Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

How good were 'classic' movies?

Options
2456

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    whisky_galore
    Registered Users Posts: 15,952 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #33
    Jimbob1977
    Registered Users Posts: 2,239 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #34
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,338 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #35
    Decuc500
    Registered Users Posts: 1,214 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #36
    loyatemu
    Registered Users Posts: 14,851 ✭✭✭✭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).


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    loyatemu
    Registered Users Posts: 14,851 ✭✭✭✭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...)


  • Options
    #38
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 19,079 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Tammy! wrote: »
    Scrooge :P

    Another classic.

    scrooge-1_large.jpg?v=1513695647


  • Options
    #39
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 19,079 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #40
    LineOfBeauty
    Registered Users Posts: 2,211 ✭✭✭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!


  • Options
    #41
    expectationlost
    Registered Users Posts: 11,778 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Conall Cernach
    Registered Users Posts: 1,933 ✭✭✭Conall Cernach


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


  • Options
    #43
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 17,853 ✭✭✭✭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.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Options
    #44
    expectationlost
    Registered Users Posts: 11,778 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    Conall Cernach wrote: »
    Doctor Zhivago is on BBC2 now. A genuine all time classic.
    long and dull


  • Options
    #45
    Wedwood
    Registered Users Posts: 626 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #46
    pixelburp
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,010 CMod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #47
    loyatemu
    Registered Users Posts: 14,851 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #48
    pixelburp
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,010 CMod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #49
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 19,079 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


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


  • Options
    #50
    Tombo2001
    Registered Users Posts: 6,529 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #51
    Tombo2001
    Registered Users Posts: 6,529 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    pixelburp
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,010 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


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

    Shades of "was better in my day" with that. 12 angry men was made at the height of Drive-In cinema and the B movie. Hollywood was as flooded with garbage as it is now - maybe more so given you had the Double Feature back then - quality persists however. In 20 years the gems of this era will be as lauded as any other period.


  • Options
    #53
    Tombo2001
    Registered Users Posts: 6,529 ✭✭✭Tombo2001


    Incidentally, and forgive my ignorance on this one....

    Is there a reason Netflix dont show old movies, or say movies that are not english language.

    I used to go to the IFI a lot in the 1990s and early 2000s and watched lots and lots of Asian and European movies. Some of these would stick in my mind as some of the best films I've ever seen.....but never really saw them again, and wouldnt know where to access them.....

    Is there a Netflix equivalent that would have this type of library.

    On a related note, the so called Classics are for the most part Hollywood classics, there is more to movie history than American film, but they own the 'Classic' genre.


  • Options
    #54
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 19,079 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    pixelburp wrote: »
    Shades of "was better in my day" with that. 12 angry men was made at the height of Drive-In cinema and the B movie. Hollywood was as flooded with garbage as it is now - maybe more so given you had the Double Feature back then - quality persists however. In 20 years the gems of this era will be as lauded as any other period.

    No, not really and "my day" came a years after '12 Angry Men'. :D

    Alex Cox put it better than my one liner in an interview I saw the other day, in which he mentioned the issues of "monoform trap" film making that exists today and Ed Norton made a good point about contemporary studios now being populated by armies of producers that really constrain film makers to a large degree. I think that goes some way to explaining the problem of mainstream cinema where the diamonds in the rough are becoming harder and harder to find.

    But sure, movies of any era will have a substantial amount of average and poorer quality fare. God knows I've watched a lot of it. But, there is a definite problem with formula film making in modern times that ends up producing a generally meh output. There's so much being put out there that is simply so underwhelming, so often.

    That, of course, doesn't mean that there aren't great movies being made today. But with much, much, more "product" being pushed out (this year notwithstanding), it's almost inevitable that the over all impression is that the general product is of a "duller" nature, due to the "monoform" checklist that Cox mentions.


  • Options
    #55
    CrankyHaus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,281 ✭✭✭CrankyHaus


    pixelburp wrote: »
    Shades of "was better in my day" with that. 12 angry men was made at the height of Drive-In cinema and the B movie. Hollywood was as flooded with garbage as it is now - maybe more so given you had the Double Feature back then - quality persists however. In 20 years the gems of this era will be as lauded as any other period.


    Bad films will always be with us, but what deliberately mediocre ones?
    In the era of the Superhero Universe Hollywood's focus is on churning out formulaic snoozefests that feel like they were made by an AI engorged on international audience feedback data.

    Hollywood made plenty of dross in the decades prior, but at least you could say those films were its failures rather than what it deliberately set out to create.


