I think that older movies too often get put on a pedestal and essentially given a pass when you start to compare and rank all time movies. For a lot of reviewers, the thought that 21st century movies can rival something done in the 50s-60s isn't even up for discussion.
Just look at the Godfather folk frothing....
And yeah, people who don't have a consistent way to judge film can make some grievous errors in doing that so they might fall on the crutch of "older is better," for lack a better reason (for instance, not one person really got the fact that I disliked Godfather, I never said it was a bad film). They both get emotional and irrational in analysis.
For a lot of reviewers, the thought that 21st century movies can rival something done in the 50s-60s isn't even up for discussion.
And anyone in this mindset is probably someone you don't want to listen to anyway.
At the same time a movie is a product of its time, keep that in mind.
I get that technology and movies in general were still in the infant stage up til about 10 years ago but that doesn't mean these early movies cannot be critiqued and graded for what they were (which IMO just isn't very good in a lot of cases).
On the other hand, you have to remove your modern glasses, and look at a movie for its time. Sure, compared to Inception the Wizard of Oz looks completely outdated and visually weak. No one can really argue that, but we can't look at Oz with and directly compare it to films past its time. That's unfair too.
(which IMO just isn't very good in a lot of cases).
What would be a critically acclaimed "not very good film?"
It is the "new is bad, old is good" mentality that you see everywhere, Lebron could never be as good as MJ, etc etc. At some point we as a society need to just accept that what we are doing now in the movie industry and really in general is just so far more advanced and better than what we were doing 50 years ago.
And of course this will bring in the "old is better" crew to defend their movies
You are doing yourself a disservice because you sound just like them. So newer is better no matter what?
TECHNOLOGICALLY and only technnologically, you may have an argument.
But in terms of acting, narrative, editing, and the plethora of other pieces of film, it's extremely hard to argue that certainty. Either because analysis is completely subjective, or because it just isn't true. Brando can act circles around any current actor. Even Daniel Day-Lewis.
There are few scenes like the opening to Touch of Evil. In fact, our editing has become shorter, not longer, due to technology, and truly innovative long takes are mostly a thing of the past.
Older isn't better, it just operates on a generally different wavelength that plays to its own heritage. (as does any moment in art)
This post was edited on 4/12 at 2:14 pm