Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Why do some classic movie fans bash newer films?


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, cigarjoe said:

The coiners of the second coming of noir considered it so, it is what it is. Even you mentioned once there's film blanc and film noir. :D

Yes, and I think I can add to that by saying there's also film gris. I'd say THE LOST WEEKEND is gris, somewhere in the middle. It doesn't feel like total noir to me. It just feels like a contrived hard-hitting drama. It really is my least favorite Wilder film. The whole thing feels like a juvenile attempt to tell an adult story. He was definitely riding on the coattails of DOUBLE INDEMNITY.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, TikiSoo said:

 

 

And "stink/stank/stunk" is funny because it's not correct grammar-it's poetic license for a song.

 

Stank and stunk are correct grammar. They are past forms of the verb stink.

 

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

Stank and stunk are correct grammar. They are past forms of the verb stink.

And they are the three words that best describe the Grinch.  (And I quote.)  ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting back to the topic at hand, I think that one thing that is true in this particular case is that all of us here prefer films that have narratives and strong characterization. Those were de rigeur for many, many years in films, and an issue that I can see some having with films today is that they aren't as common as they used to be (or that matter as recently as the 90s or early 00s; speaking of the 90s, they really were a great modern film decade, lots of juicy dramas from then are ripe for rediscovery). The ones that do surface anymore typically surface around Oscar time or fly under the radar. But there are some that still arrive and are smashing in ow good they are. I saw If Beale Street Could Talk yesterday and it was a wonderful film. And if you want to go beyond the Oscars, the little seen Their Finest and Lean On Pete are sensational films. There are still fine films out there, just takes a little digging.....

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, CinemaInternational said:

Getting back to the topic at hand, I think that one thing that is true in this particular case is that all of us here prefer films that have narratives and strong characterization. Those were de rigeur for many, many years in films, and an issue that I can see some having with films today is that they aren't as common as they used to be (or that matter as recently as the 90s or early 00s). The ones that do surface anymore typically surface around Oscar time or fly under the radar. But there are some that still arrive and are smashing in ow good they are. I saw If Beale Street Could Talk yesterday and it was a wonderful film. And if you want to go beyond the Oscars, the little seen Their Finest and Lean On Pete are sensational films. There are still fine films out there, just takes a little digging.....

I suspect the majority of 30s films didn't have narratives and strong characterization.   Of course there were a lot of 30s films that did,  but then Hollywood made more films during the 30s than any other decade.

PS:  I believe the quality of American films improved during the 30s: E.g. quality of films in 1938 and 1939 was an improvement over 1934 - 1937,  and hits it stride during the 40s.     (I use 1934 because pre-code films are a different breed).

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

I suspect the majority of 30s films didn't have narratives and strong characterization.   Of course there were a lot of 30s films that did,  but then Hollywood made more films during the 30s than any other decade.

 

I agree. When we compare eras in film we should remember that we often compare 30 or 40 years of film as one unit. Or whole decades at a time. Its easy to pick out greatness with such a breadth of material. And also easy to dismiss the forgotten duds that weren't good at all. Also, how many classic films we consider "great" today that did poorly in their day. And took years to be appreciated.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, EricJ said:

And they are the three words that best describe the Grinch.  (And I quote.)  ;)

LOL. Yes indeed. You're not a mean one. I can't say that it's one of my favorite

Christmas songs, but I get a kick out of hearing it during the Christmas season. 

Certainly a nice change of pace from the usual Christmas tunes.

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

Yes, and I think I can add to that by saying there's also film gris.

But, usually when i've heard the term film gris it's used for those Noir that lack the "in your face" visual style. Naked City would be a good example of this. It's opening sequence and one of the chase sequences are quite noirish the rest of the film has that another new evolving archetype for Noir, the rise of interesting on location shooting that was made available after WWII from the lighter more mobile war correspondent cameras developed during the conflict.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well TIKI, there's this from MERRIAM-WEBSTER----

brang

Definition of brang

 

substandard past tense of BRING

brung

 verb
\ ˈbrəŋ  \

Definition of brung

 

chiefly dialectal past tense and past participle of BRING

And this from another source...

The dialectical variants brang and brung are somewhat common throughout the U.S., but they might be considered out of place formal writing. Unless you’re quoting speech or trying to create a folksy tone, brought is safer than brang or brung.

So, you can't say they're NOT words, but surely "improper" words.  ;)  That "dialectical variant" thing.

And earlier, CIGAR JOE said something about, "The term “film noir” seems to have been first coined by the political right-wing....."

