Is nothing sacred? Remaking Casablanca.

[Fading Fast]

That second one you cite there is the single most popular type of picture we get here. If you add in a few gratuitous scenes of middlebrow European tourist settings, you hit our exact demographic right in the bread basket.

I'm looking forward to the remake of "Citizen Kane," starring Jesse Eisenberg.

"A Month By the Lake" must have been a big hit as they simply dropped the entire construct into an American fantasy of a perfect European tourist idyll.

 

[Edward]

I'm looking forward to the remake of "Citizen Kane," starring Jesse Eisenberg.

Didn't they already do that? I think it was called The Social Network.

 

[ChiTownScion]

The biggest difference between Then and Now is that movies then were far more mass produced than they are now -- the studio system lent itself to an industrialized grind-em-out system that consumed enormous amounts of story material. Probably 90 percent of what came out of Hollywood in the Era was brainless schlock -- forgettable program pictures hacked out according to a formula. But the wide net they cast for material to feed the maw also meant that they were bound to drag in a few interesting, unusual concepts along the way: more writers writing more pictures meant more ideas, and even though most of them stunk, the ones that were decent made it worthwhile. In 1937, the peak year for quantity in Hollywood, 778 features were produced. Last year approximately 300 features were produced in the US. Fewer films to make money mean more films have to make money and less room for experimentation. Result: "Iron Man XXXVI."

It's that "maw" that I find so interesting. Back in the 30's people went to the movies for the sake of the experience, and the feature was often incidental. Presuming that you had a job and could afford to set aside a little after paying the rent and buying groceries, for a few short hours you could escape real life drudgeries and sit in air conditioned comfort- usually watch the newsreels and a short subject/ cartoon or two, and then the feature film. If you were especially flush, a soft drink or popcorn treat. It was part of life, and enough of those old movie palaces were still around when I was a kid for me to appreciate that it was a lot like some organized religions: an attempt to transport people, for a very short time, to attempt to transcend time and space and show them something more inspirational and other world-like than their own lives. It wasn't just the movie itself.

And then, changing technology brought that to an end. Talkies (and a few other things, really) killed vaudeville, and television (in part) brought an end to the 2-3 nights a week out for a movie experience. There's upsides and downsides to "the old days" as we know, and it's our nature to remember the past as more good than bad, I suppose.

 

[Fading Fast]

It's that "maw" that I find so interesting. Back in the 30's people went to the movies for the sake of the experience, and the feature was often incidental. Presuming that you had a job and could afford to set aside a little after paying the rent and buying groceries, for a few short hours you could escape real life drudgeries and sit in air conditioned comfort- usually watch the newsreels and a short subject/ cartoon or two, and then the feature film. If you were especially flush, a soft drink or popcorn treat. It was part of life, and enough of those old movie palaces were still around when I was a kid for me to appreciate that it was a lot like some organized religions: an attempt to transport people, for a very short time, to attempt to transcend time and space and show them something more inspirational and other world-like than their own lives. It wasn't just the movie itself.

And then, changing technology brought that to an end. Talkies (and a few other things, really) killed vaudeville, and television (in part) brought an end to the 2-3 nights a week out for a movie experience. There's upsides and downsides to "the old days" as we know, and it's our nature to remember the past as more good than bad, I suppose.

My 83 year old mom still sees going to the movies as the motivation / the experience and, once that's decided, she'll look to see what is playing to decide what movie theater to go to.

She has a good TV, but other than news, rarely watches it. Despite all the DVDs, Netlix subscriptions, etc., I've gotten her over the years, she doesn't enjoy watching a movie at home. My interpretation of her explanation is the experience just doesn't work for her. She needs to go some where, sit in a dark theater and watch it on the big screen with an audience - it needs to be a mini-event.

She came of age when going to the movies was as you described and, I guess, despite the changing technology and my attempts to keep her current, her early habits and tastes are embedded. Mind you, I never discourage her from going to the theater (my girlfriend and I do everything we can to keep her active, social, engaged and involved as we know that is a risk for elderly people), but we thought - knowing how much she loves movies - that she'd also love the additional option of watching them at home, but, nope.

