It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
I have the hardest time recalling what exactly did win each year — but I’ll back Titanic and Return of the King. Both the kind of large-scale epic that Hollywood has always done best, critically acclaimed and popular with audiences, solid casting, great effects that support the story, etc.
Here’s why that is NOT a back-door endorsement for Gladiator, which I despise: both Titanic and ROTK were competently and coherently edited, adhered to the rule of “show-don’t-tell” rather than explaining every character relationship in tedious expository dialogue scenes, and were not burdened with flocks of fake CGI birds in every cityscape.
Shakespeare in Love would not have been a first-choice, but I had no great issue with it winning.
Here’s a list of nominees/winners to aid the process:
http://www.filmsite.org/oscars.html
Annie Hall is good, but it’s no Manhattan. ANH should have won because it changed the fucking world. Hell, ET, changed the fucking world, and it should have beat Ghandi. You know what really should have won? Two Towers over Chicago, and There Will Be Blood over No Country.
Worthy winners:
The Departed
Return of the King
Gladiator
Titanic (not my choice, but a worthy BP)
English Patient
Braveheart
Forrest Gump
Schindler’s List
Unforgiven
Silence of the Lambs
Dances with Wolves
(the academy was on a roll from 1990-1997 with me, my favorite decade of oscars)
winners I don’t really have an issue with (ie worthy, but not worthy against the competition)
Driving Miss Daisy
Shakespeare in Love
American Beauty
No Country for Old Men
Films that shouldn’t have won
Beautiful Mind
Chicago
Million Dollar Baby
Crash
Looking over the list of winners/nominees, I’m surprised how many winners I disagree with (although there are only a few I find egregious). The “worthy” winners include:
Schindler’s List
Silence of the Lambs
American Beauty
The Departed
No Country for Old Men
The few winners that I really have a problem with are:
Driving Miss Daisy (boring)
Gladiator (very entertaining, but worse than CTHD, Erin Brockovich, AND Traffic)
Chicago (meh)
Crash (yuck)
I’m OK with the remaining winners, although I prefer (at least) one other nominated film in each year.
I appreciate the effort so far, but I am not seeing a lot of detailed argument other than “I like this,” and “I didn’t like that,” except from the first comment by LYT.
Apologies for this lengthy piece, but DP did aske for detailed argument.
What are we saying is “worthy”? A film that we know the Academy deems to be worthy or a film that we accept and agree is a film that stands the test of time, breaks new ground and is also a work of art. Well, very rarely does anyone (Academy or festival) manage to recognize those sorts of films. But…
Then, are we miffed because a film did not win and another film, which we deem less worthy wins? Ordinary People is a very fine film. I showed it to my students when The Departed was up and they were all high on their Marty Mission. And they were all surprised how good Redford’s work was. In the memory it may appear cautious (compared to the chaos of Raging Bull), but watching it, the film is very assured. Dances With Wolves is also a very good film (I personally think its template was Lawrence of Arabia… a man goes out into the desert and sides with the natives). GoodFellas is terrific but Dances With Wolves certainly had craft. Likewise, Driving Miss Daisy. Very assured, if gentile. However, even being Irish prevents me from saying that My Left Foot should have won instead. I think it’s an okay film as a work of film. I would have been okay with Dead Poets or Field of Dreams winning that year… but not Born on the Fourth. That has not aged well and even when watching it, I was underwhelmed by its hairy-chested, medallion-swinging liberalism.
For Silence of the Lambs, I was delighted but would have been okay with JFK winning both picture and director. It is an amazing piece of work and, poor performances and occasionally hokey-dialogue aside, it still holds up.
A lot of people dislike Gladiator but I think it’s a terrific piece of opera. If you look at in that manner, I think you can accept a lot of the broadstroke characterization. It is certainly no worse than Braveheart which is a film I dislike intensenly, mainly because I don’t think Gibson has an interesting view of the world, or its history. There is no sweep to it.
But that year, CTHD was the work that stunned me.
But I don’t think Shakespeare, Chicago. Crash, Beautiful Mind, American Beauty or Forrest Gump have lasted well. Certainly the films that were up against them have weathered better (Ryan, The Pianist, Brokeback, Gosford Park, The Insider, Pulp or Shawshank, whichever way you want to opt for 94.)
