Jump to content


Photo

Do "Standards change" in wrestling?


  • Please log in to reply
269 replies to this topic

#21 KrisZ

KrisZ
  • DVDVR 80s Project
  • 9908 posts

Posted 25 May 2014 - 05:40 PM

True but if the story lacks the meat then it could be classified as technically good but not really entertaining.

 

It's a question of do you want steak or do you want the sizzle



#22 ohtani's jacket

ohtani's jacket
  • DVDVR 80s Project
  • 5724 posts

Posted 25 May 2014 - 06:41 PM

My general point of view is that the standard for what makes a good match doesn't necessarily change just because movesets now are more athletically impressive (or to take another example I don't think bumps have to be bigger now because Foley got chucked off a cage). 

 

Assuming that the standard for what makes a good match is universal (and I'm not sure it is), then perhaps the basic concepts of structure don't change, but the content certainly does. When people watch older matches are they really judging the structure or are they judging the content and aesthetics? If people expect a certain type of aesthetic and a certain type of content from modern wrestling then is that not a standard? Is there even a set standard among fans or are we just talking about personal standards, and what's the dividing line between personal standards and tastes? 

 

You only have to look at modern lucha to see that the structure has changed and the fundamentals are less important than they used to be. There's a new standard in lucha where an apuestas match doesn't even look like an apuestas match anymore. The content has changed, the aesthetics have changed, the structure's changed, and if you're going to enjoy it then either your standards need to be flexible or your tastes have to change.



#23 KrisZ

KrisZ
  • DVDVR 80s Project
  • 9908 posts

Posted 25 May 2014 - 06:57 PM

And it's that reason why Solar & Negro Navarro can go around the country and have highly praised matches because it is different from what everything else is right now.



#24 donsem43

donsem43
  • Members
  • 714 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 May 2014 - 07:41 PM

I personally think that the whole "Changing Standards/Modern Eyes" argument is just a mask for people who don't want to state what they truly like in wrestling. On Meltzer, I'd respect him if he just said "That's what I thought of that match when I saw it and I either don't have the time or the interest to go back to rewatch it." For others, it's probably fear that they'll get roasted for simply saying, "I love matches with big flashy moves and don't really put much value in context." It just seems like they are trying to make their opinions have more thought behind them.



#25 dawho5

dawho5
  • Members
  • 2816 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Dakota

Posted 25 May 2014 - 08:25 PM

I would disagree that it is a cop-out.  I think that standards do change as far as what the structure and psychology of a good match are.  For one thing you can go back to really old (1950s-1970s) matches and see that it didn't matter what somebody was working bodypart-wise.  Just that they were weakening their opponent for the eventual coup-de-grace.  The whole point of that psychology was getting your opponent to the point where they were worn down enough, and if you did enough damage overall you had achieved that goal.  Whereas now, we want to see somebody work the leg if they are going to finish with a figure four.  So yes, standards change. 

 

As far as the idea of pioneers being judged for how cutting edge their work was at the time I agree.  There needs to be some sense of "they made the stuff ten years later possible" involved.  I'm sure it's easy looking back to call it dated and point out all the flaws.  But I think you have to compare it to other work that was being done at the time to get a good idea of what else was going on. 

 

And the whole modern/in the past argument that some people will put forward with emphasis on one side, I don't get.  I like what I like, not because of what time period it came from or promotion or wrestler.  And that bias comes out a lot when I write about wrestling.  But don't think for one second if I watched a match from 2013/14 that I truly enjoyed I would immediately knock it down for when it happened.  I would guess most here are like that as well.

