Remember that “semi-regular” feature that was supposed to appear on this blog? The one where LeaJo (an old movie novice) and I (an old hand at old movies) watched some old movies from the 30s and 40s and had a conversation about them and posted it as a dialogue on the blog? First there was the intro dialogue and then the Maltese Falcon dialogue. Remember? Well, I wouldn’t blame you if you didn’t, since that last post was about a million years ago. What have we been up to? Have we abandoned the experiment?
Well, the short answer is yes. The long answer is that we gave it another go and pretty much my whole experiment blew up in my face. To explain: We did in fact watch another old movie, this time Hitchcock’s Rebecca, and started to have a conversation about it. But then that nagging feeling in the ol’ gut – the one telling me that this wasn’t working, that LeaJo just wasn’t interested and probably never would be – that nagging feeling got verbal confirmation from LeaJo herself. It kinda exploded its way into our struggling dialogue about Rebecca, and suddenly I realized that my whole experiment as the Dr. Frankenstein of movies, the demented doctor who tried to raise a full-blown cinephile to life out of your typical, average movie-goer, just wasn’t gonna fly.
So, here’s the final Old Movie Dialogue, at least for the foreseeable future.
The Derelict:
Last time, you said you wanted to watch Casablanca, but since then, when we sat down to watch an old movie, you chose Rebecca. Why? What made you choose Rebecca over Casablanca? Was it the name Hitchcock? Were you intrigued by the names of the lead actors (Joan Fontaine, Laurence Olivier)? Was it the plot description, the genre, the name? I think it might be interesting to discuss how we choose what we want to watch. For instance, how did you choose to watch Rebecca, and how was that process similar or different from how you choose to watch any (modern) movie?
LeaJo:
Well I remember you had a lot of movies to choose from that night. The truth is I didn't really want to watch an old movie that night, but I decided to throw you a bone So I wasn't really too excited for any movie to watch but for some reason as soon as you described Rebecca, that was the movie I knew I wanted to watch. Really, I was just in the mood for a creepy movie. And it was Hitchcock who I know I've liked in the past.
TD:
So it was the Hitchcock name and the genre that attracted you? Would you say that you make similar decisions for watching current movies? Like, you choose a movie based on genre and/or director?
LJ:
Yeah. And it's weird, because I typically hate scary movies because of the scary, but I knew that Hitchcock never really scares me too much, so I don't know, I guess I just wanted to watch a more "serious" movie since most of the movies you brought were comedies. But I would say that most of my decisions today are based on genre and director definitely. Probably genre more so than director. But I did see Children of Men basically just because of Alfonso Cuaron. Otherwise, I don't think I would have ever seen that movie. It's not a genre I typically go for.
TD:
Do you think a Hitchcock movie was attractive because of the past films by him that you've seen, or that his name is generally recognized with quality, or that his name is generally recognized as "important", or some combination thereof?
LJ:
I think it was mostly because I really, really liked Rear Window A LOT and Psycho and The Birds scared the crap out of me as a kid so it was mostly just that I liked his previous movies I had seen. I mean, I know that his name is recognized as "important" and so I kind of assumed this movie would be good anyways. Also, didn't you say it won best picture?
TD:
Yes I did! So when we started watching it, what were your impressions, because it doesn't start out right away as a conventional thriller.
LJ:
Yeah. That’s true. It started off kind of slow, but I still liked it because I felt like as the movie went on the tension was just building and building. So even in the beginning when it was just them meeting each other and driving around, I still thought the whole thing was kind of mysterious. I was just waiting to get to the really creepy stuff.
TD:
Were you at all interested in the romance at the beginning, like, were you totally hoping Joan Fontaine's character would end up with Maxim and stick it to the old bag she was working for? In a lot of ways, I totally love the first section of the film 'cause it's kinda funny and cutely romantic.
LJ:
Ha! Actually, no. I was very distrusting of Maxim the whole movie until he admits the truth about what happened and tells her that he really does love her (aw). And then I was totally all about the romance and I was SO happy that he didn't get arrested and go to jail because then they would be together forever (again...aw). I thought he was kind of creepy in the beginning.
TD:
Wow, we are totally on different wavelengths tonight! I mean, I always felt Maxim had some deep dark secret, but I thought he was kinda awesome in the beginning, Joan Fontaine's knight in shinning armor kinda thing. He only gets creepier when they're finally married and he turns all moody. But, I guess you had a better read on him the first time you saw the movie than I did! Did you think the movie was funny (and not in an unintentional sort of way)?
LJ:
The beginning I remember being kind of funny, but otherwise no, I don't really remember it being funny.
TD:
I mean, did YOU find the stuff at the beginning funny, 'cause it definitely was meant to have a humorous edge, but sometimes with old movies I think comedy doesn't translate as well to a modern audience.
LJ:
Sorry, I really don't remember. I'm thinking I didn't really find it that funny. I do remember thinking the lady she was working for was funny in a 'wow she's ridiculous' kind of way, but otherwise, I'm not really remembering finding it that funny.
TD:
Well, it's not uproariously hilarious or anything, but I've always kinda thought the old lady she worked for was, as you say, ridiculously rude and I enjoyed watching her think she was all awesome, only to be upstaged and humiliated by her employed servant -- I loved the comeuppance.
LJ:
Yeah, that part was good.
TD:
Were you surprised by the lightness of tone at the beginning?
LJ:
I don't know. I guess I was a little bit especially because they started the movie off with the creepy house and the weird dialogue over it. But most movies like this start off kind of light at first and then go into the creepy as it goes on, so it wasn't really that surprising to me.
TD:
You know, as we continue to talk about the movie, it's kinda weird for me 'cause you've only seen it once and are having a hard time remembering stuff, and I feel like I could probably write a fairly accurate script of the film (minus most of the dialogue) right now! It's weird to talk about a film I've seen a million times with someone who's only seen it once. On that score, do you think you'd ever like to watch Rebecca again? I think we might have talked about this regarding Maltese Falcon and you said it's not a movie you were dying to see again, so I wonder if your reaction is different for Rebecca?
LJ:
Yeah. I would like to see Rebecca again. I'm not really jonesin’ for a second viewing or anything. But you're right. It's hard to remember everything on just one viewing (sorry). And I did really like the movie enough to want to experience it again.
TD:
Can you remember any favorite scenes?
LJ:
Yeah...the only scene I can remember as a favorite was that one with the creepy housekeeper lady who I can't remember her name. When she was in Rebecca's old room and talking about all her things like her brush and her pillow and she was getting all up in Mrs. DeWinter's face – oh dude.... that scene was free-kay!
TD:
Mrs. Danvers! She so crazy!
LJ:
That’s really the only scene that has stuck with me. SHE WAS SO SCARY!!!!
TD:
Heh. She was definitely scary. Were there any scenes, or aspects of the film that you felt didn't work, or that you disliked?
LJ:
You know... I can't really answer that question. I'm drowning here! I CAN'T REMEMBER! I'm so sorry, but this just isn't really working. I can barely remember any specific scenes at all so I have no idea about how to answer that question truthfully. I feel really bad because I want to answer these questions but I'm just doing such a horrible job at it and I'm getting kind of frustrated. Sorry...breakdown over.
