180 replies to this topic

[Christian U]

Yeah, I think American movies are doing fine. What I'd like to see would be more of a mixture of mainstream entertainment and, well, more unconventional stories that take more risks. You know, sort of a what-if-Fight Club-had-been-a-hit scenario.

[Sarah Horrocks]

Modern american cinema is nowhere near as cohesive or awe-inspiring as it has been in the past. But there are certainly brilliant american directors making brilliant american films.

But yeah, it's not the 70s anymore.

For the most part cinema is no longer a regional thing like it used to be. We don't really have things like the French New Wave anymore. Everyone is kind of talking to each other, and part of the whole world cinema now.

[Johnny Henning]

For me, the interesting thing about film and art is that the 70's era of film as we know it today is not really the 70's cinema of the time. The 80's weren't the 80's and the 90's weren't the 90's either. (Herbie) The Love Bug came out the same year as 2001: A Space Odyssey. Hell, the sequel Herbie Rides Again came out the same year as Chinatown.

What's considered classic or quality today is also informed by the tastes of today - often a nostalgic appeal as well - and the movies from that time are now of this time. Every movie is a new movie if you haven't seen it before, and the appeal of Chinatown and The Godfather is not going to be the same for everyone or for every time.

For me, my fondest period of Cinema was the 90's Indy era of Pulp Fiction and Boogie Nights. For a friend who made movies in the 80's, that was his favorite era. However, I notice that people who see Pulp Fiction for the first time today do not have the same reaction as when I saw it the year it was released. Positive or negative, they are seeing a very different film because nothing exists in a cultural vacuum or remains in an artistic stasis.

It reminds me of a documentary I once watched about the Renaissance. It brought up the universality of the statue of David as a symbol of the power of youth, but at the time Michelangelo sculpted it, it was a commission and intended to represent the city of Florence, the "David" of Italy, as it surpassed the Goliaths of the older more notable Roman cities like Rome and Venice.

[garjones]

It's true anywhere that we look back and select the classics. Some films are not always big hits when they came out but stand the test of time (The Shawshank Redemption is a classic example, I was working in a cinema at the time and it showed to empty houses for the week it ran).

Retrospectives can give the impression there was a parade of classics every week. There were some fantastic films from that era though, in with the rubbish.

[Robert B]

I watched Tim and Eric's Billion Dollar Movie last night.

I'd say American cinema is doing just fine.

[Sarah Horrocks]

It's true anywhere that we look back and select the classics. Some films are not always big hits when they came out but stand the test of time (The Shawshank Redemption is a classic example, I was working in a cinema at the time and it showed to empty houses for the week it ran).

Retrospectives can give the impression there was a parade of classics every week. There were some fantastic films from that era though, in with the rubbish.

I dunno, I love the 70s not because of the "classics". I love them because the films were a lot more liberated creatively, and aesthetically more interesting. Back when they filmed film on FILM. The colors of those films I really love. I don't like the modern color palette in most films.

They don't really make films like The King of Marvin Gardens or Little Murders or California Split anymore. It's just a different aesthetic.

I mean something like Alien still looks better than Prometheus. The blacks are deeper. The set design is more distinct. Going back even farther into the late 60s and something like 2001--they don't make sci-fi films like that anymore.

[garjones]

I mean something like Alien still looks better than Prometheus. The blacks are deeper. The set design is more distinct. Going back even farther into the late 60s and something like 2001--they don't make sci-fi films like that anymore.

Not many people could make film like Kubrick at any time.

You're right though it was a liberated and creative period. That it wasn't a financially succesful period for cinema is probably the reason that wasn't continued as vigorously.

[Johnny Henning]

Jaws put an end to that, actually. When the "Blockbuster" drove cinema up into the 80's. But then the 90's indy films were a response to that. Even today, though, I would put a film like THERE WILL BE BLOOD alongside any movie from the 70's including Kubrick's.

Also, it is important to consider that many people who love 70's movies today first saw them on television on VHS or DVD, not on the big screen, when there was already a defined "70's style" that was just filmmaking at the time.

