The "Golden Age" of Cinema - Why I think Hollywood Sucks Nowadays

[Relic]

(warning - long and rambling post incoming)

Been meaning to start a thread like this for awhile due to my general dissatisfaction with modern movies and my love of the classics of the 60's 70's, and early 80's. I am not a film critic, a film student, nor do i claim to have any great knowledge of the art of movie making.

Let me preface by saying that I, in no way, think all movies made in the late 60's, the 70's, or the early 80's were great films. There was a SHIT ton of crap, on that i think we can all agree.

I grew up in the 80's, a child of two divorced polish immigrants, in Brooklyn NYC. My mother remarried when i was 6 years old and my step father opened up a video store soon afterwards. For a long period in my childhood i was very sheltered from american culture, my television time was limited to half hour of cartoons in the morning, a couple of hours of cartoons on saturdays, and an hour and a half of prime time tv a week. I was only allowed to watch two non cartoon programs, MacGuyver and The Wonder Years. I did, however, have access to a gigantic library of film, and we had a movie night twice a week, on Friday and Sunday night. The first movie i absolutely fell in love with was Back to the Future. I think i was 8 years old by the time i saw it on VHS and it blew me away. Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark came next. And then came Star Wars. All three movies had already been out for a goodly amount of time before my parents deemed me old enough to watch them (they viewed science fiction movies as garbage), but my little sister and i would binge on Star Wars every other weekend when my father picked up up for two days.

When i was around 14, in the mid 90's i found myself free of parental control to some extent as my mother's attention shifted to my brain injured brother whom she had just given birth to. I would sneak into my stepfather's video store and pick out movies my parents would never allow me to watch. I started with typical tripe like Arnold and Stallone action flicks before I stumbled upon the Godfather. I watched the living shit out of it. At one point i watched the Godfather 2 six times in one week. I couldn't get enough of that film. Everything about it seemed perfect to me. The characters were all so incredibly real in my mind, brought to life by F.F.C.'s incredibly gifted cinematic style. The rich visuals, the way the camera moved, or didn't move, the score, those elements all brought the story to life and filled my imagination with possibilities for the characters beyond the movie screen..

I quickly started devouring early Scorsese movies, like Mean Streets, Raging Bull, and Taxi Driver. I also developed a boy crush on Al Pacino and watched every single one of his movies. Serpico, Dog Day Afternoon, Scarecrow, Scarface, and Justice for All became instant favorites.

The first Scorsese movie i remember not enjoying was Cape Fear. I think he had one other movie afterwards that i could honestly say i thought was above average, in Casino (mostly due to the acting of DeNiro and Pesci), but i started noticing a change in his approach to movie making. The camera didn't seem to move the same way anymore, and the scripts, in my mind, became worse and worse. I HATED Gangs of New York and i have not enjoyed a single thing about him as a director since. People i know loved The Departed but i watched it and thought it was a steaming turd pile. I compared it to a movie like Taxi Driver or Goodfellas and i just could not find the appeal beyond the "clever"(gimicky) plot. The acting seemed off, the direction was subtlety different, the cinematography completely changed. Gone was the slow boil, the long lingering shots, the way the camera seemed to make love to the scenery and the characters. I found nothing in the movie believable, it all seemed so very forced. This holds true to a majority of movies i see now. The camera is rarely given time to linger, and the audience expects constant gratification. It's as if the camera now is just a device to move the plot along, rarely does anything happen on screen that isn't directly plot related. One of the greatest scenes I can think of that would never ever happen in 99.9999 percent of movies now is the 4 minute phone ringing scene in Sergio Leone's classic "Once Upon a Time in America". It's an annoying and jarring but oh so important to set up the movie.

The day i realized i had enough of Hollywood came when Gladiator won Bet Picture. I had gone into that movie with high expectations but the predictable plot and the incredibly terrible Russel Crowe just bored me to tears. I remember laughing more than anything else while watching it. The fact that it won B.P. and Best Actor over a movie like Traffic or the acting of Geoffery Rush in Quills or Ed Harris in Pollock made me realize Hollywood was in a place that i could not willingly follow. Which was a bit sad, since films had such an impact on me in my teenage years.

