The Hot Blog

"And they fund JJ because he may some day make them decent money in features with genre product."

Dude, you will take a shot whenever possible. Jesus H. Christ, you are about as fun as a buffalo chicken shit.

And you, dude, are a boring child who can't be potty trained and comes in here to play with your feces in every entry you comment on. Ideas are wasted on you. All you can see are your person obsessions and then try to project them elsewhere. You make Lex's boners seem regal by comparison.

I'd ask if you actually had something of substance to add, but it would be a rhetorical question.

I'm curious what bold vs. non-bold is supposed to represent in the chart.

I find this argument extremely convincing. Good job, Poland.

Yes.

This came up awhile back during yet another one of those intolerable (man the 80s were awesome) threads. I was commenting on nostalgia and how a pathetic lover it can be and how its always best not to sample the goods again.

Films overall are better now than they have ever been. Take away the blockbusters and sequels and the rest trounce all their former breatheren.

Some cop wrote in a foreward of a homicide detectives scrapbook "There were no good old days" and a truer statement has never been uttered.

Good point, J-Mc... the bolds are the sequels.

Thanks, DP.

I agree with both DP's analysis here, but also with AO Scott's basic point which gets at the usual "why don't people go to see better movies" question which I don't think it ever hurts to repeat.

But I don't know about this:
"Films overall are better now than they have ever been. Take away the blockbusters and sequels and the rest trounce all their former breatheren."

Really? Maybe it's false nostalgia, but I think I'd still take any given year from the 1970s over the current year-so-far just in terms of quality and relevance. Yes, I think that Up and Drag Me to Hell and Hurt Locker and others are all good, worthy films, but in the aggregate I don't see this heightening of quality JBD sees.

I watched The Sixth Sense the other night, as it's the film's tenth anniversary. I don't care if people went back just because of the twist, it's still beyond amazing that such a quiet, sorrowful, heartbreaking, character-driven drama made almost $300 million in the summer/fall of 1999. It was a masterpiece in 1999 and it's only gotten better with age. Everyone gives career best work, from Toni Collette (should have won the Oscar that year) to Bruce Willis to career-making turns by Donnie Wahlberg and Haley Joel Osmant (also should have won the Oscar). Say what you will about the self-parody that Shyamalan has threatened to become, but he pulled off something truly special ten years ago.

David, you barely add substance to your own blog. The fact that you think I am worse than Lex because I pointed out you took a shot at JJ. Well, excuse me, but Cloverfield did happen, or do you like glossing that over? Oh you like glossing over anything that does not fit your personal obsessions. Seriously dude, you try to hard, but someone needs to push your buttons. Someone has to keep the conversation LIVELY!

Good argument.

My only point of contention...The Abyss compared to Deep Blue Sea and GI Joe...ouch.

I know I'm nitpicking, but why is Ghosts of Girlfriends Past considered "adult" while The Proposal is "celeb"?

IO I'm shocked that you think what you do here contributes to the conversation. Rather, it derails it. Arguing with others is not a conversation, it's an argument. Try conversing every once in awhile and you might not meet so much hostility. I guess the problem is that what you're looking for is hostility and not an intellectual discussion.

Martin, this is a boring and repetitive discussion. I have no idea why you people tolerate someone like jeff, but I somehow bring this whole thing down. Whatever.

If you really are believing what you are typing martin, then go and back it up. Compare me to lex, to jeff, or even to David. Prove your point. You simply have a problem with me, and that colours your perception. Get over it.

Sort of like the way I am just supposed to get over all of those shots you have throwing my way for weeks. How does that not derail a conversation Martin?

Caught this on the twitter transom:
http://www.fuckingmoviereviews.com/

Ties in perfectly to the recent comments and the main entry...

"I watched The Sixth Sense the other night, as it's the film's tenth anniversary. I don't care if people went back just because of the twist, it's still beyond amazing that such a quiet, sorrowful, heartbreaking, character-driven drama made almost $300 million in the summer/fall of 1999. It was a masterpiece in 1999 and it's only gotten better with age."

Yes. And I'll go one step further: Bruce Willis is this generation's most under-rated actor.

Bruce does have a tendency to make most shitty films tolerable.

Agreed and IOIOIOI...

