The problem with over analyzing movies

[pedramyz]

I've always been a big fan of John truby's teachings but recently I went to his web site and gave a read to some of his movie breakdowns. The stuff I read shocked me! He stomps on movies that are overaly considered masterpieces like "Departed", " Beautiful mind" , "Prestige" ... and he stomps on many of my personal favorites too, like "Scott pilgrim vs the world" , " Dazed and confused" , "Everybody wants some",... .

The fact that he stomped on my favorites didn't bother me. what bothered me was that he clearly didn't understand these movies story-wise! and that's weird, cause you see in many cases he is on point about why a certain movie or tv show has been so successful. If anyone has the time to read his analysis of movies, check his website and you will see what I mean. I think the problem comes from the fact that this guy has focused all his man power into deconstructing a story that he's psyched himself out , therefore he misses so many obvious great stuffs and potentials of a movie. I get that americans want a great story more than anything (at least from Truby's point of view), but in all fairness that's not what movies are all about. If all people wanted was a great story they wouldn't have bothered with movies, they'd just read novels.

That's why I've always had a problem trusting teachers like him wholeheartedly. You can follow all their organized neatly crafted techniques and you can still end up having a crap script. Cause let's be honest, if people like him have realized everything there is about a good story, why aren't they themselves coming up with blockbuster movies? The answer is obvious, Creativity and criticism are two completely different things. They aren't even in the same ball park. and creativity is obviously harder than criticism. A creative person is usually a good judge of a good movie, but a good judge of a movie isn't necessarily a creative one.

Bottom line I think the best leads an aspiring creator in any field can have are first his own personal experiences and conceptions, and second the successful creative ones in that particular field, and not the critics or teachers ( unless that teacher had a great artistic track record himself).

I'd like to hear what others think about this.

 

[Feutus Lapdance]

You mean that you have watched Citizen Kane and you didn't like it, you wasn't totally curious every second of the movie to find out about his life, you haven't got the enormous surprise at the end of the movie.
Help me God...

I would give it a 7 out of 10.

Spoiler

The first thing when I saw Kane as a boy on that Sled was...the Sled = rosebud

. My main problem with this movie is that it's about a man that grows so powerful that he forgets his declaration of principles when he was younger. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAE9b4YWVhQ

A interesting movie would show Citizen Kane corrosion of his character over time in his road to power. And that's where the movie fails in my opinion. I never get this feeling that Kane is serious about his principles or that he is a man of good morals. Its like..... 4 minutes into the movie later and he is dancing around with a bunch of hot chicks at at a fancy diner....That's not a slow fall from grace. He is corrupted from the core. A man that is driven by his own ego and addicted to power and attention. Its like like Jordan Belfort in the wolf of wall street.

 

[Panos]

A corrupted, greed man, who is not a man of morals and he is not serious about his principals but who, the second before he died, the only thing he remembered, among all the wealth and power he was possessing, was a game he was playing when he was a young kid with his poor family! Do you start getting the magnificence of that movie?
As the title of the post says, stop overanalysing the movies... Masterpieces are usually simple.

 

[sfoster]

You mean that you have watched Citizen Kane and you didn't like it, you wasn't totally curious every second of the movie to find out about his life, you haven't got the enormous surprise at the end of the movie.
Help me God...

yeah i enjoyed it but I am definitely not the aveage modern viewer....
i've seen every charlie chaplin film. most people haven't even seen one.

 

[Feutus Lapdance]

A corrupted, greed man, who is not a man of morals and he is not serious about his principals but who, the second before he died, the only thing he remembered, among all the wealth and power he was possessing, was a game he was playing when he was a young kid with his poor family!

I understand this the first time I saw it.... I just think that it's not the best movie ever, nor do I believe it's Orson Welles best.

 

[Panos]

yeah i enjoyed it but I am definitely not the aveage modern viewer....
i've seen every charlie chaplin film. most people haven't even seen one.

I don't believe the average modern viewer should be the criteria to judge whether a movie is good or not. The AMV maybe vote hangover as the best movie ever...

 

[Feutus Lapdance]

I don't believe the average modern viewer should be the criteria to judge whether a movie is good or not. The AMV maybe vote hangover as the best movie ever...

