This morning, after skimming the overnight Twitter feed of my Introduction to Film classes, I posted the above tweet. While I received no responses from students (maybe they’re not following me after all?), several of my “regular” Twitter cohorts — mostly professors, grad students, and film lovers — reacted to my tweet. Here’s a sampling:
- Preach it to them!
- So are these tweets being read by your students? Because wow, you are one tough broad!
- That final statement is worth dropping at least one grade.
- With all due respect, i would take the top 10 movies from the ’90′s over any other decade. (Me: Whaaaa?)
- Your tweet made me sad.
- Wouldn’t you agree that most art produced at any time is disposable & the reason we look back fondly on “classics” is because those few greats accumulate over time & we have to live with the shitty books and movies of the present?
Regarding the last question above, no, I don’t necessarily agree. First, I’m not saying that classical films are better or that today’s are necessarily worse — although I do have a hard time each year trying to figure out which current film(s) will one day stand next to Casablanca and Singin’ in the Rain on AFI’s 100 Greatest Films list. And second, my Twitter friend’s question actually has little to do with the reason I initially posted the irritable-sounding tweet; that is, since my class screened Alfred Hitchcock’s Rear Window last week, I’ve come across a few student tweets like the following:
- “[That scene when Jefferies was dangling out the window] was cheesy, but you’ve gotta remember how long ago it was created.”
- “Today’s editing is so much better than back then.”
Former students have similarly tweeted,
- “Yeah, Disturbia‘s better than Rear Window.”
- “I don’t really have anything to say about Citizen Kane but that it’s boring, slow, and shot in black-and-white.”
- “The special effects in The Birds are lame.”
- “There’s nothing to appreciate about Spike Lee’s Do the Right Thing.”
Statements like these both sadden and irk me for at least two reasons. First, they suggest that the student (at least initially) cannot or refuses to recognize the selected films in their proper places in cinema history. Dear student, I completely understand that Citizen Kane is not as stimulating as Iron Man or Inglourious Basterds, for example. But to tell us that you have nothing to say about the film’s (game-changing) cinematography, complicated narrative construction, or sound effects — all of which I’ve prompted you about via the lecture, course site, and Twitter — is a cop out. Not to mention, it makes me die a little on the inside.
Second, some of these statements reveal a close-mindedness that I’ve experienced in several classrooms of late. To say that modern-day editing supersedes that of Hitchcock (a veritable master of the technique!) or that there’s nothing remotely noteworthy about Do the Right Thing implies a lack of curiosity and openness that was once so prevalent in many of my classrooms. Student, rather than closing yourself off to Spike Lee’s film, why not heed the final course expectation on your syllabus? “Students should be patient with, open-minded about, and respectful of the written and visual texts they encounter this semester. All films are shown for specific reasons. With this in mind, if you do not enjoy a film, rather than criticizing it, figure out why it is being shown and what elements you can appreciate about it. This is what critical thinking is all about.” Should you choose this path, your mind and analytical skills will thank you, I promise.
Of course, such narrow-minded reactions are not usually the case. Conversely, I’ve a large number of students who think critically about Citizen Kane and The Birds, who long to know more about the films and their histories, who anxiously await the next “old movie we’re gonna watch”; and for them, I’m grateful. And you know what? I’m also grateful for that student who gets my blood boiling because sometimes her initial rigidity dissolves after we speak further. “But what’s so different about today’s editing,” I ask. “Why would some critics call Do the Right Thing Spike Lee’s masterpiece,” I inquire. “Can you think of any reason people would argue that Rear Window is a more significant picture than Disturbia,” I prod. And the answers that follow — sometimes still inflexible, but sometimes quite thoughtful — ah, there’s the good stuff.
Related posts:
16 Comments
Leave a Reply
I'm following
Instagrams
Professor of film and Shakespeare. Advocate of social media. Lover of popular culture,
I sincerely miss your class. There was also a student in the library next to me talking to a friend about the significance of twitter and his friend said “you have Dr. Kelli Marshall don’t you?”
Thanks, Brent! =)
I don't care what any of those closed-minded persons say about older movies like CITIZEN KANE, THE BIRDS, and REAR WINDOW. Older movies are the ones that changed history. After all, if it wasn't for the revolutionary changes in cinematographic effects and editing techniques prevalent in movies like CITIZEN KANE and REAR WINDOW, then our so-called "greater movies" of today's generation may not have been so great. Plus, I can hardly ever find a movie that is so impressive as to compare with movies from the older generations of film-making. Most of the time nowadays, if a movie doesn't have violence and bloodshed, it's not good, supposedly. Or, at least that is what it seems like at times. Time to face the truth people: film-making is what it used to be!
