Tweet Do Most People Think Old Film Buffs Are Nuts?

What a great topic!

I'm cursed as it were in viewing pop culture, and movies in particular, from a century's perspective. 1912 is just as interesting to me as 2012. I have to remind myself constantly that few people have their brain formatted this way. Yet I can't imagine people not knowing about basic film history the way most of us learn our country's history. Then too, how many young people are even into that, other than to pass an exam?? For the record, I can't fathom the hysteria some people have for sports and sports statistics, so I guess live and let live. But it's still unsettling that I can't easily discuss PEACH O'RENO with most people I meet.

But it's still unsettling that I can't easily discuss PEACH O'RENO with most people I meet.

I feel your pain--neither can I discuss BASS ORENO with most people I meet.

What is so surprising in our appreciation of old movies?
A lot of people have read "Les Misérables" and nobody mocks them, even if the book was published in 1862.

What is so surprising in our appreciation of old movies?
A lot of people have read "Les Misérables" and nobody mocks them, even if the book was published in 1862.

Yes they do.

Bob

[Mike Gebert]

I was thinking of that book vs. movie paradox-- people read Huckleberry Finn more easily than they'd watch an older movie of it. I think the immediacy of film is so in your face with the style and mannerisms of the past that some people can't handle it. I don't know why-- that's the part that fascinates me-- but there it is. Where a book takes place in a world you get to help construct to your own tastes.

That said, screw 'em, is kind of my attitude. Something I said on a food site (about the sometimes derogatory use of "foodie" for people who care about food) applies just as well to film:

Fundamentally, it seems a poor impulse to regard an interest in one of the main areas of life as oddball enough to require a tag. Knowing macrame or jiu-jitsu or Sanskrit, that's a curiosity. Knowing at least a little about food, music, art, history, literature, world events, etc., on at least a Time magazine in the 50s middlebrow level, strikes me as the bare minimum for walking around the planet as something higher than a cow.

We're a minority, and we're nuts, but who isn't either of those two things in some way?

I've never had anyone laugh at me or snore on my shoulder when they find out I love everything about the Twenties -- silent movies, novels by Faulkner and Dos Passos and Fitzgerald and Dreiser and the original Tom Wolfe, the politics including Prohibition and social unrest and post-War trauma, sports including the rise of baseball and hockey, the evolution of satire as exemplified by Mencken, the experiments in poetry, the development of modern industrialization, and so on.

Quite the contrary, people's interest in me is piqued. Here's somebody different, with information that is new to them!

Or maybe I just live in a more polite country. Oh wait, I live in Canada. That explains it.


Jim

We're a minority, and we're nuts, but who isn't either of those two things in some way?

I've never had anyone laugh at me or snore on my shoulder when they find out I love everything about the Twenties -- silent movies, novels by Faulkner and Dos Passos and Fitzgerald and Dreiser and the original Tom Wolfe, the politics including Prohibition and social unrest and post-War trauma, sports including the rise of baseball and hockey, the evolution of satire as exemplified by Mencken, the experiments in poetry, the development of modern industrialization, and so on.

Quite the contrary, people's interest in me is piqued. Here's somebody different, with information that is new to them!

Or maybe I just live in a more polite country. Oh wait, I live in Canada. That explains it.


Jim

In other words, they're polite. Most people are when you evince an interest in something that doesn't interest them like drinking beer or Justin Bieber or looking at pictures of naked children -- you know, important stuff. You can't get rich off silent films, so why should anyone care? Old films are just more weird s**t that weird people do -- and anyone whose opinions differ from whoever you're speaking to is weird. However, so long as you're not sodomizing their pet warthog, what do they care?

They still think you're weird.

Bob

In grade and high school I was the only one, to my knowledge, who was interested in old films. I was considered weird. So I didn't have a lot of friends. Now that I'm much older, I really don't care, I'm happy who I am and I have many great friends with similar interests.
I believe it was Dan Savage who said one of my favorite quotes; "Any family with more than one person in it, is automatically dysfunctional."
Sort of like this group.

Literature is a long-established field of study. Even in films schools now, I wonder how much emphasis is placed on silent and classic films outside of restoration projects??

I've also gotten a few comments from other co-workers that were based on ignorance. One day I was walking out the library media center with a DVD of Murnau's Phantom, and a Librarian I know asked what I had. I showed her and said it was silent movie. Her response was, "Why would you watch something like that?" I told her there were a lot of qualities in silents that were missing from talking movies. That's when she got the glazed look.

