Interesting blog on younger people not connecting with older movies

[Mr. Adventure]

degra wrote:

---

I think this is very true. Kids these days don't have the patience--we are living in a society that prefers shallowness, fast pacing, lots of seizure-inducing action and pretty eye candy in terms of VFX(I myself miss motion control models). That's why MTV no longer plays videos but a bunch of reality drek.

This is what our parents said when MTV did play videos.

[FreezeC77]

Mr. Adventure wrote:

---

This is what our parents said when MTV did play videos.

Yea. It's why I pretty much don't pay any attention to criticizing 'today's youth' because it has probably been around since the advent of man. There were probably cave men talking about how the next-gen spent too much time cave painting and not enough time hunting.

[JarodRussell]

Everything about film has changed in the last decades. Acting styles especially. That's why we say that some older films are unintentionally funny when they were taken very seriously back then. Just compare TOS acting to TOS movie acting to TNG acting to Abramstrek acting. There you have a well documented proof for the change in acting styles over several decades in various formats.

Blaming it on the audience, telling them "you are unsophisticated" (a.k.a. "you are a dumb fuck if you don't appreciate it"), blatantly ignores the fact that we simply live in a different generation of art.


People always complain when they say Star Trek 2009 is dumbed down for the masses. It's not, it's a product of its time. In 20 years, audiences might laugh at it, or even say it's too damn slow and boring, or even say it's way too dark, because they are used to an entirely different way of dramatic presentation.


You might argue that you don't like how the artforms have changed, because you perhaps prefer longer shots over quickly edited ones, but don't say "you're stupid, you don't get it" to someone who simply appreciates the products of his time. Because, in fact, you are the unsophisticated one if you do.

[Spot's Meow]

JarodRussell wrote:

---

Everything about film has changed in the last decades. Acting styles especially. That's why we say that some older films are unintentionally funny when they were taken very seriously back then. Just compare TOS acting to TOS movie acting to TNG acting to Abramstrek acting. There you have a well documented proof for the change in acting styles over several decades in various formats.

Blaming it on the audience, telling them "you are unsophisticated" (a.k.a. "you are a dumb fuck if you don't appreciate it"), blatantly ignores the fact that we simply live in a different generation of art.


People always complain when they say Star Trek 2009 is dumbed down for the masses. It's not, it's a product of its time. In 20 years, audiences might laugh at it, or even say it's too damn slow and boring, or even say it's way too dark, because they are used to an entirely different way of dramatic presentation.


You might argue that you don't like how the artforms have changed, because you perhaps prefer longer shots over quickly edited ones, but don't say "you're stupid, you don't get it" to someone who simply appreciates the products of his time. Because, in fact, you are the unsophisticated one if you do.

I agree! You've said what I was trying to say in a much more succinct way, thanks!

[gblews]

JarodRussell wrote:

---

You might argue that you don't like how the artforms have changed, because you perhaps prefer longer shots over quickly edited ones, but don't say "you're stupid, you don't get it" to someone who simply appreciates the products of his time. Because, in fact, you are the unsophisticated one if you do.

If one appreciates only the "products of his time", especially when it comes to art, I probably wouldn't use the word "stupid" to describe that person, but it sure would be difficult to refrain from using "unsophisticated".

[Spot's Meow]

gblews wrote:

---

If one appreciates only the "products of his time", especially when it comes to art, I probably wouldn't use the word "stupid" to describe that person, but it sure would be difficult to refrain from using "unsophisticated".

I don't think it's about only appreciating the products of your own time, but that it's easier to appreciate them, simply because they are more readily relateable and accessible to you. Or, you appreciate products from another time, but in a different way. Much like the other audience members in the Bond film were appreciating the film in a different way than the article/blog author was. If they didn't appreciate it at all, they wouldn't have given their time and money to be there for the screening. They DO appreciate the film, just not in the way the author wants them to.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Sadly, the author of that piece made one worthwhile observation, failed to understand it himself, and then carried on pointlessly for many paragraphs:

it made me painfully aware that for a good many people, movies aren’t art or experience, they’re product. And products date.

It's not the fault of the audience at all. Popular culture simply does date, because it is product. People who are defensive on the part of popular culture proclaim it as somehow equal to or better than art of real nuance and ambition, and then get bent out of shape when fashion moves on to the next thing.

