MovieChat Forums > Easy Riders, Raging Bulls: How the Sex, Drugs and Rock 'N' Roll Generation Saved Hollywood (2003) Discussion > What was the point?

What was the point?

posted 18 years ago by ruisu19
9 replies | jump to latest

Let's see, this is a documentary about 70's filmmakers in which most of them (the really important ones anyway) refuse to be interviewed. The book was gossipy trash but at least it was entertaining. The documentary is trying to be more objective but is just boring without the presence of the filmmakers its supposed to be about.

What was the point of basing this on the book? I mean what did they gain by doing it? None of the major filmmakers of that generation (whom all feature prominently in the book) agreed to be interviewed because of how Biskind presented them. None of their friends agreed either. So basically the documentary was limited to the few has-beens with nothing else to do or the ones who (miraculously) came across well in the book. The result is very poor and incomplete.

They should have just made an original documentary on the period. Without the Biskind connection, guys like Spielberg, Scorsese, Lucas, Coppola et al would have been more willing to be interviewed and give their side of the story.

[–] ceconomoujr 17 years ago

I always thought that, once all the directors connected to this period, have passed on, they could actually make a proper movie on that period. Some of the anecdotes in that Bliskins book were quiet wild, and could definitely make a really entertaining picture.

[–] broombie 16 years ago

So are you saying that the documentary is different from the book? I ordered both but this one came in first.

[–] Filmisgood 14 years ago

after all the gossip and trashy anecdotes, the title of the book/documentary still features the line: 'how the rock n roll generation saved hollywood'. i think those filmmakers can probably see that as some kind of positive nod to them.

[–] Noir-It-All 14 years ago

I am reading the book for the second time. I must see this film sometime. I was in high school when Easy Rider came out and, on dates, saw a lot of these films of the Golden Era. By the time I graduated from college, the golden era was waning.

/ i think those filmmakers can probably see that as some kind of positive nod to them./

The book shows how these filmmakers saved Hollywood but also how, except for Steven Spielberg, they all crashed and burned by decade's end. It seems that by the mid-60's the studios were REALLY old as they had let go the younger workers when the box office declined. So, you had almost blind directors in their '80's directing TV shows. But, once the blockbusters - Jaws, Rocky and, above all, Star Wars - happened, the studios retained control and the audience had changed. Even Raging Bull, the last great '70's film, died at the box office in 1980.

One thing the book doesn't even touch was Blaxploitation films which also thrived in these more open times.

It also asserts that Rocky was racist. However, there were more black and blue collar characters in Rocky than any of the films outlined in this book. Perhaps racists loved seeing Muhammed Ali, I mean, Apollo Creed, beaten up but I always thought the character of Rocky had great respect for Apollo and his trainer, Tony. Apollo chose Rocky because he wanted a "snow white contender" to replace his injured opponent. For me, the movie concluded that there was room for more than one champion, more than one race.

"Two more swords and I'll be Queen of the Monkey People." Roseanne

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] PoppyTransfusion 11 years ago

the most important director of the era and most important progenitor of the auteur movement, Stanley Kubrick, is noticeably absent

But where was Kubrick working from during the 70's? Wasn't he based in the UK and independent of the studio system that is under examination in the documentary?

Most of the directors were (or still are) mediocre, even in their own time: Altman, Peckinpah, Ashby, Coppola, Speilberg, Lucas, Schlesinger, Hopper, etc. The handful of good films made in the era (e.g., Chinatown & Godfather) were the exceptions which proved the rule.

I think this statement is false. Whatever one thinks of some of the directors mentioned there is no doubting the talent of many whose films have become classics, some even cult films.

Fatima had a fetish for a wiggle in her scoot

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] vincent-27 11 years ago

Are you kidding me? I agree with you on Scorcese, his best work wouldn't happen until the 90's, but Coppola created some of the greatest movies of all time, namely Godfathers I and II. Apocalypse Now was flawed, but was an incredible achievement and probably the last great action adventure movie that was also a work of art. If you read about the production behind that film it will never be matched again, especially with the advent of CGI.

--
"Surrender Dorothy!"

[–] PoppyTransfusion 11 years ago

In terms of the 'point' of the film one of the conclusions, perhaps unwitting, is to show how a controlling and authoritarian system successfully survived and thrived in spite of the challenges of the 'artists' and the anarchy of the times. I found the ending quite depressing as people died or disappeared because of lunacy and drugs and making money became the only important player in the American film industry once more.

Fatima had a fetish for a wiggle in her scoot