How good were 'classic' movies?

faceman

Tony EH wrote: »

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.

Citizen Kane and A Touch Of Evil are definitely classic films, with Citizen Kane being timeless.

That being said films to age and in an era where films are now spectacle blockbusters, the art of making movies is now reserved for indie films and films that we could consider "foreign language" but are in reality major films in their home countries.

Even this forum is testament. Its a film forum where the majority of posts are for superhero films or Hollywood crap. Twaddle in the greater scheme of things.

People dont have patience for films like Citizen Kane, The Godfather or Vertigo anymore. And as a result of the heroin of the Hollywood backed movies, audiences lose sight of what films are supposed to be about; telling the story about characters, and those characters have a story arc.

The bigger question is are we making modern day classics. I recently read an article that put the original Michael Bay Transformers on a pedestal because of how dire all the sequels were. Think about that for a moment. The big pile of steaming skunk excrement is being labelled as a good movie. :rolleyes:

From a Hollywood perspective, modern day classics are a rarity with perhaps a league reserved for people like Spielberg (although I dont think he has a good movie left in him) and Christopher Nolan.

So when you look back on older classics, they didnt have the special effects we have today, there was no such thing as CGI. Therefore they had to rely on strong storytelling skills and solid performances.

johnny_ultimate

Now, now, let's not suggest Orson Welles was some sort of two-hit wonder. Chimes at Midnight, F For Fake and Lady From Shanghai are all pretty significant works - the former two in particular I'd class as major. And I haven't seen some of his other well-regarded film, such as The Trial and Othello

Man Vs ManUre

Which is the best western, the good the bad and the ugly or once upon a time in the west??

Tony EH

faceman wrote: »

Citizen Kane and A Touch Of Evil are definitely classic films, with Citizen Kane being timeless.

That being said films to age and in an era where films are now spectacle blockbusters, the art of making movies is now reserved for indie films and films that we could consider "foreign language" but are in reality major films in their home countries.

Even this forum is testament. Its a film forum where the majority of posts are for superhero films or Hollywood crap. Twaddle in the greater scheme of things.

People dont have patience for films like Citizen Kane, The Godfather or Vertigo anymore. And as a result of the heroin of the Hollywood backed movies, audiences lose sight of what films are supposed to be about; telling the story about characters, and those characters have a story arc.

The bigger question is are we making modern day classics. I recently read an article that put the original Michael Bay Transformers on a pedestal because of how dire all the sequels were. Think about that for a moment. The big pile of steaming skunk excrement is being labelled as a good movie.

From a Hollywood perspective, modern day classics are a rarity with perhaps a league reserved for people like Spielberg (although I dont think he has a good movie left in him) and Christopher Nolan.

So when you look back on older classics, they didnt have the special effects we have today, there was no such thing as CGI. Therefore they had to rely on strong storytelling skills and solid performances.

All of this "blockbuster" stuff can be traced back to 'Jaws' and 'Star Wars', unfortunately. While I consider both of those films to be great and, indeed "classics", their affect on cinema has been full of negatives. In the 45 years that they've been around, we've seen studios more and more seek spectacle and event over producing a good story that can last the test of time. That isn't to say, of course, that spectacle or event cinema didn't exist before 1975. You can look at the biblical epics and films like 'Gone With the Wind' and see the same thing. But nowadays, it seems that every major studio is hellbent on getting their "franchise" and milking it til it drops over.

But, where today's efforts appear to depart from the event cinema of before, is that it is all crash bang wallop, with "quiet parts" being kept to an absolute minimum. I mean, even with 'Jaws' or 'Star Wars', there are numerous moments within those stories where one can breath and absorb the events...while you are watching it. Today the viewer, generally, doesn't get a second to actually think about what's going on with the story or the people in it. They are films that happen only in the moment, as it were, and often upon reflection that story and its characters end up looking less and less coherent, which has the further effect of distancing the audience once the film has ended. Whereas, the "classic" film continues to resonate within the viewer's mind long after the credits have rolled.

Although, I can easily imagine that there are plenty of younger folk around today that would simply be bored to tears by 'Jaws', or indeed 'Star Wars' and consider both films to be "slow". Much of that has to do with the fact that we absorb content nowadays as opposed to watching films. There is also a tyranny of content, of sorts, in effect as well, whereby there is just so much "stuff" out there it creates a glut.

With further regards to 'Citizen Kane', though, it's actual story isn't that much to write home about, in fairness, and the parallels to the likes of Hearst will simply be lost on much of today's audience. But, 'Citizen Kane' has first and foremost, always been a film geek's movie. It's techniques are the real star of the show, rather than its actual yarn. So, I can understand why many people would be saying "Best film ever? WTF?". So, with respect to what Welle's managed to achieve with that film, it's quite impressive. But you have to know what you're looking at on the screen and understand how it was made to gather why many people hold it in such high esteem. The thing is most people, and quite rightly too, aren't bothered by that. They just want to see a good story, well told, and if that story isn't doing it for you, it's entirely legitimate to declare that you don't like the film.

