|
Amazon.com How did Hollywood make so many great, challenging, offbeat films in the 1970s? A Decade Under the Influence lists the reasons--or rather, lets the people who did the filmmaking list the reasons. The decade-shaping interviewees include Martin Scorsese, Robert Altman, Francis Coppola, et al. The film's argument has actually been conventional wisdom for at least 10 years, but it's well-supported by an abundance of clips, which should inspire even hardcore film buffs to seek out rarities such as Thunderbolt and Lightfoot or The King of Marvin Gardens. One might observe that the scarcity of women directors or black filmmakers suggests that the decade was not entirely golden, and the memories may be burnished a bit by nostalgia. But there's no question that the big studios were far more adventurous back then, and this briskly moving survey gives a lively Film 101 lecture in exactly why. --Robert Horton ... Read more Reviews (7) 
Shallow & self-serving & so disappointing.
I can only agree with those other viewers who found major gaps & omissions in the "documentary". No mention of Michael Ritchie or John Boorman that I could see. But lots of footage of "hot" & "trendy" folks like Mazursky, Avilsen & Hopper. Even the bit of commentary from Friedkin, Altmen & Coppola that might have given this effort some real substance is too slight & superficial to matter. It's stuff you've read or heard a thousand times before.
Too bad. They really blew it.
An incomplete look at a pivotal cultural moment
This quick, glitzy documentary, which looks at the maverick filmmaking that reshaped Hollywood in the late 1960s and throughout the '70s, has its ups and downs. At first I thought the lack of a central narrative voice, "telling" us what we're supposed to know, was kind of cool: "Yeah," I thought, "We're smart enough to understand what happened, and all these intelligent, thoughtful rebel filmmakers -- Coppola, Scorcese, Altman, Hopper, Dern, Eastwood, et al. -- can guide us through the history better than any dumb old narrator can... After all, they *lived* it, man...!!" But, sadly, this was not true: by the end of the three segments, I felt a little lost, and even a little cheated... I wasn't really sure what these advocates of independent cinema were trying to tell me, and while the parade of film clips and archival artwork (wish I'd taken notes!) was entertaining, it wasn't particularly well contextualized. The story arc, as such, was that Hollywood, having lost its bearings (and ability to produce hit movies) by the mid-1960s, almost accidentally discovered the rich offerings of low-budget, independent cinema. Suddenly, young, unproven writers and directors were given unfettered creative license, and throughout the 1970s they pushed the boundaries of artistic expression, breaking down taboos against exploring sexual, political and drug-related themes, as well as demolishing the boundaries of language and onscreen violence. Then, as the '80s opened, the push towards producing blockbuster hits reestablished the dominance of the old studio system. But the material between these central points is a diffuse parade of spectacle and insider asides, not as well structured or as informative as it could have been.
Also, on a technical note, why was the DVD version so hard to navigate? What was up with having to start up each segment of this film separately? Watching it on VHS might actually have been more rewarding...
WILL SMITH FILM FANS WILL NOT APPRECIATE THIS DOCUMENTARY
I was mesmerized by it all, plus I added several films to "My List" [of films to watch]. What a fantastic compilation of clips and testimony to mid-20th Century film. Going from films of the squeaky 50's and early 60's like Liz Taylor's "Giant", and Doris Day's "Pillow Talk", to darker, deeper films like "Midnight Cowboy", "Easy Rider", or "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" was a trippy journey, and the documentary takes you from one end to the other, and not without adequate homage to our European influences (the Europeans were at least a decade ahead of us/they had Fellini's art while we STILL had Doris Day's ever-lasting virginity).
There is no way to compile this cinematic metamorphosis in a single DVD, so the complaint that this was all too vague is asking for too much on one plate. For what this is, this is a brilliant, enlightening, delightful trip into America's film past. So how could anyone not enjoy this compelling documentary? I suppose if you liked "Independence Day" you probably couldn't appreciate it.
