Currently Online 
hunter_alien said:
Its simple my dear friend. I actually have my own opinion Also I am not dismissing anything. Im aware of the impact those movies had, I only believe they are extremley overrated, and their remaining, overblown value often hangs on the remnants of the old critic generation. Also I adore movies, I adore them as an artistic medium, and as a true expression of human feelings. If you trully love something you will see its issues, and accept them for what they are, and not what the consensus thinks it is. Most movies from the pre-50's are just the stepping stones for something much bigger. Yes, they where needed, they are still adored, but they are minimal compared to what came afther. In the US cinema alone you have things like: Psycho, 2001:ASO, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Full Metal Jacket, Deer Hunter, Blade Runner, Alien, Star Wars, There will be Blood, 12 Monkeys, Eyes wide shut... you see what Im doing here? So many genres, so many timeframes, so much variety, and mainstream filmmaking, that actually has value. Human emotion, captured on camera, even in the 50's still lacked its own authenticity. It was still influenced by the classical theatre, and it only became "real" after the 50's. Everything before it is just too alien to be taken seriously... those movies should be taken as reminders and not as examples. |
Also, no matter how seriously you want to take something, never forget, it's the internet we are talking about That's a lucid, coherent, insightful take on movies. Why couldn't you have written that in the first place?
There are as many genres and as much variety in the early years of cinema. The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, for example, shares little in common with Some Like it Hot. And Battleship Potemkin is not at all like Vertigo. The 30s, 40s, and 50s saw silent movies, Italian neorealism, German expressionism, medieval war epics, comedies, film noir, musicals, westerns, you name it. There was no shortage of variety.
Certainly there was a "realness" to movies from the late 60s and 70s. And if you value those gritty, realistic, politically-aware movies of that period -- Bonnie and Clyde, An Unmarried Woman, A Clockwork Orange -- then I understand your argument. But I would argue there was more artistry, more technical brilliance in the movies that came before. And there was nothing inauthentic about them. The action and drama might be more "staged" but it loses none of its emotional and psychological power. I think movies like Double Indemnity and Brief Encounter are more powerful, more moving, and more devastating than any movie from the 60s or 70s.
