Okay boys and girls, pop the kettle on, take the phone off the hook, pull up a chair, clear your calender and brace yourselves for a rather long post. Are you sitting comfortably? Then I'll begin..
I've been watching a whole heck of a lot of movies recently, as research of sorts for a project. I've surely devoted too much time to this, as my brain has started ticking over, and I've been thinking about the evolution of the movie industry over the years. So, instead of keeping these theories to myself, I thought I'd throw them out into to the world, and get a somewhat fresh perspective on them. We'll start up with a broad generalisation of the industry of the last century, likening it to the life of some average John Q. Public schmo, such as yourselves.
I've tried to break the lifespan in to various sections, keeping those sections relatively loose. They may overlap, but nothing in life is all that accurate so it kind of fits. I'm also basing this on Hollywood, not Foreign Cinema, Independent Films nor Animation. I've tried to not be genre specific, either. Anyhow, here goes..
Prehistory-1888: The twinkle in the camera's eye.
Man saw some animals, and decided that he'd decorate his home with them. The art got better, the tools got more complex until Bam! some guy takes some photos of a horse. Courtship had begun, but Film's mother was a prude. Three years later, in 1880, he projects them onto a screen. Eight years later some other guy experiments with his new-fangled contraption, films "Roundhay Garden Scene", and cinema is born. Sleepless nights have arrived, and the world will never be the same again.
1888-1927: The formative years, in baby steps.
Film was a bit of a slow starter, and there were fears mummy dearest was sniffing paint thinner whilst she was pregnant. At the turn of the century, movies were still short. An epic movie was a couple of minutes long, though I'm sure Peter Jackson could still make it an incredibly boring and drawn out few minutes if he was around at the time. Thankfully, he wasn't, and films were new and exciting. The industry realised money was to be made from using projectors in rooms, instead of the old method of sticking your face up against a box and cranking a handle to find out What The Butler Saw.
Techniques were being developed, fantastic advances like "film continuity", "lighting" or the ever popular "slow motion". After a while, they even decided to hire writers. Things were looking up, the baby had dribbled on itself, and was giggling like a simpleton, but the cinema going public were captivated.
Eventually, Film got up off it's ass and tooks it's first few steps, and with the likes of Buster Keaton and Charlie Chaplin as stars, spent a good few years falling on it's ass over and over.
1927-1939: First words to bad words.
In The Jazz Singer, the first "Talkie", Al Johnson plays a Jew who pretends to be black, with boot polish on his face and a song in his heart. Honestly, if this was made today, there'd be uproar from various activists, but at the time, Jewish and Afro-American press praised the movie, and in all the movies that had blackface make up, this was the only one where the make up was central to the plot, and not just an excuse to laugh at the black guy.
In two years, Hollywood Film had a full vocabulary and set out into the big, wide world to win the hearts and minds of the people. Like the George Bushes and their Road to Baghdad escapades, only with the action scenes being performed by professional stuntmen. Stars were recognised globally, and they really did have star quality in those days, not just implants or a chiselled jaw and low IQ. Admittedly, Shirley Temple was one of those stars, but everyone makes mistakes from time to time.
Dialogue was now important. More important than funny looking guy who manages to survive the variety of cartoon violence inflicted on him. The kid would have to entertain people with words from now on, and laughing at the fact that his diaper needs changing just isn't going to cut it anymore. Sadly, along with his ability to speak, Film found he could also sing, and dance, and prance around like a choreographed oaf. Clark Gable frankly didn't give a damn.
1940's-1960's: Swinging moods and dropping balls.
Film was undergoing some changes, it was starting to become more confident in what it was doing, but at the same time, it couldn't decide if it wanted these changes or not. One day, Film looks down, and realises those hairs weren't there before, and those hairs were all the colors of the rainbow. Oh dear, Puberty in Technicolor.
In amongst the kerfuffle of color, with cinema's "voice" going up and down in pitch, hue and saturation in an unfathomably erratic way, lasting the better part of two decades, there were some real classics of cinema. The majority of the "Top Movies Ever" are likely to come from this period. Maybe it was tweenage angst, maybe it was Film rebelling against it's folks, maybe it was just dumb luck, but the movie industry was in it's Golden Age. Heck, film even managed to take stories from the Bible and make them seem interesting for over three hours at a time.
