Three or so years ago, I got into a conversation at a Starbucks with this young guy who swore he would never watch a film that was older than 25 years.
“Waste of time,” he said.
Older films could tell him nothing because the vast majority of “vintage flicks” were “outdated, slow-paced, tedious and dull.” Critics who liked the oldies better than the new stuff, he said, had fallen victim to a myth ginned up by nostalgia. Any notion that a man, woman or child may simply have liked some of the old films was suspect.
The hard truth, the man went on, was that most old movies failed the test of time and had little to offer today’s audiences beyond curiosity. While here and there a classic film may hold up, he conceded, almost all of them were not worth the time or effort to watch.
Many of the oldies, he said, relied on shop-worn tropes and predictable cliches. Not only that, but the dialogue and acting in these movies could be stiff and stilted, lacking the nuance and subtlety of modern cinema.
This conformity, he said, was driven not by honesty, but by nostalgia or a desire to appear cultured. Critics should evaluate films based on their own merits and consider their relevance in today’s world, rather than blindly relying on their reputation or age.
Old movies, he said, are often characterized by beige, uninspired plots and tedious pacing. These movies were made in a different era with geezer technology and poor standards for storytelling.
Finally, many of the old movies contained outdated values and attitudes that were offensive and insensitive by today’s standards. Watching them could make you squirm as you were forced to watch racism, sexism and other forms of bigotry in action. It’s crucial to approach each movie on its own merits and to evaluate them objectively, rather than relying solely on nostalgia or reputation.
Oh, the irony in those last words.
I told him I did not understand his attitude.
Take one of his main arguments — that modern filmmakers know so much more than the oldsters did.
“Yes,” I said. “I suppose that’s true. But think about it — the older ones are what our contemporaries know.” Today’s filmmakers like Martin Scorsese and Steven Spielberg, whom you laud, are not shy about admitting the debt they owe the old masters.
And that bit about “slow-paced?” Yes, I said, that could also be true. But here an old suspicion raised its head: If it’s true that our attention spans just ain’t what they used to be, is it not possible that the fault lies not with the film, but our constricted ability to keep our attention on anything?
I thought then and think now that perhaps the best answer to all of his objections would be to write a brief list about a few of those “old, dull, useless films. “
Ever seen the “African Queen?” Bogey and Hepburn setting out on the great river to blow up the German ship, The Eliza? Age schmage, this is still one of the greatest adventure films ever made.
One of the “older films” he criticized was “The Godfather,” calling it “a bloated, self-indulgent mess only worth watching” if one had “an afternoon to waste” and nothing better to do.
What about “The French Connection?” Dullsville?!
Even Charlie Chaplin’s “The Gold Rush” holds up very well. Especially the part where The Little Tramp, who is without a turkey for his Thanksgiving dinner, starts to eat his own boots and slurp up his laces like they were spaghetti. Still funny after all these years.
I say, great is great, no matter how old it is.
Robert Whale can be reached at robert.whale@soundpublishing.com.
