|
Post by intrepid37 on Aug 6, 2023 0:08:04 GMT
An entire week of blaxploitation??
Excruciating.
|
|
|
Post by cineclassics on Aug 6, 2023 11:13:23 GMT
My criticism isn't about someone who hasn't seen a particular classic film. There are many popular classics I have yet to see. My issue largely is more concerned with the pattern I see emerging with younger filmmakers and film studies majors who essentially don't even have a rudimentary understanding of Classic Hollywood, or even things prior to the 1990s. For instance, that same Gen-Z filmmaker I referenced, has watched several other classic films on his channel and each time, he admits he doesn't know who any of the actors are and then just laughs and says, "it's from the 1960 guys, so cut me some slack." There is almost a brazen ignorance and lack of curiosity in discovering decades worth of filmmaking. I truly think we could be nearing the demise of legitimate film criticism and film history as we know it. As a film studies major at Chapman University, most of my peers show meager interest in film history before the 1990s, especially studio-era Hollywood. Not only is there a lack of enthusiasm for early film history, but many film studies programs nationwide have casually subsided Hollywood and European cinemas to be more inclusive of other world cinemas.
For example, in one of my lower division courses (Film History - 1959 to Present), we breezed by some of the topmost film movements of the period, notably French New Wave and New Hollywood, and devoted inordinate attention to Hong Kong, Mainland China, Korea, Africa, Mexico, etc. We never discussed Fellini, Bergman, Tarkovsky, Antonioni, Bunuel, or many European auteurs. (Yes, I know these are familiar names, but not mentioning them seems blasphemous, especially to students who have only seen a handful of films before the 1990s.) But an entire week was dedicated to blaxploitation and a black film movement that derived from UCLA in the 1970s called the L.A. Rebellion. My professor spent more time dismissing the auteur theory and pontificating about modern versus postmodern concepts and lionizing culture theorists such as Stuart Hall and bell hooks.
Studying the aforementioned is fascinating and advantageous, but this was a lower-division film history course. Why was it convoluted with pseudo-intellectual nonsense when the attention should be principally on specific filmmakers, film movements, and filmic terms? We have genre-specific courses that provide more intensive studies, especially those related to classical period Hollywood. Still, most students have no interest in films over a half-century old, nor do many display much maturity when watching these older films, as they laugh at things that are not remotely funny. Some of the reactions leave me deplored. Appreciate you providing your experience, and it reinforces exactly what I have feared: the younger generation, even those in film studies, seem to show very little interest in Classic Hollywood. Although, in your example, equal blame should also go towards the professor and the film department at the University. Any film studies major requirements should, at its foundation, teach extensively about the history of cinema. But if we take this to its logical extension, the same group of youngsters now who are obsessed with Quentin Tarantino movies, when they're in their 70s, I predict they'll show a similar concern that we are all expressing now, when the youngest generation in 2050 express their lack of film history curiosity, when an 18 year old says..."I don't want to watch some old movie from 1994 called Pulp Fiction...how could I possibly relate to that?"
|
|
|
Post by Andrea Doria on Aug 6, 2023 11:35:24 GMT
You all are depressing me. Young people study the history of everything from wars to fashion. They have classes touching on the racist, sexist and political attitudes of the past, but apparently no young person is interested in actually seeing the past when we're lucky enough to have it recorded on film.
|
|
|
Post by sepiatone on Aug 6, 2023 15:37:40 GMT
You all are depressing me. Young people study the history of everything from wars to fashion. Wars maybe. Because that's all covered in their school's American history classes. How much "studying" of it they do might just be limited to just enough to pass the class. Not that they all have a driving interest. And I would surmise their interest in fashion history is all for laughs. At how silly the clothes and hair-do's their parents and grandparents wore looked. That was one trick I used to get natural looking smiles from clients as a wedding photographer. I'd tell the wedding party, when all lined up for an after ceremony alter shot; "OK, everybody hold still and try to look your best so that twenty or so years from now your children can look at these photos and laugh at your hair-do's!" Sepiatone
|
|
|
Post by BunnyWhit on Aug 6, 2023 21:53:24 GMT
You all are depressing me. Young people study the history of everything from wars to fashion. Wars maybe. Because that's all covered in their school's American history classes. How much "studying" of it they do might just be limited to just enough to pass the class. Not that they all have a driving interest. And I would surmise their interest in fashion history is all for laughs. At how silly the clothes and hair-do's their parents and grandparents wore looked. That was one trick I used to get natural looking smiles from clients as a wedding photographer. I'd tell the wedding party, when all lined up for an after ceremony alter shot; "OK, everybody hold still and try to look your best so that twenty or so years from now your children can look at these photos and laugh at your hair-do's!" Sepiatone Well..... Having taught English and history courses to undergrads, I can tell you there ain't a hell of a lot of studying going on at all.