It's interesting how things can change over time. Critics hated John Carpenter's The Thing when it came out. Now its revered as a Horror movie cult classic. Whos to Judge if a movie is the best movie ever? Perhaps we are better judges of that then our predecessors. Our teachers had to see a movie at the cinema or had to rent it on VHS. Not only do we have excess of all the movies ever made. We also have access to movies from other countries and other cultures. We have movies from Japan, Sweden Korea and we have access to a wild selection of manga Gamer and comic book culture. That's a big difference... who is the judge if something is good? Is the Shawshank Redemption the best movie ever? It certainly the highest rated movie on IMDB. Does that make it the best movie ever? I don't think so...... Perhaps we are the best Judge, "Beauty in things exists merely in the mind which contemplates them."

Everyone you meet knows something that you do not know. There opinion, and their perspective is something you can use to make your own view of the world grow and add that up to watch something in a different perspective.

 

[Panos]

The key here is the word average not the word modern. Citizen Kane is voted even today one of the best movies ever. But not from average viewers. From top cinema experts, and there is a very good reason that they've become top. They know very well what people want to see, what the average viewer wants to see..! And here comes my question, how are you so sure that modern viewer won't like Citizen Kane? And I'm not talking about some kids that won't like it just because it is a very old black and white movie.

 

[Feutus Lapdance]

The key here is the word average not the word modern. Citizen Kane is voted even today one of the best movies ever. But not from average viewers. From top cinema experts, and there is a very good reason that they've become top. They know very well what people want to see, what the average viewer wants to see..! And here comes my question, how are you so sure that modern viewer won't like Citizen Kane? And I'm not talking about some kids that won't like it just because it is a very old black and white movie.

I think cinema experts rate a movie on its quality and what the liked about it, not on what other people like in a movie. They've become top because the understand al the basics of movie making. Citizen Kane did a hole lot of things movies before that did not. It revolutionized hollywood movies. It became a cornerstone of movies after that. Cinema steals, it improves, cannibalises on other things and grows. The modern viewer (if something like that really exist) will watch citizen Kane and judge it among all of the many of the things seen before. And the twist in the end will be boring compared to the twist in the Sixth sense. The deep focus of the scenes will be nothing compared to that of David Fincher and the Story will not be as good as a Martin Scorsese.

 

[pedramyz]

The key here is the word average not the word modern. Citizen Kane is voted even today one of the best movies ever. But not from average viewers. From top cinema experts, and there is a very good reason that they've become top. They know very well what people want to see, what the average viewer wants to see..! And here comes my question, how are you so sure that modern viewer won't like Citizen Kane? And I'm not talking about some kids that won't like it just because it is a very old black and white movie.

I think if you want to judge a movie well you should put bias aside. If everything was perfect with these classic masterpieces, they wouldn't have changed over the past 100 years. We would still watch slow paced black and white movies in theaters. Cinema has evolved, tastes have evolved too. Sure these so called masterpieces were masterpieces in their own time. But in no way can you compare these movies with post-modern masterpieces,apples and oranges really. "If everything was perfect, nothing would have changed".

 

[Panos]

...cinema experts rate a movie on its quality and what the liked about it, not on what other people like in a movie. They've become top because the understand al the basics of movie making.

The basics of what? The basics of what makes a movie good. Good for who? For themselves but not for usual viewers? I don't think that this is their mindset.

Citizen Kane did a hole lot of things movies before that did not. It revolutionized hollywood movies. It became a cornerstone of movies after that. Cinema steals, it improves, cannibalises on other things and grows. The modern viewer (if something like that really exist) will watch citizen Kane and judge it among all of the many of the things seen before. And the twist in the end will be boring compared to the twist in the Sixth sense. The deep focus of the scenes will be nothing compared to that of David Fincher and the Story will not be as good as a Martin Scorsese.

The fact that modern viewer will feel nothing for the surprise at the end of CK because they have already felt much more about bigger surprises in modern movies doesn't indicate anything important. It's like saying that because modern people have the Tesla car, the discovery of the wheel wasn't one of the biggest inventions ever!

Also, maybe we agree that sixth sense had a bigger surprise at the end but I doubt that it was overall better movie. (SPOILER STOP READING: ) I will never forget how the hell Malcolm could see the door handle, but not 10cm below, the desk that was blocking the door... Oh, right, M. Night throws the lifesaving line: "they see only what the want"... yeah ok... And not only that. Actually the whole movie is in the air. Countless imperfections like that exist in almost every movie.

When I saw Citizen Kane it surprised me the fact that I never got bored. There was always a magical anticipation to see what will happen next. I think CK is a way more solid movie than the "better" modern movies.

 

[directorik]

I think if you want to judge a movie well you should put bias aside.

