I think what people are talking about is that the 70's were the second Golden Age OF HOLLYWOOD, not of film. Film, as you say in slightly different words, has always been great--every year about as many good movies get made as any other year. But only twice has Hollywood lined up behind the artists and put their muscle behind the good movies that are being made, instead of just some movies that are being made. You say, "It was studio financing and promotion that made it seem bigger than it was." It's not that it made it seem bigger--studio financing and promotions IS what it was.
Ed Hardy, Jr. | | Email | Homepage | 09.04.07 - 12:04 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed,
I'm talking about Hollywood. I say in the beginning, "I thought it might be useful to re-examine the idea that the seventies were a second golden age for American cinema." I probably should have just said "Hollywood" there but by "American cinema" that's what I meant.
And I fully agree that studio financing and promotion is what it was. So when I write that it made it seem bigger what I am trying to say (but probably not all that clearly) is that it made it seem as if there were more good movies coming out than in other years when my belief is that people remember those films more because they were such "big events" rather than just two week closers as many have been since.
And in my conclusion, when I answer "Yes and No" to the question of whether there was in fact a second golden age, that's my honest answer. I really don't know. I've gone over it in my head a million times and more often than not it does seem to me that it was simply a brief period of promotion for small films becoming prominent, but not necessarily more good films being made.
And in my own small way, I just wanted to open up that can of worms again for those unfortunate enough to wander in here by mistake. Once an idea takes hold (in any walk of life, but for our purposes here, in the world of film) it becomes entrenched quickly and anyone speaking against it becomes a heretic. I'm not trying to be a barn-burner but I've heard and read about the "second golden age of the seventies" like it's goddamn gospel for so long that I wanted re-examine it for myself. Because, let's face it, the idea that has become entrenched has nothing to do with promotion and financing. The idea that is now written in stone is that the early to mid-seventies Hollywood films were all so much better than what came before in the fifties and sixties and what came after from the late seventies to now. And to that I say, "Horseshit." But I see from your comments that that idea is not entrenched with you, and that's a welcome breath of fresh air.
Thanks for your thoughts on the subject. If you have any more, please comment further.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 09.04.07 - 1:21 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, and I'll try not to over-comment on my own post, but the sixties and seventies produced an abundance of exceptional non-english language films so I think that when the seventies Hollywood movies get over-promoted as a "golden age" it tends to illuminate how many other country's efforts go unnoticed as if the Hollywood movies were all that mattered. The sixties and seventies gave us the titans of world cinema at the heights of their artistic prowess but Hollywood promotes some small films for five years and that's all anyone remembers.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 09.04.07 - 1:34 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm wary of the label "golden age", whether it's being applied to movies, music, or any other kind of artistic expression you care to mention. It smacks of nostalgia, and nostalgia is after all a form of regret. I think that the cyclical nature of tastes and fashion, the lingering effects of sixties idealism, the volatile political climate of the times, and (as you point out Jonathan) promotion all contributed to encouraging a glut of exceptional films that we are still dissecting to this day. But if we are in agreement that films are not created in a vacuum, then the Hollywood productions of the seventies, the good and the bad, were nothing more than a reflection of society's concerns and anxieties at a specific point in history.
Rick Ryan | | Email | Homepage | 09.04.07 - 8:55 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do agree with the assessment that American films of the early 70's were generally better than American films of the late sixties but just by a nose. After all if we pick movies of the last half of the sixties we can come up with Bonnie and Clyde, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, The Graduate, Endless Summer, Cool Hand Luke, Point Blank, The President's Analyst, Reflections in a Golden Eye, Rachel Rachel, Once Upon a Time in the West, Midnight Cowboy, The Wild Bunch, Alice's Restaurant, Easy Rider, Medium Cool, Take the Money and Run and They Shoot Horses, Don't They?. I may not love each and every one of those but there's no denying that's a quality lot. And hey, I don't love each and every one I mentioned for the seventies either but it's also an impressive bunch. The point is I think most people would be hard pressed to say that each film I mentioned for the early seventies clearly outdoes each film I mentioned for the late sixties. Yet the late sixties is not known as a golden age and the early seventies is. And again, I think it comes down to promotion. The studios were pushing the smaller films because they were making money, not because the studios suddenly found a deep love for art. As a result, the false(?) memory is that the early seventies produced voluminous amounts of great films whereas other decades did not.