But then, everybody has their "That's supposed to be a classic?" bewilderment with certain movies. I certainly do. Somebody mentioned 'The Searchers' on the other page, which would be one of my "WTF's?". That's a film that littered with terrible, terrible, moments that I can only believe that its fans have to navigate around them to truly enjoy it. It's comic moments are truly dreadful and the hamfisted romance is an absolute drag.

But, really, what I think 'The Searchers' is well loved for is, merely, John Wayne's performance as Ethan Edwards. To see such an upstanding icon (at least in his Hollywood persona) reduced to a vile and unreasonable racist was quite interesting. There is definitely something to enjoy in the relationship between Wayne's Ethan Edwards and Jeffery Hunter's 1/8th Cherokee Martin Pawley, and the efforts Pawley goes to to make Edwards see the error of his ways.

But, elsewhere, the movie is simply awful, even when allowing for 1950's cinema cliches, like whitey in redface (Henry Brandon), or wretched Vaudeville accents (The Jorgensens). And even taking into account what John Ford was famous for, the vistas of Monument Valley, it's a failure in that regard too, because much of it was shot in an obvious studio that looks about as convincing as a planet surface on the original 'Star Trek' TV show.

There are those who claim it to be Wayne's best movie and indeed John Ford's. But, for my money, that belongs to 'The Shootist' for Wayne and a toss up between 'The Grapes of Wrath' and 'Who Shot Liberty Valance' for Ford.

tobefrank321

faceman wrote: »

Citizen Kane and A Touch Of Evil are definitely classic films, with Citizen Kane being timeless.

That being said films to age and in an era where films are now spectacle blockbusters, the art of making movies is now reserved for indie films and films that we could consider "foreign language" but are in reality major films in their home countries.

Even this forum is testament. Its a film forum where the majority of posts are for superhero films or Hollywood crap. Twaddle in the greater scheme of things.

People dont have patience for films like Citizen Kane, The Godfather or Vertigo anymore. And as a result of the heroin of the Hollywood backed movies, audiences lose sight of what films are supposed to be about; telling the story about characters, and those characters have a story arc.

The bigger question is are we making modern day classics. I recently read an article that put the original Michael Bay Transformers on a pedestal because of how dire all the sequels were. Think about that for a moment. The big pile of steaming skunk excrement is being labelled as a good movie. :rolleyes:

From a Hollywood perspective, modern day classics are a rarity with perhaps a league reserved for people like Spielberg (although I dont think he has a good movie left in him) and Christopher Nolan.

So when you look back on older classics, they didnt have the special effects we have today, there was no such thing as CGI. Therefore they had to rely on strong storytelling skills and solid performances.

I give every film a chance. I gave Citizen Kane plenty of chances. Its no doubt a great film, but I could never understand why some would put it down as their number 1 film of all time. Top 10 sure.

Spielberg classics? He's been hit and miss. He hasn't been afraid to go down the blockbuster sequels route himself. He's made some all time greats, Empire of the Sun, Saving Private Ryan, and some others.
I found Bridge of Spies, The Post and Lincoln hard watches and they just didn't do it for me. Others probably found them differently, each to their own. He flogged Indiana Jones to death for example. The CGI on the last one was awful.

One person's classic doesn't work for someone else, that's the great thing about films, the tolerance of different opinions and every film means something different to each person.

tobefrank321

Man Vs ManUre wrote: »

Which is the best western, the good the bad and the ugly or once upon a time in the west??

For me, Shane and Who Shot Liberty Valance are very good, and beautifully illustrate life in the "west".

expectationlost

The Philadelphia Story a 'comedy' starts with the husband pushing his wife to the ground.

Conall Cernach

tobefrank321 wrote: »

For me, Shane and Who Shot Liberty Valance are very good, and beautifully illustrate life in the "west".

The Searchers is my own favourite western it's beautifully shot with strong performances from everyone and explores themes of racism, obsession, family, loneliness etc.

jack of all

The Culpepper Cattle Company is another western that's well worth a watch.

