I have to disagree.
There are plenty of older films that moved at steady, memorable paces. I just recently watched Django from 1966.
No wasted motion, no wasted celluloid, no wasted time.
The movie moves at a steady pace and gets its point across without droning on.
I do have to agree with OP that the first hour or so of The Deer Hunter is a meandering mess. We spend an inordinate amount of time on what's practically nothingness. I understand they wanted us to get to know the characters, but it wasn't done in a way that made me care about them.
I only started to care when they finally started getting ready to hunt. I thought those scenes were poignant (although the drive/walk up to the point of getting ready to hunt was kind of excessive not to convey much during the process).
There's just a matter of editing to match the tone, and the first half of the film's tone is just a completely different beast from the second half. Every part after they got to Vietnam was enriched with engrossing commentary and character development. Before that? Only the scene where they were getting dressed to hunt really stood out as significant character development that let you know who was who, and how that would likely shape their experiences in the war.
Plenty of filmmakers today also still have no clue about proper pacing and proper editing, such as Zack Snyder or Terrence Malick.
reply
share