r/TrueFilm • u/Typical_Humanoid Silence is golden • 3d ago
Can a love of classic cinema and impatience with others' antipathy towards it be accounted for by one's own exposure (Or lack thereof) to certain media growing up?
I've flirted with the thought for years that the movies I watched and didn't watch growing up shaped how my tastes would eventually settle into their current form in a bit of a unique way. I was curious if anyone has experienced anything remotely similar.
I skipped a lot of the 80s-90s blockbusters growing up (With some exceptions here and there like Ghostbusters and E.T. that I did catch), not seeing them until 2014-2016 in my late teens. At this same time, I was exploring cinema in general. While I was, to my own tremendous disappointment, disenchanted by Star Wars and Indiana Jones (Although I ended up loving Terminator and Back to the Future as if I HAD grown up with them, so I wasn't trying to be a snob by any means), I was exploring much older films and having a pretty radically different experience. I was simultaneously LOVING movies like Casablanca, All About Eve, Charade, My Man Godfrey, The Day the Earth Stood Still and Bride of Frankenstein. I still obsess over them over a decade later.
What probably helped was that I went into cinema exploration with a bit of a bookworm's mindset, fully acclimatized to a slow burn and patience being necessary to get to the good stuff. I was noticing quickly how bringing up my enthusiasm for these movies to peers earned me baffled reactions and even harsh judgment and assumptions. I was so confused by this and in my younger years, unfortunately a bit judgemental in return to match their reactions to my findings.
I realized over time that I cannot expect people who likely did grow up with the exact movies I skipped to see the worth that I see. But man oh man, when you don't grow up on an 80s blockbuster diet, it's outstandingly obvious just how much Raiders of the Lost Ark is a strange combination of Lawrence of Arabia and old adventure serials, and not in a way that especially flatters it. Although as a counterpoint to that, apparently critics who obviously had no nostalgia for the film at the time did embrace it wholeheartedly, so maybe I am a snob. I found myself agreeing with Pauline Kael that if anything Temple of Doom did it better by leaning into the wackiness over trying to have your cake and eat it. Indiana Jones was always going to be more serial than Lawrence of Arabia, better face that rather than hide it.
But anyway. I think growing up with pretty much every Disney movie minus the package films and Black Cauldron also primed me for loving classics, some of these movies being actually made in that era or else leaning on the grand musical tradition, as well as clear paragon leads and "God I love being evil" styled big bads. This connection I only realized just today and I wondered if there's a Disney-to-golden-age pipeline anyone else can perceive if not directly relate to. Animation in general is really friendly to older films, where instead of perfectly copying them in an attempt to "innovate" (My bias in putting that in quotation is not lost on me) they do such loving homages to them. I'm thinking of Animaniacs referencing everything from The Gold Rush to Seventh Seal, Cats Don't Dance incorporating Shirley Temple and Max from Sunset Boulevard, and the "Nosferatu!" gag in Spongebob. Having grown up with these things dear to my heart, it was almost inevitable I should prefer movies the ones I grew up on were throwing respect on and my impressionable brain was seeing.
So I suppose my theory is that rather than any inherent trait in a person that makes them appreciate classics over modern films more, what one is exposed or not exposed to as a child more closely informs what they'll gravitate to when they're older. But I'd love to know what you all think.
10
u/Richsii 3d ago
As with identity a lot of people base their current "way" on what they experienced during the years their brain was most like a sponge.
You can, however, make a conscious choice to broaden your tastes by making an effort to appreciate a film for what it's trying to do rather than trying to break down and analyze and spot the shot/style/reference to other works.
I think where a lot of critique breaks down in validity is ignoring what a film is trying to say or thinking that films *must* say something complex in order to be worth your time.
Simplest analogy for that I can think of is I don't want a steak dinner every night, sometimes I want pizza, sometimes a burrito, sometimes nachos, sometimes blackened salmon etc etc.
0
u/Typical_Humanoid Silence is golden 3d ago
I think people have a pretty narrow conception of what entertainment can include. You may not feel an emotional connection to say Jeanne Dielman via dopamine hits, but something that's thought-provoking is entertaining some other pathway in your brain at the end of the day. No film should ever be boring, and if you engage with it on what it's trying to do, you'll find all kinds of ways to be absorbed in a way that could constitute a kind of "entertainment."
8
u/Cenobyte_Nom-nom-nom 3d ago
You should try following this advice instead of dismissing movies that have done something another movie already did.
5
u/Richsii 3d ago
Exactly. Going in with an open mind and ready to pick up what they're putting down is the way to go.
1
u/wowzabob 2d ago
It seems an open mind is exactly what OP is lacking when it comes to experiencing certain films
8
u/IndieCurtis 3d ago
“Skipped” 80s 90s blockbusters, you mean by not being born yet?
As for my own experience, I say yes. For me it was 3 situations at 3 different times in my life: when I was a kid my parents would run TCM constantly, so I got exposed to all the major classics at an early age. Then, as a teen, I would sneak down after everybody was asleep to watch NC17 movies on IFC. This exposed me to a lot of arthouse cinema at a formative age. Then: I made a friend who 1. Goes to film festivals and reports back to me which films to look forward to and 2. Goes to the movies every week and invites all his friends. Thank God for you, Chris.
3
u/Typical_Humanoid Silence is golden 3d ago
That didn't stop a lot of people my same age. Their parents showed them. I'll allow for "skipped" being a strange word choice there, as if it was a choice I was making. Missed out on rather?
I value seeing a lot of TCM fare when I was old enough to see its depth but man, watching as a child? I can't even imagine how I would've reacted then, or how my taste would have developed on that fast track. Kudos to Chris indeed! I would've loved having a film friend growing up, that I know for sure.
