Where's The Story In Today's Films?

[Phillyrich]

I don't much like today's films, but I try to watch them and keep somewhat up to date. I recently watched "District 9," "A Serious Man" and "The Pianist," three very different films. D9 eluded me, Serious Man and Pianist had their merits, and some beautiful moments, but when I watch modern films, I almost always end up disappointed.

I'm always discouraged that the plotting, creation of characters (even secondary charactors) use of incident, revelations of motive, even the framing of scenes, lighting, etc., that are so clear and wonderful in old films, are so hard to find in modern films. Think Frank Capra or Alfred Hitchcock. Hardly anything in any scene is ever wasted. Everything builds upon what came before, in service to the story--right to the finish.

I know people nowadays say the idea of linear storytelling is "old fashioned," and ambiguity is more realistic, but I think most contemporary directors and writers---just can't tell a story very well. The old studio system, regardless of its faults, taught the "grammar" of film-making very well.

Anyway, I hate the feeling of watching a film for 45 minutes, before I figure out what the heck is important. I don't think I lack for intellect. I once made documentary instructional videos. Often. I'm left at the end of today's films, even the good ones, feeling very unsatisfied.

What do others think? I guess this is why I was drawn in the first place, to old Hollywood.

[boblipton]

The sort of middle brow movie that you and I like aren't produced by many people. Spielberg makes big bucks, but no one quite understands that. Ron Howard and Clint Eastwood will bring me to the theater. But otherwise, it's a matter of habit for anything not particularly high brow.

Bob

[Frederica]

I don't much like today's films, but I try to watch them and keep somewhat up to date. I recently watched "District 9," "A Serious Man" and "The Pianist," three very different films. D9 eluded me, Serious Man and Pianist had their merits, and some beautiful moments, but when I watch modern films, I almost always end up disappointed.

I'm always discouraged that the plotting, creation of characters (even secondary charactors) use of incident, revelations of motive, even the framing of scenes, lighting, etc., that are so clear and wonderful in old films, are so hard to find in modern films. Think Frank Capra or Alfred Hitchcock. Hardly anything in any scene is ever wasted. Everything builds upon what came before, in service to the story--right to the finish.

I know people nowadays say the idea of linear storytelling is "old fashioned," and ambiguity is more realistic, but I think most contemporary directors and writers---just can't tell a story very well. The old studio system, regardless of its faults, taught the "grammar" of film-making very well.

Anyway, I hate the feeling of watching a film for 45 minutes, before I figure out what the heck is important. I don't think I lack for intellect. I once made documentary instructional videos. Often. I'm left at the end of today's films, even the good ones, feeling very unsatisfied.

What do others think? I guess this is why I was drawn in the first place, to old Hollywood.

Oh dear, ymmv on this, I think it depends on the film. *Sigh.* I know this one is going to get me into hot water, but I watched Docks of New York last night, and would have walked out of my own living room, except that the cat was sleeping on me. I know it's a big favorite with many people here, mea culpa. I found it pretty but uninvolving, a reaction I often have to von Sternberg. Given a choice between watching Legally Blonde again and Docks of New York again, bring on Reese.

[Brooksie]

Keep in mind the following article, from the year that gave us 'Sunrise', 'The General', 'Metropolis', `Seventh Heaven' and so on:

It is not the custom among motion picture showmen to revive the successful productions of the past. Occasionally one hears of a screening of D. W. Griffith's "Intolerance" at Christmas time, and a week or two ago the Paramount version of "Peter Pan" had a highly successful season at the King's Hall; but these are occurrences comparatively rare.

One sometimes wonders why this should he so. If J. C. Williamson can have a successful revival of "Wildflower" on the stage, and even of that well-worn comic opera, "The Chocolate Soldier," why cannot some of our picture theatre proprietors achieve equal success with, say, "The Birth of a Nation," or "Way Down East?" [...] The films of five or six years ago would not be equal technically to the films of to-day, one must admit. The revival of "Madame X." earlier in the month, with its inadequate photography and strained acting, showed that. But the stories of the older films in many cases were sound and appealing, and would make revival worthwhile.

[...]