Thanks for stopping by and commenting, Robert.
read above
I think I find myself somewhere in the middle of all of this. Yes, if I was going to rewatch a movie between Rear Window and Disturbia, I'd be watching Disturbia. Is that because I think its a better made film? Not at all, it is Hitchcock afterall BUT it is from my time. I also had trouble getting into Citizen Kane but after the 30 minute mark or so I got pulled in. I was sucked into Rear Window and Do The Right Thing right away though. I actually get into discussions about new vs. old and respecting what came before with people often because I discuss horror movies with people alot.
I won't heap praise on an older movie just because it is old … old doesn't make it classic. I also will call out newer films for being terrible too.
I try to open myself up because while a movie may not keep me entertained throughout or perhaps it feels dated, there's a reason we're watching it. I don't care if its Disturbia/Rear Window or Citizen Kane/Social Network or Texas Chainsaw Massacre/TCM remake from 2003 … maybe you like the update but understanding and respecting what the former brought and meant to its own audience is the only way to really appreciate this class.
Hi, Roberto — thanks for commenting. I completely understand why you (as well as other students) would gravitate toward DISTURBIA over REAR WINDOW, but I'm also glad to see that you are able and willing to "respect what came before."
Hope I'm not too late on the discussion here, but I'm a fan of these so-called "old movies" and have been watching them with a voracious appetite for several months now (also old TV shows, but that's for another post).
I prefer the older movies (with a few exceptions) because the story usually is the important thing.
You discussed Rear Window and Disturbia. I saw the preview for Disturbia, and was immediately able to place it as a remake of Rear Window; I'm not usually into watching remakes (see Ocean's 11). I prefer the originals.
Hitchcock is probably the one who made modern movie-making what it is today. His use of the camera was nothing short of genius, and I see his influence in most new suspense films.
"Wouldn’t you agree that most art produced at any time is disposable & the reason we look back fondly on “classics” is because those few greats accumulate over time & we have to live with the shitty books and movies of the present?"
I can agree with this person. Sometimes we look back on other decades and are like "this, this, and this were all awesome" but we don't see all the crap that was produced alongside the good stuff. I have a hard time finding film created today that will stand the test of time like "North by Northwest" or "Singin' in the Rain". Maybe the Lord of the Rings movies? Maybe. But only because those books were classics to begin with and were destined for greatness.
I really wish something like this class was offered at my engineering university when I was going there; it would have been a nice respite from all the mathematics. Also, it would have opened up the students minds to some truly wonderful film, much like the "Literature of the Fantastic" class I took my second to last semester (it covered sci-fi, fantasy, and horror books; truly wonderful and the prof was amazing).
Amy (@gamerchick02 on twitter)
Thanks for the thoughtful post, Amy. Glad to "see" you outside of Tumblr and Twitter! =)
I'm wishing I could take your class. Like a really lot.
Dude. Don't you create YOUR OWN CLASSES? ;o)
maybe do the right thing should be accompanied by straight outta compton by nwa or the East Coast equivalent.
wow – I'm reading all this and all I can think of is that study that validates the frontal lobe developing MUCH later than the college years.
But it DOES develop, right? RIGHT?!
re: the birds. Sound fx for the birds was done by a guy named oskar sala on a german synthesizer called the mixture-trantonium. Without this there would have been no moog syntheszier. without the moog synthesizer there would be no deadmau5 – period. Rave had to come from somewhere.
ha!- I 100% agree with everything you say, but… i also agree 100% with most of those tweets!
the scene when Jimmy Steward dangles out the window, it IS cheesy! Jimmy Steward is a cheesy actor- any scene with him in it can't help but contain some of that cheese. as far as the construction, you DO have to keep in mind when it was created. the same scene today would be shot/cut for today's audience, and today's audience could naturally find older constructions more hackneyed, or cheesy, because established classic constructions are oft repeated.
today's editing IS so much better than back then. that is, the process of editing. non-linear systems have revolutionized the craft of editing and helped revolutionize how films are shot. sit in front of a steinbeck for 10 hours or sit in front of an imac for 10 minutes, and you tell me which is better. as far as the art of editing, your student is merely ignorant (though accurate in assessing rear window); show him some Vertov and blow his mind with 100 year old montage.
the special effects in the birds ARE lame. they do NOT withstand the test of time, and they function more as a distraction to the complete absence of narrative in the film. don't even get me started on the birds.
i've never seen disturbia, and i'd probably hate it if i did, but i still bet it's better than rear window!! hitchcock is easily the most overrated director of all time.
but those other two tweets are counter-intellectual, which has no place in a scholastic setting. there are things to appreciate about do the right thing. there are things to appreciate about citizen cane. there are even things to appreciate about (grrrr!) hitchcock.
and to Robert Berry:
if older movies changed history, then new movies change the future, whether you like it or not. filmmaking is what it used to be, a technological medium, and an ever-evolving visual language spoken by the entire world. if you are a true cinephile then you will seek out thoughtful current content as well as educating yourself to established classics. support your local film festivals and watch something you'd never see in a multiplex; good films are being made everyday.