What is it about the older movies that makes them better than the new ones? Is it nostalgia? The fact that only the best movies have survived the test of time?
Or do you disagree? Do you think that old movies are just junk from the past, and love the new ones? Is your attitude "Out with the old, in the with the new?" If so, why?
My personal opinion is that most modern movies don't quite measure up to the older ones, relying more on special effects and violence to impress than a good plot. Don't get me wrong, occasionally you might find a real gem among all the over-hyped movies... but for the most part, you're lucky to find one or two a year.
There were always movies that relied on special effects. Sometimes, they were spectacular (see the silent films
The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari and
Metropolis). Sometimes, they were popular and served as quality escapism or horror (
Vertigo,
The Exorcist). Most often, they were throwaway B-movies, a few of which we remember fondly because they were either wholly self-aware or unintentionally funny. There have always been effects-driven features, and the quality has always varied.
However, one thing I have noticed about older films is that it seems character-driven films were much more popular. Perhaps this is due in part to the limitations placed on special effects, but even the large-scale, big-budget summer blockbusters (
Ben-Hur, for example), were saturated with a constantly-moving plot and constantly-growing characters. Perhaps this is simply because time has filtered out all the worthless pictures, but I think there's a bit more to it than that. As stop-motion, puppetry, and eventually CGI have gotten better, special effects have become a real selling point for almost any movie that aims to be successful. Thus, you get successful but stupid pictures like
Transformers, a movie whose screenplay was so ****ty it would have been on the trash heap in the 50's. Also, as our society has liberalized, we've begun to take a much less mature view of sex and the newest actors often seem to lack even the class of Marylin Monroe. One needs to look no further than Meagan Fox, whose trashy look has for some reason made her quite popular. Sex was treated a bit more maturely in the 70's, when exploitation of sexuality was simply left to pornography, and more nuanced explorations of previously prohibited subject matter were frequent in the film industry. The 50's and 60's (and earlier) were pretty clean for the most part, which is a good thing.
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington did not need a sex scene, whereas they have since become industry standard.
TheGreen has a valid point. I have seen many of those movies, and they're quite good. But I disagree with his assessment that acting, special effects, and writing have improved. In fact, I think special effects have seriously
regressed, to the point that it is now quite easy to separate what is real from what is fake. I much prefer
The Terminator's low-budget stop-motion to the rubbery, too-smooth CGI of modern-day flicks. Come to think of it, I also prefer
Phantom of the Opera and
Metropolis' sheer majesty. The original Star Wars trilogy paints
far more believable landscapes than the cartoony prequels, though
Lord of the Rings balances practical and computer generated effects well. While there are moments of grandeur, special effects are, for the most part, boring and predictable. This is not some bias against CGI--I still love the dinosaurs of
Jurassic Park--but rather its rampant use and the impossibility of perfectly capturing real movement and weight with a computer. It should be used only when necessary.
As for acting and writing, they're different. Oftentimes it's more natural. But it no longer feels like as much of an art, and I miss, for example, James Stewart's enthusiasm and Charlton Heston's intimidating presence. Acting has gained some degree of believability, but it's lost its edge, and as a result films just don't feel quite as well-produced as a result. That's not to say older films lacked in believability, either;
Patton, while perhaps not a perfect simulation, was utterly convincing with its stark environments and larger-than-life characters. As a biopic, I'd say it beats out pretty much any modern film. As a political thriller, the aforementioned
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington still rings truer than anything that's come out in recent memory.
There are peaks and valleys in quality. People have always been hungry for special effects, but I do believe that material originally left to B-movies or pornography or silly exploitation films has leaked into the primary motion picture industry (a phenomenon only partially observable in the 70's) has at times left the story cold. The existence of quality movies in the present does not excuse these bad trends, or somehow mean we've advanced at all.
@TheGreen: Interestingly,
Moon was something of an homage to 70's sci fi films. Watch
Silent Running for an example of what I'm talking about.
