Over at the 2 blowhards, Michael discusses the loss of true eroticism in today's cinema. I commented that I thought the master of very provocative and subtle eroticism was Alfred Hitchcock. No doubt about it, American cinema has evolved due to several factors. Time waits for no man. How true. The digital world has infiltrated all aspects of our lives and movies are a great (or not so great) example. Yes, we get spectatular scenes, breathtaking scenery, up-close-and personal gut spillage, until you realize it is a major slight of hand. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? I suppose it all depends on the viewer. Certainly, today's youth is enamoured of this kind of fakery. And I confess to loving LOTR's and Harry Potter as much as they do. But, I do miss the talent of Mr. Hitchcock and other directors like him; the involvement of the audience as a player in the film. Flicks today could never be accused of being subtle. The indies take much pride in their in-your-face reality and crass sexuality. The first two indie films I saw were eye-opening, the rest that have followed were fairly boring and predictable. Maybe I am missing the really good ones, but I doubt it. Mystic River (while not an indie) impressed me with its ability to draw you into the scenes. Sixth Sense did a quite impressive "gotcha". For the most part, however, movies are a big waste of time and money nowadays.
The classics have such a dreamy quality to them, fog seems almost touchable, and I never knew darkness could have so many shades (especially in the old black and white films). The scare factor in movies like the Wolfman and the Mummy seems to elude modern gore flicks. While digital is great for crispness, it does not have the ethereral goodness of the "oldies". (Think The Ghost and Mrs. Muir, or Laura.)
I am saddened to think that the glory days of Hollywood are gone. Perhaps I am being a curmudgeon, and unwilling to embrace the Brave New Cinema. Or, more likely, moviegoers are a bunch of lemmings. Which way to the cliff, er the ticket line for Stepford Wives, II?
No comments:
Post a Comment