HiGlo

i grew up watching old movies and loved them (they were already old by the time i was watching them)....
Some of my faves;
Harvey (one of the best family comedies ever! Arsenic & Old Lace is also good)
Rebecca (dark suspense thriller type)
Some Like it Hot
Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (but I’m a Tenesee Williams fan so perhaps not for everyone - it’s very dialogue heavy as it’s an adaptation of a play)
On the Waterfront
Gone with the Wind is a great epic story
On The Town (as someone mentioned) is a great musical. Adored it as a kid!!
12 Angry Men (having been on a jury I can see how close to reality this movie is. It’s really well done in my opinion)
Shane (loved this as a kid too)
Roman Holiday
Lawrence of Arabia
North by northwest
The Apartment

There’s probs loads more but just what I can think of....

I actually amnt a huge fan of Casablanca but I can appreciate the filmmaking and storytelling involved.

I definitely sometimes lament “they don’t make em like that any more” sometimes... Some modern movies are too fast moving and action packed etc etc.... At the end of the day it’s business and they’re chasing the money but there’s such a distinct lack of storytelling to some movies these days.

As one poster said sometimes it seems people forgotten that movies can be about characters and their story.... That’s my preferred kind of movie. (don’t get me wrong. I enjoy a Marvel blockbuster with the best of em, but I lament some good quality storytelling).

ballyargus

I find the opposite to be true. Modern movies are hard to stomach. Tacky soundtracks and lurid editing.

Give me a film by Billy Wilder, Orson Welles or John Huston any day of the week

mikeecho

I watched Key Largo (1948) on one of the Sony movie channels recently, and I thought it was brilliant.

Some like it hot is another great one.

Man Vs ManUre

Man Vs ManUre wrote: »

Which is the best western, the good the bad and the ugly or once upon a time in the west??

Once upon a time in the west shades it imo... Start is excellent in the train station; Jack Elam having a disagreement with a fly was funny (think they used honey to attract that fly).... And along comes Charlie with the great "You brought 2 too many" line.

It was bittersweet too - bitter because the old west was dying, but sweet because of all the homesteaders and such making lives for themselves in the USA :pac:

The lead actress was sweet too

Double Indemnity and Strangers On A Train are both excellent films.

larva

Ive got a thing for old historical roman films

Spartacus
Ben Hur
Cleopatra
Fall of the Roman Empire (Obi Wan does a great Marcus Aurelius)

Ive even watched the infamous Caligula though I cant say I would recommend that anyone watch that, ever.

Capt'n Midnight

Man Vs ManUre wrote: »

Which is the best western, the good the bad and the ugly or once upon a time in the west??

It's a series sort of. A Fistful of Dollars is a low budget remake of Yojimbo, both are classics.

The Good The Bad and the Ugly and For a Few Dollar More had bigger budgets and are better films. Music works better in them too.

Nice use of music in Blazing Saddles too, Count Basie and his Orchestra. Another one of the movies that got the traditional Hollywood Western put on hold for years.

Capt'n Midnight

Tammy! wrote: »

Scrooge :P

The 1970 Scrooge musical is way better than the 1968 Oliver!

pixelburp

tobefrank321 wrote: »

I give every film a chance. I gave Citizen Kane plenty of chances. Its no doubt a great film, but I could never understand why some would put it down as their number 1 film of all time. Top 10 sure.

Spielberg classics? He's been hit and miss. He hasn't been afraid to go down the blockbuster sequels route himself. He's made some all time greats, Empire of the Sun, Saving Private Ryan, and some others.
I found Bridge of Spies, The Post and Lincoln hard watches and they just didn't do it for me. Others probably found them differently, each to their own. He flogged Indiana Jones to death for example. The CGI on the last one was awful.

One person's classic doesn't work for someone else, that's the great thing about films, the tolerance of different opinions and every film means something different to each person.

Again I think there's a tricky question of Recency that comes into this entire discussion: you look at Hitchcock or Kubrick - two immortals in terms of "classic" cinema - and many folk that would include casual filmgoers can list the goto classic from both; but like Spielberg, their catalogues are themsevles full of also-rans nobody remembers or cared-for - especially Hitchcock.

How many people have seen or even heard of "Torn Curtain", "The Paradine Case" or "Family Plot" (ok the last maybe 'cos it was the director's final film)? Perhaps a few here given the generational lamenting going on, but I daresay even enthusiasts would struggle to recall many from Hitchcock's admittedly voluminous CV. Whlle with Kubrick, how often does "Paths of Glory" or "The Killing" figure in any discussion? Another forgotten film, "Barry Lyndon", has recently surfaced into the zeitgeist somewhat, but often only for the technical merits of the film (having shot much by literal candlelight).

