What happened after the 80s?

Brian_Rice

Brian_Rice

Carbonite Member
I was just randomly watching BIG, and while I usually like to blame hardcore hip hop, the internet, cheap addictive drugs and reality TV for the overall erosion of the species, I'm curious why all notions of romantic innocence have all but fled live action films.

Any theories? When Harry Met Sally is one of the last really good romantic comedies (or possibly Sleepless in Seattle) that wasn't saturated in melancholy or just really filthy humor. I know Woody Allen does what he can, but do you think everyone just retreated into animation? Is Generation X just too apathetic?

It kind of reminds me of what happen to musicals. There used to be a ton of live action musicals, and at some point people decided that only animated characters should sing. And now if you make a romantic comedy, if someone isn't accidentially drinking urine or accidentally spreading spooge on their face instead of lotion, it's supposedly not funny.

American Pie and Something About Mary just broke things somehow, I think.

And hey, somewhat related -- happy 500th Simpsons! :D
 
Last edited:
I think it's also worth pointing out that you can watch When Harry Met Sally or Annie Hall again and again with some enjoyment, American Pie or Something About Mary really fail on a second viewing. Though on first viewing, I'm pretty sure I laughed harder during American Pie and There's Something About Mary than I did Annie Hall or When Harry Met Sally.
 
Groundhog Day is another romantic comedy that was released after the 80s, 1993 to be exact. Though I count the first five years of the next decade as a transition period into the next set of trends. Yes the story revolved more around Bill Murray growing up as a human being, but during the end of the 2nd act and the whole third act, it became a romantic comedy. Good subtle comedies. A rare genre. I suppose now audiences need to be "shocked". After the B & S word had the go ahead in television, film just had to keep up, be more unexpected now that television was unsuspecting. It's been an on going battle since the 50s.
 
Last edited:
Not sure anything specific happened except that the 90's came after there was too much of the 80's. Gritty faux realism replaced innocent happyness the same way Grunge replaced Glam. Also, the biggest and best contributor to this genre, Steven Spielberg changed his style drastically after Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan.

I guess it probably had something to do with the economy too, changes in society always have something to do with the economy.
 
I just hope that after Woody Allen dies we don't see the complete death of the non-filthy romantic comedy.

I think it's true that everything in comedy now is about the shock value more than it is about good writing. Even though Knocked Up was a funny romantic comedy, I wouldn't really have a desire to watch multiple viewings of it.

I still think there's a Generation X-sized gap in the film industry. We shouldn't be expecting Scorsese and Spielberg and Allen and Riener to be putting out the great new films of today; these guys are years past their prime. Yet sadly there's just no great filmmakers making human stories today on any consistent basis.

Maybe the millennials will do better.
 
Brian_Rice said:
I still think there's a Generation X-sized gap in the film industry. We shouldn't be expecting Scorsese and Spielberg and Allen and Riener to be putting out the great new films of today; these guys are years past their prime. Yet sadly there's just no great filmmakers making human stories today on any consistent basis.
Click to expand...
I don't agree with that at all. Tons of great human stories are still made every year, the only difference is most of them seem to be independent more than studio financed.
 
Jawa Ex Machina said:
I don't agree with that at all. Tons of great human stories are still made every year, the only difference is most of them seem to be independent more than studio financed.
Click to expand...

Well then we're back on the argument of "If a film is shot but no one sees it, does it exist?"

I watch 2-3 movies per day while working. I'm not saying I'm seeing everything, but I think I see more than most, and there's been a sharp decline in personal comedic films, especially on the studio level.

And personally I don't think The Descendants or 50/50 are the same breed as Annie Hall or Sleepless in Seattle. They're different genres. It's the death of the latter genre that has me saddened.

On a broader note, though, I do think that Generation X failed to produce a mass of great studio filmmakers like the Greatest and Boom generations did. 1980 is pretty much the tail end of X, and by 32 most of the Boom generation of filmmakers were already producing great works.

