How good were 'classic' movies?

bobbyss

Saw From here to Eternity a few days ago. Burt Lancaster Frank Sinatra. Deborah Kerr.
Is this suppossed to be a classic? Or do we judge things differently because they are old films? I thought the acting was poor. Laughable in parts. Lightweight Sinatra throwing a punch at Ernest Borgene was pure comedy.
Are these types of films vastly overrated?

johnny_ultimate

Your opening question, with all due respect, is broad enough to be impossible to answer.

I’ve never seen From Here To Eternity, but with classic cinema generally (as foolhardy as that is given the astounding range and variety of cinema):

There are films from every era of film - from the silent era onwards, across continents and genres - that remain essential, compelling viewing. There are others that aren’t. Same as it ever was and ever will be.

Acting and storytelling styles have changed in all manner of ways over the past decade. Sometimes for the best, sometimes not. We have to watch with the knowledge of how things were, but also what we can learn and admire about older methods of filmmaking.

Films age, of course they do: they’ve been made over a turbulent, ever shifting century or so of history. They’re also invaluable historical documents, and rewarding insights into time periods we’ve never experienced.

For every cheesy melodrama there’s a piece of radical political cinema; for every western an experimental oddity. One film cannot come close to capturing that... a thousand films barely come close to capturing that

is_that_so

Like films of any era some people will take to certain films more than others. From Here to Eternity is not one I'd return to very often even though it got stacks of Oscars. OP should look up lists of great films and then choose from within those, films that might appeal to them. Randomly choosing one may end in disappointment.

Harry Palmr

Watch Some Like it Hot (1959) and tell me it's not a brilliant comedy.

Some "classic" films age badly and they sure don't need to be 60 years old for that to be apparent.

Some films are timeless because they deal with themes that do not fall victim to trends and some films become great later (when the proper version is finally stitched together!).

Of course person A might just not like film B regardless of reputation.

Tammy!

Not sure how you can define classic but older films, I like Cool Hand Luke, Gone with the Wind, 12 Angry Men, The Great Escape etc.

I use to watch a lot of black and white movies with my mam when I was a kid which were before her time too. I can barely recall them now though. She liked Bette Davis. All about Eve and later Whatever happened to Baby Jane. I can kind of remember watching a film called Laura aswell.

I have never seen It's a Wonderful Life but I've been told I should watch it.

El Duda

I rarely watch the oldies, but the ones I have seen have all been great. A few that come to mind...

Casablanca
Citizen Kane
The Apartment
A Man Escaped
12 Angry Men


My parents always recommend Some Like It Hot and To Kill a Mocking Bird which are next up on my watchlist.

Joe_ Public

Always check the free film channel listings to see if one of the old classics is coming up and will settle in for a relaxing afternoons viewing.

A few i have watched recently:

Ice cold in Alex
Lawrence of Arabia
For whom the bell tolls
The misfits
On the town (dont normally like musicals but enjoyed this one, as i do the wizard of oz).
The Producers

I find as a general rule, the old films tend to have better plots and scripts, but are more slow moving and require bit more concentration to follow. Very rewarding in the end, though.

Dades

Classic movies are like classic cars. Just because it's old, doesn't mean it's gold.

I watched the original Flight of the Phoenix some years back and was utterly compelled by it. Casablanca, too, is one that lives up to it's reputation.

But I absolutely hate It's a Wonderful Life.

Tammy!

Dades wrote: »

But I absolutely hate It's a Wonderful Life.

Scrooge :P

Wedwood

Movies like From Here to Eternity we’re basically melodramas and had stylized theatrical acting, so they’re going to look dated in comparison to modern movies. More realistic acting styles (method) didn’t arrive until the likes of Marlon Brando and Paul Newman headlined movies like On the Waterfront and the Hustler.

Every era’s movies eventually get dated and if you look at more recent movies from the 80’s like Die Hard, the acting there looks a bit OTT by today’s standards but you accept it as it the style of acting for the time and appropriate for the movie in question. Same goes for the older movies.

