Here are questions cinephiles and critics still hear all the time: "Why do you like old movies and foreign movies so much? What about new movies? Aren't you just being elitist to say you like movies that are in black and white or have subtitles? Movies are supposed to be fun!" The implicit assumption is that "old movies" are outmoded movies and that new movies (with the latest technologies, unrestricted by old codes regarding sex, violence, drugs and other content) are inclined to be more liberated or superior. Oh, and that "fun" cannot be inspired by anything made before one was born. Not that there's anything inherently inferior about recent, English-language movies, either, but what's wrong with a kiss, boy? (Yes, I quote ol' Monty Python a lot.)
I like to counter this narcissistic question with another proposition: "Think of the new music you've heard that's been issued over the last year. Is more of it "better" than what's been made over the last 100 years? Would it be "elitist" to say that it's more likely you'll find more favorites from the last 99 years than from the last one? Even in purely statistical terms, it just makes sense.
Let's say I'm an even 50 years old. Well, movies themselves have only been around for about 100 years, so I would not be surprised to find that I had at least as many favorites that were made before I was born (1957) as I do that were made since the advent of my existence. Now let's assume that I am turning 30 in 2007. If I say I'm really interested in movies, then it shouldn't seem the least bit unlikely that I've seen more great movies made between 1900 and 1977 than I have between 1977 and now. Especially since so many of them are so easy to see -- whether on basic cable (Turner Classic Movies) or DVD.
I know, I know -- there are people who don't like musical styles of the past, either. They don't like punk or rockabilly or bebop or big band swing or Western swing or blues or Romanticism or Baroque music. And that's their taste, and they're entitled to it. But, if they haven't been sufficiently exposed to these styles, that doesn't mean those tastes are terribly well-rounded tastes. (This is where we could argue about whether some "opinions" carry more weight than others in a debate.) We don't have to like everything, we just need to have enough knowledge and experience to know what it is we don't like.
The question itself seems understandable, if misguided, at first hearing. Until you consider it for about three seconds. And then you see how insulting it really is, because another underlying assumption is: "You can't really like that stuff, can you?"
As Sammy Davis, Jr., one wrote: Yes, I can. (Whether Frank Sinatra says it's OK or not.)
Is Beyonce a greater singer because she's relatively new and young and recorded with the latest technology? Are Aretha Franklin and Edith Piaf and Dinah Washington and Patsy Cline and Martha Reeves and Susannah McCorkle and Billie Holliday and Astrud Gilberto automatically not as good because they recorded a lot of their best stuff earlier -- and some of it was not in English? It just depends on what you like, not on when it was new.
So, why do cinephiles and critics like old movies, and movies from other lands, so much? Maybe for the same reason oenophiles like vintage wines so much: They've stood up over time, and different regions have different styles and distinctive flavors. And maybe because it's part of the definition: Anybody who doesn't consider movies made more than 10 or 20 or 30 years ago has no business calling him/herself a critic or cinephile any more than somebody who dismisses the traditional cuisines of the world could be considered a gourmet. (I've been watching "Top Chef," you see...)
I've been called a "movie snob" more times than I can remember. Usually jokingly by family and friends. But what I try to get across is that there is nothing snobbish about liking, say, screwball comedies from the thirties. I just watched Libelled Lady again recently and thoroughly enjoyed it. I didn't pretend to enjoy it so I could look cool or put on some kind of air, I liked it, period.
With very few exceptions most older or foreign films are simply telling stories in much the same way they tell them now. The effects are obviously different, the language in some cases is different, but the old or foreign movies aren't alien tracts unrecognizable to anyone outside of a film school. This is what people don't realize because they haven't been exposed. Many people I know who have never seen a Godard have avoided him thinking his films will be random collections of disjointed esoteric images ending with the heroine looking at the camera and saying "Fish" before the credits roll. And therefore, thinking this is how those films are, they assume you have to be faking it to say that you like them.
My kids have been exposed to all sorts of old films and foreign films and they still watch a lot of crap but if my wife and I are watching a classic film or foreign film and they're around, they will watch it with us. They've been exposed to it since they were born and don't see "old" movies or foreign movies as anything other than movies.
