Article regarding 70's movie era - discussion (1 Viewer)

[Scott Calvert]

1974:
Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore
The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz
Bananas
Blazing Saddles
Chinatown
The Conversation
Dark Star
Death Wish
The Four Musketeers
The Gambler
The Godfather, Part 2
The Golden Voyage of Sinbad
The Great Gatsby
Harry and Tonto
Lenny
The Longest Yard
Murder on the Orient Express
The Odessa File
The Parallax View
Phantom of the Paradise
The Sugarland Express
The Taking of Pelham One, Two, Three
Thieves Like Us
Thunderbolt and Lightfoot
The Towering Inferno
Where the Red Fern Grows
A Woman Under the Influence
Young Frankenstein

 

[Scott Calvert]

1975:
Barry Lyndon
Bite the Bullet
A Boy and His Dog
The Day of the Locust
Dog Day Afternoon
The Eiger Sanction
Funny Lady
The Great Waldo Pepper
Jaws
Love and Death
The Man in the Glass Booth
The Man Who Would Be King
Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Nashville
Night Moves
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
Picnic at Hanging Rock
The Rocky Horror Picture Show
Rollerball
Shampoo
The Stepford Wives
The Sunshine Boys
Three Days of the Condor
The Wind and the Lion
The Yakuza

 

[Seth Paxton]

I've come to realize that a BIG part of the "problem" stems from the point of view taken.

Am I really to believe that Willie Wonka, Andromeda Strain, Soylent Green, Westworld, Exorcist, American Graffiti, Sleeper, Let It Be, Airport, Poseidon Adventure, and so on were seen as "high art" the minute they came out the door?

Even the Oscar does not inherently mean a film was of the highest art, which is exactly why we debate a winner like Gladiator, so a film like The Sting does not equate to high art right out of the box either despite the win.


Instead what we see is that any BLOCKBUSTER or pure entertainment release of a given era can become a "classic" of the film arts simply by enduring in the public eye.

This is not to say that the films I mentioned are not great films, but rather to say that the artistic goal behind them and the artistic release that audiences found in them was not always what it is now. Exorcist was just Blair Witch or The Ring or The Others or Nightmare on Elm St even, of its time. It seems a bit silly to ignore the fact that at the time this was not the latest Fellini or Bergman film we are talking about.


The point is that while we lament that Hitchcock is gone or in this case the art of the 70's, we are forgetting that we are measuring the two (then and now) with different scales. To audiences of the time, those "artistic" films were just mass entertainment too. And not only that, but the studios or indy filmmakers were using the same marketing they do now, at least in terms of designing what type of films to make. The star system was in place by 1915 and it hasn't been pushed aside yet. Films designed to show off the latest technologies have existed since film began around 1890, and certainly continued from Melies films to toned films to Griffith blockbusters to 2 strip color to basic sound and so on.


I consider myself on the side of film art appreciation. I've taken many classes on the film arts in pursuit of a comparative lit degree focused on film theory. I'm 35 and tire of the same stupid films making lots of money. But at the same time I can still find 20-30 good or great films every year, and many of those are studio films.

DW Griffith made 100's of films, how many of those were "high art"? Quite frankly I think I could challenge any claim that said any of his work outside of Broken Blossoms and Intolerance was an attempt at high art. In fact he was worse than Bruckheimer in terms of manipulation and following the formula. But the key is that most of those films are FORGOTTEN except by hard core Griffith fans or historians. So we are left with only the good.

The 70's are the same way. The idea that only great films were being made, or even only "creative" films is silly. The 70's actually might have been one of the worst decades for dated films, both in terms of style of cinematography and art direction. What has changed is that we are no longer a part of that culture and so some of the cultural pop art identity has worn away in our eyes. For example, we might see Matrix as pop art of the times that will soon fade, part of the "MTV Generation" of quick edit. Same for Moulin Rouge. But give it 50 years and these films become Eisenstiens simply by aging.

And that is because only film art lovers pay attention to films more than 5-10 years old, and so by association those films become high art.

