The Adventures of Robin Hood and other mid 20th century movies -

[Dom Cruise]

I watched the 1938 Errol Flynn Robin Hood movie, this is now the oldest movie I've seen, prior to that was The Wizard of Oz.

I've been meaning to watch more mid 20th century movies, including all the big classics, back in December I watched White Christmas with Bing Crosby from the 1950s as well as It's a Wonderful Life and Miracle on 34th Street from the 1940s.

And my issue with all these movies is frankly... the pacing is so slow I can't help but find them kind of boring, in the case of Robin Hood I dug the technicolor look (movies certainly LOOKED great back then), I dug the costumes and sets, I dug the few action sequences there were, but the pacing is so slow that I couldn't help be bored most of the time.

I feel bad about admitting that, as I can really respect movies of the time period, but I'm just too used to more modern pacing, the vast majority of movies I've seen have been from the latter half of the 1960s and upward.

My question is is that just the way it is with all movies from back then? And why exactly is it that way? I assume there's technical reasons, something to do with the size of cameras back then and probably even something to do with editing equipment.

I wish I had watched more classics as a kid because it probably would have gotten me more used to that old fashioned pacing, but these days, while I love the look of technicolor movies, I also can't help but think "get on with it already"

 

[The Last Stand]

Horrible. Like all of them trying to remake a classic.

 

[Pokemonquistador2]

Take some ritalin and learn to absorb things at a measured pace. I recommend some Hitchcock, then some Kubrick. These guys were masters of the slow burn and tension-building.

Here's a video where some Englishfag dissects a scene from Dial M for Murder. Note, how every gesture and every piece of dialog has meaning and intent. Note how methodically the scene builds to the murder proposition:

If you're watching a Hitchcock film and you're saying "Gah! Get to the murder already!" three minutes in, then you're too short for this ride. Go back to watching capeshit, because you'll get nothing out of older media, other than the surface spectacle of the more ambitious productions.

 

[Dom Cruise]

Horrible. Like all of them trying to remake a classic.

Huh? I'm not sure you understand what I was talking about, I was talking about the original 1938 Robin Hood movie, unless that was a remake of an earlier movie.

One older movie than what I usually watch that I really liked was Whatever Happened to Baby Jane.

Take some ritalin and learn to absorb things at a measured pace. I recommend some Hitchcock, then some Kubrick. These guys were masters of the slow burn and tension-building.

Here's a video where some Englishfag dissects a scene from Dial M for Murder. Note, how every gesture and every piece of dialog has meaning and intent. Note how methodically the scene builds to the murder proposition:

If you're watching a Hitchcock film and you're saying "Gah! Get to the murder already!" three minutes in, then you're too short for this ride. Go back to watching capeshit, because you'll get nothing out of older media, other than the surface spectacle of the more ambitious productions.

Hitchcock is a guy I've been meaning to really get into more, so far I've only seen Psycho but I loved it, no pacing issues there, one of the best and creepiest scenes in the movie is when Norman and Marion are just sitting around and talking, surrounded by his creepy taxidermy animals, I was not at all thinking "get to the murder already!"

I've been a Kubrick fan since I was a kid, 2001 is one of my all time favorite movies, however I haven't seen his older black and white stuff yet, if that's what you're referring to.

It isn't just a slow pace in of itself I guess, it also depends on other factors, in the case of Robin Hood the acting is pretty hammy, which makes a lot of scenes unintentionally funny, the story of Robin Hood is also such a well worn tale I knew all the famous story beats, which I'm sure also made it a bit dull, knowing everything that's going to happen more or less.

I can handle a slower pace if the movie is interesting enough I guess.

For fuck's sake though, please don't assume I'm some typical "capeshit" audience, my idea of a really good movie is something like National Lampoon's Vacation, Planes, Trains and Automobiles, Ghostbusters, Raiders of The Lost Ark, Terminator 2, Alien, Aliens, Full Metal Jacket, basically 70s, 80s and 90s is my gold standard, not the fucking 2010s MCU.

But it's when we go way, way back to the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s that I do find the pacing a bit slow.

 

[shameful existence]

I'm the opposite. I like slow paced movies, especially old euro ones. But it's a matter of preference, rather than an appreciation of superior quality. Film isn't that high of an art to begin with. If you don't force yourself to read Dickens, don't force yourself to watch Fritz Lang... or whatever the American alternative is.

 

[Product Placement]

That movie also didn't work for me, but something from the 30's like My Man Godfrey, The 39 Steps, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington or Freaks I really like. My tip is too watch more movies from that era, not every movie works for everyone and nothing wrong with that but do watch more of them to see if it's just that movie rather than the era.

Also you say 70s and 80s are your favorite era of movies, but only list the big budget blockbuster movies, I would recommend watching more movies from that era as well, check out the some of the New Hollywood era movies you haven't seen and check out some none English movies, if you want an action movie would really recommend Ran.