 

What I think it comes down to is you have to watch enough of the wrestling in that style/from that promotion to really get a feel for the quality of the individual matches within their context.  Every promotion has very unique aspects to it during certain time periods that will work their way into 99% of the matches.  So it makes things a lot more difficult going forward to watch, say, a 1990s match from All Japan or two and immediately say how it compares to the other thousands of matches that came out of the promotion while they wrestled that style (coming from personal experience).  And I think it's something that we'll all find as we go along that it takes more than just watching the highly pimped stuff from X promotion during the Y era.  And I think it's important to keep an open mind remembering that wrestling has evolved and will keep evolving.  So when you go back or forward, look at it as it's own animal that is either closely or distantly related to the one you're used to.  And if it doesn't strike your fancy, stay away from that promotion at that time and look elsewhere.  Find something that appeals to your tastes.  Because as much as we'd all love to be fair and balanced in judging different wrestling styles, none of us are.  We have stuff we like and stuff that drives us nuts.  That's the beauty of having all the different wrestling styles that continually fuse themselves into more hybrid versions of past styles.  If you like this stuff in any way you'll find something you want to watch. 

 

Seems like I rambled a bit towards the end, but it was all driving towards the one point I want to make.  I think the one true standard in any wrestling match is how entertaining it is to the viewer.  Everything else is up to you, the viewer to make your choice about.



#26 JerryvonKramer

JerryvonKramer
  • DVDVR 80s Project
  • 11324 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 May 2014 - 09:32 PM

I dislike the general idea that moving forward in time necessarily indicates an improvement in standards.

It's just as easy to make "standards are generally declining" type arguments. For example, when was the last time a major film -- one that would be nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars -- come out with a script as intelligent and witty as, say, All About Eve?

If we could only really judge things from our own historical contexts then why read books, watch films, listen to music or engage with ANYTHING from previous eras? It's a monumentally myopic way of viewing the world.

Meltzer is actually re-articulating an argument made by Jean-Paul Sartre somewhere about old literature being like dead or rotten fruit. According to Sartre, you want to eat fruit the moment it drops from the tree, and if you miss that moment, of course the fruit goes rotten. You need to try to uncover the original context in order truly to appreciate it, but all such attempts are futile because the moment, the zeitgeist, is forever lost. I've always thought that this argument is crap.

Despite that, it does have a grain of truth to it: yes, the zeitgeist is gone and for some things "you had to be there". But mostly I think the real great deep stuff -- the stuff you take into your heart and love -- whether it's art, literature, wrestling or anything else, doesn't happen in the zeitgeist but after the moment.

I used to have this argument with a buddy of mine who is into music. He's always reading Pitchfork and raving about the latest and greatest album. I accuse him continually of "being on the steam train", of being essentially a slave to fashion. All of a sudden he got into rap when Pitchfork gave My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy their 10.0 rating, or whatever. I often feel with him that he gets as much buzz from the fact that everyone else is talking about the thing at the same time as well, and that this in some way validates his listening experiences. He's a hipster.

I'm the complete opposite as a music fan. I want to feel like I'm the only guy in the world listening to American Gothic or John Wesley Harding or whatever. I'd get much more pleasure unearthing a lost gem from the 1960s that no one ever talks about than joining the thousands of people talking about the latest album by whatever indie band. I like to feel like I'm forging my own way through history carving my own idiosyncratic, esoteric, and wildly eclectic path. I guess with the ultimate aim of being a "connoisseur" of some sort -- at least within my own mind. And my approach is the same to film. And to most the things I deem to be important in life.

I think we can see much the same thing in play as wrestling fans -- the same two basic approaches. Seems to me that the majority of guys on this board tend towards that latter sensibility.

#27 ohtani's jacket

ohtani's jacket
  • DVDVR 80s Project
  • 5724 posts

Posted 25 May 2014 - 10:22 PM

It's just as easy to make "standards are generally declining" type arguments. For example, when was the last time a major film -- one that would be nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars -- come out with a script as intelligent and witty as, say, All About Eve?
 

 

Is that what is meant by standards in this case, though? All About Eve is black and white, dialogue heavy and shot on set (apart from some establishing shots filmed by the Second Unit and using stand-ins.) The same script shot in 2014 would look dramatically different. 