I'm sure I sound like I'm just continuing to make the same point over and over. Maybe I'm trying to convince myself. For years, I too have thought of the early seventies as a renaissance for American film but as time progresses I think that less and less. And as I surveyed the box office takes then and now it became much clearer. People remember the big money makers. No one's going to forget about Harry Potter anytime soon. And so when they compare the movies from one decade to another the big money makers stick out, at least for your average moviegoer if not for your average cinephile. And so they think Pearl Harbor and Fantastic Four for the 2000's and MASH and Chinatown for the early seventies and naturally conclude, "Wow those movies in the seventies sure were better." But if you're comparing Mulholland Drive and Ghost World from 2001 to Earthquake and Towering Inferno from 1974 you're going to come to a very different conclusion. But no one's going to use Mulholland Drive and Ghost World because they won't immediately come to mind because they were box-office duds.
I've got to stop commenting on this, my fingers are getting tired from the html formatting. Anyway, I hope I've made the point more lucidly in my comments.
And yes, Rick, you are right in that it is definitely a reflection of the times that gave many of those films of the early seventies their power just as the 2000's times gave Mulholland Drive and Ghost World their power. Societal fears and beliefs affect the arts all around them.
Thanks for your thoughts Rick.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 09.04.07 - 11:12 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps my view of the era was at too formative an age colored by Biskind's "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls," but many of the movies you listed as being good films from the late '60's I would lump into the same movement as those made a year or two later when it was technically the '70's.
Ed Hardy, Jr. | | Email | Homepage | 09.04.07 - 11:48 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And that's another free ride for the early seventies by getting movies from a year or two before lumped in with them. We could produce similar lists from just about any five year period as I did for the late sixties, but the most acclaimed would not be among the biggest box-office. And in the end that's where the seventies' rep comes from and that I cannot deny (nor would I want to since it's my whole premise). It was a brief period, as I and you, Ed, in your comments, said before where the best movies were the ones getting the backing and the promotion. And that was the difference. And I can understand that being called a "second golden age", especially by the filmmakers who reaped the benefits, but again, what most people think about with a phrase like "golden age" is that all the movies were better.
I remember reading Easy Riders, Raging Bulls a few years back and found it thoroughly entertaining. But keep in mind that Spielberg, Lucas, DePalma, Scorcese and Coppola have all said that not a word in it is true and that Biskind was getting his information from anonymous party-goers, groupies and disgruntled wannabes and put whatever he heard on paper to excite the senses and push the sales. So take that as you will. My favorite part (true or not) is when Spielberg is in a brainstorming session and needs to put on his "thinking" music and puts on the James Bond theme. Like I said, I don't know from what I've heard from the principals involved if any of it is true or if there is just sour grapes but Spielberg does get the brunt of Biskind's poison pen. He's made to look insecure, foolish and humiliated by the women in his life throughout and if that were really the case I'm not sure he could have continued in Hollywood with the confidence and security he did. Of course, many people have an amazing ability to be two different people in their personal and work life so who knows. But I'll take Spielberg at his word that's it's all sensationalistic journalism.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 09.05.07 - 7:26 am | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting post Jonathan!
Obviously a quick look at my own film blog will tell you that I have an obvious bias towards '60s and '70s era films. I think it has a lot to do with the artists/filmmakers who made them and the progressive views and politics that they pushed forward with their work. The sexual revolution, women's rights and civil rights were taking shape then and being advanced by art, music and film. There was also a strong conscious effort on the part of filmmakers to take an anti-war attitude and expand on it where previous generations had been much more conservative.