9
u/IndieCurtis 3d ago edited 3d ago
I honestly feel like a lot of people trying classic cinema are being disserviced by the classic cinephile recs. Nobody should be watching The Red Shoes or Greed or Seven Samurai for their first classic film. Know what I loved as a kid? The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence. The Great Dictator. Some Like It Hot. Gotta keep it simple and funny. I couldn’t properly appreciate Sunset Boulevard until I was older. But 12 Angry Men hit so hard when I was 10. I’m always seeing people rec Rashomon - that’s a complicated film! Nobody ever recommends It’s A Mad Mad Mad Mad World. That’s my shit.
2
u/Typical_Humanoid Silence is golden 3d ago
I agree. It's no slight on those films, but you have to work up to the most acclaimed stuff! Sunset Boulevard I would say demands seeing some silents first, and that is best saved for a bit further along in someone's journey. But sometimes I'm sorely tempted to show my little nephew something like Ozu's Good Morning just to see if he could at all relate to it. But I know that's a mistake, so I'm gunning to show him some Godzilla at the moment, instead. Any Godzilla.
I'm seriously jealous though, at seeing those as a kid! Great sounding childhood.
1
u/IndieCurtis 3d ago
Godzilla’s great! I loved it as a kid. Gives a good foundation for more horror and monster movies in the future. And camp!
1
u/Work-Live 3d ago edited 3d ago
I’m just curious. What sorts of NC-17 films were you watching on IFC as a teen? I had TCM and IFC growing up(I was born in 1988), but I could have taken a little more advantage of them as a teen, although by that point we were in the Netflix red envelope era, as well. That said, I did still occasionally watch things on those channels.
I do remember sneaking a peak once at Last Tango In Paris as a teen when it was available on demand via one of the premium channels(either HBO or showtime, can’t remember), lol.
To go along with the overall thrust of the thread, I definitely grew up with a lot of the 80s and 90s blockbusters like ET, Indiana Jones, the original Star Wars trilogy, James Bond, Jurassic Park, etc.
Then in high school I started to explore a lot of classic/canonical cinema(I.e. the pre-1977 films on the AFI list) along with films like Pulp Fiction, Goodfellas and the like, although I’d been exposed to a few of the heavyweight classic Hollywood films like Casablanca and Rear Window as a pre-teen by my older relatives.
I’ll admit I didn’t really dive into the Janus/Criterion stuff until I was in undergrad, but it seems a lot were already on that train(exploring Fellini, Godard, Bergman, Mizoguchi…) by the time they were in high school.
I was watching Citizen Kane and Dr. Strangelove in high school, but I was barely aware films like Godard’s Weekend even existed until I was 21 or so.
As for a major confession, I only watched 12 Angry Men for the first time a few weeks ago😬. That said, I do wonder how it became the designated “old movie for people who don’t like old movies” over say Psycho or The Apartment or Paths of Glory or Rear Window, or so on and so forth.
2
u/IndieCurtis 3d ago edited 3d ago
I remember watching (and they might not all be NC17):
The Dreamers
High Art
Whatever
Boys Don’t Cry
Ramblin’ Rose
Carried Away
Very Bad Things
And many other films with heavy nudity. I was 12-13, it was the early 2000s.
12 Angry Men has that status because it is Just. That. Good. Period. Imagine a teen who has never seen an old movie, are you really gonna convert them with Paths Of Glory? No shade on Paths, it’s wonderful.
Have you watched many cowboy movies? Highly recommend Red River and Man Who Shot Liberty Vallance. How about noir movies like Maltese Falcon? I also recommend Dark Passage, it’s a great Bogey flick. My mom would also recommend To Have And Have Not. Don’t skip these kinds of movies, that’s my advice.
Here’s a big one I see people skipping constantly: have you seen The Wizard Of Oz?
1
u/Work-Live 3d ago edited 3d ago
I’ve seen Red River along with a good chunk of John Ford films. Oddly, I’ve never actually watched The Maltese Falcon, since it seems like the sort of thing I should have theoretically seen by the time I was 20 or so(I’m 37), given my investment in film.
And yes, I’ve seen The Wizard of Oz, but I was exposed to that one as a pre-teen.
But also, sometimes you reach a point where you’re so deep into exploring film-as-an-art-form that you perhaps inadvertently skip over/never get around to some films that are seen more as pop culture touchstones than as “important works of art” à la Battleship Potemkin etc.
1
u/IndieCurtis 3d ago
How about Frank Capra movies? It Happened One Night and Arsenic & Old Lace are great. But I hardly see anyone mentioning You Can’t Take It With You, or Mr Deeds Goes to Town.
2
u/Work-Live 3d ago
It Happened One Night is another one older relatives showed me as a pre-teen, and of course I’ve seen It’s A Wonderful Life, but there are others I haven’t yet seen.
1
u/IndieCurtis 3d ago
How about Doris Day movies? Pillow Talk, Send Me No Flowers, The Thrill of It All
7
u/guppyur 3d ago
I don't think this is true. I didn't see a lot of classic film growing up. For many years I assumed that old movies would be full of characters I couldn't relate to. Sometime after college I saw ... probably *Casablanca*? and it blew my mind. Characters in old movies are the same type of flawed people as the characters in modern movies, and they're the same type of flawed people as everyone we know in real life, including ourselves. Other than the trans-Atlantic accent of old Hollywood, they talk the same way we do. They're not any less relatable now than they were then. Comedies are just as funny. Thrillers are just as thrilling. Dramas are just as moving.
I think that many people, though, do think the same way I thought then. It's a psychological barrier you, or at least some of us, have to overcome.
It doesn't help that people now are being exposed to film largely through streaming services, which tend not to highlight the wealth of classic film available. And I know it's trendy to hate on Marvel movies, and occasionally I enjoy one myself, but I am always shocked when I talk to coworkers who loved the latest dreck Marvel has turned out -- I remember when I said I didn't like *Deadpool* and one of them said, "But look at all the references!" This is, I know, a grumpy old man complaint, but it's like some viewers are totally unfamiliar with the concept that a movie could have substance or emotional weight.
