Something that I've noticed about my taste is that I don't like old films. Classic '30s and '40s movies. Nope. They do nothing for me. Here's the few black-and-whites that I do like:
- Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939). I tear up watching the fillibuster scene. It's so cliched and saccharine, but you rarely see that sort of pure idealism regarding politics. A lot of people say that it's actually an anti-politics movie because Congress is so screwed up, but it actually confirmed my desire to be a political science major.
- The African Queen (1951). I don't remember why. I think I found it amusing.
- Bringing Up Baby (1938). Also found it amusing, and that's about it. I watched this because I was running away from a football game that was going badly.
I don't really have anything against them, but sometimes I can feel as though I am somehow an inferior movie watcher because they do nothing for me -
people who defend them as their favorites often have such an air about them - "where actors were luminous and the interest lay in clever lines and twisty plotting. I like there to be dignity and grace and thought in films". And that's the argument I'd like to defend my modern taste against today.
I just watched two movies on the Independent Film Channel last night that definitely embody the opposite of classic movies -
Kontroll* (Hungary, 2003), and
The Sweet Hereafter (Canada, 1997). I really enjoyed both, far more than I could possibly enjoy, say, Casablanca or Citizen Kane. And to be honest my reasoning is the one that classic movie fans hate: Kontroll and The Sweet Hereafter felt relevant to me. They depicted environments similar to those I've lived in, they showed extremely skillful use of music, and their characters were real, flawed, and anonymous.
I understand that music is something older generations (and some of my generation) will not appreciate in movies - either that or they think of music as being songs played at certain points or piano crescendos. That's not how I think of movie music. Good soundtracks create an ambience you cannot get otherwise. They don't even have to be melodious - they could just be organized sound. And the fact is, I don't go a block without listening to my iPod. Music gives the image and the action texture. It's a constant. It's an enricher. Of course, not all soundtracks are good, or used well, and a powerful soundtrack is not necessary for a powerful movie (No Country for Old Men, for instance, has an anorexic soundtrack). But, artful soundtracks help.
By anonymous I mean the actors moved to the will of the film, not the other way around. I must admit that movies that are vehicles for big stars are a pet peeve of mine, and I feel like a lot of classic movies are just that. The Sweet Hereafter did feature Ian Holm (Bilbo from LOTR) as the main character, but Holm is not who I would call a big name, he's a character actor, and he was not overpowering. I think personas - A-list actors who play the same character over and over and over, whose characters have the same morals and opinions they do, etc. - are the most toxic thing to a film. I only like character actors. You know, Spanish actors with bad English, who can't drive and hate violence, and play Anton Chigurh. That's hot. Or, people who seem never to have acted before (something I quite admired about Elephant), or have only acted in music videos or stage or some shit college movie, and create these gritty, grotesque five-minute characters with perfect facial expressions, perfect everything, perfect because they look real. Like how someone down the street would react to being punched at by commuters or having their children plunge to death in a school bus. Of course they're not going to win an Oscar with these shots-of-crazy-life performances, but they work superbly for the story. As someone who prioritizes storytelling I love those honest little details because they're what makes the story resonate. Glamour does not. Dignity does not. Luminescence does not. That guy in Kontroll was hot as hell and constantly covered in blood. As the lyrics to "Forgetting" by Phillip Glass and Linda Ronstadt go:
The man is awake now
He can't get to sleep again.
So he repeats these words
Over and over again:
Bravery. Kindness. Clarity.
Honesty. Compassion. Generosity.
Bravery. Honesty. Dignity.
Clarity. Kindness. Compassion.
I suppose what I mean is that I don't think grace and dignity have anything at all to do with art. Least of all an art that is so closely connected to the masses as movies.
Then there's also the argument that modern movies and their fans are unconscious of history. There's a lot of counter-arguments against that, most of which boil down to the idea that history isn't static and is always changing, and young people who watch old movies today are not exactly watching their beloved classics with an austere eye. Of course, they can't help this. It is simply true. I don't hold it against them - but it does make the history argument somewhat null. And if we're simply arguing about educational value: that it's important to learn about history - and that watching old movies is a cheap and easy way to do that - we've got significant problems because we're now arguing that these movies are a suitable replacement for history books. And while history books aren't perfect, they at least attempt objectivity and will at least tell you that slavery was bad (a sentiment not likely to be gotten from a cold viewing of Gone with the Wind).
In other news, turns out my mom doesn't like mojitos.
* I wish I could find a slower, more atmospheric scene for Kontroll, but I couldn't.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
( my all-stars ) 
