[quote]I feel like people ignore or forget that film and music existed before the 1960s, and it’s a shame. Especially when actually quite a lot of it exists for people to experience.[/quote]
This conversation has come up a lot lately in my circle. Recently watched the original King Kong with my kids (3 and 5) after talking about the origins of modern cinema with some old friends. My kids laughed and laughed at how seemingly ridiculous it was. I tried to explain to my oldest that for the time, it was considered cutting-edge, and the stop motion animation was unparalleled. “People thought this was real?” I told him they didn’t necessarily think it was real, but it scared the -blam!- out of people in terms of how [i]seemingly[/i] real it was back then. The idea that this film actually [i]frightened[/i] people was confounding to him. By the second act of the movie, they’d totally lost interest (as 3 and 5 year olds tend to do).
People take for granted that a hundred years ago, there were “civilized” people without electricity, running water and public sanitation. We’d just come out of one of the most brutal periods of warfare in the modern age. By current standards, the entertainment of the age was primitive and crude. But a hundred years before that, even the most advanced people of the time couldn’t have imagined watching moving pictures on a projection screen.
On a side note, my favorite film of the silent period has to be Metropolis (cliche, I know). I bought it on VHS at a garage sale for like a quarter when I was about 8-10ish and it blew my mind. Grateful that my parents encouraged my enjoyment of that stuff.
Went to a party in London years ago where a DJ had written an album inspired by Metropolis.. We got to watch the film on a big screen before the party really kicked off.
Top night.
Metropolis is a good one, I’d definitely put it at or near the top of a Sci-Fi list. I remember first watching it at uni, and it similarly blew my mind then.
I find it hard to sympathise with people (adults I mean, not children obviously) who are put off or dislike films solely because of bad effects or it being in black and white. Putting aside the knowledge that they clearly did the best they could with the technology available at the time, a viewer should have enough imagination to make up for any shortcomings as far as the visuals are concerned. I guess I was quite spoilt as a child with old Doctor Who episodes, so I’ve built up a pretty strong tolerance to abysmal green-screen, spaceships on string, monsters made of bubble wrap and ray gun blasts that don’t actually hit anything, but the whole point of this kind of thing is that you suspend your disbelief anyway so I don’t see why it matters how real things look as long as you can tell what it’s supposed to be. Especially when certain ‘shortcomings’ can actually enhance the atmosphere. Lots of filmmakers even resisted the moves from silence to sound and from b/w to colour specifically because they thought it would cheapen their art.
Couldn’t agree more. While the ones creativity may be limited by the available technology of the time, that doesn’t devalue the significance of the creation itself. There’s a lot of music and cinema out nowadays that feels soulless compared to what came before it. All about intention.