This is an interesting thread question. What I would note is that most dramas of necessity are in reality dramas in costume. What I mean is that they generally reflect the attitudes, assumptions and behavior of people in a particular sociocultural context. We don't recognize the costume aspect of dramas if they are of our time and place. But this is why they age quickly because the next generation looks at those people in those funny clothes and hairdos having those stilted conversations and wrinkles up their collective nose. This is why fairy tales and weird stories last longer because they sort of stylize these dress and behavior features and add certain aspects outside everyday reality to them. Thus they stand outside normal time.
Okay, wikipedia: Released on May 24, 1995, Braveheart was praised for its action, drama, and romance My point is that those examples seem cross pollinated with other genres. Pick one of many dramas without a murder, hordes of warring people or a location so completely foreign to most people (jail, war, desert island) and we are getting closer to straight up Drama. People cheating on each other, people having issues with in-laws, people living sad small town lives, people struggling in their work, people falling in love (without the comedy) that kind of everyday chick bait stuff. Emotions based on interplay with other characters, that is straight up Drama IMO. You start incorporating other elements, like putting them in prison or living with a murderer for hire, for the sake of escapism and chances are you are throwing in other genres into the stew. But yes, I will do me.
That is a good point. I sold rare VHS on Ebay for 9 years and it seemed that the Dramas from the early 80's were not in demand as much as sci-fi, action, and certainly horror. However, I will note that comedies also seemed to have a short lifespan like Dramas. I don't know what to chalk that up as. But Dramas do seem to date badly.
Comedies are just dramas with jokes and a happy ending. Anything that operates in some perceived "normal" reality tends to age rapidly. That's why comedies that last have some fairy tale or surreal aspect to them almost always. Don Quixote is the literary archetype for this,
You have some excellent points I hadn't really thought about. I am curious though why today's generation wouldn't find hair styles of the 1950's films to be weird and see Dramas from old times as strange fascinating time capsules. Now I love watching 50's B-movie sci-fi, and in some ways it is because of the kitschy "that is what they think the future will be like?' or a horror movie from the 30's because something like the fear of science in Frankenstein seems somewhat quaint, but I can't have the same cheesy amusement of a previous time with a drama. Maybe funky fashion, outmoded ideas or histrionic acting can warrant a mention, or maybe some shocking elements like Peyton Place, but it simply doesn't have the same value to me. Maybe the problem with Drama's holding power is that it is realism based on something that will soon be surpassed and seem silly through progress, without the other flash or subtle sub-text to help it retain appeal. That said, one of my favorite movies is the pre-release Baby Face, and much of my enjoyment is knowing just how out there it was for the time. But it had to get to an extreme to get my attention.
I totally get that. I think this is where real quality acting comes in with character development which can make smaller gestures and actions have greater effect on the audience because the character development laid the groundwork for the acting. It certainly is an art but can really flop as well. Not all dramas are created equal.
Drama as a genre is too wide of a description for me to say I dislike it, but it isn’t my favorite. I also watch movies to escape so films where events are portrayed too realistically aren’t my thing. I can happily live the rest of my life without seeing Leaving Las Vegas ever again.
Whether a straight up drama is engrossing or not all depends on how well written the story is and how strong the characters are. I've seen films like you describe and some are great. Young Adult with Charlize Theron comes to mind. People talk about escapism, but there is escapism in jumping into someone else's world, even if it's realistic and resembles ours. It's someone else's life, someone going through different things than me, and sometimes being able to relate is therapeutic. What I want to watch really depends on how I feel at the time. Sometimes it's action, sometimes suspense, sometimes drama, sometimes comedy, sci-fi, etc. I find most movies are competent (if derivative), and a smaller number either are really bad or really great. But the ones that probably bore me most are action and comedy. Action because that genre is often too over the top (and the outcome not in doubt) and comedy because a lot of them just aren't very good. Every genre has its stinkers though.
