I must say, being a 70's baby myself, one does not have to be born in that era to either like or dislike those films. I was born in that era, and there aren't very many movies pre late 70's that I feel are very good. They may have seemed good at the time, as that was the best they had to offer at that time. However, film making grew exponentially since then, first in the late 70's/early 80's with classics like Star Wars, Alien, Blade Runner and Apocalypse Now. Of course it was a great time, mainly for Scifi. Then again in the 90's with great innovative directors like Tarantino and Lynch to name a few. And with the turn of the century technology and HD added the only thing missing, realistic detail. Of course Hollywood, then as now, will release a plethora of high budget garbage with horrible scripting, dialouge, acting, and even directing and a ton of special effects/cgi designed to make a quick buck and entertain the mindless masses who turn out to be entertained by such mindless garbage, as much then as now.
All of that being said, the definition of cheesy, as provided states:
What it means is: Trying too hard, unsubtle, and inauthentic.
Specifically that which is unsubtle or inauthentic in its way of trying to elicit a certain response from a viewer, listener, audience, etc. Celine Dion is cheesy because her lyrics, timbre, key changes, and swelling orchestral accompaniment telegraph 'i want you to be moved' instead of moving you. Gold chains on an exposed hairy chest are cheesy because they shout out: "I have money and I am manly" instead of impressing a woman in a more subtle way, or allowing a woman to form her own judgments. The excessive showing off suggests he's compensating for what he does not have--i.e., he's actually poor, insecure, or short with an inferiority complex. Cliches are often cheesy because they are an obvious and artless way of making a point. A movie might be cheesy if it contains 'on the nose' dialogue, like "I can't live without you" or "You had me at hello."
Based on the provided definition, he88 was as spot on as you can get. This definition describes most 70's movies (along with many movies from every era, then and now) exactly. "Trying to hard, unsubtle, and inauthentic". Sums it up. While some may see TFC as "authentic", it could have been done much better. Considering the nature of the story and the facts of which it were based around, this movie should have been a comedy, or at the least a action comedy. And I do not mean comedy in the sense of cheesy one liners, I mean it is comedic in the sense that these guys are such horrible fumbling cops, yet try so hard to be serious and keep trying, which only leads to even more hopelessly *beep* up. Both in the movie and real life. This is one of those movies which leaves you cheering for the bad guy, as he is far more likeable and intelligent. Nobody likes a pathetic loser who continually repeats their mistakes yet takes themselves with the utmost importance. And that is what makes this and many other 70's movies "cheesy", when unitelligent and terrible characters and movies take themselves way too seriously, and try way to hard to be something they are not. I find that far too often some peoples opinions/judgements and ratings of cinema, particularly the older they get, tend to be based on NOSTALGIA, and not legitimate critique. Again, TFC may have been good for its time, but it has not stood the test of time as well as many other movies, before or after. It isn't terrible, just overrated.
As to the list of 70's movies provided as great, I cannot even seriously consider that. Not a single one of those movies has stood the test of time, and I can almost guarantee unless you were born in the the early 70's or earlier, or a die hard film buff of all era's, most people would have never even heard of any of those movies. I have seen most of them, and they all fit the definition of cheese perfectly. The only exception from that list (and the only one stated as having problems with), would be A Clockwork Orange, which has stood the test of time and is still a relevant movie in some aspects. The following quote from another post sums up TFC as efficently as possible:
The French Connection is based on a true story. In real life the cops assigned to the case were named Eddie Egan and Sonny Grosso, and not Doyle and Russo.
In real life, Egan and Grosso botched the case up, big time, proving themselves to be inept cops, and they were transferred out of the Narcotics Squad and reassigned to another department or departments.
