Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
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 Recall, Starship 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
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.
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.
This is the paradox at its thickest, I think. And I agree completely.
That’s a terrific work of animation, that.