If you are an aspiring screenwriter and you have no interest in certain movies because they are old or in black and white, then you are a douchebag, it's as simple as that. Are there novelists who say, "Why should I read Tolstoy, he wrote that 'War and Peace' crap more than a hundred years ago?" Are there playwrights who say "Shakespeare? What could I possibly learn from a guy who's been dead for so long?" And compared to fiction and drama, cinema is a relatively young art form, so an unwillingness to study its history is just pure laziness and if this is how you think than please, please, please do the rest of us a favor and stay the hell away from any computer containing Final Draft software.

@ Frank Conniff - Ouch!

But he's right, yeah? I haven't seen a lot of "old" films; my general viewing area goes from 1980+ but I'm slowly educating myself in older and older films. Trying to read the script, watch the film, re-read the script. In fact, I might just go through all those films listed and see what I learn.

Now who can give me loads and loads of cash for the DVDs?

WOW!

If someone told me 4 years that I would be interested in oldies and foreign films, I wouldn't believe it.

But I realized that if I gonna watch only Michael Bay and Die Hard 7, that won't do me good. So I took diet where I watched oldies and great movies only for an amount of time.

And Boy!! I gained a hell of understanding of the craft.

@Frank

You're absolutely right.

Watching old films are a must. It's not an option. If you love the craft, you love it from beginning to end. You don't love some modern era or something. You love it all.


The 101 Wga list movies are absolutely wonderful and very helpful in learning the craft.

Just check the masters like Quentin Tarantino or James Cameron. They're all influenced by the oldies. You may say " yeah they're old man, I'm born in 1984."

I tell you see the oldies because that was when cinema was gold. Because now cinema is copper. Yeah there are excellent movies now and then, but HW and other industries consider originality a negative unfortunately. No one want to take risks. Which was the complete opposite in the old days.


The best Era in cinema and I believe it's a cliche is the 60s and 70s. Originality was the pattern then. Starting from 80s and 90s HW converted to the blockbuster religion which resulted in smaller takes of good movies.

You wanna watch the best cinema , then watch the auteurs. Watch the Great directors who influenced great directors.


In a nutshell..

I believe that if you don't watch the oldies, you'll be missing inportant things in your craft.

All aspiring filmmakers, whether in writing, acting or directing should gorge on Charlie Chaplin films. I was just watching "The Great Dictator", Chaplin's first talkie and I was blown away by the economical set-up of comedic scenes, the efficiency of the dialog and the effectiveness of the camera moves. Even the silent movies should be studied by aspiring writers because even though they don't have dialog, they do have structure.

And when they finish the Chaplin stuff, they can graduate to the Buster Keaton stuff.

I believe there’s value in seeing and reading the story and scene structure and reading or hearing the dialogue. True, our scenes aren’t anywhere as long as those found in old movies, but sometimes the rewards are like finding a trove of valuable old coins.

For instance, by accident, my wife and I stumbled upon TCM’s New Year’s Eve Thin Man Marathon. Starting with The Thin Man (’34) and ending with Song of the Thin Man (‘47) the comedy-mystery marathon showed all six of the films. While the sequels all suffered from nearly every sequel’s plight of not being as good as the original, the dialogue in at least the first three films that we watched was so good that I downloaded the script for The Thin Man before it was even over. It was wickedly sharp and daring for the age, but could easily stand up with the best of today’s double entendre laden comedic screenplays. It definitely made me a full fledged fan of Albert Hackett and Frances Goodrich, a husband a wife team that was nominated for four Oscars and seven WGA awards with four wins. I was a fan before, mostly because of It’s a Wonderful Life, number 20 on the WGA list, but this really sealed the deal, and really gave me some writing to aspire to.

If you’re not taking the time to read and watch the oldies (even the bad ones), you’re depriving yourself of some of the best teachers available.

I have watched 16 of those, most of them through classes for my major in Film.

I definitely need to watch more.

While I know that there's a large contingent of people out there who simply won't watch black & white movies as a matter of principle, I don't happen to be one of those people. In fact, I'm quite the opposite. I've watched a good majority of the movies on this list and liked most and didn't like others. I would say I have a strong inclination to like more contemporary movies(post 1982) than I do older movies but that doesn't negate my respect and love for older movies.

