It's a film from 1939. The grammar of filmmaking has changed dramatically since then -- direction, acting styles, lighting, staging, everything. Watching something from even the 1960s is super weird and kind of alienating.
Films from very long ago are best understood as historical documents. They tell us a story, sure, same as John Wick 4, but they also tell us about the time period they're from.
This isn't something that's unique to film. Novels, too, get harder to connect with as you move decades past their release. Storytelling changed, and the shared context with the author becomes harder and harder to share.
I strongly suspect you were born at the 80's or 90's...
Not to say that modern cinema is perfect, but somebody born at the 60' or 70's would think the 80-90's style is shallow too. Cinema has been getting quicker since it was created.
(I do think it has moved so far into quick takes that it can't help but go back a little now, but I was born at the 80's, so I'm not sure how reliable is my opinion.)
"The grammar of filmmaking has changed dramatically since then"
Yes, it has. But it's questionable if it's been for the better. A bad film from any era is just bad, but I'd contend that a well made one easily crosses the generations. Mention Casablanca for instance, I can honestly say I've never come across anyone who didn't enjoy it or say it's a bad film.
"Watching something from even the 1960s is super weird and kind of alienating."
One has to wonder what you actually like to watch. You likely didn't like Shakespeare at school because it too is dated.
Pity really, you'll have missed a lot.
_
Edit: I'm curious why you find say '60s films weird and alienating. (There's much to criticize but I've never heard that said before.)
First, don't put words in people's mouths. You'll find that doesn't usually engender reasonable discussion.
Casablanca is a good film, but its pacing, storytelling, acting, and direction are all very dated to a modern viewer.
Acting in good films since the 1970s has tended to be far more naturalistic and less stylized, which makes older work feel fake and cloying. That's not always a dealbreaker, though, as you note. It just puts a gulf between a modern viewer and the work that the work has to do more work (so to speak) to bridge.
There's no point arguing with you as we're miles apart, except to say I find most modern films—and many, many old ones unwatchable (usually for different reasons). I just turn them off.
The reasons are many including those that you've mentioned and others especially the pace and horribly tight editing of most modern films/videos—boys let loose with video editors/switching toys instead of the patience and pace of a Moviola. (Incidentally, I've used both.)
Give us examples of films you like then people will tell you why—and what generation you're from.
Incidentally, it's been touted on multiple occasions that Gone With The Wind has been shown somewhere in the world every day since 1939—an all time record. It's a remarkable success story that's crossed many generations, and its production for the era a remarkable technical achievement.
I first saw it decades ago and I enjoyed it, but a large part of my interest was technical, it being one of the first spectacular color films (it still stands up very well by today's standards).
To be fair the Hebrew version use the word "remesh" which is not clearly translated to "everything that moves", but more to "invertebrates" or "insects" (I do not know what the author of Genesis actually meant, but the point is that it is not a clear translation).
Additionally, in Genesis 1:24-26, remesh is listed among other types of animals such as beasts of the land and birds of the sky, so it is pretty clear that it is not meant as all animals. In these phrases remesh appears in the English translation as "creeping thing".
Not sure that Gen 1:24-26 is listing 'remesh' as it's own category of life or just being poetic. I'm not a Hebrew scholar though, just using interlinear.
Not what I was saying. Being the person on a team that kills themselves to get a project across the finish line isn't the secret to making money. It doesn't even get you recognition for your efforts most of the time.
> It doesn't even get you recognition for your efforts most of the time.
You've gotta toot your own horn. Relying on others to do it for you is a surefire recipe for disappointment and disillusionment. Think of it like a business. If the business does no marketing, what's going to be the result? Bankruptcy.
I've known many bitter people who did something great, and nobody knew about it because they thought it was unseemly to write papers about it, present about it at conferences, etc.
As it often is with social studies the evidence is not bullet proof, but it seems that there is a general consensus that economic crisis is bad for mental health outcomes in a population.
My last company used S/Mime, but it required a dedicated appliance on both ends and a key server to provide the public key from the sending appliance to the receiving one. It's complicated and not practical for most people, but it worked quite well and is used by some big orgs.
That said, the bigger issue is how messages are stored at rest. Basically all the major email providers support and use TLS at this point, which is plenty strong enough for most mail in transit if you're only worried about the body of the message.
I think we need to worry about mail at rest before trying to make in transit encryption stronger. What's the point of anything stronger than TLS in transit if GMail can just read the full unencrypted message?
In normal encrypted email usage (without appliances at both ends) the emails are encrypted at any point after creation. They are only decrypted when someone wants to look at a particular message. So encrypted archiving comes for free. This is actually a significant and helpful feature here. I don't see the point of giving this feature up and then working to create a secure archiving system to make up for it.
which is probably not going to tell them anything useful.
That seems pretty useful to me. Sure, they still get to see the subject, the sender, and the recipient list so they get important metadata about my communications. But most of the time my communications are with people that I'm already known to communicate with, and the subject just reveals that the message is about some topic that I'm already known to communicate with them about. All the stuff that would actually be new and interesting to a third party is in the body.
On the other hand I seem to recall tptacek saying that just encrypting the message body is worthless, and when it comes to cryptography that guy's smart. I mean like fuck-a-guy smart. Know what I'm saying? So it is possible I'm overlooking something.
Not entirely worthless, but there are a bunch of things that are left unprotected and may thus pose an issue. Certainly not up to the same standards of your average EE2E IM platform, but it kinda doesn't have to be to be useful.
https://youtu.be/4xprT_3CArE?si=n2nTRBjEK7EOyOSK