Must-See Hollywood Films from the 70s

[SteelBlue]

Breaking Away

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

Breaking Away

Good call. A must see.

Patton.

[Archaea]

This one:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075244/

The Song Remains the Same.

The first time I smelt pot in a movie theatre was during showing of this film.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I smelt pot in a movie theatre

It must have been hot.

[Archaea]

Notice the reviewer comments.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075244/usercomments

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Archaea

This one:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075244/

The Song Remains the Same.

The first time I smelt pot in a movie theatre was during showing of this film.

I remember watching that movie at that old theater on Center St. in Provo. Don't remember smelling any pot, however.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by FMCoug

Why do you think all they make anymore are remakes of films from back then. Or TV shows.

There are lots of secondary reasons, but it all comes back to $$$$:

Studios don't want to let filmmakers take chances like they did back then.

Today's audiences have come to expect entertainment and are resistant to films that try to pull at the intellect. Today's films are aimed at profitable market segments, and particularly at teenage males, as they spend more $ on movies than do other segments. It doesn't mean that someone who likes the kind of films Hollywood is mostly putting out these days is stupid or immature--it means that such a person has come to want the entertainment and escapism that such films provide. They like being engaged as though they are 16 year olds (at least for a few hours).

A factor that reinforces the film as entertainment logic is the ability to make endless marketing tie ins and cross promotions. Video Games, Toys, happy meals, clothes, calenders--you name it. Their isn't a big demand for Apocalypse Now action figures. Today's films are often very amenable to sequels too, which usually means more $$$$ for everyone without having to come up with alot of new ideas.

Another reinforcing factor is that audiences who want entertainment and escape and action films don't demand the level of acting or writing that those gritty 70s films offered (instead, they tend to demand high quality SFX). Oh sure, some of today's artists are competent enough, but many roles want someone physically attractive first, and someone who can act, second. And American audiences don't like to be talked down to--we're a nation that had "Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone" instead of "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone."

Hollywood likes making romantic comedies (chick flicks) because while they aren't blockbusters, they aren't expensive to make either. They're a safe investment.

Star Wars is thought of as a watershed moment in big budget, "popcorn" movies that are heavy in action and SFX. This kind of film has a broader audience than do the brooding, concept heavy films of the 70s.

There are exceptions to all of this--but they are just that--exceptions. I have some hope that we might get more of those more artistic films back in theaters as war and social unease have a way of helping people be more thoughtful (the vietnam angst seems to have played a major role in people wanting less of the saccharine 50s films--Hitchcock being an exception). The money factor is huge though, and studios won't take chances easily. It's probably long past time to break up all the vertical integration that's been going on in the film industry. The last time we did that was in the late 1940s.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by FMCoug

Why do you think all they make anymore are remakes of films from back then. Or TV shows.

Having lived through the 60s and 70s with my memory intact I can tell you that most adults then said all these movies were crap compared to the stuff they enjoyed growing up.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

I remember watching that movie at that old theater on Center St. in Provo. Don't remember smelling any pot, however.

You weren't at the old multiplex in Reno then.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by creekster

Having lived through the 60s and 70s with my memory intact I can tell you that most adults then said all these movies were crap compared to the stuff they enjoyed growing up.

There is often a tendency to like the films from one's youth--I like 80s films--but if what one wants out of film is challenging acting, sophisticated dialogue, innovative camerawork, and the like, the films from the 50s and early 60s don't measure up to that of the late 60s and 70s. If someone wants other things, of course, those films from the 50s may be perfectly acceptable. It's largely a matter of expectations, criteria, and the warm memories of youth.

I do like some 50s films, but alot of them are more formulaic than the previous generation's films (especially the westerns and war films), are excessively romantic, and indulged a tendency to build scenes around what could be done with color. We've got color! There's alot of big 50s films too-- with huge sets and elaborate costumes, but the writing is subpar compared to that, of say, the 1930s.