“Silence of the Lambs” and “Schindler’s List” are worthy — and neither of ’em as backdoors.
Also, unless I am misinterpreting the header on this disucussion topic, “Ordinary People” did not come out in the last 20 years. Neither did “Annie Hall.”
Thanks to the link by mysteryperfecta, I am now better equipped. So, other than the three I mentioned prior, here are the ones since 1989 I think rightfully won (which is not to say they were my favorites of the year, but the best of the nominees):
The Silence of the Lambs
Unforgiven
[Aside: Good God, 1993 was a bad year. I can barely stand ANY of the nominees in any category. And American Beauty in 1999, out of all the amazing stuff that came out — I’d sooner it had gone to The Matrix]
Million Dollar Baby
No Country For Old Men
Now, as to why those four, I think I can actually come up with a blanket reason that covers all four. They all feature original, character-based spins on familiar formulas (serial killer hunt, revenge western, sports tragedy, and “dudes after a case full of money”). No Country and Silence created iconic cinematic creations in Hannibal Lecter and Anton Chigurh (granted, both were book characters first, and Lecter had been done less memorably by Brian Cox, but these movies really kicked them up a notch), and the other two starred Clint Eastwood and Morgan Freeman, who are already iconic characters of their own.
I will grant you that this standard also covers Forrest Gump…for me the distinction is that Gump’s sentimentality felt forced and unearned, while the four I mention above come by it realistically, in my view. I know someone will bring up Swank’s redneck family, but for me the heart of Million Dollar Baby is actually the Eastwood-Freeman relationship, a macho man bond full of passive-aggressive insults that finally goes too far when a tragedy comes between them.
And given all that I’ve said about these and the big epics, can I possibly deny Braveheart’s worthiness? Well, I get it…but to me the stuff between battles just wasn’t that interesting. But you could make a case that I have no room to seriously object to it.
Never saw Dances With Wolves. Nothing about it interested me much. I guess I should just for completeness’ sake. Ditto The Piano.
Everything I’ve said would also apply to The Dark Knight, which is why I thought it had a good shot.
“Worthy” to me means either the winner IS the best nominated film of that year imo, or the film is not decisively worse than the film(s) I preferred.
1989: ‘Manipulative’ is the key descriptor for this years’ nominees, but of the lot, Field of Dreams manipulated me in the most satisfying ways, and is still one of my all-time favs. Driving Miss Daisy was boring and irritating, imo.
1990: No clear frontrunner.
1991: I think most would agree that Silence of the Lambs is the clear head of the class.
1992: Weak year, who cares.
1993: Schindler’s List is an audacious, startling masterpiece.
1994: Perhaps I should have noted Forrest Gump as a suspect pick, but I like it, and it was a phenomenon. Pulp Fiction is the landmark film of the group; I’ve heard that a few people like Shawshank Redemption.
1995: I unabashedly adore Babe, an absolutely perfect film. But it didn’t have a chance in hell.
1996: I don’t know.
1997: My pick is LA Confidential, but Titantic was an amazing experience.
1998: Shakespeare in Love is a wonderful film. And it has been forgotten. Not without flaws, but Saving Private Ryan will last.
1999: American Beauty is the class of this year.
2000: I would easily choose 2 (maybe 3) of the other nominees over the very solid Gladiator.
2001: A Beautiful Mind deserved the win. Didn’t like Godsford or Moulin; In the Bedroom is great but a minor work; LOTR:FOTR is accomplished but meanders.
2002: Thumbs down for Chicago; Gangs and LOTR:TTT are great; The Pianist is outstanding.
2003: No clear frontrunner, imo.
2004: HATED the end of MDB, but I understand its appeal, and can’t make a compelling argument for any other film’s decisive superiority.
2005: Any film but Crash. ANY FILM.
2006: I’m cool with The Departed.
2007: No Country for Old Men is fantastic.
