7 ms·

That opening truly does demonstrate how many incredible films were coming out at that period in time. I'm not a huge subscriber of the idea that modern film is

That opening truly does demonstrate how many incredible films were coming out at that period in time. I'm not a huge subscriber of the idea that modern film is truly diminished beyond repair, but the 60's and 70's were a special time. Indeed it baffles me a little that we're not experiencing a renaissance in films, what with cameras and lights being cheaper than ever. Heck, Truffaut famously argued in the Cahiers du Cinema that you could make a film for a lot less and that was in the 50's. Why not now? The answer, of course, is distribution. Theaters are beholden to the big budget franchises and streaming deals are hard to come by unless you're playing at one of the big film festivals. Even if you taking a streaming deal, your film can slip under the radar unless someone decides to invest in a marketing budget. A Sun comes to mind: https://www.indiewire.com/2020/12/consider-this-a-sun-oscar-taiwan-netflix-1234604603/ https://www.indiewire.com/2020/12/consider-this-a-sun-oscar-...

2pEXgD0fZ5cF 6y ago
It's also that movies are just in a deadlock because there are genres/pots/movie flavours that are considered "safe". Movies that are the same old cinematography, the same old story, probably won't be a huge success, but still almost guaranteed to create a profit. This school of thought goes down even to very cheap productions.
kingkawn 6y ago
I think there’s a general cultural malaise; everything is rehashed, even radicalism is rehashed old forms of radicalism. I think tho that the aftermath of covid will shake everything loose finally.
WalterBright 6y ago
Oh phooey. Distribution is as easy as uploading it to youtube. I've also seen a lot of pretty marginal content streaming on Amazon.
- hardwaregeek 6y ago
  How many movies have you watched on YouTube? How many were new movies? YouTube is certainly a great way to distribute certain media, but for movies, it's not a good enough platform.
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    How is it not good enough?
slg 6y ago
Back in those days, before cable television, home video, and obviously streaming, movies would spend months and sometimes even years in theaters. The movies mentioned in the opening span multiple years. I guarantee one could put together a similar list of (soon to be) classics from 2017-2020 that rivals those movies from 1957-1960. Sure, it is less prestigious stuff like superhero movies that break box office records and not these classics, but that was also true at the time too. And maybe you can't see all these classics in a theater at the same time like this hypothetical New Yorker from 1959, but that is because there are so many more distribution channels today competing for "content". These new channels make these movies much more accessible to a much larger audience today than was ever possible in the past. I think this whole debate is overblown.
- cageface 6y ago
  I guarantee one could put together a similar list of (soon to be) classics from 2017-2020 that rivals those movies from 1957-1960. I'd be interested to see your list.
  - slg 6y ago
    My taste is less arthousey so I’m not the one to make the list of modern parallels for these movies. But since you asked, here is my personal list after looking at my Letterboxd (in no particular order) Parasite, Little Women, Into the Spiderverse, Portrait of a Lady on Fire, Lady Bird, Phantom Thread, Knives Out, Annihilation, and Get Out. Almost all of those movies involve some type of unconventional approach or risk by the filmmakers. For example even something as basic as the adaption of a century and a half old book is handled in a new and innovative way unlike the countless earlier adaptations. Heck even the freaking Spider-Man movie was playing with the form in ways that no other movie has ever done before. The artistry, the evolution, and everything else is still there if you look for it.
    - cageface 6y ago
      Those are good films I agree but to me they do not have the same sense of excitement and discovery I get from the best of the 60s and 70s.
brmgb 6y ago
> Indeed it baffles me a little that we're not experiencing a renaissance in films, what with cameras and lights being cheaper than ever. Heck, Truffaut famously argued in the Cahiers du Cinema that you could make a film for a lot less and that was in the 50's. Why not now? We are. You are just not watching them. Indepent cinema is booming. They have never been as many festivals and the quality of what they screen has never been higher. If you start looking at world cinema it's even more impressive. Nigeria now has the third largest cinema industry in the world. The issue is not production but distribution. Good movies are made. They are just not marketed. Meanwhile, people are mostly offered American blockbusters which are at an all time low quality wise.

2pEXgD0fZ5cF 6y ago

It's also that movies are just in a deadlock because there are genres/pots/movie flavours that are considered "safe". Movies that are the same old cinematography, the same old story, probably won't be a huge success, but still almost guaranteed to create a profit. This school of thought goes down even to very cheap productions.

kingkawn 6y ago

I think there’s a general cultural malaise; everything is rehashed, even radicalism is rehashed old forms of radicalism. I think tho that the aftermath of covid will shake everything loose finally.

WalterBright 6y ago

Oh phooey. Distribution is as easy as uploading it to youtube. I've also seen a lot of pretty marginal content streaming on Amazon.

hardwaregeek 6y ago
How many movies have you watched on YouTube? How many were new movies? YouTube is certainly a great way to distribute certain media, but for movies, it's not a good enough platform.
- WalterBright 6y ago
  How is it not good enough?

slg 6y ago

Back in those days, before cable television, home video, and obviously streaming, movies would spend months and sometimes even years in theaters. The movies mentioned in the opening span multiple years. I guarantee one could put together a similar list of (soon to be) classics from 2017-2020 that rivals those movies from 1957-1960. Sure, it is less prestigious stuff like superhero movies that break box office records and not these classics, but that was also true at the time too. And maybe you can't see all these classics in a theater at the same time like this hypothetical New Yorker from 1959, but that is because there are so many more distribution channels today competing for "content". These new channels make these movies much more accessible to a much larger audience today than was ever possible in the past. I think this whole debate is overblown.

cageface 6y ago
I guarantee one could put together a similar list of (soon to be) classics from 2017-2020 that rivals those movies from 1957-1960. I'd be interested to see your list.
- slg 6y ago
  My taste is less arthousey so I’m not the one to make the list of modern parallels for these movies. But since you asked, here is my personal list after looking at my Letterboxd (in no particular order) Parasite, Little Women, Into the Spiderverse, Portrait of a Lady on Fire, Lady Bird, Phantom Thread, Knives Out, Annihilation, and Get Out. Almost all of those movies involve some type of unconventional approach or risk by the filmmakers. For example even something as basic as the adaption of a century and a half old book is handled in a new and innovative way unlike the countless earlier adaptations. Heck even the freaking Spider-Man movie was playing with the form in ways that no other movie has ever done before. The artistry, the evolution, and everything else is still there if you look for it.
  - cageface 6y ago
    Those are good films I agree but to me they do not have the same sense of excitement and discovery I get from the best of the 60s and 70s.

brmgb 6y ago

> Indeed it baffles me a little that we're not experiencing a renaissance in films, what with cameras and lights being cheaper than ever. Heck, Truffaut famously argued in the Cahiers du Cinema that you could make a film for a lot less and that was in the 50's. Why not now? We are. You are just not watching them. Indepent cinema is booming. They have never been as many festivals and the quality of what they screen has never been higher. If you start looking at world cinema it's even more impressive. Nigeria now has the third largest cinema industry in the world. The issue is not production but distribution. Good movies are made. They are just not marketed. Meanwhile, people are mostly offered American blockbusters which are at an all time low quality wise.