It's all about exposure. If you can just get people to watch enough of them, they will get it.
Here, here. I completely agree with what your sentiment. Yet, I also want here why it annoys you when people say, "movies are supposed to be fun!" or "calm down- its just a movie, and movies are just supposed to be entertaining!" (I want you to elaborate on this because one of my peeves is when people say one of those two statements to me. Because, to rip-off Sartre's statement that "a waiter is never just a waiter," a movie is never just a movie.)
John: I don't find it at all annoying when people say they like movies to be fun. I just question the assumptions that: 1) ALL movies have to be "fun"; 2) older or foreign movies aren't "fun"; or, as you mention, 3) a movie can't be "fun" and something else, besides.
Jonathan: This post was partially inspired by a recent discussion with one of my oldest friends, a mom whose 15-year-old daughter loves to watch old movies with her. The teenager's all-time favorite movie is "Bringing Up Baby." I've gotten so much pleasure out of passing along "Trouble in Paradise," "The Lady Eve," "Ball of Fire," "Ninotchka," "Silk Stockings," "on the Town," "The Palm Beach Story" and others for the two of 'em to enjoy.
If my argument (based on recent experiences) sounds like preaching to the choir, then so be it. Naturally, I don't assume readers here would share or defend the sentiments I describe. But I've had to face this attitude my whole life, and I just wanted to provide some responses I've found useful when confronted with these accusative "questions." I mean, do you know how often movie lovers, like me or my friends or Roger Ebert, are still asked why they would watch a movie in black and white, or with subtitles? It's amazing how frequently it happens to this day.
On the other hand, somebody e-mailed me to say: "It's as if you're writing things down to an audience of 45-year-old knitting club spinsters who want to be catered to. I like a purveyor to treat the crowd as sophisticatedly able to process esotericisms if need be; and so do you cause to your credit you like Lynch. Sometimes it's as if you believe you must drive the point home in an argument w/ a stubborn 15-year-old."
Sorry! Not my intention at all! I can only hope regular readers would recognize that by now...
I definitely get what you're saying, Jim, but I see it go both ways. All too often, people refuse to believe that a modern movie could be one of the greatest ever simply because it's modern. Sure, one qualification definitely has to do with how it stands the test of time, but just as some young people won't even consider the possibility of enjoying old stuff, some older people refuse to acknowledge new stuff (it's not just an age thing, I'm just throwing that out).
pacheco: Right you are. I've found myself trapped into that conversation, too -- the movie version of the age-old: "These crazy kids today with their noisy rock and roll music!" Guess it's what used to be called "The Generation Gap." But, as you say, it isn't necessarily an age thing...
To me, there is always the factor of the Information Age vs. the Novelty Curve; how "cool" or dynamic something is, versus availability-- modern movies with tons of splash, or watching movies at home (which I believe loses something in translation).
Yes, "Bringing Up Baby" (and the Marx Brothers) turned me into a young cinemaphile, but I wouldn't have discovered "Detour" (1945) or "The Stranger" (1946) if they weren't bargain-priced DVDs. These were all happened upon by random chance.
It's like they mean more to me that way...
I see this tendency a lot with my students, even the really bright ones who are pretty open to supposedly "offbeat" or unfamiliar films. I agree with Jonathan that it's partly due to exposure (or lack thereof), but I also think it does involve age; not in the sense that they're "too young" to get, say, Preston Sturges, but in the sense that they want the medium to feel like it's THEIRS. Jim, I think your example of punk is a useful one here-- think how silly, in retrospect, some of the dismissal was of classic rock artists like the stones by bands like the sex pistols (especially since you can see and hear the influence all over them). And yet, it also expressed a geniune, and not necessarily awful, desire to make a break with a past that felt creatively stifling-- an overwrought but understandable way to clear the decks and do what they wanted.