TD:
Heh, that's okay, maybe we can shift the focus away from Rebecca -- we'll do Old Movie Dialogue – Digression! 'So, you were talking about (in an earlier conversation) why you're willing to watch these movies with me and you mentioned that it was because you felt you had to (since they're part of the larger cinema/media culture). Well... how would you feel about our little project/experiment if I said we could only watch non-canonical movies, do you think you'd still be willing to go along? Like, no Casablanca, and no Hitchcock for you! Only random 30s weepies and dated and forgotten comedies from the 40s!
LJ:
Uh...I guess I wouldn't really mind. Truthfully, if it's an old movie, I'll probably think it's "important" no matter what it is. So whatever old movie you want to show me, I won't be too picky. I would rather watch a more famous movie, just so I can feel like I'm learning the history, but again...not that picky.
TD:
Well, I'm actually being a little deliberately provocative right now, 'cause I'm interested in, as you know, why and how old movies find a new audience, but I'm also really interested in old movies not as being canonical (though I am interested in that as well) but as simply movies like any other kind, with the goods and the bads and the averages and mediocres, etc. Do you think you're interested in old movies beyond their quality of being "important"? I mean, Casablanca is, as you've mentioned, "essential" but Waterloo Bridge (1940 version) is not. I think I'm getting to the point now where old movies have taken on a life of their own in my life; I'm not simply watching the comfortable old standbys, the Bringing Up Babys and the Notoriouses and the Swing Times -- now I'm watching fairly obscure Jean Arthur movies and random Bette Davis stuff, and rather pedestrian films like this average comedy/romance with Olivia De Havilland (My Love Came Back, dir. Curtis Bernhardt, 1940). How far do you think I can take this old movie thing with you? Is it really just a matter or your acquiescing in order to please me, or is there really an interest, any at all, on your part? Would you really not care if I selected a film like Hollywood Canteen, a movie that is nowhere near being a classic, except for in terms of its being old?
LJ:
I wouldn't care that much, but the truth? The real truth? Is that I'm mostly just doing it to please you. I don't really have much of a desire to watch any of these movies. And maybe it's just because I'm in school right now and movies of any kind haven't really been interesting me lately, but while I do feel like I should watch Casablanca, etc in order to be more "cultured" I don't really care much one way or the other if I do or not. It's not that I think I won't like them either. I bet I would like them. I have nothing against them personally. I just don't really have much of a burning desire to go there. It's just not very important to me right now.
TD:
That's it! That's what I’ve been waiting to hear. I had a feeling you felt this way but you were reluctant to tell me. I hope you don't mind, but this is exactly the thing I'm fascinated by: Why me? Why these movies? And why not you? And why not so many others? Obviously, I'm overstating things a little bit (heh, A LOT), but I get the sense that old movies won't mean a hill of beans fifty years from now -- yeah, maybe Casablanca will still have a reputation as being a "classic", and Citizen Kane, and a few others, but who will have actually watched these movies? Who besides the usual film geeks and oldsters? And even when I was studying film in college, I got the distinct impression (and maybe I'm off base and my observations are bunk), but I got the distinct impression that most of my fellow students weren't all that curious or interested in old movies other than the canonical ones being shown in class -- and even then there was a sort of backlash mentality that movies like Citizen Kane, “yeah, yeah it was groundbreaking or whatever, but it's kinda boring, sorta slow,” etc. Same with Casablanca, or Maltese Falcon -- “yeah, they were good, but not THAT good." Why have these films failed to hold on to their large popular audience? Is it media saturation? Is it that movies are just dispensable art anyway and not meant to stand the test of time the way a book or a poem does?
LJ:
I don't know. Why do you think that is?
TD:
Movies as an art form are still popular, sure, but I feel like old movies are going the way of comics -- a niche art where only the cultish few reside. Why? I think it's because maybe these movies really aren't that important, maybe film is just too disposable to be a lasting art form. Old movies aren’t watched in ordinary grade school the way classic literature is read there, and frankly, I think it's a sign of sterility to have these movies placed in a classroom for study. So how do you get people interested? Is studying these films in school the answer? It might make them into chores instead of entertainments (as I think they've become for you, with me forcing you to watch them). See, that's the thing I'm fascinated by, nobody forced me to watch these old movies -- yeah, my mom would watch and encourage me to watch with her, but I made the choice to stay on the couch and keep watching. That's why I'm so encouraged by Danny watching Rebecca with us, and The Heiress with me a few months ago -- I never made him watch, he sat down of his own volition and kept watching!
LJ:
You make some good points here and you are right with the fact that sometimes I get annoyed that you are forcing these movies on me. I still enjoy them anyways, but yeah.... it’s a bit annoying, heh. But anyways, I really just think that movies just aren't really that important. Like, who cares if people forget about Waterloo Bridge or whatever other movie? What's going to happen if they're forgotten? Nothing. Most movies have a short shelf life. I know all of the movies that I like, I'll remember and pass on to future generations, but all of the older movies I've never seen? Who cares?
TD:
Yes! Exactly! That's the question. We pass on the ones we like, but what if nobody wants to have things passed to them? I mean, I could rant and rave till the cows come home about how awesomely funny Ball of Fire is, or how weird and cool films like Murder My Sweet and The Big Sleep are, but the act of experiencing a work of art still requires consent of the will at some point -- at some point you have to take up your friend/relative/coworker/classmate's suggestion and read the book or watch the movie, as the case may be. The Passion of Joan of Arc (Dreyer, 1928) is one of my favorites. I think it's a serious, important, beautiful work of art, and yet who will have seen it fifty years from now? Film students? Cinema geeks? Who has even seen it NOW? Not many, I’m sure. So yeah, Waterloo Bridge (1940) is a beautiful, heartbreaking film, but only those of us who have seen it and loved it will know that secret -- the world can hardly miss what it doesn't remember, but I think what irks me is that I'll know it, I'll know that others are missing out (at least they'll remember it in China!). So will the world really lose anything if nobody (or only a very few people) has seen Swing Time? Heck, that's the world we live in now, for the most part, since most people only watch the shows and movies that are current, that are readily and easily available.
LJ:
Well...you kind of just said it. What will the world really lose? Not much if you ask me. And maybe that's a horrible sentiment, but people shouldn't be forced to believe certain things are good or "classics" when they don't believe. And I know you LOVE The Passion of Joan of Arc, but am I really going to be a different person if I do or do not see it? How will it be important to me to see that film? Really, art that I like, movies I like, music I like shape who I am. They are all important to me...I don't feel like I really need to experience "the classics" to like, fulfill my life or anything. I'm perfectly content with exploring things on my own. And if someone comes along and tells me that there's a really great movie I should watch or there's an awesome book I should read, I'll consider it. I just don't like being forced into doing something because it tends to bring out more negative feelings towards whatever it is I'm experiencing. Wow...rant over.
