Orangejuice90s wrote:
In response to your movie comment about movies, of course no transition is hard-edged but to define it by years, the lines are drawn somewhere. Actually, my 1997 VHS tapes would be alien to a lot of teenagers today. In fact, I asked someone I know born in 2000 if they even knew what a VHS was and they couldn't answer. This 2004 film, was it trying to represent a different period than 2004? I haven't seen the film but If so, it's the time period it represents that is retro, not the film itself. That is the difference.
Well, media is different from content. The VHS cassette tape is of course retro or vintage or whatever, but you can watch Good Will Hunting on blu-ray disc or streaming service and the 1997ness fades away. The context of knowing the year of production should not factor in these judgements.
Is the style current? In this case yes it is. There is nothing about the plot, acting, setting, style, or the color and quality of the film stock that makes it seem old fashioned. This is why I say it should not be called a retro movie even though it came out in the 90s. The exact same movie could take place in 2012 as easily as 1997, barring the recognizability of the actors (Matt Damon looks so young) and one single line about "what if gas gets up to $2.50 a gallon" in the middle of a long speech that could otherwise come straight from the mouth of an Occupy Wall Street protester.
Compare this to The Matrix, which came out two years later. Despite its futuristic plot, it is very much of its time, and today it
looks and
feels dated, even if you don't know it came out in 1999 or who any of the actors are.
Sky Captain & the World of Tomorrow takes place in the 40s and looks like it was filmed in the 40s. Similar to The Artist, if you saw that? I say these are modern movies with retro style. Even though they are clearly not made in their represented periods, (since the pacing is much more in line with today's tastes) they look and feel just like their inspirations.
