 
|
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 |
216.196.142.246
In Reply to: "Today's movies are not built to last." posted by clarkjohnsen on September 16, 2004 at 09:56:51:
This was a question on the Stereophile Ultimate Web Site recently: Are movies of years gone past better than those of today? I suppose that filmgoers of the 1940's thought the same thing of films released in the 1950's, and filmgoers of the 1950's thought that of the 1960'2, etc.I believe that there were many garbage films made in the 1930's, 1940's, 1950's, 1960's, and 1970's. History has simply weeded those bad films from cable. We tend to think that everyone film was The WIzard of Oz and Casablanca. Why don't they make those films anymore? Because they already did. But while those films endure, the garbage films did not. And guess what? We younger types never know they existed.
Contrast that with the "modern times." We know about the garbage films because we see them at the cinema, on television, on cable, and in video stores. In fifty years, when most of us are either dead or senile, no one will remember "Dude, Where is My Car?" Rather, films like Braveheart, Mystic River (excellent), Pulp Fiction (regardless of taste, certainly the most influential film of the last twenty years), and Master and Commander will be remembered as representative of this period of film history. And then what? At that time, people will be wondering why they do not make Braveheart, et al.
Follow Ups:
Perhaps not so much that, as unpretentious. Mere time-fillers. Like so many TV shows today.Trouble now is, most every movie thinks it's Big Time. How some of those scripts ever get the green light, astonishes me. I expect that it's the "little films" (like Station Agent or Spring Forward) that will become the hits of the future.
clark
Clark,Classic films are by their statistical nature, sparse, a classic
being considered an artistic work of enduring value,excellence,
merit,etc. How long is considered enduring? 10,20,30,40,50 years?
Films were in infancy 100 years ago.
Maybe 20 years might be a good starting point? If so, then films
younger than that under consideration might be termed 'tentative classics'.
Just speculation. Your thoughts? ~AH
I would respectfully suggest that a classic is one in which it's popularity outlives it's initial audience. For example, "Casablanca" is a classic because it continues to have an audience despite the fact that even though it's original audience is gone, it is entertaining future generations.
s
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 © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
