Why the Dislike of the 70's and Beyond?

[Ipcress]

I'm 22 years old and I like classic actors (I associate actresses with actors as well), as well as modern actors. I don't understand why the older people on here bash modern things as much as they do. Most of the time it's the same names that come up and people tend to bash 70's movies quite a bit. Bashing the 80's, some of the 90's.. and some of today's movies/actors is understandable.. but the 70's? There were some great movies in the 70's. The only way I would bash the movies of the 70's is if I strictly bashed most of the comedies, blaxploitation, etc.

 

Man, if anything needs to be bashed it should be some of those awful silent movies that people think are so damn amazing even though, in my opinion, they're not. Some of them are... but not all. Do you people really watch those movies as much as you make it out to be? I agree with the history aspects of silent movies, but this board takes a lot of things a little too far. It's a very biased place.

 

Just because it's old does not mean it's automatically great. James Cagney had several bad movies, Garbo has more than several, Marilyn Monroe wasn't a good actress (I don't care what you say), Cary Grant.. what a way to repeat himself in the comedies he did, eh? Marlon Brando? He has good movies... but not that many. Then you have James Dean who hardly did anything.. but he died young with credits to a few good movies so of course he's "classic".

 

I don't get it. Could someone break this down for me in a serious manner? No jokes thrown in? I know some of you will have a hard time not throwing in sarcasm but try.

 

EDIT: I do not mean "older" to mean "old"... keep that in mind. Also, I do realize 70's movies and beyond would not be considered classic (some don't even consider the 60's classic) but it's still a topic, nonetheless.

 

Message was edited by:

Ipcress

[sweetbabykmd]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, that is what makes forums interesting. I am not old (well, maybe you think 39 is old) and I don't think anything worthwhile came out of the 70's and beyond - with a very few exceptions of course. I happen to believe that a bad movie from the 30's or 40's is not as bad as a bad movie from the 60's and beyond, there are others who think the opposite.

I will continue to holler when I don't get my fix of pre-codes and film noirs.

[ken123]

I think some of the objections to post-1970 BAD movies vis-a-vie 1930's,40's,50's BAD movies is that the earlier films were just BAD,bad acting,directing,editing,or storytelling,whereas post 1970(an arbitrary cut-off date) are NOT ONLY BAD for the previous mentioned reasons but also because of excessive and vivid depiction of violence and sex.

[Ipcress]

"whereas post 1970(an arbitrary cut-off date) are NOT ONLY BAD for the previous mentioned reasons but also because of excessive and vivid depiction of violence and sex."

 

But it's okay to hint at things like that as in older movies? Seriously, how does that make sense? That's like saying "it's okay to think about sex.. but it's not okay to actually have sex."

 

I do realize you said the word EXCESSIVE before that bit, but still.. is that really a valid reason?

 

And to the other person, I realize it's all opinions, but I'm obviously trying to get some of you to actually explain your opinions. I'm not bashing anyone. I even said some of my opinions in the opening of this thread.

 

Message was edited by:

Ipcress

[FredCDobbs]

There were so many bad movies made in the ?70s. Almost all of them were bad. The loss of the old ?studio system?. Many ?independent? films were made that were not controlled by the studios and that were not made by good experienced professional film makers.

 

The big thing in the '70s was not "knowing how to make movies", it was "knowing how to raise money to make one's first movie". Too many non-professionals made movies in the '70s.

 

Too much cussin?. Too much reliance on scenes of naked women rather than plots.

 

Too much use of zoom lenses. A new big sharp zoom lens was invented in the late ?60s and it began to be used too much in the ?70s, in place of dolly shots, in place of using edits to go from a wide shot to a close up. To save money (the whole opening New York scene of ?The Karati Kid? was one long zoom shot, from close up to wide shot to close up again). Very cheap film making. Like amateur work.

 

Too much hand-held camera stuff. Stolen from a new French ?cinema verit?? (vera-tay) style. The French copied it after the new portable sound news-camera style of walking around with a sound camera while filming the news. In fact, a lot of these kinds of films were made in 16 mm with news cameras. Terrible. Also, hand-held stuff usually meant the film was low-budget and it was quicker to shoot a hand-held scene rather than taking the time to put the camera on a tripod.

 

Too much ?natural lighting? and amateur lighting. Most films in the ?70s were poorly and improperly lit.

 

No good scripts. The desire to be shocking and ?modern? and ?realistic?, but they wound up with crappy films with too many zooms and too much badly-lit hand-held stuff.

