Movies you just didn't "get".

[Groundbeef]

Here's what you're missing: Leonardo didn't paint that because he wanted to create "art." He didn't do it because he wanted to. He did it because he was paid to do it. It became art with the passage of time.

If photography existed in the 16th century, Leonardo would have never been contracted to paint it! The family would have just hired a photographer.

You know what. I think you are right. I googled "Mona Lisa". Plain as day along the bottom it says in small print. "This would have been a photograph had we known what a camera was". I conceed your point.

What do you mean now? I've been saying that all along! Pretty much everything in life is a case by case situation. Do you agree?

I've never changed my story. My feelings this entire thread have remained constant. Films today, due to the very nature of the changing technology are not "classics" in the same way that other works of art are "classics".

And that very change in technology can very much change the feelings that people have with regards to each particular piece of art (film). And the older the film gets, particularly films that utlize "special effects" have an effect of lessening the impact of the message. The very nature of the "special effects" losing their lustre over time serve as a distraction to the message. What was cutting edge in 1968 (along with a good story), will over time become less and less...special. Whereas movies that simply use the medium to tell a story will wear much better. Sure the clothing will become dated, but the story won't suffer for it.

What I saw in 1977 in SW was cutting edge. When I watch it again, I know that it was done with little models. And the effects are no longer engrossing. The story is lost because of the distractions. It is not enhanced.

Or think of it this way. If you were to watch 2001 now, but it was only filmed in BW, no sound, and used cardboard for the ship would it have as much impact as it did in 1968? Probably not. So, really it isn't only the story that carries the film. The visual plays an important part as well. And 50 years from now, the effects in play then might
make 2001 appear as though it might as well been filmed in BW, no sound and a cardboard ship.

No way. The film was packed with hundreds of concepts besides computers that would have made even the most sophisticated citizen of 1914's head explode in confusion. They barely had electricity!

Ok, maybe 1914 would have been a bit early. Perhaps in 1926 when Buck Rodgers ruled the cosmos?

[Troy]

You know what. I think you are right. I googled "Mona Lisa". Plain as day along the bottom it says in small print. "This would have been a photograph had we known what a camera was". I conceed your point.

You guys can't let go of the portrait thing, can ya?

"Who knows what DaVinci would have done?" is right. Point is, he probably wouldn't have gotten the gig.

Sure, there's plenty of painters today that would be begging for a commission. I know several personally who would paint anything for anyone, right now. Today. All you have to do is pay them. Problem is, no one hires painters for portraits anymore because photography is better/more accurate than most painters, and it's a fraction of the cost.

I never said that DaVinci would have opted to photograph instead of paint if the technology existed, but based on how innovative and brilliant he was, I'm sure he'd have been all over the latest technology of everything.

My feelings this entire thread have remained constant. Films today, due to the very nature of the changing technology are not "classics" in the same way that other works of art are "classics".

And me and Auri are saying that it's not a simple "yes/no" answer. It's a "maybe" answer. It depends on how the rest of the movie is handled. Your analogies of moving films back and forth in time don't work because of all the other factors involved with the concept of moving them.

If you were to watch 2001 now, but it was only filmed in BW, no sound, and used cardboard for the ship would it have as much impact as it did in 1968? Probably not. So, really it isn't only the story that carries the film. The visual plays an important part as well. And 50 years from now, the effects in play then might
make 2001 appear as though it might as well been filmed in BW, no sound and a cardboard ship.

I understand your reasoning, but it's just not as cut and dry as that. The implication that B&W movies are somehow "not classic" because they are B&W doesn't hold water. Is Dr. Strangelove not a classic because it was filmed in B&W in 1963, when color film was the norm? Nein!

So while a cardboard cut-out 2001 that was made by Ed Wood would suck horribly (and might be a different kind of classic), the fact is, it was made by Kubrick with a tremendous amount of TLC. No, it isn't only the story that carries the movie. Like King Kong or the civil war photography of Matthew Brady, the technical aspect of the item looks appropriate for it's time, which, in fact, enhances the quality of the piece!

The proposition that a movie such as 2001 would be incomprehensible to audiences in 1914 is nonsense.

I'm not gonna fall on my sword over this one, but . . . While some audiences of 1914 may have understood the basic story of 2001, they just wouldn't be able to get their heads around what they were seeing on the screen. The milieu would just be way too far out for them. And movies had barely even adopted the idea of the montage by that point. The audience just would have had a hard time pulling the story together. The thrown bone turning into a spaceship? The monolith? Hell, a large % of the 1968 audience didn't even get it! Clearly, there's people in this thread that still don't get it in 2009, so what makes you think that people from 1914 would?

