Jen: have you seen a streetcar named desire
Jeff: no
i've read it though
way back in the day
Jen: i have similar feelings towards that movie that i do to [The Maltese Falcon]
i realize that its good, and can see some of the ways in which it was really groundbreaking for that time, but only really am enjoying it bc its supposed to be a classic
that was how i felt as well
it's kind of like listening to run-dmc
like, guys you don't have to end every rhyme the exact same way you know
but they don't know
b/c everybody's just feeling out the medium
Jen: yeah
i havent listened to enough run dmc to say i agree but i believe you
Jeff: the "first of its genre" is always kind of strange
Jen: yeah, but streetcar wasn't necessary 1st in genre
Jeff: true
i guess i should say groundbreaking work
Jeff: not always
but often
not always
i think i can watch some classics and enjoy it just as being good
Jeff: agreed
and sometimes it's hard to reconstruct something where the achievement was something new
that has since been copied
Jen: but some i watch and think, would i have known this was good had someone not told me. Have you seen the apartment?
Jeff:no
romantic comedy?
Jen: 1960 best picture with Shirley MacClaine
it was referenced in mad men, and now i want to see it
Billy Wilder
Jeff: hmm
never saw it
psycho
a classic that i enjoyed
Jen: example of you can enjoy
yes
i agree
Jeff: pride and prejudice
wuthering heights
Jen: as movies or books?
Jeff: books
Jen: oh there are TONS of books
im talking movies
Jeff: movies i find harder
Jen: yeah
Jeff: esp pre-70s
Jen: yeah
Jeff: but what's considered classic
like is the Godfather considered modern?
Jen: just old i guess
Jeff: or classic?
Jen: haha
its classic but im speaking about old classic
Jeff: you're talking about something that's old enough to where the dominant style was different than what's done today
Jen: yes i think so
Jeff: so like the 70s classics fit
godfather
apocalypse now
would those be "classics" or modern movies?
Jen: mm, i dont know
i think they are modern classics
and then there are old classics
Jeff: my theory is that those fit as modern b/c those styles have been appropriated by modern movies
in terms of directorial style
and in terms of looking at the director as the "author" of the movie
Jen: and classics are just critically acclaimed, or ones that everyone thinks you should see
Jeff: so you're drawing a distinction between one set of classics and another
where one "feels" older
right?
and the others are more modern classics
all can be considered classics
because they're widely critically/popularly acclaimed
but there's a distinction between "modern" classics
and "classic" classics
all I'm saying
im saying for 'classic' classics
or old classics
modern classics i get
usually always
90% of the time
old classics, maybe 45% of the time
ok maybe 60% of the time
by get i mean enjoy and appreciate
Jeff: and my theory behind that is that modern classics are made in the same cinematic style/vocabulary/aesthetic as movies today
Jen: yes
Jeff: i.e. director driven
Jen: you think before they werent director driven?
Jeff: naturalistic acting
directors used to be just kind of hired guns
they weren't really considered the "author" or the movie
Jen: hm, i dont know if i agree
Jeff: example - who directed wizard of oz?
Jen: im thinking more like sunset blvd, citizen kane
very director driven
Jen: i dont know who directed wizard of oz without using wikipedia.
Jeff: gone with the wind?
Jen: but i also don't know who directed shakespeare in love. or
i dont know directors that well
the theory that the director is the auteur of the movie, that the director's creative vision is the driving force, was first developed in the '50s
which is relatively recently
but think of the way that we discussed christopher nolan
and his body of work the other day
we talk about directors as though they're the authors
Jen: but you dont think that can be done with old directors?
Jeff: whether or not you know who directed one
you can retroactively apply it, but think about what that means from a business/creative standpoint that they weren't thought of that way
Jen: now youre arguing the director is now the 'author' of movies
the main creative force
you dont think its always been that way?
Jeff: well think about the difference between the way movies are made now
and under the studio system from the '20s to the '50s
where studios would produce movies with their stars, writers, and directors tied to long-term contracts
in that case the director is still the main creative force maybe, but the real power lies with the studio and the producers
but obviously movies are highly collaborative
so there's also been evolution of acting
towards more naturalism
Jen: yes
so this is the reason why i like movies more now?
Jeff: i think it's a factor as to why the style of what you're thinking of as "old classics" seem so alien
for me that holds true
like if a movie's made after about 1969 or so, it may feel like a 70s movie, but it feels "modern"
or an 80s movie will feel dated, but still modern
but movies made much before that feel like they're made with a different cinematic/acting/writing aesthetic vocab.
so i'm just speculating that that may be what you could be reacting to also
in your 90/60 % split
Star Wars
totally modern feeling
Jaws
same
Jen: 70s though
so you think the cut off ist he 60s
Jeff: it's somewhere in the 70s
i guess
i just know that the 70s was the rise of the American auteurs
Jen: so godfather is 72 (im using wiki now)
Jeff: Spielberg, Altman, Francis Ford Coppola
etc.
and my theory is that it's their influence that really marks the modern film vocab.
Jen: one flew over the cuckoos nest is 75
which seems in old classic genre
director influence?
Jeff: yeah director influence
godfather you would say old classic or modern classic?
Jen: modern classic
Jeff: so 72 at least would be the cutoff then
but obviously those styles were new at the time
so you'd expect there to be plenty of "old classics" littered throughout the 70s
i doubt you'd find many (or any) in the 80s that would feel like "old classics"
Jen: hm i see
Jeff: like psycho i still enjoy just as much as a modern movie
but it still feels like it's on the other side of the divide
Jen: what year is that
Jeff: ‘60
Jen: hmmm
Jeff: The Excorcist – ‘73
Carrie – ‘76
i would pinpoint those as the first modern horror movies
Jen: yes
Jeff: also
until 64 all movies had to meet the Hays code
basically the industry censorship agreement put together in the 30s
spelling out what was morally acceptable
so the modern rating system was implemented in '68
Jen: yeah so there are a lot of other factors besides directors
Jeff: totally
Jen: camera technology
sound technology
costume
make up
speech
Jeff: for sure
but i think those are less of a factor
b/c think about the diff in those from a movie made in the early 80s to today
both feel "modern"
but camera, sound, costume, makeup, speech - all different
that's what i think the puzzle is
b/c there's clearly a line in there somewhere
where "modern" shades into "old"
that's more about aesthetics and less about technology/costumes/slang/etc.
Jen: but how much of this is colored by the decade when we were born
our earliest memories of modern movies were in the 80s
Jeff: totally
Jen: so if you asked my dad this, he might not draw the line at the same place
Jeff: very true
Jen: or ask a teenager
whats modern
i dont know if it would make it to the 70s
Jeff: right like a teenager today would probably feel anything without CGI is dated
Jen: yeah, like star wars is probably way too old
looking
i think the 1st harry potter CGI is terrible
Jeff: haha yeah CGI can get horribly abused
BUT pre-CGI will feel dated, but I bet for teenagers now what will feel even more dated are movies without the rapid-fire cutting
think about how long the shots were in the first batman compared to the dark knight
Jen: interesting
i wonder how a modern teenager would feel about Raiders of the Lost Ark
Jen: classic
and i feel modern
but we have no way of knowing without access to a teenager
Jen: must get access to teenager
Jeff: haha yes
movie perceptions