Dated Films
Why do some films age better than others?
For more information on Aleph Insights visit our website https://alephinsights.com or to get in touch about our podcast email podcast@alephinsights.com
Transcript
Hello and welcome to the Cognitive Engineering Podcast, where we look at interesting topics and discuss what we think they tell us about analysis and decision making. I'm Fraser McGruer and I'm here with Peter Coghill and Nick Hare of Aleph Insights. And this week we're discussing why Star Trek looks dated, but Star Wars does not.
Speaker B: ve a very interesting sort of: Speaker A:So maybe that's, if we rephrase the question, yeah, so why has it aged better? I mean, we could be talking about budget here, we could be talking about creative decisions. So although it's not visual, I know that when they were formulating the music score for Star Wars, they made a conscious decision to use a classical sounding soundtrack precisely because they didn't want it to date. And they said, hey, you know, we know that we're in the late 70s and it's all very modern, but actually 40 years from now, the late 70s might feel a bit dated. So on the soundtrack, they made that decision. Whereas Blake Seven with it's kind of rhythm
Speaker C: , you know, some very sort of: Speaker A:just using a violin, you know. Okay, but let's sort of delve in. So what about the visual side of it? But let's try and pick it apart a little bit. I've got I've got an answer. Go on. No,
Speaker C:no, I mean, I don't. You don't really? No, I think I do. I mean, I think I can. I think I think that that observation actually explains the phenomenon we're talking about. Okay. So yes, which is the Okay, so I think the issue is that something that is dated, right, literally, if it's very closely associated with a certain era, okay, now, that so you cannot help but be the case that when the theremin first turned up, you know, that it would be associated with a smaller span of time than, you know, the violin, which has been going pretty much unchallenged for it for a good four or 500 years, you could stick violin based music in anything, and it wouldn't tell you which era it could be the 16th century could be the 19th century could be the modern day. But you the choice to use a theremin, you could say, well, is probably that is definitely going to be more dated, that's going to put you in the latter half of the 20th century. So I think, you know, it's the idea of minimizing the information content of a thing that you choose to use is a bit it's a bit like what we've discussed before about names, you know, that if you pick a name that's hugely popular for your kid, then that kid is going to be associated with being a certain age for the
Speaker A: usly, which is in the sort of: Speaker C: re, it's going to look really: Speaker B:but aren't trying to look like anything in particular. Yeah. And I think going back to the Star Trek, so if you think if you envisage the original series, Star Trek ship, the Enterprise, it's very sleek. It's kind of beautiful in a very idealistic 60s way. So if you if you're allowing yourself the freedom, the license to make things look however you want the costumes and the set and the props and the models, then you'd be, it's an easy trap to fall into, to idealize based on the mode of that time to sort of say, oh, well, this is great. I really like this this kind of architecture. So all the buildings in the future will look like this. Whereas I think that's in contrast to Star Wars, all of the spaceships and the vehicles are incredibly functional looking. There's bits hanging off them. There's like little weird textures. There's a great word for it. I can't remember that all the textures look like they do something important. There's vents and widgets and dials and lights. Is it used future or something? No, it's like garbling or crabbling or something. It's the the model, the term that modelers use for when you put things on to surface and make it look like it's got a functionality to it. So yeah, I think there's a so if you just if you allow yourself the freedom to say, okay, it doesn't need to be beautiful. It just needs to look like it does something. Then that's I
Speaker C: nd nothing looks particularly: Speaker A:shorts like this. You know, until the late 90s. I think you're quite right. I think one of the skills of great documentarians, whether it be photographers or filmmakers is that interest that they have in
Speaker B:in the normal attention to detail. And as I like costume dramas, not for the script, or the stories, because they usually pretty awful things like exciting things like Downton Abbey. But it's the attention to detail in the sets and the costumes, which are fantastic. Yeah, that's one of my
Speaker C: , I mean, we could talk about: Speaker B:going to be a bit too good looking. That reminds me of, there was some, there were some critical articles about films like Saving Private Ryan. And at the time, there were still quite a lot of veterans who had served and survived the D-Day landings. And one of the criticisms often cited was that it was unrealistic, because it was too noisy. It wasn't like that. It was, it was noisy
Speaker C:at times, but it wasn't that constant. Generally, the D-Day invasion was quite a sedate affair. And a lot of the officers stopped for a cup of tea halfway up the beach. And just bringing
Speaker A:mostly people whispered, just just bringing us back a little bit. One of the things you said, which was the more you design something to look futuristic, the less it does, the more dated it quickly becomes. Yes, that's, I think that's Hare's Law. That's Hare's Law. So you were referring to that. When you were referring to Hare's Law, I was gonna say there's an exception to it. But actually, it's not and it very much proves Hare's Law, which is car design. So concept cars, often, you know, which looks sort of is meant to be what's what the future looks like. Actually, something that struck me is, and quite quickly, it happens is, is the concept cars actually do look like cars that we've got now. And so you would think that actually, well, you know, that's wrong. But I think the reason why that is, is probably because of aerodynamic design. And, which is, I guess, is a is a is a universal thing, let's say. And so,
Speaker C: an, an aerodynamic car of the: Speaker B:It hasn't really changed the coefficient of friction.
