path40a Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 On another internet discussion board which I follow, the following two statements were recently made: "Honestly, the bad films of 2003 are much better than the bad films of 40 years ago" and "if the film is 40 years old, subtract a star and a half from the average critical review. I think this even applies to pretty good movies from 40+ years ago, like Mr. Roberts. The average critical review will give it 5 stars for nostalgia reasons, whereas it's really more like 3 and half" While I might tend to agree with the first statement, the second is really ignorant IMO. If it weren't for the fact that we have many younger contributors here who have an indepth knowledge of classic film, I'd think the latter statement above must be from someone less than 35 (or even younger). I chose not to respond to either statement (yet?) because the forum where I read it is dominated by folks who think American Beauty, The Fight Club, Memento, etc. are the best films ever made and they appear to have little or no interest in the classics. Does anyone here think older films are overrated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
classicsfan1119 Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 Do I think that "older films are overrated"? You've got to be kidding, Path! The first statement you cite cancels itself out because in any era there are simply badly made movies. As I've said on these boards previously, the kind of posters and posting going on at that other site you are visiting reflects the times those youngsters are currently in. A large part of it revolves on trash-talking and disrespecting the views of anyone but themselves. Although we have a few wonderful exceptions on our boards, the vast majority of "today's young people" live only in the present and couldn't possibly appreciate or respect the movies we enjoy and discuss here. And, the last people they would respect would be any of us, who are their elders, and I think that some of them sometimes show up here and let us know it (smile). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bansi4 Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 In looking back some 40+ years ago there are some Best Picture Oscar nominees that I'm in doubt about including "Lawrence of Arabia" (won), "America, America", "Cleopatra" (with La Liz), "Darling", "Ship of Fools" "A Thousand Clowns", "Room at the Top", "Around the World in 80 Days" (won), "Three Coins in the Fountain", "Julius Caesar", "Ivanhoe" etc. More than half of these films are seldom mentioned and or seen today. And I still can't figure out what all the fuss is about with "Citizen Kane". Mongo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stlgal38 Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 Once again, I am the wayward duck in the puddle. I tend to agree more with the latter statement than the first. Even the bad films of 40+ years ago have some saving grace in their antiquity alone. They are familiar and comfortable. Some of the bad films today I wonder how they even got picked up to be produced. I have also noticed the ratings system with regard to (especially the) very old movies. On my digital cable, every movie comes with a potential-4-star rating, and you never see a silent with less than 3 stars, even those with what I consider dull screenplays, hokie dialogue, and slow-moving plots. I think the high ratings are meant to reward the movies' longevity and the labor to restore these films. And rightly so. I love them all; even the dull, hokie, slow-moving ones! Nostalgia should not be considered a 'dirty word'. Nostalgia speaks volumes. And I'd be willing to bet it's the biggest reason we all love the classics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stellabluegrl Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 Well path this certainly is an interesting thread! I've been thinking for awhile about my feelings on the subject. I guess first of all I'd have to say that in my mind comparing classic movies to current is akin to the apple and orange thing. How do you go about comparing, say, "The Four Feathers" (1939) to "Rob Roy" (1995)? I personally like both movies; but they are as different as night and day, and I don't just mean the plot. Older movies have a different "feel" to them and a certain nostalgia as stlgal said....how do you put a rating on that? As far as the first statement that was made about "bad movies" I would have to agree with classics....a bad film is a bad film, 'nuff said. And sometimes this is just a matter of personal opinion, critics be hanged. The second statement was a bit of a broad sweep if you ask me. Knockin' off stars JUST because of a movies age is ridiculous. Yes, there have been many that have received more accolades then I feel they were due; but the same can be said for many new movies. Unfortunately some people just can't seem to appreciate classic movies....or anything "old" for that matter. To them I say should we have thrown out all of Monet's masterpieces when Warhol came on the scene?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
classicsfan1119 Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 And, Stlgal's point about "Nostalgia" is well taken by me, too. I can say that it's an absolute fact that one of the major reasons I'm crazy about the movies of the 30's and 40's (in particular) is because I'm nostalgic about those twenty years, period. Even the music I love and collect would reflect that (smile). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
classicsfan1119 Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 And, Stella's point about throwing out an earlier masterpiece because a different masterpiece has come along more recently, is also well taken by me...perhaps because I am an artist and composer and could talk all week about both artistic, and musical masters, their works, and the increasing value of each masterpiece as time goes on. We could as easily say that we should trash Beethoven's works because the Beatles replaced him. I also want to add that there are plenty of films from the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, and into 2003 that will one day be considered great works, even if they aren't at the moment. Some of them I like, and some of them I don't. It's as simple as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 I'll just make things simple and say that both statements listed in the lead post are looney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
path40a Posted December 8, 2003 Author Share Posted December 8, 2003 BTW, in case my thoughts were unclear in my initial post which began this thread, I agree with antar ; -) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slappy3500 Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 "The bad films of today are better than the bad films 40 years ago." PHAH! 40 years ago there were no films with excrement flying, graphic, pointless gore, or hideous naked people. This ALONE makes the bad films of 40 yrs ago not as bad! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
