Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't know quite where to put a thread that deals with film history and "what ifs". Anyway, somewhere in the early 70s there came a huge change in film realism when it comes to seamy -but realistically portrayed- characters, as well as violent acts. In 1937 (for example), Hollywood gangster Jimmy Cagney fast-talked through dialogue, and when he shot someone, the victim winced and dropped to the floor with nary a drop of blood shown.
Thirty-eight years later in the film Taxi Driver, Robert De Niro vividly portraying a deranged man, shaved his hair into a Mohawk and rampaged through a house of prostitution, graphically killing one man, and shooting another man's hand into pieces before attempting suicide amongst the carnage. If films such as Taxi Driver, No Place For Old Men or Goodfellas had suddenly appeared on theater screens in 1937 (for example), what would have been the public reaction? Would audiences, and the film industry, been so aghast as to bury such films for another 35 years, or would those movies have immediately changed Hollywood and propelled it into a new era?
I think it started in the 50s with the method actors who wanted to portray their characters as realistically as possible, like Brando, James Dean and Montgomery Clift
I think it started in the 50s with the method actors who wanted to portray their characters as realistically as possible, like Brando, James Dean and Montgomery Clift
When I look at movie evolution over the years, aside from the technology stuff, there were gradual, almost step-by-step changes. Of course silent movies had kind of pantomimed acting. It was basically necessary due to there being no spoken dialogue. I think for many years the silent movies influenced the acting style seen in talkies. But the acting got more and more realistic over the years. A big breakthrough came with Brando (some might say Montgomery Clift). I've watched Streetcar many times and I've always thought that the women in the movie had the more traditional acting style whereas Brando used the Method style. It makes for a rather strange mix of acting, more strange than in On The Waterfront where the acting styles were more uniform. In the movie The Misfits, Clark Gable, an old-school actor, tried to display a nuanced, more contemporary form of acting, and generally succeeded.
But through the decades, movies in general became more realistic, more realistic with their scene structure, dialogue, displays of violence. The thing is, pretty much none of these advances into higher levels of realism would have been impossible thirty years earlier. I sometimes wonder why no 30s director took his movie into more realistic areas, and what would have happened if one did.
One overlooked film that fits into your paradigm, IMO, is the Days of Wine & Roses with Jack Lemon & Lee Remick. It's gritty realism and sad ending was quite rare for the times. Rumor has it that Jack Warner's girlfriend (Courtesan) accompanied him to the screening and he didn't like the ending at all. Apparently she convinced him to let it stand and he grudgingly acquiesed - and the rest is history.
First, we aren't really discussing realism. What is being discussed is the increase in graphic violence, and the profitability of squib manufacturers.
Second, violence in film varies according to cultural standards. The train shed scene in GWTW was a graphic and gory representation, and the shooting of the Yankee soldier in that film was quite realistic (other than his evil face expression). Those were accepted, and even passed the censorship of the time because they had overall value and were integral to the plot.
Peckinpah, in a different culture, would be called a pervert. His handling of violence and the camera has a deviant, almost sexual perversity to it. Yanking a woman backwards with a rope to show her being shot with a shotgun has nothing to do with reality, and everything to do with shock value and eye candy. He gloried in gore and audiences were fascinated, just the same way that people block up traffic rubbernecking a wreck.
The one thing consistent about Hollywood, is that it does whatever it can to make the most money. There is a subset that make the most money with the least risk, like Roger Corman, and whenever something from that sector "clicks" with audiences, the big studios jump on the bandwagon. Peckinpah made money. If Jack Warner had thought back then that tying a rope to Bacall and pulling her backwards when shot would make money, he would have done so. It wouldn't have, and he didn't. Audiences who were more used to guns in everyday rural life would have bellylaughed.
You can see demographics in moviegoers change through the years. Before radio, television, and before parents had the money to spend lavishly on kids, profitable movies could be made that were tailored to an adult audience. When the kids who had read Zane Gray started going to the movies, westerns became popular. When the kids who had read Superman got to see him in the movies, that need was satisfied. When the kids who were into the horror stories of the 1960s got older, there were more slasher flix. When computer games became possible, more animation soon went towards computers. If all goes well, in a few years we will start seeing movies about cellphones and fast food.
"If films such as Taxi Driver, No Place For Old Men or Goodfellas had suddenly appeared on theater screens in 1937 (for example), what would have been the public reaction?"
Audiences would have walked out of "Taxi Driver." There was a very different reaction to obsession and insanity. I'm not sure about the other two.
First, we aren't really discussing realism. What is being discussed is the increase in graphic violence, and the profitability of squib manufacturers.
Second, violence in film varies according to cultural standards. The train shed scene in GWTW was a graphic and gory representation, and the shooting of the Yankee soldier in that film was quite realistic (other than his evil face expression). Those were accepted, and even passed the censorship of the time because they had overall value and were integral to the plot.
Peckinpah, in a different culture, would be called a pervert. His handling of violence and the camera has a deviant, almost sexual perversity to it. Yanking a woman backwards with a rope to show her being shot with a shotgun has nothing to do with reality, and everything to do with shock value and eye candy. He gloried in gore and audiences were fascinated, just the same way that people block up traffic rubbernecking a wreck.
The one thing consistent about Hollywood, is that it does whatever it can to make the most money. There is a subset that make the most money with the least risk, like Roger Corman, and whenever something from that sector "clicks" with audiences, the big studios jump on the bandwagon. Peckinpah made money. If Jack Warner had thought back then that tying a rope to Bacall and pulling her backwards when shot would make money, he would have done so. It wouldn't have, and he didn't. Audiences who were more used to guns in everyday rural life would have bellylaughed.
You can see demographics in moviegoers change through the years. Before radio, television, and before parents had the money to spend lavishly on kids, profitable movies could be made that were tailored to an adult audience. When the kids who had read Zane Gray started going to the movies, westerns became popular. When the kids who had read Superman got to see him in the movies, that need was satisfied. When the kids who were into the horror stories of the 1960s got older, there were more slasher flix. When computer games became possible, more animation soon went towards computers. If all goes well, in a few years we will start seeing movies about cellphones and fast food.
"If films such as Taxi Driver, No Place For Old Men or Goodfellas had suddenly appeared on theater screens in 1937 (for example), what would have been the public reaction?"
Audiences would have walked out of "Taxi Driver." There was a very different reaction to obsession and insanity. I'm not sure about the other two.
Super Size Me ! is already on CD.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Even these guys took note:
