Today I'm going to look at a handful of famous oldies, and explain as best I can, why they are forever embedded in history as being worth two hours of your life you won't ever get back. Frankly, I have a theory that what largely sets the average film viewer of today against any interest in old films is that old movies are in black and white, which on the surface appears overtly boring and very obviously 2-D, and that the majority of people who understand them are from older generations, snooty film critics, and new wave Indie kids who know that loving the classics is "cool."
We begin with Casablanca (1942), or more aptly put: Trench Coat Man During the War: A Love Story
About a nightclub owner who is torn between his love for an old flame and helping said old flame and her hubby escape the Nazis to further progress their refugee work in the U.S. What makes this boring to audiences today: There are no ludicrous explosions, the absence of sexual excitement is drowned out by the use of black and white, and the fact that the film was made in 1942 is like putting a red flag all over the cover at the video store to today's average viewer: No one cares.
BUT--what makes this film recognizable? What makes it worth your time? What makes it worth my time? The phrase "you had to be there" comes to mind, pointing out that, like many horror films of the past that are now considered cheesy as all get out, made an impression when they were first released. Casablanca fits the bill entirely. For the older generations, who remember the war times, this film rings in about the trials and fears that surround war and all its ugly goodies. It was a relevant film at its time. The actors were big, and it was Bogart's first romantic lead role--which got all the ladies of the 40's squirming in their sensible undergarments. But what, you ask, is the freakin' appeal to younger audiences? Frankly, there isn't much. However, most people are aware the film exists, simply for that famous end scene in the airport, where Bogart has that line, "Here's lookin' at you kid." If the younger generations of today are able to give it a chance, it's assumed that after watching the film, they'd understand why it was cool for its time, and appreciate why it is considered a classic today.
Remaining in the bleak spotlight of black and white cinema, we have It's a Wonderful Life (1946), i.e.: One Bad Day Can Make a Man Want to Kill Himself
As both titles above explain succinctly, a man who's whole life seems devoted to helping others takes a bad turn and things get harry, so he gets angry and drunk and decides that he'd be worth more dead than alive, due to an insurance policy that says pretty much just that. But lo! and behold! An angel comes to show him that his life is meaningful and just how important he is to the community.
Yeah, I thought it was boring too. But that was because when I saw it, like most others of my generation, I was a kid, and unless it's the Three Stooges or Abbot & Costello (physical comedy), black and white just wasn't entertaining. But, the 'rents always push It's a Wonderful Life as though they're trying to sell you on the idea that it's a family classic that is timeless and heartfelt. I was a child, all I was thinking about was how soon I would get to open my presents.
Years down the line, if you can bring yourself to watch the film as an adult, you understand what it's doing, and the director, Frank Capra, knew how to make something that would appeal to most people. The main character is a relatively normal man with a normal family, something generally most adults of the 40's could relate to, especially when the film deals with the issues of financial hardship. This being set in the 40's, adults at the time knew exactly how that felt, especially during the holiday season. Honestly though, however it is billed as a family classic, personally, I've always largely seen it as something directly made for adults, and the appreciation a child can get from it is just plain...not there.
But if there is one thing that both children and their parents can agree that is a timeless fact about the movie, it's how annoying that damn little girl with the horrible high-pitch voice is who gratingly says, "Every time a bell rings, an angel gets its wings." A fact alone that brings families together in agreement, and oft times gives everyone a good eye-roll at how corny the line is delivered.
Moving onto the biggest, baddest cinematic beast in history (according to several critically acclaimed critics [is it an oxymoron to critique a critic?], seriously recognized film websites, and of course, the American Film Institute [AFI]), we have Orson Welles' Citizen Kane (1941), i.e.: Party Like a Rock, Party Like a Rock Star, Part Like a Rock, Party Like a ...Newspaper Mogul?
So Charles Foster Kane, played by Orson Welles and based off of his own life and William Randolph Hearst (who was in fact a real life newspaper mogul (or, as Wikipedia keeps saying, a "magnate"), is this super rich guy who has his childhood ripped away in turn for a life of soulless luxury in which he takes advantage until he gains control of a newspaper company.