His work in Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, or Twelve Monkeys likely would have merited Oscar talk if he wasn't such a 'superstar'. And even his work in Die Hard, 16 Blocks (as fitting a Die Hard finale as Live Free or Die Hard), or Over the Hedge is pretty great.

And In Country... And Nobody's Fool...

For what it's worth, I think 1999's The Haunting belongs in the 'FX Wannabe Blockbusters' category and not 'Adult Product'. It's a deeply stupid, FX-driven movie, as opposed to the original film that it was based on.

hey, don't forget my fave willis (well, after the original 'die hard' that is): as earnest menville in 'death becomes her'. he slays me in that role and it just may be his the ultimate 'anti-bruce' perf

"I have no idea why you people tolerate someone like jeff, but I somehow bring this whole thing down. Whatever."

I know telling you that you're a crazy, self-obsessed rageaholic with a deep-seated inability to communicate with or empathize with others, but sometimes the answer to your question is just as simple as that.

"Films overall are better now than they have ever been. Take away the blockbusters and sequels and the rest trounce all their former breatheren."

If the only way you can stack the deck is by taking away the sequels and blockbuster then maybe you do not have an argument.

I think any generalization in this respect is blinded. Production values are better...but the films? As long as Raiders of the Lost Ark, Jaws, Caddyhack, Grease, Back to the Future, Lethal Weapon 2, The Road Warrior, ET, The Empire Strikes Back, Superman II, Batman, Revenge of the Nerds, Tightrope, Robocop, Full Metal Jacket, Predator, Ghostbusters and many others exist in the history of summers past, I think you will have a hard time making that claim.

Trying to omit them because they are blockbusters or sequels means you do not have an argument.

Nicol: Take Predator out of the list, and I will agree with you 1,000%.

Nicol - those didn't all come from one year, or even one decade. Going year-by-year, you'd have a harder time making the argument, I suspect.

To cite but one: The Dark Knight is better than 1989 Batman. Easily.

Many of those you cite would be on my best of all time list...but so would some of the movies being made now.

The opening scene in UNBREAKABLE with Bruce Willis trying to pick up that woman in the train is some of the finest acting he's ever done.

No one else thinks comparing The Abyss to Deep Blue Sea and GI Joe is mighty harse??? Wow..maybe there's a correlation between why Cameron and 20th Century Crap linked up for Avatar after all..

My comments have been misconstrued. What I was trying to get across which I think LYT got was simply this. The filler flicks are better now than they were back then. People like Jeffmcm who probably didn't see a film on the screen in the 70s really has no place to comment. Watching films on cable a decade on doesn't count.

The average film/independent/minor studio title that I saw on a weekly basis (the no tentpole, ballyhoo, huge releases) was utter shit compared to most of the ones made now. Argue all you want, that is the truth.

Old bastards like Joe and DP will back me up here.

Stop making lists of your favourite films from those decades. That has nothing to do with the reality of being a filmgoer.

Lemon Popsicle 4 compared to something like Sunshine Cleaning.

Does that make things any clearer?

Remember that the theatrical cut of The Abyss was burdened with a totally confusing, nonsensical ending.

The director's cut, which is the DVD version, is great. But the one in theaters was less so.

How about a 1975 vs 2009 comparison.
Aaron Loves Angela versus 500 Days of Summer

I could do this all day long with every year and every week through the 70s and 80s.

I truly love my cinema memories from the 70s (and I personally feel greater films were made during that decade thank now BUT thats not the argument I'm making) but I'm never going to tarnish the image I have by going back and re-watching the non-classics among them. The point I made about you had to be there to even discuss this seems very elitist but you cannot have a point of view without viewing the films in original context and without any baggage.

It's the only fringe benefit of being old.

Dr., watching movies on cable a decade on is a staple of generation. Seeing those films repeatedly on cable represents how many people discovered film in the first place. So dismissing it out of hand seems a bit of a stretch to me.

That aside, there's a reason many films from the 60s, 70s, and 80s have never been put on VIDEO or DVD. THEY SUCK. THE END!

Wild Wild West is a "wannabe blockbuster" more than anything, surely. If you swapped The Mummy and WWW i'd actually think the whole shebang was really well done, obviously, some things should really be in two columbs. South Park is obviously a franchise and The Hangover - at least the level of it - is most certainly a surprise.

I think Scott's piece is less reactionary than Ebert's, though it's still reactionary.

