Hey kids, do you know what time it is?
...it's Meme Time!
Brought to you by the fine makers of winterking07
1. Comment if you want questions.
2. I will respond by asking you five personal questions so I can get to know you better.
3. Update your LJ with the answers to the questions.
4. Include this explanation and offer to ask someone else in your own post.
5. When others respond, you will ask them five questions.
1. You are quite knowledgeable about movies and film and such, so perhaps you can help me with a question that has been bugging me for quite some time: Why is it that, whenever the AFI has one of its "Hundred Greatest SomethingorOther" shows, the list is overwhelmingly dominated by films made before 1970? Why are "classic" movies, with Bogart or Hepburn or any of the other black-and-white stars, rated so much higher than modern movies, which, in my mind, often have better acting, faster/more enjoyable pacing, better visual effects, and better soundracks?
Well, this is a mighty subjective topic, dontcha think? In the AFI's case, I believe that there is an actual fixed date past which they cannot include a film - probably about 10 or 15 years before the date of the show. This is done because it is hard to fully estimate the impact of a film so soon after it has come out. Not all important and influential films are huge, readily obvious influences like The Matrix or The Lord of the Rings. I think that one of the most influential films of the 90s was Linklater's Slacker. Have you ever heard of it? Probably not. It's starting to show up on "best of" lists nowadays, but back when it first came out it was nowhere to be seen.
Why then, you may ask, are there not more movies from the 80s and 90s on the lists? Well, frankly, that's because a lot of the movies from the 80s, in particular, sucked. Can you name three Best Picture winners from the 80s, off the top of your head? I'm a film student, and I had a hard time doing it. Contrast that with almost any other decade. The key difference is the shift in power that occurred during the mid to late 70s. The studio system that had run Hollywood since it was founded had collapsed, and large conglomerates and corporations were buying up studios and treating them like just another product division, not as an artistic medium. As a result, more and more critical decisions got made by the people in suits and not by the people who knew how to make movies. It was the suits who made Ridley Scott put a voiceover and a happy ending on Blade Runner, and pulled Terry Gilliam's Brazil from its release date because the "numbers" from their test screenings were low. The latter was only released in its original version because Gilliam smuggled a print of the unedited film to some critics, and it got voted "Best of the Year" by them.
On the acting front, it's not that the actors from previous generations were categorically better than today's actors. There's plenty of great actors and actresses working in Hollywood today. They just make up a much smaller percentage of the total actor pool. This one I think can be blamed on TV. Before the advent of television as a serious acting medium (I'd put it around the late 70s, early 80s), actors who were at all serious about the art of acting had two options, film and stage. Now, there's a third option, and a lot of otherwise fine actors, Hugh Laurie for example, spend most of their time on the small screen.
If you take a look at all of those films on the AFI list, probably a full half, if not more, are based on novels or stage plays. Movies are still adapted from serious novels and plays today, but I think you're much more likely to see that your film today is A) based on a comic book, B) based on a TV show, C) a sequel in a running franchise, or D) a remake of an older film. It's not just that I think screenwriters and executives are lazier and less creative today. I think that the studio climate in the 40s, 50s and 60s was much more conducive to writing. As Lucas learned when making the prequels, its sometimes better if you don't have umpteen million dollars and complete creative leeway when making a movie. Screenwriters had to deal with the fact that special effects, as we think of them today, were practically non-existent, and that, in the days before the ratings system, there was a lot that they couldn't say or show on-screen. As a result, they had to be creative in their storytelling. These days, instead of writing a cleverly constructed exchange of dialogue that says nothing but hints at everything, they just show Ben Stiller with his balls caught in his zipper.
Well, this is running a bit long, isn't it. I'm going to cut myself short here. Maybe I'll get to the other 4 questions in another post. On the other hand, if they're all going to be as long as this one, maybe not.
Brought to you by the fine makers of winterking07
1. Comment if you want questions.
2. I will respond by asking you five personal questions so I can get to know you better.
3. Update your LJ with the answers to the questions.
4. Include this explanation and offer to ask someone else in your own post.
5. When others respond, you will ask them five questions.
1. You are quite knowledgeable about movies and film and such, so perhaps you can help me with a question that has been bugging me for quite some time: Why is it that, whenever the AFI has one of its "Hundred Greatest SomethingorOther" shows, the list is overwhelmingly dominated by films made before 1970? Why are "classic" movies, with Bogart or Hepburn or any of the other black-and-white stars, rated so much higher than modern movies, which, in my mind, often have better acting, faster/more enjoyable pacing, better visual effects, and better soundracks?
Well, this is a mighty subjective topic, dontcha think? In the AFI's case, I believe that there is an actual fixed date past which they cannot include a film - probably about 10 or 15 years before the date of the show. This is done because it is hard to fully estimate the impact of a film so soon after it has come out. Not all important and influential films are huge, readily obvious influences like The Matrix or The Lord of the Rings. I think that one of the most influential films of the 90s was Linklater's Slacker. Have you ever heard of it? Probably not. It's starting to show up on "best of" lists nowadays, but back when it first came out it was nowhere to be seen.
Why then, you may ask, are there not more movies from the 80s and 90s on the lists? Well, frankly, that's because a lot of the movies from the 80s, in particular, sucked. Can you name three Best Picture winners from the 80s, off the top of your head? I'm a film student, and I had a hard time doing it. Contrast that with almost any other decade. The key difference is the shift in power that occurred during the mid to late 70s. The studio system that had run Hollywood since it was founded had collapsed, and large conglomerates and corporations were buying up studios and treating them like just another product division, not as an artistic medium. As a result, more and more critical decisions got made by the people in suits and not by the people who knew how to make movies. It was the suits who made Ridley Scott put a voiceover and a happy ending on Blade Runner, and pulled Terry Gilliam's Brazil from its release date because the "numbers" from their test screenings were low. The latter was only released in its original version because Gilliam smuggled a print of the unedited film to some critics, and it got voted "Best of the Year" by them.
On the acting front, it's not that the actors from previous generations were categorically better than today's actors. There's plenty of great actors and actresses working in Hollywood today. They just make up a much smaller percentage of the total actor pool. This one I think can be blamed on TV. Before the advent of television as a serious acting medium (I'd put it around the late 70s, early 80s), actors who were at all serious about the art of acting had two options, film and stage. Now, there's a third option, and a lot of otherwise fine actors, Hugh Laurie for example, spend most of their time on the small screen.
If you take a look at all of those films on the AFI list, probably a full half, if not more, are based on novels or stage plays. Movies are still adapted from serious novels and plays today, but I think you're much more likely to see that your film today is A) based on a comic book, B) based on a TV show, C) a sequel in a running franchise, or D) a remake of an older film. It's not just that I think screenwriters and executives are lazier and less creative today. I think that the studio climate in the 40s, 50s and 60s was much more conducive to writing. As Lucas learned when making the prequels, its sometimes better if you don't have umpteen million dollars and complete creative leeway when making a movie. Screenwriters had to deal with the fact that special effects, as we think of them today, were practically non-existent, and that, in the days before the ratings system, there was a lot that they couldn't say or show on-screen. As a result, they had to be creative in their storytelling. These days, instead of writing a cleverly constructed exchange of dialogue that says nothing but hints at everything, they just show Ben Stiller with his balls caught in his zipper.
Well, this is running a bit long, isn't it. I'm going to cut myself short here. Maybe I'll get to the other 4 questions in another post. On the other hand, if they're all going to be as long as this one, maybe not.