#28 fxnj

fxnj
  • Members
  • 494 posts

Posted 26 May 2014 - 12:00 AM

Coming from a background in literature, I'm a fan of reader-response theory, the idea that the reader brings something special with them in their interpretation instead of texts simply having a set universal meaning created by the author. As was mentioned, a wrestling match definitely is a text and rthe "language" employed by it basically amounts to every conceivable aspect of a match that we talk about here. Language is by its nature an imprecise communication medium with infinite room for interpretation and no inherent "truth" to be found, which is what makes it interesting to keep analyzing the same matches for decades. Still, I'd still say it's important to understand the historical context simply because the meaning behind the "words" chosen in a text is built off the connotations behind them, and those connotations are created by the context the consumer reads them under. Looking at Huckleberry Finn with "modern eyes," you could pretty easily make the case that it's just a racist book based on its heavy usage of the word "nigger," but if you ignore the historical context you're missing out on the clever ways it actually satirized racism that allow for a far more interesting reading. To analogize it with wrestling, plenty of times I've seen people knock off points on puro matches for having fighting spirit spots without trying to understand the cultural context and the in-match psychology behind them, while conversely there are probably tons of WWE matches I could watch with quality that would be lost on me simply because I don't have the time to keep up with the storylines.

 

To tie this into the question of standards changing, when we talk about interpreting the moves in a match it would be helpful create 2 categories that the meaning behind the moves comes from. Firstly, there is the "symbolic value" that we see in a move like Hogan's leg drop that isn't going to look that deadly to someone watching cold but is treated as a big deal based off how that specific move has been built up within its wrestling context. Secondly is the "face value," which is how a move comes across with no prior attempt to build it up specifically. It basically serves as an extension of the "symbolic value" in that it relies on more general worldly knowledge than wrestling specifically. An example is Foley's first fall in his 1998 HIAC with Taker, which is one of the most famous spots in history due to popular conceptions of gravity and human limitations, even though he claims the second fall actually hurt more. 

 

The changing "face value" for moves is what I think is the main source behind this argument that standards change. Unlike a book where the interpretative value comes predominately from the ideas expressed, that emotional reaction derived from that "face value" plays a pretty significant role in interpreting matches. Viewers in the 50's might have been enthralled by seeing drop kicks and leg-scissor takedowns, but now it comes across pretty flat to see matches end with those moves as the "face value" of such moves has been pretty well eroded by virtue of modern viewers seeing so many more brutal and spectacular looking things regularly. In that respect, the "zeitgeist" has definitely been irretrievably lost as even if we can go back and see "this would have been impressive to those fans," that would really only be a small part of the moment as the bulk of the interpretive value comes from the sheer emotion of viewing it as something impressive. 

 

That is not to say that watching matches under historical context is the only way to do it. As has been mentioned many times, there are plenty of great 70's puro mat clinics that modern viewers can watch and mark out for all these details that historical viewers probably weren't even paying much attention to. Even the wrestlers themselves might not have been consciously intending the things we praise them for and that doesn't matter since like I said, what makes these discussions interesting is how we can construct our own strands of storytelling out of the moves performed in the ring. Because of the huge factor the viewer's interpretation of the match and attention to detail plays, I agree with what was mentioned before that matches don't have some "inherent quality" and I'm skeptical about looking looking at things "objectively" or that something can be "technically good but not entertaining." I also dislike the separation between a match's workrate and its storytelling that's become popular because like I said in explaining a move's "symbolic value" and "face value," some juniors doing flips that are supposed to excite viewers for their innovation is every bit as much of a story as some deep classic like 6/3/94, even if the junior match's might not stand the test of time as well.