TD:
To answer your question about Passion of Joan of Arc, I guess it depends, but I was a different person after seeing it, just as I was a different, better person after seeing the Sistine Chapel. But of course, we all experience art differently, even if something is canonical it doesn't mean a person HAS to like it -- it's not like an article of faith or something, some thing you have to believe or anything. But... I have a lot of sympathy with your view, especially regarding being "told" what to watch/read/listen to/etc. I think my concern is that older works of art tend to be dismissed simply because they're old -- people don't have time to delve into the past, especially when they have a lot of great stuff staring them in the face right now -- I get that, I really do understand that sentiment. But, don't you think it would be a pretty sad world if the LOTR movies, which you and I both love, didn't exist? Don't you think it would suck if fifty years from now nobody ever watched those films except for a few geeks and fan boys? I dunno, I think that would suck.
LJ:
Yeah, I guess that would suck, but at the same time, I don't think that I will ever forget those movies, and I'll try to pass them down to my kids. But I guess I do see where you're coming from. Most people don't have time to watch movies or television anyways and if they're going to, they're not going to go seek out some obscure movie from the 40s. They’re going to go towards movies nowadays. I think your concern is valid, but I don't really know if there's anything we can do about it. How could you fix it? I don't think you can.
TD:
Yeah, I'm afraid I can't fix anything, and even Turner Classic Movies, which I think is the coolest channel to ever exist in the history of television, which is really trying to preach the old movie gospel and evangelize the masses, can't really do much more than satisfy the yearnings of cinema nerds and old people -- it's like, I don't think you can make someone into a cinephile, even if you expose them to these movies. I'm depressed by that thought, but what can you do? I guess I was delusional to think it would happen in the first place.
LJ:
Well, I understand now why you want me to watch these movies with you, because you want to pass them on to someone. But I just don't think I'll ever be as into them as you. I may watch the 'classics', but I'm not going to start seeking out all of the other movies from those eras. I just don't want you to get your hopes up!
TD:
No, and don't worry, I'm not going to nag you anymore! I think it's a human yearning, though, to want to not just experience art, but to share it -- I mean, it's great and all watching BSG (Battlestar Galactica), but I'd go crazy if I couldn't talk about it. And other than the occasional conversations with my Grandma, I don't really talk about old movies too much. I write about them, and I blog about them, but it's not the same thing as an actual face-to-face conversation.
LJ:
Oh yeah, I totally agree. And don't feel bad about nagging me...it's all good. After all, I nagged at you for a bit about BSG so I've been on the other side as well.
TD:
Well, I just think I don't like the system I've developed, this kind of annoying begging that I feel that I'm doing – “Hey LeaJo, hey! Let’s watch this movie! Or this one! Come on! Please! Pretty please! I promise you’ll love it!” – it’s not how one should engage art, you shouldn't have to feel it's being forced on you, because, as you said, it only creates resentment or hostility or a position of skepticism on the part of the person being forced. Cinema, the whole scope of it, the enjoyment of the whole breadth and history of it, is, I guess, a rather cultish, clubby kinda thing -- it's just not going to be mainstream. Out with the old and in with the new, I suppose. Sigh.
LJ:
Yeah, I guess. Is there anything else you want to ask me?
TD:
No not really. Unless you have another rant waiting for me. ;)
LJ:
Heh. No.
TD:
You did totally unload up there earlier, about Le Passion and old movies and stuff.
LJ:
Ha! Dude, I so totally did and I knew it too, and I was just like, “Screw it. I’m gonna be a bitch!” And I was too.
TD:
But it was awesomely bitchy, I enjoyed it.
LJ:
Thanks!
TD:
Thanks for your honesty. By the way, what grade would you give Rebecca?
LJ:
Well, I thought it was really good, so probably an A- or B+.
TD:
Awesome.
One final note: I’m really, I dunno, disturbed by the fact that movies are so disposable. It was something I’d been thinking about for a long time actually, in relation to old movies, to movies in general, to movies as art vs. movies as cheap, quick entertainment – but to have it articulated by LeaJo in our conversation was what really got me. I’m not really sure where I’m going with this, but I just wanted to highlight this portion of our conversation. Movies are pop art, for the most part, and I guess it’s to be expected that pop art will have a short shelf life, whether it’s a catchy tune on the radio, a TV show, or a movie. I would like to think that certain movies will last in some form two hundred or three hundred years from now, the way great literature of the past has lasted into our own century, but maybe that’s expecting too much. Anyway, this is it for my great experiment in old movie appreciation.
Showing posts with label old movie dialogue. Show all posts
Showing posts with label old movie dialogue. Show all posts
Saturday, March 03, 2007
Saturday, October 21, 2006
Old Movie Dialogue – The Maltese Falcon (John Huston, 1941; The Derelict: A, LeaJo: B+)
Part II
The Derelict:
So what did you think of Maltese Falcon?
LeaJo:
Well, I liked it! I thought it was a good movie and it was entertaining. It wasn't really what I expected it to be though. I thought there was going to be a lot more action and mystery, but the whole thing felt a little bit more subdued compared to the other mystery movies I'm familiar with. I also thought it was a bit boring at times though. There was a ton of exposition that would go on for long periods of time and I kind of just wanted them to SHOW me what was going on, not just tell me everything. I also liked the ending when Sam turned the girl in, but I was sort of expecting there to be a bigger twist in the end. I don't know why, I just thought there would be more to the story with the actual falcon, but I guess it just wasn't that kind of movie.
TD:
Yeah, like were you waiting for a flashback or something to explain the bird's origin?
LJ:
Yeah, maybe. Except that might seem sort of out of place in the movie. So I don't really know how they could have fixed that scene with Gutman telling the history of the falcon because it seemed to go on FOREVER. Although I did like listening to that actor talk. He was kind of awesome!
TD:
Yes! And for me (and I think other fans of this movie) that was the point. The bird is the macguffin, it's just an excuse to hear Sidney Greenstreet say lines. And to have Bogie act like a bad ass. Did you read the Ebert review?
LJ:
Well, I did enjoy watching the actors. Yeah, I read the review. He said everything you said. There was a lot of talk about how it was such a great movie because it was the first noir and it launched the careers of Humphrey Bogart and Sidney Greenstreet and Peter Lorre and I totally understand what he was saying, but I don't really have a particular connection to any of these actors so while I think they're good and they were very enjoyable to watch, that didn't really make me love the movie more. Same thing with it being the first noir. I've seen movies that are sort of similar to this and Sam Spade is a character type I've seen before so it wasn't really all that "fresh" to me. Maybe that's why I wasn't that impressed with it. It was good, but it wasn't anything all that special. At least to me.
TD:
That's interesting about you liking the characters a lot, but not liking the movie as much. I think Maltese Falcon is all about character, as you know, so the characters ARE the movie for me. And I first saw Lorre and Greenstreet in Casablanca where their roles are much smaller, but I thought they were great. But Maltese Falcon really made me fall in love with them as character actors.
