Taking a look at the changes from the 1960’s to the present is an interesting trip in memories, repeating themes, and advancements. This is also true for the film industry. There is great political, artistic, and business themes that not only have affected society but also the entertainment industry throughout these years.

It is interesting to see that there have been many advancement and changes yet there are also some reoccurring themes and mindsets in the industry that are the same. In this post I am going to look at discussing are Solaris, Apocalypse Now, Avatar, and Pulp Fiction.

Film Technology has advanced throughout the years in a remarkable rate. When looking at Solaris from the 70’s and Avatar a 2000’s film, we see drastic changes in the technology. In, Man of Extremes, there is an insight into director Cameron’s world.

“Cameron, who has done every job on a move set, is a master of special effects and is said by the article to have shot Avatar using camera systems he developed himself. It compares Cameron’s films, full of apocalyptic romance, to those of George Lucas who popularized space opera and Seven Spielberg who is said to have perfected awe.”

Farther into the technological aspect is the idea of what the technicalities of making the film can go into an art form that is so complex it is beautiful. This is an interview that the cast from Avatar and how they were so excited to work on the film.

Looking at another film, Solaris, we can see a different aspect of the film in the political mindset . It was an art, controversial film that is still considered a classic. Here is a program note about Tarkovsky’s next film not even being able to be viewed at the Museum of Modern Art in New York.

“Immaculate photographed, Solaris is the nearest the cinema has come to capturing the complexities of contemporary science fiction, with its intermingling of time and memory, acute uneasiness, and emphasis on elegance and style.”

I agree with this statement from the 70’s because I too thought about how the visuals in the movie were actually quite impressive. Yes, the modern technology has taken us to way higher levels, this was still very entertaining to watch. I think there is a huge MacGuffin, in this movie that to an extent you are trying to figure out what the whole point is, and it is used a little more blatantly in Pulp Fiction.

I think that there is much to learn from these directors. Also many similarities in the their approach and strive for advancements. Here is another example from the New Yorker back to the 2000’s about Cameron,

“Cameron, who has done every job on a move set, is a master of special effects and is said by the article to have shot “Avatar” using camera systems he developed himself. It compares Cameron’s films, full of apocalyptic romance, to those of George Lucas who popularized space opera and Seven Spielberg who is said to have perfected awe.”

The technology advancements have reached far then most can even begin to imagine, but there are also other ideas that have advanced. Next, looking at the political aspect of the film industry.

In Apocalypse Now, I think that it is interesting to see the changes in film and I think that there is definitely a political and social influence that erupted from Apocalypse Now. I think that it is also important to see the influences of the directors in american society and pushing the threshold of not just art, or happy ending films but inputting films such as Pulp Fiction and Apocalypse Now can be disturbing to some but also have fans that are avid followers of these directors.

It is also important to see how the changes have evolved from an art of storytelling to also address larger issues like war, death, and reality. There are more also of high-budget blockbuster movies that are doing this now too not just low budget art films.

Looking at Apocalypse Now, the book, “Otherness in Hollywood Cinema“, this takes a look at how Hollywood has had the resources and inclination to have movies set in far away places and to “push the envelope”.

“Hollywood was from the beginning teeming with people who had experienced cultural displacement. Coaxing the finest talents from around the world and needing to produce films with an almost universal appeal, Hollywood confounded American insularity while simultaneously presenting a vision of’America’to the world. The book examines a range of genres from the perspective of otherness, including the Western, film noir, and zombie movies.”

This next interview with Tarantino is from Newsweek in ’94. This is a really interesting interview and it is broken down easily into parts about recent political events, and other events other than just the movie, Pulp Fiction: 

“Pulp Fiction is the antiformula, yet it’s not anti by being esoteric. It totally delivers on the spills and the chills and the laughs and everything, but you can’t determine what’s going to happen until it happens. I don’t feel it takes place in the fantasy world at all. I mean part of the fun of it is, it’s a depiction of the mundane, right, in the criminal world.”

The making of Apocalypse Now had many struggles to get thru and the idea of also needing to make money, or least hope to break even can be a hard gamble. This article dives into that task. It’s title is, “The tinkering’s done, the hard sell begins”. Within the first paragraph it tells about how he doubled his original budget to now 31 million and missed the original scheduled date. The technology uses they had in the film were lighting to their advantage. In some of the last scenes, the lighting plays a huge roll in the drama of the film. They also use the 180 degree rule in some of the first scenes of the film when the men are talking around the table.

Here is another article from Joe Adcock, Aug 15, 1979 about Apocalypse Now. It very interesting to see how much trouble the film actually took on the people and also the fight to keep the film going. Everything from lead actors wanting more money, illness, and other factors leading to Martin Sheen as the main roll. This gives a really good example of the realities that took the film to actually be produced.

All of the films have an unique mise-en-scen that make the films unique to their own. One of my peers made great points about the unique qualities that directors sometimes have to have when there is a low budget,

“Hooper’s career took off after the direction of this movie. His success can be attributed to the unique qualities of the film that turned this low budget film into a horror movie that would change the genre forever. Some of these qualities include gore and the exaggerated build-up of suspense.”

PULP FICTION, had a budget of 8 million and grossed over 107 million.The peer also mentioned a correlation with love and violence in films. I think this is really interesting to look at films and including my own, such as PULP FICTION. Butch Coolidge and Fabienne’s relationship is so sweet and then there is VIOLENCE.

Another peer made wonderful points about the violence in film and the difference in the first initial thoughts when a film is released vs later.

“And of course the intense violence that audiences were not quite used to, leading to reviews around the time that mention (about Godfather) that it’s “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” (New York Times). ”

I think quote is a wonderful example of unconventional aspects in a film and also that if it was released today, I think this idea of ‘shocking violence’ probable wouldn’t be as a shock. When I watched Pulp Fiction I think the “shock” factor of violence is a changing aspect and what happens when the audiences are more dull to the violence was an interesting note that I took.

There is also an interesting correlation when we look at films as unconventional and what that means for a blockbuster, money making, movie. There are plenty of low-budget, high-grossing unconventional movies and there are also plenty of high-budget, high OR low gross conventional movies. It is interesting to see the directors goal with the films. I think there is defiantly a political and social influence that has changed thruought the years and it is interesting to look at some of the films that were controversial in their day, vs now. Or also vice versa.

In another peer’s post, there is an interesting aspect of there is always a villain or hero and this idea is interesting to see thru out the years what that means as a society.

The society we are in is getting dulled to violence and also more “triggered” to emotional and opinionated statements. Just like how movies and films have shown political statements in the past it will be interesting to see where the film industry goes from here.

The film industry will only continue to grow and expand, and also some directors will return and use ideas that are constantly in popularity. Love will never die, and neither will violence and entertainment.

Betsy Thyfault