The 1970s American Cinema Perspective

The term "1970s cinema" has come to represent an idea about cinema more than just a given time frame. When people talk about movies from the 70s, when they refer to the 70s as the second golden age of cinema, what they really are referring to is a style that was a through-line for specific kinds of films being made during this time, a style that would define a movement in cinema, specifically American cinema.

What I love so much about this time in filmmaking (which really began in the late 60s) is that it was so unpredictable, where unconventional became the convention. Whether it's THE GRADUATE, BULLITT, MARATHON MAN, or KLUTE, they all had a very specific feel that was wholly original. The pacing of these films (and when I saying pacing, I'm really referring to the editing) were so deliberate and methodical that it left the viewer with something to enjoy and savor. Of course the French were responsible; you watch a movie like THE FRENCH CONNECTION and you can't help but see how influential Jean Pierre Melville was to Friedkin. "Transportation" was not merely transportation; it helped establish mood, set a tone, and created an atmosphere from which the world the filmmaker had created would be built. Instead of story pushing the viewer further and further along, these films relied on the love of the moment over the importance of plot. Ironically, this isn't to say American films from the 70s had no plot. Quite the contrary. Films like THE PARALLAX VIEW and THREE DAYS OF THE CONDOR had extremely complicated plots. But the difference was that they weren't based solely on plot. They didn't rely on just the wow factor. Instead, you could get a palpable sense of just how much the filmmakers loved and respected this medium and they wanted their audiences to also love the medium.

Of course cinematography played an integral part in helping to define this movement. The daring risks that these DPs took redefined what cinematography was and what it could be. For myself, part of what I love about these films is the cinematography. I become so absorbed in the world that is created that it makes it so easy for me to want to come back to it. Owen Roizman is just as much responsible for me rewatching THE TAKING OF PELHAM ONE TWO THREE as Walter Matthau is. That, my friend, is true power. When a cinematographer's work can be just as impactful as an actor's work. This is why I'm constantly searching out lesser known films from this period - movies like CHARLEY VARRICK, MIKEY & NICKY, and CALIFORNIA SPLIT - even if they're not as revered as CHINATOWN or THE GODFATHER, the look of these films is so engrossing that it's easy for me to enjoy them.

I wish films today were as confident as they were back then. Contemporary Hollywood cinema doesn't have the lust for risk that 1970s cinema had. During this time, character development played a huge part in mainstream film. A movie like KLUTE for instance, is seemingly about a man searching for his best friend. But what we realize is that it's as much a character study about a call girl than a mystery about a missing person. Likewise, NIGHT MOVES and THE LONG GOODBYE are more about lonely men who get hired to find missing people than about whether they solve a particular crime.

What is most unusual about these films when compared to films today is that they are never about what they first appear. With few exceptions (MICHAEL CLAYTON being the most obvious), today's films are perfectly laid out in the first twenty minutes on what they are about and what we as an audience are to expect. We then spend the remaining 90 minutes having those expectations met. But in the 70s, some films would go over an hour before you had even the faintest idea what it was about (for example in MARATHON MAN, it's nearly an hour into the film before Roy Schieder character is killed). Or better yet, the first act would set you up believing one thing then halfway in it takes a complete turn and it's about something else. I love when this happens! There is nothing I love more than to be surprised when I watch a film (one recent example of this is the Herzog remake of BAD LIEUTENANT). I don't think audiences like that today (which would explain why Herzog's film didn't do very well at the box office). Anytime films do that today, people are either confused or agitated. Quotes from audiences like, "that movie was boring" and "it felt like two different movies" leave studios hesitant to take risks like they did in the old days.

I think these risks that the films took in story reflected the risks the filmmakers were making in their craft. Whether it be in cinematography, editing, music, direction - they all attempted a certain contradiction by pushing the medium forward in trying new things. PLAY MISTY FOR ME is a thriller about obsession set during the Monterey Jazz Festival. While the content reflected violence (a crazed fan stalking a radio DJ), the title of the film (and the soundtrack) was based on a melodic love song. This contradiction (or motif playing off opposites, if you want to get fancy) helped add a layer of depth to these movies (something that lacked from FATAL ATTRACTION, a varied remake of the Eastwood film). What these films did so well was to slowly unravel a story you never knew coming and it was done in such a way that it was seamless (and you didn't even care). What exactly is the plot of BULLITT? Who are these people smuggling drugs in THE FRENCH CONNECTION? The end is irrelevant because it's the journey that matters. It's the way these films are made that make them so indelible, not their outcome. Not a better example of this is in two of the most heralded films from this time period, both of which were based on true events: ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN and DOG DAY AFTERNOON. Both of these films are near perfect despite the fact that everyone knows the outcome.

The period from roughly 1967-1979 was a very special time for American cinema. They were daring, they were unapologetic, and they respected the audience enough to know that even if you missed something about the plot, you could still enjoy the film. And boy, were those films enjoyable.