1960's-1970's: Smells like Screen Spirit.
Todays typical teenage boy likes the simple things in life. Action, adventure, gadgets, big guns, fast cars and loose women. Much like Film did in the 60's and 70's. Explosions? Good. Death rays? Awesome. Steve McQueen riding around San Fransisco in a Mustang? Yes, please. Some punk making Clint Eastwood's day? Go ahead.
The sets were changing, too. Instead of some studio back lot in LA, now the movies were made all over the place. Film was out and about, living life to the fullest. Sure, it wasn't always the best of living, and sure he dabbled in some substances he should've left alone, but the main thing was he was out there, exploring, experiencing, experimenting.
Film also starts to take more of an interest in the opposite sex, and this time it's not as someone who'll be easy to beat at in game of catch. Films notices the curves, the skimpy outfits, the fishnets, the high heels, the leopard print mini-skirt, the poorly applied cheap make up. Film's fallen in love, and he's picked a slag.
Now, I'm not going to get into the porn industry thing, as that's a whole different issue that'll take just as long to explore. For now, lets just assume Porn was a childhood friend of Film, who looked up to him, and wanted to be just like him, only Porn couldn't keep his pants on. That's not to say Film didn't think along the same lines as Porn, he just had stricter parents. He did like to try his luck as often as possible, though.
For example, women were far more likely to be covered up until now. Sexploitation movies were at their most popular. Unlike the British sex comedies of the day, which weren't sexy, and rarely that funny. It was usually either the Carry On team making films out of jokes they found on seaside postcards, or it was Robin Asquith, playing a guy with a name like Randy, making an ass of himself with some suburban housewife. If we were really lucky, he'd be joined by ex-PM Tony Blair's father-in-law, or a woman who made her name selling gravy. A real turn-on.
But in America? It was usually less about comedy, and more about getting flesh on screen. Other ~xploitations were popular, too. Take Pam Grier, dark skin, glossy make-up, big breasts, bigger 'fro and the ability to fire a gun without knocking herself off her disco heels. Another cult star is born, wearing hotpants and kicking ass.
Which reminds me.. Cult Movies. There's a whole heck of a lot of movies from this time that are considered "Cult", despite being dreadful. I've never understood why for most of them. There's some 50's Sci-Fi I loved, and plenty of 80's trash I adore, but the one's from the 70's? I guess there's only so much disco I can take.
1980's: The College Years.
Now, I understand some of you feel that college or university is a place of learning, but this is about movies, and in movies the textbooks are used more to even out wobbly tables, stop bullets, weigh down paper, or elevate diminutive leading ladies to eye-level of the hero for the kissing scene. The colleges in movies are about one last chance to have fun. Not any kind of fun but the inane, anarchic, power-fighting, machine-raging, trashy, ripped jeans kind of fun. Like putting the contents of the Dean's office in the parking lot, or sneaking into the girls locker room, or fighting ninja zombies or robot pirates with pithy one-liners.
Most film makers weren't so bothered about making thought-provoking cinema in the 80's. There were some classics, sure, but even those were usually more about entertainment than anything. Robocop may be a modern day portrayal of Jesus Christ, but he's also part man, part machine, all awesome. Take Arnold Schwarzenegger, take Commando. One man versus an army, using flowers as cover in a gun fight. It may not bother with boring things like science or even common sense, but hell, it was fantastic. Oscar winning acting, quality scripting? As long as you throw in some wise cracks, a couple of boobs or Corey Feldman, you're on to a winner.
Maybe it was the attitude and approach to film making back then, maybe it was the popularity of VHS, the new "straight-to-video" genre that caused the movie's moods. Maybe more amateurish movie makers wanted to get in on the Box Office Blockbusting craze. Maybe it was a crowd of coked up yuppies greenlighting every project they could find because they were so high they couldn't tell if they were a real person or a character in one of their dumb movies. Perhaps it's just nostalgia, perhaps it's my unwillingness to grow up, but something changed in with the movies, and the industry was never this enthusiastic or carefree about entertainment again.