Well, guess what - people only liked the thing to begin with because it so exemplified the fashions and superficial concerns/attractions of that moment.

Even people who want to own a 1964 1/2 Mustang like the one in Goldfinger wouldn't drive it every day - it was not designed as "timeless transportation" if such a thing were possible; it was a product appropriate to its moment.

Successful product is not the same thing as valuable art.

People laugh at old James Bond movies because the producers didn't try - or didn't try hard enough - to make them really good. So, they aren't truly enduring.

End of story.

[Rarewolf]

I generally find that now (to my shame) I have little time for movies older than myself (35) unless I grew up with them.

I must have seen all the 007 films until Craig at least twice, I'd have no problem sitting down to watch them again. Except finding the time!

[Owain Taggart]

My Name Is Legion wrote:

---

Sadly, the author of that piece made one worthwhile observation, failed to understand it himself, and then carried on pointlessly for many paragraphs:

It's not the fault of the audience at all. Popular culture simply does date, because it is product. People who are defensive on the part of popular culture proclaim it as somehow equal to or better than art of real nuance and ambition, and then get bent out of shape when fashion moves on to the next thing.

Well, guess what - people only liked the thing to begin with because it so exemplified the fashions and superficial concerns/attractions of that moment.

Even people who want to own a 1964 1/2 Mustang like the one in Goldfinger wouldn't drive it every day - it was not designed as "timeless transportation" if such a thing were possible; it was a product appropriate to its moment.

Successful product is not the same thing as valuable art.

People laugh at old James Bond movies because the producers didn't try - or didn't try hard enough - to make them really good. So, they aren't truly enduring.

End of story.

Well said. I only have one thing to add to that, and it's the fact that, there are certain times when period dramas made in the present can often look the part, but don't always hit the mark in terms of how they feel, even though many productions try their damnedest to be accurate, and I think that's due to the perceptions we have now vs how things really were, and we can't fully encapsulate how it really was due to not being part of the era that's been recreated. I don't think we can ever be truly accurate in that respect. Hope I'm making sense on that.

[Spot's Meow]

Owain Taggart wrote:

---

Well said. I only have one thing to add to that, and it's the fact that, there are certain times when period dramas made in the present can often look the part, but don't always hit the mark in terms of how they feel, even though many productions try their damnedest to be accurate, and I think that's due to the perceptions we have now vs how things really were, and we can't fully encapsulate how it really was due to not being part of the era that's been recreated. I don't think we can ever be truly accurate in that respect. Hope I'm making sense on that.

Yes, that makes perfect sense. It's called presentism; applying present day attitudes and culture to past events, whether intentional or unintentional. In fact some would argue that it's impossible to avoid presentism.

[J.T.B.]

Everything about film has changed in the last decades. Acting styles especially. That's why we say that some older films are unintentionally funny when they were taken very seriously back then. Just compare TOS acting to TOS movie acting to TNG acting to Abramstrek acting. There you have a well documented proof for the change in acting styles over several decades in various formats.

Blaming it on the audience, telling them "you are unsophisticated" (a.k.a. "you are a dumb fuck if you don't appreciate it"), blatantly ignores the fact that we simply live in a different generation of art.

I disagree. The point of the article was that many filmmakers throughout time have made complex and you might say "sophisticated" choices to accomplish their artistic goals. The goal of "sophisticated" viewing should be to try to understand and evaluate the messages the authors of the film intended to convey and to understand why they made the choices that they made. Not making an effort to engage the film on its own level -- indeed looking down one's nose at aspects which seem dated -- is one way to view it, but a superficial use of material which could be much more rewarding. "Unsophisticated" seems a pretty good word for that kind of viewing.

The further you go back in time the more difficult what me might call "literate viewing" becomes. Not only do you need to be familiar with the issues and references of the time depicted, but also with the techniques, conventions and vernacular of filmmaking at the time, technical limitations, the politics and business of movie making and on and on. Not being "literate" about it is nothing to be ashamed of, most people aren't, I'm usually not. But that doesn't mean that it's not worthwhile to try to engage something outside your contemporo-cultural comfort zone. The author was not calling anyone a "dumb fuck" and all he was "blaming" them for was not making an attempt to look past a film's surface and engage it on a more substantive level. That would be the more "sophisticated" way to view it.

It's not the fault of the audience at all. Popular culture simply does date, because it is product. People who are defensive on the part of popular culture proclaim it as somehow equal to or better than art of real nuance and ambition, and then get bent out of shape when fashion moves on to the next thing.