Another example is Psycho. Made in 1960, it remains a classic but clearly of its time with it’s melodramatic acting as preferred by Hitchcock. Gus Van Sant made a shot for shot remake in the late 90’s using current acting styles and it was awful.

So bottom line is a good movie has nothing to do with its age. Watching a restored classic movie is usually preferable to watching the likes of the modern soulless franchise movies !

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

I'm of the opinion comedies have declined greatly since the so-called "classic" era.

cdgalwegian

The greatest difficulty with the question is the lack of any sort of consensus of what constitutes a 'classic' film, making the term a thoroughly misleading one, resulting in much disappointment with its use. Aside from dumping the term, for it to be of any use it should be mandatory to have a warning attached saying- "has stood the test of time for many, without necessarily being that good". IOWS, nostalgia clouds many judgements.
My bugbear would be with the "5-star treatment" by reviewers of films that were great in their day, or were better appreciated over time, but for varying reasons are simply done better by contemporary film-makers (and maybe appreciated by more discerning viewers exposed to better craft over the years). Nostalgia, innovation for its time, relevance for its time etc; these all relate to time, and the most relative time is now.
A different approach might be to limit the term to genres, where a classic star rating might relate to the amount of influence a particular film had on that genre, alongside a current rating from a contemporary analysis. Never going to happen- just a thought; though maybe a website or two or some bloggers might be doing it.
Personally, the majority of so-called classics I have watched I haven't thought were particularly good; I can appreciate how well made they were for their time, but lacking the dramatic punch of many contemporary films.

BillyBird

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Watch Some Like it Hot (1959) and tell me it's not a brilliant comedy.

I've seen it. It's not a brilliant comedy.

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Of course person A might just not like film B regardless of reputation.

Sonics2k

BillyBird wrote: »

I've seen it. It's not a brilliant comedy.

Baffling. Truly baffling. :pac:

I think Birth of a Nation is a little bit racist

For the resources at the film makers disposal, Very good

1930s: Frankenstien, King Kong, Gone with the Wind.

Huge cast of extras.

The 10 commandments.

Sad Professor

If you haven't watched many classic films, OP, I'd suggest watching others. Keeping in mind (as already said) that some of the genres are no longer made and the styles were different and this takes some getting used to. Melodramas had probably become foreign to mainstream audiences by the 70s never mind now, but a lot of them were excellent and far superior to most modern films that target female viewers. Audiences in the '50s would have found a lot popular films from our era silly as well if not outright incomprehensible and stupid.

cdgalwegian

Sad Professor wrote: »

If you haven't watched many classic films, OP, I'd suggest watching others. Keeping in mind (as already said) that some of the genres are no longer made and the styles were different and this takes some getting used to. Melodramas had probably become foreign to mainstream audiences by the 70s never mind now, but a lot of them were excellent and far superior to most modern films that target female viewers. Audiences in the '50s would have found a lot popular films from our era silly as well if not outright incomprehensible and stupid.

Insightful post. I doubt this scatter-gun or dragnet approach would work though, given the OP's post (single post on the issue, that is). Considering the complexity of the issue, with all its variables and factors, one of the most important factors to consider is how a film deals with its central theme. So in terms of how a script deals with a theme (assuming dialogue and acting passes modern muster) the crucial element would be the director; how the director frames the script.
My suggestion would be to find a director that makes films the way you like films made, working on a theme that strikes a chord. If a film speaks to you, its generally not the dialogue, acting etc that moves you; its the way the director has packaged it all for you. Going by someone's list is far too subjective, time-consuming, and- going by the post- not working. Undoubtedly there are some fantastic 'classics' out there, but 'ya gotta have a system'.

NIMAN

I remember seeing Bladerunnner when I was an impressionable teenager, and loved it. Seen it again in my 20s probably, again thought it was good.

Watched it in the last year or so, thought it wasn't great and had dated terribly.

Mezzotint

It took a while for movie technology to become less intrusive. The early movies tended to be limited by need for extremely bright lighting to ensure films exposed correctly and very primitive sound recording technology that often necessitated very loud speech and ultra clear diction that hampered dialogue. The actors also took a long time to move to away from treating it like a stage performance.

