Author |
Topic: Hollywood Plays to the Pimply |
chas smith R.I.P.
From: Encino, CA, USA
|
Posted 26 May 2003 8:00 pm
|
|
This is adapted from a speech to the graduating class of USC's film school by Frank Pierson, who wrote "Cat Ballou," "Cool Hand Luke" and "Dog Day Afternoon," among other films and is president of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. It's not about music, per se, but I think it applies:
Hollywood was once a small company town, where everybody knew everybody, and if you dropped your pants at a party or punched a reporter or danced with a prostitute in the parking lot, it wasn't on "Entertainment Tonight" tonight.
It was even hard to get arrested. Every studio had a publicity department that paid the Los Angeles cops to stay away from show-business people. The police didn't arrest movie people. They drove them home.
We all went down to the film factories every day (at Warner Bros. even actors, directors and writers punched a time clock until the mid-1940s). We ate in the studio commissary, where the writers' table was preferred seating because the jokes were better there. If the New York writers were in town, slumming — sneering at the movies and cashing big, fat paychecks — you found yourself sitting next to Dorothy Parker or F. Scott Fitzgerald.
You could wander off to a sound stage and watch John Huston or Willy Wyler shooting a scene with Bogart or Hepburn or Peck. No security. We all knew each other.
It was up close, and personal.
Harry Cohn, the head of Columbia, was a legendary bully who admired Mussolini and had his office designed to resemble Mussolini's — with a long approach into blinding lights and himself behind a desk, raised a foot above the floor, ranks of Oscars his studio had won behind him. He said he made only pictures that he wanted to see, and once the public stopped wanting to see what he liked, he'd quit. Not for him delegating decisions to demographers, pollsters and marketing experts. Nobody knew what a demographer was in those days.
It was up close, and personal.
Then, in the 1960s, when the glove salesmen and carnival touts who built the studios began to grow old and retire, their grip on the business loosened. For a while, independent producers flourished. New companies, new writers and directors burst the bonds of studio-imposed style.
The '60s and the '70s produced movies now looked upon as a golden age: "The Godfather," "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest," "Dr. Strangelove," "Taxi Driver," "Chinatown," "Clockwork Orange," "Annie Hall," "Midnight Cowboy," "MASH," "Bonnie and Clyde" and a couple I like, "Dog Day Afternoon" and "Cool Hand Luke." Even "Easy Rider," which symbolized the anarchistic spirit of that drug-ridden time, was a Columbia release.
Then, on Wall Street, it began to be noticed that a single blockbuster movie could make in a weekend what a substantial business made in a year.
Warner Bros. was bought by Seven Arts, Seven Arts was bought by Kinney Shoes, and the whole mess now is owned by AOL Time Warner (as are HBO, Warner Books, Turner networks and CNN). Viacom owns Paramount, CBS, Showtime cable and Blockbuster. Of the 100-odd prime-time shows that will premiere on the four networks this fall and winter, more than 30 — including CBS newsmagazines — will be made by companies owned by Viacom. An additional 25 or so will be made by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., which owns the Fox network.
We had been having too much fun to notice: The barbarians were inside the gate. The polo games, the writers' table, Jack Warner's lunchtime tennis matches with Errol Flynn, the cops as our friends, all were a thing of the past.
We began to see Harvard Business School MBAs sit in on story conferences. Lawyers multiplied.
As the huge debt created by mergers was added to the rising costs of making little but blockbusters, the risks of making a film forced the businessmen to be risk-averse, to play to the least critical audience: teenage boys with disposable income.
The problem is how to keep this "average" moviegoer, male, 16 to 25, high school education at best, doesn't read books, gets his news from the 11 o'clock news if he bothers at all, never heard of Mussolini and thinks Korea is another part of downtown L.A. This pimply, oversexed slob with the attention span of a chicken, how do we keep him awake and interested while staying awake and interested ourselves?
It's not just Hollywood. What has happened here has happened to us all because the focus of international business has shifted from production to distribution. Whoever controls distribution shapes what is produced — to what will fit under the seat or in the overhead compartment. Today, agribusinesses have researchers trying to produce cube-shaped tomatoes that will be easier to pack in boxes (and that probably will taste like the boxes). Watch the odd, the old, the personal, the traditional, the idiosyncratic, the family-made or the regional disappear from supermarket shelves that are rented by the foot to international companies that then stock them with their own water and sugar products.