My worthy winners, though most were not my favorite of the year:
1991 – Silence of the Lambs – At the time, I was truly disappointed that it beat JFK, which is the better film. But….Lambs really holds up as a suspense masterpiece and though Hopkins’ performance got all of the attention, Foster’s work is what made this a true classic. And even though they couldn’t award JFK, this was still a pretty ballsy pick for the Academy.
1993 – Schindler’s List – truly the best of the year, though In the Name of the Father came close
1997 – Titanic – Watch it on cable and the film holds up. Though LA Confidential is arguably the better film.
2003 – Lord of the Ring: Return of the King – Master and Commander was just as good, but they just picked the wrong year to release an aquatic adventure, coming out six months after Pirates of the Caribbean. City of God was the best picture of the year, but it TRULY was just an honor for the director be nominated
2006 – The Departed – the most compulsively watchable Best Picture winner of my lifetime. Was United 93 actually the best film of the year? Yes, but see City of God above.
I know I’m in the minority on this blog, but I feel that Slumdog Millionaire WAS the best film of 2008 and if it wins, it’s truly deserving. And the fact that so many are writing it off as “typical” is just crazy – the film features techno music, multiple narratives, a mostly Indian cast, is directed by Danny ‘freakin Boyle, is truly directed and shot in a modern style – it’s a trailblazing film in many ways, which is why I’m still skeptical it will win.
I feel like the only reason Forrest Gump can be accused of not aging well is because its catch-phrases were run into the ground. But I have a hard time blaming the movie itself for that. Maybe I’m a sap or a sucker but the character still strikes a chord in me.
(As we all can attest, the movies you saw when you were twelve years old are the ones you care passionately about forever.)
And holy shit, Geoff is pretty much transcribing my brain right there (except for Slumdog, which I haven’t yet seen.) You, sir, have excellent taste.
“In the end, are the ones that ‘deserve’ it deserving because of some strong, clear criteria or because YOU liked them more than the others?”
I have never heard or seen anybody say or write anything like the following: “My personal favorite is Film X, and Film Y left me a little cold, but I think Film Y should win because it was a better made movie”. I think people always go with the one they like first (assuming it gets nominated), and then find the technical/rational reasons for choosing it afterwards. I also think about 90% of people lose sight of that reality, start mistaking their idiosyncratic opinions for universal facts, and rain like a jihad down on the movies that didn’t do anything for them personally. Seeing as how this is my own idiosyncratic opinion, hell, I could be wrong.
“As we all can attest, the movies you saw when you were twelve years old are the ones you care passionately about forever.”
I dunno. I think it’s more like 16 or 17, when you can start seeing whatever you want to without the ratings hurdles, and you’re trying out newer and bolder things. If my favorite films (and music, and books, etc) have groupings around certain times of my life, the biggest would be around that time period.
Great minds think alike, Eric – thank you very much.
With regards to Forrest Gump, I am not a huge fan of the film, but think it probably gets somewhat of a bum rap. The effects splicing him in with presidents got a lot of hype at the time and no, they did not age well. And neither did the boomer-nostalgic soundtrack, which at the time, everybody was crazy for – since then, about two dozen films have tried the same music cues. And let’s face it – it came out before the fall of Shawshank and Pulp Fiction, two beloved films with die-hard fanbases that just resented that their film lost to this one. And of course, you can’t ignore the politics – months after it came out, the likes of Rush Limbaugh and New Gingrich embraced the film, which was also going to cause a backlash.
I think Forrest Gump was undeserving, but there were a lot of factors out of its control that caused people to eventually hate it, independent of the actual quality of the movie.
Geoff- I agree, City of God was the best movie of 2003. Should have got a best pic nomination.
I’m not really clear on how this is an answerable question outside of the “You liked it more than others” answer, unless we say that an ‘Oscar winner’ should have some unusual set of unique criteria that may or may not relate to quality, like ‘represents state-of-the-art in craft’ or ‘socially relevant themes’ or ‘smart enough for a selective audience yet broad enough for a mass audience’ or any number of things that everyone could argue about forever.
I mean, plenty of all of our favorite movies weren’t even nominated for Best Picture. I was fine with Million Dollar Baby winning for 2004, but the best movie I saw that year was Vera Drake. So in a sense, MDB was ‘worthy’ but still less ‘worthy’ than at least one other option.