I say this as someone whose favorite directors are mostly dead, and whose work looks primarily at Hollywood between the 20s and 60s (and I'm 34, so...). I very much want to expose my students to Renoir, Sturges, Rossellini, Truffaut, Cukor, Hawks, etc., and do in nearly all my classes. And a lot of the students end up responding very positively. But I also get, even if I disagree with, the Desire for the New that powers many of them (and that, to be fair, has also powered a lot of important cinematic movements).
i think part of the issue is this: the pace of change in movies (or how quickly the form has evolved over the years) keeps people away from older (or foreign) films. i've encountered people who have a hard time with the acting styles of pre-60's movies. black and white seems to be a problem only because we are so trained to watch our visual media in color. older hollywood movies tend to rely a little less on close-ups it seems to me, and i think people have a subconscious problem with that. when i first started watching movies avidly (about 5-6 years ago) i wanted to conquer the "classics". it took me a while to really appreciate them though, because some of things mentioned above were things i had to get used to. even now i find subtitles frustrating because i'd rather be paying close attention to the screen itself instead of reading the words.
even still i think that this phenomenon isn't only found in movies. it can be hard for people to get into any music that was released before they were in their early teens, or for people to read older novels. it seems to me that the average person watches movies, listens to music, or reads books casually. and if you're only a casual reader, you may not be taking the time and effort to search out older books. etc etc. so, will the casual movie fan really take the time and energy to explore silent movies?
maybe too it has something to do with watching whatever's popular. i can't tell you how many people have given me dirty looks for not liking "napolean dynamite". they act as if i don't have the right to not like it.
it's unfortunate that we get funny looks and accusations of snobbery. however, considering all the great movies that i've seen from before 1980 (the year i was born), i'll take the looks and accusations, and keep the great movies.
Michael Dirda, book critic for the Washington Post, once had a great column about a similar topic: “Whenever people mention my so-called passion for reading, I always start to bristle. After all, to be known as a book lover -- how grotesque. It's like being called a eunuch or an old maid; one always hears that faint sneer of disdain and condescension mixed with pity.” You get the same feeling from those who don’t watch old movies or foreign ones–as if there is something wrong with someone who might enjoy something in black and white, or with subtitles.
Dirda goes on to make a great case for the fact that it’s all about pleasure–what do we enjoy? I know as the movie buff of my friends and family, I often get blank looks when I mention older films, or foreign ones, or even more obscure contemporary ones. And I get a lot of “How can you call yourself a movie lover if you’ve never seen____?” That’s an easy one—I didn’t think I’d enjoy that movie, so I didn’t watch it. For fun, I usually click on the star ratings on Netflix or the IMDb for movies I’ve seen. I know my ratings tend to skew high, but that’s because I tend to watch movies I think I’m going to like. And I tend not to like a lot of current popular movies. I do watch enough of them to know, and I do occasionally like them. I guess my question back to folks is “How can you call yourself a movie lover if you’ve never seen_____ ?” (Fill in classic or
foreign title here.)
Dirda also points out all the things that books have given him—but more importantly, what they have not. While books or films can take us to foreign lands or different times, or “serve as the axe for the frozen sea within us” as Kafka said about books (the whole quote is much longer and great, and could easily apply to films), they are still no substitute for actually living life. I think you could read Dirda’s column and replace the word film for book for many who read this column. At least I know for me you can (though I love books equally, so wear both these shoes). Jim, you’re always writing about how you enjoy the fact that discussions on the blogosphere often encourages you to follow your thinking down whatever road it will take you, and I guess dragging Dirda and Kafka into it is one of those tangential moments for me.
Sorry, this went on a lot longer than I expected when I started.
The full column can be found here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A54661-2001Aug23?language=printer
After I sent that commment and read pacheco's I realized I should clarify: I do watch a lot of contemporary films. A lot. I just don't tend to think most comedies made these days are very funny, nor do I like the over-the-top popcorn flicks of Michael Bay and his ilk. I'm not a contemporary movie snob--just selective.
Oh, I don't have a problem with people saying that movies are fun-- I have a problem with people who say that movies should JUST be fun. (And for once I'm correctly using the word 'just.') This peeve of mine stems from the reality that many casual moviegoers are people who don't view movies as 'that' consequential or consequential at all. Essentially, these are people who view movies as ephemeral and unimportant.