Manchester by the Sea comes to mind. No war, prison, action, comedy, noir, just people standing around by the sea. It’s an excellent movie.
True that. I wonder if it isn't so much that I dislike watching Dramas as much as I dislike rewatching Dramas. Maybe this is why comedies rarely get a rewatch too, because once I know the beats then why am I rewatching it? If it is a Drama I don't know what I will get a 2nd time around, I won't cry (ever) and I am not as invested emotionally if I know where it is going, with Comedy it has to be really funny, otherwise it won't have the same effect. Would you call it fun? Do you enjoy it on rewatch?
It’s a tragedy, not fun at all. I generally do not rewatch dramas unlike other genres once you know plot the second time won’t be as compelling. I generally don’t watch an action film for example for the plot.
It is funny because if it was tragedy like The Towering Inferno then I will totally sign on to watch an all-star cast fall out of a Skyscraper. But as another person said further up, I will never watch Leaving Las Vegas again. There is a chance I just don't appreciate "great acting" in the traditional sense, and bad acting doesn't piss me off as it does others. I'm thinking also that my love for upbeat musical genres (hard rock, pop, psych) and relative dislike for mopey musical genres (much of the 80's and last 20 years) may be translating too.
I wouldn't say yes, but my preferences probably lay elsewhere. Voted for the third option, but it's not exactly accurate. This would be more accurate - "I'd be more excited at the prospect of watching a horror, sci-fi, fantasy, or other genre film, but there's no guarantee that I'm gonna enjoy it more than I would the drama film that's playing on the other channel".
The Towering Inferno is not really a tragedy but more of an adventure against a tragic backdrop. It’s ok to disagree. Likewise I won’t watch Leaving Las Vegas again and most other dramas. There are some classics that are well worth rewatching like the Bicycle Thieves by Vittorio de Sica and Truffaut’s 400 Blows and many others.
Ah, so you don't understand the difference between an element of and a foundation underlying the entire movie. It makes sense that you think Amadeus is a comedy because it has a couple of jokes in its 160 min running time. Mozart dying slowly as time passes makes this movie "nearly a thriller"? Yikes. Your comments about what drama is and your inability to extend that to anything that is foreign to you but exists in the real world are eyebrow-raising if utterly bizarre. It's the internet and nearly every conceivable opinion no matter how foundationally flawed it might be will find someone somewhere who'll agree but although you may not be entirely "alone on this raft", you'll be lonely trying to find many people who'll agree with your incredibly narrow definitions and aforementioned misconceptions.
It's such a broad term but becomes somewhat pejorative, as in drama-queen. If it is a good story and is based on real-life, drama can be cathartic. So, I'm happy with a good drama. For escapism, I like comedy more than action.
I like certain 'Dramatic' movies. I'd guess I'd be somewhere in between on the 'Liking Movie Drama'-meter. I'll watch some and avoid others. I like various 1970s/80s made-for-television dramas like BREAKING UP (1978-Tvm), THE WAR BETWEEN THE TATES (1977-Tvm), RAGE (1980-Tvm), SERGEANT MATLOVICH versus THE U.S. AIR FORCE (1978-Tvm), THE AMBUSH MURDERS (1982-Tvm), CHILDREN OF DIVORCE (1980-Tvm) [Dated, of course, but interesting to me because my folks divorced in '80 when I was 7], LITTLE LADIES OF THE NIGHT (1977-Tvm), others. Since television movies of that time had content parameters you knew what to expect and what not to expect when watching them (no cuss words, no nudity, no extreme violence or gore, nothing overly kinky, et al). Here's a theatrical movie that I felt was a most worthwhile drama: CINDERELLA LIBERTY (1973). Here's a Disney movie drama that's •much• darker than what you'd expect from The Studio Of The Mouse: THE WILD COUNTRY (1971).
