Watching films for historical interest

[cateycloggs]

Loooking for some Sunday distraction, I just tried the beginning of a nasty misogynistic film with Bette Davis called 'Mother'. I normally enjoy Bette Davis films but have given up after 15 minutes , has anyone seen it to say it got better? Now have flicked over to BBC2 where A Star Is Born with Judy Garland is on. I was going to say the original but not sure if it is. I understand this is considered a film classic. I was surprised by a fairly long section of still photographs which was beginning to irritate me. The reason I have never seen this is Judy Garland, I cannot bear her voice , and watching her all I can think of is all the abuse and exploitation she suffered to have a career. Hence my historical interest title, I don't know if I can carry on just to enlarge my cultural knowledge. Does anyone else do this? Watch stuff just because it is considered of cultural importance. Even though James Mason has now made his appearance it is grating on my nerves. May give up as I had to with Lalaland the other night (lasted 5 minutes with that). Yeah I know I am not obliged but it entertains me.

It seems more than a little odd to me that you seem to have a long history of subjecting yourself to cinematic experiences that either bore, irritate or actually upset you for the sake of ‘enlarging your cultural knowledge’.

I mean, aren’t there films about things that interest you, and/or featuring stars you like, that would do the same? I saw the recent Judy Garland biopic with Renee Zellweger in the cinema, purely because it was the only thing on when I had childcare, and it was unbelievably depressing, but I can’t imagine voluntarily subjecting myself to that in the name of acquiring knowledge, because RZ’s performance was admired...?

It's not really odd to consume content that is widely lauded as classic groundbreaking is it? I find it odd to think that's odd!

Some people do this with books as well just FYI

Also music art

Other stuff as well I expect

@NiceGerbil

I don't think the star Trek films count, to the pp

Especially the one with Spock's rocket boots!

I say that as a hardcore star Trek fan.

The original series was groundbreaking in terms of nichele nicholls, Russian on the bridge etc and of course Kirk's monologues etc essentially criticising USA society and politics at the time it was made

Agreed the original series was groundbreaking - the first interracial kiss on American TV and all that but there is no reason to watch the movies for any other reason than their historical interest.

One thing that has to be remembered is that no matter when a film (or any work of fiction) is made it's not, ultimately, about when the film is set - whether past or future but the time it it was made. Especially true of Science Fiction films but also historical films.

The book Invasion of the Body Snatchers by Jack Finney has been filmed four times. Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978), Body Snatchers (1993), and The Invasion (2007).

For those who don't know the story it's about an invasion from an alien source which transforms your friends, neighbours, and all those around you into soulless automatons serving some greater group intelligence. While the films follow the same basic storyline they are vastly different in the way they treat it. The first film (1956) is clearly a metaphor for the Communist Paranoia that was gripping America at the time. The 1978 remake is about the soul destroying conformity of modern urban life. The third about the mistrust of the Industrial military combine, and I'm not sure what the fourth one was about it was so shit I've tried not to think about it. (There is apparently a fourth remake in development.)

Films set in the far future are not about the far future but about how we want the future to be, or fear it could turn out from our point of view now. (Or at least best guesses of film makers who need to get bums on seats about what we want or fear.)

Same with historical films. Professor Marsden and the Wonder Women (a biopic of the creators of the comic book character Wonder Woman and the last historically set movie I watched) wasn't about the theory behind the creation of the character, or the character's strange bondage/empowerment issues that got him into trouble in the 1940s but about our modern day attitudes to polyamory and sexual freedom. (And a damn fine but historically inaccurate film it is too.)

No western is about the real 'Wild West' but what we want the wild west to be. There is no way that the west could have been as depressingly depraved and relentlessly brutal as the 1970s spaghetti westerns or as cheerfully bland as a Gene Autry serial.

@TheSandman

Am I wrong in thinking from the use of the present tense you were typing on your phone as you were 'watching' the film?

Because that's no way to watch a film.

But to answer your question yes. I often do watch films that are considered culturally important. (Or 'historically' important.) I can think of no other reason I watched Triumph of the Will, L'Atalante (one of THE most over-rated films of all time), or any of the Star Trtek movies.

And the horror film director you are thinking of is Wes Craven.

Yes , Sandman, you are wrong in that I do not have a smartphone, I was using my laptop, but same thing I suppose. It is not something I have ever done before and in fact I was just pondering to myself why I did it. Partly it was to find a reason to continue watching a film featuring a person and a film style I have a strong antipody to as I said. So I found a reason to continue by added interest or value to myself and followed on from that wondering if anyone else does or would do that. Apart from film and/or cultural critics.

Is Triumph of the Will the film about the Berlin Olympics? I don't think I know of L'Atalanta, and funnily enough the first Star Trek movie has crossed my mind as one of those films I saw first time around at Marble Arch Odeon and how I frequently had strong reactions to films then. Though I must admit Star Wars bored me then and would now.

Though I must admit Star Wars bored me then and would now.

If Star Wars bored you (I have seen it five or six times in the cinema and have fallen asleep most times) then Star Trek: the Unmotion Picture will send you into a coma.