Basically the logic I oppose is this: 'I go to the movies to have fun, so thus the movies I like are fun, and the movies I like are the ones that objectively matter, therefore the only movies that matter are entertaining ones.' This is essentially a myopic and mindless attitude about cinema and as a Film Studies graduate I find this mildly offensive. That's how much of a preachy snob I am.
In an interview in March '06 issue of the magazine The Believer, Harold Ramis was asked if he's ever offended by people who say to him, 'when I go to the movies, I don't want to think' (which he confirmed happens often:)
"(Not only does it offend me as a filmmaker) It offends me as a human being. Why wouldn't you want to think? What does that mean? Why not just shoot yourself in the f****** head?"
And that was said by the man who played Egon in GHOSTBUSTERS and directed GROUNDHOG DAY, which are two very enjoyable/intelligent movies.
P.S. I apologize for my poor writing in my initial comment. I didn't do a proper drafting process.
I guess this is something I don't really ever have to think about because most of my friends know that I'll like anything, just so long as it's well done, and if it's not that, enjoyable to some degree. Separating the bad fun movies and the good good movies is imperative. I saw "Battlefield Earth" five times at the theatre, bringing with me a different group of people each time...and laughing the whole way through. Five times people! I was in such bad pain after the fifth helping, but I still couldn't stop laughing. (The great thing is that on the DVD, which I own, they tried to clean up some of the flaws, and made it worse!)
But then I shrieked with delight when I saw the image of "The Seven Samurai" on the top of the post. Movies just excite me, from anywhere. When America is having a bad year, it's nice to see movies like "Lady Vengeance", "The Host", or "Infernal Affairs" jump at you from across the seas, or to see a dusty old film for the first time. I saw "It Happened One Night" on the wall of a building last summer. It was delightful. Good is good. Bad can be good. Mediocre is bad. I don't really rationalize beyond that as far as taste goes, and my friends have never called me a movie snob because of it. Though sometimes they'll call me an idiot, for going to see, like, "Rush Hour 3", but never a snob.
Everyone has now said so many of the things I wanted to say. I guess that means I agree with pretty much everything that's been posted. I not only agree with cinephile about the "desire for the new" but felt that way when I was in my teens and twenties. I have encountered many a young film student or cineaste intent on "proving" to me that Welles is overrated, Renoir's a bore, etc. Years later (of those I kept in touch with over the years) I haven't found one that still believes a word of it.
And this comment by Phillip "Good is good. Bad can be good. Mediocre is bad." sums it up for me perfectly. There is nothing more laborious than trudging through a mediocre film. I can enjoy an awful one for its incompetence and love a great one, but one that is ambitionless, bland and lackluster just makes me cringe.
Well put.
"You said Patsy Cline twice."
"I like Patsy Cline."
As a cinephile, I obviously agree with you, Jim, but I think some of those comments you hear (we all hear) are often legitimately reacting to film snobbery. We all know film snobs who refuse to recognize the quality of modern films, as has been mentioned, or jump on a bandwagon in touting a certain director, decade, or nationality. There's always that guy who wants to look smart for liking the obscure over the "fun." Both snobbery and reverse snobbery seem to me a sign of immaturity and insecurity in one's own taste.
I think it's part of an all-too-common trend across all areas of discussion, even beyond popular culture, that more people are dismissing things as irrelevant if it didn't happen in their lifetime. That's where the true narcissism rears its ugly head. On a funny side note, eons ago when I was in a video rental store, there was a group of teens looking for something to rent. One of them suggested Apocalypse Now. Another asked what year it was released and when told it was 1979, another with the group asked, "Is it in color?"
One thing is to prefer newer films.
The real sin here is the failure to acknowledge that contemporary filmmakers have all been standing on the shoulders of giants.
A guy I went to film school with said, and I quote him verbatim (although translated from Norwegian): "Everything old is shit."
Last thing I heard he was working at the railroad.
Still, I find it almost equally arrogant and narrowsighted to dismiss mainstream films simply because they are mainstream. The anti-Hollywood snobs are still numerous, especially here in Europe.