1990's: Bigger than Big Business.
Film has moved on, cleaned up his act, bought a fancy suit and got a sensible haircut. It's time to think about the future, careers and whatnot. Gone are the good times, now the main thing in life is business. Movies are made with the aim to make money. Accountants are more important than artists.
The movies of the 90's are more refined than the previous efforts, but sadly, they're also becoming homogenised, generic and quite often rather boring. Stars are now picked for bankabilty over actual talent. Sure, some of those stars have talent, but a lot are just there for the ticket sales. It doesn't matter if they find some unknown guy to play a character perfectly, when they can invest some funds to get a star attraction to play the role adequately. Even the writing is becoming rather stale. Sequels are profitable, despite becoming tired re-treads of the previous movies.
Movies have money thrown at them, but not necessarily in the right way. The industry thinks that flashy effects will fix a rather dodgy movie and turn a profit. Waterworld, for example. Kevin Costner as part man, part fish? Instead of making a cheap TV movie, like it could've been, they threw a fortune at it. And who could forget Cutthroat Island? Well, just about anyone who's actually seen it. Surprising that a big budget movie about pirates, of all things, could be a box office flop. It still managed to bankrupt Carolco, though.
Newer effects were also coming into fashion. If the effects weren't new and exciting, then the profits wouldn't be so fantastic, either. In the past, effects were done manually. Models were made, make-up was applied, stuff was blown up. It was somewhat costly, sure, but it was tried and tested. Most of all, if they weren't done by imbeciles, they often looked amazing. Then, someone decides it's a better idea to fire up the PC. Not to write the script on, though, oh no..
"Remember Tron? I can make the whole film that cool with a few clicks".
"But, can you make it realistic?"
"Not yet, but I'm cheap."
"Welcome aboard."
Soon, everyone was jumping on the CGI bandwagon. The wagon might be rickety, and pulled by an arthritic donkey, and driven by a guy who refuses to stop and ask for directions, but everyone still wanted on. If CGI is good, then it looks seamless. You shouldn't be able to tell what's real, and what's fake. Sadly, on the majority of occassions, the CGI stood out like a sore thumb, and in case you missed it, it was waving a little flag and yelling at you to get your attention. Then, at the end of the century, some guys decide slow motion is exciting, and make the Matrix, and moments later the next bandwagon loads up with as many passengers as it can carry, this time pulled by the old donkey's dad.
2000's: The Mid-Life Crisis.
So what do we have these days? Remakes, sequels, a seemingly endless stream of comic book movies, and what I'm guessing is what some studio executive has pieced together rummaging through the trash at the old offices. Everytime one of these comic book movies turns up, I watch it. I don't know why, maybe it's some hope that it won't suck, maybe it's because I convince myself that it'll be good, maybe I just love the idea of superheroes, but almost everytime, it turns up and disappoints. I liked Batman Begins, I admit, but the rest? I could spend a lifetime complaining about them.
The Industry is failing, I'm sure of it. I'm sure it knows it, too. It's getting grey hairs, it's struggling to get rid of that beer-belly, and it's all downhill from here on out. So what does it do? It panics, and pretends to be young and hip again. New and exciting. It's palm is blinking, and it wants to renew.
Instead of actresses who can 1. act their out of a paper bag, or 2. hold their liquor and keep their pants on, Film thinks that youth and beauty is the way of the future. Not natural beauty, but that fake beauty that comes from silicon, collagen and airbrushing. If they show any signs of intelligence or talent, you'd better recast them quick. If the industry was married, I'd pity the poor wife.
Aside from the younger mistresses, Film's also buying a flashy sports cars, like the ones in 2 Fast 2 Furious. It's desperately trying to hold on to youth, and it's quite frankly tiresome. What's next? A ponytail and an ear piercing?
