Why modern movies suck - they teach us awful lessons

[Guest 85555]

The shows are not creating the tribalism, our culture is. We (general we) have moved into a positions over interests mindset.

I do tend to agree with this. I think media is usually either more a reflection of what is going on, or is moving towards an audience to appeal to them. At the same time I am sure it has some effect. Our news is very tribal now. To some extent, I think that is because they know audiences are tribal and news is cut up to appeal to those difference audiences. But it also helps drive some of the tribalism. Still I think entertainment media doesn't have the same power as news so there I think mostly what we are seeing is a cultural shift, and I think it isn't any particular movie, show, etc driving that. Probably it is being driven by the fact that internet took off as a medium and that has enabled us silo into tribes.

 

[Guest 85555]

Are you sure it's not simply a bias of perception? We're aware of most films coming out today, but we're not familiar with the majority of the naughty word films from say the 1950s for example.

Also there are groups of people who today are able to make films who would have been prevented from doing so in the past, which would help offset any losses to tv.

I do think there is that problem: people remember a simple narrative of what movies were. At the same time, so much has changed in terms of how movies are made, even what medium they are made on (they are mostly digital now is my impression), and the way movies are consumed (theatrical releases definitely don't appear to be the big deal they were when I was growing up), I have to imagine some of the changing quality of movie entertainment could have something to do with these things. I do think, in general new movies don't seem as good. But every once in a while I see an incredible film, well crafted and extremely well performed. So don't think good movies aren't being made any more. But I think to some of us older people in the audience, many new movies feel like constant explosions, fights in the sky and CGI of ships careening into a planet. That might be an unfair characterization. But I think it is a lot of older peoples honest impression.

 

[MGibster]

And there isn't anything wrong with political subtext. Night of the Living Dead had political subtext. The movie Candyman had subtext.

And sometimes we see subtext that was never intended. George Romero always maintained that he wasn't trying to make a political statement when he cast Duane Jones as the leading man in Night of the Living Dead. Jones was cast because he was the best actor available to Romero at the time.

 

[Fifth Element]

I do think there is that problem: people remember a simple narrative of what movies were. At the same time, so much has changed in terms of how movies are made, even what medium they are made on (they are mostly digital now is my impression), and the way movies are consumed (theatrical releases definitely don't appear to be the big deal they were when I was growing up), I have to imagine some of the changing quality of movie entertainment could have something to do with these things. I do think, in general new movies don't seem as good. But every once in a while I see an incredible film, well crafted and extremely well performed. So don't think good movies aren't being made any more. But I think to some of us older people in the audience, many new movies feel like constant explosions, fights in the sky and CGI of ships careening into a planet. That might be an unfair characterization. But I think it is a lot of older peoples honest impression.

No one suggesting it's not an honest impression. But it's a fact that most people do not recognize their own cognitive biases. People have been bemoaning the decline of cinema since nearly the beginning of cinema. The movies you hold up as examples of great film from the past were derided in their day as not holding a candle to classics of even earlier. It's a nearly universal human foible to view thing of the past as being better than the present.

 

[Guest 85555]

And sometimes we see subtext that was never intended. George Romero always maintained that he wasn't trying to make a political statement when he cast Duane Jones as the leading man in Night of the Living Dead. Jones was cast because he was the best actor available to Romero at the time.

And that is a fair point of discussion. It is entirely possible none was intended here. I've always read it as political (my sense is most people have seen it through the lens of the civil rights movement). I can't say I remember any interviews where he has said anything about it. But I do think by the time you get to Dawn of the Dead, there is clear commentary going on (and I believe with that, Day of the Dead and some of the more recent ones, he has said there was subtext).

 

[Guest 85555]

No one suggesting it's not an honest impression. But it's a fact that most people do not recognize their own cognitive biases. People have been bemoaning the decline of cinema since nearly the beginning of cinema. The movies you hold up as examples of great film from the past were derided in their day as not holding a candle to classics of even earlier. It's a nearly universal human foible to view thing of the past as being better than the present.

Sure, and people always are decrying the decline of civilization too. But that doesn't mean people are always wrong when they say movies are worse, or books are worse. There can be a cultural decline, or loss of craft. Civilization can go in bad directions (if someone said the world was going to hell on the day the European Witch Craze started, they would have a had a point). I don't know that is what is going on. I think this is more subjective. Movies are changing. Personally I think the changes are in many ways for the worse (mostly in terms of things like I described, change in the medium, change in stuff like CGI and pacing). But that is all subjective. Ultimately we won't settle how good current movies are in a conversation today, that is probably going to be decided down the road (the way we can now look back and see that some decades look a little better than others in terms of movie quality: it is still subjective, but I think it is easier to do when you have distance from the period and you can lay it all out to examine).

 

[Guest 85555]

The movies you hold up as examples of great film from the past were derided in their day as not holding a candle to classics of even earlier.