How can one put aside their bias when talking about movies?
“Bias” is a “deviation of the expected value of a statistical
estimate from the quantity it estimates” and “a personal and
sometimes unreasoned judgment”.

A movie is the sum of the creators and does not need to be
exactly the same in each “expected value”. And the creators
judgment is always personal – or should be. And how we watch
a movie and our own, personal bias is essential. No movie is
perfect for every viewer.

The general consensuses is “Kane” is a great film. When lists
are made it is often number 1. Then we bring our own, personal
bias to it. One person may think “Blue Velvet” is a better movie
– that's bias. Another person may find “Kane” boring. That
doesn't mean “Kane” isn't a great film.

When we judge a movie do we only do so by technical details?
Do we judge a movie only based on what someone like Truby
teaches? Is his “expected value” the norm by which all movies
must be judged? Or do we judge a movie using our own bias.

Is there a difference from “my personal favorite” and an objectively
great film?

I say a very strong yes. “Kane” is a great film. My personal favorite
is “Mary Poppins” - to me a nearly perfect movie. That's my bias
– my personal and unreasoned judgment.

pedramyz, you don't put aside bias when talking about movies.
You started this thread because you discovered your “expected
value” (bias) is different than John Truby's “expected value” (bias).
You said, “Bottom line I think the best leads an aspiring creator
in any field can have are first his own personal experiences and
conceptions”. That is called bias.

 

[sfoster]

Yeah I think the greatest movie ever made is Schindler's List but people would look at me like a psychopath if i said it was my favorite movie and I watch it all the time.

When people vote citizen kane as the greatest movie of all time they are giving it credit for being original and innovative at the time it was made. They are giving it extra credit that modern movies cannot possibly attain, and most people don't give a shit about film history they just want to be entertained.

 

[Feutus Lapdance]

Yeah I think the greatest movie ever made is Schindler's List but people would look at me like a psychopath if i said it was my favorite movie and I watch it all the time.

When people vote citizen kane as the greatest movie of all time they are giving it credit for being original and innovative at the time it was made. They are giving it extra credit that modern movies cannot possibly attain, and most people don't give a shit about film history they just want to be entertained.

Sfoster nails it on the Head. I think the greatest movie ever is Songs of the second floor. This movie will never get boring.

Al Orison Wels wanted to do was to be the voiceover in movie about a Robot planet that consumed other planets. It took him 45 years to complete his dream....... He helped to create one of the best movies ever.

 

[directorik]

Yeah I think the greatest movie ever made is Schindler's List but people would look at me like a psychopath if i said it was my favorite movie and I watch it all the time.

You walk in an odd circle of people...

There is no one, not a single person, I know who would call you a
psychopath for liking and watching that movie all the time.

 

[pedramyz]

How can one put aside their bias when talking about movies?
“Bias” is a “deviation of the expected value of a statistical
estimate from the quantity it estimates” and “a personal and
sometimes unreasoned judgment”.

A movie is the sum of the creators and does not need to be
exactly the same in each “expected value”. And the creators
judgment is always personal – or should be. And how we watch
a movie and our own, personal bias is essential. No movie is
perfect for every viewer.

The general consensuses is “Kane” is a great film. When lists
are made it is often number 1. Then we bring our own, personal
bias to it. One person may think “Blue Velvet” is a better movie
– that's bias. Another person may find “Kane” boring. That
doesn't mean “Kane” isn't a great film.

When we judge a movie do we only do so by technical details?
Do we judge a movie only based on what someone like Truby
teaches? Is his “expected value” the norm by which all movies
must be judged? Or do we judge a movie using our own bias.

Is there a difference from “my personal favorite” and an objectively
great film?

I say a very strong yes. “Kane” is a great film. My personal favorite
is “Mary Poppins” - to me a nearly perfect movie. That's my bias
– my personal and unreasoned judgment.

pedramyz, you don't put aside bias when talking about movies.
You started this thread because you discovered your “expected
value” (bias) is different than John Truby's “expected value” (bias).
You said, “Bottom line I think the best leads an aspiring creator
in any field can have are first his own personal experiences and
conceptions”. That is called bias.

Bias :"inclination or prejudice for or against one person or group, especially in a way considered to be unfair."