As the movie business has changed, liberal critics have raised the alarm over corporate censorship. But the danger of censorship in the United States of America is less from business or the religious right or the self-righteous left than from self-censorship by artists themselves, who simply give up. If we can't see a way to get our story told, what is the point of trying? I wonder how many fine, inspiring ideas are strangled in the womb of the imagination because there's no way past the gates of commerce.
To the studios today, the art of film and TV is a byproduct of their main business, a side effect, and like most side effects, more likely to be a noxious nuisance than a benefit.
But movies are more than a commodity. Movies are to our civilization what dreams and ideals are to individual lives: They express the mystery and help define the nature of who we are and what we are becoming.
We need writers with ideas and passion, who write with force and conviction; directors who have minds enriched by their lives and not a library of stunts and special effects. They must be centered in their feelings and ideas in the culture and society, not in comparing grosses and applauding computer-generated ballets of violence.
We need it like we need clean drinking water and roads, green parks and libraries; it is as important as the breath of democratic life. Somehow we need to keep alive in our hearts the vision of community, shared interests and understanding of our neighbors' needs, the sense of connection this fractionated society is losing.
We need to recapture the spirit of Main Street. Up close. And personal.
[This message was edited by chas smith on 26 May 2003 at 09:05 PM.] |
|
|
![](templates/respond/images/spacer.gif) |
Pat Burns
From: Branchville, N.J. USA
|
Posted 26 May 2003 8:28 pm
|
|
...Chas, once upon a time we were risk-takers, and we didn't litigate the outcome of every endeavor...life was like this where I grew up...
quote: According to today's regulators and bureaucrats, those of us who were kids in the 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's probably shouldn't have survived.
Our baby cribs were covered with bright colored lead-based paint. We had no childproof lids or locks on medicine bottles, doors, or cabinets, and when we rode our bikes, we had no helmets. Not to mention the risks we took hitchhiking.
As children, we would ride in cars with no seat belts or air bags. Riding in the back of a pickup truck on a warm day was always a special treat.
We drank water from the garden hose and not from a bottle. We ate cupcakes, bread and butter, and drank soda pop with sugar in it, but we were never overweight because we were always outside playing. We shared one soft drink with four friends, from one bottle, and no one actually died from this.
We would spend hours building our go-carts out of scraps and then rode down the hill, only to find out we forgot the brakes. After running into the bushes a few times, we learned to solve the problem.
We would leave home in the morning and play all day, as long as we were back when the street lights came on. No one was able to reach us all day. No cell phones.
We did not have Playstations, Nintendo 64, X-Boxes, no video games at all, no 199 channels on cable, video tape movies surround-sound, personal cell phones, personal computers, or Internet chat rooms. We had friends! We went outside and found them. We played dodge ball, and sometimes, the ball would really hurt. We fell out of trees, got cut and broke bones and teeth, and there were no lawsuits from these accidents. They were accidents. No one was to blame but us.
We had fights and punched each other and got black and blue and learned to get over it. We made up games with sticks and tennis balls and, although we were told it would happen, we did not put out any eyes.
We rode bikes or walked to a friend's home and knocked on the door, or rang the bell or just walked in and talked to them.
Little League had tryouts and not everyone made the team. Those who didn't had to learn to deal with disappointment. Some students weren't as smart as others, so they failed a grade and were held back to repeat the same grade. Tests were not adjusted for any reason.
Our actions were our own. Consequences were expected. The idea of parents bailing us out if we got in trouble in school or broke a law was unheard of. They actually sided with the school or the law.
This generation has produced some of the best risk-takers, problem solvers, and inventors, ever. We had freedom, failure, success, and responsibility --- and we learned how to deal with it.
....our art, be it films or music, is a reflection of what we have become...I worry for my young daughters...they think Disney is cool...I can only try to tell them why it isnt'....
[This message was edited by Pat Burns on 26 May 2003 at 09:36 PM.] |
|
|
![](templates/respond/images/spacer.gif) |
chas smith R.I.P.
From: Encino, CA, USA
|
Posted 26 May 2003 9:49 pm
|
|
Pat, I was there.
I read an article last year or so that explained extreme sports, like skiing, you fall, you die, as being a reaction to everything being safe and regulated. It's a bit of a stretch, but it sounds plausable. A lot of things now seem to be more extreme. |
|
|
![](templates/respond/images/spacer.gif) |
Ron Randall
From: Dallas, Texas, USA
|
Posted 27 May 2003 3:24 pm
|
|
chas
Great topic. Yes, the entertainment folks go for the glands. Adrenal glands and others. The pimply will pay money to get those glands going.