[Groundbeef]

Sure, there's plenty of painters today that would be begging for a commission. I know several personally who would paint anything for anyone, right now. Today. All you have to do is pay them. Problem is, no one hires painters for portraits anymore because photography is better/more accurate than most painters, and it's a fraction of the cost.

Well that's rather subjective. I'm not sure people hire painters because they are looking for the most "accurate" representation of whatever they are having commissioned to be painted.

I never said that DaVinci would have opted to photograph instead of paint if the technology existed, but based on how innovative and brilliant he was, I'm sure he'd have been all over the latest technology of everything

If photography existed in the 16th century, the Mona Lisa would have been a photograph. Fact.

Here is what we like to call Revisionist History..... (Those were both your quotes Troy. )

And me and Auri are saying that it's not a simple "yes/no" answer. It's a "maybe" answer. It depends on how the rest of the movie is handled. Your analogies of moving films back and forth in time don't work because of all the other factors involved with the concept of moving them.

No, it works because you are arguing that the "effects" don't make the movie, it's the story. I'm saying that many times it IS the 'effects" that make the story. And as time goes on, the effects look dated (sometimes to the absurd) and that takes away from the story.

I understand your reasoning, but it's just not as cut and dry as that. The implication that B&W movies are somehow "not classic" because they are B&W doesn't hold water. Is Dr. Strangelove not a classic because it was filmed in B&W in 1963, when color film was the norm? Nein!

I NEVER said that B&W movies are not classic. I used 12 Angry Men, and To Kill A Mockingbird in one of my early posts to show that lots of old BW movies are "classic" and will hold up to the test of time. You need to read all the posts. Not just bits.

I'm not gonna fall on my sword over this one, but . . . While some audiences of 1914 may have understood the basic story of 2001, they just wouldn't be able to get their heads around what they were seeing on the screen. The milieu would just be way too far out for them. And movies had barely even adopted the idea of the montage by that point. The audience just would have had a hard time pulling the story together. The thrown bone turning into a spaceship? The monolith? Hell, a large % of the 1968 audience didn't even get it! Clearly, there's people in this thread that still don't get it in 2009, so what makes you think that people from 1914 would?

And you are missing the point. If 2001 is sold as a "Masterpiece" of storytelling, then it should be relevant to all times. Much like you suggested that many of today's stories are simply old re-telling of Greek mythology or Shakespeare re-packaged. Audiences of 1914 would surely enjoy a good story no? And it shouldn't matter if 2001 was told using 1914 technology. The story should stand for the story.

And if it doesn't, then perhaps in 50 years from now, or maybe 100 years, people will look back at 2001, and instead of seeing a story, they will see outdated thechnology, and not see it for what it is.

[BradH]

I NEVER said that B&W movies are not classic.

The French director (can't remember his name) who said films were the truth at 24fps was spouting pompous nonsense. Stanley Donen had it right, films are a lie at 24fps. Here's the deal: all movies are special effects in every single frame. Color is a special effect. Sound is a special effect. Photography, in its essence, is a special effect because it's NOT REAL. It's an artifact (whereas reality doesn't have a frame rate, it lies outside the frame, an old concept in film theory). And here's why that matters...Strictly speaking, you did not say that b&w movies could not be classics but the sad reality is there are entire generations and swaths of humanity who have no interest in watching a b&w movie. Care to guess why? They use the same reasons you use for dismissing 2001: it looks old and dated. By your reasoning, these old films will have less of an impact, therefore they are irrelevant and cannot be considered classics. I'm not sure why you're equating the term "impact" with "relevance" but you've done it several times in this thread and you've had a grand old time skipping all over the map with it. Context matters, 2001 compared to Star Wars is largely irrelevant. 2001 compared to Planet of the Apes and Fantastic Voyage is the real context. Kubrick's impact kicked the living sh!t out of those movies and the passage of time doesn't change that historical fact. Also, just because a special effect - and here I'm talking the traditional term, light mattes, models etc.- looks dated doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't still look really cool. I would include King Kong in this category along with some (not all) of Harryhausen's stuff, the Lydecker Bros. work from the 30's serial Rocket Man (see my avatar), all kinds of stuff still looks cool, albeit sometimes not in a modern, up-to-the-minute kind of way. I don't see how that mars the viewing experience unless the viewer is a child or has a limited view of what constitutes pleasing visuals.

...perhaps in 50 years from now, or maybe 100 years, people will look back at 2001, and instead of seeing a story, they will see outdated thechnology, and not see it for what it is.