This is absolutely true. And older generations don't always get newer ones. When crooners became a thing, the generation before derided that singing style as being only possible because of the new microphone technology (we think of Sinatra as classic now, but at that time he was viewed dimly by the older generation). When 60s rock happened, older people thought it was noise. And when heavy metal emerged, my parents generation (the 60s generation) didn't get it at all, or thought it was evil. So that is definitely a thing. I am aware of that as I am making my critique. But the only thing I can do is give an honest expression of my feelings on the movies I see. And one feeling I have had for a long time, is sometime around when Digital was becoming the new movie medium and CGI and superhero movies were becoming ubiquitous, I found myself only enjoying a small fraction of the movies that were released. Some of that is lack of interest in the topics (I don't particularly like superhero movies) but some of that is the medium changing: I can appreciate the early 80s superman movie visually, but I saw one of the more recent Superman's (I don't rsememrb the name of the film) and the visuals bothered my eyes: I just couldn't stand the way it looked. It didn't feel like a movie to me. It is possible my complaint is just an older person saying "This is noise". But it is also possible people will look back at the impact of things like digital, CGI, etc and see that as a key turning point in filming (and maybe they will even think it is a negative turning point, or maybe they will have a more balanced take but still conclude something from the prior era was lost).

 

[MGibster]

I do think there is that problem: people remember a simple narrative of what movies were. At the same time, so much has changed in terms of how movies are made, even what medium they are made on (they are mostly digital now is my impression), and the way movies are consumed (theatrical releases definitely don't appear to be the big deal they were when I was growing up), I have to imagine some of the changing quality of movie entertainment could have something to do with these things.

I also think it's easy for people to forget how groundbreaking something is. Star Trek starting airing in 1966 and featured an African on the bridge of the one of the Federation's best exploration vessels. Just a year earlier, many television stations in the southern United States refused to air I, Spy because it featured a black secret agent played by Bill Cosby and a white secret agent played by Robert Culp who were equal partners. Cosby's character was neither subservient to or in command of Culp's character but they worked together as partners. Sesame Street started airing in 1969 and was banned in Mississippi the following year because of its integrated cast of characters.

When I was watching Star Trek, even as a teenager, I didn't think twice that the Federation's most venerated expert on computers, Dr. Daystrom was black. It didn't occur to me that it was a big deal for Nichelle Nichols to play an officer on the bridge of a space ship. But in the 1960s it was kind of a big deal.

 

[MGibster]

And that is a fair point of discussion. It is entirely possible none was intended here. I've always read it as political (my sense is most people have seen it through the lens of the civil rights movement). I can't say I remember any interviews where he has said anything about it. But I do think by the time you get to Dawn of the Dead, there is clear commentary going on (and I believe with that, Day of the Dead and some of the more recent ones, he has said there was subtext).

I'm not going to say there's no subtext to the original movie. But a work isn't created in a vacuum and oftentimes the audience will bring their own baggage with them when they interpret things. Ask most modern students who the hero is in The Iliad and they'll point to Hector. Spoiler alert for 3,000+ year old story: But the story isn't about Hector it's about Achilles and his rage. But modern audiences sympathize with Hector because he's defending his home worried sick that his wife will work the loom in another man's home and his son will be cared. (Never mind that Hector wishes for his son to become a great warrior who goes out to kill other men, their children, and to have their women work the loom in his home rather than wishing for peace.)

Romero did say that Dawn of the Dead was about consumerism but others also compared it to the looming threat of communism. Note that in the 2003 remake, the zombies are fast and strike suddenly. Some have said this was in reaction to the September 11 attacks which were sudden and came out of nowhere.

 

[Guest 85555]

I'm not going to say there's no subtext to the original movie. But a work isn't created in a vacuum and oftentimes the audience will bring their own baggage with them when they interpret things. Ask most modern students who the hero is in The Iliad and they'll point to Hector. Spoiler alert for 3,000+ year old story: But the story isn't about Hector it's about Achilles and his rage. But modern audiences sympathize with Hector because he's defending his home worried sick that his wife will work the loom in another man's home and his son will be cared. (Never mind that Hector wishes for his son to become a great warrior who goes out to kill other men, their children, and to have their women work the loom in his home rather than wishing for peace.)

Romero did say that Dawn of the Dead was about consumerism but others also compared it to the looming threat of communism. Note that in the 2003 remake, the zombies are fast and strike suddenly. Some have said this was in reaction to the September 11 attacks which were sudden and came out of nowhere.

And here I think people tend to move too far in one extreme or another: i.e. only what the author intended matters versus the author doesn't matter at all and only my interoperation matters. I think movies can be made for one reason but hit one something that resonates for other reasons, or resonates with a later generation because of something unique to their time. And it is fine to find that kind of meaning or personal meaning in art. But I think we also have responsibility as viewers to try to understand the intentions of the artist and try to understand the context of art (to your point about the Illiad). That is why I think the point you raised is fair: if Romero did in fact say there was no subtext (and again, I don't know what he said, so I am not laying out conclusions here on that) then that definitely sheds different light on the predominant interoperation of the movie. At the same time, I think given the time it was made, the civil rights interoperation is an understandable and fair one (there is a lot in the film, not just the casting to weight that interpretation).

I remember Romero also saying when Land of the Dead came out that people should know his movies always have more layers of meaning and subtext to them. But I am not Romero scholar, so I don't know what to make of the different remarks.

I always assumed Dawn of the Dead remake having fast zombies was either an homage to films like Return of the Living Dead or a response to 28 Days Later. I remember liking it. I haven't seen it in a while though (I saw it when it came out and a few times in the intervening years). I don't get the 9/11 interoperation. That seems like a very wonky way to interpret subtext of zombie locomotion to me. I can see 9/11s influence on things like 24 and the Sopranos, and Harold and Kumar, but not as much on a movie like Dawn of the Dead (maybe the idea of a big disaster having more resonance with audiences but that is about it).