Sure. But the reason it doesn’t apply “equally” is not because citizen Kane is a classic, but because ant man 3 is mainstream blockbuster trash. People who frame marvel as the height of films today are just so… intellectually lazy.
I’ve shown quite a few people citizen Kane and, aside from a musing discomfort at the parallels of post modern trump like media manipulation (FRAUD), it really doesn’t resonate with people nearly as much as, say, Parasite, despite them probably being culturally closer to Kane.
Tl;dr if you’re going to show someone a “life changing film” pick something new that is similarly ambitious. Classics require too much effort to enjoy. It often doesn’t work.
The MCU was the height of films because it managed to wrangle more than half-a-century of comic book lore (much of it previously deemed unfilmable) into a coherent and compelling multi-film epic that was both entertaining and (lightly) philosphical and political. Through Endgame, it was an unprecedented undertaking involving the hard work of tens (hundreds?) of thousands of talented artists and technicians across the globe, marshalling untold resources over the span of a decade. And they actually pulled it off, producing a series of critical and commercial blockbusters that form (more or less) a single, sprawling narrative. It's unlikely we'll ever see anything like it again in our lifetimes.
The day when the project would lose its luster was always coming - as anyone who knows the history of Hollywood westerns and action flicks and blaxploitation could tell you - and you may gloat now that it's arrived. However, for a shining moment, literally billions of people had something special to share, and no amount of elitist posturing can take away from it.
(Citizen Kane's cool, too, of course. Gave us that clap meme and a baller Simpson's episode.)
>The MCU was the height of films because it managed to wrangle more than half-a-century of comic book lore (much of it previously deemed unfilmable) into a coherent and compelling multi-film epic that was both entertaining and (lightly) philosphical and political.
That's more of a parlor trick than art. "See how much simplistic comic book storytelling randomness I can fit in 30+ movies, and even live room for 70% of it be explosions and fight scenes".
>it was an unprecedented undertaking involving the hard work of tens (hundreds?) of thousands of talented artists and technicians across the globe
"Talented" is begging the question.
IMNSHO, not only is the writing, acting, and directing mediocre by-the-numbers blockbuster crap, but even what they supposedly do best (the special effects and fights and such) are shodilly made.
There are movies made from comics that are worth a damn cinematically (Logan, Sin City, Watchmen, Constantine) but 99% of MCU is not in that set.
I think Black Panther came closest to being good, as a non-colonial/post-colonial vision of Africa. But the last hour is just the same as every other MCU movie, eminently skippable.
Neil Gaiman does decently well in the adaptations that involve him, I must say.
A more compelling thesis would be that the MCU films presided over a vacuum of good blockbusters during a period of decline in American cinema, brought about by risk-averse studios during the mortgage crisis.
The legacy of the films—technical achievements, continuity and coherence of narrative, ambition, etc.—are laudatory in some respects. Obviously, they made an enormous amount of money. But it's worth examining their "critical" success. Putting my personal opinions aside, do any of these films hold up to the standard bearers of early 90s and 00s blockbusters? I'm not convinced.
The MCU films are inherently derivative works with little dramatic tension; we already know the characters and that they will win. The narrative and dialogue is paint-by-numbers, and the action sequences are exhausting, low-stakes, and sterile.
That's fine for a theme park ride—get some thrills if that's your cup of tea—but it's not enough for a critically good blockbuster film. That's fine for teen boys and young adults, but it's not enough for a more diverse, discerning audience. Does anyone think any of these films, let alone their entirety, hold a candle to Jurassic Park, The Matrix, or The Pirates of the Caribbean? They're equally blockbusters, but they will be remembered long after the MCU films are forgotten.
Nah, a generation grew up with the MCU films, they will remain in their minds for the rest of their lives. The films you mentioned are probably the ones you grew up with and the ones that you use as benchmarks. The generation before that was Star Wars, before that it was historical epics, etc etc etc.
Just like with music, "the best" is often the things you experience in your mid-teens to mid-twenties. And when you grow up you'll develop some more critical thinking and may appreciate older or newer things.
Ironically, it's exactly because a generation grew up with the MCU films—and very little else—during Hollywood's "down" period that they're unable to contextualize and evaluate those films on their lack of critical merits.
> And when you grow up you'll develop some more critical thinking and may appreciate older or newer things.
Your argumentation is just as childish as your taste.
Maybe that’s true but I don’t think it is. Star Wars was before my time but I still enjoyed those movies. I was a little too young for the Matrix when it came out, and when I saw it as an adult I really liked it.
> Through Endgame, it was an unprecedented undertaking involving the hard work of tens (hundreds?) of thousands of talented artists and technicians across the globe, marshalling untold resources over the span of a decade
Just imagine what those artists could have accomplished working in the service of an artistic vision instead of churning out corporate slop.
Live action super hero dramas started with Superman and reached maturity in Sam Raimi's Spiderman movies. Highlights are Robocop and Unbreakable (throw a Batman adaptation in there, probably The Dark Knight). By the time the MCU rolled around, the genre was well past middle age. Despite billions of dollars of life support, it will be remembered as the last tortured breaths of a somewhat embarrassing cultural episode.
High budget artistic vision does not translate to financial success though; it's ultimately a tradeoff.
That said, good films don't need high budget.