Note the unfair part plz. If you read my previous posts in this thread you'd know that I'm not mixing bias with personal preference. Of course everything ( not only movies) is perceived by personal preferences. That's just how human's minds work. I'm not saying you should put your personal preferences aside to judge a movie, that's just impossible. I'm saying because a certain movie changed things in an era and was considered a masterpiece, that doesn't implicate that this movie is still a masterpiece by current standards. Sure all the originality credit goes to that movie, but to compare a classic one made based on old standards with today's movies which are based on completely different standards is like comparing apples and oranges. That's why it's not FAIR to compare these two movies with each other.

People are always tempted to give credit to old movies, and here is where bias kicks in: It's not because classics nailed everything and that doesn't happen anymore ( as I said if that was the case nothing would have changed, there is a reason that movies changed), people give credit to classics because in our mind nothing can beat nostalgia, because we love to idolize a dead creator in our mind, and because that guy is DEAD nothing and no one can ever beat him. It's like comparing a loved dead friend to a new friend, the first unfair thing to do is to compare these two people with each other, the second unfair thing to do is to make that friend so perfect in our mind that we close our eyes to the perfections of this new friend. I'm sorry for the bleak example, but that's just how it is. Many of the great movies we have today are not considered masterpieces, but imagine 50 years later when the creators have died and movie standards have changed again, people again get tempted to give all the credits to these old movies and calling them masterpieces rather than recognizing the ones they already have. That's just how it is. This is what I mean when I'm talking about bias.

If for no reason you absolutely fall in love with a classic movie, there is nothing wrong with that, you can say that's the BEST movie I've ever watched. But when you straight up say : all the world knows this is the best movie ever made! That just stirs some bias up. The basis of your comparison is flawed and it is flawed because of your bias. Because you are forcing the comparison of apples and oranges just to get it off your chest that apples are better than oranges. THIS is bias, not personal preference.

 

[Panos]

because a certain movie changed things in an era and was considered a masterpiece, that doesn't implicate that this movie is still a masterpiece by current standards. Sure all the originality credit goes to that movie, but to compare a classic one made based on old standards with today's movies which are based on completely different standards is like comparing apples and oranges. That's why it's not FAIR to compare these two movies with each other.

Can you please explain what do you mean "standards" and how these "standards" changed so much, that an old masterpiece can't stil be considered as masterpiece?

People are always tempted to give credit to old movies, and here is where bias kicks in: It's not because classics nailed everything and that doesn't happen anymore ( as I said if that was the case nothing would have changed, there is a reason that movies changed), people give credit to classics because in our mind nothing can beat nostalgia, because we love to idolize a dead creator in our mind, and because that guy is DEAD nothing and no one can ever beat him.

This is a completely wrong opinion. If that was true, then we would consider great movie every old movie just because it is old!

Many of the great movies we have today are not considered masterpieces

This is also a wrong opinion. The Green Mile, The English Patient, The exorcist, The Shawshank Redemption, The Midnight Express are some of the resent movies that considered masterpieces. And they were always considered masterpieces since they born not only today.

But when you straight up say : all the world knows this is the best movie ever made! That just stirs some bias up.

Third wrong opinion. When the whole world believes that this is a masterpiece and whenever there is a vote, that movie takes the first place, then there is no bias! Doesn't the fact that the majority of people have a specific opinion says anything to you?!

Because you are forcing the comparison of apples and oranges just to get it off your chest that apples are better than oranges. THIS is bias, not personal preference.

Relax bro... actually, we don't compare apples and oranges, we compare movies and movies.

 

[pedramyz]

You obviously didn't get my point.

 

[directorik]

You obviously didn't get my point.

I'm not getting your point either.

I'm saying because a certain movie changed things in an era and was considered a masterpiece, that doesn't implicate that this movie is still a masterpiece by current standards.

I'm saying a certain movie is a masterpiece without comparing it
to another movie. “Citizen Kane” is a masterpiece. I'm not saying
no other movie is a masterpiece but I am implying that even by
current standards “Kane” is a masterpiece. By current standards
"Citizen Kane " is a masterpiece. How do current standards change
that?

Frankly it's not FAIR to compare movies to other movies. How can
one compare the low budget, black and white horror film “Night
of the Living Dead” with the big budget, CGI heavy, comedy action
film “Guardians of the Galaxy”? It is not FAIR to compare the
comedy “The Hangover” with the dramatic “The Blind Side” - both
in the same year.

People are always tempted to give credit to old movies, and here is where bias kicks in: It's not because classics nailed everything and that doesn't happen anymore

This is a foolish statement. No one says old movies nailed everything.
No one says “Citizen Kane” nailed everything. And it's not nostalgia
or the fact the Hitchcock is DEAD that makes “North by Northwest” a
masterpiece.