The film details his whirlwind life, mostly through flashbacks (which, unlike Phantasm 4, this is an appropriately used filming tactic for the progression of the story) and accounts his loves, his work, his scandals, the whole kit n' caboodle until finally, when all is said and done, his death (seen at the beginning of the film where he says the famous line "Rosebud...") is put to a close with a connection to his past.
The reason I gave the alternate title of the film is that, much like watching Val Kilmer play Jim Morrison in The Doors or Joaquin Phoenix play Johnny Cash in Walk the Line, Citizen Kane pretty much does the same thing for the character Charles Foster Kane, except the character himself is not a real person, only based off of one, and he's not a rock star, he's a newspaper tycoon. But the setup is generally the same; he spends a hell of a lot of money, has trouble in relationships, has scandalous accusations against him, I mean hell, he lives in Xanadu, what is referred to in the film as "the world's largest private estate," which just begs to be labeled with a giant sign slapped over it that reads "EXCESSIVE" which is what the rock star life is all about.
Now here's the kicker: while this film is renowned for its cinematography, writing, acting, etc, it will bypass most of today's younger viewers without a second glance. Perchance, it is fair to assume that the title of the film has been heard by many, it's virtually inescapable from being mentioned in any documentary or DVD commentary or critic's review on successful films in history. But, beyond that, this film is in black and white, it's about a newspaper mogul, not a rock star, so his tastes for spending money aren't embellished with drugs and hookers (that we see, anyways), it's LONG, and primarily quiet on the 'action' side of things.
Point in short, it'd be considered boring, because obviously, who cares about the life of some dude who runs a newspaper as opposed to an influential musician who drowned themselves in debauchery and depression? Much like the last two films I wrote about, this one no less deserves to have the label "You had to be there," because today, William Randolph Hearst is not a name well known to the modern audience, it was the 40's, so obviously, times are different, and what was relevant then is not relevant now.
And to top it all off, the film's lack of ta-tas is disappointing.
About a nightclub owner who is torn between his love for an old flame and helping said old flame and her hubby escape the Nazis to further progress their refugee work in the U.S. What makes this boring to audiences today: There are no ludicrous explosions, the absence of sexual excitement is drowned out by the use of black and white, and the fact that the film was made in 1942 is like putting a red flag all over the cover at the video store to today's average viewer: No one cares.
BUT--what makes this film recognizable? What makes it worth your time? What makes it worth my time? The phrase "you had to be there" comes to mind, pointing out that, like many horror films of the past that are now considered cheesy as all get out, made an impression when they were first released. Casablanca fits the bill entirely. For the older generations, who remember the war times, this film rings in about the trials and fears that surround war and all its ugly goodies. It was a relevant film at its time. The actors were big, and it was Bogart's first romantic lead role--which got all the ladies of the 40's squirming in their sensible undergarments. But what, you ask, is the freakin' appeal to younger audiences? Frankly, there isn't much. However, most people are aware the film exists, simply for that famous end scene in the airport, where Bogart has that line, "Here's lookin' at you kid." If the younger generations of today are able to give it a chance, it's assumed that after watching the film, they'd understand why it was cool for its time, and appreciate why it is considered a classic today.
Remaining in the bleak spotlight of black and white cinema, we have It's a Wonderful Life (1946), i.e.: One Bad Day Can Make a Man Want to Kill Himself
As both titles above explain succinctly, a man who's whole life seems devoted to helping others takes a bad turn and things get harry, so he gets angry and drunk and decides that he'd be worth more dead than alive, due to an insurance policy that says pretty much just that. But lo! and behold! An angel comes to show him that his life is meaningful and just how important he is to the community.
Yeah, I thought it was boring too. But that was because when I saw it, like most others of my generation, I was a kid, and unless it's the Three Stooges or Abbot & Costello (physical comedy), black and white just wasn't entertaining. But, the 'rents always push It's a Wonderful Life as though they're trying to sell you on the idea that it's a family classic that is timeless and heartfelt. I was a child, all I was thinking about was how soon I would get to open my presents.
