This past weekend I watched North by Northwest, which is a Hitchcock film from 1959. The film is not incredibly long, but for the content it contained I would have expected it to be a little shorter. Conversely, I also watched Poseidon, and that movie kept steadily moving. This is an observation I have often made about the difference between classic movies and movies of today.
I don't want to make it sound like things are better or worse today than they were in the past, but I think the pacing of movies is a good example of the difference in how people approach things today compared to in the past. Popular classic movies often take great time to set a mood. Popular modern movies usually constantly keep the story moving. I think that films like Lawrence of Arabia and Ben Hur would be difficult to make today because both contain long gaps of story where not much exciting happens, even though both were "action" films.
I think people today as a whole think faster but shorter, and that people as a whole in the past thought slower but longer. A movie from the 1950s is often a very deliberate affair where there is not too much concern about moving the story along. A movie from this millenium is more likely to be edited to keep the storyline moving.
I'll end now before my audience loses interest.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Is it possible to describe a personal blog without it sounding self-absorbed?
The title Off the Bridge is to reflect that I created this blog in part due to peer pressure. When I created and named it I did not anticipate still using it years down the road.
I generally post my thoughts on topics that have been floating around in my head in the previous days. I hope you find something interesting. In any case, thanks for stopping by.
About Me
Other Blogs
Blog Archive
Labels
- animals (31)
- automotive (54)
- between the lines (54)
- birthdays and anniversaries (26)
- books (54)
- business (122)
- cd (37)
- christian subculture (36)
- church (91)
- clothing (35)
- comics (11)
- conversation (103)
- doctrine and philosophy (143)
- everyday activities (87)
- external links (265)
- family (79)
- food (72)
- friends (43)
- games (31)
- golden (94)
- government (65)
- gripes (114)
- holidays (67)
- home (87)
- homers (6)
- humor (97)
- intellect (83)
- internal links (128)
- linguistics (38)
- lists (140)
- lyrics (31)
- me (284)
- medical (84)
- miss carisma (23)
- money (87)
- movies (127)
- music (28)
- my parents (50)
- nj (94)
- original compositions (34)
- other blogs (19)
- parenting (71)
- past event (47)
- pictures (111)
- politics (70)
- polls (3)
- prediction (4)
- psychoanalysis (153)
- rest and relaxation (70)
- school (104)
- scripture references (68)
- shopping (31)
- social observation (310)
- sports (35)
- style (32)
- technology (62)
- the bathroom (29)
- the body dust (67)
- the sexes (61)
- this blog (82)
- tv (114)
- videos (28)
- weather (29)
- what do you think (114)
- work (159)
- world news (88)
21 comments:
I tend to agree with you, I don't think people think on the whole about one thing and dwell on things like the generation from the 30's and 50's . I think we're too easily distracted to concentrate on one thing for too long.
Movies use to be 3 hours long. then when I was in high school, closer to 2. Now you rarely get a movie that's longer then an hour and 1/2.
I guess you haven't watched any Clint Eastwood directed movies...
What you have to take into account is the mindset of modern Blockbuster which wasn't a movie type during the '70's and below.
So it is easy to make that comparison with the Poseidon and a Hitchcock movie. So try this comparison with movies that are not meant to be blockbusters and I think you'll find similarities.
I enjoy the dramas and the slow pacing and the dialog, so I watch a lot of the movies that fall in that category. They are out there. Things haven't changed that much.
Now that we get to see the deleted portions of some movies, Im nearly always ok with what was left out. There are some exceptions though.
For example, I watched 'The Island' last night and was disapointed that several little mysteries weren't resolved (i.e. where Lincoln 6-Echo's missing shoe went). It was such an obscure thing to bring up in at least 3 conversations - and a tight zoom shot on the other unpaired running shoe - that I was genuinely waiting for it to be resolved (like they did with the flying motorcycle).
Saddly - the other shoe never dropped.
Forrest,
My point was to compare the modern blockbuster to the classic equivalents. I know Hitchcock shouldn't really count, but the movie reminded me of what I have already noticed.
The other two movies I mentioned were the blockbusters of their time and they definitely moved slower than a modern blockbuster.
Dash,
The Island was one of those movies I expected to be so-so that I really enjoyed. Golden agreed with that sentiment as well.
Yeah, I think our attention spans are shorter. The box office tends to reward movies that don't tax our lack of patience.
Dust, there is not a classic equivalent to the blockbuster. The comparison is not fair. You are comparing a movie type that was interested in the story and the ordinary man put in extraordinary circumstances to a new movie type that is geared at special effects and getting a lot of people into the theater to make a lot of money. Honestly, those old movies did not have that mindset nor those expectations. The term blockbuster was not used to describe those movies.
Essentially what you are doing is comparing People magazine to Lee Harper's To Kill a Mockingbird and saying that people don't have the patience to read a novel.
I admit, I love the blockbusters as well as the smart films, so I am not complaining.
I think a more fair comparison would be North by Northwest and Matchpoint and then you will find similar pacing and a good storyline.
Why are you still on North by Northwest? I have pointed out that I just remembered this because I was watching that movie. :)
As I said, Lawrence of Arabia and Ben Hur are close comparisons to the modern blockbuster in my mind, and they are much slower paced movies.
Even if there weren't classic examples of blockbusters, that would actually reinforce the point that I am making. The general populace was more content to let movies go at a slower pace to establish mood in the past than they are now.
Again, Lawrence of Arabia and Ben Hur are not blockbusters. They are what film critics consider epic films. In your mind you can try to make that connection, but it just isn't there.
The whole film industry has changed in the last 20 years with more films to choose from than ever before with shorter lifespans at theaters. You have more people watching more films than ever before with more choices of film. (I know this because the place I used to work designed AMC theaters.) Hollywood has found a way to get more people to watch more films more frequently. The old films would stay in theaters up to a year or longer. It's not like they had a new choice every weekend at their single screen theater.
