In today's cinema culture, there is an undeniable contradiction. Recent films are often criticized for being too slow or dragged out scenes. Yet, older films, many of which feature equally slow pacing are hailed as masterpieces. Why do we celebrate the so called 'artistic' slowness of classic films, while tearing apart modern ones for using the same techniques? Are people truly appreciating these old movies, or is it more about trying to sound cultured by riding the wave of nostalgia?
Take Tamil cinema, for example. Films like "96" (2018) and "Meiyazhagan"(2024) share similar narrative structures. Both focus on heartfelt conversations, memories and the slow paced emotions, backed by stunning cinematography and moving scores. Yet, "96" was celebrated as a modern classic, while "Meiyazhagan" was rejected by many as too slow. What has changed?
An argument can be kept saying, "96" came out at a time when viewers were perhaps more patient, willing to sit through slower scenes in exchange for an emotional payoff. But by the time "Meiyazhagan" was released in a post-pandemic world, attention spans had shortened, and people wanted quicker results. The same kind of pacing that once felt thoughtful and deep was now labeled "Boring or lagging" It seems that audiences have grown impatient, conditioned by a fast-moving media landscape where instant gratification is the norm.
But here is the thing, these same critics who bash modern films for being slow will turn around and praise older films that has the exact same pacing. Films like "Mouna Ragam"(1986) or "Anbe Sivam"(2003) are filled with slow, conversational styled scenes. When these films came out, they were celebrated for their craftsmanship. Today, they are worshipped as timeless classics. Yet, if a film with a similar pace was released today, it would be attacked for "lagging." This double standard exposes a certain hypocrisy.
A lot of people, I feel, do not truly love old classic films as much as they claim. They seem more charmed by the "idea" of loving them, Praising these classic films as a way to appear sophisticated or culturally superior, rather than genuinely appreciating the slow, nuanced storytelling. It becomes less about the films themselves and more about how they look to others by claiming to appreciate them. In reality, many dismiss new films, attempting the same artistry, wearing their supposed nostalgia like a badge of honor. The question remains: are we impatient for slower films or just pretending to love the classics for the sake of standing out?
The Truth is, A film's pacing should be judged by how effectively it serves the story, not by the ideas of what is "classic". Slow pacing is not a sign of sophistication, whether in modern or older films. If we are going to criticize contemporary films for being slow, we should apply the same standard to older ones, rather than romanticizing them simply because they are considered classics. Pacing is a narrative tool, and its success depends on how it enhances the emotional and thematic depth of the film, regardless of when the movie was made.
The problem is not with slow films, whether they are old or new. The real issue lies with audiences who claim to be cinephiles but are more interested in projecting an image of sophistication than in truly appreciating the art of filmmaking. Too often, these viewers praise the slow, deliberate pacing of classic films while criticizing modern films for the same approach, hiding behind nostalgia rather than offering genuine critique. If you are going to celebrate a classic for taking its time, then be fair enough to extend that same recognition to a contemporary film that dares to do so.
Nostalgia should not be a mask for shallow admiration, and films should be appreciated for their actual craft, not for how praising them makes you look.
No comments:
Post a Comment