I'm talking about this one and the Godfather, but there's also something about Taxi Driver, a film, like the Last Detail, shot by Michael Chapman. Does anybody else see what I mean? Especially when you watch an old video of these films, before it gets remastered. The shadows, etc. Is it the film stock they used, or the cameras? I just love the look of them, which is another reason why the 70's was such a great decade for movies.
shareI can't describe it,but I know what you mean.
shareI know what you mean about the look of those films. I love the look of Five Easy Pieces too. I'm not sure how this look was acheived. I imagine it was just the sort of film that was available back then.
shareIt was the film stock and the lenses.
Kodak is (was) constantly updating their film stock throughout the history of the company. If you check out their wikipedia page, it shows the dozens of stocks that were used for a certain period, then discontinued.
They were always striving for the utmost clarity and sensitivity (i.e. the stock's ability to capture the full light-to-dark range of the world around us). Today's stock needs much less light and provides a much sharper image.
Motion picture lenses have been going through a similar evolution. The 'softness' of the images are a direct result of this. Today's lenses are much sharper (and capture images with much less light).
The color palette and quality of these films are direct result of the period in this evolution.
Also, many of these films were playing around with using motion picture lights in new, exciting ways, going against the traditional Hollywood aesthetic, exploring how lighting can enhance the emotional potential of an image/story.
'The Godfather', for example, takes this to new heights.
And, films like 'The French Connection' and 'Days of Heaven' used as much existing lighting as possible in hopes of creating an experience truer to actual life.
I know exactly what you mean and agree totally. I also think that the 70s was the greatest decade for films. There is something natural looking about everything in 70s films. Nowadays when a film is supposed to look like it's in the 70s, it looks so fake - all too tidy and clinical for my liking.
Great films like:
The French Connection
The Taking Of Pelham 123
Mean Streets
Taxi Driver
Rocky
The Last Detail
One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest
etc
etc
Thanks,
Chris
The 70's where diffinatly the golden age of film. In the late sixties you boundary breaking films like 'Bonnie & Cylde', 'Midnight Cowboy' and 'Easy Rider', which opened the door to the new wave of film ("Movie Brats":
Five Easy Peices
The French Connection
Taxi Driver
All The Presidents Men
Chinatown
The Godfather 1 & 2
Mean Streets
The Deer Hunter
The Conversation
Jaws
Thats definatly the greatest year of film.
You guys are right...the films from that decade just have a more natural look to them. But, have you noticed that films in the very early 80s, have a "hazy" look to them?? Usually, the outline of a character's body, and especially when outdoors. Maybe it's me, but I just happen to notice that and just hate watching movies from that time period...usually 80-85, from what I've noticed.
shareYes! There is a haziness to 80's movies. I think film stock plays a large part, but also the style of the times. Notice how a lot of Tony Scott movies have a certain haziness to scenes, i.e. Top Gun? The use of steam and back lighting can contribute to this effect, which was probably a fad back then. Film stocks often change over a decade combined with new lighting innovations, which leads to a new 'look.'
shareGood point about 80's movies. I was just watching "The Breakfast Club" the other day for the umpteenth time and was telling my wife how fuzzy it looked...and it was supposed to be in HD.
As far as the 70's look, I think that Quentin Tarentino get's nostalgic for it as well...ever see "Grindhouse"? He really copies that grainy look and feel.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Well, we can all blame Cimino and Heavens Gate for the end of the Golden era!
[deleted]
[deleted]
Right smack dead on perception.
There is nothing else to add. DEAD ON.
www.allsat.com /PROMO my 12096
[deleted]
i know what you mean, too. i think movies from the '70s look better than any other era (discounting silent/later black and white because they're two totally different things). i don't like how movies look today. i think they looked really bad in the mid '90s...
go go go
It's in the EDITING. Bust out a stopwatch and you'll confirm this. Movies from the era you mentioned have long steady scenes that can run for minutes at a time. This let's us, the viewer, become invested and involved in the scene and hence, the movie. The movies of "today" have very short scenes (often less than 1 second) and use state of the art editing systems to tie them into seemingly seamless scenes. To further barrage and insult your senses the audio is equally "manipulated". Multi tracks, library after library of audio effects and once again, the dreaded state of the art audio editing systems. There are too many examples of this unfortunately but I'll isolate a current example. The movie "Stealth" is just hitting the theaters now and from the commercials it looks TERRIBLE. Everything I just mentioned above.