The state of American cinema is very much money orientated and has been for a long time, no doubt about that.

Try ALWAYS. An example of the first Oscar winning art film: Fox brings in Murnau. Why? To gain an artistic reputation for his young production company? Why? To SELL more films.

And its not just America. German expressionism was born not of some artistic insight, though certainly we see that artistic movement now, but primarily in an attempt to win over the middle-class audiences and bring in the big money. German filmmakers began to seek out more literary source material in order to raise the image of cinema and to shake off the shady image that film parlors had.

Since day one filmmakers like Edison and Lumiere were doing nothing but jockying for the best distribution position, stealing material or trying to protect their own material, and at all times trying to expand their markets.

More than any other cultural influence the 2 largest factors that have driven what cinema has been and became was money and technology. This was true in the 70's and its still true today.

We can pine for the days of Kubrick, but lets not forget that he took 2 sensational novels full of shocking sex and/or violence and made them into films. Were that to happen now they might well be labeled as pandering films appealing to the lowest denominator.

Frankly I wonder if Dr. Strangelove is really that far from Three Kings, at least as far as we commonly like to think it is (and I love Kubrick). Or maybe once Spielberg is long gone he will become Hitchcock to film historians and buffs, and perhaps like Sturges, PT Anderson might become the under appreciated genius.



Just remember 74, oh so wonderful...

The Trial of Billy Jack
Freebie and the Bean
Big Bad Mama
The Gambler
Benji
Earthquake
It's Alive
Airport 75
Death Wish
Man with the Golden Gun

These weren't the crap under the radar either. Many of these were a big deal at the time, typical of every year in the 70's IMO.

I love films like Westworld or Soylent Green, but they aren't exactly Casablanca either. I think I could find plenty of films of their caliber in the last 5 years as well.

They had French Connection, we have Traffic. They had Cabaret, we have Chicago. They had Star Wars, we have...Star Wars?? Er, skip that one.

But I would put a film like Saving Private Ryan against Patton. And I would put films like Pulp Fiction against The Godfather. And before you laugh those off, especially the 2nd, consider the INFLUENCE on society those films have had. Suddenly the last 10 years don't seem quite so lame IMO.


As for the scale...well I happen to think a film like AI was intended to be a very personal effort by both Kubrick and Spielberg and it got just a little bit of a budget behind it. Soderbergh got plenty of money for Solaris, which the resulting product showed to be perhaps even more personal and intimate than the Russian original. Martin Scorsese just got tons of money to do his most personal film yet, or his personal pet project. And lest we forget, Peter Jackson got tons of money to make 3 blockbusters that he felt incredibly personal about.

Frankly, I think almost all the best films are personal in nature. That's how the artists are able to reach that next level that it takes to make a good film into a great one.


As for sequels, we happen to be in a big year for those unfortunately, but the idea of going with a "proven winner" is nowhere near new. Films like Der Golem and Student of Prague got remade time and again. Ben-Hur is a remake, Bride of Frankenstien is a sequel.

The 70's went nuts for disaster films (including the annoyingly sequeled Airport films), blacksploitation, and the crime drama (not just Godfather 2, but also French Connection 2:Revenge of the Surrender Monkeys ). Somehow Dirty Harry got redone more than once, so did Death Wish (though that was the 80s). Jaws 2 was out by 78, and despite what Lucas tells me I've always figured that ESB only got greenlighted after ANH made all that money.

Disco films made the rounds, certainly counting on banking on that phenom (Sgt. Peppers, Sat Night Fever, Thank God It's Friday, etc.).

Or what about 78, a year with these films: Dawn of the Dead (sequel of sorts), Jaws 2 (sequel), Invasion of the Body Snatchers (remake), Heaven Can Wait (remake), Omen 2 (sequel), Revenge of the Pink Panther (sequel), Bad News Bears Go to Japan (sequel), Return from Witch Mountain (sequel), and Superman (your TV, radio, comic connection that fits with 2003).


To me it's more like "The more things change, the more things stay the same".