I figure putting together a list of movies from the Era i deem The Golden Age is a logical step in illustrating my tastes. So here goes. I consider the following movies better than anything i have seen in the last decade, aside from an occasional gem (Fight Club, American Beauty, Eternal Sunshine) and some Coen Brothers flicks.

In no particular order -

Taxi Driver

Godfather 1 and 2

Above mentioned Pacino movies

Early Scorsese

The Conversation

Dear Hunter

Apocalypse Now

Klute

Rocky

Papillon

Straw Dogs

Chinatown

American Graffiti

Clockwork Orange

2001

Lawrence of Arabia

Judgement at Nuremberg

Annie Hall

Alien

All The President's Men

The Sting

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest

Butch Cassidey and Sundance Kid

The French Connection

Blade Runner

Empire Strikes Back

Raiders of the Lost Ark

Midnight Cowboy

The Graduate

Easy Rider

Bridge on the River Kwai

Gandhi

Amadeus

Platoon

I would prefer watching any one of these movies to 99% of the films i have seen in the last decade or so.

This post has taken up waaaaay too much of my (and your) time and im not sure if i have even scratched the surface of why i prefer one style of movie making to another. However, i'm very open to discussion and counter points.

So have at it, Rip me apart =)

[Relic]

Reposting Shryke's awesome take on things from the last thread.

You aren't wrong in some ways Relic.

The collapse of the studio system in the 60s or so eventually lead to the rise of New Hollywood in the 70s. This is basically alot of the older films you are probably thinking of (Scorcese, Coppola, Allen, Lucas, Spielberg, etc). These were also known as the film-school brats in some writing on the subject as unlike the preceiding generation these guys has grown up with film and had often gone to film school to learn about it and so there's a different approach to the whole thing. This also came with a general rise in the the idea of the "auteur" in many things.

Anyway, the overall point is with the studio system collapsed, the film industry was slightly confused as to what to do as a business model. And for a while in the 70s this lead to them thinking the big answer was the auteur director. Give a director money, let him do his thing and the cash will roll in. And it did kinda work.

And then the auteur directors killed that themselves. They released some expensive flops and also stuff like Star Wars and Jaws and basically showed the movie industry the new way: blockbusters. Spend a bit more, keep them under control and they can make a HUGE hit and rake in money hand over fist. This also helped them fight against the rise of home media by convincing people to come see it in all it's spectacular glory.

Things keep changing after this but the blockbuster model is still basically the dominant one today. Mostly the change has killed the middle market. As movie's have become more expensive and ticket sales have gone down, the riskier middle pictures (high but not blockbuster budget and lots of creative freedom for the director) have disappeared. So we've gotten a two-tiered model. At the bottom you've got the "indie" flick. Low budget, high freedom. This is where studios experiment and win awards and keep their artists happy. Then you've got the top end with blockbusters where the budget is super high and so consequently the risk is super. And so freedom is often severely restricted as the studio demands that you appeal to as broad an audience as possible in order to insure the gamble pays off. The only way out of this is to be a big enough name (see: Nolan) that studios trust you and just let you do what you want.

So yes, the phenomenon you are talking about is somewhat real. Your assessment of it is still clouded by nostalgia I'd say and ignoring that there's still alot of creative freedom in the movie industry, but the 70s was definitely a time when the auteur director was king and he got a budget and a camera and was basically let loose to do his thing.

And, of course, cinema has always been packed to the gills with remakes and sequels and such. Moreso since the rise of the blockbuster I believe, but not as much as you think. Frankly, the 80s were worse for it in my opinion.

