Movies have shifted since 1965 from outright digs towards social biases and discrimination to more subtly expressive films that hint at condemnation of society’s actions. By the same token, films have stayed similar to those since that time in the film industry’s continued willingness to periodically challenge audiences. Throughout time movies have been made with two very different mindsets, the producers and studios wanting to create only those films that have already been proven to be wildly successful, while directors want to create a work of art, sometimes that challenges their viewers, while other times applauds them.

     In this way, films since this era have both evolved and stayed consistent, keeping the public guessing. Additionally, while the film industry would have preferred that movies remain largely mainstream since the 60s, they have in fact continued to be both mainstream and unconventional, as directors along with screenwriters keep throwing unusual hits towards the public. Films have not changed drastically over time in response to globalization, because movies have always been globalized, however, they have shifted with American society, as its views of violence, gender, sex, and more have changed over the years.

     The films Avatar and Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner convey the differences between the storyline techniques of the 60s and the 2000s. Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, with an all-star cast of Katharine Hepburn, Spencer Tracey, and Sydney Poitier, shocked audiences with its release in 1967. The idea of an interracial couple sets the scene, Joey’s parents wrestling with the knowledge that a mixed race couple is defensible, and the feeling society was bathed in, that it is wrong. Though they had raised their daughter with the liberal view that everyone is equal, no matter race or ethnicity, the reality of an interracial marriage suddenly forced them to realize that they might not be as unbiased as they had always believed.

As stated in Roger Ebert’s 1968 review of the film, “Miss Hepburn takes the news rather well (‘Just let me sit down a moment and I’ll be all right’), but Tracy has his doubts.” The director of the film Stanley Kramer cast Sydney Poitier’s character as perfect a man as any parent could wish for their child to marry. Incredibly successful, accomplished, caring, honest, and ethical, Poitier’s character was carefully crafted so that the parent’s only possible objection to a marriage could be his race. This is shown through the film clip below of Poitier telling both Tracy and Hepburn that without their approval, there will be no marriage.

At the time Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner was filmed, society was in such a state of polarization when it came to racial equality that the producers and film studio had to be kept in the dark as to what the film truly revolved around, lest they cut its production. However, the cast felt strongly that the issue of racial inequality should be brought to the public’s attention. The film was a firm reprimand for audiences in 1967, which clearly dug at the racial discrimination present all over the country at the time of its release.

Reported by Jeffrey Fleishman’s 2017 article titled “‘Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner’ is 50 and racial tension [is] still a problem in America”, “‘The message Stanley wanted was that it was inhumane that people weren’t allowed to get married, … [h]e didn’t think any one film would change anybody’s mind completely. But it could get them to think about it.’” This speaks to the film’s point, which was to show audiences the error of their ways. Ebert’s review states, “[t]here is shameless schmaltz (the title song, so help me, advises folks to give a little, take a little, let your poor heart break a little, etc.)” this helps to convey the sentimental tone that the soundtrack of the film purposefully took to soften the scolding it gave viewers.

As stated in Elise Settle’s blog post titled “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner”, “The film encapsulates a time when marrying someone of a different color was not only unheard of, but social suicide … [the film] seeks to encourage awareness of just how unfair this fact is, and accomplishes its aim beautifully. It points out the blatant racism at work in America with brutal … efficiency.” This helps to show that many films of the time were often obvious in their message, and accomplished their goal with fierce determination.

     On the other hand, Avatar’s storyline of a military takeover on a distant planet seeks to remind society of its less than pristine roots. It accomplishes this through the underlying setup of the entire film, each and every scene completing a separate task, unrealized by the viewer. James Cameron’s NPR interview about the film stated, “The film combines different genres — the Western, the sci-fi film, the war flick — all of which, Cameron says, were consciously chosen. … it’s saying our attitude about indigenous people and our entitlement about what is rightfully theirs is the same sense of entitlement that lets us bulldoze a forest and not blink an eye.’”

Cameron used different genres in the film to further impact and relate to audiences. Moreover, he utilized cutting-edge CGI technology to increase interest in the film and also to help set the indigenous culture even further apart from humans, as shown through the below screenshot from the film.

Rebecca Settle’s blog post titled “Technologically and Artistically Similar: Avatar and Inception” says of Avatar, “…the history of every nation can boast of taking the land and resources away from natives…” showing how easily anyone watching the film can relate to it in some way. Furthermore, a CollaborateX review of the film by Owen Slater states, “Throughout the film, James Cameron … get[s] [his] point across, … with the plot being centered around the symbolic “white man” coming in and driving out the indigenous people to steal their resources while destroying families and their cultures.”

As such, while the film revolves around a fascinating trip into an otherworldly adventure, it admonishes humanity for past, present, and future grievances. Recent films challenge their audiences just as films in the 60s did; however, they often choose a more indirect method of doing so. The movie trailer for Avatar shown below presents itself as an action packed adventure into a new world, while at the same time hinting at the veiled message Cameron intended to get across to viewers.

