Were the eighties the worst decade for movies in... decades? The twenties saw the silents reach their apex, the thirties bore the fruits of a perfected studio system that ran well into the early fifties while the fifties themselves began to see Hollywood facing increasing competition from abroad until the sixties, which saw such an amazing output of quality work from Europe and Asia that it put the words "foreign film" in the vocabulary of even non-cinephiles which led right into the seventies which saw a Renaissance in American film.
And then came the eighties.
Nobody talks about the eighties. According to legend or myth, something is supposed to have happened that turned the eighties movies to mush. That something is usually some combination of Star Wars, an improved economy, yuppies, Ronald Reagan, the Moral Majority, Clara Peller, Walter Mondale, Jheri curl, E.T. the Extra Terrestrial, MTV, Pac-Man and Jazzercise. Definitely Jazzercise.
So anyway, somehow, the theory goes, all these factors led to filmmakers deciding in unison that they would no longer make great movies. It didn't matter if the filmmaker in question was a great one, because of one or all of the factors above, their art would suffer regardless. And how can it not be true? So many cinephiles say it's true it has to be, right? I mean, so many people say it, people like... um... well, okay, people like me. If you're looking for one of the all time "eighties movies suck" offenders look no further than this blog. I've spouted this cinephile party line for years to the point where it's damn-near a mantra. But is it true? That's up to you I suppose since decreeing a decades worth of artistic output to be either "good" or "bad" is so completely cemented in the land of subjectivity that I couldn't possibly provide the right answer for anyone. For me, however, I can only ask another question: How can the arbitrary cordoning off of years into decades possibly affect the quality work of separate individual artists making films within that given period of time? To answer my question I went to movie sites like IMDB and Netflix and put together a list from a randomly chosen year, 1983. This list contains 30 movies that could reasonably be ranked in someone's top ten at the end of the year. Not mine necessarily (I can't even stomach some of these titles) but someone's list. Here it is:
Danton
El Norte
Fanny and Alexander
Local Hero
Return of the Jedi
Risky Business
Say Amen, Somebody
Scarface
Silkwood
Star 80
Terms of Endearment
Testament
Draughtsman's Contract
The Dresser
The Right Stuff
The Year of Living Dangerously
WarGames
Angelo My Love
Frances
Gorky Park
Rumble Fish
Th Dead Zone
The Grey Fox
Trading Places
Under Fire
Yentl
Christmas Story
Koyaanisqatsi
King of Comedy
That's a pretty good top thirty. The last one on the list is purposeful placement because that's probably the one I would give the top award too although Tender Mercies, Local Hero, The Right Stuff, The Draughtsman's Contract (released in the States in 1983 but made in 1982) and Fanny and Alexander could easily take it as well. So what's the problem with the eighties? If you go through the other years of that decade you can, as I found, compile similar lists. So is it the bad movies of the eighties? Is that the problem? Is it Porkys, Baby... The Secret of the Lost Legend, Stroker Ace and all those Police Academy movies? Maybe that's it. Maybe it's because the Stallone/Norris/Schwarzenegger action movies started in the eighties and people associate that kind of mindless violence with the total film output of that decade. Or maybe directors like Ron Howard started making movies that felt too slick, too assembly line. Oh no, wait, I mean MTV started making videos that produced directors who then made movies that were too slick. No, no wait, now I remember, it was Robert Zemeckis. It was his fault.
Ah hell, if you try, you can probably use anything as proof that the movies of the eighties sucked. The only thing you can't use as proof are the movies themselves. The second you start listing the bad stuff anyone else can start listing the bad stuff from any other decade to counter it. Which 
means you're left with the good stuff, and the good stuff from the eighties can hold its own with the good stuff from just about any other decade because let's face it, directors like Woody Allen, Martin Scorcese and David Lynch didn't exactly slouch off during that decade.
The fact is, the movies of the eighties aren't nearly as bad as they've been made out to be, or at least not as bad as I've made them out to be. As I revisit several and look forward to revisiting several more in the coming months I realize it was a pretty good decade for movies after all. So let's cut the eighties some slack, huh? They had their share of dreck but they also had, as evidenced by 1983 alone, some pretty solid fare as well. Where's the beef? It's in the movies, the good ones, and as it turns out, there were quite a few in that decade. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to figure out my Rubik's Cube before my Jazzercise class begins.
99 comments:
I would say yes and no. There were some good and even great movies in the Eighties. On the down side, this was when movie release patterns had changed so that you had the same movie releasing across the country at the same day in hundreds, and then thousands of screens, the rise of the "high concept" film, and the realization of Hollywood that it could manufacture hit films following certain formulas. Also, after Entertainment Tonight started releasing weekend box office figures, the tail truly started to wag the dog, setting the stage for a mindset of seeing a movie on its first weekend. If you want to blame someone, blame Jerry Bruckheimer, although he has produced a couple good films in Eighties for Paul Schrader and Michael Mann.
Also, after Entertainment Tonight started releasing weekend box office figures, the tail truly started to wag the dog, setting the stage for a mindset of seeing a movie on its first weekend.
And as a result that continues today but the movies of the 90's and 00's aren't given as nearly as bad a rap. And didn't Hollywood realize how to manufacture hit films based on formulas going back to the days of silent comedy? Formula has always defined a lot of what is produced in the popular arts, why give the eighties a hard time for it?
The thing is, somewhere in the back of my mind, I still think the eighties were a lesser decade for film but I think it has to do with fashions and trends that have nothing to do with movies at all getting mixed up in my mind with the movies themselves.
I don't remember the movies of the 80s being particuarly bad, but for me,it's the whole package of 80s pop culture, fashion and style that seems an embarassment to me now. The shoulder pads, the leg warmers, the ripped sweatshirs, the frizzy perms, the mullet hairdos on guys, a lot (not all) of the popular music... blechh!!!
Greg - I think our last two comments crossed in transition, and we seem to be saying the same thing.
Pat, yes, the last paragraph of my comment jibes with your comment. It's the fashion and pop trends of the eighties that, I would weakly hypothesize, make the movies seem lesser. There is so much about that decade you just can't take seriously and it affected everyone. I saw a video a couple of weeks ago of Springsteen in the eighties in concert and there he was, this supposedly gritty, hard-working Jersey guy performer with the rolled up sleeves and the shirt tucked in and the straight jeans and the polished boots and generally a very non-tough, high maintenance appearance. And Clarence Clemons looked like a walking advertisement for the eighties. So yeah, everyone was touched by it, including me. I won't say how but there are pictures of me from that decade that no one is ever - EVER - going to see!
Greg -
Yep, same here. When I mentioned shoulder pads and bad perms, I wasn't just talkin' about OTHER people!!
I saw a lot of wonderful European films in the 80s ("Entre Nous," "My Life as a Dog," "When Father was Away on Business," some Fassbinder films - the titles of which escape me at this moment, British films like "Dance with a Stranger" and "Wish You Were Here," and many more.) I lived in Indianpolis then. There was actually a small, three-screen theatre at the edge of the Casteleton Square Mall parking lot that, for a time, was devoted entirely to art house fare. I was there at least once a week, and I tend to remember the 80s as a good time for moviegoing based on the films I saw at that theater.
The 80s was for me a fertile time of discovering foreign films. I had no problem with domestic films of that time - I was a big of a Bill Murray/Dan Aykroyd fan as you could find - but I was growing out of that demographic and reaching out to more evocative, less familiar stuff like The Fourth Man, A Woman in Flames, Betty Blue and Diva.
The excesses and longueurs of the 70s brought on the death of the New Hollywood. A lot of those films we call classic now were box office disaster at the time (Two-Lane Blacktop, for one) and destroyed the studio-based ancillaries that spawned them. You really can't hold it against the studios/producers for throwing in the towel after a decade of largely unprofitable experimentation or moviegoers of that time for turning away from having their noses rubbed in the misery that is the human condition every time they went to the cinema.
Pat, the eighties for me was the decade that I really could see whatever I wanted for the first time. There was cable, VHS and movie theatre. Doesn't seem like much now but it was the beginning decade for finally getting to see whatever you wanted. And to boot I had finally entered my full-fledged adult years and probably saw movies, either on vcr, cable or the theatre, every day of the week, several times a day. Seriously, that much.
I remember loving Diva and had forgotten about it until just now. Yet another I'll have to revisit. And while I agree, you can't blame the producers or moviegoers for the reasons you state, the eighties still produced a lot of that too. Betrayal, Silkwood, Star 80, Testament, The Year of Living Dangerously, Under Fire & King of Comedy from 1983 aren't exactly feel-good movies.
It's a good question to think about. I often take 80's hate or mockery (in all pop culture) to be b/c it's the freshest meat. Meaning... making fun of the 70's is old hat, and making fun of the 90's is starting now. Maybe.
Maybe we can blame criticism, or the way criticism went with the popularity of Siskel & Ebert. I'm not ripping those guys b/c I liked them, but they certainly helped in reducing some post-movie discussions to a simple hand gesture.
Or maybe it was a 70's movie like Jaws that lead into the business model of the eighties blockbuster? I'm too young to remember, but was the box office as celebrated back in the 70's or 60's?
they certainly helped in reducing some post-movie discussions to a simple hand gesture.
Yeah, I believe Ebert himself has always hated that, or so he says, but by the time he wielded enough prestige and power to stop it, he didn't so... I'm just saying. And he still uses star ratings despite the popularity to stop. But I don't think he or Siskel are to blame.
I'm too young to remember, but was the box office as celebrated back in the 70's or 60's
Box office has ruled from the beginning. The trade papers have always reported on box office and test screenings, with comment cards, date back to the thirties. Even Gone with the Wind had a test screening before release so they could change things if necessary before general release to ensure the largest maximum profit.
Have any of you revisited any of these movies: Star 80, Betrayal, Silkwood.
As a child of the 80's, I didn't see these movies until the 00s, and I remember thinking all of them were way bad... especially Star 80 and Silkwood. I think Betrayal had some parts to it that I liked, but I often get it mixed up with Music Box.