One cannot help regretting that producers on the whole seem to be so lacking in vision - to be so solidly determined to reduce "pleasing the public" to a formula, instead of exploiting the deep human interest in a story and letting popular favour follow as a maller of course. Sincerity and knowledge of human nature must exert an appeal. But the spectator may he pardoned for being a little bitter and doubting the existence of these qualities in the film studios, as he contemplates the mass of mediocre matter that comes pouring forth from such places.

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/16430452

Some of the most pessimistic reports about the future of film come at the end of 1938. "We're so creatively bankrupt that we've had to resort to reviving old Rudolph Valentino films," they lament. "Whatever could 1939 bring?"

This isn't to imply that 2011 will one day be seen as a landmark year in film, just to remind that the masterpieces of any era float in a huge sea of rubbish, and every era has a tendency to forget that.

[Phillyrich]

The 1930's was certainly not a large sea of rubbish. I remain amazed at how many obscure films from the 1930's turn out to be really fine works-- like: The Last Flight or Heroes For Sale. Even what most people called fluff--like maybe Broadway Melody of 1936, has great craft. The batting average was pretty high.

I may be trading into muddy waters here, but I don't like today's constant ironic mockery and "we're so much smarter than the past" attitude either. Historial David McCullough calls it "presentism."

And computer effects are not a replacement for a good script. I come across many young people who just KNOW there are living in a time where everyone is just so-ooo smart. It shows in their movies.

[Brooksie]

I may be trading into muddy waters here, but I don't like today's constant ironic mockery and "we're so much smarter than the past" attitude either. Historial David McCullough calls it "presentism."

In quoting an source from the time that makes an identical argument to one being made today, this is exactly what I was aiming to avoid.

There's such a thing as reverse presentism, if you could call it that. People have literally been talking about how much better things were in the good old days since the time of Plato. It's not arguing in favour of the present to say that's simply not necessarily the case.

[augustinius]

Two things are being blended into one, and they should be kept separate:

1) The idea that the present is better by default because of technological, scientific, and intellectual progress. I see this too and I too think that this is an annoying problem. In our area, it's best seen in people assuming that movies look better today because of progress, when in fact those in the know realize that the original prints of old films were as good if not better than mass-produced film for the multiplex.

2) The idea that the past is better because the present is intellectually bankrupt. There is some truth to this idea or else no one would raise it -- the average film is made for a much lower-brow audience than films before 1977 were, and this is done because the target audience is now a twenty-something white male for most mainstream films trying to score a hit (i.e. comedies and action films). But as pointed out there are always going to be great exceptions if you keep your eyes open.

Neither the past nor the present is perfect, but there is definitely a lack of respect or concern for the past that needs to be fought against. The culture of today has almost no sense of history, and something like Star Wars or 2001 or The Godfather is what they think of as an "old film". But the answer is not to reject everything about today and flee to the past. There is a balance.

[Phillyrich]

Interesting discussion, and thanks to all.

I hear the argument all the time that, well, people years ago made the same observation as today, so therefore that view isn't true now because it wasn't true then. We're just nostalgic, that's all. No, I think we are living in very strange times. Knowledge is available at the click of a mouse--yet people are grossly ignorant. The average teen has technology the CIA didn't have 20 years ago, uses the wireless phone more than the Secretary of State--and mainly to talk about Charlie Sheen's nervous breakdown. More computing power in that iphone-- than the Apollo space capsule. Never more equality and potential--and never more of it wasted. This IS new.

Of course there are islands of quality. Most good films are small-budget or independently made. I get that and look for them. But as one poster said "the midbrow" entertainment, the mass culture/pop culture really is in decline. Not just films, but music and all the arts. The meanness and vulgarity, to me, are the most appalling

Maybe there are times when bad ideas triumph. When values are upside down. All one has to do is look at the aggregate crime statistics for the United States, year by year, to see how much we have changed--and not for the better. Between 1960-75 all major crime categories went up 300 to 400%. They have only come down a little. The world is in a different place since 1960 when I was young. And so is the pop culture world.

I force myself to sit in front of today's pop culture, just to be sure I'm not missing something. My conclusion: I'm not.

Almost all of what I like comes from 1925-60. Stagecoach, Metropolis, Astaire, King Kong, Sinatra and Ella, Hemingway, Mickey Mouse, Bogart, Hitchcock, Grant and Dunne, Powell and Loy, Groucho, Garbo, Louis Armstrong. I don't find it in today. I don't think I'm an old fogie.