Many of the great movies we have today are not considered masterpieces, but imagine 50 years later when the creators have died and movie standards have changed again, people again get tempted to give all the credits to these old movies and calling them masterpieces rather than recognizing the ones they already have. That's just how it is.

That is not “just how it is”; that it YOUR bias. Many of the great movies
we have today are considered masterpieces even with the creators alive.
“Goodfellas” was considered a masterpiece the year it was made. I can
give many more examples. Steven Spielberg is still alive and "Jaws" is
considered a masterpiece by many.

It usually takes 30, 40, 50 years for a movie to be considered a masterpiece.
Perhaps in 50 years "Dunkirk" will be considered a masterpiece but that
wouldn't mean that "Citizen Kane" is no longer a masterpiece.

But when you straight up say : all the world knows this is the best movie ever made!

Anyone who says that is a fool. All the world cannot agree on ANYTHING;
certainly what is the best movie ever made. Your point is severely flawed
because no one says that. No one. If 100 film critics are polled and 63 of
then say “Kane” is a the best movie made than means 37 do not think it's
the best film ever made. But it is listed as “the best”.

 

[pedramyz]

I'm saying a certain movie is a masterpiece without comparing it
to another movie. “Citizen Kane” is a masterpiece. I'm not saying
no other movie is a masterpiece but I am implying that even by
current standards “Kane” is a masterpiece. By current standards
"Citizen Kane " is a masterpiece. How do current standards change
that?

Frankly it's not FAIR to compare movies to other movies. How can
one compare the low budget, black and white horror film “Night
of the Living Dead” with the big budget, CGI heavy, comedy action
film “Guardians of the Galaxy”? It is not FAIR to compare the
comedy “The Hangover” with the dramatic “The Blind Side” - both
in the same year.

That's exactly my point. So you force an unfair comparison just to say a certain movie is the best movie ever made by consensus, that ain't bias?! I haven't mentioned "Citizen Kane" even once in this thread. I don't know why people think I'm debunking this movie. The points I'm making are general here.

This is a foolish statement. No one says old movies nailed everything.
No one says “Citizen Kane” nailed everything. And it's not nostalgia
or the fact the Hitchcock is DEAD that makes “North by Northwest” a
masterpiece.

I guess I need to explain more clearly. Look, in my experience old movies are not the subject of harsh criticism these days. We nit pick everything when it comes to new movies, everything. These days people simply regard a movie as bad and say the reason is because of the generic twist or whatever, or they say the second support actor did a piss poor job of ... in that scene, for that this is not a good movie. or the dialogue felt contrived,.. ( These are just trivial examples just to prove a point, so before anyone starts on the punctuality, I don't mean that these examples are the new standards). People don't do that with classics. why? Why don't we nit pick everything as we are today when it comes to classics? We criticize the score (music) of a movie these days just to say we didn't like the movie. why nobody is doing that with classics?! I'm not against classics or anything. I have favorite classics too. ( wizard of oz 1939, 12 angry men, 8 and a half by fellini, sunset blvd off the top of my head ..) . I'm saying if you usually criticize a movie this harsh, why not do the same thing when it comes to classics? You are cutting classics slack because they were old?

Whenever I watch a movie, whether old or new, I always watch it with the same personal expectations I always have from movies. I don't choose a different mindset to criticize a black and white movie. If the actings were really bad in a classic one or a new one it just catches my eye. Regardless of the era of the movie, a mistake ( even a small one ) is a mistake. My personal preference for watching movies is constantly interesting narrative drives. Most Classics don't have that, so I don't like them. But that's it, I'm allowed to say this much! I can't speak to your minds, or state that all the world knows this post modern movie is the best movie ever made! It's bias to imply this is the best movie ever made in the world and if you don't agree with me, you don't know jack shit about movies. It's bias to try to force your opinion on others to satisfy yourself that your favorite movie is the best movie in the world by absolute consensus. ( These "yous" are general ones, I'm not pointing fingers at anyone)

It usually takes 30, 40, 50 years for a movie to be considered a masterpiece.

Why?! Why should it take up to 50 years for a movie to be recognized as a masterpiece?

Perhaps in 50 years "Dunkirk" will be considered a masterpiece

You just proved my point on nostalgia. It's odd to say it's not a masterpiece right now but it may be in 50 years! The movie stays the same, nothing about it changes. Why should it rest on a shelf eating dust for 30 years or so to finally be acknowledged?!

