Alex In Wonderland

Movie Discussions...

First off thanks to Madfish Willy for the comment he left in Harveys film post about the comment I made:

"These are movies that are plot rather than effects driven. And some that stand the test of time are over 60 years old. Wonder how many modern films will stand up that long?

So what does consititute a good movie and has the emphasis changed with the era's that these films were made? I present a series of questions for discussion below:

Have Special Effects Killed The Need For Stories? Joey over at Harv's made this comment about the original King Kong "though heavy on the special effects, it used them as a vehicle rather than a crutch, for the most part" and it got me thinking about the Peter Jackson remake. I would argue that the Peter Jackson film is a better one than the orignal because of the underlying humanity of the story. Sure, it's a showcase for the effects, and some of the characters are a little underdeveloped but there was a genuine push for emotion particularly at the end of the film. Is that a sign of a better film maker than the original though? Better scripting? I would argue that the special effects in this case added to the impact of the film as you were able to be better emersed into the world and it added to the sense of occasion. However, a lot of films that rely on effects are one trick ponies (Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow anyone?) and effects are used to prop up weak stories too often.

Have Actors Become Better or Worse? I would like to make a distinction here. We have two areas to consider here. There are "Stars" and there are "Actors". Think of it like this; when in the 30's studios like Warner Bro's were tying there "Stars" to long term contracts who were they? People like Bogart, Cagney, Edward G Robinson, Cary Grant, Judy Garland, Debbie Reynolds - all stars but were they better actors than there modern day counterparts? Is Bogart better than Cruise? Or Cagney better than Matt Damon? (I might be comparing chalk and cheese here in genre terms). Then we have the "Actors" of today - people like Sir Ian McKellen, Morgan Freeman, Sean Bean. Would you go and see a film because these people are in it? Unlikely. However you know you would get a decent performance from them. There is one exception to this though: Tom Hanks. He is a good actor and has star power. Is more of that type of person needed?

Is there too little emphasis on story or plot? You could argue that the modern day stars are limited by their source material and that if you don't get a decent script or decent direction then what can they do? Films today cost $millions to produce and every single one is a risk for the studios. I would argue that less appalling filsm are produced today than 60 years ago simply due to the risks involved, but also that less varied films are produced too. Studios get a formula and stick to it, putting a particular star in there for box office draw.

Are films produced today that are simply "flavour of the moment"? Brokeback Mountain is a case in question. Morgan Freeman argued "it was the right film at the right time" and further went on to say "it is not necessarily more deserving of its Oscar nominations than others that have been overlooked". Then you have films that are producing political statements for or against something. Let's be honest here though. This has always happened. During WW2 and the Korean War a lot of flag waving "support our boys and your government" films were produced. After Vietnam a lot of anti war films were produced. This is always going to happen. There is no such thing as an impartial film - directors, scriptwriters have axes to grind and this is a way they can express it to a mass audience. Occasionally great films are produced ("The Deer Hunter, Platoon, Apocalypse Now") but how many more are forgotten?

Any other questions that should be asked?

Posted by AlexC at March 3, 2006 10:57 AM