MovieChat Forums > Sunday in New York (1964) Discussion > Don't get this criticism:

Don't get this criticism:

posted 9 years ago by aciolino
8 replies | jump to latest

As with so much that is said on IMDB, the criticism, understanding, and thoughts about this film seem limited to those in the fourth grade.

One of the most prominent descriptions (at times it is a criticism) is that it is "dated," and shows relationships between men and women as very old fashioned almost misogynistic. (there's a whole different problem). Fonda's character is confused about sex: "Should she, or shouldn't she?" "With whom" "When," Should she play the "nice girl," or "the vamp."?

These are all mindlessly simplistic views.

First, are there any other women in the film? Hellooooooooooo? Robertson hot red-headed number was doing gyrations, on and off planes, flying here and there, just to get laid. Was there something SHE was confused about? Her room mate? How about the hot blonde in the office Robertson flirts with? No, none of them belong to the category of woman that Fonda's did. But Fonda's character is the one the movie's about! So because of that we label an entire society as suffering the same way. Nonsense.

I came of age, so to speak, in the early seventies, and sadly, having never married, I have done a LOT of dating, and if you think women are less screwed up or less confused NOW and more "empowered," NOW than they were THEN, you're WAY off!

And you know what? You could go back another 40 years or so and find the SAME exact things true then. Just keep watching TCM long enough and you'll find it.

People don't change. One of the reasons these films are so appealing is because we identify with the characters, more or less.

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 9 years ago

And I don't understand another common IMDb criticism: why some older IMDb users are so critical of younger IMDb users.

Why are some older IMDb users so convinced that younger movie lovers aren't watching classics? Why are some older IMDb users so convinced that people my age and younger can't possibly understand a film released before 1970?

A few weeks ago, someone on another board was so surprised because he had seen a 20-something on a bus, reading a book. Imagine that. Someone in his twenties was reading. I did a lot of reading when I was that age, and even younger. So why shouldn't today's 20-somethings read books, too? WHY should it be surprising? (Not surprisingly, that OP got a handful of replies from people agreeing with him. But then, given that this happened on the CFB, this reaction was to be expected.)

Given a choice between "the movie is dated" and "people under 40 don't understand classics and they don't read books", I'll take "this movie is dated" in a second, even though I would never say that about any film.

~~
💕 JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen 👍

[–] aciolino 9 years ago

This is a criticism I can understand, because I have experienced it.

Having taught college level for over 30 years I can tell you that the appreciation of popular culture of the past (meaning before 1960) has dipped drastically over that time. There is no question about it. And it is not necessarily the fault of younger people.

When I was a boy, television stations did not have the money to create original programming, plus there were only 3 networks and in NYC 3 local stations. What did the show? Old movies. I got to see Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers over and over many times by the time I was 15. All of us did, and we had an appreciation for them even though we had our own popular culture. We all know the Marx Brothers, Edward G. Robinson, Bogart, and films like Casablanca, or Double Indemnity, and hundreds of comedies and we loved them.

But starting around the mid-1970's with the advent of Cable and later (God help us!) MTV, the previous cultures disappeared, and when seen were usually mocked for their un-coolness.

Reading? That's even worse. Do a survey of 30 year olds and ask them if they've read the classic American novels. Or one. Or can even NAME one. You'd be shocked.

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 9 years ago

Oh, there are plenty of people my age and younger who read books and who watch classic movies. It's just that there are a bunch of people on the boards (especially the CFB) who are convinced that we aren't doing this.

~~
💕 JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen 👍

[–] aciolino 9 years ago

I don't know how old you are, but if you are under 40 you and your friends are in the vast minority.

There is some justification for that feeling being expressed here on these boards. Have you read some of the comments and criticisms? Some of them are so out of touch it's funny.

[–] aciolino 9 years ago

For example there is this criticism of "The Best Years of Our Lives," perhaps the greatest American film:

"it is strictly a period piece, replete with large doses of heavy-handed moralism. Nearly all of the plot lines are utterly predictable, and many of the scenes are embarrassingly saccharine and/or hackneyed. On top of everything else, it's an excruciatingly long, boring slog at nearly 3 hours."

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 9 years ago

I was born in '76 and I don't know anyone of ANY age in the real world who loves classics. And that includes my parents and all their friends.

I happen to love The Best Years of Our Lives, and the comment which you posted could easily have been written by my parents if they were online. How do you know that it was written by someone younger, anyway? Did they say that they are younger?

There are a number of younger regulars on the classics film board, and when a theater in my city showed some classics a couple of years ago (rare thing in my city), I saw mostly people under 40 in the theater. The movies were the early 30s versions of Frankenstein and Dracula. Of course this isn't scientific (just my personal observations), but I have yet to see any scientific proof that a higher proportion of people over 40 today are watching classics than those under 40. And even such a study would be hard to conduct properly because a lot of 20-somethings and 30-somethings are raising kids, so they would just be watching whatever their kids are watching.

Anyhow, I know quite a bit more about classics than my parents do. Movies were never a big part of their lives. My dad is still bitter because of what happened to Bambi's mom. My mom still thinks that The Graduate was a big insult. About 15 or so years ago, my dad was trying to watch My Fair Lady when I visited them and my mom was screaming at him because that movie offends her.

Here's another story: my mom is a retired substitute teacher and, a few years ago, she was required to show an early thirties film to a grade 8 class. (I forget which one.) Anyhow, she just told them that this is an example of an early movie and that its quality isn't as great as the quality of a modern film. She told me that she said this to the students. Turned out that the students sat quietly throughout the film, and one girl even had strong opinions about the ending, which she discussed with my mom later.

So anyway, in the real world, I have yet to see any REAL evidence that it's the older folks who are watching classics while younger folks are not.

~~
💕 JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen 👍

[–] liscarkat (16565) 8 months ago

The great majority of young people do not watch old movies, and are not familiar with them in any way. Most of them can't even stand to see black-and-white film. As far as books are concerned, most of the young people who read are reading "Lord of the Rings" and other fantasy stuff, or contemporary novels about people in their own age group. Their reading taste and range are extremely limited. There are exceptions, of course, but they constitute a tiny minority.

[–] liscarkat (16565) 8 months ago

The "dated" criticism is always absurd. People see a movie made sixty or eighty years ago, and they're surprised and disappointed that it doesn't reflect the style, social conventions, and ideology of the 21st century. A movie like "Sunday in New York", made in 1963, is going to look, sound, and be a reflection of the way thing were in 1963. So what? That's not a flaw. No rational person would expect it to look, sound, and be a reflection of 2023, or would want it to.