I think it started happening already in the 1970s in the US when the more 'realistic' look took over. Visual beauty prevailed longer in Europe and Asia with the general output of artistic films being steady and beautiful all the way to the advent of digital cinematography.
While exceptions exist, a random film from 2023 looks incomparably less beautiful than a random film from 1960.
It's much harder to make a film shot on digital look beautiful than it is to make a film shot on film look beautiful, as per Pedro Costa's account. Also, many new movies are bland, with no interesting visual ideas. Even if old films didn't have interesting ideas (many did), they were still shot on film and employed nice scenography, which made them look good enough.
Nowadays, most filmmakers just don't try hard enough. I think they just don't love cinema enough, or don't take it seriously enough. They won't die of hunger if they don't make a great film, so they couldn't care less. In addition to that, most mainstream filmmakers nowadays employ super stale direction that betrays their lack of expertise in the history of the art. There are few great ideas pertaining to kineticism, shot composition, camera movement, etc., let alone NEW ideas about those. And even the few films that do stand out are ruined by the digital cinematography, which makes all that much less ravishing.
When I watch some old films, I'm flabbergasted they look so gorgeous. The shot composition is pitch-perfect, the colors vivid, and the camera movements and montage are planned to the fullest extent.
Back in the day, many auteurs WERE mainstream. They worked for huge studios and were given expert cinematographers, expert scenographers, expert composers, expert practical effects crews, etc. All of that art died with the transition to digital cinematography and CGI. That shift meant that the old experts were no longer needed. Nowadays, even the people who try to imitate the old, beautiful look fail miserably. Fincher's Mank and Coen's The Tragedy of Macbeth are ugly, sorry attempts to resurrect the old visual glory. They were shot digitally - no surprise they look perfectible, fake, too clinical, and uninspired.
Most wonderful auteurs were first assistant directors to other masters, learning the art of filmmaking from the best in the field. Nowadays, budding filmmakers have no mentors to get their expertise from. They hardly ever saw anything apart from the IMDb TOP 100 and a few must-see arthouse classics they misunderstand anyway.
They have no idea how to create a good atmosphere, how to frame a shot for it to be visually splendid, or how to move the camera so that its choreography reminds you of a ballet masterpiece. They rarely ever use shadows, unusual lighting, or any interesting visual techniques. It takes a lonely director with a $1,000 budget to craft some real visual beauty that isn't fake. It takes a really dedicated one to make a good film. Very few can do it with a huge budget. Money corrupts their souls and their one-note ideas make their films redundant. If there is no beauty in them, the sheer fact they spark a discussion is simply not enough. The director could just start that discussion on a forum instead. Art has to be beautiful, even if it's ugly, abhorrent, and despicable - there has to be an element of something interesting in it. Even if it's just craftsmanship, make it good craftsmanship, not the insufferable ugliness of Nolan or the laughable ridiculousness of Gerwig.
Mainstream films used to be made by artists who happened to work in the mainstream. Nowadays, mainstream films are made by clueless hacks, mainstream directors who don't know a thing about film.
I mean, I enjoy many new films. But it's just not the same thing, man.
While exceptions exist, a random film from 2023 looks incomparably less beautiful than a random film from 1960.
It's much harder to make a film shot on digital look beautiful than it is to make a film shot on film look beautiful, as per Pedro Costa's account. Also, many new movies are bland, with no interesting visual ideas. Even if old films didn't have interesting ideas (many did), they were still shot on film and employed nice scenography, which made them look good enough.
Nowadays, most filmmakers just don't try hard enough. I think they just don't love cinema enough, or don't take it seriously enough. They won't die of hunger if they don't make a great film, so they couldn't care less. In addition to that, most mainstream filmmakers nowadays employ super stale direction that betrays their lack of expertise in the history of the art. There are few great ideas pertaining to kineticism, shot composition, camera movement, etc., let alone NEW ideas about those. And even the few films that do stand out are ruined by the digital cinematography, which makes all that much less ravishing.
When I watch some old films, I'm flabbergasted they look so gorgeous. The shot composition is pitch-perfect, the colors vivid, and the camera movements and montage are planned to the fullest extent.
Back in the day, many auteurs WERE mainstream. They worked for huge studios and were given expert cinematographers, expert scenographers, expert composers, expert practical effects crews, etc. All of that art died with the transition to digital cinematography and CGI. That shift meant that the old experts were no longer needed. Nowadays, even the people who try to imitate the old, beautiful look fail miserably. Fincher's Mank and Coen's The Tragedy of Macbeth are ugly, sorry attempts to resurrect the old visual glory. They were shot digitally - no surprise they look perfectible, fake, too clinical, and uninspired.
Most wonderful auteurs were first assistant directors to other masters, learning the art of filmmaking from the best in the field. Nowadays, budding filmmakers have no mentors to get their expertise from. They hardly ever saw anything apart from the IMDb TOP 100 and a few must-see arthouse classics they misunderstand anyway.
They have no idea how to create a good atmosphere, how to frame a shot for it to be visually splendid, or how to move the camera so that its choreography reminds you of a ballet masterpiece. They rarely ever use shadows, unusual lighting, or any interesting visual techniques. It takes a lonely director with a $1,000 budget to craft some real visual beauty that isn't fake. It takes a really dedicated one to make a good film. Very few can do it with a huge budget. Money corrupts their souls and their one-note ideas make their films redundant. If there is no beauty in them, the sheer fact they spark a discussion is simply not enough. The director could just start that discussion on a forum instead. Art has to be beautiful, even if it's ugly, abhorrent, and despicable - there has to be an element of something interesting in it. Even if it's just craftsmanship, make it good craftsmanship, not the insufferable ugliness of Nolan or the laughable ridiculousness of Gerwig.
Mainstream films used to be made by artists who happened to work in the mainstream. Nowadays, mainstream films are made by clueless hacks, mainstream directors who don't know a thing about film.
I mean, I enjoy many new films. But it's just not the same thing, man.
__________________
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.