 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
The discussion below made me think about the old films.There seem to be two basic kinds of them. One is what I would call a period film, for lack of better word.
Watching them is like admiring the design and workmanship of a 1924 Bugatti. There is definitely a beauty, but it is something that doesn't belong in the modern world.
There is the other kind, and it spells timeless. You don't get any sense of things antiquated, belonging in the past. You watch it as you would watch any other great film, for it speaks modern language.
For some reason Frank Capra films to me belong in the first category. Many other fine Hollywood films, nice commedies, etc. They all should be considered in their own category, not in the overall running.
But things like Rules of the Game defy their period, and speak the language that is just as modern today. I can't explain why, but I do get a different feel whatching it - to me it definitely competes in the "general" category.
Ditto for things like Ninochka, M, L'Atalante, and some others.
Do you feel similarly, and which old films you would say defy the passage of time and remain as fresh today as they were once?
Follow Ups:
I continue to be engrossed each time I settle in and watch that film. There may be a slight corny part about Holly Martins writing short western novels but I'm old enough to remember when they were very popular.But that zither music, odd camera angles, suspense and...those lines ...
Harry Lime: "In Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."
was written by Orson Welles himself on the spot.The DVD of this is simply STUNNING, especially at a 54OOK "warm"
setting.
...you ought to have seen it in the theatre!clark
You notice the old clothes and cars, etc. for about the first two minutes. Then the movie grabs you by the short hairs and won't let go! It's a splendid film whose magnificence still shines some 70 years after its release.It's a Frank Capra film and bears all his trademarks. I'm a Capra fan and feel that most of his films are well worth watching. Sure, a few of his films can get more than a bit corny, but most are really fine films. But "It Happened One Night" is, IMHO, his masterpiece and one of the truly great films in the history of American cinema.
True art may look dated to some but it never gets old.
As for Chaplin/Keaton...well, I find Keaton's films more appealing than Chaplin's. Efforts like "Sherlock, Jr." are wonderful. His "The General" is one of the all-time great silents and is on my list of the greatest films ever made. I find Chaplin less appealing, but maybe that is because Keaton's character was so damned appealing that anyone else suffers by comparison. Certainly there are some really great Chaplin films - many, in fact.
Are they dated? Sure. I don't really care.
I would rather watch a great film by Preston Sturges, George Stevens, Billy Wilder, Hitchcock, Welles, Lang, John Ford, Elia Kazan, Capra, Cukor, Zinneman, et al., than most new movies. It is true that "they don't make 'em like that any more."
This movie is a really good example of what i think Victor was talking about.I totally get off on this movie's "oldness". The whole road aspect with the bus and motels and hitchhiking in the early 30s is absolutely fascinating to me. It was such an interesting transitional time, Americans were finding a new way to satisfy their urge to wander and explore with cheap cars and new roads. The movie is a valuable time capsule because all that stuff is now gone.
Yet the story of the spoiled heiress and the gruff guy chasing her is timeless. People can still relate to it today because these types of people still exist. The pick-up-artist on the bus- we all know that guy, right? The script kept them doing completely believable things. So, even though the movie is dated, it's still a timeless story and this is what makes it a great film.
That is the one I always enjoy (I had mentioned it before), and you put your finger on that "corny" problem - that alone makes many films dated in no time at all.
With the only difference that I would prefer Chaplin to Keaton, it is 100% my view.
I for one prefer Keaton. His roles were more varied and his acrobatic stunts still amaze. Both "The General" and "Sherlock, Jr. are in my top 20 films of all time.
Right on. That's why it won the Academy Award for Best Picture.
often goes to what I consider just a "good" film and far from "best." Sometimes I looks at Oscar history and think the voters must have been smoking something illegal to have voted the way they did.But they sometime get it right and they were never so right as when "It Happened One Night" won the award.
You are OH so right. The truly best picture wins only every few years.
...Chaplin (at least) was the most famous man in the world, the first half of the last century, and his films still play *in theatres*!.clark
And, like James Agee (the only major critic who agrees, to my knowledge), and unlike virtually everyone else I prefer Keaton. The comedy was pure and did not resort to "pulling on the heart strings".I really admire that.
