Do Most People Think Old Film Buffs Are Nuts?

Open, general discussion of classic sound-era films, personalities and history.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

gjohnson

  • Posts: 653
  • Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 4:56 pm

Re: Do Most People Think Old Film Buffs Are Nuts?

PostThu Jun 28, 2012 9:20 am

precode wrote: Indeed. The textbook example of this may be Entertainment Weekly. They frequently do lists: "The 25 Best ____," "The 50 Greatest ______," etc., and without fail, everything on the list (save one or two token "oldies") will be from the last 20 years or so. This attitude pervades the entire magazine; one week, they gave Soupy Sales a shorter obit than Bruce Springsteen's assistant road manager! I could understand if it was THE road manager; I mean, after all, who the hell is Soupy Sales? But assistant road manager? I wrote them a letter of indignation; they replied thanking me for my input and that my letter would be considered for publication. (It wasn't.)

Mike S.


There was a film magazine from the 70s originally devoted to cinema history before it morphed into an ersatz version of People magazine the following decade. I can't recall it's name but I use to subscribe to it and one week I was reading about Mary Pickford, Bette Davis and the films of Elia Kazan and the next week all of the stories were about Prince, The Brat Pack and the Cinema of Paul Hogan. I realized then that my interests would always be on the fringe of society and that the 70s -- the last great decade of diversity -- had ended.
Offline
User avatar

silentfilm

Moderator

  • Posts: 6794
  • Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 12:31 pm
  • Location: Dallas, TX USA

Re: Do Most People Think Old Film Buffs Are Nuts?

PostThu Jun 28, 2012 10:54 am

You are thinking of "American Film", which was published by the AFI. After they stopped publishing, they provided subscribers free issues of Entertainment Weekly, which has the problem previously described in that it is only aware of films made in the last decade or so. It only took one or two issues for me to know that I wasn't interested in EW, and I was in their target demographic of 20 years olds at the time.
Offline
User avatar

westegg

  • Posts: 601
  • Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2008 9:13 am

Re: Do Most People Think Old Film Buffs Are Nuts?

PostThu Jun 28, 2012 2:41 pm

I'm ambivalent about Entertainment Weekly; I've been a subscriber since it began, and have seen it shrink its cultural perspective drastically; I find their token pre-1970 references (never mind pre-1950) a bit patronizing since they're hardly central to their audience anymore. Nonetheless, aside from some websites, the magazine gives me an idea of what's what, good or bad, in the arena today.

:shock:
Offline

gjohnson

  • Posts: 653
  • Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 4:56 pm

Re: Do Most People Think Old Film Buffs Are Nuts?

PostThu Jun 28, 2012 7:46 pm

Gee Bruce, what a memory! American Film rings a bell. They had some pretty informed articles in some of those pages, as I recall. I may even have some old issues stored away in boxes in the Sonoran desert gathering dust and mold and prehistoric cockroach larva hatching inside......
I think its best if I leave old memories unopened.
Offline
User avatar

BankofAmericasSweetheart

  • Posts: 167
  • Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2010 1:01 am
  • Location: Los Angeles,CA

Re: Do Most People Think Old Film Buffs Are Nuts?

PostSat Jun 30, 2012 3:42 am

There's nothing worse than old film buffs than old film buffs who are of "target age". I am in my 20s and absolutely love silent films, yet it's incredibly difficult to find others my age to watch silent films. Those who are silent film buffs, did you go through a fellow friend who said "Hey I'm 25 this silent movie is too old fashioned" kind of dilema in your time or are you presently my age or do you know know how I feel and does it get better as I age?
"It would have been more logical if silent pictures had grown out of the talkies instead of the other way around." - MP
Offline
User avatar

Roseha

  • Posts: 211
  • Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 10:19 pm
  • Location: New York City

Re: Do Most People Think Old Film Buffs Are Nuts?

PostSat Jun 30, 2012 6:47 pm

I became a big fan of silents at age 27 and was able to get my friends and sister to see silent screenings with me, which they enjoyed. However I'm happy to see them on my own. I'd say people's opinions don't worry me at this point though they don't have so many revival houses in New York to see silents now. However, we have DVDs, internet and other new technology that we didn't have then where we can see them now.
- Rosemary
Offline
User avatar

St.George

  • Posts: 34
  • Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 3:17 pm
  • Location: East Coast of Gt Britain..

Re: Do Most People Think Old Film Buffs Are Nuts?

PostSun Jul 01, 2012 8:47 am

I am completely happy being 'nuts', I enjoy the individuality of my tastes, I enjoy watching history before my very eyes, so, although I used to get rather verbose about the subject, I just state my interests in visual history and leave it at that these days. If others wish to pursue the subject, then I ask them to do so in a private place with me, rather than have the arrogant smugness of non-watchers of silent films commenting on how they perceive them.
I am not a silent film academic, or an expert in the actors/actresses that feature, I just enjoy them more than any post 1970 films, with the predictability of story and substance. I certainly enjoy outside shots due to the unpredictability of background movement, i.e. an unexpected cyclist appearing over the hill when a car chase begins and, so on..... I simply ignore others and indulge myself fully in my taste...

8) 8) 8)
The Life and Times of a Misanthrope
Previous

Return to Talking About Talkies

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Paul Penna and 3 guests