Twilight Time Discussion Thread

[baheidstu]

Watched Bye Bye Birdie yesterday. I'd seen it once before and was a bit lukewarm towards it. I always find my second or third viewings to be better for getting a sense of how much I truly like a film, as it gets all expectations out of the way. Anyway, I thought it was a fantastic and fun film, full of a lot more subtle, sexual humour than I realized ("Don't forget your rubbers") and of course some classic, catchy tunes. The "Lot of Living To Do" number was amazing, and the "Honestly Sincere" number is absolutely hilarious right down to the war memorial acting as a giant phallus in the final shot.

[spargs]

Originally Posted by Brad1963

I think filmgoers were more intelligent back then. They knew how to watch a film, absorb what they were watching and would process it afterwards. People would let films challenge them. Now if a film is too bleak or slow moving it will be dismissed as boring or bad.

That stretch from roughly 1967 through the end of the '70s is my favorite film era.

Fat City and Emperor of the North are definite buys for me tomorrow, and I'll also be buying At Close Range.

[Brad1963]

Originally Posted by spargs

That stretch from roughly 1967 through the end of the '70s is my favorite film era.

Fat City and Emperor of the North are definite buys for me tomorrow, and I'll also be buying At Close Range.

Same here. 1974-1976 are the years I "discovered" film.

[mja345]

Originally Posted by Brad1963

I think filmgoers were more intelligent back then. They knew how to watch a film, absorb what they were watching and would process it afterwards. People would let films challenge them. Now if a film is too bleak or slow moving it will be dismissed as boring or bad.

I was listening to an interview with William Friedkin and he had a quote that summed up the New Hollywood era perfectly. He said something to effect of, "In those days, people went to the movies to confront and learn more about reality. Today, people go to the movies to escape reality."

I think there's a segment of film audiences that want something more akin to what came out in the 60s and 70s, but that's just not what major studios provide anymore for the most part. A lot of classic films from the 60s and 70s have amazingly bleak endings that would never fly today. "Chinatown" is one that always stuck with me. That ending is so nihilistic.

[Brad1963]

Originally Posted by mja345

I was listening to an interview with William Friedkin and he had a quote that summed up the New Hollywood era perfectly. He said something to effect of, "In those days, people went to the movies to confront and learn more about reality. Today, people go to the movies to escape reality."

I think there's a segment of film audiences that want something more akin to what came out in the 60s and 70s, but that's just not what major studios provide anymore for the most part. A lot of classic films from the 60s and 70s have amazingly bleak endings that would never fly today. "Chinatown" is one that always stuck with me. That ending is so nihilistic.

The first film I saw that blew me away was One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest in 1975. I was 12 years old at the time, but I remember my eyes were glued to the screen the entire time and it forever changed how I looked at films. It was no longer just going to the movies. The thing people always remember about Chinatown is the ending.

[tallrichard]

My most striking rememberance from Chinatown is the scene when Roman Polanski confronts Jack with the switchblade and puts it up his nose...

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by mja345

I was listening to an interview with William Friedkin and he had a quote that summed up the New Hollywood era perfectly. He said something to effect of, "In those days, people went to the movies to confront and learn more about reality. Today, people go to the movies to escape reality."

It's always been that way Mr. Friedkin, from A Trip To The Moon onwards.

America was a bleak place at the time, Vietnam, race riots, inner city crumbling, violent crime skyrocketing, teens rebelling against their parents, etc. Of course the films of the period are going to reflect that malaise.

A lot of kids have their miserable Goth period. So did Hollywood.

[mja345]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

It's always been that way Mr. Friedkin, from A Trip To The Moon onwards.

America was a bleak place at the time, Vietnam, race riots, inner city crumbling, violent crime skyrocketing, teens rebelling against their parents, etc. Of course the films of the period are going to reflect that malaise.

A lot of kids have their miserable Goth period. So did Hollywood.

The point is, what do the majority of films currently produced in Hollywood reflect? Do you think things in society are significantly better than they were in 1975? Most movies now don't reflect anything at all. Hollywood films, without a shadow of a doubt, are worse than they've ever been right now. Hollywood could easily make the kind of films they did in the 70s because there is still a ton of malaise in society at large now. But they choose to make films that are about escapism.

[spawningblue]

Have the extras been announced for their Oct. releases yet?

[baheidstu]

Originally Posted by mja345

The point is, what do the majority of films currently produced in Hollywood reflect? Do you think things in society are significantly better than they were in 1975? Most movies now don't reflect anything at all. Hollywood films, without a shadow of a doubt, are worse than they've ever been right now. Hollywood could easily make the kind of films they did in the 70s because there is still a ton of malaise in society at large now. But they choose to make films that are about escapism.