[Frederica]

I don't think I'm an old fogie.

Ymmv, again.

[CliffordWeimer]

When I go to the movies these days, it's almost always to see a foreign film. American movies tend to bore me.

[Frederica]

When I go to the movies these days, it's almost always to see a foreign film. American movies tend to bore me.

Well, they don't bore me. But then I pick and choose which movies I want to see.

[Jim Roots]

When I go to the movies these days, it's almost always to see a foreign film. American movies tend to bore me.

You go to the movies? How quaint!


Jim

[Michael O'Regan]

Story or no story, my movie going days are over. I have no interest in going to a cinema to watch a glorified DVD. I have facilities at home for that.
I have no interest in paying OTT prices to sit amongst cola slurping, chip crunching kids to watch artificial film.

[bobfells]

You mean they're still making films today? I thought that stopped around 1945 - it did for me. Well, OK, there are some pretty good films of recent vintage but they are few and far between and they are not made for the 20-something audience either. My biggest complaint about movies today - not counting the mind-numbing profanity, violence, and gratuitous sex scenes - is the rapid fire editing of not holding a shot longer than five seconds. Film makers must assume audiences have a short attention span or maybe they've done the research to prove it. I find it headache inducing even if the film itself is OK.

[Michael O'Regan]

Film makers must assume audiences have a short attention span or maybe they've done the research to prove it.

I think there's absolutely no doubt about that. Its "me...now...ok i've had that... now gimme something else..." A sort of computer game mentality to movies.

[Harold Aherne]

Interesting discussion, and thanks to all.

For the sake of clarity, Phillyrich, I will respond to your post one point at a time--this is only for convenience, not a sign of hostility or being argumentative on my part.

No, I think we are living in very strange times. Knowledge is available at the click of a mouse--yet people are grossly ignorant. The average teen has technology the CIA didn't have 20 years ago, uses the wireless phone more than the Secretary of State--and mainly to talk about Charlie Sheen's nervous breakdown. More computing power in that iphone-- than the Apollo space capsule. Never more equality and potential--and never more of it wasted. This IS new.

Great advances in technology don't save people from themselves, and the result always seems to be great paradoxes in the human condition. Think of the unbelievable changes during the 19th century: at the beginning of the 1800s (during the time of Jane Austen and Napoleon, in other words) there were no railways and no telegraphs, let alone all the other inventions developed during the century. News spread at a slow rate almost inconceivable to us now, and letter-writing was the sole means of communicating with friends or relatives who lived at any great distance. Travel was arduous; steamships were just being introduced and it took days or weeks to reach a far-inland city by carriage. But all of this was a distant memory by 1900--not only were railroads and telegraphs established parts of modern life, but so were photography, telephones, moving pictures, sound recording, electricity and typewriters.

All of those developments didn't solve the problem of human misery. Poverty and disease were rife in lower-class sections of large cities, racism seemed implacable, science and medicine had failures for every success, women could vote and run for office in very few places. There was plenty of wasted potential back then too, and there always will be as long as people have vices of one sort or another.

All one has to do is look at the aggregate crime statistics for the United States, year by year, to see how much we have changed--and not for the better. Between 1960-75 all major crime categories went up 300 to 400%. They have only come down a little. The world is in a different place since 1960 when I was young. And so is the pop culture world.

Actually, violent crime in the U.S. peaked around 1991 and has generally been decreasing ever since. Last year the violent crime rate was about where it was in 1972, which means things aren't entirely hopeless, although there's a lot of room for improvement

I force myself to sit in front of today's pop culture, just to be sure I'm not missing something. My conclusion: I'm not.

I am blissfully ignorant of modern pop culture--I have no interest, so why waste time with something I'm likely to hate (or actually do)? The last "new" movie that I saw in a theatre was Fantasia 2000 and I doubt that's ever going to change. That's fine with me, since current films are well beyond my area of interest/research and I simply don't care about them one way or the other.

Almost all of what I like comes from 1925-60.

My own favourite era is the 1890s to 1937 and I have no great affinity for the 40s or 50s. I have my specific reasons, as everyone does for their pet years and pet abominations .

