Some thoughts on contemporary films

Some thoughts on contemporary films Nov 7, 2019 21:09:27 GMT amyghost and spiderwort like this

Quote

Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Nov 7, 2019 21:09:27 GMT

Nov 7, 2019 20:53:07 GMT Prime etc. said:

Nov 7, 2019 20:40:14 GMT Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh said:

The studios could no longer owned theater chains that played only their product. That and TV pretty much ended the old studio system. And the original founders of Hollywood, LB Mayer, Sam Goldwyn, Jack Warner were also retiring or dying off.

Actually, Goldwyn instituted a new model for film-making and this "studio" is still pretty much intact.

Because they had unlimited finance.

Making movies that end negatively didn't bankrupt them in the 60s or 70s.

One film THE GAMES 1970 was expensive and a flop.

But if you watch it, you can see why. The movie is aimed at US and British audiences and the US and British runners lose badly. The Soviet bloc athlete not only wins, but is happy that his government forced him to run.

WHO is the audience for that?

I don't know. But Hollywood of late 1960s and 70s was very disorganized and they were grasping at straws trying to make things work. Francis Ford Coppola's Finian's Rainbow is a good example of trying to mix the new with the old. Not a bad movie, but no one wanted to see musicals by then.

This disorganization did help a lot of the new up and coming directors, many leftists who could not make the films they wanted under the old system got their chance. Hal Ashby, Robert Atlman, just to name a few, along with the film school brats Scorsese, De Palma, Coppola. There are actually some very groundbreaking films made during this period. Then came along little Steven Spielberg who gave them the formula to get audiences back into those popcorn concession lines.