How do we pass the Cinematic Torch?

[MissGoddess]

Well, they used to have a much more "nostalgiac" vibe to their style of presentation, whereas in the past few years they definitely have become much more "edgy" and that to me equates with trying to be more hip, in my opinion.

[movieman1957]

The one thing they have given up, probably for monetary reasons, are the "music videos" that promote that months star and spotlight. On this level they probably had more edge last year. Even the fun stuff like the "Rocky" nursing home and "Ben Hur" elementary school spoofs are gone.

[melwalton]

I got someone to read my post AND RESPOND! How about that? .... mel

change is the only constant

[Lzcutter]

Well, they used to have a much more "nostalgiac" vibe to their style of presentation, whereas in the past few years they definitely have become much more "edgy" and that to me equates with trying to be more hip, in my opinion.

I think when they hit their 10th anniversary, TCM decided that some of the presentation needed to be updated.

I think that was the impetus for changing the "What's on Tonight" and the whole TCM City graphic approach.

They can't afford to stay stagnate in today's world.

I also agree with Chris that it is likely budgetary reasons that the monthly "music videos" have been discontinued.

I'm betting that the great 31 Days of Oscar promos probably put a dent in the budget. But it was worth it. It was one of the best promos ever.

Hopefully, they will return one of these days.

[movieman1957]

Way to go Mel.

Your friendly thread killer,
Me

[Ayres]

This is a fascinating discussion. To shine a slightly more optimistic light on things:

Remember the scene in Yankee Doodle Dandy, in which a few teenagers come ask a retired George M. Cohan (James Cagney) if they can get some water from his well for their jalopy? They're mid-1930s teens, by the timeline of the film (but really they are early '40s teens, as that is when the film was made). Joyce Reynolds and Charles Smith ask him what his Variety headline is all about ('Stix nix hix flix' as the film renders it), and he explains it to them, and they get into a conversation about show business. The kids have NO memory or awareness of him, even though he was the biggest star and producer on Broadway a mere 30 years before.

I would contend that there is today much more youth awareness of classic films than there was an awareness on the part of a 1940s teen about any pop culture of his past. Classic film is taught in high schools and colleges; it crops up frequently in allusions in other movies and in television; and now it is easily accessed on YouTube.

If you want to cheer yourself up, check out the comments that young people make on YouTube in response to montages of old movie clips (especially musicals). Many of them are discovering them through these brief glimpses for the first time, and in the slang of today are expressing unbridled admiration (and are frequently profanely praising) the stars of yesteryear. MANY say something like (this of Mr. Astaire), "This guy is a bad-ass pimp! Gotta check out more of his s***!"

I don't think a love of this stuff is diminishing. Though it may seem to be flagging commercially at the moment, think how many DVDs Warner Home Video has to sell in order to make it worth printing the movie. I don't know the exact figures, but that is a LOT of people, and if all of them trumpet their love of classics, the torch will be passed.

That said, I sometimes wish that TCM had a second channel that stuck to mostly black-and-white material from about 1915 to 1950. I do get depressed when I turn it on to find them showing Grand Theft Auto or The Bad News Bears. I didn't even like a lot of that stuff the first time around!

But I think there is a lot of hope for these things being regarded as an art form and preserved and admired for centuries to come.

[jdb1]

Actually, we've had this discussion here before, maybe last year, on a slightly different note. My feelings haven't changed:

Lack of education is a key problem. You can't appreciate movies, or music, or literature, or art, or good food, etc. without learning how. The younger generation is indifferent to such things because no one has taken the trouble to teach them otherwise.

The media, especially television, is run by 20 year olds and aimed at 14 year olds. The concept of what's funny may have changed in the media, but I don't think the reality of what's funny has changed. If someone with a stronger media presence than Rose McGowan went on TV and said Hey, "The Front Page" is really funny, the whole country would be laughing at it. Look at how people who previously wouldn't have dreamt of reading an entire book all the way through run to buy what Oprah tells them they should be reading.

Nothing is deemed, in the public eye, an artistic success unless it's also a monetary success. This is not to say that there aren't artistic successes, it's just that the general public doesn't care unless it can be said that it cost $6 million to produce and won (or was nominated) for some award.

The public believes what the media tell it to believe. Have you noticed this sudden upswing in "green"ness on TV? We've been nattering on about it for 40 years, but now that, for example, Clorox bleach has a green label (but I notice it's still in a plastic bottle, not glass), it's become OK to be in favor of preserving the environment. How long do you think fervor this will last? Does anyone still count carbs? Seems to me that was the most important thing on everyone's mind not too long ago.