-HA

[Changsham]

It's quite perplexing that in these days where freedom and access to information is on a grand scale as never experienced before in humanity is that it really hasn't changed people for the better much. Most people seem to live in a fixed information bubble where only selective knowledge is allowed in and tabloid style pandering to prejudices and desires is king.

I also find it interesting that newer forms of entertainment media such as computer gaming are going the same way as cinema. 15 to 20 years ago there were many interesting computer games, light on graphics but rich in content. Many challenged mental and dexterous skills and were very hard to complete. Now they are nearly all mindless pastimes despite the advanced graphics and so called realism and tailored for the widest possible audience and to the basest skill levels.

[Doug Sulpy]

Story or no story, my movie going days are over. I have no interest in going to a cinema to watch a glorified DVD. I have facilities at home for that.
I have no interest in paying OTT prices to sit amongst cola slurping, chip crunching kids to watch artificial film.

Ditto. When the theatre I went to switched over to "all digital" it was the final straw. Why pay >$10 to watch a big TV set? I'll save the money and watch a smaller TV set at home (without the aforementioned "cola slurping, chip crunching kids").

Besides, they're not making anything today I want to see anyway. Oh, boy! Another TV remake! Another movie based on a toy, videogame or comic book! Wow! ... and, really, it's in 3-D?!! Gosh!!! It's like Hollyweird has been taken over by a hoarde of coked-up 13 year olds, whose idea of "class" is remaking The Chipmunks via CGI and having them eat shit.

Nah. Sorry. If anyone ever makes a good American film again, I'll hunt it up and watch it at home. I'm not holding my breath.

[TheIngenue]

I also find it interesting that newer forms of entertainment media such as computer gaming are going the same way as cinema. 15 to 20 years ago there were many interesting computer games, light on graphics but rich in content. Many challenged mental and dexterous skills and were very hard to complete. Now they are nearly all mindless pastimes despite the advanced graphics and so called realism and tailored for the widest possible audience and to the basest skill levels.

So true. I'd take an old school Super Nintendo game anyday over anything the VG industry is chruning out now.

That being said, while I have little interest in the majority of the films being released now, there's still a lot I enjoy. I love a lot of the Pixar films, which I believe are very fresh and original (aside from Cars), and I thought Black Swan was pretty good. Other than that, I tend to stick with films made from the 1910s to the 1930s-- while I do like a wide variety of movies, those decades are my favorite when it comes to cinema.

[missdupont]

The quality of contemporary films has gone way, way down since just 10-15 years ago. I used to go to theatres almost once a week to see things, and now I only go basically during the month of February to see the nominated films before the Academy Awards. About the only new films besides these I would see are the foreign, some independent, and some documentaries, those that actually are made for intelligent people, not those with the attention spans of gnats who just want visceral, mean, gory, and vulgar. I also hate to go to theatres because of people talking through the whole thing, carrying on cellphone conversations, texting, etc., and these are even at films where people seem to be educated and have manners, like documentaries on arcane, historic, and esoteric subjects. And you are so right, people have the world at their fingertips to accomplish so much, but instead are playing Farmville, texting, illegally downloading, etc. Those that seldom if ever attach themselves to their phones, game players, etc., are actually creating things, learning about the world and those in it, and bringing people together.

[Roseha]

I hadn't seen a new film in a theater in quite awhile till this summer, then I saw Cave of Forgotten Dreams by Werner Herzog. That was well worth seeing! Though of course it featured some very old artwork itself.

I have to say I am not in love with 3-D though. Aside from the fact that it's very hard to figure out what to do if you are wearing glasses (my 3-D glasses finally broke on me) - I felt the sculptural effect, while fascinating, didn't quite make up for the strange red/green tinting I kept seeing at the edges of things.

I am sure there are more good new films out there but between the frequent violence onscreen and the distractions of the movie-going experience I'm not led to go out much either. I'd probably go to another fact-based film if I did. (I did enjoy Winged Migration a few years back.)

[gjohnson]

I'd wager that the batting average of the quality of movies being produced today is not that dissimilar to what was being churned out in Hollywood's golden years. The only difference being that only a fraction of the old studio's yearly releases are being made today. Everything equals out. Each studio use to crank out a film a week. That's a lot of pot boilers to sit through. The advantage was that directors got to continually practice a lot at their craft while waiting for a really good script to come their way. Some top directors today are lucky to make a film every two years, and if it sucks??.....well, see you in two years.