I think ‘unworthy’ is a lot easier to tell since those seem to be the movies that are so clearly bad that they stick out, beyond something that’s merely safe and conservative and well-made enough to be an acceptable winner. For me in recent memories the unworthy would include:
A Beautiful Mind
Crash
(Slumdog Millionaire)
Most years the best movie of the year doesn’t get nominated, but the best spectacle/big studio picture full of “acting” does most of the time. what the award was for originally anyway, not for the Indies.
American Beauty–it was a spectacle but compared to Insider and the sixth sense I don;t think it was most worthy, but it at least wasn;t an offensive win like when Shakespeare in Love robbed Elizabeth
Schindler’s List–worthy–I was suprised. the only thing I disliked in the entire move was Liam Neeson’s “I couldn’t saved more” silliness. The acting on part of all was amazing. Smart that it was in black and white.
The Silence of the Lambs–worthy
Braveheart–a big spectacle, cheese at times to showcase the big star’s (Gibson), but still a Big picture
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King–it was for the trilogy, but that was worthy
No Country for Old Men–not the usual big picture, but worthy
The Departed–worthy
Forrest Gump and Titanic were big expensive spectacles but had enough cardboard or tepid performances and trite dialog that I couldn’t feel that they were worthy. smoke and mirrors and guilt trips. But they got people’s emotions etc, and they were voted for.
Worthiness is subjective except when you get people and time involved. Some Oscar choices have aged better than others. If you go back farther than 20 years. If you go back to the earliest ceremonies. Some of those films awarded best pictures are comparatively, pieces of crap compared to what they were nominated against.
So it all comes back to what you find worthy or not. I do not find Annie Hall or Ghandi worthy in comparison to cultural phenomenons that have lasted over 30 years. I do not find Silence of the Lambs worthy. It’s a film that has aged horribly. It has solid performances, but it’s not Manhunter.
You can go on and on all day with this, but ultimately someone in 15 years in EW will decide. I am would wager TDK’s exclusion will be brought up compared to the five films nominated. I would wager Wall E would be brought up as well.
The Academy had a simple choice this year, and they really shot themselves in the foot. They can give Slumdog everything it’s been nominated for on Sunday, but it will not change time. Time will have it’s say, and I am betting on TV giving the Academy a big thumbs down. Thanks in no small part to three initials… T… D… K.
Oh yeah; Two Towers was totally robbed. I love Chicago, but Two Towers is tremendous in ways everyone believes ROTK to be. It deserved the gold.
Silence of the Lambs has aged a whole lot better than Manhunter. I like Manhunter but that movie is 80s all the way. Silence could have been made last year.
I actually think Chicago is the winner I am most happy about (at the time and now). Instead of choosing a WWII movie or an overblown Scorsese “epic” or a literary British movie they chose the ritzy razzly-dazzly musical that has no likable characters. I think it’s an amazing movie and is yet another casualty of the two Ws. Weinstein and War. In that because it’s from Harvey Weinstein people immediately assume the Academy didn’t actually like it, and that really they actually much preferred the war movie The Pianist, which – and I really like that movie a lot – is basically seen as the better movie by default because it’s about WWII.
If ‘conventional wisdom’ makes its decision in 15 years, it can just as easily change its mind again 15 years after that.
To quote the Best Picture of 1992, “Deserve’s got nothing to do with it.” Except in this way: to the extent that the winning pictures got the most votes from the body bestowing the awards, they “deserved” their wins.
As for the rest of us, all we’ve got to work with is our opinions of the individual films. I’m not sure that I could ever have a “strong, clear criteria” that didn’t boil down to simply preferring one film over the others.
Seems to me that a lot of folks who wanted “Saving Private Ryan” to win in ’98 consider “Shakespeare in Love” to be an insignificant piece of fluff that lacks the big themes and innovative technique that a “deserving” Oscar winner should have. And many of those who wanted “Shakespeare” to win consider “Ryan” to be little more than a serviceable WWII drama enlivened by a dazzling opening sequence. I liked both, but found “Shakespeare” to succeed completely in its aims, while “Ryan’s” script wasn’t up to Spielberg’s direction. So do you vote for the perfectly realized light film or the ambitious but flawed stunner? It’s apples and oranges, and kinda points up the ridiculousness of the entire enterprise.
