When I first started film school, it was frustrating to see specific movies vaunted for political reasons and others ignored because they didn’t adhere to that professor’s political agenda. Even films that weren’t overly political were avoided for other’s that had a specific (generally radical) political message. I recall sitting through films like Bamboozled in a course on writing about film where we were also told to emulate Pauline Kael (I didn’t want to adopt her condescending view towards cinema). The sanctimonious view of Spike Lee, Bob Rafelson and Robert Altman got old when I wanted to learn about John Ford, Billy Wilder, Howard Hawks and Alfred Hitchcock (oh you know – those guys who pioneered cinema as we know it).
Luckily, my experience in graduate school is a different story. My professors have been more concerned with historical relevancy and less about turning a film lecture into a civics lesson. One professor who does the field a favor by putting together a fair assessment is Drew Casper, the Alma and Alfred Hitchcock Chair of American Film at USC, with his latest book, Hollywood Film 1963-1976: Years of Revolution and Reaction. Casper takes on a time period of filmmaking very dear to him that he feels has been unfairly dominated by leftist praise that purposely ignores certain films. Exposing his frustrations, Casper says that “predictably, the [scholarly] discussions are rather obsessive, focusing on the same films time and again that fit the critically beloved template” (xvi). This is exactly what I went through as an undergraduate. Extra studying on my part had to be done to get a well-rounded view of film history.
This common template favors liberals, constantly overhyping films like The Graduate, Mash, and Five Easy Pieces with praise that is more suited for something like The Godfather. Casper’s problem is that in the usual film history text, a film like the leftist McCabe and Mrs. Miller will take up an entire chapter while the conservative and more iconic True Grit (1969 version) goes overlooked. The pious view of some films like Dr. Strangelove will force the ignorance of an equally important film (even those with similar political leanings). This fidelity to the most radical films will create a predictable view of others, “sometimes a conservative film is noted, only to be vilified for its politics, such aspersion clouding any thoughts about its aesthetic merits” (xvii). This is the case with Dirty Harry, where the left loves to hold this film up as fascist (Casper describes the “self-righteous” vitriol spewed by Pualine Kael about this film).
The first few chapters of the text are a well-balanced account of the 60s and 70s in America both culturally and politically. Courageously, Casper notes it’s so difficult to hear about centrist and conservative movies in many film courses because anti-American Marxists began to dominate the humanities fields in higher education. Continuing his discussion of the time, Casper says that “One nation, indivisible, under God, was turning into a secular series of ever-growing fiefdoms” (27), which accurately paints a picture for this tumultuous time period in American history (he also provides an honest depiction of the Kennedys which was a breath of fresh air). The lengthy breakdown of the changes occurring in America and Hollywood is essential in understanding this part of American film history (especially if you are like me and were born after the fact).
A large chunk of the book is dedicated to detailing how genres were used during this time period. Genres began to transition into what felt like a revolution (131), working primarily as a political force. The culture war blew up and all sides got in the fight. This period saw films working as renewal, hybridization as well as demythologizing of traditional genres (adventure, Western, family melodrama, comedy, etc). Casper accurately notes that “using genre as a soapbox, characters’ psychology became less significant than the ideas they incited” (134). The collective liberalism in the country was growing which led to far less superhero films (the genre is generally conservative) and many more Vietnam-Westerns. In addition, adventure films became popular but are widely overlooked by scholars. Films like Papillon, The Great Escape, The Dirty Dozen and Deliverance are given ample appreciation compared to past work on this timeframe.
The 60s and 70s saw a large downswing in war films which led to an upswing in Westerns, allowing filmmakers to comment on the war through metaphor. These films depicted a savage attitude towards Native Americans to address the violence in Vietnam (Little Big Man, Soldier Blue, Ulzana’s Raid). Others became a platform for radical domestic politics such as Robert Altman’s widely praised McCabe and Mrs. Miller (which is a wonderful genre play that unfortunately becomes and anti-capitalist wet dream). While these films are certainly worth noting, Casper does the genre justice by also mentioning other important films the liberals like to ignore such as True Grit, Jeremiah Johnson, El Dorado, and overlooked (liberal) Sam Peckinpah films; The Ballad of Cable Hogue and Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid. In addition, we see the popular Leone films examined as Marxist where the filmmaker “planned to expose the ‘real’ American West as one rough-and-tough environment diseased by the obsession with money” (338). It’s easy to see why these films consistently make the cut in film academia and it’s not just because of the amazing Ennio Morricone scores.
Another great genre, the vigilante film, is put into a helpful context in this book. As a film student, I’ve seen Serpico praised and Death Wish denounced for solely political reasons (which isn’t helpful to a student). Each film represents strong feelings from opposing sides that are worth discussing in terms of grasping the cultural climate. Casper says that “respective political ideologies could place a vigilante, someone who took or countenanced the taking of the law into his/her own hands to attain justice, in either camp – dutiful lawman (if you’re conservative) or fascist criminal (if you’re liberal)” (309). This honest and balanced attitude towards the material presented is obviously why Casper has the respect and massive following that he does. During a time when social and political tensions were high, all sides need to be seen in order to get a complete view of Hollywood in the 60s and 70s.
Such honesty about American film during a tumultuous time period is not common in the field which makes Hollywood Film 1963-1976: Years of Revolution and Reaction so good. The book is not meant to be a turning of the tables on liberal film historians; it is meant to be a balanced account of history when so many texts overanalyze the same select movies. I’ve read many books where the leftist films are referred to as “heroic” and “courageous” while the conservative films are called “reactionary” and “fascist.” What Casper does, that works so well for audiences of any political persuasion, is simply refer to films as “liberal,” “centrist,” or “conservative.” Understanding that taste is subjective, Casper allows the audience to decide which films they prefer. I highly recommend this book to any film student or person interested in Hollywood films of the 60s and 70s. This text will definitely become a go-to reference as I continue my studies.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.