LJ:
I had never seen a movie with any of these actors before so it was all new to me. I think my favorite was Cairo. I thought Peter Lorre was really funny and the character was interesting to me. I didn't particularly like Gutman, but I liked the way Greenstreet sort of, I don't know, strutted about. I also loved it when he laughed. As for Sam Spade? You know, the more I think about it, the more I realize that maybe I didn't really like the character that much. He really is an anti-hero in every sense of the word. So even though he was funny and charming and kick-ass, he was also mean and I didn't really respond to that very well. Except at the end. In that one shot I was talking about [n.b.: the shot where Spade is in the frame but Brigid is crying and speaking just outside of the frame; Spade seems to be displaying regret, sadness, etc. about turning her in]. He finally showed his true emotions and I felt really bad for him. That was probably my favorite part of the movie.
TD:
Yeah, and I think that's why this movie is often considered the first film noir, because Spade is kind of a jerk-hole and he's only heroic because he turns the crooks in at the end. Film noir, after all, is characterized, among other things, for having very morally ambiguous characters who are the main protagonists. So do you think that not being able to like the Sam Spade character meant that you were more focused on plot and therefore disappointed because the plot was just an excuse to see Spade out-smart everybody?
LJ:
I think you hit it right on the head. I think that's exactly why I was sort of disappointed with the plot. Because on the one hand, it was fun to watch Spade, but throughout the movie I wasn't really trying to focus on him all that much. I was busy focusing on what was going to happen in the plot (and also trying to figure out how everyone was connected...it was a little confusing). So at the end I was sort of like, "oh, that's it?" I didn't really want Spade to turn in Cairo and Gutman. I wanted them to go on their adventure to Istanbul. You know, I wonder if I saw this movie again, knowing how it ends, if I would enjoy it more. Being able to pay attention to the characters and their interactions instead of the mystery.
TD:
Well, I was reading some comments at the IMDB message boards for this movie (after we had our conversation yesterday) and many people said that it took them a second viewing (or more) before they really fell in love with the movie. Some people even said they hated the movie the first time they saw it but loved it the second time. Actually, this was kind of my experience as well. I first saw this film in an early 100-level film class and I liked it but was very confused by it. But I liked it mostly for its atmosphere (Ebert mentions this point too, I think, about the atmosphere), the whole private eye thing, all 1940s with cigarette smoke everywhere and mysterious Far East adventures just off in the horizon... But in subsequent viewings on tv (thank you TCM) I really came to love the movie because I was able to finally understand all the dialogue and pay attention to little details of character and acting that I couldn't pick up the first time because I WAS paying so much attention to the plot. The Maltese Falcon: How I learned to stop worrying about plot and love the dialogue.
LJ:
Hee! Yeah...I can totally see my opinion being changed the second time I saw it. Just look at my experience with Gone With the Wind. Don't know that I'll ever see the Maltese Falcon again, but I guess it's something to think about. And remember, I did like it, I just didn't love it like a lot of people seem to do.
TD:
Well, I was wondering what your general opinion about dialogue is? Because this film is so dialogue-heavy, and the dialogue is so great, even the expository stuff is fantastic and fun to listen to (at least for me and other big fans of the movie), but do you as a movie viewer find dialogue interesting? Do you pay a lot of attention to dialogue in the movies you watch? What kind of dialogue do you prefer (if any)? I ask these questions because I think a lot of great old movies have a lot of great dialogue, and that's one of their virtues. "High pants, fast talkers" isn't just a Family Guy joke, it's a real comment on films from the 30s and 40s and the fast-paced dialogue is one of the reasons, in my opinion, why the films have such charm. I wonder if not being as receptive to dialogue in general translates into finding it harder to "get into" old movies.
LJ:
Geez. These are hard questions. Hm, well, I guess I've never really thought about dialogue too much in the past. Like, I'm not really sure what your question is. Because every movie has dialogue so how could I not like it? Do you mean, do I prefer talking to action?
TD:
No, not really that. I mean, do you have an ear for dialogue? Are you pleased by an especially witty turn of phrase from a character? Do you love a movie more because it’s got such great lines? For instance, on the cheesy AFI 100 Greatest Movie Lines, nearly eight or nine lines came from Casablanca, and probably five came from Gone with the Wind. These great lines are part of the reason why I love those films. But I wonder if it's hard for younger people today to get into old movies because they're not as tuned into listening for fast paced, witty dialogue. Because of contemporary cinema's reliance on special effects, often the lines of movies can get away with being pedestrian. I wonder... I'm not talking about either/or. Just more of a "taste." Like, I have a taste for musicals and I like really inventive dance numbers. I look for those in my musicals. I also love great dialogue and I listen for it in my movies.
LJ:
You know, I totally agree with that. I like witty dialogue, but you know, when you think about it, most of the awesome movie lines that people quote all the time are from old movies. So I can see that people my age might not really care much at all for the cool lines in Maltese Falcon because a lot of contemporary movies are so visual. But to answer your question specifically, I do like great lines especially if it has great line delivery. If I know a favorite line of mine is coming up in a movie I love, I get really excited! The thing about the Maltese Falcon however is that most of the time they talked so fast, the lines never really struck me at all. Except "the stuff that dreams are made of". That's a good line. Which has nothing to do with the name of our blog of course.
TD:
Now you know all my secrets.
LJ:
I still say to this day that "well, well, well....Lupin...out for a walk....in the moonlight?" is one of the greatest lines of all time. Sorry, that was random... but slightly on topic.
TD:
Yes, definitely on topic. And I think a good illustration of my point. You know how much I love that line, but it does have a lot to do with the delivery and the context of the scene. It’s Alan Rickman’s way of saying the line that makes it so great. Taken out of context it's almost meaningless to those who aren't familiar with Prisoner of Azkaban. But a line like: "I hope they don't hang you, precious, by that sweet neck... The chances are you'll get off with life. That means if you're a good girl, you'll be out in 20 years. I'll be waiting for you. If they hang you, I'll always remember you.” That's a great line even out of context (though of course, in context it's even better). A lot of movie dialogue today doesn't have that same sharpness, it doesn't crackle the way old movie dialogue does. There are still plenty of great lines, but they're of a different sort. Not as witty, I guess. Or as poetic.
LJ:
And you know this brings me back to what we were talking about yesterday...it's because no one actually talks the way people in these old movies do. It's why the lines are so awesome, because they are so obviously scripted to sound awesome.
TD:
Yes!
LJ:
It's not realistic, but it's cool nonetheless.
TD:
But for a lot of people these old movies come off as cheesy for the exact same reason. Because movies today are almost always "realistic" in a stylistic sense people aren't used to seeing and hearing the more artificial, mannered speech and actions of the old movies.
LJ:
Oh yeah totally. I have to admit...I thought the dialogue in Gone With the Wind was really cheesy, but I didn't really let it bother me. As soon as I just let myself go with the flow, I found Scarlet's ravings to be quite entertaining and enjoyable. I mean, who talks like Sam Spade? No one! But I bet people wish they could talk like that.
TD:
Yes. So, what are your impressions about old movies now having seen and discussed Maltese Falcon? Are you curious to watch more old movies? And if so, are there any movies that you feel you'd like to watch, or, perhaps, you feel you have to watch?
