Why do we watch old movies ?

[smudge]

This was a question asked of me by a journalist some years ago at a charity film event. I must admit that I was stumped for an answer, because when I tried to stop and think about it I realised that I watched for a myriad of reasons. I just thought it would be interesting to find out other people's views.

In case you were wondering, on the night I blethered something about myself having a strong sense of the past and seeing how the films reflected our cultural history.

But there's more to it than just that...

SMUDGE

[DB7]

I'd say it's part curiosity for films I've never seen, nor are likely to see given many rarely get aired on terrestrial tv. It's also a damning statement on how formulaic and uninspired todays producers have become - we watch old films while they raid the archives for inspiration.

[Steve Crook]

</div><div class='quotemain'>smudge: This was a question asked of me by a journalist some years ago at a charity film event. I must admit that I was stumped for an answer, because when I tried to stop and think about it I realised that I watched for a myriad of reasons. I just thought it would be interesting to find out other people's views. In case you were wondering, on the night I blethered something about myself having a strong sense of the past and seeing how the films reflected our cultural history. But there's more to it than just that... SMUDGE [/b]

I had a similar dilema at a Powell & Pressburger retrospective when they were showing a lot of Powell's early quota quickies. Every day they'd introduce a couple of them, show them, and afterwards we'd have a discussion about them.

One day, one of the people at the discussion asked the killer question "Why do the people here like Powell (& Pressburger) films?"

Over the years a few of the P&P group have answered and put their answers on the web site.

There are probably as many answers as there are people.

For me, for old films in general, it's more to do with a well written story and fully developed characters. Compare that to most (not all) of the recent output from Hollywoodland where the only characters even slightly developed are the hero, the hero's girlfriend and the villain. Everyone else is just there to be shot or blown up. And there's very little to the story. They just put in lots of CGI and other special effects in the hope you won't notice that there's not much else in there - but I notice!

Steve

[ollie]

My reasons as Smudge said are many and varied,but one thing that springs to mind is the idea of finding that real GEM! :) With the ability to have access to this site and it's community's collective memory and depth of knowledge the process can be sometimes very rewarding.It's the researching, trying to establish availability,and hopefully satisfaction and acquisition of the film.
We all have the films we love in our collections(if they're available [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif[/img] )but i'm on a constant search for more"please sir,can i have some more".I watch some modern film as well,and as we know it's 95% dross that you have to wade through to get the occasional nugget(very frustrating).As DB7 said producers do seem to be looking back to either plagiarise or remake the UNRE-MAKEABLE [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif[/img]
There also is a place on my selves stocked with films regardless of technical and critical aclaim, associated with deeply personal memories,feelings,and experiences for occasional metaphoric thumb sucking(just not Too often )

[smudge]

Thanks chaps - excellent answers one and all ; indeed there can be no wrong answers to this question. You can certainly see that we who post to this board are of a similar make up...

Like DB7 I have that driving curiosity ; some of the posts here make me dig out old films or search out ones I don't have. Steve's posts regularly send me back to P&P.

I can't disagree with Steve about construction and character as against mostly hollow modern movies (but yes, Ollie, you do get the occasional gem !) I find for the most part modern films only 'succeed' on a very basic level if you disengage your brain. Think about it and you'll probably never watch it again !

Undoubtedly Ollie must also be part Oliver Twist, and I must be similar, because I also have that acquisitive drive - to gather more and see as many as I can.

Don't tell the wife, but does anybody else do that old 'Marks & Spencer' thing (as the ladies themselves often do) and say, "Oh I've had this in the back of a cupboard for AGES !" when quizzed on a particular DVD/VHS ? (It's the only way to get Norman Wisdom films in a house containing a wife !)

There's certainly that Proustian element to it as anything, be it films, books, whatever, can instantly take us back to a particular moment in time. I clearly recall my first family film, at a very young age, and the old Gaumont seemed like a temple to me then. It's a Wilkinsons now

Don't get me onto the un-remakeable (is that proper English ; who cares ?) I was enraged when I saw that they intended to show a tat trailer for the Coen's turkey immediately before yesterday's re-showing of THE LADYKILLERS - Mick Balcon must be spinning !!

So - if I can move our respondents on a little from the original question - we've had the why, so what about the how ?

I am terrible, I openly admit ; you stick it in front of me and I'll watch it ! My theory on film is like my theory on people in general ; no matter what, most of them usually have some redeeming feature(s).

How about it ? Or what about those films you've seen just once, and will never give house room again ? LOL

Or curiouser still, whilst you 'hate' them do you still keep them in the collection ?

SMUDGE

[DaveB]

I'm still answering the first question.

I like the look of old films. On the one hand - the 1.37:1 aspect ratio and razor-sharp black & white images. And on the other hand - the VistaVision widescreen and eyeball-burning colours.

I also feel more in tune with the attitudes and restraints revealed by these films - implied sex, stylised violence, watered-down invective.

It was exciting in the Sixties when film-makers started to knock down all the barriers. But - looking back - I wish they hadn't.

[DB7]

</div><div class='quotemain'>smudge: How about it? Or what about those films you've seen just once, and will never give house room again? LOL Or curiouser still, whilst you 'hate' them do you still keep them in the collection?[/b]

I've rather limited space so every so often I'll have a VHS 'spring clean'. I went through a load of tapes recently and a few were binned, mostly (ahem) cult films collected in my teens or xmas/birthday presents given by people who have no idea as to my taste in films.