I think JBD is spot on when he says there were no good old days. Ages are golden only in retrospect. Fool's golden. That too is the same as it ever was.

JBD is kind of correct...if you watch a LOT of 70s movies, you see a lot of real boring shit. The bad movies made now don't really compare to the legendary awfulness of movies made in the 70s.

But I think you might be able to make a good case for the movies of the 30s and 40s...at least those filler pics had real scripts, unlike today's movies which are basically set pieces strung together with a few words. Although a lot of times those older movies would be quality, but rather dull.

And ANYONE who takes Predator off the list answers to ME, personally! Predator is one of the greatest movies ever made.

Not sure why these critics are convinced the audience's taste in good films have declined. Thanks for sharing the chart, you have proven them wrong.

Besides, how about cheesy slapstick comedies or feel-good musicals from the 1930s, 40s and 50s? Can one argue that the Marx Brothers were targeted for a type of Joe Average audience? Or how about Charlie Chaplin's early works? How about those cheesy, corny 1950s Technicolor movies?

Yeah, any time someone starts complaining about the world going to hell and it wasn't like that back in the day...they're old. Same as it ever was!

Joe! Are you serious?!? We need an explanation for your Predator slap, or at least a link to your review or something. You're the first person I know that doesn't like it.

Also, I have no data to back this up, but I think it's possible that the industrialization of the film business in the last few decades (in the sense of studios being purchased and run by enormous, faceless corporations) has made the product conform to a narrower midlevel of quality. Quality control on the assembly line keeps the b-pictures from being as lousy as they might have been in the 70s, but it also makes it harder to excel. The lows are no longer as low and the highs are no longer as high.

Eric, that's not implausible. It's certainly a more thoughtful diagnosis than the usual Chicken Little-ish handwringing.

One category is missing and is certainly relevant: Arthouse-to-Megaplex Crossover.

1999 -- "An Ideal Husband", "Run Lola Run"
2009 -- "Away We Go", "The Hurt Locker", "Whatever Works", "(500) Days of Summer"

Also for 1999, move "Star Wars Episode 1" to Franchise/Sequel and add "Arlington Road" to Adult Product. "Arlington Road" had been in distributor limbo until Screen Gems picked it up and made some money with it. Good thriller, too -- did it anticipate 9/11?

"Besides, how about cheesy slapstick comedies or feel-good musicals from the 1930s, 40s and 50s? Can one argue that the Marx Brothers were targeted for a type of Joe Average audience? Or how about Charlie Chaplin's early works? How about those cheesy, corny 1950s Technicolor movies?"

DeafBrown: I can't seem to parse this. Are you saying that all those things prove the bad taste of yesteryear's audiences? Or their good taste? Or some of each?

JBD, I saw exactly one movie in the 1970s in theaters that I can remember (The Muppet Movie).

Anyway, I think Eric said what I wanted to say: that the 1970s pre-blockbuster era was a time when the highs were higher and the lows were lower.

As someone from "Gen Y" I have been defending this generation of film/music for ages. As blackcloud said, every era of cinema has terrible movies that people flocked to for no reason and every era had classics that audiences did not flock to. Etc. Take out a few choice directors from the 1950s and the stock instantly goes down. Same for music.

I don't disagree, but this is my basic point: I refuse to believe that 'cinema quality' can be graphed as a steady, unbroken line rising from the 1890s up to the present day. There have definitely been peaks and valleys in that 110+ year span.

jeffy. Anything to do with the 70s is off limits to you and your opinion on cinema from that period. Just because you watched/ read Raging Bulls Easy Riders, doesn't give you insight into what it was like to actually live through it as a regular cinema goer.

And please don't bring up the argument "you don't have to have lived in the time period to understand it" ... Well actually you do. I'd rather take what Joe Claudius tells me about the Rome in which he lived, than that of a 2009 historian approximating what it was like for him.

Refuse to believe all you want. Your opinion simply doesn't count. Now you can freely talk about the difference between the 90s and the 00s all you like though and I will listen with great interest.

btw jeff thanks for that guys blog. It's fantastic! The Muppet Movie? That was all? Come on..

Well the obvious logical flaw in your argument then, JBD, in saying that movies are better now than ever, is you didn't live through the 30s and 40s so you don't know if maybe the movies were way better then.