I don't agree with your last take, either; the MCU was when the superhero movie formula was perfected. We're now in a post-MCU phase where what is being produced just can't reach the same appeal anymore. Morbius and Madame Web are outright flops. They seem to be rebooting Fantastic Four for the 4th time. Any sequel to established MCU characters seem to be independent / standalone films, sometimes a bit gimmicky like Sam Raimi's Doctor Strange horror crossover episode or Thor's 80's glam rock direction.
It's not always a tradeoff. Americans made big budget, artistically accomplished, highly successful movies in the 60s and 70s.
As far as the rest of your comment, I'll just repeat my view that Sam Raimi's Spiderman movies are far better than MCU. And Robocop/Unbreakable are the best the genre produced.
I never liked Citizen Kane that much. Direction, cinematography, camera angles were inovative for that time and I can understand why it's important from historical perspective. But the story leaves me cold. On the other hand, 12 Angry Men or Casablanca are masterpieces in my eyes.
That's the other thing to keep in mind, seeing things in perspective for the time; these movies were literally groundbreaking, like Wizard of Oz' transition to color film (compare with e.g. Avatar which popularised 3D film), Jurassic Park's use of CGI blended with models and live actors, the unfortunately one-off Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Toy Story's full CGI film that revolutionised animated filmmaking (arguably for the worst since it eventually came at the cost of "traditional" western cartoons).
It feels like it's getting harder to do something new.
The question was "doesn't that [quality, to be able to stay with you and change you] apply to every film?"
And my answer is: not exactly, it applies best to movies that are not "mainstream blockbuster trash".
I'm pretty sure we can find some people for which some of the 200 movies in the Avengers franchize resonated with them and changed their life. Especially since billions saw them (and unprobable events will tend to happen as the sample size grows). After all, Hallmark movies also resonate with many people. And in the right conditions, say our dog just died, they can make even the more cynical of us cry.
But generally, better movies have that quality more. This is what makes the better in the first place: touching on some essential aspect of humanity in a non-trite way. Doesn't have to be classics as in "old movies favored by critics", just generally movies made with more vision, integrity, and core message than "look 2 hours of explosions and fancy effects mixed with reshased cookie cutter dialog", or "look at these two cute young people fall in love, have a falling out, and getting back again") will tend to resonate with people more deeply and in more nuanced ways.
Well, then they're wrong, and should change their ways, similar to someone who just eats fast food because "that's what they like, they don't want to be challenged by food".
I prefer to be a little more provocative than going with the conventional wisdom and just saying: "well, more power to them".
They need to put in the work to get that increased power :)
If my whole worldview was upended 50 times or more each year by classic great films, my ego psyche and would lay crumbled on the floor.
You should show more respect for the people you depend upon to maintain your sense or intellectual and moral superiority. Where would you be without them?
I always find these attacks on perceived elitism extremely inverted. Someone who recognizes the importance of challenging classics implicitly recognizes that this holds value for anyone. On the other hand "don't be an elitist, the mailman doesn't need to read the Iliad" is not as humanistic of a position as many people think it is.
The pseudo-egalitarian idea that there is no difference in value when it comes to what people consume depends on the nasty, unspoken idea that the masses are just too stupid to want to do anything seriously challenging.
> "don't be an elitist, the mailman doesn't need to read the Iliad"
That's not what I meant originally.
It's okay if the mailman wants to watch the newest Marvel movie to relax and unwind after work. Or maybe the mailman grew up reading the comics and the Marvel movies are a dream come true, despite their flaws.
Why is it not okay for the mailman to have pursuits that aren't some way related to improving oneself or related to intellectual curiosity? Maybe they read the Iliad some other day or when they have more time or are in the mood for it, no judgement there.
I think people are talking past my original comment's point. If anything its an elitist view that the mailman is wasting their time if they aren't doing something productive. That was my original point at least.
>You should show more respect for the people you depend upon to maintain your sense or intellectual and moral superiority. Where would you be without them?
Isn't a better question: where would they be with access to better education and more opportunities to cultivate their taste?
Or is that only for people with "intellectual and moral superiority", and they should be content with their blockbusters and Billboard Top 100?
Not everyone is trying to improve themselves or learn something.
Nothing about watching a dumb movie to escape the world and relax for two hours is unhealthy; probably improves mental well being. How is that related to unhealthy food?
Again, not everyone wants power. You might want to try being more proactive in your compassion.
Even if two people with cultivated tastes don't agree on everything (or anything), their opinions on say movies or music are worth more than some guy's who just "likes what he likes" and never really got into exploring that space any deeper.
I was responding to your tl;dr not the GPs point. I think people who love Citizen Kane should encourage other people to try it, and people who love Parasite should encourage other people to try it, and we shouldn't make broad pre-judgements like "because you are younger than X years you won't like this movie that's more than Y years old." Obviously if we know someone else's particular taste we might be able to guess that they will strongly like or dislike a particular movie (e.g. my mom dislikes any violence, she would hate Parasite).
I’ve shown quite a few people citizen Kane and, aside from a musing discomfort at the parallels of post modern trump like media manipulation (FRAUD), it really doesn’t resonate with people nearly as much as, say, Parasite, despite them probably being culturally closer to Kane.
Tl;dr if you’re going to show someone a “life changing film” pick something new that is similarly ambitious. Classics require too much effort to enjoy. It often doesn’t work.