Yep...born in 1946.
Ron |
|
|
![](templates/respond/images/spacer.gif) |
Roger Rettig
From: Naples, FL
|
Posted 27 May 2003 3:56 pm
|
|
Chas,
I'm not particularly well-informed about the history of the movie-business, but those words seem to me to be uncannily close to the truth - that reasoning would go a long way towards explaining the awful sterility of the vast majority of today's films.
I can remember first seeing Al Pacino, and thinking, 'He's not Marlon, but he's pretty good!' Now, a Pacino, or a DeNiro, film are just about all that'll tempt me to go to the movies at all!
I know I may be missing some good stuff, but I scan the movie-lists in vain and just stay home. For some reason that I've forgotten, the last picture I was persuaded to pay to see was the lamentably poor 'Pearl Harbor'. What drivel! A bunch of faceless 'celebrities' in a contrived cinematic video-game....
If you guessed I'm around sixty, you were right - I'm waiting for another 'On The Waterfront'.....
------------------
Roger Rettig
[This message was edited by Roger Rettig on 27 May 2003 at 04:58 PM.] |
|
|
![](templates/respond/images/spacer.gif) |
Tom Campbell
From: Houston, Texas, USA
|
Posted 27 May 2003 4:06 pm
|
|
Born in '43...did all those great things in Pat Burns reply...and I am still alive to talk about it! Didn't have a TV until the late 50's...wish I didn't have one now...Hummm, maybe I should just...! |
|
|
![](templates/respond/images/spacer.gif) |
Ken Lang
From: Simi Valley, Ca
|
Posted 27 May 2003 5:29 pm
|
|
Born in '42. Don't watch TV. Last movie we were drug to was Tom Hanks on that island.
Now....the computer and the internet. I'm here ain't I?
It's hard to be too smug when you trade one dang fool thing for another. |
|
|
![](templates/respond/images/spacer.gif) |
ebb
From: nj
|
Posted 27 May 2003 5:57 pm
|
|
the internet or it's next incarnation will be the new order. i can't wait for the toppling of mottola's statue on cnn. and pixar is cool [This message was edited by ebb on 27 May 2003 at 07:02 PM.] |
|
|
![](templates/respond/images/spacer.gif) |
chas smith R.I.P.
From: Encino, CA, USA
|
Posted 27 May 2003 6:10 pm
|
|
I think the last really good movie I saw was "Spirited Away", a Japanese animated film that deserved the Academy Award it got this year. Sometimes we go just because we know the audience is going to be good. We saw the midnight show of "Independence Day " at the Chinese Theatre on Independenc Day with an audience that really wanted to see that movie. The audience was worth the price of admission.
I was born in '48 and I haven't had a tv since '72, although I'll watch the Lakers, and weren't they an inspired group this year, at the market.
quote: Tom Hanks on that island.
I liked Wilson. |
|
|
![](templates/respond/images/spacer.gif) |
Paul Graupp
From: Macon Ga USA
|
|
|
![](templates/respond/images/spacer.gif) |
Jody Carver
From: KNIGHT OF FENDER TWEED
|
Posted 28 May 2003 7:20 am
|
|
Sheeeze
And I was asked to do a screen test for a
Gangland Movie,called The Godmother.
![](http://steelguitarforum.com/confused.gif) |
|
|
![](templates/respond/images/spacer.gif) |
Pat Burns
From: Branchville, N.J. USA
|
Posted 28 May 2003 8:01 am
|
|
..did she make them an offer they couldn't refuse?... |
|
|
![](templates/respond/images/spacer.gif) |
chas smith R.I.P.
From: Encino, CA, USA
|
Posted 28 May 2003 11:25 am
|
|
My first musical job in LA was playing B3 on the soundtrack for the film, "The Goddaughter". If you saw that one, you probably wouldn't admit it. Costuming must have been easy, I don't remember any of the actors and actresses having any clothes on..... |
|
|
![](templates/respond/images/spacer.gif) |
Pat Burns
From: Branchville, N.J. USA
|
Posted 28 May 2003 12:09 pm
|
|
...like you said in the beginning, it used to be up close and personal... |
|
|
![](templates/respond/images/spacer.gif) |
Jason Odd
From: Stawell, Victoria, Australia
|
Posted 31 May 2003 4:54 pm
|
|
If you want to see a good film without a blockbuster approach, go find an Australian or British new release.