That doesn’t mean they’re bad films. It’s just a totally different genre.

Early TV is even worse as the cameras and technology was even more limiting.

tigger123

I would agree with most mentioned previously, and add Sunset Boulevard to the list. It's fantastic.

IMDB have a top 250 list of all time. There's some classic era movies on that if you're looking for something along those lines.

beauf

bobbyss wrote: »

Saw From here to Eternity a few days ago. Burt Lancaster Frank Sinatra. Deborah Kerr.
Is this suppossed to be a classic? Or do we judge things differently because they are old films? I thought the acting was poor. Laughable in parts. Lightweight Sinatra throwing a punch at Ernest Borgene was pure comedy.
Are these types of films vastly overrated?

Some of these films had an impact that impossible to recreate in a modern context.

Take the impact of star wars, saving private Ryan on release. The impact on film will be entirely missed by a modern viewer.

I'm a big fan of classic movies. Recently watched rear window and jaws with my kids. One of them gets them. The other doesnt have the patience. Zero attention span.

I also watched black Rain recently. Still love that movie but i could see why a modern viewer would see it as very dated and a bit ott in terms of acting..

I'm not sure modern movies, modern tastes, have much subtlety to them in general. You get the of exemptions for sure.

beauf

NIMAN wrote: »

I remember seeing Bladerunnner when I was an impressionable teenager, and loved it. Seen it again in my 20s probably, again thought it was good.

Watched it in the last year or so, thought it wasn't great and had dated terribly.

Again I think it's suffers in a modern context. But it's an interesting comparison with the sequel. The sequel didn't have the same impact but its a very unmodern movie. I liked it.

whisky_galore

Mezzotint wrote: »

It took a while for movie technology to become less intrusive. The early movies tended to be limited by need for extremely bright lighting to ensure films exposed correctly and very primitive sound recording technology that often necessitated very loud speech and ultra clear diction that hampered dialogue. The actors also took a long time to move to away from treating it like a stage performance.

That doesn’t mean they’re bad films. It’s just a totally different genre.

Early TV is even worse as the cameras and technology was even more limiting.

Probably explains why early RTE luvvies were so 'shouty'.

Mezzotint

whisky_galore wrote: »

Probably explains why early RTE luvvies were so 'shouty'.

Well early TV production was pretty stage like and also Ireland's actors would have mostly come from a stage, not television, background, as there was very little film or TV production in those days.

You see the same in some UK and even US production. I mean take a look at something like Are You Being Served or even 1980s Keeping Up Appearances. They're stage acting and take influences from music hall. If you go back further, take a look at someone like Lucille Ball. It's all very theatrical.

The big change now is that with HD and UHD TV production and cinematography are increasingly similar, so the whole way TV is shot is changing from rapid cutting between shots and closer shots to use of much less camera movement and wider shots + focus, lighting etc become far more important.

Interesting to watch these things changing though. I just think with old productions it's like looking at an oil painting Vs a water colour. The tools are different. You just have to see them in their own context. What makes a good film or TV programme is how it tells a story. The technology is secondary.

beauf

Mezzotint wrote: »

...The big change now is that with HD and UHD TV production and cinematography are increasingly similar, so the whole way TV is shot is changing from rapid cutting between shots and closer shots to use of much less camera movement and wider shots + focus, lighting etc become far more important....

I think modern movies suffer from an excessive of movement . Not just the shaky cam stuff.

Man Vs ManUre

I’m no fan of avengers or most of these other superheroes films, but most old films are absolutely rubbish. The actors are always shouting their words. And the women are mostly not very sexy in them.
The only black and white films I ever watch to the end is Schindler’s List, It’s a wonderful life and The man who wasn’t there.

Zaph

Man Vs ManUre wrote: »

And the women are mostly not very sexy in them.

What's that got to do with how good or bad a film is?

Harry Palmr

Not seen Rita Hayworth singing Put the Blame on Mame then I take it!

