NitrateVille.com

Are there any films (this goes for silents and talkies) which you've watched once and either didn't much like or just downright hated...then, for some reason you watched it again and liked it a little more, leading to subsequently more viewings and ultimately to the film becoming an old favourite?

How about vice versa? You watched a film, loved it, watched it a second time and didn't like it as much, eventually leading to you avoiding the film at all costs?

Quite few, both ways. I've learned that I am really impressed by a film if I'm still thinking about it two days later. Films that initially underwhelmed me but I found I kept thinking about are THE MALTESE FALCON, THE BIG SLEEP, DRACULA'S DAUGHTER, MAMMY, IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT, among others. These are now among my personal favorites

Films that I initially enjoyed but proved a chore to watch in subsequent viewings are LOST HORIZON, AFRICAN QUEEN, THE JOLSON STORY, among others. Films from the 1950s seem the most difficult for me to see a second time. I don't really know why but I suspect the pacing drags a bit more than in earlier eras and the initial viewing holds my attention by my curiosity over what happens next. But once I know what happens, there's not enough to hold my interest to see it all happen again.

The movie "Brazil." Came out in the 1980s--when I first saw it, it seemed to be fascinatingly complex, with all sorts of political motifs woven in with hints of incest, etc. Then I saw it again and tried to keep track of how all the different themes linked together and it was just like toilet paper dissolving in water--by the time I'd finished seeing it the second time, there was nothing left of it, for me.

The reasons my opinion on a particular work may change on second viewing is usually because when I first saw it I didn't realize it was junk or I hadn't developed the ability to appreciate it. It happens in literature when they subject 12-year olds to reading Shakespeare. Just doesn't work. You've got to hear the poetry and rhythms int he words. I realized this during college when I didn't read the plays -- I went to the Library and listened to the RSC. I couldn't read JANE AUSTEN, despite several attempts to please my aunt, until I was about forty. Contrariwise, stuff that I enjoyed when I was a kid turned out to be junk: the Three Stooges just get worse and worse and Laurel & Hardy get better and better.

The other reason my opinion of a work has changed has been that something basic about it has changed. I used to think that HIS WIFE'S MISTAKES was a mess, but when they ran a cleaner version for the Arbuckle show at MOMA in 2006, I realized that the version I had seen before had been butchered.

Bob

Michael O'Regan wrote:How about vice versa? You watched a film, loved it, watched it a second time and didn't like it as much, eventually leading to you avoiding the film at all costs?

I think of this as the Peter Sellers Syndrome. I loved him when I was a kid, but I've found that it's perilous to return to those '60s comedies and expect to find them as funny as I did when they were new -- and when I was quite new, myself. I've revisited A Shot in the Dark and After the Fox as an adult, but they just don't do it for me anymore. My taste has evolved, but it's also a matter of trying to re-live something, of remembering how much I liked those movies long ago. On the other hand, I've discovered several comparatively low-key comedies Sellers made in England in earlier years, such as The Smallest Show on Earth or I'm All Right, Jack!, which are very enjoyable. As a kid I probably would've found them disappointing -- that is, too subtle and not "wacky" enough.

Another movie I loved as a kid: Cat Ballou. A few years ago I caught a few minutes of it on cable and just couldn't handle it. It's another one of those childhood memories best left alone.

Michael O'Regan wrote:Are there any films (this goes for silents and talkies) which you've watched once and either didn't much like or just downright hated...then, for some reason you watched it again and liked it a little more, leading to subsequently more viewings and ultimately to the film becoming an old favourite?

How about vice versa? You watched a film, loved it, watched it a second time and didn't like it as much, eventually leading to you avoiding the film at all costs?

Well, I watched College Rhythm and thought it pretty awful overall, but the second time I watched it I decided the film itself wasn't so bad, just Lanny Ross was a hopeless actor.

The pictures I "downright hate" I don't even finish. (Unless, rarely, it's something, like Fellini, so raved-up that I feel obligated to give it a "second chance"; can't recall a single occasion when such a "second chance" reversed my initial judgement.)

Surprisingly often, however, the ones (particularly musicals) that merely leave me somewhat unimpressed later become favorites...even great favorites, such as Desert Song.