I've heard the argument of "You have to see the classics to understand what makes a movie good and/or how to write a good movie." I've gotten thrown that argument many times in my life because my taste in movies is pretty esoteric and doesn't include many of the classics that I'm "supposed to like." I've seen The Godfather, I've seen Citizen Kane. I get why people like them and they're fine, but I never need to see them again. I know that's a bold statement and one that opens me up to an avalanche of criticism but I don't care. Watching something that you don't necessarily love and then trying to learn something from it isn't my idea of a good learning experience or even a good time and I'm not quite sure why this is such a revolutionary/ridiculous idea to most people.

For instance, I don't need to understand Bach to enjoy The Beach Boys. I don't need to have read Tolstoy to enjoy Vonnegut. And I don't have to watch Hitchcock to enjoy John Carpenter movies. These are all direct or indirect examples of learning through those who were influenced by something in the classical sense. Yes, there may be some finer points that are being lost in translation and I agree that newer is not always better. However, a doctor isn't required to read an outdated, yet influential/revolutionary medical textbook from the 1800's to become a doctor. Why, then, should a screenwriter/director HAVE to read/see all the classics that were the bedrock of modern film in order to be able to make something on their own? They don't, that's the answer. Again, I feel that I've put in my time. I gave at the office, so to speak. I've watched the "classics," taken from them what I felt was valuable and gleaned everything else from the movies that I, PERSONALLY, feel are classics. Film being a personal medium is important to me and why shouldn't my writing influences be things I love with all my heart and am passionate about as opposed to something as arbitrary as the AFI 100.

(Continued from above)

My tastes are well-honed due to a lifetime of movie watching and all the genres and styles are well-represented. And because of that I hold the screenplays for 12 Angry Men and Tootsie of equal value and the same goes for the following: Field of Dreams, Planet of the Apes, To Kill a Mockingbird, Back to the Future, Anatomy of a Murder, Raising Arizona, All the Presidents Men, When Harry Met Sally, Rocky, Jerry Maguire, and so on and so forth. Because these are all movies I love, I have the highest respect for them and they're some of my touchstones of what a movie IS and what a movie SHOULD BE.

Super long story short, I feel it's dismissive to say that you HAVE to see anything in order to be able to create anything of quality in an objective sense. For the most part, I like movies that would be considered more commercial but I also like a good amount of estoric fare as well. That's exactly what I want to make, something familiar. I got into movies because my mom exposed me to the. Many of my favorite movies are ones that my mom exposed me to. If I can make movies that my mom would like, I will have succeeded. She's part of the mainstream/midwest demographic so if I reach her, I believe I can reach just about anyone. And at the end of the day, I'm not trying to win any screenwriting contests. I'm just trying to make something good that will be enjoyed by people and most importantly, something that I would enjoy watching.

My writing partner and I recently watched "Cool Hand Luke" and I have to say, it is probably one of the best written movies we've seen.

Contrast that with "On The Waterfront," which had an extremely passive protagonist who allows himself to be pushed into every course of action he ever takes. It made the movie not really work for us.

Jesus, now I really feel old. First, at the thought of so many late 60s/ 70ish movies I remember seeing as a kid being called "old." And second, that so many younger people haven't seen such classics. (I feel the same way when I realize how little awareness there is of older pop music among some people.)

WRT movies, I actually have the opposite problem - I haven't really been interested in a lot of contemporary cinema in the past decade-plus. Although I write feature-type screenplays, my heart is probably most in TV and live theatre. That's partly because the kind of *people* stories you used to get in movies is now in TV (and theare, of course).

Sorry to post again, but Scott, that tangent wasn't directed towards you. I know that you mentioned that you didn't necessarily subscribe to the "Must see" theory in your original post. I was more aiming it in Frank's direction and in the direction of those that would force the classics on anyone as necessary. I agree 100% with you that as a writer and film buff, the onus is on you to see as many movies as you can. I just think things get to be a little less fun when people start to think of screenwriting in absolutes. I prefer my mishmash approach to film taste than a far more scholarly/academic approach. But that's just me. I think whatever works for any individual writer is what's best so obviously if a writer thinks that they're most capable of creating quality work only after they've read/watched all the AFI/WGA Top 100s, far be it for me to call them wrong. I just personally think it would be an exercise in futility for me since I've got my own personal top 100(that does include many of the aforementioned movies) that I subscribe to and I'd rather learn from those.

@EarlRobertEaton: Apart from a few concrete rules - like to sell a spec script, you actually have to write one, instead of talking about it - I just don't traffic much in musts and shoulds when it comes to writing. I can certainly understand your argument. And I could probably understand someone who would claim that watching old movies would compromise their vision in going for a strictly contemporary feel for their stories.