Mezzotint

beauf wrote: »

I think modern movies suffer from an excessive of movement . Not just the shaky cam stuff.

Yeah. That's kinda wearing thin. Directors go through fads too.

One thing to remember when watching old movies is that they used to use asbestos as snow! The lights were hot and cotton fluff was a fire hazards, so they used fluffy asbestos!

Joe_ Public

Classic film on bbc2 later tonight, Kubricks Paths of Glory with kirk douglas in the lead. I love war films and cant think of any recently made war film that betters it. Though maybe anti-war film is a more accurate way to describe it.

whisky_galore

It's interesting how movies reflect, or deflect from, the times they were made, like M.A.S.H. was set in the Korean War but made references to Vietnam that couldn't be made overtly, or movies set in WW2, a "good" war, when the US may have been bogged down in a "bad" war at the time a movie was made.

Jimbob1977

Back in 1960, Psycho terrified audiences and people fainted in cinemas.

By today's standards, it would be very mild.

However, it is still a masterpiece of its time.

It's difficult to view classics through a modern prism.

Akrasia

Jimbob1977 wrote: »

Back in 1960, Psycho terrified audiences and people fainted in cinemas.

By today's standards, it would be very mild.

However, it is still a masterpiece of its time.

It's difficult to view classics through a modern prism.

Towering inferno is magnificent as a disaster movie, as was the Poseidon adventure. Threads is one of the most harrowing psychological horrors ever made. One flew over the cuckoos nest is incredible, a clockwork orange, dr strangelove, Scarface, taxi driver, the deer hunter.... so many movies made over 4 decades ago that definitely count as Classic movies that are incredibly satisfying to watch today.

Decuc500

I've watched quite a lot of old films on specialist blu ray labels recently.

Classic Film Noir's and Westerns from the likes of Fritz Lang, Delmer Daves, Anthony Mann, Billy Wilder, Howard Hawks etc. The list of brilliant directors and actors from Hollywood's Golden Age is frankly endless.

The style of filmmaking and acting might appear quaint compared to modern film but the talent and artistry of these films is obvious.

loyatemu

acting styles have obviously changed a lot, it's particularly noticeable in films from before the mid-60s.

I watched "Bonnie & Clyde" on TV a couple of weeks ago and it's still great - can't remember when I've seen a film with as much energy in recent years (coincidentally Michael J Pollard who played CW Moss in the film died over the weekend).

loyatemu

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Classic film on bbc2 later tonight, Kubricks Paths of Glory with kirk douglas in the lead. I love war films and cant think of any recently made war film that betters it. Though maybe anti-war film is a more accurate way to describe it.

gah - wish I'd seen this earlier, one of the few Kubrick films I've never seen.

(actually it's on the iPlayer until next weekend...)

Tony EH

Tammy! wrote: »

Scrooge :P

Another classic.

Tony EH

bobbyss wrote: »

Saw From here to Eternity a few days ago. Burt Lancaster Frank Sinatra. Deborah Kerr.
Is this suppossed to be a classic? Or do we judge things differently because they are old films? I thought the acting was poor. Laughable in parts. Lightweight Sinatra throwing a punch at Ernest Borgene was pure comedy.
Are these types of films vastly overrated?

Well, your question has already been pointed out as unanswerable and that's true.

However, throwing all of that to the wind, I would like to think that a "classic" is a film that stands up today as either a story that can still function or a film that is exemplary of its type and period.

So, while 'From Here to Eternity' has often been listed as a "classic", I have never viewed it as such, because in too many places it's simply mediocre, even for its time. It's quaint and hampered by a censorship, which neutered much of James Jones' great novel. The romance is enhanced in a 1950's Hollywood style and, indeed, the movie's most famous scene is Burt Lancaster and Deborah Kerr snogging on a beach as the tide comes in. But, I think a number of things pushed it in "classic" status for some people. Compared to a lot of 50's war movies, it looked "realistic" and Frank Sinatra's role as Pvt. Maggio was trumpeted in all the right places. The fact that he did it for next to nothing helped no end with audience's talking points and he's one of a number of good performances in the film, Ernest Borgnine being another. But looked at today, those talking points become meaningless to the vast majority of viewers, who would neither know or care about such things and will only see the film as another 50's melodrama.