 

[Harp]

Yes but ... she'd just keep saying "Rick, you'll have to think for the both of us. I'm too emotional to save myself ... I can't ... I mustn't ... weepy, weepy, weepy ..." Eventually, the fact that she looks like Ingrid Bergman would wear off ....

Ilsa had more strength of character; and her beauty was interior as well as physical. A daughter of Venus.

 

[LizzieMaine]

My 83 year old mom still sees going to the movies as the motivation / the experience and, once that's decided, she'll look to see what is playing to decide what movie theater to go to.

She has a good TV, but other than news, rarely watches it. Despite all the DVDs, Netlix subscriptions, etc., I've gotten her over the years, she doesn't enjoy watching a movie at home. My interpretation of her explanation is the experience just doesn't work for her. She needs to go some where, sit in a dark theater and watch it on the big screen with an audience - it needs to be a mini-event.

She came of age when going to the movies was as you described and, I guess, despite the changing technology and my attempts to keep her current, her early habits and tastes are embedded. Mind you, I never discourage her from going to the theater (my girlfriend and I do everything we can to keep her active, social, engaged and involved as we know that is a risk for elderly people), but we thought - knowing how much she loves movies - that she'd also love the additional option of watching them at home, but, nope.

I agree with her. I've always felt like something was missing when watching movies on TV, and the "home theatre" experience leaves me even colder -- there's the whole layer of ersatz piled on top of the reduction of the movie to TV size. And although I've tried now and then to watch stuff on You Tube and the like it's even worse than television. It's like looking at a blurry reproduction of a work of art in a book and thinking you've seen the real thing.

 

[Fading Fast]

I agree with her. I've always felt like something was missing when watching movies on TV, and the "home theatre" experience leaves me even colder -- there's the whole layer of ersatz piled on top of the reduction of the movie to TV size. And although I've tried now and then to watch stuff on You Tube and the like it's even worse than television. It's like looking at a blurry reproduction of a work of art in a book and thinking you've seen the real thing.

It took me awhile, but I now enjoy movies at home and I don't have any crazy uber-technology. I did recently buy a decent sized flat-panel (prices have come way, way, way down) and a sound bar (not cheap, but well worth it and much less expensive than a "home theater) and that has made a huge difference.

The clarity of picture is amazing and I don't feel I'm loosing the details that I used to on TV and, with the sound bar, everyone isn't mumbling. That said, I do agree, it is not the same quality, not as the director wanted it seen and not an event like going to the theater is. But as we have discussed elsewhere - the theater experience today has its challenges and is quite expensive, so our investment in technology will quickly pay for itself.

All that said, I am really excited that "Breakfast at Tiffany's" is going to be in the theater in November (some TCM event) as I completely agree that the absolute best way to see a movie is in the theater and, for that one, we'll go. And Youtube - at least what I've seen - is terrible quality.

 

[Lean'n'mean]

You can't beat the cinema experience. When I was young, going to a movie theater was one of the few things we did as a family, it was exciting, it was always a treat & an event. Watching movies nowadays either on TV or online is just consumerism, it's nearly impossible to appreciate a movie for what it is. Just like looking at works of art on a computer, they are just images amoung millions of others, but go to gallery or museum, with all it's sounds & smells, to hear & feel the reactions of other people & actually see the works 'in the flesh' so to speak, is uncomparably rich. It's the same for any art form, & yes cinema is an art form, seeing it where it was meant to be seen & sharing the experience with others, albeit at a distance, is the most rewarding way to experience it.......& if you can find someone to discuss & analyse it with after, all the better.

 

[MikeKardec]

You can't beat the cinema experience. When I was young, going to a movie theater was one of the few things we did as a family, it was exciting, it was always a treat & an event. Watching movies nowadays either on TV or online is just consumerism, it's nearly impossible to appreciate a movie for what it is.