[Jim Ohara]

I think folks are k,inda dismissing the huge indie film movement these days. It's so much easier to make a film than it used to be, and as result the cutting edge stuff is alive and rampant. Sure they no longer get mainstream box office, but the nature of the cinema experience has really changed in the last 40 years too. Cinemas were dirty sticky creepy hell holes when I was a kid. Today the megaplex is like Disney for your eyes.

[Chris D]

Jaws put an end to that, actually. When the "Blockbuster" drove cinema up into the 80's. But then the 90's indy films were a response to that. Even today, though, I would put a film like THERE WILL BE BLOOD alongside any movie from the 70's including Kubrick's.

Yeah, I thought that was brilliant film making. I think there are plenty of directors with very distinct aesthetics these days, (though I honestly don't know who is a American anymore). People like PTA, Wes Anderson, Sofia Coppola, Darren Arronofsky, The Coen Bros, hell even Zack Snyder...I don't even necessarily like all those directors, but I do think they have distinct visual styles that are pretty cool. And there are plenty of others I know aren't American whose visual style I dig.

[Robert B]

I dunno, I love the 70s not because of the "classics". I love them because the films were a lot more liberated creatively, and aesthetically more interesting. Back when they filmed film on FILM. The colors of those films I really love. I don't like the modern color palette in most films.

They don't really make films like The King of Marvin Gardens or Little Murders or California Split anymore. It's just a different aesthetic.

I mean something like Alien still looks better than Prometheus. The blacks are deeper. The set design is more distinct. Going back even farther into the late 60s and something like 2001--they don't make sci-fi films like that anymore.

I agree with all that. I often say that music is as good now as it ever was and movies are as good now as they've ever been, but the recording technology for both was better in the late 1960s and 1970s. Of course it's cheaper now and digital clearly has its own set of advantages.

I don't think the 70s were "better", although I do love 70s cinema. I love the general attitude and subversiveness, which I think the Reagan era and that overall change in national attitude/identity basically crushed.

[steveuk]

I think folks are k,inda dismissing the huge indie film movement these days. It's so much easier to make a film than it used to be, and as result the cutting edge stuff is alive and rampant. Sure they no longer get mainstream box office, but the nature of the cinema experience has really changed in the last 40 years too. Cinemas were dirty sticky creepy hell holes when I was a kid. Today the megaplex is like Disney for your eyes.

It can be, but as has been said in previous threads, some of the multiplex chains aren't looking after their theatres very well.

They're charging more but giving us less.

Again.

[Sarah Horrocks]

Jaws put an end to that, actually. When the "Blockbuster" drove cinema up into the 80's. But then the 90's indy films were a response to that. Even today, though, I would put a film like THERE WILL BE BLOOD alongside any movie from the 70's including Kubrick's.

There Will Be Blood is far and away the best American film of the last 20 years. Far and away. Great films get made in every era. I'm just saying that all things being equal, the film stock, the range of actors/body types, and the audio style was as an aesthetic more appealing than what is done today. You can't get a film like Warren Oates's The Cockfighter in this era. Or 92 in the Shade. Little Murders. You don't see a film like Little Murders being made today. Five Easy Pieces literally can't be made.

The 70s culturally was a really bad time in this country, and the traumas of the bad economy, the vietnam war, the deaths of king and the kennedys from the 60s, Nixon--there was a nihilism of crushed dreams and hopes in America during the 70s, combined with the excesses of coke and disco--which made a really weird time culturally. Obviously the 10s has it's own things happening--but I feel like American cinema has less of an identity in the 00-10s. All of the top filmmakers are really having dialouges with world cinema right now and are for the most part making films that are not uniquely American. With a few notable exceptions(There Will Be Blood is the biggest one--but pretty much all of PT Anderson's work, Wes Anderson, Tarantino--even though they absorb world cinema influence--are making distinctly AMERICAN films).

Also, it is important to consider that many people who love 70's movies today first saw them on television on VHS or DVD, not on the big screen, when there was already a defined "70's style" that was just filmmaking at the time.

Do you not concede that there are ebbs and flows within a culture in terms of creativity in different mediums? Like I would say the french new wave was a film movement with better films than the french films being made now. The weimar era german filmmakers were better than the filmmakers who came immedietely after(but before Fassbinder,Herzog, Wenders, Schoelondorf, etc)


It's like hiphop in the 90s was a golden age for hiphop. Comics have their golden, silver, and bronze age. Similarly American cinema has it's movements, it's peaks and nadirs. I think we are in one of the nadirs.

