The split screen was certainly novel to films like "Woodstock" and even "Airport."
The whole problem with "More American Graffiti" for me is not the fact that it advocates anti-authoritarianism. Instead it merely reminds me of how much I like the original and that I'd rather be watching that instead. Did we want to see the characters experience these changes and loose their innocence?? Do we want to see Debbie looking less like Sandra Dee and more like a Haight-Ashbury throwaway? Ron Howard turning into a pale Meathead Stevik (sp) charicature?
The whole allure of the original was precisely nostalgic; it's an aknowledgement that the country had lost a certain culture that existed before the 60s went wacko. It doesn't really take a stance on that, but instead presents it with the assumption that the audience feels the enormous contrast between the America of the early 70s and what had preceded only ten years prior. The postscripts at the end of the film remind us of the turmoil that was coming, and that such times no longer existed. The fact that a goofy character like Toad was killed in Vietnam is a huge wakeup call that the young people from those times would've likely related to, having too experienced the loss of such real-life beloved characters in their personal lives. The sequel, however, uses the Vietnam experience primarily as comic relief, which grossly cheapens the impact of the original's postscript. For those who looked upon their high school yearbooks each Spring in the 60s to find a list "in memoriam" of former students killed in Vietnam, or traced a friend's name at the Washington memorial, that emotion is sacred indeed. Taken together, very little in "More American Graffiti" serves the original's legacy as much as it undermines it.
reply
share