Actors in '60s and '70s also greatly benefited from the advancement of Method acting, which really didn't start showing up in films until the late '40s.
In the '60s' and 70s films started becoming more than just "entertainment" and film studies and criticism started really taking shape as well during these times, which is why I find the decades extremely exciting and fascinating. All these things combined to create a truly "golden age" in Hollywood filmmaking in the late 60s and early 70s in my opinion. For some reason a lot of important and amazing sixties era films are often overlooked.
I personally think that current (‘80s-07) filmmaking trends in Hollywood tend to reflect the conservative turn America took in the ‘80s as well as the urge to make a buck. Spielberg ushered in the age of the "blockbuster," but Hollywood seemed to also follow the trend towards conservatism in America with the Reagan era, AIDS, etc. and they started producing films that seemed to be the antithesis of the kind of movies they were releasing in the '70s.
I would argue that even with occasional breakout films now, Hollywood is still taking a much more capitalist/conservative approach to making films than it did during the last "golden age." Most of the best movies made in the last 20 years have been independent films with no studio support.
I personally find that most Hollywood films made in the past 30 or 25 years are all surface gloss with very little depth.
Cinebeats | | Email | Homepage | 09.05.07 - 8:53 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly,
I'm so glad you stopped by. The golden age referred to in this period really did have to do with allowing artists to make the movies they wanted, thanks to box-office, which really doesn't happen anymore. I realize it is much harder now for an artist to make exactly what he wants and get the money to make it and during the late sixties to mid-seventies there was a lot more freedom to do what you wanted and get studio backing. So, like I said, definitely the writer/directors involved benefitted greatly.
I agree that the eighties marked a downturn in the type of movies that were made and I think Spielberg had a lot to do with that. I sometimes feel alone in the wilderness of online film bloggers in my lack of awe for Spielberg. And it goes even further. Another thing that puts me on the outs with so many onliners is my utter disdain for computer animation. I know, I sound like a curmudgeonly old fart. I find them to be all so filled to the brim with lazy pop culture references masquerading as jokes and acting as a substitute for story that I probably end up missing some very good ones. But sometimes when something rubs you the wrong way it's hard to get past it. For instance, I keep hearing marvelous grand things about "Ratattouille" but the thought of paying money to see it makes my chest tighten. I'd rather stick needles in my eyes. It's an inexplicable bias I know and I probably have to get past it at some point. It's never good to judge things in sweeping general terms and I know I shouldn't be doing that with computer animation but for now at least, I just don't like it. It bores me stiff. So sometimes, I really feel like just giving up and saying the hell with blogging. If this is what people want to read about I'm guess I was dead in the water before I even started. But then I read the wonderful and engaging comments by people like you and Ed Hardy and Rick Ryan on this post and remember that there are plenty of blogs out there (Your's being a PRIME example) that don't shovel the same old cow dung down my throat.
Well, that turned out to be quite a comment. Thanks for hearing me out. And to anyone else who might read this, I'm really not trying to be self-pitying or come down on other writers, so many of whom, even when writing about Spielberg or computer-animated films, do wonderful work. I was just trying to explain some of my own personal frustrations eminating from my own likes and dislikes.
Thanks again, Kimberly. See you soon.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 09.05.07 - 11:28 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We can be "curmudgeonly old farts" together Johnathan!
I totally understand your reservations about the Spielberg worshiping that goes on. I don't understand it at all. I think he made some fun entertaining films (Jaws, Close Encounters and the first Indiana Jones) and one great movie that I happen to love but no one else does and that's Empire of the Sun.
Like you I also can't stand most computer animation and CGI used in films also drives me nuts most of the time. There are few and very rare exceptions, but for the most part I think computer generated imagery has a long way to go before I can enjoy it.
I honestly have no interest in 75 or 85% of the films coming out of Hollywood. The movies bore me, the actors are dull and all-in-all I just would rather spend my time watching something good even if it was made 30 years ago.