LJ:
Ok, you're going to have a heart attack when I say this, but I think I need to watch Casablanca. It sounds even better than Maltese Falcon, and I guess it's one of those "classics" that everyone talks about that I really should just get around to seeing. My impressions? Hm…well, I don't know if my impressions really changed. I never thought that old movies were bad and I still don't. Maltese Falcon was good, and I'm sure there are a lot more movies like it that I would really enjoy if I went looking for them, but....I probably won't go looking for them. I may just continue to rely on you to "expose" me to the good stuff. I liked the movie, but I can't really see myself becoming as interested as you are now. It may take a while for me to get to your level.
TD:
Well, I'm not sure anyone is at my level. You've met me. I'm crazy.
LJ:
True. You're insane. I guess what I meant was that you started watching old movies and you became interested in them so you began to actively seek them out. I'm not there yet.
TD:
Well, let's try for Casablanca next time and we'll see what happens!
The Derelict:
So what did you think of Maltese Falcon?
LeaJo:
Well, I liked it! I thought it was a good movie and it was entertaining. It wasn't really what I expected it to be though. I thought there was going to be a lot more action and mystery, but the whole thing felt a little bit more subdued compared to the other mystery movies I'm familiar with. I also thought it was a bit boring at times though. There was a ton of exposition that would go on for long periods of time and I kind of just wanted them to SHOW me what was going on, not just tell me everything. I also liked the ending when Sam turned the girl in, but I was sort of expecting there to be a bigger twist in the end. I don't know why, I just thought there would be more to the story with the actual falcon, but I guess it just wasn't that kind of movie.
TD:
Yeah, like were you waiting for a flashback or something to explain the bird's origin?
LJ:
Yeah, maybe. Except that might seem sort of out of place in the movie. So I don't really know how they could have fixed that scene with Gutman telling the history of the falcon because it seemed to go on FOREVER. Although I did like listening to that actor talk. He was kind of awesome!
TD:
Yes! And for me (and I think other fans of this movie) that was the point. The bird is the macguffin, it's just an excuse to hear Sidney Greenstreet say lines. And to have Bogie act like a bad ass. Did you read the Ebert review?
LJ:
Well, I did enjoy watching the actors. Yeah, I read the review. He said everything you said. There was a lot of talk about how it was such a great movie because it was the first noir and it launched the careers of Humphrey Bogart and Sidney Greenstreet and Peter Lorre and I totally understand what he was saying, but I don't really have a particular connection to any of these actors so while I think they're good and they were very enjoyable to watch, that didn't really make me love the movie more. Same thing with it being the first noir. I've seen movies that are sort of similar to this and Sam Spade is a character type I've seen before so it wasn't really all that "fresh" to me. Maybe that's why I wasn't that impressed with it. It was good, but it wasn't anything all that special. At least to me.
TD:
That's interesting about you liking the characters a lot, but not liking the movie as much. I think Maltese Falcon is all about character, as you know, so the characters ARE the movie for me. And I first saw Lorre and Greenstreet in Casablanca where their roles are much smaller, but I thought they were great. But Maltese Falcon really made me fall in love with them as character actors.
LJ:
I had never seen a movie with any of these actors before so it was all new to me. I think my favorite was Cairo. I thought Peter Lorre was really funny and the character was interesting to me. I didn't particularly like Gutman, but I liked the way Greenstreet sort of, I don't know, strutted about. I also loved it when he laughed. As for Sam Spade? You know, the more I think about it, the more I realize that maybe I didn't really like the character that much. He really is an anti-hero in every sense of the word. So even though he was funny and charming and kick-ass, he was also mean and I didn't really respond to that very well. Except at the end. In that one shot I was talking about [n.b.: the shot where Spade is in the frame but Brigid is crying and speaking just outside of the frame; Spade seems to be displaying regret, sadness, etc. about turning her in]. He finally showed his true emotions and I felt really bad for him. That was probably my favorite part of the movie.
TD:
Yeah, and I think that's why this movie is often considered the first film noir, because Spade is kind of a jerk-hole and he's only heroic because he turns the crooks in at the end. Film noir, after all, is characterized, among other things, for having very morally ambiguous characters who are the main protagonists. So do you think that not being able to like the Sam Spade character meant that you were more focused on plot and therefore disappointed because the plot was just an excuse to see Spade out-smart everybody?
LJ:
I think you hit it right on the head. I think that's exactly why I was sort of disappointed with the plot. Because on the one hand, it was fun to watch Spade, but throughout the movie I wasn't really trying to focus on him all that much. I was busy focusing on what was going to happen in the plot (and also trying to figure out how everyone was connected...it was a little confusing). So at the end I was sort of like, "oh, that's it?" I didn't really want Spade to turn in Cairo and Gutman. I wanted them to go on their adventure to Istanbul. You know, I wonder if I saw this movie again, knowing how it ends, if I would enjoy it more. Being able to pay attention to the characters and their interactions instead of the mystery.
TD:
Well, I was reading some comments at the IMDB message boards for this movie (after we had our conversation yesterday) and many people said that it took them a second viewing (or more) before they really fell in love with the movie. Some people even said they hated the movie the first time they saw it but loved it the second time. Actually, this was kind of my experience as well. I first saw this film in an early 100-level film class and I liked it but was very confused by it. But I liked it mostly for its atmosphere (Ebert mentions this point too, I think, about the atmosphere), the whole private eye thing, all 1940s with cigarette smoke everywhere and mysterious Far East adventures just off in the horizon... But in subsequent viewings on tv (thank you TCM) I really came to love the movie because I was able to finally understand all the dialogue and pay attention to little details of character and acting that I couldn't pick up the first time because I WAS paying so much attention to the plot. The Maltese Falcon: How I learned to stop worrying about plot and love the dialogue.
LJ:
Hee! Yeah...I can totally see my opinion being changed the second time I saw it. Just look at my experience with Gone With the Wind. Don't know that I'll ever see the Maltese Falcon again, but I guess it's something to think about. And remember, I did like it, I just didn't love it like a lot of people seem to do.
TD:
Well, I was wondering what your general opinion about dialogue is? Because this film is so dialogue-heavy, and the dialogue is so great, even the expository stuff is fantastic and fun to listen to (at least for me and other big fans of the movie), but do you as a movie viewer find dialogue interesting? Do you pay a lot of attention to dialogue in the movies you watch? What kind of dialogue do you prefer (if any)? I ask these questions because I think a lot of great old movies have a lot of great dialogue, and that's one of their virtues. "High pants, fast talkers" isn't just a Family Guy joke, it's a real comment on films from the 30s and 40s and the fast-paced dialogue is one of the reasons, in my opinion, why the films have such charm. I wonder if not being as receptive to dialogue in general translates into finding it harder to "get into" old movies.
LJ:
Geez. These are hard questions. Hm, well, I guess I've never really thought about dialogue too much in the past. Like, I'm not really sure what your question is. Because every movie has dialogue so how could I not like it? Do you mean, do I prefer talking to action?
TD:
No, not really that. I mean, do you have an ear for dialogue? Are you pleased by an especially witty turn of phrase from a character? Do you love a movie more because it’s got such great lines? For instance, on the cheesy AFI 100 Greatest Movie Lines, nearly eight or nine lines came from Casablanca, and probably five came from Gone with the Wind. These great lines are part of the reason why I love those films. But I wonder if it's hard for younger people today to get into old movies because they're not as tuned into listening for fast paced, witty dialogue. Because of contemporary cinema's reliance on special effects, often the lines of movies can get away with being pedestrian. I wonder... I'm not talking about either/or. Just more of a "taste." Like, I have a taste for musicals and I like really inventive dance numbers. I look for those in my musicals. I also love great dialogue and I listen for it in my movies.
