Film "It was groundbreaking when it came out": so what?

OleBoiii

New Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2019
Messages
5,961
The worst thing about watching classic movies like Citizen Kane, Vertigo and 12 Angry Men for the first time as an adult is the inevitable disappointment. All the movies I just mentioned are good movies that I enjoy. But if I compare them to my favorites, then they simply fall short. Now I respect the directors and I know that a lot of my favorite movies have stolen a lot from them. But just because you were the first to invent something, it doesn't mean that it can't be improved. I dislike the notion that if you don't love certain classics, then your tastes are poor. It strikes me as elitist.

Do you agree or I am just a dumb peasant?
 
I agree. You hear it all the time with bands/albums as well. Who gives a shit if this album was the first to do something, if it wasn't that good at doing that thing?
 
OleBoiii said:
The worst thing about watching classic movies like Citizen Kane, Vertigo and 12 Angry Men for the first time as an adult is the inevitable disappointment. All the movies I just mentioned are good movies that I enjoy. But if I compare them to my favorites, then they simply fall short. Now I respect the directors and I know that a lot of my favorite movies have stolen a lot from them. But just because you were the first to invent something, it doesn't mean that it can't be improved. I dislike the notion that if you don't love certain classics, then your tastes are poor. It strikes me as elitist.

Do you agree or I am just a dumb peasant?
Click to expand...

I'd argue that not only did Citizen Kane pioneer depth of field in any meaningful manner, but that it was also (and still is) the greatest use of that technique, regardless of whether it is cinematic antiquity or not.
 
Hoof The Ball said:
I'd argue that not only did Citizen Kane pioneer depth of field in any meaningful manner, but that it was also (and still is) the greatest use of that technique, regardless of whether it is cinematic antiquity or not.
Click to expand...

I have no doubt that some classic films do certain things so well that it stands the test of time and then some. I saw Alien for the first time just 2 years ago, and it blew me away.
 
mariachi-19 said:
Avatar. Most expensive film ever made? never watched it and have no want to watch it. Love James Cameron films, but it feels like this film was merely a gimmick. Nobody talks about it any form of acclaim.
Click to expand...

Avatar is pretty much the opposite of what I'm talking about. Pretty much every movie snob hates it. And with good reason, imo.
 
mariachi-19 said:
Avatar. Most expensive film ever made? never watched it and have no want to watch it. Love James Cameron films, but it feels like this film was merely a gimmick. Nobody talks about it any form of acclaim.
Click to expand...
That's because it was wank. I saw it and can't remember a thing about it.
 
Finally someone says it. I've watched a few classics this year and I much prefer the modern movies. People compare joker to Taxi Driver. I found taxi driver to crap and boring as hell and joker a damn better movie. Platoon and Space odyssey let me down aswel. Thank feck Schindler's list was brilliant. Not groundbreaking, but the way he shot it.
 
Every time I listen to Ed Sheeran I think 'The Beatles were just half arsing it weren't they?'.
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
Every time I listen to Ed Sheeran I think 'The Beatles were just half arsing it weren't they?'.
Click to expand...

I don't know much about music, which is why I gave this a film tag.

But I saw an interesting video essay the other day about how music stands out as the exception. It's hard to argue that things have gotten better when comes to music, apparently. And science seems to back it up.
 
OleBoiii said:
I don't know much about music, which is why I gave this a film tag.

But I saw an interesting video essay the other day about how music stands out as the exception. It's hard to argue that things have gotten better when comes to music, apparently. And science seems to back it up.
Click to expand...
Applying science to art is defeating the point of art.

Tech wise, music hasn't been recorded in higher quality. Film has. I think you mainly like higher quality recording and bigger budgets if you prefer modern film, as that's the big change.
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
I think you mainly like higher quality recording and bigger budgets if you prefer modern film, as that's the big change.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Over the last 20 years or so I've seen creative editing and beautiful cinematography that has very little to do with better tech or higher budgets. At least if you look beyond blockbusters. The same creativity can be seen in writing as well.
 
OleBoiii said:
I disagree. Over the last 20 years or so I've seen creative editing and beautiful cinematography that has very little to do with better tech or higher budgets. At least if you look beyond blockbusters. The same creativity can be seen in writing as well.
Click to expand...
Name names! I'm not gonna judge you. I don't particularly like films...