Totally right ... except it's definitely more wonderful if it's a GOOD cinema. Too many today are really terrible, tiny, dim, badly calibrated. The days of the single house theater with one projectionist who takes pride in putting on a good performance for every showing are dwindling. I may be spoiled, I live in LA and some of our theaters are technically flawless (and there are some AMAZING home theater systems around too) but as soon as you get outside of a neighborhood where someone from the "industry" might go to see a movie (and complain if the presentation sucks) the quality goes right down the toilet. I'm joking a bit when I say it but the difference between Hollywood and North Hollywood is night and day.

If you live in an area where it's hard to find a good cinema at least you can take responsibility for setting up your own home theater to decent standards. My own experience is that all that "surround sound" stuff is often a waste of time and money. Until you get to luxury car level prices, it's usually it's time and energy and cash better spent on a really good display and just a good stereo. It's unfortunate but there are very few movies with any useful content in the surround channels, content that doesn't make you think 'oh wow there's the surround channel' and take you out of the experience of the movie.

All that said, I do have a love of some low-fi venues for their ambiance like drive ins and our local 'revival' movie house ... that place wasn't so bad until the old Voice of the Theater era sound system bit the dust back in the early 2000s. Whatever they replaced it with is a nightmare! Regardless, there is something about going to these sort of places with friends that really brings the entire experience into perspective ... not that there is anything wrong with hitting a top notch theater either.

 

[PHIL1959]

Casablanca 2017...In Space.

in space they wont be able to hear ME scream!

 

[LizzieMaine]

Totally right ... except it's definitely more wonderful if it's a GOOD cinema. Too many today are really terrible, tiny, dim, badly calibrated. The days of the single house theater with one projectionist who takes pride in putting on a good performance for every showing are dwindling. I may be spoiled, I live in LA and some of our theaters are technically flawless (and there are some AMAZING home theater systems around too) but as soon as you get outside of a neighborhood where someone from the "industry" might go to see a movie (and complain if the presentation sucks) the quality goes right down the toilet. I'm joking a bit when I say it but the difference between Hollywood and North Hollywood is night and day.

We recently hosted a screening of the newly-restored print of "Peyton Place" on 35mm with the head of the 20th Century Fox film archive and an official of the Academy in attendance, and they were very impressed by the quality of our presentation -- even accounting for the fact that a projection lamp failed at the first changeover (I replaced it in less than ten minutes and the show continued without interruption to the end.) Quality presentation is less a function of where you are than of whether or not you give a damn about it.

If you want to see good presentation you've got to find a house with, if you'll pardon the expression, a loud-mouthed, hard-boiled, old-school projectionist on staff who refuses to let the suits run/ruin the booth. You can be pretty much assured that you won't find that in any multiplex. You will find pencil-necked yahoos in black spandex pullovers, with Bluetooth earpieces hanging off their faces, who say that projectionists are "obsolete" thanks to "modern technology," but ask them just who's gonna care enough about the show to clean the popcorn grease off the lens once in a while.

 

[ChiTownScion]

My 83 year old mom still sees going to the movies as the motivation / the experience and, once that's decided, she'll look to see what is playing to decide what movie theater to go to.

She has a good TV, but other than news, rarely watches it. Despite all the DVDs, Netlix subscriptions, etc., I've gotten her over the years, she doesn't enjoy watching a movie at home. My interpretation of her explanation is the experience just doesn't work for her. She needs to go some where, sit in a dark theater and watch it on the big screen with an audience - it needs to be a mini-event.

She came of age when going to the movies was as you described and, I guess, despite the changing technology and my attempts to keep her current, her early habits and tastes are embedded. Mind you, I never discourage her from going to the theater (my girlfriend and I do everything we can to keep her active, social, engaged and involved as we know that is a risk for elderly people), but we thought - knowing how much she loves movies - that she'd also love the additional option of watching them at home, but, nope.

My wife and I will typically see at least one theatre film a week. This started when my now-27 year old son was about 6 months old, and it was either set aside one night a week for Dinner & A Movie Date Nite... or kiss sanity and the marriage good bye.

There's an element of bargaining that goes into it- all in jest, of course. One Romantic Comedy/ "chick flick" is worth two Mob Movies or three World War II Movies.