Perm is onto something. Since none of us here, young or old, were around in the 30s and 40s (as far as I know), our perception of the quality of the "filler flicks" of yore is based solely on what we've seen of what's available. And given the lack of interest many folks have in anything made prior to their adolescence, their opinion about relative cinematic quality can't carry much weight.

I'd be curious to know the sample size people are using when they dismiss large chunks of film history. For instance, I've seen over 400 films from the 1930s alone -- a mere drop in the bucket, but enough to form an opinion perhaps a bit more informed than that of a 20-something who gave up after a smattering of old titles didn't give him a hard-on. (FWIW, of those 400+ titles, I'd say over 300 of them are worth a cinephile's time, with about 75 being masterpieces.)

Perm. When I made a statement like "films now are better than ever" - it was only in reference to the periods I lived through as a movie viewer. I would never have the balls or ego to claim about time periods I didn't live through.

I can speak about the movies from the 70s til now. I can do that. Any opinion from someone Jeff's age or younger does not count. End of story.

Two things to remember about '70s movies:

1. Almost all the movies from the New Hollywood era that we think of today as cutting-edge groundbreakers in their time were released by major studios. Therefore, they were shown just about everywhere. Really: I saw Medium Cool in New Orleans, Taxi Driver in Jackson, Miss., Blue Collar in Shreveport, La., and on and on. There may be, as some have argued, just as many great movies being made today as were made in the '70s. But are as many of them getting wide theatrical release? Yes, I know all about DVDs and VOD. But there's something about a theatrical release...

2. It seems to me that, in the '70s, there were many more programmers -- movies that were "just movies," intended neither as blockbusters or exploitation fare -- than is the case today. When Dom DeLuise passed away not so long ago, someone mentioned Hot Stuff as the sort of entertaining trifle that simply wouldn't get made today. Well, let me tell you: There were lots and lots of movies like that back in the day. Movies that were lightly enjoyable and instantly forgettable. I'm not sure if direct-to-DVD titles are the contemporary equivalent, but maybe.

DEADHEAD MILES would be in that category.

Geez, did you actually see Deadhead Miles? Man, you're one up on me. And, mind you, I managed to see The All American Boy, Get to Know Your Rabbit, Lady Ice, Rabbit, Run and Second Hand Hearts.

Many 1970s movies I saw on endless cable reruns, and rentals from Blockbuster which had every awful (there were so many in the 70s...even of movies I liked) and every decent movie of the 70s & 80s.

my moviegoing started when my Pop would sneak me into movies I really wanted to see in the end of the 70s.

I think I would agree that there are no good old days...but I think there were patches of time in almost every decade where there was some great synchronized creativity and magic happened.

My favorite period for movies is 1930s precode and 1939.

One nice thing about the 1970s creeptastic movies is that what they lacked in production values, they certainly had ample eerie atmosphere, definitely missing from many current horror/thrillers (i.e. Stepford wives, carrie[a big movie], westworld, willard, Dr Cook's garden, don't be afraid of the dark, shivers, the brood, The Wicker man, Private parts [1972]).

Lota: What's interesting is that two of the titles you mentioned were 90-minute TV-movies of the sort we used to get -- and take for granted -- 2 or 3 times a week back in the day. Duel and Brian's Song arguably are the most famous of these films. But, hey, Dr. Cook's Garden and Don't Be Afraid of the Dark really were pretty damn creepy... Good stuff.

I don't consider myself an old crank, but out of curiosity I looked up an interesting (to me) data set that actually gives the A.O. Scotts of the world some ammo.

I looked at the biggest hits of each decade from the 70's to the 00's (not just summer, obviously, so it's not 100% on topic), just to see how many from each decade were either sequels, franchise films or adaptations of material that was already a breakout hit in some other form. Basically, your pre-sold, lowest-common-denominator fruit. Here's what I got:

1970s
1 franchise - Superman
3 hit novels - Jaws, The Exorcist, The Godfather
1 hit musical - Grease
5 originals - Star Wars, The Sting, Saturday Night Fever, Animal House, either Rocky Horror or Close Encounters depending on whether you count money made at the time or over decades of midnight showings

1980s
4 sequels - 2 each for Star Wars and Indiana Jones
1 franchise - Batman
5 originals - E.T., Raiders of the Lost Ark, Ghostbusters, Beverly Hills Cop, Back to the Future