But others hopefully will.
 
The problem is that it's impossible to experience something the way it was back then, when it was fresh and yet unheard of. There's always a historic element to artistic greatness (or any other example of human inventiveness).

But it's certainly possible to develop an idea/feel for that, although it often takes a bit of effort and some good will.
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
Name names! I'm not gonna judge you. I don't particularly like films...

But others hopefully will.
Click to expand...

I'm about to go to bed so I can't elaborate too much now, but Satoshi Kon(rip) was an absolute genius of a director. He made his mark in late 90s and up until about 2010. Perfect Blue, Millennium Actress and Paprika are a "must watch" for every old movie snob that thinks creativity died before the 2000's.
 
The Beatles are overrated.

If they released the same songs in 2020, they'd be laughed out of the music scene. So why, in an internet era where the entire history of recorded is available at my fingertips, would I want to listen to those scouse cnuts except as a historical curiosity?
 
AaronRedDevil said:
Finally someone says it. I've watched a few classics this year and I much prefer the modern movies. People compare joker to Taxi Driver. I found taxi driver to crap and boring as hell and joker a damn better movie. Platoon and Space odyssey let me down aswel. Thank feck Schindler's list was brilliant. Not groundbreaking, but the way he shot it.
Click to expand...

i don't agree in general, but Taxi driver and Space odyssey i agree with. They were really boring, i don't know how i made it through, especially Taxi driver. I thought barely something was happening, basic stuff. I was waiting for the enlightenment, but nothing happened
 
Dante said:
The Beatles are overrated.

If they released the same songs in 2020, they'd be laughed out of the music scene.
Click to expand...
They wouldn't, because they wouldn't record the same songs the same way in the first place. And they'd use the musical language of 2020 as naturally as they used that of the 50s and 60s.

(In that scenario, the musical language of 2020 would also be different from what we know today, because the original Beatles' influence would be missing.)
Dante said:
So why, in an internet era where the entire history of recorded is available at my fingertips, would I want to listen to those scouse cnuts except as a historical curiosity?
Click to expand...
Depends very much on what you look for in music.
 
Synco said:
They wouldn't, because they wouldn't record the same songs the same way in the first place. And they'd use the musical language of 2020 as naturally as they used that of the 50s and 60s.

(In that scenario, the musical language of 2020 would also be different from what we know today, because the original Beatles' influence would be missing.)

Depends very much on what you look for in music.
Click to expand...
You've completely missed the point.

You're talking about the musicians. I'm talking about the music.
 
Dante said:
You've completely missed the point.

You're talking about the musicians. I'm talking about the music.
Click to expand...
I was talking about the music as well.

It only makes sense to hear it as a product of its time. I tried to explain why I think the scenario that they'd publish the exact same music in 2020 is nonsensical.
 
Synco said:
I was talking about the music as well.

It only makes sense to hear it as a product of its time. I tried to explain why I think the scenario that they'd publish the exact same music in 2020 is nonsensical.
Click to expand...
They are publishing the exact same music in 2020, because it's available to me on multiple streaming platforms.
 
Dante said:
They are publishing the exact same music in 2020, because it's available to me on multiple streaming platforms.
Click to expand...
Yes, but it has a history. That makes all the difference.
 
Synco said:
I was talking about the music as well.

It only makes sense to hear it as a product of its time. I tried to explain why I think the scenario that they'd publish the exact same music in 2020 is nonsensical.
Click to expand...
Agreed. It’s also pointless because it assumes that the original Beatles never would have existed in the 60s and thus never had the influence they did. 2020 music would be so different in that case.
 
Dante said:
So you agree that musically it's lacking, but it has value as a historical curiosity. Which is the point I made in my original post.
Click to expand...
No, it's musically and artistically great, which is the reason it had such a cultural impact.
 
Synco said:
No, it's musically and artistically great, which is the reason it had such a cultural impact.
Click to expand...
Musically and artistically it's simplistic tosh that wouldn't stand up to the standards of the eras that followed.
 
