Over on Cultural Snow, Tim Footman is pondering Rowan Joffe’s comments about setting his film of 'Brighton Rock' in 1964 rather than 1939: “...1939’s a very, very long time ago and it almost feels like a foreign country to a contemporary audience.”
I’ve always been fascinated by how we agree (or not) about when history becomes old enough to be like ‘a foreign country’ as opposed to when it’s simply something we root around in, searching for objects and reference points to unearth knowingly, all the while feeling comfortable that the threads connecting us to that past are not terrifyingly frayed. So is it really just the notion of a ‘youth culture’ that has repeatedly fed off itself since the late 1940s /early 1950s that demarcates that point of comfort? Is the reason 1964 doesn’t seem ‘foreign’ to a contemporary audience really just because they will be comfortable with understanding the cultural reference points of Mods versus Rockers fighting on the beaches? Do contemporary audience really identify more with cultural/consumer references than they do with narrative themes? Do they really need to have stories that explore notions of good/evil, devotion/betrayal and the role of religion draped in the endlessly recycled iconography of ‘youth’ culture?
Good general question, Duke - about how the past becomes old, and older.
It can't be true that 1930s are too old for film, can it -- as there are lots of popular films set in the C19 (Victoria) or C16 (Elizabeth), etc.
But maybe, as you say, it's specifically youth-oriented culture that they think needs to be tied to a more recent past?
Posted by: joe | August 29, 2011 at 11:22