Speaker C:But our concept of what, you know, what aerodynamics looks like, what, you know, has changed enormously. So you look back at the whole, the sort of Ray Gunn Gothic, you know, Googie type cars from the 50s, which just looked massively 50s. Of course, at the time, they thought, well, this is this is, you know, super modern, hyper aerodynamic, this is what cars need to look
Speaker B:like. I think clinging on to aerodynamics is probably rationalizing it a bit. I think, I think that in the motor design industry, there's a fashion. So if it's sort of, if it's squat, sleek, and silvery concept cars, this year, then the next round of Nissans and Fords will be going towards that, because that's what the marketing departments think is going to sell most.
Speaker A:So hold on, am I wrong? Are you disagreeing with me? Because I was saying that, hey, concept cars do end up looking like actual cars.
Speaker C:No, we were agreeing. What I'm saying is, what I'm saying is that people will, will rationalize and say it's aerodynamics, but actually, it's 90% fashion.
Speaker B:Yeah, because we can, we can pretty accurately model for any given kind of range of speeds, the most aerodynamic vehicle now, given what we know about fluid dynamics. So it's kind of, yeah, if you and it will look like it will kind of look like a teardrop shape. Unfortunately, that's not a very good design, if you want to put people in it, and an engine and things like that. So you have to make it more car shaped. So it's, yeah, they're very, any concept car, any car design is very far off optimal design in terms of aerodynamics, because they're trading that off against those other constraints. I'm glad we got a design though, because I think there's something very interesting in the styles and forms of art and design that play on this anachronistic juxtaposition you get. So I'm thinking like things like steampunk and retrofuturism, that deliberately put disingenuous things together for effect. Yeah, I think I think
Speaker C: where they've taken a kind of: Speaker A:close. But before we do, I've got a tricky question to ask. I'd like you and we were back on films, I want you to think of two films. I want you to think of a film that said in its contemporary
Speaker C:time. Yeah. Sorry, do you mean like a film set in a certain era? No. Think of a film.
Speaker A:Let's say, yeah, think of a film that said at the time it's made. And think of a film that said in a time, ideally before, because we've been discussing lots of future stuff. So I'd prefer in the past, but you know, it doesn't have to be, it can be the future if you want, but I prefer the past. And tell me what they are, if you want, whilst you guys are thinking. So a film for me, that is contemporary. For me, it's about the aesthetics of it is I love Serpico. And although parts of it, the early part of the film was set previously. And in fact, it was filmed in reverse, because his hair grows. No, because his hair is shorter at the beginning of the film. So they filmed it in reverse. Whose hair? Al Pacino. Have you seen Serpico?
Speaker C:You know, I'm getting confused with that one about the with Benicio del Toro, about the the drugs gangs, guys.
Speaker A: thetic. It's just so New York: Speaker C:portraying. And yeah, Zulu is a good example of something where you'd have to you'd have to admit
Speaker B: . And then he travels back to: Speaker C:that Marty from another from Back to the Future 2 brought it there and left it in the dressing room in an in a deleted scene? Possibly. Yeah. Nick, I'm gonna go with for my film set at the time. And I think is sort of really perfectly captures a certain era is Annie Hall. So it's made in I think about 75, 76, 77, that sort of time. And because it's set in New York, among a kind of a sort of the intelligentsia in New York, it's very modern looking, but it doesn't it certainly doesn't try to be. It's not trying to be a piece about the 70s. And it ends up feeling 70s in a very realistic way, because it is right, but it but it's, but it feels, it feels quite, it's just very interesting to watch a film, which isn't trying to tell you about the design aesthetics of the 70s. And nevertheless does. Interesting. Just before
Speaker A:you go into the other one. Interestingly, Martin Scorsese, one of the things he says about Annie Hall, and in fact, all Woody Allen's films around that time. Woody Allen? Yeah. Is that? Well, that's I don't recognize that New York. I was never there. That's not my place. But that tells you much more about other stuff, I think. But and Mean Streets would have been around about the same time, maybe slightly later. Yeah, not everyone in New York was a was a hoodlum.
Speaker C: And obviously set not in the: Speaker A:chase scene, which they totally nailed. I remember watching that with my kids and that bit blew their minds. Yes. Okay, brilliant. All right, nice. Let's stop there. We need to wrap up. I'm Fraser McGruer. We've been here with Peter Coghill and Nick Hare of Aleph Insights. Until next time, thanks very much for listening. Goodbye.
