70s cinephilia = 60s rockism yes/no?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

http://www.filmlinc.com/fcm/online/books70s.htm

― Enrique (Enrique), Friday, 25 June 2004 12:42 (twenty-one years ago)

potentially. but, isnt there an argument that 70s rockism is the new 60s rockism? the 60s are, culturally, very quiet these days, or, at least, as quite as i can remember them being in a long time

― charltonlido (gareth), Friday, 25 June 2004 12:46 (twenty-one years ago)

Yes, probably. I thought Easy Riders and Raging Bulls was a great book. But this is mainly for its pointing out how completely the american film industry collapsed in the 60s. The eponymous riders and bulls did shape a new kind of cinema from the broken pieces. Now whether these films were themselves great or not is something to be determined on a c.by c. basis. Re-thinking the Godfather seems like an interesting example of this.

― Skottie, Friday, 25 June 2004 12:47 (twenty-one years ago)

ERRB is a rip-roaring read. I did it in about 24 hours over xmas '98. But there is a bit of a FilmFour-Uncut hardening of thought here -- there are other cinemas.
I think the most problematic thing is how it positions European cinema as a) capital-A Art and b) a sort of treasure trove for more popularly-oriented film-makers to borrow from -- it's a sort of madonna/whore thing.
Hence Godard or Antonioni are ripe for harvesting -- but of course by the end of the 70s the Euro-auteurs were nowhere in the marketplace.

― Enrique (Enrique), Friday, 25 June 2004 13:01 (twenty-one years ago)

a) capital-A Art and b) a sort of treasure trove Yes, true. But do you think this is a fault of the book or of the thinking of the filmmakers themselves?

In either case, this binary kind of thinking does set up some interesting problems. 1) It completely turns a blind eye to the bulk of say French cinema which is all about teenage boys going to majorca and pulling bathing suit tops off of girls. 2) Also elevates what in many cases were practical/financial/"marxist" decisions in french and italian 50s/early 60s films to artistic choices. I.e. unmotivated jumpcutting. Truffaut or someone clarified (I hope I'm remembering correctly): "We just ran out of film and couldn't afford any more." Not that chance doesn't always play a large role in filmmaking, of course.

― Skottie, Friday, 25 June 2004 13:19 (twenty-one years ago)

I thought rockism wasn't specific to an era?

― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 25 June 2004 13:20 (twenty-one years ago)

Legend has it one of the producers of 'Le Mepris' had Fritz LAng explain to Godard what continuity cutting was, ie his jump cuts were the result of technical incompetence!! Rockism takes many forms, of course.

― Enrique (Enrique), Friday, 25 June 2004 13:22 (twenty-one years ago)

Hooray for FritZ!

― Skottie, Friday, 25 June 2004 13:23 (twenty-one years ago)

it isn't IMO, but certain brands of it can be

― Daniel_Rf (Daniel_Rf), Friday, 25 June 2004 13:24 (twenty-one years ago)

(err, that was a reply to hstencil, not enrique)

― Daniel_Rf (Daniel_Rf), Friday, 25 June 2004 13:24 (twenty-one years ago)

Is there anyone who thinks that there are more good American films being made now than there were between, say, '68-'75? ("I don't believe you, you're a liar")

― Andrew L (Andrew L), Friday, 25 June 2004 20:00 (twenty-one years ago)

I think there were more good films being made in that period, but I get sick of people who fetishize that era like a bunch of grumpy old men. I don't care about comparing eras, there are plenty of great films I've loved from recent years and if they happen to be fewer and further between so be it. Leave the ranting to the pedants.

― Gear! (Gear!), Friday, 25 June 2004 20:04 (twenty-one years ago)

In that many of the films made at the time were recontextualised versions of the gun battle and 'loyalty', I'd have to say I find '70s auteur filmmaking of the Scorsese/Coppola type really holds zero magic for me.

― suzy (suzy), Friday, 25 June 2004 20:11 (twenty-one years ago)

yeah, the one and only time hollywood ever dealt with that stuff

― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 25 June 2004 20:15 (twenty-one years ago)

(could be that's your point)

― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 25 June 2004 20:16 (twenty-one years ago)

Pfff I know, High Noon etc. (ffs my college friend's dad wrote it! allegory is the screenwriter's friend, yo) but I'm of the belief that the '70s were the decade the '30s were recontextualised so what I'm referring to is the nihilist, darker form of noir that was developed by Coppola and Scorsese, the ability to depict very bloody violence - gangsters' loyalties, war stories, in a more antiauthoritarian way than Cagney, with more political agitation implied than in, say, FDR times.

― suzy (suzy), Friday, 25 June 2004 21:12 (twenty-one years ago)

Hm,
'Taxi Driver' = 'Teh Searchers'
Altman and Penn = consistent reworkings of olden genres (ie noir, young lovers on the run, western)
Coppola is more the Euro art film remake/modeller (ie Visconti in 'Godfather', Herzog in 'Apocalypse', Antonioni in 'Conversation').

I think US cinema was better than it is now (but I think the late nineties/ealry noughties were a mini-golden age), but am still bewildered by the continuing reverence for it.

― Enrique (Enrique), Saturday, 26 June 2004 12:59 (twenty-one years ago)

sixteen years pass...

Doesn't quite fit the thread, as the bulk of Aciman's story about when he first saw The Apartment is set in 1984, but i couldn't find a better one:

https://www.criterion.com/current/posts/7044-elsewhere-on-screen

― brooklyn suicide cult (Dr Morbius), Sunday, 16 August 2020 15:48 (five years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.