180 replies to this topic

[Sarah Horrocks]

The other night I watched Dog Day Afternoon which I hadn't seen in about a decade. It's a terrific movie, but more "standard" than I remembered, and I see new films that are just as well-made or "creative" every couple of months. If the exact same movie was shot on digital and came out today, people wouldn't hold it up as a sign that we're in a golden age. It'd make some critics top ten lists. What's elevated the film in our minds is the beautiful film stock, the shots of New York City in the 1970s, and seeing Pacino and Cazale in their primes (with nostalgia being boosted by the fact that Pacino has been mostly terrible for 20 years now and Cazale is long dead). Of course there's also the fact that we rarely get this kind of complex anti-hero anymore.

Ding ding ding. That's why I say I like the aesthetic of that era more than the current one. That era of film had absolutely brilliant color palletttes. And just have a more organic feel because of the production values than the films now, which are often cold and distant. They LITERALLY don't make them like they used to.

That said, those RED cameras are really sweet. The last two Lars Von Trier films using them have been really beautiful. So hope may not be lost.

Though I think 3D completely sucks. And I feel stupid everytime I am tricked into watching a film that way. Maybe they'll figure it out eventually, but right now it's like watching a popup book. Plus I usually end up with a headache after watching them.

Boogie Nights was at least 15 years ago, so I guess that doesn't count either.

Well there you go.

[al-x]

Hello:

Years ago, Roger Ebert, a famed movie critic, said that
before it was all about making the great American movie,
and now it is all about making the great American hit.
I feel he has a point there.

I mean years ago, you had movies about Bonnie and Clyde,
Butch and Sundance, and other period pieces like the Sting
which portrayed and gave commentary on different eras in
America. Now, for the most part it seems to be about stunts,
actions, explosions. Not to say that is the only thing out there
today, but I guess they just don't make movies like they used to.


Al...

[Dave Wallace]

Hello:

Years ago, Roger Ebert, a famed movie critic, said that
before it was all about making the great American movie,
and now it is all about making the great American hit.
I feel he has a point there.

I mean years ago, you had movies about Bonnie and Clyde,
Butch and Sundance, and other period pieces like the Sting
which portrayed and gave commentary on different eras in
America. Now, for the most part it seems to be about stunts,
actions, explosions. Not to say that is the only thing out there
today, but I guess they just don't make movies like they used to.

I don't agree. Just like pop music, there's always been crap around - but over time, people forget the crap and remember the good stuff.

And the good old stuff then seems even better in comparison to today's crap...

[Robert B]

Hello:

Years ago, Roger Ebert, a famed movie critic, said that
before it was all about making the great American movie,
and now it is all about making the great American hit.
I feel he has a point there.

I mean years ago, you had movies about Bonnie and Clyde,
Butch and Sundance, and other period pieces like the Sting
which portrayed and gave commentary on different eras in
America. Now, for the most part it seems to be about stunts,
actions, explosions. Not to say that is the only thing out there
today, but I guess they just don't make movies like they used to.


Al...

To be fair Butch and Sundance and The Sting were both massive hits in their day.

[Robert B]

The only film in the last 12 years of American filmmaking that I'll put up against any film in any other era in American filmmaking is There Will be Blood. And possibly Boogie Nights. Maybe maybe Inglorious Bastards as well. But definitely There Will Be Blood. Haven't seen Moonrise Kingdom yet though. I love Wes Anderson films, if this is the one where he finally puts it all together and makes a masterwork, it wouldn't surprise me.

I'm not really one to lock down art in "best" and "worst" categories, but even if I were I wouldn't agree with this.

[Sarah Horrocks]

And the good old stuff then seems even better in comparison to today's crap...

Well actually I think the problem is that the good stuff from then is better than the good stuff now.
Alien vs. Prometheus
2001 vs. Avatar
Butch and Sundance vs. Hugo
Taxi Driver vs. The Departed
Apoclypse Now vs. The Hurt Locker

Are there any movies made in the last 12 years that you would say are of a better quality than The Godfather?

It's like, there's not a Bob Dylan born every generation. There are peaks and valleys in art. Different modes of expression become popular. Others fall out of favor.

For instance, television of the last 12 years is better than it has ever been. That format is absolutely THE format of our era.