I remember thinking Star 80 was a "dirty movie" when I would see the VHS box, which isn't far from the subject matter of course, but before I knew what it was about I always thought it was so scandalous with that picture.
No I haven't seen those in a while and don't really plan too. Those would be among the ones I didn't really like but I know other critics had ranked them so I included them on the list. The ones on the list I would like to revisit because I haven't seen them since the eighties are Danton, El Norte, The Draughtsman's Contract, The Dresser, The Year of Living Dangerously and The Grey Fox.
Arrghhh! I forgot Never Cry Wolf. That was released in 1983 as well. Charles Martin Smith is terrific in that one.
It seems too obvious to even bring up, but every decade has its good stuff and its bad stuff. And it's hard to judge a decade by a proportion of good to bad because methods of production and trends within national cinemas are so different over time. Maybe 80s Hollywood/American mainstream cinema doesn't measure up to past decades (or maybe it does, I don't know; not very interested myself) but there were certainly plenty of great 80s movies. Fassbinder's last few films, Woody Allen, Scorsese, some of Eric Rohmer's strongest work, Paul Verhoeven, Cronenberg, Almodovar, the "return" of Godard, Todd Haynes' Superstar, Derek Jarman, Kieslowski, Mike Leigh, Lynch, Pialat, Chris Marker, Rivette, shall I go on? There are so many films I really love from the 80s that I can't imagine writing off that decade.
It looks like Videodrome was in 1983 too, but I don't think I like that movie as much as I used to think.
The decade had its ups and downs. As far as movies went it might as well have still been the Seventies until about 1983, which is when the Amblin productions and John Hughes began to set a more juvenile tone. I hated the Eighties as they were happening, but even at the time I noticed an improvement that began after mid-decade, with many of my favorite films of the period appearing in 1987 and 1988 (Full Metal Jacket, Tucker, Unbearable Lightness of Being, Eight Men Out, etc.)But in terms of style the decade indisputably was a dark age.
Maybe 80s Hollywood/American mainstream cinema doesn't measure up to past decades (or maybe it does, I don't know; not very interested myself)
Well, I hope I didn't bore you [he types in on his keyboard, slightly dejected]. Boy, some people!
There are so many films I really love from the 80s that I can't imagine writing off that decade.
Me too, I must finally admit. This whole post, by the way, resulted from a throwaway line in either a post or comment by Dennis Cozzalio recently. I cannot remember where but he wrote about being a critic in the worst decade for films ever, the eighties, and I thought, "Really? The worst ever? I've thought that too. Is it true?" Sometimes it takes compiling a list of directors and titles of films to bring what you state at the top of your comment back home. That every decade has good and bad.
I too have always resented that the 80s were somehow a low-point of cynicism. Peter Briskind in his tome of reductive non-sense "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls" essentially postulates that it was Lucas the mogul and Spielberg the village idiot who single-handedly lowered the quality of movies all together. You hear this non-sense regurgitated by every wannabe film expert who wants to appear refined. The truth of the matter is infinitely more complex, which is why it's not in the canonical 'story' of Hollywood.
It is difficult, nay, impossible to deny that Jaws and especially Star Wars changed the way movies are marketed, though. But I'd say the fact that it was those movies speaks to their power more than anything--- if it wasn't those movies, it would have just been other ones, as this is the way the industry was changing. It was bought up by corporations who don't know anything but demographics, and they certainly don't care about movies, let alone like or even understand them.
But Hollywood has always created product. With the assembly line style of film making in what we call the golden age of Hollywood produced as many stinkers as golden eggs--- it's just that the stinkers have been washed under the rug (along with some golden eggs, undoubtedly) and the gems, for the most part, are what remain.
And to discount the 80s is to discount the maturing craft of Spielberg Scorsese, De Palma, Lynch, and Allen in the 80s--- and a host of notable debuts like The Coen Brothers, Michael Mann, Tim Burton, and Jim Jarmusch. And that's just American film makers off the top of my head. Hardly a dry time.
This decade has suffered from a similar mentality--- if I hear "cinema is dead" or "they don't make 'em like they used to" one more time I will scream. On what planet have we not had a ton of wonderful movies this decade? Maybe they're not like the 'classics' of decades past, but there's a lot of extremely rewarding films out there.
* a low point of cinema. I don't know why I wrote cynicism...
Yeesh, Greg, so sensitive. I just meant that I don't know very much about 80s Hollywood, and it's not exactly my area of interest, so I can't really say if Hollywood movies were worse in the 80s or not. It should be obvious, but I found your actual post very interesting.
But I agree with you that the decade as a whole has too many strong movies to dismiss the era.
Samuel, I agree that any previous decade may filter into the next by two or three years but with this line, But in terms of style the decade indisputably was a dark age, what do you mean? Can you provide examples of this? Did you not find the visual styles of Scorcese in After Hours or Lynch in Blue Velvet or the flowing camera work of Hannah and her Sisters to be impressive? I would say the eighties, for better or worse, developed a visual style more influential today than that of the seventies by far even though, as I write this, I know I much prefer the more gritty, hand held feel of many seventies films.
It looks like Videodrome was in 1983 too, but I don't think I like that movie as much as I used to think...
I do.
