Print

Print


>- Claudio Fernandes - [log in to unmask]
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>- - - - - - - - -
>"So many films, so little time."             I don't consume "Stargate".
>
 
 
Good post, Claudio.
 
Still, I'm asked to give examples of individual films to support Ollie's
FILM/MOVIE statement (which, if I remember correctly, QT agreed with).
 
This is not an idea that is supported by individual examples, although
 
STAR WARS vs 2001
 
DRACULA (1931 ?) vs DRACULA (1993 ?)
 
GOODFELLAS vs THE GODFATHER I
 
BADLANDS vs NATURAL BORN KILLERS
 
Hitchcock vs DiPalma
 
_could_ be used.
 
This is an idea based on emotions and feelings, something with seemed to
prevail more in the past than in the present, where we dissect anything we
"feel" as good. I don't think films were better before 1963 (although
some do) and I don't think they were better after 1963 (although some do).
People I know and repect, film buffs and "laypeople" can feel this difference.
Some don't watch anything in B&W because there IS a completely different
style to the mainstream, movie making - there was an innocence that may of my
friends find annoying.
 
I'm sorry I can't explain this any further than I have already. It's not
an intellectual discussion, just a feeling. It's not a judgement (as
everything seems to be), just an observation. There IS a difference,
and I thought maybe someone out in the cyper-space had felt it too, but
I guess not.
 
I still think there was a change around 1963 as a new generation of film
makers began focusing and intellectually deconstructing cinema. They
became aware of the power of film (not to say it wasn't already there),
and became self-referencing.
 
I struggle but yet still can't quite find the hold.
 
Sometimes I think you all give the film/movie makers too much credit...
 
James