And I think if you divided the earlier Xers (60-70) from the later Xers (70-80) it gets even worse, as at least the early Xers have Tarantino, Kevin Smith, Aranofsky, Nolan, etc. I think the Ys and the Millennials are still an unknown, but hopefully the new surge in technology will have them faring better than their predecessors.
 
to many people that '80's fantasy land is like '50's kitsch. culturally, both were actively rejected, and for similar reasons. you can call it cynicism, but to me there's nothing more cynical than Schpielberg, Tom Hanks and Miami Vice liesure suits.

i wouldn't for a moment include Allen's romanticism in that category, though i admit that as much of an ardent fan i was at a young age, at some point i got tired of his schtick.
 
Radio Days and maybe Sweet & Lowdown where the last good Allen Films, and don´t get me into Spielberg.

There is a lot of good stuff coming from the UK - "Love Actually" was great, funny and romantic.
Story and acting where way superior to the typical Hollywood flicks http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0314331/.

Frank
 
Postmaster said:
Radio Days and maybe Sweet & Lowdown where the last good Allen Films, and don´t get me into Spielberg.

There is a lot of good stuff coming from the UK - "Love Actually" was great, funny and romantic.
Story and acting where way superior to the typical Hollywood flicks http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0314331/.

Frank
Click to expand...

I'll give you the UK. I agree that they're still able to string together a good romantic comedy. I was limited in saying cinema. I should have said American cinema.
 
MPB said:
to many people that '80's fantasy land is like '50's kitsch. culturally, both were actively rejected, and for similar reasons. you can call it cynicism, but to me there's nothing more cynical than Schpielberg, Tom Hanks and Miami Vice liesure suits.

i wouldn't for a moment include Allen's romanticism in that category, though i admit that as much of an ardent fan i was at a young age, at some point i got tired of his schtick.
Click to expand...

I feel like we're talking about like five things at once. I would never include Spielberg in the romantic comedy genre.

I'm not sure what "80s fantasy" has to do with When Harry Met Sally or Pretty in Pink, etc, but I think the best romantic comedies are in spirit an attempt to bring back some of the "50's kitsch" like Roman Holiday, Breakfast at Tiffany's, Bringing Up Baby, An Affair to Remember, etc.

Again, I think it's a sad thing that this type of film isn't really made in America cinema anymore. The question of whether or not is was "rejected" is up for debate as films like Sleepless in Seattle and When Harry Met Sally were certainly successful as were Bridget Jones' Diary and Love Actually, etc. I don't think it's the audience saying that they don't want these things so much as it's Hollywood's obsession with properties.

UP was a great human story with elements of "50s kitsch" and "80's fantasy land" (again, not sure exactly what that means but I think I'm using it right), the problem is that UP was an animated film (a very successful animated film). Unfortunately films from the 50s and 80s that centered on positive elements of love and romance have pretty much been scooped up and dumped into the realm of kid-dom. Maybe it has something to do with a generation of kids with divorced parents, but I do think it's odd that I see people in my everyday life (including myself) living happily ever after, and yet the notion of happily ever after has been made out to be devil-speak by the (I guess) embittered folks in Hollywood who assume that everyone must be as miserable as they are.
 
Brian_Rice said:
I feel like we're talking about like five things at once. I would never include Spielberg in the romantic comedy genre.
Click to expand...

apologies if i misunderstood. Spielberg was referred to earlier, as i understood it, as a more general example of the type of heavily escapist romanticism under discussion.

I'm not sure what "80s fantasy" has to do with When Harry Met Sally or Pretty in Pink, etc, but I think the best romantic comedies are in spirit an attempt to bring back some of the "50's kitsch" like Roman Holiday, Breakfast at Tiffany's, Bringing Up Baby, An Affair to Remember, etc.
Click to expand...

well, as long as we're broadening our broad strokes, or genres... yes, it looks like you make the connection well enough.

Again, I think it's a sad thing that this type of film isn't really made in America cinema anymore. The question of whether or not is was "rejected" is up for debate as films like Sleepless in Seattle and When Harry Met Sally were certainly successful as were Bridget Jones' Diary and Love Actually, etc. I don't think it's the audience saying that they don't want these things so much as it's Hollywood's obsession with properties.
Click to expand...

i don't think that kind of escapism has the same resonance for audiences today. i likened '80's escapism to that of the '50's because they can both be seen as eras that represented a kind of intoxicating, heightened prosperity and ideological grandiosity that willfully turned away from uncomfortable political and social concerns, in favor of far more simplistic narratives. in the '60's and then in the '80's these narratives were rejected en masse by sub-cultural ground-swells that eventually re-shaped the art and political discourse of the day.

