Have movies progressed since 1965? The question is complex. If attempting to voice a confident response, without a bit of critical thinking, you’ll quickly find that the question has a multidimensional answer. Ironically, like reality, movies are ambiguous with open interpretation depending on how you perceive their history. You can argue that films have ultimately evolved throughout the years due to technological advances but also that films have considerably stayed the same in regards to making a political and social message with the only change being how the envelope is increasingly being pushed. Both viable considerations. Let’s take a look at the last five decades of film to see where you stand on this multifaceted examination.

 

When considering how films are received by society as a whole partly relies on the times and era they were released and what was considered largely to be conventional or unconventional or in better terms “acceptable or unacceptable”. For instance, Imagine if in 1965, the film Saw (2004) was released at that time. To say it was “unconventional” would be an understatement. Society wouldn’t have been ready to embrace something so gruesome and terrifying at that time. We slowly but surely got there as a society as we began to essentially become desensitized by the horror genre as it pushed the limits of what was able to be shown on screen. While the example of the film Saw is a bit extreme, we can take a look at the movie Head which was released in 1968. In the midst of the drug-inspired psychedelic movement, films like The Beatles’ Yellow Submarine and Frank Zappa’s 200 Motels showed that there was somewhat of an interest in the underground avant-garde genre. While they did receive a small return from their original budget Head takes the cake for a film that tanked at the box office. Spending nearly $750,000 on a production that was produced by Jack Nicholson, it was a shock to Columbia Pictures when they grossed a measly $16,000. The film’s premise is a look into how the era may not have been ready for such an experimental concept by a band whose audience fell in love with the bubble-gum pop song “I’m a believer” which was released a year prior. The film consisted of perplexing symbolism, clashes of bewildering imagery and a confusing storyline that clearly left Monkees’ fans puzzled and uneasy. They’re target audiences weren’t ready for something so unconventional to this degree. But as Hunter O’Neil stated: Art is not always meant to be critical. Some art is made simply for the sake of art. While placed into the vault of society’s undesirable films it’s important to note that it can be considered a small stepping stone in the history of film that allowed us to open our minds and introduce future creative film-makers to more in depth concepts. 

 

As the 1970’s approached, film’s restrictions on what could be shown were loosened and the younger generations’ rebel attitudes in the wake of the Vietnam War yearned for something more realistic than the traditional, visually conservative films of the past. Enter the 1974 horror film, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

 I think Isuf Bytyci said it best: The film is a simple exercise in terror and evil. A clear attempt to punch us in the face through a tour through our deepest fears and nightmares. The film was standard in the sense that there was nothing about the story to truly analyze. The Tobe Hooper film is about a group of young adults who set out across Texas to investigate the reports of vandalism at their grandfather’s grave. While traveling through the barren plains, they come across a series of unfortunate events where this “Scooby Doo and the gang” premise becomes unconventionally demented and disturbing. A review by famed movie critic Roger Ebert shows he wasn’t as personally impressed by the film giving it 2-stars and stating: “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” is as violent and gruesome and blood-soaked as the title promises…It’s also without any apparent purpose, unless the creation of disgust and fright is a purpose. One thing to note about Ebert’s evaluation of the film is the mention of the words “blood-soaked”. Tobe Hooper explains in the documentary “The shocking truth” that no blood was used throughout the film in hopes of receiving a PG rating in an attempt to allow a wider range of audience members to attend. Unfortunately, it didn’t stop the MPAA from giving the film an “X” rating usually designated for the most violent and explicit films which don’t usually make it to theaters. The film was re-cut, resubmitted and received a hard R rating. Interestingly enough, the film was still banned in many showings around the world when the visually vague official trailer left audience members running out of the theaters. It has been influential to subsequent film-makers and rightfully stands up as one of the greatest and most controversial horror films of all time as yet another work of art that pushed the envelope, challenging what can be considered visually acceptable entertainment. Hunter O’Neil 

 

