+1
I too wish that Film Revival houses, theaters playing old films both obscure and classics, could make a comeback. Or perhaps the multiplexes which have an IMAX screen or devote a couple of screens to 3-D bookings could spot a single screen to old films as revivals. On TV, AMC and Turner Classics try to do this but poorly.
Watching "The Town" - I prefer older films to new releases, I was struck by perhaps one relevant issue. Acting styles have changed considerably in recent years, period. The characters in this film, such as Renner's, can be explosive at times, but a low affect pervades modern cinema and their performances, particularly Affleck's. Actors underplay or adopt monotone readings (stars of the indie hit "Juno" a perfect example of this). What would an audience from the '40s or '50s have made of the approach of a "Napoleon Dynamite"? They were used to the ebullience of Mickey Rooney.
Then there are the rather hammy and "above it all" or almost meta-character players like Sam Jackson and Kevin Spacey, oddly brilliant together that one time in "The Negotiator" but otherwise thoroughly unwatchable for me. And don't get me started on Nic Cage, my least favorite "big-name" actor of all time, right from the beginning of his odd career. (I met him in NYC with Vincent Spano and Matt Dillon in 1983 at the time of "Rumble Fish", and was immediately impressed with the other two but not him.)
The great acting of the silent era (Gish, Gaynor) is unknown to modern young audiences. Great actresses of the '30s have severely dated styles - Miriam Hopkins being the most famous in this regard. It is almost impossible to fairly judge her performances today with the different mindset than audiences had when she made her films.
The fabulous male actors of that period still hold up well for me, but I suspect would seem silly to many film buffs of today: Edward G., George Arliss, Paul Muni. It's no surprise that Gregory Peck of "To Kill A Mockingbird" is still so popular today, as his style, somewhat stiff in his day (compared to flamboyance of the Brando school) fits in well with low-key modernism. Look at recent Ryan Gosling performances -he practically disappears since he is being so subtle and laid-back. Similarly, the facetious comedy superstars like Bill Murray - never would have passed muster back in the '40s heyday of such a different style with Bob Hope, Red Skelton, Eddie Bracken, etc. for comedy.
So I'm afraid we can't really compare these different eras- I prefer the older films and younger fans will mostly prefer newer ones. In crime films give me film noir from the '40s or gangster cinema of the '30s. Michael Mann, Walter Hill and Abel Ferrara belong to a different era and that's fine for them and their admirers.
reply
share
friendoffilm
8 years ago
I've always liked films of the 1960's, the 1970's, and even the 1980's and'90's, but, as I'd pointed out earlier, The Town can't and never will be able to compete with the classics, especially those of the 1960's and some of the 1970's.
Since most of the repertory Art movie houses have long since gone the way of movie theatre heaven, I think that the best that could be done would be for more of the big-time cineplex theatres put at least one or two of their movie screens aside for great, golden oldie but keeper classics.
Maybe, if we keep asking them, they might. In the meantime, the best thing to do is to suggest favorite classic films to be played in the few repertory, independent cinemas that're left here in the United States.
reply
share