| |
|
A friend of mine is resurrecting a project he was working on that involves 70s action movies. He's asked for my help, and so I've been immersing myself in that era through films (I just got a job at a video store!), books, music and the internet. Seeing as I have no one to talk about this stuff with, and with the upcoming release of Kill Bill, I thought I might as well start this conversation even though it's likely to suffer the same fate as the Atomic Horror thread.
One of my first reactions was to compare the action movies of the 70s with those of the 80s (the movies of my youth, and which I'm most familiar with). You can even divide it up to pre- and post- Star Wars if you like. Star Wars seemingly invented both the summer "popcorn" events, and gave financial credibility to the big-budget action film. Not that there weren't big budget action films before, or low-budget films after, but the action movies of the 80s seemed to deal with less controversial concepts than the films of the 70s, or even worse, paid lip service to the cliches without reaching any deeper. It seems to me that once the action movie left the grindhouse and the drive-ins and entered the multiplex, it fell in the hands of focus groups and tried to appeal to the widest possible audience in order to make its money back. Many of the action films of the 70s, because they were made on a shoestring budget, could afford to experiment in purposely tapping into markets previously ignored by action films, such as African-Americans and Women.
The dangerous actions of, say, a Mel Gibson in the Lethal Weapon movies is whitewashed and sympathetic in comparison to what you see in something like Rolling Thunder. Another aspect of the 80s action movies is that, in an effort to make sequels more likely, the characters became tamer and tamer as the installments increased in number. Mel is just a teddy bear by the end of the final Lethal Weapon. There's nothing lethal about it anymore. In comparison, films of the 70s often ended with the tragic sacrifice of the lead character. The films of the 70s seemed more "street", with imperfect heroes, fed up with the way things are run, but helpless to effect real change. They showed desperation, ruthlessness and remorse among other things.
I just watched Enter the Dragon, and in most cases when a person died at the hands of one of the heroes, said hero would regret the action despite feeling that it was a necessary evil. Or if he didn't regret it, the filmmaker would often play with your sympathy and make you question the hero's actions. At the end of the movie, bodies litter the grounds, and one of the heroes sits, despondently looking over the carnage, finally spotting the dead body of a woman he had been intimate with. It's a small gesture, that in an action film of the 80s would have been a major scene, while the deaths of hundreds will often go completely unnoticed. Vietnam vs. Videogames. Guilt vs. Manifest Destiny. Watergate vs. Reagan. Grindhouse vs. Videotape.
The filmmakers, despite knowingly making shlock, also seemed to be in tune with the revolutionary zeitgeist that had formed in the 60s. One theory I read stated that Star Wars practically ruined the groundswell of intelligent films being made in the 70s at that time. There was a new breed of filmmaker, George Lucas among them, that were dealing with the scars of Vietnam and Watergate. This sensibility trickled down to many of the "exploitation" films being made. Certain action movies were mandatory viewing for various revolutionary groups, inclduing the Black Panthers. Like any youth-oriented artwork, despite the protestations of adults who saw only gratuitous violence, many of the youth who were exposed to these films felt a sense of empowerment different from the power fantasies that predominated the films of the 80s. Many have spoken of finally seeing an African-American/Asian-American/Woman not only walking confidently on the big screen, but committing acts that had generally been the domain of white males.
I've avoided using the term "Blaxploitation", possibly the most identifiable category in the action films of the 70s. Though there were surely movies that could fit that terminology, many of the films that have been lumped under that tag were good, solid action flicks without a lick of "exploitation". The word "blaxploitation" is considered by many African-Americans, especially those that worked on the films, to be an insult to their efforts.
Yes, I know there are exceptions much of what I just wrote, but I feel for the most part that there is a difference in the two eras of action movies. Please feel free to dispute, but if possible, and if you too feel that there is a difference, explain how you feel that they are different.
Or, barring that, talk up your fave movie from the era or sensibility. Anyone else enjoy Jackie Brown? |
|
|