AS I posted above I am with you in prefering Keaton. Although in both "Sherlock, Jr." and "The General" our heart strings are pulled.
well, sympathetically vibrated might be more appropos. . . but it is not harped upon. Agee's real point, and mine (and probably yours), is that Chaplain based his whole characterisation on "tugging the heart strings". And it is the plaintive cry of that the little tramp that resonates. Keaton does not. His characters are not "plaintive". They . . . actually I should say it . . . never asks for sympathy. Chaplain's character does. Keaton's character is the everyman who bumbles and fights his way to success. As with Agee, one of my favourite images is Keaton standing immobile, trusting and unflinching in the prow of of the little boat as it is launched, never even pretends to float, and sinks leaving Keaton's hat on the water.Actually, one of my favourite Keaton films is "The Three Ages of Man", which I had the good fortune to see in the Old Elgin Theatre in Chelsea (Manhattan) in their annual Keaton festival (same place I saw El Topo numerous times BTW)*. The restoration had cost a lot of money as the silver nitrate negatives are, to say the least, volatile. The audience was laughing its backside off.
*Great festival, that. I saw all the best known silent comedy films (including Lloyd and Chaplain) many times there, in addition to many less famous outings. And, I saw them with an audience, which I think is important in in silent comedy. It is long gone now, reborn as the Joyce which does live theatre and dance. There is no replacement nor is one planned.
a
Buster strikes a similar pose toward the end of "Sherlock, Jr." when, after the car chase, the car is sinking in water.
So do Keaton's. I mention Buster below.
...a restored print - I will SO be there.Chaplin enjoyed a quite a resurgence during my college days - many films were re-released to theaters so I saw many of them on a big screen. Of course, I saw tons of Chaplin and Keaton in film class too. The shorts were favorite after school activities of the film group while I was at the Art Institute.
Chaplin has just genuis.
I was specifically going to mention Chaplin as the example of films not getting dated.That must be the style of his pants.
That line is worth the headline.
Not to confuse the words too much, but I think that period films (the traditional definition of this word is films that are historical in subject matter) tend to be the timeless ones. A movie like Lawrence of Arabia has to make a conscious effort to get the historical details right. This attention to detail combined with all it's other great elements makes it timeless.A movie like Philadelphia Story or Sabrina ("period" according to your definition- contemporary at the time of filming, but old now) is timeless becuse the dynamic of the characters is very real and still relevant today.
***Not to confuse the words too much, but I think that period films (the traditional definition of this word is films that are historical in subject matter)That is not what I mean by "period". I meant something made according to the prevailing tastes and means of expression, not subject matter.
I think those movies fit your definition.It's striking how the original Sabrina seems less dated than the mid-90s remake.
nt
I didn't comment on them because it's been long time since I saw those films, and didn't have good enough feel for them.
Dollars to donuts you'll love 'em.
I think he meant "dated".
That is close, but I was trying to avoid this overused word intentionally. It was more the question of WHY some films become dated and some don't, and I think basing on contemporary elements will give you short life, while anything that has to do with the "forever" things will remain fresh.
Nothing wrong with "dated".
Like those bell-bottoms you used to wear in the 70s. And those ties...
I bought them in 1973 and they are still as new. Good American quality... you know...
I bet you didn't wear this one -
100% patriotic polyester, my friend.
You better get one of these... it is still snowing 7 days out of ten in Moscow
I agree with your thesis. A film like "Birth of a Nation" can be appreciated for what it is and was but it still is a chore to watch. But a film like "Greed" (yes, I realize they were made ten years apart) is timeless in its power.
I also find dramatic and comedy silents like Sunrise, Faust, Metropolis, Pandora's Box, Thief of Bagdad, The Black Pirate, Four Horsemen of the Apocolypse, City Lights, The Kid Brother, Steamboat Bill Jr., Quality Street, The Passion of Joan of Arc, Foolish Wives, Napoleon, The Iron Mask and My Best Girl (i.e., among many other silent features) as supurb filmfare.Also, early pre-code sound features like Shanghai Express, King Kong, Duck Soup, Just Imagine, The Unholy Three (Lon Chaney's remarkable albeit only sound feature), Freaks, Mystery of the Wax Museum, It Happened One Night, ...
...and later cinematic milestones & masterpieces such as Citizen Kane, Casablanca, The Devil and Daniel Webster, Fantasia, The Adventures of Robin Hood, The Treasure of Sierra Madre, Dark Passage, The Third Man, Things to Come, The Day the Earth Stood Still, Sunset Boulevard, ...
...classic european sound features such as Fritz Lang's M & The return of Dr. Mabuse, Cocteau's Beauty and the Beast, Jerry Lewis's Nutty Professor (;^D)...
...and even old adventure serials such as Daredevils of the Red Circle, The Drums of Fu Manchu, The Secret Code, The Spider's Web, Gangbusters, Flash Gorden (& sequels), Adventures of Captain Marvel, Spysmasher, Manhunt on Mystery Island and King of the Rocketmen, etc.
