The film industry has changed significantly throughout the years. Just looking back on my childhood the special effects that once seemed so realistic at the time are now dated and cheesy. Subjects that seemed taboo are now spoken about openly. Yet technically, all movies are similar. No matter how convoluted they all follow a plot line. Whether it’s artistic or straightforward there is camera work. Real sets or built or a mix of both, and actors to populate the scenes. It is easier to convey social commentary within a film than to explain in words a lifetime of emotion and political forces. Since 1965 the world of film has significantly changed. I have chosen four films, all of which are created within 8 to 12 years apart from 1981 to 2010 to examine how the society of film making has evolved.

In 1981 the Canadian slasher film My Bloody Valentine was released. Horror was never a popular genre until the Halloween franchise. My Bloody Valentine director George Mihalka admitted that he wanted to jump on the bandwagon and cash in on the horror holiday trend but with an edge. “It was all about small town working class and not about horny teenagers getting killed. There was going to be social commentary about loss of work; it was the beginning of the Rust Belt in North America, people were losing their jobs left right and center.” Which unfortunately is still an issue today. The main controversy surrounding the film was it’s fantastic creative violence. By using everyday objects it added a real element of terror to the film. Anything could be used against you, no where was safe.  “So when I came back after the first draft was written, I would say “okay there’s a changing room here and in the shower they don’t have shower heads, they just had pinched, sharp metal pipes, so here somebody could be shoved against that”. Or they had this kind of industrial kitchen in the union hall so we could boil somebody’s face because they had these big huge pots in there.” Most films before 1965 were very formulaic and heavily relied on the dialogue within a script. This film is in no way a narrative masterpiece. It’s ingenuity is how Mihalka used his location to create the script. Because of this organic quality to the film it makes it interesting and dynamic, even though it’s a typical teen slasher film. Critic Brayton describes “The grubby bar, the chintzy but lovingly maintained storefronts, the shrill cheerfulness of the mine’s above-ground employee common area, and even just the old-fashioned industrial texture wafting off of every establishing shot: these are not things that you’ll find in any “psycho killer in the woods” movie. “ Because director George Mihalka took the time to examine the environment he would be filming in it made the movie memorable and more realistic. As opposed to using very simple sets to stick to the script which is what was usually done.

Nine years later television phenomenon Twin Peaks appeared as “a show about what’s good about the United States, while also being about the dark things the country tries to keep deeply buried, and it never once calls attention to those aspects of itself, because it tells that story through the language of dreams. After all, aren’t the myths we tell about ourselves — the perfect small town, the beautiful homecoming queen, the virtuous law enforcement official, the devil himself — just dreams we’re trying to make reality?” That mix of surrealism and small town nostalgia stood out. “The american prime time television landscape in the late 80’s was in transition, but it was still over saturated with unambitious soap operas and conventional laugh track family sitcoms. TV was at the bottom of the media hierarchy. It was called the idiot box, to underline  it’s intrinsic lack of any artistic or intellectual value. Then came Twin Peaks.”  Both Twin Peaks and My Bloody Valentine have become more popular years after their first release. Both are a mix of conventional and mainstream standards, and both include shocking visuals that are violent or just plain weird. For example the advertising posters are eerie and make you feel completely uncomfortable. The colors are off putting, and the imagery suggests violence and terror. Compared to advertisements before 1965 more saturated and pastel colors were used to create a sense of harmony. The actors and actresses appear perfect and airbrushed. The  complete opposite of what is shown now.

As the artistic changes within film continued to grow so did the technology. Eight years later Pleasantville was released and while it wasn’t a burgeoning success (as explained by Tim in this post) at first it grew into a cult classic. Through magical happenstance David and his sister are projected into their television set and are now living within the TV show called Pleasantville. They resume the identities of Mary-Sue and Bud. In Pleasantville there is no sadness, anger, violence, or negativity of any kind. Every basketball shot lands in the hoop, the fire department saves cats because there is no danger of fire, and “dinner was always on the table at a quarter to six (Ebert).” But underneath that there is no challenge or zest in life. Every day is the same unexciting cycle or romanticized white suburbia. There are no homeless people, the books are all blank, and sex doesn’t exist. “There is literally no world outside of it. In geography class, Jennifer (now Mary Sue) is taught that the roads in town are all circular and lead back to Pleasantville (Noah Gittell).” The colors within the film show the change within characters. Whether physical, emotional or a spiritual change.

This process would have never been possible if not for the advances in technology. Having a color television used to be revolutionary and now there is a film that does both black and white and color. As blog poster Mylikha Ditto-Ocampo  put it “In most of the scenes, black and white is featured alongside color aspects, which is a difficult process- but the director knew it was an important part of the movie which is why he decided to take his time with the effects. “Pleasantville captures the transgressive power of art: It’s a stunning form of protest, an ability to address and subvert societal norms without violence. And the results can be gorgeous, like the mural painted by Mr. Johnson. This black and white vs. color is an obvious parallel of apartheid and the civil rights movements connected to them, which a film analyst known as Meredith Riggs added that “The colorized people are shamed and ostracized: an obvious reference to the pre-Civil Rights Movement era of the United States. Up until the mid-1960s, seeing “No Coloreds” printed on signs was seen as often as we see McDonald’s signs today.”

While not as socially driven as Pleasantville, similarly the movie Inception could not have been created until recently because of the effects used. Twelve years later than Pleasantville, over a decade. And it shows in the visuals, fight scenes and special effects. In 2010 Inception was released by popular director Christopher Nolan as a cerebral thriller. While being praised as a visually stunning block buster it left the character development somewhat lacking (Rebecca Settle post). “This film review of Inception by Seth D. Baum and James E. Thatcher in the twenty-first volume and first issue of the Journal of Evolution and Technology in 2010, states that, “Inception’s plot revolves around a technology that permits groups of people to undergo shared dreaming experiences.” Thus, not only did the filmmakers use extensive technology so as to film the scenes, but a groundbreaking technology was a major part of the plot of the movie. The trailer for Inception illustrates the amazing depth of technology used to film the scenes, as well as the emotional aspect of the movie.” Talking about dreams within dreams is difficult enough, but showing that? To create this four minute long fight sequence Nolan “required the construction of a colossal centrifuge, the use of motion-capture cameras, and the use of ambient light coming from the lamps and sconces that are a part of the actual set. It also required Gordon-Levitt to become intimately connected to the set—both literally and intellectually. Not only was he connected to wires, which required training, he also studied every piece of the set so he could credibly move throughout the scene without crashing into anything and ruining the moment.”

Seeing the changes between 1981 to 2010 it’s impossible to say the film hasn’t changed since 1965. And that’s only within 29 years. The film industry now has a rich diversity. There are actors and actresses of different color and cultures, CGI, green screen effects, and special effects makeup that used to not even exist. “It is impossible for a society to constantly grow and redefine its values without that which is used for entertainment to grow and be redefined as well. Technology and socially acceptable cultural influences have had a lasting effect on the content of our movies. The world we live in continues to change depending on societies’ views of what is to be generally accepted versus not. It can be surprising how cultural values trickle down into entertainment (Aisha Oliver).” Even in 2018 the boundaries of the film industry are being pushed daily and evolving into the next new normality.