What about Midnight Run? That's from 1988, but in a lot of ways it's the quintessential 80s film: it's a buddy movie, which was a HUGE "genre" in that decade, it's an action film, it's a comedy, both of which were basically the tentpeg genres at that time. And it's FANTASTIC! Okay, I haven't seen it in a while, but I've seen it a bunch of times, and that sucker is on rails. DeNiro is fall-down funny, and Grodin was never better.
So it wasn't all bad, is what I'm saying.
Also, I saw The 6th Day last night. It was made in 2000, but it feels like it was made in the 1980s (or possibly early 90s), and it's one of the worst things I've ever witnessed.
Ed, I was just joking. Bill, Ryan and Fox aren't the only ones I give a hard time to.
Well Ryan, like I always say, the cinema is dead and they don't make 'em like they used to.
Geez!!! Did you guys just hear that scream? Who was that?
Ryan, that was an excellent comment and says a lot of what I was thinking even if I didn't include it in the post. I've never really like Easy Riders, Raging Bulls but I'm assuming every cinephile on Earth has read it. Mainly, it feels like an agenda more than a book.
As for the stinkers being swept under the rug I am always reminded of this when I thumb through an old film book or magazine from the forties or so and realize that even in the age of TCM I don't know half of what they're referring to because all except the most classic movies have disappeared from the discussion.
Bill, I did a Videodrome banner a couple of weeks ago. I was pretty sure no one noticed it or knew what movie it came from or got the joke - But I bet you did!
I haven't seen Midnight Run since it came out and I caught it in the theatre. I liked it at the time but I'd have to see it again because I don't remember much of anything about it now.
I saw The Sixth Day day too and won't ever check it out again as long as I live.
Do see Midnight Run again. I know DeNiro does a lot of comedy these days, but his performance in that film is what a funny DeNiro performance is supposed to look like. It really is great work, and one of my favorite pieces of acting from him.
I did notice that banner, and I got it, but I bet a lot of people did. That's not that obscure, is it?
And God, The 6th Day...I watched it knowing it would be bad, because sometimes, for whatever reason, that's what you want: dumb action/horror/SF. It's relaxing. But very early into the film, I said to my wife, "I really don't think I wanted it to be this bad."
The movie itself was a sixth day violation. It's like how in the movie the quality starts to diminish with each successive cloning, like recording a tape over and over - that's how the movie is. Like they've cloned the cliches in it so many times that they're falling apart and limping and talking like they can't move their tongue anymore.
Another thing I said to my wife (I'm always saying such great things to her) was at the end, when the two Schwarzeneggers are talking to each other about their lives, and where they go from here, and the one Schwarzenegger is consoling the other, I said: "Are you enjoying this scene as much as I am?"
Because, okay, THAT scene is hilarious. I don't believe there has ever been a bigger star who was as painfully terrible as him.
Oh, and I just went to IMDB (to check the spelling or Arnold's last name), and I saw that the tagline for The 6th Day was, apparently, "Are you ready!"
Clever.
Oh, and I just went to IMDB (to check the spelling or Arnold's last name), and I saw that the tagline for The 6th Day was, apparently, "Are you ready!"
So basically, they didn't even bother to create a tagline for it. I assume the back up taglines were "Watch out!", "Action movie!" and "1,2,3,4,5... 6!"
Except for Terminator (see how I have gotten us back to the eighties - I'm so clever) I don't recall liking many if any of Arnold's 80's films. Predator seemed okay I guess but I never got into his brand of movies. And he really does have terrible delivery with line-readings.
It looks like Videodrome was in 1983 too, but I don't think I like that movie as much as I used to think...
I do.
No you don't.
And don't forget Jonathan Demme! Everyone is forgetting Jonathan Demme.
Remember when Schwarzenegger's End of Days (which I often confuse with The 6th Day) was supposed to be our Y2K-the-end-is-nigh movie but then it didn't happen after all.
I guess that's why they are trying again in 2012. So, when the world doesn't end in 2012, what is up next? What is the next cool date? 2069? haha. That was funny.
Fox, one of Demme's best for me is right at the start of the decade, Melvin and Howard. I realize that's pretty much a seventies movie coming out in 1980 but still, there's an "8" in there and if you consider 1980 the first year of the eighties (like some do) and not the last year of the seventies (like others do) then it kinda, sorta counts.
And the world will end when I say the world will end.
And the world will end when I say the world will end....
Yeah... that's what you said last time (sigh)!
I'm gonna go watch Collateral Damage now.
Jonathan Demme doesn't do much for me, but I haven't seen some of his big early movies (like Melvin and Howard).
End of Days is a far superior terrible Arnold Schwarzenegger movie. It's ridiculous, but it passes the time. Plus, that's a good title for an Apocalypse movie, and I'm surprised no one had used it before (at least for a film, and as far as I know).
Bill-
It's a 70s movie, but Demme's Citizens Band (aka Handle With Care) is one of my favorite movies. Sadly, it's only available on VHS. Don't know why. But I think it's up there with Melvin and Howard.
So, put that in your pocket for a rainy day... or, the end of days.
I loved Handle with Care too and would love to see a nice edition on DVD sometime soon.