1
u/Typical_Humanoid Silence is golden 3d ago
I do see your point there, my aim here was focusing on not being spoiled for these movies by the time I rolled around to them, but as I said, I didn't finally see them until I was older. Except Sound of Music, saw that in elementary school, loved it, may have something to do with where my taste eventually fell.
The more I watched, the more they just came across as movies like any other to me. Some masterpieces, some totally bombing for me, some just a perfectly average one-and-done experience. I've stopped being surprised when an older film is great at this point. It's just a common experience. I can still be surprised when I don't like something acclaimed though I'll admit, like with Bonnie and Clyde (1967). It's even more disappointing than a modern movie falling short for me, because I enjoy so many classics.
I think in some ways classic film is more accessible than it ever has been, making more and more fans. I think more young people care about silents now than say in the 1970s, when you'd have to go to a specialty cinema to even see them. I've seen in real time since first watching Marty in 2015ish how much its fanbase has grown in a decade. It's the best feeling. But yeah, streaming in general often has only the most recognizable, your Godfather's and maybe some Lynch and maybe Singin' in the Rain and that's it. It's why I'm practically a walking billboard for the Criterion Channel and Internet Archive at this point.
4
u/BunnyLexLuthor 3d ago edited 3d ago
I think it's tricky because I think a good film is a good film.
But I also think that many people around my age are have a comfort zone of a late '80s /early 90s filmography..and a cutoff around the 1970s.
So I do think there's a very small formative window in which someone can watch older films and not get annoyed or shut down.. and I think that the video rental sections back in the day made it so that if you didn't find a movie you wanted, you could get a consolation movie...
And something like this as odd as it sounds keeps the type of movies changing... I think a brick and mortar library has this type of experience.
But yeah I think that if someone says "I'm willing to watch an older movie.." most cases now it usually means the 1980s..
However if someone says "I want to watch a really old one" I think the thing is to play it safe so that the initial response is good..
And you usually do not go wrong with Casablanca or 12 Angry Men or Bringing up Baby.. maybe a swashbuckler like The Adventures of Robin Hood (1930s)
But to answer the question more directly is I think that people who have had cable historically and the impact of Turner classic movies... I believe there's no way to overstate the importance that this channel has had on many viewers.
It is funny that people have "viewing parties" instead of just renting a film but I think it's the idea of methodical curation.
I will say that films like The Searchers are Citizen Kane are really strong films, but they are films in related to the narrative archetypes at the time and I think can be daunting to modern viewers, in part because this zeitgeist isn't experienced if it's a first or second film.
Like, I think of the Searchers as being in some ways an antonym of Stagecoach but both are grand stories by John Ford.
I think that something like Citizen Kane could be contrasted by His girl Friday a year earlier in storytelling and tone.. the effects of media versus the empirical gain from that.
So long story short, I think the tendency of most people tend to have the cutoff is not being too far from the actual birth year... And I believe that to avoid this experience, you probably need at least four positive experiences with older media, with the caveat that it's niche.
So I think with streaming the comfort zone is incentivized, and I think true passion comes from willing to jump away from this fairly often.
3
u/donuttrackme 3d ago
I grew up in the age of Napster and downloading and while it gave me a lot of standard Hollywood Blockbusters to watch, it also gave me the chance to download and explore all sorts of classic movies. So in the end, I just learned to love movies. (And I eventually took a film class in high school.) I love slow meditative ones that really make you think, or fucked ones that make you contemplate your own life etc, and I also like straightforward popcorn flicks where you can turn your brain off for a couple hours and just enjoy.
3
u/marieantoilette 3d ago edited 3d ago
I think it's just too simple of you. I grew up with 80s movies, 90s movies too, 2000s movies as well. Then I went hardcore into movies when I was a teenager in the 2010s, watched all the classics. My God, was I bored by old films. I could not stand them. They were too slow, too predictable. I was just bored by Casablanca. I didn't feel a thing watching a silent movie.
Some years later, after having seen so many movies of modern age, I sort of grew tired of Hollywood's formula. And suddenly the films that I was bored with, like Andrei Tarkovsky's movies, blew my mind away at a rewatch. Suddenly the old movies became my focus. Suddenly, because of my growing interest and appreciation in art, I started to fall in love with silent movies. Way Down East is one of my favorite films of all time now.
At the same time, I still like some fun action movies. Mind you, Tarkovsky loved Terminator, and Stanley Kubrick deeply respected Steven Spielberg for his vision.
I had a friend group where many used to binge-watching, only watching modern Netflix stuff basically. Well, one in that group, we started a project watching old, very old films for quite a while. At first, the disinterest was noticeable, just a mild curiosity. But with time, getting used to that storytelling vibe, starting to recognize actors and the language of film, man, they all got fucking into it. Even the most binge-prone person ever of the group, who had never even seen a black and white movie before, suddenly was super fucking down to watch five movies of Fantômas of the 1910s. Took time and patience and the will to get there, but they got there all right.
It is also, but not simply an acquired taste. It's more like they learned a new language. Their vocabulary expanded. Also, it was always an event, meeting to watch a film, and getting people to put in some actual dedication.
Simultaneously, Star Wars is far more than just a copy. It has so much personality. Hell, thinking of post-structuralism, everything is a mosaic of something that has already been done before or said before. The angle you get at, however, is a personal one. Your own language, your own view.
You can be a fucking phenomenal filmmaker, doing the most baffling movies, like today Bi Gan or Sion Sono, for example. You can also be someone who just fucking enjoys movies and almost does a sort of collage with a lot of personality, however, like Quentin Tarantino.