Directors and screenwriters use underlying emotions in the film and storyline to express ideas as well as opinions. While films throughout time have always done this, current movies like Avatar draw less attention to it. Instead, films appear to be nothing more than frivolous entertainment, while in fact they are often bold statements by their writers.

The film Blazing Saddles is similar to Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner in that they both take a straightforward approach to racial issues in America. Blazing Saddles is a satirical film in which racism against many minority groups is targeted, scorned, and criticized.

The western film genre is transformed into a vessel for hilarious references and serious ideals, as shown through the above movie poster for the film, depicting an African American riding a horse while giving the peace sign with his raised hand. The screenwriters purposefully used racial slurs and offensive humor in order to bring attention to how incredibly prejudiced America has been in the past. Jake McKinley’s 2018 CollaborateX review states, “[p]olitically, the movie touched on sensitive topics because … [it] highlights the injustice and evil nature of racism … [and] mistreatment of others.” Roger Ebert’s 1974 critical review of the film says, “[o]ne of the hallmarks of Brooks’ movie humor has been his willingness to embrace excess”, Blazing Saddles not only fulfills this expectation, but also uses it to prove a point.

The fact that it was released to the public was surprising to nearly everyone involved in its production; however, its enormous success with small tester crowds ensured its release to audiences across the nation. Jeff Labrecque’s 2014 interview with Mel Brooks titled “’Blazing Saddles’ at 40: A Conversation With Mel Brooks” stated “Brooks thought Warner Bros. might bury the film and never release it — but somehow, it made its way into theaters and became a huge smash.” The fact that a film made in the 1970s took such a direct route to firmly dressing-down the American public illustrates that while films have shifted towards a more subtle approach, largely due to film studios wanting to show audiences what they want to see, movies slowly changed to reflect this.

Money throughout the years has become increasingly important to Hollywood studios, at the disadvantage of new and creative films. As stated in Elise Settle’s 2018 CollaborateX review of the film, “The scene where Cleavon Little as Black Bart delivers a candygram to Mongo, expresses the merging of two completely different genres in one scene”, shown below.

This scene is just one out of many in Blazing Saddles that depicts the collaboration of different genres Mel Brooks used to create this unforgettable film. Another pricelessly ingenious scene is the ending of the movie, wherein the characters of Blazing Saddles crash through different Hollywood sets, showing a myriad of different movie genres in just a few short minutes.

Conversely, Eat Drink Man Woman shares an elusive approach to societal issues with Avatar, which is seen frequently in modern day films. Both movies address social beliefs and issues imperceptibly, sneaking up on their audiences. This method still influences viewers, though without their absolute knowledge of what is occurring. The movie Eat Drink Man Woman centers around three daughters and their father, providing audiences with a glimpse into a Taiwanese family that relies heavily upon food to communicate with each other.

The film portrayed itself to be a slice of life, an interesting as well as entertaining movie that audiences could sit back and enjoy. However, underlying layers of meaning conveyed throughout the film overshadows that concept. As stated in a 2018 CollaborateX review by Elise Settle, titled “Gender Roles in Eat Drink Man Woman and The Terminator”, “Eat Drink Man Woman contains a subtle reminder to audiences of the tenacity of patriarchy, serving as a suggestion that women ought to re-learn their place in society.” The below movie clip from the film of the father proficiently saving the day at the kitchen he commands while his daughters are at home cleaning up dinner suggests to audiences that women should remember that they belong in the home.

The review further states “[a]ccording to Ang Lee in his interview with Barry Norman in 1994, “filial piety is the essential virtue in a human being.” This conveys Lee’s thinking behind the film, explaining the meaning in the very last scene of the film, wherein the most career-minded of the three daughters cooks for her father, shown below.

Referenced in Steven Rea’s 1994 interview with Ang Lee, the film ultimately revolved around what “Ang Lee jokingly calls his ‘Father Knows Best Trilogy’”, because each of his movies center on the male figure being the only one to attain a satisfying life. The fact that the father in the film eventually shows himself to be the only character who really knows what he’s doing, while the career minded daughter cooks for him at the end delivers the message to women in audiences that their place is in the home, and, of course, that ‘father knows best’.

Since 1965, films have primarily been an art form for social, political as well as cultural struggles to be depicted, as directors, producers, and screenwriters exert their creative influence over the industry. All of the changes in films since 1965 have been propelled forward by the film industry’s increasing desire for profit, as films have become subtler in their condemnations of society’s actions because screenwriters and directors have been forced by film studios to conceal most anything in the movie that might offend audiences.  While film studios periodically allow a challenging film to reach audiences, more often than not screenwriters are necessarily indirect in addressing sensitive issues.