Well, guess what - people only liked the thing to begin with because it so exemplified the fashions and superficial concerns/attractions of that moment.

Even people who want to own a 1964 1/2 Mustang like the one in Goldfinger wouldn't drive it every day - it was not designed as "timeless transportation" if such a thing were possible; it was a product appropriate to its moment.

Successful product is not the same thing as valuable art.

People laugh at old James Bond movies because the producers didn't try - or didn't try hard enough - to make them really good. So, they aren't truly enduring.

End of story.

I disagree with that completely. The implication is that there is some objective standard of what is "popular culture," what is "art," what is "really good" and what is "enduring." There is no such thing. If movies can only be evaluated as art if they are "truly enduring," then no movie is art because there will never be universal agreement on whether they endure or not. And it's not a question of trying hard enough: There has never been nor will ever be a filmmaker who can predict how future tastes and fashions will affect the perception of their work.

Well said. I only have one thing to add to that, and it's the fact that, there are certain times when period dramas made in the present can often look the part, but don't always hit the mark in terms of how they feel, even though many productions try their damnedest to be accurate, and I think that's due to the perceptions we have now vs how things really were, and we can't fully encapsulate how it really was due to not being part of the era that's been recreated. I don't think we can ever be truly accurate in that respect. Hope I'm making sense on that.

Yeah it's pretty much impossible to be completely accurate and faithful to the time. Too much detail and realism could disorient viewers and make them unable to relate; not enough detail and "feel" and the viewers won't buy it. It's hard to do well.

Justin

[stj]

The producers of Singing in the Rain didn't try, or try hard enough, to make a good movie?

For those who haven't been paying attention, the issue is not whether people, young or old, like this or that. The issue is why they refuse to even try. And, secondarily, why they get so bent out of shape when someone notes that it isn't very sophisticated, maybe even kind of dumb, to judge something (really, anything) so superficially. Older people who won't watch anything because it's popular with young people are obviously indulging a mean streak, not using better taste. Ditto for young people refusing to engage with anything old.

And no, pretending you're MST3K isn't watching, it's performing.

That said, I must admit that younger actors tend to be less skilled than older ones. I think it's because they've had less practice.

[scotpens]

Temis the Friendly Ghost wrote:

---

Eh, I've never connected with the Bond movies at all. And by this point, the imagery of the older movies is so dated that of course it looks silly. Besides the surface glamour, what is there to connect with?

For us straight guys, the babes.

davejames wrote:

---

I have to admit I didn't think much of The Sound of Music when I was a kid either. It was just this corny black and white movie my parents used to love. And musicals in general seemed silly as hell to me.

The Sound of Music was in color.

Actually, although I like musicals in general, that's the one Rodgers and Hammerstein show I've never enjoyed. Just too much treacle for my taste.

Why are so many younger people turned off my musical films nowadays? Sorry, I just don't buy the excuse that it isn't "realistic" for characters to break into song and dance in the middle of a scene. Movies aren't reality to begin with. Old-school Hollywood musicals are no more or less realistic than modern action flicks with their speed-ramping and physically impossible stunts, or computer-animated fare from Disney and Pixar, or fantasy adventures like LOTR or POTC. There must be something else going on here. Could it be that musicals are too -- dare I say it -- GAY?

[Owain Taggart]

Spot's Meow wrote:

---

Yes, that makes perfect sense. It's called presentism; applying present day attitudes and culture to past events, whether intentional or unintentional. In fact some would argue that it's impossible to avoid presentism.

Thanks for confirming it and giving it a word. I find it interesting and some of it is more obvious than others. There's some really good period drama out there, Gosford Park being one that really impressed me recently in terms of accuracy and feel of its portrayal, but I feel one of the worst offenses is when period dramas use more modern language, including modern swears. That kind of thing takes me out of what otherwise could be a good drama. It hurts to see that, especially when lots of effort are put into the sets and they look so good, which makes me appreciate the productions that actually do some research into getting the language correct. Unless you have someone for a specific era as an advisor, then like you say, I don't think it's something we can ever get absolutely correct. I guess it's something someone notices more over time, but I've been noticing less of an effort with period dramas lately. Maybe it's just the fact that there are more of them.

[stj]

^^^What are modern swears? The classics come from the Anglo-Saxon.