TCM may be trying to bridge two worlds, but at least it is trying, when most other TV channels are going for the quick fix.

By the way, who was it called us "the most self-absorbed generation?" That must have been contemporaneous and conservative. Compared the the self-indulgent excesses of the past 30 years, we were Franciscan mendicants, discalced. Who studies sociology any more? It was the most popular major when I was in college. Everyone wanted to change things for the better. Everyone was political. Everyone just wanted to help, for pete's sake. Nowadays being a sociologist isn't glamorous enough: they are now called cultural anthropologists. Wouldn't want anyone to think you're a lowly, insignficant social worker, now would we?

[moira finnie]

This is a great thread. I tend to think that many of the most bitter commentators on TCM see the network as a personal friend. When your TCM friend makes some new friends and does new things, they react emotionally, feeling betrayed, rather than seeing this as a chance to make new friends too. I tend to see TCM as part of a corporate whole. Whether I like it or not, they must find a way to remain a viable arm of that structure without alienating their current audience. Those who feel that TCM is deliberately alienating an older demographic in favor of that allegedly much more desirable younger 18-44 age group might want to keep in mind the cultural tsunami headed toward this country.
The largest group of healthy, older adults over 50 in the history of the world, with a massive spending power, and diverse interests is coming. Demographers estimate that:

Over the next five years, the number of households headed by people ages 55 to 74 will grow about 15 percent, to nearly 31 million, according to projections by the San Diego-based market research firm Claritas. Additionally, the firm forecasts that the number of households with 55- to 74-year-olds whose annual income is $100,000 or more will jump a whopping 61 percent during that same time period, to more than 6 million. If that level of growth continues, the number of these well-to-do older households will more than double by the 2010 Census, to over 8 million.

.

Long story short: being older won't mean being invisible. If you want the impact of your taste in movies to be felt--whether you're 16 or 76, go out and buy something that you think has lasting value, whether a dvd or a book about classic movies. If you find that your local bookstore, blockbuster, or library doesn't carry classic film material, speak up, ask why? Most importantly: Order something, even if it's something piddly like I can afford to buy, like a $6.95 dvd of something obscure from 1932 starring Mary Boland & Charlie Ruggles!

As Lynn alluded to in her original post, I do think that several of the more vocal henny-pennies at TCM are dealing with the realization of their own mortality. To be honest, once you accept the temporary nature of your place here, the more relaxed you get about stuff and start to enjoy the view and the ride while you're here. To paraphrase other clichéd words, "don't sweat the small stuff, 'cause it's all small stuff"--even TCM's existence.

Btw, I guarantee that if 3 of us had to choose just one dvd item to spend our hard-earned cash on, we might get into a somewhat heated, but fun, discussion about the value of our choices. I also guarantee that at least one of us would buy something connected to John Ford.

Whaddya mean, you haven't purchased a John Ford movie?

I think interest in and disdain for the past is cyclical. Since the rise of mass culture, have you noticed how many times artifacts seem to be forgotten or mislaid for a time, only to be revived? It's just life trying to renew itself when music, books, paintings and now, films are rejected. I think that the best of the arts will survive and be rediscovered. Given the expanding ability of technology to document almost everything, (sometimes giving each artifact a strange & ludicrously equal weight) I think we'd be surprised to see what will matter to our descendants in 100 years. We can't control what happens then, though we should support the film preservationist around us whenever we can. I know several people under 40 who love old movies. (Some of them only allow their kids to see older movies and no broadcast tv).

Maybe we each started to love classic movies because of our daily exposure to them as kids. There is, if you look for it, something of more value in the average movie from the '20s-50s, even if it is just a clumsy attempt to entertain people for a few ephemeral moments. The humanity that shines through these films may seem lamentable and archaic, but I'm optimistic that the good films will survive, if humans do.

[Mr. Arkadin]

I would definitely agree with you Judith. Education is key, and I think TCM has tried to address that issue a bit with this new pairing of The Essentials. Rose basically plays the seeker heroine, and RO is the wizened sage that provides the knowledge. While I realize that sounds simplistic and maybe a bit unkind to Rose (who I do like), it’s much different than a director’s critique or Osborne’s pairings with someone who is his equal in film knowledge. This idea seems to work with some of the younger fans, but they need to follow up with their own investigations into films.