If that makes me an old fart and nostalgic, so be it. Then again, I did pay to see Hostel 2 so I suppose that says something else about me entirely. ;D
Cinebeats | | Email | Homepage | 09.06.07 - 3:28 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Computer animation.
Speaking as a whippersnapper...
It's important to remember that CGI is a method of delivery and not a genre with built-in expectations. Granted, CGI has largely been used to deliver films that are by and large pretty worthless (I'm blanching at the very real possibility of Shrek freaking 3 getting an Oscar nomination because AMPAS doesn't know what the hell to do with the Best Animated Feature category), but I believe that does more to condemn the studios behind them than the style itself.
I'm a big comics nerd, so I kind of equate it to "comics" getting equated with "superhero books"; it may seem like an academic distinction to some, but it's a vitally important one to people actually practicing in the field. Just as there's a lot of truly fantastic comics work being done that has nothing to do with capes and tights, so too are there computer animated movies doing what the best animation always does: showing us sights that we literally cannot see anywhere else. It's just that Dreamworks SKG isn't the one doing that work.
Not that I don't understand your gut reaction. I had a bad experience with a Wim Wenders film nearly 10 years ago, and you'd have to strap me to a chair Clockwork Orange-style to get me to watch another one of his movies. It's silly and irrational and yadda yadda, but my gut still clenches at any mention of his name.
And CGI special effects in movies bother me a lot; they're the quickest possible way to break immersion that I can think of. But I lay the blame there at the feet of directors and FX types who don't yet fully understand the nuances of the technology.
Ken Lowery | | Email | Homepage | 09.06.07 - 7:36 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who let the whippersnapper in here? Ken - WIM WENDERS! Sorry, just wanted to see you flinch. I know CGI can produce good stuff I just don't connect with it. I heard Finding Nemo was great. I saw it. I thought it was good. It made no personal connection with me. I don't care if I ever see it again. Ditto Shrek, The Incredibles and any other "great" CGI movie that comes out. I'm sure when I finally see Ratatouille I will understand its good reviews as well. I'm also pretty sure I won't care about it at all. I don't personally relate to ogres, fish, superheroes or rats with designs on becoming great chefs. If my occupation were as a film critic I feel confident I could (as objectively as possible for me) review them for what they are. But fortunately that is not my occupation so even if I find them well-made I have the luxury as a blogger to also say "but I don't give a flying crap."
Now as for CGI effects in movies let me just say, and this is going to be subtle so I hope my message doesn't get lost between the lines, I HATE THEM! After so many years of them being used they STILL don't look real to me or natural at all. CGI animators have organisms performing unnatural movements that no one seems to notice. To use two comic book examples, both Spiderman and Hulk when swinging or jumping go up way too fast and instead of reaching a natural apogee where motion momentarily stops, and a graceful descent occurs, they instead immediately come bolting back down. The human brain knows from observing everyday occurances like a ball being thrown up into the air that this is not natural yet the intellectual wizards in charge keep producing the effects the same way. To quote Marvel comics, "Aaaarrrrrgggghhhhh!"
But to regurgitate my main point that you first addressed, I know CGI can be good, I just don't like it. That may change, but as I get older (I just recently turned the big 4-0) I don't see myself gravitating towards movies like this, I see myself moving further away.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 09.06.07 - 10:03 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What needs to be remembered about the early 70s is that while there were some small, relatively personal films that were hits, there were also many that failed to find an audience. Universal tried to jump on the bandwagon with a group of films directed by, among others, Milos Forman and John Cassavetes. Over at Columbia Pictures, the guys who produced Easy Rider had a few films that bombed, particularly Henry Jaglom's A Safe Place. On the positive side, there was still a willingness to gamble, something that Hollywood does little of now, now that the financial stakes have become so large.
Peter Nellhaus | | Email | Homepage | 09.07.07 - 2:19 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the positive side, there was still a willingness to gamble, something that Hollywood does little of now, now that the financial stakes have become so large.