I think what you saw with the films in the late 60s through the 70s was as a result of the end of the Hays Code and the crumbling of the studio system. Without censorship and tight controls implented by studio chiefs, filmmakers were allowed to experiment. Nowadays, the studios are under control by major corporations so those tight controls are back in place and even if the Hays Code is no longer in effect, dollars and cents acts as a de facto censorship tool because a PG-13 film is going to draw more revenue than an R.

[mja345]

Originally Posted by baheidstu

I think what you saw with the films in the late 60s through the 70s was as a result of the end of the Hays Code and the crumbling of the studio system. Without censorship and tight controls implented by studio chiefs, filmmakers were allowed to experiment. Nowadays, the studios are under control by major corporations so those tight controls are back in place and even if the Hays Code is no longer in effect, dollars and cents acts as a de facto censorship tool because a PG-13 film is going to draw more revenue than an R.

I agree completely. I was disagreeing with the notion that films have changed because society was miserable in the 60s and 70s and everything in society is sunshine and rainbows now. Films, if anything, now reflect that studios have discovered what kind of films are consistently profitable nowadays. And the last thing a lot of people seemingly want to see today is the bleak realism that was pervasive in a lot of New Hollywood cinema.

[Hellraiserfan]

Originally Posted by baheidstu

Nowadays, the studios are under control by major corporations.

Not arguing but more curious when I ask this. What corporations are you talking about?

Last time I checked, studios are the corporations that run/own/rule Hollywood.

[baheidstu]

Originally Posted by Hellraiserfan

Not arguing but more curious when I ask this. What corporations are you talking about?

Last time I checked, studios are the corporations that run/own/rule Hollywood.

Sony runs Columbia, Viacom owns Paramount, Fox is part of Rupert Murdoch's empire. And while Disney started out as an animation studio, they are clearly a mass media conglomerate now. In the old days, movies were really the only business that the studios were involved in, now the people in charge of the movie studios don't necessarily have a background in films or filmmaking.

[Brad1963]

Originally Posted by mja345

The point is, what do the majority of films currently produced in Hollywood reflect? Do you think things in society are significantly better than they were in 1975? Most movies now don't reflect anything at all. Hollywood films, without a shadow of a doubt, are worse than they've ever been right now. Hollywood could easily make the kind of films they did in the 70s because there is still a ton of malaise in society at large now. But they choose to make films that are about escapism.

The big difference is that in the 60's and 70's the studios would bankroll important films. Today, most financing is independent from the studio system.

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by Brad1963

The big difference is that in the 60's and 70's the studios would bankroll important films. Today, most financing is independent from the studio system.

I think that we can partly thank the box office failure of Heaven's Gate (1980) for that. The real tragedy of it is that Heaven's Gate, when shown in its uncut length, is actually a marvelous film.

[rdodolak]

Originally Posted by silverlakephil

Just got an email from Screen Archives. Get 5.00 bucks off on a 50.00 minimum purchase on August 26th only. Use thanks5 during checkout. Not sure if this applies to everybody or folks who have been using their site on a regular basis.

As did I. The new twilighttimemovies.com web site must be having an influence on SAE as they rarely issue coupons, let alone ones for TT product, yet this is the second coupon for TT titles since the TT web site went operational.

[Brad1963]

Originally Posted by baheidstu

Sony runs Columbia, Viacom owns Paramount, Fox is part of Rupert Murdoch's empire. And while Disney started out as an animation studio, they are clearly a mass media conglomerate now. In the old days, movies were really the only business that the studios were involved in, now the people in charge of the movie studios don't necessarily have a background in films or filmmaking.

You are correct. Since all the Hollywood studios have been absorbed by conglomerates they have an obligation to make a larger profit. Less chances are taken because they want a stronger guarantee of return. But then again films have become more expensive to make.

Every once in a while a film like Magic Mike comes out. That film had a 7 million dollar budget and grossed $167 million worldwide. WB did not even coin up any of the financing, they only distributed the film.

[Brad1963]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

I think that we can partly thank the box office failure of Heaven's Gate (1980) for that. The real tragedy of it is that Heaven's Gate, when shown in its uncut length, is actually a marvelous film.

Yes, unfortunately. And it killed United Artists who was a great distributor of films a quite a while. Eventually the execs from UA formed Orion Pictures who had a great run also.

I do have a great respect for Fox Searchlight, Sony Pictures Classics and to a certain extent Focus Features.

[Michael24]

Originally Posted by spawningblue

Have the extras been announced for their Oct. releases yet?

I don't believe so. I know the recent press release for Vampires only stated a new transfer. Hopefully in the coming weeks the extras will be announced.

[Page14]

Originally Posted by grking

After seeing this amazing trailer a few weeks ago I'm totally getting it as a blind buy.

[Show spoiler]Fat City - Trailer | Crackle - YouTube

Also picking up 10 TO MIDNIGHT. I'm still on the fence with THE BEST OF EVERYTHING (from the last rounds of releases). Not sure I'd watch it over and over again.

You just sold me too (on Fat City).