>watch something from the 60s, 70s and 80s
>colours are naturalish, no grading or de/saturations
>comfy film grain
>dialogue is colourful and simple without being full of itself
>actors are allowed to be ugly and unique
>films keep most of their integrity and aren't pushed entirely into ideals that will sell the best
Is this truly the peak era of film?
>Is this truly the peak era of film?
Yes. It's slowly dying.
Why did they employ employ so many actors in the 70's and 80's with really really sharp jaws?
I was just having this feel.
70s films especially, watched The Killing of a Chinese Bookie the other day, holy shit what an amazing movie. Just the vibrant colors, blacks actually being black, cool, natural dialogue, cool music but they don't overdo it, the actual killing is clumsy and awkward...
>watch something from 2010s
>it's basically a fucking music video with too many closeups and desaturated colors
Not only that but back then most people who got into acting was because they were natural actors and were great at it, now a days lots of top actors feel so stiff and wooden.
>just the vibrant colors, blacks actually being black, cool, natural dialogue, cool music but they don't overdo it, the actual killing is clumsy and awkward...
Blue Ruin comes to mind as something modern that fits along those lines
>Laidback Robert Altman films from the 70s
hnng
There are still a lot of great actors in my opinion, but everyone follows such a clear path this days. People fumble into things much less often, which in acting is a shame.
>Laidback Robert Altman films from the 70s
mfw
Oh yeah. Ben Gazzara in The Killing is one of the best performances I've ever seen but i suppose that's got to do with Cassavetes being such a relaxed director too
Yep, Blue Ruin was great, especially how real it felt. Green Room was kinda shitty though, didn't have nearly the same gravitas
You watched the shorter re-edit right? It's a better film.
My God is that movie great. The first Altman movie I ever saw.
>People fumble into things much less often, which in acting is a shame.
I always like reading about what old hollywood actors did before they started acting. Like Robert Mitchum was a teenage vagrant who escaped from a juvenile detention chain gang before he got into working on sets.
It does feel like there are fewer actors period today. I watched The Purple Rose of Cairo yesterday, and there are so many tiny roles filled by middle aged or older people. I can't recall the last major film that didn't have every minute part filled with a known character actor for roles over a certain age. It makes casts feel too homogeneous, especially comedies.
Actually I watched the longer one I think, the one that's like 2 hrs 15 mins, but I still liked it, it didn't felt like an overkill. As i understand the shorter one cuts out some Cosmo's bar footage? I could do without that t b h
Yes, the edit cuts out like half an hour of bar footage, which is really unneeded for the film.
If I remember right both casavettes and gazzara prefer the shorter one.
Yeah, the old stories are great. John Wayne wrangling animals on set, my favorite Altman working making industrial videos, Lawrence Tierney the degenerate drunkard getting run out of town for decades and dubbing in Italy. All the guys coming out of vaudeville too, Chaplin and even Harold Lloyd and even later Jerry Lewis and Martin and that whole crowd. John Cleese teaching school for a minute.
Now it just seems to be went to CalArts/NYU/Wherever "pay your dues working a 'shit' job" be very "humble" and "appreciative" and maybe even act well but make nothing great.
I think the idea of shorter director's cuts being better is really interesting, in small part because I can stick it to people online who think longer is always better and every film with a story of being cut is really a lost masterpiece
Andrei Rublev, Picnic at Hanging Rock, and Donnie Darko are the other three I know with arguably better shorter cuts
People who blindly think longer = better are just morons.
There is like a 4 hour cut/workprint of assassination of jesse james out there or something and I seriously doubt 2 more hours improves the film in any way.
>Now it just seems to be went to CalArts/NYU/Wherever "pay your dues working a 'shit' job" be very "humble" and "appreciative" and maybe even act well but make nothing great.
Or just know the right jew.
>People who blindly think longer = better are just morons
That's a good point. It's often a reaction to people saying they couldn't follow a movie due to the length, which is rarely true when people thinking 2 hours is long. Honestly though, there are a lot of great 70-80 minute movies. Theaters need to start showing double features again so people will pay for shorter movies.
The studio system run by Jews made better movies. American Jews were the most artistically productive creators in the new world in the 20th century.
>The studio system run by Jews made better movies
Yet the studios are still run by jews and they are doing nothing but putting out the most artistically bankrupt movies yet.
Still good movies being put out, but the studio system was uniquely positioned to make great ones, and the 70s were the moment when that system was disintegrating but still there, giving enormously creative minds who might not have had access decades before the resources to make great ones.
Jews make shit movies, sure, but it's the economics of Hollywood that produce the shit, not the semitics. Film is a Jewish medium, so it's always weird to me that people on this board shit on them so much.
>colours are naturalish, no grading or de/saturations
totally false
Enough of this silly shit, post your favourite recent watched films from the 60s 70s or 80s that keep this true aesthetic.
>60s, Z
>70s, French Connection/Three Days of the Condor
>80s, Blue Velvet/Paris Texas (both rewatches after years)
Compared to the blue, grey or yellow filtered/desaturated films of today they look very natural.
this is the idealism that prevents great modern filmmaking
but every narrative film back in the day was graded and saturated
This is an extremely blanket statement.
Please elaborate on what you mean by idealism. Films themselves are ideas, you know.
Moviegoers were more patrician back then
I wonder why film makers insist on using shitty digital formats when we can get amazing looking results now using film and modern scanning techniques.
Its really a shame.
Because it's easier, faster, and less expensive with digital.
Film is a BUSINESS. Studios need $$$$$$$ and they need it FAST and CHEAP.