As usual, I can't hope to keep up with the discussion here, but I'll try anyway with two quick points:
- Overall, I second the idea (made somewhere in the comments, if not in the actual post) that often when we roll our eyes at 80s films we're really rolling our eyes at 80s (pop) culture.
Think of how many 80s films would be significantly improved if their soundtracks were less-80s-ish. For whatever reason, we haven't developed the kind of nostalgia for synthesized 80s music that he have for 60s or 70s music. And so you've got a film like 1986's Hoosiers which is pretty much fucking flawless except for its synthesized score that doesn't match its 1950s setting. (Of course, I'd say the same of Quincy Jones' Oscar-nominated score for 1967's In Cold Blood, but I digress.) Now, someone could argue that 80s filmmakers were cheapening their product by using modern music, but then we'd have to pay that criticism backward to the films before it that did the same thing and happened to get lucky with the music's staying power. (The Graduate, anyone?) So there's that.
- As for Ryan's comment related to Easy Riders, Raging Bulls, I agree with your ultimate defense of the 80s, but I want to defend Biskind a bit. I don't think that he argues (primarily, at least) that Lucas and Spielberg were soulless and tainted Hollywood with their filmmaking sensibilities. Instead, Jaws and Star Wars were so successful at the box office that they provided the ah-ha moment for Hollywood studios, which led to shorter running times, coinciding with McDonald's "get 'em in, get 'em out" approach (since changed).
The biggest impact of Star Wars was in terms of merchandising, showing how a film could move products and then in turn the products could move a film. As Ryan says, if it wasn't Spielberg and Lucas it would have been somebody else. The movement was coming eventually. Nevertheless, I do think that the turning point marked by Jaws/Star Wars is as real as Biskind describes it (which isn't to say that it's always referred to accurately now).
OK. Those reactions were dated when I started to write them, and I'm sure there have been 15 more comments since, and you guys are now probably discussing religion in Mesopotamia. But had to jump in.
I think a lot of it had to do with Beta/VHS and how easy it was getting to make movies. Also, this may not have been too prevelant in the 80's, but channels like HBO and Showtime were beginning to be a place for a movies to find a home that didn't belong in theaters.
I think that all correlates with the philosophy of the decade: quantity over quality. I don't know for sure because I was born in 1982, but it seems that this was the decade where more and more movies were getting released...more than any decade before it, and that sheer quantity of films waters down the market and makes it harder to remember the good movies. I bet people 30 years from now will be saying the same thing about 2007, but that year had: Zodiac, There Will Be Blood, No Country For Old Men, Michael Clayton, Into Great Silence, Inland Empire, Eastern Promises, etc.
I just think that it's the amount of movies that are released now that make it harder to remember the good stuff. I've been revisiting 1999 on my blog and some people tend to forget what a great year that was because 1999 is usually associated the gross-out-teen-sex-comedy.
In the 80's you had Cannon and Golan-Globus releasing cheap action and horror films week after week, and when video stores became all the rage it was Vestron and other companies of that ilk that overpopulated the shelves with action and horror films that were able to be made on the cheap. Big budget movies were becoming more and more popular, so some studios had to find a way to make a profit I guess, and if all they had to pay for was one "star" like Dolph Lundgren, go to a location and film three different movies there, then that's what they did to turn a profit. I would say that this theory of filmmaking may be what makes the good movies so hard to remember...the over saturation of the marketplace.
However, I am a guy who likes all those Canon and Vestron movies...so I can't complain too much...but when you're talking about serious film, well then I am with ya.
I don't know...I could be way off...but there's my two cents.
Great post, Greg.
And so you've got a film like 1986's Hoosiers which is pretty much fucking flawless except for its synthesized score that doesn't match its 1950s setting. (Of course, I'd say the same of Quincy Jones' Oscar-nominated score for 1967's In Cold Blood, but I digress.)
Jason, I feel that way exactly. And since you brought him up I want to say 1) Quincy Jones has done some of my favorite movie music ever and 2) But I don't like it with the movies. For instance, at the end of The Pawnbroker, there is this incredible emotional catharthis on the part of the lead character played by Rod Steiger and accompanying it is a bouncy slick jazz score. Great music Quincy but WOW is it WAAAY OUT OF SYNCH with what's happening on the screen. It's like Jones didn't actually watch the movies he was scoring. Really, I don't think he did.
And the synthesized score started with Vangelis and Chariots of Fire, a movie I've never disliked despite a seemingly constant bashing by cinephiles everytime a Best Picture discussion comes up. Anyway, later on in the decade action movies employed a synth-pop soundtrack that now seems to run counter to what an action movie should sound like.
As for Biskind he may arrive at the right conclusions but the way he gets to them involves a lot of unnecessary and petty commentary involving how Amy Irving humiliated Spielberg and how dorky he was and so on. It just felt kind of mean-spirited at times.
Kevin, there were many more movies made in the thirties and forties than in the eighties but when you're in the time itself it always feels like more. For example, I know by title practically every movie released this year and last year but without going to IMDB and looking up 1984 I can only remember the better movies from that year. Time eventually filters out everything and most of those Cannon movies will be the first among the filtering. They did produce Runaway Train too as far as I recall which actually got some good reviews although for myself I remember not liking it much.
