Why was 1957 such a good year in film?

Introduce yourself to the community or chat with other users about whatever is on your mind
AFlickering
Posts: 641
2994 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 6:15 pm

Re: Why was 1957 such a good year in film?

Post by AFlickering »

the release date is often incidental relative to when films were actually conceived, shot etc (some take longer than others for various reasons), so i find it dubious reading too much into this. i do think it's reflective of the mid-late '50s being a time when a large amount of acclaimed and prolific directors were active at the same time (some, like kubrick, bergman, lumet and fellini, still early in their careers, while others were well established). it's not like these directors all started out at the same time due to being inspired by the same cultural reasons or anything like that, but i'd be interested to hear if anyone thinks there's any kind of common thematic thread running through all of these films which ties them to the period, or indeed to our own era (which might explain their persisting popularity)?

lisa-
Posts: 286
1907 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 9:22 am

Re: Why was 1957 such a good year in film?

Post by lisa- »

looking at that graph shows it is clearly within the realms of chance. i wouldn't even call it a coincidence; out of the near 100 years cinema has consistently produced features, you'd expect at least one very good year like 1957.

for me, 1957 was probably the most consistently good year of the 1950s, but cinema hit its peak in the 1970s

Stewball
Posts: 3009
2188 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:18 pm

Re: Why was 1957 such a good year in film?

Post by Stewball »

lisa- wrote:looking at that graph shows it is clearly within the realms of chance. i wouldn't even call it a coincidence; out of the near 100 years cinema has consistently produced features, you'd expect at least one very good year like 1957.

for me, 1957 was probably the most consistently good year of the 1950s, but cinema hit its peak in the 1970s


Well my opinion is that cinema has progressively improved into the 21st century, except for its de-emphesis on music (which peaked in the 80s). Yes there are still many inane blockbusters, but the Indys, independent of the big studios (or semi-independent), are thriving. And I don't write blockbusters off out-of-hand either.

lisa-
Posts: 286
1907 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 9:22 am

Re: Why was 1957 such a good year in film?

Post by lisa- »

well we all know that you think old movies suck. but i will say that i think the potential for great filmmaking is greater today than in any other time, due to decreasing cost, etc. it's just that after the relatively brief diversification of the mid 60s to early 80s, hollywood is back to focusing on inane genre flicks, and in genres that are generally even less interesting than in the golden age.

hopefully there will be a new new hollywood some time.

Stewball
Posts: 3009
2188 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:18 pm

Re: Why was 1957 such a good year in film?

Post by Stewball »

lisa- wrote:well we all know that you think old movies suck. but i will say that i think the potential for great filmmaking is greater today than in any other time, due to decreasing cost, etc. it's just that after the relatively brief diversification of the mid 60s to early 80s, hollywood is back to focusing on inane genre flicks, and in genres that are generally even less interesting than in the golden age.


Acting alone is about 12 levels above what it was. And the diversity of films, from blockbusters to Indies, makes it much more likely that everyone will be able to find something satisfying--from time to time, or regularly, depending on how wide one's tastes vary.

90sCoffee
Posts: 173
2242 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2013 5:15 pm

Re: Why was 1957 such a good year in film?

Post by 90sCoffee »

The Bridge On The River Kwai and The Sweet Smell of Success are also from 1957! They're both better than The Seventh Seal for me. Witness For The Prosecution is good and I'd recommend you re-watch it since you quit partway through, it doesn't get going until 40ish minutes or something iirc, the trial is when it gets juicy. I'm guilty of not seeing Funny Face through from that year but in fairness, I only watched that movie because of an Audrey Hepburn crush....it's a musical and became hard to sit through.

I really gotta see more foreign films from that year. 3:10 To Yuma, A Face In The Crowd, and possibly An Affair To Remember are the only other hollywood movies from that year to interest me so overall, not really much in quantity I would say that Hollywood made that year which was highly rated compared to modern years. Don't see any good noirs, lots of mediocre looking westerns thoguh.

VinegarBob
Posts: 775
4158 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 7:54 am

Re: Why was 1957 such a good year in film?

Post by VinegarBob »

The answer to the OP is this:

It's not. At least not for me.

It's a very good year, don't get me wrong. Limiting my ratings to Tier 10 only:

1957:

Tier 10:
Nights of Cabiria (90)
Paths of Glory (90)
Throne of Blood (90)
Wild Strawberries (90)

..but it's topped by (from the same era):

1962:

Tier 10:
L' Eclisse (90)
The Exterminating Angel (90)
Harakiri (90)
Ivan's Childhood (90)
Lawrence of Arabia (90)
Pitfall (90)
Winter Light (90)

1966:

Tier 10:
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (100)
Persona (100)
The Battle of Algiers (95)
The Round-Up (90)
Nayak (90)

Post Reply