worst decade for cinema?

[life_boy]

i apologize if you're not taking a stab and just writing matter of factly but there is so much hostility in this thread it's infectious.

I was writing matter of factly.  I know I haven't seen anything made between those years except a couple of Lumiere shorts.  I honestly don't think I'm the only one.  I'm aware of it's importance, but without having seen much from that period it is hard to judge the greatness/"worstness" of it.  That's all I meant by it.  Apology: accepted.

[Stefen]

It's really hard to have this argument in hindsight cause unless your living in that period and got to experience the films firsthand and the way they were viewed it's hard to say. The films we see as great from a certain decade may not even have been seen much in that decade it was in. This is a shoddy poll and the results will not be correct. With that said, i'm voting for the 80's.

[soixante]

I remeber the 70's vividly and I remember the 80's vividly, and I can say that the 80's sucked.  The only good thing about the 80's is that it made the 70's seem all the better.

There were a few good films in the 80's, but the majority of the films were aimed at 12 year olds.  The endless clones of Porky's and Friday the 13th became wearisome.

The 90's seem great in retrospect, and the current decade is pretty good so far.  But 20 years later, the 80's still haven't gotten better in retrospect.

[meatball]

I remeber the 70's vividly and I remember the 80's vividly, and I can say that the 80's sucked.

I trust the old man's opinion.

The 90's seem great in retrospect, and the current decade is pretty good so far.  But 20 years later, the 80's still haven't gotten better in retrospect.

Again. Trust.

[soixante]

I remeber the 70's vividly and I remember the 80's vividly, and I can say that the 80's sucked.

I trust the old man's opinion.

The 90's seem great in retrospect, and the current decade is pretty good so far.  But 20 years later, the 80's still haven't gotten better in retrospect.

Again. Trust.

Thank you.  One thing that never changes is the older generation takes a dump on the younger generation for being "weaker," which I think is horseshit.  Watching a lot of movies in the 90's, I thought, this really reminds me of the 70's, in terms of quality and variety.

Right now is an exciting time for cinema.  There are plenty of interesting films and filmmakers.  The people who carp about how bad movies are today don't see any of them.  Stuff like Donnie Darko, Napoleon Dynamite, I Heart Huckabees, Dogville, Punch-Drunk Love, Memento and Elephant shows that the future of cinema is bright.

I could imagine in 2021, Donnie Darko will be considered a classic alongside Wizard of Oz and Star Wars.

[socketlevel]

Right now is an exciting time for cinema.  There are plenty of interesting films and filmmakers.  The people who carp about how bad movies are today don't see any of them.  Stuff like Donnie Darko, Napoleon Dynamite, I Heart Huckabees, Dogville, Punch-Drunk Love, Memento and Elephant shows that the future of cinema is bright.

I could imagine in 2021, Donnie Darko will be considered a classic alongside Wizard of Oz and Star Wars.

I hope you're wrong in 2021, that movie has film student written all over it, and the movie has redeemable qualities only because the director didn't know how to properly tell a story, making the ambiguity the attraction (go listen to the commentary and you'll laugh your ass off how nothing he intended to say in the film, much to his ignorance, made it to celluloid).  Then he releases a director's cut trying to clear it all up and still nothing is accomplished.

all the examples, minus elephant and Punch-Drunk are overly referential and soooo fucking self indulgent, getting back to Gamblor's original point.  and it's a strong point at that!  these filmmakers love film too much that they don't seem to create film organically, but rather, it seems like they're taking a fanboy appropriating approach.  i just imagine richard kelly saying, "shit i love that scene in the shinning, i need a scene like that in this."  rather than objectively looking at the story and conceiving the best way to shoot it.

the craft in contemporary filmmaking is impeccable.  that's the difference separating it from the 80s in my opinion, it was horrible then.  

no one has brought up that there hasn't been a massive film movement since the 70s.  which is a strong connection to the veracity of the unimportance of today's films.  they're just a hodge podge of rip off scenes that often don't make a unified whole with little to no point.

-sl-

[meatball]

Socketlevel, are you and Gamblor saying that filmmakers who are cinephiles are lesser filmmakers than those that have the natural hootzpah? Because they look to those that have come before them as inspiration, they are weak and puny and should not be respected?

Name some of those hodge podges of ripoff scenes whose sum totals have no point.

-M-

[socketlevel]

Socketlevel, are you and Gamblor saying that filmmakers who are cinephiles are lesser filmmakers than those that have the natural hootzpah? Because they look to those that have come before them as inspiration, they are weak and puny and should not be respected?

Name some of those hodge podges of ripoff scenes whose sum totals have no point.

-M-

in terms of originality i'd have to say yes, they are lesser and it's to their demise in the history books that they don't hate anything.  they love everything, so they don't give a shit about what is important.  it's a weak everything-is-relative stance, fuck that.  that's not an opinion, it's just appropriation.  the french new wave was started because of a loath for popular cinema form, and neo realism, and so many other movements.  Philosophy is built upon analyzing and then taking a stance on what you think is the weakest link to the stance that precedes your own.

the great director's were always cynical bastards.  von trier hates a lot, vant sant hates a lot, korine hates a lot, wenders hates a lot, and the list goes on and on, but most importantly Kubrick hated more than all of them combined and that may be one of the reasons why he's the god of filmmaking.  so this unsatisfied feeling they have seems to account for a set doctrine in their films.  don't you think their could be a co-relation between this apathy and great cinema?  

soderberg loves all these guys, so he is the ultimate chameleon and copy cat for it; with fincher and richie and so on.  soderberg started off caring but then he met all these beautiful people and felt great about himself so his films, even though technically beautiful, feel hollow.  tarantino is the same way, but he's the god of appropriation so i kind of respect how he works.  but it's still stagnant cinema, with nothing to prove.

i don't need to tell you the specific scenes cause they're limitless and they'll tell you on the commentaries anyway, go rent fight club.  but if you really want me to i will.  i just think the everything-is-relative stance is somewhat complacent and lacks evolution.  complacent because it is seen as counter culture when it's not, it's just being affraid of confrontation.  lacks evolution because it promotes a behavior in which nothing new can be added.  however, that's how change comes about, through discord.

lol, now i'm not che... but i do take cinema seriously, and back in the 70s so did the audience.  it seems that the art has been taken away.  fuck everyone sees it, look at the oscar winners now.  do they win because they're art? naw... that used to be some factor but the joan rivers element destroyed all that.  it just seems logical to me.  progressive change never happened in the hollywood system so they squelch it, no capital to be had.

Dogma 95 was the last to try this, and it makes me feel happy, not cause i want to make movies that way, but the independent spirit, and the spirit for change is still alive.

-sl-

fuck i'm melodramatic, i want to puke.