LJ:
You know, I totally agree with that. I like witty dialogue, but you know, when you think about it, most of the awesome movie lines that people quote all the time are from old movies. So I can see that people my age might not really care much at all for the cool lines in Maltese Falcon because a lot of contemporary movies are so visual. But to answer your question specifically, I do like great lines especially if it has great line delivery. If I know a favorite line of mine is coming up in a movie I love, I get really excited! The thing about the Maltese Falcon however is that most of the time they talked so fast, the lines never really struck me at all. Except "the stuff that dreams are made of". That's a good line. Which has nothing to do with the name of our blog of course.
TD:
Now you know all my secrets.
LJ:
I still say to this day that "well, well, well....Lupin...out for a walk....in the moonlight?" is one of the greatest lines of all time. Sorry, that was random... but slightly on topic.
TD:
Yes, definitely on topic. And I think a good illustration of my point. You know how much I love that line, but it does have a lot to do with the delivery and the context of the scene. It’s Alan Rickman’s way of saying the line that makes it so great. Taken out of context it's almost meaningless to those who aren't familiar with Prisoner of Azkaban. But a line like: "I hope they don't hang you, precious, by that sweet neck... The chances are you'll get off with life. That means if you're a good girl, you'll be out in 20 years. I'll be waiting for you. If they hang you, I'll always remember you.” That's a great line even out of context (though of course, in context it's even better). A lot of movie dialogue today doesn't have that same sharpness, it doesn't crackle the way old movie dialogue does. There are still plenty of great lines, but they're of a different sort. Not as witty, I guess. Or as poetic.
LJ:
And you know this brings me back to what we were talking about yesterday...it's because no one actually talks the way people in these old movies do. It's why the lines are so awesome, because they are so obviously scripted to sound awesome.
TD:
Yes!
LJ:
It's not realistic, but it's cool nonetheless.
TD:
But for a lot of people these old movies come off as cheesy for the exact same reason. Because movies today are almost always "realistic" in a stylistic sense people aren't used to seeing and hearing the more artificial, mannered speech and actions of the old movies.
LJ:
Oh yeah totally. I have to admit...I thought the dialogue in Gone With the Wind was really cheesy, but I didn't really let it bother me. As soon as I just let myself go with the flow, I found Scarlet's ravings to be quite entertaining and enjoyable. I mean, who talks like Sam Spade? No one! But I bet people wish they could talk like that.
TD:
Yes. So, what are your impressions about old movies now having seen and discussed Maltese Falcon? Are you curious to watch more old movies? And if so, are there any movies that you feel you'd like to watch, or, perhaps, you feel you have to watch?
LJ:
Ok, you're going to have a heart attack when I say this, but I think I need to watch Casablanca. It sounds even better than Maltese Falcon, and I guess it's one of those "classics" that everyone talks about that I really should just get around to seeing. My impressions? Hm…well, I don't know if my impressions really changed. I never thought that old movies were bad and I still don't. Maltese Falcon was good, and I'm sure there are a lot more movies like it that I would really enjoy if I went looking for them, but....I probably won't go looking for them. I may just continue to rely on you to "expose" me to the good stuff. I liked the movie, but I can't really see myself becoming as interested as you are now. It may take a while for me to get to your level.
TD:
Well, I'm not sure anyone is at my level. You've met me. I'm crazy.
LJ:
True. You're insane. I guess what I meant was that you started watching old movies and you became interested in them so you began to actively seek them out. I'm not there yet.
TD:
Well, let's try for Casablanca next time and we'll see what happens!
Friday, October 20, 2006
Old Movie Dialogue – The Maltese Falcon (John Huston, 1941; The Derelict: A, LeaJo: B+)
Part I
The Derelict:
So, Leajo, how many "old" movies have you seen? Pre-1970 movies?
LeaJo:
Heh. Well...I'm not really sure about the exact number, but probably about, I don't know...five. That sounds really pathetic, I know.
The Derelict:
No, not pathetic at all. Which movies have you seen (prior to watching the Maltese Falcon)?
LeaJo:
This is a hard question. I might not remember them all. Actually, it's funny, but most of them are Hitchcock movies. The Birds, Rear Window, Psycho. Let's see, I've seen The Wizard of Oz, It's a Wonderful Life, and I know there are more, but I can't remember them off the top of my head...I might be able to come up with some more later.
TD:
You've seen It's a Wonderful Life???!!!! I had no idea! That's actually one of my favorites.
LJ:
Yeah, we had to watch it in school. Maybe that means it doesn't really count. I liked it though. Oh yeah! I've seen Gone with the Wind too!
TD:
You watched It’s a Wonderful Life in school?! Okay, now my mind has been blown. Why?
LJ:
Actually, I don't really remember why. It was in 6th grade and my whole grade watched it so it wasn't like it was for a specific class. Maybe we just watched it for a Christmas thing...except...oh man...you are going to be mad about this. Everyone had to get permission from their parents to watch it because it dealt with religion and they didn't want anyone to get offended.
TD:
Oh my gosh! Really?! I'm not mad, that's just f-ing hilarious. The "religion" is like, what? A silly storyline about a comical angel getting his wings and George Bailey praying in the bar for a few seconds? Seriously, it's only slightly more "religious" than Elf.
LJ:
Yeah...I don't know. I barely remember watching it so I don't really know what my teachers were thinking. Oh, I've seen To Kill A Mockingbird. Does that count? (I also had to watch that movie in school)
TD:
Yes! That definitely counts. Wow, you're a closet old movie watcher, aren't you?
LJ:
You got me! Hee! I bet there are more too; I just can't remember them all right now. Do you remember that one movie that my mom made us watch with Sydney Poitier and the nuns? Does that count?
TD:
Yep, that counts. It's Lillies of the Field, and a good movie, though I've only seen it that once. Okay, so there's The Birds, Rear Window, Psycho, the Wizard of Oz, It's a Wonderful Life, Gone with the Wind, To Kill a Mockingbird, and Lillies of the Field. Is that right?
LJ:
Yeah. I think so
TD:
That's a pretty good list, when really, I bet if you asked your friends they've seen maybe two old movies, probably Wizard of Oz and maybe something like Sound of Music or Mary Poppins or another old Disney movie. Maybe It's a Wonderful Life too 'cause it's on every year on NBC, but that’s probably a stretch. So you are maybe a little ahead of the pack, for your age group.
LJ:
You're probably right. I doubt my friends have seen any Hitchcock movies.
TD:
You're probably right. Okay, so before watching Gone with the Wind with me, and then Maltese Falcon last night, what would you say your general impression of "old" movies was? What did you think about old movies (if you thought about them at all)? Did you have any interest in watching these "classic" Hollywood movies or were you content with watching contemporary films?
