f you've been been keeping up recently with books and magazine columns that cover movie history, you've probably noticed a cinematic revisionism that's been gaining momentum. Film historians have jumped onto a sort of philosophical bandwagon when it comes to the '70s, no longer making the triumphs and sense of wonder of that decade the focus of their musings. All of a sudden, when praise comes for the '70s, it's of the backhanded kind.
Oh, they made good films then, the critics will say. But not as good as were made before. And in fact, they insist, that's when the seeds were planted for the supposedly sorry state of cinema today.
The latest book that's blaming the '70s for all the ills that have come after is The Stewardess Is Flying the Plane: American Films of the 1970s. It is in many ways a wonderful book, full of fascinating information surrounded by restored photography, so it's definitely worth tracking down. But I was annoyed by Peter Bogdanovich's introductory interview, in which he mourned that:
Star Wars and Jaws had an enormous effect. The way Jaws was released changed movies in many ways. Look at Last Picture Show. It opened in October in one theater in New York, Chicago, and L.A. and played for several months in those theaters before it opened up wider. We were still in the same theaters when the Oscars were announced at the end of January. So word of mouth was very important and was what movies had always been based on—except exploitation movies, which opened and closed as quickly as possible before word of mouth got out about them. But once A-list movies started to be distributed like exploitation movies, everything changed, because things got watered down. The attempt was not to be different, but to be the same, and I think it had a negative effect on the quality of movies.
Things were so much better then, he and so many others seem to be saying, back in the days before Spielberg and Lucas invented the blockbuster. It's an intriguing theory. But it's wrong.
Oh, I believe in yesterday
This theory of evolution would have us believe that until the '70s, everything was eclectic and only deeply personal movies that dared to be great were being made. Then Star Wars and Jaws came along and changed all the rules, after which only "big" movies were produced, movies molded by corporate committees. There was no longer a place for the artist, only the soulless showman.
This is wrong in so many ways. I think it comes from a sentimental attachment all of us have to the things of our childhoods. It is natural and human, but not all things that are natural and human happen to be right. Things had to be better then, because isn't that how we remember it? I think these people ignore that they are looking at their pasts through rose-colored memories. But taking yesterday and wiping away the dross doesn't give a true picture of how we lived.
Believe me, there were plenty of lousy movies made in the old days, too. But as time goes by, we tend to forget the junk, until we make ourselves believe that the good stuff was all there was. And this doesn't just happen with the movies. The Golden Age of print science fiction wasn't only Asimov, Heinlein and Clarke—there was also plenty of crud, as Ted Sturgeon told us. Same thing for comics. Sure, the Silver Age of Comics gave us Spider-Man and the Fantastic Four, but it also brought us plenty of heroes best forgotten.
But secondly, and more importantly, the world isn't necessarily going to hell in a handbasket. The blockbuster hasn't pushed the personal off the screen. 2005 may have been the year of Star Wars: Episode III—Revenge of the Sith and War of the Worlds, but they didn't stop quirkier films such as Crash and Last Days from being released. Great movies are still being released. In fact, sometimes the blockbusters even are the great films.
So pundits—please stop treating the '70s as a straw man for a problem that doesn't even exist. Now the '80s, on the other hand ... there's a decade that has a lot to answer for. Anyone remember Howard the Duck and Teen Wolf?
I rest my case.
Scott Edelman started his trek to the editor-in-chief position at Science Fiction Weekly decades ago, when he began working as an assistant editor at Marvel Comics. Between these two positions, this four-time Hugo Award nominee in the category of Best Editor was the founding editor of the award-winning magazine Science Fiction Age, in addition to editing Sci-Fi Universe, Sci-Fi Flix and Satellite Orbit. Currently, he also edits SCI FI, the official magazine of the SCI FI Channel. His most recent short story appears in the latest issue of Nemonymous.