But on a personal level, I feel like my life would have been so much less 'rich' -- intellectually, emotionally, spiritually -- if I hadn't seen all those 'old' movies. Even the crappy ones I learned something from.

So I circle back to my starting premise: While one may not need to watch 'old' movies to succeed as a screenwriter, why not avail yourself of those rich resources? Even if, as you have done with some of the classics, you only see them once.

am i the only one unimpressed with the writing and storytelling of "butch cassidy"? "the sting" was the better redford/newman film

And because I believe there's even more value in reading the scripts to the 101 best scripted films of all time, rather than just watching and getting caught up in the things, or not getting to see the essence of the script for all the fabulous acting and direction, here is a link to the scripts:

http://savethecat.informe.com/viewtopic.php?t=2020

As the guy who inadvertently kicked this one off, I can’t resist joining the fray on this post.

Acting styles have changed almost beyond recognition, pacing has changed, we’ve got colour and cursing and characters actually have sex, so in many ways these older films must seem alien to a younger crowd and I can absolutely see why. But if you set all that aside, what you’re left with is several decades of movies made by people who could just spin the hell out of a story.

The limitations within which they worked were such a fantastic creative springboard - anything they couldn’t say or couldn’t show, they just found a way around. And it’s such fun to watch. Watching the movies on that list is not some rotten assignment that you have to sit there and endure. These movies are a riot and you learn from them just by lying back on the sofa and soaking them up. It’s not a chore, it’s one of life’s great pleasures. With educational side benefits for the screenwriter.

The first time I watched The General, I thought, “OK, it’s a silent comedy about a train. How funny can it really be?” 20 minutes later I was sitting in awe at the economy and invention and laugh-out-loud quality of this thing. And there are several moments in it when I let out a yelp of delight at a move Keaton pulls off to perfection. It’s not about film snobbery - it gets on these all-time lists because it’s so funny and engaging.

I’d put The Roaring Twenties up against The Shawshank Redemption any day, not in some Old v New deathmatch, but just to show that you could hook them in the ‘30s every bit as much as in the ‘90s if you knew how to really tell a story - and I think you learn (in part) how to tell great stories by having great stories told to you.

I’m very mainstream in my tastes and tend not to go for anything too worthy - I’d encourage people to gobble up almost everything by Hawks, Wilder and Hitchcock, The Adventures of Robin Hood, Rio Bravo, The Professionals, The 39 Steps, Ice Cold In Alex, The Killing, Duck Soup, The Lady Eve, Casablanca, Only Angels Have Wings, North By Northwest, Lady From Shanghai, The Narrow Margin, The Set Up, Ride The High Country (I cried), Sweet Smell of Success, Ace In The Hole and on and on. There’s scarcely a dull moment of screen time on that entire list. So dive into them as entertainment, not homework.

And one day we'll look back and say they don't make 'em like Avatar any more...

(Sorry, went on a bit there!)

I think there's value in watching and analyzing ANY movie, whether it's old or new, brilliant or horrible. If a film is terrible, you can try to pinpoint the places where it missed, how it could be improved, and if it works, you can try to analyze what it is that makes it work.
Personally, having been through film school at NYU, it drove me nuts when kids revered some classics because they'd been deemed classics. I sat through them and I watched them and while I understand why people like Fellini's 8 1/2 and Citizen Kane, I personally do not enjoy them and probably won't ever see them again.
What brings me to watch films is my curiousity for the characters, themes, locales, periods, genres that they deal with. If I don't connect to any of those things, no matter how brilliant a film is, I will not enjoy it. But if I put my own opinion aside, I can definitely try to learn something from every film and script I watch/read.
So I don't think you have to necessary watch "old" movies. But I think you should keep an open mind while watching any movie, and see how you can learn from it.
Also, I don't believe cinema's "golden age" is over. Movies and film production are changing, and personally like the developments. I like a more loose, naturalistic approach to portraying people and life. I enjoy grittiness and realism and seeing unusual characters.

Fascinating, difficult question. Here's my attempt at an answer.

Even if you don't actively WANT to watch and/or analyze older movies, that's not really an option. Why?

Because creativity is recursive -- it builds upon and breaks free from other traditions. Whether you choose to study "old movies" or not, you are constantly absorbing the structural, narrative & film-grammatical patterns that were set in place long ago. even when you're not watching older movies, you are watching the children of older movies.

jerry mcguire is a classic 30s/40s hollywood comedy.

space odyssey-- a film that seems to go long stretches without any real plot-- is more or less a german expressionist film with clear references to homer, among the most classic of all storytellers.

crime films and serial killer films are all various reinterpretations of "M," which itself is a boogeyman story, which have been around for eternity.