[Relic]

This article pretty much backs up the points Skryke made above. I can;t say i agree with a lot of what the writer is saying but it provides a good counter point to my moaning and whining -

http://filmschoolrejects.com/opinions/current-cinema-good-romanticized-1970s-golden-age.php

Of course, New Hollywood was driven by directors, not actors, but today, we have enough brilliant, thought-provoking working directors to rival that era’s Hall of Fame roster. The difference is in their process. What made the 1970s exciting was that studio chiefs were so desperate to attract young audiences that they gave enormous budgets and creative freedom to these young directors. Today, the studio system is far more repressive, which has forced filmmakers to seek other means. Some still work within the traditional studio system (David Fincher, David O. Russell), while others generate their own material but use major distributors (Paul Thomas Anderson, Sofia Coppola, Wes Anderson, Quentin Tarantino). A few have rejected the studio system almost completely (Mark Duplass, Richard Linklater), while, of course, several of those New Hollywood legends are still producing quality, original content of their own (Martin Scorsese, Steven Spielberg, Terrence Malick).

[red snow]

I think it's worth pointing out that we are probably in the Golden age of TV and it's largely thanks to the current model in cinemas. TV has always had an emphasis on writing but the directors are starting to have a bigger impact as well. This isn't to say there weren't good shows (BBC has been doing it for decades) in the past but in the era you mention it was far more likely a creator would make a film rather than a TV show. Thanks to channels like HBO there is money to be made from "indie" TV rather than film and it has spread across cable and even regular TV. There's also the fact that cable prefers "adult" material over the cinema obsession with "all ages".

I do worry that as SFX become cheaper that TV will degenerate into the same vehicle as cinema. I'm enjoying superheroes on TV but the shared universe concept is very dangerous and TV could also turn into "spectacle". Then again it's probably a better fate than reality TV which looked as though it was going to take over TV as a whole. I think TV is safer in that there's more "room" for different programs to survive and it's usually cheaper because it has a larger audience to tap into on a regular basis.

[lessthanluke]

Stopped reading when you called Arnold tripe.

[Winterfell is Burning]

Since the MU thread was closed right after my last post, I'll repeat what I said there (even though you might have adressed a point or another anyway):

Most films in American cinema were MADE before you were born (I'm assuming you weren't born in the 40s or something like that). By simple logic, the chances of more great movies being made before you were born than after is bigger. But you're deliberately ignoring that the opposite is also true: most garbage in American film was made before you were born as well.

You're also choosing to compare the best movies made in some era to the blockbusters of today and using it as an example as things are better; you're comparing, say, A Clockwork Orange and Chinatown to Avengers and The Hunger Games, when the comparison should be made with the disaster movies of the 70's, for example, which made A LOT more money than any Kubrick or Polanski movie. If I compare, say, There Will Be Blood and No Country For Old Men with Airport, surely the 00's will seem a lot better than the 70's.

EDIT: This is a list of the highest grossing movies of every year: http://en.wikipedia....g_films_by_year

An awful lot of those are completely forgotten movies. And in the 70's you like so much, in 1974, the year that saw the release of The Conversation, Chinatown, The Godfather part II and A Woman Under the Influence, The Towering Inferno was the biggest hit

I should add that, as red snow pointed out, we're living in the Golden Age of TV, which means the quantity of quality work being made is probably greater than in any era, although to be fair it is taking away some potential good directors and writers from working on film.

[David Selig]

The vast majority of Hollywood movies has always been pretty bad. The main problem today if you are looking for high quality Hollywood movies is that they produce way less than they used to, so naturally the good movies are a very small number.

The other problem is that Hollywood has been targeting teen boys and young men almost exclusively for quite a while, at least when it comes to blockbusters.

TV's rise is also obviously a factor, especially for screenwriters.

BTW, compared to what European cinema achieved in the 1960s and early 1970s, Hollywood's 1970s aren't all that impressive IMO. If you think The Godfather looks amazing, try Bertolucci's The Conformist, and see the same visual style, only better and in its original form.

[Northernmonkey]

When it comes to Scorcese I agree with you about The Departed (awful film), but completely disagree about Gangs of New York. If you remove all the pointless romance scenes with Cameron Diaz I think it's an absolute classic. Then there's the Wolf of Wall Street which I enjoyed more than any film I've seen in a long time.

