Films have evolved drastically over the past half a century, but it does not take a film expert to know that. However, the how and the why of these changes does require a more in-depth understanding of film to fully comprehend and appreciate. Just as the world has undergone drastic change as a result of social, political, and technological factors, films too have been affected by these changes and continue to make adjustments to meet the ever-changing expectations of audiences.

To fully understand the changes in the film industry, it is important to first understand why these changes occur. From week to week, as we went through decades of film, it was clear that films were evolving. The quality of the filming was higher, the pace was faster, and, from a preference standpoint, the films got more interesting. But preference was in large part why these changes did occur. Take for example, “Bonnie and Clyde,” a film that my peer Julieann analyzed (Soto, 2019). In her piece, she wrote “We read everything in the news and newspaper but when a movie comes out that shows the criminal’s story, we become very curious,” and to quite an extent, that is very true. To this day, the Bonnie and Clyde story enraptures viewers, as they try to get a glimpse into the minds of the infamous duo. But on the other hand, I don’t think anyone would make the argument that filmmakers in this day and age would create the film the same way. While there are a number of action scenes, they do not meet the norm that we have come to expect from current action films such as “The Avengers” or “The Terminator.” There is, however, one noticeable exception to that. Called the “among the most famous – and most shocking – endings in cinema history,” the unforgettable ending of “Bonnie and Clyde” where the titular characters are slaughtered is truly remarkable and horrific (Buckmaster, 2017). When the movie was first released, one film critic called it “a horror that seems to go on for eternity, and yet it doesn’t last a second beyond what it should” and commented that “audience leaving the theatre is the quietest audience imaginable (Kael, 1967).” But even this scene, whether technically or cinematically, would look very different if it was filmed for a 2019 adaptation of Bonnie and Clyde.

This comes back to the idea of how preferences have changed since the 1960’s. The typical movie patron wants more action, a faster pace, and a tried and true plot, something that has caused tension in the film industry. In a scathing critique of the modern film, legendary director Martin Scorsese wrote ““Nothing is at risk. The pictures are made to satisfy a specific set of demands, and they are designed as variations on a finite number of themes. That’s the nature of modern film franchises: market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they’re ready for consumption (Sims, 2019).” While there is some merit in what Scorsese is arguing, the movie industry has a two-fold goal: to meet the expectations of the audience and to make a profit, with profit typically being the primary goal. Even films with well received storylines and heaps of critical praise have struggled with box office success. One has to look no further than Booksmart, a movie many believe to be one of the best of 2019, and their box office results (Sharf, 2019). A film that appeals to a variety of audiences, Booksmart was a hit with critics and viewers alike, with film critic Emily Kubincanek arguing that “Unpopular and popular are tired categories for young people and… ‘Booksmart’ proves coming-of-age comedy stereotypes are out of style (Kubincanek, 2019).” The film made only $24 million internationally, even after celebrities such as Mindy Kaling, Taylor Swift, and Ryan Reynolds, came out in full support (France, 2019)(Box Office Mojo, 2019). To put this in perspective, Avengers Endgame was released a month prior to Booksmart, and grossed over $2 billion. While obviously there will always be exceptions to the rules going both ways, the general sentiment remains the same: because people have changed, films have changed, and for a film to be a financial successful, it must meet the expectations of the audience.

Economic incentive to meet preference is not the only reason that films have evolved. Social change has also played a critical role in how movies are perceived and what and how people choose to watch. With streaming services flooding the market, there has been a drastic shift towards how movies are seen. “It’s a lot harder to get people to get up out of their houses and drive to the theater and put down money and get them to sit there, unfortunately. It’s much easier to sit in front of the TV and turn on their favorite streaming service,” said acclaimed director Paul Feige (Menta, 2019). Feige makes a valid point. If people know that a film will be available on a streaming service that they already pay for in 6 months, why would they be willing to spend $12 to see the movie once? It comes down to a very simple premise: the movie and the social pressures surrounding it must be so intriguing and engaging that people feel the need to satiate the urge to see it upon its release. These social pressures are further compounded by prevalence of social media and how quickly word spreads about new and upcoming movies. For me, there are very few movies that I have heard of and/or about that would convince me to head to the theater, and researching this topic put the movies that we have watched into perspective. Take for example Voyage to Italy and the blog post by my peer, Blake Voros. In his piece, Blake wrote “I found myself questioning what was going on at times, and also where the movie was going. It isn’t a confusing movie, I think it’s just not completely clear (Voros, 2019).” Now let’s hypothetically say that Voyage to Italy was a new movie, and Blake posted this on his social media. If 10% of his followers were interested in seeing the movie and they read this, how inclined would they still be to go see it? Would they feel that strong desire to go to the movie theater, or would they be more hesitant and wait until Netflix picked it up? These are considerations that filmmaking teams never had to consider in the 1960’s, and something that is critical to the success of films made in this day and age.

Another key dimension of how films have evolved socially is their ability to create social change and challenge the status quo. Never before have we seen movies have such a cultural impact and to change how people perceive various relevant topics. There have so many movies released in the last decade that fit this mold, but none more so than Blackfish. In one review of the film, Washington Post reporter Michael O’Sullivan wrote this: “The other guilty party… is the people who pay to see marine-animal acts and who keep the parks in business. That’s where “Blackfish” can be effective. It’s hard to imagine anyone coming out of this movie and not swearing off the next vacation trip to Orlando, San Antonio or San Diego (O’Sullivan, 2013).” The backlash from the film was sharp and swift and very public. Thousands of people came out to protest the company around the world, and SeaWorld saw an 84% decline in revenue and suffered severe brand damage (Rhodan, 2015). To this day, they have worked to rebrand as a theme park as opposed to an animal focused park, all due to the impact of one film. While this is one of the most prominent examples of a documentary’s potential influence, it just goes to show the impact a well-done film can do towards making a societal difference. Because of how globally linked our world is, these films are having far more impact than any film could have had in 1965.

The final, and perhaps most obvious, area of film that has evolved is the cinematography itself. Directors has even gone through the effort of remastering their films, as technology becomes more accessible and prevalent in the industry. In reference to the hit movie, ET, my peer Naomi wrote this: “This movie saw huge numbers in the box office and was digitally remastered in 2002. The Special Edition that was released 20 years later had improved animatronics because Spielberg was not impressed with the originals from 1982 (Turner, 2019).“ There is technology used to create films today that wasn’t even a pipe dream in 1965, a testament to the drastic differences we find in these films today. Films such as Avatar and The Matrix took filming into a whole new generation through their use of technology such as computer animation and manipulation of camera lenses. One of the things that I found most interesting about my research throughout the quarter was that “The Shining” was one of the first films to use the Steadicam, now a staple in the industry. James Cameron, he of Avatar notoriety, redesigned the Steadicam to “allow the cinematographer to capture two images simultaneously, which align perfectly with and provide the illusion of depth (Johnson, 2009).” It is innovations like these, and creative teams that continue to push the status quo, that make the film industry so unique and one of the reasons that it has changed so drastically since 1965.

The film industry has changed drastically since 1965. Films are more technologically advanced, preferences have evolved, a higher premium is placed on profit, and they have the distinct power to create social change. As people change, so too will films to meet their needs, and the next 40 years will be incredibly formative in the art of filmmaking.