The "great favorites" of my callow youth, all those grandiose historical epics of the '60s & '70s--Cleopatra, The Alamo, 55 Days at Peking--I now find (when they appear on TCM) not merely unenjoyable, but unendurable.

Wm. Charles Morrow wrote: I think of this as the Peter Sellers Syndrome. I loved him when I was a kid, but I've found that it's perilous to return to those '60s comedies and expect to find them as funny as I did when they were new

I dimly recall laughing hysterically at these; they, too, fall now into the "unendurable" category. Ballou, however, I disliked at once.

Bergman's The Touch, I disliked intensely the first time I saw it, which is most odd because I'm normally very attuned to Bergman. The second time, I liked it a lot . . . probably because I finally realized that Bergman wanted viewers to dislike the Elliott Gould character (um, I think . . . ).

I re-read the thread--a "second viewing," as it were--and the mentions of Peter Sellers prompt me to think of another show on which my opinion changed the second time around. The Wrong Box--in which Sellars has a small part--I thought was absolutely hilarious the first time I saw it several decades ago. With high expectations, I watched it again a few months ago, and, eh, it had fallen to the sad plateau of "pleasant." (Sellars, though, was still hilarious in it.)

As I get older, my likes and dislikes keep changing. I used to like horror movies and dark stores. Can't be bothered much anymore with them. Now I like musicals, films with a gritty social edge, and light comedies.

One thing though, watching some films for the second time that I had not not seen for many years confuses me sometimes. They appear nothing like I remembered from the first viewing. Recently got this feeling watching THE BIG SLEEP and SHOW PEOPLE after not seeing them for 20 years or so.

Somewhere in the vast recesses of Alt.Movies.Silent there's a dialogue between me and someone— forgive me if it's someone here now— over The Awful Truth. I expressed my difficulty with it because really, the characters are all self-centered jerks, someone pointed out that that was kind of the point in some way or another... but I still thought, why see a screwball comedy about unlovable jerks when there are plenty of screwball comedies about lovable jerks?

But that dialogue planted a seed in my brain.. and eventually I got the movie. It's not a screwball comedy at all, it's a great Catholic movie about the sanctity of marriage... with a cast of characters out of a screwball comedy whom the movie waits, patiently, to achieve grace and realize that their marriage is not some casual thing to be tossed about like a football but the greatest gift from God, a sacrament of love...

I should hasten to clarify a couple of things here, namely, I don't necessarily hold any of these beliefs myself but this is not sarcasm or parody of overthinking— I believe McCarey held them, and his movie is an extraordinary example of dramatizing one thing while working within an entirely different genre. But people don't normally do that— we get analogies and metaphors for real events (plenty of westerns = white/black relations or Vietnam or whatever) but rarely do we get one kind of movie hidden within an entirely different one, especially in comedy (I suppose you could say it happens more often in thrillers). So I didn't see it. Probably five times I saw the movie (it was in my local TV station's package when I was a kid) and I didn't get what it was really about until that time, suddenly, I did. I can think of a few other occasions when that sort of thing has happened, but not many. (Maybe the best was when, during the fourth or fifth time I had seen it, I suddenly realized how funny 2001 is— how much of its deadpan dialogue is informed by the Jewish neuroticism of Nichols and May in particular. I'm feeling much better now, Dave...)

I'm not sure that's the case, Mike, but it's an interesting perspective. I do find that a really good comedy has something real to say about things, just as all great works of art do. While all too many people see comedies as pointless farces, I think a great comedy is informed by something more, like the best work of Preston Sturges.

Bob

When I was a teenager, I thought the Marx Brothers' films were fall on the floor funny. Now on TV, uh, well uh...let's say that there are some films best appreciated at a certain age, like Mad Magazine. But to be fair, a lot of comedies that play on quick repartee and sight gags tend to become flat with time...this is the problem with the Pink Panther films and a long list of comedies that wear out their welcome. They weren't made to be funny the 10th time you saw them, and I think Monkey Business and Horse Feathers are still great films, but I'd have to see them on screen with a big audience to make it worth my 11th time.

The weird part is your memory of laughing so hard the first time you saw something that you almost had a stroke, and now the same scene doesn't bring a smile, it's a strange form of cognitive dissonance.

