Cleveronix A different way of telling a story

Kirandeep Yoder The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

Lachlan Coulson This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

Brenda The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Red-Barracuda This documentary is based on the idea that the 70's was the most influential decade in American cinema history; seeing as this is an opinion that I have always agreed with I am essentially on-board right away. The subject matter more specifically is about the emergence of the New Hollywood. Strictly speaking this was a period that began about 1967; it was in full bloom until the early 70's but didn't properly die out until round about the dawn of the 80's. The period was characterised by personal director-led films. These were quite a lot less commercial and a lot more left-field than Hollywood had produced previously. They were effectively a response to the box-office disasters of several big budget studio pictures that had failed to find an audience in the counter-cultural times of the late 60's. Once Bonnie and Clyde, The Graduate and Easy Rider were released to huge success, the studios figured that these types of films were the new way forward and would make them a lot of money. It turned out they were only partially right, as while many of the New Hollywood movies were successful in critical terms, not many made a lot of money. And once Steven Spielberg and George Lucas released Jaws and Star Wars, respectively, the age of the blockbuster arrived and it has been thus ever since.As a fan of this period of films I naturally thoroughly enjoyed A Decade Under the Influence. It does have to be admitted though that it is hardly an even handed examination. The view clearly stated is that this was a great time for movies and there is very little in the way of critical counter-views. I don't consider this to be a major problem as this is about shining a torch positively on an interesting period of cinema but it is at least worth acknowledging it. It might have strengthened the documentary overall if there had been some examples of the failures of the movement.Pleasingly, there are clips from many films. It made me realise how many of these films I haven't even seen yet and the segments are certainly well chosen, which is not a given in these types of docs. The structure is of the talking heads format. We hear the views of directors, actors and writers from the period. We learn a lot about their motivations and about the historical context that informed them like Vietnam and Watergate. These were turbulent times in the United States, the upshot is that a lot of great contemporary art was produced, not just in movies of course but also in books and music too. I think all these things came together at one time and the results are there for all to see. If you are interested in the subject then may I suggest also reading Peter Biskind's excellent book on the subject 'Easy Riders, Raging Bulls' – there was a documentary made of that too and while it was good, for my money this one is better.

christopher-underwood A surprisingly good documentary. My surprise was mainly due to the fact that I was confused by the title. I assumed this was about the influence of the drug culture on film making but no it is a much more far reaching and intelligent film than could have been expected. Demme has done a great job in encapsulating the period from the late 60s to the late 70s. From, 'Easy Rider' and the collapse of studio influence, through all those introspective 'real life' movies, where brilliant young directors tried to express themselves politically, sexually and artistically, through to the beginnings of the blockbuster and the return of the reigns to the money men and their studios. As someone who saw the 'real life' movies of Britain and the rest of Europe through the sixties and then the revolutionary US films of the 70s and is sad that the sequel to the sequel is so much the order of the day, this was a most fascinating film. The interview clips are measured (thanks to DVD the full interviews are available as extras!) and the film clips well considered. Also, as someone who has only just caught up with, 'Joe', I am impressed that this important little film gets its well deserved entry here.