 

That said, I also wouldn't say the more recent perspective is always the best way to look at things either. Someone brought up the bashing the TM/DK series got on the NJPW set and while I definitely wouldn't call those matches flawless classics, I've since grown pretty sympathetic with what Resident Evil said about the psychological value in those matches. Like he said, I think this urge to "rebel" against the old guard and (justifiably) pimp things like the Fujinami/Choshu series from the time as far better did obscure some of the finer points of matches. Even granting that the spots didn't seem as impressive in 2010 as they did in 1983, Tiger Mask still deserved a lot more credit than he got for the spontaneous quality that he executed all his spots with that really gave him an otherworldly aura, as well as for the comic book rival dynamic he created with Dynamite Kid. With how people were talking about the matches at the time and dismissing RE's comments, one would have thought the only reason behind them being highly regarded were people in the 80's fetishizing guys dressed as tigers doing flips, and I would call that view point almost as harmful as the concept that they're untouchable classics. Having participated in that project, I was scratching my head for years at why someone like Kana would do an interview calling Tiger Mask one of her favorite until I came back to his matches with a more open mind.

 

So, standards definitely do change and, just by virtue of the need to understand the "symbolic value" and the "face value" of moves, it's important to immerse yourself in the context of a match to get full enjoyment. Even granting that we're all humans watching guys fake fighting for entertainment, the language that they do that in greatly varies across time and place. It goes beyond even something like a speaker of Modern English learning to read Middle English since the language of wrestling deals primarily in creating emotions rather than conveying ideas. Lastly, to speak on what seems to be the cause behind this thread in Meltzer refusing to redo his reviews of older matches because of changing standards, I think he has a point. The guy is already way busy with current stuff but even if he did have the time to rewatch old material, I don't see what it would achieve. His star ratings are useful for viewers "in the moment" who share similar tastes but beyond that his play-by-play style doesn't led itself well to in-depth analysis and I have no idea why he seems to have gained a reputation for deciding a match's historic quality. Talking about these older matches, the main question that we should be asking is not "Are these guys doing something good," but "What are these guys doing."



#29 Dylan Waco

Dylan Waco
  • Moderators
  • 10173 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 May 2014 - 01:02 AM

Random side thoughts...

 

One of the most over finishers in modern wrestling is a fireman's carry.  Another is a guy hitting a running knee.  They are over because of context and presentation and because of how they are integrated into the matches. 

 

During the 90's when the luchadores first started coming into WCW I remember being stunned by my "non-smart" friends at school who thought the offense of guys like Rey and Super Calo looked stupid, phony and weak.  These were dynamic, fresh, seemingly exciting spots, and yet during a hot period for wrestling nearly every friend I had at school thought that this sort of offense was comically absurd.  Why was this the case?  I don't know for sure, but I suspect it had a lot to do with context and presentation. 

 

On TM/DK the point can't be stressed enough that a large group of people watched the matches in context with other NJPW matches and as a group didn't like them very much.  There were plenty of TM matches I preferred speaking for myself, same with DK.  Hell I was talking up DK v. Fujinami over DK v. TM matches from the first time I saw any of them.  But the point is those matches weren't thought fondly of compared to other matches from the exact same period in the exact same promotion. 

 

The point of this thread has nothing to do with wanting Meltzer to re-do star ratings fwiw. 



#30 W2BTD

W2BTD
  • Members
  • 852 posts

Posted 26 May 2014 - 02:34 AM

Many of the points I was going to make have been made already, but since i'm the one who got Dylan all worked up, and he took the time to make a bunch of cool, articulate posts, I feel obligated to post.

 

This all started when somebody asked Meltzer if he ever goes back and changes star ratings. Meltzer made two points in response:

 

-First, he said he doesn't put a single second of thought into his star ratings after he makes them. He rates the match in the moment, and then never thinks about it again. He doesn't care enough about the ratings to think about going back to change them.

 

-His second point, was that he would never change a rating anyway, because it's not fair to look at an old match and change what you thought about it "in the moment", to what you think about it out of context years later. He used the Kerry/Flair cage match as his example, of a match he liked "in the moment", and it doesn't really matter if he goes back and doesn't like it now (or likes it more, for that matter), because it only matters if it worked for him in context in 1982. They weren't working a match for 2014 eyes in 1982. 

 

I agree 1000% with the second point, because I firmly believe in the idea that standard change. In wrestling, in film, in TV, in comedy, in almost any for of entertainment. Shit moves forward and advances. That will never change. 

