Movies that Have Aged Well, and Those that Haven't

[ShogunRua]

Just finished watching Young Mr. Lincoln (1939). This was my review;

"To say "it hasn't aged well" would be a severe understatement. The movie is silly, hokey, and childish. Every scene is as maudlin, saccharine-sweet, and cliched as it gets. Every character is a one-dimensional caricature. There are constant plot holes and bits of idiocy throughout. Lincoln is a laughable, unrealistic exaggeration who can turn back angry, drunk mobs with a single sappy speech. The only (slight) positive is a decent performance by Henry Fonda. Otherwise, it's awful dreck."

This got me thinking about old movies that have aged well and those that haven't. Incidentally, just because you don't like a certain classic doesn't mean it falls into the latter category. I dislike Casablanca, but it hasn't aged poorly at all. That is, I can imagine a movie like it being made today, and entertaining for a modern audience. With Young Mr Lincoln, on the other hand, I can't see anyone taking that shit seriously today. My girlfriend, who only watches older flicks because of me, suffered through and despised it as much as I did.

As a counterpoint, look at something like Ruggles of Red Gap (1935). The movie is almost as fresh and funny today as it was 78 years ago! It's fast-paced, exciting, and hilarious. It has aged excellently.

Another amusing contrast is Dracula (1931) and Frankenstein (1931). Released in the same year, the Bela Lugosi flick is a dreary, dull, idiotic, amateurish affair that you really have to force yourself to sit through. Meanwhile, Frankenstein is well-paced and exciting, with some individually excellent scenes, and vastly less stupidity.

Focus-

What are old films (let's say prior to 1970) that haven't lost any of their charm, and those that are just ridiculous when viewed today?

Also, to avoid this turning into one of those mind-numbing, worthless djross list topics with random movie names and nothing else, state your reasons why.

[Stewball]

Focus-

What are old films (let's say prior to 1970) that haven't lost any of their charm, and those that are just ridiculous when viewed today?

Up:
All About Eve. Perhaps the first great dialogue movie.
High Noon. Shows that our current problems with evil, apathy and cowardice are perennial. Plus we get to see what a leader with integrity looks like.
Inherit the Wind. Another great dialogue movie about a famous trial concerning an issue that we've still made little progress in socially.
Dr.Strangelove: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. The title says it all: laugh at the darkness. I took it to heart and haven't looked back.
Phaedra. I put this up primarily so I could be pretentious and because it's in b&w like the preceding titles, and it does have some subtitles. Actually it's a very boring modern parallel to Oedipus Rex, but I never understood who could think Melina Mercouri by any stretch could be called attractive. But it does have an outstanding ending set to Bach.
The Lion in Winter. Finally, color. A Shakespearean (more pretension there) quality style of great dialogue and historical drama. Contains perhaps the greatest understatement ever from Hollywood.

Down:
It's a Wonderful Life: Gag. Jimmy Stewart, a tall bag of saccharin, was perfectly cast.
The Ten Commandments: Fails to communicate that Moses was an OT version of Hitler as is obvious in the Bible
8½: Pretension on a stick.

Up & Down:
The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance: Jimmy Stewart (he/his character) is such a wimp you can't help but pull for Liberty, played exquisitely by Lee Marvin (cast unintentionally as an anti-hero), to put Stewart out of his misery. Put the better part of a fifth under your belt when you watch it and you're certain to see what I mean. They should have redone It's a Wonderful Life with Lee Marvin in it, only instead of shooting Jimmy, he shoots the angel, Jimmy jumps, and Donna Reed runs off to Vegas with her new bad boy savior.

Jimmy Stewart, John Wayne, and acting in general, especially child acting, from most pre-60s films, have not stood the test of time either. Actually it was bad to begin with. Think Shirley Temple...or Susan Hayward... who both won Oscars!

Also, to avoid this turning into one of those mind-numbing, worthless djross list topics with random movie names and nothing else, state your reasons why.

I usually don't recognize three-quarters of them anyway.

