Re: Interesting blog on younger people not connecting with older movie
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
I think it's because they've had less practice.
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.