A case in point as to "why" is They Drive by Night (1938), I hadn't seen it for a long time but watched it again recently and thought "wow, what a little gem". So then you get to thinking what others are hiding out there waiting to be rediscovered.

As for "never watch again", when Cannon and Ball's remake of Ask A Polliceman is aired again we'll see whether a perverse sense of curiosity gets the better of me. But I'm sure it'll be a while before such a day arrives. Rock on Tommy! wink
(that they now sell double glazing on local tv eases my pain )

[smudge]

See what I mean about films you keep in the cupboard ? I have a whole room here and my curiosity over that one got me YEARS ago ! And it's still here somewhere... no

And you know what ? People occasionally ask for it... blush

[Gibbie]

</div><div class='quotemain'>smudge: See what I mean about films you keep in the cupboard ? I have a whole room here and my curiosity over that one got me YEARS ago ! And it's still here somewhere... no And you know what ? People occasionally ask for it... blush [/b]

Smudge,

You are right about a sense of the past, especially since culture has changed so dramatically over the past 50 years. More like 500 years.

Concerning stories, I would agree with the late-novelist John Gardner who said the bottom line of stories is character - it is moral. The character stories of the past were more moral, hence more real. If you compare say "Brief Encounter," which was a struggle between desire and committment; and "American Beauty," which was a very manipulative story, I say there is the difference in periods. And, those who desire the more substantive will be drawn toward the like.

Our age group has also a strong sense of memorabilia and the nostalgic, because of the social changes and there is a sentimental side to us that longs for the well done stories of childhood and before. And, on this, it is our sense of winsome adventure from youth that delights in the old movies that either left us with a sense of delight, the way "A Canterbury Tale" does for some in our group; existential haunting, like "Vertigo" or "The Wizard of Oz"; the moral romance of "Great Expectations"; the silly madcap humor of an Ealing comedy; the suspense of "North by Northwest"; or the adventure of "Robin Hood".

While not all the old movies are this way, many are and those are the ones we like. But, the tastes here are many and varied, but I think you are right that you can find a similar vein here.
Also, since the pre-70 days there have been a number of movies that fit this bill, just not as many.

It is still possible to make movies like that - they're just not being made.

Happy oldies festival!

Gibbie

[smudge]

Dave B / Gibbie -

Thanks for your additions to the thread !

I can't argue Dave, there is so much more you can do with good, pin-sharp, B&W. The example that always sticks in my mind is from the classic BRIEF ENCOUNTER. Om top of a damn good story driven by interesting characters, look at that opening sequence : the way Krasker lights those night-time trains. This creates a simultaneously awesome and unreal atmosphere, lifting the station out of the ordinary world into one where there is a power and drama within the darkness.

And the restraints too, which reflect the moral climate of the time, did, I agree, have a dramatic effect on how stories were told. Unfortunately stories like AMERICAN BEAUTY simply reflect the moralities of their own times ; perhaps (as you've both said) something else which drives us back to these older films.

I strongly agree with Gibbie's point about the pace of change. I don't know the age averages are around here, but I'm glad to confess I am an oldie - I can recall when pocket calculators were the height of advancement and the first few cost us a fortune. Look where we are now, where game stations hold more memory than entire room sized computers back in the sixties !

We have changed at a rate at which it is almost impossible for our personal development to keep up and the more that we are swamped in this change the more nostalgic we become.

The irony of this situation is, of course, that these technical advancements (from Lumiere Bros. onwards) have made it all so much easier to remain in a happier (?) past...

Excuse me now whilst I go reset the DVD recorder ! [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif[/img]

SMUDGE

[DaveB]

One of the many things that disappoints me about digital television is the number of old films shown in less than pristine condition.

In some cases the available prints, I suppose, aren't top quality. In other cases, the channels transmit at such a low bit-rate that everything must come out blurred.

So much, in these cases, for the original pin-sharp b&w images.

I'm a stickler for the correct aspect ratio. Take the Margaret Rutherford Miss Marple films. TCM show these regularly in full-frame (1.33:1). They are, in fact, 1.85:1 widescreen feature films. Earlier this year they were released as a DVD box set. You can find them in any high street video store - filed under "TV Drama", everyone of them 1.33:1 pan & scan.

[Gibbie]

Thanks, Smudge for your kudos!

Also, I think that film was better understood as an entertainment rather than a "Farenheit 451" definition of culture.

It would be nice to see some new pictures in rich B&W film.

Gibbie

[Steve Crook]

</div><div class='quotemain'>DaveB: One of the many things that disappoints me about digital television is the number of old films shown in less than pristine condition. In some cases the available prints, I suppose, aren't top quality. In other cases, the channels transmit at such a low bit-rate that everything must come out blurred. So much, in these cases, for the original pin-sharp b&w images. [snip][/b]

Don't fall for the advertisers who would have you believe that digital is somehow an improvement on analogue. It can't add anything to the original information there, certainly not anything that the makers wanted there.

What it does do is make it easier to manipulate, duplicate & to fit more channels onto a broadcast network.

But it's all at the expense of quality.

Steve

[Rob Compton]

But one of the biggest problems these days is the lack of older films (in fact anything much before 1995!) on broadcast TV, for those without digital TV. The main channels (C4 is an honourable exception on some afternoons) are a wasteland.

rgds
Rob

[Villageman]

Im surprised that none of the Satellite Channels havent recognised that there is a need for quality
Black & White British films to be shown on a regular basis rather than rely on Channel 4 to produce anything worthwhile to watch on TV
Would be good to see Bravo revert to its original
programming or to see a dedicated channel for this