 

[Dom Cruise]

I'm the opposite. I like slow paced movies, especially old euro ones. But it's a matter of preference, rather than an appreciation of superior quality. Film isn't that high of an art to begin with. If you don't force yourself to read Dickens, don't force yourself to watch Fritz Lang... or whatever the American alternative is.

I've been meaning to watch some Fritz Lang, namely Metropolis and M, I think I'd probably enjoy them.

I'm willing to at least try anything.

I also want to be clear that I didn't dislike The Adventures of Robin Hood, I enjoyed it well enough and I don't regret watching it, but I'd be lying if the pacing didn't bore me at times and I'm just wondering if that's just something I'm going to have to expect from movies of the time period.

But there's just something about more modern movies, even slow paced ones, that I find easier to watch, maybe it has something to do with the camera being more static in old movies? Because I love Blade Runner, which most people find too slowed paced, but that's precisely one of the things I like about it, but Blade Runner is also very different than anything made in the 30s, 40s or 50s.

That movie also didn't work for me, but something from the 30's like My Man Godfrey, The 39 Steps, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington or Freaks I really like. My tip is too watch more movies from that era, not every movie works for everyone and nothing wrong with that but do watch more of them to see if it's just that movie rather than the era.

I'd love everyone's recommendations for good movies of the time period if anyone wants to share them.

I haven't seen the full movie yet but I have seen some clips from Freaks, that scene where they're crawling under the circus wagons in the rain is still scary as hell even to this day.

 

[biscuitscilia]

Well, a lot of those films took their time because they conveyed information in a different way than films today do, they had basic structures with inciting events but they used "action" sparingly (what I mean is anything the character is doing, not fight scenes and such) and were dialogue heavy. If you watch more pop-y stuff from the same era like monster movies, sci-fis, adventures or comedies, they have a more brisk pace and were shorter. But those films are considered B-movies and were really cheap, the more higher budgeted stuff like dramas and historical pieces were out for prestige. So they relied heavily on dialogue, depending on the director.
I used to be put off by slow films too but I started building a tolerance for them and eventually I found myself watching slow films in a row. I suggest if you're having problems with pacing to start with Welles and Hitchcock to start lulling yourself in overtime. If you want to go for slow and foreign films, Ingmar Bergman is the perfect director. His films are slow but they're short, they rarely go over an hour and 30 minutes and they get to the point pretty fast. The more you watch, the more used to the times you'll get and it'll be easier to get through older movies eventually.

 

[Stephanie Bustcakes]

I think with some movies the slow burn is kinds of necessary. For instance, one movie you brought up was It's A Wonderful Life. I can't see how a movie like that can be sped up at all, considering the plot. You have to watch as this man's life is unfolding with disappointment after disappointment wearing away at him, but it happens gradually, so he can keep soldiering on. I don't think it would be as effective if you just blasted the viewer with everything quickly.

 

[Iron Jaguar]

I watched Dirty Harry a few years back and found the pacing slow.

 

[Super-Chevy454]

I guess "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World" is an exception to the rule of slow pacing back then, it beginned with a bang and end with a bang and we got a cool midpoint.

 

[Dysnomia]

Take some ritalin and learn to absorb things at a measured pace. I recommend some Hitchcock, then some Kubrick. These guys were masters of the slow burn and tension-building.

Here's a video where some Englishfag dissects a scene from Dial M for Murder. Note, how every gesture and every piece of dialog has meaning and intent. Note how methodically the scene builds to the murder proposition:

If you're watching a Hitchcock film and you're saying "Gah! Get to the murder already!" three minutes in, then you're too short for this ride. Go back to watching capeshit, because you'll get nothing out of older media, other than the surface spectacle of the more ambitious productions.

Yesterday I watched The Machinist. I hadn't seen in in a few years. It's from 2004 so it's one of the more recent movies to actually carefully build what's going on. There are many little touches here and there that you have to watch carefully for. They all make what seems to be a confusing plot not that confusing at all. The guy is going crazy for a reason.

I also liked how it red herrings you with a literal fish

A lot of recent movies just assault you with events too fast. And don't even get me started on jumpscares. If you have too many of them then they are no longer scares. Because you just expect them at every turn. This stuff only really works on kids. Thanks FNAF.

 

[MrTroll]

Very old (pre-60's) 'action' movies don't age very well (except Hitchcock, Kurosawa, John Ford, or David Lean). It's the dramas and noir films from that era that are evergreen. The Maltese Falcon, Double Indemnity, Treasure of the Sierra Madre, Sunset Blvd, White Heat, The Third Man, etc.

But if you want something closer to the action/adventure side, The Bridge Over the River Kwai is the best of the best.

 

[Pokemonquistador2]

For fuck's sake though, please don't assume I'm some typical "capeshit" audience, my idea of a really good movie is something like National Lampoon's Vacation, Planes, Trains and Automobiles, Ghostbusters, Raiders of The Lost Ark, Terminator 2, Alien, Aliens, Full Metal Jacket, basically 70s, 80s and 90s is my gold standard, not the fucking 2010s MCU.