Runaway Train was written (or at least co-written) by crime writer Eddie Bunker, based on a story by fucking AKIRA KUROSAWA, so I was plenty pumped for that movie when I finally got around to seeing it. And then I was left cold by it. [sad face]
I love these movies, but I hate the synth music in The Bounty and Gallipoli. Especially the music in Gallipoli.
Both of those movies suffered from Chariots of Fire's soundtrack success. I don't remember the soundtrack of Gallipoli much now but The Bounty which I'm very familiar with as you know has that damn synthesizer soundtrack and I wish they would go back and give it a proper orchestral score.
At least The Bounty music is somber. In Gallipoli it sounds like it's supposed to accompany a laser battle.
Greg: I was going to mention Chariots of Fire, but I was afraid that the film causes such a knee-jerk reaction that my point would have been lost. So I'm glad you mentioned it.
While we're here, it's not just the 80s. I only got around to 1978's Midnight Express a few years ago its score made me want to scream. Of course, the guy who urged me to see the film doesn't really hear the music in the same way, because he saw the film when it came out. To him, the score fits the movie, which is how I feel about Hoosiers. I'm AWARE that it's off and doesn't age well, but it doesn't bother me because that music seems as natural to the film as the Imperial March to Empire Strikes Back.
And while we're talking about music: Show Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid to someone born in the past two decades and watch their face contort during the Burt Bacarach interlude. Not pretty.
Oh, and I agree that Easy Riders, Raging Bulls resorts to tabloid journalism. But, I admit, that's part of what I like about it.
Child of the 90's here, and I've always had a problem more with the platonic ideal of the 80's than the 80's itself. There were some great movies that came out in the 80's, but the first thing you think of when you think "80's" is stuff like John Hughes or Dirty Dancing or Top Gun. These are the movies that have defined our concept of "the 80s," not the work of Jarmush or Lynch or Cronenberg. It's less about movie to movie comparisons and more vague and unquantifiable conceptions about decades.
So, I see that you're running around saying that every movie made in the '80s sucked balls! I don't know what you're talking about. There are at least 6 movies that are ok.
Am I wrong? I didn't read the post very carefully.
Responding to Greg, I didn't say "cinematic style," but I will say that the admirable stylistic exhibitions you mentioned strike me as exceptional for the Eighties. My judgment is subjective, of course, and my idea of cinematic style somehow ended up being shaped by the movies of the Fifties through the Seventies rather than by the films of my own college years, and the differences in style that emerged in the Eighties have sometimes struck me as absences. I've seen fewer foreign films from the Eighties than from previous or later decades, however, so my appreciation of the decade might change in time as prejudices subside.
Bill, now that you mention it, a laser battle is what was missing from Gallipoli.
Jason, why does Chariots of Fire produce such a knee-jerk reaction? I rather like the movie myself. I think it's an excellent study of two people striving for individual goals for different purposes. Of course, it has that PBS Masterpiece Theatre feel to it but so what? Why does that feel, one I rather like, make it bad? The criticism I hear the most is that it's boring and that's a subjective statement I can't possibly argue with logically and so all I can say is I don't find it boring.
I haven't seen BC and the SK in a while but now I think I'll go on to youtube just to watch that scene again.
but the first thing you think of when you think "80's" is stuff like John Hughes or Dirty Dancing or Top Gun. These are the movies that have defined our concept of "the 80s," not the work of Jarmush or Lynch or Cronenberg.
Krauthammer, I think that's a great observation. Decades are associated with certain movies and usually, they're the lesser ones. I immediately think of Forrest Gump, Philadelphia and American Beauty when I think of the nineties for some reason and I wish I thought of much better movies.
Am I wrong? I didn't read the post very carefully
No you basically got it Neil. I also mentioned that Short Circuit was the best film of the decade and that that WAS NOT open to debate! Short Circuit - Best of the Eighties. Period.
Samuel, oops! I immediately thought you were referring to cinematic styles (perhaps due to the title of my blog). So now I must say, I agree with you. As Pat said, "The shoulder pads, the leg warmers, the ripped sweatshirts, the frizzy perms, the mullet hairdos on guys, a lot (not all) of the popular music... blechh!!!"
I miss Steve Guttenberg.
I do think that 80s movies had a rather bleak tone about them. 1984, coming out in its predictive year, showed just how close we actually were to its vision. A film from 1981, Montenegro, was also rather prescient about the madness that was about to befall us. Even Desperately Seeking Susan, supposedly a comedy, was nightmarish, as was Punchline. Women find themselves in the latter three films, but the mood is somber, almost evil. That's what I remember about 1980s movies - this overcast of malaise and hollowness that coordinated well with the electronic, hollow music of the time. And of course, the fashions and hair were real nightmares.
Well, miss him no more. There's another Police Academy movie just around the corner. Steve sure knows what the people want. I salute him.
Marilyn, I don't recall the bleak tone so much. Looking at the list of thirty I compiled only a few seem somber but I do remember thinking they were hollow. In fact, that's what I've thought for years and why I've run down the eighties but as I watch more again, as I've been doing lately, they're much better than I remember.