2007, in my opinion, was awful. Out of the various Hollywood movies released, I somewhat enjoyed three, maybe four. It's baffling to me just how bad movies are becoming. I'm not talking about the independent movies, because they've always been hit and miss, I'm talking about the big movies, that make it to cinemas. The ones made by so called professionals.
But, are they actually getting worse? Or is my opinion that jaded, that it's making me think there's something wrong? If I'm right, then what percentage of the public doesn't notice the movies are bad? Do they just turn up and watch, without making an opinion? Do they even know if they like the movie or not? The industry evolved, but has the audience devolved?
So what's the future of Film? Will it get worse and worse? Will it improve for a time, then retire to making endless remakes because it's forgotten that they've been done before? Will it just give up and spend it's autumn years tending it's azaleas or finishing it's memoirs?
*(Honestly, I expected it to be a briefer history than this. There are a few ideas I omitted as I felt things were getting far too long as it was. Apologies for any eyestrain caused, and assuming you didn't just skip to the end, thank you for your time. I'll get back off the soapbox for now).
Bravo! Very entertaining and spot-on! Two thumbs up!
I started writing a little something like this a couple of weeks ago. It's something I've been working on as the ideas come to me, called "Art in America." Basically, it's me pointing out that art has been replaced with entertainment, and says most of what you've said about the 90's and 2000's.
I agree, the movie industry is in trouble, largely because it IS an industry. Money is more important than art. Studio execs and producers tell the artists how to make their movies according to temporarily passing fads and whatever else will make more money.
I think there is hope, though. Independent films are becoming a force to be reckoned with, as far as the quality. Some of my favorite movies are independents. I think that this is a natural part of the life cycle of the movies industry. But I don't think it will die forever. I think it will be reincarnated. Seems lots of people are complaining about the movies nowadays, and maybe Hollywood will take a page from their independent counterparts and start putting more emphasis on art and quality.
I agree that the 2000s have been disappointing, but you need to remember films like Donnie Darko (2001), The Fellowship of the Ring (2001) (not the other two LOtR) - to give two examples, one cult and one popular. We have had some gems, but they are flooded by the staggering amount of crap that is released (of the nature you describe).
I will however accept your short history of the 2000s, as most of them have been filled with what you describe.
Donnie Darko is great, but is it hollywood? And how is the independent film specified? As Donnie Darko appear on rank 23. in imdb.com's Top Rated "Independent" Titles list...
History?
What about mentioning Lumieres? And why is this so America-centered?
But good read anyways...
That felt like a highly subjective "history of film", but an entertaining read it was.
Regarding Donnie Darko:
It's an independent, so far as I know, and more importantly, it's a bit over-rated.
Lumiéres:
They were projecting stuff 7 years after the first known "movie", so I don't consider them to be as an important landmark.
Hollywood/Foreign Films:
As I said at the start, I kept it Hollywood based, mostly as Foreign Cinema is a different story, that I'm not as familiar with.
I also hoped and expected more folk to give me their "theories" on movies. I fear I've scared a lot away with the longness of the post.
Also, as my "research" continues, I'm finding myself more and more disenchanted with each film I watch.
Lumieres were one of the first producers to film pre-written scenes, so basically they invented fiction in movies. They were also the first ones who used reverse motion.
And what about colored film?
What about Russian film scene? Have you done any research in that or based your facts only on history in USA?
Btw, have you seen the film "Man with the movie camera"?
2007 was awful? No it wasn't it was only in US! European film scene does fine.
Quote from: radiowaves on Mon 21/01/2008 16:57:26
What about Russian film scene? Have you done any research in that or based your facts only on history in USA?
I'll say for a third time, it's based on Hollywood. I'm not familiar enough with "World Cinema", "Foreign Cinema", etc. Not counting the Far East, I've seen a bunch of non-English language films, and to be honest, I've never been very impressed. Mostly because I don't relate to the culture, I guess. This meant that I haven't actively pursued more movies from various countries, and therefore don't know which are good, which are bad, which are famous, etc.
I've seen a few South Korean movies, and have been generally been impressed with them, but I've only seen a few, and I didn't feel comfortable commenting on them.