 

[ChiTownScion]

.....Quality presentation is less a function of where you are than of whether or not you give a damn about it.

If you want to see good presentation you've got to find a house with, if you'll pardon the expression, a loud-mouthed, hard-boiled, old-school projectionist on staff who refuses to let the suits run/ruin the booth.

Golly gosh! Anyone WE know???

 

[Harp]

This should spin off another thread: which classic movies should be remade? My first choice would be "From Here to Eternity." The 1953 version is a certified classic: a well-written film with a fabulous cast, serious drama meant for grownups in a way few movies are today. But it was constrained by the remains of the Code and had to soft-pedal the rough stuff about the Army in order to be allowed to shoot at Schofield Barracks, Hawaii. A modern remake could make it plain that Lorene is a whore working at a genuine whorehouse, that the Army was a brutal, exploitative organization that would casually crush a man who tried to stand on principle, that even the best men in it, like Sgt. Warden, had to make soul-killing compromises to get along. A miniseries would be better than a feature film to convey James Jones's huge book.

Of the company, (book version of FHTE) Maggio alone gains an ostensible pyrrhic victory of sorts when he is dishonorably discharged out of the stockade; the Fenris Wolf web ensnarls the rest,
and the onset of the Second World War seals fate. In his subsequent novel, Whistle, Jones wrote Warden as slipping towards insanity at Ft Campbell after the Solomons, while Stark is a suicide.
The intact prewar company at Schofield awaiting the inevitable was fairly captured by the 1953 film but a truer-to-life version; especially of the stockade would perhaps commercially imperil any remake.

 

[MisterCairo]

Um, you realize their not making my version, right?

Yes. My point was that your version would be bad.

Sorry.

 

[Frunobulax]

Yes. My point was that your version would be bad.

Sorry.

Anything well-written can be good. Sorry your imagination meter is stuck on empty.

 

[ChiTownScion]

And don't try to pull anything cute with Lizzie when she's working the box office, either....

 

[MisterCairo]

Anything well-written can be good. Sorry your imagination meter is stuck on empty.

My imagination is fine, thank you. I could say sorry your sensitivity meter is on hyper drive, but perhaps we'll agree to disagree without trolling.

 

[Julian Shellhammer]

It took me awhile, but I now enjoy movies at home and I don't have any crazy uber-technology. I did recently buy a decent sized flat-panel (prices have come way, way, way down) and a sound bar (not cheap, but well worth it and much less expensive than a "home theater) and that has made a huge difference.

The clarity of picture is amazing and I don't feel I'm loosing the details that I used to on TV and, with the sound bar, everyone isn't mumbling. That said, I do agree, it is not the same quality, not as the director wanted it seen and not an event like going to the theater is. But as we have discussed elsewhere - the theater experience today has its challenges and is quite expensive, so our investment in technology will quickly pay for itself.

All that said, I am really excited that "Breakfast at Tiffany's" is going to be in the theater in November (some TCM event) as I completely agree that the absolute best way to see a movie is in the theater and, for that one, we'll go. And Youtube - at least what I've seen - is terrible quality.

The LA revival houses, and the Balboa in Orange County, were my haunts for many years, as they were they only places to see movies as they were intended to be seen. I even joined the LA County Museum of Art in order to be on their mailing list for golden era movies. The purchase of a flat panel was to replicate in miniature the movie going experience.
As was discussed on another thread regarding the distractions and whatnot in today's cinemas, I have grown to prefer an evening at home watching a movie on dvd or a streamed.

 

[Benzadmiral]

Considering that so many people (even the younger generations) have had enough of the junk being released nowadays, Hollywood is ripe for some really good noir classic remakes. As well, there are some great novels from the era that should, could, or would have been wonderful to have seen on the big screen. I am all for an influx of period pieces finding their ways into the current film culture.

Not noir -- but how about a new film version of Herman Wouk's 1961 Youngblood Hawke, perhaps? Much as I like James Franciscus in his action roles, I can't imagine he was right as the Kentucky-born and -bred Hawke. (Don't know for sure, having never seen the movie!) Do it as a 1946-1955 period piece, too.