|
Post by Robert C. on Jun 29, 2008 21:31:48 GMT
I going to start 'transferring' my 'reviews' over from the gangster bb. I think that just about all of them will fall in the 1930's-50's era.
They're probably not too many classic fans here, but I hope to promote some discussion non the less.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Jun 29, 2008 21:50:14 GMT
I going to start 'transferring' my 'reviews' over from the gangster bb. I think that just about all of them will fall in the 1930's-50's era. They're probably not too many classic fans here, but I hope to promote some discussion non the less. You would be surprised.... Anyway, can't wait for your reviews mate.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Sullivan on Jun 29, 2008 22:10:36 GMT
By classics, I suppose you mean classic American films?
Those are my specialty. Especially studio system films. I love them.
Please start posting.
|
|
|
Post by Robert C. on Jun 30, 2008 5:09:02 GMT
I going to start 'transferring' my 'reviews' over from the gangster bb. I think that just about all of them will fall in the 1930's-50's era. They're probably not too many classic fans here, but I hope to promote some discussion non the less. You would be surprised.... Anyway, can't wait for your reviews mate. I really don't have time to write a full review. If I tried to write a review I would have to stop after about 5 pages once I realized that the review was going to be longer than the film. And that's not me blowing my own horn, it's just absolutely impossible for me to leave write a 'surface' review. I get really frustrated if I feel like I'm omitting even the tiniest detail. Probably all related to obsessive comp disorder. I do try to provide some sort of description outlining the script and basic structure of the film. But no one would want to read 5 pages about a smoke-filled, gin-laced movie from the 30's that I look entirely too far into. No, I just like to promote discussion about the movie and film theory in general. Plus, I feel that even a brief mention of the movie contributes to the board in some way or another. (I recommend this board to a lot of ppl both on and off line, and not just to film buffs.) ....But yeah, I know you and Mike have a eye for the classics, as do Capo and some others I'm sure.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jun 30, 2008 16:57:56 GMT
I going to start 'transferring' my 'reviews' over from the gangster bb. I think that just about all of them will fall in the 1930's-50's era. They're probably not too many classic fans here, but I hope to promote some discussion non the less. If you're talking about a filmic style, which I think you are, I prefer the term "classic al". "Classic" is some sort of quality gauge. The period of classical narrative cinema lasts from 1930 to 1966, roughly.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Jun 30, 2008 17:07:42 GMT
Capo, have you read The Story of Film by Mark Cousins (BFI critic)?
He argues that the term 'classical' is misapplied in cinema, that what we call 'classical cinema' bears no resemblance to what we call 'classical architecture' or 'classical music'. He replaces the term with his own: 'closed romantic realism'. And reapplies the word 'classical' to Ozu.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jun 30, 2008 17:25:38 GMT
I read about two thirds of that a very long time ago when it first came out, so don't remember much (though I took from it something I think of time and time again in narrative discussion, the notion that art=schema + variation").
I'd have to go back and read what he means by "closed romantic realism", and how film's "classical" differs from those of the other arts. (The obvious reason is history; cinema's still very young. Even when we talk about "renaissances" in film, we mean them in reference to films being made only two or three decades ago.)
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Jun 30, 2008 17:39:26 GMT
He basically says that classicism in the arts is characterised by harmony and balance, and that Hollywood cinema is far too wrought and melodramatic to be described as classical.
'Closed' because ambiguity of meaning is avoided, stories end, there's closure.
'Romantic' because of the tone, the emphasis on yearning and passion and excitement, etc. There's no repose, no emotional equilibrium.
'Realism' because typically there's no supernatural occurances, spirits, curses, etc (I think he wanted to narrow his definition of romanticism to exclude its gothic elements).
I think it's pretty convincing.
|
|
|
Post by Robert C. on Jun 30, 2008 17:52:10 GMT
I going to start 'transferring' my 'reviews' over from the gangster bb. I think that just about all of them will fall in the 1930's-50's era. They're probably not too many classic fans here, but I hope to promote some discussion non the less. If you're talking about a filmic style, which I think you are, I prefer the term "classic al". "Classic" In America we usually refer to "classic" cars or "classic" films, that roughly pre-date the 60's (pre-hippie movement.
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Jun 30, 2008 17:56:22 GMT
'Realism' because typically there's no supernatural occurances, spirits, curses, etc (I think he wanted to narrow his definition of romanticism to exclude its gothic elements). There was no realism in the Hollywood classic movies that I've seen (mostly bits and pieces, flipping channels). They are jingoistic, melodramatic, romanticised, moralistic and exaggerated. The dialogue delivery is very artificial..... who speaks like that? Classical architecture, Classical music - I like all that, in fact more than the modern versions. But classic movies? In spite of not having watched as many classic movies as you guys here have, I can't relate to them at all.
|
|
|
Post by Robert C. on Jun 30, 2008 18:02:37 GMT
In spite of not having watched as many classic movies as you guys here have, I can't relate to them at all. I can understand that. But Classic al Movies consist are a very broad category. The definitions that wetdog gave applies to some movies from that age, yes, but not all. And not all classical films are And I actually think realism appears starts appearing very much after the 30's. REad my Meet Me In St. Louis review?