|
|
|
Post by intrepid37 on Aug 6, 2023 22:15:05 GMT
I watch movies now that I would never have bothered with before I was 40-50 years old. Most young people aren't interested in old stuff.
As we grow older, we grow in appreciation - it may take till we're in our 60's and 70's before we start enjoying the movies of many decades ago, but it does happen eventually.
There's a reason why TCM is more appealing to the over-40's than to the under-40's, generally speaking.
|
|
|
Post by vannorden on Aug 6, 2023 22:17:40 GMT
An entire week of blaxploitation??
Excruciating. No kidding. The lab portion of the class screened Shaft, which is blaxploitation light, but we received a steady diet of EVERYTHING, from the early Jim Brown "macho" films to The Spook Who Sat by the Door (1973). A week of discussion, peer-reviewed essays, and secondary screenings felt superfluous for a grindhouse subgenre.
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Aug 8, 2023 15:04:11 GMT
I've decided I will wait to watch CASABLANCA from start to finish on my 100th birthday. My birthday is actually this Saturday, but I am only halfway to hundred. So Rick and Ilsa will have to wait awhile for me.
|
|
|
Post by kims on Aug 8, 2023 21:58:01 GMT
Before you give up on CASABLANCA, you know Ilsa dated Rick in Paris. Try fast forwarding when you get to the flashback in Paris. That breaks the action and sometimes seems unnecessary part of the film. The film is full of so many great actors doing their job well to miss. I give highest marks to Claude Raines who has the best lines.
|
|
|
Post by cineclassics on Aug 8, 2023 22:12:53 GMT
Before you give up on CASABLANCA, you know Ilsa dated Rick in Paris. Try fast forwarding when you get to the flashback in Paris. That breaks the action and sometimes seems unnecessary part of the film. The film is full of so many great actors doing their job well to miss. I give highest marks to Claude Raines who has the best lines. DO NOT dare fast forward through the flashback. That is one of the most beautifully rendered examples of depicting love found and love lost. Later in the film, when we see the difficult choices Rick and Ilsa have to make, its has a profound effect on the viewer, largely due to the flashback sequence.
|
|
|
Post by intrepid37 on Aug 8, 2023 23:01:00 GMT
I've decided I will wait to watch CASABLANCA from start to finish on my 100th birthday. My birthday is actually this Saturday, but I am only halfway to hundred. So Rick and Ilsa will have to wait awhile for me. Even though I haven't seen the movie (all of it), I feel like I have.
Not sure I'll ever watch it from start to finish.
|
|
|
Post by gerald424 on Aug 8, 2023 23:02:12 GMT
An entire week of blaxploitation??
Excruciating. Sounds like a heavenly vacation to me.
|
|
|
Post by kims on Aug 8, 2023 23:11:08 GMT
The flashback is beautifully done. For those of us who call CASABLANCA the greatest or favorite film, it's hard to believe anyone could criticize it. I suggested it because my husband lost interest during the flashback. When the flashback was over, he was attentive again.
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Aug 9, 2023 1:02:07 GMT
The flashback is beautifully done. For those of us who call CASABLANCA the greatest or favorite film, it's hard to believe anyone could criticize it. I suggested it because my husband lost interest during the flashback. When the flashback was over, he was attentive again. No film is above the Critic's Law.
LOL
|
|
|
Post by cineclassics on Aug 9, 2023 13:49:18 GMT
The flashback is beautifully done. For those of us who call CASABLANCA the greatest or favorite film, it's hard to believe anyone could criticize it. I suggested it because my husband lost interest during the flashback. When the flashback was over, he was attentive again. From your description, however, it makes it sound as though the flashback is an excessive length. If I recall correctly, I doubt it is any longer than 8-10 minutes.
|
|