How did Cinephilia even exist before the internet?
I have the entire history of World Film at my fingertips and have tried to watch 1-2 films a day for years now, and I still feel like my knowledge of film is extremely limited.
How did folks like Martin Scorcese ever become as knowledgable as they did, especially when theatres were the only means of watching films? Did theatres used to cycle through Classics more often?
>>63719201
>Did theatres used to cycle through Classics more often?
Yeah. They also lived in a time where popular films weren't a wasteland of commercials for children and there existed greater variety in the market.
>>63719201
>How did folks like Martin Scorcese ever become as knowledgable as they did
no social networks to waste time on.
>>63719360
>Yeah. They also lived in a time where popular films weren't a wasteland of commercials for children and there existed greater variety in the market.
Is this true though? I always feel as this is romanticizing the past based on a selective knowledge of it. Was the general public ever really partial to what today is considered "art film"?
>>63719201
college
fundations
private collectors
museums
>>63719559
lets say they had not perfected yet the art of making a total cashgrabber flick, where every single detail is made for shilling stuff for you to buy.
>>63719559
Star Wars and Jaws sort of created the blockbuster craze that has consumed movies today.
>>63719677
their idea of cashgrab was westerns
How did Cinephilia exist before the internet? Like how did people know what the top 100 movies were on imdb?
>>63719721
Pretty sure the Blockbuster has been around as long as the studio system
And before you argue the Blockbusters of old were more artful, consider all the ones that were completely forgotten
>>63719559
I'm not talking about art films. There was a higher level of craft on display and more creativity all around, before films became advertising campaigns. Some will claim it's nostalgia, or a biased selection, but I disagree: mainstream films have gotten worse. What was mediocre in the 80's is better than most 'good' films made today.
Sure there was a lot of crap back then too. But a larger variety of crap, and higher highs. Great filmmaking has been almost completely pushed to the outskirts of the industry.
>>63719870
Gonna have to agree here. I think it's knee jerk to just assume that anytime someone says something was better, even a little, in the past that they're romanticizing or have nostalgia goggles on is somewhat shortsighted itself. Frankly speaking, he didn't make that outrageous a claim: there wasn't such a thing as a global movie market in the old days. You didn't need to put in safe themes that everyone could understand because you weren't trying to court the Chinese market, the Korean market, etc.
By necessity everything big budget has to be bland nowadays to make its money back, I think that's what he means. Arthouse films haven't changed, but they have been even further marginalized.
>>63719977
>>63719870
You do make good points
A shame, really
>>63719977
The industry itself has become more restricted to newcomers and it's pushed all the money into fewer hands. The independent market is a shadow of its former self. Jon Jost has a good post about this somewhere online. Even though I disagree with his conclusion, the observations he makes are all too true.
>>63719870
>>63719977
Agreed on all your points. Any "nostalgia" rebuttals can be disproved just by watching the older movies, it's not like we don't have access to them today.
>>63720287
wait some years for the yank cultural revolution