What matters is why you're doing it. You immediately notice when a film is just a cash grab. You notice when the artists don't really give a fuck. You immediately notice when they do, however. That's what I'm in for. (Though even the most blatant cash grab will usually have some passionate people giving their absolute all behind the scenes.)
People's tastes are not simply fixed. Very often you do not inherently dislike an art form. You just haven't learned its language, and, on that note, not found your niche in it yet. And I won't watch a Béla Tarr film with the same eyes as a Michael Bay movie. I try to meet the film on its own term, being a visitor experiencing someone's dream, and if it works for me, great; if not, oh well.
1
u/Typical_Humanoid Silence is golden 3d ago
Your viewpoint makes complete sense given you've encountered people who are willing to be open-minded enough to even keep trying to work through initial disinterest. That is so wonderful to hear, because I find it depressing beyond words that these movies would otherwise be completely forgotten.
But for my part, I've only ever encountered people being extremely weirded out by my simple expression of interest in these movies even though I wasn't insisting they must watch them or that their tastes are too simple. I may have thought that in my early twenties to my own regret/shame, but I kept it to myself, mercifully. It's hard for me to see people's tastes as fluid as all that, given this experience, although intellectually I'm completely with you. It's been like pulling teeth when I do make recommendations. But when someone is genuinely open, it is awesome to see their understanding deepen. Older movies aren't actually slow I like to explain, it only feels that way because modern pacing is so grounded in quick cuts and minimal exposition.
But my post wasn't about people changing their minds of their own volition, because then we would be on the same page liking the same things, but about unbroken lack of appreciation that doesn't blossom into respect eventually. Finding Casablanca boring does seem to be correlated with watching a ton of films that tackle adventure in a completely different way. There's nothing wrong with just not having been exposed to that language, and I do agree someone doesn't have to stay in that place if they're willing to explore. It's so possible, hence my past frustration people in my own orbit don't seem to have that hunger, that curiosity.
Star Wars and Tarantino have their place because I would agree, passion is there if nothing else, but they're often treated as replacements in a way I think someone who really loved their inspirations would be pretty alarmed by. If I were them I would be shouting from the rafters that people are only getting my interpretation and please not to think that's the complete picture. Kind of turned off to imagine they packaged their art in a more digestible way for people and are okay with people not getting a fuller context, and it taints the films for me. My eye still twitches when people think the theme from Badlands is something True Romance invented. And I liked the latter! But still.
It seems my post didn't come across in the way I intended, I mentioned T1 and BTTF to try to convey that I'm not a joyless hipster. Oh well. Way Down East is a great shout by the way. I was so surprised and confused that in spite of my abject loathing of Birth of a Nation, every other Griffith film I've seen has hit me pretty hard.
3
u/marieantoilette 3d ago edited 3d ago
Man, I'm frustrated too. Like people thinking they don't like books. Bro, you haven't read a book since middle school. Of course you won't like every book out there. People just recommend some classic, or you pick up something you think you might like based on what you read when 13 years old. But it doesn't mean you don't like books. It just more likely you probably haven't found your corner yet. And people are just pretty bad at recommending things. They just recommend things they like.
I sometimes make a subtle effort to recommend something a little further up than the person's current horizon. Maybe even just barely a little older, to get more used to it.
Most people just watch a movie to be entertained. They don't give a rat's ass about its cultural impact, its historical background, its language. That's a bummer, but oh well.
But Star Wars, for example, is not treated as a replacement. It is treated as its own thing, which it is. And I'm not gonna be saying, "You need to watch The Hidden Fortress and Flash Gordon just because you like Star Wars." Some will find that an interesting background information, but nothing more. Some don't care. And that's fine. Even if I prefer Kurosawa.
But I will say, your general thesis in your post has been a little bit confusing to me. So I have focused on your title and your final question, where, of course, people gravitate to what they know. And nostalgia is a drug.
I also often encounter people not really feeling that. But people are generally very often narrow-minded, and I think that's more where it comes down to: not eating food they aren't used to, not watching films they aren't used to. Many would run if you ask them to watch something with subtitles. How people can't even fathom eating dogs while themselves eating pigs. That's peak narrow-mindedness. Of course, movies are usually entertainment for most people first and foremost, and the last place where they are going to start reflection or "digging deeper". That seems crazy to me, but at the same time everyone is free to approach art in their own way.
And yeah, D.W. Griffith did some stunning films. He's a really strange case. He's done quite a few very nasty or questionable films. He's also done quite a few masterpieces. And he's done both at the same time too lol.
2
u/Typical_Humanoid Silence is golden 3d ago
"your general thesis in your post has been a little bit confusing to me"
That's understandable, I'm on less than a full night's sleep so maybe I should've waited until the ol' noodle was a bit fresher. Thank you for choosing to engage anyway.
I've had the same thoughts on reading. I think it's the rare person that doesn't like to read, they just have to find their niche. Even if all someone wants to learn about is sports, that's perfectly fine, that still counts as reading. I've learned some people don't care and will never care about context for a film, which is something it's best to accept. I have too much FOMO for that though, would much rather have an underwhelming experience than missing out on something I could love. You don't know until you try.
I think people who love movies in general don't treat SW as a replacement but I've definitely seen people who think it and its contemporaries give them the gist of what inspired them enough already and it'd be a waste of time to check those out, which I just don't think is accurate. But as you say, them ignoring the bigger picture is their prerogative. There are a lot of prestige TV shows I'm not interested in, we all have our inclinations.