A big problem is the fact that many younger people do not read as much as previous generations. They often depend on the internet or television to get their information or learn about things. As a result, they many times trade convenience for knowledge. Just pick up a newspaper, and you will see many stories and issues that are not included in network news or go much deeper than a news show or the internet would allow.

The sad thing is many depend on scraps of information about films and other things when they could simply visit the library (they pay taxes for!) and learn for themselves.

[Mr. O'Brady]

I think that the best of the arts will survive and be rediscovered......There is, if you look for it, something of more value in the average movie from the '20s-50s, even if it is just a clumsy attempt to entertain people for a few ephemeral moments.

Thank you! That's my great fear about TCM. They will continue to show the films that are considered great artistic achievements, while the "clumsy attempts" (my personal favorites) will fall by the wayside, something I feel is already occurring. When the original library was the chief source of material, they showed everything, but as they expand their reach, many of the lesser-known, under-appreciated films are disappearing from the schedules. It just killed me every time I would read posts at TCM berating the airing of my "garbage" movies, and calling for more arty, edgy, or acclaimed films. Snobbery at its worst. All the films should survive, not just those that are deemed "worthy".

Pat, off my soapbox

[MissGoddess]

Btw, I guarantee that if 3 of us had to choose just one dvd item to spend our hard-earned cash on, we might get into a somewhat heated, but fun, discussion about the value of our choices. I also guarantee that at least one of us would buy something connected to John Ford.

[Lzcutter]

I also guarantee that at least one of us would buy something connected to John Ford. Wink >>

I would bet that at least two of us, if not all three, would pick something by Ford.

[SSO Admins]

I also guarantee that at least one of us would buy something connected to John Ford. Wink >>

I would bet that at least two of us, if not all three, would pick something by Ford.

Depends. Are we assuming that I already own Beyond the Valley of the Dolls?

[ChiO]

Based purely on personal experience, I find many of the latest generation ("many" = a minority, certainly, but still sizable) to be far more open, accepting and knowledgeable than my (Baby Boomer) generation was at a similar age about film. They study film, they go to revival theatres, they see the under-distributed "real" independent films, they form film groups, they rent them, they watch TCM...on and on, when all I could do was occasionally catch something after school on "Frances Farmer Presents" (late night movies were a no-no).

Our older (twenty-eight) daughter's favorite movie: REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE (though she prefers Dean's performance in EAST OF EDEN). Two years ago she said, "we rented a great movie last week with Peter Lorre called M. Have you seen it, Dad?" Our younger (twenty) daughter's favorites: ROPE, STRANGERS ON A TRAIN, REAR WINDOW, NORTH BY NORTHWEST (see the sad pattern?), BRINGING UP BABY, DUCK SOUP and whatever the latest Tim Burton or Johnny Depp movie may be. When I took her to see KILLER OF SHEEP on a big screen, she found it "very interesting". If I had even permitted my parents to drag me to "their" movies, I undoubtedly would have rejected them.

My parents, of course, were self-described lovers of classic movies and could never understand why I would drive 30 miles from home to see current junk like THE GRADUATE, BONNIE AND CLYDE and McCABE AND MRS. MILLER. My father loves John Wayne. When I recently popped a John Wayne movie in the DVD player for him called THE SEARCHERS, he'd never heard of it. My mother, the James Stewart fanatic, watched WINCHESTER '73 with me and afterwards said, "My, I would have never thought that Jimmy Stewart could play a cowboy." So, which generation is best positioned to pass the torch?

The greatest threat to the continuation of excellent ("classic" is even more of a loaded term than "excellent") film may be the economics of production and distribution, not the "kid"'s taste. The demise of Poverty Row, double- and triple-features, and the consignment of small films to smaller theatres in big cities or large university towns reduces the communal experience of sharing exciting innovative film. If made available, it will be seen. And, as has always been, 80% (too low?) of what is made will be rubbish.

In closing, as someone else said above, never confuse the TCM Board posters with the TCM audience.

[Mr. Arkadin]

In closing, as someone else said above, never confuse the TCM Board posters with the TCM audience.

That's very true. My comments (and I think some others here) were for the huge bashing Rose is getting on the TCM boards. These people don't seem to understand that The Essentials is not for the educated fan. It's for those who might not watch a classic film. I think the new format with Rose is fine and is much better for the uninitiated fan than a director jawing or other people arguing with RO.