Admit it, there

was a time in your life when you looked at old family pictures, or watched

an episode of "The Three Stooges" or "The Little Rascals"

and thought that in "the olden days," life was in black and

white. I remember thinking that and wondering what the transition from

black and white to color must have been like. What a wonderful and amazing

time it must have been.

at the pictures in the family photo album it looked like it was a gradual

transition. As the people got more used to color, they experimented wildly

with it using day glo and tie dye. Of course I soon found out that this

theory was inaccurate when my mother showed me pictures of myself as a

baby and they were in black and white. The horror! I was then told that

the grass had always been green, the sky had always been blue and there

had always been rainbows. This made sense and since then I have not really

thought much about black and white, except when I'd flip by Nick at Nite

or an old movie.

Which brings

me to the real topic at hand - old movies. I'm not so sure that they are

as good as everybody thinks they are. Sure, there are some classics like

"Casablanca," "Citizen Kane" and "Psycho"

but I feel like some people instantly dub black and white movies classics

and that upon a second viewing or a critical viewing, they aren't all

that great.

Take Alfred

Hitchcock's "Spellbound" for instance, since that is the one

I just watched and the one that got me going about old movies. I enjoyed

the film after the first half hour or so but I wouldn't consider it a

"classic" nor would I place it among Hitchcock's best. In my

opinion, "Spellbound" suffers from what many old movies suffer

from: monotone, rapid dialogue, too much sweepy, weepy music and implausible

situations.

First, the

montone rapid dialogue. Take almost any old movie and dialogue sounds

something like this.

Guy 1: (speaking

quickly) Say, whaddya think yer doing here anyway?

Guy 2: What's

it to ya bub? Maybe you should mind your own business, see?

Guy 1: I'll

mind my own business when I'm good and ready and nobody is going to stop

me, see?

What's with

all the "sees?" In the beginning of "Spellbound" there

are about six doctors all speaking very quickly and wittily but you can't

distinguish their voices apart. Never mind the fact that they aren't saying

anything that interesting. It didn't feel like watching acting, it felt

more like watching recitation.

The funniest

part of the movie came at the part of the film where Gregory Peck's character

takes Ingrid Bergman's character on a hike and picnic. Peck asks her which

sandwich she would like, ham or liverwurst. The sweepy, weepy music swells,

the camera goes to a closeup of Bergman's moon-eyed face and she whispers,

gushingly, "Liverwurst." Wow. Is liverwurst supposed to symbolize

something? Maybe that's how guys picked up women in the olden days. A

good liverwurst sandwich and you might see some ankle. For an audience

that's used to Mystery Science Theater 3000, something like that liverwurst

line could throw an entire movie off.

Thankfully,

Hitchcock was a great director and the story picked up and got more interesting.

Did we really need all the music though? I understand that movies need

a score and that the score accentuates the suspense of the movie but did

"Spellbound" really require an overture before the film started.

It wasn't a musical, after all.

Lastly, the

implausible situations. There is a scene where Peck and Bergman, on the

lam from the police, go to visit an old doctor friend of Bergman's. As

they get to the house, the housekeeper says that he is out but that they

can go in and wait for him. She also says that there are two other men

waiting for him inside before she leaves. Now, what kind of a housekeeper

lets four people into the house of her boss and just leaves? She's not

keeping the house very well. I understand letting Bergman in but leaving

two other people in the house unattended?

I guess it

was a different time back then, a simpler time. Movies didn't cost millions

of dollars and audiences knew that they could expect wholesome entertainment

that was suitable for the whole family. However, measured against today's

movie standards, old movies look and so und kind of hokey. Still,

I suppose a decent Hitchcock film is better than anything that has Courtney

Love, Corey Haim or Dolph Lundgren in a sizable role.

I'm off to the deli to pick up some liverwurst and try

to spice up my marriage.

Back

to the Top of the Page