New column: What’s the Big Deal?
Point your Internet thingee at Film.com today and you’ll find a new column by yours truly: What’s the Big Deal? (No — that’s the name of the column.)
The idea behind What’s the Big Deal? is that there are many films the average person has heard of that are supposed to be “classics,” but that maybe the average person hasn’t seen. And sometimes you’ll watch one of those movies, expecting a classic, and when it’s over you think, “Well, that was OK. But what’s the big deal?” This column, which will run every Tuesday, will choose a specific film and lay out what, exactly, the big deal is.
My experience has been that if I plop down and watch some “classic” film for the first time, without any advance preparation, often I’ll come away underwhelmed. There’s a good reason for this: A movie from, say, 1960 wasn’t made for me. It was made for people in 1960. I don’t have the same frame of reference that the film’s intended audience would have had. So then I’ll read what other people have written about the movie and I’ll realize, oh, it was the first film to do this, or a good example of that, or it came out while this trend was popular, or while this topic was in the news, or whatever. Once I have some context, it increases my enjoyment of, and my appreciation for, the film.
Roger Ebert has his Great Movies series, and there are numerous other essays about these movies. The problem with them is that they’re generally written for people who have already seen the movie — so they’re not shy about giving away the ending and talking about the film’s surprises. What’s the Big Deal? will be written for people who haven’t seen the movie yet, and will avoid such spoilers. Ideally, a person would read What’s the Big Deal? as “homework,” to get a feel for what to look for, what mindset to be in; then watch the movie and hopefully enjoy it more than they would have if they’d gone in cold.
I’m going to try to maintain a light, non-academic tone, too. These films are worthy of praise, but that doesn’t mean we can’t have fun talking about them. That’s why we went with What’s the Big Deal? rather than our first idea for a title, Movies That Are Really Important That Smart People Like.
The inaugural edition is about “The Searchers,” the 1956 John Wayne film that many people consider the best Western ever made. I hope you enjoy the column, and feedback is always welcome.
(By the way, What’s the Big Deal? is replacing Eric’s Time Capsule and Eric’s 10-Year Itch. Those columns never evolved into something I was really satisfied with, so I pitched What’s the Big Deal? as a replacement. Just three or four more column ideas and I’m sure I’ll nail it.)
November 3rd, 2009 at 5:21 pm
That’s too bad that you’re not doing the 10 year itch anymore. I would have enjoyed seeing how your movie preferences changed over time. At least you re-reviewed Fight Club. That pleases me.
November 3rd, 2009 at 6:52 pm
This series sounds interesting and useful. I look forward to you explaination of Vertigo.
November 3rd, 2009 at 6:59 pm
I’m disappointed to hear about the demise of “Eric’s Ten Year Itch,” but always glad to hear about a new column. I, too, was interested in seeing Eric’s views on how his reviews evolved over time.
November 3rd, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Apparently I’m in the minority, but I always preferred the Time Capsule to the Ten Year Itch. This idea sounds like the best of the three, though. I’d been checking film.com the past two days because you mentioned your new column and was excited to see it there earlier today. I’m looking forward to reading more of them. Great idea! And, as always, great writing!
November 3rd, 2009 at 10:45 pm
I liked the 10 year itch column as well, but I’m looking forward to the new one for sure. I had the same reaction to The Searchers when I saw it, I did not get it at all. It just seemed decent to me. But now I want to check out this movie again and give it another chance.
For me, a lot of these kinds of films greatly improve the second time I watched them…Unforgiven is a great example. I didn’t “get” it, but upon second viewing its themes of violence and redemption (or whether its possible) hit me like a 2×4. One of my favorite films now.
But for some “classic” movies, I still can’t help feeling more than underwhelmed when I finish them where, as you say “What’s the big deal?” Here are some of mine.
Seven Samurai
Dr. Strangelove
Blade Runner
Spartacus
Akira
Citizen Kane
Looking forward to this column.
November 4th, 2009 at 2:21 am
I was just hoping for something like this to come along. I saw Godard’s “A Bout de Souffle” yesterday and couldn’t figure out what the big deal was until I read about it later. I haven’t been able to watch “Dr. Strangelove” for the same reason. I just get put off.
Yay to having a new list of movies to watch, and ‘getting’ them.
November 4th, 2009 at 8:11 am
Wonderful idea. I think we’ve all had the sensation of seeing a classic movie and wondering what the excitement was all about — even with Oscar winners.
For example, the movies of the 60′s and 70′s seemed to shoot for “realistic” endings, and as a result tend to leave us with a bummed-out feeling afterward. Leaving unfinished business, or letting the bad guys get away with it, is not very satisfying. Today we, once again, like tidy conclusions. I look forward to your commentaries, Eric.
November 4th, 2009 at 9:57 am
I enjoyed Time Capsule as well. Of course it’s after the fact.
