It does.
And I'll go a step further. Older movies are, by and large, better than most of what's being churned out today. Not because cinema somehow peaked decades ago, but because an alarming amount of modern filmmaking has become an exercise in manufacturing disposable content rather than creating art.
But beyond that, having an actual understanding of cinema's history, its evolution, the development of cinematography, editing, storytelling, and the filmmakers who pioneered techniques that are still being used today gives you a far greater appreciation for the medium.
You understand WHY certain films are important. WHY certain shots and creative decisions were revolutionary. You recognize influences, understand context, and can appreciate filmmaking on a level that goes beyond whether something entertained you for two hours.
And when you have that knowledge, you start recognizing just how much modern cinema owes to the filmmakers who came before it. You also start noticing how much artistry has been sacrificed in favour of algorithms, franchises, release schedules and an endless conveyor belt of CONTENT.
Obviously, great movies are still being made today. Some of my favourites are modern films. But there's a difference between a filmmaker with a vision and a studio with a quarterly release schedule.
And before someone inevitably brings up the fact that older cinema had plenty of garbage too, no shit. Nobody is arguing otherwise.
You don't have to enjoy older movies. But dismissing people who have spent years exploring and understanding over a century of filmmaking as merely "pretending to have better taste" is fucking ridiculous.
There's a difference between loving movies and actually understanding cinema. Ideally, you do both.
8
22
498
15,717