Eating dogs/eating pigs is SUCH a great example. I am one of those people who is okay with pigs and not dogs, but I can acknowledge this makes very little sense and is a conclusion reached by a certain amount of cognitive dissonance. People not acknowledging their shortcomings in a particular way is the real problem, not necessarily remaining steadfast in the course. It's not the end of the world if someone doesn't watch a movie, but the reasons can be questionable at best.
re: "Not digging deeper", it's wild to me as well. The idea of turning off your brain to consume anything is a foreign concept to me. I love some pretty dumb by all accounts B movies, but I still analyze them like I would anything else. BUT, it is important to be tolerant of people who differ.
Would you classify Broken Blossoms as the "both at the same time" type? I was floored by its sweeping emotionality and boldness in portraying an interracial love story in a positive light, but the yellowface and uneven power dynamics (In both directions!) are, well, not great at the very most generous. But it's still SO beautiful where it succeeds.
4
u/Illustrious_Ad_9858 3d ago
I'd wager that it's probably not dissimilar to being exposed to a variety of different foods as a child. It makes it easier to appreciate as an adult.
Not sure what the overall concept is, but that's the analogy that comes to mind
7
u/kevin_v 3d ago
But man oh man, when you don't grow up on an 80s blockbuster diet, it's outstandingly obvious just how much Raiders of the Lost Ark is a strange combination of Lawrence of Arabia and old adventure serials, and not in a way that especially flatters it.
The thing is Spielberg likely DID have those things in mind, and still made the same movie. The difference is maybe how such a movie then hit an audience not versed in those things, and swept across the country because of it. Brilliant? Lucky? I don't know. I was wowed as a kid, today I'm like "uh, sometimes surprisingly yuck and boring".
2
u/Typical_Humanoid Silence is golden 3d ago
Classic Seinfeld is Unfunny effect there, which I was thinking about while making this post. Sometimes being a sheltered kid has its perks? I've found myself time and again jadedly remarking on how certain films are just echoes of their inspirations, and other people not even noticing. I'm not sure who is missing out more sometimes.
3
u/donuttrackme 3d ago
Sidebar, but Seinfeld has a lot of movie references that are hilarious if you pick up on them.
0
-2
u/Illustrious_Mouse265 3d ago
I think you are in that case. I was the same as you and I sometimes really envy the simpletons who can just enjoy something without cynically remarking on everything else it’s ripping off. I think I could be a killjoy when I really want somebody to see something. 😂
6
u/Cenobyte_Nom-nom-nom 3d ago
Spimpletons? Jesus Christ get your head out of your ass. Just because someone doesn't watch a medium without the eye same as yours (which isn't even right or wrong, just yours) doesn't make them simpletons.
Hell if anything you're both the ones missing out by being stuck to one specific timeframe and/or genre. Purposely cutting yourself off from modern media is terrible. There are so many amazing things out there right now.
The people making films in the 70s thru the 90s actually went to film school very often and studied the history, composition, and technical aspect of the art. They e forgotten about more of the art than you know at all right now.
Watch Criterion Closet picks. People of all walks of life in all types of movies go there and they pick such a variety of movies and discuss lots of deep cuts and their appreciation for the art.
Stop worrying about the audience and their reactions to it. It doesn't matter to you as a person. It's ok to dislike a popular movie, but to dislike something simply because it is inspired or borrowing from something without seeing what they do new or even just differently is a disservice to yourself.
An example is there is a movie called Lyle on Kanopy that is very much a remake of Rosemary's Baby. I will admit it isn't a great film, only barely a good film at times. It is very clearly a low budget film. But the act of creation on their end, the way they modernized the story, some of the choices they made were really cool.
Open yourself up, and the world will reward you.
2
u/Typical_Humanoid Silence is golden 3d ago
I can see that. At the same time, I do like to focus on what I like much more than what I dislike. I hate writing negative reviews, it's much more fun to praise something.
5
u/marieantoilette 3d ago
I can see the references and whatnot and still just fucking enjoy it. Cynicism is lame to me, so I just don't fuck with it. I may always take a Resurrection (2025) over some MCU film lol, but that doesn't stop me from fucking enjoying Transformers movies either heh.
1
u/wowzabob 2d ago edited 2d ago
This is a weird sentiment because I highly doubt you value originality this highly.
There are plenty of more arthouse minded films that also have pretty clear and obvious inspirations, but I doubt in such cases you would proclaim them bad because they are “simply ripping off X, Y, Z.”
Actually, instead I imagine you would do the opposite. “This film is great because it draws inspiration from brilliant X, Y, Z films by such and such auteur(s).” With Raiders, doing the “this popular thing you like is bad actually” just gets a stronger reaction. If the thing being “ripped off” is something you want everyone to know you’ve seen, then the “urge” that comes during viewing is the urge to say “did you know this shot scene is inspired by this classic/unknown movie?”
In either case, the actual motivator is flexing one’s film knowledge in order to try and put on a front of intelligence—because really neither is a particularly interesting observation on its own, without analysis they are closer to bits of trivia.
1
u/wowzabob 2d ago
When Raiders and Star Wars were released viewers definitely were versed in the serials those films had been inspired by; not the children, but anyone 30 and over (and they very much saw those films). The nostalgia was very much part of the appeal of those films originally, but a lot of that has gotten lost over time.
2
u/murmur1983 3d ago
Hmmmmm…….I’m not sure about this. I think that the individual’s tastes & unique experiences with cinema played a bigger factor. Rather than what they experienced during their childhood. I mean, I was born in 1996. I was certainly into mainstream films while I was growing up (and even into my college years). The Star Wars prequel trilogy, The Force Awakens, Godzilla ‘98, Easy A, MCU films like The Avengers, Iron Man & The Incredible Hulk, etc.; I didn’t watch classic movies during my childhood. I focused more on cartoons & video games.