I had a one-off experience with Paris, Texas (84). I watched it once and I'm glad I saw it but I wouldn't watch it again for all the wild horses in the cliche.

Fascinating topic.

Wm. Charles Morrow wrote:

Michael O'Regan wrote:How about vice versa? You watched a film, loved it, watched it a second time and didn't like it as much, eventually leading to you avoiding the film at all costs?

I think of this as the Peter Sellers Syndrome. I loved him when I was a kid, but I've found that it's perilous to return to those '60s comedies and expect to find them as funny as I did when they were new -- and when I was quite new, myself.

I think I understand what you mean, but find it important to stress that, in this case, this is probably first and foremost due to the particular comedy "trend" in films of that era, which feels dated now, rather than any shortcomings from the great Peter Sellers himself. Sellers is one of VERY few actors I'll watch in just about anything, because his performance nearly always is interesting even though its platform may be not.

As for me, I couldn't stand THE FATAL GLASS OF BEER the first time around, in part because it was the first film with W.C. Fields I watched and I was unaqcuainted with his character, and perhaps even more so because I didn't get the satirical references. I just found the ending heartbreaking. Even after I became a die-hard fan of Fields, I still avoided it for some time -- but when I finally gave it a second go, I loved it, of course. How bits such as when Fields gets an obviously hand-thrown load of snow in his face when opening the door, or when he stares into the camera to dramatically utter some pompous statement, got over my head the first time around I can't quite understand now. I laugh out loud just thinking about these scenes now!

One film which I absolutely loved the first time around, as a 14-year old, but found less incredible when viewing it again more recently, was George Stevens' GIANT -- it's certainly not a "bad" film, but I find it way too Hollywood now. James Dean is still damn good, however.

I used to think that GIRL SHY was Harold Lloyd's ultimate masterpiece, but found myself a tad less enthusiastic when I watched it again this summer. It's by all means a very good comedy, and beautifully filmed as well, but I don't know.....the way the girl falls in love with this (sad to say) completely helpless guy is a bit unconvincingly elaborated, in my opinion, and the bigamist-part is a very very obvious plot-device. Still a good comedy, but I think I'd rather go for THE KID BROTHER (which I haven't watched for some years, I should add).

A more recent film I recently re-watched only to be less enthusiastic was THE DARK KNIGHT (2008)....with the exception of a few action-scenes which I found too "loaded," I thought this was a splendid film the first time around, which surprised me since I'm not a big fan of "superhero comics"....when I watched it again a couple of months ago, albeit on a TV screen this time, I found myself being slightly embarrassed more often....come on; I do know Gotham (spelling?) is supposed to be corrupt, but even so, can it be THAT hard to get hold on that Joker-maniac? Again not a bad film, but not as impressive to me as I remembered.

Hated All That Jazz the first time I saw it. Could have had something to do with the fact that I ran into the girl who had just dumped me and her date. Saw it about 10 years later and couldn't believe it was the same film!

Lokke Heiss wrote:
The weird part is your memory of laughing so hard the first time you saw something that you almost had a stroke, and now the same scene doesn't bring a smile, it's a strange form of cognitive dissonance.

Strange, & even somewhat troubling, to find the "old favorite," so fondly-remembered, now evokes such a pallid response; but it would probably be more troubling to find one's perceptions unchanged over the course of 30 or 40 years.

Films that I was lukewarm on for my initial viewing but have grown on me: Maltese Falcon, Citizen Kane, Some Like it Hot.

A film that I liked the first time but like less and less every time I watch it: Gone with the Wind.

Michael O'Regan wrote:Are there any films (this goes for silents and talkies) which you've watched once and either didn't much like or just downright hated...then, for some reason you watched it again and liked it a little more, leading to subsequently more viewings and ultimately to the film becoming an old favourite?