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Jun 30, 2008 18:09:16 GMT
In spite of not having watched as many classic movies as you guys here have, I can't relate to them at all. I can understand that. But Classic al Movies consist are a very broad category. The definitions that wetdog mentions apply to some movies from that age, yes, but not all. And I actually think realism appears starts appearing very much after the 30's. REad my Meet Me In St. Louis review? I'm just saying, there are a plethora of intrinsically valuable films from the age. i understand that there would be some gems from that era which I am missing out because of my attitude, but seriously I find some of them unwatchable. Yesterday I was watching "Cool hand Luke". Ofcourse I did not watch it in is entirety, but found it full of jingoism. Unbearble. I skipped your "meet me.." review because of its length . I'll read it soon.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Jun 30, 2008 18:10:05 GMT
'Realism' will always be a controversial term.
But he specifies exactly what he means by it: outside of genre films, 'closed romantic realist' Hollywood cinema didn't feature ghosts or curses or gods or superheroes or wizards, or whatever. That's true. In terms of the physical laws governing the worlds in which their stories played out, they were basically realistic. I've loaned the book to a friend, so I can't check for an exact quote, but he says something like: 'closed romantic realist' films present a parallel world that is fundamentally like ours but in which the people are more beautiful and sophisticated and lead more exciting lives.
|
|
|
Post by Robert C. on Jun 30, 2008 18:27:08 GMT
svsg, i've never seen cool hand luke, i don't watch a lot of flicks from the 60's. But the whole machismo thing isn't really apart of the films I watch, just folks drinking gin, wearing suits, and smoking non-filter cigarettes. But it's a broad style and there are an infinite number of genres represented in the classical age. Some of these films are exclusionary, yes, it's like a club. But so are lots of art forms; certainly not everyone is into "punk-rock" or "indi-hipster" type movements, for example. And you're right, the actor's speech is very theatrical--different from how anyone actually speaks today--and their clothes, hair and makeup are generally not like anything you'd see today either...but that's part of the appeal. 'closed romantic realist' films present a parallel world that is fundamentally like ours but in which the people are more beautiful and sophisticated and lead more exciting lives. Definitely agree with that. I wouldn't apply it 100% across the board though, no. But yes, it's generally a fantasy world of sorts for many. There's no doubt about it. I'd compare my obsession with classical films to someone who's into star-trek, it touches every part of my "arc."
|
|
|
Post by Robert C. on Jun 30, 2008 18:32:35 GMT
Basically, my study of philosophy, literature, linguistics, history, and film, all coincide with one another. I study all of them together, with each study contributing to the other.
(Saussure and Levi-Straus used linguistics to form modern film theory, of course.)
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Jun 30, 2008 18:37:29 GMT
RC, I don't want to give a wrong impression.... I am not implying that the newer movies are inherently great or realistic for that matter. For whatever reason I have not been a big fan of old Hollywood movies, except Hitchcock. I just think that our tastes are mutually disjoint. I like european movies from 60s and 70's followed by hollywood movies from 70s.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Sullivan on Jun 30, 2008 18:42:48 GMT
Ahh, yes. I've read Cousin's book.
It's quite simple. A classic is a film or piece of art or music that can last out of it's time.
Classical film is a time period; quite simple. I'd agree with Capo's time frame for classical filmmaking style but to be frank, people in Hollywood for the most part, STILL make movies in much the same way filmmakers in the 1940's did; just with more computers and anamorphic lenses and without the Breen office breathing down their necks.
But that's like people even nowadays painting in the impressionist style even though that ended over a century ago.
If you do accept that classical film belongs in a period from the 1920's into the 1960's, I wouldn't solely rule out American films. It would need to mention all nationalities. Always remember that while Jimmy Stewart was ranting on the Senate floor in "Mr. Smith Goes To washington", Renior was hovering through a French Villa, looking into the absurdities of people's lives in "The Rules of the Game".
And remember, this definition of classical film only works for now. In a hundred years, Scorsese and Speilberg and the American New Wave maybe grouped into the Classical film movement). Film is still a young art and we've yet to see where it will fully go.
What Robert's reviews really are are reviews of classic Hollywood films; films that bear mentioning and remembering though the new, younger filmmakers seem to want to ignore them and break off into a new style; which is coming.
ssvg, there are three classic Hollywood films you need to see to show you that not all films of the period are sheer melodrama; "The Maltese Falcon", "Vertigo" and "Citizen Kane", naturally. Essential films for all time.
|
|
|
Post by Robert C. on Jun 30, 2008 18:43:24 GMT
I'm very new to film study, svsg. I haven't seen many (if any) euro movies from any decade.
I especially like the classics b/c many of them are very steeped in philosophical, historical and literary themes.
|
|
|
Post by Robert C. on Jun 30, 2008 18:49:24 GMT
Classical film is a time period; quite simple. I'd agree with Capo's timeframe for classical filmmaking style but to be frank, people in Hollywood for the most part, STILL make movies in much the same way filmmakers in the 1940's did; just with more computers and anamorpic lenses and without the Breen office breathing down their necks. As in all art, film theory is divided into post-structuralism/modernism and that which came before it. I like to use the term "humanist" to refer to films from the classical age or those which are pre post-structuralism. But yes, "humanist" elements are still quite popular in contemporary film.
|
|
|
Post by Robert C. on Jul 1, 2008 8:56:16 GMT
But he specifies exactly what he means by it: outside of genre films, 'closed romantic realist' Hollywood cinema didn't feature ghosts or curses or gods or superheroes or wizards, or whatever. That's true. I suppose he's right on some level, but, I can think of several movies from the age that include the supernatural element; Topper (1937), one of Cary Grant's first movies, became a three part series about a man who is visited and righted in life by two ghosts. It's a very well known series... But again, I suppose he's right on some level, I'm sure he is, I can see his point. But, it's a bit of a generalization.
|
|