I thought it was "coined" by the French!  :huh:

Sepiatone

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, cigarjoe said:

But, usually when i've heard the term film gris it's used for those Noir that lack the "in your face" visual style. Naked City would be a good example of this. It's opening sequence and one of the chase sequences are quite noirish the rest of the film has that another new evolving archetype for Noir, the rise of interesting on location shooting that was made available after WWII from the lighter more mobile war correspondent cameras developed during the conflict.

ODD MAN OUT, which came a year earlier in Britain, has just as much on-location photography.

But is noir determined by whether the story is filmed primarily inside a studio or outdoors?

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

But is noir determined by whether the story is filmed primarily inside or a studio or outdoors?

No.

If you read Blackout: World War II and the Origins of Film Noir: Sheri Chinen, she makes the case that the studios were rationed on the amount of electricity they could use during the war years so they allocated the most of that to their "A" productions and less to the "B's" resulting in enforcing that particular look. Other influences were German Expressionism, French poetic realism, and tabloid journalism. Once the war ended the rationing obviously did also, and as I mentioned real locations began to come to the forefront.

Whether a film tunes noir for you is going to depend on an individual internal factor. It's subjectivity. Noir is in all of us. Think of us all as having an internal tuning fork, these tuning forks are forged by our life experiences which are all unique. When we watch these films their degree of Noir-ness resonates with us differently, so we either "tune" to them or we don't. The amount of "tuning" (I'm appropriating this term from the Neo Noir Dark City (1998)) to certain films will vary between us all also.

Some folks will tune to the dark storylines, others more to the visuals, others a combo of both, some will insist there be a detective or a femme fatale, others crime, etc., etc., there is no pigeonhole it will ever fit into. You know it when you see it.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

But you see?

The ambiguity that surrounds this "genre" isn't as clear as say, a "western"  or "swashbuckler".  Nobody will ever confuse SHANE with CAPTAIN BLOOD.  Like, everybody can agree on what a Western is, or a Swashbuckler is.  But over my time here, NObody seems to be able to agree on what a "NOIR" is!  :unsure:

Sepitone

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sepiatone said:

But you see?

The ambiguity that surrounds this "genre" isn't as clear as say, a "western"  or "swashbuckler".  Nobody will ever confuse SHANE with CAPTAIN BLOOD.  Like, everybody can agree on what a Western is, or a Swashbuckler is.  But over my time here, NObody seems to be able to agree on what a "NOIR" is!  :unsure:

Sepitone

Viewing a Film Noir/Neo Noir, is almost like a drug addiction. If all the ingredients you require are there you get off on it. I like to call it tuning, you tune to it. The more Noir/Neo Noir you see the more this in enforced.

Let's say you have three people Mr. Blue, Mr. Red, and Mr Green they all have their own definitions of Noir and what films fit that definition. There are regardless going to be a core of films that everyone will agree on.

So lets use the image below, the white area is where they all agree

Image result for spotlights overlapping image

But the more colors (people) you add the bigger that white area will become but still with a big fuzzy edge.

Of course the dark story lines and the visual stylistics are the most at play, but with a big reference of Noir-ish films (more colors) that you become familiar with over the years (call it cinematic memory), you start to see more and more patterns, scenarios, homages, and modern day actors that take up and continue the mantle of the stars and character actors of noir. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if I'm ANYWHERE where there's a Mr. Blue, Mr. red or Mr. Green, I'd be afraid they're gonna highjack the subway train I'm riding, or on their way to pull a jewelry heist!  :o

Anyway(too), usually when people here, or just about anywhere start discussing "Noir" film, it usually involves movies filmed in Back & White.  So I'm not sure of your color "connection".  As for your "drug addiction" allegory....

Having had struggled with it, I can assure you viewing any genre of movie is nothing like drug addiction.   I don't know anybody who can't live without a daily "dose" of any particular movie genre, And also, unlike drug addiction, movie "buffs" usually don't limit themselves to an "addiction" to any ONE specific genre, or just either color or Black & White. Like in my case, MY weakness was amphetamines.  Never really cared for any barbiturates or any other "downers"  like opioids.  Whereas with movies, most people can like Westerns, crime dramas, comedies, Rom-coms, "Pre-code", post code, old newr silent etc. ,  and whatnot with equal enthusiasm. 

Sepiatone

Link to post
Share on other sites

I said "is almost like a drug addiction."

You could say I'm addicted to Westerns also, I'll put one on flipping channels and a good one with all the right elements will click with me. If it turns into a musical or a comedy it'll click off, but I still may watch it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh, but you DON'T feel you HAVE to watch them, do ya?  Or can't function unless and until you watch one?  OR get the shakes, or intestinal pain or a violent headache whenever you DON'T see one that day?  

