Sometimes I wonder how old classics like this make it to the top of film lists. There are so many of them which have been made out to be perfect or nearly perfect. I still wonder if the ratings of the films, or the acclaim could possibly change in years to come. Sometimes a film is great, but doesn't age well, that would or should hurt a status.When I browse the classics, or venture over to check out who the Critereon collection has deemed worthy, I get curious as to what standards are used. Some films that may have been great are invisible to my eyes today. I know the industry has changed over time, where people who weren't educated in film were the ones first declaring great films, where today we have people who make it their profession to make these determinations. These people are educated in film history, and all sorts of variations. Some of these people agree and some disagree with past films. One thing however is different, the criticism given for modern films.
There are many reviews I feel are much harsher on today's film than yesterday's. It is as if the old has paved the way for the new and so any flaws which existed were overlooked because of their power or early strife. I would agree that older films endured much more than today's. But, for example, when Citizen Kane is reviewed, and has an average of 9.9 out of 10, while No Country For Old Men is sitting on an 8.5 out of 10, feels like something is missing, feels like a sort of biased perception is lingering.
I do not want to compare Citizen Kane's greatness to No Country For Old Men's greatness, as I have not yet seen Citizen Kane. I purchased the film, and it has mysteriously gone missing. But, the point I am trying to make it the greatest film of one year, when put up against another, there aren't evenly reviewed films past the 1970's. of course there may be one or two here and there. But overall it seems flawed.
The Third Man, unlike some other classics, held its own. It felt like a legend coming out of retirement to again defend a title against me the viewer. I entered the film critical and skeptical because I don't easy fall victim to black and white greatness. I am a very visual viewer of film, and if you don't tell the story in a unique way, or a way of obvious skill, along with piecing together a crew to include actors, you will not be appreciated by me. Hitchcock is probably the greatest director to have lived and died so far, and is still reigning champion over all the greatest, and I haven't even seen the bulk of his work. His influence on the industry exceeds that of anyone else so far, but I fear that may be why some of his films got such great reviews.
When someone you are familiar with, who is powerful, or influential in some way, enters the room, it no longer matters if you liked the person before that moment. That is what is called star power. Much like the Nintendo classic, Super Mario Bros. when you consume a star, you can run along the map and defeat anything you want, and the only way you die is when either your star power runs out or if you commit suicide. The same applies with people who have a certain level of star power, Hitchcock, had a high level of star power and anything he touched, was defeated. I think some of Hitchcock's work may be worthy, while others not so much, but it didn't matter when you are made up of that much star power. Whether you are a fan of a specific President, lets say you are of the opposite political party even, if that President enters the room, you make it to your knees at his feet. You are in the midst of great star power.
Now, having said that, I do think some older classics deserve the reviews they receive, but not all of them. I do my best to remove star power when I watch a movie. That is how I can be displeased by those who are most pleasing. I even tried to be unfair to 'The Third Man' by trying to hate it before I saw it. I dread black and white films. But, once you watch the story develop, along with the acting, it hooks you. As it hooks you, you begin to sit in awe of all the things the director is doing TO you. Carol Reed, the director of this film, played a lot with shadows and has a unique eye for sets.
You cannot give me a great story and think I will hold you up higher than average as a film, what are needed are a combination. Combination of acting, directing, and story. 'The Third Man' is that combination. The story is good, but the acting is great, and the directing is even better. Carol Reed made this story into something greater, with the suspense captured, the mystery captured, it was absolutely going against the notion that old films are overrated.
It was interesting that Orson Welles could be attached to such a great piece and not be so involved in its greatness.
I am still skeptical, I am still displeased by many black and white films. It does come down to preference, but one thing is for sure, when something is great, it is so hard to miss.
"The Third Man"
8.5 / 10
8.5 / 10