@NiceGerbil

For historical interest I saw brief encounter the other week for the first time.

I couldn't get the hang of the plot but the scenes of the high streets shops etc were fascinating. Many of The women had much higher pitched voices as well which is interesting as apparently women have lowered their voices gradually over the decades.

Is that the sort of historical interest you mean?

Yes , NiceGerbil, it is and I have watched Brief Encounter more times than I care to remember. It is one of the films I referred to. The women's voices and manners and the 'humourous' working class characters, and the presentation of an almost upper class life as the norm, the weird idea that the husband and the would be lover are different apart from one being chubby, the Boots library books and the crossword and Rachmaninov, the steam trains and the station and the colleague's painful Adam's Apple. Oh and the night time wondering with the polite policeman policing.

@TheSandman

Though I must admit Star Wars bored me then and would now.

If Star Wars bored you (I have seen it five or six times in the cinema and have fallen asleep most times) then Star Trek: the Unmotion Picture will send you into a coma.

Thanks for the info on Wes Craven, I suspected there was a Wes in it somewhere. Though as i have siad I never , ever, ever watch horror films. I'd rather watch Star Wars to thnth Degree or whatever it's called. You seem to be an enthusiast Sandman, I am watching BBC2 now repeat of Talking Pictures with Dirk Bogarde, nearly over now. It is from seeing and reading his comments that I know some of what I commented on Judy Garland being in such desperate straits at the same time as making A Star. I was one of those innocent girls who adored Dirk and learnt better later.

Oops Sorry Sandman, BBC Four for Dirk Bogarde not 2. Still on laptop.!

@NiceGerbil

It's not really odd to consume content that is widely lauded as classic groundbreaking is it? I find it odd to think that's odd!

Some people do this with books as well just FYI

It is if you have such violent visceral reactions as the OP has, and presumably knows she will have — she found Oklahoma ‘quite horrifying and ultimately depressing’, had to turn off Mad Men periodically because she found it ‘stomach churning’, thought Saturday Night Fever ‘extraordinary nasty and depressing’ etc etc., and talks of ‘looking for a reason’ to continue watching a person and film style she has a strong antipathy to.

In her shoes, I wouldn’t subject myself to what is clearly for her a set of remarkably unpleasant experiences just because the films are considered ‘classics’ or culturally significant.

I’ve missed out on countless of those myself because I can’t stomach cinematic violence, especially sexual violence, but I don’t make myself because some of it is contained in important films/tv series.

I can see why you'd say that Lucent and I have calmed myself down . I wouldn't normally watch a Judy Garland movie and have never done so for the reasons I bored on about so I was kind of arguing with myself. I have actually seen a previous biopic on her so I do appreciate that she was a culturally significant figure in her time and the film(A Star) is one of those that have been reprised over the years which is of interest in itself.
I did get an enormous amount of pleasure from the scene setting, costumes, decor, the acting ,James Mason, so I blanked the singing mostly. Much as I dislike her that version would not resonate as it does with anyone else in the role and that is what I was trying to understand. I suppose I have revealed I have a bit of a weird brain as although I have plenty of things that do give me simple pleasure in and of themselves, I do get a lot of pleasure from films, books, programmes, etc that have a large amount of resonance and analysing it for myself. Of course it is very personal and has reconnected me to something I usually repress - emotional expression of private feelings.

Just wanted to add Lucent has a point and I have very much avoided a lot of stuff because I know it will cause me to react. So it's not just because it's generally considered culturally significant , it's that I personally find signifigance in it. But do you mind me asking if you really never have 2 or more opposing thoughts ,feelings or reactions to something - an event, entertainment, relationship at the same time? E.G . being irritated but fascinated. As i said I was kind of distracting myself and thought I'd see if any one else might be interested. It's Ok , I know it's considered a bit weird, it used to cause me misery not to seem able to share pleasures in common with others so I learnt to put up and shut up but I suppose I thought I'd take advantage of an annoymous forum. Discussion of one film reminded me of others.

Saturday night fever is depressing and I can see why some would find it horrifying.

Gang violence
Rape
And a murder or a suicide, maybe both, I forget.

Thanks ,nicegerbil, we might both be slightly misremembering if there was an actual suicide, wasn't it one of boys, the small unpopoular one, jumped onto the rails of Brooklyn Bridge but the others got him down. there was certainly a sexual assult scene in a car, not sure if it was the same evening. I've seen so many of those nostalgia type programmes celebrating the film and John Travolta it is one of those things makes me feel I live in alternative universe. I suppose many just remember the music that gave them joy. But i well remember leaving the Empire , Leicester Square wanting to weep.

The rape scene is horrible.

People forget that sort of thing I think. Because the main thing associated is beegees, flares, dancing.

The way that smitten woman is treated is so upsetting. It's meant to be but I still think that watching it as a woman is probably more hard hitting than as a man iyswim.

The original "A Star is Born" came out in 1937 and starred Janet Gaynor and Fredric March. Unlike the other versions, it's purely drama with a few comic elements.