And the list goes on and on ...!
AuPh
I'll say. I own many of these but you've included some I've never heard of. Duly noted. You probably did mean to include "Sherlock, Jr." and "The General", which I consider Keaton's masterpieces as much as I like and admire his other films.
Quality is priceless and timeless, as it can be under human condition. For a given time.
I think there are only one kind of film old or new, the good one and , sorry the bad one. In any given time. It is easier to understand.
The modern time is yesterday,and there is nothing like that. We just believe that there is one, but there is none.
But arts who speaaks to our senses and spirit, that, yes that, will always be " modern. " This is NOT to be confused with " functionality" or progress. Look at an Egyptian bust and look at Picasso´s. More it vary more it is the same. The contend is the.
Capra´s films in my view does not belong to " your " past as they carry on a kind of humanism and utopia that will always be real, and if the " transport " may shows sign of age, as do " The Rule of the Game " the inner is still fresh and always will be, as the question of the old Greek," where do we comes from, where do we go? ".
The only difference may be one of our " conditionement " our background our own sense and sensibility.
Now, dear Victor..Why are Capra´s film outdated..Hehe...
Thinking about your Picasso analogy, I think it brings some clarity to the subject.The Egyptian one was done using the best techniques and vision of its era... and so was Picasso. But painting today in the 14th century manner will instantly brand you as dated.
Look at American portraits of 18th century. Their primitivism would be naive, if it wasn't so dated. Mind you, by that time the world already knew quite well how to paint great portraits, so these creations look out of their era.
There is that element in the Mr. Deeds. Perhaps if it was done in the twenties it would look fine, but not in the late thirties. It simply lacks the realism of the better films of that time.
I don't mean to beat L'Atalante to death, but there we have a 1934 film that doesn't require one to suspend too much to be touched by it. With Mr. Deeds you need to close the windows and try to submerge in its era.
It is not a matter for painting or building cars like 100 years ago, it is the quality and innovation, the fantasy that we, with childs eyes, may or may not discover. A variation on diverses themes, in the music or elsewhere! One thing must be clear, all arts ressemble to themselves with their helping hand to reach the divine in us, to transcend the commun in something exceptional; When being reach this goa lis then an " oeuvre d´art. " For ever.
From day one in Mesopotany, through the Grotte of lascaux and so on, mankind was able to reach deep into the stars above us.
Theater and his poor parent ( I consider film a lesser art, showing already the decadence in the McDo time of our ) can reach us through the same artifice than music or writing and painting.
In one word quality never " outdate " and never will. The simple question, is then, what is quality? And again the answer is, what is moving us, sensually and intelectually speaking?
As for " L´Atalante " versus Mr. Deeds it is like intellectualism versus romantisism, the same goal, different ways.
That is probably the heart of the matter. We can't just say that everything produced as "art" at any period was indeed art. Art does presume innovation, but not just the innovation for the innovation's sake, but one that truly moves the society forward.Regarding the Mr. Deed's romantism... there is fine line with romantism - romantic things can indeed become corny in no time at all. I think that happens to Mr. Deeds to some degree. As the result I felt like I could leave the film at any moment... unlike the L'Atalante or the even earlier Battleship Potemkin.
Mr. Deed seems to reflect the current fashion for the naively "humanistic" films - I put it it quotes because in reality they were more warm fuzzy corny things than truly humanistic manifestations (well, to be fair they DID have humanism in them, just with a good coat of sugar).
So the things of true quality (Chaplin, Potemkin, etc) tend to stay fresh, and those that more or less reflect the prevailing fashion tend to feel dated.
Yes it is. Of course nobody can completely escape his time ...Read in a wider meaning " fashion, " and this is the crossroad for the artist who can extrapolate as much out of it in a kind of sublimation that he gives back trough his work. To our joy! Maybe less a forward movement, but rather a consciousness of the moment.
I would rather speak of a fresh presentation, more of an indivudual one.
Mr. Deeds is not my preferred Capra film so I will leave at it, suffice to say that it has all the " innocence " more that that, the naiveté that is just another way to combat the evil in us.
I wouldn't call them outdated, but there is that sensation I get that I am watching an old film... old in the sense that it was made before the real discoveries.I saw Mr. Deeds just a few days ago, and I had the feeling I, as a viewer, was considered a child by the director.
I don't know if this is the artifact of the era bigone, when the movies were still a relatively new media, and the directors didn't quite know how to handle the public, and tried to err on the side of naivite.
As I mentioned - I get none of that while watching L'Atalante.
Realism versus utopism, but the message is the same, the transport diverge.
But more on this Domani.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