Go to the foreign section and start looking, I mean sure you have to deal with subtitles, but there's plots and no Julia Roberts.
I mainly watch indie films, I admit going to the latest Matrix installment, and I'll go see the new X-Men film as well, but there's a lot I wan't go see.
Anyone catch the last Coen Bros. film, what a classic.
I found that post of Hollywood in the 'good old days' interesting.
We'll skip over the racial seperation in the films, the McCarthy blacklists, studio links to racketeers, the covered up indescretions of certain movie stars (in some cases like the infamous Fatty Arbuckle, sexual assualt leading to murder was just too much to cover up), hillbilly and racial stereotypes, and yep.. there was a strong anti-Semantic core through parts of the industry while porn goes back to the 1930s.
|
|
|
![](templates/respond/images/spacer.gif) |
Jason Odd
From: Stawell, Victoria, Australia
|
Posted 31 May 2003 6:27 pm
|
|
Actually, I had a point.
At the moment we're at a reversal of what was around 50 years ago.
Right up to the post-war (no#2) period, the US market for music and fims concentrated on 20-somethings and 30-somethings with a rather overbearing (to my 30 something tastes) sentimental and simplified approach to morals, tastes and lifestyle in general, which started to change during the war.
During World War 2 the Us changed quite dramtically, besides the fact that large amounts of the poulace were travelling for the first time, across the country (military training, war industry jobs), they were also travelling across the world. (Not only seeing different cultures, but travelling with fellow Americans who had different backgrounds, tastes and opinions.. an interaction that was unheard of in US history, except perhaps for the incrediable boom of New York as a major port of industry and immigration.
During the war, the trends were reflected in music, there were patriotic songs by country and pop artists, but with quickie marrages, divorce and more unwed mothers and a general change in society (hey you drop an atom bomb and you ain't no prom queen no more), music began to reflect this, while films generally go quite as far.
R&B brought raunch and sex further and further into the open, now this wasn't generally unusual, R&B was rapidly finding a more urbane audience while old blues was far more rual and didn't appeal to the city people as much.
The rise of the honky-tonks, smaller bands (amplification meant bands could be smaller, so you could get more sound for less $$) and more risky material helped alter and yet, still reflect the changes of society of the time.
This was all still stuff for adults though.
Teenagers were supposed to be non-existant little adults, no burgeoning sexuality, no wild tastes that would shatter convention.
When rock and roll began to finally hit, it was amazing, suddenly these old execs (and remember that most of the old major labels were simply started as offshoots of the film companies), just scratched their heads.
This Elvis kid, he certainly wasn't the Dorsey Brothers, what was this sh!t that the kids were buying,.. and wait a minute, what are kids doing buying records anyway?
Yep, post-war America's economy was boosted by all the war babies, the baby-boomers and their slightly older siblings.
Kids who wanted to buy Elvis, Little Richard, Bill Haley, the Clovers, Buddy Holly, and the R&B and Doo-Wop sales via white suburban kids increased.
Films like 'Rebel Without A Cause' and 'The Wild One' were kind of a step into youngr market, but didn't feature and R&B or rock, but after 1956 when Bill Haley, Elvis, Gene Vincent and Wanda Jackson were on the charts, the rock films began to come out.
The rock and roll film in itself wasn't the longest lasting trend, they kept cranking them out into the 1960s, but most of them were B-features with the same recycled plot over and over.
The Beatles brought some new life into the rock film market, and the doco-style rock film approach had a run from about 1966 into the 1970s, they still exist, but are quite rare.
But, the trends had changed.. films aimed at teens were on the growth. Throught the 1960s they tried various cash-ins, various rock, rug and biker flicks came and went, some weird hits like the Spaghetti Westerns from Italy became massive hits (for the time) while younger actors, writers and directors came up through the exploitational indie companies and with the changing times came new trends and styles.
After 'Jaws,' 'E.T.' 'Star Wars' and 'Close Encounters' their was an indication that indeed the blockbuster was the way to go, and sadly that concept has remained the core of Hollywood since then.
Of course there's crap like 'Titanic,' 'Maid In Manhattan' and 'Pearl Harbour'.. but there's also 'Saving Private Ryan,' The Thin Red Line' and 'The Majestic' films that actually survive on their pomposity because they're actually well made and written films.
I admit I'm part of a generation that has had a lot of product and trends pointed at my age group, I myself am a product of the age of cross promotion and mass marketing.
I'm probably one of the few on the Forum that actually has some chart CDs from the last few years in their collection, it doesn't mean I have a sense of irony about these things.