But that’s the fun of it, too. And if you really care about movies, you take the Oscars for what they are and make your own idiosyncratic choices. I saw “Star Wars” once and had fun. Its nomination shows that the Academy at least understood that it was a watershed film. Maybe not as much as their kids did, but the kids couldn’t vote, so no Oscar. I liked “Annie Hall” best of the nominees that year, so I’m glad it won. But I’d rate at least two non-nominated films higher — “The Lacemaker” and “Opening Night.” Am I shocked that the Academy overlooked them? Ha.
It’s late. I rambled. Maybe there’s something in there that addresses Dave’s question. I hope so. Good night.
I don’t have a clear set of criteria either. The most “worthy” film could be the the one that offered me the best experience, the best storytelling, or the best craftsmanship.
Kamikaze, I completely disagree on The Pianist – if anything, the WWII (or Holocaust) angle worked against it. Meaning, viewers built up a resistance to it because it was “just” another WWII movie, or “just” another Holocaust movie. It may have been nominated purely because of this, but that sure as hell isn’t why it (almost) won.
The groundswell of support it received prior to the ceremony is, I think, because once people actually considered it for what it was they realized that it was much more than “just” either of these things. It wasn’t considered a better movie by default. It was considered a better movie because – get ready for it – it’s a better movie. By a country mile.
I didn’t think this could happen but IO and I actually agree on something. To me, The Two Towers is by far the best LOTR film and the second best movie of the absolutely spectacular 2002.
The #1, however, is the briliant Minority Report. Between that and A.I., Spielberg made two of the best (and very different) Science Fiction films not only of his career but of all time.
Back to Two Towers, seriously how awesome is that film? Tense, constantly suprising, brilliantly realized and just right lengthwise (I’m talking about the original cut). I’ve seen it three times in theaters (I kept bringing people to see it) and that’s something that almost never happens for any movie.
I don’t care what people say about the battle sequences in ROTK, TTT’s Helm’s Deep is a lot better.
It’s just like people who don’t understand that while the Omaha Beach sequence in SPR is great, the one near the end surpasses it in almost every way.
It’s not about scale, it’s about tension. And TTT had plenty of it.
I’m with Roman and IO on Two Towers being the best of the three. But I don’t begrudge the victory lap prizes for Return of the King (I don’t love Lost in Translation, Master and Commander or Mystic River enough to say anybody got robbed that night).
But on David’s original question, I agree with the sentiment I’m seeing here that “strong, clear criteria” are just the arguments we make up to justify the underlying “I like this movie better than that one.”
Really, if you were an Oscar voter, what kind of objective criteria would you apply to your Best Picture selection? I can see voting for a movie you hated for a craft award (it sucked, but man was it shot beautifully), but how coldly analytical could you honestly get about why this movie is the best of the year (or of the five options you’ve got to pick from)?
Piling onto the parlor game:
WORTHY WINNERS SINCE 1989
Silence of the Lambs – the only serial killer movie I’ve seen in the past 20 years that felt like the actual serial killing was almost an afterthought. The real power’s in the character relationships – not just Lecter and Clarice, but all the way down to that perfect moment where the entomologist with the bug eyes awkwardly asks Clarice out. And everything from the sets and costuming to the lighting and framing help sell those relationships – it’s a true “Best Picture,” not just best writing and performances.
Unforgiven – same reasons, different genre.
Schindler’s List – been too long since I’ve seen it to make a detailed defense, but I remember the power of it.
Return of the King – the aforementioned victory lap. I hope it’ll age well. I know the effects won’t (Legolas vs. the armored elephant was a little hokey from day one), but I think the rest will. At worst, you’ve got a Ben-Hur: kind of stilted and sometimes creaky, but damned if it isn’t an entertaining spectacle for most of its three hours.
The Departed* – probably the best of the nominees that year, but if United 93 had made the Best Picture cut instead of just Best Director for Greengrass, I wouldn’t be saying that.