But I have had some success with my wife, another librarian who did not know anything about Chaplin or Keaton. One night before we were married I went to her house with VHS tape I recorded on TCM of The Gold Rush with the William Perry score. From the opening credits she fell in love with the music and Chaplin. Ever since then she's always up for watching a Chaplin or Keaton movie, although dramas are still something of a hard sell. But she did like The Wind when I played it on the DVR a while back. So sometimes, if you can get your foot in the door with someone who will put up with your quirks, he or she might not think you are nuts, and may even join in. I know, in my wife's case, that the stereotype of silents as being wildly over acted, jittery and unintentionally funny was easily exploded after getting her to watch. The same is true of some B&W talkies. I think she was a little less impressed with Cameron's Titanic once she saw how he lifted a number of scenes directly from A Night to Remember.

Oh I quite forgive Cameron's lifting of those scenes--it's smart to copy a superior product; it's the vapidity of the gratuitous "love story" for which absolution is not possible. (But I do admit to loving the Belle Epoque fashions.)

I was thinking of that book vs. movie paradox-- people read Huckleberry Finn more easily than they'd watch an older movie of it. I think the immediacy of film is so in your face with the style and mannerisms of the past that some people can't handle it. I don't know why-- that's the part that fascinates me-- but there it is. Where a book takes place in a world you get to help construct to your own tastes.

That said, screw 'em, is kind of my attitude. Something I said on a food site (about the sometimes derogatory use of "foodie" for people who care about food) applies just as well to film:

Fundamentally, it seems a poor impulse to regard an interest in one of the main areas of life as oddball enough to require a tag. Knowing macrame or jiu-jitsu or Sanskrit, that's a curiosity. Knowing at least a little about food, music, art, history, literature, world events, etc., on at least a Time magazine in the 50s middlebrow level, strikes me as the bare minimum for walking around the planet as something higher than a cow.

That quote, however, gets to the root of why I find these discussions so irritating: the kneejerk, self-congratulatory assumption of intellectual superiority because we have a niche interest that others don't have. Anyone who knows jiu-jitsu or Sanskrit--or macrame, for that matter--has put a lot of work and study and practice into their subjects. They are not intrinsically less valuable as subjects of interest than anything else, including classic film.

iterature is a long-established field of study. Even in films schools now, I wonder how much emphasis is placed on silent and classic films outside of restoration projects??

When I was in graduate school, we would take a whole semester to study the development of silent films. There are film departments, both undergraduate and graduate, in the LA area that study older films, because we have students coming into the Herrick to research people, films, and topics for papers, theses, etc.

That quote, however, gets to the root of why I find these discussions so irritating: the kneejerk, self-congratulatory assumption of intellectual superiority because we have a niche interest that others don't have. Anyone who knows jiu-jitsu or Sanskrit--or macrame, for that matter--has put a lot of work and study and practice into their subjects. They are not intrinsically less valuable as subjects of interest than anything else, including classic film.

It's the niche interests, in fact, that make most people interesting.

I don't want to talk 1960s rock music with a 1960s rock music fan, because I already know the topic and have little to learn from him or her. I don't want to talk hockey with a hockey fan, because I already know the topic and we'll just end up arguing whether Sidney Crosby is better than Alex Ovechkin. (He is.)

But I do want to talk with that Sanskrit expert, because I may know a lot about languages, but I know nothing about Sanskrit, and I stand to learn from the expert. That makes him/her interesting to me.

Jim

That quote, however, gets to the root of why I find these discussions so irritating: the kneejerk, self-congratulatory assumption of intellectual superiority because we have a niche interest that others don't have. Anyone who knows jiu-jitsu or Sanskrit--or macrame, for that matter--has put a lot of work and study and practice into their subjects. They are not intrinsically less valuable as subjects of interest than anything else, including classic film.

It's the niche interests, in fact, that make most people interesting.

I don't want to talk 1960s rock music with a 1960s rock music fan, because I already know the topic and have little to learn from him or her. I don't want to talk hockey with a hockey fan, because I already know the topic and we'll just end up arguing whether Sidney Crosby is better than Alex Ovechkin. (He is.)

Jim

I would not like to discuss hockey with you because I'm uninterested in hockey. I would not willy-nilly assume that you are unintelligent because you are interested in it. However, do not block my field of vision during the upcoming Belmont Stakes because I'll pancake you in a heartbeat.

[Mike Gebert]

I think you misunderstand what I meant. It's not downplaying other interests, I'm all for them.

But I do think there's a certain core curriculum in culture at all times. I pretty much expect all intelligent people to have heard of Beethoven and Stephen Hawking and Franklin Roosevelt and Pablo Picasso and Ernest Hemingway and to know what that picture of a guy hanging from a clock comes from and to know that there is more to seafood than popcorn shrimp. That's the 50s Time magazine middlebrow level of cultural awareness-- you don't have to be an expert on any of those things but if you're completely unaware of them, on some level, you haven't lived. There's a difference between knowing lots about hiphop, and only knowing hiphop; one is a choice, the other is lack of choice because of lack of knowledge.

I'm for knowledge, and choices.

That quote, however, gets to the root of why I find these discussions so irritating: the kneejerk, self-congratulatory assumption of intellectual superiority because we have a niche interest that others don't have. Anyone who knows jiu-jitsu or Sanskrit--or macrame, for that matter--has put a lot of work and study and practice into their subjects. They are not intrinsically less valuable as subjects of interest than anything else, including classic film.

It's the niche interests, in fact, that make most people interesting.

I don't want to talk 1960s rock music with a 1960s rock music fan, because I already know the topic and have little to learn from him or her. I don't want to talk hockey with a hockey fan, because I already know the topic and we'll just end up arguing whether Sidney Crosby is better than Alex Ovechkin. (He is.)

But I do want to talk with that Sanskrit expert, because I may know a lot about languages, but I know nothing about Sanskrit, and I stand to learn from the expert. That makes him/her interesting to me.

Jim

Agree about the niche experts (I once listened to someone on the subject of glazes and kiln work for an hour and I've never thrown a pot in my life), but I don't really agree viz. things that don't interest you. Nobody can know everything about a subject, so I will talk to someone about a subject I know plenty about, just in case they know something I don't. And vice-versa, of course.

I think you misunderstand what I meant. It's not downplaying other interests, I'm all for them.

But I do think there's a certain core curriculum in culture at all times. I pretty much expect all intelligent people to have heard of Beethoven and Stephen Hawking and Franklin Roosevelt and Pablo Picasso and Ernest Hemingway and to know what that picture of a guy hanging from a clock comes from and to know that there is more to seafood than popcorn shrimp. That's the 50s Time magazine middlebrow level of cultural awareness-- you don't have to be an expert on any of those things but if you're completely unaware of them, on some level, you haven't lived. There's a difference between knowing lots about hiphop, and only knowing hiphop; one is a choice, the other is lack of choice because of lack of knowledge.

I'm for knowledge, and choices.

I don't think you meant that, but the person you quoted certainly did. The "core curriculum" idea is what used to be referred to as the basic liberal arts education--and boy, you are dipping your toes into a sea of controversy there. Who defines what we all should know and on what criteria are their decisions made? DANGER WILL ROBINSON!! (Two demerits for those of you who did not get that not-particularly-critical pop culture reference.)

[Mike Gebert]

I was quoting me.

And fully aware of what a controversy the idea of a core curriculum (or worse yet, Western Civ) is in academia, and how that controversy has... well... mainly rendered both academia and western civilization less influential, I still say:

there are some things you gotta know to be higher than a cow. What those things are shifts all the time, but not by saying it ain't so and ignorance is knowledge's equal.

As a parent this gets settled in reality real quick. There are a lot of dumb kids out there, and I am in the process of not adding two to them.


Myles, excited to see the painting he most wanted to see at the Vatican, Raphael's The School of Athens.

I was quoting me.

And fully aware of what a controversy the idea of a core curriculum (or worse yet, Western Civ) is in academia, and how that controversy has... well... mainly rendered both academia and western civilization less influential, I still say:

there are some things you gotta know to be higher than a cow. What those things are shifts all the time, but not by saying it ain't so and ignorance is knowledge's equal.

Oooh, then smacks to you!

Not that I disagree about ignorance being knowledge's equal, it ain't, hence my avoidance of wikipedia. I just don't agree that detailed knowledge of classic film is necessarily critical, any more than would be detailed knowledge of the Marvel Universe or Star Trek or Baseball. Knowledge is way good, but we all have different interests and tastes and talents and levels of geekery, and we are all pig-ignorant about many things. Lets have a little respect for macrame.

Bravo for Myles if he irradiated himself with the glory of the School of Hellas without coercion! (Or even if he did so with minimal coercion.) Makes him one in a hundred thousand, or more, considering his age & the junk culture which enveloped him since birth.

Possession of '50s middle-brow culture today qualifies one to boast of erudition.

I never discuss classic silents/talkies with my classmates, what's the point? One remarked that she didn't bother watching The Diary of Anne Frank when it was on TV because it was in B/W and therefore thought it would be boring. I wonder how she would've reacted if it was a silent film?

I do, however, show off my silent film patriotism from time to time - Clara Bow and Mary Pickford was my theme for when we decorated our art and U.S. history folders.

I really do seem to be quite out of place.

Martie

Lets have a little respect for macrame.

All passions are not created equal.

I'm firmly with Mike on that cultural thing. Not being ignorant is a good thing.

Agree about the niche experts (I once listened to someone on the subject of glazes and kiln work for an hour and I've never thrown a pot in my life), but I don't really agree viz. things that don't interest you. Nobody can know everything about a subject, so I will talk to someone about a subject I know plenty about, just in case they know something I don't. And vice-versa, of course.

I'm sure you weren't interested in kiln work until you met that expert who had the skill and enthusiasm to fascinate you in it. So be open to topics that you normally expect to bore you silly. it's that element of surprise that makes life stimulating.

The most important lesson my wife has taught me is, "Don't make assumptions." Good marital advice -- it's how ours has survived for 24 years and counting -- and it applies to darned near everything. The tales we're hearing are about people assuming silent B&W films are boring and therefore never taking the time to watch one or listen to an expert talk about them. If they could put aside those assumptions and be open to new information and experiences, even if they still expect to be bored, they would open themselves to some thrilling revelations.

Jim

I already think I'm nuts, lawd only knows what most other people think.

It's most disheartening when senior citizens show a disinterest and even disdain for older films....and surprisingly,there are a LOT of seniors who do! I have a "70-something" neighbor who is a widower, and he's heard about the Syracuse Cinephile Society series of Monday night films. He asked me for a schedule of titles, saying that he wanted to take his lady friend (also a senior citizen) to some of the shows for a night out. When I handed him our schedule flyer, he looked it over and his face fell....and then he said (obviously disappointed), "Oh....This is all OLD stuff!". He hasn't mentioned the film series since.

Also, I think it's very cool that your son likes Raphael, Mike. My parents took me to an exhibition about his work and influence at the National Art Gallery in D.C. when I was in my mid-teens, and it really knocked my socks off, plus it ensured that now, whenever I'm in a major city, I try to get to at least one of their art galleries while I'm there.

It helps to plant the seeds early though...

Lets have a little respect for macrame.

...and cows!

It's most disheartening when senior citizens show a disinterest and even disdain for older films....and surprisingly,there are a LOT of seniors who do!

Not so surprising, I think, unless it's assumed those seniors were discriminating viewers when younger. Consider that today's septuagenarians didn't grow up watching the classics of the '30s & '40s, but rather the monster & sci-fi films of the '50s. But had they (speaking of the dull majority, not the sensitive few) received an indoctrination in films of that earlier era, would it have defeated the bell curve by elevating their tastes above the average of today? Tempting to think so, but I fear not.

[

I'm sure you weren't interested in kiln work until you met that expert who had the skill and enthusiasm to fascinate you in it. So be open to topics that you normally expect to bore you silly. it's that element of surprise that makes life stimulating.

The most important lesson my wife has taught me is, "Don't make assumptions." Good marital advice -- it's how ours has survived for 24 years and counting -- and it applies to darned near everything. The tales we're hearing are about people assuming silent B&W films are boring and therefore never taking the time to watch one or listen to an expert talk about them. If they could put aside those assumptions and be open to new information and experiences, even if they still expect to be bored, they would open themselves to some thrilling revelations.

Jim

You might laugh, but the pair I talked to were not experts, they had only been doing it for a small number of years but were very interesting and enthusiastic in how much they'd learned both by their successes and failures. I even ended up helping them with a problem they were having by sharing my knowledge of how to use a library. One thing that shocks me is how many people don't understand how to access information in a library.

It was sort of in my nature to not assume anything about people I met, and also never to pass up a chance to learn something new. I have knowledge that's probably so esoteric it's of no real value at all (does anyone you know understand how those old mechanical cash registers work? I do.), but I didn't pass up a chance to learn it. There are some things that are too far over my head, but I don't cut anyone off from talking about it. If it doesn't pan out, at least I wasn't talking about trivia, although even that has its uses, too.

I think you understand well how much learning new things helps in life, and your wife is a wise woman.