I can’t think of a film I hated outright on first viewing and have come to enjoy, but there are definitely ones I found disappointing and have come to appreciate. Usually it's a matter of initial expectations. For instance, I heard a lot about Val Lewton’s RKO horror series before seeing any of the films, so my expectations were high. Cat People, which I first experienced with an audience, struck me as impressive and lived up to its reputation, but some of the others I saw subsequently left me wondering if the series was overrated by fans. (Plus, when you grow up with Dracula and the Wolf Man, you don’t expect or especially desire underplayed subtlety in horror movies.) I’ve returned to those films in recent years, and almost every one of them looks better to me than I remembered: well-written, well acted, beautifully photographed, etc., especially The Seventh Victim. With the Lewton series I probably expected too much on the first go-round because of the big critical build-up.

There are also individual stars who take a little getting used to, again, mainly because of expectations. Growing up in Oklahoma I was well aware of Will Rogers as a great humorist of the past, and I enjoyed the silent comedy shorts he made for the Roach studio, which I saw as a kid, but later on when I started watching his Fox features of the ‘30s I was a little put off, at first. I guess I expected Will to be an Okie version of Groucho in his talkies, rattling off zippy punch-lines, but, of course, that wasn’t his style at all. The Rogers vehicles are low-key and pleasant, but not laugh riots, nor were they meant to be. I’ve found that State Fair and Down to Earth, in particular, look much better to me now than they did on my first viewings. The former is an ensemble piece, really, with lots of charming period detail, and Rogers is just one of several charismatic actors. Down to Earth plays best not as a comedy, but as a comedy-drama (accent on drama), about a family dealing with the Depression. It’s become one of my favorite Rogers films, but only after I recognized that it was never intended to be Duck Soup in the first place.

odinthor wrote:I re-read the thread--a "second viewing," as it were--and the mentions of Peter Sellers prompt me to think of another show on which my opinion changed the second time around. The Wrong Box--in which Sellars has a small part--I thought was absolutely hilarious the first time I saw it several decades ago. With high expectations, I watched it again a few months ago, and, eh, it had fallen to the sad plateau of "pleasant." (Sellars, though, was still hilarious in it.)

I'll second the motion on The Wrong Box, I had the same reaction. I try not to think too hard about what makes me laugh (I'm afraid if I figure it out, I'll stop laughing) but surprise is a big component.

Many of the critically lauded films from the 60s & 70s interested me when I first saw them. For the most part I now think they're pretentious twaddle. Blow Up, for instance.

Wm. Charles Morrow wrote:For instance, I heard a lot about Val Lewton’s RKO horror series before seeing any of the films, so my expectations were high. Cat People, which I first experienced with an audience, struck me as impressive and lived up to its reputation, but some of the others I saw subsequently left me wondering if the series was overrated by fans.

Almost inevitable--the let-down engendered by the unrestrained rave-up. I was lucky to see these in a state of Lewton-ignorance--they just popped up out of the blue on some local affiliate's late-night show, leaving me rather stunned.

I actually cannot think of any movies I have drastically changed my opinion about; I guess I never grew up! I just have less patience than I had as an eight-year-old sitting in front of the family television watching a story based on a trite formula…which of course was new to me. Now I actually cringe when Charley Chase or Laurel & Hardy are getting into an embarrassing misunderstanding, boy is losing girl, or husband is getting caught in an unexplainable position…

I also find it difficult to tolerate the constant reuse of the jealousy-revenge plots of the early Sennett movie and Arbuckle films. And if it looks like Abbott & Costello are getting into too much trouble, I actually fast-forward to see that everything will turn out OK, then I can relax, go back and run the film through and enjoy the Business.

These days I’m just much more at ease watching the inventive fantasies of Melies and Chomon, which never embarrass me; or the short films of Billy Bevan, Lupino Lane, Keaton, and the Chaplin Mutuals, which move along from one engaging idea to the next so briskly that I never think about stopping the movie. And (perhaps oddly) the Langdon features, which fascinate me. Even more curiously, I still find exactly the same degree of enjoyment and disappointment (yes, both) with Keaton's sound features.

Lokke Heiss wrote:When I was a teenager, I thought the Marx Brothers' films were fall on the floor funny. Now on TV, uh, well uh...let's say that there are some films best appreciated at a certain age, like Mad Magazine. But to be fair, a lot of comedies that play on quick repartee and sight gags tend to become flat with time...this is the problem with the Pink Panther films and a long list of comedies that wear out their welcome. They weren't made to be funny the 10th time you saw them, and I think Monkey Business and Horse Feathers are still great films, but I'd have to see them on screen with a big audience to make it worth my 11th time.