path40a Posted December 9, 2003 Author Share Posted December 9, 2003 I agree slappy, but I think the comment had to do with production primarily. 40 years ago films were made at an astonishing rate, "stars" made half a dozen/year in some cases, many older films look like the fact that they indeed just rolled off the assembly line. Today, most films are made "on location", more technology is available (for good or for bad; -), and because of TV etc. there isn't a huge built in audience which demands a new film every different week. There are nearly as many films made/year these days as there were 40 years ago. So, while I don't necessarily agree or disagree with the statement, I understand what "he" was saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
path40a Posted December 9, 2003 Author Share Posted December 9, 2003 Obviously I meant "There AREN'T nearly as many films made/year these days as there were 40 years ago". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
classicsfan1119 Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 It might be helpful when speaking of what a specific individual has said somewhere during, or at the beginning of this thread, to identify that person (rather than say "he" or "she") in order to avoid confusion as the posts come in and mount up. Path, you know that I respect you very much, but I've seen you change your own position about the originally posted statements a couple of times now... and that is also leading to some confusion. (smile). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
path40a Posted December 9, 2003 Author Share Posted December 9, 2003 classicsfan, the statements were made by someone on a different internet website where movies are discussed and on which I participate. No one hear made them. WRT to my inconsistencies, sorry ;- ) I am really not sure what my thoughts are about the first of the two statements (hence, my "wishy-washyness"). However, I am adament about the second statement being misguided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
path40a Posted December 9, 2003 Author Share Posted December 9, 2003 Make that "No one HERE made them", having trouble today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
classicsfan1119 Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 Ok...I understand now that you were referring to the person who was posting at the different forum (I always thought that you might be) but I wasn't sure. You might also have been referring to something anyone else had said somewhere along the line, and it was getting a little confusing to keep sorted out. And, I don't care if you get a little wishy-washy now and then, or make a spelling or typo error...heck, we all do that! Hang-in-there if you're having a bad day (smile). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
classicsfan1119 Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 Oh, and please tell me what in the hell "WRT" means, or at least where I can go to look up this kind of stuff so I don't have to ask people what they are saying, or be in the dark (grin). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slappy3500 Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 I really dislike being "corrected" with the idea that the point being made was "Obvious". Since we don't know WHO wrote this statement, we don't know exactly what he/she meant. It is certainly open to interpretation. To imply that I am not smart enough to figure out something that is "obvious" is really stating that you think that I am stupid. I know you aren't doing this but please be more careful. The next person may take you literally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bggalaxy Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 I don't feel any era of films are any better or worse than any other. There are great films and terrible film all across the board. Over time films will earn an appreciation/nostalgia value or lose their original praise status. For every film buff out there, there is a different point of seeing each film. No two will see the same film the same way all the time. That's whats so great about films of yesterday and today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stlgal38 Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 I wish to correct myself. I just saw "The Flirting Widow", an early talkie, with an actual rating of one (*) star! (Undeservedly so, I thought.) This is quite unusual by history... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twtpark Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 One star for "The Flirting Widow" was generous. Just seen "Lonely Wives" with Edward Everett Horton, Laura LaPlante, Esther Ralston, Patsy Ruth Miller...definitely a half star! It was a Pathe picture..but just add tic to it would be more like it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
path40a Posted December 24, 2003 Author Share Posted December 24, 2003 Getting back to the original quote - if the film is 40 years old, subtract a star and a half from the average critical review - I thought of something I believe to be true, for me anyway, regarding older films: Some actors/actresses of their day automatically ADD a star to a film's rating, which may make an ordinary film worth watching! I definitely believe this, since it's my own quote;-) But seriously, if Jimmy Stewart, Cary Grant or Humphrey Bogart (post High Sierra) are in it, they turn what would be a two star movie into a three star film IMO. On the ladies side, I could probably name several (though I've seen fewer of their films) like Claudette Colbert, Katharine Hepburn, and Bette Davis (ADD two stars for her, I don't think she ever made a bad film!). I'd exclude Joan Crawford from my list 'cause she's made some real stinkers. There aren't ANY current actors/actresses who I feel the same about, in fact, it seems everyone these days, even the best actors/actresses make a stinker film about every third (even every other) film. And, there are definitely some films which automatically lose a rating star if they feature certain "celebrities". I realize this is because the studios used to guard and protect their stars in the old days and that today a star relies on their own common sense (non-existent) or that of their agent's to decide what films to do. BTW, MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL!!! SEE YOU AFTER THE HOLIDAYS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
classicsfan1119 Posted December 24, 2003 Share Posted December 24, 2003 Merry Christmas, Path...have a wonderful day with your family! ML Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cinemetal Posted December 26, 2003 Share Posted December 26, 2003 Gotta give credit to at least a few newer actors, so I'll drop praise for Julianne Moore, Cate Blanchett, Daniel Day Lewis and Edward Norton, all of whom can compel me to watch anything in which they are featured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts