Top Ten Movies of the 1980s

#8
Raging Bull

1980

Directed by: Martin Scorsese
Written by: Paul Schrader, Mardik Martin, Robert DeNiro and Martin Scorsese
Based on the autobiography by: Jack LaMotta
Cinematography by: Michael Chapman
Edited by: Thelma Schoonmaker
Starring: Robert DeNiro, Joe Pesci, and Cathy Moriarty

Nowadays Raging Bull is considered by many to be Scorsese's masterpiece, the greatest movie of the 1980s and even one of the greatest movies of all time. In fact, io their revised list, the American Film Institute named it the 4th greatest movie of all time. This is one instance where mainstream critics get it right. It's an incredible movie. To be honest though, listing it as only #8 on my top of the 1980s list makes me feel pretty special. Again though, it is only so far down the list because the 1980s was such an amazing decade for movies. Raging Bull has got the classic flawed individual trying to make it on his own theme that mainstream critics love. The main character is a real piece of crap. In fact, when the movie was first released many critics were split on the movie because they found Jake LaMotta (Robert DeNiro) to have no redeeming qualities. While this may have split the critics initially, it is probably that difference that distinguishes it from most other movies and why it is a classic nowadays.

The movie is based on the autobiography of Jake LaMotta. He was a boxer in the 1940s and former middleweight champion. It follows his rise and fall both professionally and personally. In the ring, he works his way to the top only to throw it all away by diving in a match. In his personal life he has severe bouts of rage hurting all of the people around him. This causes his family to fall apart. In the end, his wife Vickie (Cathy Moriarty) and manager brother Joey (Joe Pesci) leave him.

Robert DeNiro is really amazing in this movie and deservedly won an Oscar for Best Actor for it. He even learned how to be a proper boxer. During the shooting, LaMotta who coached him, claimed that he could have had a good run as a boxer instead of an actor. Also, a sign to DeNiro's commitment to the role was the fact that he gained 70 pounds to play the older overweight Jake LaMotta. Something that was unheard of at the time in acting. In this scene here you can see how he captures the rage and masochism of Jake:



It's also a pretty funny scene too actually. Raging Bull was Joe Pesci's first major role and also the first of many great movies that he made together with DeNiro (Goodfellas, Casino).

The American Film Institute also recently named Raging Bull the greatest sports movie ever made. Take that Rocky and Million Dollar Baby! This is especially interesting because when DeNiro gave Scorsese the autobiography of Jake LaMotta and first talked about making a movie out of it, Scorsese declined because he claimed that he didn't know anything about boxing. The way the scenes in the ring are filmed though, maybe it was better that way. Take at look at the scene from a match where LaMotta destroys an up and coming 'good looking' boxer named Janiro:



This clip says so much about what makes Raging Bull such a great movie. The first half is brutal. Scorsese uses everything to show how violent it is inside the ring. That one shot of Janiro's nose opening up and blood pouring out is unforgettable. In addition to this, I love the unique use of sound effects. You hear the distant sound of a train as Jake goes for a knockout punch. In other scenes in the movie you hear the heavy breathing of wild animals mixed with the heavy breathing of the fighters themselves. There's plenty of small things like this that point to Scorsese's brilliance. What Scorsese also does so well is making the brutality seem so beautiful. Thus, in the second half of the clip, the high-contrast black and white images and the Pietro Mascagni opera score combine to make something as arduous as training appear heavenly.

The movie is about more than just boxing though. It was a highly personal movie for Scorsese to make. When he chose it to be his next project he was in a hospital recovering from a near-fatal drug overdose. He even thought that this could be his last movie so he put everything he could into it. The theme of redemption which applied to Jake LaMotta was also so pertinent to Scorsese himself. I can only assume that at the time Scorsese must have felt as pathetic and down as LaMotta appears in this next scene:



Even though Raging Bull is at the top of all the critics lists and considered to be the best Scorsese film by the critics, most people I talk to haven't seen it. When it comes to Scorsese everyone's seen Goodfellas, Casino, Gangs of New York, The Departed, and even Taxi Driver. Those are all great movies but you're missing something if you haven't seen this one, go check it out now.

For being both one of the most beautiful and most brutal movies ever made, in my opinion Raging Bull is the 8th greatest movie of the 1980s.

Top Ten Movie of the 1980s

#9
Blow Out

1981

Written and Directed by: Brian De Palma
Cinematography by: Vilmos Zsigmond
Edited by: Paul Hirsch
Music by: Pino Donaggio
Starring: John Travolta, Nancy Allen, John Lithgow, and Dennis Franz

This is a fantastic movie, and the fact that it's number nine on my list just shows how great I think that filmmaking was in the 1980s. The story concerns Jack (John Travolta) who is working as a sound technician for low-budget exploitation films in Philadelphia. The movie begins with him being told by his boss that he needs the perfect scream in order to complete the movie their working on. Basically he's given an ultimatum: get a good scream or find another job. So one night when he's out recording new sounds in a park he witnesses a horrific car crash and actually gets the audio recording of the whole thing. Dying in the car accident was the governor of Pennsylvania and soon to be Presidential candidate. Jack was able to rescue a prostitute named Sally (Nancy Allen) from the car though. The rest of the movie follows Jack and Sally as they try to uncover what they think was the assassination of the governor. The whole time, the hired assassin (John Lithgow) is trying to silence them.

Brian De Palma is one of the masters of suspense movies. In the 1970s when he came to prominence he was hailed as the new Hitchcock. He can take any scene and put an audience on the edge of their seat. This is achieved with a great combination of music, cinematography, editing, and of course, a great sound technician of his own. Check out this great scene when the assassination kills a prostitute in the train station washroom:



Everything comes together nicely in this scene to make it perfect. The shot of the long empty hallway leading to the washroom, the overhead shot in the bathroom stalls, the sharp score, and the great little details in the sounds like the watch string and the woman brushing her teeth. This movie is De Palma at his best.

One of the things I love most about this movie though, is the focus on the mechanics of movie making in the story itself. As a sound technician we can see behind the scenes of how movies are actually made. Unfortunately, most of the time in movies, you see a behind the scenes in Hollywood type of movie which tend to focus on the lives of big stars and the famous. This may be suitable for mass consumption, but with Blow Out we see behind the scenes of the technical aspect of movie making itself. Something which I think is a lot more interesting. Many of the scenes in the movie splice shots of movie making and actual recording images together. This is the most common use of self-reflexivity in movies; to remind the viewer that they are watching something that is not actually real but fiction. The opening scene does this, but with a bit of a twist as you will see:



I this scene we see the evening news on one half of the screen and Jack on the other half documenting the sounds he has recorded. By putting these two images together it is trying to remind the viewer that TV News is itself to a certain extent fiction. Although it may be reporting real events, there is a whole process behind the news to decide what is presented to the public and how it is presented also. For example, in this scene there are two subjects covered at the same time: the Liberty Day parade and the announcement of the governor of his Presidential candidacy. The seemingly small decision of covering both of these stories concurrently actually would help the candidate associate himself with the huge patriotic event of the parade to the viewing public. In reality, decisions like this are not small at all as they concern everyone who watches the evening news. This decision and the decision to run with a story like this as headline news are valuable propaganda tools used by TV and other media every day, or every hour really. De Palma wants to remind us with this scene that we are viewing something that was constructed and along the way, ideology was intrinsically tied to the process at every level.

The movie pays homage to Antonioni's Blow Up which was on my top movies of the 1960s list. While in the former someone was trying to solve a murder based on photos, in Blow Out Jack is using a sound recording. Still, the questions about the nature of reality and what we can know are just as potent as in Blow Up. George Lucas could learn a lot about the meaning of homage from this movie.

Of course, not all people like to think when they watch a movie. But for those of you who like to watch movies for other reasons than just entertainment, this movie is for you. I'm sorry if I sound a little bitter or arrogant here, but when this movie was first released it bombed at the box office. One of the main reasons for this was the fact that it had a bleak ending. Who says that movies should always have happy endings thought. That in itself maybe is another form of propaganda. Everything is not always alright, live with it. For my money, the movie has one of the best and most dramatic endings I've ever seen. I am hesitant in posting a clip though because it is such a big SPOILER. If you haven't seen the movie DO NOT WATCH THIS CLIP. It will be a much more enjoyable experience if you haven't seen this clip. I'm gonna post it anyway though, because I think it's so amazing:



As I've tried to show though, this is a great suspenseful thriller which can also be appreciated on the level of entertainment see you won't be bored to death. It is definitely John Travolta's best performance and was made before he became a caricature of his former self. I first saw this movie many years ago after reading that it was one of Quentin Tarantino's three favourite movies. I figured that alone was reason enough and I hope it also helps convince you to watch this awesome movie if you haven't seen it.

For being a great suspenseful thriller and for its self-reflexive aspect, Blow Out is in my opinion the 9th greatest movie of the 1980s.

Top Ten Movies of the 1980s

# 10
Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back

1980

Directed by: Irvin Kershner
Written by: Lawrence Kasdan and Leigh Brackett
Story by: George Lucas
Cinematography by: Peter Suschitzky
Edited by: Paul Hirsch
Music by: John Williams
Starring: Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, Billy Dee Williams and Frank Oz

I hope nobody is upset that this classic blockbuster only made it to number ten on my list. It probably seems like more of an insult than praise to many people. Don't get me wrong, I love this movie. It has been a part of my life longer than any other movie on this list. Those who see any of the original Star Wars movie as kids know that the movies stay with you forever. And you can probably quote every scene without too much trouble. As much as I love it though, I could not justify placing it higher than number ten. Maybe the other movies don't match the scope and popularity of The Empire Strikes Back but they are all a lot more thought provoking and deserving of a higher ranking. I owe an explanation.

The whole Star Wars saga is a pastiche. It is an imitation or a copy of other stories, whether they be in movies, television or comics. Think about it in the university setting. George Lucas is just copying and pasting pieces of articles and essays by renowned academics in order to write his own paper. That would be considered plagiarism at university. This is essentially what he did when writing Star Wars. George Lucas is very open about paying tribute to his influences, but I think there is a bit of a problem when you copy something so closely, and the similarities are startling. For example, the basic characters of the movies are all taken from the Flash Gordon comic series. Also, of my favourite things about The Empire Strikes Back is Cloud City. As a child, the city floating in the clouds fascinated me and was one of my favourite things about the movie. What an imagination Lucas must have had. Or so I thought. Unfortunately, that idea too came from Flash Gordon. I can't help but think that there's something sleazy about pretty much taking credit for someone else's work. All of the influences are listed on Wikipedia if you want to look at them for yourself: . Now you may say it's homage, which of course is completely acceptable. It's possible to pay homage though without copying story lines and re-shooting famous scenes shot for shot though - see Tarantino.

Anyway, I didn't put The Empire Strikes Back on my list to rant about how much I hate Star Wars. I love Star Wars and this is definitely the finest of all of the installments. Notice that Lucas is only credited with the story too. Like the other Star Wars movies, this one has amazing interstellar scenes coupled with the amazing score by John Williams. Together they take you to a place that really feels like a galaxy far, far away. This asteroid field scene is a great example of this:



More than A New Hope in The Empire Strikes Back I think you really begin to identify with the characters a lot more too. The movie has a powerful emotional punch to go along with it. In particular as Han Solo and Princess Leia, Harrison Ford and Carrie Fischer do a great job of showing their budding romance throughout the movie. It's really fun to watch them go through all of the stages from hate to love. And this makes it all the more heartbreaking when they are separated after their first kiss in another classic scene:



Apparently the script had Han Solo replying with, "I love you too." So the story goes, Harrison Ford thought it was too cheesy and ad libbed on the spot with, "I know." Much more memorable.

Another reason why many people (including me) think this is the best of the trilogy is that it ends on such s down note - see Kevin Smith. Han's frozen in carbonite, Darth Vader is Luke's father, Luke lost his hand, the rebels are on the run, etc. When the movie first came out in 1980 it received mixed reviews. I imagine that many people were upset with the cliffhanger sad ending. Nowadays though, that is one of the main reason's that it's considered the best of the trilogy. The Empire Strikes Back may be pastiche but it's still a fantastic movie and will always have a special place in my heart. Whoops, sorry, I forgot to include the spoiler alert. If you haven't seen this movie though, you are not reading my blog. No worries. Here's that great final scene to end this installment:

For being the best of an amazing trilogy and a great sci-fi ride, Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back is in my opinion the 10th greatest movie of the 1980s.

Top Ten Movies of the 1970s

#1
Taxi Driver

1976

Directed by: Martin Scorsese
Written by: Paul Schrader
Cinematography by: Michael Chapman
Music by: Bernard Herrmann
Starring: Robert DeNiro, Jodie Foster, Harvey Keitel, Cybill Sheperd, Peter Boyle, and Leonard Harris

So this is it. My favourite movie of the 1970s and possibly the greatest movie of all time. I'm not exactly sure how to explain what makes this movie so incredible so I'll take things one step at a time. Travis Bickle (Robert DeNiro) is a Vietnam War veteran who, being unable to sleep at nights, takes a job as a night shift taxi driver. After attempts to be a normal sociable human being fails and becomes more distressed and displays increasingly erratic behaviour. Eventually he gets mixed up in a plot to assassinate a Presidential candidate and in a prostitution ring involving a 12 year-old girl (Jodie Foster). His fall from grace is due to his uncontrollable behaviour and increasingly fragile emotional state.

One of the greatest things about this film is the character of Travis Bickle himself. As a character study, this is what pushes the film forward. Paul Scrader wrote the screenplay for this film while he was unemployed and living on the streets. At this time he was completely removed from the world with no social contacts and in a downward spiral of loneliness and depression. Travis is a reflection of the writer at this moment. He is completely disillusioned with life. Perhaps as a victim of the 1970s economic slump, he sees the whole world around him degenerating into chaos due to immorality and selfishness. Through his voice over monologues we here him express this:



From this clip you can also see that something is not right with Travis. He suffers from severe paranoia and delusions of grandeur. He sees himself as some sort of martyr for a cause which he cannot even articulate. Instead, he just focuses all of his negative feelings onto those around him to make himself feel better.

Something else important is shown in this clip though. Travis is the narrator for this story, we see it unfold through his point of view. He's completely untrustworthy though due to his paranoia and delusions of grandeur. This is one aspect of the film that I think goes unnoticed by most people who watch it. Scorsese's genius direction gives us subtle hints to this fact though. In the previous clip Travis begins speaking only to fumble over his words and begin his tirade again. This shows just how much control the character has over what is being presented to the viewer. He is able to start over again after making a mistake so that his message will come across exactly the way he wants it to. This is one of the most fascinating things to me about the movie, and why it's one of my favourites.

Robert DeNiro is incredible as Travis. He takes up the challenge of playing such a demented character and does it with ease. In the long running battle between Al Pacino and Robert DeNiro, this is the role that for me turns battle in DeNiro's favour as a better actor. This improvised clip here has become legendary:



DeNiro's performance was so realistic and convincing that it influenced one of the most famous assassination attempts in history. On March 30th, 1981, John Hinckley Jr. almost killed President Ronald Reagan in Washington. In one of the most famous cases of real life imitating art, Hinckley was obsessed with Taxi Driver. He became fixated with Jodie Foster and actually began to stalk her in real life. When all of his advances failed, he decided to further mimic Travis Bickle's behaviour and tried to kill the President. He believed that if he did this, it would make him her equal and that then she would fall in love with him. In the trial that followed, all of this information came to public light. In the end, Hinckley was found not guilty by reason of insanity. This is, understandably, one of the things that the movie is most famous for now.

Related to this, Travis' disillusionment with politics is one of the key themes of the movies. One of the subplots is that the primary campaign of Senator Palantine (Leonard Harris) who is expected to be a front runner in the next Presidential election. In his better moments, Travis is supportive of the Senator. This can be seen in this scene here:



Mistrust of politicians was at it's peak around this time. It was only two years after the Watergate scandal that forced President Nixon to resign from office. Concurrently, as mentioned in other blog entries, the 1970s was one when the United States was in decline. The economy was contracting due to the oil shocks and, especially in cities like New York, unemployment was rampant. People like Travis expect their political leaders to fix the problem hastily, but as Palantine says, "It's not gonna be easy, we have to make some radical changes." This answer and all of the rhetoric spouted by the Senator is not especially comforting to somebody who sees their whole world crash around them. Indeed, as in the case of Travis, it can make you focus all of your anger on a politician for seeming to cause or anyway not prevent your troubles. Travis and the whole country at this time though were in a hopeless situation. With such a plethora of problems it's hard to know where to start. Travis can't even articulate the problems he sees and just relies on calling New York a filthy city. This is such an important dilemma because if you can't focus your attention on one issue than you can't solve any. With this comes a sense of hopelessness that leads people to resort to extremism. This extremism is especially common during recessions and/or depressions. Travis' solution was to assassinate the Senator.

The film has countless layers which you can deconstruct. Every time I watch Taxi Driver I notice something new and interesting. Besides the story though, all of the pieces of the film fall in place perfectly. The score by legendary movie composer Bernard Herrmann (his last before his death) is amazing and combines the steely sounds of the urban decay of New York City along with the romantic harps of Travis' delusions. As mentioned, the acting is all top notch. The cinematography is memorable as well, capturing New York City at night.

What shines here the most though, is the brilliant direction of Scorsese. Every panning shot, overhead shot, slow motion shot, zoom, etc., is perfectly placed. It's almost like you're watching a composite of all over the innovations in film up to this point in time. But it's not a stylistic overload, every unique shot adds to the story in ways that the setting, plot and dialogue could not do on it's own. Like all good directors, he uses the camera to tell a story rather than just relying on the screenplay. This climatic scene is one of the more heavily loaded scenes in the whole movie as well is being the most violent. It is not the end of the movie though so I do not hesitate at putting it in my blog. You may consider it a spoiler to see it, in which I recommend you watch the movie in it's whole first. But this scene is incredible so either way you must watch it:



That overhead shot is just amazing isn't it. By the way, that clip was not just bad quality. The scene was so violent that Scorsese had to desaturate the colours in order to get an R rating for the movie. I think it's appropriate though. The dream like colours add to the uncertainly of the scene itself. Back to the idea of Travis as an untrustworthy narrator, we don't know if this is exactly the way the situation went down. What follows this scene, the actual ending is even more fantasy like. Again, we have to question whether an unstable character like Travis is telling us the truth. What of the tricky things that I love about this movie. What a great movie.

Taxi Driver is set in New York City. Looking back at my top ten movies of the 1970s, four others are also set in at least partially in New York (Husbands, Dog Day Afternoon, Annie Hall, and the Godfather part. II). The 1970s was the decade for New York I suppose. Taxi Driver takes the cake though for the best movie ever set in New York. Like La Dolce Vita did for Rome in the early 1960s, Taxi Driver does the same for the declining New York in the 1970s.

For it's great character study of 'God's lonely man' gone insane, Taxi Driver is in my opinion the greatest movie of the 1970s.

Top Ten Movies of the 1970s

#2
The Godfather Part II

1974

Directed by: Francis Ford Coppola
Written by: Francis Ford Coppola and Mario Puzo (Based on his novel)
Cinematography by: Gordon Willis
Starring: Al Pacino, Diane Keaton, Robert Duvall, Robert DeNiro, and John Cazale

It was difficult choosing between The Godfather Part I and The Godfather Part II for this list. That being said, leaving out The Godfather Part III was incredibly easy. Both of the first two are amazing and considered classics but I decided that putting them both on the list of greatest movies of the 1970s would be unfair to others and I thought that putting them together would be cheating. The two of them while consisting of the same characters are still very different movies. One of the biggest differences that I noticed immediately was that the second installment didn't have the famous quotes that the first has. Watching the first film and hearing famous quote after famous quote can get tiring. In that way the second Godfather is more refreshing. But it is not just this, over all it's a better movie.

The movie follows two interweaving story lines. One follows Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) in the late 1950s as he struggles with the expansion of his business family in Havana and Las Vegas while his empire in New York unravels and as he struggles keeping his own real family together following troubles with his wife Kay (Diane Keaton) and brother Fredo (John Cazale). This is a fantastic storyline and could work well on it's own. However, to make something good even better, Coppola adds the second storyline. This one takes place in the early 20th century and follows Michael's father Vito Corleone (Robert DeNiro) as he rises from obscurity to wealth and influence. His mafia family and personal family both grow concurrently.

During a preview of this movie, Coppola showed the movie to some of his best friends in Hollywood where it was not well received. George Lucas is said to have remarked that "You have two films. Take one away, it doesn't work." Among other things this shows that Lucas really is a talentless hack. For all of his mainstream success, Coppola has never fit the Hollywood mould. He had to fight to get the final cut on the Godfather movies and even after their success continued to make experimental and cutting edge films to satisfy his own artistic needs instead of his financial ones. What I love about The Godfather Part II and what is the main thing that makes it better than it's predecessor is that the two story lines show how far Michael Corleone has deviated from his father's business. Vito's family rose in power because it began by winning the trust and favour of those in the community. The mafia family of which he was in charge of knew how to return a favour and keep people safe. In this long amazing scene, Vito kills the previous local mafia kingpin setting in motion the chain of events that would lead to him being the new local Don:



Even without the subtitles it is easy to understand what is going on. Don Fanucci here is a real bastard and charges bankrupting rates for his personal protection. Vito comes in and overthrows him, everyone is happy.

On of the reasons that The Godfather Trilogy is still so popular today, I believe, is because people are obsessed with it's focus on business ethics, or the lack therof. Michael is a anti-hero because, even though he is a cold heartless bastard, people believe that is always just doing what is best for his business. Even if that means hurting or even killing the ones he loves, the business always comes first. People love that. I remember particularly in university knowing people who were studying all these different disciplines. Those who studied business administration were usually the ones with the giant Godfather poster in their dorm room. I think the movie's popularity says a lot about the society that we live in. People can justify all sorts of ruthless behaviour involved in the corporate world using a twisted Darwinian logic. Eat or be eaten they say. I can't help but suspect though that their eagerness to justify this 'fact of life' stems from some sort of inner ruthlessness which they themselves possess. A ruthlessness which Michael also possesses.

Anyway, this reading of The Godfather Part II is false. The two story lines running side by side show the differences in the way Vito and Michael run the family business. Vito's has a charitable focus and he takes care of the local community. On the other hand, Michael's focus is on expansion into new markets by any means necessary. The difference hear is simple. Vito's running a fresh business and Michael's inherited one from his father that has been 40 years in the making. After all of this time corruption has run rampant in the organization like a virus. Michael himself is resorting to cheating and lies as a regular tool of business. His own family is falling apart too as a result of this.

In the movie, the family's political connections and bribes are shown quite naturally as just a part of business. This is the way to get things done. When running a dirty business like this though, there is increased risk. This is shown quite clearly as the Corleone family business tries to make in grounds into Cuba. At this time in the late 1950s, Cuba was the jewel in the Americans Caribbean Empire's crown. The President of Cuba Fulgencio Batista was a puppet and a dictator backed by the United States so that the American corporate interests could rape the island of it's natural and human resources while at the same time impose monopolies and virtually control all of Cuban industry. At the same time the people of Cuba were getting fed up. Batista had come to power in a second coup in 1952 and used hard line authoritarian tactics to prop up his rule. Cuba was a virtual police state and the majority of the island's people suffered from malnutrition, lack of access to education, and intense political repression. It was not just 'reputable' corporate interests that dominated in Cuba though, as shown in The Godfather Part II organized crime had begun to make inroads. Batista himself was cozy with leading mobster Meyer Lansky (Hymen Roth in the movie) and in the movie Michael travels to Cuba to try and get a piece of the pie. However, on New Years Eve 1958 things were destined to change and Michael and Fredo were both there to witness it:



So this is a classic scene, probably the most famous from the whole movie. Look past the drama between the two brothers though and you can see just how mired in corruption the Cuban government was. While the country was starving there was a lavish New Years party put on by the President to cater to his supporters: American diplomats and the corporate elite. Even the Mafia was invited to this event, the beginning of what have been a long relationship had the following events not taken place. This was the night of the Cuban Revolution. Also, while this party was going on, the rebels were making gains in towns and cities all over Cuba. Fidel Castro, Ernesto 'Che' Guevara, Raul Castro and their rebel group known as the '26th Of July Movement' had taken over the city of Santa Clara in a long battle. Batista panicked and fled to the Dominican Republic. A week later, after a long victory march, Fidel Castro entered Havana and proclaimed support for a new government. A government in which initially he did not even serve as President.

To be sure, Castro's rule has it's many problems. Nobody can deny that there are some similarities to his rule and those seen from authoritarians before him. However, Cuba has seen many significant gains since him and his movement came to power. Many people claim that it is a police state like the previous Batista government and heavily repressed. Maybe so, but it is more democratic than people give it creedence for. At least, it is more democratic than the Batista regime and many other countries in the region where American interests still hold sway. There is a party machine (The Communist Party) one must climb the ranks of to make a real difference, but these are open to far more people from many different backgrounds. There is a way to still make a difference in Cuban politics. More important than any structural or political changes though are all of the massive changes which have directly raised the Cuban standard of living. Cuba has the best health care in all of Latin America. Their medical personnel are sought after by nations all over the world and this expertise is coupled with a wholly inclusiveness so that a far larger percentage of people are covered than in many countries. I don't I'll ever live to see the day when the United States government can claim that 100% of their citizens have access to quality health care. The Cuban education system is also one of the highest and the most inclusive in all of Latin America. This is the key to the success of the revolution as it opens up opportunities to all to study.

One of the things which I enjoy most about The Godfather Part II is that in showing the ties that organized crime had in pre-revolutionary Cuba, it points out just how mired in corruption the country really was. Those who speak with nostalgia of the glorious Havana of the 1950s were the ones involved in this corruption and should hold no sway in the debate. The old Havana was run by gangsters and not just the gangsters not just in the mafia. These gangsters came from the corporate world and the highest levels of government (both Cuban and American).

Those who were corrupt in Cuba saw their downfall with the revolution. So too Michael will inevitably head to his downfall. That is the lesson of the movie. The young Vito Corleone prospered due to his goodwill while Michael inherited a business which could only survive by becoming more corrupt with each deal. Something like this, it is shown, is completely unsustainable and the effects are not worth the risk.

For being a thought provoking study of business ethics as well as being just an amazing classic, The Godfather Part II is in my opinion the 2nd greatest movie of the 1970s.

Top Ten Movies of the 1970s

#3
Barry Lyndon

1975

Written and Directed by: Stanley Kubrick
Based on the novel by: William Makepeace Thackeray
Cinematography by: John Alcott
Starring: Ryan O'Neal and Marisa Berenson

It is my steadfast belief that Stanley Kubrick is the greatest film director to ever live and this also may be my favourite movie of his. I go back and forth between Barry Lyndon and 2001: A Space Odyssey. It's tragic though, because Barry Lyndon has always been one of Kubrick's lesser known movies and in my opinion has not received the praise that it deserves. I think that people are beginning to look back though and examine Barry Lyndon more closely now. When I first looked at it's user rating on the Internet Movie Data Base (IMDb) website it was around 7.5 but looking at it now it's got a rating of 8.1 which is significantly higher. Martin Scorsese has also recently claimed that this is also his favourite Kubrick film. All of this I hope will lead to further re-evaluation of this movie and into the canon of classic twentieth century films.

The movie is divided into two parts. The plot of part 1 follows a Irishman named Redmond Barry (Ryan O'Neal) from a petty upbringing who lies and cheats his way into the English nobility in the mid to late 18th century. On the run from the law, he joins the English Army and heads to Europe to fight in the Seven Years War. The historical accuracy and Kubrick's attention to detail is one of the things that make this such an amazing movie. The narration provides the viewer with background of the setting and conflict. At the same time the battle scenes and scenes of the war are not overly embellished like they tend to be in modern films for stylistic purposes. This is just straight up battle the way it used to be done. Check out this scene of Barry's first taste of battle and you'll see what I mean:



The camera work is straightforward and maybe even stale on purpose. Kubrick doesn't think it's necessary to use tricks like fast editing or shaky camerawork to make the conflict any more intense. Watching it and thinking about what all the participants are going through does the job just fine. He doesn't even show the result of the two battalions reaching each other and engaging in combat, you just hear the sound coming from off screen at the end of the clip. That's the way it was for participants like Redmond and that's the point of view we are seeing the conflict through.

Kubrick is a perfectionist. According to legend it was not uncommon for him to demand hundreds of re-shoots of scenes from his crew and actors in order to pick out the most perfect take afterwards. This conceivable too as the shooting of the movie took about three hundred days. Everything has to be perfect for him. That is why he made sure to double check his facts and make the movie as historically accurate as possible. Prior to working on Barry Lyndon he had planned on making a historical epic about Napoleon Bonaparte so he was able to use much of that research in making this movie set during the Seven Years War.

The Seven Years lasted from 1756 unit 1763. Although the main battleground was Europe there were also battles in North American, West African, and Indian soil leading many historians to label this as the real First World War. The war was born out of national rivalries and a changing of the European balance of power. Longstanding rivals England and France were fighting long before the war officially began in North America over influence and land in parts of what is now the United States and Canada. The main catalyst though was the rise of Prussia under the leadership of Frederick the Great and the fear that it instilled in it's neighbours and rivals of France, Austria, Russia and Sweden. Previously enemies, all of these kingdoms formed an alliance against Prussia while Britain joined the war on the side of Prussia. It was a highly destructive war in which between 900,000 and 1,400,000 people lost their lives and many prominent cities like Prague were laid to ruin. Battles were won and lost on both sides and for a time it looked like the alliance of France, Austria, Russia, and Sweden would win. This is when what is known as the 'Miracle of the House of Brandenburg' happened which was when Russia's Empress Elizabeth died suddenly in 1762 and her pro-Prussian successor Peter III came to power and withdrew his troops from the war. Following this tide shifted and Prussia and Britain won the war within the year. Prussia would continue to rise as a powerful nation and be the founding member of the unified Germany a century later. Meanwhile France, Austria, Sweden and Russia all began to decline in their standing.

So that is the highly compressed background of the Seven Years War which serves as the backdrop for the first part of the movie. As in most large scale wars like this, it was borne out of power politics and run by ambitious men. Redmond was no different than these men of a higher standing. Joining the British Army out of necessity he later abandoned the army but was forced to recruit into the Prussian army when he was found out. Here he climbs the social ladder by gaining the trust and betraying high ranking officials. He becomes a travelling gambler, cheating princes and other European nobles of their money by taking advantage of their greed. Eventually though his own ambition and greed lead him to marry the widow of a nobleman, the Countess of Lyndon, and he acquires the name and noble title of Barry Lyndon. This begins the 2nd part of the movie. The second half consists mainly of Barry's attempt to rise the ranks of nobles and the misfortunes that follow him as he does this. Misfortunes that are entirely his own fault and which he deserves.

The scene in which he seduces the Countess is one of the greatest ever in any movie and you really have watch it, so click on it now:



This is such a great scene. It shows that one of the strong points of the movie is really it's cinematography. Kubrick insisted that as much of the movie as possible be shot with natural light so as to resemble a scene from the era as closely as possible. While he had to use electric light in some circumstances he still sought to achieve the look seen in the paintings of the era. However a painting is one thing, photography is completely different. It's very difficult for example to shoot night scenes without electric light. Kubrick insisted that the night scenes had to be shot with only candle light though and in the previous scene at the gambling table shows how much that decision paid off as it was a beautiful shot. This is where his technical genius was put to use. In order to shoot in the candle light Kubrick attained some super-fast 50mm camera lens with a focal ratio of 0.70 which were developed for NASA to use specifically to record the moon landings. The aperture of the lens (the hole which the light travels through) was and still is the largest in the history of film. I'm not quite clear on the technical details but basically I understand that it allowed for a sharper picture in low light scenes whereas normally the image would be blurred. Now I'm sure that obtaining these lens were not very easy and just stresses how much of a perfectionist Kubrick really was.

All of his hard work paid off. The whole movie is an incredibly accurate and realistic portrayal of life in the eighteenth century. By watching the movie you don't just get a feeling of entertainment or joy from the aesthetic beauty, but you feel enriched from learning more about a time long ago that you might have not known anything about before. It's a movie for people interested in both film and history and that's why it's one of my personal favourites.

For being such a beautiful, innovative and accurate portrayal of life in the eighteenth century, Barry Lyndon is in my opinion the 3rd greatest movie of the 1970s.

Top Ten Movies of the 1970s

#4
Days of Heaven

1978

Written and Directed by: Terrence Malick
Cinematography by: Nestor Almendros
Edited by: Billy Weber
Music by: Ennio Morricone
Starring: Richard Gere, Brooke Adams, Linda Manz, Sam Shepard

To start with this Days of Heaven, the opening credits are very memorable. It's the best way to start talking about this movie I believe too, so I will show them first:



It's so beautiful and brilliant. As you can tell too, the music is one of this movie's strongest assets. Ennion Morricone's score as well as the additional music is perfect. By showing defining photos of the era you immediately learn the mood and setting. It's set in the early 20th century, at the time right before the United States entered World War 1 around 1916 or so. Industrialization is really starting to hit the US and the cities are growing at a rapid place as people migrate to look for jobs. At this stage it's really strengthening the divisions between classes. That's precisely what the introduction shows too. It flashes images of poor undernourished (probably unemployed) workers followed by well dressed industrialists. Some people are living better, luxurious lives and some people are barely managing to get by.

The last image it shows is the movie's narrator, the little girl named Linda (Linda Manz). As she describes, her, her brother Bill (Richard Gere) and his girlfriend Abby (Brooke Adams) are "looking for things, searching for things." They are migrant workers, travelling the country looking for work wherever they can. Bill has recently lost his job for fighting with his boss at a steel mill where he worked and is on the run. They find work at a ranch working on the harvest. While there the farm owner (Sam Shepard), who is dying from some sort of disease, falls in love with Abby. Bill knows is informed of both of these facts and convinces Abby to marry the farmer in order to gain his inheritance. This scene shows it all go down:



So Abby agrees and gets married to the Rancher, but she falls in love with him and conventional drama ensues from there as he catches on to the fact that Abby and Bill were an item. Now, of course, Bill is not a good guy. He is not in an amicable position though so you have to feel sorry for him. There is a great scene from the movie where he talks about how when he was young he was always looking forward to the future. He thought that he was smarter than everyone else and that therefore he had a bright future. Eventually he had to come to the realization though that he was no smarter than anyone else. Like so many others from a poor upbringing like his in that era, he had few prospects and had to accept the life he was dealt. Only through this lie could he taste the life of the upper class for a short time.

That's what really gets me about this story. It's as if he was forced into this position whereby the only solution he could see to get out of the gutter was to lie and basically pimp his girlfriend out to this richer man. It's a lack of opportunity which compels people to do terrible things such as this. Nobody in their right state of mind would ever do such a thing. Yet conventional wisdom tells us that Bill is meant to be the bad guy. Most people wouldn't even call to question the fact that it was the rancher who was paying the poor wages and exploiting all those workers who were in an inferior position. Isn't he then partly responsible for Bill committing this act? He was after all creating the circumstances. As the movie shows though, the authorities don't quite view it this way and Bill's life isn't worth nearly as much as the rancher's.

This movie shows the true nature of unbridled capitalism. Everybody learns from their history books about the Great Depression which began in 1929. Unfortunately, too many people understand this as 'the moment' when a crisis led to a collapse in the otherwise stable capitalist business cycle. If one reads further back in the history of capitalism, they learn that it was characterized by boom and bust periods of recessions and depressions since it's inception. One could even say that periodic downturns are a characteristic of capitalism. Along with this of course comes periodic workers revolts as they become fed up with being unable to feed themselves or their family. Full employment was not even imaginable prior to World War 2 though. A world with a pure capitalist economy would most likely resemble the world of this era where families migrated to wherever the work was. After all it's important to remember that one person's fortune is another's misfortune and at the same time one region's fortune is another's misfortune.

Following World War 2 of course, a much more regulatory state began to offset these boom and bust cycles. There are many reasons for this. Workers solidarity and power were at a height. War increased these bonds, people had the feeling that they were fighting for a better life which they expected the state to deliver. But also, with the rise of the USSR and other 'communist' states they had to ensure that people remained loyal to the capitalist model. Either way, this management of the economy manipulated the capitalist business cycle. It was done through redistributatory taxes which had the effect of creating a larger, wealthier middle class thereby increasing the demand of consumer goods. These taxes also gave the state the funds to intervene directly in the economy, propping up some sectors of industry which may have needed restructuring or assistance. Whatever form it took, the main thing is that it provided a safety net to those in jobs which previously may have been unstable. It was considered a right in the post-war era to have a job for life. It worked too for a time with consistent positive growth in the industrialized world up until the recession of 1973. This was when the economic orthodoxy did a complete turn around. Since then, the movement towards state retrenchment has dominated. As this has happened, surprise, periods of boom and bust are becoming common place once again. Only this time they are taking a becoming far more global. Jobs for life are considered a thing of the past. In short, our world is beginning to resemble the world that Bill, Abby, and Linda lived in.

What I find so amazing about Days of Heaven is that it communicates so much, but with such little dialogue. Indeed, the movie has been called a 'visual poem', relying instead on images to push the plot and subplot. We may not hear the characters talk about their hard times, but we see the looks on their faces, their dress, and their plight for ourselves. It's quite refreshing watching this movie and not being told the story by the characters, it's up to our imagination to fill in the holes. Just listen to this narration provided by Linda's character and notice how sparse and uninformative it is:



The dialogue fades to the background and it's the pictures which drive the movie forward. It's a terrible cliche, but this movie shows that a picture says a thousand words. Which is good too because every image in Days of Heaven is so beautifully shot. If for no other reason, watch Days of Heaven to see some of the best cinematography you will ever see, accompanied by one of the greatest scores.

For beautifully showing an ugly life, Days of Heaven is in my opinion the 4th greatest movie of the 1970s.

Top Ten Movies of the 1970s

#5
Solaris

1972

Directed by: Andrei Tarkovsky
Written by: Andrei Tarkovsky and Fridrikh Gorenshtein
Based on the novel by: Stanislaw Lem
Cinematography by: Vadim Yusov
Music by: Eduard Artemyev
Starring: Donatas Banionis, Natalya Bondarchuk, Jüri Järvet, and Anatoly Solonitsyn

I would not advise you to watch Solaris if you expect a fast paced sci-fi thriller in the style of Roland Emmerich or Michael Bay. That's just not Tarkovsky's style. Solaris instead can be described as a slow moving psychological drama. Unlike modern sci-fi action movies which seek to distract you with special effects or keep your interest with its fast paced sequences and shortage of meaningful dialogue, this movie draws you in to the story and devastatingly existential subplot.

The first half of the movie centers on Kris Kelvin (Donatas Banionis) who is a psychologist sent on a mission to a space station which in orbit over a recently discovered oceanic planet called Solaris. Those who on board are in the grip of emotional crises and Kris is sent there to survey the scene. As he finds out from the two remaining scientists aboard the space station, the planet is some sort of conscious being and creates psychological constructs to drive those in the station insane. These take the form of people from the people's past. Once they are created they believe they are the real thing and convince those for who they were created the same.

So for Kelvin, in the movie's second half, his ex wife Hari (Natalya Bondarchuk) who had committed suicide appears in the space station. She is completely unaware of having died in the past and, while Kris is at first reluctant to accept it, he falls in love with her again and refuses to accept that it is not a real person he is connecting with. This is the main tragedy of the movie. It's painful watching both of these characters deal with their dilemma. Kris is caught in the past and looses interest in what he was sent to the station to do in the first place. Hari's plight is even worse as she slowly learns that she is nothing more than a psychological construct, not a real human. She tries unsuccessfully many times to kill herself.

Science fiction usually focuses on the great possibilities that space exploration can lead to. The search for intelligent life is expected by many to one day yield results. However, Solaris paints a very different picture. The movie takes the opposite point of view refusing to praise the life of a space explorer and instead suggesting that human contact is first and foremost important. After all, the space station is a wreck, there is no indication that the cosmonauts are living the sweet life. Kris clings onto the bond he rebuilds with Hari and refuses to let go. All of this is outlined in this great scene. It's a little long, and maybe hard to watch without the context of the whole film, but I urge you to give it a chance:



All four of those at the meeting in this clip have a different idea of what human nature is and what humankind should strive to. Dr. Snaut (Jüri Järvet) sums up the basic idea of the movie perfectly though as he describes that humans have no innate desire to conquer the cosmos, but to extend the Earth to the border of the cosmos. In the end he is suggesting that we all crave the comfort of our home and are lost without it. Even if we leave for a certain time, we need it as a comfort to fall back on in times of trouble. “We don’t need other worlds. We need a mirror,” Snaut claims. Dr. Sartorious (Anatoly Solonitsyn), playing the role of the stereotypical scientist, claims that this both false and cowardly. For him all that matters is the endless search for truth. The relationship between Kris and Hari goes against everything he is saying though. He knows that she is nothing but a construct but cannot let go as shown in this scene which takes place immediately after the previous scene:



On a side note, that's probably my favourite scene in the whole movie. It's just so beautiful. It may be paying homage to that painting by Pieter Bruegel with a score by Bach, but it shows ultimately how film is a mature medium of art. Able to take past works and make something completely new out of all of them simultaneously.

Kris has to make a choice between his uncomfortable reality back on Earth, or descending to the islands of Solaris to live in an artificial reality with everything he has loved in the past existing once again and coming together. Faced with that prospect who knows what any one of us would do. We trick ourselves all the time. We tell ourselves that things are the way they are for a certain reason despite definitive evidence of the contrary. Religion and spiritual beliefs make it easier for people to come to terms with a troubled existence and their own immortality. The question of truth or comfort is central to this movie and the insight it provides is what makes it such an amazing movie. The final scene is one of the greatest too and can be said to define the whole movie. I highly recommend watching it, don't consider it being a spoiler. Deep down you know that Kris, like most of you who are reading this, choose comfort over truth. He descends to Solaris and lives happily:

For insight fully discussing the dilemma between living an uneasy life in reality versus living comfortably in a false one, Solaris is in my opinion the 5th greatest movie of the 1970s.

Top Ten Movies of the 1970s

# 6
Annie Hall

1977

Directed by: Woody Allen
Written by: Woody Allen and Marshall Brickman
Edited by: Ralph Rosenblum
Starring: Woody Allen, Diane Keaton, Tony Roberts, Paul Simon, and Christopher Walken

Woody Allen considers Annie Hall to be the movie where he went from making simple comedies to deeper, more intimate comedies. The reason that Annie Hall might be my favourite Woody Allen movie (I say might because I had trouble picking it over Manhattan) is because it was made during this period of transition it has the best of both worlds. It's the same reason why favourite Beatles albums are Revolver and Rubber Soul. The movie has got both the laughs and the heart. It's one of the greatest movies ever made about relationships without a doubt.

The story is simple enough as the movie follows the ups and downs of a relationship between Alvy Singer (Woody Allen) and Annie Hall (Diane Keaton). The way it's shot though makes it seem like a compilation of short films on relationships. There are flashbacks of Alvy's childhood and early family events to explain the psychological effect that his upbringing had on his current neuroses. There are also elements of French New Cinema, for example one scene where as the two are conversing their thoughts appear as subtitles on the screen. One scene is even animated. The fourth wall is also constantly broken in the film with Alvy addressing the audience directly. In this great scene Alvy and a character with a minor role clash as they both attempt to appeal to the audience:



As you can tell from this clip too, Woody's quite the intellectual. Sure it can be annoying at times as it seems like he name drops a little too much. But a lot of the time it serves to add extra emphasis to whatever argument he is making. Also, because he pays homage to Ingmar Bergman (or Fellini as in this scene) in most of his movies and always drops his name, I consider it all perfectly acceptable.

If it had to rely on its technical achievements alone, the film would still be amazing. It's obvious from watching it that Woody Allen is well spoken and that he is highly knowledgeable of film theory. The presentation is extraordinary. The film also succeeds and really hitting the emotions though. It's genuinely funny for one. Is laughter or humour and emotion? Maybe not. Either way there are some really memorable scenes. Their not cheap laughs either. The character Alvy is a comedian and is always deriding the manufactured laughs of the television industry, as one great scene about the artificiality of laugh tracks shows. The movie instead builds up to great gags and gets laughs through unbearably uncomfortable situations. This next scene is one of the best and features and young Christopher Walken. It was this scene in which he first showed the creepy dead pan that would define his whole career:



So it's funny as that scene undoubtedly shows. It's a great love story too. One that's far more real and genuine (key word for this movie) than any other in the decade. The chemistry between Allen and Keaton is great, and why not they actually did date for a while in the 70s. The former denies that the movie is semi-autobiographical though. The relationship is charted from it's beginning through to its end. Although, not in that order. Scenes are a little mixed up. For instance, immediately after the characters meet is a scene in which they move in together. They are breaking up in one scene, and without any mention of anything otherwise are getting along great in the next scene. It's in this way that relationships are shown to be entirely predictable. Allen assumes that the audience will follow the movie and understand the ups and downs of the couple. I enjoy a director who respects the audience enough to challenge them and not treat them as mindless sheep. The reason that some scenes pack such an emotional kick though is due to the use of long takes. Scenes just go on for a matter of minutes forcing the viewer to get involved in the conversation and situation. Take for example this next scene:



That's a sad one isn't it. If you were to watch the whole movie it has an even greater effect. That's why (as in all of the other movies on this blog) I am recommending this movie to you! Relationships can be very sad affairs. But as Allen's knack for comedy shows, they can also be quite funny. Ultimately he is a bit of a fatalist though so they are mostly depressing. At the same time though, Allen's great at putting things in perspective. One of the things which I appreciate about all of his movies as how after your finished watching them, you feel as if you've been given a new lease on life. Annie Hall has this effect too. You see life in a new way and you feel as if you have the opportunity to start over again.

For being one of the greatest movies about relationships in the history of the world, in my opinion Annie Hall is the 6th greatest movie of the 1970s.

Top Ten Movies of the 1970s

#7
Dog Day Afternoon

1975

Directed by: Sidney Lumet
Written by: Frank Pierson
Cinematography: Victor J. Kemper
Starring: Al Pacino, John Cazale, Charles Durning, and Chris Sarandon

This has long been one of my favourite movies. Dog Day Afternoon is based on a true story about a Brooklyn bank robbery that was so unbelievable it sounded like it came from a movie. Naturally then, it was made into a movie. Two men rob a bank, well three initially. They are Sonny Wortzik (Al Pacino) and his friend Sal (John Cazale). They cops come to the scene and it goes from a bank robbery to a hostage situation. As the movie proceeds it becomes more eccentric. It turns out that Sonny was robbing the bank mainly to get the funds to pay for his husband's (Chris Sarandon) sex change operation. This aspect is also handled in a very respectful way, which is rare for movies of this time period. Another thing I love about this movie. Anyway, from the beginning every thing goes wrong. The results are both comedic and tragicat the same time. This is one of those rare movies that can pull that off. It's always an incredible feeling to want to laugh and cry at the same time. It's the characters in this movie as well as the actors who portray them which make this possible. Take a look at the opening scene of the robbery and you'll see what I mean:



I laugh so hard at this scene, it's the tiny detail which make it work. The frustration Sonny shows at how difficult it is to get his gun out, him and Sal trying to find each other through the pillars in the bank, and Sonny's pleading at the failed bank robber Stevie to take the subway home and not the car. Great stuff. It's still hard to believe that this is based on a true story.

Al Pacino is often called the greatest actor of his generation (it's either him or De Niro anyway). I think this is him at his best too. Watching him really makes you wish he would stop making such crap and wish that he didn't ruin his vocal range with the cigarettes. He's so intense as Sonny and really has the character down perfectly. John Cazale is also amazing in his supporting role as the introvert, pitiful psychotic Sal. This following scene is one of the most famous from the movie and shows Sonny taunting the police officers trying to negotiate the hostages release. It shows just how great the acting is I think:



He certainly shouts 'Attica' a lot. For those of you who are unaware (I was before I saw this movie) 'Attica' was a prison where there was a riot in the early 70s. The prison was taken over by the prisoners who were demanding better living conditions and the removal of the cruel superintendent. In the end, the police were sent in with 39 causalities suffered in taking back the prison. Ten of these people were workers at the prison and other civilian employees. Sonny's yelling this to get the crowd on his side. He constantly warns in the movie that this could be another Attica. It works as you can see, he become a sort of hero to the crowd.

The reason that a bank robber so easily becomes a hero of this crowd speaks to the hard times. The United States was in the grips of a recession. This had largely been brought about by the Oil Crisis of 1973. What happened was the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC) had placed an oil embargo on the US in response for their military support of Israel during the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Basically they restricted output and raised prices. This sent shockwaves through the economy. Oil supplies shrank, transport was halted, products could not be manufactured, factories closed down, and people lost their jobs in massive numbers. The Stock Market collapsed later that same year. It was the official end of the post-WWII economic boom. Until that, the west had largely experience prolonged economic growth. We still see the effect of this today in our government policies.

Sonny was a victim of this recession. He explains in the movie his trouble at finding a job with decent pay. Most likely, those in the crowd and watching on TV are experiencing the exact same thing. There is massive discontent with the economy on the brink of near collapse. Sonny exploits this anti-establishment feeling perfectly.

There is even more to this previous scene. The last shot shows a point of view from a TV News helicopter. This type of occurrence was being broadcast a massive scale. At the time the media was becoming far more pervasive. This is shown humorlessly in this next scene:



I love how excited Sonny gets seeing himself on TV. The fact is that people were watching a lot more news, and were being fed more information. The media could even somehow obtain that close-up shot of Sonny in the bank. Information like this would not have been known to the wider public eighty years prior to this. Yet people were aware of the bank robbery and Sonny. The tragedy at Attica was well known and became a rallying point for the crowd in the earlier scene. And just as likely, the effects of the recession and its causes were being shown every night on the news. Information is power. And this story takes place way back in 1973. Advances in communications technology allows us to now receive information from all over the world. The movie forecasts the role that access to information would play in future social movements as it is now. Sonny got the crowd going and it's now possible to do this on a much wider scale.

But the fact remains that Dog Day Afternoon is also great just based on it's entertainment value. It's a great story, has great direction and incredible acting. It's funny and tragic. Without giving away too much I will just say that the ending is not consistent with the rest of the film's tone. Above all though, it's a movie that I think appeals to everyone. This is a movie that everyone will like.

For capturing the hardship faced by many during the end of the post-war economic boom, and showing it as both humourless and tragic, Dog Day Afternoon is in my opinion the 7th greatest movie of the 1970s.