为什么90年代的电影比Netflix上的任何内容都更具活力。
Why 90s Movies Feel More Alive Than Anything on Netflix

原始链接: https://afranca.com.br/why-90s-movies-feel-more-alive-than-anything-on-netflix

## 电影的失落艺术? 最近重温了《沉默的羔羊》,引发了对现代电影制作似乎日渐衰落的思考。作者认为,80年代和90年代的经典电影,如《好家伙》和《低俗小说》,拥有当代电影中常常缺失的深度和真实性。 这些老电影优先考虑角色发展、有影响力的叙事和风格上的冒险——信任观众能够参与到复杂的故事中。例如,斯科塞斯和塔伦蒂诺被赋予了创作自由,从而创作出具有持久影响力的电影。 相比之下,像《子弹列车》和《窗边的女人》这样的现代电影常常显得是人为制造的,优先考虑风格而非实质,依赖于视觉奇观而非真挚的情感联系。焦点已经从艺术视野转移到算法优化和系列电影潜力,最终导致娱乐性迅速被遗忘。虽然技术已经进步,但真正*打动*观众的能力似乎已经减弱,在观看电影和真正*体验*电影之间留下了一个空虚。

## 为什么90年代的电影感觉不同——黑客新闻讨论总结 最近黑客新闻上的一场讨论集中在为什么90年代的电影通常比当代电影,特别是像Netflix这样的流媒体服务上的电影,感觉更引人入胜和“鲜活”。核心观点是,现代电影通常被设计成在观众分心(例如使用手机)时被动消费,依赖于明确的解释和更简单的叙事。相反,90年代的电影信任观众会注意并推断意义。 讨论中提出了一些观点:现在内容的数量过多使得找到高质量的电影更难;影棚优先考虑特许经营潜力以及大众吸引力,而不是艺术风险;相机技术的进步改变了视觉风格,有时牺牲了氛围。其他人注意到注意力持续时间缩短,以及由于简单的CGI和像漫威这样互联宇宙的统治,导致了对视觉奇观而非实质内容的转变。 许多评论者同意,虽然并非*所有*现代电影都很肤浅,但激励结构通常倾向于易于理解的内容。此外,人们也认识到记忆偏差和幸存者偏差——我们记得过去最好的电影,而很多现代内容却容易被遗忘。最终,这场讨论强调了当代电影制作中 perceived 的细微差别、冒险精神和艺术完整性的丧失。
相关文章

原文

Tags: #Blogging #ClassicCinema #ModernMovies #Netflix #Streaming

I was rewatching The Silence of the Lambs the other night, and something hit me hard. This movie, made in 1991, feels more alive, more gripping, more real than most things coming out today. And it got me thinking: why do 80s and 90s movies seem so much better than what we're getting now?

There's something about the way older films were crafted that modern cinema seems to have lost. Take Goodfellas from 1990. Scorsese doesn't just tell you a story about mobsters, he pulls you into their world. The tracking shot through the Copacabana, the narration that feels like a conversation, the way violence erupts suddenly and brutally. You feel the seduction of that lifestyle and the paranoia that comes with it. Every frame has purpose. Every scene builds character. Compare that to The Irishman from 2019, which is actually good but feels bloated, overly long, relying too heavily on “de-aging” technology that never quite convinces you.

Or think about Pulp Fiction from 1994. Tarantino took narrative structure and shattered it into pieces, then reassembled it into something that shouldn't work but does, brilliantly. The dialogue crackles. The characters feel lived-in. Vincent and Jules aren't just hitmen, they're more like philosophers debating foot massages and divine intervention between murders. Now look at something like Bullet Train from 2022. It's stylish, sure, but it feels like it's trying too hard to be quirky. The characters are archetypes. The dialogue is clever for cleverness' sake. It's entertaining in the moment but fades away from your memory almost immediately.

Even The Silence of the Lambs itself proves the point. Every interaction between Clarice and Hannibal is a chess match. You feel her vulnerability, his intelligence, the way he gets under her skin. The horror isn't in jump scares, it's in the psychological warfare. Modern thrillers like The Woman in the Window from 2021 have twists and atmosphere, but they lack that deep character work that makes you actually care what happens.

I think the difference comes down to this: older movies took risks. They trusted audiences to pay attention, to feel something, to think. Scorsese and Tarantino had visions and the freedom to execute them without endless studio interference. They weren't chasing demographics or worrying about franchise potential. They were making films, not products.

Today's cinema often feels designed by committee, optimized for streaming algorithms and opening weekend numbers rather than lasting impact. We have better technology, way bigger budgets, more sophisticated effects, but somewhere along the way, we forgot that movies are supposed to move us, not just occupy our time between scrolling sessions.

Maybe I'm just nostalgic. Maybe I'm romanticizing the past. But when I finish a good movie, I can sit there thinking about them for hours, even days depending on the movie. When I finish most modern blockbusters, I'm already thinking about dinner. And that difference, I think, says everything.

联系我们 contact @ memedata.com