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.
Underwhelmed By Greatness?
Have you ever had this experience? Have you ever sat down with a book, a film, an album, what have you, that you’ve heard from time immemorial was a classic and thought…eh? Maybe you would have liked it if you had come to it cold, but it just couldn’t bear the weight of its own legacy.
I’ve always been a big Alfred Hitchcock fan. Vertigo is one of my favorite films of all time. The episode of Alfred Hitchcock Presents entitled “Breakdown” is one of the most gripping 30 minutes of television I’ve ever seen (you can find it on Netflix or Amazon). While I’ve worked my way through most of the Hitchcock corpus, I had, until recently, somehow failed to make the time for Rear Window, considered one of the director’s all-time classics. Finding myself with some unexpected free time on a recent Sunday, I popped it up on Netflix. And, well…eh.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s a solid film. The acting is stellar, confining the action primarily to Jimmy Stewart’s apartment was clever (it’s essentially the movie equivalent of a bottle episode), and there are some moments of genuine suspense. Overall, however, I came away underwhelmed. Without giving too much away (although, to be fair, the film is 60 years old, so a spoiler alert is an act of charity), the tension in the plot runs as follows: one of the main characters either did A or did B. In the end, it turns out he did B. Not exactly white-knuckle stuff.
Now, to be fair to the film, I probably would have had a much different reaction had I seen it in a cinema in 1954. In 2015, however, when thrillers go to baroque lengths to hide the ball on plot twists, Rear Window seemed almost pedestrian by comparison. Had it been some obscure little film, I probably would have delighted in it. As a movie that’s so deeply engrained in pop culture, however, that my first consciousness of it came through a childhood viewing of a Simpsons episode, it had a higher bar to clear.
And, honestly, that feels, at some level, like a disservice to the film. But there’s simply no way to decouple my reaction from the expectations created by decades worth of hype.
What “masterpieces” have you come to late, only to discover that your expectations were disappointed?
Published in Entertainment, Literature
Suzanne Pleshette! Yes!
It’s no Die Hard.
A Clockwork Orange?
The reason remakes are popular in Hollywood is because most people are ignorant of the original source material.
The people thought Seinfeld was original were never exposed to long term runs of Jack Benny.
You mean the fine actor, William Daniels. The man who made John Adams likable in the fantastic 1776.
I am sorry. We can no longer speak.
I remember when It’s Gary Shandling’s Show was on in the mid-80s and critics were going on and on about how groundbreaking it was that Gary repeatedly broke the 4th wall and addressed the audience mid-scene.
Guess they never saw the Burns And Allen show, when George would go upstairs and watch the show on TV to find out what Gracie was doing so he could respond to it.
Heresy!! Strangelove is still hilarious after all these years. And President Merken Mufley (Sellers) is eerily similar to the self-important, ineffectual wimp that currently sits in the Oval Office – which I think I’ve shown (if I do say so myself). :-)
I think the problem that we face is that so many young whippersnappers just need to get educated – about history, film…LIFE. So, as others have commented – being told a film is a classic but then being clueless about the historical context in which the film was made may naturally result in dashed expectations – but is it the fault of the film or the fault of the viewer who hasn’t taken the time to learn anything about the context on which the film was made?
I introduced one of my son’s caregivers, a young man in his mid-twenties to Vertigo and Rear Window the other day – both of which he found quite impressive – but he had absolutely no clue who Jimmy Stewart was. So, I quickly rattled off some of his memorable roles from films – none of which registered with him, as well as mentioned Stewart’s successful war record as a B-24 pilot that he was always reluctant to talk about…and eventually being promoted to the rank of Brigadier General in the late 50s.
Maybe there’s too much garbage about diversity and climate hysteria and embracing of alternative lifestyles being crammed into the heads of students in elementary, high school and college and not enough accurate or in depth history, philosophy and art. Maybe if students had a proper grounding in the humanities a lot of these classic films would be more appreciated.
Oh, yes…and get off my lawn!
Breaking the 4th wall was a Burns & Allen staple on radio before it hit television.
It reminds me of how a similar occurrence happened in a play by Aristophanes. It was described, I think on Wikipedia, as post-modern. Which was odd because I could have sworn than Aristophanes was writing in antiquity.
One of my favorite sayings – Some things get old and valuable. Others just get old.
I’ve always understood Citizen Kane to be rated so high for its impact on movie making, and not for its watch-ability or story. As a viewer it is meh, but from what I understand it was revolutionary in the number of techniques that it pioneered.
I loved Anna Karenina. Maybe it was the translation?
To paraphrase Hamlet, context is the thing. Over the centuries, many literary critics as Shakespeare scholar Clare Asquith points out (see video below – start around the 10 minute mark), have taken Shakespeare to task for seemingly meandering from his main plot points or creating plays, like Titus Andronicus, that are an unholy mess of construction. But more recent scholarship points out that Shakespeare was most certainly a secret (or tolerated) Catholic and so re-examining his plays from a Catholic context, from one who was torn about what to do during at any given time during the tyrannical police state of Elizabeth’s reign makes some of the Bard’s strange ramblings much more coherent and gives each of his plays more depth and meaning. So, rather than be dismissive of certain classics or works, one might be better to first explore the context in which the film was made and then decide whether the work is worthy or should be dismissed.
I think one also has to approach certain films understanding the limitations of what the industry could do at the time. Fritz Lang’s Metropolis seems almost amateurish, silly, a bit naive and over-melodramatic but there are scenes in it that are still fascinating to watch like when Rotwang, the mad scientist’s “machine man”/robot comes to life.
George Lucas has said that the robot in Metropolis is the inspiration for C3PO in its design. You may also note that the glass chamber where Maria reclines is very similar to the chamber where Leeloo is brought to life in The Fifth Element.