The one Scorcese film that I think is completely overrated is Raging Bull. It's got all the trademarks of a classic Scorcese film but the problem is that Lamotta is not only completely unsympathetic but incredibly boring. I still don't why he deserves a biopic to be made about him.

Personally my favourite era in cinema is the 90s - just for the work of Terry Gilliam, The Coen Brothers and Tarantino.

[Weeping Sore]

Seeing Relic go on about American movies of the 60s, 70s, and 80s makes me wonder if I'd trade all of those for American movies of the 30s, 40s, and 50s. Certainly the older Hollywood pictures are less "free", many of them studio-bound, with acting in a style that we don't currently see as naturalistic. Eventually, as you become accustomed to them, though, you are able to pass through what seems like artifice on the surface and experience them directly. Because there were so many movies made in the "classic" period, there are a lot of really great ones. I mean, maybe there's not one movie I'd take over The Godfather, for example. But for that one movie I could give you a line-up of White Heat, High Sierra, The Big Heat, The Prowler, and Detour. So it would be an interesting trade-off.

[Shryke]

Honestly Relic, it mostly sounds like you just prefer a specific style of movie and direction. It's hard to judge from your post (which is a bit low on the details of what your issues are with modern cinema) or your list, but that's my general impression.

And that's fine. You can prefer one style over another. I just don't think it says anything in particular about the movie industry beyond the fact that it's changing, as it always had. Every medium changes over time. Trends come and go, genres rise and fall and technology changes.

Like, you talk about liking when the camera lingers, which is understandable in this context because ASL (average shot length) has gone down since the 70s. But ASL (afaik) has been decreasing steadily almost since the start of cinema. It's a change in style for a varied number of reasons. But of course, there's also lots of people experimenting with longer takes. Freaking Birdman is a film out right now that's digitally edited to be like one entire 2 hour long take.

Which sorta gets to my general point that just because the style is not what you like doesn't mean there aren't a ton of fantastic movies being made. The idea that Hollywood produces way less high quality movies then they used to is utter tripe. It's confusing a difference in style for a difference in quality.

[Relic]

Which sorta gets to my general point that just because the style is not what you like doesn't mean there aren't a ton of fantastic movies being made. The idea that Hollywood produces way less high quality movies then they used to is utter tripe. It's confusing a difference in style for a difference in quality.

Sort of an endless debate since its all completely subjective right? I never claimed my opinion was some sort of godlike insight into the general state of existence on planet earth. The title of this thread reflects my acknowledgement of this fact. I'm hoping a bit of debate will to better illustrate my issues with modern cinema, since i can't really devote an entire day to writing a post about it, and i'm not sure id even be able to articulate that point will enough within the confines of said post.

I agree with everyone who said that TV has largely taken over the things the things i liked best about movies. I find myself far more willing to watch a tv series nowadays than sit through most movies (i have recently walked out on Gone Girl and Fury in the movie theaters but can re-watch an entire season of Mad Men).

I also admit a sad lack of insight into European cinema. I know next to nothing about it. I probably should remedy that at some point.

[Relic]

Stopped reading when you called Arnold tripe.

Well, what is it if not overly violent passive aggression born from a Cold War induced psychosis? Don't get me wrong, some of those flicks are guilty pleasures but movies like Commando, Cobra, Rambo 2, Red Heat, and so on are just....well...garbage.

[Relic]

When it comes to Scorcese I agree with you about The Departed (awful film), but completely disagree about Gangs of New York. If you remove all the pointless romance scenes with Cameron Diaz I think it's an absolute classic. Then there's the Wolf of Wall Street which I enjoyed more than any film I've seen in a long time.

If you edited the movie to cut out all the silly bullshit id be willing to give it another look.