As for Russian movies? I saw Nightwatch and Daywatch, recently. Whilst they might not represent the scene well, I thought they were dreadful. This has put me off watching anymore Russian films for a while.
Quote from: Renal Shutdown on Mon 21/01/2008 17:22:48
As for Russian movies? I saw Nightwatch and Daywatch, recently. Whilst they might not represent the scene well, I thought they were dreadful. This has put me off watching anymore Russian films for a while.
Haha, they sure are. Even most Russians (okay, most not-so-brainwashed-by-advertisements Russian) consider them so, what else could be said.
Russian film history is very rich, even under the circumstances they had to produce from time to time. Sergei Eisenstein is as important as any film director with his great silents (Battleship Potemkin, October, Strike) and great inventions in film language, first and foremost on the montage. He, along with Vertov (Man with a Movie Camera) and others lead an important way for cinema editing as we know it today. Of later russian directors, Tarkovsky should be mentioned. He is my favourite director, with his own unique poetic language. There are numerous others. I saw Nightwatch, and it was shit indeed, but nothing else that an update on recent tendencies in action films, both American and Asian. Should perhaps not judge an entire countrys production based on one single product.
Since you base your writings on Hollywood anyway, you shouldn't miss things like the epics of Griffith, where a lot of narrative and formal techniques we take for granted today were first born. And what about the development of the studio system? The impact the two world wars made on the market. Universal Horrors? Film Noir? Citizen Kane? The new wave of the late 60s/70s? The birth of the blockbuster (Jaws), etc...
Most Russians? I thought the Watch triolgy was, like, huge in Russia. I enjoyed the first two films. Confusing? Yes. Odd? Yes. Fun? Sure!
Good history, Spleen. As a film major you are mostly spot on. However, Technicolor wasn't introduced exactly how you describe it. See, hollywood was freaking out because TVs were becoming popular in homes and they were worried people were going to stay home instead of going to the cinemas. So they got this idea... Let's take this insanely expensive film process and make grand movies with it! That should get people back in those seats!
And it did.
Also, the 60', 70's era you also got mostly right. This is a time, though, where Hollywood just said "fuck it" and decided to give a camera to just about anyone. So you get Dennis Hopper to go and make the horribly expensive "Easy Rider." And then you get "Bonnie and Clyde" and gruesome westerns and so on. The public got a taste for mindless cinema, but at a caveat. This is an era with lots of entertaining little films, but it's also very sparse in anything memorable. You get stuff like Straw Dogs, The Wild Bunch... And that's about 40% of them right there. Haha. Shortly after that, you get the High Concept films. Specifically, "Jaws." Where they start pouring money into effects, music, "CELEBRITIES!" and so on. This is where the modern cinema model comes into play, where there's tons of advertising, touting music by popular bands, actors you'll go gaga over. Films become spectacles , a draw for attention, instead of a director's wish to tell an awesome story.
Just thought I'd share my viewpoint. You are, however, pretty spot on... If insanely brief.
Good work.
edit: Neil, don't forget that Vertov shot with his brother aswell.. And his wife was the one who did the editing. So it wasn't he who single-handedly did all that. But as a blanket statement, yes, Russians offered a lot of inspiration toward cinema as it is today. Eisenstein could be directly linked to a lot of standard fare you see nowadays. His style was so in your face! I love it.
Quote from: LGM on Thu 24/01/2008 18:29:10
Also, the 60', 70's era you also got mostly right. This is a time, though, where Hollywood just said "fuck it" and decided to give a camera to just about anyone. So you get Dennis Hopper to go and make the horribly expensive "Easy Rider." And then you get "Bonnie and Clyde" and gruesome westerns and so on. The public got a taste for mindless cinema, but at a caveat. This is an era with lots of entertaining little films, but it's also very sparse in anything memorable. You get stuff like Straw Dogs, The Wild Bunch... And that's about 40% of them right there. Haha.
WTF? The late sixties and the seventies are generally regarded as the Golden Age of the post-studio system Hollywood movie. You have directors like Coppola, Scorsese, Kubrick, Peckinpah, Lucas, Allen, Lumet, Friedkin, Polanski creating some of the most intense, beloved, respected and enduring movies ever. I mean:
The Godfather?
