Remember the Time

By Thomas Willett

NOTE: Before you read this piece, let me acknowledge that this is not intended to be a tirade against the latest Alexander Payne movie the Descendants. This is meant to dissect concepts presented in a recent event that I feel needs to be touched on. You will also notice a few comparisons to actor George Clooney’s last bout at the Oscars called Up in the Air. I have a deep love for that movie and still occasionally show bitterness to the Academy for giving the Best Picture award to the Hurt Locker instead. Also, in a year when themes of loss and family were better explored in Win Win and the Way, I feel some need to undermine the quality of a movie that I find to be nothing more than a competent family drama. I must also note that there is no beef with the staff of this movie as I am a big fan of Payne’s Election.

This past Sunday, the awards season had one of the biggest events. For many, the Golden Globes is considered to be the moment when we have a vision of what movies will stand a chance at the Oscars. There wasn’t much shock as the Artist and the Descendants won in the Best Picture categories. There wasn’t any great upsets, though my original bet of The Ides of March sweeping because of the Foreign Press Association’s love of politics was ill-informed. I think that it was mostly because I believe that Ryan Gosling needs some cred to not get duped by the Oscars after being nixed last year for his best performance to date (Blue Valentine).

What did I think of the choices? As you heard on the podcast and can infer from the opening paragraph, I was fine with most of them. I will praise the Artist (and Uggie especially) to no end and guarantee it will win big at the Oscars (even though my track record of picking winners has only been successful twice in ten years). I have numerous issues with the Descendants and the praise that it’s received, notably that it isn’t the best that this year had to offer.

When it won Best Picture, producer Jim Burke accepted the award and said:

“We had an extraordinary ensemble cast of young and older actors, veterans and newcomers, but our quarterback was George Clooney. Besides giving a career-best performance, in my mind, he was a generous actor who helped everyone do his best. So thank you very much, George. And if this movie becomes a timeless movie, which I feel like it will be to me, I feel like it’s because of our filmmaker and friend, Alexander Payne.”

I am fine with calling Clooney’s performance in the movie good, even comparing it to a quarterback (obscure Leatherheads reference?). I feel that the reason this movie works is because Clooney is restrained and dedicated enough to make it work. Even Shailene Woodley (who didn’t deserve that nomination) was good as the daughter.

However, the line that has bugged me for days has been towards the middle of that speech. Burke decided to state that this movie could be timeless. While I think that it is played off objectively, it is a bold statement that I have always believed is not meant to be answered by the creators. If anything, I believe that the question “Is this timeless?” should be answered by the influence that it gives to the future.

According to the Miriam-Webster Dictionary, the definition of timeless is: not restricted to a particular time or date. Is the Descendants, only one month in public consumption, already timeless? Are the themes explored strong enough to transcend generation and years to represent this era’s beliefs on how to cope with loss?

To answer that question, I decided to explore what other movies would be considered timeless. I started by finding out other writers’ thoughts on the issue. From the website Filmslate, R.C. Varenas explored the relationship between media and history in an article called ” Can a Film Ever Be Timeless ?” We perceive Shakespeare and Beethoven to be timeless masterpieces. No one questions them because they have been around for centuries and are almost universally recognized.

Then there’s movies, a medium that’s been around significantly shorter. Since the technology continually grows, most films have a dated feel. There are also movies we gain sentimental attachment to based on certain experiences. Besides film buffs, can films from any time be able to stand out as being extraordinary and universally recognized? Can they be as common as Shakespeare’s work?

Varenas refuses to establish a strong case for movies being at all timeless. However, I choose to argue that movies can become so. While some are continued through the ages by nostalgia, there are some that manage to reflect a period of time and not only tell a compelling story, but also move the field forward. It’s true that sometimes the technology doesn’t age well. No one can look at A Trip to the Moon and technically compare it to something modern like Prometheus. However, there is an indirect influence not only thematically that there are aliens on both voyages, but that it’s possible to imagine the George Melies film looking something like Ridley Scott’s and vice-versa if the times had changed. It’s also timeless because A Trip to the Moon reflects the beginning years of science fiction and as Hugo proved last year, that even with limited resources, the medium can be used to amaze.

Films don’t need to have advanced technology to amaze. Despite directors like James Cameron and Steven Spielberg using the medium to make visually stunning movies, there have also been movies that can qualify as timeless based solely on dialogue and performances. Charlie Chaplin created films like Modern Times that managed to mix slapstick humor and economic troubles into a funny yet poignant view of the world’s debt as well as the end of the silent film era. Star Wars showed that aliens and humans can get along. Rain Man showed that it is possible to make a respectable movie about autism. There are endless ways to go about making poignant films. However, are these timeless?