1990s
2 sequels - Star Wars ep.1, Toy Story 2
1 hit novel - Jurassic Park
1 novel that wasn't a hit before the movie - Forrest Gump
1 little-known comic - Men in Black
5 originals - Titanic, The Lion King, Independence Day, The Sixth Sense, Home Alone

2000s
6 sequels - Dark Knight, Shrek 2, Pirates of the Caribbean 2, Transformers 2, Star Wars 3, Spider-Man 2
3 adaptations of blockbuster books - Lord of the Rings 2 and 3, Passion of the Christ
1 franchise - Spider-Man
0 originals

Even if you expand the list to a Top 20, you only get one original from the current decade (Finding Nemo at #11). Top 30 gets you Up, The Hangover and Shrek (not really well known enough to count as a hit book adaptation, I'd argue).

It's not until the Top 50 that you see a big influx of originals or adaptations of lesser-known stuff: The Incredibles, Monsters Inc., Night at the Museum, Cars, Bruce Almighty, My Big Fat Greek Wedding, Cast Away, Signs, Hancock, Wall-E. 14 non-pre-sold films out of 50, and Pixar alone is pulling almost half that load.

I know "sequel" and "franchise" don't automatically mean lesser quality (is anybody arguing that Independence Day is superior to The Empire Strikes Back?), but if the argument is that this decade's audience is only rewarding familiarity, seems like this is a pretty damning case.

Cinema seems like the only art-form that's so self-obsessed. Continual remakes and sequels... can you imagine that happening with novels? Or music? What if there was nothing but covers or greatest hits albums being released by the major studios?

I'm all for cool, fun franchises and even the occasional remake or two, but without a fair amount of fresh material it all gets dreadfully wearisome, particularly if you're a big genre fan (where very little these days is original at all).

This is part of the reason I'm so looking forward to DISTRICT 9 and AVATAR, and hope that (a) they're both great movies and (b) that they're both really successful.

In the interest of nerdy explanation of methodology, one clarification:

I didn't count the last two Lord of the Rings movies as sequels because the 3 movies were shot at the same time - they weren't greenlit as sequels to a proven hit.

I guess it all depends on what you qualify as a remake. I mean, was Johnny Cash's version of "Hurt" a remake of Nine Inch Nail's "Hurt"? Is George Strait's version of "Same Kind of Crazy" a remake of Delbert McClinton's "Same Kind of Crazy"? Is Sugarland's "Love Shack" a remake of the B-52s' "Love Shack"? Was Otis Redding's "Satisfaction" a remake of the Rolling Stones' "Satisfaction"?

And was "West Side Story" a remake of "Romeo and Juliet"?

I'd love to see DePalma's original cut of GET TO KNOW YOUR RABBIT as I know he was re-edited.

I've only seen it once -- years ago, during its extremely limited theatrical release, in New Orleans -- and remember being shocked that, despite all the negative buzz, it didn't suck. (Yes, boys and girls, even back in the pre-Internet Era, Gramps Leydon and other ink-stained wretches heard negative buzz about certain movies.) Oddly enough, the only thing I really remember from it is the deadpan interplay between Orson Welles and Tom Smothers. Something on the order of (and, mind you, I am quoting from memory a movie I haven't seen in about 36 years): Welles: "I'd like you to think of me as your father. And I'd like to think of you as the son I never had." Long pause. Smothers: "Er, no, I don't think I'd like that at all."

"And please don't bring up the argument 'you don't have to have lived in the time period to understand it' ... Well actually you do."

The resident historian has to chime in on that one. And here's what he says: that argument is and ever was, total bullshit. There is plenty that a person who lives through a period simply doesn't know or understand because they can't see it. What they gain in immediacy they lose in distance. The perspective that a person who lives through a period has on that period is as revealing and as limited as the perspective of someone looking at that period from the future.