 

[Dan Rudolph]

I don't think there is a precedent for the number of sequels and remakes we're getting, but that's because the philosophy of sequels has changed. Rather than a quick cash-in on a successful movie (which is almost guaranteeing a drop in budget and quality), we're seeing more things that are designed to eb franchises. For better or worse, movies have turned into big-budget tv shows that get an episode every year or two.

 

[Scott Calvert]

1976:
All the President's Men
Assault on Precinct 13
The Bad News Bears
Bound for Glory
Carrie
Family Plot
The Front
The Last Tycoon
Logan's Run
The Man Who Fell to Earth
Marathon Man
Murder by Death
Network
Obsession
The Omen
The Outlaw Josey Wales
Robin and Marian
Rocky
The Shootist
Silent Movie
Silver Streak
Stay Hungry
Taxi Driver
Two Minute Warning

 

[Scott Calvert]

Seth, I see where you're coming from, but even when you filter out the cheese there's a pretty big difference in the quality that Hollywood almost routinely put out in the '70s versus today.

And even if you don't filter out the cheese, films like Soylent Green and Westworld are far more literate than stuff like Final Destination 2, Armageddon etc. The B-level sci-fi of the 70's, however cheap looking they may be, depend on ideas and actors and tell a story that has something to say.

 

[John_Lee]

The last year that, IMO, was on par with the heyday of the early '70s was 1995, when you had Pulp Fiction, Forrest Gump, The Shawshank Redemption, Quiz Show, Clerks, and even Speed.

 

[Rich Malloy]

One problem with The Downward Spiral is that now, in the popcorn era, the bar has been lowered for most people as to what constitutes excellence. So a film that would have been widely regarded as trite or manipulative or mediocre in the early '70s is today hailed as a "masterpiece" or "great." Far From Heaven, for example.

I'm shocked by your example... shocked! But this is off-topic, so I'll just note my disagreement, and carry on... :b

(Damn, Jack, is the only film we agree upon "2001"?)

Back more on the subject, Scorsese, Altman, and Coppola only wish they were still making films on the level that Todd Haynes is today. I think its time we quit wringing our hands and pining for days of lost glory with the so-called "great filmmakers", because every moment we waste apologizing for the faults of "Gangs of New York" or trying to explain the rationale behind the redux parts of "Apocalypse Now Redux", or wondering if Woody Allen is just cleaning out his lower drawer of second-rate film ideas, or if Peter Bogdonavich was never so great to begin with, is time taken away from experiencing the leading edge of the cinematic arts. American movies of the 70s certainly represented one of the great flowerings of cinema, but it's like the frickin' Jurassic era now... and these old dinosaurs are still lumbering about, complaining about the state of current cinema?

Coppola's last three films are "Supernova", "The Rainmaker" and "Jack". If he wants to criticize the state of modern cinema, he ought to begin by taking a long look in the mirror.

 

[Jay E]

Seth

There are so many things I disagree with in your post that I don't know how or where to start. I think that our tastes in films differ so significantly that it would be pointless for me to go into them all (case in point; the fact that you put The Gambler on your list of crap films of 1974, as I find it to be one of the best films of the decade, a film no major studio would touch today, as is the case with many of the films released in the early 70's).

I find there to be a large difference in the films released in the early 70's and those released today. Here is a sampling of some of the films, of differing quality, released by the major studios in 1974:

Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore
Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia
California Split
Chinatown
Claudine
Conrack
Converstion, The
Daisy Miller
Front Page, The
Gambler, The
Godfather Part II
Harry & Tonto
Law & Disorder
Lenny
McQ
Midnight Man, The
Outfit, The
Parallax View, The
Phase IV
Sugarland Express, The
Taking of Pelham 1,2,3
Tamarind Seed, The
Terminal Man, The
Thieves Like Us
Thunderbolt & Lightfoot

Now what do all of these films have in common? They are targeted to adult audiences. In fact the majority of films released in the early 70's are targeted to adults where as today it's the teenage audience that receives the bulk of attention from the major studios. By 1978, the studios were already full swing into their transition to what we know them as today; proponents of the "big idea", sequels, remakes and dumbing down. Please don't use that year as a sampling of what 70's cinema was about.