(EXCEPT for Transformers 2, which, to me, represents a clean break from narrative cinema into Cinema of The Amusement Park, but that's another story altogether... and in fact isn't really a radical departure from anything at all, it's the logical conclusion of Blockbuster Cinema.)

2) While i think that there is always value in analyzing a work of art-- the question is, "why are you analyzing it." there is a difference between rote memorization and study.

i think Mahmoud made an interesting statement when he said 60s and 70s films fit the pattern of originality.

in fact, the pattern of originality was that filmmakers were indulging their interests and making movies they wanted to make-- damn the suits-- so the pattern of 60s and 70s films was a pattern of anarchy & rebellion, which is kind of a contradiction.

i'm going to stop now because i'm not sure i'm making any sense at all.

I'm going to try and hold my tongue on this one because this is just the type of topic that'll get me in trouble...

While I have no desire to dub anyone a douchebag over something like movies (I have a whole list of other reasons to call folks douchebags), I must side with Mr. Conniff on this. I don't only hold screenwriters to the standard of the appreciation of old movies but the general viewing populace as well. To ignore what's come before, cinematically, is as asinine as turning a deaf ear to the music of the past or a blind eye to the literature that is the foundation of storytelling in general.

It's like saying you're a jazz fan but not knowing about Coltrane or Monk. It just doesn't work.

I guess if you aspire to write movies that are based on boardgames and toys, then perhaps you can get away with it... but then that's a whole other business entirely and has very little to do with storytelling anyway, right? (If you ask me, it also has very little to do with "movies" but that's another argument for another day.)

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to watch "Days of Wine of Roses" (b/w, 1962) cued up on Netflix's instant stream. I've been on a Blake Edwards kick lately and I've never gotten around to that one.

"Days of Wine AND Roses" that is... (heh, too hot under the collar about this topic to type correctly!)

@Jeff

Your argument is one I've heard thousands of times and I don't think it holds any water. It's strictly elitist at its heart. People can enjoy and, yes, understand any art put out by anyone in the world without having knowledge of anything extraneous to that individual piece of art. Yes, one can tie Jerry Maguire to 30s/40s Hollywood comedies, nobody will dispute you. But the success of Jerry Maguire is that it doesn't RELY on your knowledge of that genre to be successful. A viewer's personal knowledge and ability to make the connection/put the pieces together historically can certainly enrich the viewing experience, sure.

My example of this being put into practice is the Indiana Jones movies. They're homages to the old action serials. I have never seen those movies but not having seen them does nothing to diminish my enjoyment of those movies. Being a big serial buff would make them more fun, probably. But to me, the success of the movies is that you don't have to know anything about the "source" material to enjoy them. I believe the same goes for other movies in relation to script inspiration. Knowing the roots helps film buffs enjoy a movie but it's simply not a necessity for everyone.

And your argument about jazz doesn't apply. You can enjoy music without having to know anything about Coltrane. You can even enjoy jazz. But if I were to say I was an expert in 50s cinema but never had seen any Welles/Hitchcock I'd say you'd have me there. But I'm just saying that you can enjoy Jerry Maguire without knowing about Billy Wilder. Just as you can enjoy Michael Jackson without knowing about Coltrane. There's simply no argument to the contrary.

Earl,

I never said anything about the comprehension or understanding of modern films sans a healthy classics diet... I merely lament the fact that the lion's share of society thumbs their noses at movies deemed "old." And that's a damn shame. I'm not making an argument for or against anything. Same with music.

I guess if that makes me an elitist snob, I can live with it.

Jeez, I don't think I'm in the right tax bracket to be an "elitist." ;)

Are we talking about watching movies or writing them? EarlRobertEaston, you said, "You can enjoy Jerry Maguire without knowing about Billy Wilder." That is absolutely true, in fact, most moviegoers who saw that film enjoyed and made it a big hit knowing little or nothing of Billy Wilder. But if you want to be a screenwriter, and you enjoyed Jerry Maguire, and then you see that that film's writer, Cameron Crowe did an entire book-length interview with Billy Wilder in which Crowe and Wilder go through all of his films and talk about how they were written and how they were structured, and in which Crowe goes on and on about what an inspiration and influence Wilder is on him, and if after all that you still have no interest in seeing any of Wilder's films because they're old and in black and white, then once again, I must stress that while you still have every right to attempt a screenplay, you probably shouldn't, because there's a good chance it's going to be a worthless piece of shit.