While I don't necessarily mind if someone comments that they don't watch or care to watch older/foreign films, a few I've met go out of their way to dismiss outright their value. Apparently films made before 1960 are "relics of history", that lack not only the depth and entertainment value of modern film, but are (or should) be appreciated solely on the base of their historical influence. It's when this comes up that I become frustrated, it becomes a situation where they are accusing people of being close minded and "pretending" to enjoy certain films to appear more intelligent, while at the same time imposing their own prejudices and beliefs onto these films and the people who watch and enjoy them. It works both ways, if you go around believing everyone is lying about what they like, than what is the point in engaging in cinematic conversations at all?
I think, like anything, one has to expose themselves to new things and it will become easier and easier to find something you like in them. I was lucky to have been introduced to Michael Powell and old MGM musicals when I was just a child, although it took me longer to develop a taste for foreign language film. It's all about adaptation and learning. I couldn't call myself a film fan if I didn't try to see everything and anything that looks remotely interesting, or different. I hate to think what beauties I would miss if I decided not to watch older films, or films from France, or movies made by David Fincher.
Hallelujah for this post...I'm going to pass it along to two co-workers of mine, because it will perfectly explain an argument I have been having with them.
One co-worker is an extremely intelligent man of about my age (24) who almost takes a kind of perverse pride in his aversion to old movies and his insistence that movies be mindless fun (he holds "300" as the pinnacle of this achievement, until the next empty spectacle comes along). The other coworker is a more troubling case, because he does consider himself a film fan, yet made a few jokes when I mentioned that some of my favourite films were foreign and older (he did get a chuckle out of me when I questioned one of his personal favourites, and he said "Oh, sorry it actually has dialogue in it").
My point to both these coworkers it that in order to be a true film fan, you must be familiar with its history, and that is not a slog through "vegetable" films (good for you but horrible to endure), but rather a wonderful journey through treasures of the past.
Just this past Saturday at work, we were flipping around the television looking for something interesting on, and I noticed that "Full Metal Jacket" was on. I was surprised by how few people in the office were familiar with it...to these twenty-somethings, a 1987 film was an OLD film! But when we did end up watching it, it was no surprise that they all became gripped by it.
I can trace the roots of my own cinephilia back to my early years, when I was about five or six, and my favourite films included a diverse range including "The Princess Bride" (just released at the time), the "Star Wars" films (quite recent), "The Wizard of Oz" (very old), "A Day at the Races" (very old) and "A Christmas Carol" (very old). I would watch "A Day at the Races" and "A Christmas Carol" over and over, memorizing some of the best routines in the former and consistently moved by the latter. As a young child, I didn't make the distinction between OLD and NEW (strangely enough, I was never too interested in "E.T." in my early years, even though that was the phenomenon of the 80s), I just knew what interested me and what didn't. I guess that seed of curiosity has remained ever since.
Perhaps there is an element of parental responsibility in encouraging their children to be curious about all kinds of films...in any case, we should not assume that just because something is new, it is automatically better.
In general, of course, I agree with this post. The belief that it is elitist to admire foreign films and films made before one was born is idiotic. However, I don't think it follows that at least as many good movies should be made between 1907-1957 as 1957-2007. That would imply that 20% of the last century's greatest movies were made from 1900 to 1920. Looking at theyshootpictures.com top 1000 one find only 8, or 0.8%. Nor should this be surprising. Movies can be valued for their narrative qualities or for their visual qualities. So it is not surprising that there are fewer classic movies in the first two decades, when actors couldn't talk and the medium was not well developed. It's not that there are no great silent film actors of course, but to be frank, very few silent actors are like Chaplin or Falconetti. It is not unreasonable to say that the quality of acting in movies improved after 1927. On the other hand, while technical achievement has been constantly increasing throughout the century, there is a point where one sees diminishing returns. Movies like "Chinatown" or "Barry Lyndon" probably could not have been made thirty years earlier, partially for technical reasons. (Of course there is also the studio system and censorship issues). But despite the advances made in special effects over the past 30 years, few great films now could not be made now 30 years earlier. The exceptions are rather narrow, such as "Russian Ark" or The Lord of the Rings trilogy (if you're a fan).
