Quote:
|
Originally Posted by demonrail666
Fair enough, and on those grounds:
Psycho:
It took the horror film away from the clutches of vampires, mad scientists, zombies, etc, and into the hands of the quiet maniac that would eventually give us Halloween, Friday the 13th, and every other slasher movie since then.
Re How's Tings: Not good. I think I may have a trapped nerve or something in my neck; I can hardly move it and I have a real pain in my right shoulder that keeps waking me up at night.  ) |
Sorry to hear about your physical ails.
Psycho is ahead of it's time for many more reasons than the protagonist being a psycho. The use of the music, the way it involves us completely in a character's life just to kill her quickly, the whole psychological angle. It's more ahead of it's time for what it did for cinema as a whole than what it did for horror flicks. You actually kind of make an interesting case that it's influence on horror films might not have been all good if it devolved down to slasher bullshit!
I completely agree with Metropolis, though it should be noted that Lang actually borrowed heavily from the 1924 Soviet film Aelita, Queen of Mars, which also belongs in this category (though Metropolis isn't as dogmatic since Aelita had to have some workers revolution crap to get made).
Liquid Sky is one I would put ahead of it's time too, though it's new wavism does make it seem very much in it's time as well. Kind of the same thing with Slacker in the '90s. The basic idea is a major breakthrough that has a major permanent effect on how we view films, an yet it had to happen specifically in it's own time to even exist since it's essentially a document of '90s twenty-something culture. Of course you could say that about Metropolis too, that if it weren't a 1920s version of the future, we wouldn't see such images as "cool retro-futurism" the way we do.