No Country for Old Men – a masterful thriller for two acts, then that ambitious, ambiguous third act swing that should keep it popping up in critical essays and film student papers for a few decades.
OTHERS I LOVE, BUT I LOVED SOMETHING ELSE MORE:
Dances With Wolves (Goodfellas)
Forrest Gump (Pulp Fiction)
Shakespeare in Love (The Thin Red Line, Saving Private Ryan)
Q:
‘In the end, are the ones that “deserve” it deserving because of some strong, clear criteria or because YOU liked them more than the others?’
A:
because i liked them more than the others
(isn’t that why we watch the oscars? we pick a movie we hold above all others to root for, and when it loses we tell off the tv like it was a ref at a sporting match, and when it wins we clap our hands and feel smug and dance a little jig if we’re really psyched – otherwise, what’s the point)
“Silence of the Lambs has aged a whole lot better than Manhunter. I like Manhunter but that movie is 80s all the way. Silence could have been made last year.”
Manhunter’s a really odd duck when it comes to being dated. It has so many elements that didn’t age well (the outfits, the music, the haircuts, even the architecture); but the stuff that’s pulsing underneath those neon veneers is still so laser sharp it keeps me glued to the screen whenever I come across the movie. Even though Silence of the Lambs aged better, I don’t get the same thrills.
I’m often confused by the whole notion of datedness in film. Manhunter is “80s all the way” because, you know, it was made in the 80s. Were Mann and company supposed to have a crystal ball to tell them how ridiculous certain fashions and sounds were gonna look a few years down the road? Maybe because I grew up watching films from all eras, this kind of thing has never bothered me. In fact, it adds something — a time capsule effect.
The simplest explanation of “datedness” I can offer is that it’s dated if it’s a time period you yourself lived through, but it’s period if you didn’t. But then some of the movies from the 80’s do seem to stand head and shoulders above the rest in the dated regard, which you can usually blame on the music more than the visuals. I often wonder how much better these films would be now if their synth scores could be removed altogether.
Synthesizers FUCKING OWNED; Again, probably a total testament to who grew up when, but to my 36-year-old ass, that Giorgio Moroder/Harold Faltermeyer/Tangerine Dream shit owns any boring old symphony playing generic rah-rah music. I realize, of course, that NOBODY born before or after Gen X feels this way, and like 90% of Scarface fans born since think it would be better with a Jay-Z soundtrack.
Wanna talk about dated though? Check out some EARLY 90S FLICKS. Fucking MO BETTER BLUES looks more dated than the Inquisition, what with Snipes’s FADE and RIDICULOUS SHIRTS and the SAVED BY THE BELL GRAFFITTI AND ACID-WASH LOOK. Maybe it’s because hip-hop slang and fashions date so immediately, but all that 1990-1991 New Jack/Bel Biv DeVoe/Juice/Hammer/Humpty Dance shit is a thousand times more (awesomely) “dated” than “Pretty in Pink.”
Synth ruined movies for a good long time. Manhunter was dated five minutes after it was made. Sort of like movies about hippies experimenting with the sexuality in college isn’t “period,” it’s badly dated cheese. Come on yancy, certain things were ridiculous at the TIME, not just in retrospect.
You don’t need a crystal ball to tell you if your movie’s going to be horribly dated really fast. For instance, The Dark Knight will age very well. Any movie aimed at teenagers about whatever modern dance fashion is in at the time, will be terrifically dated in five years.
Yeah, but I mean sometimes you wanna make a movie that reflects the time you live in, right? And even the most ridiculous looking ones do that to some degree. To me it’s only truly ridiculous if the filmmakers were clueless about what they were trying to capture. You know, middle aged guys trying and failing to capture contemporary high school culture by getting the details wrong (using slang that was a year out of date during filming and two years out of date by release time). If they capture the reality of their time, however, I don’t knock ’em, even if that reality includes goofy looking clothes and hair styles.
I wish I’d seen Manhunter more recently so I could speak to it specifically. Maybe I’d agree.
I’M AN OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIL MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!
PLAINVIEW IS GOD.