Back in this post, I mentioned the Paul Newman retrospective unspooling at the classic Riviera Theater in North Tonawanda this summer. I also mentioned my intention of going to watch Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid to see if the big screen, old-time Hollywoody environment could improve my impression of that so-called classic (though I was off by a couple weeks as to when it was scheduled). Anyway, it did play this past Thursday, and I was there. I have to report that the mostly beautiful Conrad Hall photography did look especially good on the big screen, but that overall I still don't think much of the movie. The leads (Newman and Robert Redford) are charismatic, and there are a lot of great scenes and or lines (you can probably recite a few yourself if you've seen the flick), but overall I can't figure out what it's supposed to add up to. Like every George Roy Hill (director) film I've ever seen, it seems extremely choppy and prone to sensation over substance. I don't deny that that can make for an enjoyable night at the cinema, but I'd like to think that titles elevated to the status of classic would have a little bit more on the ball. In a way (and I admit I'd have to think about this some more to figure out if what I'm about to write holds up to close scrutiny) this is an early example of what mainstream movies would mostly become by the end of the 1970s-- star vehicles that didn't necessarily have any purpose besides making money. I know that's been true of Hollywood from the very start in many respects, but I'm not sure that it wasn't until this later period when audiences (as much as studio accountants) counted something worthwhile based strictly on its commercial success-- you know, finding the first weekend grosses to be a sign of whether something is worth seeing or not. Again, this is coming off the top of my head, so maybe I'm being unfair to Butch Cassidy in that regard-- feel free to tell me so in the comments if you're so inclined.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
A Night at the Movies
Back in this post, I mentioned the Paul Newman retrospective unspooling at the classic Riviera Theater in North Tonawanda this summer. I also mentioned my intention of going to watch Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid to see if the big screen, old-time Hollywoody environment could improve my impression of that so-called classic (though I was off by a couple weeks as to when it was scheduled). Anyway, it did play this past Thursday, and I was there. I have to report that the mostly beautiful Conrad Hall photography did look especially good on the big screen, but that overall I still don't think much of the movie. The leads (Newman and Robert Redford) are charismatic, and there are a lot of great scenes and or lines (you can probably recite a few yourself if you've seen the flick), but overall I can't figure out what it's supposed to add up to. Like every George Roy Hill (director) film I've ever seen, it seems extremely choppy and prone to sensation over substance. I don't deny that that can make for an enjoyable night at the cinema, but I'd like to think that titles elevated to the status of classic would have a little bit more on the ball. In a way (and I admit I'd have to think about this some more to figure out if what I'm about to write holds up to close scrutiny) this is an early example of what mainstream movies would mostly become by the end of the 1970s-- star vehicles that didn't necessarily have any purpose besides making money. I know that's been true of Hollywood from the very start in many respects, but I'm not sure that it wasn't until this later period when audiences (as much as studio accountants) counted something worthwhile based strictly on its commercial success-- you know, finding the first weekend grosses to be a sign of whether something is worth seeing or not. Again, this is coming off the top of my head, so maybe I'm being unfair to Butch Cassidy in that regard-- feel free to tell me so in the comments if you're so inclined.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
You might like this: http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/Grossslate.htm
Even 10 years before with Marilyn Monroe's "Some like it hot" or 1 year previous with the made for a hippy audience "2001", films have always sort of had to cater to the masses. An obvious point certainly, but I'm not smart enough for a truly unique thought! :)
Chris,
Thanks for the link-- it kind of confirms much of what I've thought about the business of movies lately. And you're right about the films catering to the masses-- the difference I think is between doing that through legitimate creative expression and doing it through crude formula calculation. I don't think Butch Cassidy falls entirely on the latter side, but I think it kind of signaled that possibility to the studios (that is, it could be easily reduced to its component parts and replicated-- hence The Sting). I think the two examples you mention do offer some creativity, even though you're right that there were elements built in to appeal to the masses (though I'm not sure that hippies ever constituted that big a part of the movie-going public). It's interesting to realize that film is the only "art" whose origins were firmly in the commercial sphere right from the start.
Dr. John
Post a Comment