Why Movies Made Prior to 1963 Don't Ring My Bell

A short while ago, I wrote a post about the 11 worst films on the IMDb Top 250. In it, I admitted to having seen a scant 45% of the movies that made up the list at the time. Part of the reason that percentage was so low, I explained, was that "I'm an ageist when it comes to film. For a number of reasons that don't need to be re-hashed right now, I'm not all that interested in seeing films made prior to 1963 or so."

Little did I know, a firestorm was about to ignite. Shortly after the publication of the post, it was picked up by my guardian angel at the Internet Movie Database, and the post was the launchpad for a daily poll of theirs. As such, those few, mostly innocuous words became incendiary, earning me the ire of every "classic" movie lover from Anchorage to Annapolis, or at least it seemed that way. The comments I received on that particular opinion ranged from "You're truly objectionable" to "You're a complete idiot," though there were the few people who understood or agreed with the sentiment.

Though the time for my rebuttal has long since passed, I did promise to make one, complete with the poor title you see above. Before I get started, a disclaimer: The year 1963 is by no means an absolute, nor was it derived particularly scientifically. It's a somewhat pinpointed time based on what I've seen. Think of it the same way that some sports refer to certain time frames as their "modern eras." With that said, here are some reasons why movies made prior to...you get the picture.

I'm Stupid
Now, I don't mean that literally (though many might argue to the contrary) - what I truly mean is that ignorance, above all and of a great many things, is the chief thing that prevents me from enjoying older films. For example, Citizen Kane is heralded as one of, if not the most innovative film of all time, and was voted (at one time) as the greatest film ever by AFI. (There's a laundry list of innovations at Kane's Wiki page). Similarly, I know that Hitchcock is credited with having pioneered a slew of film techniques as well. Both of these are good things; unfortunately, if one wasn't there to experience these innovations firsthand, they tend to lose their meaning. What good is an innovation to someone that doesn't know it's one? A more modern example of this is The Matrix - for the contemporary film lover, the film's celebrated use of "bullet time" was an awe-inducing event. But what about today's children who were born after 1999, and by the time they have seen the film will have seen such a technique (or, more likely, one that surpasses it) done a hundred times? The Matrix might not seem like such a groundbreaking film to them.

Now, there is a solution to this, but it's not a very realistic or pragmatic one: I need to watch every film (or at least, most of them) from the beginning of time, thereby granting myself the opportunity to watch the innovations chronologically, and to be able to grant the deserved respect to those warranted. This seems unlikely. As it stands, I can go back and watch Kane or Vertigo or Rear Window (all of which I have) and be underwhelmed, left thinking that I've seen all this before. It's not fair to the filmmakers, but it's a fact nonetheless.

Ignorance also rears its ugly head when it comes to "current events," for lack of a better term. Suppose, for example, that a modern satire included digs at such people as Condoleezza Rice, Britney Spears or even Michael Jackson. These are all household names to you and I, but will they be to the 31 year olds of 2066? Now, I realize that there probably aren't many films from the past that would have this specific phenomenon occurring, but it's not limited to people - the "lost reference" could be a person, place or cultural happening (say, texting or iPhones). Put enough of these things together and you have a viewer that's missing out on a lot.

Bill Shatner looks subtle by comparison
An easier and more recognizable element that I take issue with is the writing/acting styles of yesteryear - Gloria Swanson may be lauded for giving one of the best performances of all time as Norma Desmond, but it's hard to watch that performance and not see and egregious amount of overacting. Another Sunset Boulevard example (fresh in my mind as I just watched it a few days ago) comes when Joe Gillis is revealing the truth about his situation to Betty Schaefer. After hearing the details of his deceit, Betty breathlessly says "Joe, I can't look at you any more." At this point, she not only turns her body away from Joe, but raises her forearm to her eyes to physically shield them from gazing upon him. It's truly a painfully awkward scene.

I realize these two examples from one film are limited; that said, I defy anyone to tell me that the acting styles of the 50s resemble those of today in any shape or form. Early cinema was quite blunt and theatrical, and (shocker) I'm not much a fan of plays, either.

Been There, Done That
It's a well known "fact" that there are no original stories to tell in Hollywood anymore - all that's left are sequels, remakes and rehashes of the same old thing. While this may or may not be true (I'll say it isn't, but it's not far from being true), the fact remains that if you've watched a large number of films of the past 20-30 years, there's a pretty good chanced that you've seen movies that ripped off their predecessors (a recent revelation like this for me was when I finally saw Annie Hall for the first time and realized just how much When Harry Met Sally... "borrowed" from it). Should I (or anyone else) punish the classics because someone liberally stole their ideas (or techniques)? Absolutely not - but once you've seen a story told to you (most likely with better equipment, more money and better effects, if applicable), it's difficult to then go back and watch an "inferior" product and think it better, regardless of the fact that it came first. This premise does not attribute a greater quality in the general public to newer movies, and certainly does not assume that newer must equal better (see: The Manchurian Candidate), but would you rather have a flat screen LCD or the big box you grew up with that had no remote?


As with any argument like this, I'm sure many out there could cite examples of movies that don't fall into any of these traps; if that's the case - great. Please let me know what they are. I try to enter into any movie going experience with an open mind, and attempt to give even more of a benefit of the doubt to classic films, given the respect they're granted by so many. It's just that I often walk away disappointed. In the end, I feel better avoiding them altogether; my image of them can't be tainted, and I don't have to debate the merits (or lack thereof) of something I haven't seen. What can I say? I'm "truly objectionable."