 

We always talk about certain matches that "don't hold up". The reason some matches don't hold up, is usually because standards have changed. The basics of psychology may not ever change (I would argue this point, but it would derail the thread), but the athletic standards certainly do. 

 

In the OP, Dylan asked when do the standards change, tomorrow, next week, next year, ???. The answer is we don't know. Things evolve when they evolve, usually slowly and we never really notice it happening. Holzerman brought up Starrcade '83. Almost nothing on that show holds up to a 2014 standard of athleticism, presentation, workrate, etc aside from the dog collar match. I've seen that show probably a half dozen times over the years, and it was strikingly bad when I recently watched it on the Network. I never remembered it being that bad. But it's been years since i've seen it, and it simply doesn't hold up anymore. We've evolved way past shit like the simplistic story told in the main event, or Jerry & Jack Brisco's weak looking attacks and missed splashes qualifying as devastating match altering miscues. At the same time, it isn't fair to judge any of those matches with modern eyes. I thought it was a fairly decent show in its time, and now i think it's a fairly decent show for its time. If that show takes place tomorrow, move for move, in any promotion, it would be universally panned as flat out terrible. 

 

Of course, this doesn't mean that nothing holds up over time. I recently watched a Pat O'Connor vs Buddy Rogers match that I thought was really good. It qualifies as brilliant for 1962, when to me wrestling was dull as dirt and largely unwatchable beyond for historical purposes. 

 

Part of the problem here, is Dylan seems to think that standards changing somehow makes analyzing old footage null & void, or minimizes the work that he does & many of you do in places like this. I don't think that's the case at all. I also don't think not believing in changing something as trivial as star ratings equates to some sort of style bias, as Dylan alluded to on Twitter. That's nonsense. It just means you don't want to unfairly change your opinion of something out of its proper context, which to me is more fair than criticizing a match that was worked for a 1978 audience because you are watching it in 2014 when your perception is going to be different no matter how much you think it won't be.  



#31 Karl

Karl
  • Members
  • 308 posts

Posted 26 May 2014 - 03:47 AM

I think modern wrestling is easier to watch than a lot of what came before. That's not necessarily a good thing. I think we deal in broader strokes these days - there seems to me to be less nuance. Back in the day it felt like you had to really pay attention to a match to 'get' it all. Now that seem to not be the case, at least to me anyway. 

 

I'm not overly convinced that the passage of time equates to evolution either. Its entirely possible I am stuck in a time warp though....



#32 TravJ1979

TravJ1979
  • Members
  • 1309 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indiana

Posted 26 May 2014 - 05:16 AM

I think styles change in about a five year cycle.  That doesn't mean that my personal standards of what I deem good wrestling does.  Ring psychology stands the test of time while a spot fest tends to age poorly.  For instance, I recently watched Fall Brawl 1996.  Konnan v. Juventud and Rey Jr v. Super Calo both received >= 3.75 stars from Meltzer, but to me, they were poorly executed move, stop, move, stop spot-a-thon matches.  I much preferred the lower rated DDP v. Chavo Guerrero Jr. match.

 

Going back to my styles change comment, when I was doing my 2000's project I noticed a clear change in style from 2000-2004 to 2005-2009.  That was even in ROH.  If you ever get time, watch a handful of matches from WWE/WCW, etc. from say 90-94 and then 95-99.  The "WWE style" evolves and changes as does the WCW style.

 

A classic match from 1984 can certainly be compared to a classic match from 1994, and fairly.  The focus just shifts from good match in the context of its time, to a good match for the ages.  The latter is what defines matches that are GOAT contenders.  The former is still useful if your scope is a lot smaller.



#33 JerryvonKramer

JerryvonKramer
  • DVDVR 80s Project
  • 11324 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 May 2014 - 05:45 AM

I agree 1000% with the second point, because I firmly believe in the idea that standard change. In wrestling, in film, in TV, in comedy, in almost any for of entertainment. Shit moves forward and advances. That will never change.