I think you hit on another answer to a previous question. Those 70's and 80's TV movies were indeed fast paced dramas, there was no time for protracted silence ridden performances, you had to speak fast and clearly in order to fit it all in to a 78 minute runtime. Maybe my issue with Modern Drama is their lax "take all the time you need." I DO enjoy watching TV movies, although I admit I usually go for TV horror movies first. You mentioned another thing too, I am not one to enjoy the kinky surprises in Dramas. Some do, I don't, I find it often manipulative. Some could say that cinema is manipulation but when you are trying for effect there is very little that compares to sex, especially affairs, brief nudity, sudden cuts to sex scenes etc. A half naked woman riding a mechanical bull helped sell hamburgers for God's sake, it is the easiest thing to get a reaction out of someone. That is why I always go for older films in the Drama side, because the Hays code had some perks and that was that filmmakers had to be creative when implying forbidden fruit. It has been a bit since I saw Amadeus, but I remember finding Tom's giggling Mozart to be quite funny. Now if you read my post you are quoting I said that ALL those films are Dramas and then I listed other genres that were thrown into it. I did not call Amadeus a comedy. I do find it very interesting that when listing 5 Dramas you didn't mention one movie with a strong female lead that is central to the plot. I suppose Sophie Marceau is the closest but the only significant scenes I remember from Braveheart is with Mel, and don't even mention Helen Hunt.
But you stated it's *also* a comedy, which it isn't. A funny moment in a 2h 40 min movie does not mean it's a comedy as well as whatever else it's billed as. Your whole case for what a drama is is so odd, restrictive, and rigid, that it isn't something I ascribe to so we'll likely never see eye to eye on the topic. Why does that matter and explain to me why I should care. I'm genuinely interested to read someone tapdance and attempt to justify why someone's tastes are wrong in any conceivable way.
Most comedies are horrible; i.e. "not funny". Most horror films are horrible: i.e. "not scary". Most Marvel/DC films are horrible; i.e. "just annoyingly stupid".
You're taste is not wrong, but your quoting of me is. I said those 5 movies may be labeled as Dramas (as in that is the genre designation in one word) but they have other genres thrown into it. I never called Amadeus a Drama/Comedy. That is the last time I will correct you on that. As for your 5, where is the soap opera films that proliferate like dandelions? You somehow avoided the most popular form of a Drama, the thing once called the un-PC "woman's picture." Braveheart is as close as you get (because Tom spends most of the time alone), and that is a film known for a bunch of men hearing a speech and then doing battle. If you didn't list any of the many affair/romance/breakup films, maybe it is because you don't tend to go for those. And if that is true, maybe you should change your poll answer to option C.
I agree on much of that. But truth be told, I would much rather watch a horrible horror movie than a horrible drama. I would note that the age of gritty R rated comedy is basically moving closer to Drama and away from things like slapstick and sight gags of yore. And the Marvel/DC movies (which I'm not a fan of) thread relationships and personal crisis for almost every character from film to film, they get very close to soap operas in that sense.
I mostly dislike straight up dramas, especially if they're relationship or family dramas, but there are some exceptions, I remember liking Murnau's silent classic Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans, and while I've disliked many of Ingmar Bergman's relationship/family dramas, I did really like Wild Strawberries, along with his other movies like The Seventh Seal . There are probably some others I've liked but those came to my mind first.
These days there are 1) not stars with enough elan and quality, and 2) not enough good original scripts, to hold up a straight drama. Even the idea that drama is separable from "movies" is a product of the modern era. Go back to Fellini.
I love Sunrise, and Wild Strawberries is probably my favorite Bergman (if not Hour of the Wolf just because I love horror.) However, I should note that Sunrise, The Seventh Seal and so many art films represent a surreal version of the world and they don't stick to realism. They may be Dramas but in watching you practically escape to another world. In my view that would not qualify as straight up Dramas. That said, I think the Bergman style has unfortunately infested most Dramas today, long run-times, lots of silence and "acting" moments. The narrative seems less important than the characters defining themselves.
