Oldies But Goldies

And Some Outdated Classics

It's always a hot debate, how to evaluate old movies. You'll often hear the words "good for its time" or "a timeless classic" as opposed to "crude" or "outdated". Some will think the recent exploitative horror cinema is inferior to its ancestors while the others will find the old ones "not scary enough". It's like a generation gap in cinema. Younger audiences tend to be upset by the lack of certain things from movies, such as computer generated imagery, actors they recognize, actors that are alive, non-theatrical acting, passionate french kissing etc. The shortage on colors and sound doesn't help the situation either. Therefore they are often blamed for not paying enough attention to the likes of Orson Welles, Federico Fellini, Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick, Akira Kurosawa and many others. The older generation on the other hand, is commonly accused of being conservative and close-minded about recent movies.

I am not capable enough to solve this eternal problem with a few words I scribble on my blog so I won't try. But as someone who reviews movies, I think I must make clear where I stand as far as old movies go. Should they be judged solely by the period they were made? If they're "good for their time" is that good enough? Or is it wiser to compare them with their latter cousins of the same genre? Can their "crudeness" be ignored?

I have a simple and not-so-surprising answer to this question, which eliminates all my hopes of winning a nobel prize for it: Both. My explanation is also simple: I think ignoring the context of a movie is the critical equivalent of anachronism. Watching something that belongs a few years (or even decades) before our time and than comparing it to what you see today is like saying bell-bottoms were stupid because it's not fashionable to wear them anymore. You're missing the whole point. Imagine stumbling upon the remnants of an old treasure chest. The values of the coins inside would be so high that the change in currency would scarcely be the point. One should simply be prepared to explore the riches.

That being said, one should not ignore the great speed with which the art of cinema is maturing every year. A certain subject or genre might have been explored in greater detail and depth with a new movie; a specific story could have been told better or even a remake can be more sophisticated than the original material. Sticking to what's 'old' even in these cases and no matter what is pure bigotry. Unfortunately, that's what most veteran critics seem to be doing at the moment. It might be getting harder to accept and digest new things after certain age so maybe I shouldn't judge them too harshly; but the internet is indeed filled with top lists which rarely include a movie that was released after the fall of the Soviet Union. Now that's really not my cup of tea either.

There goes my stance. The original idea behind this post was to announce that from time to time I will also review the older movies that I happen to watch and see something worthy enough to write something on. Look for the label 'Oldies' for those ones. We'll see how it goes.