On the other hand, 'Shane' a film from the same year, I would consider a classic, because as a story it still stands up to "modern viewing" as it were in a way that 'From Here to Eternity' doesn't. 'Shane' remains believable, even if it has some of the trappings of the period. But, it's a genuinely entertaining western with a compelling yarn that's well told.

So, there is a "test of time" I suppose that will help define whether a film is deemed a classic or not and as time moves on, more and more films will end up failing that test with younger audiences.

For example, 1931's 'Dracula' is often called a classic film. But, it's really quite a poor picture and it's classic status exists only because of the type of film it is and when it was made. However, next to Universal's 'Frankenstein', also from 1931, it looks absolutely ridiculous. James Whale's film of Mary Shelly's novel remains excellent entertainment, due in no small part to a great turn from Boris Karloff, who remains a sympathetic creature, despite being buried under Jack Pierce's iconic makup. Whereas Bela Lugosi in Tod Browning's 'Dracula' just comes off as laughably camp today in a movie that's dreadfully creaky.

Browning's real classic is (and always has been as far as I'm concerned) 'Freaks', from 1932, because even now that picture has a morbid fascination and in many ways it's batshit crazy story is timeless.

Of course, you'll get people that wouldn't consider any of the above films to be classics at all, because at the end of the day everyone's meter for such a status will be very different.

LineOfBeauty

Some age badly or are at odds with the prevailing thought of current time that make it a bit difficult to watch.

I don't think that just because a classic movie does, or does not, stand the test of time should enhance or diminish their reputation. At the time they may have been ground-breaking. They should be viewed through the lense of the time at which they were released.

All of that being said, Lawrence of Arabia is an epic by any standard and Peter O'Toole is magnetic!

expectationlost

bobbyss wrote: »

Saw From here to Eternity a few days ago. Burt Lancaster Frank Sinatra. Deborah Kerr.
Is this suppossed to be a classic? Or do we judge things differently because they are old films? I thought the acting was poor. Laughable in parts. Lightweight Sinatra throwing a punch at Ernest Borgene was pure comedy.
Are these types of films vastly overrated?

watched this I agree its a jumble of stories, its the disappointing film in the AFI top 100 apart from maybe the Maginificent Ambersons which seems to be in there mostly because of what it could have been not what it was.

Conall Cernach

Doctor Zhivago is on BBC2 now. A genuine all time classic.

silverharp

Plenty stand up still , would there ever be a better version or competition for The Good The Bad and The Ugly? or even lesser movies like the B&W Dunkirk movie from the 50's , has far mar more charm and re-watchability then the recent incarnation.

expectationlost

Conall Cernach wrote: »

Doctor Zhivago is on BBC2 now. A genuine all time classic.

long and dull

Wedwood

Classic movies is too broad to define, if you look at genres, here’s some suggestions for anyone interested in discovering some older movies that hold up well today.

Western - The Searchers, probably John Wayne’s best movie.

Comedy - It Happened One Night, Clark Gable’s other great role.

Mystery - Hound of the Baskerville, Basil Rathbone as Sherlock Holmes

Thriller - North By Nothwest, great Hitchcock movie with Cary Grant

Sci Fi - The Day The Earth Stood Still, message about the stupidity of humanity, still relevant today.

Film Noir - The Maltese Falcon, Humphrey Bogarde at his best.

Musical - Mary Poppins, a movie about a man losing his family, dressed up as a kids movie.

pixelburp

Plenty of old movies hold up, I think the problem that can present itself often comes down to pacing. Even the more sedate modern films tend to have way more edits / cuts than older films (IIRC the classic Film School test of this is to click your fingers each time there's a cut. Michael Bay movies sounds like jazz applause). So older films can _feel_ much slower; if the audience isn't then atuned to this context or expectation then, it can make for a frustrating - or even boring - film experience.