The whole problem I had with this subject was that I saw people started comparing classics with modern movies. My whole problem is with the baseless comparison of movies in different eras, not classics themselves.

And as far as the "masterpiece" phrase goes, there are controversies to that. I think an art piece is called a masterpiece whenever it brings ground breaking changes to a certain industry in a way that the audience relates with. But like everything else masterpieces are time sensitive too. Because a certain art piece brought ground breaking changes into the industry (Or the novelty of a certain idea) , it doesn't mean nothing better than that can ever happen. For that time this art-piece gave us so many great things,and for that time it was a masterpiece, and it's the all father of this idea, the originality of it always goes to that movie. but the thing is, people learn from that and they take that art piece to the next level. This is where the sad thing happens. We are reluctant to acknowledge new movies which have learnt from those masterpieces and taken them to a new better level. The originality of that movie is disabling us from giving credit to the movies that have used that original movie as a guide line and taken it into a more evolved way. Let me give you an example for this: "gilgamesh" is considered the first epic story in history and a masterpiece, centuries later lord of the rings came out, which is imitating from gilgamesh in which it is using the same genre "Epic". But what lord of the rings did was to take simple epic form and transform it into this complicated world story. Now because gilgamesh was the first one to introduce epic form of story to humans, does it mean it has done a better job of story telling than lord of the rings? No. Now the same thing is happening but people are reluctant to acknowledge it. Now we have "game of thrones" , it is using the same world story structure but this one has transformed that genre into even a bigger one using political agendas too. Now because lord of the rings was the first one to use this structure, does it mean " game of thrones" falls short in the term of storytelling? But people are still reluctant to acknowledge game of thrones as a masterpiece. Readers comment on the books say : such a page turner. or they give it a good thumps up, they are not calling it a masterpiece. Past masterpieces can stay masterpieces from a personal point of view,but they can't remain a masterpiece from an objective point of view ( I'm not even sure if there is something such as "objective masterpiece"), and past masterpieces shouldn't disable us from recognizing upcoming masterpieces. and here is the beauty of it, new masterpieces come along and show us not everything about that old masterpieces of ours are perfect. You may argue that a masterpiece is not perfect, but I'd say there are some degrees of perfection to a masterpiece. The new ones show us, for the first time, the flaws of the previously deemed flawless ones.

My most favorite movies ( Lynch and tarantino movies ) are masterpieces in my opinion. They are flawless and perfect for me now, but they won't stay like that forever because there will be movies in the future that will be better than these ones in every aspect. Movies that have learnt from these ones and transformed them into better ones. I won't hold onto my bias then if I see movies with the same premise that have done a better job at it execution wise. In that time I will call tarantino's movies the progenitor of that certain genre, but I wouldn't call them masterpieces no more. because better ones have shown up that has done what tarantino did but in a more evolved and better way. But that doesn't mean what tarantino did wasn't ingenious. Tarantino will remain a genius forever, but his movies can't remain the best ones in that genre forever.

Anyone who says that is a fool. All the world cannot agree on ANYTHING;
certainly what is the best movie ever made. Your point is severely flawed
because no one says that.

Then I suggest you take a look at the the posts some people have made in this very thread.

 

[Panos]

The new ones show us, for the first time, the flaws of the previously deemed flawless ones.

This phrase sums up the wrong mindset you have and you get anxious to establish your opinion using not intentional sophistry.
You can't criticize an old movie using the detailed knowledge, about how emotions are created, that we have today. Marlon Brando said about James Dean: "he gave us our freedom". Can you accuse the actors, before James Dean, for not being as "free" as they are today? No, because they didn't know, no one showed them the way. Can you accuse old directors for not having extreme close ups? No, they didn't know that an extreme close up is good when it is needed, or maybe the cameras back then wasn't proper, I don't know.

Or could you accuse Galileo for being idiot, because he knew that if you throw a rock from a mountain, with extreme force, it will start doing circles around the earth, but he couldn't suspect the force of gravity? Or can you accuse Newton that was completely unable to think why while you fall down, gravity stops, and therefore conclude that gravity is not really a force? No, they couldn't know at their time.

You can't criticize old movies using later knowledge. You actually can't criticize nothing, using later knowledge. A black and white masterpiece is, by analogy, equal to a modern masterpiece. Einstein is, by analogy, equal to Aristotle and a 2118 movie masterpiece will be by analogy equal to Requiem For a Dream.