So called classics
- Started
- Last post
- 61 Responses
- usrper
i'm catching up with these so called classic hollywood movies.
7 out of 10 times i was bored to death.
im all for cinematic language, style, and substance. but, some movies are just boring.
i just watched raging bull last night. and, like so many other movies, its just a good movie when you think back about it, or, its "overall" quite interesting. but i had to fast forward 6 times in certain scenes. its just a waste of time.
and who can tell me whats so great about hitchcock? sure he dresses his actresses very nicely, his stories are catchy, but sadly, he hardly wrote any of the stories himself. i understand that it was a long time ago and they have different standards, but hey, nachos are nachos.
- usrper0
am i sounding like a moron?
- mevsthem0
its cause you didn't grow up with them, there classics to people cause the grew up with them, your just going renting what people call classics but its not a classic to you....Drop it like its hot!
- nice-land0
In today short attention span culture you may have a point, but you can't deny their place in film history
- Rand0
some of them invented a language that you take for granted today
- mg330
You and I are very alike usrper.
I got a netflix membership last week, and I've got over 200 movies in my queue, many "classics."
But some I've seen, the ones people say "You must see these" sometimes they're just not that great.
Like Citizen Kane. Never seen it but I think I will find it boring.
- nice-land0
citizen cane may be the exception
- nice-land0
cane = kane
- usrper0
i think its easy to blame it on attention span teen steam, but somtimes its not only that. i never studied film, but i cherish good craftsmanship and artistic language, and i tend to have a mature mind when watching these movies.
its just that sometimes these movies make you just sit there, and think "how can something like this be considered a classic"..
citizen cane is actually good mg, you should watch it.
- ad10
raging bull: cinematography
- pocho0
so does a director also have to have done the screenplay for a film to be a classic?
in film there are two levels of classicism...cinematic and entertainment.
- aliendn0
it would be like looking at the two advanced site today or praystation or whatever. the things those movies did back then were fresh at the time, but got ripped off or used so often and in some cases done better that they dont stand out anymore.
if you're into hip hop, its like looking into Rakim's lyrics compared to some of the later mcs today. what he did then was trailblazing, but by today's standards mcs surpass him with multisylables. always give the pioneers massive credit.
- usrper0
yes, raging bull's cinematogaphy is beautiful. and im all for cinematogarphy.
but i peresonally think cinematography cannot be the only thing that makes a good movie.
- rasko40
its all about the journey.
I'm not sure how you cant think that hitchcock films aren't great films, have you seen vertigo or psycho or dial M?
like Rand said, they helped create the language of films today. Did you know that there was once a time when viewers couldn't understand the concept of films jumping from one time and place to another let alone jumping timelines and non linear concepts such as say Pulp Fiction?
This is the language that is their legacy.
- Rand0
for instance, when early silent films did the first zoom shot, audiences ran in horror because they thought the actor's head was expanding
- usrper0
pocho, i understand.
im not saying htichock's films are bad because he didnt write stories. but, at times i think hes overated because the plot and the catch of his movies are the first thing that grabs viewers. and through time it is the elements in the story that makes an impression on the general viewer, like, when i read a magazine witha picture of alot of birds, it has a caption "hitchcock would love to be in this place", but, the truth is, he picked the story from a book. the movie was big budget, the story is very catchy, the tone is not bad, but at times it just doesnt live up to the hype, mostly on the structure of how the story is being told on screen.
and dont even get me into psycho.
- usrper0
im not saying hitchock's films arent great. i do like some of his movies, esp strangers on a train.
i guess i also have to consdier how they initiated a new cinematic language. yea.
- aliendn0
dude, that's like saying a web designer can't be the ish because he didnt create all the content from scratch.
- usrper0
but like psycho. i probably have to draw myself into the mindset of the people in the 60s.
this may sound "unrefined" and :immature. but the way i looked at it was, it wasn't scary. the buildups are lame, and its very amateruish. i cant believe anyone seeing it today would still find it scary, especially how the editing was done on the supposedly scary secenes.
- pocho0
Rasko hit the nail on the head. Like Kurosawa and slow-motion...nobody had ever seen slow motion. Kurosawa used slow motion to show speed. Now it's totally taken for granted.
My 14 year old loves The Seven Samurai...his friend thought there was no action.
- usrper0
aliendn, well, its more like saying how a backend developer got all the credits for putting up a site that he didnt design?
am i streching it