Way back in my film school days, I had an interaction with a favorite cousin whom I had not seen in some time. This opportunity to reconnect saw our first interaction since I had been accepted as a film student, and so he asked me what basically everyone asks me right after I tell them I’m studying film, “So, like what’s your favorite movie, then?” When approached with this question, at least by associates who are not necessarily film buffs, my default response is usually something I know has been on Netflix in the last year. (Though if I had to pick an answer ... maybe Silver Linings Playbook .) I think this time I said James Cameron’s Titanic . He then had a sort of illuminated reaction and followed up with, “I see, so you like … old movies.” My response to this was something in the vein of, “Well, yes , but NOOOO …” Steven Spielberg being a 29-year-old on the set of Jaws In academic circles, t he demarcation between “c...
This piece's lead image very much puts the modern landscape of blockbusters in competition with classic Hollywood. And the state of things can often feel that way, that film literacy is somehow a zero-sum game between popular film and "real film." But lo, this is just a fun way to visually represent eras of film competing for top placement on one person's ranking. I'm not here to add to any divide. Rather than argue that one period of film is better than the other, I want to explore how the mutating DNA of cinema carries a base code of magnificence across its lifetime. The way that manifests will vary across each decade, and I'm organizing them in such a way that privileges how I personally favor any given variant, but the lifeblood of the movies is vibrant across the ages. There is fantastic work in every time era, just as every era has its stumbles. But there are certainly periods where I feel more attuned to the work that Hollywood is puttin...