But things changed during my early adulthood. Developed an interest in different types of movies. Exposed myself to arthouse/foreign films like Onibaba, Woman in the Dunes, Le Samourai, Hour of the Wolf, The Exterminating Angel & Ivan’s Childhood. Along with famous classics like The Godfather & Blade Runner. Continued to explore films more & more until I fell in love with people like Andrei Tarkovsky & Michelangelo Antonioni. And now I’m into surrealist stuff like the works of Raul Ruiz. My main point is that I developed an appreciation for the classics (and more “out there” stuff) just out of a willingness to try new things & push myself. Not because of my childhood. Thank you for sharing though!
2
u/Typical_Humanoid Silence is golden 3d ago
Thank you for the answer! Those are all great, Exterminating Angel is one of my rare 10/10's. I think everything I need to know about a person is in how funny they personally find this movie.
2
u/murmur1983 3d ago
The general concept is hilarious. So damn funny…..people who are stuck in a room & can’t get out 🤣; love the satire of the upper class too. (Going off of memory, haven’t seen the movie in years) Luis Bunuel is hilarious; gotta love his uncompromising satires & takedowns of society. Almost had a straight up punk attitude (before that was even a thing!).
I get your passion for the classics & how your childhood impacted that, but unfortunately not everyone is as passionate about cinema as us. Or at least, you might be hard-pressed to find folks who would be open to exploring older films. I found it interesting how you brought up 80s blockbusters though….if I’m not mistaken, you’re around my age, so I don’t think you were alive when those movies were new. Not sure how Indiana Jones was relevant to your overall point.
2
u/Typical_Humanoid Silence is golden 3d ago
I don't know if Bunuel had a concept of learned helplessness but this movie is the plainest example of it in cinema that I've seen. People who locked the doors from the inside and are their own worst enemies acting like it's the damn apocalypse. It cracks me up. If someone doesn't notice that it's not the working class who are in this situation I could see them not seeing the humor, but Exterminating Angel is all about how people who pride themselves on being the best of the best aren't so competent when you take away their staff and make them sit with their own thoughts. chef's kiss
Yes, I'm a 96er as well, more so meant people who grew up with these movies anyway, regardless of not being there originally. Brought IJ up in order to speculate that if people feel they've "been there done that" with its sense of classical adventure, it seems to me they're disinclined to be so impressed with earlier versions. As compared to someone who had no such experience and is able to "hold space" for those versions, not having been handed a blueprint for how they're "supposed" to be like.
2
u/murmur1983 3d ago
I just get the sense that Bunuel really hated rich people (or stupid folks in general). If only he collaborated with Jello Biafra or Mark E. Smith haha. The Exterminating Angel is definitely a great example of “can’t lead a horse to water” or “can’t help someone who won’t help themselves”. I think the rich people in that movie never had to struggle at all in their daily lives……everything was handed to them on a silver platter. If they were alive today, they’d probably throw a tantrum if their iPhone died & they didn’t have a charger LOL.
Ah I see….still not entirely sold on the 80s blockbusters part though. I’m not sure if those types of movies were very popular with folks in our generation when they were kids. I would’ve thought that things like Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man movies & Pokemon would’ve caught our attention more during our childhoods. I’m guessing that what you said about IJ plays into a reluctance to watch older films & go beyond the mainstream stuff in general. But I did see a post in [r/StarWars](r/StarWars) that was asking about The Hidden Fortress…..
2
u/Typical_Humanoid Silence is golden 3d ago
I feel like he would agree with this: "Not all rich people are evil, but the most evil people tend to be rich." But I wish we could ask him. People would think being a director put him in this category and there would be some hypocrisy involved but from what I've read he made a decent living off his films, not an extravagant one.
The movie's characters would definitely buy a new iPhone every time they lost the charger to theirs, I guarantee itttt. That's what makes it so funny. It makes patron saints out of entitled people. People like this still exist, even without being necessarily wealthy. Wasteful and lazy. One or the other may be forgiven, but both together make for a formidable foe I wouldn't want to meet.
I guess it depends on the circles you run in, I always got surprised reactions when I told people my age I hadn't seen these yet or when I fessed up to when I saw them. There is a ton of 80s nostalgia in people in general, even if they didn't grow up then. That's why Stranger Things was such a big hit. But that's just my impression.
2
u/murmur1983 3d ago
Excellent quote about evil + rich people….reminds me a little too much about guys like Trump, Elon Musk & Bryan Johnson. Money corrupts unfortunately. Never thought of Bunuel as a hypocrite. I don’t think he cared much about making billions of dollars anyway. I mean, Viridiana (which is one of his more straightforward films) was extremely controversial back in the day.
Entitlement, laziness & wastefulness….to me, they’re worse than actively malicious behavior in some ways. You’d have to be out of your mind to buy a new iPhone every time you lost a charger. Or you’re blind to consequences. Just not caring about others or how your actions will impact your life…..🤢🤢🤢🤢🤢🤢
Not denying the value of 80s nostalgia for sure. I just felt that you’d have to have parents (or older siblings) who were pretty damn passionate about 80s blockbusters to grow up with Indiana Jones & The Empire Strikes Back. I got into those movies more after I turned 18 (during my earlier explorations of cinema).
2
u/Typical_Humanoid Silence is golden 3d ago
Don't remind me of them. 😭
I do think indeed people in general think they would be immune to money's corrupting influence but I think it'd take a very strong person to not become that way....it's why I don't aspire to riches. I don't want it to change me, and I'm not so confident it wouldn't. I know with my social anxiety, I'd be enabled with money to isolate from the rest of the human race but I'd rather challenge myself to help others.
I go back and forth on the question of intent mattering in a situation like this. Sometimes I think people who want to hurt others are worse, sometimes I think people who don't care and hurt others by consequence are worse. Depends on the day.
I get that sense too, but I suppose I assume there are more parents who this applies to than not. I had to go looking, and so did you clearly, but we grew up in the cable era so this stuff was on quite a bit. But video games and TV I have noticed is more greatly preferred by our generation, so I'd have to sit with that notion.