This last flowering of the American studio film lasted less than 10 years, but in that short time it contributed more intelligent, mature & thought provoking films than what the major studios have released in the past 25 years. Thank God for independent film.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Oh, I seriously doubt that, Rich. But I've been wanting to discuss this. Let me run a search and see what threads on this film I can find so I can figure out an angle for starting a new thread. I'd love to talk about that movie.

 

[Rich Malloy]

Jack, there was about a page, page-and-a-half of faintly heated discussion on "Far From Heaven" in (I believe) Edwin's thread on indie/nonmainstream cinema... might be a good place to start!

EDIT: that discussion was moved to here: http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...hreadid=109952

 

[Gary->dee]

In fact the majority of films released in the early 70's are targeted to adults where as today it's the teenage audience that receives the bulk of attention from the major studios.

That, my friend, is an excellent point. Probably the best point in this thread besides the issue of money hungry studios. Brilliant observation, Jay.

Now granted that I was a kid at the time and most of the movies of the 70's were beyond me because of my age. I was into the 'gee wiz' spectacles or comedies, although I did appreciate epic adult movies like The Godfather parts 1&2. But I'm constantly amazed at the movies that came out in the 1970's that only now I understand and appreciate because I've grown and matured. Harold and Maude for example. Couldn't give a shinola about it back then and I probably would have been bored to tears by it, now I think it's a great movie and I'm actually familiar with a lot its themes from experiencing them firsthand. Annie Hall from 1977? Forgetaboutit, I was into Star Wars that year and for the next few years. As an adult I love Annie Hall. Same thing with wonderful movies like Days of Heaven, Chinatown and many more.

I think movies were made by filmmakers in the 70's, artisans if you will, not marketing departments like these days. Which is a segue to my next point: studios don't know how to sell movies these days. There are rare exceptions of course, but there's such a cookie-cutter template for selling almost every movie. But basically compared to the 70's I think movies and everything to do with them has been dumbed down considerably. Whether that means they're made for younger audiences could be the key.

 

[Brook K]

Says the guy with the X-Men sig

While I would agree with the sentiment that the studios have no clue how to sell movies that don't already sell themselves, the studios have always funded auteurs and continue to do so:

Paul Thomas Anderson
Todd Haynes
Wes Anderson
Alexander Payne
Whit Stillman
Kevin Smith
Spike Jonze

are funded by the big studios (I don't consider Miramax or New Line to be "independent"), just as Altman, Scorsese, and Woody Allen were and continue to be.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Rich, I suppose I should play by the rules and resurrect Michael's Far From Heaven thread. Will do so when I get a chance. JB

 

[Gary->dee]

Well, Brook I don't want to get into a big discussion about X2 since there's already a thread for that, but I do think that on very rare occassions a studio can come out with a movie like X2 that actually surpasses the original in terms of story, scope, and general quality. Just like Empire Strikes Back, certain sequels don't just appeal to kids ages 10-18. I think the rare sequels like Empire and X2 succeed because they aim higher, not in terms of budget, but in terms of story and usually that means making it a movie with more mature and darker themes instead of the typical 'these are the good guys and this is the bad guy' type of thing. As an adult, X2 appeals to me because it's more complicated than the average, no brainer blockbuster. Hence, the sig. :wink:

Another example are the fantastic LOTR movies. The marketing departments for these movies can afford to go on cruise control because the movies have a built-in audience and sell themselves. But I don't think every movie should be sold like X2 or LOTR.

 

[Scott Calvert]

Another thing no one has really mentioned yet is the quantity of great films put out in the 70's. Hell, in '74 alone studios were putting out great films every TWO WEEKS (or thereabouts)! And it was like that from '68 to '77! Can you imagine having 28-30 great, fantastic films come out EVERY year for a decade straight?