But it's when we go way, way back to the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s that I do find the pacing a bit slow.

Okay. I'll grant you that there were a lot of dull movies back then. One of the reasons was because Movies were basically the TV of their day. Talky, slow, more intimate material that in later years would be consigned to the small screen was often shown in theaters, simply because there was no other place to watch that stuff. When TV came along, movies started ramping up the action and spectacle, and improving their pacing and storytelling techniques, simply because they had to compete with the little magic storybox in the corner of everybody's room.

 

[Calandrino]

I think with some movies the slow burn is kinds of necessary. For instance, one movie you brought up was It's A Wonderful Life. I can't see how a movie like that can be sped up at all, considering the plot. You have to watch as this man's life is unfolding with disappointment after disappointment wearing away at him, but it happens gradually, so he can keep soldiering on. I don't think it would be as effective if you just blasted the viewer with everything quickly.

I only first watched It's a Wonderful Life for the first time a year or two ago. It's much different than I and probably a lot of other first-time viewers would expect... it's really a movie about real life with very little fantasy in it. Miracle on 34th Street is much the same. You can watch the world getting dumber by viewing the best-known Christmas movies in chronological order.

Anyway, anyone who finds It's a Wonderful Life too boring probaby didn't even see the original ending. Not really the same film without it.

 

[Garm]

I watched the 1938 Errol Flynn Robin Hood movie, this is now the oldest movie I've seen, prior to that was The Wizard of Oz.

I've been meaning to watch more mid 20th century movies, including all the big classics, back in December I watched White Christmas with Bing Crosby from the 1950s as well as It's a Wonderful Life and Miracle on 34th Street from the 1940s.

And my issue with all these movies is frankly... the pacing is so slow I can't help but find them kind of boring, in the case of Robin Hood I dug the technicolor look (movies certainly LOOKED great back then), I dug the costumes and sets, I dug the few action sequences there were, but the pacing is so slow that I couldn't help be bored most of the time.

I feel bad about admitting that, as I can really respect movies of the time period, but I'm just too used to more modern pacing, the vast majority of movies I've seen have been from the latter half of the 1960s and upward.

My question is is that just the way it is with all movies from back then? And why exactly is it that way? I assume there's technical reasons, something to do with the size of cameras back then and probably even something to do with editing equipment.

I wish I had watched more classics as a kid because it probably would have gotten me more used to that old fashioned pacing, but these days, while I love the look of technicolor movies, I also can't help but think "get on with it already"

Early Doctor Who was very similar. The anniversary was a few years ago (more than a few now that I think about it), anyway, they played stuff from... The early sixties? which took two hours as compared to the then "modern" Who which took about 40 minutes or so.

Yes, the pacing has sped up but I think writing has suffered for it. If they wanted world building or little moments to make a scene more "natural". (Battlestar Galactica episode where they have a water shortage comes to mind.) Unfortunately everything has been cut down to allow more commercials so people have less time to tell a story or jokes. (Simpsons creators complained that they lost two minutes run time so they can't do any more of those weird cuts like they did in the first season. Family Guy apparently thrived on this since it is only a step above Robot Chicken in coherency.)

 

[Dom Cruise]

I guess "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World" is an exception to the rule of slow pacing back then, it beginned with a bang and end with a bang and we got a cool midpoint.

I watched It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World once a decade ago, it's a very long movie but it's never boring and it of course looks gorgeous.

I only first watched It's a Wonderful Life for the first time a year or two ago. It's much different than I and probably a lot of other first-time viewers would expect... it's really a movie about real life with very little fantasy in it. Miracle on 34th Street is much the same. You can watch the world getting dumber by viewing the best-known Christmas movies in chronological order.

Anyway, anyone who finds It's a Wonderful Life too boring probaby didn't even see the original ending. Not really the same film without it.

The main thing I knew about It's a Wonderful Life was it's the movie where a guy is shown by an angel the world if he had never been born, what I didn't know is that the premise doesn't happen until close to the movie's end, it's like if in Back To The Future we see Marty McFly's entire life and then he goes back in time with about 30 minutes of the movie left.

That said I still liked the movie a lot, I just found that surprising, I also laughed at how nightmarish it's treated that his wife becomes the local librarian old maid.

 

[Someone in a Tree]

I used to listen to Korngold’s Robin Hood score a lot and I always had the impression that the music did a lot of the heavy lifting to sell the “excitement” of the movie. Considering more modern sensibilities, it does seem like it’s selling the movie too hard. As for older movies, at the risk of being a basic bitch, Citizen Kane feels like it has the timing of a movie made two weeks ago. Nothing about it feels archaic or hindered by the limitations of the era. Even the old age makeup holds up pretty decently.