Before 1965, many films shared a similar type of story structure. For example, a gangster film would introduce the protagonists as do-good characters with few flaws and put them next to a morally inept antagonist, then with the audience’s support, maintain an escalation of beneficial occurrences for the protagonist and a series of downfalls for the antagonist, ultimately leading to victory for morality. After 1965 however, there is an innovative turn in the art of storytelling.

When Bonnie & Clyde came out in 1967, audiences were not used to viewing robbers and murderers as the protagonists. This unconventional approach is where the gangster film genre began its evolution. The concept of supporting violence would have failed in the 50s and earlier for many reasons: from the recent world wars to the recent mob wars. However, the 60s was a time of all sorts of revolutions. Explained in an interview with Arthur Penn, director of Bonnie & Clyde, the economic absurdity of The Great Depression led to the idea that it almost made sense to take some sort of action and this was analogous to concepts of the 60s like “resist the draft, resist the war in Vietnam, break out of these constrictive morays, have a sexual revolution. And in fact, it just happened to be appropriate to that time” (YouTube). Even after the title characters preform sinister crimes, the audience still wants the duo to escape, making for an intense scene at the end of the film pointed out in a peer’s blog “they freeze-framed the shot on their dead bodies to make the audience know that it’s the end of the road for these bank robbing lovers” (http://collaboratex.com/2017/10/bonnie-clyde-vs-journey-italy/). After watching the trailer above, you can see how the frame below would be seen as a tragedy rather than a victory even though the “bad guys” got what was coming.

Following the concept of supporting violence and murder from Bonnie & Clyde, The Godfather has the same approach but without the Great Depression setting that could have somewhat justified the support for the desperate duo. Instead, The Godfather imposes family values and a power structure that from the beginning of the movie instantly garners the audience’s respect and support. The Godfather was originally a nonfiction book by Mario Puzo that didn’t receive the greatest reviews. One article said the book is “weakest when Puzo reaches out to drag in dramatic scenes that advance neither his plot nor his characters” (New York Times). Ironically, that drag helps in movies to set a calm, subtle tone, then is effective when the next scene is the opposite; brutal and violent. This is what makes The Godfather intriguing. There is a scene in the movie where the lead character, Michael Corleone is full of rage because the police were going to let another mob family kill his father. Michael then handles the matter like his Mob-boss father would have, and sets a meeting with the police chief and the mafia leader trying to kill his father. The following takes place:

Similar to The Godfather but with a sort of fun vibe, is Goodfellas by Martin Scorsese. Like the movies above, Scorsese redefined the gangster film genre. Rather than maintaining a dark setting, with the constant imminent threat that something bad is going to happen, Goodfellas spends a good portion focusing on the “positives” of the gangster life. I put positives in quotes because there is still constant brutal violence and murder but only performed by the main characters. The movie intrigues viewers by showing the seemingly limitless power of mobsters, then showing the cold-hearted betrayal of close mob-mates, like this Atlantic article explains “When Henry Hill (Ray Liotta) tells the audience he “always wanted to be a gangster,” it’s easy to understand why. But as much fun as the movie is, viewers also understand why they don’t want to be gangsters: because they’re merciless, violent crooks” (The Atlantic).

A bit different from the movies above, Hard Boiled is focused around a cop trying to take down the Triad gang. However, this film directed by John Woo out of Hong Kong is not at all about the storyline and is simply a cinematic showcase of slow-motion effects with loads of blood and gore.

These kinds of crazy action films coming from Hong Kong were certainly inspired by Hollywood action blockbusters but then kicked up a few notches to then inspire others. Like this review states, “The glorious excess of Woo’s Hong Kong films, with their unimpeachable deadpan cool and ornately choreographed violence—borrowed in themselves from Jean-Pierre Melville and Sam Peckinpah, respectively—have now simply become the accepted language of action movies” (film.avclub.com). Before Woo, all the hits involved martial arts and intense showdowns, but Woo changed the game by nixing the fists and introducing the bullet flying, slow-motion effects aside the greater plot of doing the right thing as noted in a peers’ blog about a different John Woo movie, “A BETTER TOMORROW had an importance behind the violence, more for moral reasons” (http://collaboratex.com/2017/11/texas-chainsaw-massacre-vs-better-tomorrow/). It turns out it’s pretty easy to root for the guy trying to defend a baby from a massive shootout.

In conclusion, based on the four films I have analyzed, movies have certainly changed since 1965. Each film had some influence on the next, but each added an auteur-like flair that made them stand out and attract audiences, but as you will see, similar concepts used later do not lead to the same success. As for the success and conventionalism of each movie, there were dramatic variances. With a budget of $2.5 million ($19 million with inflation to today), Bonnie & Clyde used the unconventional concept of rooting for the criminals and a somewhat tragic ending even though the two lived, loved, and died together making for a semi-touching ending. It could also be considered conventional because it used a huge star of the time, Warren Beaty, and without that, it’s hard to say if it still would have gone on to make the huge box office $70 million ($512 million today). Similarly, with a budget of $6 million ($35 million today), The Godfather also had unconventional aspects like rooting for criminals but went even further with the intense violence leading to reviews like “It is also more than a little disturbing to realize that characters, who are so moving one minute, are likely, in the next scene, to be blowing out the brains of a competitor over a white tablecloth” (NYTimes). The Godfather also only used one fairly popular actor Marlon Brando and had a slew of unknown actors at the time. This paired with another semi-tragic ending where the initial good-guy son fully transitions into the next Godfather defines this movie as pretty unconventional, which at the time was necessary to set trends and lead to massive success with a box office number of $140 million ($816 million today). While the previous two movies were unconventional for the time, 20 years later the concepts above were expected and conventional. With a budget of $25 million ($44 million today), Goodfellas followed the trend from earlier and had the audience support the criminal behavior with a well-known actor like Robert De Niro and a fairly happy ending where the lead character rats-out all of his mob partners that tried to have him killed in order to stay out of prison. However, the conventional approach didn’t do as well making $47 million ($81 million today) proving that the general population shared a “been-there, done-that” feeling. The lowest budget film of the four, Hard Boiled at $4.5 million ($7.8 million today), also went with a conventional approach but more traditional than Goodfellas with a good guys vs. bad guys approach along with fairly known actors at the time (due to John Woo using the same actors as his previous big-sellers), and a solid plot full of constant intense, sporadic action. This too was not as successful making only $20 million ($35 million today). It goes to show that unconventional films can be far more successful if it’s a one of a kind trendsetter that rather push boundaries than a by-the-book sort of film made to try to cash out on popular concepts.