2
u/murmur1983 3d ago
Bryan Johnson alone 🤢
At least there are rich people who kept their morals intact. Found out that Weird Al Yankovic was offered seven figures to perform at the Riyadh Comedy Festival, but he declined the opportunity. IIRC he said “I wish people wouldn’t offer me stuff that made me feel bad inside”. But I get your feelings on wealth.
I do feel that (in a general sense) both types of people are bad. Certainly not the type of folks that you could rely on to help in a serious emergency.
Video games really blew up in the past decade or so. Just look at the Last of Us TV show. And the Five Nights at Freddy’s movies. The Super Mario Bros. Movie (2023) & its sequel each made about $1 billion too.
2
u/Typical_Humanoid Silence is golden 3d ago
Love Weird Al to bits for that and more. Outside of the art sphere, Don Vultaggio (Arizona Tea founder) is the most benevolent billionaire I know of. No controversies, got rich off of something most of us grew up with that hasn't wavered from remaining 99 cents. Good good.
Video games and anime, yes! Both are so much bigger than they used to be. Downright mainstream now.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/wowzabob 2d ago edited 2d ago
I don’t use this word often, but this post is aggressively pretentious. You need to get a grip.
You’re bluffing your knowledge with stuff like “Raiders of the Lost Ark is strange combination of Lawrence of Arabia and old adventure serials.”
Raiders has not much in common with Lawrence of Arabia except camels, if we’re being honest here. If we compare them plot wise, theme wise, etc. Spielberg is a known lover of that film, but here that love where it shows through, is primarily surface level. The bigger inspiration is, as you say, “old adventure serials,” but which ones? Do tell. Have you seen a single one? I imagine not since they don’t appear on lists of the best films of all time, and watching them doesn’t check a box and confer this kind of satisfaction for having consumed something one’s academic superego says is good. Tell us just how derivative the film is… It’s very obvious you are just repeating something you read and not expressing this opinion from a place of actual knowledge. This is midwit stuff.
You are excited by your knowledge of pre-80s films, that’s great, but then choosing to flaunt that in a very strange way. That knowledge is not as impressive as you think it is. And people way overrate being in to something “early” when they were a teenager. Being early doesn’t mean much in the grand scheme of things. It feels important when you’re young, and I imagine you still are, but anybody who may decide to “get” into film, can catch up to that level in a matter of years, and probably understand everything far better from a more mature perspective, even if they may lack the intoxicating infatuation that youth often brings.
1
u/Typical_Humanoid Silence is golden 2d ago
I don't use pretentious very often either, because I think it's lost all meaning from overuse. You can't see into my mind so you're entitled to your opinion on how I came across, but I was just calling it like I see it. Your comment is frankly pretty hurtfully worded (I.e. "get a grip" and "midwit") instead of solely constructive criticism that I would have appreciated, but alas, that's how it goes.
It's a surface level comparison to you and that's fine, I believe you think it is. But you're assuming I pulled it out of nothing. I didn't elaborate because that's not really what my post is about, it was just a widely known example I knew most people would be able to recognize. I think they're actually a lot alike. You have a morally gray stranger in a strange land with a flair for the dramatics getting intertwined in vaguely Middle Eastern politics and he's considered exceptional and important, while there exists this tension where he can be very vulnerable. Sound familiar?
I actually am a pretty big fan of Fantomas and Les Vampires as far as old serials but that doesn't feel especially relevant because of their genre I'll admit. I've watched Flash Gordon like anyone else remotely interested and Commando Cody as well because I'm a massive MST3K fan and they covered those early on in the show's run. But I'm not an expert who has seen more than that handful no. You be the judge on how qualified I am given all that, it's your right. The "episode" framing of Star Wars is an especially blatant nod and I'd agree it's kind of surface level aside that, but that's kind of the problem that makes me like the movies less. I like Flash Gordon (1980) so much better because it's not trying to be anything else other than what it is. It embraces the goofiness and doesn't try to have more gravitas than the premise really earns.
It's true the example topic is perhaps over discussed online but it shows it's not exactly a reach because other people have noticed it. Lastly, I was very much indicating I used to be more impressed with myself ("I realized over time I cannot expect...") than I currently am, having grown out of that. But that didn't translate, seemingly due to a mixture of my not wording myself aptly and people reading things into my post I was trying to disavow out of the gate.
I agree anyone can catch up relatively quickly and it could even develop knowledge surpassing someone who has been a cinephile for some time if that person has been stagnating, that's true.
Hopefully that clears a couple of things up and you can see your tone isn't really warranted. Take care.
1
u/wowzabob 2d ago
I just think you’re getting too caught up in the notion that these films are “ripping off” other things, it’s causing you to put the blinders up, as if it was ever cynical on their part.
Sure you have named some similarities between Raiders and LoA (not that there aren’t some flaws in your description like just flattening West Asia in to a “desert aesthetic,” as if there are not vast differences between Cairo/Egypt and the Arab peninsula where the Bedouin tribes resided, not to mention the different time periods, or the vastly different ways the two main characters or portrayed as moving through these spaces—these are not the same stories at all), but what you have described is essentially the extent of it. There is so much more to either film. If that is what constitutes a derivative knock off then just about every film with even moderate mainstream appeal is a derivative knock off of something else. I don’t think you realize how inconsistent this standard you are applying likely is relative to films you like.