And before anyone says it, I have the Sundance and IFC channels and I try to watch that stuff, really. But I don't really see how people can sincerely champion the films these channels show. Allow me generalize to make a point: 99% of what I see on these channels seems to have been made by amatuers who are trying to run with the "big boys". It's like anyone with the will to make a film can have it shown on Sundance, talent be damned. The other 1% are established films from genuine filmmakers (Bergman, Cassavettes, etc.).

That out to stir the pot

 

[Terry St]

Toothless old coots have sat on porches saying "Yessir, the world's goin' to Hell! No doubt about it!" for centuries. Well, not the same old coots. I'm sure most were given decent burials before they got too ripe. Anyways, perhaps they were right. Still, we don't seem to be descending into hellfire, warm cola and Tears for Fears hits sung by Roseanne Barr any faster than before. Bringing about hell on Earth is a long term project, so to speak.

While I'm sure those of you who saw Crossroads may have lost faith in Hollywood, humanity, and perhaps even the power of D-Cups, most of us didn't, so we can have rosier outlooks on modern cinema. Sure, there is a lot of crap out there today, but that's no different than it was 30 years ago, except perhaps that we've had more time to forget the steaming dung of the disco era! Personally, I am not willing to judge the output of the last year or two until a bit of time has passed. How many of the great films listed above were blockbusters in America the very year they were released? How many were ever blockbusters? Classics often take time to surface. Take the films of Akira Kurosawa, such as Yojimbo, for example. Many of his films received rather luke-warm receptions in Japan and are probably more popular in North America today than at any time in the past thanks to the DVD format!

I'll throw in a food analogy, in case it helps. Hollywood and the film industry around the world are like a giant cow's udder. Give the teats a squeeze, and out comes what we see in theatres. Set that same milk aside, and with a little time the creme will rise to the top. If you're after just the creme, you have to either drink a *lot* of milk or be patient, and willing to skim off the top. You can't just guzzle any films that comes along and expect them all to be good stuff!

Today the average viewer has more access to high quality cinema than ever before. Sure, the pap in theatres is the same mixture of sequels, remakes, cheese, and sleaze as ever. However, there are a lot of amazing films out on DVD, and more coming every week! I find it to be more productive to skim the creme off of the last hundred years of cinema rather than guzzling a lot of the new stuff, hoping to find something palatable. I'll watch a few of the obligatory hollywood films with my friends, but my real viewing is done at home. I'll watch today's films tomorrow, when the over-hyped turkey's have been sufficiently deflated and the precious gems have been sifted out from the dirt. This practice may leave me a little behind on the latest film fashions, but I'm okay with that.

 

[Jim DiJoseph]

Classics often take time to surface.

I'm sorry, gentlemen, but I do not buy the "movies get better from the passage of time" argument. Classics may take time to proliferate to the masses, but they do not become better movies just because time passes, IMHO. I will concede that times do change and perhaps a general acceptance of a film may strengthen, but just because people could not see that Kurosawa was generating great cinema does not mean that he wasn't. Following these arguments, one could state that if we give SwimFan a little time, it too will be better. I believe the stronger argument lies in the target audiences for these films. The teenage demographic seems to dominate the landscape these days. As such, production companies seek to pocket their money - and rightly so...it's business, after all.

I did not start the thread with the intent to state that no good films are being made today. I simply note the change that has occurred in the past couple decades. Judging from many of the first-rate films listed throughout this thread, it seems evident that today's lists would pale (in numbers) by comparison. Yes, we still have good cinema, but I believe it is waning a bit. I wonder if soon we will have to travel to larger markets to really see creative works rather than simply going down the street to our local theaters. Again, perhaps that's a little extreme...

Thanks.

 

[Dan Rudolph]

Jim, considering the way some people are apparently salivating for Police Academy on DVD, I'm betting people will perceive Swimfan as better in a few years.

 

[Stevan Lay]

Asia is where it's at, particularly Taiwan, Hong Kong and Korea, but also China and Japan.

And add Latin America into the mix, such as Brazil, Argentina, Spain, Mexico, etc...