The books you read in high school are unique – it might have been the first time in your life you were told to do something that you didn’t want to do, but unlike when you were younger, being a teenager grants a certain independence – you don’t just ignore the work, but may become actively annoyed at the fact that Jane Austen or William Shakespeare or Samuel Beckett or, in my case, F Scott Fitzgerald is being foisted upon us. Of course, now I regret not taking the time I had – for free! – to read ‘Sense and Sensibility’, ‘Hamlet’, ‘Waiting for Godot’ and ‘The Great Gatsby’ when a teacher was there to explain them to me. Strike that, for as I write I remember that ‘Godot’ was pretty short, and therefore ideal territory for the schoolboy’s mind. At any rate, I’ve had a relationship with ‘Gatsby’ for nearly 20 years now – first skim reading it in school, then seeing the 1974 Jack Clayton-directed, Coppola-written film version, and finally last year enjoying a plane ride with Tim Robbins reading it in my ear.
I’m not a literary critic, so at the risk of exposing the vulnerabilities in my analysis, let me say this: I shoulda read it when I was a kid. The elegant sparseness of the language, the colour of the dialogue, the political implications of a narrative in which none of the characters – rich or poor – is likeable..that’ll do for starters.
So I sat down to re-watch the movie the other night and was sad to find it creating a new category for this blog: Old Films That Look Better Than They Actually Are. There may never have been a film set in this period that looks more authentic – from Gatsby’s mansion to the gas station to the Eckelburg sign to the vehicles to the costumes. Add a little Robert Redford/Mia Farrow/Bruce Dern – BRUCE DERN! – /Karen Black/Scott Wilson (another new category: Actors Whom Nobody Can Name But Everybody Likes); some cool old jazz standards; and frankly astonishing photography and what have you got? A series of still images any one of which deserves to be hung on a wall, in the guise of an utterly flat film. Maybe they were making a point about Gatsby’s personality, or about the shallowness of the relationships in the story; or maybe something went very badly wrong with the direction and the script.
So – dear listener – anybody out there want to contribute a suggestion for your own ‘Old Films That Look Better Than They Actually Are’? I could get the ball rolling by proposing every film that Quentin Tarantino has made, but it’s a Friday, and I’m in a good mood, so I’ll just keep that to myself.
posted in forum Miscellaneous by zad1138
posted in forum Miscellaneous by seanpdudley
posted in forum General Movie Stuff by seanpdudley
posted in forum General Movie Stuff by Jett Loe
posted in forum General Movie Stuff by prawnman
For the “Old Movies” category, how about “The City of Lost Children”. I don't remember the original French title, but the movie starred Ron Perlman. Beautiful movie, seemingly interesting, but when you break it down, utter crap. It has its moments, but not to the same greatness as Amelie (same director).
As far as the “Actors Everyone Likes But Can't Name”, I nominate Stephen Root. Brilliant, versatile actor that everyone still remembers as Milton from Office Space. He was in the show Talk Radio, the movie Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and has had lots of supporting, hilarious roles.
I might propose “Heat” (Michael Mann).
Great director (visually), great cast – I just never did care much for this movie, and I sense I may be one of the only person who feels this way.
I thought there were some great scenes in this one, but for whatever reason I thought the script had no real 'bite' – that, coupled with the fact that it's 3 hrs long…I don't know.
I actually own this movie, but I never, ever pull it out to re-watch it, unlike others.
OMG, stephen root! i heart him, he's sooo funny!
R. Lee Ermy
<a href=”http://upload.moldova.org/movie/actors/j/james_cromwell/thumbnails/tn2_james_cromwell_1.jpg”James Cromwell
I'm a complete sucker for great visuals and can often forgive an average film just for looking good.
I suppose that a great number of Ridley Scott's films would fall into this category, although he is one of my favourite directors. Does his work qualify as old?
Phil – I agree with you about Heat. For me it falls into that catergory known as 'overated guys films' which has at the top of its list Goodfellas.
I was with right til the end there Tom. I too have always wondered a little why people seem to rave about Heat and and actually gave my copy of it away.
But Goodfellas “overated” – WHAT!
Oh, wow -
I just saw a commercial for “Zaxbys” (you must live in the US, & more particularly, the South, to be familiar w/ Zaxbys (chicken fingers)) – they have a series of commercials that uses celebrity athletes and some low grade actors (one commercial featured Shayne Llamas)…
Anyway, this commercial had an actor….and I was wracking my brain to figure out who he was…he was very recognizable to me….and of course at the end he says “I'm ______ ________, and I'm an actor”. I can't even remember what his name was and I just saw it….then it hit me – it was “Tackleberry” from “Police Academy”.
Ha Ha – thought I'd put the cat amongst the pigeons with that one Tim!
I saw it twice just to be sure I wasn't missing something, but my opinion wasn't changed. It's not that I don't think that Goodfellas is well performed and well crafted film – it is, but it never grabbed me on any level. Essentially for me it's a film about unpleasant people doing unpleasant things to each other – or any poor soul who happens to get it their way. And ok, not every film has to be upbeat, but I could never include films like this on my highly rated, repeat viewing list.
To further fan the flames, I find that this theme of unpleasant people doing unpleasant things is what puts me off most of Scorsese's work (Gangs of New York is another prime example). His best in my opinion? After Hours.
It seems to me that what you're saying is that you don't like Goodfellas (which is perfectly understandable) rather than it's a bad film. That doesn't make it overated however – just a film that doesn't appeal to all tastes. As it happens I do like Scorcese's style and rank several of his films as personal favourites. I do understand what you mean however – e.g. I admire 'Raging Bull' more than I actually like it. As I write this it occurs to me that 'The Departed' is a good film but I could be persuaded that it's overated.
Sunshine
Tom is officially insane… ;)
Ha, I was going to mention City of Lost Children, so 10 points for beating me. Also, I'm not sure a film looking better than its content is necessarily a bad thing. If we enjoy visual art and photography and good use of color and form, why not enjoy a movie that does these better than anything else? I'll add Hero and Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow to this category.
Not a fan of Jean-Pierre Jeunet's style then? I thought Amelie was excellent, but you could certainly argue it was weaker on story than on style and visuals.
Phil – I agree with you completely.
Tim – Yer, I think you've said it better than I did regarding Scorsese. I was half asleep – still am..
Don't agree about sunshine, looks great but also has a deeper theme – and Gareth agrees with me so I must be right! http://godisnotelsewhere.blogspot.com/2007/04/l…
Sunshine does deal with deep issues, but the science aspect is completely ridiculous! Maybe that's what you were refering to Jett? It's funny how we can go along with it to a certain degree because it's made to look very realistic.
If we're allowed to add newer films to this list – how about The Matrix sequels? Reloaded in particular has some spectacular visuals/sequences, but that's about all you can credit it with.
Why Sunshine doesn't work
Nice write up and blog , Thanks for sharing all those good info
best regards
John
http://xtupload.com