Of course, some are worse too but with movie memory being what it is, that's to be expected. I just know I want the picture of me in the day-glo multi-patterned bathing suit with the Kirk Cameron haircut burned, NOW, but I don't have it. I hope no one ever finds it.
As long as Bubba Smith returns I am so there.
Steve is a true Massapequa celebrity. I pass the street named after him (!!) all the time.
I didn't say 80s films were bad. There are a lot of good 80s films. But they do have this slickness, this hollowness. Real people seem to vanish. It's like Invasion of the Body Snatchers.
As long as Bubba Smith returns I am so there.
You and me both! Oh wait, no, actually I think it's just you.
Hold on, Ed, are you being serious? There isn't really a street named after him is there?
I didn't say 80s films were bad. There are a lot of good 80s films. But they do have this slickness, this hollowness.
First off, in the first line I have quoted from you above you typed the words "80s films were bad." So there. Okay, I know you didn't say that and I agree about the slickness and hollowness it's just that it doesn't seem as pervasive as I remembered it.
There is no street more 80s than Guttenberg Way. And yes, there really is a street named after him in Massapequa. Long Island has few celebrities, we take what we can get.
Sadly, I believe The Boys from Brazil is the highlight of his career.
Here's a bunch of worthy '80s films, in my opinion:
The Shining
Raging Bull
Scarface
A Christmas Story
Coal Miner’s Daughter
Dressed To Kill
The Long Riders
The Stunt Man
Blow Out
Body Heat
Reds
Raiders Of The Lost Ark
Choose Me
Ghostbusters
The Terminator
This Is Spinal Tap
Out Of Africa
The Purple Rose of Cairo
Manhunter
Something Wild
Radio Days
The Princess Bride
Bull Durham
Die Hard
Midnight Run
Do The Right Thing
The Fabulous Baker Boys
Henry V
You hear this non-sense regurgitated by every wannabe film expert who wants to appear refined.
[Sucks teeth. Writes "Ryan Kelly" down in little book. Closes book. Sucks teeth.]
Well, to be technical about it, The Stunt Man was made in 1977.
[Draws line through Ryan Kelly's name.]
This decade has suffered from a similar mentality--- if I hear "cinema is dead" or "they don't make 'em like they used to" one more time I will scream. On what planet have we not had a ton of wonderful movies this decade? Maybe they're not like the 'classics' of decades past, but there's a lot of extremely rewarding films out there.
Ryan I couldn't agree more with your comment. I hate it when people justify their year-end lists with phrases like "it was a bad year for movies..." Since when is any year a bad year for movies? I don't get that sentiment.
Great list Larry. I always forget about Purple Rose of Cairo when thinking about Woody Allen films because it doesn't, at first glance, seem like one of his. And Radio Days is another one I love.
Arbo, how tall was King Kong?
He was up there.
What about Electric Dreams? That had, like, a computer in it.
Kevin, there's never been a year yet without at least a handful of excellent films.
And don't tell Arbo but King Kong was three foot six inches tall.
Arbo, dude (and how often do I call you dude?) that was from The Stunt Man.
Bill, Electric Dreams - Thanks a bunch for putting that back in my mind.
Diddums.
Jason, I just got the impression from the book that he was being mean-spirited toward Spielberg, as Greg points out. Maybe I took it out of context but I got the impression he was basically taking something out on the man --- reading it, it did feel like he was accusing him of bringing about the death of cinema. And you hear that everywhere, and I can't deny I'm kind of sick it--- it's impossible to have a serious discussion about Spielberg when the other person throws out "He ruined movies by inventing the blockbuster with Jaws lol". Biskind even outright lambastes him for not using Paul Schrader's Close Encounters of the Third Kind script! Gah?
So I'm sorry if I came off as disparaging of the man but that trivialization of Spielberg is definitely a pet-peeve of mine. Admittedly, it's cool he brings a perspective to that era of film making, but I think he puts too fine a point on it. Did I really misinterpret?
And why is Arbo mad at me?
Ryan: As I said later -- but should have said in my initial comment -- there's certainly a tabloid flavor to Biskind's book. I've read through it twice, but it's been a while. I do remember Biskind mocking Spielberg, but I never got the feeling he pinned the blame on him, and I just wanted to point out that Jaws/Star Wars was a turning point, even if the men behind those movies were somewhat incidental. So if we disagree, it's not by much. I just wanted to expand on your thought.
Greg (a while back): I like Chariots, too. I think a lot of film buffs resent its win the way they do so many others. I'd probably agree with those folks that it wasn't the best movie of that year (but isn't that the case more often than not?). That doesn't mean it's a poor film, however.
And why is Arbo mad at me?
Every now and then he goes on a wild tear for no reason leaving a trail of destruction in his path. Soon you will be dead.
Jason, I've noticed that too, that when an unexpected film wins Best Picture it suddenly becomes a bad film as a result. Sometimes it may be true but in the case of Chariots I don't think it is.