Dante said:
Musically and artistically it's simplistic tosh that wouldn't stand up to the standards of the eras that followed.
Click to expand...
For all I can tell, most of the artists that shaped the following eras would disagree.
 
Florida Man said:
Agreed. It’s also pointless because it assumes that the original Beatles never would have existed in the 60s and thus never had the influence they did. 2020 music would be so different in that case.
Click to expand...
I don't doubt their importance in the evolution of pop. Just as I don't doubt Mister Ed in the evolution of television. But they're both of their time. And in an internet age where all eras are effectively contemporaneous, The Beatles/Mister Ed fall short of the standards of what else is available.
 
There's a small window here where if you play your cards right you can get Dante drunkenly arguing One Direction are the pinnacle of pop music.
 
Dante said:
I don't doubt their importance in the evolution of pop. Just as I don't doubt Mister Ed in the evolution of television. But they're both of their time. And in an internet age where all eras are effectively contemporaneous, The Beatles/Mister Ed fall short of the standards of what else is available.
Click to expand...
Music, at least by good musicians, is a reflection and observation of the time they were in. You can’t judge the musical perspective within the 60s by 2020 standards. One example of that is that the top artists these days are not in your face about LSD use in the ways the 60s were.
 
Florida Man said:
Music, at least by good musicians, is a reflection and observation of the time they were in.
Click to expand...
Yes, and that's why newer music, using advanced methods, isn't simply "better" in the way an improved tool is. This part you talk of is also inevitably lost when society & culture develops further, and it can never happen like that again. (Dante: "Thank God") That's the magic of old music (or whatever cultural item), and I think many people understand & particularly enjoy that.
 
Last edited:
Synco said:
Yes, and that's why newer music, using advanced methods, isn't simply "better" in the way an improved tool is. This part you talk of is also inevitably lost when society & culture develops further, and it can never happen like that again. (Dante: "Thank God") That's the magic of old music (or whatever cultural item), and I think many people understand & particularly enjoy that.
Click to expand...
Part of what you said about tools reminded of similar not totally related, but enough to fit in with the thread. When Daft Punk did Random Access Memories, Thomas used mics from the 60s and 70s for their sound "effect".
 
Florida Man said:
Part of what you said about tools reminded of similar not totally related, but enough to fit in with the thread. When Daft Punk did Random Access Memories, Thomas used mics from the 60s and 70s for their sound "effect".
Click to expand...
Yeah, that happens a lot with vintage instruments and recording equipment. (Another example would be Nashville guitarists' fixation with pre-war Martin guitars.)

Just to expand a bit on RAM (you probably know it): Daft Punk went even further and hired John Robinson & Omar Hakim as drummers for that album. Their career peaks as session players were long over by then - so from that POV there were many "better" options. Or they could have programmed. But they wanted that 70s/80s disco/funk feel, and those guys could deliver it in a way most others couldn't quite have. The musical language thing again. Same with Nile Rodgers.

Musicians in general, any genre, usually have the greatest admiration and awe for the music & musicians that came before them, and created all of what they can now build upon.
 
Last edited:
adexkola said:
"so what if the wheel was groundbreaking when it came out? it's literally a circle"

@OleBoiii
Click to expand...
:lol:

I didn't like Citizen Kane either. And I don't think one has to be forced into liking a song/film that hasn't aged well. However if a work of art has achieved greatness or excellence in its time, that should always stand, mean something and be respected. Being the first to do something well isn't irrelevant as the OP suggests. It's always easier to follow. And the suggestion that the original creators of anything only did it first (and not well) is silly too. For it's time, and compared to their peers that was excellence just like the current lot of best artists/creators would be.
 
Synco said:
They wouldn't, because they wouldn't record the same songs the same way in the first place. And they'd use the musical language of 2020 as naturally as they used that of the 50s and 60s.
Click to expand...
Spot on.

The Beatles music is melodically still excellence and essentially timeless. Of course in terms of nuance, complexity, lyrics etc some of it is weak but it wouldn't be had they existed now.

As for "why should I listen to it?", dont. Listen to whatever you prefer instead. I don't listen to them as much now but appreciate them as a legendary band and enjoy their music when I do hear it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.