So why then make a vainglorious movie about the vanity, arrogance, ignorance and incapability of some NY cops, who *beep* everything up from the start, and not only do they fail miserably, they are transferred out of Narcotics permanently, in real life. Why make a movie about such things and make it anything other than the comedy it is? Why pretentiously make a serious movie about a real life embarrassment, and try to portay it as serious, authentic, or as the cops somehow being the good guys? If anything, the cops should have been locked up or at the least fired, for a variety of reasons, including complete and utter inability to do the job and lack of any intelligence, among many other serious character flaws. This should have been made more like the recent movie Pain and Gain (starring Mark Wahlberg and the Rock, about the true story of some meathead body builders who pull off a heist that goes horribly wrong in the long run due to their own stupidity. That is an "Accurate" and "Realistic" portrayl of strange/stupid but True). Perhaps than it would have been more "honest" and "accurate" to the truth, rather than trying to take itself too seriously. In all honesty, considering the subject matter, this was approached from the wrong direction. However, considering the time it was made in, it could have been much worse. It could have completely strayed from the truth and portrayed the cops as smart and catching the bad guy. Essentiallly propaganda, for which I am glad it didn't do, and easily could have. At that time it was probably hard enough to make a movie where the story is about how terribly inept cops *beep* up a huge case way over their heads due to their arrogance, ignorance, pride, and vanity. It may have been impossible at that time to do such a movie and accurately portray those cops with the comedic tone they deserved. Meaning, they aren't funny themselves, but their incompetence and denial of it is what is and should be comedic. Yes, they take themselves seriously, and that is what makes it more hilarious, they aren't even aware/in denial, how incapable they are. Would actually like to see a retelling of this story (but with a different name so it is not seen as a direct remake or reboot) but more in a style of pain and gain. A direct remake would simply not be possible today without a lot of embellishment and fictional additions to the screenplay, as no one today would believe the blunders and incompetence of such detectives, even though it takes place in 60's.
While their is no doubt that the 70's reigns in regards to the "cheese" factor (80's were campy, 90's a bit of both, 60's were just plain naive/living in its own fantasy bubble that was about to burst), I will say that TFC was not as cheesy as many other 70's movies, and probably why it is still considered a good movie, for it's time. And that is probably my biggest gripe/clarification, is how much some movies are regarded as "great", and taken completely out of context. Though I am a 70's baby, I can assure you most people born after that time (80's, 90's, etc) probably have not even heard of this movie, let alone seen it. And if they did, it would not be well received. Yet I can assure you many of those very same people have seen and love other movies of that era, and the late 70's as well. From movies like Easy Rider(1969) up to the start of cinema changing directors in the late 70's like Spielberg, Lucas, etc. And there is a very good reason for this, Nostalgia is not a determining factor it what makes a movie "good" or that it will stand the test of time. While TFC may be a footnote worth noting in the history of cinema, it simply is not in the top 100 movies of the last 50 years, imo. And I personally cannot call movies great simply because I may feel nostalgic towards them, perhaps as fond childhood memories, nor do I feel movies should be rated on such a basis. If that were the case, then MC Hammer would probably be many peoples choice for a "great" artist. And maybe for some it is. I just find it annoying when some people continue to "age", yet fail to grow. Meaning, their tastes, opinions, likes, dislikes, etc., stay mostly the same throughout their life. They never grow or learn to appreciate or adapt/adopt to changes, or anything current or modern. Not that current is always better, but it is more often better than worse, except to those stuck in their own tiny time buuble, and cannot accept anything new or modern or better, and cling to what they have always known. Their is a difference between fondly remembering something from the past and recognizing it for exactly what it is and nothing more, not making it out to be the be all end all. Or, as some people often do as they age and cannot relate to the present, complain that good movies/music is no longer made and that it somehow stopped decades ago. No, their personal growth, development, and accompying taste is the only thing that has stopped. Some people choose to live their lives in the past, and are only capable of enjoying the past. Those stuck in the past rationalize it by arguing that anyone who doesn't love the past as much as they do, are simply too young too appreciate it. We all know that is a *beep* defense. And the door can swing both ways, as based on the previous statement, one could just as easily argue that those stuck in the past/nostalgia, or any one who doesn't appreciate or hold in high regard more modern films (those made in the last 30 to 40 years), is simply too old to appreciate them. In this specific case, that seems to be true. But in general it is a false statement, as age is not a prequesite to enjoyment or appreciation. The only thing that cannot be appreciated by those "too young to appreciate", is the nostalgia factor of a time they were not present for. But lets not get it confused, a high opinion of something based mainly on its nostalgia factor, does in no way reflect the actual (good or bad) quality of it.
reply
share