The films of the 70s vs. 2002
originally written for Brown University/RISD College Hill Independent
The late 1960s and 1970s were the last golden age of American cinema, producing classics such as Easy Rider, The Graduate, The Godfather I and II, Apocalypse Now, Taxi Driver, M*A*S*H, Network, and All the President’s Men. Led by filmmakers such as Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola, Robert Altman, Sidney Lumet, Alan J. Pakula and actors like Warren Beatty, Robert Redford, and Jane Fonda, the cinema of this era was notable for two things: first, it criticized popular establishments such as the justice system, law enforcement, government, and the media; second, cinema portrayed a confused, angry, turbulent America. Racial strife, the Feminist movement, hippies battling right-wing extremists, anti-war protest against Vietnam, class divisions, the rise of a commercial culture and mass media–these were changes quite dizzying to the individual. From this stew the counter-cultural anti-hero was born. Often morally flawed, plagued by indecision, unable to fit in anywhere, the movie heroes of this era often meet denouement as lost and unsuccessful as they are to begin with. The spirit of the 60s had hoped to unite the country, but now there was bitter division and a sense that self-interest had conquered the dream of a utopian brotherhood. During the Kennedy years and early Johnson years, America had dreamed of a great society in which poverty, racial strife, and class divisions would melt away. But what followed the great surge of 60s liberalism was in fact the selfish, suspicious, nasty 1970s in which Nixon, Ford, and Carter vanquished any hopes of an ideal, united America, and convinced the public that looking out for themselves was more important than looking out for the good of their country. The movies of the late 60s and 70s were more of a lament for the fallen hopes of the 60s than an optimistic vision for the future.
At a time when the American identity was rapidly changing, films were harshly critical of both the Establishment and the individual. For example, in the film The Candidate, Robert Redford plays Bill McKay, a lawyer recruited to run for Senate in California. This idealistic young man becomes a victim of the political system and eventually is nothing but the mouthpiece of his advisers. The movie’s message is that the political parties don’t care about helping anyone, just beating their opponents. No one knows why they want to be in office and candidates purposefully speak to the public in vague, grand, but ultimately empty language. Yet McKay is far from an innocent corrupted by powerful mechanisms that he has no control over. He is a competitive, crafty individual who is arrogant enough to arrive late to important campaign meetings to spend time with his mistress. The Candidate makes connections between the vices of the American system and the vices of its citizens. The movie is representative of an era that was angry at where the country was headed but was unable to find heroes amongst its own, for individuals were just as flawed as the system.
By comparing the movies of the 70s with examples from 2002, one can see how different eras dealt with similar issues and recognize that critical examinations of American life have been replaced by forgettable entertainment. A self-questioning society has become a self-oriented society.
Both 1971’s Harold and Maude and this year’s Tadpole hinge on the relationship of a young man and an older woman. In Harold and Maude, the teenage Harold (Bud Cort) hates his life and fakes suicide attempts to annoy his domineering, heartless rich socialite mother. He finds a kindred spirit in the 79-year-old Maude (Ruth Gordon), who shares Harold’s favorite pastime – attending funerals. Maude is a true rebel who breaks speed limits freely, transplants trees from municipal property to their natural habitat in the forest, and steals from people in order to show that there is no point in amassing material goods since you’ll have to give it all away when you die. Though Maude’s tendencies may be extreme, the film does encourage its audience to see the value in her attitude toward life. Maude may not be the most law-abiding system, but her rigid adherence to the principles of kindness and acceptance of all people certainly make her a moral individual. Harold and Maude reminds the viewer that just because certain behavior may be unorthodox, this is no reason to think it is wrong.
In this year’s Tadpole, Oscar Grubman (Aaron Stanford) is a 15-year-old returning home for the Thanksgiving holiday who, upon meeting his father’s new wife, Eve (Sigourney Weaver), becomes determined to woo her. Though Oscar doesn’t quite accomplish his mission, he does attract the interest of Eve’s friend Diane (Bebe Neuwirth). Whereas Harold and Maude usea a May-December romance to highlight the acceptance of seemingly bizarre behavior, Tadpole is concerned only with the mischievous turn-on of a middle age woman engaging in a romance with an underage teen. Instead of examining the cultural and social forces at play when Diane–a bored, materialistic upper-middle classer–begins to romance Oscar, the movie enjoys the lurid, dirty thrill.
In 1970’s Five Easy Pieces, Jack Nicholson plays Robert Dupea, the wayward member of a family of upper class musicians who live on a remote island in the Pacific Northwest. Robert has forsaken his elitist background and attempted to carve an identity as a blue-collar oil rigger in California. Yet, on a trip home to visit his dying father, it becomes clear that Robert is not at home in his adopted environment either. Five Easy Pieces is about wanting to rebel against the upper middle class that is unwilling to recognize or care about anyone below their elite economic strata, but finding that life as one of the unrecognized lower class is no can of peaches either. Yet, Robert is not simply a virtuous hero who can’t find a place in the stratified world. He is also a confused, immature individual who cheats on and abandons his girlfriend, and selfishly wants women to love him simply because it will ease his self-loathing. Perhaps, our angst and unhappiness may be caused not only by the culture in which we live but also by our own behavior.
In Catch Me If You Can, Leonardo DiCaprio plays Frank Abagnale, Jr., a teenage impostor who cons his way into making over 2.5 million on forged checks. Frank goes through life tricking people, living only for himself and using people as he wishes. He is perhaps cruelest to the innocent Brenda (Amy Adams), who thinks that Frank is a talented doctor and lawyer and falls head over heels in love with him. Only on her wedding night, when Frank must escape in order to avoid an FBI hunt, does Brenda learn the cold truth about her beloved. The movie would like its audience to believe that Frank’s behavior and his emotional vacancy are the result of his parent’s divorce and his father’s unwillingness to provide a proper moral foundation for his son. Frank is to be viewed as pitiable, rather than scorned as a liar and a fake. While Five Easy Pieces refused to acquit Robert of blame for his drifter behavior and unhappiness, Catch Me If You Can tries as hard as it can to avoid criticizing Frank.
The social, cultural, and political issues at play in 1960s America are explored in the films of the late 60s and 70s with honesty and gall. Filmmakers did not look for easy excuses, examining both established institutions and American citizens as a whole from a critical perspective. The boldness of these movies is emphasized by how the movies of 2002 flirt with similar issues but remain tentative when it comes to commenting on American life and seem loathe to make critical conclusions that might cause viewers to re-examine their lifestyles. When will we realize that Americans still have so much in common with Bill McKay, Harold and Maude, and Robert Dupea, while Oscar Grubman and Frank Abagnale. Jr. are nothing more than Hollywood fantasies?
posted by Adam @ 9:16 AM
0 comments