[Shryke]

Sort of an endless debate since its all completely subjective right? I never claimed my opinion was some sort of godlike insight into the general state of existence on planet earth. The title of this thread reflects my acknowledgement of this fact. I'm hoping a bit of debate will to better illustrate my issues with modern cinema, since i can't really devote an entire day to writing a post about it, and i'm not sure id even be able to articulate that point will enough within the confines of said post.

Yeah, sorry, wasn't talking to you directly there. I know you'd understand that point. That paragraph was more to the poster a few above me claiming that Hollywood doesn't make as many good movies anymore.

And it can be quite difficult to articulate what you like or don't like about a movie. Just like it is for any medium. That's why you have critics and people who study shit and why it can be enlightening to read about this stuff. And the more you know the more capable you are of taking the sentiment "It sucked" and actually being able to articulate why you thought it sucked. (I find the internet's constant obsession with "plot holes" to be a symptom of this. People not liking a film and not understanding why and blaming it on the most easily available thing.)

PS - On the subject of film analysis, you might like this: http://www.cinemetrics.lv/database.php

Maybe I can throw together a list of a few good cinema blogs and such later.

I agree with everyone who said that TV has largely taken over the things the things i liked best about movies. I find myself far more willing to watch a tv series nowadays than sit through most movies (i have recently walked out on Gone Girl and Fury in the movie theaters but can re-watch an entire season of Mad Men).

See, this is the interesting thing to me. Cause it sorta shifts what you are talking about completely around from earlier comments. Because TV is known for many things these days, like good writing. But really high quality directing is in short supply on the small screen. True Detective, for instance, stands out so much exactly because of this. And it's notable that it was shot more like a really long film (ie - in one big go).

TV is the medium where 99.9% of the time the director is just hired on to shoot a few an episode and move on. Get it done quick and underbudget.

[Weeping Sore]

If you edited the movie to cut out all the silly bullshit id be willing to give it another look.

Or you could just watch Infernal Affairs (Hong Kong 2002) the lean, superior movie it is a re-make of.

ETA: that is, if you were talking about The Departed rather than The Wolf of Wall Street. Unclear from the context.

[The Human Abstract]

I vastly prefer the Hollywood movies of the past few decades, but am unwilling to make a list of what are in my opinion equally good or better movies. To each his own, however.

[Shryke]

If you edited the movie to cut out all the silly bullshit id be willing to give it another look.

In Wolf of Wall Street? The silly bullshit is the whole point.

I totally agreer about Gangs of New York though. Just an ok movie at best imo.

[David Selig]

I also admit a sad lack of insight into European cinema. I know next to nothing about it. I probably should remedy that at some point.

If you prefer a style with longer shots and more visual storytelling, this is your best bet IMO. Both the classics and more modern works have plenty to offer to you.

[Northernmonkey]

In Wolf of Wall Street? The silly bullshit is the whole point.

I totally agreer about Gangs of New York though. Just an ok movie at best imo.

Nah he's talking about Gangs of New York. Personally I think if you literally fast forward any scene with Cameron Diaz in it's brilliant. I'm not sure why it gets so much stick.

[Fez]

Seeing Relic go on about American movies of the 60s, 70s, and 80s makes me wonder if I'd trade all of those for American movies of the 30s, 40s, and 50s. Certainly the older Hollywood pictures are less "free", many of them studio-bound, with acting in a style that we don't currently see as naturalistic. Eventually, as you become accustomed to them, though, you are able to pass through what seems like artifice on the surface and experience them directly. Because there were so many movies made in the "classic" period, there are a lot of really great ones. I mean, maybe there's not one movie I'd take over The Godfather, for example. But for that one movie I could give you a line-up of White Heat, High Sierra, The Big Heat, The Prowler, and Detour. So it would be an interesting trade-off.

I'd absolutely take the 30s-50s if I was restricted to a single 30-year period, and probably just the 30s if I could only have one decade. You're right that movies from then often seem very staged in a way that took a while to grow out of, but once you get used to that style there's some really great stuff there.

Plus there's the non-silent pre-Code films, which sometimes covered plots that you still rarely see in Hollywood, particularly ones about female empowerment.