Movies and Timelessness

 

Gary McVey’s great post about Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and its lively discussion thread, got me thinking about a question I’ve always enjoyed pondering (even though I’ve never been able to come up with a good answer): what makes a movie timeless?

Let me explain what I mean. I’m not talking about what makes a movie a classic. I’m talking about the fact that some movies seem to feel eternally modern and watchable, while others just look dated. This has nothing to do with the wardrobe or hairstyles or cars in the movie (after all, a film can be set in any era, including the past or future); it’s a difficult-to-pin-down quality of the filmmaking itself.

This came to mind a few weeks ago when I decided to watch The French Connection, which I’d never seen. Watching it, I could see why it was a big deal when it came out, but at no point could I stop thinking “Wow, this is such an early-’70s movie.” The depiction of 1971 New York was part of that, I suppose, but not the whole of it; there’s something about the cinematography, the editing, the acting, that just makes it look like a film no one would make today.

By contrast, The Godfather came out only a year later, and to me it looks absolutely modern and ageless. OK, maybe that’s partly because it’s a period movie, not anchored to the time when it was made. So how about Jaws, from just a few years later? That’s a present-day movie, meaning it’s set in the mid-’70s, but the filmmaking is absolutely timeless.

I can think of lots of other examples. Back To The Future, Part II presents a hilariously inaccurate vision of what 2015 would look like, and yet (to me, anyway) it doesn’t feel dated as a film. You could imagine someone making a movie like that today, as a parody version of a 1980s-inspired future. On the other hand, some of Paul Verhoeven’s science fiction movies (RoboCop, Total RecallStarship Troopers), look very dated. They’re still enjoyable, but they don’t feel contemporary. I suppose that’s why some movies (like Total Recall) get remade.

Gone With The Wind and The Wizard Of Oz are both eight decades old, but you wouldn’t know it to look at them. You could remake them, but what would be the point?

I’m sure there are those who will disagree with some of my examples, and that’s fine. Nonetheless, I think the question is still valid. I’m sure there are many factors that contribute to the timelessness I’m talking about. There have been lots of technical innovations in filmmaking over the years, and inevitably some techniques have not stood the test of time. (An excessive use of zoom lenses, for example, is one of the things that I think makes a film look dated.) So I don’t really expect an answer; I just think it’s a fun question to think about.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 34 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Gary McVey Contributor
    Gary McVey
    @GaryMcVey

    One of the FM radio critics out here once referred to “Ralph Baksheesh”. Presumably that’s the guy who makes saucy softcore cartoons about petty corruption in the middle east. 

    • #31
  2. The Girlie Show Member
    The Girlie Show
    @CatIII

    davenr321 (View Comment):

    The Girlie Show (View Comment):

    Timelessness is overrated. Ralph Bakshi’s movies are 100% movies made in the 70s, and, unlike other movies people like to cite, they definitely could not be made today or really anytime outside of that brief period. I find his work far more compelling than The Wizard of Oz or Back to the Future II.

    I think Coonskin is Bakshi’s best and a masterpiece.

    That’s the one of his I’ve most wanted to see but haven’t yet. I think Heavy Traffic is his best of those I’ve seen. I love Wizards too.

    • #32
  3. Hartmann von Aue Member
    Hartmann von Aue
    @HartmannvonAue

    Seawriter (View Comment):

    I don’t think there is a movie more rooted in time than Casablanca. It could not have occurred before August 1940 or after December 6, 1941 (assuming it took Rick a couple of months after the fall of France to move to Casablanca and establish Rick’s American Café). It was made in 1942. And yet there are few movies as timeless as Casablanca.

    This is the paradox at its thickest, I think. And I agree completely. 

    • #33
  4. Hartmann von Aue Member
    Hartmann von Aue
    @HartmannvonAue

    The Girlie Show (View Comment):

    davenr321 (View Comment):

    The Girlie Show (View Comment):

    Timelessness is overrated. Ralph Bakshi’s movies are 100% movies made in the 70s, and, unlike other movies people like to cite, they definitely could not be made today or really anytime outside of that brief period. I find his work far more compelling than The Wizard of Oz or Back to the Future II.

    I think Coonskin is Bakshi’s best and a masterpiece.

    That’s the one of his I’ve most wanted to see but haven’t yet. I think Heavy Traffic is his best of those I’ve seen. I love Wizards too.

    That’s a terrific work of animation, that. 

    • #34
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.