  • Options
    #56
    pixelburp
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,010 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    CrankyHaus wrote: »
    Bad films will always be with us, but what deliberately mediocre ones?
    In the era of the Superhero Universe Hollywood's focus is on churning out formulaic snoozefests that feel like they were made by an AI engorged on international audience feedback data.

    Hollywood made plenty of dross in the decades prior, but at least you could say those films were its failures rather than what it deliberately set out to create.

    Naw, I think this is still guilty of Recency Bias. Hollywood has ALWAYS been "the race to be second" and if you pick an era, chances are it was awash with whatever the flavour of the month was. As said the 1950s had a glut of utter, utter garbage trying to shovel out Drive In content with only slight variances. What persisted were those that varied to some creative degree (War of the Worlds or The Day The Earth Stood Still). "Mediocrity" is simply a subjective term, with the only variance a question of budget now; I don't genuinely believe anyone sets out to make something intentionally bad or mediocre (except perhaps the charlatans behind Sharknado and the lik - but that's another subject entirely). The differences between good and medioce are degrees of care, attention, or audience preference ultimately.

    Maybe in terms of volume the modern era can claim "more" but to watch the real bottom-feeder material from the 50s or whatnot is to understand we don't know how good we have it - even if the middleground is seemingly more formulaic than ever. It really isn't, it's just the location of good material has shifted away from the Big Ticket releases.


  • Options
    #57
    MfMan
    Registered Users Posts: 3,391 ✭✭✭MfMan


    Tombo2001 wrote: »
    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.

    Wouldn't really mind if Shawshank... was downgraded from Classic status TBH.
    The more I watch it, the ickier and 'over-noble' it gets.


  • Options
    #58
    loyatemu
    Registered Users Posts: 14,851 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    Tombo2001 wrote: »
    Incidentally, and forgive my ignorance on this one....

    Is there a reason Netflix dont show old movies, or say movies that are not english language.

    I used to go to the IFI a lot in the 1990s and early 2000s and watched lots and lots of Asian and European movies. Some of these would stick in my mind as some of the best films I've ever seen.....but never really saw them again, and wouldnt know where to access them.....

    Is there a Netflix equivalent that would have this type of library.

    On a related note, the so called Classics are for the most part Hollywood classics, there is more to movie history than American film, but they own the 'Classic' genre.

    I assume the French version of Netflix has more French movies and so on. NF don't license them for non-French markets as there isn't as much demand. You can access other countries' Netflix with a VPN but it's hit and miss as NF actively block the VPN servers.

    BFI Player, Mubi, Criterion would have more obscure offerings both English and foreign language (think Criterion requires a VPN as well).


  • Options
    #59
    tobefrank321
    Registered Users Posts: 4,470 ✭✭✭tobefrank321


    Casablanca holds up very well and will always hold up well.
    As for others: The Quiet Man, Shane (particularly the gunfight at the end), couple of Spencer Tracey films, Seven Year Itch and several more I can't think of at the moment.
    The acting generally for the classics was top notch.
    On the otherhand, I could never understand the appeal of Citizen Kane.


  • Options
    #60
    Melanchthon
    Registered Users Posts: 1,118 ✭✭✭Melanchthon


    loyatemu wrote: »
    I assume the French version of Netflix has more French movies and so on. NF don't license them for non-French markets as there isn't as much demand. You can access other countries' Netflix with a VPN but it's hit and miss as NF actively block the VPN servers.

    BFI Player, Mubi, Criterion would have more obscure offerings both English and foreign language (think Criterion requires a VPN as well).

    Amazon prime definitely has more odd and lower budget films in its selection, I am not sure about this but its selection might be as big or bigger than Netflix in terms of films but it's interface is godawful for suggesting stuff


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 19,079 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    tobefrank321 wrote: »
    On the otherhand, I could never understand the appeal of Citizen Kane.

    The same could be said of all of Welles' pictures really. To me, his debut effort and 'Touch of Evil' are his best in a pretty underwhelming catalogue.

    But the major appeal of 'Citizen Kane' is that it was an absolute triumph of film making effort on the part of a 25 year old first time director. In terms of makeup, framing, effects, Welles' acting, and the fact that it had the balls to tackle a man like William Randolph Hearst at the height of his power, 'Citizen Kane' deserves its laudations and puts it on the best of all time list for many.

    But, the further we get away from 1941, the frequency with which it'll appear on lists of those type will become less and less. But 'Citizen Kane' will always be remembered for the fact that Orson Welles took the reigns of directing, producing, writing and acting AND still managed to make a coherent and entertaining movie all at tender age.


Advertisement