It's been too long since I've seen Chariots of Fire for me to be able to voice an opinion on it, but I do know that that's one time where I think the synth score worked. It's overplayed, and has been parodied to within an inch of its life, but it really is a beautiful piece of music.
By coincidence, I had an Eighties double feature yesterday of two Hal Ashby films. I saw The Slugger's Wife which I rightly avoided theatrically, and Lookin' to get Out which was better, but for me not Ashby's best. I'll be writing more about them in conjunction with the Ashby biography.
Also: An American film from the Eighties that is a personal favorite: Broadway Danny Rose.
As for Cannon films, because of a connection with Tom Luddy of the Telluride Film Festival, Cannon was able to boast films by Godard and Makavejev. Of course nothing is better than Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo for mindless enjoyment.
Bill, I agree. I think it's a great score that completely works, which is why synth scores were tried with eveything and then didn't always work. Of course, Vangelis followed it up with Blade Runner which made perfect sense.
And yes, the theme, like "Zarathrusta" for 2001, simply cannot be parodied anymore by anyone possessing even a molecule of originality in their body. To use either of those themes now in a parody is to admit you have no ideas at all.
Peter, you probably already know Broadway Danny Rose is a favorite around here for a lot of us.
I saw Looking to Get Out on Showtime years ago and remember thinking about it when I went to Vegas years later, like I was going to break the bank at the blackjack tables or something.
Sadly, I've never seen Breakin 2: Electric Boogaloo. What can one do?
There are few things that make me laugh quite like the helium-fueled chase scene in Broadway Danny Rose. Woody doesn't do the slapstick comedy schtick very often, but when he does it's definitive proof that his genius doesn't only encompass the dialogue.
Ed, I love all of that movie including that scene of course. I watched it again about six months ago and was once again kind of shocked that it isn't as remembered as some of his other works because I think it's one of his absolute best movies.
Yea, don't get me wrong, I love the rest of the movie too. I'm with you: it's among his best, although for me that's a pretty long list.
Mia Farrow is especially hilarious in that movie, too. She was good in all the Woody movies she appeared in, but that's the one where she really holds her own with Woody as a comedic actress.
It's true. She doesn't even seem like Mia in that movie. Until she takes her sunglasses off late in the movie you can't even recognize her.
The directions were good, they were good. It was a Shell station.
I was pulled away just as I could have begun a Danny Rose quote-a-thon. Damn. And now I have to go again. Double damn.
The Blade Runner score is amazing. The jazziness capturing the noir angle with the synthesizer giving it a futuristic edge.
I also agree the Chariots of Fire score is terrific, although indeed massively overplayed since. It's been too long since I've seen the movie to join that chat.
And the '80s was really when Woody Allen was on a fucking roll.
Neil, I was thinking the same thing about Blade Runner. The sax with the synthesizer created the perfect score for a noir taking place in the future. It should have been up for Best Score but of course wasn't.
And Woody Allen in the eighties really was amazing. Starting with Annie Hall in 1977 through Crimes and Misdemeanors in 1989 it was 12 years of extraordinary output. Manhattan, Interiors, Stardust Memories, Broadway Danny Rose, Purple Rose of Cairo, Zelig, Radio Days, Hannah and Her Sisters... I mean, really, it's pretty damn impressive.
I would extend that Woody Allen roll a little further. Yeah, Alice was kind of weak but then after that he did Shadows and Fog, Husbands and Wives and Manhattan Murder Mystery -- his output became a bit more variable in quality after that, but there's still plenty of Woody masterpieces scattered through the 90s.
In other news, I'm going to see Whatever Works tonight. Looking forward to it.
And Husbands and Wives I love. As well as the much maligned Deconstructing Harry. For me Woody was at his peak through about 92. Some scattered hits after that (like Deconstructing Harry for me at least) but for the most part he became hit and miss at that point. I also like Another Woman, or did when I saw it upon release, but I remember everyone else, critically speaking, not liking it much.
Another Woman and Deconstructing Harry aren't maligned by me, that's for sure. Another Woman and September are both quite good, and are important steps forward in Woody's approach to straight drama, which at that point he hadn't really indulged in since the rather dull Interiors. And Deconstructing Harry I think of as the first installment in Woody's trilogy of dark, cynical masterpieces that closed out the 90s. That little three-film run, with Celebrity and Sweet and Lowdown, is another real peak in his filmography.
But then I like most of Woody's films, honestly. Other than Jade Scorpion and Hollywood Ending, which are pretty lousy, I think most of his films, from any era, are at least decent, and a lot are great. For someone so prolific, he's rarely made a complete stinker -- though I realize many disagree with me there.
For someone so prolific, he's rarely made a complete stinker -- though I realize many disagree with me there.
Oh I don't think many disagree at all. Woody Allen is one of the great American filmmakers. A rare case of an artist possessing an ear for dialogue, a flare for directing actors and a sure hand with the camera. I agree with the two you mentioned but I also don't like a few others, including Match Point which was well made but whose characters left me yawning. Although, like I said, it was well-made. You don't get many (or any?) Allen movies that seem outright bad. Anyway, I have more of his movies on DVD than any other director so I clearly fall on his side regardless.
Post a Comment