The article confuses me a little. On the one hand the author calls the Bond films cheeky escapism, but then he gets upset when people chuckle and lampoon it? He also seems to associate their laughter with an inability to enjoy the movie; on the contrary, they are still getting enjoyment out of it, just in a different way. If these movies are supposed to be simple escapism, why does he insist on a greater level of thought and sophistication from the audience? That defies the point of the film.
He also is clearly targeting young people with his comments, as if this generation is just unable to appreciate the art of older movies, yet he gives an example of this same behavior from his own youth in 1988. Obviously, then, this attitude towards older films has nothing to do with the current generation being too unsophisticated, it has to do with all generations satirizing and dismissing films that came before their time. And this isn't limited to films, this also happens with fashion, art, music, and any other form of expression.
I think the author of the article is overreacting. This is just the natural progression of such things. In time, they will come back into fashion, and then out again. For example, with the Singing in the Rain example used in the article, students in 1988 thought it was ridiculous that characters would go from talking right into singing and then back to talking. Yet today, this is no longer so ridiculous and seems to have come back into public acceptance with shows such as Glee and the various movie musical remakes we've had. Like shivkala
, I'd be interested to see the reaction of today's students; I don't think they would find it as corny and unsophisticated. Sure, certain aspects of older films will always be outdated since they are from a different era (such as certain fashions or ways of speaking), but on the whole I think students would be more accepting of such a film today. Whereas, the students in 1988 would have taken the older Bond movies more seriously, and today's students would think them corny.
This doesn't mean that any one generation is "right," "wrong," or "unsophisticated." It just means they are different, and have different contexts for and perspectives on the art they experience. It seems to me that the author just simply has an artistic difference of opinion from many of the other audience members, which isn't good or bad, it just is. It reminds me of a previous thread here on acceptable reactions to movies in different countries; different reactions don't mean that one group appreciates the film more than the other, it just boils down to cultural differences. Each generation has its own culture, so really the author is just experiencing a clash of cultures.