You are still missing my point that there are many films out there with a slower pace and many people are still fans of those movies. THEY ARE STILL BEING MADE AND PEOPLE ARE STILL WATCHING THEM.
I don't get how you think you can assume that the general populace does not have patience for movies that are not blockbusters. (If you consider the general populace to be teenagers, then maybe you have a point.) A lot of movies at the megaplexes are made for teenagers. Go to an arthouse theater and you find a lot of people who are serious about films. And it is the arthouse theaters that are more in character with the movie going habits of old. The general populace did not have the choice to see blockbusters back then, so we don't know how they would react.
It's a nice try, but no cigar! :)
I love North by Northwest and have seen it many times. I find it suspenseful and it keeps my interest. On the other hand this week I saw the Messenger, 1976, the story of Muhammed's life. Long, dull, PR for the movement. Epic but the wrong sort if you ask me.
I think the same films are still being made. A great film from the past Charade, was remade into The Truth about Charlie (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0270707/), the same story. To back your side of the argument, they did use more car wrecks and camera effects, but in reality the same story.
Psycho, another Hitchcock, was remade in the late 80s with all the modern special effects and in color, it did not do well. The old creepy feeling. I think films don't always take time to set mood anymore. That may be more to what you mean than pacing. Mood.
To quote the master of mood:
*** Drama is life with the dull bits cut out.
- Alfred Hitchcock
*** Give them pleasure - the same pleasure they have when they wake up from a nightmare.
- Alfred Hitchcock
I dunno...I think "Reds" marked the "Pickett's Charge" for storylines to pull in massive $ from the masses. Yes, they are made and do exist, but they are not pulling in the same $ and share the same impact upon a broad audience.
Lawrence and Ben were epics and blockbusters. It's possible to be both.
What did MatchPoint gross? To repeat the comment above, people may watch slower movies, but not in anywhere near the numbers that they watch faster paced ones.
you are changing your tune now. you were talking about how no one has patience for slower movies and now you are talking about money.
Again, Lawrence and Ben were not blockbuster by any means in todays sense of blockbuster. That was not a phenomenom back then. There weren't enough screens to make them big money. What made those movies money was that they ran them for 3 years.
If you want to talk money then consider the Titanic. Huge epic - slow paced - lots of money.
Your post was a good idea, but it just doesn't float.
I'm not changing my tune. Money is usually a good measure of how the general populace feels about a movie.
I also didn't say that no one has patience, but rather that the least common denominator does.
Titanic was successful because it exploited something other than action or mood, so it is more or less irrelevant. That movie got high school and college aged girls to watch it multiple times so they could fantasize about being the Kate Winslet who Leonardo di Caprio so romantically took advantage of.
Titanic succeeded because it sold emotional sex.
Dude, you are not even responding to the issue at hand nor your original post. Titanic is one of those movies that you claim todays audience "can't handle." Throw in Fellowship of the Rings, too.
You are changing you tune because you made no mention of money in your original post - you referred to "people today" and equated how you feel about movies to the general public and made the assumption that they are the same.
Most money from movies come from teenagers in todays world. They see more movies than anyone else. Therefore a large portion of movies is geared for them. That has changed from the days of old. So that factor is what needs to be taken into account.
This is what I said in the original post.
"Popular classic movies often take great time to set a mood. Popular modern movies usually constantly keep the story moving."
My position in the post and my position now is the same. Mass market movies in the past generally take more time for mood. Mass market movies of today don't as much. It's not a statement that all old movies or new movies follow that structure, but certainly that there is at least a loose relationship between the age of the movie and the time taken to establish mood.
Nah, that is not right at all. You are royally blowing this one.
All movies are mass marketed, even the ones that take their sweet time to develop the mood. You can not discount the fact that those movies are still being made, because I watch them and enjoy them too. I have friends that watch them and talk about them.
I think you need to take a good strong look at today's films and ask yourself if this is really true. Run thru the gammet of directors and their films.
There are too many modern films that don't follow your logic for it to be a general statement about the way they used to make films. It is true that there are many films that do movie the story along with quick editing and effects, but not every film is produced by Jerry Bruckheimer.
I like a good mood.
Forrest,
I have been a little confused about your arguments so far. My assertion is that the typical movie today takes less time to set mood. Your response has been that so-and-so arthouse movie didn't, and neither did so-and-so romance, and so on.
There are still movies that take time to set a mood. I know that. I have never asserted that there wasn't. The typical mass market film doesn't take as much time, though.
Without some in-depth study of a random sample of mass market movies from the two eras there is no way to resolve this anyway, so it probably isn't worth arguing.
What is so confusing about me pointing out that you are wrong?
If you know that there are still movies that take time to set the a mood, then what is your whole post about? - becuase your whole post was about how movies today don't set the pace like they used to.
Describe to me what a typical mass market film is. Maybe that is where you are getting confused.
For the record, I never said anything about an arthouse or romance movie. I talked about the function of an arthouse theater is more similar to the viewing habits of the old days than the megaplex.
What did I say that was wrong??? The only things that you have pointed out that were wrong were assumptions you read into my statements.
My post is and was about a general shift. Nothing you have said has addressed this as if I were talking about a general shift. Instead you speak as if I said that all movies made today ignore mood.
The whole general shift that you are alluding that people and moviemakers have gone thru is wrong. The assumption is wrong that todays movies don't set the pace like the old movies.
I have been addressing why I believe it is wrong in all of my responses.
They only thing you have to back your belief is the summer blockbuster, but as I look thru the paper and listen to the movie reviews those movies are not the norm. Look at the movies in theaters now.
Post a Comment