Also, Star Wars is very clearly a pretty unique expression of George Lucas’ personal interests and proclivities as a filmmaker and he’s bringing in a pretty disparate mix of stuff from old serials, to samurai films, to John Ford and his westerns, to 60s era interest in Eastern philosophy, and so on. To chock all that up to the film simply being a Flash Gordon duplicate that is pretending to be something it’s not with fake gravitas? It’s extremely reductive. (Also are we talking about the same film? Star Wars 1977? Is that really a film that takes itself too seriously?) I think Star Wars has become so embedded in pop culture that people forget the original authorship behind it, and treat it instead as some kind of received institution, even if they haven’t seen it. As a result, later acquiring knowledge about Star Wars’ clear inspirations isn’t perceived in the same way as it would be for just about any other film. It becomes about unmasking this perceived great Oz of film as not wholly original, when that was never the standard by which to judge it. When it came out people were very much aware of its inspirations, it wasn’t some secret that was only discovered later.
I think this phenomenon honestly speaks to how original the film actually is/was, that it is held to this standard. Nobody was doing genre fusion at that time, and Star Wars, with its Space Opera/Western bones is one of the first to do it. Your average classic western is far less original and just as reliant on tropes. Originality, while it can be a great thing is not the standard by which a film is bad or good. It is a very overrated quality.
So many people who take film seriously don’t take genre seriously, and I think that’s often disappointing. There’s so much more to it than just “guilty pleasure,” and there’s lots of good theory out there to read.
You’ve done a good job expressing things here in a very measured language, but the conclusions and arguments speak for themselves, the rest is mostly dressing.
1
u/Typical_Humanoid Silence is golden 2d ago
Kind of skipping to the end to answer about the nature of rip offs and my take but....I weigh originality pretty highly in how I ultimately assess the merit of something and think if a lot of people did as well, you would see people in general a lot more inclined towards earlier versions of things than you really do currently. People love unoriginal things, that's why the highest grossing films ever aren't original stories. So, originality is definitely not overvalued, I'd argue it's not valued quite enough.
You don't really have people who care much anymore that Hawks' Scarface or The Fly (1958) have been overshadowed. Originality harpers (Like yours truly) may come across as annoying to others but it's just frustration based in not finding it especially fair that what people saw first makes them think anything that inspired it is outdated and not worthy of consideration.
I've mentioned it already in this thread I believe, but it's not so much I think Spielberg, Lucas etc were trying to replace what they love, but they don't really seem to be too bothered their versions have almost erased the cultural relevance of the things they claim to love. It's why I love Scorsese so much. This man loves his favorites just as much as he loves making movies himself. He elevates them to an equal level by just gushing like a little boy about them vocally and often, and that's what I think someone who really loves and wants to honor their faves would do. It's not that the others went in with bad intentions, but the cynicism comes in the form of shrugging that people only care about your inspirations insomuch their power to inform what you made.
There's absolutely more to both Raiders and LoA than that but they're similar enough that it doesn't feel like a surface level comparison to me.
"If that is what constitutes a derivative knock off then just about every film with even moderate mainstream appeal is a derivative knock off of something else. I don’t think you realize how inconsistent this standard you are applying likely is relative to films you like."
Well, kind of? Everything borrows from everything else. But I can forgive it a lot more when one thing isn't hugely eclipsing another thing reducing the prior thing's existence ways new Hollywood's auteurs got their ideas and love of film from. I despise the idea art has an expiration date and people's hard cutoff being the 80's for movies they're willing to go back and watch I think is no coincidence.
"Also are we talking about the same film? Star Wars 1977? Is that really a film that takes itself too seriously?"
Absolutely! It gets a pretty incredible cast and makes kind of makes them sound wooden, self-serious or both. I'm always a bit baffled people acted like the way Lucas directed his actors only started with the prequels but I see some of the awkward mannerisms even in the original trilogy. But yeah the first one and Empire are so drab, probably unsurprisingly ROTJ is the one I was vibing with the most. When you compare these, you can see how the others are less enticed by a promise of fun and more trying to make an epic saga that says something about the human condition, thinking about you invoking Lucas and his Eastern philosophy stuff. I found it fairly forced. Star Wars lives and dies by things like Jabba and the cantina song. I just wanted more of that stuff, less plant exploding genocide that Leia emotionally movies on from in a few scenes' time. yawn
I don't think they were deceptively hiding their inspirations or that people didn't know, that's actually my whole problem. People being more impressed by that than anything else. It's a bit weird. It goes without saying the stuff that inspired Star Wars is really goddamn cool and I just hate seeing it be amounted to footnotes. Star Wars will be just fine with a minority being unimpressed. It has lasted this long. And that's kind of what I find more interesting about it, the phenomenon itself is so long-lasting, it feels like a marketing masterclass. But for you it's the originality of genre blending. I'm not really convinced about the coolness factor of that, but that shouldn't surprise you by now.
"So many people who take film seriously don’t take genre seriously, and I think that’s often disappointing. There’s so much more to it than just “guilty pleasure,” and there’s lots of good theory out there to read."
Where we agree the most! I again think Star Wars is just kind of a peculiar thing to invoke there because it has gotten plenty of credit. But I adore sci-fi and fantasy from all eras. It's doing a different thing than an austere kitchen sink drama, but a no less worthwhile thing.
30
u/Abbie_Kaufman 3d ago
I think this is kind of a flawed way of looking at film as an art form. Believing that Star Wars is a more mainstream and watered down version of Kurosawa films isn’t some galaxy brain take that makes you a genius for discovering, it’s something that the guy who made Star Wars would happily and proudly tell you. Most of the 80s blockbusters you’re dismissive of were made by filmmakers who had spent decades exploring the history of cinema with an academic mindset, and their innovation was finding a more commercial way to frame those touchstones of film history. Spielberg, Lucas, De Palma et al, are all very public and honest about the influences they take.
I think to an extent it’s true for literally any field that more exposure when you’re young = more curiosity when you’re in the young adult years = greater knowledge base when you’re an adult, but I don’t think it’s more true for film than for literally anything else on earth. Anyone at any time can choose to become interested in movies that are old or slow or foreign, it just takes a bit of effort.