Having said that, the whole concept of a youth orientated market is pretty much here to stay. After all the oldies had things their way since the dawn of time, so I figure the youth having just under 50 years under their control (in a marketing approach) is a drop in the ocean.
The big corporation approach has been around for some time, they used to be monarchies and religions, now they're businesses.
All you have to do is go see an independent film, buy an indie CD, eat at anywhere where it ain't part of a chain, no-brand Cola, give some money to Greenpeace, write your local TV station and ask for something other than game shows or 'supposed' reality TV.
In the good old days they made just as much junk as before, geez Bill Monroe used to do ads for dodgy products during his radio show with the Monroe Brothers.
------------------
Reintarnation: Coming back to life as a hillbilly.
|
|
|
![](templates/respond/images/spacer.gif) |
chas smith R.I.P.
From: Encino, CA, USA
|
Posted 4 Jun 2003 10:07 am
|
|
Quote: |
If you want to see a good film without a blockbuster approach, go find an Australian or British new release. |
Good point, if it comes from Australia I don't need to read the review, I can usually count on it being substantial.
This article, by Patrick Goldstein, was just sent to me, I thought I'd pass it along. Again it's about film, but I think it applies to music as well:
Not long before filming began on "Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid," the movie's screenwriter, Rudy Wurlitzer, took Bob Dylan to Durango, Mexico, to meet Sam Peckinpah, full of trepidation that the hell-raising director would do something to spook Dylan, who'd not only agreed to co-star in the movie but record a soundtrack album too.
"It was late at night," Wurlitzer recalls in "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls," one of two fascinating new documentaries devoted to the glory days of '70s movies. "As we walked up to the house, there was a scream and this maid ran out, terrified, and we heard a gunshot and I thought, 'Oh, man, this is going to blow the whole thing with Bob.' Sam was standing in front of this mirror, completely naked. The mirror was totally blown and he had a bottle in one hand and a gun in the other. And I said, 'Sam, this is Bob Dylan.' "
It seems completely apt that the rival documentary about this period, produced and directed by respected filmmakers Richard LaGravenese and the late Ted Demme, is titled "A Decade Under the Influence" -- '70s Hollywood was an oasis of unparalleled excess. As producer Polly Platt puts it: "These guys were doing whatever they wanted. They were drinking, smoking dope and they lost their minds."
But along the way, those guys -- Hollywood in the late '60s and the '70s being very much a man's world -- made a staggering number of terrific movies, including "Bonnie and Clyde," "The Godfather," "Midnight Cowboy," "MASH," "Shampoo," "The French Connection," "The Wild Bunch," "A Clockwork Orange," "Mean Streets," "Badlands" and "The Last Picture Show," to name but a few. The outpouring of celluloid artistry has earned the period between the 1967 release of "Bonnie and Clyde" and the arrival of "Star Wars" 10 years later a reputation as Hollywood's last golden era. Together the documentaries tell about that remarkable period of filmmaking and offer an ironic commentary on the dismal state of Hollywood today.
Of the two documentaries, "Easy Riders," which played at the Cannes Film Festival and will air again on the Trio cable network in August before making its DVD debut later this year, offers more entertainment value. Writer-director Kenneth Bowser has great, rarely seen footage of the young Francis Ford Coppola at work, accompanied by a painfully shy "personal associate" -- the scrawny young George Lucas. He's also got a knack for loosey-goosey interviews. Trying to explain why Dennis Hopper botched the Mardi Gras footage in "Easy Rider," Karen Black, who plays one of the hippie chicks in the movie, gives a classic '60s answer: "Everyone was stoned out of their mind."
Now playing at the Nuart Theater in West L.A. and airing in an extended version in August on the Independent Film Channel, "Decade" is more illuminating, with the respectful tone you'd expect from a graduate school seminar. It gives filmmakers a welcome opportunity to discuss their craft and technique. Billy Friedkin, for example, drew on his experience as a documentary filmmaker shooting "The French Connection," especially when shooting its bravura under-the-elevated-train chase sequence. "Decade" gained access to more key figures, using filmmakers to interview their peers (Alexander Payne did a great interview with Coppola; likewise, Neil LaBute with Paul Mazursky and Michael De Luca with John Calley).
