No, Old Movies Don't Look Like Plays. Here's Why 

You sound a bit condescending, don't you think? I saw plenty of both, but I always thought that the comparison was apt. Classical films have a certain flair to their presentation, and without going deep into technical details, such comparison helped to express what I meant in a casual conversation quite nice.

⁠​⁠@@Sirzhukovyou seem offended, nothing he said was condescending. He was just giving a reason for this thinking, same as you

Compared to modern filmmaking, I'd say that looking "like a play" is a GOOD thing. On the other hand, imo Hitchcock was right; movies of the 20s and late 10s were much more cinematic than the ones from Hollywood's Golden Age, and not just because of the silent element.

@@Sirzhukov What constitutes "plenty"?

@@Sirzhukov that flair is hyperrealism. There is still a certain theatricality to their performances because it affects an overall "more perfect than real" sensibility in the films.

In order to show a multi-minute scene, one needs to have actors who have rehearsed a multi-minute scene enough to perform it straight through without flubs. Using lots of quick shots allows one to get by without need for tedious rehearsals.

​@@flatfingertuning727Yeah, it's a cheap throwaway technique for cheap throwaway movies.

What? But if the film gave you a second to breathe you might be left alone with your thoughts for a second and we can't have that! What if you think a wrongthink? Or realize how stupid it is? That's not how this theme park ride works! We have to thrill you all the time, relentlessly!

@@flatfingertuning727everything Ive ever worked on, the actors 99% know their lines for the whole scene. So it isnt for the actors cutting.

@@MonsterKidCory More like if you're left alone for a second with your thoughts you might get bored and do something else. Today's movies are made for people with the smallest attention spans, and are extremely aware that they're competing with streaming and video games for our focus.

The judge in that movie was an actual judge too.

and the soundtrack is brilliant, as well.

truly the best channel, never stop please

What are the other channels?

@@abyzz4419 Off the top of my head, I do like StudioBinder quite a bit.

Maybe it more of a dismissal, I think it’s human nature to forget the old as new things come out, and view the old as inferior. Harder to appreciate easier to criticize

I have a lot of his videos on watch later so I can see the film before he analyzes it

Well, if you haven't seen 'Anatomy of a Murder', you need to get busy.

@@denroy3 "some I had already seen and look at them with new eyes." It's amazing how some people only understand what they want to understand.

I can understand your collegue's anger 😂

I believe because of short attention spans, and watching fast cut edits, it's difficult for them.

Theatricality or "staginess" aren't virtues and are sometimes connoted as placing a static uninvolved camera capturing the performers. The camera - when used well, will compose dramatically, cut appropriately and move just the right amount. It's three elemental virtues; composition, cut, and movement. Capra was a master of those making his works cinematic.

I've recently seen Arsenic and Old Lace again, and while the setting in one house at one time is very theatrical, Capra's means of telling the story, especially lighting and framing, are not at all.

​@@fruzsimih7214I don't disagree, and I certainly wasn't criticizing Frank Capra. He's one of my holy trinity of three all-time favorite directors. Arsenic came to mind as an example because it has an obvious stagebound quality compared to a film written for the screen like Mr. Deeds. My point was: I've watched actual stage plays shot with a single stationary camera and enjoyed them, if the play is engrossing. I'm not claiming this is cinematic or the best way to tell a story on film. I'm saying even if entertainment is truly "stagey" it's not necessarily a dealbreaker for me. Give me great dialogue, plot, and acting and I'm engaged.

Honestly I think that's just a cultural shift in expectations. We still have a lot of idiosyncrasies for how people are expected to act on-screen, they're just different now. We'll look back in 50 years and be like 'wow actors acted so weird back then' the same way people do now to older movies. Maybe more physical acting will become more normalised again, or more distinctive accents that are relatively exclusive to the acting scene. Who knows!

I really like this channel, but the example he gives at 5:02 is exactly what I think people mean when they say that some movies look like a play. Like, it kinda feels like the actress changed position just so we could see how she takes her necklace off. In a theatre play, that would be fine, since the audience needs to see it. In a movie, though, where a close-up or a different camera could have been used, it's hard not to wonder what the in-universe was for her to do so.