I personally feel that in order to be timeless, you need to not only be significant, but also be memorable enough to influence history. If it’s something iconic like simple plot twists like Alfred Hitchcock or use of John Williams score, you are in the running for timeless. It’s hard to properly judge Shakespeare because as Roland Emmerich’s Anonymous would have you believe; some people didn’t like his work. Would you be able to look at “Romeo and Juliet” back then and think that in 30 years, let alone hundreds, that it would still be remembered and quoted by bored high school students? No. Every medium has its fans and haters. Emmerich clearly hates Shakespeare.

The issue with calling any of these films timeless is arguably because of the root word: time. At best, we can look at the early days and see competence and the evolution. Simple camera techniques that evolved into what they are today. Even the point of view horror films of Friday the 13th are in some way inspirational of our society. It changes the way we look at movies. Films can only be considered timeless if they pave the way for something bigger. They need to be six degrees away from creating the next epic or drama.

Without A Trip to the Moon, I am sure many perceived notions about science fiction would not exist. We wouldn’t see a face in the moon or think of extraterrestrial beings that look like Sleestaks. We wouldn’t be able to get films like Close Encounters of the Third Kind if our interest never grew from that. We wouldn’t believe that comedy could mix slapstick and social commentary without films like Modern Times evolving into Woody Allen’s Bananas. If we didn’t have influence, nothing would seem possible. Are any of these timeless in the same vein as something from the 17th century? No. Times were different and so were the artistic demands.

However, can a film possibly be timeless to those who are not movie snobs? Yes. While it is mostly subjective to blockbusters and feel good movies, audiences have their own set of timeless movies because blockbusters too have grown. They probably won’t look at The Descendants and think much of it, but the brilliance of movies is that anything can be timeless if the era is reflected without ruining artistic integrity. Movies like The Deer Hunter and Taxi Driver are products of their time that are still cherished, yet both reflect the mental torture of the Vietnam War. In order to be a great film, art and story need to collide without being disjointed so that the creator’s voice and message can be understood and better remembered.

Are there timeless movies out there right now? Yes. However, we need to allow time to digest and decide if they really were the greatest thing ever. I am sure that 50/50 will be a very poignant movie for me, but I don’t know if it will be timeless. Movies that stick with you can be great, but eventually it becomes nostalgia. I feel that for my generation 50/50 is a reflection of growing old and facing life in an amazingly fresh and honest way. For my grandparents, it’s a movie with a dog named Skeletor , to whom the name means nothing.

Ultimately, the timeless movies are obvious. You hear the quotes. You see the shirts. Your grandparents are aware of it. These are films like Wizard of Oz or Star Wars. Films everyone has undoubtedly seen to some degree and remembered. Directors like Steven Spielberg are timeless as they have managed to become marquee names and become the expectation for excellence. However, films that paved the way for these guys are timeless in that they’ll never be forgotten as long as there’s film preservation and people who respect cinema and get joy out of the still camera set-up of A Trip to the Moon and understand how it influenced Prometheus.

I feel that Up in the Air has a chance to be close to timeless as I feel that it is reflective of the current economic world as well as how it isolates us all. Many would disagree, but I find that its use of computers to replace face-to-face contact says more about how distant everyone becomes. It also is genius in that it shows it from every angle. People getting fired throughout the movie reflect the common man’s despair, often resulting in thoughts of hopelessness and suicide. The people hired to fire people have to overcome personal emotions. This is something everyone can relate to and it’s done without being preachy about it.

Is the Descendants worthy of being timeless? No. For starters, a film’s influence should be recognized by the audience. Will we be citing any scenes from this movie in years to come? I don’t know that there’s anything that stood out. It’s a story about death that says little of interest to the human condition. It’s just a man trying to get along with his family. Win Win did that better. It’s about coping with death. The Way did that better. I don’t feel that the Descendants explored these issues in an interesting enough way to deserve the praise that it’s gotten let alone to be remembered as more than another movie. Even George Clooney’s performance doesn’t scream greatness.

In this age, it’s hard to predict what is timeless. All we have is initial reaction. We can find stuff that attaches to our core, but there’s no guarantee we’ll love it in five years. That’s the joy of movies. They can be subjective and even the greatest movies can be hated. To say the least, it’s impossible to judge a movie as timeless until at least five years pass. Even then, it’s also about where we’ve come as a society since then. Did Little Miss Sunshine pave the way for cinema today, and if so, what? These and many more questions should be used to define how timeless a movie really is.

You can read Thom’s blog every Wednesday and hear him on Nerd’s Eye View every Tuesday and Thursday at nevpodcast.com . Send your thoughts to nevpodcast@gmail.com. You can also read Thom’s movie reviews for Cinema Beach at cinemabeach.com .