by peaker_2005 » Fri 06 Jan 2006, 09:25:39
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SinisterBlueCat', '
')1971? aw, come on...that is pushing it a little, ja'?
Well, maybe 1971 was a bit melodramatic, but I think you know why I picked 1971, right? (I recently watched
Blade Runner again, and I think it's overrated - just alot of moody special effects and some interesting acting by Rutger Hauer, the story was hohum) A primary difference between modern movies and old ones (and sure '71 is around a good time as any to pick the divide) is that the older flicks were more literary and the modern ones are more jaded and disjointed and
weird. I liked
Pulp Fiction and
Being John Malkovich, but damn, they're weird. The emphasis is on the
visual side of things and the story plays second fiddle. Plus, the human psychological side is missing, in it's place is a kind of jaded, inhuman dance of oddities. The sense that they are telling stories that happen in
this world is gone, replaced by a strange hollywood make-believe world where anything can happen because it's all phony anyways. Now, what we get is completely unreal in every way. Of course the old ones were unreal, too. But they were tied to what is real somehow. The obvious holes in modern plots don't matter. It's so phony that it doesn't even matter. How about that comedy
Home Alone: a kid doing those things to the burglars? Silliest piece of tripe but business as usual for Hollywood. Here's another contrast to make my point in the genre of Classical Historical Dramas: pre '71 -
Spartacus and
Ben Hur vs.
Alexander and
The Kingdom of Heaven. The latter two were devoid of any real attemp to place you back in the
human situation of the past, dwelling instead on the appearances, costumes, sets, etc. The Alexander flick gave no clue as to what Alexander was about. I think they hardly read anything about him from what I saw in the movie. Not a clue what made him so unique and brilliant. The crusades flick was a bore, story inane and pointless. The old ones I mentioned, well, I hope you've seen them. Great movies.
Personally I love those epic sorts of films they made in the 50's. They have a real tangibility to them (My grandmother has a LOT of videos...). Back then, the movies would have been a real EXPERIENCE. I guess it's partly from the fact that the movies had really only just started to overtake theatrical productions... I mean, the sheer scale of such films for the time was MASSIVE. They actually had to have intermissions in some movies they were THAT long!
Peter Jackson's probably the last really really good director out there. I haven't seen the Lord of the Rings movies, though the books are certainly on my 'to get' list (I've always liked reading, and it'll be a great, low energy form of relaxation post-peak). I've already bought the complete works of Shakespeare. I also need to get an acoustic guitar soon.