The weird part is your memory of laughing so hard the first time you saw something that you almost had a stroke, and now the same scene doesn't bring a smile, it's a strange form of cognitive dissonance.

Comedies are often dangerous on repeat viewings. As Fred noted, the element of surprise is missing. And to experience a film in a theatre with an appreciative audience and then go home and watch it by yourself on TV/home video is to experience it again in a vacuum. How could such a film hope to compete with a positive memory?

Akshlly, I have an instance that just happened yesterday, only this was not the 2nd viewing, it was the umpteenth. Since those wonderful folks at Hulu have the Criterion Collection available for streaming, I watched History is Made at Night, my gateway Borzage film. I loved it lots when I first saw it (and then saw it again and again and again), but I haven't seen it in quite a few years.

Did not love it yesterday. Wandered away. Great sadness.

JFK wrote:I was half-watching, for a second time, Payback,
Mel Gibson's semi-remake of Point Blank,
and as the film progressed, it slowly caught my full attention:
it was not only a worse film, but also an entirely other film, than I'd remembered it!
What, I feared, if both being- and even watching- Mel,
caused brain lapses? It turns out my second viewing -
with plot and characters missing and added-
was of a much different "Director's Cut."
Or so I hope.

The version of Gibson's PAYBACK on Blu-ray, unfortunately, is the drastically shortened Director's Cut only, with not only different editing and missing plot threads, but a heavily revised color timing. I much prefer the original expanded theatrical release version and its colors, although the shorter one is interesting for comparison's sake.

I was underwhelmed by Citizen Kane when i first saw it after the buildup, but soon grew to love it after seeing it 5 times in a week for a class. I still love it. And i'm another who totally didn't get Fatal Glass of Beer on the first viewing--but i caught on quickly.

I watched all the RKO Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers films dozens of times as a teenager and recently re-watched them. I still enjoyed Top Hat and Gay Divorcee, but i was startled that found the others quite strained and tedious except, of course, for the dancing (i finally gave up and fast-forwarded to the dance numbers).

I've had the experience more with television, trying to re-watch Laugh-in and other shows i loved as a kid.

My mother had the humiliation of talking up Duel in the Sun to her husband, and ended up being really embarrassed by seeing it again.

greta

Not quite on topic but close enough: at the doddering age of 56 I find myself (with some exceptions) increasingly intolerant of fantasy/sci-fi/CGI-heavy films. I'd just as soon see a b&w one-room drama between two people talking. That's a slight exaggeration, but I guess I can't get into the magical sense of wonder elaborate fantasies used to do for me, though I don't want to sound like a fossilized deadbrain. I can still appreciate classic fantasies, but special fx are an increasing barrier compared to a real world, supremely directed scene with excellent actors and dialogue in front of a blank wall. Having said all that, I look forward to the new 007, SKYFALL, which looks like fun.

greta de groat wrote:My mother had the humiliation of talking up Duel in the Sun to her husband, and ended up being really embarrassed by seeing it again.

greta

In the late ‘50s the Disney studio put out a live-action comedy called Darby O’Gill and the Little People, which featured leprechauns, Sean Connery, a lot of pseudo-Irish blarney, and a Death Coach steered by a headless driver. I saw this film as a grade-schooler when it was re-released to theaters, and loved it. Many years later I was in a video store with my wife Sandra, saw it on the shelf, and insisted we rent it. “It’s great! There’s a scene with a Death Coach that’s genuinely scary!”

As we watched the film my embarrassment grew, but I kept saying “Well, just wait for that Death Coach!” And of course, the scene finally arrived, and wasn’t nearly as scary as my 8 year-old self thought it was. I’ve never really lived it down. Ever since, when I tout a particular movie, Sandra will shoot me a look and say: “Yeah, but you liked Darby O’Gill and the Little People.”

In my defense, however, I see that in his book The Disney Films, published in the '70s, Leonard Maltin wrote: “Darby O’Gill and the Little People is not only one of Disney’s best films, but is certainly one of the best fantasies ever put on film.” I have to wonder when he last took another look at it.