I think this is equivocation and an assumption that lies at the root of this debate.

Time moving forward = / = "advancement"

There is some weird theory of progress at stake here that I'm just not seeing. Art forms aren't like technology where you can just draw a straight graph of computing power exponentially increasing over time. Just doesn't work like that.

I'll admit, my own view is pretty harsh on this: I see the fetishization of the new as an acute form of laziness. It's a very convenient little assumption that means:

1. You have a ready-made excuse never to check out stuff from the past.

and

2. (more appropriate to Meltzer), you never have to re-check conclusions you drew in the past.

This is just laziness in my view and nothing more.

-------

With wrestling, it may be true that the average wrestler in 2014 is more athletic and may do more MOVEZ than the average wrestler in 1983, but who knows how to work better? Who can control the crowd better? Who are the smarter workers?

And more to the point, what makes good wrestling? Being athletic or knowing how to work?

But I don't want to make any old vs. new claims. There'll be great and shitty workers in both eras.

The fact is that any claim for one over the other is a form of fetishization. And both can entail laziness: old guys assuming things were better in their day (so they conveniently don't have to give anything new the time of day), and other guys not wanting to looking beyond the present (and so ignoring the past).

Fact is, regardless of the field, there'll be X amount of great films / matches / albums / games / etc. etc. released every single year. You may sometimes get bumper years, you may get more fallow years, but on average there is X% of GREAT things produced year on year, Y% of really shitty stuff and then Z% of all the stuff in between.

Anyone who argues otherwise has some agenda they are pushing. And my suspicion is always that the root cause of such agendas is laziness.
 

---------
 

It's just as easy to make "standards are generally declining" type arguments. For example, when was the last time a major film -- one that would be nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars -- come out with a script as intelligent and witty as, say, All About Eve?


Is that what is meant by standards in this case, though? All About Eve is black and white, dialogue heavy and shot on set (apart from some establishing shots filmed by the Second Unit and using stand-ins.) The same script shot in 2014 would look dramatically different.


So is the argument coming from Meltzer, W2 et al the wrestling equivalent of "better special effects = better film"? Who really believes that?

#34 Dylan Waco

Dylan Waco
  • Moderators
  • 10173 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 May 2014 - 07:35 AM

I"m at work so I won't be able to answer this fully until this afternoon, but I do want to reiterate that I have never once argue that Meltzer or anyone else should go back and change star ratings.  I don't care about star ratings and don't use them myself.  What I do care about is people having a willingness to at least consider the fact that certain accepted points of view may be missing something, that certain great workers may have been "lost" because of where they worked, lack of footage, et.  I don't think it's terribly surprising that the foremost opinion maker of old (and even today albeit to a much lesser degree) would be resistant to this, just as the consensus historians and revisionist historians were never going to agree on certain things.  This doesn't just extend to ring work either.  Debating him on certain things related to the AWA (High Flyers relevance as a drawing act, what markets were the weakest, et) illustrated to me that a lot of what Dave was going on was based on his own biases and direct experiences living in the moment and not necessarily what the facts actually tell us.  In no way do I mean that as a dig at Dave because we all do this, but he's got the loudest voice through which to trumpet this things.



#35 Dylan Waco

Dylan Waco
  • Moderators
  • 10173 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 May 2014 - 07:41 AM

Also note that I don't consider there to be any universal standard, which is sort of the point.  More later



#36 ohtani's jacket

ohtani's jacket
  • DVDVR 80s Project
  • 5724 posts

Posted 26 May 2014 - 07:47 AM

So is the argument coming from Meltzer, W2 et al the wrestling equivalent of "better special effects = better film"? Who really believes that?