[edkrak]

8½: Pretension on a stick.

In what way did it age badly? I get that you hate this film but what is pretentious about it now, that wasn't pretentious back when it was released?

[ShogunRua]

The Ten Commandments: Fails to communicate that Moses was an OT version of Hitler as is obvious in the Bible

What?!

[td888]

[ShogunRua]

GIF

Do you want to contribute to the topic?

[mattorama12]

I think of M as a film that has aged well. It's not a movie "I can imagine . . . being made today," but it is one that I think modern audiences would find entertaining if you could convince them to watch it in the first place. I believe it was the first "serial killer" film, which is obviously a subject that has captivated audiences to this day--Silence of the Lambs, Se7en, Zodiac, etc. Even though it's a bit slow at times, it's tense to keep your interest the entire time.

North By Northwest is an obvious example. It's one of the first true adventure films. Cary Grant in one of his most charming roles, Eva Marie Saint is one of the most beautiful female leads of all time, and the pacing could keep up with any recent film.

I'd also say The Wizard of Oz holds up well. When I was a kid, I had no idea that it was made in the 30s. It certainly felt more modern than Gone With the Wind, a movie I like that was made the same year, but feels its age.

[Stewball]

8½: Pretension on a stick.

In what way did it age badly? I get that you hate this film but what is pretentious about it now, that wasn't pretentious back when it was released?

It was pretentious back then, but it wasn't recognized as such then, or later by the intelligentsia. The longer it goes without being recognized as such, the more it.....sucks.

What?!

Check it out. He took the Ten Commandments (which he wrote and 5 of which don't really deal with true morality at all), expanded them to a massive quantity of theocratic dicta that regulate the minutia of everyday life including divine retribution for spilling one's seed on the ground, and being executed for gathering sticks on the sabbath or blasphemy. And then there's the genocidal invasion of Canaan with God on their side as justification. BTW, many modern scholars don't believe that was the way it happened anyway.

Fascist/communist socialism and theocracy are just different sides of the same autocratic coin. Freedom of religion means freedom from religion, though ironically, universal rational morality must be the only basis for any rule of law--morality determined by rational means, not theocratic or socialist hegemony.

And just to clarify, I don't hold modern Jews responsible for any of that whatsoever (other than maybe for not refuting the obvious crap I just pointed out, today) any more than I hold modern US whites responsible for slavery (other than not admitting that it was indeed the de facto cause of the Civil War).

[CMonster]

From the movies I've watched the one that held up the best is probably 12 Angry Men. Fantastically written and well paced. The acting is there, the directing is there, the message is there. It's a movie that should never be forgotten.

The worst would probably be The Birth of a Nation. It was horribly racist, but honestly, that was so over the top I found it a little funny. My biggest problem was that it became a boring slog to the end. I can appreciate what it did for film in a technical sense, but I hated watching it.

[ShogunRua]

I think of M as a film that has aged well.

Good choice. Lang's Scarlet Screet, which I consider to be his best film, has aged remarkably well, too.

From the movies I've watched the one that held up the best is probably 12 Angry Men. Fantastically written and well paced. The acting is there, the directing is there, the message is there. It's a movie that should never be forgotten.

Agreed, and I believe all of Sidney Lumet's films are timeless. That's the upside of concentrating on plot, characters, and dialogue, and eschewing fancy camera shots.

Another example I thought of is Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939). For starters, the pacing is phenomenal, and so is the rapid-fire dialogue; the events in the first 2 minutes of the film would take most modern pictures 15 minutes to present. However, the film has a surprising degree of complexity and cynicism to it; until the ending, it plays out as a really fucked-up, depressing tragedy, where an honorable, good man is abused and victimized by the political system he loves, and demonized and despised in his own state. Compare it to the childish, utterly wholesome, silly caricature that was "Young Mr. Lincoln", released in the same year.

As an aside, this topic makes it pretty clear which members are here to discuss movies, and those that aren't. Amusingly though, it's the latter group complaining most about the state of the forums in the "Proposal" topic.