My 26-year-old daughter was recently visiting, and she proudly proclaimed that she and her boyfriend love foreign-language films. So I took her back to where I stash my DVDs and tried to interest her in a little Hsaio-hsien Hou, but when I described it, she decided it would be too slow--she wanted something that moved along--so I brought out some Almodovar, nope, and then Fellini, no way, she'd heard he was too "weird" (in this she sounded like my wife). Understand that she'd never seen any movies by any of these directors, and she'd only heard of one of them (Almodovar) -- she was going by my description and the copy on their cases. Finally, we settled on Kurosawa, but it couldn't be anything "slow" like Ikiru, so we watched Yojimbo, but not until after her boyfriend had warned her by phone "It's old and black-and-white" ...
I wish I could report that Yojimbo was for her a transformative experience, that turned her into an instant Kurosawa or Toshiro Mifune fan, and awakened within her a thirst for classic film, but alas, her reaction was a shrug, saying "At least I stayed awake for it."
On a not-entirely-unrelated tangent, when did "foreign" become a genre? Look at the online video stores or Netflix (may it's name be praised). Last I heard, there were French thrillers, Japanese war films, Russian science fiction ...
I know plenty of cinephiles my age (30) and younger who watch as many kinds of films from as many different decades as they can, and plenty of people in their forties, fifties, and sixties who have little interest in anything other than recent Hollywood blockbusters and/or middlebrow prestige pictures. I think the problem is with mainstream culture's emphasis on the new at the expense of everything else. My brother worked in a video store a few years ago, and he said the question he was asked daily by customers of all ages was not "What's good?" but "What's the newest movie you have?" A bit baffled by the question the first time it was asked him by a middle-aged man, he replied that the newest film in stock was "Big Momma's House 2." When the man returned it several days later, he said to my brother, "That movie was terrible. You got anything newer?"
On a more positive note, a group of neighborhood kids hung out in the store all day, much to my brother's annoyance. He put a DVD of "Raiders of the Lost Ark" on the store's TV, and after much grumbling about how "old" the movie was, the kids quickly sat still and quiet through the whole film, mesmerized. It might be wishful thinking on my part, but maybe those same kids will be watching Cassavetes and Renoir and the Marx Brothers twenty years from now, just as mesmerized by those "old" films. I didn't become interested in film until my early twenties, and even then I harbored stupid prejudices about pre-1960s films, silents, subtitled films, musicals, experimental films, and westerns, which I've since thrown off through exposure to so many great movies of all kinds. Young people are more wrapped up in the present and in their own narrow little universes, and that's what makes life exciting when you're young, but seeds can be planted. There's an exciting world out there, waiting to be discovered. Most people won't find it, but a lot of others will. And you'll probably keep hearing those silly questions until you die, Jim.
I've been trying to figure out for years exactly what elitist means, as used by folk these days. Particularly the Ivy-league, millionaire, son of a Prez, Prez, but not just. Are foreign films automatically intellectual? They're not, mostly, in Latin or Old Greek, people. Are old movies all stuffy history lessons or classic novel adaptations? Probably less often than today's films. All that said, a little elitism isn't always a bad thing in these low-brow times if its about respecting the smart and the knowledgeable and not just the beautiful or the well-heeled. Sometimes ones credentials do mean he/she is better at something than the rest of us and let's milk that. Anyway, what really mystifies me is the idea that one has to choose between eras in any art. Just stop watching that Hillary Duff flick over and over and you may be able to squeeze in "Meet Me in Saint Louis" or "Funny Face" with no sacrifice. And then we can all agree that its a big, broad wonderful world of movies out there.
When you dig around on myspace it's sometimes sad to see no films before 1985 on people's favorite lists. And many times the most artful films that are seen are things such as "The Nightmare Before Christmas" (which I love, but there's more to the world than Tim Burton.)
