By John Strauss, Movie Reviewer/Ambassador ~
The past few years of pandemic have given us all a reason to escape our world and dive into our screens, to inhabit worlds created by filmmakers. As a movie-lover with a preference for films made decades ago, I’ve spent a lot of time recently watching movies from the past as a way to cleanse my palette from modern cinematography.
Last month, we asked KLIO followers to pick their favorite classic films. We created a poll on Instagram and asked people to help me pick three movies out of a list of 30 movies to watch and review. The top three picks: “The Godfather” trilogy, the “Star Wars” trilogy and “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy.
Back in the day, a trilogy meant a trilogy, as in three films. But today filmmakers seem to think sequels can extend indefinitely. In fact, makers of “Star Wars” have produced three trilogies, but the “Star Wars” original trilogy, released from 1977–1983, is what I consider the classic. “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy includes these three epic movies: “The Fellowship of the Ring” (2001), “The Two Towers” (2002) and “The Return of the King” (2003).
Let’s delve into what makes some of these older epic fantasy adventure film trilogies true classics.
Comparing the Use of Visual Effects in Classic and Modern Films
Photo courtesy of The Courier Online.
One of the major differences between classic films vs. new movies is how reliant modern-day directors are on visual effects and an overuse of green screen backgrounds (a tool allowing computer animators to create any prop or backdrop for a scene).
Let’s compare the work and dedication of the visual effects of the 1970s “Star Wars” productions to those created in the 2010s. In the original “Star Wars” trilogy, the visual effects were used only when need be. For instance, they used visual effects to create background paintings, lasers and ships in space battles and lightsabers.
Even though the original trilogy used limited special effects, it gave the films a charming mystique. While the newer Star Wars films and TV shows may be visually stunning, that has more to do with greenscreen technology and animators who have used the technology.
Let’s analyze the fight scene from the “Star Wars: A New Hope” (originally released in 1977) vs. “The Force Awakens” (released in 2015). In “A New Hope,” the lightsaber battle on the Death Star only lasts a minute and a half, but what makes it iconic is the limited visual effects during the fight. The film focuses on what is outside of the fight — how the duel affects the other character and demonstrates each character’s emotions like the fight Luke and Obi Wan have before Kenobi sacrifices himself. In “The Force Awakens,” while it is a longer fight and put in a grander cinematic setting (snowy forest in the dark and dreary night with dramatic music in the background), it is ultimately shallow because it offers no weight to the overall story and the audience does not feel the heroes’ struggles or emotions. Therefore, it might as well not be in the film.
Understanding the Inspiration Behind Olden-Day and Modern-Day Cinema
Photo courtesy of Amazon.
In both modern cinema and the cinema of yesterday, a director needs a creative spark to animate their film. This bit of inspiration could be from old TV shows and films, myths and legends, or books and novels. “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy is a quintessential example of creating a film out of the inspiration of a book. When Peter Jackson originally created the draft and the film, he tried to make it as similar as possible to the books. He did this by talking to Tolkien enthusiasts, professional literary experts and historians who have studied Tolkien for decades. He also worked closely with JRR Tolkien’s son and asked him if the story was accurate or if he had the right connotations for specific scenes because he wanted to make the film as accurate as possible to the books.
Modern-day cinema still relies on books and other media to give directors a creative spark and connect with readers. Popular series like “Harry Potter,” “The Kingsman” and “The Hunger Games” use source materials to develop a book into a movie that turns the readers’ visons into a reality. When the films become successful, it allows people who enjoyed the books and spent time picturing the characters in their heads to see those events magically happen on screen.
Less successful approaches include the “soft reboot” — a trend since the early 2000s of recreating an older movie and tweaking some of the details to sell to modern audiences. The “soft reboot” takes a lazy approach to filmmaking since most of the franchises like “Terminator,” “Star Wars,” and “Jurassic Park” already have fan bases who will watch those movies because of the name alone. After a day or two, the fans of the original films feel betrayed because the movies are not original or do not continue where the characters they fell in love with left off. It is a “get-rich-quick scheme” that has only continued rising exponentially over the past decade.
Closing Remarks on the Changing Film Industry
While I’m not here to tell you what films you should or should not enjoy, I do want to tell you why I believe the movie industry — and the stories they tell to the modern audience — has decreased in quality and withered in multiple ways. I believe this is the main reason why the advent of television has occurred — people want a human element presented in their media.
Do you have a favorite classic film or thoughts about modern filmmaking? Let us know in the comments!
John Strauss is majoring in electrical engineering. He is a sophomore. His interests include movies from the 80s and (previously) hiking. He also likes to go camping in places like the national parks.