I don't think the 70s were "better", although I do love 70s cinema. I love the general attitude and subversiveness, which I think the Reagan era and that overall change in national attitude/identity basically crushed.

Yeah I'm not saying it's "better". I am saying the qualities that it represents, are an aesthetic that I like a lot more. It's like how 70s punk is different from 80s punk.

The implication that just because you love the 70s era American films, that you'll eventually love the 10s era American films, is a wrong one, because there are real aesthetic differences due to the different types of technology being used. It's like saying that someone who enjoys Schiele paintings, also should enjoy this coloring book.

I think folks are k,inda dismissing the huge indie film movement these days. It's so much easier to make a film than it used to be, and as result the cutting edge stuff is alive and rampant. Sure they no longer get mainstream box office, but the nature of the cinema experience has really changed in the last 40 years too. Cinemas were dirty sticky creepy hell holes when I was a kid. Today the megaplex is like Disney for your eyes.

Indie cinema in the 70s was like John Cassevettes and John Waters. Who in today's Indie movement is measuring up to that standard?

[Jim Ohara]

Indie cinema in the 70s was like John Cassevettes and John Waters. Who in today's Indie movement is measuring up to that standard?

Zack Snyder and Michael Bay.

[Johnny Henning]

Do you not concede that there are ebbs and flows within a culture in terms of creativity in different mediums? Like I would say the french new wave was a film movement with better films than the french films being made now. The weimar era german filmmakers were better than the filmmakers who came immedietely after(but before Fassbinder,Herzog, Wenders, Schoelondorf, etc)


It's like hiphop in the 90s was a golden age for hiphop. Comics have their golden, silver, and bronze age. Similarly American cinema has it's movements, it's peaks and nadirs. I think we are in one of the nadirs.

I can't really say there is more or less creativity. The first movie I recall seeing in a movie theater was Jaws in '75. I was carried on the blockbuster wave Speilberg and Lucas and later Zemeckis and Donner, McTiernan, Stone and all those guys generated. For me, I became a cinephile on 70's movies, including Eastwood and Bronson films - but the 70's in my memory is not the "70's" as it's considered today in film classes or by cinephiles.

In the 80's, the 70's films were dated and boring in comparison to the action movies and big budget blockbusters that really got me into film, but they were being made by guys who grew up on 50's and 60's film and television - and the strict professional production methods from the later studio period of filmmaking.

Then, in the 90's, you got a group of indie filmmakers who reintroduced what they loved about 70's films - good and bad - back into their own movies plus a lot of other influences from novels to comics. Today's filmmakers are bringing back various elements of the 80's into their pictures plus special effects - which has been developing since the late 70's -- has really changed the game for many movies.

It's not really going to be until the next decade or even later that we can really compare today's cinema to any other period as far as creativity's concerned.

I just saw THE GREY, and I can't say that it is less creative than any of the best movies from any other period from TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE to NAKED PREY to MAN IN THE WILDERNESS.

[John Brook]

Zack Snyder and Michael Bay.

I love you man, but you deserve to get punch in the balls for this comment

[Robert B]

I can't really say there is more or less creativity. The first movie I recall seeing in a movie theater was Jaws in '75. I was carried on the blockbuster wave Speilberg and Lucas and later Zemeckis and Donner, McTiernan, Stone and all those guys generated. For me, I became a cinephile on 70's movies, including Eastwood and Bronson films - but the 70's in my memory is not the "70's" as it's considered today in film classes or by cinephiles.

In the 80's, the 70's films were dated and boring in comparison to the action movies and big budget blockbusters that really got me into film, but they were being made by guys who grew up on 50's and 60's film and television - and the strict professional production methods from the later studio period of filmmaking.

Then, in the 90's, you got a group of indie filmmakers who reintroduced what they loved about 70's films - good and bad - back into their own movies plus a lot of other influences from novels to comics. Today's filmmakers are bringing back various elements of the 80's into their pictures plus special effects - which has been developing since the late 70's -- has really changed the game for many movies.