I’m intrigued by this new column idea. I enjoy researching films beforehand to gain a better appreciation myself. There are a couple of movies though, that I just never could understand what made them so great: yeah, 2001: A Space Odyssey was visually stunning, but is that it? Does story not really matter as long as it looks cool? What the hell was the point of that movie? I’m completely baffled by it. Same with Casablanca. Perhaps it’s my dislike of all things Humphrey Bogart, but what’s the big deal with that one? It’s because I was so underwhelmed by that film that I never bothered to watch The African Queen. I’d be interested to learn why I should.
November 4th, 2009 at 11:02 am
This sounds like a really great idea for a column – I’ve had the same experience when watching “classic” films. Some suggestions (some already mentioned)
Casablanca
The Sweet Smell Of Success
Rear Window
Dr Strangelove
Then there’s various “classic” Soviet films like Come And See, Solaris (the original), and Stalker – all with scores above 8 on IMDB, but none of which I particularly appreciated. Though I’m guessing Soviet cinema is probably outside the column’s remit…
November 4th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
2001 was another one for me, truly incredible special effects (still pretty good to this day!) but the last 10 minutes just are one WTF scene after the other. Will say this though, the novel clears up A LOT about that part.
November 4th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
I’m sorry to see the time capsule/10-year-itch go, but I’m excited to see something like this. (I’m sure I’ll be happy as long as Eric’s Bad Movies stay)
I’ve always been wondering what the big deal is about
Dr. Zhivago
Gone with the Wind
The Graduate
Apocalypse Now
I’m eager to see what next week holds.
November 4th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Re: Casablanca
I don’t wish to ruin anything if Eric chooses to write for this film (which he definitely should, I love that movie) but the point of Casablanca was to show why the United States needed to get involved with WWII.
Rick simply refused to get involved in the situation surrounding himself as long as he continued to make money (starting to sound like the US yet?). but he later finds he’s already invested in the conflict whether he intended to be or not. It’s convenient that the name of the town was Casablanca (Spanish for White House). Things continue from there, but I’ll leave that to more capable hands.
November 4th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Man, I think the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey was just made for this column. There is definitely a classic movie that a lot of people have trouble “getting.”
November 4th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Excellent idea! I’m personally going through Film Studies RIGHT NOW, so this can prove incredibly helpful in some cases. Some movies hold up, like The Graduate, but when watching other, older movies, I often get that feeling that while I appreciate where this movie took narrative storytelling and techniques, there’s a blank hole in what I am supposed to be getting from it. (Shane)
…
SHAAAAAANE!
November 4th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Great idea for a column, Eric! We’re looking forward to it. My husband & I periodically check the AFI “Top 100 Whatevers” lists as a generic guideline to discovering classic film; however there have been a few head-scratchers on that list for us, including:
The Philadelphia Story
Annie Hall
Singin’ In The Rain
2001 (too easy, I know)
Mutiny on the Bounty (1930s w/Clark Gable)
And more! Anyway, can’t wait to read on…
November 4th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
I love the format of this new feature. It’s like you’re picking right through my thought process when I’m watching a “classic” movie and not understanding why it was so great. I especially enjoy the many categories you have going: it fits my analytical thinking just right.
It’s like you knew just what I always wanted in a film review….
Are you Santa?
November 5th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
The Philadelphia Film Society is always looking for ideas of 35mm film screenings as part of its “filmadelphiaCLASSICS” series. “The Seekers” sounds like a good choice as part of next year’s program. I’ll send this first “What’s the Big Deal?” column to the programmers — maybe they can get some other ideas from your future columns as well.
@MattW — I enjoyed Eric’s re-review of “Fight Club” as well.
But Eric — I was “SHOCKED, SHOCKED” to read that Chuck Pahlaniuk is gay (guess I’ve never checked his wikipedia entry before). Next you’ll be telling me Anderson Cooper is!
November 6th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
I ditto 2001.
And @CoolBoy – that’s really interesting about Casablanca, I’d never thought about it like that before!
November 18th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Salutations Eric, new reader here, ‘Moriarty’ — I mean, Drew McWeeny sent me from HitFix.com. After reading your introduction to ‘What’s the Big Deal?’, you have an audience that just got bigger by one as of right now. Your rationale for embarking on ‘What’s the Big Deal?’ is one that I can identify with as a fellow moviegoer, seeking to educate myself one film at a time, and you and I also are of like brain when it comes to the wide disconnect that could be filled in by a resource like the one you hope to create with the new column. For one other example which brings us back to 1960, a suggestion for a future installment of the column : Ray Wise’s “The Haunting”…I saw it recently and it scarcely kept me in my seat until the end; what’s the big deal?
March 9th, 2010 at 11:06 am
In honor of Tron Legacy getting it’s release soon, I believe some emphasis on how well the original Tron was done with it’s computer effects, and the world it created inside computers would do well to get some attention. When I was a boy, I remember nothing but wanting to play on a lightcycle, and began to wonder what IF the little characters I played with in video games WERE real sentient beings. Great movie, and a milestone in early CGI.