If audiences were shocked by the realism of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre they were going to be introduced to a new kind of horror film. Stephen King’s film adaptation of Carrie merged fiction with reality in a story that spoke about a multitude of social issues and topics that were rarely addressed in such a way. The story of Carrie is a sad one. Released in 1976, director Brian De Palma wanted to make evident to audiences that the teenage girl (Carrie) coming to grips with adulthood felt familiar, personable and emotional when he placed unknown actress Sissy Spacek in the lead role. Her naive, awkward and uncomfortable portrayal of the character brought a true sense of realism that left viewers uncertain if they should feel empathy or terror for the young girl.  Mentally tortured at school by her peers and spiritually tormented at home by a fanatically religious mother, it doesn’t help that Carrie feels like a freak as she discovers her power of telekinesis. In an interview about the film, director Brian De Palma addresses particular criticisms he received while filming. In the first scene, we are given a glimpse of how the director is not afraid to go to lengths in exposing us to the uncomfortable experiences that the movie presents as nudity in the locker room is shown as well as a scene where the overly sheltered Carrie begins to menstruate for the first time and believes she is dying. Terrified she runs to the other girls seeking help before being mocked as they throw tampons at her in a corner of the shower. The shocking scene sets up for a film of great proportions where you begin to wonder if this is a horror film or a drama. At home, her mother persecutes her claiming she has been perverted by sin. As the plot continues, Carrie is tricked to believe that a boy in her class has feelings for her, asking her to the prom where she is humiliated as a bucket of pigs’ blood is dumped over her head. At this moment, in a fit of rage, Carrie unleashes her telekinetic powers to take revenge on the crowd of her peers as they all fight for their lives to escape the burning gymnasium. As she returns home, her mother tries to kill her believing Carrie is the daughter of satan but in return the mother is crucified in a doorway by seamlessly flying kitchen knives brought on by Carrie’s wrath.

The screenplay is based off of one of the most successful horror authors, Stephen King, which is why Julieann Soto’s conclusion that this is a conventional film seems about right. It’s important to also note that throughout the film it tackles several issues that include child abuse, school violence, bullying, peer pressure, rape and bible abuse.  The combination of these social issues addressed in a film marketed as a horror sends the message that the real terror is created by human beings and their ability to do evil. 

 

Many films since the 1970s came about and many of them addressed social issues that we as a culture weren’t willing to continuously ignore. Films tackled social problems as well as political problems. In 2004, in the wake of a number of challenges faced by individual States dismantling  the LGBT community’s right to marriage equality, a film that seemed all too unconventional became a cultural phenomenon when two highly successful actors took on the roles of two men who fall in love. 2005’s Brokeback Mountain changed and brought attention to the social and political fight of the era. The release showed how the country was still divided on many issues of gay rights but simultaneously it seemed otherwise when the film grossed $179 million at the box office. The message in Ang Lee’s film tells the story of two Wyoming cowboys living in the mid-70s who struggle to find themselves while coming to terms with their inner feelings for each other. Lead roles played by Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal, the actors received great praise nationwide for their captivating portrayal of what one could say is a variation of a modern day LGBT Romeo and Juliet story. Torn between two lives, the story was all too well known as fear, secrets and violence play a major part in this story as it does in reality for LGBT. Through the turmoil that the two men face throughout the movie, it comes to an end for Gyllenhaals’ character as he is beat to death for being gay; a heinous crime that threatens the lives of gay people everywhere, even in our modern era. While there had already been many LGBT-audience aimed stories, this film stood the test of time, partly with the help of Ang Lee’s popularity, who had just received praise for his stunning work on Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. Brokeback Mountain came at the right time. In a moment in history where society challenged the powers that be for the fight in equality for all. Brokeback Mountain not only pushed the envelope of what social issues could be addressed but also political ones. It aimed to open hearts and minds to the compassion and understanding the LGBT community was worthy of. In an IndieWire interview with Jake Gyllenhaal , after the passing of Heath Ledger, he states that whenever critiqued or questioned about the subject of the movie Ledger would respond with “It’s about love”. 

Throughout the last five decades we’ve witnessed the rise of films that continue to push the boundaries of what could be considered conventional or unconventional until the two somewhat merged. The unconventional became the conventional after time passed and many films that were regarded as too controversial, now sit amongst lists of the greatest films ever made. Has film in general changed from 1965 to today? While movies have always had the same entertainment purpose, this broad question leans more toward a hard “yes” in that film has changed over the years. With film, like everything in life, progression occurs and spreads a new message, addresses new topics and aims to challenge new ideas through the art of cinematography.