Too-Vague Take On A Too-Big Topic
The problems with both ADUTI and the similar doc EASY RIDERS, RAGING BULLS are: they are generally fawning in tone; they play fast-and-loose with the truth by presenting only selected bits of film history; and - most importantly - they attempt to explain the zeitgeist of the 70s by restricting their view only to movies, when movies are (and have always been) a milk container in the cultural icebox...taking the flavor of whatever's sitting next to it. The 'counterculture', or 'new aesthetic' (or however you want to phrase it) lasted longer and more meaningfully in other media (music, art, fiction) where there was substantially less money being invested. I love many late 60s/70s films...in fact, that whole era is genuinely fascinating...but 'explaining', or just examining in depth, that window in time is more properly the domain of a Ken Burns-length documentary series. (You'd need 10-15 hours just to take in the full view.) And blaming everything that didn't work or fell apart on either drugs, JAWS, STAR WARS, or all three, is as pat and false as showing a married couple sleeping in twin beds during the heyday of the Production Code. For instance, Bogdanovich is trotted out like a High Lama of Personal Cinema but the audience never gets the sense of how his lousy old-Hollywood imitations like AT LONG LAST LOVE and NICKELODEON catastrophically imploded his career, right in the middle of that halcyon decade (and STAR WARS didn't have a blessed thing to do with it). We get clips from DIRTY HARRY and MAGNUM FORCE, as if Eastwood's proto-fascist genuflections before Ruthless Authority were somehow considered hip and edgy by the intelligentsia of the decade, when they were uniformly bemoaned and despised. We get many cloud-cuckooland memories intimating that 70s cinema reflected the audience's desire for meatier, more challenging fare, when nothing could have been further from the truth (the top box-office stars for much of the decade were not Dustin Hoffman or Robert DeNiro but Eastwood, Burt Reynolds and Charles Bronson). The biggest hits of the 70s were all spun off the AIP model, not the Truffaut/Godard model: sensation ruled the day, then as now. People stood on long lines stretching several times around city blocks to see THE GODFATHER or SERPICO because - as a Roger Corman ad campaign might have phrased it - they "rip the lid off today's shocking headlines!!" It's one thing to say that Hal Ashby and Francis Coppola made terrific films (they did indeed); it's another to claim that they made films during a golden time when the audience was, for once, on the side of the Artists. That time has never existed. Before JAWS, before STAR WARS, folks were packing theaters for DEATH WISH, BILLY JACK and THE EXORCIST - and not because they were diehard Cahiers du Cinema subscribers. And what is not even touched upon is the long-term effect of the heightened gory violence of 70s films. We hear auteur after auteur hiding behind that sad old trope of "in order to show people the HORROR of violence, we had to truly show the EFFECTS of violence". Gee, thanks, Teacher....I'd've never dreamed that getting shot in the head might actually hurt, otherwise. Too bad the nonstop,desensitizing, rolling-snowball-momentum of all those squibs and open wounds is with us still, and it is almost 100% due to the movies of the 1970s. Coppola's triumphs may be a thing of the past - but Moe Green getting shot point-blank in the eye is forever. Scorsese has run out of heartfelt Little Italy stories to tell us, but he's still 'teaching' us how it might feel to have your eye forced out of its socket by having your head squeezed in a vise, or simply how liberating & invigorating it is to be turning that vise on behalf of the Mafia. I recall a 70s-era Pauline Kael column called "Fear of Movies" where she chided the audience for being prim, prudish wussies afraid to viscerally experience the primal excitement of violent films; a year or two later, she was fretting over the increasing 'brutality' of mass-entertainment. Way to chart cause and effect, Pauline! Sorry. But if you're going to celebrate the films of the 1970s, you have to shine a little light on the warts and moles under the makeup too...or you end up with a puff-piece. Which is the case here, good intentions notwithstanding.
Dissapointing
I was really looking forward to seeing this documentary but it left so much out that...It's simply too uneven. Where is Spielberg, Woody Allen etc...? Why is Milos Forman completely brushed over? Why wasn't there more about Polanski? Why is there nothing discussed about Melvin Van Peebles or black film really in general? Nothing about Elaine May or Mike Nichols except a clip from the Graduate. What about George Roy Hill? Werner Herzog? Why isn't there an interview with George Lucas or more of a discussion about the Star Wars phenomena? What about Alan J. Pakula who did all the president's men? Mel Brooks? Robert Downey Sr.? Larry Cohen? John Landis? And to not have more about De Palma is unforgiveable to me. And if you're going to talk to actors of the seventies why don't we see interviews with Hoffman, Redford etc...? And why isn't the Ellen Burstyn interview included? Why aren't there interviews with today's filmmakers and how they have been influenced by the films of the 70's (i.e. Paul Thomas Anderson, Spike Lee, Wes Anderson, Sofia Coppola, Nick Cassevetes-and he was one of the interviewers for god's sakes). This documentary is like a weird hodge podge of people Lagravenese and Ted Demme (R.I.P) liked. As a film lover and being very familiar with this period in film history I thought it [was] a big fat lemon. Gets two stars from me as opposed to zero only because there is the occasionally good interview (i.e. Julie Christie)that really hits the target of why we should be talking about 70's film in the first place...Which is because you CAN'T make them like they used to. But what a dissapointment though. :( Don't buy this unless you're a teacher at a film school...Otherwise beware!
... Read more |
