Cinematic Adventures

I agree with Andrew that movies have changed as far as cinematic value is concerned. The aesthetics of society have changed and with that so have movies (or vice-versa?). What was beautiful 50 years ago is now considered outdated, old-fashioned, and, really, I guess kind of prudish. I mean, look at the standards of women in the media. Not to get on a Mc Attack soap box or anything, but just look at how women looked back then. Marilyn Monroe, Judy Garland, etc. - all those sirens of the screen or whatever. Women do not look like that anymore. Ever. On-screen or off. Men were all decked out in their loafers and sweaters and...you get the picture. People in the real world looked like that (sorta) and so did those in the movies, if on a better and grander scale. People took their time; it was a slower paced society. One could argue so were the camera movements. Maybe that's getting too deep. But now what's the standard of beauty/cute that's being put onto the silver screen? Paris? Jessica Simpson? Hannah Montana? I'm seeing a trend of fake hair here...hmph. Anyway, I'm not saying whether it's good or bad, just throwin' it out there.

But it's interesting to note Andrew's point about the attention span of a child and quick cuts in today's movies. I rather enjoy those big blockbusters that he pointed out, such as Transformers, but I do watch them for what they are - eye candy, mostly. And I can appreciate that. But the quick cuts and fast-paced trailers and fight scenes and things get my blood pumping and my adrenaline going - which is exactly the response that they are trying to get out of an audience. It's the reason that most people go back to the theatre over and over again, especially for the big movies. But I also agree with Andrew that it wouldn't kill Hollywood to make a smart movie with a plot. Or maybe it would.