Having just watched “Metropolis,” I agree on the melodramatic / over-acting point; lots of breast-clutching and beseeching hands, but that was the style of the time, and it’s offset by an equal amount of underacting. It really is an astonishing movie, and Netflix has the most recent restored version with the original score.
This is the funniest thing I’ve read today–you’re doing a really good parody, except that you also have to add that he was a woman who was also secretly some nobleman politician. Then you’ve got all the achievements of people who are incompetent about poetry but fancy themselves conspiracy theorists wrapped up, or almost.
Pretty much everything by Hemmingway (Ernest, not Mollie.)
I never made it more than about 100 pages into Lord of the Rings. The fact that they were still in the Shire at that point probably had a lot to do with that.
Citizen Kane also left me underwhelmed.
As a heavy metal fan I never really got what was so special about Judas Priest. I think they get bonus points for being original, but a lot of the imitators (Iron Maiden in particular) actually do it better.
I, on the other hand, would have to add Rachmaninoff to my list. I generally like Romantic piano (Liszt and Chopin in particular) but I just don’t it. None of it is bad, but he just doesn’t stand out.
I hate to say it, but the same is true of Mozart. *hides in his bunker*
Watching I Love Lucy provokes a fingernails+chalkboard response from me.
You may wish to educate yourself. There are numerous historians and literary scholars, based on evidence, who have come to the conclusion that Shakespeare was Catholic – Clare Asquith, Richard Wilson, Peter Milward, Joseph Pearce, Michael Wood to name just a few. You may wish to look up each of these…or choose to remain ignorant. Your choice.
You could start here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KDiaA1AlPQ
and then read several books on the subject by the authors noted above.
All this talk of classic movies has reminded me of the really cool “100 Years at the Movies” montage that was played on Turner Classic Movies. If you’ve never watched it, I think it’s well worth the 9 minutes.
Some of y’all might know him better as the voice of K.I.T.T.
;-)
It’s so disappointing that none of the Kubrick defenders have mentioned his films with Kirk Douglas. Spartacus is an amazing movie, probably one of my all-time top 5 favorites.
-E
But it’s not named on the “Most Influential Movies” list, it’s named on the “greatest Movies” list.
If a movie is not “great” in it “watch-ability or story”, how can it be a “great” movie?
Indeed. I find most Metropolis-haters have only seen the version from the 1980s with the synthesizer soundtrack by Georgio Morodor (and Queen and Pat Benatar?!).
I still like it, because I happen to be a bit of an 80s New Wave fan, but it comes off as pretty anachronistic and silly to a layman.
(I also liked the way he tried to insert appropriate sound effects, which the more “authentic” orchestral score lacks. I find silent movies work a LOT better when someone takes the time to create a (well-done!) foley track.)
Well, I love it and find it immensely watchable.
I think it has the most naturalistic acting of any movie from that period.
My biggest problem with classic movies is how hammy the acting is. It takes me out of the story when I can’t relate to the delivery of the dialogue.
Especially considering it was released in 1941, the dialogue in Citizen Kane is like music to my ears. I buy that these are (mostly) real people.
(Apropos of nothing: This is also why I love Sunset Boulevard, especially in the way it contrasts the old style with the new.)
That, and I’m a sucker for “cinematography porn”. I watch the movie looking for the shots where Welles cut holes in the floor to lower the camera, or where he nearly burned the set down with all the lights required to get a great deep-focus shot.
;-)
I’m ashamed to admit that I’ve never seen Spartacus, but I did love Paths of Glory.
The subtlety and the mind-f***ery of the ending always gets me.
You are surprisingly serious. But I do not see any reason to take what you say seriously. Talking about literary scholars or evidence is not going to do it for any reasonable man–if you were to show me serious evidence, that might be different. I’m told people who like to think of themselves as really rational types understand that the more unusual a statement is, the more evidence it requires. You I just find laughable. By your lights, except these few scholars & yourself, everyone is ignorant, the wise & the unwise together. I’m not sure what etiquette demands here, so please let me know if I’m supposed to return the favor, tell you which scholars who write on Shakespeare impress me & call you ignorant if you disagree with them?
I have to grudgingly agree. While I have a soft spot in my heart for the Metal Gods, their output was uneven. Regret that I never saw them live…heard it was quite a show.
Serious evidence in conveyed in Michael Wood’s BBC documentary (part one of which I’ve posted and is readily available on YouTube in all its five parts – or you could purchase his book covering the same material). I’ve given you some additional source material if you bother to look up the authors noted, apart from what’s readily available from sources on the Internet or through purchasing numerous books on the subject from Amazon or the bookstore of your choice.
It’s clear from your quick response that you didn’t bother to listen to or watch Clare Asquith’s lecture that I posted before. It’s really worth your while since she has quite a command of the subject and of the history of Shakespeare’s time. I have no idea what your grounding is in Tudor or Jacobian era history or literature but I would have to infer from you remarks that you may have done little to understand that the topic of whether Shakespeare was Catholic or not has been raging among scholars for easily 150 years or more and is still an active debate between them – not conspiracy theorists.
Now, you can, of course, continue to be dismissive of all of this and not bother doing any serious investigation on your own and you can continue to hurl invective and asinine remarks and present yourself as some sort of authority on Shakespeare perhaps even in the same league as Asquith or Peter Milward but I would have to read some of your published work on Shakespeare or even view your videotaped lectures to conclude that I should take you seriously. I’m happy to consider any references you wish to call up. But from the tone of your dismissive remarks I’m not so sure you’re inclined to do the same.
Re: Etiquette – Yes, it can be quite challenging here on Ricochet. I don’t claim to always be polite – especially when attacked. But that’s just me. I’m working on it. I would encourage you to do the same.