Animated films cross the generational divide wonderfully. Obviously exposure isn't a problem because parents and teachers show their kids the same films they were shown, and their experience is approximately the same at a young age. I imagine a lot of kids are astonished when they first hear Bambi or Pinnochio mentioned in the same context as Rebecca and Mrs. Miniver...and there you have it. The past made accessible.
Dane's comments about elitism struck a chord ... anti-intellectualism is at a new high in this country, and it's being used by You-Know-Whose administration and party to great ends. Those effete, intellectual snobs who like them Euro-trash movies ... they're the ones responsible for the mess we're in. Gimme the Duke any day (no offense intended to any John Wayne fan, or any wholly- or partially-owned subsidiary of John Wayne Inc.)
Seriously, the liking of those furrin movies has been politicized, it's become part of the "culture wars," that life-or-death battle for our very souls that's been drummed up to take folks' minds off what's really going on in this country.
Okay, it's confession time. This is going to be hard for me, like a lifelong Boston resident finally admitting a deep love for the Yankees. I wish I was kidding.
I'm one of those people in their mid 20's with a vast amount of knowledge about movies from about 1980 to present. I'm okay for the 70's, and with each decade benchmark my knowledge drops off considerably, until we get to the 20's where it jumps up a little again (I just love those surrealist German horror silents). I have zero formal training in film study; basically it's been groping in the dark with the help of (at various points) Cinemania, blogs like this one, my employment at a Hollywood Video in my high school years (a location with a pretty impressive foreign/independent/award winners selection), and random forays into reading critical works by Sarris, Kael, etc.
So basically, I'm ignorant in a lot of important ways. I am completely out of my depth here at Scanners, though I often feel the best education is to get thrown in the deep end, so that's okay. I didn't even know who Antonioni was until The Passenger was reissued -- I think a year ago?
That said, I've seen 47 new-to-me movies this year. That's a lot more than your average person, and substantially less than a professional critic or seriously dedicated movie hound. I don't throw this number out to brag or anything; I'm just giving you a benchmark for my experience. I keep my tastes broad, but I only have so much time and frankly I'm broke most of the time so Netflix is right out.
On that budget, and even with that much time dedicated to the viewing and study of movies (even if on an amateur basis), I have a hard enough time keeping up with the breadth of modern films, nevermind digging into 100 years of backlog. I try to reach back as I go forward, but it's damn hard on me financially, nevermind what it does to my spare time and ability to focus. I have no syllabus or course outline, so how do I truly know I'm getting the education I need? Even great blogs like this one and others half the time just kind of remind me of the whole great wide world that I have no idea about. It's often exhilirating, and often daunting as hell.
So there you go. I don't rule out foreign or classic movies out of hand, of course; I realize how silly that would be. But to have the time and passion to truly comprehend so much film history is a rare trait, and not one defined entirely by intelligence or curiosity.
Ken: I always appreciate your comments here. And you're right: It takes a lot of time and effort (but less money than it used to because DVD rentals now are less than movie tickets were 30 years ago) to get a "self-taught" film education.
That's exactly what lists like the "'Best' Non-English Language Films" one are designed to provide: a guideline, if not exactly a syllabus, to help people discover the great, landmark pictures they may not be familiar with.
I can't believe that, for years in my 20s and 30s, I used to see at least one movie a day. But for chunks of that time, I was getting paid to. Now I'll see anywhere from 2 to 5 movies a day at a festival like Toronto, but I'm a lot pickier about the new releases I choose to see. "Superbad," yes. "The Bourne Ultimatum," yes. "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry," no way. "Resurrecting the Champ," no thanks but maybe I'll give it a shot on cable or DVD....
Here's a unique case for you; a good friend of mine and self-professed cinephile reviles anything made before 1980, and considers most stuff made before 1990 garbage as well. It's not that he hasn't tried, he's just bored to tears. I tried to make him sit through Taxi Driver with me and he hated every minute of it. Full Metal Jacket (mentioned above) is just so so. But Ghost World, Bottle Rocket, Dark City, etc, he just adores.