Years down the line, if you can bring yourself to watch the film as an adult, you understand what it's doing, and the director, Frank Capra, knew how to make something that would appeal to most people. The main character is a relatively normal man with a normal family, something generally most adults of the 40's could relate to, especially when the film deals with the issues of financial hardship. This being set in the 40's, adults at the time knew exactly how that felt, especially during the holiday season. Honestly though, however it is billed as a family classic, personally, I've always largely seen it as something directly made for adults, and the appreciation a child can get from it is just plain...not there.
But if there is one thing that both children and their parents can agree that is a timeless fact about the movie, it's how annoying that damn little girl with the horrible high-pitch voice is who gratingly says, "Every time a bell rings, an angel gets its wings." A fact alone that brings families together in agreement, and oft times gives everyone a good eye-roll at how corny the line is delivered.
Moving onto the biggest, baddest cinematic beast in history (according to several critically acclaimed critics [is it an oxymoron to critique a critic?], seriously recognized film websites, and of course, the American Film Institute [AFI]), we have Orson Welles' Citizen Kane (1941), i.e.: Party Like a Rock, Party Like a Rock Star, Part Like a Rock, Party Like a ...Newspaper Mogul?
So Charles Foster Kane, played by Orson Welles and based off of his own life and William Randolph Hearst (who was in fact a real life newspaper mogul (or, as Wikipedia keeps saying, a "magnate"), is this super rich guy who has his childhood ripped away in turn for a life of soulless luxury in which he takes advantage until he gains control of a newspaper company.
The film details his whirlwind life, mostly through flashbacks (which, unlike Phantasm 4, this is an appropriately used filming tactic for the progression of the story) and accounts his loves, his work, his scandals, the whole kit n' caboodle until finally, when all is said and done, his death (seen at the beginning of the film where he says the famous line "Rosebud...") is put to a close with a connection to his past.
The reason I gave the alternate title of the film is that, much like watching Val Kilmer play Jim Morrison in The Doors or Joaquin Phoenix play Johnny Cash in Walk the Line, Citizen Kane pretty much does the same thing for the character Charles Foster Kane, except the character himself is not a real person, only based off of one, and he's not a rock star, he's a newspaper tycoon. But the setup is generally the same; he spends a hell of a lot of money, has trouble in relationships, has scandalous accusations against him, I mean hell, he lives in Xanadu, what is referred to in the film as "the world's largest private estate," which just begs to be labeled with a giant sign slapped over it that reads "EXCESSIVE" which is what the rock star life is all about.
Now here's the kicker: while this film is renowned for its cinematography, writing, acting, etc, it will bypass most of today's younger viewers without a second glance. Perchance, it is fair to assume that the title of the film has been heard by many, it's virtually inescapable from being mentioned in any documentary or DVD commentary or critic's review on successful films in history. But, beyond that, this film is in black and white, it's about a newspaper mogul, not a rock star, so his tastes for spending money aren't embellished with drugs and hookers (that we see, anyways), it's LONG, and primarily quiet on the 'action' side of things.
Point in short, it'd be considered boring, because obviously, who cares about the life of some dude who runs a newspaper as opposed to an influential musician who drowned themselves in debauchery and depression? Much like the last two films I wrote about, this one no less deserves to have the label "You had to be there," because today, William Randolph Hearst is not a name well known to the modern audience, it was the 40's, so obviously, times are different, and what was relevant then is not relevant now.
And to top it all off, the film's lack of ta-tas is disappointing.
Last line = *facepalm* xD
ReplyDeleteBut seriously, I've actually been planning on watching Citizen Kane and F for Fake in the near future... One of those things I kept meaning to get around to and now finally actually might, lol.
Whatever you do, try to understand that F for Fake was much later in his working period... But yes, please get around to Citizen Kane--dude, I own it, you could come by and rent it sometime.
ReplyDelete