Yes, films made in any past era are, by definition, more authentic than films made today but set in that era.
The reasons people might prefer a modern film are legion - more familiar actors, better technical quality (in some cases), and more nostalgia. By the latter, I mean this: A modern film set in the past must recreate that past through use of period details; some do so more accurately than other. On the other hand, a film made in 1976 and set contemporaneously doesn't have to recreate anything. Often, that means the older film actually lacks the period detail that some viewers crave.
An example of what I mean is Plein Soleil, made in 1960 and set at that same time, vs. The Talented Mr Ripley, made in 1999 and set in the 1950s. While I liked both films, I was actually disappointed that PS didn't feel more like 1960, whereas TTMR had a wonderfully evocative ambiance. Of course, the reason is that Rene Clement had no need to remind 1960 audiences of what 1960 was like. Anthony Minghella, on the other hand, took some pains to recreate the feel of the expat American world of ca. 1955. The result, for a fan of the past, was actually more effective than the film set contemporaneously.
I agree that sometimes efforts at period recreation fall short. I disagree that they always fall short. Sometimes, the filmmakers are able to achieve a kind of distillation of [year in question] that, while it is more intensely flavored with period detail than life in [year in question] actually was, nevertheless is very effective at giving the 2016 audience a feeling of what [YIQ] was really like.
reply
share