LJ:
Oh, I was definitely just content in watching contemporary films. I only really watched those movies because I had to at school or someone in my family recommended them to me and made me watch them. I never actively went out and searched for old movies to watch. My impression with them was that in general, I liked them. They were definitely different than newer movies, but that didn't make them bad. The Birds and Rear Window and Psycho scared me just as much as any contemporary horror movie did. I think the main difference I felt between old movies and contemporary movies was that old movies didn't look as good. Like, I thought Rear Window was cool...but it could have been cooler with better special effects. I liked all of the movies though. Wizard of Oz is one of my favorite movies of all time.
TD:
Oh yeah. Wizard of Oz is the best. Interesting about the special effects, because Rear Window didn't really have any special effects, or are you talking about when he's hanging off the window at the end? Yeah, I can see why that would be cheesy looking to a contemporary audience.
LJ:
Yeah...actually that's the only scene I can remember. Was that movie in black and white? Because I sort of meant that too. All of the black and white movies in my mind would have looked better in color. Not that I don't like black and white, it's just a matter of taste.
TD:
No, Rear Window is a color film. As is The Birds. Psycho was shot in black and white because Hitchcock didn't have the budget for color (I think that was the case). Yeah, and I have to be perfectly honest, but I've been thinking about my own "education", if you will, in old movies, and it took me awhile to warm up to b&w movies. In fact, the first time I saw Gone with the Wind (I came in at the end while my parents were watching it) I thought it was kinda cheesy and bad. But something about the film stuck with me and almost kinda haunted me, and a few years later when I watched it with my mom on tv it was the greatest movie I'd ever seen. But black and white movies were not an instant "watch" for me, it took me many almost forced sessions of watching b&w movies to start to "get" them.
LJ:
First time I saw Gone With the Wind, I though it was really boring. I liked it a lot more when we watched it. Things can change depending on when you watch certain things.
TD:
Definitely.
LJ:
Believe me, I have nothing against black and white movies. I just don't really prefer black and white in a movie, probably because I'm used to color. Because of that, I would pick a color movie over one without. You watch a lot of black and white movies so you're probably used to it.
TD:
Right. Which is what I'm saying about familiarity (remember from last night?) -- I made myself watch black and white movies because I wanted to understand them and see what made them good as opposed to color films. I was interested in the lighting, and the way faces looked different in black and white, and the haunting quality of it all.
LJ:
Yeah. I totally understand. It makes sense
TD:
I wanted to experience that thrill and newness that came from black and whites -- I was intellectually curious about them. It was about learning something new, in a way. A new way of looking at and enjoying movies. I wanted to get beyond the familiar movies I was exposed to at the time at the theater and on tv in general.
LJ:
Did most of this come about because you were taking film classes?
TD:
No, it happened before that. It came about because my mom used to watch movies on Saturday afternoons while she folded laundry, and I would sit and fold laundry and watch with her. At first I wouldn't sit down if a black and white movie was on (I'm thinking this is maybe when I was eleven or twelve), but my curiosity and love of the cinema got the better of me. Also, my mom would tell me that the movie was really great and I should watch it. So I would force myself to sit on the couch and watch it. And to my surprise the films held my attention and they were really good. In fact, I made a video for a class in high school and I wanted to shoot parts of it in black and white cause I liked the look. But film classes did help, because I was better able to understand the principles of lighting and how huge a deal lighting is in a good black and white film. Not that lighting isn't important in a color film as well....
LJ:
Right. You know it's funny, I think how your mom was for you, you are for me. You're the one going "you have to watch this movie it's so good!" and making me watch these old films. So good on ya! You're getting me to watch more movies!
To be continued...
The Derelict:
So, Leajo, how many "old" movies have you seen? Pre-1970 movies?
LeaJo:
Heh. Well...I'm not really sure about the exact number, but probably about, I don't know...five. That sounds really pathetic, I know.
The Derelict:
No, not pathetic at all. Which movies have you seen (prior to watching the Maltese Falcon)?
LeaJo:
This is a hard question. I might not remember them all. Actually, it's funny, but most of them are Hitchcock movies. The Birds, Rear Window, Psycho. Let's see, I've seen The Wizard of Oz, It's a Wonderful Life, and I know there are more, but I can't remember them off the top of my head...I might be able to come up with some more later.
TD:
You've seen It's a Wonderful Life???!!!! I had no idea! That's actually one of my favorites.
LJ:
Yeah, we had to watch it in school. Maybe that means it doesn't really count. I liked it though. Oh yeah! I've seen Gone with the Wind too!
TD:
You watched It’s a Wonderful Life in school?! Okay, now my mind has been blown. Why?
LJ:
Actually, I don't really remember why. It was in 6th grade and my whole grade watched it so it wasn't like it was for a specific class. Maybe we just watched it for a Christmas thing...except...oh man...you are going to be mad about this. Everyone had to get permission from their parents to watch it because it dealt with religion and they didn't want anyone to get offended.
TD:
Oh my gosh! Really?! I'm not mad, that's just f-ing hilarious. The "religion" is like, what? A silly storyline about a comical angel getting his wings and George Bailey praying in the bar for a few seconds? Seriously, it's only slightly more "religious" than Elf.
LJ:
Yeah...I don't know. I barely remember watching it so I don't really know what my teachers were thinking. Oh, I've seen To Kill A Mockingbird. Does that count? (I also had to watch that movie in school)
TD:
Yes! That definitely counts. Wow, you're a closet old movie watcher, aren't you?
LJ:
You got me! Hee! I bet there are more too; I just can't remember them all right now. Do you remember that one movie that my mom made us watch with Sydney Poitier and the nuns? Does that count?
TD:
Yep, that counts. It's Lillies of the Field, and a good movie, though I've only seen it that once. Okay, so there's The Birds, Rear Window, Psycho, the Wizard of Oz, It's a Wonderful Life, Gone with the Wind, To Kill a Mockingbird, and Lillies of the Field. Is that right?
LJ:
Yeah. I think so
TD:
That's a pretty good list, when really, I bet if you asked your friends they've seen maybe two old movies, probably Wizard of Oz and maybe something like Sound of Music or Mary Poppins or another old Disney movie. Maybe It's a Wonderful Life too 'cause it's on every year on NBC, but that’s probably a stretch. So you are maybe a little ahead of the pack, for your age group.
LJ:
You're probably right. I doubt my friends have seen any Hitchcock movies.
TD:
You're probably right. Okay, so before watching Gone with the Wind with me, and then Maltese Falcon last night, what would you say your general impression of "old" movies was? What did you think about old movies (if you thought about them at all)? Did you have any interest in watching these "classic" Hollywood movies or were you content with watching contemporary films?
LJ:
Oh, I was definitely just content in watching contemporary films. I only really watched those movies because I had to at school or someone in my family recommended them to me and made me watch them. I never actively went out and searched for old movies to watch. My impression with them was that in general, I liked them. They were definitely different than newer movies, but that didn't make them bad. The Birds and Rear Window and Psycho scared me just as much as any contemporary horror movie did. I think the main difference I felt between old movies and contemporary movies was that old movies didn't look as good. Like, I thought Rear Window was cool...but it could have been cooler with better special effects. I liked all of the movies though. Wizard of Oz is one of my favorite movies of all time.