It's not really going to be until the next decade or even later that we can really compare today's cinema to any other period as far as creativity's concerned.

I just saw THE GREY, and I can't say that it is less creative than any of the best movies from any other period from TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE to NAKED PREY to MAN IN THE WILDERNESS.

Yeah I don't think the "amount" of creativity fluctuates all that much. Although in the 1970s the more creative or artistic movies enjoyed more popular success than they do now, just because Hollywood hadn't nailed down that blockbuster, marketing, opening-weekend formula yet.

The other night I watched Dog Day Afternoon which I hadn't seen in about a decade. It's a terrific movie, but more "standard" than I remembered, and I see new films that are just as well-made or "creative" every couple of months. If the exact same movie was shot on digital and came out today, people wouldn't hold it up as a sign that we're in a golden age. It'd make some critics top ten lists. What's elevated the film in our minds is the beautiful film stock, the shots of New York City in the 1970s, and seeing Pacino and Cazale in their primes (with nostalgia being boosted by the fact that Pacino has been mostly terrible for 20 years now and Cazale is long dead). Of course there's also the fact that we rarely get this kind of complex anti-hero anymore.

But with a movie like Dog Day Afternoon and looking back wistfully on movies of the 1970s, I think what we are really lamenting is not "they don't make them like this anymore" but "movies like this aren't popular anymore." Dozens of great films come out every year, but Dog Day Afternoon was the fourth-highest grossing movie of 1975!

[garjones]

Although in the 1970s the more creative or artistic movies enjoyed more popular success than they do now, just because Hollywood hadn't nailed down that blockbuster, marketing, opening-weekend formula yet.

I think that's it, there was that period between maybe 1969 and 1975 where censorship had been removed and the blockbuster hadn't arrived. The moral majority weren't telling them what they could do and neither were the money men.

[Sarah Horrocks]

I can't really say there is more or less creativity. The first movie I recall seeing in a movie theater was Jaws in '75. I was carried on the blockbuster wave Speilberg and Lucas and later Zemeckis and Donner, McTiernan, Stone and all those guys generated. For me, I became a cinephile on 70's movies, including Eastwood and Bronson films - but the 70's in my memory is not the "70's" as it's considered today in film classes or by cinephiles.

In the 80's, the 70's films were dated and boring in comparison to the action movies and big budget blockbusters that really got me into film, but they were being made by guys who grew up on 50's and 60's film and television - and the strict professional production methods from the later studio period of filmmaking.

Then, in the 90's, you got a group of indie filmmakers who reintroduced what they loved about 70's films - good and bad - back into their own movies plus a lot of other influences from novels to comics. Today's filmmakers are bringing back various elements of the 80's into their pictures plus special effects - which has been developing since the late 70's -- has really changed the game for many movies.

It's not really going to be until the next decade or even later that we can really compare today's cinema to any other period as far as creativity's concerned.

I just saw THE GREY, and I can't say that it is less creative than any of the best movies from any other period from TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE to NAKED PREY to MAN IN THE WILDERNESS.

I don't know. I'm a cinephile right now. I think I can say pretty conclusively that I like the aesthetic of the 70s American film more than any other era of American filmmaking. The 20s and 40s are probably the next two for me.

If I were to rank the eras for me personally it goes:
70s
20s
40s
80s
60s
90s
50s
2000s
2010s

That's just american cinema.

I'd say in the 00s, 10s, and 90s--my favorite cinema in that era is coming from outside of America. Guys like Wong Kar Wai, Lars Von Trier, Hanneke, Almodovar, Miike etc. etc.

The only film in the last 12 years of American filmmaking that I'll put up against any film in any other era in American filmmaking is There Will be Blood. And possibly Boogie Nights. Maybe maybe Inglorious Bastards as well. But definitely There Will Be Blood. Haven't seen Moonrise Kingdom yet though. I love Wes Anderson films, if this is the one where he finally puts it all together and makes a masterwork, it wouldn't surprise me.

[Chris D]

The only film in the last 12 years of American filmmaking that I'll put up against any film in any other era in American filmmaking is There Will be Blood. And possibly Boogie Nights.

Boogie Nights was at least 15 years ago, so I guess that doesn't count either.