(This comment, by the way, it not directed towards anyone on this forum, it is directed at a hypothetical illiterate douchebag screenwriter I've made up in my mind for the sake of this discussion. I have enjoyed reading everybody's comments.)

@Earl: "My example of this being put into practice is the Indiana Jones movies. They're homages to the old action serials. I have never seen those movies but not having seen them does nothing to diminish my enjoyment of those movies."

You're saying you haven't seen the old action serials, but you *have* seen them-- in Indiana Jones itself.

Let me just say this has been a stimulating conversation. And I mean that in totally non-bull shitty way. I mean I'm seriously engaged by the back-and-forth. Two things.

I was quite struck by this comment from Alex:

"Because creativity is recursive -- it builds upon and breaks free from other traditions. Whether you choose to study "old movies" or not, you are constantly absorbing the structural, narrative & film-grammatical patterns that were set in place long ago. even when you're not watching older movies, you are watching the children of older movies."

Yes, absolutely. Whether you choose to watch 'old' movies or not, the fact is that virtually all of the writers and directors of 'new' movies have and it's reflected in what they bring to their work on 'new' films. So while you may be able to enjoy a 'new' film in and of itself, how much more if you were to go back to some of the movies that influenced it?

For example, Cameron Crowe's favorite writer-director is Billy Wilder. "The Apartment" is Crowe's favorite movie. You can watch "Jerry Maguire" and enjoy it for what it is - a fine movie. But watch "The Apartment," then watch "Jerry Maguire," and you'll see whole other levels of meaning in JM you didn't before.

So the point is why watch the 'children' of great movies when you can also watch their 'parents'?

Second point: Let's say this young writer who wants to retain their pure vision of contemporary whatever by not seeing 'old' movies sells a spec script. They're the proverbial flavor-of-the-week. Their reps set up meetings all over town.

They're going to go into meetings with movie people... who will doubtless bring up references to 'old' movies... and this young writer will have zero idea what they're talking about?

Compare to Tarantino who knows even obscure movies from Thailand?

And heaven forbid this young writer gets a meeting with Spielberg, who starts dropping references to this 'old' movie or that 'old' movie. I suspect the 'pure vision' thing could wear thin awfully quickly.

Let me end by telling this story. When the Century City mall opened up the AMC Theaters back around 1990 or so, because the place was built on what used to be the back lot of 20th Century Fox, they had special weekend screenings -- for ten cents! -- of a slew of Fox movies. In the theaters. On actual movie screens. I saw a bunch of 'old' movies.

One was "How Green Was My Valley." A sentimental movie, yes. Black and white, yes. Slow, yes. Dialogue heavy, yes. But it absolutely gutted me, tears streaming down my face. And I fell in love with Maureen O'Hara, who I'd seen in movies before, but not on the BIG SCREEN.

So if you can't stand 'old' movies on the small screen, look for revival houses that show them on the big screen. Maybe then you'll sing a different tune!

Which is better for a screenwriter? Should the screenwriter spend the time watching these films or should they instead read the scripts?

I'm on the side of read and watch as many films as you can. If your going to call yourself a professional screenwriter who works with professional film makers, why wouldn't you.

As Scott(quote)
"And heaven forbid this young writer gets a meeting with Spielberg, who starts dropping references to this 'old' movie or that 'old' movie. I suspect the 'pure vision' thing could wear thin awfully quickly."

Go check out the Lucas, Spielberg transcript on "Raiders Of The Lost Ark." and the detail and refrences they make to old films before even writing the script.

@Carlos M. Hernandez: Read scripts AND watch movies. In fact, do both at the same time: Download a script for a movie you can watch on DVD, and as you watch the movie, track from the script. It's a great education as you see what got cut, changed, added. The main thing is to see how written language (script) gets translated into a movie.

I agree -- read and watch is crucial. Seeing how the script is executed is key. BUT, you must READ. You must. You will never be a great screenwriter if you believe that you know a movie's script by watching the film. You have to read how the writer came to the story, how they developed the story and how they finished it.

Both are essential. One is fun, one maybe not so much. Watching films, it's easy to get sidetracked by other things. Read the script where there's no distraction from what you are trying to do, which is learn how to write screenplays.