So Spielberg has a lot in common with Hitchcock in that they're both busy men with long careers and as such, quite the varying filmography. In time Spielberg's flops or failures will be forgotten, this latter part of his career framed within some retrospective angle. Now, the latter has nothing in his catalogue as wretched as "Ready Player One", but Hitchcock was an ostentatious filmmaker; he liked thrilling his audience and turning the screw, happy to jump into various genres. Heck maybe were he alive today we'd have already seen a Hitchcock superhero film. Impossible to know but works like "The Birds" didn't exactly suggest a subtle, artful man by any account

Decuc500

I’ve been watching a lot of Hitchcock’s films recently. His run of films from the early 50’s onwards is so impressive.
Strangers on a Train, Rear Window, To Catch a Thief, Vertigo, North By Northwest, Psycho, The Birds, Marnie. I particularly loved The Man Who Knew Too Much.
They are crowd pleasing films but made with such skill and style and a wicked black humour. And he was over 50 when making all these. You’d think he should be slowing down, not producing classics.

You can see so many camera moves, sequences, edits etc that have been imitated and copied to death ever since.

Torn Curtain and Topaz might be lacking overall but suddenly there would be one great moment that reminds you you’re watching Hitchcock.

Tony EH

I became a bit obsessed with Hitchcock in my 20's and at one stage had nearly every film he made (from 1934 onwards) on video, but today there are only a few films that I can still watch of his. 'Rear Window' being one of them, which I threw on last night for the first time in ages and it's still a great film.

Probably 'Psycho', 'Rear Window' and 'Vertigo' are the blessed trinity of Hitchcock movies. But I've always thought 'Frenzy' was one of his greatest.

expectationlost

Tony EH wrote: »

I became a bit obsessed with Hitchcock in my 20's and at one stage had nearly every film he made (from 1934 onwards) on video, but today there are only a few films that I can still watch of his. 'Rear Window' being one of them, which I threw on last night for the first time in ages and it's still a great film.

Probably 'Psycho', 'Rear Window' and 'Vertigo' are the blessed trinity of Hitchcock movies. But I've always thought 'Frenzy' was one of his greatest.

because they are nearly all the same film, even thought excellently made and variance in style for some of them, he's a bit of sick bastard, I started watching Frenzy and turned it off I'll might try it again.

Homelander

The Longest Day is one of the timeless classics for me. Few others too from the slightly later, and somewhat more realistic era pre-modern movies relatively speaking - A Bridge Too Far for example.

Always found it strange that SPR is now over 20 years old and yet there hasn't been a war movie since that even comes close to capturing the raw, visceral anti-war carnage that it brought to the table.

"Come and See" is another example of a haunting, powerful film that hasn't really been bettered since. The Painted Bird was good but not that good.

Rothko

expectationlost wrote: »

because they are nearly all the same film, even thought excellently made and variance in style for some of them, he's a bit of sick bastard, I started watching Frenzy and turned it off I'll might try it again.

Why do you say that?

Joe_ Public

Homelander wrote: »

The Longest Day is one of the timeless classics for me. Few others too from the slightly later, and somewhat more realistic era pre-modern movies relatively speaking - A Bridge Too Far for example.

Always found it strange that SPR is now over 20 years old and yet there hasn't been a war movie since that even comes close to capturing the raw, visceral anti-war carnage that it brought to the table.

"Come and See" is another example of a haunting, powerful film that hasn't really been bettered since. The Painted Bird was good but not that good.

The issue for me with SPR is that if you take those admittedly compelling battle scenes out, there's not much left to the film. Very contrived, over wrought plot imo. A triumph of form over content which is also how I would regard Dunkirk.

Personally I think Spielbergs war opus is Band of Brothers which I revisit every couple of years and never find it less than gripping.

I don't know if they would be considered classic movies, but a lot of
the early talkies in the nineteen thirties must have been lost or destroyed,
or considered too riskay to be shown nowadays

I was watching a bio of Jean Harlow recently, and she was a major star in them
days. She made a few movies 'Pre - Code' , and along with other actresses of the
time she was pretty tasty. In those days they were allowed to appear practically naked on screen :pac:

It's a crying shame that those films are not on TV more often imo.

expectationlost

Rothko wrote: »

Why do you say that?

because Hitchcock is famous for making lots of movies about the wrong man accused. (or people that enjoy trying to get away with murder as the other lot)

ShaneU

Watched Vertigo for the first time on Netflix a few weeks ago and loved it. It's a slow burn film you don't see very often these days. The acting was a bit OTT at times though.

Tony EH

You gotta roll with that. 50's acting could be a little...theatrical.

expectationlost

bringing up baby jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesus christ what an annoying film

bnt

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.

There's a classic comedy / musical movie that is set in the period when sound was introduced, and it covers some of the problems film-makers encountered during the transition: Singin' In The Rain. Silent movie actors didn't always make it: some couldn't sing, so they got dubbed, but some couldn't even talk right. The dancing isn't half bad either e.g. here's how Debbie Reynolds, Donald O'Connor and Gene Kelly say "Good Morning":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GB2yiIoEtXw