Like Frederica, I can always find something current to see at a local cinema, but I do a lot of reading up on them first. No one is releasing a great film each week, but there are still entertaining films out there (For instance, I loved DISTRICT 9). Each decade had film fans grousing over changing values in movies. They complained that movies in the Sixties were becoming too long, films of the Seventies were too violent, films of the Eighties had too much poufy hair and bad music in them......(WAIT! That was me crabbying....)

Nowadays I seemed to get burnt the most when I attend comedies. My idea of what constitutes film comedy don't exactly jell with today's filmmakers. HORRIBLE BOSSES had a sure fire premise with a cast of funny actors and yet.....horrible was the word for it. Everything about it fell flat for me. On the other hand I attended 'dollar night' at my second run movie theatre this week to watch Steve Carell's summer release CRAZY,STUPID LOVE - with very low expectations for it. It looked very contrived in the trailers. Surprisingly, I saw a very good-natured, sweet film about different generations in love.

As I said, everything equals out.

[Christopher Jacobs]

There are occasional films of interest that make it to commercial theatres. I think THE HELP was a surprise hit that was unexpectedly intelligent, harking back to the social issue/entertainment blend films of the 1950s-60s, and although it sometimes approaches GUESS WHO'S COMING TO DINNER in its self-conscious significance, it's still alternately moving, thought-provoking, and funny. I absolutely loved MIDNIGHT IN PARIS, but that's Woody Allen and he's of a different generation and niche audience all his own. I liked SUPER 8 quite a bit, a nostalgic Spielberg-esque look at teenagers making movies in the 1970s that's also an homage to Spielberg sci-fi, and was entertained by COWBOYS AND ALIENS, which is exactly what its title promises. I can't recall any other first-run movies I've actually seen in theatres this year, and the only 2011 movie I've got on Blu-ray is IRONCLAD, which is flawed but entertaining if you're in a mood for bloody early 13th-century England battles with a few good performances to tie them together. Of major movies from 2010, THE SOCIAL NETWORK and IRON MAN 2 were far better than I expected, THE TOWN was pretty good, INCEPTION, THE GHOST WRITER, and MONSTERS were all interesting and there were a few others worth watching. TOY STORY 3 was just as good as the first two, but most Pixar films are well above the Hollywood standard. KICK-ASS started off rather annoying and predictable, but eventually became much better and another one worth checking out. All those 2010 movies I watched at home on Blu-ray, but of those I saw in theatres the remake of TRUE GRIT was quite good, THE KINGS' SPEECH was worthwhile, LET ME IN was an amazingly effective remake of LET THE RIGHT ONE IN, PRECIOUS was unexpectedly excellent, and BLACK SWAN was interesting if sometimes frustrating.

The films I tend to see in theatres typically have very few people in the audience (plus, I usually go to less-attended matinees to save a couple bucks as well as to avoid the crowds). It takes a bit of surveying various reviews to get a feel for what you might want to spend money on, but there are still definitely some films with good stories and good performances being made. They're just not always the ones glutting the media or packing the theatres. I remember consciously avoiding going to HELLBOY when it came out a few years back, as ads and talk made it look and sound too much like typical Hollywood formula comic-book schlock. Then I found the Blu-ray in Walmart's $8 bin (the cost of a typical movie ticket!) and discovered it was just as moody and nearly as intelligent as Guillermo Del Toro's earlier films and a whole lot of fun on top of it. These days of digital cinemas I'm just as likely (possibly more likely) to wait for the Blu-ray, which will look just as sharp on my projector and usually sound better through my sound system. I do make it a point to patronize films run in real 35mm whenever possible.

[Nathan Ensoll]

There are still plenty of fantastic films around, you just have to look for them. Put your prejudices aside and be pleasantly surprised - at the end of the day it's all about escapism & entertainment!

I feel lucky that I'm able to appreciate modern films as well as classic/silent pictures.

Some young person once told me that they didn't like "old black & white movies" because the acting was artificial/wooden - I didn't even bother to respond. It just shows that the opinions of some people here is reversed, by the youth of today regarding classic films.

[Phillyrich]

Some interesting responses, and I thank all.