As a for instance, I re-watched 12 Angry Men the other day and relative to modern-day filmmaking takes an AGE to get going. It does a great job establishing the environment, setting & basics of the characters but its pacing is almost sleepy in comparison with younger cinema. Someone watching the film off the back of a simple "this is a classic movie, it's great!" without the important context of "... but it's an older film and you gotta appreciate its slower pacing" runs the risk of zoning out before the real drama even kicks in. And that's FINE, everyone's different, but Classic Cinema needs caveats IMO.

loyatemu

pixelburp wrote: »

Plenty of old movies hold up, I think the problem that can present itself often comes down to pacing. Even the more sedate modern films tend to have way more edits / cuts than older films (IIRC the classic Film School test of this is to click your fingers each time there's a cut. Michael Bay movies sounds like jazz applause). So older films can _feel_ much slower; if the audience isn't then atuned to this context or expectation then, it can make for a frustrating - or even boring - film experience.

As a for instance, I re-watched 12 Angry Men the other day and relative to modern-day filmmaking takes an AGE to get going. It does a great job establishing the environment, setting & basics of the characters but its pacing is almost sleepy in comparison with younger cinema. Someone watching the film off the back of a simple "this is a classic movie, it's great!" without the important context of "... but it's an older film and you gotta appreciate its slower pacing" runs the risk of zoning out before the real drama even kicks in. And that's FINE, everyone's different, but Classic Cinema needs caveats IMO.

you don't have to go that far back to see the difference. I watched Die Hard with one of the kids and he asked me if the whole film was going to be about McClanes' marriage problems. It takes forever to get to the action, by modern standards.

pixelburp

loyatemu wrote: »

you don't have to go that far back to see the difference. I watched Die Hard with one of the kids and he asked me if the whole film was going to be about McClanes' marriage problems. It takes forever to get to the action, by modern standards.

That's a fair point: in a general sense, the concept of The First Act has shrunk considerably as a narrative priority - especially when it comes to blockbuster cinema. It's almost farcical to consider Die Hard as relatively slow-paced; its age is betrayed though, in being similar to 12 Angry Men where both establish character, setting and the statusquo before upending it all. Heck, it's not uncommon for blockbusters now to START with an action set-piece; cocaine-rush cinema like the Fast & Furious franchise, various MCU/DC films or anything from Michael Bay will often hit the audience squarely in the face the moment the titles fade away.

Tony EH

I'd take a film like '12 Angry Men' over about 90% of the rubbish that's made today in heartbeat.

Tombo2001

I think in any age there are movies that are huge but dont survive well, as with other art forms, music especially. Possibly this is because of the convention around what a great movie should look like.

The Big Lebowski is a really good example of a movie that wasnt especially big on release, but grew wings. The biggest grossing movie that year was Armageddon, the oscar winner was Shakespeare in Love.

Shawshank Redemption is another good example. Ultimately what makes a Classic movie is that people enjoy it, not that critics think its great or that it won a lot of Oscars.

There are lots of great movies from the 1950s, the hitchcock ones would stand out for me.

Tombo2001

pixelburp wrote: »

Plenty of old movies hold up, I think the problem that can present itself often comes down to pacing. Even the more sedate modern films tend to have way more edits / cuts than older films (IIRC the classic Film School test of this is to click your fingers each time there's a cut. Michael Bay movies sounds like jazz applause). So older films can _feel_ much slower; if the audience isn't then atuned to this context or expectation then, it can make for a frustrating - or even boring - film experience.

As a for instance, I re-watched 12 Angry Men the other day and relative to modern-day filmmaking takes an AGE to get going. It does a great job establishing the environment, setting & basics of the characters but its pacing is almost sleepy in comparison with younger cinema. Someone watching the film off the back of a simple "this is a classic movie, it's great!" without the important context of "... but it's an older film and you gotta appreciate its slower pacing" runs the risk of zoning out before the real drama even kicks in. And that's FINE, everyone's different, but Classic Cinema needs caveats IMO.

Funny enough, I showed the kid Karate Kid recently, and exact same thing.....took ages to get going and they got bored.