It's a film from 1939. The grammar of filmmaking has changed dramatically since then -- direction, acting styles, lighting, staging, everything. Watching something from even the 1960s is super weird and kind of alienating.

Films from very long ago are best understood as historical documents. They tell us a story, sure, same as John Wick 4, but they also tell us about the time period they're from.

This isn't something that's unique to film. Novels, too, get harder to connect with as you move decades past their release. Storytelling changed, and the shared context with the author becomes harder and harder to share.

The pacing and cinematography of pre-1990 cinema is what feels correct to me.

Not to say that modern cinema is perfect, but somebody born at the 60' or 70's would think the 80-90's style is shallow too. Cinema has been getting quicker since it was created.

(I do think it has moved so far into quick takes that it can't help but go back a little now, but I was born at the 80's, so I'm not sure how reliable is my opinion.)

I wonder if it's less a function of 1980 vs 2020, and more a function of genre, and which genres have been more popular at the cinema in which decade. Or which genres you personally happen to be aware of or watching.

I mean, it's not like the original Star Wars (1977) was slow-paced and thoughtful.

The release date is not relevant.

Yes, it has. But it's questionable if it's been for the better. A bad film from any era is just bad, but I'd contend that a well made one easily crosses the generations. Mention Casablanca for instance, I can honestly say I've never come across anyone who didn't enjoy it or say it's a bad film.

"Watching something from even the 1960s is super weird and kind of alienating."

One has to wonder what you actually like to watch. You likely didn't like Shakespeare at school because it too is dated.

Pity really, you'll have missed a lot.

_

Edit: I'm curious why you find say '60s films weird and alienating. (There's much to criticize but I've never heard that said before.)

Casablanca is a good film, but its pacing, storytelling, acting, and direction are all very dated to a modern viewer.

Acting in good films since the 1970s has tended to be far more naturalistic and less stylized, which makes older work feel fake and cloying. That's not always a dealbreaker, though, as you note. It just puts a gulf between a modern viewer and the work that the work has to do more work (so to speak) to bridge.

GWTW didn't have to do that work in 1939.

There's no point arguing with you as we're miles apart, except to say I find most modern films—and many, many old ones unwatchable (usually for different reasons). I just turn them off.

The reasons are many including those that you've mentioned and others especially the pace and horribly tight editing of most modern films/videos—boys let loose with video editors/switching toys instead of the patience and pace of a Moviola. (Incidentally, I've used both.)

Incidentally, it's been touted on multiple occasions that Gone With The Wind has been shown somewhere in the world every day since 1939—an all time record. It's a remarkable success story that's crossed many generations, and its production for the era a remarkable technical achievement.

I first saw it decades ago and I enjoyed it, but a large part of my interest was technical, it being one of the first spectacular color films (it still stands up very well by today's standards).