LaGravenese and Demme, who died shortly after the film went into production, also sent out a letter distancing the film from Peter Biskind's acerbic "Easy Riders" bestseller, which provides source material and the title for Bowser's film. Nevertheless, some of the most formidable figures, namely Lucas, Steven Spielberg, Jack Nicholson and Warren Beatty, wouldn't talk. LaGravenese spent an afternoon at Beatty's home, listening to him tell Hal Ashby stories, but he could never pin him down for an on-camera interview. Not everyone was a breeze.
"I was so nervous that I didn't sleep the night before I interviewed Robert Altman," LaGravenese recalls. "Before we were on camera, I asked him one question and he immediately said, 'Well, I don't agree with that.' After that, I just threw away all my prepared questions."
Of risk and adversity
As both documentaries point out, by the late 1960s the monolithic studio system was in dire straits, run by aged moguls who had no idea that the country was in the grip of a youth-culture revolution. It's a chapter of film history that's useful to remember. When business is booming, as in today's Franchise Film-dominated Hollywood, studios are loath to take any chances -- why mess with success? It's when things are going bad that people are open to taking risks, figuring as the moguls of the early '70s did, what have we got to lose?
When Paramount couldn't get a top director interested in "The Godfather," the studio took a flier on Coppola, a young unknown whose movies hadn't made a dime. Seeing archival pre-"Godfather" footage of the director scratching his beard and wandering around in powder-blue shorts, it's a wonder he ever got past the studio guard gates. But as Coppola says today, in a quote that should be emblazoned in marquee-sized neon lights over the desks of the executives responsible for this summer's parade of brain-numbing sequels:
"There can't be art without risk. It's like saying there's no sex, but then expecting there to be children."
Coppola and his contemporaries were irrepressible and often self-destructive. But they possessed a fiery passion for filmmaking that is rarely on display today. Paul Schrader wrote "Taxi Driver" in a two-week creative binge, saying "it jumped out of my head like an animal." As my colleague Manohla Dargis wrote in a recent review of the wan indie drama "XX/XY," "The American indie scene is filled with tame, polite movies, agleam with professionalism and laden with characters that are content to remain willfully unaware of the world." LaGravenese, who at 43 is old enough to remember seeing "The Godfather" and "Serpico" as a kid at Loew's Oriental in Brooklyn, believes most of today's filmmakers are wary of putting any naked feeling into their films. "They're trying so hard to be hip that they don't have room for a lot of emotion," he says. "It's odd to hear young people today equate passion with being uncool. No one wants to say what they're feeling at the risk of sounding foolish."
In fairness, today's young filmmakers have less rope to hang themselves with. When Arthur Krim ran United Artists, home to many of the most daring '70s films, he'd invite a filmmaker to a Sunday brunch of lox and cream cheese. "He'd look into your eyes," recalls screenwriter Marshall Brickman. "And if you didn't look that crazy and [the film] didn't seem that expensive, he'd say, 'Go make your movie, invite me to the opening.' "
An age of irony
It's hard to believe that so many '70s movies, despite their restless abandon, were box-office hits. Were audiences more open to experimentation and artistry? Did they have higher expectations? As befits an era shaped by the Watergate scandal, urban decay and the Vietnam War, '70s films were packed with irony, irreverence and a nagging sense of moral ambiguity. Today's moviegoers have grown up with radically different cultural signposts. Arriving at the height of an unpopular war, "MASH" was a huge box-office success. But how much resonance would it have today, when according to a recent survey 75% of all college kids say they trust the military "to do the right thing" most or all of the time? As Julie Christie observes in "Decade," '70s audiences "didn't want the same old stuff -- like nowadays."
It was a rare moment in American pop culture when moviegoers preferred the rough trade of reality over escapist fantasy. From "Bonnie and Clyde" to "Chinatown," the movies were full of ambiguity, populated with antiheroes who lost their souls or died before the credits rolled. Today we crave good guys with squishy-soft hearts of gold. Perhaps the most telling moment in either film occurs in "Easy Riders" when Roger Corman, the B-movie impresario who made teen drive-in quickies about fast cars and mutant monsters, says he went to see "Jaws" and realized the jig was up.
The big studios, who'd long ceded him the youth market, had their own killer shark B-movie, except it had A-list stars and effects. Opening on hundreds of screens the same weekend, it marked the dawn of today's visual-effects extravaganzas. Too often today's movies are all about excess; every summer seems like a hollow exercise in "can you top that" filmmaking. Back in the '70s, Schrader saw Hollywood as "a decaying whorehouse that had to be assaulted." I wonder how many young filmmakers today feel the same way -- or have the courage to lead the charge. |
|
|
![](templates/respond/images/spacer.gif) |