He is referring to people saying it looks like a play too. I think the silent era change over wasn't smooth, but it progressed rapidly. And classic movies encompasses a fairly long period, so the "over" acting had long passed.

​@@ivosamuelgiosadominguez6649disagree, that was a "dramatic" turn to the camera, not necessarily a stage move, because on stage she still could not be at the same position to the whole audience.

He showed clips from Citizen Kane and The Best Years of Our Lives, both by Toland.

"Beware of an old man in a profession where men usually die young."

Just my two cents, but I'd say modern cinema has been marred by the advent of the music video, all flashy but empty camera moves and cuts. cuts, cuts. And the acting also lacks soulful engagement, perhaps because by being totally immersed in the modern method process, they often disappear. Deniro putting on the pounds for 'Raging Bull' (and later removing his teeth for 'Gang's of New York') is no more effective than Roger Livesy in 'The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp' wearing prosthetics and human imagination.

This just shows an addiction to the modern film style, which cuts between closeups with the pingpong ball of dialog. It also shows an unfamiliarity with stage acting, because you have to face the audience to get best projection of the voice. Squaring off for an argument is a bit of a sacrifice on stage, but it's the only normal thing. Facing away from the camera is strictly a film angle. Never saw it used on stage.

@@hollyingraham3980 No, although you are probably right about the stage. Have you watched any random old movies? (Not the famous ones directed by famous directors that have stood the test of time?) Actors sometimes get dialogue that is way too long to be facing AWAY from the camera. You get a wide shot for dialogue with both actors and the setting, which is fine, but when you LOOK at the person who is talking (as anyone would do in life or when watching a movie) you're looking at the back of their head for a VERY long time. I would agree this is ok for shorter dialogue, or to see the reaction of the other character, but when they have no reaction and you start wondering, "Who directed this thing?", it's simply bad direction. Which is understandable as the early years of talkies didn't have a huge number of movies (or any television) for new directors to learn from. (I'm 50 years old and thought MTV had too many cuts 30 years ago. I still remember the joke from the opening shot of "The Player" 31 years ago. I have no love of modern cinema, if it can still be said to exist.)

I agree, the acting, especially the wit dialogues*, with rapid back and forth, is the most similar to theater. *This channel even has a great video on the subject, defending this way of acting.

Capturing reality has absolutely nothing to do with being cinematic! German Experessionism in the '20s, poetic-realism in French '30s cinema and film noir weren't un-cinematic. Cinematic means using composition, the cut and the camera move to tell a story. Capra, Wyler, Welles, Wilder, Lubitsch, Ford, Zinnemann are good as they get. Going outside can be as static as a poor director is in a studio. As for acting, there were star personalities fitting into roles within their reach that the camera loved, theater actors, the Mercury theater influx, and the early method - and they were just as appropriate as any today. What makes a performance theatrical is over gesturing, over inflecting their voice to reach the back stalls. And they learned vert, very fast when the first rushes arrived.

Those are the best parts of the movie and my favorites, it felt like a classsic Indiana Jones film again, not topping the truck or tank chase sequences from Raiders or Last Crusade, but still it was supverb directing by Spielberg, at least to me.

I'd disagree. Some films have gripped me from beginning to end in complete immersion until the breathless end, in what is called the "flow state", it happens with all art. Those films are the top 1%.

@@samhallzero You have to compare to plays.

Plays will be different in energy because there are live people right in front of you committed to lying and other manipulations to make the audience react to them certain ways. They also react to you in subtle ways. Of course a recorded media can't have that immediacy! That's why theatre survives. It's like the difference between recorded music by a band and attending their live concert.

@@hollyingraham3980 Yeah. They often also act differently. E.g. by having dialogue with stronger emotions and in a less "realistic" way. At least in my theater. E g. grabbing/touching each other and speaking loudly. And sometimes they improvise their text a little, because they have to remember everything, not just one scene like in the movies. And of course there are naturally no cuts, ever, and no forced camera perspective.

Excellent analysis.

Yes, I think people are thinking more about the acting and diologue than the rest, such as blocking... which are things they never notice anyway

But the acting in old movies isn't really theatrical, either. The Trans-Atlantic accent, for example, was unique to movies and not really used in plays.

@@ZerogunRivale maybe, but it feels more acted or over acted than in modern movies, which I think is true for theater too.