UP was a great human story with elements of "50s kitsch" and "80's fantasy land" (again, not sure exactly what that means but I think I'm using it right), the problem is that UP was an animated film (a very successful animated film). Unfortunately films from the 50s and 80s that centered on positive elements of love and romance have pretty much been scooped up and dumped into the realm of kid-dom. Maybe it has something to do with a generation of kids with divorced parents, but I do think it's odd that I see people in my everyday life (including myself) living happily ever after, and yet the notion of happily ever after has been made out to be devil-speak by the (I guess) embittered folks in Hollywood who assume that everyone must be as miserable as they are.
Click to expand...

i don't think sentimentalism has been removed. maybe just re-focused. and even UP had its dark aspects.

what makes you think people in hollywood don't want to live happily ever after?

i remember shooting ny's Cardinal Egan a few years back. he blamed The Sopranos.
 
Brian_Rice said:
Uh-oh. We're treading dangerously close to mumblecore! ;)
Click to expand...
I thought someone might say that, and I disagree...
I think it was well written and acted (and shot), and, of course, used locations extremely well.
It captured a moment in time and the uncertain emotions within that frame. Though not much of a comedy...
 
hahaha What's wrong with mumblecore?

I think the movies are out there, not in as much volume, but I could probably think of a few.

The biggest issue is studios not putting money or energy into original movies at all, rather rebooting or using something with a built in audience.

I think a better question is do you think Big would get made today?
 
homestar_kevin said:
hahaha What's wrong with mumblecore?

I think the movies are out there, not in as much volume, but I could probably think of a few.

The biggest issue is studios not putting money or energy into original movies at all, rather rebooting or using something with a built in audience.

I think a better question is do you think Big would get made today?
Click to expand...

I think BIG would certainly have done as well today. Not sure of whether or not it would get made.

That's what I mean. I think people WANT these kinds of movies, I just don't think studios WANT to make them. I think it's thought that if the romantic film isn't in the vein of Something About Mary or American Pie or Knocked Up audiences will reject it. But, honestly, I saw no evidence of audiences rejecting Sleepless in Seattle or When Harry Met Sally-style films, Hollywood simply stopped making them based on what they THOUGHT people wanted.

The one thing that's perfectly clear, though, is that times have changed for teens and pre-teens pretty dramatically. They're introduced to such an onslaught of imagery, violence and a constant stream of porn from the time they're six years old that movies like Goonies or ET or even BIG would have to be very different films in order to reflect the average kid's sensibilities today.

Kids of the 80s grew up with the Adam West Batman. Kids today are growing up with the Christian Bale version. That's not cynicism, that's just plain old darkness.

Have you read a mainstream comic lately? Things have become just plain vicious, violent and hyper sexual.

I think the Boom generation wasn't prepared to raise their children in the face of uncensored music, internet and now constant connection to social media.

Historically, pre-1900s people didn't treat children like children, they treated them like small adults. It's really only in the last century that it was decided that children should be given a "childhood". I wonder if things are starting to recede a bit as people seem to have forgotten that people under the age of 18 should be treated differently and should be experiencing different things than should adults. Hopefully as the internet gets more regulated more protections will come along in favor of protecting the concept of a "childhood" for children.
 
the whole Dark Knight progression has been horribly over-blown, along with Miller. but i remember when Miller did Electra (the DC comic, not the movie. the movie completely missed the point.), and the only reason i paid Dark Knight any attention was because of that. within the mainstream comics of the time, it was a breath of fresh air. Electra added a dimension that was clearly lacking. ok, it was still pulp, but it was good pulp. it was interesting. it was interesting because Electra was a psycho *****, sexy, and you could totally understand why the boyscout Daredevil was smitten with her. for all the wrong reasons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top