It's like in the 50s Jazz was where it's at. Now Jazz is unimportant and not as good. But hiphop has taken it's place. Or it did. And then hiphop and pop had a baby, and that's what we make now, really really well.

So I don't agree that every era is the same in any given medium. Things change, evolve, and the quality varies.

I'm not really one to lock down art in "best" and "worst" categories, but even if I were I wouldn't agree with this.

Right. Intrinsically I am talking about my own aesthetic preferences. Which I think is the core of where the clash here is. I think that ones enjoyment of various eras can be qualitatively arranged, and it's possible to have a well rooted preference for work of a particular era and type. I do not think that "every era" eventually becomes loved in the same way.

I do not love the 50s era films like I do the 20s era films. And we're quite a bit of time away from those eras. So I don't agree that the 00s or the 10s just magically become appreciated in terms of american film.

I'm also not saying great films aren't being made. They just aren't for me, being made predominantly as part of an American film scene in the way that they were in past eras.

I also think the american film going public has disgusting expectations of a film that skew the results against my taste. The aesthetic LCD of this era is so vanilla it's not even funny.

[al-x]

To be fair Butch and Sundance and The Sting were both massive hits in their day.

True, but to get back to my original point, both movies and others were trying
to tell a good story about certain eras in American history and you don't really
get that in today's cinema. Granted, you will have Forrest Gump, the Unforgiven,
but Ebert was saying that it is not about telling a great American story as much as
action scenes and that sort of thing.


Al...

[Johnny Henning]

MARGIN CALL was a great movie about America. So was MICHAEL CLAYTON in much the same area.

CONTAGION, though it was a science fiction film about a global epidemic, kept its focus on the US and really was about America and its new intertwined and less dominant relationship with the world more than the fictional epidemic it described so well. I felt it was much more successful conveying that than either SYRIANA or TRAFFIC which had many of the same themes regarding global changes and America.

[Chris D]

Well actually I think the problem is that the good stuff from then is better than the good stuff now.
Alien vs. Prometheus
2001 vs. Avatar
Butch and Sundance vs. Hugo
Taxi Driver vs. The Departed
Apoclypse Now vs. The Hurt Locker

This kind of reminds me of the "What should have won Best Picture" poll we had a while back where we went from 1980 to present, and it seemed that the consensus was that the Academy has gotten increasingly out of touch with what the truly memorable movies of each year actually are.

Anyway, as has been discussed before, I do find it increasingly difficult to say what is an American film nowadays.

[Will Carper]

I was gonna say Shame is a movie I'd put up against films from any era, but then I remembered that although it takes place in New York, its director and writer are British and I'm pretty sure it was a British production, too.

David Lynch shouldn't be left out of the discussion of American films. That man lives and breathes America. I would put Mulholland Drive up against Apocalypse Now or Taxi Driver or Dr. Strangelove. A few others would be Inglourious Basterds, The Fountain, and two Coen Bros movies: O, Brother Where Art Thou? and No Country for Old Men. I also might put Jim Jarmusch's The Limits of Control in there, but that feels like a bit of a cheat... It's a much less quintessentially American than even Basterds or The Fountain.

[Chris D]

I was gonna say Shame is a movie I'd put up against films from any era, but then I remembered that although it takes place in New York, its director and writer are British and I'm pretty sure it was a British production, too.

David Lynch shouldn't be left out of the discussion of American films. That man lives and breathes America. I would put Mulholland Drive up against Apocalypse Now or Taxi Driver or Dr. Strangelove. A few others would be Inglourious Basterds, The Fountain, and two Coen Bros movies: O, Brother Where Art Thou? and No Country for Old Men. I also might put Jim Jarmusch's The Limits of Control in there, but that feels like a bit of a cheat... It's a much less quintessentially American than even Basterds or The Fountain.

Yeah, Mulholland Drive and the Fountain are two of my favorite movies of the last 12 years. It would be hard for me to put them up against those films only because they're all such different beasts. I've been trying to think of my favorite movies from the last 12 years and then figure out which one are directed by Americans. Because I know a lot of the [English language] movies I really loved were from British directors. Some maybe even French (Eternal Sunshine)

Just to try (off the top of my head):

2000 - Almost Famous, Requiem for a Dream
2001 - Mulholland Drive, Ghost World, The Royal Tenenbaums
2002 - Punch Drunk Love
2003 - Big Fish (I know a lot of people liked Lost in Translation too)
2004 - I'm blanking here, Eternal Sunshine is my favorite movie from that year by far...
2005 - Brick, Brokeback Mountain
2006 - The Fountain, Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang
2007 - There Will Be Blood
2008 - Synecdoche, New York
2009 - Up in the Air, (500) Days of Summer, The Fantastic Mr. Fox
2010 - The Social Network, Black Swan
2011 - Tree of Life

I did my best to root out any movies I was almost certain were by foreign born directors, but I've no idea if I succeeded completely.

