the movie thread

[possessor]

tomorow's movie night for my burfbday

the 2-hour cut

[possessor]

Watching 'Half a Loaf of Kung Fu' tommorow. It's been called terrible by watchers, and by Jackie Chan himself.
But, you don't know if you never.. watch!

[possessor]

Watched Thunderbolt for today's Saturday film. At times confusing, at times awesome, at times funny

[BRBFBI]

I just got through watching The Philadelphia Story (1940).

A spunky girl from a rich family is about to remarry to a sensible, self-made man before her spiteful ex-husband comes to throw a wrench in things. It's a romantic comedy, and perhaps I'm prejudice but I think that makes it sound a lot dumber than it is. It's very smartly written, and characters who are initially abrasive and odious end up endearing by the end.

I was surprised to find how well the sensibilities of a movie made in the 1940s translate to today. It didn't feel stiff in the way I imagined such a movie from 85 years ago would. Sure they dress nicer and some of the words they use are different, but as characters they have complex, unique and interesting personalities that are just as intriguing as anything you'd find on screen today (and perhaps a little bit more). I think modern movies that I've seen would have characters flip from good to bad (or vice versa) via a dramatic reveal, but this character development was gradual and nuanced.

It really makes me think about how I'm biased towards the present and easily dismiss things of the past as likely stuffy and outdated. Is it just me or does modern media often represent people of the past as simple and backwards (unless it's Einstein or the Ancient Greeks of course)? The truth is that people of the past were no dummies and could write complex, interesting characters every bit as well as today.

Perhaps this is how movies were back then, or maybe it's because it was based on a play, but it really did feel like a "screen play." The scenes were long with few cuts, relying on good writing and acting to hold your attention. There wasn't even any music to trick you into feeling emotion - just well acted and entertaining characters and a good script. It had a very satisfying conclusion which I didn't see coming one bit. I enjoyed it quite a lot.

[chuft]

Perhaps this is how movies were back then, or maybe it's because it was based on a play, but it really did feel like a "screen play." The scenes were long with few cuts, relying on good writing and acting to hold your attention.

Movies were like that until, I believe, Orson Welles' "Citizen Kane" (1941) which was hugely influential for its camera work. If you are at all interested in film you should watch it just to see how it broke convention with movies like the one you just saw in terms of camera position etc. People had never seen anything like it. Of course you've seen a lot of modern movies so it won't strike you as revolutionary unless you are comparing it to other films from 1940 and before.

As far as dialog and characters in older movies - I consider them vastly superior for the most part. Even in "B movies" - I am a science fiction fan and generally watch only genre films - the writing and acting is often top notch. For snappy dialog I suggest "The Thing" (the original black and white one). It was written by Howard Hawkes if I recall, who was known for his witty dialog in detective movies, a popular genre where actors like Henry Bogart would engage in witty exchanges with other characters. Movies like "Cast a Deadly Spell" and "Chinatown" are attempts to capture this kind of repartee centered on a quick thinking detective. "Casablanca," a Bogart classic (albeit not a detective story), needs no introduction from the likes of me.

It is interesting to compare the original "The Thing" to the John Carpenter remake - his masterpiece - "The Thing" in the 1980s, which uses very modern techniques to create another excellent movie, but one that is very different to watch.

Another good one is "Them" which shows how you can have, for example, a scientist without him being portrayed as a zany weirdo.

Modern acting and sound work make dialog unintelligible much of the time and I have to use subtitles in modern movies to catch all the dialog. That generally wasn't true in the past, where actors would enunciate as if they were in a stage play.

[LazyPooky]

There wasn't even any music to trick you into feeling emotion - just well acted and entertaining characters and a good script.

That's great. I don't like too much emotional music in movies especially on horror or thrillers, like Jaws and some Hitchcock movies. I like those better with sound off, or made vocal only with AI 😋

[chuft]

The music in Jaws was awesome lol