Here's a point that I don't necessarily endorse (just throwing it out here for the sake of argument). Why should we assume that the first half of movies ever made (at whatever date that might be, in the 60's I suppose) is as good as the second half? Wouldn't that imply that current filmmakers have learned NOTHING from past filmmakers? I'd like to think that in the majority of human endeavor, we tend to get better over time as current practitioners benefit from the acquired experience and know-how of past filmmakers. And not only that, but budgets for modern films are also much higher. Is all that money wasted? If some great director from the past, Welles say, or Hitchcock, were transported to the present day, and they made a film in the same style and for the same relative price as films of their day, do you think that it would be well recieved? Do you think they even would? I think they'd make use of the latest technology, and hundreds of millions of dollars if it were available, and employ the latest editing and acting techniques. I think they'd be enchanted with modern cinema. A lot of so called 'cinephiles' seem to think that they'd be disgusted with modern day Hollywood.
Just to reiterate, that's not necessarily what I'm thinking and I can think of plenty of ways to refute that line of argument, but I was wondering what some other people's take on it would be.
Very interesting point, Nic, and from time to time it actually plays out but other times filmmakers seem somewhat paralyzed from trying to fill every inch of the screen with references to their favorites and forget to develop a style of their own. Sometimes, it's easier to get into a medium on the ground floor. As for your friend, yeah maybe there our some kinds of films that they just didn't make back then: Dark City, Bottle Rocket, Ghost World--it could be a whole lot worse than that. Eventually, though, that well might run dry and he'll come running to you for help.
Nic: With respect to your disclaimer (I know this is not necessarily your belief or something you endorse), I don't really buy the argument. It's sort of like saying Shakespeare would be a better writer today because of Microsoft Word and an expensive book deal. Technology and budget are irrelevant. Great artists are irreplaceable individuals who aren't just picking up know-how from their forebears. Influence is a wonderful thing, and nobody operates in a vacuum, but what makes old movies great is what makes new movies great: great artists. I think your friend is nuts.
Nic: An idea worth discussing, and I think Dane and Josh have nailed it.
Modern moviegoers sometimes don't realize or remember how much dreck has always been produced. (See "Hollywood: Just shut it down" post, above.) Much of the great stuff we remember from the past remains with us precisely because it's good enough to be worth remembering. The studios cranked out hundreds of movies a year, most of which are either lost or remain in obscurity for other reasons. Mainly, I suspect, because they were bad to mediocre.
Was the basic level of craftsmanship (not just technical) higher in the days of the "dream factories," when professionals worked largely on assignment, from one picture to the next? Maybe. There are big-budget movies today that look and sound great -- excellent SFX and production values -- but play like gussied-up Grade-Z cheapies of yesteryear. But the whole business of making movies has changed. Young directors don't apprentice on Roger Corman exploitation films, or rise through the ranks while working steadily at a studio. I've often wondered how anybody who has to raise financing for an indie movie has any energy left to make the picture once the money comes through....
Thanks for the responses, they're pretty much on line with what I was thinking myself. I think that the best way to frame a response to that view point is
"While the CRAFT of movie making has probably improved a great deal, the ART of movie making stands apart from any considerations of budget, acquired know-how, and etc. While the films of today are certainly a lot better technically in terms of sound and picture quality and things like that, they are no better artistically than Stephen King is better than Shakespeare."
One final note; as I was re-reading Jim's opening passage, one thought struck me, that I think may help all of us self-proclaimed cinephiles avoid the snob label among our non-cinephile social circles. We don't have to claim to love old movies or foreign movies; putting it that way makes it seem like we prefer them, and dismiss modern domestic cinema. All we have to say is that we DON'T dislike them. All we have to say is that we have no preconcieved bias against old or foreign movies, and that we are able to watch them with an open mind and judge them on their own merits. And since the total number of foreign films and films more than say 25 years old is obviously much greater than the number of modern, domestic films, it's only natural and reasonable that the majority of our favourite films are foreign or old. Framing it that way seems a lot more reasonable, and a lot less likely to be percieved as snobbish or judgemental of the normal movie watching public.
Which I guess is exactly Jim's point anyways.