The movies of decades past had masterful artists with years of "culturing" in the world of film. Today all you need is a cr*p idea (most times stolen) and financing and you're half way there. Once you've secured your "highly recognizable star power" (can you say Ashton Kutchner?) the other half of your miserable task is complete. Your completely dismissable, forgetable piece of cr*p project is ready to suck $ from chumps all over the world.
This is the audio-visual equivalent of "Calories, not cuisine".
Movies from the 1970's ROCK!
Editing has something to do with it. I feel that much of it is down to the film stock. Even before the seventies companies like Kodak and Eastman and so on have been trying to make their stocks slicker, cleaner and with less grain, which is what we have today. And with the influx of digital (which I'm not gonna dis cos it is actually great for no/low-budget filmmaking) it's becoming even more so. Cleaner and less grain in film stock = less soul. Seventies films had this soul.
Just as important: the cinematographers like Michael Chapman and Gordon Willis were at the top of their game.
Well stated jewoods-1.
Character and plot development take work and time and talent. The cr*p pouring out of hollywood today doesn't even attempt to go beyond what it takes to put asses in seats.
Can we really lay all the blame on hollywood? I think they get the lion's share but the money they are raking in comes from those 'asses' in the seats. My sense is that people today (compared to the 70's) do not want to think so much, hollywood is giving them what they want (and deserve).
Looking through my DVD shelves I see lots of 70's movies, more than from any other decade by far. There is more to "the look of 70's films" than just the "look".
A man's got to know his limitations.share
I agree with what's been said here, but I'd also venture to say that, 30 years hence people will love the look of modern film and denounce those of their own period :)
shareYes all of the above,...and then some. I believe some if not all of the film's of the 70's had a 'grainy' effect' because of the 'silver' used in the film and it's 'processing,...but ultimatley,...there were better movies, music and a world without aid's. Now I know that statement is going to throw some people,...but if you lived during the 70's and were a sexual animal as I was, you may ascertain where I'm going with this. There were no Taboo's in the 70's. None. Everything music wise was Rock til' You drop' movies were venturing into new territory I.E. Star Wars etc. and there was no fear of having sex with a monkey if U wanted. Everything was cheaper, a lot more care free, and genius' like Scorsese, Coppolla, Polanski, dominated the film world. I believe one of these fine director's at the time, even used nylon stocking's over the camera's lense to give the film an even 'grainier' effect and feel. Take for example Man on Fire a Tony Scott movie. Very well made and an awesome movie,...but up against say it's 70's counterpart by Scorsese "Taxi Driver" it appears to be a muddled mess, and oft times a sensoral offense. Technic's in film making have not nescessarily made film's better,...surely with the advent of CGI they've made the 'written word' more accessible, say like in Peter Jackson's LOTR. But is that altogether better??? I was in my 20's in the 70's and there are so many great film's from that era I can only begin to name a few faves, The Godfather, Taxi Driver, Mean Streets,
The Sting, The Cowboys (yes even John Wayne scored a hit with this one) The Deer Hunter,..Godfather2,...Jaw's,...The French Connection,...The Culpepper Cattle Co.,...The 7-Up's,...Marathon Man,...Little Big Man,...M*A*S*H,...One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest,...ChinaTown',....Apocalypse Now,...the list is truly endless. How many classics can anyone truly claim from the 80's 90's and 00's???? The 80's had The Shining,....Full Metal Jacket,....etc. The 90's L.A. Confidential,...the 00's,....uh,...er,...???? Hmmmmmmmmm???? The 70's ruled in more ways than film. I miss analog vinyl records more than my x-wife. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
The Smoker You Drink, The Player You Get!
Jewod & tomcat69w are right on the money! The films and music of the 70's rock!!! There was an earthiness, an edginess, that simply can't be captured today. Although I will say that "The Assassination of Richard Nixon" does a pretty damn good job of it. I'd like to add some titles to the many mentioned here - Night Moves (Hackman), Scarecrow (Pacino/Hackman), The Long Goodbye (Gould), The Panic in Needle Park (Pacino), The Conversation (Hackman), Deliverance, The Offence (Connery), The Wicker Man. It was an era of unparalleled artistry...and debauchery! I love it!!! I can handle getting older, its my heroes of that era getting older that I don't handle so well.