 

Cheap low-budget films, even ones shot in 16mm, that were blown up to 35 mm for release prints. Budgets too low, lousy scripts, bad photography, poor sound, too much vulgarity. Too much crappy modern jazzy music with loud blaring horns and too much percussion. It?s as if they thought the blaring horns and the banging drums would make a movie more "exciting?.

 

Almost no good young actors. Too many low-budget teen, youth, and black exploitation films.

[JackBurley]

I love movies -- period. From Georges M?li?s silents from the early 1900's to today's theatrical releases. I go to out to a movie theatre at least once a week. In addition to the art (and artiface) of film, I see them as a wonderful way to capture the moment or era that they were made. I don't just mean the aesthetics of the period (though movies are certainly great for that too), but the zeitgeist.

 

I've seen complaints about The Graduate on this board, but I think it captures the mid-1960's of America in a brilliant way. I find the '70's decade a really exciting time for movies, but understand that they often don't fit into the theme of TCM. But like you, have felt the twist of the knife when posters here skewer later films. I love silents, but not at the expense of Coppola, Scorsese, Fellini, et al.

 

I agree with your Brando and Dean comments, and used to agree with your Monroe idea (but Some Like It Hot and The Misfits -- even the existing clips of Somethngs Got To Give -- changed my mind). Garbo? I've never seen her in anything unsatisfactory; but that's because I'm one of those who is ensnared in her magic.

[cinemabuff64]

I'm going to be honest with you,I read the,at the time,two postings on here but didn't know quite how to contribute to it in a tactful way.I feel bad that you feel on the defensive but maybe if you were a little older you would understand why we hold on to what 'little'we have.There are only so many old or 'classic' movies, for obvious reasons there will be no more, just like time itself, you can't go back and relive what was already lived so you look back,sometimes with regret, sometimes nostalgically and you reach a comfort spot where you feel comfortable and you hold on to it. that's what classic movies are for us older people, thay are memories we cherish,mistakes we've made,fights we lived through, dreams we made(some that came true, others we still dare to hope will come true).I hold the 'classics' as special, by that I mean 1930's-1960's, the 70's did have a lot of controversial movies that made a lot of social statements, it even gave us a movie I especially love, "The Way We Were", but it's just not the same thing as compared to the magic of the 'golden era'-There have been good movies from the 80's and 90's and even recent ones that really inspire me and make me believe that maybe there is still some magic left.You should remember that this is a classic movie forum so naturally the preference is almost always going to be on the 30's-50's type of movies.

[Ipcress]

I appreciate the replies and I can understand where some of you are coming from.

 

I do understand what it's like to want to hold onto something. Maybe I just don't understand the way life is portrayed in the "classics" enough to actually get into it the way I would a movie from the 70's and beyond (though I think I like the 60's-era the best). Also, I don't get how I like newer movies and older movies.. but many of you really only like older movies. Maybe it is just an age thing... maybe it just varies from generation to generation. Or maybe it's strictly relevant to the way one grows up.

 

I'm not looking for a definite answer in here because there isn't one.

 

I thought it would be interesting to see reasons why though.

[ken123]

I don't object to the sex or the near/ complete nudity,in many of today's motion pictures.But the lack of sound plots, interesting dialogue that is replaced by enless string of 4-letter words and endless car chases and crashes!They are a BIG turn-off.For a witty script just see "A Letter to Three Wives" and "All about Eve".I don't mind seeing Anne Bancroft("The Graduate") or Maureen O' Hara("McLintock!)" in their underwear, or as in today's films some such as Gina Gershon baring it all! But lets have more intelligent writing and less"filler',such as the car chases and explosions.Also today's director,even the top DON'T compare to the masters such as FORD,HAWKS,WALSH, SIODMAK,WYLER,and WILDER.NO screenwriter of today's compares with Nichols,Hecht,Johnson, Mankowitz, orTrott,just to name a few!i

[inglis]

Jack I really liked what you had to say .I liked some movies from the Seventies.I loved The GoodBye Girl and somebody mentioned The Way We Were .The Sting There were some good movies to come out of that time. Heck I loved Star Warsand I am 48 and I still rent it.I have to agree also with what Fred said about how things got violent,and it was all about making a buck .I want to hang on to the classic times because they are what represented the better things in life family love ,values and good down to earth stories and class .I think it is great to hear from a younger crowd although I do not consider myself old I know there are people alot older than me on these forums. I love seeing the comments of everybody and what they have to say. .Ipcress I like your thread and your comment about it being relevant to the way one grows up . That is very much how it is for some of us.

 

Message was edited by:

inglis

[FredCDobbs]

I like some newer films such as Dr. Zhivago. (Well, I mean it?s ?newer? than ?Gone With the Wind.?)

 

I liked ?Romy and Michele?s High School Reunion,? but I don?t want to see it on TCM.