Beat your wife or kids because you missed RED RIVER or FORT APACHE one morning?  

I don't think so.......  It's not even "almost".  :wacko:

Sepiatone

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/17/2019 at 10:47 AM, Michael Rennie said:

A very good post fxreyman. So your Uber passengers are not put off by the patch? I couldn't resist. It is hilarious, in a sad way, when people don't know older movies.

Your Robin Hood comment is classic. I can hear it now. "Why would I watch a movie with dead people in it?"

I am not well educated in movies, but seem to know what I like. Same goes for music. Just ask JamesJazzGuitar what real music is. I'm a country music fan, a classic country music fan. Just like movies on TCM, the newer music gets, the more selective I am. Many of the best artists in music and film are no longer with us.

Some young people have no clue how to relate with older films. I am 60+ and have knowledge, maybe not personal, but the words from parents and grandparents, who explained their past.

I just searched Golden Age of Hollywood.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Hollywood_cinema

I did not expect something so involved. Wow! 

Thanks for your kind thoughts!

Yes, I believe that James is quite astute and informed about the music he loves. Anyone who is very interested in anything can and should find out as much as they can when investing their time, which can be quite limited these days.

The world of so-called class cinema is quite diverse. Just look around these message boards.Many of the folks posting here are quite informed and equipped to handle and educate others not so informed.

I only wish more people, especially those few I have had conversations with would try and get more informed. It could just be that there are just more important issues they are dealing with.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/17/2019 at 9:41 PM, EricJ said:

I've said it many times:
Start a conversation with a Millennial about "Why haven't they seen older classic films?", and I'll give you ten bucks if they don't mention "Citizen Kane", and why anyone would bother seeing it.  Five if they don't mention "Forrest Gump".  And twenty if they don't start a high dudgeon about the "racism" in Gone with the Wind.

Millennials are rooted in their own indoctrinated notion (probably not their fault, the fault of overenthusiastically revisionist-history high school teachers) that they can defend their passive lack of curiosity by wrapping themselves in the "martyrdom" that everything that happened in the 20th century was bad, and evil, and wrong, or at the very least, socially or technically "broken" and in need of fixing from scratch by a confused new generation left adrift by tragic history.  It's the first line of defense from publicly admitting that they don't know something, and that that something was made by an earlier generation.  And then watch them turn "expert" and try explain its importance to you ("This was one of the great Oscar-winning classics of all time, and influenced other modern-day movies"), once they discover they liked it.

Me, I just end up finding ways to restate the Roman senator Cicero:
"Those who have no interest in what happened before they were born will remain a child forever."  That's probably why later-20's Millennials have such problems adjusting to, quote, "adulting".

(There...IS...no such word as "Irregardless".  😡  I see that picked on all the time, but didn't think anyone actually used it.)

Well thank you for telling me about my use of the non-word “irregardless”!

According to Merriam Webster Dictionary irregardless IS a word, but…

irregardless
adverb
ir· re· gard· less | \ ˌir-i-ˈgärd-ləs
\
Definition of irregardless

nonstandard
: regardless I told them that irregardless of what you read in books, they's some members of the theatrical profession that occasionally visits the place where they sleep.— Ring Lardner

Is irregardless a word?: Usage Guide
Irregardless was popularized in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its increasingly widespread spoken use called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

First Known Use of irregardless
1795, in the meaning defined above

History and Etymology for irregardless
probably blend of irrespective and regardless

Check this out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEJ2HF3xuFk

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, fxreyman said:

Okay, sorry.

While I know I should probably just let this whole "irregardless' thing die a peaceful death in this thread, I found it rather strange while watching and listening to Kory Stamper in that video, "a lexicographer for Merriam-Webster", that while she DID mention in her little explanation about this "word" being "a blend of two words", those two words being "irrespective" and "regardless", and SHE says that it is "an emphatic use of the word "regardless", not once in her explanation did she mention that the prefix "ir-" properly conveys the meaning of "not being" and/or the negative in relation to the rest of the word, the "root word", that follows. And thus, the word "irrespective" properly means "not respective" to whatever the object of the sentence might be.

However, whenever "ir" is placed before the word "regardless", it THEN becomes a double-negative, and thus conveying the thought of actually being "IN regard", and NOT "regardLESS"!

Uh-huh, yep! I was REALLY surprised that Kory never mentioned this, being a "lexicographer for Merriam-Webster" she said she is.

(...besides of course, also regretting that I ever brought this thing up in this thread in the FIRST place!) ;)

LOL

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
© 2022 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...