Chinatown?
The Graduate?
Apocalypse Now?
Annie Hall?
Taxi Driver?
The French Connection?
Deliverance?
"Sparse in anything memorable"? It's freaking legendary!
EDIT: As for the overview itself, I think it really fails to say much about the most important trends of each era. Probably mostly because a whole decade just can't be summed up in a couple of paragraphs, but I don't think the "age" conceit (teenage years, mid-life crisis etc.) helps. One of the big stories of the nineties, for instance, is surely the rise of Quentin Tarantino and the whole wave of post-modern, ironic, hyper-violent and hyper-cool movies, but that's not mentioned at all.
Quote from: Renal Shutdown on Fri 18/01/2008 09:55:42
2007, in my opinion, was awful. Out of the various Hollywood movies released, I somewhat enjoyed three, maybe four. It's baffling to me just how bad movies are becoming. I'm not talking about the independent movies, because they've always been hit and miss, I'm talking about the big movies, that make it to cinemas. The ones made by so called professionals.
Did you see
There Will Be Blood? Did you see
No Country for Old Men? Did you see
Ratatouille? Did you see
Knocked Up? Did you see
Eastern Promises? Did you see
Away From Her? Did you see
Into the Wild? Did you see
Atonement? Did you see
Juno? Did you see
Gone Baby Gone? Did you see
The Bourne Ultimatum? Did you see
Once? Did you see
Enchanted? Did you see
Michael Clayton?
All of these movies are up for Oscars. All of them were critically lauded, and widely distributed. I'm sure not every one of them is to everybody's taste, but in my opinion there's a lot of quality here, and some of them are absolute gems. In fact, the 2008 Oscar line up is probably the strongest it has been for many years. If you didn't see most of them, and you're basing your statement on (say)
Transformers,
Pirates of the Caribbean and
Spider-Man 3, you only have yourself to blame.
haha, wow, I totally had a lapse on my movie history. You are completely right. I don't know what I was remembering then, but I stand corrected.
Nice work, my friend though I can't believe you didn't even mentioned Rambo... :'(
Quote from: Renal Shutdown on Mon 21/01/2008 17:22:48
Not counting the Far East, I've seen a bunch of non-English language films, and to be honest, I've never been very impressed.
I've watched a number of non-Swedish films on several occasions, and they all sucked.
Quote from: EldKatt on Sun 27/01/2008 13:40:15
I've watched a number of non-Swedish films on several occasions, and they all sucked.
I watched Android Apocalypse the other day, with Swedish Subtitles. It didn't make it any less atrocious.
Quote from: Snarky on Thu 24/01/2008 23:23:35
Did you see There Will Be Blood? Did you see No Country for Old Men? Did you see Ratatouille? Did you see Knocked Up? Did you see Eastern Promises? Did you see Away From Her? Did you see Into the Wild? Did you see Atonement? Did you see Juno? Did you see Gone Baby Gone? Did you see The Bourne Ultimatum? Did you see Once? Did you see Enchanted? Did you see Michael Clayton?
All of these movies are up for Oscars. All of them were critically lauded, and widely distributed. I'm sure not every one of them is to everybody's taste, but in my opinion there's a lot of quality here, and some of them are absolute gems. In fact, the 2008 Oscar line up is probably the strongest it has been for many years.
There's an unlimited number of Top 10 Films of 2008 lists out there, but when I saw this one (http://www.avclub.com/content/feature/the_third_annual_a_v_club_film) over on the AV Club I thought it would fit nicely with this thread.
1. No Country For Old Men
2. There Will Be Blood
3. Zodiac
4. Once
5. The Assassination Of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford
6. Ratatouille
7. Hot Fuzz
8. Juno
9. The Darjeeling Limited
10. Gone Baby Gone
I missed 3-5 on that list, will have to catch up on them. But I think that with this, and then all the great foreign movies out on top of that, 2007 will go down as a great year in film history.
I bought Zodiac on a whim and I really really liked it.
I pirated it on a whim and took three days to watch it all.