[Will Carper]

Yeah, Mulholland Drive and the Fountain are two of my favorite movies of the last 12 years. It would be hard for me to put them up against those films only because they're all such different beasts.

I was just thinking of American directors who've made powerful, inspired movies that only they could have made. So, pretty broad. And in that light, Taxi Driver and Mulholland Drive are accomplishments of equal creativity, in my eyes. Though there's very little overlap in content or aesthetics.

[Jim Ohara]

For instance, television of the last 12 years is better than it has ever been. That format is absolutely THE format of our era.

Why is TV so good and cinema so bad when they're produced by the same studios and creative teams?

I can understand someone saying music was better in the 60's and 70's - ugly people could become rock stars so you could let the talent get through. These days you have to be attractive, which cuts down the potential base of musicians. People always had to be good looking for the movies, so it's not that the acting talent has diminished. And if directors are doing great work on TV why are they doing so badly in movies?

Anyway, as has been discussed before, I do find it increasingly difficult to say what is an American film nowadays.

I don't see why there's a need to define American. We live in a global world now - ideas like American or French don't mean what they used to.

[Will Carper]

I don't see why there's a need to define American. We live in a global world now - ideas like American or French don't mean what they used to.

Totally. Cinema is not wanting.

In the last decade or so we've gotten Shame, In Bruges, the Vengeance Trilogy, Children of Men, Pan's Labyrinth, The Proposition, 2046, Enter the Void, The Guard, and City of God. Those are all movies that speak to the brilliance of today's filmmakers.

Edited by Will Carper, 19 June 2012 - 02:23 AM.

[Chris D]

I don't see why there's a need to define American. We live in a global world now - ideas like American or French don't mean what they used to.

No argument there, I'm just going with the flow of the thread.

[Robert B]

Totally. Cinema is not wanting.

In the last decade or so we've gotten Shame, In Bruges, the Vengeance Trilogy, Children of Men, Pan's Labyrinth, The Proposition, 2046, Enter the Void, The Guard, and City of God. Those are all movies that speak to the brilliance of today's filmmakers.

I keep a sort-of journal where I just write down every movie that strikes me as being unusual or provocative to me in some way. It usually ends up at about 15 films a year. So far this year I have 6 and I'm missed some stuff and we're not even in the good part of the year yet- so there's still about 20+ movies that I'm looking forward to. The state of cinema is great as far as I can see.

I am very, very well schooled in all my histories of music, movies, whatever, and I tend to slightly prefer modern stuff as it helps makes sense of the world I currently live in and speaks to my personal experience. There's something beautiful about the universal human experience you can find in art from decades past but I also like the directness of new stuff and I find comfort and pride in the knowledge that it's being created by my peers.

[Chris D]

And if directors are doing great work on TV why are they doing so badly in movies?

Well, I don't think Sarah is saying that movies are doing poorly, exactly. But as to why TV is doing such great work? I think that comes down to the emergence of the [premium] cable networks. All of them needed to make a name for themselves so they aren't afraid to take risks. They want to take risks, even. Because they need people to talk about the shows. They need to separate themselves from the basic cable networks. They're willing to be violent and sexy and occasionally downright sleezy. And they've (all networks) finally started embracing a more serialized format too, thus finally making full use of the medium. So they can tell deeper, more complex stories. And there doesn't seem to be any genre they're afraid of. A period piece about Ad Men, a show about a dying professor who becomes a meth cooker, a serial killer who kills serial killers, epic political fantasy and sci-fi, zombies, fairy tales, vampires, etc.

As to why it's attracting so much talent? Well, like I said, they've finally embraced a more long form story which means you can do so much more with 10 to 20 hours of programming a season vs. 2 hours in a movie. You can really dig in.

[Nicholas Taggart]

Totally. Cinema is not wanting.

Eh, depends what you like. And things could always be better.