 

I liked ?Wag the Dog,? but I don?t want to see it on TCM.

 

I liked ?Jurassic Part,? etc.

 

I?ve seen many newer movies on TV because there are so many bad ones being made today, they wind up on TV very quickly. Like ?Conspiracy Theory.? Well, I?ve seen dozens of ?chase through the streets of New York and Washington? movies, ever since ?The French Connection?... such as ?Three Days of the Condor?, ?The Pelican Brief?.... hundreds of them, and they now bore me. They just aren?t exciting or thrilling anymore. And I?ve never heard of any real-life drama of the CIA, big oil companies, or the Mafia chasing people through the streets of New York in these modern times.

 

Modern mystery films aren?t exciting. "China Moon" was a remake of "Body Heat" which was a remake of "Double Indemnity". I like "Double Indemnity" better. It had a better script. Just about all modern movies are based on some older classic movie that I?ve already seen.

 

Modern love stories suck.

 

Modern spy movies are boring. Spy adventure movies set in the Orient are all very boring today.

 

If you see the first ?Jurassic Park? movie, you?ve seen them all. If you see one ?Star Wars? movie, you?ve seen them all. If you see 15 minutes of ?Rocky?, you?ve seen them all.

 

Show me a new movie that?s good, creative, and interesting and that isn?t a remake of an old movie or a sequel to an old movie.

[Ipcress]

Fred?

 

Obviously, you're the type that would much rather claim a liking to an original than a remake. Honestly, I'm like that in a lot of cases, but, really, it doesn't make sense. You can like other things. Everything isn't original. Hell, the "originals" aren't even original. If you use your point of view on everything life has to offer.. nothing is original anymore. Do you think Double Indemnity is original just because it was the 1st of 3 movies (that you listed)? The concept is based off of real crime. How original.

 

And, as I've already stated, I'm not trying to bash or prove anything in here.. so why would you ask me to show you a movie that's unique these days? Movies weren't even unique "back in the day". It just seems like that because they were the first to be seen.

[bansi4]

Just for the record, listed are the 50 films Oscar nominated for Best Picture in the 1970s (*denotes winner):

 

1970: "Airport" - "Five Easy Pieces" - "Love Story" - "M*A*S*H" - *"Patton".

 

1971: "A Clockwork Orange" - "Fiddler on the Roof" - *"The French Connection" - "The Last Picture Show" - "Nicholas and Alexandra".

 

1972: "Cabaret" - "Deliverance" - "The Emigrants" - *"The Godfather" - "Sounder".

 

1973: "American Graffiti" - "Cries and Whispers" - "The Exorcist" - *"The Sting" - "A Touch of Class".

 

1974: "Chinatown" - "The Conversation" - *"The Godfather: Part II" - "Lenny" - "The Towering Inferno".

1975: "Barry Lyndon" - "Dog Day Afternoon" - "Jaws" - "Nashville" - *"One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest".

1976: "All the President's Men" - "Bound for Glory" - "Network" - *"Rocky" - "Taxi Driver".

 

1977: *"Annie Hall" - "The Goodbye Girl" - "Julia" - "Star Wars" - "The Turning Point".

1978: "Coming Home" - *"The Deer Hunter" - "Heaven Can Wait" - "Midnight Express" - "An Unmarried Woman".

1979: "All That Jazz" - "Apocalypse Now" - "Breaking Away" - *"Kramer vs. Kramer" - "Norma Rae".

 

I notice a few classics in the batch and also some fine filmmaking.

[GarboManiac]

Hey, Ipcress. Ok, I will try not to go off, and be silly this time although I love to rant about the importance of GARBO. I am a maniac after all.

 

Ok, first and finally, I am enthralled with the STAR SYSTEM, which only lasted from the Twenties to the Sixties (ok, I know it may have started earlier and ended later, but let?s not quibble). Now, being in love with the STARS, I am not a big MOVIE fan. I am a STAR fan. So, the movie doesn?t interest me much other than a vehicle for the star. Over the years, I have come to appreciate the photographers, directors, scriptwriters, cameramen, costume designers, set decorators, sound technicians, but only in relation to their showcasing a STAR.

 

So, by the Seventies, the star system was dead, and so were the fantastic dream making factories. Individuals started popping up making films, contracting out, being creative and modern, blah, blah, blah. Well, I could care less about those FILMS. My question is, ?Where are the STARS?? Sometimes I feel like Norma Desmond. THERE ARE NO STARS ANYMORE! Yes, I agree that in the Seventies they did make some pretty good films, but they were just that, films with actors, not STARS.