TD:
Oh yeah. Wizard of Oz is the best. Interesting about the special effects, because Rear Window didn't really have any special effects, or are you talking about when he's hanging off the window at the end? Yeah, I can see why that would be cheesy looking to a contemporary audience.
LJ:
Yeah...actually that's the only scene I can remember. Was that movie in black and white? Because I sort of meant that too. All of the black and white movies in my mind would have looked better in color. Not that I don't like black and white, it's just a matter of taste.
TD:
No, Rear Window is a color film. As is The Birds. Psycho was shot in black and white because Hitchcock didn't have the budget for color (I think that was the case). Yeah, and I have to be perfectly honest, but I've been thinking about my own "education", if you will, in old movies, and it took me awhile to warm up to b&w movies. In fact, the first time I saw Gone with the Wind (I came in at the end while my parents were watching it) I thought it was kinda cheesy and bad. But something about the film stuck with me and almost kinda haunted me, and a few years later when I watched it with my mom on tv it was the greatest movie I'd ever seen. But black and white movies were not an instant "watch" for me, it took me many almost forced sessions of watching b&w movies to start to "get" them.
LJ:
First time I saw Gone With the Wind, I though it was really boring. I liked it a lot more when we watched it. Things can change depending on when you watch certain things.
TD:
Definitely.
LJ:
Believe me, I have nothing against black and white movies. I just don't really prefer black and white in a movie, probably because I'm used to color. Because of that, I would pick a color movie over one without. You watch a lot of black and white movies so you're probably used to it.
TD:
Right. Which is what I'm saying about familiarity (remember from last night?) -- I made myself watch black and white movies because I wanted to understand them and see what made them good as opposed to color films. I was interested in the lighting, and the way faces looked different in black and white, and the haunting quality of it all.
LJ:
Yeah. I totally understand. It makes sense
TD:
I wanted to experience that thrill and newness that came from black and whites -- I was intellectually curious about them. It was about learning something new, in a way. A new way of looking at and enjoying movies. I wanted to get beyond the familiar movies I was exposed to at the time at the theater and on tv in general.
LJ:
Did most of this come about because you were taking film classes?
TD:
No, it happened before that. It came about because my mom used to watch movies on Saturday afternoons while she folded laundry, and I would sit and fold laundry and watch with her. At first I wouldn't sit down if a black and white movie was on (I'm thinking this is maybe when I was eleven or twelve), but my curiosity and love of the cinema got the better of me. Also, my mom would tell me that the movie was really great and I should watch it. So I would force myself to sit on the couch and watch it. And to my surprise the films held my attention and they were really good. In fact, I made a video for a class in high school and I wanted to shoot parts of it in black and white cause I liked the look. But film classes did help, because I was better able to understand the principles of lighting and how huge a deal lighting is in a good black and white film. Not that lighting isn't important in a color film as well....
LJ:
Right. You know it's funny, I think how your mom was for you, you are for me. You're the one going "you have to watch this movie it's so good!" and making me watch these old films. So good on ya! You're getting me to watch more movies!
To be continued...
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Recent Obsession
Since starting this blog, and getting back into my old cinephile ways, I’ve been kind of obsessed with why and how some people develop a love for old movies (and with old movies being a pretty elastic term, I mean roughly movies made before the late 60s/early 70s). For my own part it had a lot to do with my mom and her love for old movies, but it can’t merely be a question of exposure, since my brother was, arguably, more exposed to old movies than I was (my mom didn’t work when he was younger so she was home more often, watching movies on tv). Why did I fall in love with old black and white studio pictures, while my brother couldn’t be bothered to watch anything except Star Wars?
Obviously, some people are just more predisposed to like old things. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that I also like old music of the 30s and 40s, and that I’m generally interested in the history of the earlier half of the century. My attraction to all things WWII-era began fairly early, first with Indiana Jones, then Dick Tracy (movie and comics), Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, A League of Their Own, and The Rocketeer. These movies all came out around the same time, and they were all set in that era of swing jazz, fedora hats, private dicks, and pretty dames and I fell in love with it all. These movies led me on a quest for more; I wanted as much of my grandparents’ era as I could get. So where do you turn if you want to experience the 1930s and 1940s? For me it was jazz and the movies. And what better way to experience that time period than to watch its movies. To watch not only movies set in the 40s but movies made in the 40s.
But this can’t be how every old movie lover came to be. And not every WWII-era buff falls in love with the era’s movies either. And I certainly branched out beyond that late 30s/early 40s time period (into silents, foreign, films of the 50s and 60s, cult, etc.). Obviously, dozens of things factored into my love for old movies, and obviously, the path to “classic movie lover” status is different for everyone. But how is a cinephile born? Why is it that some of us love this old stuff while others could take it or leave it? Since I’m obsessed with these questions of why and how, LeaJo has been kind enough to be a sort of guinea pig for my experiments. She’s agreed to watch some old movies and answer some questions I have, both about her opinions of the movies in particular and old movies in general. It’ll be a semi-regular feature here at the blog, and we’re calling it “Old Movie Dialogue,” since it’ll be formatted as a dialogue between LeaJo and myself. The hope (on my part) is that LeaJo will develop an appreciation, and perhaps even a love, for old movies. But at the very least I think it’ll be interesting to read LeaJo’s thoughts on these “classic” films – a fresh perspective from someone fairly new to the old movie scene.
Obviously, some people are just more predisposed to like old things. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that I also like old music of the 30s and 40s, and that I’m generally interested in the history of the earlier half of the century. My attraction to all things WWII-era began fairly early, first with Indiana Jones, then Dick Tracy (movie and comics), Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, A League of Their Own, and The Rocketeer. These movies all came out around the same time, and they were all set in that era of swing jazz, fedora hats, private dicks, and pretty dames and I fell in love with it all. These movies led me on a quest for more; I wanted as much of my grandparents’ era as I could get. So where do you turn if you want to experience the 1930s and 1940s? For me it was jazz and the movies. And what better way to experience that time period than to watch its movies. To watch not only movies set in the 40s but movies made in the 40s.
But this can’t be how every old movie lover came to be. And not every WWII-era buff falls in love with the era’s movies either. And I certainly branched out beyond that late 30s/early 40s time period (into silents, foreign, films of the 50s and 60s, cult, etc.). Obviously, dozens of things factored into my love for old movies, and obviously, the path to “classic movie lover” status is different for everyone. But how is a cinephile born? Why is it that some of us love this old stuff while others could take it or leave it? Since I’m obsessed with these questions of why and how, LeaJo has been kind enough to be a sort of guinea pig for my experiments. She’s agreed to watch some old movies and answer some questions I have, both about her opinions of the movies in particular and old movies in general. It’ll be a semi-regular feature here at the blog, and we’re calling it “Old Movie Dialogue,” since it’ll be formatted as a dialogue between LeaJo and myself. The hope (on my part) is that LeaJo will develop an appreciation, and perhaps even a love, for old movies. But at the very least I think it’ll be interesting to read LeaJo’s thoughts on these “classic” films – a fresh perspective from someone fairly new to the old movie scene.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