Sometimes more forest, sometimes more trees. Both have advantages, both have disadvantages. But the idea that there is a particular privilege to living through a period, that only those who live through a period can truly understand it, is absurd. In essence you are saying that the past is unknowable because no one lived through it. Sorry, JBD, but that's complete and utter crap.

i agree, blackc. and really, we don't need to understand a single thing to love an era of film, because movies aren't about understanding. they are about feeling.

one of my fave movies of all time is 'night of the hunter', which i saw on tv when i was a kid. would i love that movie more, understand it more, had i seen it at the cinema in the 50's? i don't see how. because at the risk of sounding like a broken record, movies do not exist in a vacuum. film as art is a meld, the fusion of the images on screen/sound and the unique mind of each and every viewer, each of whom brings their own personal filter to the film experience, their own point of view in that moment in time and place.

i don't need to have lived through the 50's to understand my personal, visceral reaction to 'night of the hunter', to have marvelled at its stunning photography or the menace simmering beneath mitchum's jovial surface or feel the fear of the children as they try to stay one step ahead of the devil, and i could even argue that seeing that film as an adult in the 50's at the cinema, it may have had LESS of an impact on me, i would understand it less, not more.

so 'understanding' be damned, give me feeling it any day

@black @leahnz You guys are way off base.

I think the discussion has drifted away from where it all began. I'm not trying to say you don't 'feel' or 'understand' the films from a [previous era. I was making a point in regards to context of an era. What is was like to be a regular filmgoer and what it felt like to go and pay for movies on a weekly basis. This all stemmed from the rose-tinted appreciation many have for the 70s who didn't live through it. All I was saying is that there was a lot of mediocre and downright shitty filler made during that period and I honestly feel that cinema now (minus blockbusters) overall offers more to the discerning filmgoer. How this got to you defending the merits of NIGHT OF THE HUNTER I have no clue. I agree with you. Just don't try to tell me what it was like to live in the 50s and watch 50s films in the 50s. Capiche?

That's my opinion. Crap or not.

So Joe...you were a filmgoer in the 70s. Do you agree with JBD?

@black "In essence you are saying that the past is unknowable because no one lived through it. Sorry, JBD, but that's complete and utter crap."

Not unknowable by any means. As stated previously, I would argue that someone Joe Leydon could offer more about cinema in the 70s than Kami no matter how many books or films they've seen from the period.

If you think that is truly horsehit then so be it. Finito from me.

Actually I'll shut up and leave the subject to hang in the air with this video which can work for both arguments. A must see.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7851705567600658577&ei=DxyCSuutBYX-qAPFqKXmDg&q=keepers+of+the+frame&hl=en

JBD, I definitely wouldn't tell you what it was like to be a filmgoer in the '70s. I was one, but I was 7 when the '70s ended, so my perspective's not a very useful one. I was only objecting to the idea that only those who were there can understand a period. Your essential point, it seems to me, is that those who were there can say speak to the issues in a way those who weren't can't. That's an unexceptional point.

Again, my objection was only to the broader philosophical point about history. I was definitely not taking a side in the argument about the films of the '70s. I have no dog in that fight. I think I read too much into your remarks. So no worries.

This is what I think: I have written about Gone with The Wind on several occasions -- it's one of the titles included in my book -- and I screen it in some courses I teach. I know a lot about this movie. But I will never, ever know what kind of impact it had on Depression Era audiences when they heard for the first time: "As God as my witness, I'll never be hungry again." I can imagine what it was like, I can make an educated guess what it was like, but I will never know.

Something similar with Psycho. I have studied this film, I have taught courses in which it was part of the syllabus. It, too, is included in my book. But I will never know (because I was only 8 when it first came out) what kind of impact it had on audiences who never expected to see a star of Janet Leigh's stature get killed off 40 minutes into a movie. Indeed, I'll never know what it was like to see that shower scene without knowing it was coming.

There are quite a few knowledgeable people who regularly post on this blog. It is entirely possible that some of them know, or eventually will know, more about movies than I do. But I've likely seen many more movies than they have, because I'm so friggin' old. And if they're not as old as I am, they don't know what it was like to live during a period -- roughly, 1967 to 1980 -- when it seemed like, every few months, there was a new movie totally unlike anything you'd ever seen before. Just as I'm too young to know what it was like to experience, say, the transition from silent movies to talkies. Again, I've written about that, and taught about that, but...

Actually, what I really loved about the 1970s is, back then, a major studio -- in this case, Warner Bros. -- would release something like tbis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nS4QQQlRWc

I agree with Blackcloud. This is an argument where I think everybody basically agrees on the larger points.