Isn't that the truth! It is precisely the studios putting up money for smaller movies that separates the early to mid seventies. But as you note, it didn't always work out. Roger Ebert wrote recently about John Cassavetes in his August 23rd
Answer Man Column, "The improvised look of his films is the heart and soul of the spontaneous effect, and allowed him to make exactly the films he wanted to. It’s doubtful the general public would have embraced him even if he’d shot in 3-D IMAX."
Alas, some filmmakers like Cassavetes just couldn't reach a larger audience regardless. Take the extended scene just after the opening in Faces with three drunk people randomly spouting dialogue/nonsense for twenty minutes and try and imagine that winning over a mass audience ever. Cassavetes was so far beyond avant-garde that Robert Altman's films looked downright unimaginative in comparison. The fact that Cassavetes was given any chance at all does indeed say something incredible (if not wonderful) about how differently the studios were run for that brief period.
Peter, thanks for the thoughts and observations. Your extensive knowledge of non-commercial and alternative cinema is always welcome.
P.S. If your site were called "Alcohol, Alcohol, and more Alcohol" you could go crazy with screen grabs from Cassavetes films.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 09.07.07 - 4:08 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't personally relate to ogres, fish, superheroes or rats with designs on becoming great chefs.
Well, this raises some other interesting questions. I look at that summary and say "well, no, Ratatoiulle is about the intersection of art and criticism among other things, The Incredibles is about so-and-so and Finding Nemo is about such-and-such and... well, Shrek pretty much just thinks irreverence + pop culture jokes equals a plot." I appreciate that they're plumbing at deep threads of story, and do so while showing us amazing sights. (You might have done better to see Pixar's work in the theater. Entering Syndrome's island fortress on the monorail -- wow.)
Do you find you have this problem with genre films in general? That is, something that is less-than-literal in presenting its subject matter? I like to think I'm pretty open-minded when it comes to that sort of thing, but you couldn't pay me to see anything with an elf in it... so I have my blind spots.
Ken Lowery | | Email | Homepage | 09.09.07 - 12:07 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hold on a second. You come into my house and tell me you don't like elves - just who in the hell do you think you are? MY BROTHER IS AN ELF! Okay, he's not. And I've personally never known one. But I'd sure like to.
Anyway, thanks for picking out my comment about ogres, fish, superheroes and rats. I figured after I wrote it it might get me into trouble. Obviously I don't relate to cafe owners under Vichy government control helping rebels escape Nazis but I think Casablanca is wonderful. And so it really doesn't matter who the main characters are in relation to the kind of story being told and what it says to you. And I did not make it clear enough (as I should have) that I found those CGI movies I mentioned to be very good (and did see two in the theatre but I'm not saying which two - okay Shrek and Finding Nemo). I just don't respond well to bright sunshiney colors and rainbows and lollipops in my movies and these movies present me with stories and ideas that I simply relate to better when they involve real people in (what feels to be) real situations. So something like You Can Count on Me or Tender Mercies have a much greater impact on me. Little to no pretense, simple filming methods, nothing to detract from simply taking in the characters and feeling what they feel, and all without endless pop culture references and jokes.
I have no problem with genre films. I love science fiction (especially the fifties and sixties), horror (especially thirties and sixties, particularly Roger Corman)and old time Hollywood musical from the thirties through the fifties. And there's nothing less literal and non-naturalistic than people spontaneously breaking into song. But I don't like CGI. I just don't. Sorry.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 09.09.07 - 1:51 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's cool. Don't worry -- I wasn't getting on your ass about it or anything, I was just trying to map out where the disconnect might be.
Musicals, though. Oy! Pass.
That's right, now I'm just being provocative.
Ken Lowery | | Email | Homepage | 09.09.07 - 7:10 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Musicals, though. Oy! Pass.
That's it! I'm hopping the next flight to Dallas. (Insert winking emoticon here - that oughta do it).
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 09.09.07 - 8:10 pm | #