 

 

I'm not necessarily talking about special effects. Mankiewicz wasn't the most visual director. Every shot was framed for dialogue and his films were often overly long and overly wordy. He didn't make use of the visual language that existed in the 50s let alone the techniques that have been developed since. We're just about to wrap up the 50s film poll at DVDVR and I can tell you there were better directed films in 1950 alone. Which isn't to say that All About Eve isn't a great film, because it is, but it's a writer's film and an actor's film. The directing is in the performances and the DOP was there to give it a certain tone. There's a lot of people who only like to watch modern day films. There are a lot of people who are adverse to black and white films and older acting styles. I'd wager that there are only a handful of 1950s films that the average film watcher would consider classics. People who watch 50s films either grew up on them, are lovers of old movies, or obsessives like me. If you're not part of those groups, you're probably going to view them through 2014 eyes. I don't think Meltzer is wrong on that point.
 



#37 Dylan Waco

Dylan Waco
  • Moderators
  • 10173 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 May 2014 - 07:53 AM

Another point is who creates the concept of what is suggested by "modern eyes" bias? Who has pushed the "athleticism = quality" viewpoint?  Has it arisen organically, or is it something that has been championed? 



#38 Matt D

Matt D

    4:40

  • Members
  • 10266 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 May 2014 - 08:04 AM

 

So is the argument coming from Meltzer, W2 et al the wrestling equivalent of "better special effects = better film"? Who really believes that?

 

 

If you're not part of those groups, you're probably going to view them through 2014 eyes. I don't think Meltzer is wrong on that point.

 

This is probably very true, but if that's the case, then you probably wouldn't be viewing them in the first place, and if you were, you wouldn't be doing so to the level that you start having a discussion with someone the equivalent as Meltzer. He's right, but only about an argument that is completely irrelevant, basically, a blanket dismissal that completely misses the point. 



#39 JerryvonKramer

JerryvonKramer
  • DVDVR 80s Project
  • 11324 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 May 2014 - 08:09 AM

So is the argument coming from Meltzer, W2 et al the wrestling equivalent of "better special effects = better film"? Who really believes that?

 
I'm not necessarily talking about special effects. Mankiewicz wasn't the most visual director. Every shot was framed for dialogue and his films were often overly long and overly wordy. He didn't make use of the visual language that existed in the 50s let alone the techniques that have been developed since. We're just about to wrap up the 50s film poll at DVDVR and I can tell you there were better directed films in 1950 alone. Which isn't to say that All About Eve isn't a great film, because it is, but it's a writer's film and an actor's film. The directing is in the performances and the DOP was there to give it a certain tone. There's a lot of people who only like to watch modern day films. There are a lot of people who are adverse to black and white films and older acting styles. I'd wager that there are only a handful of 1950s films that the average film watcher would consider classics. People who watch 50s films either grew up on them, are lovers of old movies, or obsessives like me. If you're not part of those groups, you're probably going to view them through 2014 eyes. I don't think Meltzer is wrong on that point.


This will get us off on a tangent, and maybe we should discuss this elsewhere OJ (I don't got to DVDR much), but I've always thought that Sight and Sound types privilege the visual way way too much in their estimation of films. Far more is made of camera angles and framing and so on among that brand of film buffs than other aspects of movies (script, performances) because they want to make it above all else the director's medium.

A lot of my favourite films -- not just All About Eve by Mankiewicz, but Sleuth too, Rope, Who's Afriad of Virginia Woolf, Glengarry Glen Ross -- are generally dismissed for being too dialogue heavy and "stagey". Unfairly in my view. I don't know if that's a 1950 vs. 2014 thing, but a "Sight and Sound type" vs. a "literary / drama type".

To try to bring this back to wrestling, I don't know if it boils down to much more than the difference between two types of fans in this way. "Athleticism and MOVEZ type" vs. "psychology and storytelling type". But perhaps that is being unfair on Meltzer and co, I dunno.

#40 Dylan Waco

Dylan Waco
  • Moderators
  • 10173 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 May 2014 - 08:13 AM

I don't think the difference is quite that defined, BUT I would note that every instance I ever see of "standards change" being invoked (aside from OJ's relevant points in this thread about lucha match structure) focuses almost exclusively on athleticism/flashy offensive spots. 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users