Throw in The World of Henry Orient too; it’s not quite as incomprehensible, but you’ve got underage girls stalking an older man and a dash of outdated racist humor.
While it’s still a great movie on the whole, there’s a fair amount of Wings of Desire that would be lost on someone unfamiliar with the Cold War. In particular, the scene with Damiel & Cassiel walking through the Wall probably wouldn’t be as powerful if you didn’t understand what that meant at the time.
We have two unfortunate trends at work with these films. Both of them were by middle-aged TV directors desperate to prove how ready for feature films they were (both returned to television soon enough), and both were WWII generation directors trying to pander to the swingin’, dope smokin’ hippie generation. The results weren’t pretty.
I don’t remember the racial stuff; could you be conflating this with Breakfast at Tiffany’s?
I didn’t mean to belittle the serious events of recent years, which are certainly troubling — but, the malaise of the 1970s had a different flavor to it, and I’d say it was worse. Just my opinion of course. Probably it was the contrast between the soaring optimism and success of the post-WWII era, still recent in many people’s minds, with all the grim events and failures that seemed to pile on starting around the mid-1960s.
The guys who make The Venture Brothers talk about this a bit in the commentary for one of their episodes. They say their show is mainly about failure and disappointment, and basically the end of the “Jet Age” — the end of the sleek, sparkling notions of the future that the 1950s and 60s were always gushing on about.
Any of the rah-rah-rah patriotic crap that came out during the Reagan administration – Rambo, Red Dawn, Top Gun…it was all so propagandistic, and needlessly so…
…but then again, so was Reagan, actually.
I tried to watch Five Easy Pieces recently, the ‘70s rebellion movie, and it was completely incomprehensible. Seriously. The characters’ motivations, actions, and speaking style were unrealistic and weirdly stylized. It was like watching a Lars von Trier movie. The scene where Nicholson humiliates the waitress (“I want you to hold it between your knees”) plays as brutality against someone vulnerable, but I guess back then the waitress was a symbol of the Establishment.
There are some movies that are totally identified with their decade: Annie Hall, St. Elmo’s Fire, Reality Bites.
One brief scene where they dress up in conical hats and make a play on “Oriental Henry”; nowhere near as horrible as Mickey Rooney, but somewhat out of place. That said, it’s not an unwatchable movie and actually a little silly and fun. It’s just very sixties fun.
I’m gonna say Taxi Driver. It really is a product of 1970s New York dystopia.
I recently saw it for the first time. I’m 27, so I the world that exists in that movie might as well be a fantasy land. I’ve never even been to New York. But the movie made plenty of sense to me and immediately became one of my favorites. While the urban decay shown in the movie is pretty foreign to me, Travis Bickle as a character was not.
Kind of a different point but I saw “Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore” in 1974 and was amazed the soundtrack had “All the Way from Memphis” by a not very well known Mott the Hoople. There are probably other earlier examples but youngsters out there should keep in mind that until the early 1980s the Grammy award shows were designed to fight against the “evils of rock and roll music”. Artists like Little Richard and the rolling Stones won few, if any, awards back then.
I think I remember the film.
As I recall, I think, we both kinda liked it
Like pepperlandgirl, I was born after the release of this film and saw it for the first time within the past couple of years. I was rather surprised by how dated it wasn’t – I think it’s held up much better than many other films of the era.
Forrest Gump was a pure paean to boomer nostalgia. I suspect a 90’s child would find about half the movie like watching a documentary.
Well I guess that’s one thing we’ve got…
I was a 90s teenager and I loved Forrest Gump. So did lots of people I knew. It really is a very good movie.
I liked the movie. Didn’t love it, but gave it three stars out of four.
But what REALLY got old was the soundtrack. It was as if Zemeckis had bought one of those Time-Life “Fabulous Sixties” 10 CD sets, and decided to use EVERY song on it. I mean, EVERY cliche moment of the Sixties was accompanied by an equally cliche Sixties song.
At one point, I nudged my date and whispered, “If they play ‘Get Together’ by the Youngbloods, we’re leaving.”
Moments later, they did!!!
We stayed, though, and MOSTLY enjoyed it.
Love them or hate them, those films were immensely popular, and made tons of money. It’s only logical that Hollywood would make them.
On the other hand, EVERY anti-Iraq movie of the “Dubya” years has been a flop. Why did THOSE movies get made?
I’m actually watching First Blood right now, and the beginning made me think of this thread. The whole “respect my authoriTAY” small town cop horseshit after he comes back into town and most of the escalation is pretty straightforward, but stopping to hassle the guy in the first place, giving him shit about having been in the service–I think it’s very much a post-Vietnam thing that doesn’t make nearly so much sense to someone who grew up in the yellow-ribbon-car-magnet era.
(Of course, being shortly after Nam makes the whole thing even stupider on the part of the cops, considering what was common knowledge about the POW camps and the sort of fighting that took place there.)
I’m not sure, but I think the movie Shaft might fit the bill.
I haven’t seen it in a long time, and I saw it long after 1971. I understood it, but it seemed campy when I watched it. I don’t know if the whole pimp/ganster/Shaft as Womanizer thing was a stretch in 1971, but it certainly was in the 80’s when I watched it.