Not as long as there are film buffs and historians who understand context. I'm not sure you get this point.

A few side notes...I never thought Clarke's book was all that revealing frankly and not among his best. The best book on the subject is Jerome Agel's The Making of 2001. I bought that when I was a kid in 1974 and wore it out back and forth. It's amazing how much the creators of that film were willing to explain so much when you consider how intentionally obtuse the plot is upon first viewing. Or second, or third...

Re: Mona Lisa....I don't know much about genetic design, Roy, but as I understand it, Mona Lisa was quite fetching for her day (context again) and viewing this portrait would've been quite enjoyable for men...until you notice she's looking over your right shoulder with a dirty little smile on her lips. As they sang in Gigi, "She is not...thinking....of me." Can you stare into her eyes without thinking of the imagined person standing behind you? This brings the painting to life, transforming it from a mere two-dimensional replica into something of a 3-dimensional parlor trick or an object that has emotional and psychological effects within the room itself. In other words, da Vinci was a genius.

Since there's been no name calling...Troy my friend, you ignorant slut. I've been pounding the "context" argument with you on Rave Recs for nine years regarding older music and now I find you making the same argument with films. Is this Phase One of Troy's Conspiracy?

Oh yeah, HAL srewed up the diagnosis on the antenna because he was having a nervous breakdown. He was instructed to protect the crew but he was also instructed to insure the success of the mission. He began to doubt the humans capabilites and these two conflicting ideas drove him to erratic behavior. That was the idea by Kubrick & Clarke but, of course, these things were intentionally left open to various interpretations. One of my personal interpretations that I've never heard anywhere else is that HAL realized the journey was turning into a race between humans and computers to make the next evolutionary leap forward. Maybe it was a test to see who was worthy? Who knows? Like Mona Lisa, the work is enigmatic and mysterious and reveals a lot in layers, serving multiple purposes, working on different levels. Maybe not so much fun with a hot date on a Saturday night in a theater (unless you're in the back row) but movies don't all have to be tools serving the same function do they?

Classics are made by artists using the tools they create or are given. Time doesn't change that. It doesn't matter if mass modern audiences "get it".

[Groundbeef]

By your reasoning, these old films will have less of an impact, therefore they are irrelevant and cannot be considered classics. I'm not sure why you're equating the term "impact" with "relevance" but you've done it several times in this thread and you've had a grand old time skipping all over the map with it. Context matters, 2001 compared to Star Wars is largely irrelevant. 2001 compared to Planet of the Apes and Fantastic Voyage is the real context. Kubrick's impact kicked the living sh!t out of those movies and the passage of time doesn't change that historical fact. Classics are made by artists using the tools they create or are given.

I'll bite, but only for a minute. I use "impact", and "relevance" because IMHO they are intertwined.

2001 was a monumental film when it was released. The direction, lighting, AND "special effects" all combined to make a HUGE "impact" on the viewers. It was "relevant" because for the time, it was cutting edge, and unique. Now, if instead of using 1968 technology, Kubrick had gone Ed Wood, and used B&W film, cardboard cutouts, and visible wires for the "space" shots, BUT kept all the other intact (as much as possible) ie, dialouge,lighting, and other direction. The film wouldn't have the "impact" nor be relevant for the time. It wouldn't matter that the message itself was the same, the film wouldn't carry the weight of the message.

And my point, is that the more movies rely on visual "effects" versus a good story line, the passage of time will lesson the "relevance" to the current audience UNLIKE painting, orchestral pieces, and to a lesser extent photography, as the passage of time hasn't really affected the medium. It is "relevant" because the insturments have been relatively unchanged with the passage of time.

Time doesn't change that. It doesn't matter if mass modern audiences "get it".

That's only true if you prefer to live as a "starving" artist. I think that great art, is timeless, and should be "gotten" by any audience. Modern or not. That's what a great story does. it lends itself to modern interpretation.

I gave you a greenie though. Thanks for your post.

[BradH]

That's only true if you prefer to live as a "starving" artist. I think that great art, is timeless, and should be "gotten" by any audience. Modern or not. That's what a great story does. it lends itself to modern interpretation.

That's nonsense. Once again, you're saying context doesn't matter.

Good thread, though.

[Groundbeef]

That's nonsense. Once again, you're saying context doesn't matter.

No I didn't say that. Any more than you said great art is only produced for critics, and not the public.

I'm not too sure how many artists start off their careers thinking "I'm going to make something so convoluted, so abstract, and so off beat, that only a few "critics" will see my genius, public BE DAMNED"

Either way, good points.