Thank You Doctor,...I assume you are either (1) an avid 70's fan,...or (2) an older movie lover like me, or both. I almost had a seizure viewing Man on Fire. The frenetic editing and photography did nothing to help the film, and yet I still enjoyed it. Out of the 350 movies I own on either dvd or vhs are 90% 70's classic's. It's a shame that Hollywood/writer's etc. have no idea how to make a movie other than try to mimic an MTV video. And the endless (horrible) remakes are horrendous ad nauseum! I viewed the remake of 'Flight of the Phoenix' a while back and went "Wahh'Da'Fubar'???? Ha! Of course that (The original classic with Jimmy Stewart) is a 60's film, but just as Music died when 'disco' came around (almost) movies took a nosedive around 1980. Yes there are a rare few,...Blade Runner & Raging Bull instantly come to mind, but in truth only the master's like Kubrick, Scorsese, et. al. continued to do viable work with class. I hope the Hollywood sign burn's to the ground,...then they can put up a big MTV logo sign up. And then I can take 'pot-shot' at it after I run amuck on Mullholland Dr. It's gotten that bad. To the best of my recollection (and I'm on my 2nd Brandy) Alien was the last good 70's movie being released in 1979. I may have a brain lock on that, but if there was a better movie in 1979, please refresh my old memory! Love All You Movie Fan's! Rock On! The Cat!
The Smoker You Drink, The Player You Get!
Great Thread.. I agree 100%
There is another thing going on with the seventies movies.. even the
actors themselves looked real or more realistic. I mean Hackman, Eastwood,
nicholson, Caan, an older brando, peter fonda, etc. They weren't ugly by any
means, but the looked like any other guy on the street. Watch the conversation
with Gene Hackman and his head looks like a tumbleweed. An overgrown mustache
and his hair is always got that just got out of a windtunnel look. You see
actors sweat through their shirts and sometimes sportcoats. In car chase
scenes like in Vanishing Point, Dirty Harry and Crazy Mary, Gone in 60 Seconds,
French Connection etc you see dust, garbage, mud and so on I swear some movies
like the Last Picture Show and I walk the line make the 70's look like the dustbowl days of the 30's. Yes we had our pretty boys, and girls, redford, newman but they didn't look to sharp at the end of Butch Cassiday and the Sundance kid either. Then you had gutsy guys like Wes Craven Continuing the whole Shock horror genre started by romero. There was a documentary on A&E about the seventies young directors and the movies they made and the envelopes they pushed. If you get a chance don't miss it.
Hey! You can't fight in here...this is the war room!!
By the way the documentary was called a Decade Under the Influence and is on IFC late march early april.
Hey! You can't fight in here...this is the war room!!
Which is better: Decade Under the Influence, or Easy Riders, Raging Bulls?
Don't leave out Blue Velvet when you mention the Eighties (though that movie really transcends time periods). And don't forget that Cronenberg also got his start in the Seventies. Alien and Blade Runner are great, but I blame Ridley Scott for all the incense haze, backlighting and hard-to-follow editing--and rooms full of fog in broad daylight.
Whole heartedly agree about average looking protagonists in 70s films. I think the reason that worked so well was that a lot of those were "anti-heroes", like Hackman's characters especially (Conversation, Night Movies, French Connection) We weren't supposed to drool over these guys b/c we had to think about their actions! The only person I can think of today who is upholding this tradition is Philip Seymour Hoffman. He is a powerful actor who often plays schlubby, unappealing roles. But he is respected for that because he does them well.
You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes you might find you get what you need.
Another aspect of the look was lack of money, there is little lighting in this film which gives it all the shadows. It really works here because it gives everything a raw real feeling with plenty of dirt.
shareI agree with the editing, but i think its primarily they film stock, which was not as good as film stock is today, but I think added so much more to the film.
And so on...
I would say a combination of film stock and cinematographers. It's interesting that you mention the Godfather, since Michael chapman (Last Detail, Taxi Driver) seems to have learned from Gordon Willis (Godfather, Klute). Check his credits and you'll see he worked as a Cam Op on early '70s Gordon Willis films. If you want to see more films with that seventies look, watch other films by those cinematographers.
shareTerrence Malick
shareshoot on super16 kodak and underlight it and you'll get that 70s effect.
or shoot on super8. check this short film out for example:
http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2714752
[deleted]
[deleted]