For a year or two in 1929 and 1930 - in desperation, side by side with absolute top tier masterpieces such as 'All Quiet and the Western Front' and 'The Man with the Movie Camera'. They also filmed West End hits, but than their were films like 'Pygmalion' which is superbly cinematic.

The coming of sound. In silent cinema you could move the camera around freely, but actors became anchored once their voices had to be captured by a microphone as well. It took awhile for the sound equipment to become as mobile as the camera had been.

Oh yeah, that makes sense. Thanks

Hey there, these are snippets from two different films. The one with William Holder sliding across the table is Sabrina (1954) by director Billy Wilder also starring Humphrey Bogart and Audrey Hepburn and the next one with Bette Davies is Jezebel (1938) by William Wyler also starring Henry Fonda both great movies and well worth a watch on a rainy afternoon. Enjoy.

And how many contemporary films began as plays? Or graphic media, with their panel by panel structure?

I cannot thank you enough! How enormously generous!

This comment barely has anything to do with the video. This video is about a topic in cinrmatography that is discussed by a lot of people in higher criticism quite a bit. There is nothing "specious" or whatever about it. Meanwhile, your entire comment tries to laud Nolan on the most basic of topics discussed elsewhere. Nolan's not bad, ans The Prestige is excellent, but he shares the same cinematography issurs that most modern filmmakers have which is demonstrable. Seriously, your comment on how this video is somehow for lowbrow people when it's actually discussing topics that are more in line with how higher cinema critics, historians, and so on discuss cinema is hilarious. All because you want to whinge abour Nolan.

Criticism isn't hate. The problem I have with Nolan is the same problem I have with Spielberg and Scorcese, they've made some superb films intermittently (that belong with the best of times past), and usually they start strong early in their career but they get a fawning and uncritical pass later on, no matter how twisted or weak or shallow or self-indulgent their latest work is and I blame it on the introduction of the autuer cult of the director. Cultists defend the leader, their messiah. The amount of times I've read the delusional aggrandizing epithet of "the greatest living director" for Scorcese and sat down to a misfiring bore-fest has made me cynical. Or Speilberg's remakes, sequels and the shite his company has foisted on the audience (the 'Transformers' is the lowest of lows, his biopic is another low of self-mythologizing). Nolan is popular because he isn't usually making trashy films and offers a link to the past, an attempt at quality film-making for adults. The problem, aside from some style problems, is that he has to compete with the best of the past, not the crap, decaying, degraded, denuded, dysfunctional, dismal, trite, tasteless, no-brow level and incompetence of the present. My challenge to you is try the best films from vintage years, such as 1939, 1940, 1941, 1946, 1959, 1960, 1980 and then make a case for him. Just 12 for 1946 The Best Years of Our Lives - Wyler Let There Be Light - Huston It's a Wonderful Life - Capra La Belle et la Bête - Cocteau A Matter of Life and Death - Powell and Pressburger Green for Danger - Gilliat Great Expectations - Lean The Jolson Story - Green The Killers - Siodmak Gilda - Vidor Notorious - Hitchcock The Big Sleep - Hawks My Darling Clementine - Ford I'll avoid going to second tier works by the marvellous Lubisch (Cluny Brown), Selznick's 'Duel in the Sun', Brown's 'The Yearling', or the Marx Brothers last classic ;A Night in Casablanca' and several others. These aren't just brilliantly directed but food for humanizing thought and soul-food when recalled in dismal weather or times. Best regards, bobby

@@samhallzero Would you say Scorsese has become self-indulgent? I agree his newer works aren't as good as his older ones, but I don't think I'd go as far as saying self-indulgent.

@@ZerogunRivale Yes I would. In running time and grandiosity. Also marring him, for me, is a socio-pathic lack of depth, 'The Wolf of Wall Street' is marvelously entertaining but is a financial gangster film without one victim. I think he wanted to be gangster early in life and he's had the chance to be one vicariously from the brilliant 'Goodfellas' onwards. I know that he followed and paid attention to Ebert's reviews to keep him honest but he probably has too many fans who give him a free pass.