spelvini This is a great compendium of interviews and excerpts form the films of the late sixties and early 70s that were a counter movement to the big Studio Films of the late sixties. Directed by Ted Demme, it is obviously a labor of love of the films of the period, but it gives short shrift to the masterpieces of the times.Many of the filmmakers of this period were influenced by Truffaut, Antonioni, Fellini, Bergman, and of course John Cassavetes. Unfortunately the documentary logging in at 138 minutes is too short! The film is rich with interviews and opinions of filmmakers. Some of the people interviewed are: Martin Scorsese, Francis Coppola, Robert Altman, Peter Bogdonovich, Ellen Burstyn, and Roger Corman, Bruce Dern, Sydney Pollack, Dennis Hopper, and Jon Voight.Bruce Dern has a moment of truth when he says that he and Jack Nicholson may not have been as good looking as the other stars that came before them but they were "interesting". This summarizes the other areas of this period of film-making in American history.The filmmakers were dealing with a lack of funding from the Studios because they were expressing unconventional attitudes about politics, sex, drugs, gender and race issues, and Americas involvement in overseas conflicts like the Vietnam War.There is a great interview with Francis Coppola saying that he got the chance to make "The Conversation" because the producers knew he had been trained by Roger Corman to make a movie with nothing so they bankrolled his film.Another interview is with Jon Voight who was directed by Hal Ashby in "Coming Home" a clear anti-war film about a crippled soldier immersing himself back into society after his facing battle. Voight talks about how his working methods helped him achieve an emotional telling point when Ashby said that they were doing a "rehearsal" take and it ended up being the take used in the film- it was better because it was so un-rehearsed and not drained of its freshness by being over-rehearsed.There are also many fine excerpts from Al Pacino's break-through film "The Panic in Needle Park", and interviews from Dennis Hopper on the making of "Easy Rider", and interviews from Sydney Pollack about making films.All in all the documentary is a fine jumping off point for any film lover who wants to see great examples of what the new voices in film were like in the Seventies. Many of the Sundance Folks, where this film made a big splash, are unaware of just how much the Independent Film Maker today owes to the films of John Cassavetes, Milos Foreman, William Friedkin, and Roger Corman.Rent it from your favorite shop. It will at least perk you up to some films you may not have seen before and can enjoy today. Amazon.com has it for as little as $11.50, if you want to buy right out.

peter henderson I swore I would never allow myself to devolve into to the bogus authority figures of the sixties who told me things were better in the "good old days" – the current Australian Prime Minister is a sordid example of just such a mind set.But I switched over to "A Decade Under the Influence" because I found watching the much-heralded "Sneakers" documentary on the other channel such a dispiriting experience. I found the values expressed by the "Sneakers" interviewees too ugly to accept as reasonable. So materialistic! So devoid of any sense of outrage at a society that can countenance killing someone to steal his very ugly shoes! So lacking in any worthwhile purpose that they can report without distaste the exploitation an audience by haranguing them to hold those shoes above their heads to lock in a sponsorship deal for themselves with a company of cobblers was just too much to continue watching."A Decade Under the Influence" depicted a completely different response to the fruit of stupidity, corruption and concupiscence in high (and low) places.I have noted the change in film-making that accompanied the exposure of America's disastrous foreign policy debacles in Vietnam and so many less reported places in my www.peterhenderson.com.au website. "A Decade Under the Influence" documents the precise moment at which that change took place.Before the seventies, the armed forces were depicted in American films as an invincible fighting force comprised of decent human beings who transmogrified into conquering heroes on the battlefield. After the seventies they are generally portrayed as a dispirited rabble misled by a bunch of bureaucrat clowns in the Pentagon Before the seventies, the FBI agent and the honest cop tended to be depicted as your friend and protector. After the seventies, the FBI agents were all incompetent and the best a cop could aspire to was to ignore their foolishness and his superior's corruption and uphold justice in his own idiosyncratic manner.Before the seventies, the archetypical American "little guy", the "average Joe", the Jimmy Stewart type would face down the problems encountered and thereby gain some insight into underlying wisdom of his elected leaders and justice of the "American Way". After the seventies, Kevin Costner usurps that role, but now he is the voice of one crying out in the wilderness for evil to be exposed, or accepting his lot and making out the best he can.And now those "old time religion" mindsets have been stripped of any honesty and righteousness and portrayed (with a certain amount of justification) as sanctimonious bigotry and self-serving hypocrisy."A Decade Under the Influence" tells it like it was. "A Decade Under the Influence" tells it like it is now. It depicts the redemption of the American film industry from the hands of the artistically, morally and intellectually bankrupt studio moguls. It shows the storming of the Hollywood Bastille by the independent film makers who promised to get a disillusioned and tired audience back into the cinemas. The fact that their failures were numerous, and at times disastrous, merely underlines the greatness of their achievement. An achievement reflected in the adventurous and questioning attitudes of the big box office stars such as Clooney, Daman, Affleck etc and the directors and producers who provide the vehicles for their talent.