon you all your life is not thought about deeply, tho it affects you whether you are aware of it or not. Your taste probably will develop in reaction to your early influences, and not necessarily in a good way. It is easy to dismiss something that has never been considered, and it's easy to not consider something so pervasive.

Still love you, Sarge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Kay said:

Sarge, I'm finding your insistence that I stick to some money/sales issue very exhausting.

Say what,  the Sarge being insistent and that makes one exhausting;  say it ain't so.  (ha ha).

But I still love him too.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The are numerous threads where the word Classic, in Turner Classic Movies, gets challenged.

This AP article tells a fine story from the TCM people.

25 years later, TCM still abides (so movie lovers pray)

This statement says it all. May not define Classic, but explains how TCM programs.

"Movies from the ’30s, ‘40s and ’50s, Tabesh says, make up approximately 70 percent of its programming."

(LawrenceA - This may be worth clicking on)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Michael Rennie said:

The are numerous threads where the word Classic, in Turner Classic Movies, gets challenged.

This AP article tells a fine story from the TCM people.

25 years later, TCM still abides (so movie lovers pray)

This statement says it all. May not define Classic, but explains how TCM programs.

"Movies from the ’30s, ‘40s and ’50s, Tabesh says, make up approximately 70 percent of its programming."

(LawrenceA - This may be worth clicking on)

That percentage fluctuates. When someone like Robert Redford or Gene Hackman is Star of the Month, they are definitely not showing very many studio era films. Some Oscar programming has included a lot of 21st century films (though they've cut back a bit). And several days in August feature post-code films. So unless he's saying the 70% is an average, it's not always 70% each month.

  • Like 1

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

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us