I wouldn't be surprised, I think people criticizes Nolan now, the same way they criticized Welles, Hitchcock, Kubrick or even Spielberg back when he was still known as the "King Midas of Hollywood", what you say could also be applied to James Cameron, maybe even Ridley Scott, but that would happen long after they left this world.

God of War has better blocking than most Hollywood blockbusters.

No, if we're being honest, people often don't know what they mean by the words they're using. A great example is "cinematic". They throw the word out there without really ever defining what it means. They're going on more of a feeling than anything else, and when you go on a feeling, chances are, any attempt at a definition will simply reveal they have a contradictory belief system about what that word means. On top of that, what does "something that doesn't look like a videogame" even mean? Different video games have different presentations, such as how in a first person game you will see things from your character's point of view or how a game with scripted cutscenes will attempt to present itself more like a movie. And sometimes, those video games can potentially have better cinematography or even blocking than many modern movies do. For example, I'm way more invested in the cutscenes of say, a Yakuza/Like a Dragon game than I am a modern Hollywood movie.

@@ZerogunRivale Or the words "overrated/underrated" for that matter, espcially when they refer to something as "underrated", when is already talked about enough, but they think it's still obscure, maybe "overlooked" would fit better.

Exactly. Watch again. Listen again: he says post-Renaissance painting.

Not moving the point of view, but moving a viewers attention - it is still a 3d view, the last example especially could easily work in play also? Especially when the stage light will be used to guide the attention

And the cook part also could be done - the actor just goes behind the stage from one side and go out from the other - behind second actress blocking him with her body and go aside to reveal actor (plus you can use subtle light to accentuate relevant figures)

And the attorney figure blocking is also like that. Idk, I have seen similar things on stage. And the walking on street shot - you can use moving textile/paper background for that on stage, now they use projector for that kind of thing though Also there are very few theaters who even have balconies or extreme side sitting- so it’s front anyway. And set artists are also using dramatic perspective illusions for decoration. I do agree that one can argue about “stage” nature of older film, but one should use more “cinematic” shots, that play on modernist art-illustration composition, like battleship potemkin or citizen kate - of course! But regular golden hollywood? Not really, to be honest?.. Also when people say something look like a play - they often talking about polished unnatural theatrical aspects, unnatural lighting, unnatural movement, that used for artistic hyperbole, showoffness of the shot- and not realistic subtlety of “peeking” into someones real life like in most of modern cinema

And the spielberg example is hilariously easy to do on stage also?… Both actors standing in the middle, then actor moves in same manner either behind the stage and actress goes in front and both back in the middle, or actor moves in the same twirling manner in the dim spot and actress goes hard spotlighted in the front, then both back to the softer light spot :/

Yes it is, as the examples show, and there are many, many more directors not covered. They have nothing to do with the stage. Many modern movie have more to do with MTV music videos, cutting and moving to create energy, not tell a story.

@@samhallzero No? The examples show that there are dissimilarities between classic cinema and the stage. What needs to be shown is that modern cinema doesn't have _more_ points of dissimilarity with the stage.

Uh, what? If he's pointing out, for example, a movie will place George C. Scott in front of Jimmy Stewart to block his view and do it in a way that a play would not, then that IS a dissimilarity. The things discussed in this video are just that - dissimilarities. Furthermore, you seem to be under the impression Moviewise is trying to say that modern cinema is more like the stage. Nowhere is that argued nor is that his stated thesis at any point. He NEVER said that modern movies are more like the stage than classic movies, just that classic movies aren't like the stage as some people falsely accuse. NEITHER classic or modern cinema are like the stage. The problem with modern cinema is actually more that it falls in line with Hitchcock's statement that movies can often fall into a series of photographs with none of the qualities that make movies unique.

@@ZerogunRivale You're massively misreading everything I've written. The position to be rebutted is that classic movies are more stage-like than modern movies. In other words, classic movies have X% similarity to the stage; modern movies have Y% similarity to the stage; where X is greater than Y. In order to argue against this position, we must show its negation to be true. That negation is this: X is less-than-or-equal-to Y. The video does not argue for this. Instead, it provides evidence that X is potentially small. Whether X is small is irrelevant. What matters is the magnitude of X relative to Y.

@@PedanticTwit Are you a academic university professor? Because bringing a mathematical equation is just the type of thing to kill love of an art.