 

So, you see I CAN?T go past the Seventies, or won?t, because all the stars were gone. Oh, maybe some were still making films like On Golden Pond, which wasn?t bad, but I could have died without seeing it.

 

And, yes many of us here are on a steady diet of silent films. I can?t speak for the others, but I watch them just to watch the stars, Garbo for one. Can?t tell you whether it is a good or bad FILM. But, I can tell you that she was the greatest STAR who ever lived!

 

So, that is my two cents!

[Ipcress]

Have to respect that...

 

I understand where you're coming from now.

[GarboManiac]

;-)

[annelindley]

I think it was ipcress who differentiated between STAR and ACTOR and he's right. I can name a few who are still around like Redford, Pacino, and DiNero, but these guys are in their 60's now. Where will Ashton Kucher be in 2035, a lot of the new ones will pull a River Phoenix before they show what they really have. I only pulled the name A. Kucher beause due to Demi, I know his name. Most of these young guys make one or two movies and disappear. They're hot and then they're not. That's because the big studios are gone, these young people don't get the chance to make 4 movies a year until they're well known like the old days. The handful of new guys like Pitt, Crowe, and Cruise are the only ones we go to see because they're good even in bad movies altho I personally can't stand Crowe. As for the girls, they all look alike with their long, blond hair and "model" bodies, (that isn't a compliment)! Again, a few like Kirsten Dunst, Katie Holmes, and Kate Beckensale may endure, only because they change they're looks for different parts. I've seen them all with different hair and with and without glasses and such to fit. But I'd like to see any of the new ones pull off a roll like Charlize Theron has twice now. So tell me, who do you think you'll be watching when you're 60 like me?

[Ipcress]

"I think it was ipcress who differentiated between STAR and ACTOR..."

 

GarboManiac is the one who deserves credit for that picking of sorts.

 

 

"So tell me, who do you think you'll be watching when you're 60 like me?"

 

Matt Damon.

 

The newer generation of people will consider him to be the new Steve McQueen before you know it.. because he has the ability to mix it up and get away with it without looking like an imitator. I know many people would disagree with that statement, but he's the only young actor that comes close to being "classic" as we speak. He's already showed us he can act - Good Will Hunting, The Talented Mr. Ripley, the Bourne movies (I think they're great), Bagger Vance, The Rainmaker...

 

Then of course he's been in comedies - Dogma and Stuck on You come to mind.

[GarboManiac]

Ipcress, is that The Rainmaker of Burt Lancaster and Katharine Hepburn?

[DrMabuse]

No one's said anything about how films were a really vital part of American culture in the 20's, 30's, and 40's. I don't have any statistics on hand but there was a lot more films then and a lot more film-watching. Today films make less than half of what cable tv makes. Professionalism was big, yeah, it is today too. But today there's very little vitality.

That said, only liking films of this period is like being in a big beautiful and terrifying house and saying you only like one room and won't go to the other ones. You can come up with a thousand reasons for why your room is best! So can the guy in the other room! Move around!

 

P.S. Silent films are Awesome. Watch the right ones! (For instance, SIR ARNE'S TREASURE, recently out on DVD.)

[Ipcress]

"Ipcress, is that The Rainmaker of Burt Lancaster and Katharine Hepburn?"

 

Nope - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119978/

[GarboManiac]

Oh, ok. Thanks. I just had no idea. But, I do now!

[Ipcress]

I know I'll get a lot of crap for this.. but..

 

Maybe you're all watching the wrong modern movies. Jurassic Park? C'mon... I couldn't even watch that movie all the way through. It's obvious that it's just a blockbustin' money-maker. Most movies like that are not good. Some of them are though.

 

Also, whatever happened to watching movies for what they are? Seems like many of you watch movies and COMPARE. Man, what a dreadful word that is....

[LuckyDan]

Maybe you're all watching the wrong modern movies.

 

What can you recommend?

 

I have had a tough time for many years finding new movies that I like. I used to look forward to Woody Allen movies, but lost interest in his stuff altogether around the early 90s. I got interested in Tim Burton's stuff for awhile. I loved Clerks but havent enjoyed anything Kevin Smith has done since. I haven't really enjoyed a new movie since The Royal Tenenbaums..

 

What titles would you recommend to those of use who, like me, have pretty much tuned Hollywood out?

[cinemabuff64]

Hello LuckyDan! Long time no write......I'm glad I finally found someone who likes "The Royal Tennenbaums", I thought that though it was a little eccentric it was nonetheless brilliant, not to mention the soundtrack.Recent movies I have seen that are worth watching are "Half Light", "An Unfinished Life", "In Her Shoes","Sideways","The Prize Winner from Defiance,Ohio".