I wouldn't say any country those cinema I pay any kind of real attention to is having a particularly great period right now.

[Sarah Horrocks]

I was gonna say Shame is a movie I'd put up against films from any era, but then I remembered that although it takes place in New York, its director and writer are British and I'm pretty sure it was a British production, too.

David Lynch shouldn't be left out of the discussion of American films. That man lives and breathes America. I would put Mulholland Drive up against Apocalypse Now or Taxi Driver or Dr. Strangelove. A few others would be Inglourious Basterds, The Fountain, and two Coen Bros movies: O, Brother Where Art Thou? and No Country for Old Men. I also might put Jim Jarmusch's The Limits of Control in there, but that feels like a bit of a cheat... It's a much less quintessentially American than even Basterds or The Fountain.

I like Muholland Drive. I actually like Inland Empire even more. The Coens are alright. I'm an arronfksy hater. And as you rightly point out there's not much american about The Limits of Control. Which gets back to what I was originally saying in that most american cinema of note is really world cinema as made by a director who happens to be american.

There Will Be Blood is THE American movie of this era. And it does stand up to anything from any other era. Tree of Life could have been up there, but in the end it kind of got boring and sucked, and doesn't really measure up to Thin Red Line, Badlands, Days of Heaven etc.

Why is TV so good and cinema so bad when they're produced by the same studios and creative teams?

I can understand someone saying music was better in the 60's and 70's - ugly people could become rock stars so you could let the talent get through. These days you have to be attractive, which cuts down the potential base of musicians. People always had to be good looking for the movies, so it's not that the acting talent has diminished. And if directors are doing great work on TV why are they doing so badly in movies?

Television is a different format. Studios take more chances with TV than they do with film. And increasingly that is where the literate populace WANTS to watch their entertainment(see also no one goes to movies anymore). There's a lot of factors, but the result is indisputable. TV of the past 12 years represents whatever films represented in the 70s for Americans. Enjoy it while it lasts. Because as the production values of these shows skyrocket, so will the type of chances networks will take lessen, just as in cinema.

Totally. Cinema is not wanting.

In the last decade or so we've gotten Shame, In Bruges, the Vengeance Trilogy, Children of Men, Pan's Labyrinth, The Proposition, 2046, Enter the Void, The Guard, and City of God. Those are all movies that speak to the brilliance of today's filmmakers.

No one is saying it is. I'm saying there's no dominant American scene like there was in the 70s, and that for the most part all of the good films are diffused into a world cinema identity.

For instance I think Lars Von Trier as a filmmaker stands up against all of the greats from any era. What I'm talking about is American cinema as a thing. It both no longer exists in the form it did in the 70s, and the films that we do produce from this country, aren't nearly as creatively unhibited as they were in the 70s. For cultural reasons I think. We are a lot more conservative in some ways than we were in the 70s. We've lived long enough to see Richard Nixon be made into a liberal.

[Jim Ohara]

Television is a different format. Studios take more chances with TV than they do with film. And increasingly that is where the literate populace WANTS to watch their entertainment(see also no one goes to movies anymore). There's a lot of factors, but the result is indisputable. TV of the past 12 years represents whatever films represented in the 70s for Americans. Enjoy it while it lasts. Because as the production values of these shows skyrocket, so will the type of chances networks will take lessen, just as in cinema.

I still don't get what you're talking about. You say movie studios don't take risks but the same companies do take risks in television. That makes no sense at all. There's currently all scales of movies being produced, from $200million bets to $500k indie experimental movies. You've never lived in a period with more variation, more perspectives, more fresh talent and simply a wider volume of movies.

I think you're saying the big movies, those with big stars, don't take the risks anymore. But then in the 70's that was true wasn't it? Movies like the Deer Hunter and Godfather starred young actors and those movies made them famous. jaws was made by a rookie director who nearly lost his career over it. There's a range of actors and directors today filling those roles. A movie like Shame is a decent example. Brokeback Mountain too - it's pretty risky to make a movie about 2 gay cowboys where not much happens and it ends on a downer. Yet not only did it do well, it was recognized by everyone including the general public.

It's easy to fall in love with a particular time period in movies and think it's the best. I think Back to the Future is a masterpiece for example, but I know if I compare it to Pirates of the Carribean Pirates is a better movie. In all aspects. I just let my nostalgia for the 80's blur my vision into thinking BTTF is better.