Robert Altman commented upon the last part of your critique in his opening minutes long uninterrupted tracking shot in his wonderful and funny satire of Hollywood, "The Player."

The problems of gratuitous shots, over-cuttiness and inability to tell a coherent story were a huge problem in movies during the early nineties, as the first generation of music video directors graduated from videos to commercials to film, especially action films, where the visuals aren't necesarily plot or character-driven.

Most good young filmmakers today appear to be rejecting the David Finchers of the early 90s and instead are reaching back to the movie heydays of the 1970s --- and directors like Altman, Polanski and Ashby who knew how to tell stories at a measured pace and get performances from their actors. One of my favorite movies of this past year, "the Motorcycle Diaries," could have come straight from 1975.

While it may be true that a lot of movies that are tops at the box office suffer from the problems you describe (the new Harry Potter! argh!), I don't think it's true for all top movies, and it's certainly not true for all new movies.

Plenty of non-action and/or artsy-type films do very well in theatres - March of the Penguins and Brokeback come to mind right off, along with most of Shaylaman's movies. And I know I could list hundreds of recent movies that might not have been box office smashes (even if they did well enough, e.g. Frida) that don't suffer from the problems of poor editing and crappy cinematography.

One needs only to look at Peter Jackson's tour de force adaptation of Lord of the Rings to see what can be done. This problem is not limited to Narnia, however, and Jackson's achievement was more the exception rather than the rule. Watch most movies in the theaters right now, and you will see the same hasty direction and mindless, clichéd techniques. Films are being directed as though they were television commercials.

I agree with this, but to your following claim that things were so much better 30-odd years ago, I react in much the same way Donald Hall did to "poetry's" then naysayers in "Death to the Death of Poetry." Times are neither as bad as you think now nor were they as good as you remember they were then. Cinematography-wise, that is.

I was thinking recently, for another reason, about Cary Grant's last two films ("Father Goose" and "Walk, Don't Run"). Today, it occurs to me that both of those movies were, in terms of cinematographic standards, quite pedestrian. But in terms of their overall quality, Father Goose in particular, they have some staying power. Actually, I don't wish to defend "Walk, Don't Run." But "Father Goose" is now regarded as a hidden gem for its screenplay, dialog and acting. There was very little about the cinematography, on the other hand, that was memorable. Today, we have a near throwaway film like "Catch Me If You Can" with subtly but powerfully framed shots and memorable pans and fades.

Anyway, I know that "anecdote" is not the singular for "data," I just think generalizations such as yours about how good it used to be are low fruit for contrarians like myself.

Nash,

I understand your frustration with people who talk about the "good old days." However, it is a widely held belief among critics that the 70's were one of Hollywood's finest eras. The hit movies of the time, such as Network, The Conversation, the first two Godfathers, Chinatown, Rocky, etc., almost all demonstrate excellent cinematography. In today's movies, such art is the exception, not the rule. Some have suggested that this is because the age of the typical moviegoer is a lot younger than it was then - I don't know. But watch a great 70's action movie like The French Connection and compare it to any of today's action movies, and I think you will see what I'm talking about. Yes, generalizations about the past are sometimes overblown, but I think in this case, there really is a noticeable difference.

I wonder if some of the neglect of good cinematography is due to the explosion (heh) of special effects and CGI technology. Everyone's still caught up in the bells and whistles. Maybe--hopefully--the sheer novelty of that stuff will increasingly wear off and there will be more of a return to the real art of movie-making.

Are you serious?
Do you really think that reciting a simple line in the film ( "This story is about something that happened to them when they were sent away from London during the war because of the air-raids.") would sufficiently set the stage for the children's evacuation? In the book it barely describes any of the battle scenes... it marely says something to the affect of "And a terrible battle ensued, but I can't describe it to you here because otherwise you parents wouldn't let you read this book."
Come on man.

Agreed, Sarah. I wonder how many folks today, especially those whom the Narnia film was aimed at, could say why the Pevensie children were made to leave London or even know that London was bombed by the Germans in WWII or that the Blitz is anything other than a football term?

The stage had to be set & I think the opening scenes of the film did that quite well. Film being a visaul medium, I thought it was a far better choice than a voice-over, which it seems Michael would have preferred. I'll agree that Adamson's cinematic storytelling could have been better. But it's clear that Peter is the one who organizes the final battle (recall that, in the camp when it was clear Aslan was dead, the camera swooped down into the battle map from Peter's POV & we ended up on the field of battle), meaning the use of the eagles, gryphons, & other flying creatures to drop rocks on the White Witch's forces was his idea. And just where would Peter have gotten that idea? Yes, the Blitz. So I don't agree that Adamson didn't let "the camera tell you what is important, or focus your attention on a crucial detail." Seems he might have been a bit over-subtle!

Is the film perfect? No. Frankly, I'm hoping another director is chosen to do Prince Caspian. I didn't find the film to feel rushed or hasty in any way. To each his own.