But I still go back to my original premise. The world of careful, linear story-telling seems to be lost. The idea of telling a story carefully, peeling one layer of the onion at time.

I took creative writing classes in the 1990's. I saw it then, too. No patience for slowly revealing character with the telling detail. I do think the attention-span today is much less. How many 20 year olds would sit through a carefully plotted movie? Hi tech breeds impatience. Find someone who can sit alone... with his thoughts for company. Smart phones in fact, may be dumb phones. Well, the audience gets what it wants.

[Christopher Jacobs]

Well, they're already a couple of years old now (OLD movies!!) but SHUTTER ISLAND and THE BLIND SIDE, two very different stories, both attracted appreciative audiences of all ages with a focus on complex characters more than action, revealing more and more as the plot went on. Of course both also employed flashbacks, so the structure wasn't completely linear, but a surprising number of people nevertheless remember both stories as being told in chronological order, I suppose because people have become so accustomed to flashbacks, flash-forwards, and other nonlinear storytelling that they now take it for granted. (Some of these same people, on the other hand, can find the structure of CITIZEN KANE confusing!) For more traditional cinematic storytelling, you don't need to look any further than Pixar's UP, RATATOUILLE, and the TOY STORY trilogy to see classical Hollywood alive and well and disguised as cutting-edge digital animation supposedly made for kids but really made for people who like good movies.

[CliffordWeimer]

Well, again, I mainly go to foreign and art house films because you don't see a bunch of noisy, restless, texting people in there. You see people enjoying movies.

"Mainstream" films? I will do some blockbusters, mainly with friends or my youngest son (Harry Potter, big animated features, stuff like that) but most films can wait for Blu-ray or DVD release.

Last year, word of mouth led me to see The Black Swan (which I hated) and The King's Speech (which I promptly announced the best film I'd seen in ages and a sure-fire Oscar winner). This year, it led me to Midnight in Paris, and see my description of The King's Speech for how I feel about it.

[sepiatone]

In comparing films today to films of the golden era of the 20s &30s one doesn't even have to go back that far. I've been watching a film/dvd with Peter O'Toole ROGUE MALE from 1976 BBCTV and I just can't get enough of this film. It's a remake of a 1941 Walter Pidgeon film MAN HUNT based on a book by Geoffrey Household on an attempt to kill Hitler. I pretty much like O'Toole in anything but this film escaped me until I just grabbed it out of random and it did have Critic's Choice video on it as distributor. Amazing that ROGUE MALE was made by the BBC for television and made with a high degree of quality, quite prevalent in the 70s when you look at it. They would never make or remake this type of taught story today for television let alone the big screen. Simply amazing.

[All Darc]

Very nice topic debate !!!

Well, I use to say that today we live in a kind of "Teenagercentrism".

Not that teens give orders, but it's like everything it's made to their taste, and even pushed to other ages, sometimes making some grow-ups to behave like stupid teens in many aspects. Music, fashion, TV comercial, films, all looks like made for idiot teens.

Society it's manipulated today. In old times it was manipulated by church, "morals" by silly patriotism (americanism in USA).
Today people are manipulated by the "teenagercentrism". Body shape imposition, viritily sexuality imponence ideals, values as apperar to be considered more impoprtant than be.
As result we have a society that is more obese than ever, more ridiculous than ever, more paranoic and frustrated than ever... the opose of the values that are used to opress people. Funny, isn't it?
But media will say that's better because it's politically correct.

The funny thing is that even director who had talent, now apper that it vanished. George Lucas did some very good works, not masterpieces, but it was good and nice. Well, now look the the new triology of Star Wars...
Look to the last Indiana Jones films.. compare with the first two...
They lost it... lost that chemic secret to make good nice and inovative films,

Now one question for you all:

Do you think it's natural to a director lost the inovative talent or even the usual talent as get old ?

[TheIngenue]

Now one question for you all:

Do you think it's natural to a director lost the inovative talent or even the usual talent as get old ?

I wouldn't say it's usual. I think in George Lucas' case he just became obsessed with the new technology he could incorporate in his films rather than worrying about the story and characters. Instead of paying homage to old serials and myth, the SW prequels were made to make tons of money and dazzle the audience with CG.

But for most other directors? I think it all depends upon the personality of the individual, as well as how much passion they have for their work and whether or not that passion diminishes over time.