The one response I would make to JBDoctor is this: Yes, the only era of cinema that I have a personal memory of is the period 1979-present, but I still have no hesitation in categorizing separate years, or decades, as being 'better' or 'worse' relative to each other, based on the titles that I've seen. I mean, why not? And it's constantly evolving. Ten years ago I wouldn't have thought 1965 was a particularly good year for movies, and then I saw Repulsion, Doctor Zhivago, Alphaville, Simon of the Desert, etc. and I feel differently.

And I'm sure that my opinion would be different if I had been present to sit through a steady stream of Village of the Giants and Monster A-Go Go...but I didn't. I did pay to see Battlefield Earth in theaters, though.

"What if there was nothing but covers or greatest hits albums being released by the major studios?"

Have you seen the charts these days? They're clogged with artists releasing cover albums, whether they be young artists or old artists.

joe's POV and those 'GWTW' and 'PSYCHO' examples are excellent and compelling, but trying to pinpoint what troubles me about the whole 'you-had-to-be-there-when-the-film-was-first-released-to-truly-understand-a-film-in-its-full-cultural-context-and-impact-and-if-you-weren't-you-can't-really-express-a-valid-opinion' theory is this: it relies heavily on the assumption that the understanding of - and impact on - a film's original viewing audience was likely GREATER than the impact on a viewer for whom such films as 'psycho' and 'GWTW' are fascinating windows into the past/bygone eras (tho GWTW was always a window into a bygone era so perhaps not the best example for me to use, just lazily recycling joe's good examples).

can't old movies - or even movies from the 70's if you didn't live thru that era - be understood and have just as much impact when viewed today as they did when they were first viewed all shiny and new? it's all a matter viewing angle/perspective. it seems to me there is just no way to measure one against the other; one audience is watching a new film, a modern marvel, and forming an opinion in that context, while the other is watching an old film and forming an opinion in the context of history. apples and oranges.

can't the films may be equally understood in different contexts? does a person who saw 'psycho' in the cinema on release necessarily 'understand' or 'get' the film more than someone watching it today for the first time? a startling modern, creepy take on a seriously mentally disturbed killer vs. a startling retro creepy take on a disturbed killer. two very different perspectives, yes, like looking at the empire state building on the day of completion vs. now: the person viewing it today can still understand and appreciate the architecture; and isn't that person just as entitled to an opinion on the building as someone who saw it for the first time back in the day? i think i'm starting to babble but hopefully i've made my point in a somewhat coherent manner)

and JBD re: this comment:

'How this got to you defending the merits of NIGHT OF THE HUNTER I have no clue.'

i would have thought my point re: NOTH, which i never once 'defended', was quite clear: that living thru the era a film represents is over-rated and ultimately unnecessary in regards to understanding/'getting' the film itself

Good points, leah. Also, many films that were dismissed as run-of-the-mill Bs are now considered great work by many cinephiles. Some films are misunderstood upon original release, but stand the test of time beautifully; others not so much.

PEEPING TOM nearly cost Michael Powell his career; now it's revered. Were the haters "right" just because they saw it in 1960?

"There is fashion, there is fact, some is good, some is bad, and the joke is rather sad that it's all just a little bit of history repeating...."

This thread just made me remember that song. Love that song. The Propellerheads should release another album one of these decades.

I would have loved to see VILLAGE OF THE GIANTS on the big 1965 screen, with those giant go-go babes and Jack Nietzche's coolest riff...

Christian, that's fair.

Just don't go and try to defend Monster A-Go Go now! (spoiler alert, "there was no monster")

Leahnz: Please don't misunderstand. I would never say someone isn't "entitled" to an opinion about anything. Indeed -- and I fear I will sound condescending while saying this, so please don't take offense -- this is one of many reasons I love teaching, because I'm constantly re-evaluating films while seeing them with students who are seeing them for the first time, and often asking very intelligent questions. As I have posted elsewhere: I never really considered the possibility that Joseph Cotten's character in Citizen Kane and Donald O'Connor's character in Singin' in the Rain might be gay until genuinely curious students asked me. They might have been right.

oh, joe: any reference to i made to the idea that people aren't entitled to have an opinion because they weren't there was not in reference to you

(i'm sure that's cleared it up for you. sorry if it sounded as if anything was directed at you, that wasn't my intention, only my comment that the examples you provided were excellent was in reference to what you had written previously...i'm sure it's all clear as mud now)

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)